Duhh all dogs know how to bite, thats how they play or defend themselves. Its different when you encourage it

@@DisforDogs1 When you play tug with a dog, that is encouraging it to bite and hold, so I guess that should be outlawed too. When you play fetch with a dog that encourages prey drive, as it chases and captures the object by gripping it with its mouth, aka biting, so that probably needs to be outlawed too. 🙄

sure buddy and pitbulls have never eaten children alive too training is not infallible K9s attack innoent bystanders all the time the trainers are completely deluded to think they can contol dogs in every situation

Liberals.

I think the system is completely corrupt. No voting required.

They are put into these positions. do you really believe votes matter? It's called selection not election. We are given the candidates chosen by the controllers. It's all an illusion and people need to wake up from their deep sleep and realize what is taking place.

No one. They are selected to be in position.

Voting means nothing. The world is run by the satanic banking cartel.

weak people need dogs for a security blanket

@@themaskcultisthenewmansonf145 sport dogs arent security dogs smart ass

Strong people fight for the rights of animals to be treated well.

@@kalayne6713 Dog owners care nothing of wildlife and use "animals" to refer to dogs when they know damn well dogs are the only animal they give a shit about

Victoria… the worst over regulated state of the lot!!

I live in South Australia and i havent even heard of it until now

Well, I am in Western Australia - and I have heard of it, as have a lot of other people, who are into dog sports, in Western Australia. And yes, it is of a concern because while it is only South Australia currently - if it gets through, it sets a precedent & may then affect other states and it would mean that any dog who has been involved in, or taught to "bite a sleeve" as a part of a dog sport (i.e. play a huge game of tug) would then be classified as a "dangerous dog" - when that is so far from the truth.... it is silly....🙄. The authorities have it all backward - they are targeting the wrong dogs & the wrong dog owners. These sport Dogs, are well trained dogs, they have to obey their handlers commands, even when in prey drive, when in chase mode, they are trained to change their intent & within a split second of being given a command, any command & do it, even when in the most challenging of situations - does that sound like a dog that is out of control - NO, it is not.... And, as such these dogs are "less of a threat" in society, simple because they are under control. Unlike any other pet dog, who has not been trained, who is not under the owner/handlers control, dogs, who do not even have a reliable recaĺl, the very same dogs, who have not been trained to control themselves &/or their drives - these are the dogs who are more likely to attack randomly & who do not listen to what is asked of them. It is not sport dogs - which are involved in the increased number of attacks, far from it. It is the untrained, out of control dog. If anything, it should be mandatory for every dog owner to train their dog to a minimum of the Schutzhund/IGP BH standard - as a minimum. These new purposed laws are totally screwed up, they are targeting the wrong dogs & wrong dog owners.

@@donna6618 I wholeheartedly agree with you, I really do. While I don't participate in that particular dog sport I love watching the training. I would feel completely safe around one of those dogs. That kind of sport is banned in Victoria already - I don't know when that happened. Regulation bodies need to encourage more training - of any sort

​@chrislynch1011 - thanks for the support, Chris. Much appreciated.

Thank you for your efforts my friend they have had this in since 1994 in my state of Victoria Australia.

That's not what this is about.

100%

This is exactly what i think today before seeing this video. I live in NL and there are discussions to make certain strong dogs like puttbull, rottweiler etc. Illegal. Its not very active in the news and politics, but their are sounds of it. Strong dogs can defend, they dont want people protecting their family.

They're not bigger, they just make themselves believe they are. Deep down, they know they are inferior despite their wealth. It's up to humanity. We as man, have allowed the chipping away, little by little to occur.

Whats goin on with guns in qld? Massive gun grab currently going down here in WA

@@the_arm_bar just a hunch but if we are all totally defenseless they can just walk on in and take any action with no worries of ppl fighting back. Look at the news about "all the knife attacks" that no doubt will somehow be legislated "for the safety of the public" of cause. Just my observation and joining the dots.

Government needs to stay out of our lives period

My pleasure!

Spot on. But they will have them.

It goes beyond defending yourself. .

@RobertCabral_on_te-legra-m yes Sir! I’ll email you when I ASAP

It’s an amendment to the Dog and Cat Management Act in South Australia. It’s not that easy to find and what Robert is saying is a possible outcome if it is added. Only a large outcry will influence its adoption. That board pretty much just have to notify the public in a manner that the public has time to react. Which makes the difficulty in finding it sketchy. They already had a two tier system that labeled some breeds as “dangerous or restricted” compared to other breeds. As such all fines and penalties doubled compared to other dogs. $5k fine becomes $10k. This includes prison time. They are trying to bring the dogs trained for protection sports into the “dangerous” tier. The way they defined it reads like they are really trying to ostracize those dog sports. In a way it could help those sports . The penalties only happen if the dog violates some existing laws like attack, roaming free, harassment, and other things a dog shouldn’t do. It could reduce the business for those trainers in those sports due to the extra cost and liability. Although it could increase the training demand. The definition of training is so vague they could easily claim anything as this type of training. Even if the owner just trained it to be a pet. The only exact thing the amendment does is double the liability of any dog that gets free or attacks. The amendment really makes it almost mandatory to have any dog properly trained. You are going to held liable for anything that dog does not matter the breed.

Ain't that an understatement!

don't dare ask that question this is about feeding the egos of the owners

It's called a plan.

Give it a little more thought...

@@chikyuskincare4675 I've tried and I still can't work out what the issue is.

I had to search for it, it's new legislation in SA

Victoria already has laws which deem a dog that is ‘ attack trained’ as a dangerous dog and members of the community shouldn’t have one.( only military, police etc). Local councils must be notified. Limit of two dogs in suburbia, six on farming / rural settings or apply for an excess animal permit. (As an aside,Incidentally prong collars are banned in the states of Victoria , Tasmania and Queensland and illegal to import.)

South Australia

Because it's not about that.