Jump to content

Supreme Court Rules On Restricted Dog Breeds


myValkyrie
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/06/2865545.htm

A Supreme Court ruling in Queensland has found the american staffordshire terrier is the same breed as the "restricted" american pit bull terrier.

The legal clarification has been prompted by a long-running dispute over a dog on the state's Gold Coast.

In 2004, the Gold Coast City Council decided a dog named "Tango" was a pit bull and ordered he be destroyed.

Kylie Louise Chivers, who is not the dog's owner, appealed on the grounds "Tango" was an american staffordshire terrier or 'amstaff', and not a pit bull.

Justice Glenn Martin found the breed has two names for the purposes of promotion and "Tango" is a restricted dog.

Gold Coast City Councillor Bob la Castra says the Queensland Government needs to clarify the law.

"They now have to determine whether an amstaff is indeed a pit bull," he said.

The council says Tango no longer lives in Queensland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/06/2865545.htm
In 2004, the Gold Coast City Council decided a dog named "Tango" was a pit bull and ordered he be destroyed.

Excuse my ignorance, but are restricted breeds automatically destroyed? I thought they needed to be kept under severe restrictions, but I wasn't aware a dog could be PTS just because of its breed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some councils, they can be. Happened that in this specific council (the GCCC) they can destroy a dog if it is "deemed" to be a Pit bull or cross, and I believe it has to have been born after 2005 for the destruction order to apply. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that if they are born before 2005 they are banned from living in the council area, if they are born after 2005 they can be destroyed.

The discriminitory world of BSL. :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse my ignorance, but are restricted breeds automatically destroyed? I thought they needed to be kept under severe restrictions, but I wasn't aware a dog could be PTS just because of its breed.

Probably only in Queensland. Beautiful one day .... dead dog the next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think only in certain council areas... but that does raise a very scary question doesn't it? Anyone with a staffy looking type dog (especially if they can not prove exactly what breed of dog it is) would be shaking in their boots right now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that GCCC registrations for bull breeds and crosses will fall dramatically when registration time comes, especially if people have registered them as Am staffs and crosses to help prevent them being falsely labelly APBT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think only in certain council areas... but that does raise a very scary question doesn't it? Anyone with a staffy looking type dog (especially if they can not prove exactly what breed of dog it is) would be shaking in their boots right now...

Exactly, with 10,000 dead dogs (likely more) already because they "looked like Pitties" when all this shit first started.....

No reason not to worry about his latest turn of events.

The only way to stop this is to end BSL completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think only in certain council areas... but that does raise a very scary question doesn't it? Anyone with a staffy looking type dog (especially if they can not prove exactly what breed of dog it is) would be shaking in their boots right now...

Exactly, with 10,000 dead dogs (likely more) already because they "looked like Pitties" when all this shit first started.....

No reason not to worry about his latest turn of events.

The only way to stop this is to end BSL completely.

It's a disgrace... :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dogs Qld have put this Media release regarding this on their website under Latest News on the Home page.

Media Release - When is a Pit Bull not a Pit Bull?

7 April 2010

Dogs Queensland Media Release 7th April 2010

When is a Pit Bull not a Pit Bull?

The Honourable Justice Martin, when considering the evidence presented in the Supreme Court of Queensland yesterday, in the application brought by Ms Kylie Chivers in respect to her dog “Tango” against the Gold Coast City Council, decided that her American Staffordshire Terrier (commonly called an AmStaff) is in fact an American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT).

Pedigreed, registered dogs owned and bred by Dogs Queensland members include AmStaffs and these dogs have many generations of recorded registered pedigree data and are bred specifically for improving type and temperament. These dogs are now far removed from what the community considers to be the typical Pit Bull.

The Australian Government decided to restrict the importation of APBTs in 1956 as many had been bred to work and in some instances (particularly in the United States) that included fighting and it was believed that these dogs would therefore constitute a greater risk to people. This decision has been the subject of much criticism by dog enthusiasts over many years because it is generally believed that breeds should not be banned but the actions by small numbers of aggressive dogs should be penalised. In other words, ban the deed and not the breed.

AmStaffs, whilst originating from a similar genetic background, were developed with an entirely different objective. That objective was to produce a well socialised sound dog suitable to urban living. Our responsible Dogs Queensland member / breeders have worked tirelessly over many years to achieve this objective working at all times within a clearly defined breed standard.

The American Staffordshire Terrier breed is recognised internationally and this unexpected decision seems to be contrary to all of the evidence that Genetic Technologies Ltd (a well respected and highly regarded Human Forensic and Animal Genetics & Diagnostics firm) has collected.

GTG maintains that “they are confident and can conclude that the breed signature for APBT is different to that of the AmStaff.”

This decision has significant and far reaching implications for our responsible AmStaff member breeders and exactly how this decision will affect our members and their internationally recognised breed of pure bred, registered dog is still unclear.

CCC (Q) t/as Dogs Queensland is seeking urgent talks with the relevant State Government Minister(s) to discuss the possible ramifications of this Supreme Court decision.

