lmwvic

Petition for another dog heading to the Supreme Court at: http://www.causes.com/actions/1731598-free-bobo?token=Ra69T6vHMqrFKV0WBP9YQuKF&utm_campaign=activity_progress_mailer%2Fnth_action_taken&utm_medium=email&utm_source=causes Please sign and share

Great result in the Supreme Court. Both dogs (one with puppies) now home for Christmas. Another dog's Supreme Court Appeal allowed on basis of previous Supreme Court finding. At this stage Rocket is heading back to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for another review. Hopefully Council involved will see sense and send this dog home also! For more info see http://www.facebook.com/DogsOnTrialDOTVictoria

Yes, they may seize a dog for rushing. The relevant bits of the Act are as follows: s.29 29 Offences and liability relating to dog attacks (7)If a dog rushes at or chases any person, the person in apparent control of the dog at the time the dog rushed at or chased the first-mentioned person, whether or not the owner of the dog, is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty of not more than 4 penalty units. (8)If a dog rushes at or chases any person, the owner of the dog, if not liable for the offence under subsection (7), is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty of not more than 4 penalty units. s.81 81 Seizure of dog urged or trained to attack or having attacked (1)An authorised officer of a Council may seize a dog that is in the municipal district of that Council if— (a) the owner has been found guilty of an offence under section 28 or 28A with respect to that dog; or (b) the authorised officer reasonably suspects that the owner has committed an offence under section 28 or 28A with respect to that dog. (2)An authorised officer of a Council may seize a dog that is in the municipal district of that Council if— (a) a person has been found guilty of an offence under section 29 with respect to that dog; or (b) the authorised officer reasonably suspects that a person has committed an offence under section 29 with respect to that dog. They would be back with a warrant if the owner refused to hand over.

Pookie, Some of the information provided above is incorrect. Your dog CANNOT be declared dangerous as a result of a so-called rush. The Act has clear requirements for the declaration of a dog as a dangerous dog. Your description of the incident would only permit the Council to declare your dog menacing. Get a statement from your neighbour that your dog was called, responded and ran PAST the child. I would think this does not constitute a rush except to the two-legged bullies you are dealing with. After all, if the dog was rushing the child it would not have run straight past. With respect to the restricted breed declaration. If you do not win in VCAT your dog's declaration as a restricted breed will remain. However, you may register him as a restricted breed and take him home because he was registered (as any breed) with your Council and he was in existence in Victoria prior to September 1, 2010. There will be additional requirements such as the manner of housing that you must comply with. Best Wishes

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2012/03/09/home_for_venus/ © By June Maxam LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND—After being locked away from her owner for almost a year, Venus is going home! The death sentence lodged against Venus, a Staffordshire bull terrier cross, was vacated Friday in a Liverpool appeals court. A year ago this month, Venus, then a year and a day old, was seized by police under the United Kingdom’s draconian Dangerous Dog Act because she was arbitrarily labeled a “pit bull type”. In July, 2011, a judge ordered her destroyed and she’s been on death row since then. Her sister, born just moments apart, had been exempted under the UK’s breed specific legislation. An assessment video of Venus, conducted in July, 2011 by assessor Guy Richardson, some four months after she was seized, showed what a near-perfect, well-behaved, docile, socialized dog she is. It seemed clear that the original judge had seriously abused his discretion in issuing the destruction order. Venus, owned by Victoria Flynn from Kent,England, was seized with her litter-sister Athena in March 2011. Their ‘mum’ had travelled to visit relatives in Liverpool for the weekend, taking Venus and Athena with her, as she couldn’t bear to be apart from them. Last July, even after viewing the assessment view, the judge, one man playing God and perhaps with a personal bias towards pit bulls or maybe the owner, refused to accept the honest and open assessment, unrealistically decreeing that Venus was a threat to public safety and that she should be destroyed rather than be exempted and returned to her owner as Athena has been. The dog was seized by Constable P. Casson, “dog legislation officer” of the Merseyside Police. In the 13 minute long assessment video in which the dog is virtually terrorized by the assessor and yet remains totally docile and obedient, the assessor labels her as “friendly and quite well-behaved”. Athena had been returned eight days after she was seized as police decided she wasn’t ‘of type’, but they kept Venus under section 4b of the Dangerous Dog Act, despite both dogs being of the same litter. Athena’s owner was not allowed to collect her due to Venus being kept at the same kennels. Venus’ owner has not been allowed to visit Venus since she was seized in March and the dog has been held in captivity in a secret location. At the initial court hearing in July, Venus and her owner had no legal representation as because Venus’ assessment report was so glowing, it was thought she would be going home. Venus had passed her police and individual behavior assessments deeming her to be safe and a danger to no one. The judge however refused to take these assessments into consideration, seemingly hell bent to kill an innocent dog. Flynn was represented at the appeal on Friday. A behaviorist for the defense went toe to toe with infamous dog trainer Peter Tallack, the proescution’s witness but when the dust was settled, Tallack had his tail between his legs and Venus was headed home. The solicitor, who is also a veterinarian, insisted on Venus’ assessment video being seen by the judge to argue the point of measurements. The supporter said that judge denied the prosecution kennel costs totaling 240 pounds or about $376, from the date of seizure because he said the magistrates should have dealt with the case months ago. The judge praised Victoria’s care of the dog and said he had no qualms about releasing her once the dog was tattooed and the paperwork completed. The original appeal date for Venus in an effort to save the dog’s life was set for Sept. 26 in Liverpool Crown Court. Her owner was told she had to raise £3,000 to £4,000 to pay court fees plus £10 per day police kennel fees. That date was canceled and an appeal date was set for Dec. 21 which was also then canceled. A petition pleading for the court and government to return Venus to her owner and litter mate has collected over 13,000 signatures. 3-9-12

