Page 23 of 28 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 279

Thread: Victoria is Completly ****ed Up!

  1. #221
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    shitney
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    honestly clubsprint........again? why should they have to conform to the new law when their dog has shown no agression, its only crime was the fact it was born an APBT.

    runs etc are expensive, coming up with that sort of money in that short of time is unrealistic for alot of familys when money is tight..... if the vic goverment was serious about allowing families to keep their pets they would give them more then the month to comply. or atleast make the families show that they are willing to comply and maybe get some sort of assistance from the goverment to build these runs.

    it seems that the good owners are being punished cos of the bad owners, when they should be rewarded.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean View Post
    I love 2 things in this world. Spandex and reyzor... not necessarily in that order.

  2. #222

    Default

    I have not heard the story of Buck, if any has a link to the story please post.
    If you find yourself going through hell; Don't stay. Just keep on going.
    Beau.

  3. #223

    Default

    For those who are pro BSL:

    http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil...20of%20BSL.pdf

    And

    Breed Specific Legislation

    Dealing with Reckless Owners and Dangerous Dogs in Your Community

    Dogs permitted by their owners to run loose, and dogs who attack people or other animals, are real and often serious problems in communities across the country—but how to best address dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs can be a confusing and touchy issue.

    “Breed-specific” legislation (BSL) is the blanket term for laws that either regulate or ban certain breeds completely in the hopes of reducing dog attacks. Some city/municipal governments have enacted breed-specific laws, as has the State of Ohio. However, the problem of dangerous dogs will not be remedied by the “quick fix” of breed-specific laws—or, as they should truly be called, breed-discriminatory laws.

    It is worth noting that in some areas, regulated breeds include not just American Pit Bull terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, English Bull Terriers and Rottweilers, but also a variety of other dogs, including American Bulldogs, Mastiffs, Dalmatians, Chow Chows, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers, or any mix of these breeds—and dogs who simply resemble these breeds.

    On the bright side, many states (including New York, Texas and Illinois) favor laws that identify, track and regulate dangerous dogs individually, regardless of breed, and prohibit BSL.
    Are Breed-Specific Laws Effective?

    There is no evidence that breed-specific laws—which are costly and difficult to enforce—make communities safer for people or companion animals. For example, Prince George’s County, MD, spends more than $250,000 annually to enforce its ban on Pit Bulls. In 2003, a study conducted by the county on the ban’s effectiveness noted that “public safety is not improved as a result of [the ban],” and that “there is no transgression committed by owner or animal that is not covered by another, non-breed specific portion of the Animal Control Code (i.e., vicious animal, nuisance animal, leash laws).”

    Following a thorough study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) decided not to support BSL. The CDC cited, among other problems, the inaccuracy of dog bite data and the difficulty in identifying dog breeds (especially true of mixed-breed dogs). The CDC also noted the likelihood that as certain breeds are regulated, those who exploit dogs by making them aggressive will replace them with other, unregulated breeds.
    What’s Wrong with Breed-Specific Laws?

    BSL carries a host of negative and wholly unintended consequences:

    Dogs go into hiding
    Rather than give up their beloved pets, owners of highly regulated or banned breeds often attempt to avoid detection of their “outlaw” dogs by restricting outdoor exercise and socialization and forgoing licensing, microchipping and proper veterinary care, including spay/neuter surgery and essential vaccinations. Such actions have implications both for public safety and the health of these dogs.

    Good owners and dogs are punished
    BSL also causes hardship to responsible owners of entirely friendly, properly supervised and well-socialized dogs who happen to fall within the regulated breed. Although these dog owners have done nothing to endanger the public, they are required to comply with local breed bans and regulations unless they are able to mount successful (and often costly) legal challenges.

