Justice For Tango.supreme Court 29th March Brisbane

[KJS]

Amstaffs are completely banned from Toowoomba, and have been since the instigation of the ban.

Jed,

My unpapered Amstaff was seized by Toowoomba City Council.

After a month I proved parentage and my dog was returned and registered.

I have since moved to Brisbane otherwise my dog would still be registered with TCC.

They have no ban on Amstaffs, unless this has been introduced since 2007

[Jed]

Amstaffs are completely banned from Toowoomba, and have been since the instigation of the ban.

Jed,

My unpapered Amstaff was seized by Toowoomba City Council.

After a month I proved parentage and my dog was returned and registered.

I have since moved to Brisbane otherwise my dog would still be registered with TCC.

They have no ban on Amstaffs, unless this has been introduced since 2007

That's really interesting. When they banned APBT, they banned Amstaffs too - rationale was "they couldn't tell the difference". Submissions were made, discussions held, blah blah, seemed like a waste of time. Maybe it wasn't. Or maybe a change in council brought a change in policy. I am sure they received a lot of submissions from different groups. Maybe the EDBA's lobbying, and some of the court cases councils lost helped them change their minds.

Some good news for a change. Some shires are very Amstaff and non-papered dog friendly too.

[zayda_asher]

People should be able to down load this

Ok, hang on... its glitching and wont let me upload... will try again in a moment

ETA: Still wont let me upload for some reason... not sure why??

Edited April 6, 2010 by zayda_asher

[GRLC]

Just watched the current affair story. They said that Tangos owners were stating he is a staffordshire bull terrier . You would at least think they would get the breed right considering the whole story is about what breed Tango is ??????? No wonder our beloved friends get a bad wrap in the media when the media are soo stoopid !!!!

Edited April 6, 2010 by GRLC

[justin19801]

This is really a no-brainer as the judge has simply agreed with what the rest of the world knows to be true including for SBTs. The issue is not what breed a dog is or what it looks like but Breed Discriminatory legislation. Other States will no doubt follow suite to prevent future court cases. Once they see how easy papers can be manufactured they wont be worth anything.

[Longcoat]

You were saying Longcoat....

The court rejected that Tango was an Amstaff and ruled him as a Pitbull. The court didn't rule that Pitbull's were Amstaffs. There are no restrictions upon Amstaffs.

[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.

Couldn't be bothered. Can't you understand what you have written and bolded (above)? Your own quotation disagrees with your argument.

I'll write it again

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 customs Act refers to restricted breeds and only those breeds can be restricted by council. However, council doesn't have to restrict any breeds at all which they have the option. That's the Law Jed, your interpretation is wrong

[zayda_asher]

You were saying Longcoat....

The court rejected that Tango was an Amstaff and ruled him as a Pitbull. The court didn't rule that Pitbull's were Amstaffs. There are no restrictions upon Amstaffs.

No they didn't: They ruled that Tango IS an AmStaff and then they ruled that AmStaffs ARE APBTs. So it goes like this: Tango IS an AmStaff, so he is actual fact an APBT because they are the same breed, ergo so he IS a restricted dog... this is now going to go to appeal and if the appeal is not successful there is precedent in the Qld supreme court that AmStaffs are in actual fact APBTs

Edited April 6, 2010 by zayda_asher

[Jed]

I would like to ask why the applicant used the arguments of Ms Harvey & Brashear which stated the APBT and Amstaff were the same breed?

The judge agreed with the applicant's argument.

This argument and subsequent judgement puts EVERY Amstaff in the GCCC area at grave risk.[/b]

And possibly Amstaffs in other council areas, if other councils follow the lead of GCCC

Why on earth was that done, someone who was involved with this case??

And there's hardly any point in beating up GCCC when the applicant argued their case!!

This is the relevant section, from the case. The judge's summing up of the matter. (the "I" mentioned, is the judge, J. Martin

The history of the dog is, in brief, that the applicant purchased Tango from her

brother. The applicant says that Tango’s sire (“Zeus”) and dam (“Jessie”) were

AmStaffs. Tango has never been registered but a full sister from her litter – “Miss

Maudi” – is registered as an AmStaff.

[34] A senior scientist at Genetic Technologies Corporation Pty Ltd undertook genetic

parentage testing of samples taken from Tango, Zeus and Jessie and formed the

view that Jessie and Zeus “qualify” with a reasonable level of scientific certainty as

the parents of Tango.

