Why should we care about purebred dogs?
According to DOGS Victoria, it’s because dogs with a mixed breed heritage have an unpredictable temperament;
“… neither the appearance nor characteristics of mixed breed dogs are predictable, nor can they be perpetuated…. The choice of a purebred dog permits the prospective dog owner to select the size, appearance, disposition and instincts that the owner desires with assurance that a puppy purchased from a responsible breeder should possess those characteristics.”
Pedigrees and breed histories, according to DOGS Victoria, are the key to ensuring temperament.
This is one of many ways in which purebred dogs are more predictable. When you get a crossbred dog you don’t know how it will turn out.
Why Choose a Purebred Dog? – DOGS Victoria website
‘Unpredictable’ – means unable to be predicted. In the case of dog temperament, it means the dog could run the spectrum from really mean – through to really friendly.
For a mixed breed dog to have an ‘unpredictable temperament’ by the definition of DOGS Victoria – it means there is no way to tell whether a mixed breed dog is nice or aggressive just by looking at, say, a photo of it.
Which is why – they say – you should go to a breeder and get one of their ‘predictable’ temperamented pedigree dogs.
(And I think anyone who knows anything about dogs would have to agree. You can’t accurately determine an individual dog’s temperament by its looks.)
But now DOGS Victoria are lending a hand to Peter Walsh’s ‘if it looks like a pit bull, then it’s a pit bull’ legislation in Victoria;
“…. Firstly, our agreeing to a government request to provide a panel of all breeds judges willing to assist council officers. At a meeting with the Minister, Peter Walsh, it was made very clear to us that the panel is designed to minimise the stress both on dogs that are considered by a council officer to fit the government’s standard for restriction, and their owners.
The rationale behind such a panel is that immediately (sic) a dog is identified, the council officer will contact DOGS Victoria to obtain the name of an all breeds judge who has volunteered to be on the panel. This judge will then assist the council officer, and it is the council officer who makes the final decision. Hopefully, this will stop or greatly reduce the misidentification of dogs.
Peter Frost – DOGS Victoria
Dogs’ DNA isn’t submissible evidence in court cases in Victoria, so owners are not able to seek DNA tests on their dogs to prove their breed. Even when the parents of the dogs are known not to be ‘pit bulls’ (as in the case of Bear and Kooda where a ranger cleared both the mother and the father of having any ‘pit bull’ in them whatsoever), dogs who fit the Victorian Standard for being of ‘pit bull type’, are able to be seized under the legislation.
‘Misidentification’ therefore is inherent in the standard, as the looks of a mixed breed dog, tells us nothing about whether the dog is friendly or aggressive, a good pet or a danger, by DOGS Victoria’s own admission.
“… our involvement in the recent DPI Canine Anatomy and Identification Training Day for council officers held at the Park. I attended a meeting that included two members of the DPI and representatives of our Canine Welfare Committee. It was agreed that the certificate of attendance would contain the following statement.
“The Canine Anatomy and Identification Training Day conducted by the Department of Primary Industries for Authorised Officers of Counicl is not a recognised qualification in identifying breeds of dogs under the National Quality Framework.”
Also, prior to the presentation of dogs it was stressed, “This presentation of purebred dogs by DOGS Victoria is not intended to nor does it amount to a qualification in identifying restricted breed dogs”.
See, they can’t have it both ways. Either DOGS Victoria believe that purebred dogs and breed histories tend towards being accurate, and that mixed breed dogs really do have ‘unpredictable’ temperaments – at which point they should be howling down the Victorian government for killing healthy, potentially friendly with faulty legislation…
… or they believe that this legislation is fine – is something they should help enforce – and that you can indeed tell the temperament of a dog by its looks. An individual dog’s pedigree is irrelevant – mixed breeds aren’t any more or less predictable than their purebred ilk.
Making their entire organisation based on a fibby-dib that you’re getting something special from a purebred breeder.
Of course the reality is that DOGS Victoria is simply irrelevant. They don’t love dogs – because to love dogs, you can’t exclude some dogs just because they’re unpapered. They don’t support owners because if they did they would be standing alongside dog owners fighting for the rights of all dog owners – not just those who keep pedigree dogs – to keep healthy, happy pets in the community.
Both the request to set up the panel and the day at the Park are indications of our constantly improving relationship with the government and importantly, how we are seen as the prime representative on dog matters.
No, what you are is outdated. Embarrassing. Just a little bit sleazy. And you’re grabbing cheap and short-term political kudos while betraying the dogs.
Shame on you.
Right on the mark! Excellent critique.
Great article Shel.
A better way to handle for the VCA to handle this opportunity would be for them to do the following:
1 – Issue a public statement clearly and officially stating their disagreement with BSL and the way that is being applied in Victoria – as all other professional bodies of any credibility have, and in line with the unanimous world scientific opinion.
2 – Refuse to provide such breed assessors to the DPI on the basis that their judges are technically unqualified to visually judge breed where pedigree of the dog is not known to them before presentation of the dog.
It must be remembered that the VCA has done nothing of any merit so far and has been very weak in its stance on BSL. Peter Frost’s statement around the time of Ayen Chol was noteworthy if only for it’s complete lack of backbone, conviction, leadership and understanding of the issue.
There are a heap of very simple answers to this however the most simple seems to elude the VCA to date – denounce BSL and call for a pro community safety, pro dog, pro science answer to dog bites in the community. End BSL, and call all it’s members to show universal support to do the same.
There is a tangible conflict here for the VCA – they make large amounts of money being the issuer of pedigrees and BSL makes pedigrees essential for a large number of very very popular breeds. Make no mistake, the VCA does profit from BSL financially and politically.
Further to this the VCA should be issuing an official complaint to the ANKC regarding the qualification developed by DogsNSW relating to the visual identification of dog breeds.
DogsNSW, an ANKC affiliate, is peddling this nonsensical course that absolutely lacks any modicum of scientific credibility and is deliberately designed specifically to profit from the current climate of BSL hype and hysteria.
Lets not forget that Peter Higgins sat and argued that the problem isn’t the pedigreed dogs, and that it is cross bred dogs that are cause for concern – he argued this on live TV and I was fortunate enough to be present for the interview and point out his flawed statements.
The ANKC, DogsVIC, and DogsNSW are not really friends of the dog per se. Rather, they are friends of the pedigree and the dollar. Their decision making process rarely relates to what is best for dogs the animal, but instead dogs the financial and political entity.
Whilst these organisations certainly do some good at times for the pedigree dog community perhaps it is time for them to aspire to a loftier aim – being a friend of the dog, in whatever form he may take, and acknowledging that they maintain their very existence off the back of the dog.
Dogs Victoria are presumably hoping that by building an alliance with the DPI and the RSPCA they can protect their constituents. That they’re doing so by throwing other dogs under the wagon clearly doesn’t disturb them or their members at all.
It’s a short-term policy that will come back to bite them should there be a serious dog attack from an AKC breed.
The comment from Peter Frost that they issued a certificate of attendance making it clear that the training day wasn’t a recognised program under the NQF is nonsense (quite apart from the fact that the NQF relates to childhood education, so I assume he meant the AQTF).
Dogs Victoria ran the day and it was endorsed by the DPI and local government; anyone attending would be within their rights to assume that it was valid and authoritative training program which would provide them with the appropriate skills to do their job.
Dogs Victoria can’t back off from their role in supporting BSL through their program by claiming it wasn’t nationally recognised training. It’s probably an indication of their values that they both want to run the program but try and disclaim responsibility for the outcomes.