Hon.d.boyle Kill Amstaffs Set Pit Bulls Free?

[kylielou]

To Norton Verran

Animal Management Inspector

For the CEO

Gold Coast City Council.

From Rangi

Coomera

22/07/2010

Application for Review of Local Government Decision

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008, section 183 & 204

I, Rangi ****, give permission for the Gold Coast City Council to do the DNA Bitsa Identification tests on my two dogs, Mau and Whero, for the internal review as per Cr Dawn Crichlow’s email dated 19th July 2010. I would like to be there to video the DNA samples being taken for evidential records for court purposes. Please reply with the date you intend to take the samples.

Regards,

Rangi

Edited July 22, 2010 by kylielou

[kylielou]

I sent the QLD Government’s Honorable Desley Boyle, Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, and to Mr Logan Timms, Senior Policy Officer of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, the people who allowed the current Animal Management Cats and Dogs Bill 2008 Restricted dog section, to be undermined and rendered unworkable by the Gold Coast City Council, by way of tricking a Supreme Court Judge into ruling an Amstaff is a Pit bull terrier, a question.

The question on notice is very simple.

Now that it has been proven as a result of this court trial that the only positively recognized Pit bull in Queensland is the Amstaff, through DNA testing, when the “Once were Pit bull terriers" attack, bite or injure a member of Queensland, will the Minister personally take responsibility for her lack of action?

Nonfeasance - a failure to act when under an obligation to do so; a refusal (without sufficient excuse) to do that which it is your legal duty to do. Nonfeasance is a term that describes a failure to act that results in harm to another party.

Or will she do the good old tried and tested Beattie side step and buck pass her responsibility and blame someone else like the Gold Coast City Council, with a law that sets the blame on the dogs breed rather than the dog owners responsibilities? It’s always bound to fail; it would be like blaming a drug, not the dealer, or the person taking it.

So when a person is bitten, because of the government’s refusal to protect the community from irresponsible and negligent legislators, and poorly thought out legislation, to find the persons responsible, they only have to look in a mirror.

If you the readers, contact:

Minister Desley Boyle on (07) 3227 8819 (07) 3227 8819 or email [email protected] or PO Box 15031, CITY EAST QLD 4002.

Mr Logan Timms on 3033 0594 or email [email protected] , [email protected] .

Perhaps you may have better luck getting a reply, as you know it’s a full time job, taking your taxes and avoiding taking responsibility for your own actions. Probably why the government is unfamiliar with the concept of making the public responsible for their own actions rather than drafting law after law after law for the only purpose of keeping themselves and friends employed.

Edited July 24, 2010 by kylielou

[jadeygirl]

Thanks for all this information, it is great to know.

I have an american staffy who is very old now but the GCCC registered her to be a bull terrier cross, then when they came to inspect her breed because of the ban they declared she was a blue healer cross. so dumb she has grey hair because she is old!

On the other hand we also had a 6y.o red nose pit bull (R.I.P due to natural causes) she was never registered due to the fear of her being destroyed but neighbours contacted the council that we had a restricted breed and they came to identify her. upon thier results i was given a certificate stating she was in fact a labrador cross, the only criteria they had was a photo of a pitbull puppy to compare her with and the checklist.

the outcome worked for us and we were happy but knew the GCCC had no idea on how to identify any breed of dog!

I will be sure to pass this link onto anyone that owns a pitbull or amstaff for future reference.

[geo]

Thanks for all this information, it is great to know.

I have an american staffy who is very old now but the GCCC registered her to be a bull terrier cross, then when they came to inspect her breed because of the ban they declared she was a blue healer cross. so dumb she has grey hair because she is old!

On the other hand we also had a 6y.o red nose pit bull (R.I.P due to natural causes) she was never registered due to the fear of her being destroyed but neighbours contacted the council that we had a restricted breed and they came to identify her. upon thier results i was given a certificate stating she was in fact a labrador cross, the only criteria they had was a photo of a pitbull puppy to compare her with and the checklist.

the outcome worked for us and we were happy but knew the GCCC had no idea on how to identify any breed of dog!

I will be sure to pass this link onto anyone that owns a pitbull or amstaff for future reference.

