Rip Bear And Kooda

[m-sass]

certificate from a vet stating the dog is an American Staffordshire Terrier.

In that case owners of dogs potentially complying with the restricted breed standards need to arm themselves with a vet certificate and if a knock at the door occurs, flash the vet certificate and tell the ACO to &$%# off :D

Edited June 17, 2012 by m-sass

[sumosmum]

Thanks for that Bslsux, great info. :)

[ncarter]

im pretty appalled by all this. sumosmum, can you tell me how many of the 20 criteria in the checklist do they have to tick off before they can deem the dog is a pit bull or pit bull X?

And VCAT is funded by the taxpayer right? How many cases and how much money is all this going to cost?

Must be a political stunt, all this rubbish.

[Cat]

1339937694[/url]' post='5869108']

1339905768[/url]' post='5868397']

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

I was only mentioning laws against breeding because m-sass keeps saying that these dogs shouldn't be bred and I don't see that as being likely unless laws are made to prevent bybs. Not that that is something I think is likely to happen either nor was I calling for it.

Unless you are saying that something should be done about the standard in which case, yes I think the law should be changed in regards to that. Because this one isn't helping anyone

Edited June 18, 2012 by Cat

[sumosmum]

im pretty appalled by all this. sumosmum, can you tell me how many of the 20 criteria in the checklist do they have to tick off before they can deem the dog is a pit bull or pit bull X?

And VCAT is funded by the taxpayer right? How many cases and how much money is all this going to cost?

Must be a political stunt, all this rubbish.

I don't think there is any set amount of the criteria that the dogs have to match. As far as I can see, it is up to VCAT to decide if the dog is restricted or not. I can't find anywhere in the legislation that states how many of the criteria in the standard that needs to be matched.

Bslsux may know if this is correct or not.

As bslsux has recommended, "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. "

[bslsux]

im pretty appalled by all this. sumosmum, can you tell me how many of the 20 criteria in the checklist do they have to tick off before they can deem the dog is a pit bull or pit bull X?

And VCAT is funded by the taxpayer right? How many cases and how much money is all this going to cost?

Must be a political stunt, all this rubbish.

I don't think there is any set amount of the criteria that the dogs have to match. As far as I can see, it is up to VCAT to decide if the dog is restricted or not. I can't find anywhere in the legislation that states how many of the criteria in the standard that needs to be matched.

Bslsux may know if this is correct or not.

As bslsux has recommended, "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. "

There is no set amount of the criteria that a dog has to match.

One VCAT member said a dog whose review he preceded over met the criteria 100% (it absolutely did not and no dog on earth can fit every single characteristic). Poor Ace.

Another, now the subject of Supreme Court action only met 50% of the criteria according to the Council but the VCAT member ruled the dog complied.

[Sheridan]

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.

So, even if DNA showed they were not restricted breed, it didn't matter because someone looked at the dogs and determined they were a restricted breed. The law is a donkey of indeterminate heritage.

For those of you arguing in this thread, can you just stop? You're not helping.

[Silvawilow]

Sorry if the answer's as clear as mud - so much information on this topic but were the two dogs born before or after the amnesty came into affect?

[sumosmum]

Sorry if the answer's as clear as mud - so much information on this topic but were the two dogs born before or after the amnesty came into affect?

No, they were not born before the amnesty came into effect. They were born early 2011. They were 7 months old when seized in late September 2011.

Edited June 18, 2012 by sumosmum

[Silvawilow]

Sorry if the answer's as clear as mud - so much information on this topic but were the two dogs born before or after the amnesty came into affect?

No.

So they were born before the amended BSL came in affect?

[Greytmate]

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...

Yes, I understand that the law is not a good one, but don't bother having a go at me about it. I never wrote the law and I don't support it.

But the law said that these pups met a standard that meant that they were illegal. Under this law, somebody could be held responsible for selling dogs that meet that illegal standard. And suing the breeder will send a message to people that randomly breed and sell dogs for profit that they are responsible for providing pet quality dogs.

[sumosmum]

Sorry if the answer's as clear as mud - so much information on this topic but were the two dogs born before or after the amnesty came into affect?

No.

So they were born before the amended BSL came in affect?

Sorry Silvawillow, I amended my earlier post to answer correctly.

[koalathebear]

There is no set amount of the criteria that a dog has to match.

One VCAT member said a dog whose review he preceded over met the criteria 100% (it absolutely did not and no dog on earth can fit every single characteristic). Poor Ace.

Another, now the subject of Supreme Court action only met 50% of the criteria according to the Council but the VCAT member ruled the dog complied.

Poor Ace indeed. I was a bit horrified by that one because I read that decision and also the Tonka decision. Thankfully Tonka was found not to meet the standard and so saved, but to my untrained eye he looks just as if not more pitty than Ace. I think Tonka's owner Smith was fortunate to have a persuasive witness in the form of someone named Lynne Harwood from South Australia who had 40 years experience as a dog breeder, dog show judge and trainer of dog show judges. These were Harwood's qualifications.

