NorthernStarPits

Hands up all those APBT owners on DOL in NSW that have a ten square metre concreted and regulation dog cage? Thats 10 squares per dog mind you. I cant think of anyone of the top of my head. Apparently the man with the attacking dog should have recieved a NOI first, then later if found tobe a pit have 28 days to comply with it. from what I have read no such thing existed, attacking dog pressed to be PTS, will they issue a NOI on a deceased dog? I think not. what a bunk.

I hav'nt seen many arguments amongst APBT owners, only the same that goes on in all breed issues, BYB, puppy millers, effective control and management etc etc. Not many within the small APBT community argue in regards to BSL, some speak out, others remain silent, all have resolute views about it. But they dont all take the same road. I see plenty of people in other breeds or those who arnt sure what breed they have arguing over BSL and the APBT though, it really stands out to the breed fancy. I will put some common points of view with those in the APBT. 1) NO BSL for any breed what so ever. 2) Keep BSL because, we closed our circle to the public, and it does not /can not touch us, we are only concerned with our own dogs etc, Dont care about the BYB trash or what happens to them. 3) BSL for the containment housing and leash laws but no desexing. And all of in between. The only common ground is BSL itself. Do you see how it is not possible to have a uniform direction in a small breed?

Ah ok, well in that case Thats how it's going to be, no one will unite because no one has the same opinions either within the breed, or for the breed. The EDBA is or was a platform I dont know anything about them now for a long time, I think thats all there was and PADDL in FNQ. But again they are not breed specific groups in nature.

Roo have you seen the BSL in QLD? there are at least a dozen ANKC breed affected.

Law Report: Dog 'type' not the same as 'breed': Regina v Knightsbridge Crown Court, ex parte Dunne. Brock v Director of Public Prosecutions - Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Glidewell and Mr Justice Cresswell), 2 July 1993 PAUL MAGRATH, Barrister Wednesday, 7 July 1993 The word 'type' in relation to dogs had a broader meaning than 'breed', and a court could properly conclude that a dog was 'of the type known as the pit bull terrier' within the meaning of section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, so as to make it an offence to allow it to be in a public place without being muzzled, so long as its characteristics substantially conformed to the standard set for the breed by the American Dog Breeder's Association (ABDA), even though it did not meet that standard in every respect. But since part of that standard concerned the dog's behaviour, and, in particular, its aggressiveness, the court should also treat as relevant any evidence of a dog's behavioural characteristics. The Queen's Bench Divisional Court refused an application by Gary Dunne for judicial review of the decision by Knightsbridge Crown Court, on 5 June 1992, dismissing his appeal against a conviction, at Wells Street Magistrates' Court on 30 December 1991, for an offence under section 1(2)(d) of the 1991 Act. But the court allowed Karen Brock's appeal by case stated from Wood Green Crown Court, which on 9 December 1992 had dismissed her appeal against a conviction by the Barnet Justices on 4 August 1992, for an offence under section 1(3) of having in her possession or custody a dog, called Buster, of the type known as the pit bull terrier. The Crown Court erroneously concluded that Buster's behaviour was irrelevant. William Locke (Winstanley Burgess) for Mr Dunne; Peter Ader (CPS) for the Crown; John Trumpington (Landau & Cohen) for Miss Brock; Andrew Brierley (CPS) for the Crown. LORD JUSTICE GLIDEWELL rejected Mr Dunne's argument that the word 'type' in section 1 meant the same as 'breed'. The definition of a breed was normally that of some recognised body such as the Kennel Club in the United Kingdom. But because for a long time pit bull terriers were not bred in this country, the Kennel Club had no standard for them. They had, however, been bred for a long time in the United States, where the ABDA was founded in 1909 specifically for pit bull terriers, for which it had a most detailed standard. Having decided that 'type' had a wider meaning than 'breed', a court had to adopt some guide for determining the limits of the phrase 'any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier'. What that guide should be, and where those limits lay, were questions of fact for the decision of the magistrates or Crown Court, on the evidence. Having heard evidence that the ABDA laid down a breed standard for pit bull terriers in the US, both courts were entitled to use the ABDA standard as a guide. However, both courts were also entitled to find, on the evidence before them, that the fact that a dog did not meet the standard in every respect was not conclusive. They could properly conclude that a dog was 'of the type known as the pit bull terrier' if its characteristics substantially conformed to the ABDA's standard, or if the dog approximately amounted to, was near to, or had a substantial number of the characteristics of the pit bull terrier as set out in the ABDA's standard. Miss Brock also argued that in deciding whether a dog was 'of the type known as the pit bull terrier' the court should take into account the behaviour of the dog and whether or not it had shown dangerous proclivities. The ABDA standard included a list of characteristics of the dog, namely: '(i) gameness, (ii) aggressiveness, (iii) stamina, (iv) wrestling ability, (v) biting ability'. It must follow, if the ABDA's standard was a proper starting point, that it was relevant to consider whether or not a dog exhibited the behavioural characteristics of a pit bull terrier. Though not conclusive, such evidence could not be irrelevant. MR JUSTICE CRESSWELL agreed.

'Type' was explained in court I will find the article. it has to do with personality or characteristics from what I can remember. edit to place in a new post

Good post tybrax, - 3,252 days (9 yrs )– the longest period any dog has been held under the DDA and died of a stroke in the kennels, it's absolutly disgusting.