Maybe you had a sympathetic ACO, they are out there, just not sure how many....

[kylielou]

Dear Cr Dawn

I hand delivered this consent letter for Rangi on the 22/07/2010, to the nerang office who wile I was their, called Norton who said as he was out and about, he would collect the letter himself.

As you read this it will be the 30th of July, 9 days later, how many days do the Animal Control department need to find the time to get this over with, all they have to do is call either me, or Rangi so we may video the DNA sampling, then wait 5 working days, then we both will get the DNA results emailed at the same time.

The Animal Control Dept are stretching this out for an unreasonable length of time or are they just that busy they can't find the time, or is it as I suspected they can't find anyone qualified to do the DNA test.

Please pass this on to Mr Norton:

Step 1: I will give you a kit with the cotton buds to take samples or ask Cr Dawn, CEO Dale Dickson or even ACO Geoff Irwin as I have already given them kits in the past.

Step 2: Put cotton buds in one end of dog, the wet end, not the brown end.

Step 3: Wiggle it around, for a few seconds, get a good sample.

Step 4: Air dry it, put it in the envelope provided.

Step 5: Fill out form, send cheque, post.

Results will be in 5 days.

I know it all sounds hard but look Step 2: it's not the end with the tail, does that help any?

I hope this helps.

Thanking you

John

[GeckoTree]

The Animal Control Dept are stretching this out for an unreasonable length of time or are they just that busy they can't find the time, or is it as I suspected they can't find anyone qualified to do the DNA test.

Have these dogs been allowed to return home from the pound to be with their people? Or are they still being held prisoner while they drag this out?.

They certainly don't seem to give a crap about bringing things to a close quickly either way.

[tybrax]

Message from Cr Crichlow

John

I asked the question about the DNA testing - have received the following answer- FYI -

We are happy to do it but require their permission if you can suggest they give it to us we will have it done straight away. We have no evidence that the dogs they used for the test were theirs. The test results were dated in June but the dogs were in the pound since May? If they come back OK we can exempt the dogs if necessary and return them as long as no AmStaff is in the DNA line.

Kind regards

Dawn

So laughable, and pathetic and the same time.

To Norton Verran

Animal Management Inspector

For the CEO

Gold Coast City Council.

From Rangi

Coomera

22/07/2010

Application for Review of Local Government Decision

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008, section 183 & 204

I, Rangi ****, give permission for the Gold Coast City Council to do the DNA Bitsa Identification tests on my two dogs, Mau and Whero, for the internal review as per Cr Dawn Crichlow’s email dated 19th July 2010. I would like to be there to video the DNA samples being taken for evidential records for court purposes. Please reply with the date you intend to take the samples.

Regards,

Rangi

The family were notified today that there dogs had already been DNA by Council.

The family does not know anything about this as they were awaiting the time and date to attend as there agreement was the family were to be there

and video the Council performing the test.

They have been told the test was performed before they recieved the permission letter from the owners. This test was not to be done without the owners

being there to witness and video the event for Court purposes.

Council have gone behind there back and taken it on there own back before they recieved permission.

Shame on the GCC.

The dogs have not been allowed to be returned home.

[GeckoTree]

I hate to be so distrusting but what's the bet the DNA would now come back as being amstaff and the council says 'see'.'our word against yours' I hope not, but I wouldn't put it passed them to use other dogs for the test just like they claimed the owners did, they've done some bloody low acts in the past.

Edited July 30, 2010 by GeckoTree

[geo]

I hate to be so distrusting but what's the bet the DNA would now come back as being amstaff and the council says 'see'.'our word against yours' I hope not, but I wouldn't put it passed them to use other dogs for the test just like they claimed the owners did, they've done some bloody low acts in the past.

As they have done this without witnesses and being signed off on by the owners I would get their lawyer to immediately draw up a letter of complaint and ask for a re-test with their presence.

GCCC what a bunch of complete w**kers!!!!

[tybrax]

That's right they have made out the family have lied about the true test.

How do we no the Council haven't lied, the family gave permission on the grounds that they be there to video the event, for Court.

That was the agreement.

As far as l am concerned the test is invalid.

