Rip Bear And Kooda

[Sheridan]

how would they sue them? on what grounds?

It logically follows that if the parents are identified as not being pitbulls then the children also cannot be.

[Aidan3]

Crossbreed dogs have no breed standard in terms of temperament and character where as pure breeds do have a standard and global recognition

This is true, but this doesn't mean they [crossbred dogs] are more likely to be aggressive either so what grounds do we have for not breeding them on that basis alone? We could come back to over-representation in bite statistics, but that is an argument that assumes that correlation implies causation, and the BSL hypothesis has not been supported so it's fallacious.

who can scientifically determine that such a genetic breed mixture produces a great family pet of excellent temperament and character to be safe in the community is what we are up against

Guilty until proven innocent? Shouldn't the burden of proof be upon those [bSL advocates] making the claim?

and at the end of the day, no one needs this type of crossbreed dog to enjoy the effects of a companion animal and pet when there are plenty of other types or pure breed Bull varieties to choose from??.

Well this is part of the side issue you keep coming back to. Maybe start another thread to debate it? I agree, no-one needs them. One could argue that no-one needs purebred companion dogs either. Perhaps someone might enjoy the debate?

[Aidan3]

Now maybe these owners (victims) will sue the person who sold them these pups as family pets, and that may deter people randomly breeding and selling dogs in future.

Or it may lead to further proliferation of oodles that look explicitly nothing like pitbulls. Or perhaps, if your claim below is true, they'll move onto turning other breeds we enjoy (the ones such as GSDs, who look nothing like pitbulls) into the ones that cause the problems?

it's the people that breed dogs in this way that are more likely to be breeding the dogs that cause the problems that this legislation aims to prevent.

Maybe so, but in the absence of evidence to support the claim, should we make efforts to eradicate them? I could think of better places where legislation could be used to eradicate unethical dog breeding.

[Dame Aussie]

The "general public" are a bunch of hysterical morons.

Not everyone wants pit bulls or mastiffs banned, when were mastiffs even a part of these laws anyway????

Done with this thread, making me too angry.

[sumosmum]

I'm probably way off with this but haven't the time nor inclination to go looking up facts so just ignore if I'm wrong (again). Does not the VCA have a register for 'Companion Animals' ie crossbreeds? If they are taking membership monies from these owners then wouldn't they have some obligation to look after crossbreeds interests in general? As mentioned this legislation can also affect some of the papered dogs.

Yes, very true Pebbles, however, VCA were the ones in on this with the Government and supplied and helped by having a dog judge write the Standard that is being used against cross breed dogs.

So, if I had been paying money for companion membership, I would have been sold out by VCA.

They knew of the Standard before we ever knew about it. They were in discussion with the Brumby government when the notion of a standard was first entered into the legislation.

[m-sass]

That's not the issue. Someone should be able to adopt an Amstaff or x breed from the pound without having to worry about what is going to happen to it. You can get a lab x or Shar Pei x and it can fit the standard the officers are using to determine if a dog is a restricted breed - so it is not just bull breeds.

It's all well and good to be saying people shouldn't be breeding these dogs, but unless laws are passed to prevent BYBs that is going to keep happening.

Pebbles, unless i have read wrong - i think if it fits the standard - no matter what you have registered it as - it can still be seized

The pound should be the pillar of responsibility not to allow the rehoming of an unpapered Amstaff or crossbred dog fitting the restricted breed criteria to innocent members of the public looking to adopt a pet........does the local nursery sell marijunana plants??.

doesn't mean they [crossbred dogs] are more likely to be aggressive either so what grounds do we have for not breeding them on that basis alone?

The grounds for not breeding on dogs that can be intentified as restricted breeds is that simply restricted breeds and look a likes don't comply with the legislation to keep as a non restricted pet.

Edited June 17, 2012 by m-sass

[Cat]

Its more like selling roses that just looks like marijuana

You are missing the point. These dogs should not be persecuted just based on their looks. It's absurd and there is no reason for it. It is not helping anyone at all

Edited June 17, 2012 by Cat

[Aidan3]

doesn't mean they [crossbred dogs] are more likely to be aggressive either so what grounds do we have for not breeding them on that basis alone?

The grounds for not breeding on dogs that can be intentified as restricted breeds is that simply restricted breeds and look a likes don't comply with the legislation to keep as a non restricted pet.

Ok, so we're back to the legislation then. Fancy that...

[Jade~Harley~Bella]

how would they sue them? on what grounds?

