Britian's Ban's On Pit Bulls Extended

[A_Nomad]

and that would make you happy wouldnt it PPS, what about all the people that do the right thing.

[Sandra777]

As things are going at the moment, with the mindset of the politicans I would agree with you PPS, but given that The Netherlands recently realised that it's deed and not breed and the Iowa (Idaho? Ohio? always get those mixed up) laws are being looked at again, then I honestly believe that there is plenty of room and precident (sp!) for the politicans to recant and realise they are adding to the problem and not solving it.

We need a whole new mindset about a whole bunch of things (finance, pollution, trade, climate for a start) and dog control.......

Edited March 27, 2009 by Sandra777

[Roguedog]

What I eventually see happening ( especially in Australia ) is the move towards no ANKC/ KC papers, with matching microchip = pit bull

People continue to disregard the current legislation and it's only going to get tougher, eventually there will be no where to hide.

I agree... Unfortunately I continously hear pf people breeding APBTs despite the current situation, just the other day I heard someone on my street is planning on breeding their RN bitch! grrrrr, poor dogs.

[WreckitWhippet]

History here says that Aussie Pollies very rarely say they've got it wrong let alone repeal legislation.

[MolassesLass]

No liver, black, white or brindle dogs?! Wow.

[Kirra_Bomber_Zeus]

History here says that Aussie Pollies very rarely say they've got it wrong let alone repeal legislation.

BUT, Aussie pollies do have a history of blindly following in other countries footsteps - which means if more countries get rid of BSL, theres more chance our pollies might follow.

I have had a few emails going back and forward with Minister Castrilli's office. Part of the letter I received yesterday said

"In many circumstances legislation following the lead of other jurisdictions is adopted based on the views and interests of the community at the time. The Government continues to monitor the approach of other jurisdictions on these matters, and at appropriate times, reviews legislation."

So, depending on the 'information' they are receiving as to what is happening around Australia, and around the world, their view may be able to be changed.

Unfortunatley I think if dog lovers cant even unite on the issue, we have an uphill struggle trying to convince politicians. I see way too many attitudes seem to have gone from not just "Its not my breed" to "oh well, they can round up all the 'cross breeds' as long as they dont touch my pure breed". pffft. I have one 'pure breed' and 2 'cross breeds'. I am interested in the welfare of ALL dogs, no matter where they came from.

[mita]

An anti breed specific legislation group has reacted in horror to the confirmation that previously legal dog breeds and cross breeds are to be caught up in the net designed to outlaw ‘Pit Bull Terrier type dogs’.

Legislators in the UK have put together a piece of law which will ban previously legal breeds and cross breeds. The bill will, it is promised, see Britain free from dog attacks by ‘the dangerous dog breeds’.

Legislators behind the bill claim it will “eradicate the more dangerous dogs that can inflict injury upon children” and will better protect the public from serious, fatal dog attacks. They go on to set out the grounds of the new bill and exactly which dogs could fall foul of the new legislation.

Any dog weighing in excess of 20kgs.

Any dog in excess of 16” of height to the shoulder.

Dogs carrying liver, black, white or brindle markings.

Is there somewhere that this 'new bill' can be looked at? This 'piece of law'. Obviously, it's not passed yet. It must exist in a draft form somewhere.

Dogs carrying liver, black, white or brindle markings??? Fits the tiny tibbie next door who has unusual colours thro' her coat.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Thats exactly right. Australia is still a backwater country in alot of ways including politically, they can say whatever they like now but in the end our true leadership comes from outside these boarders. They proved that when they introduced BSL here in the first place. We got a bunch of monkeys in office, you know what they say about monkeys and seeing things.

[mita]

The only current relevant law I can find, sets out the dog breeds that are banned in the UK (& being imported). The usual 4, including Pitbull. (Also mentions 'type').

BUT an amendment allowed that people currently owning the dogs could get the OK, thro' the courts, to have their dog exempted if the court believed it posed no threat to public safety. And the owner met certain conditions.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/do...dogsleaflet.pdf

I can't find any independent reference to this new 'piece of law' that mentions sizes, weights & colours. Nor who are the 'legislators' putting it up.

Would like to read that draft.