[tybrax]

I hate to be so distrusting but what's the bet the DNA would now come back as being amstaff and the council says 'see'.'our word against yours' I hope not, but I wouldn't put it passed them to use other dogs for the test just like they claimed the owners did, they've done some bloody low acts in the past.

As they have done this without witnesses and being signed off on by the owners I would get their lawyer to immediately draw up a letter of complaint and ask for a re-test with their presence.

GCCC what a bunch of complete w**kers!!!!

On to it now, and the Media.

[chriswiddler]

Are the American Staffordshire terrier and the American Pit Bull terrier one breed or are they two different breeds of dog?

It is generally accepted that the Amstaff and Pit bull came from a common blood line or stock, descending from the Staffordshire bull terrier originally.

The split happened when the UKC, United Kennel Club, preferred their Pit bull stock to be bred for gameness or performance and other dog groups wanted to move towards conformation and show qualities.

The American Staffordshire terrier was then line bred with the best of what was available within their registries to only other registered American Staffordshire terriers for the next 90 years, keeping this breed pure to the original blood line.

What I found out here in Australia, at least, because there is no national registry for the American Pit Bull terrier and as this breed is not recognised by the Australian National Kennel Club or groups like the CCCQ ect, owners and breeders had an open hand at what they were allowed to do in regards to improving or enhancing the look of their particular dogs.

When looking at individual breeders and their dogs, one will boast at how larger their blood lines head is or another will claim that theirs are the biggest most muscular Pit bulls in Australia, now looking nothing in anyway like the original American Pit Bull terrier from the USA, or in fact nothing like the original imported dogs to Australia.

With the introduction of the BITSA DNA dog breed identification test, many American Pit Bull terrier owners were horrified that their secret cross breeding program would come to light exposing how their dogs came to be so individual and distinct from the original imported blood stock to Australia.

After completing now over 30 DNA tests and working with the DNA lab in Victoria it had become indisputably clear that many of the once known American Pit Bull terriers are now showing to be nothing but lookalike cross breed dogs, holding any number of breeds unlike the original cross breed combination which was the American Pit Bull terrier.

The American Pit Bull terriers breeders are not totally to blame for altering their breed or dilution of their blood line, as the prohibition on importing blood stock and the banning and destruction of good breeding stock by the Qld Governments BSL law 17A forced many if not all dogs to go underground. What choice did dog owners have? The blame rests still with this Qld Government who must hold part of the blame for all the consequences of this badly thought-out law.

With the American Staffordshire terrier, the BITSA DNA identification test shows very clearly, scientifically and without any doubt that a suspected dog either is a pure breed American Staffordshire terrier or an American Staffordshire terrier cross breed dog, showing what it was cross bred with, or just a lookalike cross breed, showing what dogs made up the lookalike combination.

With the court case run on the 29th of March, 2010, BRISBANE SUPREME Court. CHIVERS Vs Gold Coast City Council. Ms Chivers went to trial to fulfil a magistrate order asking her to prove her dog was an American Staffordshire terrier so she may be allowed to return her dog to her home on the Gold Coast.

She was not only successful in proving this point uncontested, she also was able to prove that the method of identification used by councils in South East Qld in identification of suspected Pit bull terriers was knowingly false, and that the Qld Government staff, (Animal Control Officers for respective Councils) held no formal or academic qualifications clearly showing they could and would never be considered an expert, in any field in dog breed identification or experts in general under the rule of law.

However in a final twist, at the end of the trial, the GCCC Barrister entered a new submission, which was never presented to Ms Chivers Barrister, changing their whole point of view, stating they had admitted over the past 7 years they had got things wrong and now seen the light and found the truth.

Despite presenting expert evidence in some 10 to 20 trials, that the American Staffordshire terrier and the American Pit Bull terrier were two separate breeds and that with the training of their expert Debora Pomeroy and the 22 point checklist they could without any reservation prove that the dogs were two separate breeds, they now contend that they are the same breed of dog.

As this was submitted at the end of the trial, Ms Chivers Barrister without prior notification had 10 minutes to come up with a reply, thus leaving it to the judge to base his decision on what was before him, the court ruled that an American Staffordshire terrier and the American Pit Bull terrier were the same breed.