dog-owner, I am very very sorry for your loss. Ignore the self-righteous. It is not your fault (and it is not the fault of the dogs)-what has happened to you could potentially happen to any dog owner.

In this instance Nillumbik Pound operated by Nillumbik Council was not at fault. The Local Laws Officers / Rangers / Dog Catchers were Banyule Council employees. The dog was taken there out of normal hours. Banyule Council at that time contracted to use the facilities at Nillumbik to house their impounded dogs. Interestingly, I understand the two involved left Council employ shortly after to go, god knows where and do god knows what?????

No doubt about it. They were slaughtered!

The two "restricted breed" dogs were slaughtered also. Humanely of course! By the Council doing the Government's bidding.

This is the Age's version http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/tot-mauled-in-savage-dog-attack-20111117-1nkg3.html Tot mauled in savage dog attack Steven Talevski November 17, 2011 - 2:44PM At least three people - including a year-old baby boy - have been attacked by a savage dog in Melbourne's west today. And the child and a woman were only saved when a passer-by bundled them into his car as the bull terrier circled the vehicle in Burnside about 11am. Paramedic Mathew Singh said a man intervened and stopped the attack. "The dog had apparently attacked the boy who suffered minor scratches to his face," Mr Singh said. "The dog then turned its attention to the man who had stopped and attacked him but he wasn't hurt." The passer-by put the woman and the baby into his car as the dog was circling and threatening to attack and drove them to a nearby medical centre. “His efforts certainly reduced the chance of further attack,” Mr Singh said. Mr Singh said a neighbour who heard the commotion and came to assist was also attacked and suffered minor injuries. The dog was later caught by Melton Council rangers and the police. A spokeswoman from the Melton Shire said that the dog had been taken to the Melton pound where it will remain in custody until investigations by the Melton Shire and Victoria police conclude. Mauled=minor scratches and "The dog then turned its attention to the man who had stopped and attacked him but he wasn't hurt." ??????????????????????????????

Great effort shekhina! :)