[Harwood] was granted her first dog judging licence in 1982. After many years of gathering knowledge and experience, in around 1999 she became an “all breeds” judge, enabling her to act as a judge at dog shows in relation to all breeds of dogs. She has judged “all breed” shows in 14 countries. She has judged at hundreds of dog shows.

Ms Harwood had not applied the Standard before, prior to assessing Tonka. She said, however, that applying standards of this type was an important aspect of being a dog judge. She said an essential skill for a dog judge was being able to distinguish the characteristics of different dogs and different breeds.

Ms Harwood said she did not have strong personal views about breed specific legislation. She did, however, say she believed in “deed rather than breed”, and that “bad owners make bad dogs”. That is, the way a dog is treated has a greater influence on whether it will be a danger to the community, than what breed it is. I have no basis to conclude that Ms Harwood has approached this matter in anything other than an even-handed and “professional” manner (even though I understand her involvement in dog judging is unpaid, and she stated has received no remuneration of any kind for her involvement in this matter).

Ms Harwood said she was requested by Ms Bonnie Norton to prepare a report affecting Tonka according to the Standard. She had never met Mr Smith. She said she went to the pound in Cranbourne where Tonka was being kept, and inspected the dog personally. She and Ms Norton took the photos which appear in her report. (Mr Smith was not present.)

Although Ms Harwood is not a professional dog expert, I am satisfied she has a great deal of knowledge which she has brought to bear in preparing her report. I accept she has accumulated a lifetime of experience in making judgements about the characteristics of dogs. The Council suggested that her knowledge and experience comes from judging at dog shows, and that judging “best in show” is a different thing to making judgements for the purposes of determining compliance with the Standard. Whilst they are different purposes, in my view her skills are highly relevant to the task of considering the question of compliance with the Standards. It was also said that her inexperience in applying the Standard should count against her evidence being given significant weight. I accept, however, that part of her skill set is assessing individual dogs of whatever breed, against the standards which exist for that particular breed of dog. She said there was a standard of some kind applicable to every breed of dog. I accept that the exercise of applying the Standard in question here to Tonka, is a relevantly similar exercise.

It ultimately saved Tonka's life:

In the light of the above, I have generally preferred the evidence of Ms Harwood to that of the two Council officers, Mr Haviaridis and Mr Sidaoui. I readily accept that they have faithfully sought to apply the Standard as part of carrying out their role of animal management and protecting the safety and welfare of people (and animals) in Kingston. They do not have the level of knowledge and experience in judging the characteristics of dogs that Ms Harwood has, however.

I think that Harwood's evidence about non-compliance with the standard seemed very persuasive to VCAT and it's a shame that Nathan Laffan didn't have the benefit of such a persuasive witness :'( All he had was the following:

(a) The statutory declaration from Mr Michael Brown, described above (breeder);

(b) Another document titled ‘Buying animals’ defining the breed as ‘American bulldog x Bullmastiff’.

© Another registration certificate from the Australasian Animal Registry. It records Bear’s breed as Mastiff X and states as a pro-forma heading, ‘This animal has not been declared dangerous menacing or a restricted breed ’; and

(d) Documentation from the Numurkah Veterinary Clinic, showing vaccination and micro-chipping and stating the breed to be Mastiff X.

It's such a shame ... with slightly more persuasive evidence at hand he could have had a better chance. I wish he had sought legal advice. He wouldn't have needed a lawyer to attend the hearing with him - just to guide the way with the preparation of evidence and make sure that he addressed the areas being addressed by the tribunal. Geez, he was even led astray by the council when they told him to do DNA testing on the dogs. Given what has happened, I suspect that the applicant wants to leave it behind him but there probably are grounds for judicial review of this decision.

Edited June 18, 2012 by koalathebear

[mita]

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 would not be a straw-man argument to compare it to phrenology.

You're right that this law harks back to the pre-scientific times when benign physical features were taken to 'tell' about behaviour. Many a woman was accused of being a witch based on a feature such as a mole or birth-mark.

I can't understand how Victoria has gone down an ancient track about 'predicting' behaviour from physical features alone. A great deal of the rest of the world has thrown out such ideas as the evidence has mounted against it. Reliable organisations such as the American Veterinary Association says that it's going down the wrong road of dog management.

Even Q'ld , which has such laws, has seen huge cracks in the underlying beliefs. Few years back, the CEO of RSPCA Qld publicly said the law had just resulted in harmless family dogs being euthed. Now their line is 'Deed, not breed.'

The key sentence in the OP information about these two poor dogs was that they hadn't done any harm. From that can be surmised....'and likely never would have, if they'd been allowed to live.' Best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

I agree that this awful situation should be protested by every Australian....because the principle goes beyond dogs. It's a case of a belief that belongs to pre-scientific times being permitted a place in law. That's neither sound nor ethical in the modern world.

