Rip Bear And Kooda

[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. "

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.

Off topic, but, bslsux, was Ace the Ballarat dog? If not, what happened with the dog from Ballarat do you know?

[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...

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.

I believe that you are correct as the sale of anything illegal in common law is prohibited.

[koalathebear]

Sadly, the reason DNA doesn't apply here because is because section 3 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 No. 81 of 1994 provides that:

A dog that falls within an approved standard for a breed of dog specified in a paragraph of the definition of restricted breed dog is taken to be a dog of that breed.

That standard only has physical characteristics and DNA does not come into it. Only out is papered Amstaff, from what I can see. So VCAT can only go on the physical standard, which is unfortunate.

Edited June 18, 2012 by koalathebear

[Aidan3]

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.

As I understand it, under the current legislation it won't help.

[koalathebear]

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.

I know that's why I am curious. e.g if you crossed a pug with a great dane (wild random hypothetical example) could you conceivably end up with a dog that might satisfy the standard set out at the bottom of this page and therefore be deemed a restricted breed under the Act.

[mita]

One US state, Ohio, has had a law for many years, stating that the Pitbull is automatically vicious.

In February, this year, Ohio legislators wiped out that law, because the evidence doesn't support one breed of dog.....or, even worse, one 'look' of dog....as carrying an automatic prediction of anti-social behaviour. Note....it's based on evidence, not on opinion or stereotype.

Their state's Veterinary Association concurred.

Now, acting on evidence, they are legislating in the direction of what makes a dog a 'nuisance' or a menace. Which are 'dangerous' breeding, raising, managing, lack of containment.....by humans. Dangerous dogs are produced by humans who endanger...

http://news.vin.com/VINNews.aspx?articleId=21529

Meanwhile, some authorities still hide that fact behind attaching a breed label, to the point of silliness.

I once saw a pic of 2 harmless family dogs that'd been taken over the border to NSW, when the 'Pittie-type' witch hunt based on appearance alone, was rife in Q'ld.

Both had been assessed as 'Pittie-type' and they couldn't have looked more different from each other. One resembled a shorter-legged Ridgie, the other a longer legged Staffy. Neither had any history of aggression, but were well socialiased people-friendly dogs (which has to be left out of a 'looks only' law.)

Edited June 18, 2012 by mita

[koalathebear]

As I understand it, under the current legislation it won't help.

You are right. Process is as follows:

Following the Domestic Animals Amendment ( Restricted Breeds ) Act 2011, s 3 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (with effect from 30 September 2011) now provides:

A dog that falls within an approved standard for a breed of dog specified in a paragraph of the definition of restricted breed dog is taken to be a dog of that breed

.

The scope of VCAT's decision-making powers only relates to determining if the physicality of the dog complies with the standard/the officer was correct in assessing that the physicality of the dog complies with the standard. VCAT can't exceed its decision-making scope.

ETA:

I should add that I am very much anti-BSL. I think there are two separate but related issues.

1. BSL is wrong and it is wrong to condemn dogs to death on the basis of breed alone rather than actual temperament.

2. This current legislation is wrong and flawed in the sense that it will also end up killing dogs who are actually not the original objects of the legislation given that it is using a physical checklist to determine what is a 'restricted breed'.

Edited June 18, 2012 by koalathebear

[mita]

I am waiting for someone in this discussion to point to evidence that the appearance of an individual dog predicts its social behaviour.

Any takers?

While you're on it, you might like to consider if an individual human's appearance predicts his/her behaviour.

Edited June 18, 2012 by mita

[m-sass]

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?

It's the "style" of dog they are after is more to the point and not without surprise really given the amoint of anti BSL activists claiming that dogs labelled Pitbull's in media sensationalism are crossbreeds which appears that the Government has taken that on board to now include crossbreeds??. Perhaps if the anti BSL activists and pro Pitbull supporters were not so vocal in protection of their desired breed claiming that everything labelled a Pitbull was an incorrect breed assessment and the dogs involved were crossbreeds, I am thinking the crossbreed may still be safe from BSL possibly??. Personally, I don't think too many people in the greater community could pick a genuine Pitbull out anyway......I have never seen two dogs declared as genuine Pitbull's by their owners that look the same??

[Silvawilow]

Just trying to get my head around all of this:

1) The dogs were seized when they were just over 7 months old in September 2011 a few days before the amnesty was up?

2) The owner had not registered them with the Council prior to the dogs being 7mths old?

[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.

As I understand it, under the current legislation it won't help.

Hence my saying so above which you don't seem to have read despite you replying to it.

[Sheridan]

I am waiting for someone in this discussion to point to evidence that the appearance of an individual dog predicts its social behaviour.

Any takers?

While you're on it, you might like to consider if an individual human's appearance predicts his/her behaviour.

I don't think some people in this thread are interested in logic, Mita.

[m-sass]

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?

