Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
myValkyrie

Supreme Court Rules On Restricted Dog Breeds

37 posts in this topic

mita   
Too bad the defence had to rest on putting the focus on another breed though.

I agree. The fact that present BSL law is entirely based around breed label means that every case comes down to...'.Is this dog one of those restricted under current law... or not?' So what gets into the courtroom, are ideas about dog breeds. But nothing about individual dogs behaving in ways that would endanger the community...or not. Or owner neglect or irresponsibility in setting dogs up to be a danger.

The tragedy is that once BSL comes into the law, everything then hedges on ideas, & even stereotypes, about dog breeds. The fact that Tango has proven over time to be a harmless family pet, is totally irrelevant in the courtroom.

All law exists to protect people, not to protect someone's ideas. But what has been found to protect people re managing dogs (from science & case studies) , doesn't come down to waving a breed label &/or having stereotypical ideas about dog breeds.

So the current BSL laws are not protecting people, they only lead to fighting over ideas. What would protect people, is getting serious about current dog management laws that insist on registration, containment, leash control in public etc.

Edited by mita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to sound like a worn out record, but I think BSL is justified and good when the standards for the breed and the image cultivated by its owners is unsocial. I think BSL is unjust for the APBT, and even more unjust if the APBT image is reflected onto the ASBT.

On the other hand, I'm glad we are worrying about 20 kg dogs that are sometimes bred to be bad, rather than 50 kg dogs that are sometimes bred to be bad. It's both the BREEDING and the deed that are of concern. When, as with the Fila, the breed standard says the pup is supposed to snarl at unknown people by 12 weeks and it's ok if a dog bites the judge at a dog show, I'd say 'good thing these guys aren't allowed into Oz'. I wish the APBT community was doing a better job of getting their dog onto toilet paper adds and projecting the RCA Victor label and reducing the frequency of 'pitt bull eats child's testicles' sort of news.

If the breed label isn't a good predictor of behavior, I wouldn't be breeding Labradors . . . and I think most pedigree breeders wouldn't be breeding the breed they fancy.

Too bad the defence had to rest on putting the focus on another breed though.

I agree. The fact that present BSL law is entirely based around breed label means that every case comes down to...'.Is this dog one of those restricted under current law... or not?' So what gets into the courtroom, are ideas about dogs. But nothing about individual dogs behaving in ways that would endanger the community...or not. Or owner neglect or irresponsibility in setting dogs up to be a danger.

The tragedy is that once BSL comes into the law, everything then hedges on ideas & even stereotypes about dog breeds. The fact that Tango has proven over time to be a harmless family pet, is totally irrelevant in the courtroom.

All law exists to protect people, not to protect someone's ideas. But what has been found to protect people re managing dogs (from science & case studies) , doesn't come down to waving a breed label &/or having stereotypical ideas about dog breeds.

So the current BSL laws are not protecting people, they only lead to fighting over ideas. What would protect people, is getting serious about current dog management laws that insist on registration, containment, leash control in public etc.

Edited by sandgrubber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to sound like a broken record (or do people even know what that means these days), but I think BSL is justified and good when the standards for the breed and the image cultivated by its owners is unsocial. I think BSL is unjust for the APBT, and even more unjust if the APBT image is reflected onto the ASBT.

On the other hand, I'm glad we are worrying about 20 kg dogs that are sometimes bred to be bad, rather than 50 kg dogs that are sometimes bred to be bad. I wish the APBT community was doing a better job of getting their dog onto toilet paper adds and projecting the RCA Victor label and reducing the frequency of 'pitt bull eats child's testicles' sort of news. AND I'm glad that there are import prohibitions on some of the big, extremely protective, strong Mastiff-type dogs (eg, the Fila Brasiliero). It's not ok for the breeders to cull pups cause they are insufficiently aggressive to strangers at 12 weeks . . . it's not ok for specialty shows to say it's ok for the dog to bite the judge.

Too bad the defence had to rest on putting the focus on another breed though.

I agree. The fact that present BSL law is entirely based around breed label means that every case comes down to...'.Is this dog one of those restricted under current law... or not?' So what gets into the courtroom, are ideas about dogs. But nothing about individual dogs behaving in ways that would endanger the community...or not. Or owner neglect or irresponsibility in setting dogs up to be a danger.

The tragedy is that once BSL comes into the law, everything then hedges on ideas & even stereotypes about dog breeds. The fact that Tango has proven over time to be a harmless family pet, is totally irrelevant in the courtroom.

All law exists to protect people, not to protect someone's ideas. But what has been found to protect people re managing dogs (from science & case studies) , doesn't come down to waving a breed label &/or having stereotypical ideas about dog breeds.

So the current BSL laws are not protecting people, they only lead to fighting over ideas. What would protect people, is getting serious about current dog management laws that insist on registration, containment, leash control in public etc.

Edited by sandgrubber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mita   
Sorry to sound like a worn out record, but I think BSL is justified and good when the standards for the breed and the image cultivated by its owners is unsocial. I think BSL is unjust for the APBT, and even more unjust if the APBT image is reflected onto the ASBT.

On the other hand, I'm glad we are worrying about 20 kg dogs that are sometimes bred to be bad, rather than 50 kg dogs that are sometimes bred to be bad. I wish the APBT community was doing a better job of getting their dog onto toilet paper adds and projecting the RCA Victor label and reducing the frequency of 'pitt bull eats child's testicles' sort of news.

