Justice For Tango.supreme Court 29th March Brisbane

[GeckoTree]

I dont know it was what was on the news, Andrew somebody.

[mita]

The biggest hope for overturning BSL in Qld lies with the RSPCA. People need to learn to be civil and argue facts and to lobby the organisation with the power and influence to get changes made.

Tucked away at the end of the Channel 7 Brisbane News was a final comment that the RSPCA Qld had been asked for a comment on the Tango decision re Amstaffs being the same as Pitbulls for BSL purposes. And they'd replied it was the deeds that needed to be focused on, not the breed.

But the trouble is... there's wide variance in thought/policies among the various state RSPCAs. 'Deed not breed' sure doesn't come from RSPCA Victoria.

Tango would seem to represent what the Qld CEO said, in public, when recanting the BSL laws. An innocent family dog being threatened with PTS for not one sound reason....except for misplaced preconceptions about breed & behaviour.

Yet the scientific & case study evidence points to sussing out the 'human' factors in the background & management of dogs that become dangerous to the community. Major bodies, like the US Veterinary Association have reported that going down the breed track only, leads nowhere in preventing dog bites & attacks. And a press release on dog bites from the national Aus RSPCA reflected this US report so closely, that they should have referenced it.

In the meantime, Tango remains stuck in the 'go nowhere but to possible PTS' that comes from nit-picking over breed....& not human or dog behaviour. Huge sums of money go down the gurgler that could be better spent in dealing with prevention.

I agree with the person who wrote that, while this continues, it can only put all bully breeds in peril. Even having papers won't take away the shadow cast on these dogs as being surely a danger to the community.

[RottnBullies]

The biggest hope for overturning BSL in Qld lies with the RSPCA. People need to learn to be civil and argue facts and to lobby the organisation with the power and influence to get changes made.

Tucked away at the end of the Channel 7 Brisbane News was a final comment that the RSPCA Qld had been asked for a comment on the Tango decision re Amstaffs being the same as Pitbulls for BSL purposes. And they'd replied it was the deeds that needed to be focused on, not the breed.

But the trouble is... there's wide variance in thought/policies among the various state RSPCAs. 'Deed not breed' sure doesn't come from RSPCA Victoria.

Tango would seem to represent what the Qld CEO said, in public, when recanting the BSL laws. An innocent family dog being threatened with PTS for not one sound reason....except for misplaced preconceptions about breed & behaviour.

Yet the scientific & case study evidence points to sussing out the 'human' factors in the background & management of dogs that become dangerous to the community. Major bodies, like the US Veterinary Association have reported that going down the breed track only, leads nowhere in preventing dog bites & attacks. And a press release on dog bites from the national Aus RSPCA reflected this US report so closely, that they should have referenced it.

In the meantime, Tango remains stuck in the 'go nowhere but to possible PTS' that comes from nit-picking over breed....& not human or dog behaviour. Huge sums of money go down the gurgler that could be better spent in dealing with prevention.

I agree with the person who wrote that, while this continues, it can only put all bully breeds in peril. Even having papers won't take away the shadow cast on these dogs as being surely a danger to the community.

Totally agree here, If the WHOLE org. Isn't going to chant the same, It's hardly going to have any positive effects towards BSL. And as long as Worthless Is around I don't see them changing their views regardless of what the other RSPCA's believe.

[mita]

Totally agree here, If the WHOLE org. Isn't going to chant the same, It's hardly going to have any positive effects towards BSL. And as long as Worthless Is around I don't see them changing their views regardless of what the other RSPCA's believe.

I have some hope, RB. Because the BSL laws are individual State laws. So if there's to be any change to those laws, it would come from influences within a State.

It helps, too, when the state organisations with some clout, speak with the same voice. And I notice Dogs Qld's press release about the Tango decision uses the same phrase as RSPCA Qld about the need to look at the deeds which produce dogs of danger to the community....not the breed. I'd be hoping both those organisations sit down with the relevant Qld Minister to stop this futility of pursuing breed alone.

[RottnBullies]

I will cling to that hope too Mita

But It would be nice and also more effective If RSPCA state wide could share the same voice, (We can only keep hoping!) personally I think In Vic matters are getting worse and will continue too regardless of what the outcome In QLD will be

[ZBC]

Would Tango be eligible to return to Ms Chivers on either of two grounds?

1. If he's old enough he might be allowed back under a moratorium put in place I think Sept 2004 as the cut off for restricted dogs allowed to be kept in the district whilst all born after came under the ban?

2.The GCCC at PRESENT wouldn't have any statute on its books to ban ASTs and didn't the Supreme Court decision clearly accept he is of AST parentage?

Of course it is recognised there would be a danger to his life & safety ,and to others of the breed ,should the GCCC then enact such a law!