[m-sass]

I was only mentioning laws against breeding because m-sass keeps saying that these dogs shouldn't be bred and I don't see that as being likely unless laws are made to prevent bybs.

My point is that anyone "responsible" shouldn't be breeding dogs that resemble Pitbull's which have been a restricted breed for the most part for 20 years, at best if you got caught with a dog determined a Pitbull, you had to build a secure enclosure to keep the dog, desex it and abide by the leash/muzzle laws etc etc, they have never been a breed of total freedom as a non restricted breed for a long time anyway. Plenty of Pitbull's and I know of 4 or 5 myself are registered as crossbreeds to avoid the restricted breed housing and management requirements......I am also aware of a couple who are apparantly ANKC registered as Amstaff's under falisfied parentage.......so people have been playing ducks and drakes with Pitbull's and getting away with it for years, except for now, things are tightening up to include crossbreeds, but hey........they have had 20 years warning that the Pitbull is an undesired breed yet people/breeders keep pushing the envelope previously through an open door which is now closing.

On the flip side of that, we have the irresponsible breeder who probably doesn't give a thought to the fact that the dogs they are producing in BYB Bull breed mixtures are resembling Pitbull's and think they are safe from the restrictions imposed of the breed because they say there is no Pitbull in them so "she'l be right mate"??.

Problem is, She's not right mate and the council are now seizing crossbreed dogs of Pitbull type appearances......again we have had 20 years warning that one day the party will draw to a close and the fat lady will sing, yet the BYB's keep pumping out crossbreeds of Bull variety and people keep buying and aquiring them, maybe they do have Pitbull in them, maybe not, but there is one easy way around this mess to avoid having pets seized, VCAT hearings, Supreme Courts and all this nonesense and pain is simply don't breed dogs like that and don't buy them.......get a papered Amstaff or Stafford, Mastiff whatever, but people wake up to yourselves is my message breeders and consumers that "anything" of a Bull variety that can't be parentage proven can potentially take you down this terrible path of devistation, it's too late to flip the skirt and have a whinge when your dog is impounded and facing the music which doesn't have to be this way with a bit more responsibility and forethought about what you are purchasing........again we have had 20 years warning from the day the Pitbull was declared restricted, think about it hey??

[koalathebear]

My point is that anyone "responsible" shouldn't be breeding dogs that resemble Pitbull's

I'm a bit curious because the appearance of Bear and Kooda puzzled me. They don't look at all pitty to me and given that they have been found to 'comply with the standard', it has made me even more puzzled. I know that crossbreeding is fraught with randomness etc but my question is - is it possible for two dogs that have absolutely no pitbull in them to be crossed and end up with dogs that look like Bear and Kooda? i.e. could crosses derived from Rhodesian Ridgeback/Dane/[other] ever end up with dogs looking like Beer and Kooda if they were combined with a SBT/Boxer/bull mastiff/dogue?

Edited June 18, 2012 by koalathebear

[m-sass]

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.

So, even if DNA showed they were not restricted breed, it didn't matter because someone looked at the dogs and determined they were a restricted breed. The law is a donkey of indeterminate heritage.

For those of you arguing in this thread, can you just stop? You're not helping.

DNA would be applicable if for instance one parent was a papered Amstaff and the other was a papered Stafford and the DNA proved that the pups were from those parents, but DNA that is offered by organisations to determine breed is the type of DNA evidence that is not admissable..........I think there are too many questions in regard to the accuracy of these tests??.

[Robbi]

We can argue semantics until we are blue in the face but ultimately bsl kills innocent dogs. There are always going to be crossbred dogs that fall into the danger zone when it comes to the ridiculous 22 point checklist, if their owners don't have the resources and the knowledge to fight the councils in court many innocent lives will be lost.

We have to stop blaming bybers(not that I support them at all)and saying that people that adopt pound dogs know that they are at risk from bsl,we need to band together to fight bsl.....

Rest in peace sweet Bear and Kooda

[Sheridan]

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.

So, even if DNA showed they were not restricted breed, it didn't matter because someone looked at the dogs and determined they were a restricted breed. The law is a donkey of indeterminate heritage.

For those of you arguing in this thread, can you just stop? You're not helping.

DNA would be applicable if for instance one parent was a papered Amstaff and the other was a papered Stafford and the DNA proved that the pups were from those parents, but DNA that is offered by organisations to determine breed is the type of DNA evidence that is not admissable..........I think there are too many questions in regard to the accuracy of these tests??.

The DNA would not be used to prove breed type but parentage, which I believe is just as provable in dogs as it is in humans.

[Aidan3]

When cross-breeding takes place intentionally or unintentionally, there is very little chance of predicting accurately what the pups will look like. Two pups from the same litter can look substantially different.