zayda_asher

I did research it seeing as I have a blue brindle with severe allergies. At first I thought it did have to do with the dilution, now I agree with your premise above. There are lots of AmStaffs and SBTs with allergies, regardless of colour, and breeders need to be aware of the genetic heritability that contributes to allergies. The on-breeding of allergic dogs, even mild ones who "only itch a little now and then", contributes more to the allergic population than the colour of the dog. I've also done a lot of searching on Colour Dilute Alopecia, and haven't been able to find any mention of it in AmStaffs. Which doesn't mean that it hasn't happened, but may not be common at all. Not sure about SBTs though, again I didn't come across anything when looking though.

I also suggest a referral to a dermatologist! For the reasons already given...

I don't really think that something you want posted on a public forum where anyone can see it at the moment really...

I don't understand this bit either Jed... I can only think it was evidence from much further back in the case some where, although it still doesn't make sense that they would have presented it... but this has been going on for 6 years... I don't think it would have recently been submitted by the applicant... who knows though...

The court rejected that Tango was an Amstaff and ruled him as a Pitbull. The court didn't rule that Pitbull's were Amstaffs. There are no restrictions upon Amstaffs. No they didn't: They ruled that Tango IS an AmStaff and then they ruled that AmStaffs ARE APBTs. So it goes like this: Tango IS an AmStaff, so he is actual fact an APBT because they are the same breed, ergo so he IS a restricted dog... this is now going to go to appeal and if the appeal is not successful there is precedent in the Qld supreme court that AmStaffs are in actual fact APBTs I think we need to see the "proper" report. There is now another version that Tango is a Staffy??? None the less, the lesson learned for future reference is buy a pedigree dog from a registered breeder or foster papered dogs I've seen it. Jed posted the relevant bit in quotes above. Nope, no one has said Tango was a SBT... he was referred to on the ACA show as a "Staffordshire Terrier", which AmStaffs are also known as, he was not referred to as a Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

The court rejected that Tango was an Amstaff and ruled him as a Pitbull. The court didn't rule that Pitbull's were Amstaffs. There are no restrictions upon Amstaffs. No they didn't: They ruled that Tango IS an AmStaff and then they ruled that AmStaffs ARE APBTs. So it goes like this: Tango IS an AmStaff, so he is actual fact an APBT because they are the same breed, ergo so he IS a restricted dog... this is now going to go to appeal and if the appeal is not successful there is precedent in the Qld supreme court that AmStaffs are in actual fact APBTs

People should be able to down load this Ok, hang on... its glitching and wont let me upload... will try again in a moment ETA: Still wont let me upload for some reason... not sure why??

Ok Tybrax...

SO can you confirm that the court has NOT made its final ruling? We were told that the ruling had been made in favour of the council already ;) Let me know, when you get a moment

Yep, I think we need to move on and work together... best foot forward and all that ;)

Yep... unfortunately true... there's lots of people who believe that their breeds won't be touched because they are ANKC recognised breeds... You'd be amazed how quick stuff travels these days on these issues! ;) PS: PM Tybrax, I'm sure she will send it to you.

Not quite: The dog was allowed to LEAVE Qld and reside in another state, the court case was to prove that the dog was in fact not a APBT, but a AST as this would have allowed them to BRING THE DOG BACK to reside with them in their home in Qld... that is why it was in court still. The applicant (Chivers) was not trying to prove the breeds are one in the same at all, in fact their case hinged on them not being so. One person they went to for evidence ended up being used by the council, as she stated they were one in the same (a lesson to be careful in who you use for evidence!). The respondent (council) when the judge found Tango was an AmStaff, and could return home, presented this further evidence that the APBT and the AmStaff are one in the same. The case was found in favour of the respondent (council), not the applicant (Chivers).

The fact is that if this goes through unchallenged AmStaffs will be a restricted breed there...

That poor family Its not just the family that have to worry now, it is all people with AmStaffs that live in that locality!

The court has ruled in favour of the council

Absolutely not true... recognised breeds are banned or restricted in several places, all over the world.

I never said that there should be BSL for any dog, in fact I've fought for years to get rid of BSL all together... that wasn't my point.

The out come of this case may well change that.

Don't tar everyone with the same brush, I know many AST owners who have fought the good fight since the day they got into the breed... yes there are many that do stick their heads in the sand, but you can't outright say all... I know several APBT people who chose to not fight as well... so there's people everywhere that have done it. And just because you don't see people on the forum saying what is happening, doesn't mean there isn't stuff happening IRL.

The court found that there was enough evidence to prove that he was an AST. It is because he was found to be an AST that the council is now perusing the AST = APBT argument. Although they don't have papers they do have a lot of evidence that the dog is at least in part from Papered AST stock. ETA: Well yes, in the sense that if the dog HAD been papered it wouldn't have made it to the courts in the first place!

Thanks everyone. Another question: When is a group considered a breed in its own right? The ABS have the ANKC regs up on their site: http://www.australianbulldogsociety.com/regulations.htm . Would this generally be what is accepted, or is there a scientific definition or anything else? And before anyone says anything: No I'm not about to go out and breed weird dogs or anything, just interested in understanding all this more

Particularly interested in breeds that may have been split for differences of look or function, but have had little or no other breeds infused to get the "final product", so to speak.

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about them!

Can any one give me, or point me in the direction of, history of Parson Russell & Jack Russell Terriers and also Norwich and Norfolk Terriers? I'm interested in how and when these breeds diverged, how long they have been recognised as individual breeds, how much variance there are in the breeds both genetically and phenotypically. PS: Are there any other similar closely related, but separate breeds recognised by the ANKC?

If they did biopsies and she had stitches in then this wasn't blood panel, which is relatively new, and it doesn't sound like intradermal testing, unless this is a really old fashioned way of doing it. How many years ago was this? Here is a pic of a standard intradermal panel where they inject (not biopsy, I'm not sure how that would prove an allergic response) allergens and look for the response: On this panel you can see the dog responded strongly to most antigens and the whole test area has swollen. Nothing is done to the patch after, except let it heal. Depending on the severity something like cortavance spray and resichlor may be applied to help heal and prevent secondary skin infection (which was done in this case). The intradermal panel has been around for a fair time and is considered the gold standard for allergy testing. Blood panels are efficacious for detecting certain responses, in certain conditions, but food responses is not one of them. Some vets (not derms I would hope) use them mistakenly. The only test for adverse food reactions in dogs is elimination diet. Food is one of the areas that is different between people and dogs: we understand more about the immune responses in people and CAN use blood tests and also direct prick testing (intradermal) to determine some food responses now. This is relatively new in humans and we can only do so because we understand the immune response better. In dogs, we don't have this knowledge so still have to rely on food elimination and rechallenge trials.