bslsux Posted April 15, 2012 Author Share Posted April 15, 2012 Hearing Decision pages 6 and 7 Includes Decision Note, in particular point 33 reproduced here: 33. First, a dog may fall within the definition of "restricted breed dog" as defined in section 3(1) of the Act, if, on the basis of expert opinion, it is classified as an American Pit Bull Terrier, or Pit Bull Terrier, without reference to the Standard. WRONG WRONG WRONG There is nothing in the Act that allows a dog to be classified as a restricted breed dog without reference to the standard, whether an expert opinion or not! G40-2012 Terei v Banyule City Council General List 2012 pages 6-7 Decision.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 15, 2012 Author Share Posted April 15, 2012 More pages in following posts (pages 3 to 5) Evidence from Dr Thurgood, Evidence from Mr Mitchell, evidence from Ms Terei (dog owner) and points 23 to 28 of Legislative background G40-2012 Terei v Banyule City Council General List 2012 pages 3.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 15, 2012 Author Share Posted April 15, 2012 Page 4 G40-2012 Terei v Banyule City Council General List 2012 page 4.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 15, 2012 Author Share Posted April 15, 2012 Page 5 G40-2012 Terei v Banyule City Council General List 2012 page 5.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huck house Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Bslsux - thanks for posting . Agree - it's wrong wrong wrong. I will write letters of disapproval to relevant parties tomorrow. Whether that helps or not ..what more can one do ? When is the next anti-bsl protest march?? Poor Ace . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RottnBullies Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 The gazette standard that they're using has obviously been copied from the UKC standard, they have more or less changed It and added to It to cover their own butts In regards to copyright. But to do these changes they still needed permission to do so, in which they did not get, so how Is this standard allowed to be used. Link for further Info Copyright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I think the person/ company who owns the copyright would have to be the ones taking issue with it's use or of changing it. I read a UKC letter with them voicing disapproval over obvious misuse, but nothing more on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityRotty Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 This is quite sad, however one must always remember laws are man made, and that means they are not perfect! Many dogs will come close to looking like an APBT yet are not APBT's at all. These laws do harm the innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hathor Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 While I think that the BSL laws are a load of bull crap, this owner showed they were irresponsible. The dog was entire and unregistered, not to mention at large. The sad thing about the situation is that the dog will suffer, while the twit of an owner won't. We need to punish the deed and most importantly the dickhead owners who create these bad raps for these high powered dogs. Owners should face much harsher penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 If the dog was registered in another council area it is legally registered until April '13. I used to work in a pound and this was the law, unless it's changed in the last few months anyway. Yes the dog shouldn't have been at large but even the best owners sometimes have things happen out of their control. Fact is, they made up a bullshit law, and now they aren't even following their own rules. Council rangers acting like bloody vigilantes, it's out of hand and it should not be allowed to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hathor Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 It's the stupid government backlash. Not even the AVA supports BSL. Numerous vets, and animal welfare and industry based people all agree that BSL does not work. By the way. This particular case, if you read the documents, the dog was previously registered, but registration had lapsed. So like I said irresponsible - unregistered and at large 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