Justice For Tango.supreme Court 29th March Brisbane

[Jed]

GCCC experts have stated that the APBT and AST are the same breed.

All depends on the evidence presented by Tango's side, and the judgement, I guess.

Toowoomba City Council has always stated that APBT and AST are the same breed.

[justin19801]

I dont think it has to do with not thinking they were next, but more a matter of when, I read a thread from the beginning of this forum that said the same and that was 10 yrs ago. I am very surprised it has taken so many years to come to this point.

All our councils (qld) could have added and regulated them at will at any point in time, still can, it would have made life easier for the councils on the breed identifing front all those years ago for certain if they would have done that.

The problem with this is it wont be about local qld councils anymore if the GCCC gets its way, but could have a larger impact that could go to the point of prohibit importing them even.

People must be blind if they couldnt see what would happen one day, the writing was on the wall in neon signs , you dont even have to have an interest in bull and terrier breeds to have seen it.

I wish everyone with the AST the best of luck, and I do hope you dont have to find out what living a restricted life is all about.

I have no doubt it isnt an easy one.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and i kind of agree, but i guess many people believed that being a registered breed with breed clubs and active members in the CCCQ was their pass to owning the dog that they wanted, they obided by the law and proabably saw no real reason to fight a fight that didn't yet exist.

We all know alcohol is a legal drug so we relax and indulge feeling guilt free because it's legal, (and seemingly ignore all the associated health problems, and say to ourselves well at least i'm not taking drugs..) but they're not going to start fighting agaisnt prohibition that doesn't exist yet..if you catch my drift.

Many amstaff breeders have been supporting the anti BSL campaign from the beginning (and many owned pitbulls before hand) so i don't think we can say, "hey, amstaff breeders, you should've been prepared." they've done the right thing all along now they're going to have to fight for their dogs, all large breed owners should start banding together on this.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens, i can see plenty of unpapered amstaff owners trying to prove that their dogs are lab/mastiff/staffy/boxer or whatever crosses.

Actually the AST owners were the first to deny that APBTs and ASTs were one and the same. They thought they were safe but as the APBT owners kept telling them that had failed everywhere else in the world. The only way to fight Breed Discriminatory Legislation is to end it full stop. Arguing over which breed it shoul cover is a waste of time.

[tybrax]

Jed sent you a message regarding tango case. Thank you Geo.

tybrax

Edited April 2, 2010 by tybrax

[Longcoat]

Isn't the situation behind the Tango case because they couldn't provide evidence as in pedigree papers to prove he was an Amstaff, not to prove that an Amstaff is not an APBT???. I am assuming should they have been able to provide papers for Tango, this situation wouldn't have surfaced, is that correct???

[zayda_asher]

Isn't the situation behind the Tango case because they couldn't provide evidence as in pedigree papers to prove he was an Amstaff, not to prove that an Amstaff is not an APBT???. I am assuming should they have been able to provide papers for Tango, this situation wouldn't have surfaced, is that correct???

The court found that there was enough evidence to prove that he was an AST. It is because he was found to be an AST that the council is now perusing the AST = APBT argument. Although they don't have papers they do have a lot of evidence that the dog is at least in part from Papered AST stock.

ETA: Well yes, in the sense that if the dog HAD been papered it wouldn't have made it to the courts in the first place!

Edited April 2, 2010 by zayda_asher

[zayda_asher]

Actually the AST owners were the first to deny that APBTs and ASTs were one and the same. They thought they were safe but as the APBT owners kept telling them that had failed everywhere else in the world. The only way to fight Breed Discriminatory Legislation is to end it full stop. Arguing over which breed it shoul cover is a waste of time.

Don't tar everyone with the same brush, I know many AST owners who have fought the good fight since the day they got into the breed... yes there are many that do stick their heads in the sand, but you can't outright say all... I know several APBT people who chose to not fight as well... so there's people everywhere that have done it.

And just because you don't see people on the forum saying what is happening, doesn't mean there isn't stuff happening IRL.

[justin19801]

Actually the AST owners were the first to deny that APBTs and ASTs were one and the same. They thought they were safe but as the APBT owners kept telling them that had failed everywhere else in the world. The only way to fight Breed Discriminatory Legislation is to end it full stop. Arguing over which breed it shoul cover is a waste of time.

Don't tar everyone with the same brush, I know many AST owners who have fought the good fight since the day they got into the breed... yes there are many that do stick their heads in the sand, but you can't outright say all... I know several APBT people who chose to not fight as well... so there's people everywhere that have done it.

