Building And Other Legislation Amendment Bill (no. 2) 2010

[lmwvic]

Bill at

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/53...0/BOLAB10_2.pdf

Pages 12 and 13;

Part 3 Amendment of Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008

Clause 5 Act amended

This part amends the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008.

Clause 6 Amendment of s 63 (What is a restricted dog)

Section 63—

insert—

‘(3) In this section—

breed, of a dog, does not include a crossbreed of a breed.’.

Clause 7 Insertion of new s 63A

Chapter 4, part 1—

insert—

‘63A Provisions for deciding what is a breed of dog

‘(1) Each of the following certificates, for a dog, is evidence the dog is of the breed stated in the certificate—

(a) a pedigree certificate from the Australian National Kennel Council;

(b) a pedigree certificate from a member body of the Australian National Kennel Council;

© a pedigree certificate from a national breed council registered with the Australian National Kennel Council;

(d) a certificate signed by a veterinary surgeon stating, or to the effect, that the dog is of a particular breed.

‘(2) However, if a dog is of the breed American Staffordshire terrier it is not of the breed American pit bull terrier.

‘(3) Also, the breed American pit bull terrier does not include a dog of the breed American Staffordshire terrier.’.

Clause 8 Omission of s 202 (Veterinary surgeon certificates)

Section 202—

omit.

I hesitate to refer to this as a game - BUT the games continue.....

[WreckitWhippet]

Looks like it says if you have ANKC papers from any of the governing state bodies, then you have an Amstaff. Which unless someone has been dodgy, you do. Dogs QLD look to have secured the future of the papered American Staffordshire Terriers and good on them.

[lmwvic]

good on them.

Of course it is conveniently forgotten that Dogs QLD has some responsibility for this sorry mess in the first place!!!!!

Aided and abetted the introduction of BSL in Queensland

Continue to do so

[Steve]

The ANKC isn't the only registry and I hope Vic dogs is paying the government a commission because the government in a hundred different ways in Victoria is drumming up business for the ANKC and effectively keeping their competition at a trade disadvantage.

The fact is why would any government want to get in the middle of this ? Why do they want to have such stupid laws when they could just as easily simply have legislation in place and police it to ensure that owners have fencing and adequate controls on their dogs and that all dogs regardless of what bloody registry they happen to be registered with are treated equally and controlled.

Why does a government want to set up breed ID panels and go through the crap of court cases to ID a dog's breed ? Why does a Purebred canine council member who can not tell a purebred from any other without the necessary registered pedigree want to sit on a panel which ID's dogs which they cant know anything about because they are not breeds recognised by their org based on how they think it looks ?

Why does a government want to kill accused dogs straight away rather than wait a few days when its off the street and no longer a danger to the public if its not to stop anyone being able to turn up with the paperwork?

[sumosmum]

Million dollar questions! They are all pissing in each others pockets.

ETA, While Vic Government has been brought up, is anyone able to show me what the Breed Standard is that they they mention in the new Victorian Law to identify a Restricted Breed and crossbreeds?

Are they writing their own "Standard" with the help of Vic Dogs, and if so, where is it?

I hope that isn't a silly question, but I see it mentioned in the Act, but can't actually find The Standard anywhere! If someone could actually point me in the right direction to find it, that would be great.

Is it another checklist type deal?

Edited August 22, 2010 by sumosmum

[kylielou]

They are currently looking at useing the 22 pointchecklist however with the damage done with the Chivers Vs GCCC and Request for an internal review:

In your last correspondence you raised three points:

1. That the BITSA DNA test could not identify an American Pit bull terrier, due to the fact they have no formal test to identify the breed make up, from an imported dog.

To answer this you have to take into account, the only person stating the two dogs are Pit bulls is you. Your proof is a “known to be non-factual test called the 22 point checklist”. We on the other hand state and can prove that the two dogs are in fact just cross breed dogs.

In order for you to be right, the two dogs would have to be recently imported dogs so the DNA test, as you say, would not work as the DNA gene pool for these dogs would not be included in the BITSA test. The Importation ban has been in force for a number of years so these dogs would have had to be put in cryogenic suspension, and woken up just before you seized them to make this statement factual.

Or can you prove that the dogs are from the very rare, line bred pure bred Pit bull blood line that know body can find or even any of the Pit bull breeders can find as well.