We are confident that those talks will result in a positive and manageable outcome for our members and their pedigreed registered American Staffordshire Terrier dogs.

Issued by: Rob Harrison

Secretary / General Manager

CCC (Q) t/as Dogs Queensland

PO Box 495, Fortitude Valley QLD 4006

Phone (07) 3252 2661, Fax (07) 3252 3864

Email: [email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are confident that those talks will result in a positive and manageable outcome for our members and their pedigreed registered American Staffordshire Terrier dogs.

Hopefully they can sort it out and look after the members and their dogs.

Again what about the poor rescued mutt? i hope they can sort it out for the members and their dogs but this is bigger than just them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When is a Pit Bull not a Pit Bull?

The Honourable Justice Martin, when considering the evidence presented in the Supreme Court of Queensland yesterday, in the application brought by Ms Kylie Chivers in respect to her dog “Tango” against the Gold Coast City Council, decided that her American Staffordshire Terrier (commonly called an AmStaff) is in fact an American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT).

Pedigreed, registered dogs owned and bred by Dogs Queensland members include AmStaffs and these dogs have many generations of recorded registered pedigree data and are bred specifically for improving type and temperament. These dogs are now far removed from what the community considers to be the typical Pit Bull.

The Australian Government decided to restrict the importation of APBTs in 1956 as many had been bred to work and in some instances (particularly in the United States) that included fighting and it was believed that these dogs would therefore constitute a greater risk to people. This decision has been the subject of much criticism by dog enthusiasts over many years because it is generally believed that breeds should not be banned but the actions by small numbers of aggressive dogs should be penalised. In other words, ban the deed and not the breed.

AmStaffs, whilst originating from a similar genetic background, were developed with an entirely different objective. That objective was to produce a well socialised sound dog suitable to urban living. Our responsible Dogs Queensland member / breeders have worked tirelessly over many years to achieve this objective working at all times within a clearly defined breed standard.

The American Staffordshire Terrier breed is recognised internationally and this unexpected decision seems to be contrary to all of the evidence that Genetic Technologies Ltd (a well respected and highly regarded Human Forensic and Animal Genetics & Diagnostics firm) has collected.

GTG maintains that “they are confident and can conclude that the breed signature for APBT is different to that of the AmStaff.”

This decision has significant and far reaching implications for our responsible AmStaff member breeders and exactly how this decision will affect our members and their internationally recognised breed of pure bred, registered dog is still unclear.

CCC (Q) t/as Dogs Queensland is seeking urgent talks with the relevant State Government Minister(s) to discuss the possible ramifications of this Supreme Court decision.

We are confident that those talks will result in a positive and manageable outcome for our members and their pedigreed registered American Staffordshire Terrier dogs.

Issued by: Rob Harrison

Secretary / General Manager

CCC (Q) t/as Dogs Queensland

PO Box 495, Fortitude Valley QLD 4006

Phone (07) 3252 2661, Fax (07) 3252 3864

Email: [email protected]

Firstly I would say there is nothing honorable about justice Martin at all.Obviously a man that cant think for himself.Seems to me the decision was already made befor he walked in the court room.This case has received too much unwanted media attention for the QLD Government and they want to put a stop to it.I think his decision has far reaching implications for dog owners in Queensland if this decision is upheld.

Dogs were banned from importation in 1992 not 1956.

American Staffodshire Terriers have been bred for long enough to a different standard and criteria than American pitbull Terriers that they are not the same dog.Sure they share the same DNA,look similar,carry some of the same traits etc, but they are not the same dog in general.There are many lines that are similer and many lines that have been crossed back and forth which only serves to blur the line between the 2.The problem arises becuase of those that cant distinguish between the 2 dogs.Because of this they will look to ban the amstaff as well.I have said for a long time they will either ban them or lift the restrictions becuase it cant work otherwise.Problem is what happens now.Verbal guarantees from politicians are about as useful as the pope's ball bag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/06/2865545.htm
A Supreme Court ruling in Queensland has found the american staffordshire terrier is the same breed as the "restricted" american pit bull terrier.

The legal clarification has been prompted by a long-running dispute over a dog on the state's Gold Coast.

In 2004, the Gold Coast City Council decided a dog named "Tango" was a pit bull and ordered he be destroyed.

Kylie Louise Chivers, who is not the dog's owner, appealed on the grounds "Tango" was an american staffordshire terrier or 'amstaff', and not a pit bull.

Justice Glenn Martin found the breed has two names for the purposes of promotion and "Tango" is a restricted dog.

Gold Coast City Councillor Bob la Castra says the Queensland Government needs to clarify the law.

"They now have to determine whether an amstaff is indeed a pit bull," he said.

The council says Tango no longer lives in Queensland.

What a bloody joke,a friendly dog is now one of a dangerous breed because some boofhead judge says so. :) The only good thing is Tango is here in NSW where the bastards can't get him.

Tango was on the news and what a beautiful boy he is, how could the council want to kill him :):):rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...