bslsux

If you hadn't already worked it out it is also attached!

American Bar Association Adopts Policy Based on Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section Resolution Urging Adoption of Breed-Neutral Dog Laws-and the Repeal of Breed Discriminatory (Pit Bull) Ordinances. Attached 12_annual_tips_animal_law_resolution_pr.authcheckdam.pdf

While I understand your sentiment, this summary of life as a restricted breed isn't true. The dog is allowed to play in it's yard if you're there. They don't need to live in a cage and can stay locked in their house when their owner is out, providing that it meets security restrictions (ie you can't leave a window opening that the dog can fit through). RB dogs can go to training, can meet other dogs and people etc, they just need to do it with a muzzle and special leash. It's not the life I'd want for my dog, but it isn't condemning a dog to a life of misery either. Whilst that sounds reasonable, a Council can make up their own rules. The legislation allows for it. The legislation also allows for a Council to refuse to renew a RBD's registration if they so desire.

If my memory serves me correctly Butch's owners tried to register him as a restricted breed (and were willing to comply with all the keeping requirements) the day before the amnesty ended. They didn't realize the cost to register a RB is so much higher and didn't bring enough money with them. They were prepared to go home and get more but were told not to worry about it -just come back tomorrow. They turned up first thing the next morning and were told the amnesty had ended and they were not allowed to register him. The officers immediately went and seized him. Butch doesn't appear to be a young puppy - why didn't his owners register him as a RB ages ago??? Would have saved ratepayers a stack of money and avoided the distress they caused to their own dog. What and give the Council and Government money to kill dogs!

Have to comment here though....you seriously think a Lab or GSD couldn't attack and kill a child? Attitudes like yours are the reason other breeds DO attack children, we don't need to worry 'cause it's a Lab, it wouldn't hurt a fly right? You shouldn't have to worry about a dog from across the road charging into your front yard,then into your house killing a toddler inside, do you know of any Labs or GSD's who have done that and does anyone own any dogs of those breeds they would suspect could do the same if they got out?. Should be very interesting when pictures of the dog involved in the Ayen Chol tragedy finally surface. So far extremely closely guarded. Multiple Freedom of Information requests (Police, Council, Department of Primary Industries) denied. TV Media prevented from filming dog on seizure. Word is from multiple and very reliable sources that so called pit bull may not have been, heaven forbid, a pit bull!

Found it, or at least a site with it http://www.endangereddogs.com/AChristmasStory.htm Says Copyright Alison Green

Love it. Could you provide the site please?

I don't think there is any set amount of the criteria that the dogs have to match. As far as I can see, it is up to VCAT to decide if the dog is restricted or not. I can't find anywhere in the legislation that states how many of the criteria in the standard that needs to be matched. Bslsux may know if this is correct or not. As bslsux has recommended, "I cannot emphasise enough that anyone seeking a review of the declaration of their dog as a restricted breed at VCAT must get an expert opinion on whether their dog fits the standard. " There is no set amount of the criteria that a dog has to match. One VCAT member said a dog whose review he preceded over met the criteria 100% (it absolutely did not and no dog on earth can fit every single characteristic). Poor Ace. Another, now the subject of Supreme Court action only met 50% of the criteria according to the Council but the VCAT member ruled the dog complied.

That case was about a dog called "Tess" owned by Michael Ozzimo. Her owner did have DNA (Mars Wisdom blood based) but was told early on by the presiding Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) Member Dr Rebecca French (who along with Senior Member Proctor heard Bear and Kooda's review) that it was of no benefit. VCAT are only interested in whether the dog fits the standard. Unless of course they have an ANKC pedigree certificate or a certificate from a vet stating the dog is an American Staffordshire Terrier. The Herald Sun reported he won using DNA evidence. Per usual they don't know what they are talking about. They also said Tess was out roaming. Tess was taken from her backyard. Michael Ozzimo won his case because he had an expert opinion report showing his dog didn't fit the standard. He did not have legal representation. The Council had a Barrister and a solicitor present. The best the Council could come up with was an so called experienced Local Laws Officer (LLO) who thought the pasterns were somewhere around the shoulder of the dog and the occiput was around the dog's cheeks! As hard as it might be to believe, the Moira Council LLO was even more ignorant. Apparently a "scissor bite is indicative of a pit bull". When you have unrepresented and unassisted dog owner who initially believes what the LLO says and presiding VCAT members who barely know the difference between the front of a dog and the back end it is a recipe for disaster. Late attempts were made to get an expert opinion done on Bear and Kooda but Moira Council refused access. VCAT were aware of this. There have been two other successful applications since Tess went home. Tonka was one and Narlah was the other. Both of these owners represented themselves, with assistance. Both had an expert opinion report from an All Breeds Dog Judge. Another case is part heard. That owner has expert opinion from a Terrier Group Judge and they have legal representation. Another case is in the Supreme Court (Monash CC) The following dogs have died as a result of the VCAT process (god only knows how many without ever reaching VCAT). Mornington Peninsula Shire Council - 2 (Owners failed to appear at final Hearing) Banyule City Council - Ace (contested but lost) Glen Eira City Council - 1 (Owner failed to appear) Hume City Council - 1 (Owner failed to appear) There are at at least 15 other cases that I know of at various stages in the process. I cannot emphasise enough that anyone seeking a review of the declaration of their dog as a restricted breed at VCAT must get an expert opinion on whether their dog fits the standard. Assistance is available. See post in BSL forum: http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/235262-going-to-vcat/page__pid__5867000#entry5867000