If you can, I would be happy to DNA paternity tests them with the Sire and Dam, to see if you are correct.

We contend that the two dogs are from known breeds of Australian dogs, known and tested in the DNA data base, not from imported stock from the USA.

2. You still contend that the two dogs are American Pit bull terriers, with the only evidence or basis is the training and knowledge of your Animal Control experts using the 22 point checklist. You even state two trials:

C Falcon Vs GCCC:

A male in his 20’s, who before his trial was a victim of a home invasion where he was thrown out of a second story window after being beaten by a base ball bat.

Mr Falcon was in hospital on morphine for 5 to 6 days before his trial where his lawyer was pressured to withdraw from the case as it was a conflict of interest with the GCCC. Still under the medication, morphine, (as stated by the Gold Coast Hospital) and taking several other medications throughout the trial, with broken ribs and bandaged from head to toe, the GCCC lawyers still preceded.

Alf, told John Mokomoko over the phone, that he was present in the court room, so he is also able to verify this to be factual and true.

A truly proud win in court?

Justin Folkes Vs GCCC:

As I recall, the GCCC withdrew from the trial, so clearly not a win, or proof the 22 point checklist is of any reliable use.

3. The 22 point Checklist is a useful tool:

Let’s look at this reliable Tool, in the hands of untrained fools.

25/08/2003: Christina Anderson, Ashmore, two ACO from the GCCC, did use this useful tool to identify her dog as a Pit bull terrier.

ACO Mark Pavey, Scored Tyra at: 48/66

ACO Lester Soloas, Scored Tyra at: 49/66

The dog was asleep at the time of the identification, as shown by the photos provided by, Lester Soloai, with her back to a black couch. Had these two experts bothered to examine Tyra, they would have noticed a ridge running down her back starting from between her ears to just past mid way down her back.

The useful tool did not take this into account either.

In January 2007, a real dog expert called Gary Blane did identification on Tyra, and an assessment of reliability of the 22 point checklist and found the GCCC assessment of Tyra false, being that Tyra was clearly a Rhodesian Ridge back cross, (possibly a Staffy or small terrier).

The GCCC had to accept Gary’s assessment as fact and a Certificate of non-Prohibited dog breed was sent to Christine Anderson.

This document is not recognised, by legislation, other councils in Qld, or any dog organisation in the world, but was in place of an apology.

Useful tool at exposing two fools.

29/05/05: Kathy Spiller, Arundel, dog called Harley: ACO from the GCCC, did use this useful tool to identify her dog as a Pit bull terrier.

AMO 27: Ken Burgess: Scored Harley 47/66

This makes the dog score over 45, so the dog is a Pit bull terrier….wrong, add up the scores and you actually get 45, Ken Burgess can’t count.

The true score is 45/66 so dog is free to go home,

Useful tool at exposing yet another fool.

01/03/06: Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council:

ACO Allan Frederickson: Scored Rusty: 56/66

ACO Les Warren: Scored Rusty: 59/66

ACO Debora Pomeroy: Scored Rusty: 55/66

Vet Jackie Perkins: Scored Rusty: 58/66

RSPCA Mick McAuliffe Scored Rusty: 58/66

After 5 experts used the useful Tool, in 6 days giving evidence in court, the useful Tool was not good enough to win the trial against a simple DNA paternity test showing Rusty came from a Staffy, called Peggy.

Dr J. Perkins even adapted the useful Tool into the 17 point checklist, to try and fool the magistrate, that she had bifocal three dimensional vision and could perform the checklist on TV video footage, taking measurements by her special vision, good try but the magistrate, was not that gullible.

RSPCA Mick McAuliffe, Scored Rusty: 58/66, was so embarrassed after his first attempt at fooling a magistrate, in the Christine Maroske Vs Logan City Council, that he failed to turn up to give evidence in the Dino Da Fre Vs Logan City Council, (he was missing somewhere in the USA). He had no credibility after falsifying the first assessment in a rather silly way.

His first attempt at adding his score was similar to that of AMO 27: Ken Burgess, he also can’t add.

Christine Maroske Vs Logan City Council, RSPCA Mick McAuliffe, first assessment of a dog called Bella, added up to a true score of 45/66 making Bella not a restricted dog. He found out rather too late so a substitute assessment was falsified, by bumping the scores up a little to get them to add up to what the assessment sheet was falsely added up to.

Problem was we had both assessments sheets.

