A Reply From Dip Qld.

[geo]

This was a letter i recieved from Logan Timms.

Thank you for your e-mail today

As I stated on ABC radio this morning, the Department of Infrastructure and Planning is examining this week's Supreme Court decision relating to a specific and long-running case involving the Gold Coast City Council and the owners of an American Staffordshire terrier.

It was never the State's intention to include American Staffordshire terriers in the definition of a "restricted dog" used by Federal, State and local laws. This is precisely why the Department of Infrastructure and Planning is carefully analysing what, if any implications the Supreme Court decision may have.

In Queensland, the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 sets down conditions for keeping and controlling "regulated" dogs, which includes dangerous, menacing and restricted dogs.

The Queensland legislation uses the definition of "restricted dog" set by the Federal Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulation 1956. It identifies five dog breeds which are prohibited from importation. The Commonwealth agencies enforcing this law are the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and Customs which have advised the State Department of Infrastructure and Planning that American Staffordshire Terriers can be legally imported.

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.

I will ensure you are e-mailed and kept in the loop regarding any developments on this issue.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write regarding this issue.

Kindest Regards

Logan

Logan Timms

Senior Policy Officer

Local Government Services

Department of Infrastructure and Planning

[GeckoTree]

Good stuff mate! I really hope they dont add them to the list.

[RufDiamonz]

Do you mind if i cross post this for the amstaff community

[dogbesotted]

nice to get a reply... but it really does not give much comfort as the decsions remain with the councils....

H

[geo]

nice to get a reply... but it really does not give much comfort as the decsions remain with the councils....

H

I know, it would be nice if they lifted their ban on pitbulls but registered owners instead.

Whatever they decide will have massive implications.

[ZBC]

That reads to me like the classic buck pass, right back to GCCC!

[GeckoTree]

Under subordinate local laws individual councils can regulate what they wish to, that has been the case for a very long time and I highly doubt the state govt will recind that any time soon.

This is about the standards of restricted beed dogs under the regulated dogs part of the recent upgraded legislation. The minumum standards are desexed muzzled enclosed not advertised etc.

[mita]

This was a letter i recieved from Logan Timms....

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.

That's the open-ended nature of the present Act in Qld. Which means councils can add what they like in respect to dog breeds. So negotiation with the State Gov Dpt re ensuring Amstaffs don't get caught up in the 'restricted' list....as a result of the Tango Supreme Court decision...doesn't impact on what the councils decide to do.

Edited April 8, 2010 by mita

[justin19801]

It is my understanding now that the Common Law states they are the same breed it is irrelevant what the Qld govt legislates, unless they are seen to be part of dog club politics, which may be actionable in itself. Councils will support the ruling as it will end future law suits against them. A Mandanus ruling will force them to begin enforcing the law against ASTs immediately. The law has merely accepted what the rest of the world already knows to be true. Rather than arguing over which dog clubs dogs should fall under BSL we should be fighting BSL itself.

[iffykharma]

This was a letter i recieved from Logan Timms....

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.

That's the open-ended nature of the present Act in Qld. Which means councils can add what they like in respect to dog breeds. So negotiation with the State Gov Dpt re ensuring Amstaffs don't get caught up in the 'restricted' list....as a result of the Tango Supreme Court decision...doesn't impact on what the councils decide to do.

True. Which means the next step must be to get the State Government to legislate that Council's may not ban breeds but must take appropriate action against individual dogs, and their owners, where those dogs present a clear danger to society. By that I mean, take action against individual dogs by declaring them as dangerous in response to specific incidents, and monitoring those dogs and their owners to ensure they cannot cause harm to another animal or human. This of course must be done in conjunction with programs that promote and support responsible ownership, etc, etc, etc.

[mita]

True. Which means the next step must be to get the State Government to legislate that Council's may not ban breeds but must take appropriate action against individual dogs, and their owners, where those dogs present a clear danger to society. By that I mean, take action against individual dogs by declaring them as dangerous in response to specific incidents, and monitoring those dogs and their owners to ensure they cannot cause harm to another animal or human. This of course must be done in conjunction with programs that promote and support responsible ownership, etc, etc, etc.

A good blueprint for action. Well said.

[GeckoTree]

Geo have you heard anything more on whats going on?

[geo]

Geo have you heard anything more on whats going on?

nope nothing sadly but will post anything i hear.

[Black Bronson]

This was a letter i recieved from Logan Timms....

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.

