Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 104

Thread: I officially now support BSL

  1. #51


    Wow thanks Beloz, you've done a much better job of explaining my thoughts than I did. It's true, I was expecting a lot of flack but I really want to see where people's heads were at on this issue. And I do think it's an issue, I just thought that maybe we could come up with a better idea than what the current legislators implement - ie the banning of breeds.

    It's breed or size specific for exactly those reasons. I don't enjoy having small yappy dogs bark at me or my dog, and as I mentioned I have had small dogs attack my dog as well to the point of cutting his lip. He didn't retaliate because I've taught him I will step in and he will be protected. Yes it's embarrassing and yes you get some angry looks or even comments, but I owe it to him and with training for your dog and you being willing to step up and reprimand other people's dogs, you can avoid any issues a small dog might try to cause almost always with stern words alone. But I've yelled at Amstaffs, I've threatened them, I've kicked them and I've watched grown men hit them with a rock and they didn't care. It's an entirely different situation to be in. I'm confident that if anyone surveyed the general population you would find the dogs that they're most worried about are the larger ones and there's a reason behind it. Everyone jokes about wanting to be able to play football with the small dogs, well that's not an option with larger dogs.

    Also, I'm not disagreeing that there have been incidents where small dogs have caused big problems. I would be happy for a licensing system for all dogs, just different levels based on what you wanted to own because I believe the type of experience and knowledge required to ensure a large powerful breed is a good member of society is greater than what's required to achieve the same with a Papillon for example. I mean from my own experience, I have given Sammy many corrections over his life and still he will on occasion, challenge me. It's his nature and breed, he is a confident, dominant large dog afraid of nothing that would happily step up and take any leadership position offered to him. My sister has 2 papillons. They could be a different species for all the similarity they bear to Sammy, one correction and they never pulled on the lead again. They hide behind me (or Sammy actually) when they get scared or try to be picked up, Sammy positions himself between me (or the little dogs or cat or whatever) and the threat. Bred for completely different purposes and it shows.

    I just want there to be a distinction in people's minds when they go to buy a dog. You might walk into a pet shop and see Belgian Malinois in the cage next to King Charles Spaniels and yes they are both dogs but a person shouldn't be choosing one based on who they think is cuter. My sister could never handle a dog like Sammy, he'd walk all over her and like some of his brothers that the breeder had to take back, he might have caused all sorts of problems. But I have never had anyone meet Sammy and find him scary or threatening; he's been given a character reference from my old vet back in Adelaide as being bomb proof because he let us staple a wound on his paw closed without being put under which has proven to be an extremely valuable resource for obtaining rental properties...

    I know so many ethical breeders of large dogs that have had to take the dogs back because of aggression issues, dogs that I met as puppies who were so much softer than Sammy even but have just not been handled properly. And plenty in society today would argue that these dogs just shouldn't be kept anymore, that there's no place for them anymore. Well I don't accept that. It is 100% possible to keep these dogs and not have them be a danger to anyone - dobies, rotties, GSD's, pitbulls and their cousins etc but they do need to have the right handlers.

    Anyway, I guess I just really wanted to see what other people thought because I really think the solution to this problem would be most effective if it came from the dog community, rather than from politicians who don't know the first thing about dogs and just feel public pressure to do something.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Western Sydney



    So you now support BSL do you know what BSL really is...I think not. BSL punishes the whole breed for the actions of an you think this is fair and many innocent dogs are killed because they were born a certain breed.

    If Dobes and Rotties were added to the banned list your dog would be the first to he is a cross of these breeds council will deem him to have an unpredictable doesn't matter he's done nothing wrong and he will be put to sleep...all because someone claimed these breeds were dangerous...this is you still support it now ?.

    Tell me why I need a licence to own my don't know me or my you really think Irresponsible owners will race out and get a licence...they don't microchip or register their dogs now which has been law in NSW for about 16 yrs.
    It's against the law to have a dog in public that's not on a lead and under and your dog were charged by a dog that wasn't on a you think a licence would make any difference to this moron.

    Irresponsible owners own little dogs too you know and small dogs can give you a nasty bite...vets a more scared of little dogs than big dogs as they can be quite aggressive. Last year a bull breed type dog jumped over a small front fence and ran across the road to attack my GSD while out for a walk...I managed to fight the dog 45 kgs off and when I rang the council I told them I wanted the owner punished not the dog because it's not the dog's fault...I don't blame a dog of any breed for the actions of an Irresponsible owner...maybe you should do the same.
    Chloe & Zorro
    Rottweilers and German Shepherds are Family

  3. #53


    Hi Dogman,
    I'm hoping that you've read through all of my posts to understand what I mean when I say that I support BSL. It seems a lot of people read the title, hit reply and don't bother reading anything else. I was really hoping for more in the way of constructive conversation from the dog owning community. Disagree with me fine, but tell me why. Tell me how to change my suggestion to improve it. I would love to hear that sort of criticism rather than your views on why you disagree with BSL as it is currently implemented in Australia.