(But did the full GCCC formally make the decision to address the SC judge in terms that APBT and AST are one and the same breed in Australia. Doubtful!-- so they would be ripe for lobbying NOT to enact a ban)

Much of the talk here focusses on the possible danger to the AST breed as much or more than the future for Ms Chivers and her dog( or Mr Jones' dog as the SC judge ruled)

If the AST breed is in danger would not the obvious lasting course of action be to work with Ms Chivers on an appeal if there are grounds, which ,if won would reverse the decision--

since the ruling has set a precedent while it stands and could be used by any councils in future?

After all the ruling came in the Chivers v GCCC case , not in any breed or registry action in the SC,therefore it is difficult to see how any of them alone could change this situation.

The Government spokesperson really has not been accommodating in response to a letter( see separate thread) and it might be the state law will not be amended due to this one ruling.

Edited April 8, 2010 by ZBC

[justin19801]

Totally agree here, If the WHOLE org. Isn't going to chant the same, It's hardly going to have any positive effects towards BSL. And as long as Worthless Is around I don't see them changing their views regardless of what the other RSPCA's believe.

I have some hope, RB. Because the BSL laws are individual State laws. So if there's to be any change to those laws, it would come from influences within a State.

It helps, too, when the state organisations with some clout, speak with the same voice. And I notice Dogs Qld's press release about the Tango decision uses the same phrase as RSPCA Qld about the need to look at the deeds which produce dogs of danger to the community....not the breed. I'd be hoping both those organisations sit down with the relevant Qld Minister to stop this futility of pursuing breed alone.

Problem is ANKC supplies instructors Australia-wide to tell the difference between an APBT and AST which we are now told legally doesn't exist. R$PCA simply tells anyone who will listen what they believe they want to hear and then ask for money. They should simply refuse to enforce Breed Discriminatory Legislation rather than try and have a bet each way.

[justin19801]

Would Tango be eligible to return to Ms Chivers on either of two grounds?

1. If he's old enough he might be allowed back under a moratorium put in place I think Sept 2004 as the cut off for restricted dogs allowed to be kept in the district whilst all born after came under the ban?

2.The GCCC at PRESENT wouldn't have any statute on its books to ban ASTs and didn't the Supreme Court decision clearly accept he is of AST parentage?

Of course it is recognised there would be a danger to his life & safety ,and to others of the breed ,should the GCCC then enact such a law!

(But did the full GCCC formally make the decision to address the SC judge in terms that APBT and AST are one and the same breed in Australia. Doubtful!-- so they would be ripe for lobbying NOT to enact a ban)

Much of the talk here focusses on the possible danger to the AST breed as much or more than the future for Ms Chivers and her dog( or Mr Jones' dog as the SC judge ruled)

If the AST breed is in danger would not the obvious lasting course of action be to work with Ms Chivers on an appeal if there are grounds, which ,if won would reverse the decision--

since the ruling has set a precedent while it stands and could be used by any councils in future?

After all the ruling came in the Chivers v GCCC case , not in any breed or registry action in the SC,therefore it is difficult to see how any of them alone could change this situation.

The Government spokesperson really has not been accommodating in response to a letter( see separate thread) and it might be the state law will not be amended due to this one ruling.

GCCC doesn't have to change anything. The common law now states APBT=AST, something the world knew all along anyway.

[justin19801]

Just out of interest has the Gold Coast Council or the Queensland Government produced any bite statistics to show that BSL is actually working?

As Poodlefan said in an earlier post, BSL has been shown not to work in Canada and Calgary has a model set up that is working that does not have BSL and does not have mandatory spay neuter but does invest money in dog ownership education and has resultant high rates of dog registration.

I know this does not help Tango, but a focus on what does work IMO would be better than arguing semantics over breed.

Hugh Wirth is on record as stating that herding dogs headed the list of dog attacks. The Qld govt rep at an UAM conference when confronted with bite stats simply said Breed Discriminatory Legislation was about preventing bites from these types not reducing dog attacks per se.

[*Bones*]

I dont know it was what was on the news, Andrew somebody.

Andrew Richards?

DogsQld has information regarding the AST and this case on their website. I am quoting it below. They are having talks with the Government.

Dogs Queensland Media Release 7th April 2010

When is a Pit Bull not a Pit Bull?

The Honourable Justice Martin, when considering the evidence presented in the Supreme Court of Queensland yesterday, in the application brought by Ms Kylie Chivers in respect to her dog “Tango” against the Gold Coast City Council, decided that her American Staffordshire Terrier (commonly called an AmStaff) is in fact an American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT).

