ZBC

Oh, what a tragedy! This is soooo sad! Really it's like some awful horror movie playing out or the worst nightmare one could have. Best wishes for a speedy recovery in every way to the lady-- and yes, it's tears all round for the fur babies gone in such a terrible way to Rainbow Bridge. What wonderful humans attend here, though,I find it quite salutary and uplifting, with all the help and selfless work you are doing for this poor lady. I dips me lid to you alll

I have done the hard yards, some of the stats are real, a lot are not. And if you factor in the population of a breed in an area, you get different results. I am more interested in Australian stats than USA ones, because they is more relevant to the situation here. Someone mentioned in another thread that "pitbull" (generic) - was the most popular breed in US. This may or may not be true, as there are no stats, and numbers are higher in some regions than others, but judging by the pound stats, either 100% of pitbulls are dumped, or there are a lot of them around. Many authorities state this. "Pitbulls" are not only APBT in the stats either. Los Angeles reports that 40% of the dogs entering their shelters are pit bulls and pitbull mixes. Their 12 shelters receive 840 pitbulls a week. PSPCA in Philadelphia reported in 1999 over 4000 pitbulls were found wandering the streets, most scarred and abandoned, most were destroyed. New York City (2001) reported that pitbulls were the 3rd most populous dog in that city, after rottweilers and mixed breeds. Figures are the same all over. And are probably the same still. The big problem with pitbulls in USA is the fact that they are often owned by criminals and dog fighters, as well as those in low socio economic groups, as a status symbol. And the fact that they are so numerous, and care has not been taken in breeding them. Purebred pitbulls have a long and honourable history, owned by presidents, movie stars, Helen Keller, starring in movies ... and today, the same dogs are doing the same things. Many of the SAR dogs used to search the World Trade Centre were pitbulls. The "pitbull" problem in Australia is different. The pitbull problem in Australia is the media. The public in Australia has been led to believe that a dog which is not HA has perpetrated many many attacks on humans, when that isn't so. Stats are put out by various bodies, some are correct, some are not. The information available via the media about pitbulls is mostly sensationalist, and incorrect, yet that is what the public believes, without having seen a pitbull in the flesh, or having anything to do with them. One of the reasons you think you get jumped on, Sandgrubber, is because you use stats which are at odds with other stats, but fail to see the validity of the other stats, or fail to understand that the people you are arguing with either have some experience with the breed, or have done a lot of research, or both. For instance, in the USA, there are no known fatalities attributed to SBT. No one would believe that if you told them. They might have a few years ago, but not now. Dogs involved in fatal attacks include Irish Setter, Chow Chows, G. Retriever. Dacshund, Labrador, Pomeranian, Husky, Briard, St Bernards, as well as the usual suspects. Any dog can attack, what we need to do is not ban breeds and wash our hands, we need to make people understand why dogs attack, so they can avoid the triggers, and maybe provide the environment and care which reduces dog attacks. eg "In 1976, a 6 day old girl was left alone on the floor of an unfurnished apartment with a German Shepherd while her mother went out. The dog killed the infant. The mother admitted to not feeding the dog for at least 6 days." That's an extreme example, but when the circumstances of any attack are known (ie, known, not what is reported in the press) it will be seen that there is a trigger for most attacks, if someone will just bother to find it. I have never owned a pitbull, never will. I began by believing what was in the press - and then I did some extensive research, and the truth is at odds with what is in the press. Unfortunately, there is an overwhelming amount of information out there, and you need to read, check, recheck, and validate constantly to even begin to understand the problem. 3 boxers killed a breeder in the USA, boxers have bitten people, cross bred boxers have been implicated in fatal attacks (as have Labradors, by the way), so I can see that there could be a case to ban boxers, if someone got onto their case. And they will. Eurodog. Excellent post ,Jed

How would banning stop breeding of dogs? It never has before. The BYBs and other undercover breeders are just like illicit drug growers or dealers, when there is a handy buck to be made they will not obey a new law,but just get more cunning in their undercover activities! I wonder if your friend would accept, based on the evidence of one story of a bad guy killer whose parentage went back to wartime Nazi Youth days,that all third generation Germans were dangerous and should be banned?

............................................................ ... Well done on all that thinking and typing! However, are you sure there would be anyone left to become a dog owner? Fewer people allowed to own means inevitably fewer dogs! But the black market in dogs and underground trading/ using would grow no doubt. Nevertheless I agree with your underlying premise-- responsible DOG ownership really enforced would be superior to any form of BSL

I wonder if this means they'll be recognising the Am Staff so AKC registered Amstaffs can continue to compete in UKC events? ............................................................ ............................................................. ............... It is clearly spelled out that they mean only dogs of the breed with generations of pure breeding of registered UKC parents and g /parents etc will be registered-as such it isn't specific to the APBT alone and it is about preserving the purity of their breeds, nothing more.

