Adba Response Regarding Victoria's Dangerous Dog Laws.

[tybrax]

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SHARE..

TYBRAX

[sandgrubber]

I think this if barking up the wrong tree.

I played around with the Vic 'standard' and found that it copies from various APBT descriptions, adds illustrations, and changes words here and there. True. You could call it plagiarism or unauthorized use of material. You could blow a bunch of money suing for miss-use of intellectual property or something like that. If you got the right lawyer and were lucky with the jury you might win a civil law suit. BFD. The politico's would rewrite the same garbage in their own words and come up with an equally horrific standard.

The BIG problem is the idea of using a visual description to decide which dog is going to be dangerous, and which is not dangerous, is laughably stupid. And the consequences are not the least bit laughable. The BIGGER problem is that the public thinks this idiotic law is doing something to make them safer. Sorry. It isn't. And it's causing a huge amount of grief to people who have ended up owning a dog who has the wrong look.

[Keira&Phoenix]

Sandgrubber - Only the very first part of the letter touches on plagiarism of the standard. The rest of the letter talks about the inadequacies of BSL and using a "standard" to identify dogs. It also touches on the fact that owners need to be held accountable etc.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Keira&Phoenix

[smacka]

Surely a dog standard (description) would be classified as public domain & could be used as a means of breed identification.

I can't see the problem.

Edited November 3, 2011 by smacka

[geo]

Surely a dog standard (description) would be classified as public domain & could be used as a means of breed identification.

I can't see the problem.

Nope not the case, it is used to measure dogs of a proven breed, cannot be used for identification as stipulated by their lawyers, and it is only used by sanctioned judges not council workers to decide the fate of a poor dog.

ADBA, UKC and AKC all have different standards for essentially the same 'type' of dog.

[smacka]

Surely a dog standard (description) would be classified as public domain & could be used as a means of breed identification.

I can't see the problem.

Nope not the case, it is used to measure dogs of a proven breed, cannot be used for identification as stipulated by their lawyers, and it is only used by sanctioned judges not council workers to decide the fate of a poor dog.

ADBA, UKC and AKC all have different standards for essentially the same 'type' of dog.

I don't really understand what you are saying here?

Are you saying the ADBA breed standard for the American Pitbull Terrier isn't a description of the breed? That the UKC standard is different from the ADBA standard for the same breed?

And/or breed standards aren't public domain?

All of the above?

Don't both the UKC & the ADBA hold conformation shows? How could that be if the written standard isn't a description of the breed? I would image many dogs would be dual registered yes/no?

The AKC doesn't have a breed standard for the American Pitbull Terrier because it doesn't recognise it as a pure breed & the UKC no longer recognises AKC registered American Staffordshire Terriers as American Pitbull Terriers & wont register them as such.

And as the ADBA has opened it's register to ALL breeds, be they American breeds or not, what is their policy regarding those relevent breed standards? Are they breed descriptions or are they not?

Most confusing.

[geo]

I don't really understand what you are saying here?

Are you saying the ADBA breed standard for the American Pitbull Terrier isn't a description of the breed? That the UKC standard is different from the ADBA standard for the same breed?

And/or breed standards aren't public domain?

All of the above?

Don't both the UKC & the ADBA hold conformation shows? How could that be if the written standard isn't a description of the breed? I would image many dogs would be dual registered yes/no?

The AKC doesn't have a breed standard for the American Pitbull Terrier because it doesn't recognise it as a pure breed & the UKC no longer recognises AKC registered American Staffordshire Terriers as American Pitbull Terriers & wont register them as such.

And as the ADBA has opened it's register to ALL breeds, be they American breeds or not, what is their policy regarding those relevent breed standards? Are they breed descriptions or are they not?

Most confusing.

Ok so the standard is applied by people with experience judging breeds of a known heritage. Not by people who have no idea how to apply a standard.

The last time i looked the UKC standard had a larger weight range, though a similar standard you'll find UKC / ADBA judges have a completely different view of what the APBT is.

Yes I know about the AKC not registering APBT's et al,that's why i said "type", and yes their standards vary.

As for the ADBA accepting other breed standards, i'm sure they use breed judges of many years experience to judge a dogs quality of a proven breed, not use them to identify dogs.