Pedigreed, registered dogs owned and bred by Dogs Queensland members include AmStaffs and these dogs have many generations of recorded registered pedigree data and are bred specifically for improving type and temperament. These dogs are now far removed from what the community considers to be the typical Pit Bull.

The Australian Government decided to restrict the importation of APBTs in 1956 as many had been bred to work and in some instances (particularly in the United States) that included fighting and it was believed that these dogs would therefore constitute a greater risk to people. This decision has been the subject of much criticism by dog enthusiasts over many years because it is generally believed that breeds should not be banned but the actions by small numbers of aggressive dogs should be penalised. In other words, ban the deed and not the breed.

AmStaffs, whilst originating from a similar genetic background, were developed with an entirely different objective. That objective was to produce a well socialised sound dog suitable to urban living. Our responsible Dogs Queensland member / breeders have worked tirelessly over many years to achieve this objective working at all times within a clearly defined breed standard.

The American Staffordshire Terrier breed is recognised internationally and this unexpected decision seems to be contrary to all of the evidence that Genetic Technologies Ltd (a well respected and highly regarded Human Forensic and Animal Genetics & Diagnostics firm) has collected.

GTG are confident and maintain they can “accurately identify significant numbers of breeds based on breed specific signatures. The American Staffordshire Terrier has shown to have its own unique breed signature”.

This decision has significant and far reaching implications for our responsible AmStaff member breeders and exactly how this decision will affect our members and their internationally recognised breed of pure bred, registered dog is still unclear.

CCC (Q) t/as Dogs Queensland is seeking urgent talks with the relevant State Government Minister(s) to discuss the possible ramifications of this Supreme Court decision.

We are confident that those talks will result in a positive and manageable outcome for our members and their pedigreed registered American Staffordshire Terrier dogs.

Issued by: Rob Harrison

Secretary / General Manager

CCC (Q) t/as Dogs Queensland

PO Box 495, Fortitude Valley QLD 4006

Phone (07) 3252 2661, Fax (07) 3252 3864

Email: [email protected]

Edited April 8, 2010 by Octavia

[roxiedog]

The Amstaffs with papers ( the breed clubs and the state controlling bodies ) need to go it on their own, not fight the battle for the unpapered mongrel.

They need to do what was done in NSW and make sure the future of the papered dogs is protected.

I certainly hope that other ANKC breeders are NOT of the same opinion as you SBT123 .

So if you had your way all dogs that are not ANKC registered would be thrown to the wolves so to speak.

I think this is a very selfish attitude, shame on you.

I hope you don't classify yourself as a dog lover

I hope you don't classify yourself as a dog lover how true. at least tangos owners love their dog unlike STB123 that can get rid if them without the blink of an eye.

[ozjen]

Remember this folks

"They came for the pit bulls and I didn't speak up as I did not own one.

They came for the GSDs, the BTs and Rotties, and still I did not speak up, as I did not own one. When they came for the dogs over 20cms high I was worried but didn't speak up, as my dog was just under.

Then they came for my dog and there was nobody left to speak for ME..."

(With apologies to the original author -

Reverend Martin Niemoeller)

Well stated DNB, I think the fight should be for all dogs, papered or unpapered, pedigree or mongrel, BSL has no place in our laws, far better to have owner specific legislation

and get rid of some of the useless sods who keep animals when they shouldn't. Dangerous dogs regardless of breed or registration are a product of our making, through poor breeding practices, poor training and socialization or poor ownership (not everyone should own one) and all of these things show up in all breeds and crossbreeds.

It should be more about educating owners of DOGS in general, while most people on this forum endeavour to educate themselves further about their pets, way to many average pet owner do not and see nothing wrong in their dog showing aggression to passing dogs in fact some encourage it(think its Macho) see nothing wrong in their dog leading a life of garden ornament or worse still teethered 24/7,let them run loose to harass and kill stock, don't think to keep dogs and children apart when unsupervised and the list goes on. Many aren't bad people just clueless and unaware till it is too late that they are producing future problems. Unfortunately it is the dogs that pay the price.

On the so called educated side there are still way too many unstable dogs being bred from simply because they have great conformation or the right bloodlines. I cringe inwardly everytime a dog who shows poor temperment (really poor like cringing from the judge bigtime or unprevoked hostility to other dogs) and then still gets put up by judges and goes on to be bred from.

[justin19801]

The Amstaffs with papers ( the breed clubs and the state controlling bodies ) need to go it on their own, not fight the battle for the unpapered mongrel.

They need to do what was done in NSW and make sure the future of the papered dogs is protected.

I certainly hope that other ANKC breeders are NOT of the same opinion as you SBT123 .

So if you had your way all dogs that are not ANKC registered would be thrown to the wolves so to speak.

I think this is a very selfish attitude, shame on you.