Ms Chivers Barrister was clearly blindsided, the rules or principles of natural justice, also known as procedural fairness, were developed to ensure that decision-making is fair and reasonable. Put simply, natural justice involves decision-makers informing people of the case against them or their interests, giving them a right to be heard (the ‘hearing’ rule), not having a personal interest in the outcome (the rule against ‘bias’), and acting only on the basis of logically probative evidence (the ‘no evidence’ rule).” And in a way the judge showed he knew this by his comments and not awarding any costs a clear indication that one side did not follow the rules.

How does this affect dog owners? As the Gold Coast City Council so cleverly tricked a Supreme Court Judge in giving a false ruling, by disobeying the rules or principles of natural justice, their win has given all Pit bull terrier owners a free get out of jail card. I will explain.

The GCCC’s win that American Staffordshire terriers and American Pit bull terriers are one and the same.

Here's the Kicker, there is a DNA test for the Amstaff, 100% accurate, the same test that all the American Staffordshire terrier clubs use to check the validity of a suspected members true breed, the same test the ANKC and the CCCQ use, that is the BITSA Dog Breed Identification DNA test.

Therefore there is a DNA test for Pit bulls...the Amstaff DNA test, so any other dog that does not conform to the Pit bull DNA test (Amstaff DNA test) must not be a Pit bull terrier.

With me so far....

Kill all the Amstaffs, a group of the dog community that have never caused any problems just so a dog called Tango could not be returned to the Gold Coast and win at all costs, has in effect made the GCCC set the Pit bulls free to breed/grow in number and really become a problem as the Pit bull terrier will never pass the Amstaff test.

Just think, when the Restricted dog owners (Gold Coast and South East Qld) find out that all they have to do is send a DNA test to the lab and should the results come back their dog is not an American Staffordshire terrier, they then, don’t have an American Pit bull terrier, no need to put the signs on their gates, no extra fees, compensation for the harassment /desexing their dogs, then the need for an explanation to why the GCCC falsely identified their pet wrongly in the first place?

Wow, Gold Coast City Council how smart do you feel now!

The QLD Government’s Honorable Desley Boyle, Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships who has had two terms as Minister for Local Government over the past 7 years, and Mr Logan Timms, Senior Policy Officer of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, have been placed in this situation by the GCCC. They are in a stalemate situation; it’s finally up to the dog owners in QLD to write to the Minister demanding that she fix this problem immediately, sack the GCCC or resign enabling hopefully another Minister to come up with a competent solution to fix this problem.

There is currently a case on the GCCC "Whereo" and "Mo" who were both placed under a destruction order by the Gold Coast City Council, Animal Management (Cats and Dog) Act 2008, section 127, Destruction Order.2010/01, Both dogs have been tested for Breed identification, known as BITSA which you are familiar with, and the results are:

Mo: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever

Whereo: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer

Both do not hold the cross breeding to be American Pit bull terriers (or American Staffordshire terriers either, same thing) so how is it that they were identified as American Pit bull terriers or restricted dogs or how have they broken the law?

The first of many back cases to come forward.

Mr Logan Timms, Senior Policy Officer of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, has been made fully aware of this case for well over a month and has done???

Contact Mr Logan Timms on 3033 0594 or email [email protected] , [email protected] .

Contact Minister Desley Boyle on (07) 3227 8819 (07) 3227 8819 or email [email protected] or PO Box 15031, CITY EAST QLD 4002.

Forgot to add........

This Supreme Court decision has in effect, with the introduction of BITSA DNA testing, made the BSL section of the Animal Management (Cats and Dog) Act 2008, in Qld, unworkable, therefore powerless and Ineffectual.

Kylie Chivers

tybrax

The AST and APBT and even the SBT are one and the same breed. The DNA confusion is because people think they own an APBT when they don't. ADBA even issue papers to Aussie ASTs if they can trace their history back to US imports. AKC opens it's stud registry to APBTs as their gene pool is so low. Rather than fighting over what breed of dog someone has better to fight BSL and it's proponents before our ability to own and breed dogs is taken from us completely. DNA testing does not identify purebreds, just closely related dogs. Given that over a century ago Bostons were APBTs it is not surprising they show up in APBT and AST dog's history.

