Jed

It may be possible to prove the difference between these 2 breeds via DNA. Someone with either breed may like to make enquiries of the testing labs. DNA tests are irrefutable.

Yes it is.

Tybrax, I don't understand. Kylie Chivers in her evidence used work by Brashear and Harvey which states the pitbull and amstaff are the same dog. Yet you say Can you clarify that please? It would seem that Geoff Irwin was only agreeing with K Chivers submission stating that the amstaff and apbt were the same dog. I don't understand.

Have to agree with that. Breed bans are just plain wrong. Grieve for the 10,000 + dogs killed because they were judged to be the "wrong breed". Nothing will make that right. Ever If amstaffs are pitbulls, boxers are bulldogs, cocker spaniels are springer spaniels, right?

I hope the dry food nazis aren't reading this - but Billinghurst and quite a few other studies suggest that feeding a BARF diet or raw means there is far less chance of LP or HD developing. I do feed raw, all my dogs have excellent patellas. I sold one years ago which had LP - he weighed 16kg which didn't help, but I had the op done, and I sat in. The groove in his kneecap was too shallow, which allowed the patella to medially luxate. The vet deepened the groove he is 8 now, no problem. Neither parent had a a problem (sire is 12 now, and heart clear)(mother died at 13, no problem), no one else in the family had a problem either. Made me consider that maybe I was breeding dogs with shallow grooves, but because the pups grew at a steady rate, and the raw developed the connective tissue well, the shallow grooves were never a problem, because the ligament stayed in place, and the ligaments, and muscles all helped tie the whole thing together so the patella never had a chance to luxate. I recently was talking to an older, highly respected cav breeder, who told me my young Biafran Cav was all good, as growing slowly and not being overweight causes no problems. He's had 2 minor pup awards from 2 shows, but he is quite skinny, so he's having a ring holiday. That was a serious statement from years of experience with very good lines and dogs. I took it on board, and I added it to my knowledge of patellas and raw. And I do think raw, if people can manage it, does help as the pups grow. Billinghurst says pups which don't have a problem as pups can develop it later via incorrect nutrition, and I agree with this, from experience. Mine are all 100% at the 8 week check, and I do tend to be the food Nazi with the pups I sell. Trouble is, hard evidence is difficult to come by. My 13 year old Cav had a Gr 1 murmur (MVD) at 8, progressed to Gr 2 recently, which is a fairly long time between grades. She is not on medication, not suffering, but has always been fed raw. Story is that raw is very beneficial for MVD. I believe it now, the number of Cavs who develop a Gr 1 at 8, and have passed on at 10 is the majority Maybe I'm just lucky too! Cos, I wouldn't worry too much. I think he has hurt himself, or it is a growth stage. Breeders are very careful, and although he can have LP even if his parents don't, good breeders tend to know what's in the lines. I'd still talk to the breeder. I have discussed some health issues with mine, and she goes "Oh what rot, just rubbish" very sternly. She's always been right (Which is lucky, I'd be too scared to tell her if she was wrong!!)

The problem is that it was the applicant's evidence, not the defendents. And there were 2 experts who stated the same thing. There are plenty of experts who would state the opposite, but I am not sure whether you can appeal by saying "our evidence was wrong, we have opposing evidence" because I don\t know enough about the rules for appeals.

Oh well, if they are the same breed as the APBT they are undoubtedly as savage, so banning them is probably good. And then they'll add staffies, then rottweilers, then GSD and dobermanns, and then begin on the other breeds. the bite stats wont fall, so they can just keep banning breeds. And when they ban Maltese, and Chihuahua's bite, they can ban them too, then there wont be any dogs, so there wont be any dog attacks. Makes perfect sense to me.

I don't understand this bit either Jed... I can only think it was evidence from much further back in the case some where, although it still doesn't make sense that they would have presented it... but this has been going on for 6 years... I don't think it would have recently been submitted by the applicant... who knows though... According to the summary of the Supreme Court case, it was evidence presented at that case. I have posted it elsewhere in the BSL forum. You will find arguments from Ms Brashear and Harvey in there.

