Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 104

Thread: I officially now support BSL

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KJJ View Post
    just playing devil's advocate here - if you can cope with a breed for whom a breed specific term 'cocker rage' was coined, why shouldn't you feel able to handle a breed with a reputation for being highly trainable?
    I think I understand what is meant by desiring a different level of licence for different sizes or breeds - it is perhaps indisputable that a large dog can inflict more damage than a small one, that due to centuries of focused breeding some breeds are likely to assertively respond to a challenge while others will actively avoid confrontation; however as soon as legislation is in place that makes those differentiations enforceable - the likely outcome is not one of complex licencing (as this would be costly and cumbersome to support and there is not likely to be an industry body or other institution with clout to push through change) the likely outcome is that councils would phase in a 'licence for small dogs' only, less complex so easier to enforce, politically popular if advantage is taken of media reports (eg "in the aftermath of ......., member for ..... is happy to say this cannot happen again because only dogs under 10kg will be able to be registered from now on, those residents who have dogs larger than the specified weight will be subject to stringent controls, no new dogs over 10kg will be registered, dogs found to be over 10kg will be impounded and if not rehomed to an area without the weight restriction within 14 days will be destroyed)
    KJJ I worry that if we do nothing, all large dogs will be banned anyway. Australians have some of the worst dog laws, compared to Europe or even the US you're just not allowed to take your dogs anywhere. Anyway, I'm starting to feel that people would just prefer we did nothing because there is no easy solution. If there was, it would have happened already. My concern is that by doing nothing the outcomes will be worse for all of us so I wanted to do something. Plus I fit into both categories. I own a large dog and always want to own large dogs but I'm also petrified of large dogs owned by incompetent handlers.

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 99bottles View Post
    Goggles if that's how my dog responded to that sort of stimulus I would consider him dangerous and I wouldn't walk him in highly populated areas. I would not think it at all acceptable for my dog to charge someone just because he didn't know they were there. I have rehomed one dog to a rural property because he had very thin nerves and was too reactive for living in high density areas, he was easily overwhelmed and it was very stressful for him. If you know you have a dog that is that reactive and likely to bite first and then ask questions, well that's something you need to take into consideration in their care. Sammy is 4, has a CD, BH and has accompanied me in more situations than most dogs will ever experience and has had a lot of exposure to the shenanigans of people. Anyway, I can't defend myself. You've never seen Sammy, probably never will and all I can do is say that he has never displayed any signs of any of those behaviours, but that's nothing more than words on paper.
    You've missed my point and that is ANY dog can be dangerous under the right conditions.

    I never said YOU'RE dog was dangerous. I'm sure he's lovely and well-behaved. But he CAN be VERY dangerous just because of his size, strength, speed, the fact that he has large teeth (dobe/rott) and a small brain.

    Quote Originally Posted by 99bottles View Post
    All I want is for people who want to own a dog like Sammy, or any other powerful option to have done some research on the breed and demonstrated that they have an understanding of how to communicate with and read dogs as well as train them. I don't think it's acceptable that people should have to accept the risk that comes with having novices own powerful breeds - just look at the trouble that other person is having with a Japanese Spitz and imagine that was a baby Rottweiler... I accept that I should need a license to own a dog as powerful as Sammy, I would happily pay to be assessed because it's my choice to own these sorts of dogs.
    You still haven't answered my question yet and that is: why do you feel a need to differentiate between different types of dogs and not different types of dog owners?

    The breed is not everything. If all you want is a nice, calm well behaved dog all you need is some time, some effort, some patience to deal with whatever crap your dog throws at you and a desire to learn. This is not beyond the reach of most individuals.

    But if you want a herding dog to herd sheep, then you will need to find a herding dog, if you want a guard dog to guard your house, then you will have to find a guard dog, if you want a fighting dog...

    Most owners however are not looking for a dog with a specialised skill set. They just buy the dog because they like the way it looks or if it fits their lifestyle or whatever and no matter what the dog was originally intended for, most of these owners (I like to think most but maybe not) do a good job and have cute, fluffy family pets.

    There are many owners who are not willing to put in the time or the effort and some who (first time dog owners) simply do not know how to communicate with dogs (what it wants, why is it doing that) and they end up with unstable and dangerous pets. Others are just assholes who abuse their dog and think its fun to 'toughen them up' or something. They are dangerous as well.

    Mostly it is miscommunication between the dog and dog owners or ignorance, abuse and neglect on part of the dog owner.

    Again: Why do you feel a need to differentiate between different types of dogs and not different types of dog owners?

    - the australian bsl laws are there in an attempt to quell dog fighting rings. Or at least, that is always how I've thought of it. If Australia really felt they needed to get rid of 'dangerous' dogs they would have done an Italy and banned about 99 of them.
    Last edited by goggles; 04-11-2014 at 10:21 AM.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,602

    Default

    You've missed my point and that is ANY dog can be dangerous under the right conditions.
    I think 99bottles point is that bigger dogs can do more damage faster and are much harder to stop. Dogs big enough to be hard to stop - she's argued 15kg+ which is lots of dogs. 15kg is hard to pick up and tuck under your arm - especially if it won't stop wriggling and trying to bite you. So if someone wants to own a dog this big - should have a licence that shows they've passed some sort of test that they know the basics of what to do if things go to hell - a bit like a boat licence maybe. A licence that can be revoked if they demonstrate they can't control their dogs or look after them properly.

