500,000 To Keep Dog On Death Row.

[tybrax]

$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

Edited April 5, 2010 by tybrax

[greydobe]

This is very scary! I have an amstaff X ACD but registered her as an ACD X purely for this exact reason. It will mean the beginning of the end for all breeds deemed dangerous by people who have no idea . eg Rotties, Dobes even German Shepherds. I pray Tango wins.

ETA

What is even scarier are the idiot comments! Do people really think BSL is a good thing???? People are so short sighted, they dont see where this will lead.

Edited April 5, 2010 by greydobe

[GeckoTree]

Good luck with the decision today.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Not a great way for a dog to spend 5 years, whatever the situation.

[chrisjc]

it doesnt look good at all , in some ways yes in others no, it seems amazing what some people will do out of spite.

Tybrax, from what i understand is very busy dealing with media ect and John is still in the court room.

i will save the correct info for Tybrax to tell as i do not want to write it and it not be 100% acurate.

one thing i will say is "we told you so" to all those people who wouldnt help and said they would never be effected.

[Wajoma's Aussies]

Decision was just announced on 9 news ...

Supreme court found that Amstaff and Pit Bull are same breed

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/0...court-news.html

A COUPLE'S $500,000 bid to fight for their dog to live on the Gold Coast have lost their court battle with their dog Tango ruled to be an American pit bull - a breed not allowed to be housed in the city.

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

However, Judge J Martin today ruled Tango was an American pit bull. Under council's by-laws the dog is now deemed dangerous and needs to be put down.

$500,000 to keep dog off death row

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's decision could have wider ramifications for thousands of dog owners who believed their American staffordshire terriers were a different breed and not subject to the same dangerous breed by-laws.

Gold City Council will hold a press conference this afternoon at 2.30pm with Councillor Bob LaCastra to make a statement over the court ruling.

[Kirty]

Holy crap! ;) That is very very scary. Where do you draw the line now? Will AmStaff's be broadened to Staffords?

[Cosmolo]

Oh my god.. ;) The ramifications of this could be MASSIVE- where will this all end?

[casowner]

What will that mean for registered Am staff breeders in QLD? Could puppy buyers come back at them for selling a restricted breed if they ran into problems?

Very scary times ahead indeed

[megan_]

Decision was just announced on 9 news ...

Supreme court found that Amstaff and Pit Bull are same breed

While I don't agree with the ruling, I didn't read anything to imply that the ruling said the above? Even before the ruling, unless you have a purebred Amastaff with papers, your amastaff/staffie looking dog could be labelled a pit bull. That is very different from a judge saying that Amastaffs and pit bulls are the same thing (thereby implying that people with papered Amastaffs are now deemed to be pit bull owners int eh eyes of the law).

I feel very sorry for the poor dog - kenneled for 5 years.

[Wajoma's Aussies]

Decision was just announced on 9 news ... Supreme court found that Amstaff and Pit Bull are same breed

While I don't agree with the ruling, I didn't read anything to imply that the ruling said the above? Even before the ruling, unless you have a purebred Amastaff with papers, your amastaff/staffie looking dog could be labelled a pit bull. That is very different from a judge saying that Amastaffs and pit bulls are the same thing (thereby implying that people with papered Amastaffs are now deemed to be pit bull owners int eh eyes of the law). I feel very sorry for the poor dog - kenneled for 5 years.<br />

you're right Megan, the article I copy/pasted didn't say that .. It was said on nine news update ...

here's another article, where it's said, and where Nine probably got their quote from http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/d-day-f...6-1225850154257 its down near the bottom ...

Today, hundreds of thousands of dollars later, Justice Glenn Martin found in favour of council lawyers who argued the American pit bull and American staffordshire terrier were the same breed, meaning both were dangerous.

Edited April 6, 2010 by meeka

[greydobe]

;)

I am very disappointed about this. AND quite scared about the follow on from it.

[mr.mister]

;)

[Kelly_Louise]

That is truly scary... and I don't even own either breed.

However, it is a very sad day for dog lovers and owners... who knows where it will end, and what rights we will be left with...

[iffykharma]

Oh my word! I cannot believe that decision. I hope there is an avenue of appeal - and that there are funds to bring it... This is madness. ;)

ETA I've just read the article again which says it was the last appeal. I do hope that isn't the case, or that there are grounds to appeal to the full bench of the Supreme Court or something.

Edited April 6, 2010 by iffykharma

[dogbesotted]

bye bye bully breeds

;) :D

[mr.mister]

I can't possibly imagine how those people would feel right now, losing a five year battle for their obviously very beloved dog. ;)

[Kelly_Louise]

I can't possibly imagine how those people would feel right now, losing a five year battle for their obviously very beloved dog. ;)

I agree... how thoroughly heart breaking. Where is the justice?

[tybrax]

Argument proving Tango to be an Amstaff, also proving the 22 point checklist to be a complete false tool to identify a suspected dog to be a Pit bull terrier, we also were to prove that the Animal control Officers hold no qualification/training of any real bearing to be an expert under the rules of law, as an expert in dog breed identification.

All three points the Gold Coast City Councils 2 QC's agreed with without contesting any part.

These are the points we were fighting for and won they did not contest.

In fact they indicated that for the past 6 years they may have got everything wrong with the way they had administered this law but could fix it?

Then they threw this on the table. The Amstaff was a Pit bull terrier??????

So we had proven that Tango was an Amstaff, the 22 point checklist was false and the ACO were not experts so all their evidence was inadmissible, But, Tango still was a Pit bull terrier as Amstaffs are really Pit bulls just known by another name??

Rather than concede, and allow the return of Tango to Qld they would rather destroy all Amstaffs as well???

The direction given by Geoff Irwin to the law firm King & Co Solicitors', to take in order to win, this submission is now before the Judge who has to rule on the evidence before him. This is Councils arguments only, not a court judgement!!!

This is just sheer "MALICE" By Geoff Irwin to go after the Amstaff because they new they could not win.

tybrax

Edited April 6, 2010 by tybrax

[Lhok]

So where does that leave it now?

(Not able to follow the legal jargon, sorry)

Could someone explain it in laymans?

--Lhok