They were sold two dogs as pets, that they brought home and spent 7 months training. It turned out that the dogs were illegal, and therefore not suitable as pets. They should be able to easily take legal action at a basic level to get a refund on purchase price. But if they had a good lawyer I think they could also sue to compensate for the wasted time spent training the dogs as well as suing to recover the all the legal and other costs they had accumulated as a result of being sold two illegal pets.

lol what?! The dogs did not have any APBT in them. How does that make them illegal, because someone that went to a 2 day training course on dog identification said so. What a load of bullshit. And even more ridiculous, wanting to sue someone because you purchased an unrestricted breed puppy. I don't think any amount of money will replace the dogs.

Some comments on this thread are laughable...

[m-sass]

how would they sue them? on what grounds?

They were sold two dogs as pets, that they brought home and spent 7 months training. It turned out that the dogs were illegal, and therefore not suitable as pets. They should be able to easily take legal action at a basic level to get a refund on purchase price. But if they had a good lawyer I think they could also sue to compensate for the wasted time spent training the dogs as well as suing to recover the all the legal and other costs they had accumulated as a result of being sold two illegal pets.

lol what?! The dogs did not have any APBT in them. How does that make them illegal, because someone that went to a 2 day training course on dog identification said so. What a load of bullshit. And even more ridiculous, wanting to sue someone because you purchased an unrestricted breed puppy. I don't think any amount of money will replace the dogs.

Some comments on this thread are laughable...

Unfortunately a greater balance of evidence is required to satisfy the tribunal beyond someone saying that the dogs had no Pitbull in them it seems??.

[koalathebear]

I was reading the VCAT decision here. Insane. Especially when you compare it with Tonka's case. It seems really problematic to be deeming a dog to be a restricted breed because its physical form appears to comply with the checklist of features that passes for a 'standard'. The mind boggles. I find it sad how the legislation could have been drafted so poorly to lead to such an unjust result.

[asal]

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.

exactly, and parentage verification is recognised world wide. so clearned parents, meant parentage verification proved beyond all let alone 'reasonable doubt" that they were NOT pit bulls.

the failure of even the vets involved to tell the owners and breeder of theses pups this is tragic.

no way they should have been put down.

[asal]

DNA testing is unreliable and the law specifically says that it can't be used to prove that a dog isn't a pitbull. Even if it wasn't, Vic legislation says that any dog that looks like a pitbull and meets the checklist is deemed restricted regardless of parentage. The ONLY exception to this is if your dog is a pedigreed amstaff. ANY other dog that looks like a pitbull (and the checklist could describe thousands of dogs) is at risk. The fact that the parents weren't pitbulls makes no difference according to the legislation.

who told you that?

dna testing has sent how many thousands of people to jail as a posative identification?

its and unique as fingerprints. as for parentag verification it is just as accurate.

yes the companies out to make money saying they can dna verify or identify a 'breed' are just snake oil salesmen but parentage verification is recognised world wide in all law courts. who told you otherwise?

[koalathebear]

Regarding DNA, the decision provides as follows:

In cross-examination, Mr Laffan asked Mr L’Anson about Kooda’s breed. Again, we do not record Mr L’Anson’s responses, as this is not relevant to our decision. Mr L’Anson agreed he had advised Mr Laffan that he may wish to seek DNA evidence to dispute the declaration. Mr L’Anson was trying to assist Mr Laffan. Mr L’Anson is now aware DNA evidence is no longer relevant to the classification of a dog as a restricted breed dog.

[asal]

how would they sue them? on what grounds?

They were sold two dogs as pets, that they brought home and spent 7 months training. It turned out that the dogs were illegal, and therefore not suitable as pets. They should be able to easily take legal action at a basic level to get a refund on purchase price. But if they had a good lawyer I think they could also sue to compensate for the wasted time spent training the dogs as well as suing to recover the all the legal and other costs they had accumulated as a result of being sold two illegal pets.

that doesnt make sense if the parents are deemed to be not pit bulls. then how could the owner be sued? its the ranger decided the puppies are???

what a mess

[asal]

That's not the issue. Someone should be able to adopt an Amstaff or x breed from the pound without having to worry about what is going to happen to it. You can get a lab x or Shar Pei x and it can fit the standard the officers are using to determine if a dog is a restricted breed - so it is not just bull breeds.

It's all well and good to be saying people shouldn't be breeding these dogs, but unless laws are passed to prevent BYBs that is going to keep happening.

Pebbles, unless i have read wrong - i think if it fits the standard - no matter what you have registered it as - it can still be seized

when is anyone going to discover screaming ''''NEW LAW NEEDED....NEW LAW NEEDED" FINALLY going to realise the only outcome is GUESS WHAT?

EVEN MORE 'NEW' UTTERLY STUPID LAWS

thanks to the 'new laws ' brigade we already have it you have to build concrete floored multi thousand dollar 'kennel' complexes unless you want to be labled unsanitary.

has it occured next it will not only become law you have to keep your litters in concrete sheds instead of your home.

how long will it take for the OH&S people to realise, hey, any doggie in a house is a health risk to 'visitors" and that no pets, canine included be banned next?