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dog-lovers-rally-in-defence-of-a-breed-of-their-own-20111020-1ma99.html Dog lovers rally in defence of a breed of their own Stathi Paxinos October 21, 2011 Veterinarian Karen Davies, with Sonny, a registered pit bull, dislikes breed-specific laws. Photo: Jason South JUST days after the Victorian government ended its amnesty on unregistered restricted-breed dogs, Point Cook veterinarian Karen Davies did something that hurt her more than anything else in her career. Her two decades as a vet has included a stint in the emotionally draining area of working with shelter animals. But earlier this month, she put down a healthy and seemingly well-adjusted dog because of the way it looked. Haunted by the experience, she posted an entry on her clinic's Facebook page, which read in part: ''Today for the first time in 20 years I am questioning if I still want to do this job. My staff and I are all in tears after having to put down our first pit bull under the new legislation. ''He had been dumped, by an owner who had put in the time for this magnificent dog to be friendly to all, shake hands and worse still licked my face with kisses as he passed … to the unknown dog that now sleeps in the arms of my staff with our tears, may life make you look different next time because in this life that was your only flaw.'' The comments were picked up online and posted on online discussion groups and Dr Davies has now been propelled into the front line of those fighting breed-specific legislation at rallies in Melbourne and Sydney tomorrow. She will be a speaker at the rally that will start at Federation Square and march to Parliament House to protest against the method of the crackdown on restricted breeds. Council officers are now able to use visual guidelines to seize and possibly put down a dog that looks like an American pit bull terrier or a cross if it has not been registered as a restricted breed. This has led to people dumping dogs on the street or at veterinary clinics, rather than complying with the requirements. ''Putting to sleep a perfectly healthy animal that would fit into any happy home for no reason other than he had a label on him because of his looks was dreadful,'' she said. Dr Davies and rally organisers believe that dangerous dogs of any breed should be destroyed. But they point to countries, such as the Netherlands and Italy, which have repealed breed-specific legislation, to argue that the current approach does not reduce dog attacks. In Victoria there are five types of dogs classified as restricted breeds, but dog trainer Brad Griggs, who has helped organise the Melbourne rally, said there was no science to back such policies. Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh said yesterday the government had been pleased with the way the regulations had been received, helping raise awareness in the community. ''My view is there has been overwhelming support for what we've done with the restricted-breed dogs,'' he said. ''People want to feel safe in their community from those particular types of dogs, and we have done that.'' He was not able to provide the number of dogs that had been surrendered, impounded or destroyed, or how many were subject to an appeal. ''It would be a number of weeks before the first lot of statistics come through,'' he said. The Lost Dogs Home's managing director, Graeme Smith, said he ''fully supports'' the government's move. ''I'm not going to stand by and see dogs kill other animals or people,'' Dr Smith said. ''I'm strong on it, and I won't [kowtow to] people who are trying to wreck the government's initiatives.''

Exactly. I have no issue with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club promoting the virtues of their breed (and incidently I am a Staffordshire Bull Terrier owner) but I find it offensive that they are prepared to denigrate another breed they most likely have no experience with.

When will the ANKC breed clubs get their heads out of the sand and start protecting all dogs regardless of their preferred breed??????