Bump

http://www.ava.com.au/mediarelease/pet-dogs-fall-victim-victorian-legislation 15 June 2012 Pet dogs fall victim to Victorian legislation Australia’s peak veterinary body, the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) continues to be concerned about Victorian laws that have seen two dogs destroyed based solely on their appearance “‘Bear’ and ‘Kooda’ were impounded because they look like pit bull crosses as prescribed by the government guidelines,” said Dr Susan Maastricht, President of the Victorian Division of the AVA. The dogs were then found to meet the Standard For Restricted Breed Dogs, which was introduced as a way of identifying pit bulls and pit bull crosses in Victoria in September 2011. “Unfortunately their owners recently lost their appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the dogs have been put down. This is exactly why we were opposed to the legislation from the outset. Not only will it fail to prevent dog bites, innocent dogs can clearly end up being scapegoats because of the way they look,” Dr Maastricht said. “While the AVA believes that dogs that have shown aggressive behaviour should be regulated strongly, you can’t tell whether a dog is dangerous just by looking at it, or even by its breed. “We know that all dogs have the potential to react aggressively if scared or threatened but most dogs don’t bite people, so the banning of some breeds over others doesn’t make sense. “The legislation in Victoria is not a solution. Experience in other parts of the world has shown that banning breeds doesn’t reduce dog bites. The AVA stands ready and willing to work with governments to find a more reasonable and realistic solution to what is obviously a complex issue. “Keeping the public safe from dog bites is paramount and requires a coordinated approach involving management of the dogs and education of humans. The AVA recommends that a combination of comprehensive registration of all dogs, early socialisation and training of pups, owner education, public awareness campaigns, adult supervision of children around all dogs and enforcement of leash laws is a much more effective option,” Dr Maastricht said. The AVA is currently preparing a national model for dangerous dog regulations based on effective policy options from around the world. The AVA will be advocating for all states to adopt this model. For further information and requests for interviews contact: Rena Richmond, Media Relations Manager Ph: 02 9431 5062 or 0439 628 898 The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) is the national professional association of veterinary surgeons in Australia. Founded in 1921, the AVA today represents 6800 members working in all areas of animal science, health and welfare.

Yes, it is a pity others haven't got involved.

More evidence of unjust laws http://www.savingpets.com.au/2012/06/a-murder-in-moira/ http://www.savingpets.com.au/2012/06/the-final-moments/comment-page-1/#comment-3974 Tell them what you think! Moira Shire Council - [email protected] CEO Gary Arnold - [email protected] Directors/: Alison Coe [email protected] Bill Hayward - [email protected] Kaye Thompson - [email protected] Aaron Drenovski - [email protected] Mayor Alison Monk - [email protected] Councillors: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Page 5 G40-2012 Terei v Banyule City Council General List 2012 page 5.pdf

Page 4 G40-2012 Terei v Banyule City Council General List 2012 page 4.pdf

More pages in following posts (pages 3 to 5) Evidence from Dr Thurgood, Evidence from Mr Mitchell, evidence from Ms Terei (dog owner) and points 23 to 28 of Legislative background G40-2012 Terei v Banyule City Council General List 2012 pages 3.pdf

Hearing Decision pages 6 and 7 Includes Decision Note, in particular point 33 reproduced here: 33. First, a dog may fall within the definition of "restricted breed dog" as defined in section 3(1) of the Act, if, on the basis of expert opinion, it is classified as an American Pit Bull Terrier, or Pit Bull Terrier, without reference to the Standard. WRONG WRONG WRONG There is nothing in the Act that allows a dog to be classified as a restricted breed dog without reference to the standard, whether an expert opinion or not! G40-2012 Terei v Banyule City Council General List 2012 pages 6-7 Decision.pdf

Hearing Decision pages 1-2 Includes Orders, Reasons and points 8 and 9 on The VCAT Hearing. G40-2012 Terei v Banyule City Council General List 2012 pages 1 to 2.pdf

No to the solicitor. Unrepresented If they couldn't afford a solicitor at VCAT it is most unlikely they can afford the cost of going to the Supreme Court.