[tybrax]

Are the American Staffordshire terrier and the American Pit Bull terrier one breed or are they two different breeds of dog?

It is generally accepted that the Amstaff and Pit bull came from a common blood line or stock, descending from the Staffordshire bull terrier originally.

The split happened when the UKC, United Kennel Club, preferred their Pit bull stock to be bred for gameness or performance and other dog groups wanted to move towards conformation and show qualities.

The American Staffordshire terrier was then line bred with the best of what was available within their registries to only other registered American Staffordshire terriers for the next 90 years, keeping this breed pure to the original blood line.

What I found out here in Australia, at least, because there is no national registry for the American Pit Bull terrier and as this breed is not recognised by the Australian National Kennel Club or groups like the CCCQ ect, owners and breeders had an open hand at what they were allowed to do in regards to improving or enhancing the look of their particular dogs.

When looking at individual breeders and their dogs, one will boast at how larger their blood lines head is or another will claim that theirs are the biggest most muscular Pit bulls in Australia, now looking nothing in anyway like the original American Pit Bull terrier from the USA, or in fact nothing like the original imported dogs to Australia.

With the introduction of the BITSA DNA dog breed identification test, many American Pit Bull terrier owners were horrified that their secret cross breeding program would come to light exposing how their dogs came to be so individual and distinct from the original imported blood stock to Australia.

After completing now over 30 DNA tests and working with the DNA lab in Victoria it had become indisputably clear that many of the once known American Pit Bull terriers are now showing to be nothing but lookalike cross breed dogs, holding any number of breeds unlike the original cross breed combination which was the American Pit Bull terrier.

The American Pit Bull terriers breeders are not totally to blame for altering their breed or dilution of their blood line, as the prohibition on importing blood stock and the banning and destruction of good breeding stock by the Qld Governments BSL law 17A forced many if not all dogs to go underground. What choice did dog owners have? The blame rests still with this Qld Government who must hold part of the blame for all the consequences of this badly thought-out law.

With the American Staffordshire terrier, the BITSA DNA identification test shows very clearly, scientifically and without any doubt that a suspected dog either is a pure breed American Staffordshire terrier or an American Staffordshire terrier cross breed dog, showing what it was cross bred with, or just a lookalike cross breed, showing what dogs made up the lookalike combination.

With the court case run on the 29th of March, 2010, BRISBANE SUPREME Court. CHIVERS Vs Gold Coast City Council. Ms Chivers went to trial to fulfil a magistrate order asking her to prove her dog was an American Staffordshire terrier so she may be allowed to return her dog to her home on the Gold Coast.

She was not only successful in proving this point uncontested, she also was able to prove that the method of identification used by councils in South East Qld in identification of suspected Pit bull terriers was knowingly false, and that the Qld Government staff, (Animal Control Officers for respective Councils) held no formal or academic qualifications clearly showing they could and would never be considered an expert, in any field in dog breed identification or experts in general under the rule of law.

However in a final twist, at the end of the trial, the GCCC Barrister entered a new submission, which was never presented to Ms Chivers Barrister, changing their whole point of view, stating they had admitted over the past 7 years they had got things wrong and now seen the light and found the truth.

Despite presenting expert evidence in some 10 to 20 trials, that the American Staffordshire terrier and the American Pit Bull terrier were two separate breeds and that with the training of their expert Debora Pomeroy and the 22 point checklist they could without any reservation prove that the dogs were two separate breeds, they now contend that they are the same breed of dog.

As this was submitted at the end of the trial, Ms Chivers Barrister without prior notification had 10 minutes to come up with a reply, thus leaving it to the judge to base his decision on what was before him, the court ruled that an American Staffordshire terrier and the American Pit Bull terrier were the same breed.