And just because you don't see people on the forum saying what is happening, doesn't mean there isn't stuff happening IRL.

I also know of AST/APBT breeders who were ostracised in the early days due to breeding APBTs. The fact is there is a wealth of case law in the US stating and supporting they are the same (includes the SBT). Most common legal definition of APBT is 25% AST. This is not rocket science and the sooner people wake up that the fight is with politicians and the R$PCA to end BDL the sooner we can get on with our lives. The truth is, the dogs matter very little, it is controlling us through our dogs.

Edited April 3, 2010 by justin19801

[Longcoat]

Isn't the situation behind the Tango case because they couldn't provide evidence as in pedigree papers to prove he was an Amstaff, not to prove that an Amstaff is not an APBT???. I am assuming should they have been able to provide papers for Tango, this situation wouldn't have surfaced, is that correct???

The court found that there was enough evidence to prove that he was an AST. It is because he was found to be an AST that the council is now perusing the AST = APBT argument. Although they don't have papers they do have a lot of evidence that the dog is at least in part from Papered AST stock.

ETA: Well yes, in the sense that if the dog HAD been papered it wouldn't have made it to the courts in the first place!

The AST is an ANKC recognised breed which people have the right to own and breed. There is no argument in that regard.

[zayda_asher]

The AST is an ANKC recognised breed which people have the right to own and breed. There is no argument in that regard.

The out come of this case may well change that.

[zayda_asher]

I also know of AST/APBT breeders who were ostracised in the early days due to breeding APBTs. The fact is there is a wealth of case law in the US stating and supporting they are the same (includes the SBT). Most common legal definition of APBT is 25% AST. This is not rocket science and the sooner people wake up that the fight is with politicians and the R$PCA to end BDL the sooner we can get on with our lives. The truth is, the dogs matter very little, it is controlling us through our dogs.

I never said that there should be BSL for any dog, in fact I've fought for years to get rid of BSL all together... that wasn't my point.

[Longcoat]

The AST is an ANKC recognised breed which people have the right to own and breed. There is no argument in that regard.

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.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Longcoat

[zayda_asher]

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.

Absolutely not true... recognised breeds are banned or restricted in several places, all over the world.

[JustinMorgan]

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.

Absolutely not true... recognised breeds are banned or restricted in several places, all over the world.

Undeniabley Zayda.

Longcoat you seem to dwell in a very simplistic world.

[Longcoat]

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.

Absolutely not true... recognised breeds are banned or restricted in several places, all over the world.

Undeniabley Zayda.

Longcoat you seem to dwell in a very simplistic world.

The APBT was subject to overnight restriction or banning is some places but was never a recognised breed in the first place. It has been raised before about ANKC recognised breeds banned in certain council areas, but the council bylaws of the councils mentioned did not contain any such thing by memory???. A council could easily be sued for damages banning an ANKC recognised breed overnight requiring people to get rid of their dogs...........won't happen in Australia.

[Diva]

A council could easily be sued for damages banning an ANKC recognised breed overnight requiring people to get rid of their dogs...........won't happen in Australia.

This is a genuine question - why would being an ANKC breed matter in terms of legal action? I can see that politically it means there is a lobby group with a lot of members likely to oppose a ban, but really the ANKC and the affiliated canine associations are just clubs that keep registries and run events. How legally (rather than politically) is recognition of a breed by them any defense against banning or any reason why legal action for damages would be more succesful than for any other dog?

Edited April 4, 2010 by Diva

[GeckoTree]

The ANKC wouldnt be much different to the NZKC would it? An NZKC breed was banned over night, still listed on dogzonline NZ breed pages though.

[Diva]

Which one was that GeckoTree?

[GeckoTree]

Fila Brasiliero, NZKC registered breed.

[Diva]

Fila Brasiliero, NZKC registered breed.

Thanks!

[justin19801]

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.

Absolutely not true... recognised breeds are banned or restricted in several places, all over the world.

Undeniabley Zayda.

Longcoat you seem to dwell in a very simplistic world.

The APBT was subject to overnight restriction or banning is some places but was never a recognised breed in the first place. It has been raised before about ANKC recognised breeds banned in certain council areas, but the council bylaws of the councils mentioned did not contain any such thing by memory???. A council could easily be sued for damages banning an ANKC recognised breed overnight requiring people to get rid of their dogs...........won't happen in Australia.

Breeds can be banned without compensation by simply regulating them like firearms. Dogs are property so regulating them is the way governments go. ANKC is just a club. There are plenty of breeds they don't recognise.