Supreme Court Judgment

[Jed]

To save any misunderstandings, here's the full judgment

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Kylie Louise Chivers v Gold Coast City Council [2010] QSC

98

PARTIES: KYLIE LOUISE CHIVERS

(applicant)

v

GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL

(respondent)

FILE NO/S: BS6396/07

DIVISION: Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Application

DELIVERED ON: 6 April 2010

DELIVERED AT: Supreme Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 29 March 2010

JUDGE: Martin J

ORDER: APPLICATION DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW –

APPLICATION FOR DECLARATION – where respondent

decided that the applicant was keeping an American Pit Bull

Terrier and therefore contravened the relevant local law –

whether applicant was owner of the dog – whether applicant

had standing to seek judicial review

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW –

APPLICATION FOR DECLARATION – where respondent

decided that the applicant was keeping an American Pit Bull

Terrier and therefore contravened the relevant local law –

whether an American Pit Bull Terrier is the same breed as an

American Staffordshire Terrier

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld)

Customs Act 1901 (Cth)

Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth)

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)

Local Government Act 1993 (Qld)

Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals) 1998

(Gold Coast City Council)

Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld)

Subordinate Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of

2

Animals) 2007 (Gold Coast City Council)

Parker v Annan [1993] SCCR 185

R v Knightsbridge Crown Court; ex p. Dunne [1994] 1 WLR

296

COUNSEL: S P Fynes-Clinton for the applicant

R J Bain QC and R Quirk for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Counsel directly briefed for the applicant

King and Co for the respondent

[1] This application concerns the fate of a dog called “Tango”. In 2004 the Gold Coast

City Council decided that Tango was an American Pit Bull Terrier and ordered that

he be destroyed. The applicant appealed that order. She and the Council reached a

compromise – he was not destroyed; but he had to leave the Gold Coast. The

applicant says that she has satisfied a particular term of the compromise and that

means that Tango should be able to come back to the Gold Coast. Whether he can is

the matter for decision..

Application for review

[2] The applicant brings her application under Pt 5 of the Judicial Review Act 1991.

She seeks:-

(a) a declaration that the keeping by the applicant of her dog “Tango” at her

home … , in the local government area of the City of Gold Coast, does not

contravene s 10 of the respondent’s Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and

Control of Animals); and

(b) an injunction restraining the respondent from seizing or otherwise

interfering with the dog “Tango” for so long as it is otherwise kept in

accordance with the respondent’s Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control

of Animals).

[3] The grounds upon which the application is brought include:-

(a) that Tango is of the breed American Staffordshire Terrier (“AmStaff”).

(b) that the evidence upon which the respondent Council purported to rely in

support of its assertion that Tango was an American Pit Bull Terrier

(“APBT”) was of no value because the assessment process used by the

respondent was incapable of identifying whether a dog was wholly or partly

of the breed APBT.

[4] The major issues are:

(a) who is the current owner of Tango,

(b) whether Tango is an APBT, and

© whether the APBT is a breed apart from the AmStaff.

3

[5] In April 2004 Tango was seized by the respondent Council and was made the

subject of a destruction order. That action was taken on the basis that he was an

APBT and, so, came within the provisions of the then relevant local law dealing

with the keeping of a prohibited animal.

[6] The applicant, who was then the owner of Tango, appealed against the destruction

order. In August 2004 that appeal was settled and a consent order was made by the

Magistrates Court in the following terms:-

“1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. Within 21 days the dog “Tango” be released by the

respondent to the appellant at a location outside the GCCC

jurisdictional area, the costs of transportation to be met by

the appellant.

3. The dog is never to be returned to the GCCC jurisdictional

area unless the appellant is able to satisfy the respondent that

the dog is a purebred American Staffordshire terrier.

4. Prior to the dog’s release to the appellant, the dog is to be

micro-chipped by the respondent at the appellant’s expense.