Do the swellings come up and go down, or do they form "heads" and subsequent scabs? I would consider the swellings after the vaccinations a reaction to them - even though they occurred later. Reactions do not always appear within hours. I would research vaccinosis. And to be safe, if you are not doing it already, give her Vit C Other usual suspects are pollen, wandering jew, moses in the basket, cycads, and insect bites - wasps, bees and ants, so check the yard out well.

Restricted dogs Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The decision to make such a local law is at the discretion of each local government, the Minister and state government have limited powers to intervene in local government laws. Rubbish Jed, above is the restricted dogs of Towoomba and Amstaffs are not subject to the Customs Act. We have been down this path previosly. No councils can or have still in force the restriction of any breeds other than subjects of the Customs Act as of July 2009. Couldn't be bothered. Can't you understand what you have written and bolded (above)? Your own quotation disagrees with your argument. I'll write it again Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The customs Act refers to restricted breeds and only those breeds can be restricted by council. However, council doesn't have to restrict any breeds at all which they have the option. That's the Law Jed, your interpretation is wrong No, you're wrong. You have no understanding of the matter at all. You can't understand the written word, or the law, yet you are telling everyone else they are wrong. Try to read it and comprehend it, will you please? You sound very much like a poster named Rex. Jed, think about it more carefully please???. The customs act has nothing to do with local council. Are you saying that a local council can add breeds to the Customs Act for import restriction???. The Customs Act is about the importation of certain dog breeds which it restricts. Those breeds that the Customs Act restricts can also be restricted by local council if they so choose. The Customs Act has nothing to do with the keeping of certain breeds, it's soley about importation/exportation. No, councils can't add anything to the import bans. They have no power to do that. They do, however, have the power to ban breeds from their council areas. The APBT is included in the importation bans, yet they were not banned from council areas when the customs bans were first enacted. That came later. Councils have added breeds to the bans in the past and they will continue to do so. Read the import bans you quoted yourself. They state that councils can add breeds - at will. No further dogs will be banned from import, but councils will ban further breeds from their cities and shires, as they have done already. The only thing, imho, which will save AST being added to GCCC is Dawn whatsername, the GCCC councillor who is anti bans, and will probably fight in council against AST being added. But with the supreme court ruling, other councils may well add AST to the bans. I'm over arguing with you about this. I know a lot about it, and you know nothing, which is quite obvious by what you write, yet you are fully prepared to call me a liar, which I don't think is fair or equitable. Additionally, I QUOTED a passage from the Supreme Court judgement, and you weren't prepared to believe even that. Do you fail to comprehend it, or do you think I am lying because it doesn't accord with your own beliefs? I just don't get it. You can argue with yourself or anyone else who can be bothered. I don't have the energy to provide proof, and still be named as a liar.

Unfortunately, BSL isn't going to be overturned any time soon. Your attitude, and like attitudes will condemn AST and Staffies to breed bans. Papers aren't "easy to manufacture". I have no doubt that there would be some dishonest bogans out there doing this, but it certainly isn't in the best interests of ANY breed And there will come a time when any manufactured papers are "outed"which will lead to more bans.

How pregnant is she? What does she normally eat? If she is +7 weeks, she wont want one big meal a day. You could try her with cooked rolled oats, mixed with milk, a raw egg and honey or glucodin. Rolled oats are better than weetbix, more nutrients, and help bring the milk in - even if she isn't ready to whelp. It is also very easy to digest. And if she hasn't thrown up the milk, keep it up. Goats is better, but hard to acquire. If you can buy honey from a beekeeper, that will be better, if it is processed hot, a lot of the nutrients are lost, but it's still ok. Otherwise, cook up some chicken in a little water, and serve it warm. Sometimes a little vegemite in the water makes it more appetising. Feed her twice or 3 times daily. Cavs can be fussy pre and post whelping, and go off their food. They need more tempting. When the system is busy - whelping, growing pups, injured - it cannot do 2 things at once, and frequently, wont digest under those circumstances, so you need to feed things which are easy to digest. If she will eat the oats mixture, it wont hurt her if that is all she will eat for a week or so. I often find mine wont eat post whelping, but they will eat this.