It's the "style" of dog they are after is more to the point and not without surprise really given the amoint of anti BSL activists claiming that dogs labelled Pitbull's in media sensationalism are crossbreeds which appears that the Government has taken that on board to now include crossbreeds??. Perhaps if the anti BSL activists and pro Pitbull supporters were not so vocal in protection of their desired breed claiming that everything labelled a Pitbull was an incorrect breed assessment and the dogs involved were crossbreeds, I am thinking the crossbreed may still be safe from BSL possibly??. Personally, I don't think too many people in the greater community could pick a genuine Pitbull out anyway......I have never seen two dogs declared as genuine Pitbull's by their owners that look the same??

I am waiting for someone in this discussion to point to evidence that the appearance of a dog predicts its social behaviour.

Any takers?

While you're on it, you might like to consider if a human's appearance predicts his/her behaviour.

Unfortunately, the restricted breed standard doesn't contain a social behaviour component.......ideally it should be the basis of the need for seizure.......interestingly the Tonka case where strangers to the dog broke into the owners home and seized the dog.......if Tonka didn't attack these invaders which he had the rights to do so.......he's a pretty stable dog of little danger to the public in that case........to me he passsed an aggression test at the highest level, but temperament and stability of character is not the criteria??.

[mita]

From the press article about Ohio rolling back their ban on Pitbulls (& note that veterinary medicine has a base in science):

... Organized veterinary medicine and animal advocates contend that certain breeds are not more likely than others to bite, and attacks by pit bulls are rare. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) considers pit bull bans to be an ineffective approach to public safety. What’s more, pit bull isn’t a breed, per se, but a subjective designation that can apply to the American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier and, in some cases, American bulldogs.

"How can you enforce a law when you can't even define what a pit bull is?" asked Dr. John Daugherty, owner of Poland Veterinary Centre in Poland, Ohio. "Ohio's regulation was ineffective and stupid in the first place. For the most part, the pit bulls that come in my practice are very nice. The German shepherds I see are much more aggressive."

[mita]

I am waiting for someone in this discussion to point to evidence that the appearance of an individual dog predicts its social behaviour.

Any takers?

While you're on it, you might like to consider if an individual human's appearance predicts his/her behaviour.

I don't think some people in this thread are interested in logic, Mita.

You are not wrong, Sheridan. Maybe it's something in the water. :)

[Aidan3]

Hence my saying so above which you don't seem to have read despite you replying to it.

I read it before I replied. My reply wasn't intended as an insult if that's how you took it.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Aidan2

[Aidan3]

Perhaps if the anti BSL activists and pro Pitbull supporters were not so vocal in protection of their desired breed claiming that everything labelled a Pitbull was an incorrect breed assessment and the dogs involved were crossbreeds, I am thinking the crossbreed may still be safe from BSL possibly??

Or maybe they are just telling the truth, and banning all dogs of a certain appearance based on a correlation of dog bites with dogs who are subjectively reported to be of a certain heritage is just a really dumb idea?

Seems a bit bass-ackwards to blame the vocal anti-BSL activists.

[koalathebear]

Personally, I don't think too many people in the greater community could pick a genuine Pitbull out anyway......I have never seen two dogs declared as genuine Pitbull's by their owners that look the same??

You are right. I really struggle to correctly identify a "pit bull" ...for instance my 'favourites' are the tan coloured ones with the amber eyes and pink noses (like Dahlia Linke) and they look vastly different from the pit bull in the "Little Rascals" ... Even in my 'favourite' category, I still get it wrong :p

This handsome dude was playing with my two Kelpies at the dog park and his owner said that he was a pit bull:

We did the photos/video for rehoming these three lovely ladies last year and when I first met then, I assumed that all three were pit bulls/pit bull mixes:

Delta:

One is actually classified as a staffy cross not a pit bull.

Edited June 18, 2012 by koalathebear

[megan_]

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.

I know that's why I am curious. e.g if you crossed a pug with a great dane (wild random hypothetical example) could you conceivably end up with a dog that might satisfy the standard set out at the bottom of this page and therefore be deemed a restricted breed under the Act.

You're right. It isn't pitbulls that are restricted - dogs that *LOOK* like pitbulls are restricted.

[Jumabaar]

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.

I know that's why I am curious. e.g if you crossed a pug with a great dane (wild random hypothetical example) could you conceivably end up with a dog that might satisfy the standard set out at the bottom of this page and therefore be deemed a restricted breed under the Act.

I think personally the law is poorly written- they have created a restricted physical phenotype NOT a restricted breed. Thus because only the phenotype matters it really doesn't matter who the parents are because it has nothing to do with breed- only the physical appearance of the dog.

As mitta points out physical phenotype does not predict behaviour.

And if it did why would a pedigree of this phenotype be any less dangerous than a mutt of this phenotype??? It makes the whole situation a joke really- let alone the number of other countries where it has already flopped.