5. There be no order as to costs.”

[7] There was no jurisdiction to make orders 2, 3 and 4 but, for the purposes of this

application that is of no moment. Those orders represent, at least, the agreement

reached between the appellant and the respondent.

[8] This application was filed in July 2007. Since then there have been substantial

changes to the legislation relating to the issue of “restricted dogs”. As the applicant

seeks declarations as to current entitlement it is necessary to examine the current

legislation and other statutory regimes that apply.

Relevant legislation

[9] The Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (“AMCDA”) commenced on 1

July 2009. One of the purposes of the AMCDA is “to provide for the effective

management of regulated dogs”.1

[10] The AMCDA does not prevent a local law from imposing (further) requirements in

relation to cats or dogs generally.2 A local authority may make a local law

prohibiting anyone in its local government area, other than an exempted person,

from possessing a dog of a particular breed.3 “Breed” includes crossbreed of a

breed, and “local law” includes a subordinate local law.4

1 AMCDA, s. 3(b).

2 AMCDA, s. 6(1).

3 AMCDA, s. 6(2).

4 AMCDA, s. 6(5).

4

[11] To the extent that the AMCDA and a local law are inconsistent, the local law is

invalid to the extent of any inconsistency.5 The AMCDA does not limit a civil right

or remedy that exists apart from the Act, whether at common law or otherwise.6

AMCDA, Chapter 4, Regulated dogs

[12] A regulated dog is a “restricted dog”.7 A restricted dog is, relevantly, “a dog of a

breed prohibited from importation into Australia under the Customs Act 1901

(Cwlth).”8

[13] The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cwlth), r. 3 provides:

“3 Goods the importation of which is prohibited absolutely

(1) The importation of goods specified in Schedule 1 is

prohibited absolutely.”

[14] Schedule 1 to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 relevantly

provides:

“Schedule 1 Goods the importation of which is prohibited absolutely

(regulation 3)

Item Description of goods

2 Advertising matter relating to any goods covered by this Schedule

26 Dogs of the following breeds:

(a) dogo Argentino;

(b) fila Brasileiro;

© Japanese tosa;

(d) American pit bull terrier or pit bull terrier;”

[15] The AMCDA provides:

“71 Permit required for restricted dog

A person must not, unless the person has a reasonable excuse, own,

or be a responsible person for, a restricted dog unless the relevant

local government has issued a restricted dog permit to someone to

keep the dog.

Maximum penalty – 75 penalty units.”

[16] Chapter 4, part 3 of the AMCDA deals with restricted dog permits.

Section 10 of Gold Coast City Council Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of

Animals)

5 AMCDA, s. 6(3).

6 AMCDA, s. 7(1).

7 AMCDA, s. 60©.

8 AMCDA, s. 63(1).

5

[17] Section 10 of Gold Coast City Council Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of

Animals)(“Local Law 12”) provides:

“10(1) A local law policy may prohibit absolutely:-

(a) the keeping of an animal;

(b) the keeping of particular species, breed, age or sex of an

animal;

© the keeping of an animal in an identified part of the Area; and

(d) the keeping of more than a specified number of an animal.

(2) A person must not keep an animal contrary to a prohibition

mentioned in subsection (1).

Maximum Penalty: 50 Penalty Units”

[18] The Gold Coast City Council Subordinate Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control

of Animals) 2007 (“Subordinate Local Law No. 12”) relevantly provides:

“24 Prohibition on keeping of restricted dogs – Local Law, s10(1)

(1) A person must not keep a restricted dog in the local

government area of the local government.”

[19] There are a number of exceptions to the prohibition in s. 24(1) of Subordinate Local

Law No. 12. None of those is asserted in the Application to be applicable.

[20] Section 3 and Schedule 1 to Subordinate Local Law No. 12 provide for the

definition of particular words used in Subordinate Local Law No. 12. Schedule 1

provides:

“restricted dog has the meaning given in section 1193E of the Act.

