Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Why isn't the government using the experts??

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Melbourne VIC
    Posts
    607

    Exclamation Why isn't the government using the experts??

    I really just want to know!

    Governments use experts in environment fields to tackle environmental problems, Children experts in child industries for children related problems, Medical professionals for issue relating to the health of the nation/community.

    So why is it the government won't listen to or work with canine behaviour professionals to tackle the problem with dog baheviour? The issue shouldn't be "pit bull attacks" but "dog attacks". 'Attacking dogs' is a behavioural (or in some cases medical) problem. So why aren't they going to the experts of that field for their solutions?

    I don't know ONE professional in this field that states the BSL will work or has ever worked in any other country. Dog behaviour professionals are giving many other solutions to help fix this problem, but the Government won't listen. SO WHY?

    I'm sure if they did a study on the physical characteristics of child RAPISTS or PEDOPHILES they would come up with a possible look of (purely example, apologies to anyone insulted) man in 40-50's, white skin, approximately 5ft 7in., brown eyes approx. 14cms apart, lean muscluar build, slight turn out of feet, shoe size 12 (I'm sure you get my point now so I'll stop). So by that token, we should have everyone fitting that description register as a child sex offender in their area. If you are not registered with your local council by the 14th of March, 2012 then anyone found matching that description without registering will be immediately arrested and placed in prison until they can prove that they don't fit the description. There is no point trying to prove they are not a child sex offender as that does not matter, only that they CAN be due to their physical appearance. If you can't prove it, then you will be put to death by lethal injection.

    This isn't how it works. All are created equal. If anyone is charged will these offences they are charged and/or placed in jail and when they come out, they are put on the child sex offender register to inform others in the community. REGARDLESS of physical description. We now also have a Working With Children Check for those wanting to volunteer or work with children in the community FOR EVERYONE.

    This is ROUGHLY how I it should work. We should have people do compulsory obedience training when they purchase a dog. Once they have satisfactorily proved that their dog is capable of functioning in society they should be given a certificate to hang proudly, or once the owner has proved they can train and control their dog in society they should be given a Working With Animals card. If their dog causes problems by injuring anyone in society, then a case should be brought forward to determine the reason for the dog's behaviour, work out if it was actually other causes for the behaviour, rehabilitate as required and let it back into society. If there was harm to another animal or person then they should be given dangerous dog status and either put back into society with strict rules, given to an organisation that can see out it's days or euthanise (if necessary). REGARDLESS of the breed.

    I also think they should have an expert do compulsory bite prevention classes in Primary Schools. Children (and parents) need to learn about dog body language and how to behave around dogs, especially dogs they don't know. THIS WILL help reduce dog bites with children in the community.

    What does everyone else think?

  2. #2

    Default

    Because the public want a solution and Pitbulls are the fall guy. Politicians don't go with what will or won't work they go with what will make the majority public happy and get them re-elected.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,290

    Default

    Agree 110%.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    shitney
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    thats a really good way of putting it........
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean View Post
    I love 2 things in this world. Spandex and reyzor... not necessarily in that order.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Because, as a species, humans are generalists. Shades of grey cause discomfort and anxiety and the majority of the population want an immediate solution to remove the discomfort. Humans have an awfully long history of racial and minority discrimination- and the removal of many discriminatory processes has often created cultural fear in the short term... Despite having long term benefits.

    Dogs aren't the only egocentric hedonists on the planet.

    Many years ago (someone help my memory here), there was an offender held in Victorias prisons at first at 'her magisty's pleasure' and later on the basis of acts he might do in the future. There were quite serious legal and constitutional issues. I wonder if this could be relevant to legal arguments... If only I could remember the guy's name...?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    110

    Default

    maybe also because dogs "aren't important enough" to bother with too much fussing around. It's easier to generalise and create the sensationalism that appeals to the masses than to try and educate them. I defo agree with the compulsory training for owners and teaching kids in schools about dogs. Altho i have also entertained the thought that people should be investigated for suitability to even have kids in the first place (let alone dogs), in terms of, if you are deemed to be abusive or neglectful then why should you have the right to ruin other lives? But then it becomes a bigger debate about rights and freedoms etc doesn't it. Sorry i may have gone off course there....

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Logan, Brisbane QLD
    Posts
    806

    Default

    I like the thought of having to obtain some sort of "license" before you can purchase or acquire a dog and the compulsory dog obedience. You make a great argument there belinda, but i agree with Nash above. Because to the majority, dogs aren't important enough...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kuri_89 View Post
    I like the thought of having to obtain some sort of "license" before you can purchase or acquire a dog and the compulsory dog obedience. You make a great argument there belinda, but i agree with Nash above. Because to the majority, dogs aren't important enough...
    Agree. It sh!ts me to tears sometimes to read the rules and regulations regarding dogs in our territory and none of them seem to deal with the welfare of the animals at all. And of course it is good to have rules to force irresponsible people to not allow their dogs to become a total nuisance to others, but there is no system to tell those same irresponsible people that they also have a responsibility to meet the needs of their dogs. If you beat your dog half to death or starve them, the RSPCA will intervene. But apart from that no one in authority seems to give a stuff about dogs' welfare. For example it is apparently regarded as ok to leave them in the backyard 24/7 without little or no human interaction and nothing to do. In fact, I get the impression that the law makers and enforcers prefer that as they then don't have to deal with them at all.

  9. #9

    Default

    is it because of the stigma attached to the name Pitbull, and Media is the biggest factor of all of these influences

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Northern NSW
    Posts
    751

    Default

    Have not read replies so may have missed the mark here...



    Pre purchase training and passing a test is not the answer.

    It would drive up the cost of purchase, require time and commitment to participate and only apply to the holder of the certificate, not other family members or friends.

    It may prevent potentially responsible dog owners from getting a dog.

    How would state bodies decide who should provide this service?

    How would they apply such a test without discrimination? Examples A person's personality, ability, age, access to service etc.

    Is it fair an untrained owner be subjected to this? Like my 92 year old GM, all they want is a lap dog that will be cared for better than most humans?
    (Jamie and Charlie )

    Who would profit from this scheme?

    What one person or trainer/assessor calls An Expert another will disagree.




    Dons flame suit...
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/Chippo/Dogsx4blackbackground.jpg
    ... Jade ...

    Aha yeah me too! wee wee or pee pee and poo poo's or poopie

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
  •