    They impart a false sense of security
    Breed-specific laws have a tendency to compromise rather than enhance public safety. When limited animal control resources are used to regulate or ban a certain breed of dog, without regard to behavior, the focus is shifted away from routine, effective enforcement of laws that have the best chance of making our communities safer: dog license laws, leash laws, animal fighting laws, anti-tethering laws, laws facilitating spaying and neutering and laws that require all owners to control their dogs, regardless of breed.
    They may actually encourage ownership by irresponsible people
    If you outlaw a breed, then outlaws are attracted to that breed. Unfortunately some people take advantage of the “outlaw” status of their breed of choice to bolster their own self image as living outside of the rules of mainstream society. Ironically, the rise of Pit Bull ownership among gang members and others in the late 1980’s coincided with the first round of breed-specific legislation.

    What’s the Alternative to Breed-Specific Laws?

    In the aforementioned study, the CDC noted that many other factors beyond breed may affect a dog’s tendency toward aggression—things such as heredity, sex, early experience, reproductive status, socialization and training. These last two concerns are well-founded, given that:

    More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs.
    An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog.
    A chained or tethered dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than a dog who is not chained or tethered.
    97 percent of dogs involved in fatal dog attacks in 2006 were not spayed/neutered:
    78 percent were maintained not as pets, but rather for guarding, image enhancement, fighting or breeding.
    84 percent were maintained by reckless owners—these dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or contained, or allowed to interact with children unsupervised.

    Recognizing that the problem of dangerous dogs requires serious attention, the ASPCA seeks effective enforcement of breed-neutral laws that hold dog owners accountable for the actions of their animals.

    Link: ASPCA | Breed Specific Legislation

  4. #224
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AngelanBatty View Post
    More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs.
    An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog.
    A chained or tethered dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than a dog who is not chained or tethered.
    97 percent of dogs involved in fatal dog attacks in 2006 were not spayed/neutered:
    78 percent were maintained not as pets, but rather for guarding, image enhancement, fighting or breeding.
    84 percent were maintained by reckless owners—these dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or contained, or allowed to interact with children unsupervised.
    Those are very interesting statistics indeed! And definitely a very good argument for mandatory desexing, which we already have in the ACT (where there is no BSL).

  5. #225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beloz View Post
    Those are very interesting statistics indeed! And definitely a very good argument for mandatory desexing, which we already have in the ACT (where there is no BSL).
    I'm all for mandatory desexing providing it leaves leeway for those who can manage entire dogs safely. Show & working homes, plus a lot of pet homes don't have any issues with their entire males.

    That being said, I don't like desexing until after 2-3 years of age. These stats are also American not Australian so while giving a decent idea of things over there they don't give any insight to things over here.

  6. #226
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AngelanBatty View Post
    I'm all for mandatory desexing providing it leaves leeway for those who can manage entire dogs safely. Show & working homes, plus a lot of pet homes don't have any issues with their entire males.

    That being said, I don't like desexing until after 2-3 years of age. These stats are also American not Australian so while giving a decent idea of things over there they don't give any insight to things over here.
    You would think that if not neutering makes dog aggression (of unsocialised and apparently often neglected or abuse dogs at least) more likely over there, it would have some effect here? I think entire males are defintily more prone to escaping.

    In the ACT you must apply for a licence to keep an entire dog. Not sure what the application process is like. I don't think the conditions would be very strict. It does cost money though.

    Unfortunately they don't have the budget to actually enforce this rule! Only when you want to claim your dog from the pound do you run the risk of getting fined for not complying with this rule or for not having the dog registered and microchipped. And regrettably, that might put some owners off claiming their dog altogether.

    I don't have an opinion on the age a dog should or should not be desexed at. Just don't know enough about it. The rule here is that it has to be done before 6 months.

  7. #227

    Default

    This is the thing on this desexing side.
    All our dogs have been desexed when we thought was the right time.
    Though we did do them, early and in my mind it was too early but it was the going thing.
    I can't really say at what age it was but I am think it was about the age of 3 to 4 months old.

    Now I have got Murphy and I will be stuffed if someone is going to quote from the American bible, that all dogs must be desexed.

    I understand the Americans have more dogs that we do and this also means they have more dogs that fight and so on.