Section 1193E of the Act provides that a restricted dog is a dog –

(a) of a breed as follows –

(i) dogo Argentino;

(ii) fila Brasileiro;

(iii) Japanese tosa; or

(b) of the type commonly known as ‘American pit bull terrier’ or ‘pit

bull terrier’; or ‘pit bull terrier’; or

© of a breed or type prescribed under a regulation; or

(d) that is a crossbreed, or the offspring of, a dog of a breed or type

mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or ©, whether or not the dog

appears to be a dog of that type or breed.

Also, a dog is a restricted dog if it is the subject of a restricted dog

declaration.”

[21] That section was omitted from the Local Government Act 1993 on 1 July 2009, as

was the whole of chapter 17A. From that time, the definition of “restricted dog” in

the AMCDA has applied.9

9 Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s. 14H; Statutory Instruments Act 1992, ss. 7, 14, schedule 1.

6

[22] It follows, then, that an American pit bull terrier, or a pit bull terrier or a cross-breed

of one or other of them is a restricted dog the keeping of which is prohibited.

Ownership

[23] The respondent raised the standing of the applicant to bring the application and

argued that she was not, at the time of making the application, nor at the hearing,

the owner of Tango and that, therefore, she had no relevant interest upon which to

make her application.

[24] This submission was based upon the evidence contained in a series of documents

which made up Exhibit 8. The first was a facsimile transmitted by the applicant to

an officer of the respondent on 10 September 2004 following the “consent order”

referred to above. The body of the document reads:-

“To Geoff Irwin

Tango is now owned by Brian Jones. He has taken over the

ownership of the microchip and registered Tango in NSW. He will

be contacting you to arrange to collect Tango. I have attached copies

of the registration and microchip change of ownership.

Kylie Chivers”

[25] Attached to the facsimile was a document entitled “Declaration Change of

Ownership”. It appears to be a document relating to a micro-chip registry

conducted by a private concern. The document is signed in the appropriate places

by both the applicant and Brian Jones, the applicant’s step-father. The document

refers to the applicant as the previous owner and Mr Jones as the new owner. It is

dated 9 September 2004.

[26] The applicant was cross-examined and re-examined on this documentation. The

gist of her evidence was that she regarded Tango as her dog or her family’s dog.

There was no evidence that anything had changed since her statement to the Council

made in the facsimile of 10 September 2004.

[27] In re-examination the applicant was asked the following by Mr Fynes-Clinton:

“Having regard to what you were asked and what you have seen

about the involvement of Mr Jones, would you please explain to the

court the nature of your current interest in the dog Tango as at today,

29 March 2004? --- He is my dog. That’s why I am here, so I can

bring him home.”

[28] Tango has been living in New South Wales since 21 September 2004 when he was

collected by Mr Jones from Council officers. Ms Chivers gave evidence that she

has, since that time, paid kennel fees of approximately $17,000.00.

[29] In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate there has been a change in the

position since that notified by the applicant in September 2004, I find that the

applicant was not, at the time of making the application nor at the time of its

hearing, the owner of Tango.

7

[30] Should I be wrong in that conclusion I will consider the other matters raised in the

application.

What breed is Tango?

[31] It is reasonable to infer from the agreement which underlay the “consent order” that,

at that time, both the applicant and the respondent were of the view that an

American Pit Bull Terrier was not the same breed as an American Staffordshire

Terrier.

[32] That view appears to have been maintained by the Council (at least to the

knowledge of the applicant) until the hearing of this application when, in reliance

upon the expert evidence called by the applicant, it submitted that an ABPT is the

same breed as an AmStaff.

[33] 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

8

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:

9

“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.

[GeckoTree]

Thanks

[whippets]

That case will probably set a precedent for any other case involving an Amstaff/APBT being the same breed in this country. I feel really bad for the Amstaff breeders/owners. This could possibly be the start of the end of the Amstaff in this country.

Jane Harvey isn't going to be very popular now either.

How stupid of the applicant to use these people as evidence. Stupid, just stupid.