I can't see how Kylie Chivers can appeal, as she produced evidence that the Amstaff and the APBT were the same breed. What grounds would there by for appeal? Adding more breeds to the bans was only a matter of time. I thought the staffy would be next, but apparently not. It's up to councils now. Some will, some wont. If I had an amstaff, I'd be legging it out of GCCC area as fast as I could go I have posted the Supreme Court judgment in the BSL forum for anyone who is interested. It's not the evidence, it's the judgement only, which is the important part.

To save any misunderstandings, here's the full judgment SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Kylie Louise Chivers v Gold Coast City Council [2010] QSC 98 PARTIES: KYLIE LOUISE CHIVERS (applicant) v GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL (respondent) FILE NO/S: BS6396/07 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application DELIVERED ON: 6 April 2010 DELIVERED AT: Supreme Court, Brisbane HEARING DATE: 29 March 2010 JUDGE: Martin J ORDER: APPLICATION DISMISSED CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – APPLICATION FOR DECLARATION – where respondent decided that the applicant was keeping an American Pit Bull Terrier and therefore contravened the relevant local law – whether applicant was owner of the dog – whether applicant had standing to seek judicial review ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – APPLICATION FOR DECLARATION – where respondent decided that the applicant was keeping an American Pit Bull Terrier and therefore contravened the relevant local law – whether an American Pit Bull Terrier is the same breed as an American Staffordshire Terrier Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) Customs Act 1901 (Cth) Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth) Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) Local Government Act 1993 (Qld) Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals) 1998 (Gold Coast City Council) Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld) Subordinate Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of 2 Animals) 2007 (Gold Coast City Council) Parker v Annan [1993] SCCR 185 R v Knightsbridge Crown Court; ex p. Dunne [1994] 1 WLR 296 COUNSEL: S P Fynes-Clinton for the applicant R J Bain QC and R Quirk for the respondent SOLICITORS: Counsel directly briefed for the applicant King and Co for the respondent [1] This application concerns the fate of a dog called “Tango”. In 2004 the Gold Coast City Council decided that Tango was an American Pit Bull Terrier and ordered that he be destroyed. The applicant appealed that order. She and the Council reached a compromise – he was not destroyed; but he had to leave the Gold Coast. The applicant says that she has satisfied a particular term of the compromise and that means that Tango should be able to come back to the Gold Coast. Whether he can is the matter for decision.. Application for review [2] The applicant brings her application under Pt 5 of the Judicial Review Act 1991. She seeks:- (a) a declaration that the keeping by the applicant of her dog “Tango” at her home … , in the local government area of the City of Gold Coast, does not contravene s 10 of the respondent’s Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals); and (b) an injunction restraining the respondent from seizing or otherwise interfering with the dog “Tango” for so long as it is otherwise kept in accordance with the respondent’s Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals). [3] The grounds upon which the application is brought include:- (a) that Tango is of the breed American Staffordshire Terrier (“AmStaff”). (b) that the evidence upon which the respondent Council purported to rely in support of its assertion that Tango was an American Pit Bull Terrier (“APBT”) was of no value because the assessment process used by the respondent was incapable of identifying whether a dog was wholly or partly of the breed APBT. [4] The major issues are: (a) who is the current owner of Tango, (b) whether Tango is an APBT, and © whether the APBT is a breed apart from the AmStaff. 3 [5] In April 2004 Tango was seized by the respondent Council and was made the subject of a destruction order. That action was taken on the basis that he was an APBT and, so, came within the provisions of the then relevant local law dealing with the keeping of a prohibited animal. [6] The applicant, who was then the owner of Tango, appealed against the destruction order. In August 2004 that appeal was settled and a consent order was made by the Magistrates Court in the following terms:- “1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. Within 21 days the dog “Tango” be released by the respondent to the appellant at a location outside the GCCC jurisdictional area, the costs of transportation to be met by the appellant. 3. The dog is never to be returned to the GCCC jurisdictional area unless the appellant is able to satisfy the respondent that the dog is a purebred American Staffordshire terrier. 4. Prior to the dog’s release to the appellant, the dog is to be micro-chipped by the respondent at the appellant’s expense. 