That's the open-ended nature of the present Act in Qld. Which means councils can add what they like in respect to dog breeds. So negotiation with the State Gov Dpt re ensuring Amstaffs don't get caught up in the 'restricted' list....as a result of the Tango Supreme Court decision...doesn't impact on what the councils decide to do.

They can only restrict or ban breeds that are listed under the Customs Act

[GeckoTree]

Rubbish its the same local laws that prohibit donkeys from suburban backyards, gladstone council even have a cat breed prohibited.

[Black Bronson]

Rubbish its the same local laws that prohibit donkeys from suburban backyards, gladstone council even have a cat breed prohibited.

Nothing to do with cats and donkeys, the councils if they want to, can ban or list breeds as dangerous if the breed is listed under the Customs Act. They can't add breeds that are not restricted from import, ban them or declare them dangerous by breed alone. The freedom that the councils have, is to place restrictions upon the breeds listed under the Customs Act, or have no restrictions at all. Council doesn't have the power to over-ride the Animal Management Acts that control the states.

The Amstaff situation is unique in the sense that it may be considered the same breed as a breed already restricted which is not the same thing as adding an entirely different breed to the list. The only reason the Amstaff is in the line of fire is because they believe an Amstaff and APBT have two names recorded for essentially the same breed of dog which is obviously debatable. They can't ban Rottweilers for example on the basis of being a alternate name for an already restricted breed.

The Queensland legislation uses the definition of "restricted dog" set by the Federal Customs (Prohibited Imports)

Restricted dog breeds are "SET" by Federal Customs not the council.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Black Bronson

[GeckoTree]

They can't add breeds that are not restricted from import, ban them or declare them dangerous by breed alone.

This is my next door neighbor, as of right now, it is still being upheld as a local law.

Subordinate Local Law No.4 (Keeping and Control of Animals) South Burnett shire council

The objects of this subordinate local law are to provide the detailed matters

called upon by Local Law No.4 (Keeping and Control of Animals) to regulate the keeping

of animals—

(a) to protect the community against risk of injury and damage; and

(b) to ensure that animals do not create a nuisance, or a hazard to health or

safety; and

© to prevent pollution and other environmental damage resulting from the

keeping of animals and to protect the amenity of the local environment;

and

(d) to ensure that animals are kept and used in a way that is consistent with

the rights and expectations of the local community.

Definitions

3. (1) In this subordinate local law all terms have the same meaning as those

provided for in Local Law No.4 (Keeping and Control of Animals).

Local law definitions

4. (1) For the purposes of section 3 of the Local Law, the following breeds or

cross breeds of dog are included in the definition of “dangerous dog”:-

(a) Alsatian;

(b) Bull Terrier;

© Doberman;

(d) Greyhound;

(f) Rhodesian Ridge Back;

(g) Rottweiler

They also regulate an asortment of barnyard animals.

Edited May 20, 2010 by GeckoTree

[GeckoTree]

I know what it's supposed to be btw, but what is supposed to be, and what is are different. This is QLD where it takes years and years for local councils to cotton on.

[Black Bronson]

They can't add breeds that are not restricted from import, ban them or declare them dangerous by breed alone.

This is my next door neighbor, as of right now, it is still being upheld as a local law.

Subordinate Local Law No.4 (Keeping and Control of Animals) South Burnett shire council

The objects of this subordinate local law are to provide the detailed matters

called upon by Local Law No.4 (Keeping and Control of Animals) to regulate the keeping

of animals—

(a) to protect the community against risk of injury and damage; and

(b) to ensure that animals do not create a nuisance, or a hazard to health or

safety; and

© to prevent pollution and other environmental damage resulting from the

keeping of animals and to protect the amenity of the local environment;

and

(d) to ensure that animals are kept and used in a way that is consistent with

the rights and expectations of the local community.

Definitions

3. (1) In this subordinate local law all terms have the same meaning as those

provided for in Local Law No.4 (Keeping and Control of Animals).

Local law definitions

4. (1) For the purposes of section 3 of the Local Law, the following breeds or

cross breeds of dog are included in the definition of “dangerous dog”:-

(a) Alsatian;

(b) Bull Terrier;

© Doberman;

(d) Greyhound;

(f) Rhodesian Ridge Back;

(g) Rottweiler

They also regulate an asortment of barnyard animals.

That is not the current legislation from South Burnett which now lists the breeds under the Customs Act.

[GeckoTree]

I know they stilly use 5 differing local laws due to the amalgamation.