Rottn Am I correct in thinking the AKC fairly recently closed its books to AST dogs registered with UKC? ie it no longer allows dual registration ,as AST there and as APBT at UKC,to occur? Regrettably, the passage of time.given it hardly affects Australia immediately, would probably not constitute a strong argument against the Supreme Court of Qld ruling the breeds are the same,even with,as I assume would be relevant evidence, an ANKC judge citing the ANKC requirements of generational breeding to "create" a new breed for registration. That I am told by a member is 5 recorded generations pure breeding of the stock agreed to found the breed?

Ozpit,I'd go read the Aussie organisation breed standard for the AST and the SBT and show where they acknowledge these dogs were bred to fight or even come from dogs that were? Is it lying by omission or denying by omission? Noenthe;ess, the full origins are kept ssecret wherever possible Ask the breeders of show strains if their dogs are fightbred, and they want to fight YOU for connecting their dogs to the old APBT, at least that has been my experience often. Is it acknowledged that traits the backgrounds of many dog breeds would today be unacceptable, or is it expected the dogs do not display the unacceptable behaviour and the facts never spoken of? As for the genetics,any comprehensive APBT website should have studies,but I note that the APBT breeders talk about the "fight" or "game" lines as distinct, why? Could it be that to keep the traits strong, they have to be reinforced regularly in the lines,as do strong colours in some coated breeds..

Warm fuzzies that one! Atta Boy, Hector, and kudos to the wonderful human who adopted him

Amazing! How deep is the hatred for one AST , apparently,when all are to suffer--maybe to try to "hurry" the Qld government to some sort of ruling?. More owners and innocent dogs to suffer for their inane machinations. Oh ,to have been a fly on the wall to know just HOW many councillors decided THAT court tactic in the Supreme Court of Qld!

Sorry for all those dog attack horrors, Jed and others. But it needs to be reiterated and promulgated widely--there is no such thing as a little bit of BSL Fght ANY breed being banned to ensure the choice for all,is the only sensible option as erosion sets in otherwise. Also fight for sensible ownership laws and owner responsibility for the dog at all time enshrined at every level.

The reading I've done suggests that dogs from the (fighting) "type" around Staffordshire UK were taken by emigrants from the UK to the USA,and that since that time, the SBT was developed, in the Uk, whilst the APBT was developed in the USA. It is reasonable to proclaim a common ancestry but then we read that all dogs descended from the grey wolf and I find nothing wolflike about a friend's Blue Heeler!

I am of the opinion that after 60 years of separate breeding for different attributes the APBT and AMStaffy’s are two different breeds. AMStaff’s have been bred for Shows and family pets. Not for fighting attributes. They started from the same breed but I believe they are two distinctly different dogs now. From the dogs I have seen AMStaffy’s are generally heavier with a larger head and are crazy goofy cuddly sooks. I am not saying APBT’s are not affectionate but the hand full of pure breeds I have met have been lovely but more reserved and stern. They looked taller but they may have been just because they had a more athletic build opposed to the wide appearance of the AMStaff. The dogs I have seen were never side by side. I know they are many with a difference of opinion and arguments for both sides but the majority of breeders of each breed agree they are two different breeds and will not x bred them. I can’t remember the names but there are two particular guys that have been going at this argument for years. Both have released publishments on the topic. One relies on historical documents and the other is a Dr relying on science. What I took away from both sides of the argument was a lot of the historical information was a bit vague and was getting interpreted the way he wanted it to sound. This was the pro APBT & AST being the same breed side of the argument. The Dr’s argument saying they are too different breeds now seemed a lot more factual. The UKC considers them the same breed and will accept them to be dual registered as APBT and AMStaffy’s but the AKC will not accept UKC registered APBT to be registered as AMStaffy’s or vice versa. Good read from a respected APBT breeder in the US: http://www.southernpitbulls.com/history.html http://www.bulldoginformation.com/bull-and...ier-breeds.html This is my opinion and I am not forcing it upon anyone. I think people should do there own research and form their own opinion. ............................................................ ............................................ If the argument on history was based on the full lot of Colby books, there would be a very good chance it was accurate. From the earliest times, registrations as Staffordshires with AKC(of APBTs) were available--and I note Justin has posted of the opening up of the gene pool for the AKC dog bloodlines more than once! THis is really a very difficult situation to argue conclusively,and would seem to swing on whether AKC and ANKC registered AST dogs can be shown to be pure for long enough for the "Difference" to be established It is possible DNA tests will show this, but there seems no legal determination other than that in Chivers v GCCC and it sets an Australian precedent.