[NorthernStarPits]

'Type' was explained in court I will find the article. it has to do with personality or characteristics from what I can remember.

edit to place in a new post

Edited March 27, 2009 by NorthernStarPits

[NorthernStarPits]

Law Report: Dog 'type' not the same as 'breed': Regina v Knightsbridge Crown Court, ex parte Dunne. Brock v Director of Public Prosecutions - Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Glidewell and Mr Justice Cresswell), 2 July 1993

PAUL MAGRATH, Barrister

Wednesday, 7 July 1993

The word 'type' in relation to dogs had a broader meaning than 'breed', and a court could properly conclude that a dog was 'of the type known as the pit bull terrier' within the meaning of section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, so as to make it an offence to allow it to be in a public place without being muzzled, so long as its characteristics substantially conformed to the standard set for the breed by the American Dog Breeder's Association (ABDA), even though it did not meet that standard in every respect.

But since part of that standard concerned the dog's behaviour, and, in particular, its aggressiveness, the court should also treat as relevant any evidence of a dog's behavioural characteristics.

The Queen's Bench Divisional Court refused an application by Gary Dunne for judicial review of the decision by Knightsbridge Crown Court, on 5 June 1992, dismissing his appeal against a conviction, at Wells Street Magistrates' Court on 30 December 1991, for an offence under section 1(2)(d) of the 1991 Act.

But the court allowed Karen Brock's appeal by case stated from Wood Green Crown Court, which on 9 December 1992 had dismissed her appeal against a conviction by the Barnet Justices on 4 August 1992, for an offence under section 1(3) of having in her possession or custody a dog, called Buster, of the type known as the pit bull terrier. The Crown Court erroneously concluded that Buster's behaviour was irrelevant.

William Locke (Winstanley Burgess) for Mr Dunne; Peter Ader (CPS) for the Crown; John Trumpington (Landau & Cohen) for Miss Brock; Andrew Brierley (CPS) for the Crown.

LORD JUSTICE GLIDEWELL rejected Mr Dunne's argument that the word 'type' in section 1 meant the same as 'breed'.

The definition of a breed was normally that of some recognised body such as the Kennel Club in the United Kingdom. But because for a long time pit bull terriers were not bred in this country, the Kennel Club had no standard for them. They had, however, been bred for a long time in the United States, where the ABDA was founded in 1909 specifically for pit bull terriers, for which it had a most detailed standard.

Having decided that 'type' had a wider meaning than 'breed', a court had to adopt some guide for determining the limits of the phrase 'any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier'. What that guide should be, and where those limits lay, were questions of fact for the decision of the magistrates or Crown Court, on the evidence.

Having heard evidence that the ABDA laid down a breed standard for pit bull terriers in the US, both courts were entitled to use the ABDA standard as a guide.

However, both courts were also entitled to find, on the evidence before them, that the fact that a dog did not meet the standard in every respect was not conclusive. They could properly conclude that a dog was 'of the type known as the pit bull terrier' if its characteristics substantially conformed to the ABDA's standard, or if the dog approximately amounted to, was near to, or had a substantial number of the characteristics of the pit bull terrier as set out in the ABDA's standard.

Miss Brock also argued that in deciding whether a dog was 'of the type known as the pit bull terrier' the court should take into account the behaviour of the dog and whether or not it had shown dangerous proclivities.

The ABDA standard included a list of characteristics of the dog, namely: '(i) gameness, (ii) aggressiveness, (iii) stamina, (iv) wrestling ability, (v) biting ability'. It must follow, if the ABDA's standard was a proper starting point, that it was relevant to consider whether or not a dog exhibited the behavioural characteristics of a pit bull terrier. Though not conclusive, such evidence could not be irrelevant.

MR JUSTICE CRESSWELL agreed.

[R00]

What I eventually see happening ( especially in Australia ) is the move towards no ANKC/ KC papers, with matching microchip = pit bull

People continue to disregard the current legislation and it's only going to get tougher, eventually there will be no where to hide.

[/quote

I would suggest that if you were to ask 20 random people in the middle of George Street Sydney (for those outside of Sydney it is main street of Sydney) if they agree with BSL and detailed the exact legislation with no slant you would probably get over 15 people saying they agree with it. -

I am not saying I agree, just that I believe the general public want APBT banned in my experience and I tend to ask a lot of people about it.

My point is unless the owners and those interested in the APBT can get together on a common platform, the APBT will continue to be banned in at least some part of Australia well after I have left this world.

Show me a politician who will agree to change a ban on a breed that ANKC doesn't recognised and take the misinformed risk that the dog will rip a child apart. I would say there would be very few willing to take that issue on.

Again I am not saying it is correct, just an observation of the world.