Ms Chivers Barrister was clearly blindsided, the rules or principles of natural justice, also known as procedural fairness, were developed to ensure that decision-making is fair and reasonable. Put simply, natural justice involves decision-makers informing people of the case against them or their interests, giving them a right to be heard (the ‘hearing’ rule), not having a personal interest in the outcome (the rule against ‘bias’), and acting only on the basis of logically probative evidence (the ‘no evidence’ rule).” And in a way the judge showed he knew this by his comments and not awarding any costs a clear indication that one side did not follow the rules.

How does this affect dog owners? As the Gold Coast City Council so cleverly tricked a Supreme Court Judge in giving a false ruling, by disobeying the rules or principles of natural justice, their win has given all Pit bull terrier owners a free get out of jail card. I will explain.

The GCCC’s win that American Staffordshire terriers and American Pit bull terriers are one and the same.

Here's the Kicker, there is a DNA test for the Amstaff, 100% accurate, the same test that all the American Staffordshire terrier clubs use to check the validity of a suspected members true breed, the same test the ANKC and the CCCQ use, that is the BITSA Dog Breed Identification DNA test.

Therefore there is a DNA test for Pit bulls...the Amstaff DNA test, so any other dog that does not conform to the Pit bull DNA test (Amstaff DNA test) must not be a Pit bull terrier.

With me so far....

Kill all the Amstaffs, a group of the dog community that have never caused any problems just so a dog called Tango could not be returned to the Gold Coast and win at all costs, has in effect made the GCCC set the Pit bulls free to breed/grow in number and really become a problem as the Pit bull terrier will never pass the Amstaff test.

Just think, when the Restricted dog owners (Gold Coast and South East Qld) find out that all they have to do is send a DNA test to the lab and should the results come back their dog is not an American Staffordshire terrier, they then, don’t have an American Pit bull terrier, no need to put the signs on their gates, no extra fees, compensation for the harassment /desexing their dogs, then the need for an explanation to why the GCCC falsely identified their pet wrongly in the first place?

Wow, Gold Coast City Council how smart do you feel now!

The QLD Government’s Honorable Desley Boyle, Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships who has had two terms as Minister for Local Government over the past 7 years, and Mr Logan Timms, Senior Policy Officer of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, have been placed in this situation by the GCCC. They are in a stalemate situation; it’s finally up to the dog owners in QLD to write to the Minister demanding that she fix this problem immediately, sack the GCCC or resign enabling hopefully another Minister to come up with a competent solution to fix this problem.

There is currently a case on the GCCC "Whereo" and "Mo" who were both placed under a destruction order by the Gold Coast City Council, Animal Management (Cats and Dog) Act 2008, section 127, Destruction Order.2010/01, Both dogs have been tested for Breed identification, known as BITSA which you are familiar with, and the results are:

Mo: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever

Whereo: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer

Both do not hold the cross breeding to be American Pit bull terriers (or American Staffordshire terriers either, same thing) so how is it that they were identified as American Pit bull terriers or restricted dogs or how have they broken the law?

The first of many back cases to come forward.

Mr Logan Timms, Senior Policy Officer of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, has been made fully aware of this case for well over a month and has done???

Contact Mr Logan Timms on 3033 0594 or email [email protected] , [email protected] .

Contact Minister Desley Boyle on (07) 3227 8819 (07) 3227 8819 or email [email protected] or PO Box 15031, CITY EAST QLD 4002.

Forgot to add........

This Supreme Court decision has in effect, with the introduction of BITSA DNA testing, made the BSL section of the Animal Management (Cats and Dog) Act 2008, in Qld, unworkable, therefore powerless and Ineffectual.

Kylie Chivers

tybrax

The AST and APBT and even the SBT are one and the same breed. The DNA confusion is because people think they own an APBT when they don't. ADBA even issue papers to Aussie ASTs if they can trace their history back to US imports. AKC opens it's stud registry to APBTs as their gene pool is so low. Rather than fighting over what breed of dog someone has better to fight BSL and it's proponents before our ability to own and breed dogs is taken from us completely. DNA testing does not identify purebreds, just closely related dogs. Given that over a century ago Bostons were APBTs it is not surprising they show up in APBT and AST dog's history.

The American Staffordshire Terrier has a breed signature found through DNA. The APBT/pit bull is nothing more than a mixture of breeds.