It is a confusing topic, but consider that a lab/staffy cross or any bull breed / terrier cross could produce a dog that fits the breed discriptors, but is not a purte bred dog.

[smacka]

I did waffle off track from my original question. Which was not about BSL per se, but rather the disclaimer & attempted veto by the ADBA to prevent anyone using their own breed description as an aid to I.D. their primary breed.

This tactic would be impossible to enforce to my way of thinking.

It , their standard, is posted on their web site, together with numerous photos of a variety of APBTs of different ages, sizes & colours.

Their standard even states an APBT should be easily recognised as such from the other side of a show ring (or words to that effect)

Anyone can access this information. That's public domain. Therefore I can't see how they could legally stop anyone from using their own description as an aid to i.ding their own breed.

Their standard could even be helpful if a suspect dog was not of the restricted breed.

I wonder if the ADBA would complain about it's use if that was the case?

Personally, I don't think the ADBA disclaimer will fly. Crash & burn more likely.

Your suggestion of cross breeds fitting the description is a more feasible course of action for satisfactory outcomes.

IMHO.

[geo]

Yep, but the standard should only be applied to dogs of proven heritage, so if it's applied to a cross breed that fits the standard then it will have been applied incorrectly.. which is why they state that it is only to be applied to pure bred dogs.

In a court of law who knows how it would play out?!

Once you put anything on the net, it is always going to be used by someone else.. sadly in this case for all the wrong reasons.

[smacka]

Yep, but the standard should only be applied to dogs of proven heritage, so if it's applied to a cross breed that fits the standard then it will have been applied incorrectly.. which is why they state that it is only to be applied to pure bred dogs.

In a court of law who knows how it would play out?!

Once you put anything on the net, it is always going to be used by someone else.. sadly in this case for all the wrong reasons.

Sorry, but your rationale is a little leftish leaning skewywhiff.

when under the pump, who in their right mind would admit, to authorities on a mission of destruction, their dog was an unregistered pure breed APBT, or even a cross of a pure breed APBT

No one. No one of sound mind & body anyway.

If, by some cataclysmic alignment of the planets, someone did, third party I.D. (opinion) wouldn't be necessary, would it?

Which brings us full circle.

Those on the other side have sought a definitive breed description to assist them in their endeavours.

What could be better than the criterior by which the breed club supplies to their accredited breed judges to choose what they consider to be the as near as possible perfect representation of the breed?

As previously opined. Any protest from the ADBA re the use of their written description will be just pissing into the wind.

IMHO

[smacka]

Yep, but the standard should only be applied to dogs of proven heritage, so if it's applied to a cross breed that fits the standard then it will have been applied incorrectly.. which is why they state that it is only to be applied to pure bred dogs.

In a court of law who knows how it would play out?!

Once you put anything on the net, it is always going to be used by someone else.. sadly in this case for all the wrong reasons.

Sorry, but your rationale is a little leftish leaning skewywhiff.

when under the pump, who in their right mind would admit, to authorities on a mission of destruction, their dog was an unregistered pure breed APBT, or even a cross of a pure breed APBT

No one. No one of sound mind & body anyway.

If, by some cataclysmic alignment of the planets, someone did, third party I.D. (opinion) wouldn't be necessary, would it?

Which brings us full circle.

Those on the other side have sought a definitive breed description to assist them in their endeavours.

What could be better than the criterior by which the breed club supplies to their accredited breed judges to choose what they consider to be the as near as possible perfect representation of the breed?

As previously opined. Any protest from the ADBA re the use of their written description will be just pissing into the wind.

IMHO

Even if we did accept that the breed standard could be applied to any dog in order to determine if it was an APBT or not (which I don't personally believe it can as the breed standard provides ideal physical characteristics for the APBT, characteristics which may fit a dog that is not an APBT), the way in which it will be used by councils to make a breed determination violates the integrity of the breed standard. A dog does not have to meet every aspect of the standard in order for a council to declare a dog to be all or part APBT, only a certain percentage of it (although I don't believe exactly how much has been made public). This means that application of the standard will not be consistent and breeds or crossbreeds of dogs who may fit only some elements of the standard, may be incorrectly declared as an APBT.

Absolutely.

But that isn't the discussion.

[geo]

Yep, but the standard should only be applied to dogs of proven heritage, so if it's applied to a cross breed that fits the standard then it will have been applied incorrectly.. which is why they state that it is only to be applied to pure bred dogs.