    To clarify once again, though I'm guessing you won't read it... I support differentiating between dogs based on their breed and size, which I view to be relatively reliable indicators of how dangerous they can be in the wrong hands. I now think that to be allowed to own a powerful animal capable of killing a another dog and/or human you should have to have a license. I have formed this view based on the fact that I have never been attacked or threatened by large breeds owned by responsible, capable owners (and being a member at a Schutzhund club I was around them a lot), so when my dog or I am threatened by powerful dogs, it stands to reason that the problem is with the handler rather than the dog. As a result, I want licensing for owners. If you read my posts you would have seen that whilst I think I have the best dog in the world, I acknowledge that he is not a dog for everyone. Every time someone with a Doberman, Rottweiler or in fact any large dog lets their dog cause a problem, it has repercussions for me as an owner of a large dog and I worry that if nothing is done, there will be more pressure on legislators to do something and let's just say that I don't have faith in their ability to develop an effective policy on this issue. In addition, I doubt that any policies would allow for me to keep my dog and have him continue to accompany me all the places that I take him, regardless of how many training titles he achieves.

    Actually, I have never been attacked by a dog in an area where the dog should have been on lead, these were all off-lead areas. The most recent experience detailed in the OP occurred at Centennial park in an off-lead section.

    I agree that it's hard to police, however unlike microchipping which is invisible to those who don't carry scanners, a distinctive purpose issued collar would be immediately noticeable to everyone and hence compliance would be easier to track. For those that avoided built up areas, I would argue that their compliance is less of a issue because unlike the 3 altercations I've had in the highly popular Centennial Park, they're probably not going to be running into that many people. Of course the goal can be 100% compliance, but do you cancel this sort of program just because you don't think people in remote areas will comply? I would have thought there was still some potential merit.

  4. #54


    Speculating... either all dogs/dog owners get a license or none, you can't have it halfway.

    World would definitely be a better place if everyone knew how to control their dogs.

    It would actually be easier to police if everyone got one as well (eg. "no, my massive beast is only 19 kgs, really!!").

    Why the focus only on large breed/dangerous dogs?

    You as the owner of a large breed/dangerous dog I am looking forward to your reply.
    Last edited by goggles; 04-10-2014 at 03:46 PM.

  5. #55


    Sydney jogger suffers serious eye injury after being attacked by dogs

    Here is an article about a recent terrible incident where a woman was badly injured by what may have been 2 Dobermanns. Have a look at the comments. One guy (obviously not a dog owner) is calling for all dogs to be muzzled in public. Then there's the guy who just wants dogs banned completely from cities. Politicians have to listen to everyone and if the dog community doesn't present any suggestions they'll just be listening to the non-dog owning community. Personally I'm not keen on their suggestions. Another forum I read has a terrible story in it at the moment as well, a woman with 2 muzzled greyhounds was attacked by a staffy and a cattle dog. The woman had arthritis and was virtually powerless. I'm already terrified when I see dogs running towards me, imagine how much worse it would be if you knew you were infirm?

    Goggles I'm happy to answer your question but firstly I feel I need to clarify one thing. My dog is a mix of large breeds and because of his size, he could cause serious bodily harm. But I don't think that anyone who has met him would agree with your assertion that he's dangerous. And that's probably because all his life, he has been trained and managed appropriately. As I've said before and Beloz actually clarified better than I was able to articulate I feel, my focus has been on the larger breeds because they are the ones that are putting people in hospitals. They are the ones sparking the sorts of reactions of the kind you see on the article I've linked above. Honestly, the breed I dislike most is the Daschund because they tend to be loud barkers with bad attitudes and to top it off, I find them ugly. But I'm not scared of them. The reason I am targeting the large powerful breeds is because they are the ones I believe need our protection most. They are the ones that will be targeted by everyone else if we don't do something. And, it's because I'm terrified of them myself when they're in the wrong hands - they have the ability to seriously hurt me and my dog and I want to know that when I see one, I can be assured that the owner is responsible, well-informed and capable and no-one needs to be scared of their dog.

    Go ahead, push licensing on everyone, I'm not saying it shouldn't be. I just want a distinction between owning different sorts of dogs. If you can cope with a cocker spaniel it doesn't mean you can handle a malinois and I want that recognised in whatever licensing system was implemented. If you want everyone licensed, then there needs to be grades. I personally don't worry about smaller dogs but if there's genuinely a high level of concern from others then that also needs to be taken into consideration.