Edited April 6, 2010 by whippets

[Jed]

Oh well, if they are the same breed as the APBT they are undoubtedly as savage, so banning them is probably good.

And then they'll add staffies, then rottweilers, then GSD and dobermanns, and then begin on the other breeds. the bite stats wont fall, so they can just keep banning breeds.

And when they ban Maltese, and Chihuahua's bite, they can ban them too, then there wont be any dogs, so there wont be any dog attacks.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[whippets]

It's not the GCCC that is at fault for Amstaffs and APBT's to be judged the same breed. It's Ms Chivers fault. The applicant provided evidence that Amstaffs and APBT's ARE the same breed. The GCCC didn't contest, why would they? The defendants agreed with the evidence and used it against the applicant. Therefore the court ruled they were the same breed.

I still don't get why Ms Chivers would provide that kind of evidence. STUPID.

Edited April 6, 2010 by whippets

[geo]

It's not the GCCC that is at fault for Amstaffs and APBT's to be judged the same breed. It's Ms Chivers fault. The applicant provided evidence that Amstaffs and APBT's ARE the same breed. The GCCC didn't contest, why would they? The defendants agreed with the evidence and used it against the applicant. Therefore the court ruled they were the same breed.

I still don't get why Ms Chivers would provide that kind of evidence. STUPID.

What's done is done, maybe they were looking for a win for all unpapered amstaffs or pitbulls, i don't think calling them stupid is going to change anything.

What if the thought, hey he's an amstaff and he's 'got off' what about all the other dogs (pits), they're all the same so why not let us own them aswell.

Personally i don't think the council would ever have lost, they wouldn't go back on what they thought was right, and would spend whatever it took to get their way. They're the real reason all amstaff owners now find themselves in. not Ms Chivers. All she has done is care about her dog and fought tooth and nail for him, sure i don't know why this evidence was produced, but it's done, and all papered amstaff owners may look at the back yard pitbull owner in a different light, for now they will be classed as the same.

[Longcoat]

It's not the GCCC that is at fault for Amstaffs and APBT's to be judged the same breed. It's Ms Chivers fault. The applicant provided evidence that Amstaffs and APBT's ARE the same breed. The GCCC didn't contest, why would they? The defendants agreed with the evidence and used it against the applicant. Therefore the court ruled they were the same breed.

I still don't get why Ms Chivers would provide that kind of evidence. STUPID.

What's done is done, maybe they were looking for a win for all unpapered amstaffs or pitbulls, i don't think calling them stupid is going to change anything.

What if the thought, hey he's an amstaff and he's 'got off' what about all the other dogs (pits), they're all the same so why not let us own them aswell.Personally i don't think the council would ever have lost, they wouldn't go back on what they thought was right, and would spend whatever it took to get their way. They're the real reason all amstaff owners now find themselves in. not Ms Chivers. All she has done is care about her dog and fought tooth and nail for him, sure i don't know why this evidence was produced, but it's done, and all papered amstaff owners may look at the back yard pitbull owner in a different light, for now they will be classed as the same.

That's not uncommon with the anti-BSLer's putting the spotlight on other breeds to try and get their's off the hook It's a wonder the bite stats didn't come out to put some heat on GSD's, Rotties, Dobes etc as they usually do. Not that I support BSL in any way...........but if the anti-BSL crowd don't be careful what they are doing like in this case, they can be a dangerous lot. It is Ms Chivers fault totally from the beginning buying an unpapered dog. Dedicated dog people have been campaigning for years for people to buy pedigree papered dogs from registered breeders, personally, like thousands of others, I haven't had an unpapered dog for 30 years and have no interest in ever owning one again, but everyone knows better and the one needing a papered dog more than anyone in the circumstances was Ms Chivers

You have to admire the dedication for someone to fight and protect their dog which is commendable, but a silly slip up to save "ONE" dog has the potential to have "HOW MANY" Amstaffs possibly facing the needle route to Rainbow Bridge There are some good lessons to be learned from this case and hopefully some people have learned to re-access their approach with anti BSL campaigns as to how the best intentions can backfire for the worse.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Longcoat

[Sheba]

"Stupid stupid stupid".