The dog breeding member in my extended family heartily agrees with you and argues thus --hence my comment earlier of the ultimate betrayal-- Surely it is not too much to ask that all dogs be represented, is it, in fact take that further to the argument that had ANKC from its instigation grown to be the custodian for ALL dogs no matter the breed and just managed show competition as ONE of their many functions with parity for all functions and levels of registration,they might have prevented the introduction of ANY BSL in Australia. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sadly true--the ANKC has shown its parochial colours before and no doubt will again refuse to act for what aren't their own "papered" dogs. Should we have more hope when one of their own breed is now distinctly threatened? Leaving that for others to answer It seems they have been too parochial and timid to take on the RSPCA headed by Wirth.

Apologies for the delayed reply. My point was that an APBT is a dog suited to dog fights by way of its genetic makeup. It's not easy to wipe out generations of being bred for a purpose. I don't understand your point though. Do I support game-bred dogs? Depending on the individual's definition of "game-bred" which can vary. Do I support the breeding of dogs who have old fighting lines and/or deeply game dogs featuring heavily in their pedigrees? Sure. I'm not about to have a hissy fit because some dog somewhere has Chinaman or Jeep or Barney in their pedigree and I'm not going to lose sleep if someone breeds that dog. Do I support testing a dogs gameness and then breeding them, in this day and age? Nope If it isn't easy to wipe out generations of breeding for dog fighting, how is it that canine registries the world over have breeds where they state exactly that has been done since the origin was the same as the APBT ancestry or similar? Methinks it is because you are wrong--it takes fewer generations than most would believe to subjugate a trait-- but people with a set agenda like Dr Wirth, keep saying the APBT is a one off dog and it isn't safe no matter any investigation of its ancestors and the breeding strategy behind it or present day APBT's BTW isn't the Customs Act in terms of "American Pit Bull Terrier" or "Pit bull terrier" is banned from import? The OR is the telling word, there is no such breed it is the common term applied randomly by the ignorant as well as the wise to the purebred APBT breed. (Pet hate of mine) Nanny dog anyone Hope that cleared up the confusion in your brain.

As I wasn't involved, I have the same information that you do, ie what is placed on the internet and exists in archives here.

The dog breeding member in my extended family heartily agrees with you and argues thus --hence my comment earlier of the ultimate betrayal-- Surely it is not too much to ask that all dogs be represented, is it, in fact take that further to the argument that had ANKC from its instigation grown to be the custodian for ALL dogs no matter the breed and just managed show competition as ONE of their many functions with parity for all functions and levels of registration,they might have prevented the introduction of ANY BSL in Australia. It seems they have been too parochial and timid to take on the RSPCA headed by Wirth.

I don't know why the applicant presented evidence that the APBT and AST were the same breed but according to the judgement she did, via two expert witnesses. The council didn't have to twist anything, nor ambush anyone, the evidence and its logical conclusions seems to have been handed to them gift-wrapped. You can't present something to a court as a matter of fact and then expect it only to be taken into account in the way you want it to be. It seems to been a bizarrely ill-advised tactic on the part of the applicant, whatever their intent. Obviously opinions here are closely held. The nuances were that the attack was against the checklist by experts showing the APBT breed was not unique and its perpetrators ie the council did not dispute that, but suddenly used it to claim the two breeds were the same. If you wish to believe that this was planned by Chivers do so,though it was an unfortunate outcome for all to see,but as noted before hindsight blesses us all! Personally I am concentrating on the elephants in the room-- 1 .It would seem only Chivers can appeal the decision IF grounds exist and should she not do so or lose an appeal, the AST breed will be firmly entrenched in the BSL laws in Qld at least. Leave aside which councils WOULD ban them,as a recognised registered breed, there would be the ever present possibilty--one step closer to the banned state for another breed. 2.Having presented the evidence she did, Chivers has to find grounds that do not directly contradict her first testimony--one cannot surely argue one side and when it fails change tack totally. It is arguably a fine line to walk to find an appeal that will take the AST out of the firing line here whilst not denying the original evidence--but in trying to prove her dog is of AST heritage, Chivers was aiming to have it safe from the BSL laws of GCCC. and by extension the AST breed itself--it would be out of character surely for her to not care about the breed now. An interesting though painful dilemma, and one can but wish her good luck