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-war-on-terrier-perfect-pet-or-killing-machine-20111001-1l331.html ONE is an outlawed killer, feared for its brutality. The other is the sook of the canine world, a favoured family pet, thanks to its seemingly bottomless need to show and receive affection. At first glance it can be hard to tell the difference, and for the owners of Staffordshire bull terriers, the state government crackdown on the pit bull terrier menace is making for nervous days. Already, Staffie owners deal with the nervous glances and hurried sidesteps as they go for a walk with their pet. Now they contend with an even bigger worry, as the public is invited to dob in dangerous dogs, and council rangers are told to identify problem breeds on sight, something even canine experts say is difficult. It's a problem Fiona Gillies knows well with her pet, Riley. ''Sometimes when we go to the playground with him, you clear the playground,'' she says. ''You'll see people pick up their small dogs and walk off. ''I was walking around the Tan with him and a ranger came up and asked me if I had the proper papers for the dog. Which we do, of course. People are very confused.'' The state government's dangerous and restricted breeds legislation is aimed at clearing streets and neighbourhoods of aggressive breeds, after a fatal attack on four-year-old Ayen Chol, of St Albans, last month. But there is concern that harmless pets and innocent breeds will be swept up in the campaign. As of last Friday, dogs deemed in the ''restricted and dangerous category'' can be confiscated and put down. Fiona Gillies & Holly with their family Staffordshire terrier Riley. Pic By Craig Sillitoe CSZ/The Sunday Age28/9/2011 The rush to amend legislation after the Chol tragedy worries Reece Fry, president of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Victoria, who has embarked on a campaign to help people recognise the differences between Staffies and the breeds being targeted. ''It's a knee-jerk thing, a typical government knee-jerk, thinking 'we better do something quickly','' Mr Fry said. ''People see 'bull' in the name and they assume you've got a bad breed. If they are going to do it properly and give council rangers these powers, they need to educate the rangers to recognise the breeds of dog. It's obvious the public has this misconception, and I'd guess many rangers have this misconception as well.'' It is of particular importance with Staffies, simply because there are so many of them, Mr Fry says. ''They are in the top five dogs in Australia as pets, and that's because they are loving, friendly and loyal. It's because of their nature.'' Mr Fry hates even talking about pit bulls and Staffies in the same sentence. ''Pit bulls have a much bigger head. They are generally just bigger. Staffies are shorter, they're not as long, they've got shorter legs, and their temperament is totally different to that of a pit bull.'' But concrete identification of any breed is difficult, experts say, even for vets. Cross-breeding, even in the distant past, can complicate identification. There are Staffordshire bull terriers, popularly known as English Staffies; there are American Staffordshire terriers; there are pit bull terriers; and then there are the cross-breeds, such as the pit-bull-mastiff cross that attacked Ayen Chol. Maria Mercurio, of the RSPCA, said the association had concerns about the new laws, in line with its policy that when it comes to dogs: ''We talk about the deed, not the breed. Any breed of dog can be dangerous.'' And when it comes to nailing a particular breed she is worried mistakes inevitably will be made. ''It's nearly impossible to say with any certainty,'' she says. ''And there is no DNA test that can tell with any certainty. This is not an exact science. Vets are saying, 'We're not going to do it.' It's too fraught.'' Susan Maastricht, president of the Victorian division of the Australian Veterinary Association, agrees. The association is seeking legal advice on the responsibilities and liabilities of vets under the new rules. ''The Australian Veterinary Association believes the legislation proposed in Victoria is not a long-term solution,'' she says. ''The risk is that this could lull the community into a false sense of security.''

