APBT Club of Aust Inc.

[quote name='GeckoTree' Are they so cold hearted and fearful over a look of a dogs features that they will not give the option to at least let the dog move outside of the state? Unfortunately, the laws do not allow that, at least some councils in Qld did allow the dogs to go interstate.

Doesn't the legislation permit breed determination by a vet? Ultimately as I understand it, if you could find a vet to declare in their professional opinion the dog is not a restricted breed such a declaration will rectify the situation is that correct? The AVA have advised its members against this and since the standard was amended in January the only declaration a vet can make that would assist an owner is that the dog is an American Staffordshire Terrier. Gazetted Standard: http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2011/GG2011S283.pdf Amendment to Standard 9th Jan 2012: http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2012/GG2012S032.pdf

Unfotunately unless your dog came back as a purebred American Staffordshire Terrier than a DNA test is of little use. I'm saying that VCAT will not accept it as it's been tried already. Our state government only chose to protect the pure bred Am Staff from this dragonian law. The poor old cross breeds can all get led off to be slaughtered. The fact is that if a dog fits within their standard, than it can be declared to be a Restricted Breed, "a Pit Bull". The dog could be a Labrador or even a Poodle, it doesn't matter. I know this sounds rediculous but that's the law. I have thought of making another thread on here just to put it to the test, just to show how stupid this law is.

Hi everyone, Whilst I know everyone here has the best intention to assist Pookie, please ensure that what you are posting is accurate information. The last thing that owners need is to be given inaccurate information.

Thank you German Shep Fan & Snook for your words of support. Had a couple of people make contact already.

I wish to assist dog owners that have had a dog declared a "Restricted Breed Dog" since 30th September 2011 and that are challenging their councils declaration at VCAT. I am seeing too many dog owners turn up to defend their beloved four legged friend/s only to come up against Council Barristers and solicitors. Dog owners are told that vcat is informal and that no legal representation is necessary only to be confronted with ratepayer funded barristers and solicitors acting for council. Not to mention a multitude of council staff in attendance as well. For example: one council 4 staff a barrister and a solicitor as well as council witnesses against an unsuspecting, unrepresented dog owner. Hardly procedural fairness! Please email in the first instance: [email protected]

Kirty, Doesn't matter which way you dress it up, when perfectly healthy, behaviouraly sound, (as most American Pit Bull Terriers are) dogs are killed then it's outright murder irrespective of breed.

List of MLA's & email addresses I had seperated them as it didn't like too many sent at once. [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; lily.d'[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; michael.o'[email protected]; [email protected] [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] ; [email protected]; [email protected]

All the provisions in these proposed amendments are very extreme and in our opinion could only be put up by someone that hates dogs.

Keep those letters rolling in, we've got to put a stop to this. Otherwise we'll all be lined up at Tandy Electronics to obtain our next pet and they're nowhere near as cuddly as what we are privileged enough to own now.

Justice What a joke! There is no justice if you haven't got money

You'd think Dogs Vic would at least go into bat for its associate members as well as its purebred dog owners, they probably contribute quite a few $'s to Dogs Vic's coffers. Personally I wouldn't want to be associated with them if they weren't willing to do this. I'd resign from their organisation and be very vocal as to my reasons why. Selling your soul to the devil, comes to mind

IMHO the only dogs that should be exempt should be obedience trained dogs. Afterall their owners are responsible and are willing to put the time and effort into ensuring their canine friends are good citizens. To give exemptions to dogs just because they are shown is ludicrious. I have attended quite a few ANKC shows and they often had more incidents with dogs behaving badly at just one show than we had in all the years we were able to hold shows. BSL put a stop to that

Good idea Erny, Perhaps it might pay for an AST owner to enquire. I'd be asking the president so you get it straight from the horses mouth.

[/quote Maybe with 2 chips in the dog, that is to ensure that if they miss reading the first one, they can pick up the second one. Or maybe it is a super chip that magically transforms the dogs owner into a responsible owner. Seriously though, Loads of piddling going on here by the sound of things. Is this official, do we know this card and chip deal is a definite? Is it written in the proposed Law? If it is written in there, can someone please show me where, or point me in the right direction? I'm fairly certain they are referring to an actual card like say a blue card that will have printed on it the information of the microchip no. and Dogs Vic. registration no. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough before Seemed clear to me! OK, I see perhaps I should have said "AST owners will be supplied with a card", is that better ?