  6. #56


    Quote Originally Posted by 99bottles View Post
    But I don't think that anyone who has met him would agree with your assertion that he's dangerous. And that's probably because all his life, he has been trained and managed appropriately.
    Firstly I was not calling your dog dangerous.

    If people need to have a license for their "large" or "dangerous" dog, your dog automatically becomes a "dangerous dog" - because of its potential to do harm which is exactly the reason why you raised this issue in the first place.

    To say your dog (dobe/rott) is not dangerous just because you have raised it well is irresponsible. Every responsible dog owner who owns a powerful breed of dog is well aware of how dangerous his/her dog can be under the right conditions.

    As an example:

    You are walking your dog down a quiet suburban street, as you would everyday, and behind you is a jogger listening to music on her headphones. You are not aware of the jogger and as she tries to pass you she runs a little bit too close to your dog and startles it. Your dog lunges forward and snaps his mouth around her arm.


    Let's say your son takes your dog for a walk. You feel the need to go to the bathroom and leave the baby by himself. Your son, who has realized that he has forgotten something, lets the dog in and runs upstairs to his room. When you come out your baby is dead.


    Your dog is in the backyard. A ball comes flying over the fence. Your stupid noisy neighbour kid jumps it in order to retrieve his ball and is subsequently mauled.

    Things like this happen not because the dog was raised improperly but simply because he is a dog. I will concede however that a lot of bad luck has to do with as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by 99bottles View Post
    Go ahead, push licensing on everyone, I'm not saying it shouldn't be. I just want a distinction between owning different sorts of dogs. If you can cope with a cocker spaniel it doesn't mean you can handle a malinois and I want that recognised in whatever licensing system was implemented. If you want everyone licensed, then there needs to be grades.
    I'm not pushing anything on anyone. My question was, and I don't think you have answered it properly, why does there need to be a distinction between owning different sorts of dogs? Raising a dog in such a way so that he is not a danger to others isn't all that difficult given you are willing to give him time, have patience, willing to learn... etc. and I don't think it would be that much of a difference whether you have a SWF/yap yap or a large mastiff. Wouldn't everyone be better off then if everyone had to get a license rather than just the owners of powerful breeds?
    Last edited by goggles; 04-10-2014 at 08:57 PM.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2014


    Quote Originally Posted by 99bottles View Post
    If you can cope with a cocker spaniel it doesn't mean you can handle a malinois and I want that recognised in whatever licensing system was implemented. If you want everyone licensed, then there needs to be grades. I personally don't worry about smaller dogs but if there's genuinely a high level of concern from others then that also needs to be taken into consideration.
    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)

  8. #58


    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.

    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.

  9. #59



    I can see where you are coming from, but your solution is not going to have the desired effect. Laws have a way of changing peoples perceptions so that yes, large dogs automaticaly become dangerous in their minds. Else why the special "permit" ? It would end up another nail in the coffin (thats already dangerously loaded with lead) for ALL dogs. It takes dogs another step back from the communities they serve, and general understanding. People fear what they don't understand.

    This is why I say we need a new registry, based on purpose, rather than breed. When inexperienced people want to get a dog, the 1st thing they would be forced to look at is which grouping they would be choosing from. House hold pet? Or for a more active family, maybe a sporting breed suited to say, agility ? Utility, obedience? Few people these days consider the purpose of dogs in their choices.

    Such a registry could have a charter to promote responsible, purposeful, dog friendly communities, with all that entails, based on sound principles of biological law. This would go a very long way towards correcting the imbalances we are left with today because it it is inclusive, rather than divisive.
    There would be a common ground to unite dog owners and incentive for communities to participate in dogs and the education of their peers.

    The way we have been going, with increased legislation , is acheiving the opposite. A healthy system doesn't thrive on limitation, but direction.
    Last edited by Strange fruit; 04-11-2014 at 10:00 AM.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Western Sydney


    So this happened in an off lead dog know that these parks are an accident waiting to happen and because another dog had a go at your now want all owners of large breed dogs in Australia to be punished...are you serious.

    Why didn't you complain to the council...that would be the logical thing to do instead of a rant about large dogs and tell me why you call your dog a man stopper as this implies your dog is dangerous...I would be very careful what I wish for if I were you... especially where BSL is concerned.

    We already have a licence to own a's called Registration and Microchipping and tough dog laws...but that's only for people who do the right thing. You need a licence to drive a car but how many idiots are on the what is the point of forcing responsible dog owners to get a licence all because they love large breeds.

    I would suggest compulsory obedience training for all dog owners...but that has it's own problems especially where instructors are concerned as not all have experience with all breeds and you don't train a Rottie like a GSD. I have owned large breed dogs...Dobe...Rottie and GSDs for over 25 yrs and would not call them large powerful dogs as I have found them to be gentle...loving family pets.
    Chloe & Zorro
    Rottweilers and German Shepherds are Family

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

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