At this time in Logan Council, written into their local law was this, if you disagreed with Logan City Councils ACO there was an independent person whose decision was the rule. The only condition was they had to use the useful Tool, or the 22 point checklist. RSPCA Mick McAuliffe.

His explanation was: “Due to an error in Calculation the 27/05/04” the two copies say it all.

With the second falsified checklist, completed, with several scores bumped up a few points to get them to add up to 48/66, Logan City Councils lawyers also can’t count, the new checklist adds up to 47/66 not 48/66 so they still got it wrong.

So the useful Tool exposes yet another 3 ACO as fools, a vet as a double fool, and a person from the RSPCA, as the biggest fool of all attempting to falsify documentation to be used in a court of law, this tool is truly a useful Tool.

This is not the only time ACO have falsified their useful Tool, to save face, here on the Gold Coast, ACO Jason Tyrer and ACO Mick Hays, also did the same as poor old Mick, McAuliffe.

February 2008: Fiona Gibson, Currumbin, Dogs Name Maverick:

Two ACO officers were sent to perform the so called useful Tool, on a dog called Maverick, unknowingly so was, John Mokomoko. Who set up 5 video surveillance cameras, in the lounge room, posted a notice on the front door and in the middle of the lounge room wall that this property was protected by CCTV and filmed the whole show.

At the end of the performance, John Mokomoko spoke with Jason Tyrer ( as shown on the video and as there was a tape recorder going in Jason Tyrer’s pocket at the time) regarding the fact that it was very hard to find an American Staffordshire terrier the colour that Maverick was as the only breeder was on the Sunshine Coast.

Realising they had been set up, the two officers went back to the office and firstly made out that the assessments never happened.

Problem for the GCCC was John Mokomoko had them on video, and I gave them an FOI request for the documentation that they had filled out before they left, also on video, the useful Tool, the 22 point checklist.

After much difficulty, as their department claimed they did not do an assessment and they were not there at Currumbin, John Mokomoko posted the video on U Tube for the world to see, and the copies of the useful Tool arrived.

ACO Jason Tyrer: Firstly scored Maverick at: 51/66 then bumped the score down to 45/66 by crossing out 3’s to lower scores so to give them a way out of not looking so stupid.

This is still falsifying a document.

ACO Mick Hays: did something even worse, he re-typed a whole new useful Tool to match Jason Tyrer’s modified copy, the FOI had asked for the original copies not a doctored modified version. I think this is called covering up false documentation?

I have asked John Mokomoko to put the Video back on U Tube to assist the GCCC in remembering what had happen.

Once again, a useful Tool at exposing a couple of fools.

06/11/2004: Justin Taylor: His dog Fonzie,

ACO Selina Neil, GCCC, scored Fonzie over 45 so Fonzie is a Pit bull terrier. In the Magistrate court in Coolangatta, Magistrate Batts, did not accept the 22 point checklist (the useful Tool) or the expertise of ACO Selina Neil as even remotely feasible as an expert in dog breed identification, dog returned.

A big problem here is ACO Selina Neil was the person on the Gold Coast who trained the likes of ACO Lester Soloai on how to use the useful Tool called the 22 point checklist in the first place, in 2003, however the magistrate also stated that ACO Selina Neil was not qualified as an expert in breed identification nor anyone she trained.

This could explain why ACO Lester Soloai, has misidentified so many dogs using the useful Tool.

Another prime example of the use of fools using the useful Tool:

Julie Morris, Southport, Dog, Zeus:

ACO Lester Soloai, scored Zeus over 45 so Zeus is a Pit bull terrier.

ACO Selina Neil: scored Zeus over 45 so Zeus is a Pit bull terrier.

Julie Morris, after having her dog under a destruction order for 4 years, decided to take it to the Supreme Court and challenge the useful Tools and the two expert Fools. A deal was made that if Julie Morris was to withdraw from the trial her dog Zeus would be allowed to reside on the Gold Coast without restriction for the rest of his life.

The useful Tool did it again, exposing again the same two fools.

Rangi Nikau , Coomera:

ACO Lester Soloai: scored Mau: 49/66

ACO Len Murphy scored Whero: 48/66

I have access to over 20, false uses of the useful Tool, exposing the ACO as nothing but fools for this action and you expect I, Rangi Nikau to accept that maybe this time after over 20 times that I have been shown and can prove, that ACO’s have gotten it wrong, this time they have gotten it right?

ACO Lester Soloai, of all ACO, has falsified evidence in a Supreme Court by claiming the reason he was an expert in dog breed identification in the Chivers Vs GCCC trial, was because he was trained by ACO Selina Neil in 2003 and by ACO Debora Pomeroy in 11th November 2004.

Tango was identified by ACO Lester Soloai, as a Pit bull terrier by way of the useful Tool on the 19/04/2004.

He was trained to use this useful tool by ACO Selina Neil, in 2003, in 05/11/2004 Selina Neill was proven not to be an expert in breed ID or anyone she has trained.

“During 2003 I successfully completed the Gold Coast City Councils breed Identification Course Conducted by Ms Selina Neill who’s title is supervisor Animal Management, Gold Coast City Council”

Ms Selina Neill, was never trained to use the 22 point checklist but it was handed to her by Geoff Irwin Supervisor Animal Management as stated by her in a recent trial, Andrew Richards in Southport court.

In the space of 92 days the person who trained Lester as an American Pit bull terrier identification expert, has identified Tango as a Pit bull terrier and been discredited as a restricted dog breed identifier and trainer herself.

05/11/2004 Selina Neill was proven not to be an expert in breed ID or anyone she has trained

“On or about the 10th and 11th November 2004, I successfully completed the breed Identification Course conducted by Ms Deborah Pomeroy of Brisbane City Council.”

Lester stated in his Affidavit that he did the "useful Tool" 22 point checklist on Tango, on the 19/04/2004? and the reason he was such an expert in the art of the useful tool was the training he had from Debora Pomeroy, even suplying a certificult with dates....?? fool or tool I'm getting mixed up?

Time line: On the 19/4/2004, Lester Soloai assessed Tango and determined this dog to be an American Pit bull terrier as per the assessment document called the 22 point checklist (the useless Tool).

209 days after Lester Soloai had used the 22 point checklist to ID Tangos as a Pit bull terrier, he was trained by Pomeroy on how to use it.

Any training Lester Soloai obtained 209 days after his identification of “Tango” is not relevant, or would have in any way assisted him, I would have thought was obvious.

Exhibit “LS4” confirms the date by way of certificate dated 10th and 11th November 2004 by Ms Deborah Pomeroy.

So either we accept ACO Lester Soloai’s use of the useful Tool as a true way to identify a suspected dog as a restricted dog, a Pit bull terrier, or we do not because of his history of false identifications and his own evidence in the Chivers vs GCCC where he has lied and entered a false affidavit in this trial.

Chivers Vs GCCC, in the SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT was entered in the Supreme Court went unchallenged, therefore is accepted as fact.

This also proves the useful tool is false.

Your proof that your “officers are of the opinion” and that the use of the “useful Tool”, has only proven your officers are nothing but incompetent fools.

I will post this letter and all relevant documents on the internet, and I am currently preparing all false identifications for anyone who wishes to challenge the useless Tool in court.

The Vic don't know were to go.

[sumosmum]

Thank you Kylielou.

I find it absurd that they can pass a Bill, make it an Act and not disclose what the rules actually are. It is like saying to some one, "Lets play a game, I won't tell you the rules, but if you break my rules I will penalize you, and I am going to make the rules up as we go." Seems to be a favourite strategy at the moment! Well, seems like our Laws come into being on 1st September, so they have about 9 days to "know where to go"....... I know where I would like to tell them to go.

[lmwvic]

Million dollar questions! They are all pissing in each others pockets.

ETA, While Vic Government has been brought up, is anyone able to show me what the Breed Standard is that they they mention in the new Victorian Law to identify a Restricted Breed and crossbreeds?

Are they writing their own "Standard" with the help of Vic Dogs, and if so, where is it?

I hope that isn't a silly question, but I see it mentioned in the Act, but can't actually find The Standard anywhere! If someone could actually point me in the right direction to find it, that would be great.

Is it another checklist type deal?

The two year amnesty period in the new Act allows them time to come up with a description of type and insert it in the Regulations. It could take this long as they have to come up with a type, produce proposed Regulations and then, by Law they must provide a Regulatory Impact Statement for any proposed Regulations. Then by Law it must go to public consultation and submissions considered (theoretically that is - not that I'm cynical). Strange isn't it (but good) that Regulations require a public consultation but Acts do not.

Vic Dogs have "kindly" jumped at assisting the Government to come up with a description for type. Registered Amstaffs will also be provided with a little id card that will protect them from unwelcome Council attention.

They wouldn't dream of using the 22 point system. They would be doomed and they know it. All they have to do is come up with a description of some physical characteristics that they say means the dog fits a type. It is what England did with the Dangerous Dogs Act. Even if you had proof of parentage (ie. pedigree papered parents), say Staffordshire Bull Terriers it is irrelevant if the dog physically fits the type.

Of course, in Victoria a papered Staffordshire Bull Terrier would never find it self in this position because it wouldn't be declared but an unpapered SBT just might and hundreds of crossbreed SBTs probably will.

THIS GOVERNMENT IS SO STUPID IT IS BEYOND BELIEF.

Vic Dog members please consider whether it is acceptable that Vic Dogs assist the Government to kill innocent dogs based purely on their physical characteristics? It is bad enough that they have supplied panel members for the current system which has killed dogs. It is NOT acceptable. Tell them. They can't do it if enough members object. If you don't object, you are just as culpable as the Vic Dog management are!

[RottnBullies]

THIS GOVERNMENT IS SO STUPID IT IS BEYOND BELIEF.

Vic Dog members please consider whether it is acceptable that Vic Dogs assist the Government to kill innocent dogs based purely on their physical characteristics? It is bad enough that they have supplied panel members for the current system which has killed dogs. It is NOT acceptable. Tell them. They can't do it if enough members object. If you don't object, you are just as culpable as the Vic Dog management are!

Hear! hear!

And this where lies the problem, you see, how many Vic dog members are actually going to give a damn??? Probably not many to none, why? because their dogs are papered, and protected why should they give a damn will be their response

For dogs sake there needs to be an organization who Is willing to speak out and

help ALL dogs!! regardless! ....People can chant out buy from registered breeders and you won't have this problem, Blah Blah Blah... Yeah right well maybe In a perfect world this could actually happen, but It's not a perfect world and in the meantime dogs are suffering and paying the price!

There Is no other way, It's just going around In circles and everyone Is passing the buck and wiping their hands clean

And dogs are dying :p

[sumosmum]

So, do you have to have a papered purebreed dog to be a member of the Companion Dog Club that is mentioned on the Dogs Victoria website?

I have just found the answer to that question. The website states,

What is Companion Dog Club?

The club provides pedigree and non-pedigree dogs and their owners with a club that will promote and appreciate the uniqueness of all types and breeds of dogs. It also recognizes that each one of our canine friends is in a class of its own and a companion in its own right.

As a member of the Companion Dog Club you and your dog will receive a number of benefits that encourage responsible dog ownership and welfare from within your own community.

So, I take it that any of these owners of dogs that are members of this Companion Dog Club could also have their dogs at risk with the standard that is to be written? Because, the dogs in this club do not need to be purebred dogs! Is that correct?

[lmwvic]

You are right sumosmum. I think that would be the case.

[Steve]

Vicdogs only obligation is to look after their members papered ANKC recognised purebreds. There is no point in flogging them for it - I dont agree with it but it wont change. Its the government which have enabled them to be in a position where they have given them a monopoly,unfair trade advantage and power unequaled in any other area.

[RottnBullies]

Vicdogs only obligation is to look after their members papered ANKC recognised purebreds. There is no point in flogging them for it - I dont agree with it but it wont change. Its the government which have enabled them to be in a position where they have given them a monopoly,unfair trade advantage and power unequaled in any other area.

That's all very well and good Steve, but tell me why have they got their hands up and eagerly ready to to help the government In slaughtering dogs! They did not have to oblige with It! I'm sure their companion dog members will be ever so pleased to hear about this

And In this regard I will flog them, and If they go ahead with It they sure as hell damn deserve It too

[Steve]

Vicdogs only obligation is to look after their members papered ANKC recognised purebreds. There is no point in flogging them for it - I dont agree with it but it wont change. Its the government which have enabled them to be in a position where they have given them a monopoly,unfair trade advantage and power unequaled in any other area.

That's all very well and good Steve, but tell me why have they got their hands up and eagerly ready to to help the government In slaughtering dogs! They did not have to oblige with It! I'm sure their companion dog members will be ever so pleased to hear about this

And In this regard I will flog them, and If they go ahead with It they sure as hell damn deserve It too

nods