Tempus Fugit Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 The state government has probably threatened councils with a reduction in funding unless they demonstrate progress in eliminating devil-dogs from their shires/ municipalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) 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. I believe Nathan went to the council when the laws were announced, they agreed for the ranger to come around and assess the dogs, the ranger assessed they were pitbulls therefore could not be registered and seized. So although Bear & Kooda's parents were cleared of having any pitbull in them, their pups were not 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. Pitbull's could be registered up to the 30th of September last year, so if the enquiry was in September, why were the dogs seized instead of having them registered as Pitbull's as per the amnesty entitlement??. Edited June 15, 2012 by m-sass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Dogs had to be in Victoria prior to October 2010 to be eligible for the amnesty. Bear and Kooda were only 7 months old when seized. They did not fit the standard when seized, and did not fit the standard when they were killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Was the DNA testing in this case used to prove the dogs were (or were not pitbulls) or was it to prove parentage? Once it was proved the parents were not pitbulls, surely the only question left was whether the two dogs were children of the parents. Cos if it was used to prove that the dogs are pitbulls and it can be shown the test is unreliable for this (as DOLers have shown by having their own dogs tested), then my question is if that is, or rather, should have been, grounds for a legal challenge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jade~Harley~Bella Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Was the DNA testing in this case used to prove the dogs were (or were not pitbulls) or was it to prove parentage? Once it was proved the parents were not pitbulls, surely the only question left was whether the two dogs were children of the parents. Cos if it was used to prove that the dogs are pitbulls and it can be shown the test is unreliable for this (as DOLers have shown by having their own dogs tested), then my question is if that is, or rather, should have been, grounds for a legal challenge? There were no DNA tests completed on any of the dogs. The parents must have passed the visual identification and there was a stat dec completed by the parents owner/"breeder" stating the dogs breeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Was the DNA testing in this case used to prove the dogs were (or were not pitbulls) or was it to prove parentage? Once it was proved the parents were not pitbulls, surely the only question left was whether the two dogs were children of the parents. Cos if it was used to prove that the dogs are pitbulls and it can be shown the test is unreliable for this (as DOLers have shown by having their own dogs tested), then my question is if that is, or rather, should have been, grounds for a legal challenge? There were no DNA tests completed on any of the dogs. The parents must have passed the visual identification and there was a stat dec completed by the parents owner/"breeder" stating the dogs breeds. To me, and without a legal bone in my body but lots of logical ones, that seems to say hello lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jade~Harley~Bella Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Was the DNA testing in this case used to prove the dogs were (or were not pitbulls) or was it to prove parentage? Once it was proved the parents were not pitbulls, surely the only question left was whether the two dogs were children of the parents. Cos if it was used to prove that the dogs are pitbulls and it can be shown the test is unreliable for this (as DOLers have shown by having their own dogs tested), then my question is if that is, or rather, should have been, grounds for a legal challenge? There were no DNA tests completed on any of the dogs. The parents must have passed the visual identification and there was a stat dec completed by the parents owner/"breeder" stating the dogs breeds. To me, and without a legal bone in my body but lots of logical ones, that seems to say hello lawsuit. Yeah to me it seems there were a few errors made on the councils part. It seems they wanted to make a statement and would do whatever necessary to make it. I hope it is taken further by the dogs owners, considering the dogs had not actually done anything wrong its just crazy in my eyes, and very sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Was the DNA testing in this case used to prove the dogs were (or were not pitbulls) or was it to prove parentage? Once it was proved the parents were not pitbulls, surely the only question left was whether the two dogs were children of the parents. Cos if it was used to prove that the dogs are pitbulls and it can be shown the test is unreliable for this (as DOLers have shown by having their own dogs tested), then my question is if that is, or rather, should have been, grounds for a legal challenge? There were no DNA tests completed on any of the dogs. The parents must have passed the visual identification and there was a stat dec completed by the parents owner/"breeder" stating the dogs breeds. To me, and without a legal bone in my body but lots of logical ones, that seems to say hello lawsuit. Yeah to me it seems there were a few errors made on the councils part. It seems they wanted to make a statement and would do whatever necessary to make it. I hope it is taken further by the dogs owners, considering the dogs had not actually done anything wrong its just crazy in my eyes, and very sad. I wonder why they didn't take it further before the dogs were killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Was the DNA testing in this case used to prove the dogs were (or were not pitbulls) or was it to prove parentage? Once it was proved the parents were not pitbulls, surely the only question left was whether the two dogs were children of the parents. Cos if it was used to prove that the dogs are pitbulls and it can be shown the test is unreliable for this (as DOLers have shown by having their own dogs tested), then my question is if that is, or rather, should have been, grounds for a legal challenge? There were no DNA tests completed on any of the dogs. The parents must have passed the visual identification and there was a stat dec completed by the parents owner/"breeder" stating the dogs breeds. To me, and without a legal bone in my body but lots of logical ones, that seems to say hello lawsuit. Yeah to me it seems there were a few errors made on the councils part. It seems they wanted to make a statement and would do whatever necessary to make it. I hope it is taken further by the dogs owners, considering the dogs had not actually done anything wrong its just