[TessiesTracey]

That's right they have made out the family have lied about the true test.

How do we no the Council haven't lied, the family gave permission on the grounds that they be there to video the event, for Court.

That was the agreement.

As far as l am concerned the test is invalid.

Does that make the family's DNA test invalid too?

Edited August 2, 2010 by TessiesTracey

[chriswiddler]

BITSA actually states it does not guarantee purebreed of dogs, just what is in their background. How does that play with a dual regfistered AKC/UKC dog is anyone's guess. Eventually it may be possible to identify breeds by DNA but it is not possible at the moment. Otherwise a breed signature would be valid the world over, which of course it isn't.

[bulldogz4eva]

The AST and APBT and even the SBT are one and the same breed. The DNA confusion is because people think they own an APBT when they don't. ADBA even issue papers to Aussie ASTs if they can trace their history back to US imports. AKC opens it's stud registry to APBTs as their gene pool is so low. Rather than fighting over what breed of dog someone has better to fight BSL and it's proponents before our ability to own and breed dogs is taken from us completely. DNA testing does not identify purebreds, just closely related dogs. Given that over a century ago Bostons were APBTs it is not surprising they show up in APBT and AST dog's history.

Sorry but they are not one and the same dog.Some may look the same but in this day and age they differ considerably in this country.In the US you will find dogs that are far more closely related.The ADBA does not issue papers to Aussie Amstaffs nor have they ever,you may be confusing it with the UKC who did register Amstaffs as pitbulls.This however does not happen anymore.As of April 30th this year the UKC has stopped single registrations of American Pitbull Terriers.No more will be registered unless bred from already registered UKC stock.The AKC does not open its stud book to pitbulls either.It has happened twice for short periods and the last time was a long time ago.Posting misinformation does not help the situation.I dont think the confusion about DNA is becuase people think they have a pitbull I dont actually think the test is that accurate.people have sent in samples from pure bred dogs and they have comeback with varying breeds in the mix.The pitbull gene pool is diverse and would in my mind be harder to pin down.Boston Terriers were bred down from pitbulls in the halcion days of dog fighting in and around Boston so they are a pitbull cross not the other way round.

[kylielou]

To Cr Dawn

I have spoken to Rangi and have read their emails to me regarding the DNA test and Anton: You do remember this Email:

Message from Cr Crichlow

John

I asked the question about the DNA testing - have received the following answer- FYI -

We are happy to do it but require their permission if you can suggest they give it to us we will have it done straight away. We have no evidence that the dogs they used for the test were theirs. The test results were dated in June but the dogs were in the pound since May? If they come back OK we can exempt the dogs if necessary and return them as long as no AmStaff is in the DNA line.

Kind regards

Dawn

Email from Rangi:

Hi John, i suppose you've heard the latest about the council DNA'n my dogs before the letter of permission reached them.

Mete spoke with Norton today and Norton said that the DNA test were done before they even got our letter. Then he spoke with Anton and Anton was saying things like 'oh ill have to double check that (DNA testing) did happen?

So as you are aware, ACO Norton, clearly asked for consent, to re-do the DNA test, as Rangi and Mete, are nothing but untrustworthy liars, so consent was given, on one condition that:

I, Rangi Nikau, give permission for the Gold Coast City Council to do the DNA Bitsa Identification tests on my two dogs, Mau and Whero, for the internal review as per Cr Dawn Crichlow’s email dated 19th July 2010. I would like to be there to video the DNA samples being taken for evidential records for court purposes. Please reply with the date you intend to take the samples.

This copy was sent to your office, however ACO Norton clearly had no intention of following these simple instructions or:

“The rules or principles of natural justice, also known as procedural fairness, have developed to ensure that decision-making is fair and reasonable. Put simply, natural justice involves decision-makers informing people of the case against them or their interests, giving them a right to be heard (the ‘hearing’ rule), not having a personal interest in the outcome (the rule against ‘bias’), and acting only on the basis of logically probative evidence (the ‘no evidence’ rule).”

“Decision-makers need to be aware of the requirements of procedural fairness when making decisions which affect a person’s rights or interests. Failure to notify a person of a potentially adverse decision, or to allow them an opportunity to be heard, is contrary to good government, and may result in the decision being set aside by a court.”