http://news.vin.com/VINNews.aspx?articleId=19920 Australian officials to kill pit bulls, other 'dangerous' breeds September 29, 2011 By: Angie DeRosa For The VIN News Service A law takes effect Friday in Victoria, Australia, that could be the country's toughest regulation of the American pit bull terrier and four other dog breeds, based on the notion that some breeds are inherently dangerous. The crackdown — spurred by several recent attacks including last month's mauling death of a 4-year-old Melbourne girl — has veterinarians in Australia and other countries objecting to the idea that certain types of dogs are more likely than others to bite. Practitioners also fear that they will be dragged into Victoria's efforts to kill pit bulls by being asked to identify and euthanize them. Beginning Friday, authorities will knock on doors in Victoria, seizing and euthanizing any American pit bull terrier — or dog that looks like one — that is not registered as a restricted breed with local officials. Owners of lookalikes such as American Staffordshire terriers need a certificate from a veterinarian or pedigree papers from breed registry groups that prove their ancestry. In addition to the American pit bull terrier, the restriction in Victoria includes the perro de presa canario, dogo Argentino (Argentinian fighting dog), Japanese tosa and fila Brasileiro (Brazilian fighting dog). Pit bulls are the most common among the restricted breeds in Victoria. To keep a restricted dog, owners must register their dogs with local municipal councils and prove that the animals are spayed and neutered, microchipped, housed in an inescapable enclosure, muzzled and leashed off premises, among other requirements. Dogs of mixed ancestry that visibly show characteristics of any of the restricted breeds are included in the regulation. Exactly what those characteristics are is not defined. In addition to the ban, legislation recently introduced by the Victorian Coalition Government in Parliament proposes that owners with dogs of restricted breeds or are declared dangerous face up to 10 years in jail if their dogs kill someone. Branding entire breeds as dangerous has incited an outcry from veterinary communities in Australia and the United States. In North America, cities such as Denver and Toronto have faced similar controversy when area politicians used legislation to target pit bulls and other breeds. Breed restrictions of varying kinds exist in dozens of U.S. cities and currently are being discussed in municipalities from Maine to Mississippi. On Aug. 31, the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) spoke out against the legislation through a media release. AVA Victorian President Dr. Susan Maastricht lamented that innocent family pets are becoming scapegoats for aggressive dogs. She noted that dog bite incidents aren't limited to pit bull breeds. “The risk is this could lull the community into a false sense of security and do little to address the overall problem of dog bites,” she said. “... Dogs of any breed known to be aggressive and potentially dangerous must be properly housed and restrained. But just declaring that some breeds are dangerous and others aren’t is misleading." To spread this message, the AVA has adopted the slogan “Ban the deed, not the breed.” The group's campaign focuses on educating the public about what causes dogs to bite as well as responsible ownership, which involves socializing and training family pets. Joining the AVA's efforts is the Veterinary Defence Association, Ltd. (VDA), a non-profit group that provides legal defense for veterinarians in the United States, South Africa, Canada, Europe, South America and Australia. Founder David Carser, a veterinarian and lawyer, has put out a call for veterinarians worldwide to protest Victoria's breed ban. The VDA has issued an alert to its Australian members and a letter of protest to the Victorian Parliament. Carser encourages others to take similar action. “You don’t have to like pit bulls,” he said. “You just have to hate man’s inhumanity toward pit bulls.” When it comes to breed-specific legislation, many veterinarians are staunch critics. The American Veterinary Medical Association opposes laws targeting pit bulls and other breeds on grounds that dangerous dogs are a product of irresponsible owners, and casting a blanket policy encompassing a breed is excessive. Confusion also stems from the fact that by itself, the pit bull does not constitute a breed. Rather, it is a general term that covers dogs with similar traits and characteristics such as American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers and American bulldogs. “There are more than 10 other breeds that may be confused visually with a pit bull or a pit bull cross,” Carser, of the VDA, wrote in an email to the VIN News Service. Considering that owners and authorities will bring dogs to be euthanized to Victorian veterinarians, the identification of a dog's breed carries a high level of legal risk, Carser said. With power to determine and certify whether a dog is of a breed on the restricted list, Victorian veterinarians could be held liable if a dog deemed to be of an unrestricted breed subsequently bites someone. On the other hand, veterinarians could be sued if they wrongly label a dog as a restricted breed and it's euthanized, Carser said. Another potential legal pitfall: It's foreseeable that Victorian veterinarians could be in breach of their ethical obligation to practice using scientifically justifiable and defendable principles, Carser said. Evaluating whether a dog is a pit bull — and therefore should live or die — based on appearance is largely subjective. DNA analysis reputably has no value, he added. As a result, the VDA advises its members to avoid issuing any certificate identifying a dog's breed and to refuse to euthanize a dog on the basis of breed unless the owner has signed a euthanasia consent form specifically designed for such incidents. While the logistics of executing Victoria's breed ban are still being worked out, national legislation in Australia appears to be brewing. On Aug. 18, Victoria's Premier Ted Baillieu noted during a press conference that legislation is being drafted. As for killing dogs of breeds deemed "dangerous" in Victoria, he professed an urgency to be "rid of these dogs as soon as we possibly can."

Also from the Legislative Council Daily Hansard, Tuesday August 30, 2011 http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/daily-hansard/Council_Jul-Dec_2011_Daily_30_August_2011.pdf Refer page 72, spoken by Hon. P. R. HALL (Minister for Higher Education and Skills) The following text: “The next point I want to make is in respect of the question of the development of the standard. When the Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Act 2010 was passed by the Parliament my understanding is that a working party was put in place at that time by the previous government with the aim of developing a standard that could be used by authorised officers of council to assess matters associated with these restricted breed-type dogs. Since that act came into being in 2010 a working party has been formed that has gone about the task of developing these standards. Following the 2010 legislative amendment the working party consisted of a veterinarian who previously participated in the then minister’s restricted dog breed panel and was on the executive of the Australian Veterinary Association. There was also a world-recognised all-breeds judge and there was an experienced authorised officer from a local council, so pretty much the same composition that the previous government had in place has been carried over to the finalisation of the standard that we now have applying to this piece of legislation.” The vet is Dr Patricia Stewart, Secretary and Treasurer of the Victorian AVA Committee. The ANKC All Breeds Dog Judge is Glenda Cook, a Corgi breeder. Courtesy of Dogs Victoria?

The Victorian Government have produced a Practice Note for Councils on the implementation of Section 84TA. See attached file For some discussion see: http://www.goodfordogs.org/blog/blog/ 20101012_Practice_Note_84TA_Minister_Approved.pdf

You are right sumosmum. I think that would be the case.