[35] I am satisfied that Tango is the son of Jessie and Zeus, that each of those dogs was

an AmStaff and that, in the ordinary course of events, Tango would be regarded as

an AmStaff. That, though, is not the end of the matter.

[36] Other expert evidence was called by the applicant from a Mrs Brashears and a Miss

Harvey. This was evidence which, as it turned out, was relied upon more by the

Council than the applicant.

[37] Mrs Brashears’s evidence (which consisted of an affidavit and a transcript of

evidence given by her in another case) was admitted pursuant to s 92 of the

Evidence Act 1977. Since making the affidavit and giving that evidence, Mrs

Brashears has passed away. There was no objection to the receipt of her evidence.

She was an experienced owner and breeder of AmStaffs and APBTs in the United

States of America. She was registered as a breeder with both the American Kennel

Club (“AKC”) and the United Kennel Club (“UKC”). Her evidence was that a dog

which is a purebred APBT is exactly the same dog in terms of genetic history and

make up as a dog which is a purebred AmStaff. She explained the reasons for the

difference in names in the following way:

“4. Based on information which can be obtained from the AKC

and UKC web sites, all of which is consistent with general

industry knowledge and understanding among Amstaff

breeders, and certainly with my own knowledge and

understanding:-

(a) the common origin of the two breeds arose out of

crossbreeding between the English Bulldog and one

or more breeds of English Terrier, in England, in the

early to mid-19th-century;

(b) these dogs began to make their way to the United

States in the later part of the 19th-centry, in which

country they become known as Pit Dog, Pit Bull

Terrier and, later, American Bull Terrier;

© the United Kennel Club in the United States first

recognised and registered the breed under the name

American Pit Bull Terrier in 1898;

(d) in 1936, the same dogs began to be accepted for

registration by the American Kennel Club under the

name Staffordshire Terrier;

(e) my understanding of the reason for this name change

is that:-

(i) while most of the ABPTs were used as farm

dogs, or fighting dogs, there was a group that

wanted to show their dogs in conformation,

which UKC did not offer – there was no UKC

breed standard at the time;

(ii) these persons tried to get AKC to accept them

for registration so they could show, and they

wrote the original APBT/Amstaff breed

standard for show purposes and proved pure

breeding, but AKC would not allow the name

due to the association with pit fighting;

(iii) for similar reasons, the AKC would not let

these persons use the name American Bull

Terrier either (one of the considerations) as

the white (Hinks) Bull terrier breeders did not

want them confused with their breed;

(iv) finally, the AKC agreed to accept the breed

for registration and showing under the name

Staffordshire Terrier, which the original

Amstaff owners accepted.

(f) in 1972, the AKC changed the name to American

Staffordshire Terrier, to avoid confusion with the

then newly accepted breed of Staffordshire Bull

Terrier.”

[38] Mrs Brashears then went on in her statement to give examples from her own

experience of a dog which she owned – “Presley” – which, in the AKC, won prizes

as an AmStaff and, in the UKC, won prizes as an APBT. Her evidence concluded

with the opinion that:

“Although different breeders of the respective breeds may select

different features for attempted emphasis for show judging purposes

through selective breeding, the two breeds are in all material respects

genetically and physically identical.”

[39] Evidence was also adduced by way of affidavit from Jane Harvey who has been

involved in dog exhibiting and breeding in Australia for over 58 years. She also

referred to the names used by the AKC and other kennel clubs and said:

“I am aware that, for some periods, the AKC has permitted dogs

which are registered with the UKC as American Pit Bull Terriers to

also be registered with the AKC as pedigreed AmStaffs. The two

‘breeds’ come from a common original breeding line, and are in that

sense the same dog.”

[40] None of the relevant laws or instruments, or the Commonwealth or State

interpretation Acts, provide a meaning for the term “breed”.10 The Macquarie

Concise Dictionary defines “breed” relevantly as:11

“Breed

6. Genetics a relatively homogeneous group of animals within a

species, developed and maintained by human intervention.

7. Lineage; strain.”

[41] The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following as a relevant definition of

“breed”:

“Race, lineage, stock, family; strain; a line of descendants from a

particular parentage, and distinguished by particular hereditary

qualities.”

[42] The determination of whether a dog is of a particular breed can be quite difficult.