In a court of law who knows how it would play out?!

Once you put anything on the net, it is always going to be used by someone else.. sadly in this case for all the wrong reasons.

Sorry, but your rationale is a little leftish leaning skewywhiff.

when under the pump, who in their right mind would admit, to authorities on a mission of destruction, their dog was an unregistered pure breed APBT, or even a cross of a pure breed APBT

No one. No one of sound mind & body anyway.

If, by some cataclysmic alignment of the planets, someone did, third party I.D. (opinion) wouldn't be necessary, would it?

Not sure what you're getting at..? did i mention anything about people admitting they have an APBT... It was about the use of the standard.

The standard is a made up ideal by people in the pure breed dogs registries to measure their dogs against. How is it the ideal IDing tool when it can encompass cross breeds of unknown origins? surely that makes it a completely useless tool. Now if they had DNA code that tested especially for APBT then that would be undenialble proof, which a breed standard does not carry, therefore leaving it fully open to reasonable doubt.

Again as you said it comes full circle and we have cases like that of proving a dog is an amstaff or pitbull.....

There is just too much room for error.

[smacka]

The standard is a made up ideal by people in the pure breed dogs registries to measure their dogs against. How is it the ideal IDing tool when it can encompass cross breeds of unknown origins?

Actually standards are a registered blueprint for the breed faithful to BREED to.

Breeders come before judges. Breeders have to know what they are supposed to be breeding.

The standard is the description of the ideal example of the breed. And is a matter of public record. It's public domain. Anyone can access it & use it as a reference.

In a dog show, with bona fide ethical judges, dogs are judged against the standard, not the other dogs. This would be why the ADBA lists the maximum points available for different features of the exhibits.

An ethical judge who considers no exhibit satisfactorly answers the written description would just pull the pin & move on to the next class.

The ADBAs attempt to disassociate their breed from their published standard as a description of their breed has no wings.

No standard, no breed, pure & simple.

Which, of course is the object of the exercise.

Nice if it they could pull it off.

Doom to failure though.

IMHO

Cross breeds don't have standards btw.

[geo]

Cross breeds don't have standards btw.

Did i say that cross breeds have standards? maybe we have our wires crossed.

Edited to add: Yes a blueprint but still an ideal, i'm sure you know not all dogs fit their breed standard.

I agree about the public access but using it as an ID'ing tool as i keep saying is totally flawed as many cross breeds will fit into the standard, and i that's the whole point. Judges can freely judge knowing that what they are judging against is a pure bred dog.

By your reckoning i could use the ADBA standard to judge my dogs, see that they fit the standard (or partly do) and ask for them to be registered as pure breds.

The ABDA is just stating that it is to be used on pure bred dogs only.

If i took my mongrel to the dog show and said look i think he's a staffy i want to show him and breed him, he fits the standard, but he's not a rego'd pure breed, they'd think i'm crazy.. but then i could say hey, you published your standard i demand that you register him... i think they'd tell me where to go!

Edited November 5, 2011 by geo

[smacka]

If your dog looked like a ''staffy'' walked like a ''staffy'' & yodelled like a ''staffy'' they would probably concede it was a ''staffy''. (or a derivative of)

Albeit unregistered & poorly bred. They would probably offer you some good advice regarding the breed to boot. Point you in the right direction so as to speak.

Which is precisely why the ADBA standard has the validity to be used as an aid to I.Ding APBTs, be they well bred & well nurtured or unregistered &/or poorly bred. (Or a derivative of)

I will concede the conformation of the breed in general does lend itself to doubt when declared to be of mixed breed.

Anyhow, it seems pointless butting heads over whether or not a standard is an appropiate document for the purpose of breed identification.

I say yes you say no. And never the twain shall meet.

Is an alternative available for the Vics to apply?

Utilise the Queensland 22 point check list perhaps?

Now that would be an even bigger problem for the breed.

It will be interesting to see if anything developes from the ADBAs declaration their breed standard isn't valid when I.Ding their breed though.

Could get really interesting if they have the balls to pursue the matter.

Really interesting.

Messy even.

Edited to add.

Well bred pure breeds do fit their standards.

That's the reason they are so readily identifable.

Edited November 6, 2011 by smacka