    Personally I think all dog owners should have a licence that can be revoked if they show they can't manage their dogs properly according the current laws.

    So 99bottles is arguing for a size/weight/power specific law for dog ownership. Not really a breed specific law at all.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    How is having to get a licence being punished? I don't get it. I would welcome an opportunity to show that I am a responsible owner who can handle the risk associated with owning a 20+kg dog.

    Registration and microchipping does FA to solve anything. The whole system needs overhauling. And I have said it repeatedly here, everyone who owns a dog should have a licence and we should spent way more money on policing that and on stopping backyard breeding and undesexed pups being sold to ****wits than on trying to mop up after the facts, which is what happens now.

    But if we're talking prevention of dangerous situations with humans or dogs being bitten or killed, you simply cannot deny that larger breeds pose way more of a risk than smaller ones and that testing the suitability of potential owners of such breeds would make a difference.

    Licensing means that you can vet potential owners. You can force them to attend courses or training classes. No, it won't stop idiots from acting like idiots, just like on the roads, but I do believe that it will make a difference. You're not going to tell me that not having the requirement to get a driver licence would not vastly increase the number of dangerous drivers on the road.

    The need for a licence would also allow authorities to stop repeat offending.

    Here's 99Bottles, who owns a large dog and who is a responsible owner, volunteering to get a licence for his dog so the irresponsible owners with large dogs that aren't well trained would need to get one too and you all respond as if he is against large breed dogs. That is just a knee jerk reaction. This is worth having a serious discussion about and who knows, we may come to some workable solution that can be lobbied for to get governments to implement and that would improve outcomes for dogs all around the country.

    If we could come up with a way to administer and manage this sort of system, it could be an argument to get rid of the current BSL laws, which are not constructive and cause lots of suffering.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goggles View Post
    You've missed my point and that is ANY dog can be dangerous under the right conditions.

    I never said YOU'RE dog was dangerous. I'm sure he's lovely and well-behaved. But he CAN be VERY dangerous just because of his size, strength, speed, the fact that he has large teeth (dobe/rott) and a small brain.
    And isn't that exactly why 99bottles is arguing for differentiating between small, slow dogs with small teeth and large breeds with the characteristics you just mentioned when it comes to licensing???

    And the purpose of a licensing system would be exactly to differentiate between different types of owners. If you're a total moron who wants a big dog to toughen up and scare the neighbour's fluffies and you don't know shit about dog training or responsible ownership, you shouldn't get to licence to get a large breed dog. Of course this is always going to be a flawed system. Because a dog is not like a car. But you could make people do a course before they get a dog, sit a test, and make them attend training classes with their new dog or an obedience test if they want to train them at home. If they fail that last bit, then of course there is an issue because what happens to the dog? But it's worth talking about because anything that can be done to improve the lot of dogs and to reduce the danger they may pose to others is worth discussing.

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 99bottles View Post
    I think that if you want to own a breed that has the power (and I would argue inclination in some cases) to harm people or animals, so all guarding breeds and the bully breeds, you need to have a license.
    She started off as breed specific and then changed to size.

    The question has not changed: why is there a need to differentiate between different types of dogs and not different types of dog owners?

    That is all.

    I never said licencing was bad. My point was either get a license for everyone or none at all.
    Last edited by goggles; 04-11-2014 at 11:47 AM.

  7. #67

    Default

    My point with 99bottles was that I never called her dog dangerous and I do not need to see her dog to know that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beloz View Post
    But you could make people do a course before they get a dog, sit a test, and make them attend training classes with their new dog or an obedience test if they want to train them at home.
    Of course, and what would that criteria be and how would it be different compared to a small dog vs a large one? ie. if people could handle a large 'dangerous dog' then shouldn't they be able to handle a much smaller one?
    Last edited by goggles; 04-11-2014 at 12:09 PM.

  8. #68

    Default

    The proposal tackles the symptoms, not the problem.

    You need to ask yourself, why does it happen, then ask again and again until you find the bottom.

    The short answer is that dogs are being squeezed from common knowledge and ownership since the only internationaly recognized body for the supply and purpose of dogs can not aknowledge the environment it depends on, and exsists within.

    Its a charter based on ever decreasing options that has set the precedents for what follows . There is no viable alternative.
    Last edited by Strange fruit; 04-11-2014 at 12:03 PM.

  9. #69

    Default

    How about make it illegal to sell/rehome a dog unless you're a registered breeder providing pedigree papers???? Then focus of the breeders to make sure they are doing the right thing ... much smaller pool of people to police and probably more effective.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,602

    Default

    How about make it illegal to sell/rehome a dog unless you're a registered breeder providing pedigree papers
    Well they've nearly done that in QLD and NSW. But it still doesn't stop a registered breeder selling a dog to an idiot.

    An idiot can make an angry mess out of a perfectly well bred dog with a friendly temperament.

    She started off as breed specific and then changed to size.
    Size is usually a reflection of breed. We could change the subject title to "supporting licences for dog owners".

    I agree - all dog owners should get a licence first.

    But I agree with 99bottles - big aggressive dogs are more dangerous than small ones. Just because it takes more strength to stop a big dog than a little one. Big dogs can smash bones much more easily than little ones - so when they start attacking someone or another dog - they are much more able to kill or inflict serious injury than a little dog.

    So dog owners and the public generally might be more accepting of an owners licence for a big dog, rather than a licence for all dog owners. But it would be a step in the right direction from where further steps in the right direction could be taken.

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
  •