The two year amnesty period in the new Act allows them time to come up with a description of type and insert it in the Regulations. It could take this long as they have to come up with a type, produce proposed Regulations and then, by Law they must provide a Regulatory Impact Statement for any proposed Regulations. Then by Law it must go to public consultation and submissions considered (theoretically that is - not that I'm cynical). Strange isn't it (but good) that Regulations require a public consultation but Acts do not. Vic Dogs have "kindly" jumped at assisting the Government to come up with a description for type. Registered Amstaffs will also be provided with a little id card that will protect them from unwelcome Council attention. They wouldn't dream of using the 22 point system. They would be doomed and they know it. All they have to do is come up with a description of some physical characteristics that they say means the dog fits a type. It is what England did with the Dangerous Dogs Act. Even if you had proof of parentage (ie. pedigree papered parents), say Staffordshire Bull Terriers it is irrelevant if the dog physically fits the type. Of course, in Victoria a papered Staffordshire Bull Terrier would never find it self in this position because it wouldn't be declared but an unpapered SBT just might and hundreds of crossbreed SBTs probably will. THIS GOVERNMENT IS SO STUPID IT IS BEYOND BELIEF. Vic Dog members please consider whether it is acceptable that Vic Dogs assist the Government to kill innocent dogs based purely on their physical characteristics? It is bad enough that they have supplied panel members for the current system which has killed dogs. It is NOT acceptable. Tell them. They can't do it if enough members object. If you don't object, you are just as culpable as the Vic Dog management are!

Of course it is conveniently forgotten that Dogs QLD has some responsibility for this sorry mess in the first place!!!!! Aided and abetted the introduction of BSL in Queensland Continue to do so

Steve, I live at Humevale a short drive from Kinglake and have lived in the area for 27 years. I am also in Clayton (roughly 1 hour 10 minutes drive closer to Tyabb) generally on Monday, Tuesdays and Thursdays each week and if the dog/cat food could be delivered to me there I can bring it back home and up to Kinglake. I am a horse owner with more than 30 years experience. I have a twin cab ute with canopy which will fit 6 bales of hay in the back and a float. There are two good feed stores in Whittlesea. Humevale is close to Whittlesea at the bottom of the mountain. You have my number if you would like me to assist or check what is required. Linda

Bill at http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/53...0/BOLAB10_2.pdf Pages 12 and 13; Part 3 Amendment of Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 Clause 5 Act amended This part amends the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008. Clause 6 Amendment of s 63 (What is a restricted dog) Section 63— insert— ‘(3) In this section— breed, of a dog, does not include a crossbreed of a breed.’. Clause 7 Insertion of new s 63A Chapter 4, part 1— insert— ‘63A Provisions for deciding what is a breed of dog ‘(1) Each of the following certificates, for a dog, is evidence the dog is of the breed stated in the certificate— (a) a pedigree certificate from the Australian National Kennel Council; (b) a pedigree certificate from a member body of the Australian National Kennel Council; © a pedigree certificate from a national breed council registered with the Australian National Kennel Council; (d) a certificate signed by a veterinary surgeon stating, or to the effect, that the dog is of a particular breed. ‘(2) However, if a dog is of the breed American Staffordshire terrier it is not of the breed American pit bull terrier. ‘(3) Also, the breed American pit bull terrier does not include a dog of the breed American Staffordshire terrier.’. Clause 8 Omission of s 202 (Veterinary surgeon certificates) Section 202— omit. I hesitate to refer to this as a game - BUT the games continue.....

I have been informed that the Act received Royal assent yesterday. Commences on September 1. Link to Act http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/W...ILE/10-044a.pdf Reinforced how useless politicians are. Give Councils more power. They have got to joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Honestly how about they get their facts right for once! All Queensland Local Authorities DID NOT ban the keeping of APBTs (and types) in 1991. The bans started in Queensland after Barbara Stringer died in December 1995 as a result of a dog attack in Toowoomba and not all Councils have banned. The Australian Government banned purebred APBTs from importation in 1991. Now as far as their 'BAN THE DEED NOT THE BREED' refer to the following snippets from the then Queensland Canine Control Council's submission with respect to the original Queensland State Legislation to restrict in 2001. ............. and I don't even live in Queensland for 'dogs' sake.