Rip Bear And Kooda

[Shakti]

Two dogs labelled as pit bulls by a local council in Victoria have been euthanased after their owners lost a lengthy legal battle to save their lives.

The dogs, named Bear and Kooda, were put down in Shepparton yesterday under the state's new dangerous dog laws.

The two dogs had not done anything wrong, but the laws allow councils to seize and destroy unregistered pit bull terriers and their crosses based on visual identification.

The strict laws were introduced last year after the fatal mauling of Melbourne toddler Ayen Chol.

Nathan Laffan and Samantha Graham, the owners of Bear and Kooda, were the first Victorians to challenge the dog laws in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), claiming their dogs had been wrongly identified as pit bulls.

At the centre of the Cobram couple's case against Moira Shire Council was a statutory declaration from a local breeder who said the dogs actually came from a bull mastiff cross American bulldog and a staffie cross ridgeback.

They lost the case on May 10 and the dogs were ordered to be euthanased.

Mr Laffan told ninemsn Bear and Kooda were not dangerous and "wouldn't hurt anyone".

"They were just the kindest and best dogs. They were always playful, we loved them so much," he said.

"We would have trusted them around children more than most babysitters."

The legal battle began in September when Mr Laffan heard the dog laws were about to be introduced and contacted Moira Shire Council to ensure his pets would be safe.

A council officer who went out to the couple's home identified the dogs as pit bulls and had them seized and taken to a local pound.

DNA tests cannot identify pit bulls or pit bull crosses and were unable to be used to confirm the breed.

Mr Laffan is now calling for behaviour tests to be used to assess a dog’s temperament, rather than the new laws which target specific breeds.

"The laws are all messed up they should never have brought them in," Mr Laffan said.

"We were just trying to do the right thing and they (the council) just stabbed us in the back."

Moira Shire Director of Development Scott Taylor confirmed the dogs had been put down as a result of the VCAT order.

"The legislative requirements were carried out by council after all avenues of appeal had been exhausted," Mr Taylor said.

Mr Laffan said they were given just an hour's notice and few minutes to say goodbye to their dogs after the time they were to be put down was brought forward by a day.

"It was hectic to be honest we were just trying to make sure we got there in time. It was just a really quick goodbye and that was it."

[Cheyd]

The parents of these two dogs (they came from the same litter) were cleared of having any pitbull in them, which just makes this tale even sadder

RIP Bear & Kooda

[darlingdog]

I cannot even IMAGINE the heartbreak these poor people are feeling ....R.I.P Bear and Kooda

[teekay]

This is madness. I am so appalled. Those poor poor people.

Things need to change. I hope there is a massive outcry over this. This is not justice, it's barbaric.

I've typed and deleted, typed and deleted. Just can't express what I'm feeling

[Animal House]

Truly disgusting what the council did. :

[juice]

My thoughts are with them, they looked more BM to me too.

They tried to do the right thing.

Very sad day for red looking dogs in victoria

[SkySoaringMagpie]

The thing I find disturbing about this is that they contacted the council in an effort to do the right thing. Was there any "out" which would have allowed them to rehome the dogs interstate or were they on a one way track as soon as they identified themselves?

Given the explosion in dog regulation this should get everyone's attention, and from a compliance policy perspective, it's just sent a huge message about whether to try and work with regulators.

[Dame Aussie]

This is how it is, councils are scum and I think it will only get worse.

I've given up trying to change peoples minds about pit bulls. The general public seems to be full of hysterical idiots and due to that these laws have been passed. VCAT havent got a clue and this just shows how flawed the whole thing is. The whole human race disgusts me at the moment.

My thoughts are with the owners.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Aussie3

[aussielover]

The thing I find disturbing about this is that they contacted the council in an effort to do the right thing. Was there any "out" which would have allowed them to rehome the dogs interstate or were they on a one way track as soon as they identified themselves?

Given the explosion in dog regulation this should get everyone's attention, and from a compliance policy perspective, it's just sent a huge message about whether to try and work with regulators.

I totally agree and share your concerns.

They were just trying to do the right thing. Surely they should have been allowed to move interstate or rehome the dogs interstate?