5. There be no order as to costs.” [7] There was no jurisdiction to make orders 2, 3 and 4 but, for the purposes of this application that is of no moment. Those orders represent, at least, the agreement reached between the appellant and the respondent. [8] This application was filed in July 2007. Since then there have been substantial changes to the legislation relating to the issue of “restricted dogs”. As the applicant seeks declarations as to current entitlement it is necessary to examine the current legislation and other statutory regimes that apply. Relevant legislation [9] The Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (“AMCDA”) commenced on 1 July 2009. One of the purposes of the AMCDA is “to provide for the effective management of regulated dogs”.1 [10] The AMCDA does not prevent a local law from imposing (further) requirements in relation to cats or dogs generally.2 A local authority may make a local law prohibiting anyone in its local government area, other than an exempted person, from possessing a dog of a particular breed.3 “Breed” includes crossbreed of a breed, and “local law” includes a subordinate local law.4 1 AMCDA, s. 3(b). 2 AMCDA, s. 6(1). 3 AMCDA, s. 6(2). 4 AMCDA, s. 6(5). 4 [11] To the extent that the AMCDA and a local law are inconsistent, the local law is invalid to the extent of any inconsistency.5 The AMCDA does not limit a civil right or remedy that exists apart from the Act, whether at common law or otherwise.6 AMCDA, Chapter 4, Regulated dogs [12] A regulated dog is a “restricted dog”.7 A restricted dog is, relevantly, “a dog of a breed prohibited from importation into Australia under the Customs Act 1901 (Cwlth).”8 [13] The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cwlth), r. 3 provides: “3 Goods the importation of which is prohibited absolutely (1) The importation of goods specified in Schedule 1 is prohibited absolutely.” [14] Schedule 1 to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 relevantly provides: “Schedule 1 Goods the importation of which is prohibited absolutely (regulation 3) Item Description of goods 2 Advertising matter relating to any goods covered by this Schedule 26 Dogs of the following breeds: (a) dogo Argentino; (b) fila Brasileiro; © Japanese tosa; (d) American pit bull terrier or pit bull terrier;” [15] The AMCDA provides: “71 Permit required for restricted dog A person must not, unless the person has a reasonable excuse, own, or be a responsible person for, a restricted dog unless the relevant local government has issued a restricted dog permit to someone to keep the dog. Maximum penalty – 75 penalty units.” [16] Chapter 4, part 3 of the AMCDA deals with restricted dog permits. Section 10 of Gold Coast City Council Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals) 5 AMCDA, s. 6(3). 6 AMCDA, s. 7(1). 7 AMCDA, s. 60©. 8 AMCDA, s. 63(1). 5 [17] Section 10 of Gold Coast City Council Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals)(“Local Law 12”) provides: “10(1) A local law policy may prohibit absolutely:- (a) the keeping of an animal; (b) the keeping of particular species, breed, age or sex of an animal; © the keeping of an animal in an identified part of the Area; and (d) the keeping of more than a specified number of an animal. (2) A person must not keep an animal contrary to a prohibition mentioned in subsection (1). Maximum Penalty: 50 Penalty Units” [18] The Gold Coast City Council Subordinate Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals) 2007 (“Subordinate Local Law No. 12”) relevantly provides: “24 Prohibition on keeping of restricted dogs – Local Law, s10(1) (1) A person must not keep a restricted dog in the local government area of the local government.” [19] There are a number of exceptions to the prohibition in s. 24(1) of Subordinate Local Law No. 12. None of those is asserted in the Application to be applicable. [20] Section 3 and Schedule 1 to Subordinate Local Law No. 12 provide for the definition of particular words used in Subordinate Local Law No. 12. Schedule 1 provides: “restricted dog has the meaning given in section 1193E of the Act. Section 1193E of the Act provides that a restricted dog is a dog – (a) of a breed as follows – (i) dogo Argentino; (ii) fila Brasileiro; (iii) Japanese tosa; or (b) of the type commonly known as ‘American pit bull terrier’ or ‘pit bull terrier’; or ‘pit bull terrier’; or © of a breed or type prescribed under a regulation; or (d) that is a crossbreed, or the offspring of, a dog of a breed or type mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or ©, whether or not the dog appears to be a dog of that type or breed. Also, a dog is a restricted dog if it is the subject of a restricted dog declaration.” [21] That section was omitted from the Local Government Act 1993 on 1 July 2009, as was the whole of chapter 17A. From that time, the definition of “restricted dog” in the AMCDA has applied.9 9 Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s. 14H; Statutory Instruments Act 1992, ss. 7, 14, schedule 1. 