Justice For Tango.supreme Court 29th March Brisbane

[Jed]

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.

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.

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

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

Edited April 5, 2010 by Jed

[Longcoat]

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?

It's reasonable to say that if a state organisation for example Dogsvic who list breeds recognised by the ANKC, implies that those breeds are permitted to be kept and is the sole reason a person selected that particular breed. If the breed was banned to the point that dogs of that breed were seized and destroyed, who ever is responsible for banning the breed can be sued for damages created by the loss of their pet. Breeds not recognised by the ANKC or crossbreeds have no official verification to imply that such a breed of dog is permitted to be kept, in other words keep one at your own risk. One could argue that the only reason for investing in the particular breed was because of ANKC recognition.

[Longcoat]

'Jed' date='5th Apr 2010 - 09:51 PM' post='4440678']

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.

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.

[JustinMorgan]

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.

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.

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

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

What a great post!

[tybrax]

Print Share

$500,000 to keep dog off death row

Thomas Chamberlin | April 6th, 2010

John Mokomoko with Tango

A COUPLE who say they have spent almost $500,000 in a fight for their dog to live on the Gold Coast should today learn if they have won their six-year battle.

Kylie Chivers and John Mokomoko have taken on the Gold Coast City Council in the Supreme Court over the identification of their dog Tango as an American pit bull, as opposed to an American staffordshire terrier.

The council's ruling of Tango as a pit bull meant the dog, which originally cost them $300, was automatically deemed dangerous and needed to be put down.

To keep the animal safe the family moved it to a kennel just south of Tweed Heads more than five years ago, where it could be registered as an American staffordshire terrier.

Today, hundreds of thousands of dollars later, a judge is to decide Tango's fate in a decision which could have wider ramifications for thousands of dog owners, after council lawyers argued the American pit bull and American staffordshire terrier were the same breed, meaning both were dangerous.

"The fallout of the decision could be horrendous," said Mr Mokomoko, 47, who works as a Brisbane airport security officer.

The couple had made an agreement with the council to move Tango to NSW instead of having him destroyed, which has fueled the council's argument why the dog should not be returned to the Coast.

Their case prompted Mr Mokomoko to work 98-hour weeks at his former security job at the Tugun desalination plant to pay the cost of the kennel, weekly travel, lawyers and documentation including Freedom of Information requests, and video evidence.

At one point he was paying another security officer to drive his wife down to see Tango.

He also helped other dog owners successfully overturn 57 dog identifications through the courts, which he said had brought his total costs close to $500,000.

Along with thousands of pages of documents, the couple also obtained DNA samples from Tango's parents and submitted a breed identification test to the court, arguing the 22-point identification checklist from southeast councils was flawed.

Mr Mokomoko fears if today's decision goes against them it could set a precedent and affect all American staffordshire terriers.

The American staffordshire terrier clubs of Queensland, Victoria and Northern Territory have written to city council CEO Dale Dickson expressing concern and calling on the council to drop the case.

"This has the potential to negatively impact upon an entire recognised pure breed, representing tens of thousands of dogs and their owners, for the sake of one court case involving one dog," said Victorian secretary Lincoln Hancock in a letter.

If the family wins today and if a judgment is made on the 22-point identification checklist, Mr Mokomoko believes it will prompt litigation from other owners who may have had their dog wrongfully identified as pit bulls

The Mokomoko family is also seeking costs from the council.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/0...lead-story.html

tybrax

[Diva]

It's reasonable to say that if a state organisation for example Dogsvic who list breeds recognised by the ANKC, implies that those breeds are permitted to be kept and is the sole reason a person selected that particular breed. If the breed was banned to the point that dogs of that breed were seized and destroyed, who ever is responsible for banning the breed can be sued for damages created by the loss of their pet. Breeds not recognised by the ANKC or crossbreeds have no official verification to imply that such a breed of dog is permitted to be kept, in other words keep one at your own risk. One could argue that the only reason for investing in the particular breed was because of ANKC recognition.

I think that's drawing a very long bow in any legal sense. Dogs Vic are not a statutory body have no mandate to 'permit' the keeping of any dog anywhere.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Diva

[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.

The APBT was recognised as pure-bred long before the SBT or AST, which derived from the APBT. ANKC and CCs are just dog clubs, no legal standing whatsoever. They simply approve breeds that can be shown at their shows, period.

[zayda_asher]

The court has ruled in favour of the council

[becandcharch]

The court has ruled in favour of the council

That poor family

[zayda_asher]

The court has ruled in favour of the council

That poor family

Its not just the family that have to worry now, it is all people with AmStaffs that live in that locality!

[becandcharch]

The court has ruled in favour of the council

That poor family

Its not just the family that have to worry now, it is all people with AmStaffs that live in that locality!

So true

[zayda_asher]

The fact is that if this goes through unchallenged AmStaffs will be a restricted breed there...

[JustinMorgan]

You were saying Longcoat....

[WreckitWhippet]

Time for the CC to do a deal and make sure those with ANKC papers are protected.

[3Woofs]

Time for the CC to do a deal and make sure those with ANKC papers are protected.

Any ideas on how to push for this?

[RAH]

i have been reading this post & feel so soory for the family & the dog, not good at all

Gina

[WreckitWhippet]

Time for the CC to do a deal and make sure those with ANKC papers are protected.

Any ideas on how to push for this?

Nope, because NSW did the deal before the legisaltion went through in this state, but CCCQ members should be writing to them now and asking what they are going to do to help their members with Amstaffs.

[RottnBullies]

The court has ruled in favour of the council

Oh SH!T ;)

[chrisjc]

no offence, but they should have wrote them before. this was easily something that was predicted and instead of some people sitting back and watching the show they should have been in there and giving some support because they understood, the plight this family has gone through.

now they are in the position where they are starting pretty much from scratch while the council allready has the ball more than rolling.

[blackdog]

no offence, but they should have wrote them before. this was easily something that was predicted and instead of some people sitting back and watching the show they should have been in there and giving some support because they understood, the plight this family has gone through.

now they are in the position where they are starting pretty much from scratch while the council allready has the ball more than rolling.

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.