There is, on the evidence before me, no satisfactory scientific method such as DNA

analysis which provides a reliable answer. The word “breed” itself has to be applied

carefully. To determine whether a dog is of a particular breed is, of course, a

question of fact.

[43] A breed of dog is not the same as a type of dog. In other jurisdictions the difficulty

of identification has been acknowledged. In Parker v Annan12 Lord Hope LJG said:

“There is an absence of any precise criteria by which a pit bull

terrier may be identified positively as a breed and by this means

distinguished from all other dogs. One must of course be careful

not to extend the application of the section to dogs other than those

which are described in it. A dog must be of the type known as the

pit bull terrier if the section is to apply to it. But the phrase used by

the statute enables a broad and practical approach to be taken, in a

field in which it has been recognised that the pit bull terrier cannot,

in this country at least, be precisely defined by breed or pedigree.”

[44] That passage was adopted by Glidewell LJ in R v Knightsbridge Crown Court; ex p.

Dunne13 who said:

10 cf. AMCDA, s. 6(5): “breed” includes a crossbreed of a breed.

11 Macquarie Concise Dictionary, Fifth Ed., 2009.

12 [1993] SCCR 185 at 190-191.

13 [1994] 1 WLR 296.

10

“…the word ‘type’ is not synonymous with the word ‘breed’. The

definition of a breed is normally that of some recognised body such

as the Kennel Club in the United Kingdom.”14

[45] In this case there is unchallenged evidence as to the identity of the APBT and the

AmStaff. The conclusion that I draw from that evidence is that the name “American

Staffordshire Terrier” is a name which was adopted in the United States of America

for purposes of promotion or other similar reasons and that that name was applied to

American Pit Bull Terriers. All the evidence points to the same dog being given

different names, that is, American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire

Terrier, so that a dog recognised as being of one of those “breeds” is the same as a

dog identified as being of the other “breed”. That practice appears to have been

adopted in Australia. It follows then that the views held by the Council when it

entered into the “consent order” were unfounded and that there is no difference

between an APBT and AmStaff. Therefore, as I am satisfied that the applicant has

demonstrated that Tango is an AmStaff it follows that Tango is also an ABPT and is

thus subject to the restrictions under the local laws referred above.

Conclusion

[46] The applicant is not the owner of the dog the subject of this application. The dog

“Tango” is an American Pit Bull Terrier and is, thus, subject to the Council’s

Subordinate Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals) 2007.

[47] The application is dismissed. I will hear the parties as to costs.

14 At 303.

[Jed]

'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.

Couldn't be bothered. Can't you understand what you have written and bolded (above)? Your own quotation disagrees with your argument.

I'll write it again

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 customs Act refers to restricted breeds and only those breeds can be restricted by council. However, council doesn't have to restrict any breeds at all which they have the option. That's the Law Jed, your interpretation is wrong

No, you're wrong. You have no understanding of the matter at all. You can't understand the written word, or the law, yet you are telling everyone else they are wrong.

Try to read it and comprehend it, will you please?

You sound very much like a poster named Rex.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Jed

[Longcoat]

You were saying Longcoat....

The court rejected that Tango was an Amstaff and ruled him as a Pitbull. The court didn't rule that Pitbull's were Amstaffs. There are no restrictions upon Amstaffs.

No they didn't: They ruled that Tango IS an AmStaff and then they ruled that AmStaffs ARE APBTs. So it goes like this: Tango IS an AmStaff, so he is actual fact an APBT because they are the same breed, ergo so he IS a restricted dog... this is now going to go to appeal and if the appeal is not successful there is precedent in the Qld supreme court that AmStaffs are in actual fact APBTs

I think we need to see the "proper" report. There is now another version that Tango is a Staffy??? None the less, the lesson learned for future reference is buy a pedigree dog from a registered breeder or foster papered dogs

[zayda_asher]

You were saying Longcoat....

The court rejected that Tango was an Amstaff and ruled him as a Pitbull. The court didn't rule that Pitbull's were Amstaffs. There are no restrictions upon Amstaffs.

No they didn't: They ruled that Tango IS an AmStaff and then they ruled that AmStaffs ARE APBTs. So it goes like this: Tango IS an AmStaff, so he is actual fact an APBT because they are the same breed, ergo so he IS a restricted dog... this is now going to go to appeal and if the appeal is not successful there is precedent in the Qld supreme court that AmStaffs are in actual fact APBTs

I think we need to see the "proper" report. There is now another version that Tango is a Staffy??? None the less, the lesson learned for future reference is buy a pedigree dog from a registered breeder or foster papered dogs

I've seen it. Jed posted the relevant bit in quotes above.