6 [22] It follows, then, that an American pit bull terrier, or a pit bull terrier or a cross-breed of one or other of them is a restricted dog the keeping of which is prohibited. Ownership [23] The respondent raised the standing of the applicant to bring the application and argued that she was not, at the time of making the application, nor at the hearing, the owner of Tango and that, therefore, she had no relevant interest upon which to make her application. [24] This submission was based upon the evidence contained in a series of documents which made up Exhibit 8. The first was a facsimile transmitted by the applicant to an officer of the respondent on 10 September 2004 following the “consent order” referred to above. The body of the document reads:- “To Geoff Irwin Tango is now owned by Brian Jones. He has taken over the ownership of the microchip and registered Tango in NSW. He will be contacting you to arrange to collect Tango. I have attached copies of the registration and microchip change of ownership. Kylie Chivers” [25] Attached to the facsimile was a document entitled “Declaration Change of Ownership”. It appears to be a document relating to a micro-chip registry conducted by a private concern. The document is signed in the appropriate places by both the applicant and Brian Jones, the applicant’s step-father. The document refers to the applicant as the previous owner and Mr Jones as the new owner. It is dated 9 September 2004. [26] The applicant was cross-examined and re-examined on this documentation. The gist of her evidence was that she regarded Tango as her dog or her family’s dog. There was no evidence that anything had changed since her statement to the Council made in the facsimile of 10 September 2004. [27] In re-examination the applicant was asked the following by Mr Fynes-Clinton: “Having regard to what you were asked and what you have seen about the involvement of Mr Jones, would you please explain to the court the nature of your current interest in the dog Tango as at today, 29 March 2004? --- He is my dog. That’s why I am here, so I can bring him home.” [28] Tango has been living in New South Wales since 21 September 2004 when he was collected by Mr Jones from Council officers. Ms Chivers gave evidence that she has, since that time, paid kennel fees of approximately $17,000.00. [29] In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate there has been a change in the position since that notified by the applicant in September 2004, I find that the applicant was not, at the time of making the application nor at the time of its hearing, the owner of Tango. 7 [30] Should I be wrong in that conclusion I will consider the other matters raised in the application. What breed is Tango? [31] It is reasonable to infer from the agreement which underlay the “consent order” that, at that time, both the applicant and the respondent were of the view that an American Pit Bull Terrier was not the same breed as an American Staffordshire Terrier. [32] That view appears to have been maintained by the Council (at least to the knowledge of the applicant) until the hearing of this application when, in reliance upon the expert evidence called by the applicant, it submitted that an ABPT is the same breed as an AmStaff. [33] The history of the dog is, in brief, that the applicant purchased Tango from her brother. The applicant says that Tango’s sire (“Zeus”) and dam (“Jessie”) were AmStaffs. Tango has never been registered but a full sister from her litter – “Miss Maudi” – is registered as an AmStaff. [34] A senior scientist at Genetic Technologies Corporation Pty Ltd undertook genetic parentage testing of samples taken from Tango, Zeus and Jessie and formed the view that Jessie and Zeus “qualify” with a reasonable level of scientific certainty as the parents of Tango. [35] I am satisfied that Tango is the son of Jessie and Zeus, that each of those dogs was an AmStaff and that, in the ordinary course of events, Tango would be regarded as an AmStaff. That, though, is not the end of the matter. [36] Other expert evidence was called by the applicant from a Mrs Brashears and a Miss Harvey. This was evidence which, as it turned out, was relied upon more by the Council than the applicant. [37] Mrs Brashears’s evidence (which consisted of an affidavit and a transcript of evidence given by her in another case) was admitted pursuant to s 92 of the Evidence Act 1977. Since making the affidavit and giving that evidence, Mrs Brashears has passed away. There was no objection to the receipt of her evidence. She was an experienced owner and breeder of AmStaffs and APBTs in the United States of America. She was registered as a breeder with both the American Kennel Club (“AKC”) and the United Kennel Club (“UKC”). Her evidence was that a dog which is a purebred APBT is exactly the same dog in terms of genetic history and make up as a dog which is a purebred AmStaff. She explained the reasons for the difference in names in the following way: “4. Based on information which can be obtained from the AKC and UKC web sites, all of which is consistent with general industry knowledge and understanding among Amstaff breeders, and certainly with my own knowledge and understanding:- (a) the common origin of the two breeds arose out of crossbreeding between the English Bulldog and one 8 or more breeds of English Terrier, in England, in the early to mid-19th-century; (b) these dogs began to make their way to the United States in the later part of the 19th-centry, in which country they become known as Pit Dog, Pit Bull Terrier and, later, American Bull Terrier; © the United Kennel Club in the United States first recognised and registered the breed under the name American Pit Bull Terrier in 1898; (d) in 1936, the same dogs began to be accepted for registration by the American Kennel Club under the name Staffordshire Terrier; (e) my understanding of the reason for this name change is that:- (i) while most of the ABPTs were used as farm dogs, or fighting dogs, there was a group that wanted to show their dogs in conformation, which UKC did not offer – there was