I've read that question dozens of times T, let me know if you get a reply, even via email! The action I have seen are spokspersons in the media whenever RB or DD articles are printed.

Thats the thing why does it have to go anywhere?

Problem is there is no Pit Bull association, or active group like the greyhound mob. once apon a time long long ago this was not the case, but there never will be again. Many in the breed are happy for BSL to continue, as a way of keeping the dogs out of others hands. ( the too hard basket factor) The APBT world in Australia is a minority breed without stakeholders..

I cant say I have watched a lot of his stuff so dont really know what he says, but I agree with this, and I dont know any who would dispute it.

time will tell.

Yeah nothings perfect, but singling out breeds is scrapped!

LMAO seems you have all confused yourselves yet again! everyone has said the same thing from the get go! Seems everyone thinks they say it better themselves lol.

Yeah right, you see, who here even heard of the APBT previous the media getting hold of the name ???? about 1 in 1000 I would say. irrisponsible breeders? irrisponsible owners?, what a cop out, perhaps after the media got hold of them thats happened not before.. I have media reports going back to before BSL lol, nothing mentioned the pit bull then, but by crikey as soon as it landed haha well we all know dont we? Dont we? Show me an article before the import regs, not after.

ITALY SCRAPS DANGEROUS DOG BLACKLIST Italy News Culture Lifestyle (ANSA) - Rome, March 3 - Italy is to scrap its blacklist of dangerous dogs, replacing it with a law making owners more responsible for their pet`s training and behaviour, Health Undersecretary Francesca Martini said Tuesday. The new law, which will come into effect in April, will wipe clean the current list of 17 breeds which are considered potentially dangerous, including Rottweilers, pit bull terriers, bull mastiffs and American bulldogs. Under the current law, owners of these breeds are required to keep them muzzled in public places and ensure that they pose no danger to others, while failure to respect the law can result in the animal being put down. The new law works on the theory that any dog could be potentially high-risk and puts the onus - morally and legally - on owners, or the person who happens to be in charge of the dog at any one time, to control the pet`s behaviour. The new law also foresees short training courses for prospective dog owners, who will be issued with a special dog licence. ``This is a historic day because we have established for the first time the responsibility of the owner or the person who is momentarily in charge of the animal,`` Martini said. ``The measures adopted in the previous laws had no scientific foundation. Dangerous breeds do not exist. With this law we have overcome the black list, which was just a fig leaf (over the larger problem), and we have increased the level of guarantees for citizens,`` she said. Under the new law, vets will be responsible for compiling a register of individual dogs who they believe may be potentially high risk, and it will be obligatory for owners to keep these pets muzzled in public. The law also requires dog owners to keep their pets on a lead at all times in urban areas as well as to pick up their dog`s mess, and to carry a muzzle with them in case of need. It also forbids training dogs to be aggressive using sticks and protective body gear, doping, surgery that is not for health purposes and dangerous cross-breeding. Carlo Scotti, the president of the National Association of Italian Vets (ANMVI), praised the new law and said courses for dog owners were crucial.``Before taking on a certain breed of dog, the owner should follow a course to understand its behaviour and how to deal with it,`` he said. Scotti added that recent cases of dog aggression were the result of ``the incapacity of the owner in controlling certain breeds``. ``Choosing a 90 kg dog like a Neapolitan mastiff without being properly prepared, for example, is like giving a Ferrari to someone who has just passed their driving licence,`` he said. The idea of scrapping the dangerous breeds blacklist has in the past come under fire from consumer group Codacons, which claims that the number of dog attacks has fallen dramatically since its introduction in 2004. Last month Codacons appealed to Martini not to scrap the list but instead widen it to include Neapolitan mastiffs after a ten-month-old child was mauled to death by a family pet near Rome. ``There are some breeds that remain potentially much more dangerous than others because of their strength and their powerful jaws,`` the association said at the time. ``But Martini continues on her ideological battle in favour of dogs, failing to understand that it`s absolutely normal for a dog to bite a human, as is demonstrated by the 191 bites that happen every day``.

Lol a future graffitti tagger in the works! i read someone tagged some cows in a paddock a while ago.

Yeah top notch thread, anyone else use cobber? how do you find it. i think my dogs are starting to get a fishy smell? ive also been looking at enduro latly anyone tried that?

The 22pts, it is fast becomming a councils nightmare. However even in this publication they seem unable to grasp the concept that this new system wont be able to work by councils in regards to new restricted breeds, they are wrong in their thinking, the few articles in the Gold Coast media are correct, not incorrect as they claim.. I understand why they have said this on their website, but it is truely of no consolation to those with phobias about restricted breeds. If no one can see how that cant work for new restricted breeds, then I am glad for the dogs and the state of Qld. But I wont explain it in detail. I have struck through the appeasment threat. As you will notice it does not say anything at all. The bolded text will apply to those allready identified, especially as they are concerned about ID'ing new dogs.

Midgies or ant bites perhaps?

Thanks Kirra_Bomber_Zeus, thats a pretty good responce. Tony, just an email I recieved and they were the points made.

Cheers Troy

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=102597 I wanted to bump this old topic of mine but it was past the 180 day rule.

Mine are all on Cobber and doing great! farm dog for the oldie, working dog for the younger. works out $1.20 a kilo, and costs me 60cents a day to feed 2.