Nope, no one has said Tango was a SBT... he was referred to on the ACA show as a "Staffordshire Terrier", which AmStaffs are also known as, he was not referred to as a Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

Edited April 6, 2010 by zayda_asher

[zayda_asher]

I would like to ask why the applicant used the arguments of Ms Harvey & Brashear which stated the APBT and Amstaff were the same breed?

I don't understand this bit either Jed... I can only think it was evidence from much further back in the case some where, although it still doesn't make sense that they would have presented it... but this has been going on for 6 years... I don't think it would have recently been submitted by the applicant... who knows though...

[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.

Couldn't be bothered. Can't you understand what you have written and bolded (above)? Your own quotation disagrees with your argument.

I'll write it again

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 customs Act refers to restricted breeds and only those breeds can be restricted by council. However, council doesn't have to restrict any breeds at all which they have the option. That's the Law Jed, your interpretation is wrong

No, you're wrong. You have no understanding of the matter at all. You can't understand the written word, or the law, yet you are telling everyone else they are wrong.

Try to read it and comprehend it, will you please?

You sound very much like a poster named Rex.

Jed, think about it more carefully please???. The customs act has nothing to do with local council. Are you saying that a local council can add breeds to the Customs Act for import restriction???. The Customs Act is about the importation of certain dog breeds which it restricts. Those breeds that the Customs Act restricts can also be restricted by local council if they so choose. The Customs Act has nothing to do with the keeping of certain breeds, it's soley about importation/exportation.

[Jed]

This is really a no-brainer as the judge has simply agreed with what the rest of the world knows to be true including for SBTs. The issue is not what breed a dog is or what it looks like but Breed Discriminatory legislation. Other States will no doubt follow suite to prevent future court cases. Once they see how easy papers can be manufactured they wont be worth anything.

Unfortunately, BSL isn't going to be overturned any time soon. Your attitude, and like attitudes will condemn AST and Staffies to breed bans.

Papers aren't "easy to manufacture". I have no doubt that there would be some dishonest bogans out there doing this, but it certainly isn't in the best interests of ANY breed

And there will come a time when any manufactured papers are "outed"which will lead to more bans.

[Longcoat]

Many of the Amstaff/APBT people claim the two breeds are not the same..........so who's telling the truth, or is the APBT more of a "working line" Amstaff like a working line GSD or Field bred Labrador.......same dog, different leg action

[Jed]

'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.

Couldn't be bothered. Can't you understand what you have written and bolded (above)? Your own quotation disagrees with your argument.

I'll write it again

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 customs Act refers to restricted breeds and only those breeds can be restricted by council. However, council doesn't have to restrict any breeds at all which they have the option. That's the Law Jed, your interpretation is wrong

No, you're wrong. You have no understanding of the matter at all. You can't understand the written word, or the law, yet you are telling everyone else they are wrong.

Try to read it and comprehend it, will you please?

You sound very much like a poster named Rex.

Jed, think about it more carefully please???. The customs act has nothing to do with local council. Are you saying that a local council can add breeds to the Customs Act for import restriction???. The Customs Act is about the importation of certain dog breeds which it restricts. Those breeds that the Customs Act restricts can also be restricted by local council if they so choose. The Customs Act has nothing to do with the keeping of certain breeds, it's soley about importation/exportation.

Are you saying that a local council can add breeds to the Customs Act for import restriction??

No, councils can't add anything to the import bans. They have no power to do that. They do, however, have the power to ban breeds from their council areas. The APBT is included in the importation bans, yet they were not banned from council areas when the customs bans were first enacted. That came later. Councils have added breeds to the bans in the past and they will continue to do so.

Read the import bans you quoted yourself. They state that councils can add breeds - at will. No further dogs will be banned from import, but councils will ban further breeds from their cities and shires, as they have done already.

The only thing, imho, which will save AST being added to GCCC is Dawn whatsername, the GCCC councillor who is anti bans, and will probably fight in council against AST being added.

But with the supreme court ruling, other councils may well add AST to the bans.

I'm over arguing with you about this. I know a lot about it, and you know nothing, which is quite obvious by what you write, yet you are fully prepared to call me a liar, which I don't think is fair or equitable.