crazy in my eyes, and very sad. I wonder why they didn't take it further before the dogs were killed. The only avenue left was Supreme Court and the cost to do that is huge. Not many people can afford that. Vcat are only interested in whether the dogs fit the Standard. They don't fit the standard, but the word of the council was accepted. Without an expert wittness there is not much hope. Another case that recently won did have a person who was accepted as being more expert on the subject than the council they were fighting, and they did win. And in the documents it was also mentioned that the council had only had a couple of days training on the subject. This is a very sad situation, and the owners are devastated. This should never have happened. The council treated the owners very poorly in my opinion. I am disgusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) Yeah to me it seems there were a few errors made on the councils part. It seems they wanted to make a statement and would do whatever necessary to make it. I hope it is taken further by the dogs owners, considering the dogs had not actually done anything wrong its just crazy in my eyes, and very sad. Although this situation is a very sad one and not that I agree with what the council did, but if the dogs did fit the Pitbull description where I mean obviously they weren't of a completely opposite appearance like a Husky or GSD look, what was the coucil supposed to do under the legislation, let it go because a BYB did a statutory declaration regarding the parents who's pedigrees couldn't more than likely be confirmed anyway??. Personally, I blame the breeders for producing dogs that fit these descriptions, regardless if they are BYB's or not, surely they need to be aware that breeding dogs of Pitbull appearance is asking for trouble given that Pitbull's have been restricted for a long time, they need to be more responsible in their breeding choices not to supply puppies that people aquire and love to have them seized and euthanised.......if they want to BYB, breed something safe from the authorities and legislation....the BYB market is still littered with Bull cross breeds and doesn't appear that these BYB's or puppy farmers or whatever are learning anything from these terrible situations unfolding Edited June 16, 2012 by m-sass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) . Edited June 16, 2012 by Troy Comments removed - unacceptable conduct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jade~Harley~Bella Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Yeah to me it seems there were a few errors made on the councils part. It seems they wanted to make a statement and would do whatever necessary to make it. I hope it is taken further by the dogs owners, considering the dogs had not actually done anything wrong its just crazy in my eyes, and very sad. Although this situation is a very sad one and not that I agree with what the council did, but if the dogs did fit the Pitbull description where I mean obviously they weren't of a completely opposite appearance like a Husky or GSD look, what was the coucil supposed to do under the legislation, let it go because a BYB did a statutory declaration regarding the parents who's pedigrees couldn't more than likely be confirmed anyway??. Personally, I blame the breeders for producing dogs that fit these descriptions, regardless if they are BYB's or not, surely they need to be aware that breeding dogs of Pitbull appearance is asking for trouble given that Pitbull's have been restricted for a long time, they need to be more responsible in their breeding choices not to supply puppies that people aquire and love to have them seized and euthanised.......if they want to BYB, breed something safe from the authorities and legislation....the BYB market is still littered with Bull cross breeds and doesn't appear that these BYB's or puppy farmers or whatever are learning anything from these terrible situations unfolding As far as the "breeder" is concerned though they aren't breeding restricted breeds nor could they have predicted how the pups would turn out. While I don't agree with BYB these people really did nothing wrong either. Many many dogs could fit that standard, doesn't mean that the council have any right to put them down. The council could have registered the pups when the owners requested and left it at that. This didn't have to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Sumosum, I would expect the council to prove the dogs were what they claimed they were. What is the onus of proof in these laws? I can't recall if the owners retained counsel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Sumosum, I would expect the council to prove the dogs were what they claimed they were. What is the onus of proof in these laws? This is the problem with this law. There is no onus of proof, it is a checklist of physical features administered by two trained people. Philosophically it is about as bad as law gets, so far removed from the principles of sound legislation and ethics I think every Australian should protest. Not for the dogs, but for an abuse of process which we should not accept. It treats dogs like illegal firearms or modified vehicles, but without any objectivity at all. It would not be a straw-man argument to compare it to phrenology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Then it sounds like what it needs is a challenge to the Supreme Court to start with. Of course, this is reliant on someone having the money to do so (or more many people having a little money). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Yeah to me it seems there were a few errors made on the councils part. It seems they wanted to make a statement and would do whatever necessary to make it. I hope it is taken further by the dogs owners, considering the dogs had not actually done anything wrong its just crazy in my eyes, and very sad. Although this situation is a very sad one and not that I agree with what the council did, but if the dogs did fit the Pitbull description where I mean obviously they weren't of a completely opposite appearance like a Husky or GSD look, what was the coucil supposed to do under the legislation, let it go because a BYB did a statutory declaration regarding the parents who's pedigrees couldn't more than likely be confirmed anyway??. Personally, I blame the breeders for producing dogs that fit these descriptions, regardless if they are BYB's or not, surely they need to be aware that breeding dogs of Pitbull appearance is asking for trouble given that Pitbull's have been restricted for a long time, they need to be more responsible in their breeding choices not to supply puppies that people aquire and love to have them seized and euthanised.......if they want to BYB, breed something safe from the authorities and legislation....the BYB market is still littered with Bull cross breeds and doesn't appear that these BYB's or puppy farmers or whatever are learning anything