no UKC breed standard at the time; (ii) these persons tried to get AKC to accept them for registration so they could show, and they wrote the original APBT/Amstaff breed standard for show purposes and proved pure breeding, but AKC would not allow the name due to the association with pit fighting; (iii) for similar reasons, the AKC would not let these persons use the name American Bull Terrier either (one of the considerations) as the white (Hinks) Bull terrier breeders did not want them confused with their breed; (iv) finally, the AKC agreed to accept the breed for registration and showing under the name Staffordshire Terrier, which the original Amstaff owners accepted. (f) in 1972, the AKC changed the name to American Staffordshire Terrier, to avoid confusion with the then newly accepted breed of Staffordshire Bull Terrier.” [38] Mrs Brashears then went on in her statement to give examples from her own experience of a dog which she owned – “Presley” – which, in the AKC, won prizes as an AmStaff and, in the UKC, won prizes as an APBT. Her evidence concluded with the opinion that: “Although different breeders of the respective breeds may select different features for attempted emphasis for show judging purposes through selective breeding, the two breeds are in all material respects genetically and physically identical.” [39] Evidence was also adduced by way of affidavit from Jane Harvey who has been involved in dog exhibiting and breeding in Australia for over 58 years. She also referred to the names used by the AKC and other kennel clubs and said: 9 “I am aware that, for some periods, the AKC has permitted dogs which are registered with the UKC as American Pit Bull Terriers to also be registered with the AKC as pedigreed AmStaffs. The two ‘breeds’ come from a common original breeding line, and are in that sense the same dog.” [40] None of the relevant laws or instruments, or the Commonwealth or State interpretation Acts, provide a meaning for the term “breed”.10 The Macquarie Concise Dictionary defines “breed” relevantly as:11 “Breed 6. Genetics a relatively homogeneous group of animals within a species, developed and maintained by human intervention. 7. Lineage; strain.” [41] The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following as a relevant definition of “breed”: “Race, lineage, stock, family; strain; a line of descendants from a particular parentage, and distinguished by particular hereditary qualities.” [42] The determination of whether a dog is of a particular breed can be quite difficult. There is, on the evidence before me, no satisfactory scientific method such as DNA analysis which provides a reliable answer. The word “breed” itself has to be applied carefully. To determine whether a dog is of a particular breed is, of course, a question of fact. [43] A breed of dog is not the same as a type of dog. In other jurisdictions the difficulty of identification has been acknowledged. In Parker v Annan12 Lord Hope LJG said: “There is an absence of any precise criteria by which a pit bull terrier may be identified positively as a breed and by this means distinguished from all other dogs. One must of course be careful not to extend the application of the section to dogs other than those which are described in it. A dog must be of the type known as the pit bull terrier if the section is to apply to it. But the phrase used by the statute enables a broad and practical approach to be taken, in a field in which it has been recognised that the pit bull terrier cannot, in this country at least, be precisely defined by breed or pedigree.” [44] That passage was adopted by Glidewell LJ in R v Knightsbridge Crown Court; ex p. Dunne13 who said: 10 cf. AMCDA, s. 6(5): “breed” includes a crossbreed of a breed. 11 Macquarie Concise Dictionary, Fifth Ed., 2009. 12 [1993] SCCR 185 at 190-191. 13 [1994] 1 WLR 296. 10 “…the word ‘type’ is not synonymous with the word ‘breed’. The definition of a breed is normally that of some recognised body such as the Kennel Club in the United Kingdom.”14 [45] In this case there is unchallenged evidence as to the identity of the APBT and the AmStaff. The conclusion that I draw from that evidence is that the name “American Staffordshire Terrier” is a name which was adopted in the United States of America for purposes of promotion or other similar reasons and that that name was applied to American Pit Bull Terriers. All the evidence points to the same dog being given different names, that is, American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier, so that a dog recognised as being of one of those “breeds” is the same as a dog identified as being of the other “breed”. That practice appears to have been adopted in Australia. It follows then that the views held by the Council when it entered into the “consent order” were unfounded and that there is no difference between an APBT and AmStaff. Therefore, as I am satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that Tango is an AmStaff it follows that Tango is also an ABPT and is thus subject to the restrictions under the local laws referred above. Conclusion [46] The applicant is not the owner of the dog the subject of this application. The dog “Tango” is an American Pit Bull Terrier and is, thus, subject to the Council’s Subordinate Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals) 2007. [47] The application is dismissed. I will hear the parties as to costs. 14 At 303.