Well perhaps. But the point of the evidence in question was to prove that the Council's 22 point breed ID system, based on using the USA UKC breed standard as a unique identification tool, was flawed and of no validity.

That was one of the two points that the case was originally all about - the other being Tango's actual breed.

Full marks to the Council for finding a way to win a case which, as originally joined - on those 2 issues - they were bound to lose. They did it by changing tack at the last moment (half way through the hearing on 29 MArch 2010) without any notice to Ms Chivers so she could reconsider her position or respond with further evidence about how the breeds can be distinguished in Australia.

So were the Applicants stupid, or was the Council just smarter on the day? Opinions will vary, but opinions epxressed in ignorance of what actually happened really do deserve a smack over the head.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Sheba

[WreckitWhippet]

The only Bull Breeds that will exist shortly around the country will be those with ANKC papers. So much for the big win, this was cracked up to be just a week ago.

BUYER BEWARE and make sure you get your ANKC papers that correspond with the microchip on them and in the dog.

[Crisovar]

The only Bull Breeds that will exist shortly around the country will be those with ANKC papers. So much for the big win, this was cracked up to be just a week ago.

BUYER BEWARE and make sure you get your ANKC papers that correspond with the microchip on them and in the dog.

You really think that having a piece of paper is going to save dogs?

[GeckoTree]

From what I have heard I think it was a news report, the council have now passed the ball along to the state government in regards to whether or not they believe AST does indeed fall under the definition of a pitbull.

[tybrax]

Its called pass the buck.

tybrax

[R00]

The only Bull Breeds that will exist shortly around the country will be those with ANKC papers. So much for the big win, this was cracked up to be just a week ago.

BUYER BEWARE and make sure you get your ANKC papers that correspond with the microchip on them and in the dog.

You really think that having a piece of paper is going to save dogs?

Maybe not but having papers is better than having nothing. At the bare minimum it will save any confusion as to what breed the dog is, which by reading the above judgement was most of the case.

[Are You Serious Jo]

I'm still stunned at the evidence the applicants tendered, that has badly backfired, what were they thinking

Edited April 6, 2010 by ijdavis 2.0

[geo]

It's not the GCCC that is at fault for Amstaffs and APBT's to be judged the same breed. It's Ms Chivers fault. The applicant provided evidence that Amstaffs and APBT's ARE the same breed. The GCCC didn't contest, why would they? The defendants agreed with the evidence and used it against the applicant. Therefore the court ruled they were the same breed.

I still don't get why Ms Chivers would provide that kind of evidence. STUPID.

What's done is done, maybe they were looking for a win for all unpapered amstaffs or pitbulls, i don't think calling them stupid is going to change anything.

What if the thought, hey he's an amstaff and he's 'got off' what about all the other dogs (pits), they're all the same so why not let us own them aswell.Personally i don't think the council would ever have lost, they wouldn't go back on what they thought was right, and would spend whatever it took to get their way. They're the real reason all amstaff owners now find themselves in. not Ms Chivers. All she has done is care about her dog and fought tooth and nail for him, sure i don't know why this evidence was produced, but it's done, and all papered amstaff owners may look at the back yard pitbull owner in a different light, for now they will be classed as the same.

That's not uncommon with the anti-BSLer's putting the spotlight on other breeds to try and get their's off the hook It's a wonder the bite stats didn't come out to put some heat on GSD's, Rotties, Dobes etc as they usually do. Not that I support BSL in any way...........but if the anti-BSL crowd don't be careful what they are doing like in this case, they can be a dangerous lot. It is Ms Chivers fault totally from the beginning buying an unpapered dog. Dedicated dog people have been campaigning for years for people to buy pedigree papered dogs from registered breeders, personally, like thousands of others, I haven't had an unpapered dog for 30 years and have no interest in ever owning one again, but everyone knows better and the one needing a papered dog more than anyone in the circumstances was Ms Chivers

You have to admire the dedication for someone to fight and protect their dog which is commendable, but a silly slip up to save "ONE" dog has the potential to have "HOW MANY" Amstaffs possibly facing the needle route to Rainbow Bridge There are some good lessons to be learned from this case and hopefully some people have learned to re-access their approach with anti BSL campaigns as to how the best intentions can backfire for the worse.

