When Is A Pit Bull Not A Pit Bull?

[Lowenhart]

http://dogsqueensland.org.au/News.aspx?id=217

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 maintains that “they are confident and can conclude that the breed signature for APBT is different to that of the AmStaff.”

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.

[mita]

I do like a lot of the statements made in that media release. It's so good to see the Qld registering body representing purebreds, step up to the plate.

And, buried in there, is the statement that what needs to be focused on, are the deeds that make a dog into an unsafe creature....not the breed.

RSPCA Qld has said the same thing, when asked for comment, too.

I notice that Dogs Qld will be conferring with the relevant Gov Minister to sort any potential problems. I hope it's noted at that meeting, that RSPCA Qld has backed one factor central to their case. So there's a united front on that one!

Edited April 8, 2010 by mita

[justin19801]

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.

Unfortunately they are again looking to save themselves at others expense.

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”.

They would be the only group in the world which could do so.

Fortunately Common Law now states the obvious and the Qld govt will have to deal with that not the nonsense that the breeds are different.

[chrisjc]

suprised?

[Zhou Xuanyao]

It is good that they are coming out and having their say on behalf of their members.

Problem is, some of what has been said is false and/or misleading, meaning, it is likely to be discredited.

Having said that, logic certainly is not the strong point when it comes to BSL so who really knows.

[megan_]

Unfortunately they are again looking to save themselves at others expense.

Huh? I have nothing to do with the ANKC, but comments like this are really unfair. Tango's case was not about over turning BSL - that is something that can only be done by winning the hearts and minds of the public. That battle is far from over - most people are terrified of pitbulls.

The fight to overturn BSL is a long-term one. The first step is to stop further breeds being added (as has happened here) and then to win over the public. That is going to take a lot more than petitions and court cases. A strategy to weed out dodgy breeders and owners needs to be developed etc. I am a member of the general public (not a showie or an APBT or Amastaff owner) and I haven't seen anything that would sway most people yet.

This case was about:

i) Whether Tango was an Amastaff

ii) Whether Amastaff = pitbull.

It wasn't about whether banning pitbulls was good or bad. It was never test case for pitbulls as far as I can see.

Of course the ANKC is going to stick up for their breeders. What did you expect? That they'd come out fighting for dodgy breeders who breed illegal litters? They are paid by their members to represent their members - what is wrong with that?

I think you are seriously miscalculating things if you think that showing:

i) Amastaffs = pitbulls

ii) Amastaffs are legal, therefore pitbulls should be legal

is going to win the fight against BSL. Joe public is scared of pitbulls - they have read horror stories in the news and no court ruling is going to change that. No politician is going to campaign on ending BSL and win in the short term. There are only two viable results from this now:

i) They will agree that Amastaffs are pitbulls and ban them all

ii) They will disagree and Amastaffs will be let off the hook.

No politician in their right mind is going to champion lifting the ban on pitbulls - the general public is just too scared.

Lastly, the AKNC are not saving themselves at everyone else's expense. They are not saying they support BSL, they are just trying to make sure that their dogs aren't impacted too.

[kamuzz]

Fortunately Common Law now states the obvious and the Qld govt will have to deal with that not the nonsense that the breeds are different.

please explain what this comment means?

[justin19801]

suprised?

No not really. Rather than fight BSL they are trying to distance themselves from it. Hasn't worked in the UK, hasn't worked in Europe, hasn't worked in Canada, hasn't worked in US and I doubt it will work here as the proponents of BSL have nothing to do with public safety. At least if Qld govt states Amstaffs are excluded common law states that they are the same so an Amstaff without papers is also excluded, ie APBTs.