Again, I'm totally opposed to BSL in any form but the owner of Ace has to bear a massive portion of the responsibility here if their dog was not only unregistered (which gives the council the power to seize it and have it destroyed) but wandering at large and not contained on their property. That's just asking for the council to act on their new powers, especially with a dog that could in any way meet the standard used for "identifying" pitbulls. Although it doesn't excuse the manner in which Ace came to the Council's attention, Ace was previously registered with another Council.

Let us consider Dr Chris Thurgood's expertise He has the title of Chief Veterinarian of RSPCA Victoria Veterinarians undertake a university undergraduate degree as their basic qualification. During the course they are exposed minimally to information on the various breeds of dogs. As a Veterinary student they do not receive any training in differentiating breed characteristics in crossbred dogs by visual means or any other means. Therefore the training veterinary graduates receive in obtaining their veterinary degree does not make them competent at visually identifying the breed or parentage of dogs. The VCAT member states that "one of his duties at the RSPCA is to determine that dogs in the care of the RSPCA are a restricted breed dog. Restricted breed dogs may not be rehoused". That can hardly qualify him as an expert. After all, was he right or wrong? No-one will ever know. Those poor dogs didn't come with any genetic history. Very possibly, they may not have had any restricted breed dog in their ancestry. Therefore, he has been responsible for causing the death of hundreds if not thousands of dogs simply on the basis of unproven, unvalidated opinion. Surely determining breed parentage where the life of a dog is at stake should be scientifically validated to demonstrate a high level of accuracy and precision? The VCAT member states also that Thurgood was a "previous member of the previous Restricted Breeds Panel". Yes, he volunteered along with other RSPCA employees, some of whom had no qualifications at all, to sit on the previous Restricted breed dog review panels with the requirement to determine that the subject dog was or was not a purebred APBT. How many panels was he on in which his decision was later overturned? Two panels, involving three dogs. Two dogs subsequently went home as the result of a newly convened panel's unanimous decision that the dogs were NOT purebred APBTs. Why would the RSPCA continue to participate when they supposedly don't support this legislation (now that Hugh Wirth has been sidelined)? They (or their employees) no longer receive the $200 odd payment plus travel per panel sitting. Is it to garner favour with the Victorian Government or to enhance the likelihood of a continuing contract for Council pound services? A cynic might say so. In the latest fiasco their Chief Vet spent the majority of a day away from his duties. Were they paid by the Council or did donations "For all Creatures Great and Small (except the APBT)" fund his day in court?

To be continued

Let's look at the Muzzle The standard says "Muzzle: Slightly shorter in length to the skull (i.e. 2:3 ratio for muzzle:skull). It is broad, deep and powerful with a slight taper to the nose and falls away slightly under the eyes. Mr Mitchell measured the dog as 1:1 but changed his evidence at VCAT to "Complies, first written measurements on the checklist were an estimate" So did he present new measurements? No. Was he saying the dog was 1:1, 2:3 or something else? Not reported Thurgood on the other hand concluded that on the basis of the photos it included the ratio was approximately 2:2.5. Member's interpretation "you describe this as conforming reasonably well. He agreed this was very important and he was not concerned (in terms of not meeting the Standard) about this criterion at the inspection" So, I am confused, on one hand it is very important but it doesn't matter that it doesn't meet the standard???? Evidence for the owner: "From Paul Mitchell’s measurements and the Council photos of the dog Ace, he has an approximate 1: 1 ratio for muzzle to skull. Not particularly broad, deep or powerful -very subjective" See attached Council photo Member's decision: Complies

Dr Thurgood's evidence Agreed ears not rose shaped. However, complies due to meeting other points. What are the other points in the standard? "Generally they are set fairly high on the skull, not large and may be half pricked or rose shaped (i.e. folding backwards and exposing the inner burr of the ear)" I guess they are set high on the skull. Not large??????? If agreed not rose shaped, maybe half pricked? I don't think so! Evidence for the owner: Large, pendulous ending in round V shape. Not pricked, set high but definately not rose shaped - Does not comply VCAT Senior Member's decision: Complies

Let's continue with some of Mr Mitchell's highly accurate evidence Let's look at the dog's ears. "Complies with all aspects, including rose shaped" Here is a photo. Sorry about the bad quality - Council picture