The dogs weren't declared dangerous so I see no reason why they couldn't have been moved interstate to a state where it is fully legal to keep crossbred dogs of a certain "type".

To add insult to injury, changing the date of the euthanasia at the last minute is a low and disgusting act by the authorities.

I find it worrisome as well as sickening that seemingly responsible dog owners with perfectly lovely dogs who have never been involved in an incident, try to do the right thing and then get treated in this manner

[Tatelina]

Just saw this article...Absolutely horrible!! :(

Certainly a reason to NOT be proactive in approaching your local council to do the right thing. And to think that the PTS date was brought foward at the last min... Disgusting.

I wonder if there is more to the story... and whether the owners would have won their case if they had more money behind them.

[Tatelina]

To add insult to injury, changing the date of the euthanasia at the last minute is a low and disgusting act by the authorities.

I find it worrisome as well as sickening that seemingly responsible dog owners with perfectly lovely dogs who have never been involved in an incident, try to do the right thing and then get treated in this manner

You've worded my thoughts!

(Although we don't know if there was additional back story)

[Jumabaar]

The thing I find disturbing about this is that they contacted the council in an effort to do the right thing. Was there any "out" which would have allowed them to rehome the dogs interstate or were they on a one way track as soon as they identified themselves?

Given the explosion in dog regulation this should get everyone's attention, and from a compliance policy perspective, it's just sent a huge message about whether to try and work with regulators.

Couldn't agree more. The people doing the right thing have just been punished, and their pets were the victims of it. I am sure there are people who are hiding dogs, and in all honesty after this can I blame them??

This law is silly to begin with- Vic has just created a black market of dogs that will go into hiding, won't be receiving veterinary treatment and spend the rest of lives locked in a house for fear of being identified as a pit bull!! They will probably still be bred and sold illegally anyway and this is just making the poor dogs suffer.

[megan_]

The parents of these two dogs (they came from the same litter) were cleared of having any pitbull in them, which just makes this tale even sadder

RIP Bear & Kooda

I think people are only now realising that the Vic legislation isn't about whether a dog is a pitbull or not - dogs are deemed restricted based on how they look, regardless of parentage. The fact that these dogs aren't pitbulls means nothing according to the law. The ONLY exception being pedigreed Amstaffs (so, under the law, if you have a pedigreed SBT that met the checklist your dog could be seized and put down too).

The sad irony of this all is that people will soon learn to hide their bull breed dogs, not take them out and socialise them (for fear of getting them seized) and we'll land up with more unsocialised, dangerous dogs.

[pebbles]

I'm certainly not on the Councils side but a bit confused by the article - My question, were these dogs registered with the Council? I understood the law was 'Unregistered PBs and their crosses would be seized'.

[bulldogz4eva]

Doesnt exactly instill much faith to do the right thing does it.Especially when you get shafted anyway.

[Guest lavendergirl]

How heartbreaking for those people Really encourages people to do the right thing doesn't it. The more these stories are told the better as people can see how this is effecting real people and their pets.

[Aidan3]

I'm certainly not on the Councils side but a bit confused by the article - My question, were these dogs registered with the Council? I understood the law was 'Unregistered PBs and their crosses would be seized'.

When the laws were being enacted the owners contacted the council to register the dogs.

[Odin-Genie]

The parents of these two dogs (they came from the same litter) were cleared of having any pitbull in them, which just makes this tale even sadder

RIP Bear & Kooda

This is sickening.

I don't get this logic. If the parents don't have any pitbull in them, how can the offspring be pitbull crosses just because they look like one?

I just read the case on Austlii. It seems that the key to the decision making was the council ranger's opinion since they have the right to subjectively decide if a dog is a pit bull.

[Dame Aussie]

I'm certainly not on the Councils side but a bit confused by the article - My question, were these dogs registered with the Council? I understood the law was 'Unregistered PBs and their crosses would be seized'.

It's irrelevant anyway, they weren't PB crosses.

[pebbles]

Sorry, still confused. So these dogs weren't registered prior to the new laws coming in? Surely if the breeder mentioned knew these dogs' backgrounds and if they had been registered as crosses of those breeds prior then why were they seized? I feel for the dogs but would like to know what the owners had done to ensure their safety.