Well Said. If this person was arguing that the dog is an AST and should not be banned, why did she argue that the AST and the pitbull were the same breed? Totally uninformed. The dog still remains banned in the GCCC and hundreds of properly registered American Stafforshire Terriers are in jeopardy. The ANKC is certainly not going to argue for unpapered dogs, only papered ones which are registered with them. What was the point of taking the case to the Supreme Court to argue that although the dog was not a Pitbull, it was the same thing, so also banned If they spent $500,000 as they said on TV, on the case, it would have been cheaper to move to NSW where the dog was, and not put American Staffordshire Terriers in danger, and risk the danger of the bans being extended Perhaps Ms Chivers argued that the method used and the persons using it and claiming they could identify an APBT from any other breed and especially the dog admittedly most like it,were all false, by showing that nothing unique existed to make identification reliable? This would be a fair comment, as the GCCC apparently ambushed her team by using the evidence provided ,in a bizarre twist , to the point of damning their own employees and "consultant identifiers" in work they have done for years under the local law,opening themselves to challenges against extant "identifications"! There would have been no surprise had Ms Chivers based her case on "proving the AST and APBT were the same" Why would she do this, and automatically LOSE her dog?? That would have been totally nonsensical ,in fact ludicrous! The lady had NO intention of harming any dog or breed, she wanted to get her own dog home where it belonged. As for moving states, or whatever, it isn't everyone who believes in judging others by some yardstick or proposal that one hasn't experienced either! Easy to SAY but....?

Excuse me, but were you around when the DaFre case went to Magistrate's court in Qld? That is where the late Mrs Brashears first gave evidence in Australia, and where, like Ms Chivers, the dog owner sought to show that the checklist method of identification was rubbish,and the council and its "consultant identifiers" were promulgating rubbish! Were all the critics of Ms Chivers and her legal team and witnesses, criticise one it implies all, so full of foresight that they THEN said, do not use this attack as it will end up putting the AST in the crosshairs? Didn't think so--all the angst now is due to the magic of foresight and we all can be superlative at that when we choose! But it helps NOBODY!

It would seem the CCCQ will continue to demonise the APBT to save its registered breed,allowing the "all bred to fight" sham to continue , but NOT take on BSL itself! This divide and conquer attitude with "papers" and "not registered" labelling of DOGS has enabled the true Wirth et al agenda to creep slowly but surely over this land! Will they EVER wake up and see that any threat to ANY breed is a threat to them all eventually? Justin--please clarify--I heard the Qld "trainers" were NOT ANKC folk but two women(hesitate to a call either a lady) Mesdamses P and P? The NSW assessors were certainly "trained" and I use that word loosely,as were as council rangers in Victoria,by ANKC and in NSW, they ARE members of ANKC It is considered by many dog owners the ultimate betrayal of dogdom! Otherwise I agree with you, and await the legal challenge to their "expertise" in both states,should the Chivers verdict stand. It should make rivetting reading as they try to show the distict characteristics of the APB that NO OTHER breed has to pass to offspring"unpapered" and unregistered by their organisation, and prove their method to detect reliable continuity of genetic traits in crossbreds!!!

Would Tango be eligible to return to Ms Chivers on either of two grounds? 1. If he's old enough he might be allowed back under a moratorium put in place I think Sept 2004 as the cut off for restricted dogs allowed to be kept in the district whilst all born after came under the ban? 2.The GCCC at PRESENT wouldn't have any statute on its books to ban ASTs and didn't the Supreme Court decision clearly accept he is of AST parentage? Of course it is recognised there would be a danger to his life & safety ,and to others of the breed ,should the GCCC then enact such a law! (But did the full GCCC formally make the decision to address the SC judge in terms that APBT and AST are one and the same breed in Australia. Doubtful!-- so they would be ripe for lobbying NOT to enact a ban) Much of the talk here focusses on the possible danger to the AST breed as much or more than the future for Ms Chivers and her dog( or Mr Jones' dog as the SC judge ruled) If the AST breed is in danger would not the obvious lasting course of action be to work with Ms Chivers on an appeal if there are grounds, which ,if won would reverse the decision-- since the ruling has set a precedent while it stands and could be used by any councils in future? After all the ruling came in the Chivers v GCCC case , not in any breed or registry action in the SC,therefore it is difficult to see how any of them alone could change this situation. The Government spokesperson really has not been accommodating in response to a letter( see separate thread) and it might be the state law will not be amended due to this one ruling.

That reads to me like the classic buck pass, right back to GCCC!