30 years ago i saw this insanity comming. thats here now.. how long before the next chapter?

remember i warned u

Edited June 17, 2012 by asal

[LuvsDobes]

The only thing relevant to the classification is the visual identification checklist referred to as a standard. Which is interesting because a 'standard' technically is a document drawn up to identify characteristics in a dog of already established breed.

This Victorian legislation is placing all of its eggs into one extremely fragile basket- relying on individuals who cannot be accorded the title of expert to testify to their identification based on supposed expertise using flawed documentation.

This is a really interesting article from the Qld Bar Association which highlights the issues with this so-called 'expert' testimony from council rangers in identification of breed;

Hearsay ... the electronic journal of the Bar Association of Queensland - Expert Evidence and the Family Pet

These arguments need to be highlighted, and VCAT required to respond.

[sumosmum]

Regarding DNA, the decision provides as follows:

In cross-examination, Mr Laffan asked Mr L'Anson about Kooda's breed. Again, we do not record Mr L'Anson's responses, as this is not relevant to our decision. Mr L'Anson agreed he had advised Mr Laffan that he may wish to seek DNA evidence to dispute the declaration. Mr L'Anson was trying to assist Mr Laffan. Mr L'Anson is now aware DNA evidence is no longer relevant to the classification of a dog as a restricted breed dog.

Koalathebear, I read that too, and all I could think of was that they had their wires crossed about what type of DNA test they were speaking of. I would have thought that a dna test of parentage would have been acceptable. I am wondering if one was talking dna breed test and the other dna parentage and the lines were crossed.

And there was recently another man who won his VCAT case and it was reported he won using dna evidence.

[m-sass]

how would they sue them? on what grounds?

They were sold two dogs as pets, that they brought home and spent 7 months training. It turned out that the dogs were illegal, and therefore not suitable as pets. They should be able to easily take legal action at a basic level to get a refund on purchase price. But if they had a good lawyer I think they could also sue to compensate for the wasted time spent training the dogs as well as suing to recover the all the legal and other costs they had accumulated as a result of being sold two illegal pets.

that doesnt make sense if the parents are deemed to be not pit bulls. then how could the owner be sued? its the ranger decided the puppies are???

what a mess

The parents would have to not comply with the restricted breed standard with proof beyond a verbal confirmation that the parents produced the pups.

[bslsux]

And there was recently another man who won his VCAT case and it was reported he won using dna evidence.

That case was about a dog called "Tess" owned by Michael Ozzimo. Her owner did have DNA (Mars Wisdom blood based) but was told early on by the presiding Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) Member Dr Rebecca French (who along with Senior Member Proctor heard Bear and Kooda's review) that it was of no benefit. VCAT are only interested in whether the dog fits the standard. Unless of course they have an ANKC pedigree certificate or a certificate from a vet stating the dog is an American Staffordshire Terrier.

The Herald Sun reported he won using DNA evidence. Per usual they don't know what they are talking about. They also said Tess was out roaming. Tess was taken from her backyard.

Michael Ozzimo won his case because he had an expert opinion report showing his dog didn't fit the standard. He did not have legal representation. The Council had a Barrister and a solicitor present. The best the Council could come up with was an so called experienced Local Laws Officer (LLO) who thought the pasterns were somewhere around the shoulder of the dog and the occiput was around the dog's cheeks!

As hard as it might be to believe, the Moira Council LLO was even more ignorant. Apparently a "scissor bite is indicative of a pit bull". When you have unrepresented and unassisted dog owner who initially believes what the LLO says and presiding VCAT members who barely know the difference between the front of a dog and the back end it is a recipe for disaster.

Late attempts were made to get an expert opinion done on Bear and Kooda but Moira Council refused access. VCAT were aware of this.

There have been two other successful applications since Tess went home. Tonka was one and Narlah was the other. Both of these owners represented themselves, with assistance. Both had an expert opinion report from an All Breeds Dog Judge.

Another case is part heard. That owner has expert opinion from a Terrier Group Judge and they have legal representation.

Another case is in the Supreme Court (Monash CC)

The following dogs have died as a result of the VCAT process (god only knows how many without ever reaching VCAT).

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council - 2 (Owners failed to appear at final Hearing)

Banyule City Council - Ace (contested but lost)

Glen Eira City Council - 1 (Owner failed to appear)

Hume City Council - 1 (Owner failed to appear)

There are at at least 15 other cases that I know of at various stages in the process.

I cannot emphasise enough that anyone seeking a review of the declaration of their dog as a restricted breed at VCAT must get an expert opinion on whether their dog fits the standard.

Assistance is available. See post in BSL forum:

http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/235262-going-to-vcat/page__pid__5867000#entry5867000