I hope you don't classify yourself as a dog lover

I hope you don't classify yourself as a dog lover how true. at least tangos owners love their dog unlike STB123 that can get rid if them without the blink of an eye.

Agreed. ANKC is a dog club which does not care for ... dogs. PDE is their looming Tsunami. If they think anyone will support them once the quake hits they better think again. Tail docking should have warned them of what is in store.

As for the judgement the case showed, irrespective of papers, APBT = AST. If repeated in NSW, and I have no doubt it will be, their easily falsified papers will be no protection against anything. In Qld it would appear all breed assessors trained by ANKC have been incorrectly trained. I'd be asking for my money back.

The issue is not what dog falls under BSL but BSL itself. The worlds biggest APBT registry issues APBT papers to Australian registered ASTs as it is. Why, because they are one and the same and o/s the SBT is classified as a PB as well.

[*Bones*]

If you are correct Justin19801, American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers should be added to Breed Specific Legislation and destroyed. You are disagreeing with Breed Specific Legislation, yet you are requesting that two other breeds be added?

You are obviously in favour of Breed Specific Legislation and would like to see two other breeds destroyed. Do you believe all the bull and terrier breeds should be banned or only the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier? What other breeds do you think should be added.

Do you have any proof of "falsified papers"? I intend reporting this to the ANKC, as it is against the rules and if pitbull people are falsifying papers they should be charged in the courts

Edited April 8, 2010 by Octavia

[GK & Saxon]

Yes they are initially the same dog but Amstaffs have been bred as show dogs for many years where as a lot of Pittbulls have been bred for fighting for many years.

Our Amstaff like most, is of absolutely lovely nature and would never hurt a fly. Every Pittbull I have met has been lovely as well to be honest and I guess we're lucky in Darwin, that we are still allowed to have Pitbulls. There is a major difference however when it comes down to it, Pittbulls are far more likely to be aggressive, Amstaffs just aren't bred that way.

If all this crap goes ahead in Qld all Amstaffs will be more than welcome in the NT

I really feel for this couple, I couldn't imagine having people turn against our boy.

Edited April 8, 2010 by GK & Saxon

[WreckitWhippet]

I have some confidence that the CCCQ will negotiate terms that at leasts protects their members and those with ANKC papers.

I have said and still maintain that BSL is not going away and given the current climate, the best thing the state governing bodies can do, is to place as much distance between themselves and dogs without papers as possible. The CC's are going to have to make sure they save themselves, as no one else is going to save the pedigree bull breeds in this country, infact it's the complete opposite as evidenced this week.

[TessiesTracey]

Out of interest then.. can anyone tell me COULD happen regarding imported dogs?

i.e. two dogs brought over from the UK recently, with United Kingdom kennel club registration papers, who obviously don't have ANKC papers?

Should I now be considering registering them with the CCCQ???

Edited April 8, 2010 by TessiesTracey

[WreckitWhippet]

Out of interest then.. can anyone tell me COULD happen regarding imported dogs?

i.e. two dogs brought over from the UK recently, with United Kingdom kennel club registration papers, who obviously don't have ANKC papers?

Should I now be considering registering them with the CCCQ???

You shouldn't have any worries as the KC dogs are able to be re-registered. It's the same if you have AKC papers.

I would chip if not already done and re-register with the chip to be included on the papers.

ETA: you would probably need an export cert from the UK and the breeder would need to sign the docs. It's not as simple as just sending the papers into the CCCQ.

Edited April 8, 2010 by SBT123

[Are You Serious Jo]

If people want the ANKC to fight for their unregistered dogs then they need to join as an associate and make your feelings known to them as a member. You wouldn't call the NRMA to help with your car if you weren't a member, but you expect a purebred dog registery to fight on your behalf without you joining?

[mita]

The most worrying thing is that the Qld Act allows for Qld councils to introduce local laws to cover whatever particular breeds of dogs they like.

So, even if negotiations with the State Gov Dpt successfully make the point that Amstaffs (papered) are not interchangeable with Pitbulls, councils can continue to make their own laws about whatever dog breeds they like.

Geo posted in another thread a reply from the Qld State Gov Dpt which covers local government matters:

Importantly, the State Act gives local councils the autonomy to introduce separate local laws for particular breeds of dogs which is the case with the Gold Coast City Council which has put in place a local law that bans pit bull terriers.

The decision to make such a local law is at the discretion of each local government. State Government laws do not force any council to ban any dog breed.

When the CEO, RSPCA Qld, first publicly turned against the notion of BSL, he made the point that some councils had exercised the power given them by the Act... to a full extent... resulting in innocent family dogs being PTS.

All of which means lobbying/influencing, has to get down to a council by council level.

Edited April 9, 2010 by mita