ACO Norton's failure to comply to a simple instruction means that he was not given permission to take, any DNA sample for any reason from Rangi's or Metes property, (Dogs), regardless of the outcome, this clearly shows that the samples were obtained by, an action that can only be inductive of the GCCC Animal Control Department, by way of tricking, under handed, false pretence, or fraudulent manner.

So the question now on everyone's mind, is if Rangi and Mete are nothing but untrustworthy liars then what does this action make Norton to sneak around and obtain DNA samples from who knows what dog from the pound, this attitude to win at all costs has got to stop.

It is obvious why Rangi and Mete wanted to be present when the DNA samples were taken and Video it, but this right was taken away from them...are you suggesting that they should trust ACO Norton more than he trust them?

Is this department run by totally incompetent fools, bent on showing the public that the words, like, integrity, honour and trust, are just words from an era long ago?

I have also attached a letter sent to ACO Norton and Co, but as of late they are refusing to reply or answer the simple questions.

If at all possible can you see if you can get someone within this department to do their job and give these two residents from the Gold Coast the respect they deserve and reply to their complaint.

Thank you once again

John

[kylielou]

www.qld.com.au

media releases

Round one over.

Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships

The Honourable Desley Boyle

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Confusion over American Staffies no longer: Minister

Local Government Minister Desley Boyle has today announced she will amend the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 to clarify once and for all that American Staffordshire terriers are not classified as “restricted dogs”.

This follows a Supreme Court case in April, Gold Coast City Council v. Chivers, which ruled the Amstaff involved was the same as a restricted American Pit bull.

Ms Boyle said pit bulls have been prohibited by many Queensland Councils under their local laws, listed as “restricted” under State legislation and banned from importation by the Commonwealth.

There are an estimated 4,000 Amstaffs in Queensland, some 230 on the Gold Coast.

“The amendment will state categorically that for the purposes of the Act, Amstaffs will not be considered the same as the restricted pit bulls,” Ms Boyle said.

“This will give Amstaff owners especially on the Gold Coast certainty about their rights and obligations yet it will give Queenslanders peace of mind that the legislation’s tough penalties remain for irresponsible pet owners whose dogs cause fear or harm,” she said.

“While it was never the State’s intention for the Act to classify Amstaffs as restricted dogs, the recent court case has meant the amendment is now necessary.”

It is generally accepted among experts that Amstaffs and pit bulls descended from Staffordshire bull terrier-type dogs however the restricted pit bulls were bred specifically as fighting animals.

Amstaffs on the other hand were bred almost exclusively as show and companion dogs, widely

recognised as trainable and family-friendly pets.

Amstaffs are even used as therapy dogs including in hospitals. Well-known Brisbane Amstaff Nudie, owned by Mrs Melissa Greenall, visits aged-care facilities, special care and children’s wards.

“Importantly the proposed amendment to the legislation will not compromise community safety as owners of all dogs, including Amstaff owners, will be held accountable for the behaviour of their charges,” said the Minister.

“The same rules apply to all dog owners and you will feel the full weight of the law if your dog behaves badly or causes harm.”

If a dog bites someone, Ms Boyle said a fine of up to $30,000 can apply under the Act and the dog can be seized by Council and declared as dangerous.

“If a dog bails someone up on the street, a fine of $2,000 can apply and Council can declare the animal as menacing,” she said.

“Special provisions apply to animals declared as dangerous or menacing, such as fencing, muzzling and kennel requirements.

“I take this opportunity to thank Dogs Queensland President Barry Vickers in particularly and his team who have worked with departmental officers in sorting out the confusions flowing from the recent court decision and this amendment will put the matter to rest.”

Media contact: Minister Boyle’s Office – 0428 199 933

[KJS]

So Tango's coming home? This is great news for all Queensland Amstaff owners, I recently moved and have been waiting to registered my dog with the new council. Very happy I don't have to hide her like a criminal. Keep up the good work John!

[sumosmum]

Congratulations to all involved, and well done. A long fight, and so hard. Good on everyone who has stuck with it, and battled on when so many have given up.