[NorthernStarPits]

Roo have you seen the BSL in QLD? there are at least a dozen ANKC breed affected.

[R00]

Roo have you seen the BSL in QLD? there are at least a dozen ANKC breed affected.

My post is APBT specific

[ari.g]

My post is APBT specific

But BSL is not just APBT specific. Don't worry they will come after Staffy's and Amstaff's soon enough, maybe then you will be concerned?

[NorthernStarPits]

Ah ok, well in that case

My point is unless the owners and those interested in the APBT can get together on a common platform, the APBT will continue to be banned in at least some part of Australia well after I have left this world.

Thats how it's going to be, no one will unite because no one has the same opinions either within the breed, or for the breed.

The EDBA is or was a platform I dont know anything about them now for a long time, I think thats all there was and PADDL in FNQ. But again they are not breed specific groups in nature.

Edited March 27, 2009 by NorthernStarPits

[R00]

My post is APBT specific

But BSL is not just APBT specific. Don't worry they will come after Staffy's and Amstaff's soon enough, maybe then you will be concerned?

Where did I say I wasn't concerned!

[Sandra777]

I am not saying I agree, just that I believe the general public want APBT banned in my experience and I tend to ask a lot of people about it.

Show me a politician who will agree to change a ban on a breed that ANKC doesn't recognised and take the misinformed risk that the dog will rip a child apart. I would say there would be very few willing to take that issue on.

Again I am not saying it is correct, just an observation of the world.

However if you were to ask "the general public" if they thought it was right that the innocent should receive the same punishment as the guilty then you would get a totally different answer - which is the absolute basis of BSL.

Show me a politican who is immune to public opinion... It's a matter of educating the public (even if 'just' the dog owning part of the public) to see that we are ALL affected, we are ALL at risk. I don't imagine that the "little old ladies" with their Pekingese were expecting to be the object of such a vicious backlash in the UK, but they were. Public opinion is the key, and presenting the argument as being about keeping people safe is the way of winning public opinion.

Surprisingly many people are intelligent enough to understand that the media exaggerates to sell papers and politicans over react to make themselves look liek they're doing something.

I would guess many GSD enthusiasts believed the ban on their breed would never be overturned either.

[R00]

I am not saying I agree, just that I believe the general public want APBT banned in my experience and I tend to ask a lot of people about it.

Show me a politician who will agree to change a ban on a breed that ANKC doesn't recognised and take the misinformed risk that the dog will rip a child apart. I would say there would be very few willing to take that issue on.

Again I am not saying it is correct, just an observation of the world.

However if you were to ask "the general public" if they thought it was right that the innocent should receive the same punishment as the guilty then you would get a totally different answer - which is the absolute basis of BSL.

Show me a politican who is immune to public opinion... It's a matter of educating the public (even if 'just' the dog owning part of the public) to see that we are ALL affected, we are ALL at risk. I don't imagine that the "little old ladies" with their Pekingese were expecting to be the object of such a vicious backlash in the UK, but they were. Public opinion is the key, and presenting the argument as being about keeping people safe is the way of winning public opinion.

Surprisingly many people are intelligent enough to understand that the media exaggerates to sell papers and politicans over react to make themselves look liek they're doing something.

I would guess many GSD enthusiasts believed the ban on their breed would never be overturned either.

This is what I was implying, unless you educate the public and present a common arguement nothing is going to change for particular breeds. And from what I have seen most APBT owners are too busy arguing among themselves. Once you tackle 'the man' then you can discuss the minor differences.

[NorthernStarPits]

I hav'nt seen many arguments amongst APBT owners, only the same that goes on in all breed issues, BYB, puppy millers, effective control and management etc etc.

Not many within the small APBT community argue in regards to BSL, some speak out, others remain silent, all have resolute views about it. But they dont all take the same road.

I see plenty of people in other breeds or those who arnt sure what breed they have arguing over BSL and the APBT though, it really stands out to the breed fancy.

I will put some common points of view with those in the APBT.

1) NO BSL for any breed what so ever.

2) Keep BSL because, we closed our circle to the public, and it does not /can not touch us, we are only concerned with our own dogs etc, Dont care about the BYB trash or what happens to them.

3) BSL for the containment housing and leash laws but no desexing.

And all of in between.

The only common ground is BSL itself.

Do you see how it is not possible to have a uniform direction in a small breed?

Edited March 27, 2009 by NorthernStarPits