Additionally, I QUOTED a passage from the Supreme Court judgement, and you weren't prepared to believe even that.

Do you fail to comprehend it, or do you think I am lying because it doesn't accord with your own beliefs?

I just don't get it.

You can argue with yourself or anyone else who can be bothered. I don't have the energy to provide proof, and still be named as a liar.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Jed

[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.

Couldn't be bothered. Can't you understand what you have written and bolded (above)? Your own quotation disagrees with your argument.

I'll write it again

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 customs Act refers to restricted breeds and only those breeds can be restricted by council. However, council doesn't have to restrict any breeds at all which they have the option. That's the Law Jed, your interpretation is wrong

No, you're wrong. You have no understanding of the matter at all. You can't understand the written word, or the law, yet you are telling everyone else they are wrong.

Try to read it and comprehend it, will you please?

You sound very much like a poster named Rex.

Jed, think about it more carefully please???. The customs act has nothing to do with local council. Are you saying that a local council can add breeds to the Customs Act for import restriction???. The Customs Act is about the importation of certain dog breeds which it restricts. Those breeds that the Customs Act restricts can also be restricted by local council if they so choose. The Customs Act has nothing to do with the keeping of certain breeds, it's soley about importation/exportation.

Are you saying that a local council can add breeds to the Customs Act for import restriction??

No, councils can't add anything to the import bans. They have no power to do that. They do, however, have the power to ban breeds from their council areas. The APBT is included in the importation bans, yet they were not banned from council areas when the customs bans were first enacted. That came later. Councils have added breeds to the bans in the past and they will continue to do so.

Read the import bans you quoted yourself. They state that councils can add breeds - at will. No further dogs will be banned from import, but councils will ban further breeds from their cities and shires, as they have done already.

The only thing, imho, which will save AST being added to GCCC is Dawn whatsername, the GCCC councillor who is anti bans, and will probably fight in council against AST being added.

But with the supreme court ruling, other councils may well add AST to the bans.

The local council doesn't need to work under the Customs Act should they be empowered to restrict any breeds at will and could have their own lists. However, they don't have their own list in their bylaws, they refer the list of restricted breeds to the list as per the Customs Act. What I originally wrote was copied and pasted off the Towoomba council heading of "Restricted Breeds" which tells you to refer to the Customs Act. Towoomba council doesn't provide a list of restricted breeds in it's bylaws as an example.

[Jed]

I would like to ask why the applicant used the arguments of Ms Harvey & Brashear which stated the APBT and Amstaff were the same breed?

I don't understand this bit either Jed... I can only think it was evidence from much further back in the case some where, although it still doesn't make sense that they would have presented it... but this has been going on for 6 years... I don't think it would have recently been submitted by the applicant... who knows though...

According to the summary of the Supreme Court case, it was evidence presented at that case. I have posted it elsewhere in the BSL forum. You will find arguments from Ms Brashear and Harvey in there.

[geo]

Having read all of the thread (thanks tybrax & everyone for the info) I feel that all of the AST clubs should approach other breed clubs for their support and everyone should essentially stop slinging mud, whether a dog is papered or not, pure bred or mongrel, i don't care, all dogs have a right to life and as our beloved pets deserve the very best that we can give them, just like John was fighting for tango, all dog owners have a right to own whatever breed they want and should fight for that freedom of choice but be responsible enough to do the dog and it's breed justice.

People arguing on an internet thread, is just that, an internet thread...(don't get me wrong i enjoy it) the big picture is that potentially tens of thousands of dogs could fall foul to a pathetic law that possibly in a few years they could say, "hey we got it wrong, lets change it but put more emphasis on responsible owners." Or even worse, all big dogs will be a thing of the past and we'll have no choice.

Everyone in court today was fighting for us and any dog that resembles a pitbull, hell both my dogs do, and i'll happily donate to them to keep going.

There's plenty of people on this thread with big opinions and good reasoning, maybe collectively we could start a public rally, for all dogs big and small.

This really is crunch time, and if we as owners let this pass without making a lot of noise, (contructively of course) we'll be stuck with whatever some politician thinks he'll win votes with.

Papered dog owners should be even more concerned as their is proof of where you live and the dogs you own, is everyone going to wait and put their heads in the sand until the council comes knockin for your dog.

For all the people involved in the case, thank you for your hard work, i as a dog owner appreciate it.