    But what is wrong with me saying, I will desex if I deem it nessesary, than someone doesn't who knows my dog, tells me to do it.
    Bugger off, try it and I think there will be blood.
    Last edited by Rid****; 09-14-2011 at 02:35 PM.

  8. #228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keira & Phoenix View Post
    Buck's owners could not afford to build a 10sqm run in the backyard for him which is a requirement of the Restricted breed laws. Have you seen the cost of runs! It would have cost close to $1000 just for the run not including concreting, roofing etc.
    Because of this is was either take their dog and put him to sleep in their arms with his loving family nearby or let him be seized and euthanised by the council.
    At least Buck's owners had the balls to sit with him in his last moments, to pat him, to love him before he left, unlike some of the ferals who have dumped their dogs at the pound to die.

    Oh and BTW - The Vic Govt have themselves called it a "Search and Destroy mission".
    Bucks owners didn't have to build a 10msqm run according to the law. They just had to make sure the dog couldn't escape. 10msq is defined as the minimum size for the welfare of the dog. That's not very big at all. They could have fortified their backyard but no, it's easier and cheaper to have the dog put down and blame the govt.

    You own dogs that may attract similar classification if the rest of Australia adopts similar laws.

    What would you do?

    Please provide a reference to where "The Vic Govt have called it a "Search and Destroy mission".
    Of course if they had got their son Fox Terrier, Labrador, pound rescue bitsa or even a Heeler or Staffy they would have not been faced with this choice.

  9. #229
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clubsprint View Post
    Of course if they had got their son Fox Terrier, Labrador, pound rescue bitsa or even a Heeler or Staffy they would have not been faced with this choice.
    The reason why so many are worried about the latest changes and especially the use of the standard to identify PT crosses is that unfortunately the pound rescue bitsa and quite probably the Staffy cross may now be mistaken for a PT and PTS if they are not registered as such.

    And these are the rules relating to housing a restricted breed dog in Vic:
    Housing on premises

    When indoors or outdoors on the premises, the dog must be housed in such a way that it cannot escape, and that prevents it from injuring visitors to the premises. The dwelling and outdoor enclosure (or backyard where this forms the outdoor enclosure) must be constructed in such a manner that a person cannot have access to them without the assistance of an occupier of the premises who is of or over 17 years of age.

    The owner must also ensure there is an outdoor enclosure or backyard that must:

    have a weatherproof sleeping area;
    contain lock/s that have self closing and self latching mechanisms on any gates into the enclosure, which can be (and are) locked when the dog is in the enclosure;
    be constructed and maintained in a manner which prevents the dog from being able to dig or otherwise escape under, over or through the perimeter of the enclosure;
    not be situated on premises in such a manner that people have to pass through the enclosure;
    have a minimum floor area of 10 square metres per restricted breed dog;
    have a perimeter fence with a minimum height of 1.8 metres.

    An authorised officer may also require that this perimeter have an inward facing overhang of 0.7 metres angled at 35 degrees to the horizontal plane. In addition, you may be required to use the following construction materials for an outdoor enclosure:

    brick, concrete, timber, iron or similar solid material;
    chain mesh manufactured from 3.15 mm wire to form a uniform;
    50 mm mesh, or weldmesh manufactured from 4 mm wire with a maximum mesh spacing of 50 mm.

    A combination of the above may be acceptable. The mesh size and construction detail is specified so that the enclosure will be escape proof and so that people, particularly small children, cannot fit body parts such as hands into the enclosure with the dog."

  10. #230
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    shitney
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    breed is a personal choice, why should everyone have to comply with the breeds you mentioned....... not saying that they are bad, but im sure the owners of APBT's would have reasons why they chose the breed.

    im pretty sure the law states that if you have a DD then you must have it enclosed, it doesnt say that it can roam the yard. although as with all laws, its how you interpret it.

    your narrow minded responses are becomign tiresome, i like reading your posts cos it gives me and the rest of the forum a chance to prove you wrong over and over again, somthign i never tire of....
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean View Post
    I love 2 things in this world. Spandex and reyzor... not necessarily in that order.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •