Victorian Breed Standard

[Quickasyoucan]

http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2011/GG2011S283.pdf

Here is the link to the official document. It contains quite a lot of pictures.

[experiencedfun]

Why not go into as much detail with the other breeds....it is certainly a breed standard written for those who have no previous experience reading standards.

[Quickasyoucan]

Why not go into as much detail with the other breeds....it is certainly a breed standard written for those who have no previous experience reading standards.

It also looks like a lot of the wording has been taken from the actual breed standard for example in colour it talks about white being unacceptable.

Lot of vagueness in there tho with regard to weight, ear set etc. it actually give the weight range as 14-36 kg. That would cover the vast majority of staffordshire bull terriers too I would think.

[Keira&Phoenix]

I am thanking heavens right now I do not live in Victoria

[~Anne~]

It is written just like a standard, not a guide to detemrine a Pb? It is bizarre. Judging by the document, blue eyed dogs, white dogs and merles are safe.

[~Anne~]

The document is so stupid it is scary. Who was the idiots behind writing it? I am not sure if I should laugh, cry or go make another coffee. It is all too resoundingly dumbass for my brain to accept.

Is Adolf behind this document? If your dog is blue eyed and white haired, it is not considered to be a Pb.

Edited September 1, 2011 by ~Anne~

[Animal House]

Really scary for lots of unpapered dogs, that is ridiculous beyond words.

[lokelani]

I am thanking heavens right now I do not live in Victoria

Me too Very scary

[paulni]

I'm just pleased I don't live in Australia . Makes me wonder if the powers that be here in NZ will try and follow all this BS

[Keira&Phoenix]

Offtopic but OMG Bosco is gorgeous Lokelani!!

You are in a good State!

Edited September 1, 2011 by Keira&Phoenix

[korbin13]

Is this getting any sort of media attention in Victoria? The 'breed standard' I mean.

Also I see that vets can sign off to say what breed a dog is. Are vets going to be willing to do this for people? Will they be put off by the thought of legal action down the track?

I have a mixed breed mutt and if I lived in Victoria, I would be getting a DNA test done at the vets. I know that they are questionable but would the government really challenge it for a dog where the owners obviously take their responsibilities seriously?

I did one for my dog and it came backs as one quarter mastiff but she could quite easily be mistaken for a number of breeds. Vet said she was a 'heinz' variety.

What about the council rangers? Have they expressed their views on this? Some won't want to take peoples family pets away from them.

Very sad day for Victoria.

[WreckitWhippet]

what an effing joke that is. They can't even get the pictures of the dogs they have used to match their " standard ". Seriously, whoever wrote that was a numpty and a half and if they are an all breed judge, they need to hang their heads in shame.

They've shown a dog sitting as the example of a chest and I can guarantee when that dog stood up, it would look nothing like the one in the diagram, the dog in the pic doesn't have a huge depth of chest, he lacks pro sternum and he's turned out in front.

They also shown a dog with excessively straight stifles and one that was over angulated. They've used a cow hocked and long hocked dog against their diagram from hocks and pasterns. The dog used to display the forechest, basically has none and it has no depth of chest.

They have no freaking idea and if that's their guidelines, going by the diagrams and the wording, pretty much the only dogs in danger of fitting it, are Amstaffs.

If anyone wants to argue the point with council about what their dogs is, simply take someone with you, that has a good eye for a dog, because I can tell you now, the numpties who wrote this don't have one

ETA : tools is the only word I;m left with after reading that rott and the pics that go with it

Edited September 1, 2011 by ReadySetGo

[wuffles]

what an effing joke that is. They can't even get the pictures of the dogs they have used to match their " standard ". Seriously, whoever wrote that was a numpty and a half and if they are an all breed judge, they need to hang their heads in shame.

They've shown a dog sitting as the example of a chest and I can guarantee when that dog stood up, it would look nothing like the one in the diagram, the dog in the pic doesn't have a huge depth of chest, he lacks pro sternum and he's turned out in front.

They also shown a dog with excessively straight stifles and one that was over angulated. They've used a cow hocked and long hocked dog against their diagram from hocks and pasterns. The dog used to display the forechest, basically has none and it has no depth of chest.

I thought the same thing - dogs in the pictures go against what they are saying in the "standard"! I also like that it says their lips are clean and tight, then proceed to use pictures of the opposite.

[WreckitWhippet]

what an effing joke that is. They can't even get the pictures of the dogs they have used to match their " standard ". Seriously, whoever wrote that was a numpty and a half and if they are an all breed judge, they need to hang their heads in shame.

They've shown a dog sitting as the example of a chest and I can guarantee when that dog stood up, it would look nothing like the one in the diagram, the dog in the pic doesn't have a huge depth of chest, he lacks pro sternum and he's turned out in front.

They also shown a dog with excessively straight stifles and one that was over angulated. They've used a cow hocked and long hocked dog against their diagram from hocks and pasterns. The dog used to display the forechest, basically has none and it has no depth of chest.

I thought the same thing - dogs in the pictures go against what they are saying in the "standard"! I also like that it says their lips are clean and tight, then proceed to use pictures of the opposite.

I wonder if there "standard" could be challenged ? based on how inaccurate the pics are, that they are using to illustrate the diagrams.

The legal eagles would need to answer that one, but anyone with an eye for a dog can see how they contradict one another.

[sandgrubber]

Thanks, Quickasyoucan, for posting the link.

I'd be willing to bet that the VIC govt standard for identifying pit bulls is plagiarized. Would be wonderful to put the VIC government in a lawsuit for infringement of copyright . If anyone has the book it was taken from, please report. The format is similar to the format used in The Ultimate XXX series done by Howell dog books (I have the Labrador edition) but if that is the source, the text on the illustrations has been re-lettered.

The good side . . . many of you with staffie X's are safe as this is quite specific. Everyone, look at the document. If you have a X-breed and are in fear, download it and print out a copy. It is extremely specific for a well-bred APBT and gives clear guidance as to the look. Not many dogs have this look. The easiest marker to use is the profile. . Tail and head will also rule out many breeds and X breeds. They have, stupidly, only shown males in profile, so it looks like a pit bull MUST have a penis .

Also note, pedigree AmStaffs are explicitly excluded and a vet certificate gives you the all clear. Quote:

A dog that meets the description of a dog in this Part is an American Pit Bull Terrier; except a dog in respect of which the owner has one of the following certificates stating that the dog is an American Staffordshire Terrier –

a. a pedigree certificate from the Australian National Kennel Council;

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

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

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

The stupid side . . . it's so specific that it will probably catch unpapered Am Staffs who fit the standard and pit bulls, but let through poorly bred pit bulls. Thus only poorly bred pit bulls will survive in Victoria. And if you want to do pit bull crosses, all you need to do is breed to something that will fall outside the breed standard, eg, produce an 'incorrect' tail and loose skin around the neck, and bingo, you're safe.

And, yes, I'm sure a trade in counterfeit AmStaff pedigrees will develop.

IDIOTS!!!!!!! They should be screening based on temperament. There are some lovely, true to breed standard, APBT's. And HEAPS of dogs who don't fit the physical description in the Govt of Vic standard that have inherently aggressive temperaments and that warrant some sort of control, especially in the hands of people who live in high density neighborhoods and who have no credentials for managing dogs with inherent guarding/fighting/prey attack characteristics or unstable temperaments.

Edited September 1, 2011 by sandgrubber

[WreckitWhippet]

I know why they have included pics that don't match the diagrams or the written standard. They have done it so that they can cover every possibility, when they determine a dog to be a " Pit Bull "

I wonder if they managed to draw the diagrams themselves or if they copied those too ?

[Cosmolo]

Someone called me last night and told me that the vet letter will only help if it says the dog is of pure breed.

[Sticky]

Someone called me last night and told me that the vet letter will only help if it says the dog is of pure breed.

The certificate only applies to Amstaffs:

1. A dog that meets the description of a dog in this Part is an American Pit Bull Terrier; except

a dog in respect of which the owner has one of the following certificates stating that the dog

is an American Staffordshire Terrier –

a. a pedigree certificate from the Australian National Kennel Council;

b. a pedigree certificate from a member body of the Australian National Kennel

Council;

c. a pedigree certificate from a national breed council registered with the Australian

National Kennel Council;

d. a certificate signed by a veterinary practitioner stating, or to the effect, that the dog is

of a particular breed.

S

[Sticky]

Anyone know how this standard will be applied? It implies that a dog has to meet all the criteria.

S

[sumosmum]

Someone called me last night and told me that the vet letter will only help if it says the dog is of pure breed.

I have been wondering about this too. I did ask a few people yesterday, and nobody seems to know at the moment. We will need to find out for sure, and soonish. It is so vague. This is doing my head in!