Restricted dogs Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The decision to make such a local law is at the discretion of each local government, the Minister and state government have limited powers to intervene in local government laws. Rubbish Jed, above is the restricted dogs of Towoomba and Amstaffs are not subject to the Customs Act. We have been down this path previosly. No councils can or have still in force the restriction of any breeds other than subjects of the Customs Act as of July 2009. Couldn't be bothered. Can't you understand what you have written and bolded (above)? Your own quotation disagrees with your argument. I'll write it again Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The customs Act refers to restricted breeds and only those breeds can be restricted by council. However, council doesn't have to restrict any breeds at all which they have the option. That's the Law Jed, your interpretation is wrong No, you're wrong. You have no understanding of the matter at all. You can't understand the written word, or the law, yet you are telling everyone else they are wrong. Try to read it and comprehend it, will you please? You sound very much like a poster named Rex.

I would like to ask why the applicant used the arguments of Ms Harvey & Brashear which stated the APBT and Amstaff were the same breed? The judge agreed with the applicant's argument. This argument and subsequent judgement puts EVERY Amstaff in the GCCC area at grave risk.[/b] And possibly Amstaffs in other council areas, if other councils follow the lead of GCCC Why on earth was that done, someone who was involved with this case?? And there's hardly any point in beating up GCCC when the applicant argued their case!! This is the relevant section, from the case. The judge's summing up of the matter. (the "I" mentioned, is the judge, J. Martin

