Sheba

Don't worry about the lack of any appeal. It was a "one off" decision based on only half the real evidence because Tango's owners and (pro bono) lawyers got "bushwacked" by the Council changing its case from "It is not an Amstaff it's a pitbull" to "Of course its an Amstaff but all Amstaffs are pitbulls", at the last minute (ie, on the day in court). The system let it get away with that. With hindisght, maybe Tango's team should have seen it coming (eg a decision some months earlier to walk away from D Pomeroy and co as witnesses should have sent up a signal of some kind). If there is ever such a case again, the full history of AKC/UKC breed separation, the different strains that were bred or used for fighting (eg ADBA ancestors) and everything else will come out, and the legislation will be interpreted to apply only to dogs that come from stock that is or was bred for fighting. Now I know full well that that expression is also meaningless in many ways, but the point is that the legislation properly applied, even before the 2010 changes, does not apply to family pets who are, or are bred from, Amstaff or any other breed with a demonstrated history in the show ring. Why has that never been argued or decided? Because every time a case has come close, the Council has backed away. They are the ultimate cowards in the sense that they bully until they are really stood up to, and they then run away. But so few people have the assistance they need to get to that point. They ACOs know full well what b/s they have been peddling. Unfortunately, every councillor I have spoken with about the issue, and there have been more than a few, is a mushroom, and not the sharpest mushroom in the compost heap at that. You get what you vote for - politicians. Now they should be a subject to "22 point" identification (1. Is unable to give a straight answer to a straight question. 3 points 2. Actually believes that some breeds are inherently dangeros they need to be killed, because a highly qualified ACO told them so. 3 points etc), and compulsory de-sexing, but I don't want to get off topic........

Well, maybe those involved in the case, which forced the State to provide legislative protection for every Amstaff in Qld, and made it virtually impossible to identify something as an APBT without direct evidence, were not as hopeless, incompetent etc as some of the posts in April/May suggested. Or maybe it was all just dumb luck. Either way, it is the best news.

"Stupid stupid stupid". Well perhaps. But the point of the evidence in question was to prove that the Council's 22 point breed ID system, based on using the USA UKC breed standard as a unique identification tool, was flawed and of no validity. That was one of the two points that the case was originally all about - the other being Tango's actual breed. Full marks to the Council for finding a way to win a case which, as originally joined - on those 2 issues - they were bound to lose. They did it by changing tack at the last moment (half way through the hearing on 29 MArch 2010) without any notice to Ms Chivers so she could reconsider her position or respond with further evidence about how the breeds can be distinguished in Australia. So were the Applicants stupid, or was the Council just smarter on the day? Opinions will vary, but opinions epxressed in ignorance of what actually happened really do deserve a smack over the head.

Depends how you define "well". Judgement is yet to come but it looks like Tango has been proved to be an Amstaff. The Gold Coast City Council's argument now is that all Amstaffs are APBT, and within the Commonwealth prohibited imports Regulation, so that all Amstaffs are "restricted dogs" in Queenhsland (at least). According to this argument, everyone who thought Amstaffs were legal imports and legal to keep despite BSL restricitons, including the Council itself, has simply had it wrong for all these years. This post is not a joke or a wind up. Amstaff owners get ready. Judgement awaited.