from these terrible situations unfolding Are you saying these dogs look like pitbulls? They don't fit the standard. The council only has one or two days training on how to read a standard. I really would not call them experts when it comes to reading and applying a standard. The sire and dam of these dogs are cleared of being restricted breeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Sumosum, I would expect the council to prove the dogs were what they claimed they were. What is the onus of proof in these laws? I can't recall if the owners retained counsel. The owners didn't have anyone with them at VCAT unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Yeah to me it seems there were a few errors made on the councils part. It seems they wanted to make a statement and would do whatever necessary to make it. I hope it is taken further by the dogs owners, considering the dogs had not actually done anything wrong its just crazy in my eyes, and very sad. Although this situation is a very sad one and not that I agree with what the council did, but if the dogs did fit the Pitbull description where I mean obviously they weren't of a completely opposite appearance like a Husky or GSD look, what was the coucil supposed to do under the legislation, let it go because a BYB did a statutory declaration regarding the parents who's pedigrees couldn't more than likely be confirmed anyway??. Personally, I blame the breeders for producing dogs that fit these descriptions, regardless if they are BYB's or not, surely they need to be aware that breeding dogs of Pitbull appearance is asking for trouble given that Pitbull's have been restricted for a long time, they need to be more responsible in their breeding choices not to supply puppies that people aquire and love to have them seized and euthanised.......if they want to BYB, breed something safe from the authorities and legislation....the BYB market is still littered with Bull cross breeds and doesn't appear that these BYB's or puppy farmers or whatever are learning anything from these terrible situations unfolding As far as the "breeder" is concerned though they aren't breeding restricted breeds nor could they have predicted how the pups would turn out. While I don't agree with BYB these people really did nothing wrong either. Many many dogs could fit that standard, doesn't mean that the council have any right to put them down. The council could have registered the pups when the owners requested and left it at that. This didn't have to happen. Agree. And the dogs were seized when 7 months of age. They were re evaluated again when they were about 12 months old with different results on the Standard. Another thing, there is this note on the standard, and I don't think this was followed. To me, it is like the council seized them, and decided to hold them till they grew up to see what they looked like. How could they have made the declaration on 7 month old pups. Note from Standard. Note: Whilst this standard is based on a fully mature animal it would be expected that an individual puppy would reach the prescribed height and overall balance desired by the age of approximately 9 months. However body maturity and strength would not be achieved until much later – maybe two to three years plus. If possible the bitch and sire should be evaluated when considering the possibility of a puppy meeting this standard. The other thing is the owners were moving to NSW and had informed the council of this. They did move to NSW.. This is in the documentation. Even so, still there is a big question mark on how the council and vcat have interpreted the standard. There was another case, Tonka, and he was found not to be a restricted breed. He had a good result because the owners had on their side someone who could actually read and understand a Standard. His owners had an all breeds judge who had judged all over the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) Yeah to me it seems there were a few errors made on the councils part. It seems they wanted to make a statement and would do whatever necessary to make it. I hope it is taken further by the dogs owners, considering the dogs had not actually done anything wrong its just crazy in my eyes, and very sad. Although this situation is a very sad one and not that I agree with what the council did, but if the dogs did fit the Pitbull description where I mean obviously they weren't of a completely opposite appearance like a Husky or GSD look, what was the coucil supposed to do under the legislation, let it go because a BYB did a statutory declaration regarding the parents who's pedigrees couldn't more than likely be confirmed anyway??. Personally, I blame the breeders for producing dogs that fit these descriptions, regardless if they are BYB's or not, surely they need to be aware that breeding dogs of Pitbull appearance is asking for trouble given that Pitbull's have been restricted for a long time, they need to be more responsible in their breeding choices not to supply puppies that people aquire and love to have them seized and euthanised.......if they want to BYB, breed something safe from the authorities and legislation....the BYB market is still littered with Bull cross breeds and doesn't appear that these BYB's or puppy farmers or whatever are learning anything from these terrible situations unfolding Are you saying these dogs look like pitbulls? They don't fit the standard. The council only has one or two days training on how to read a standard. I really would not call them experts when it comes to reading and applying a standard. The sire and dam of these dogs are cleared of being restricted breeds. They fit the standard of the type of dogs they are after, it's not like the council has seized dogs that look like a Husky, GSD, or a Greyhound for example claiming they are Pitbull X's, my point is, anything that resembles a restricted breed is vulnerable to seizure and euthanasia under the present legislation so why breed them??. As far as the "breeder" is concerned though they aren't breeding restricted breeds nor could they have predicted how the pups would turn out. While I don't agree with BYB these people really did nothing wrong either. Many many dogs could fit that standard, doesn't mean that the council have any right to put them down. The council could have registered the pups when the owners requested and left it at that. This didn't have to happen. They are breeding crossbreed dogs of Bull origin and of course they can't predict how the pups will turn out which is a testament IMHO for why they shouldn't be breeding dogs in the first place. Edited June 16, 2012 by m-sass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Yes, we realise that, but there will never be a world where only purebred dogs exist. These dogs are all over the place and they are peoples pets. They do not fit the standard. Many characteristics do not match the standard. Have you seen the standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now