That's really interesting. When they banned APBT, they banned Amstaffs too - rationale was "they couldn't tell the difference". Submissions were made, discussions held, blah blah, seemed like a waste of time. Maybe it wasn't. Or maybe a change in council brought a change in policy. I am sure they received a lot of submissions from different groups. Maybe the EDBA's lobbying, and some of the court cases councils lost helped them change their minds. Some good news for a change. Some shires are very Amstaff and non-papered dog friendly too.

tybrax Wasn't this proven in previous cases, and the reason for the amendment to the regulations recently?

I have just read a copy of the judges decision and the GCCC is not to blame for this outcome. Tango was positively identified some years ago by GCCC as an Amstaff and the GCCC offered to release the dog to its owners. Where things all went pearshaped is that Tango's owners endeavoured to go one step further. They appear to have sought a ruling that would favour the APBT as well. The defendant (Chivers) produced evidence which suggested that Amstaffs and APBT were the same brred of dog. All that the GCCC legal team did was to ask the judge (based on Chivers own evidence) whether an Amstaff and an APBT were the same breed of dog. The judge's decision (based on the evidence of the case before him) was that "yes" they are the same breed. Surely not ? Absolutely.

Restricted dogs Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law. The decision to make such a local law is at the discretion of each local government, the Minister and state government have limited powers to intervene in local government laws. Rubbish Jed, above is the restricted dogs of Towoomba and Amstaffs are not subject to the Customs Act. We have been down this path previosly. No councils can or have still in force the restriction of any breeds other than subjects of the Customs Act as of July 2009. Couldn't be bothered. Can't you understand what you have written and bolded (above)? Your own quotation disagrees with your argument. I'll write it again Under the commonwealth Customs Act 1901, local governments can prohibit certain breeds (or cross breeds) of dogs in their jurisdictions, under a local law.

I agree with this, if we could stick together and threaten to vote elsewhere, the gov would take notice, particularly in marginal seats. The labour party has been and is responsible for BSL, and for other bans affecting dogs. Incidentally, I believe the Qld govt under the labour party, was the first state government to introduce BSL. Please correct me if I am wrong.

A rottweiler killed someone, a mastiffx killed someone. Gov hasn't banned them. I don't believe that the APBT is more likely to kill someone that the dogs which have already killed people. Don't forget, a purebred APBT has never been responsible for a fatal attack on a person in Aust. Why should that change if the bans were lifted. They didn't kill anyone pre-bans. APBT are the same as other dogs. Not worse, not better. they are not generally HA.

The out come of this case may well change that. There is a massive difference between condemning a breed like the APBT that has never been ANKC recognised than a breed that is already established, law suits flying all over the place Criminilising established recognised breeds will never happen...........too much fallout to contend with. There is NO difference between condeming APBT and ANKC registered breeds. Some ANKC breeds are banned or restricted in Queensland already, and I have no doubt that those bans will spread to other states, at the whim of various councils. Registered Amstaffs are completely banned from Toowoomba, and have been since the instigation of the bans. Unregistered dogs are totally at risk, or those dogs whose papers cannot be found. People only have the right to own and breed AST UNTIL councils add the breed to their banned lists, or until government adds them to the imports banned. Council bans of a ANKC breeds has happened, and it will continue to happen. Don't fool yourself that ANKC registration is some magic incantation which will save a breed. It wont. It hasn't. Eventually, ALL AST will be added to banned lists, as will staffies. MANY FCI breeds, including GSDs are restricted breeds in Germany, last I heard. And I don't think anything has changed. People support BSL because it's not their breed, and those horrible pitbulls should be banned anyhow. When it's their breed, they wont be so happy. I have no idea why people think the bans will only ever apply to pitbulls. It was plain from the beginning, and from what has happened overseas (where many FCI breeds are banned in various places, and not "fighting" breeds either) that breeds would be added to the bans as time passed. I think it was discussed and forecast on this forum years ago. Consider the Scottish Fold Cat. A valid, registered breed. Now banned from breeding in Victoria - with the stoke of a pen. Yep, it's a cat, not a dog, but what's the difference? None

CONGRATULATIONS!! How exciting for you. Bet you were over the moon. Hope that is the beginning of many more to come.

tlc, a "good" vet can tell by manipulation without an x-ray. Some dogs without LP do skip. The kneecap is a small bone at the front of the stifle joint. A ligament runs across the top of it from top to bottom. In the area where the ligament runs is a groove, and the ligament slots into this. Usually luxating patellas are medially luxating, and mostly the groove is not deep enough to hold the ligament in place. If the patellas are ok, there is no luxation. All the vet has to do, mostly, is try to move the leg sideways around the stifle joint -if it moves, the patellas are luxated, if not, they are ok. I get my dogs checked (and all the pups checked) and my vet can tell by feeling. I am sure yours can too. I have noticed that a lot of little dogs, mini foxies, JRT etc do skip a step occasionally, and they have good patellas. Sometimes wonder if it is a habit. Of course, it can also be a sign of LP, so wise to have it checked.