I was not putting the spot light on other dogs.. not sure if you intended that statement for me?

[Howl]

Its called pass the buck.

tybrax

I would think that it is a sensible thing for them to do.

It was state legislation in the first place that brought in the restrictions, and state intention that Am Staffs not be thought of as "pit bull type".

The GCCC would be aware of the ramifications this could have statewide, even nationwide.

Besides Tybrax, do you really want the GCCC to make such a decision??

Edited April 7, 2010 by Howl

[tybrax]

Sheer Malice

[harleyrose]

This was always going to be a bad result. There could be no other outcome. Unfortunately the court got it right.

Everyone involved in the breeding & exhibiting of pure breed dogs knows the AST is the APBT bred to a standard for the conformation & the temperament desired by the the true believers of the breed.

They have been cruising under the radar, until now.

This silly uninformed person has just put redneck crosshairs squarely on the breed. She certainly had bad advice.

I see a bad moon rising. I see trouble on the way.

[tybrax]

This was always going to be a bad result. There could be no other outcome. Unfortunately the court got it right.

Everyone involved in the breeding & exhibiting of pure breed dogs knows the AST is the APBT bred to a standard for the conformation & the temperament desired by the the true believers of the breed.

They have been cruising under the radar, until now.

This silly uninformed person has just put redneck crosshairs squarely on the breed. She certainly had bad advice.

I see a bad moon rising. I see trouble on the way.

Easy to lay blame when it was Geoff Irwins who handed the submission in stating the amstaff is a Pit bull at the last minute.

What was his comment in court, oh yeah we made a mistakes 6 years ago, and forgot to add the Amstaff.

Sheer Malice

tybrax

[harleyrose]

This was always going to be a bad result. There could be no other outcome. Unfortunately the court got it right.

Everyone involved in the breeding & exhibiting of pure breed dogs knows the AST is the APBT bred to a standard for the conformation & the temperament desired by the the true believers of the breed.

They have been cruising under the radar, until now.

This silly uninformed person has just put redneck crosshairs squarely on the breed. She certainly had bad advice.

I see a bad moon rising. I see trouble on the way.

Easy to lay blame when it was Geoff Irwins who handed the submission in stating the amstaff is a Pit bull at the last minute.

What was his comment in court, oh yeah we made a mistakes 6 years ago, and forgot to add the Amstaff.

Sheer Malice

tybrax

It's a terrible result.

But one that every breed knowlegable individual knew was a distinct possibility.

There is no escaping the fact the AST & the APBT are the same breed.

Being in denial doesn't help.

In fact it has just exaggerated the situation. There are so many people out there with dogs they were told were not APBTs They are now faced with a raft of possibilities, all of them bad.

I have just had a pool installed & the contractor was telling me about his AST.

I ask him the obvious questions..."

"Did you buy him from a registered breeder"

"Yes"

"did you get the ANKC registration papers?"

"No, we don't want to show him"

"First thing you do when you get home is contact the breeder & arrange for the papers to be forwarded, without them if there is any bother your dog will be classed as a pit bull. ANKC rego papers with the matching micro chip number will be accepted as proof of breed & could just save his life & you a lot of grief"

"But he is an Amstaff, not a pit bull"

'" Same breed"

'They told me it isn't"

"They lied"

Now it may not matter anymore.

It would have been better for all concerned if the people had of just moved south to Australia.

Cheaper too.

How much do you reckon the court costs will be? A mill maybe?