Sorry to be a worn out record in return, but what you've just described is owner behaviour. Owners who breed for the purpose of dogs being unsocial (or acquire dogs for such). Current laws re dog management need to be responsive to picking up people like this. In fact, there has been some work on searching out their profiles. Better to track those people, with prevention in mind.

I'm not suggesting it here in OZ....but the French have tried one tack in this direction, by putting restrictions on dog ownership by people with certain types of criminal records.

In your first sentence, you appear to be saying that all owners of APBTs breed their dogs to be unsocial & cultivate that image. How is that so, when there are owners of APBTs here on DOL who've documented how their APBTs are family friendly dogs?

On my sole case of one female APBT that turned up, lost, on our fenceline....& grown men trembled at the thought of touching her....she turned out to be a highly biddable & good natured dog. Owned by people who didn't fit any stereotype for cultivating a savage image.

Worth quoting again....the Spanish study which showed the strength of influence of owner behaviour...

And the task force from the US Veterinary Association which also stresses owner behaviour as the key issue (& what ought be tracked)....whatever the dog, whatever the breed.

Edited by mita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve   

There were many of us who were not happy with the way this was all shaping up and we said so. In my opinion it became personal and some involved were simply at war with the council rather than fighting for the end to BSL.

Sandgrubber- I dont agree with your statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The formal decision has been posted on the Queensland Courts website. I haven't read it in detail yet and will probably have to read it a couple of times to fully understand it. However, I suggest that this is probably the best place to get information about what evidence the judge has relied on in making the decision. It seems that some of what was put forward by those appealing the GCCC's decision may not have actually worked in their favour, but as I said, I haven't read it in detail yet.

Here 'tis.

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QSC10-098.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to sound like a worn out record, but I think BSL is justified and good when the standards for the breed and the image cultivated by its owners is unsocial. I think BSL is unjust for the APBT, and even more unjust if the APBT image is reflected onto the ASBT.

On the other hand, I'm glad we are worrying about 20 kg dogs that are sometimes bred to be bad, rather than 50 kg dogs that are sometimes bred to be bad. I wish the APBT community was doing a better job of getting their dog onto toilet paper adds and projecting the RCA Victor label and reducing the frequency of 'pitt bull eats child's testicles' sort of news.

Sorry to be a worn out record in return, but what you've just described is owner behaviour. Owners who breed for the purpose of dogs being unsocial (or acquire dogs for such). Current laws re dog management need to be responsive to picking up people like this. In fact, there has been some work on searching out their profiles. Better to track those people, with prevention in mind.

I'm not suggesting it here in OZ....but the French have tried one tack in this direction, by putting restrictions on dog ownership by people with certain types of criminal records.

In your first sentence, you appear to be saying that all owners of APBTs breed their dogs to be unsocial & cultivate that image. How is that so, when there are owners of APBTs here on DOL who've documented how their APBTs are family friendly dogs?

On my sole case of one female APBT that turned up, lost, on our fenceline....& grown men trembled at the thought of touching her....she turned out to be a highly biddable & good natured dog. Owned by people who didn't fit any stereotype for cultivating a savage image.

Worth quoting again....the Spanish study which showed the strength of influence of owner behaviour...

And the task force from the US Veterinary Association which also stresses owner behaviour as the key issue (& what ought be tracked)....whatever the dog, whatever the breed.

There is no question that owners influence dog behaviour. I doubt you can find any reputable study that says dog behaviour is all nature, no nurture. There is also no question that breeding influences behaviour, and that there are some people who are drawn to 'tough' dogs. Some of those people breed deliberately to bring out aggression.

All I'm trying to say is that overt and deliberate breeding for aggression at the breed level is reason for legislation.

Were there a breed where the breed standard says the dog should be HA and/or DA, I would say that breed should not be brought into Australia. Where it is with specific bloodlines, I don't know. Maybe there is a way to go after specific bloodlines. It is awful to go after a whole breed because some people are doing everything they can to bring out vicious tendencies.

The APBT situation is a mess, and I think a lot of people and bull breed dogs are suffering unjustly due to BSL. But reform at the council level is required to bring about the 'enforcement' miracle people keep saying is needed. I'd say that will happen when pigs can fly. A council here and a council there will be progressive and do a good job . . . but you're dreaming if you think it'll happen on a national scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
geo   

There is no question that owners influence dog behaviour. I doubt you can find any reputable study that says dog behaviour is all nature, no nurture. There is also no question that breeding influences behaviour, and that there are some people who are drawn to 'tough' dogs. Some of those people breed deliberately to bring out aggression.

All I'm trying to say is that overt and deliberate breeding for aggression at the breed level is reason for legislation.

Were there a breed where the breed standard says the dog should be HA and/or DA, I would say that breed should not be brought into Australia. Where it is with specific bloodlines, I don't know. Maybe there is a way to go after specific bloodlines. It is awful to go after a whole breed because some people are doing everything they can to bring out vicious tendencies.

The APBT situation is a mess, and I think a lot of people and bull breed dogs are suffering unjustly due to BSL. But reform at the council level is required to bring about the 'enforcement' miracle people keep saying is needed. I'd say that will happen when pigs can fly. A council here and a council there will be progressive and do a good job . . . but you're dreaming if you think it'll happen on a national scale.

Bloodlines ares still only half the story when it comes to how a dog turns out, 25 of that US footballers "fighting" pitbulls were rehomed, dogs that have seen the pit, fought, won lost whatever.. they're being loved right now by families that don't belive the hype and people who're keen to find out for themselves what a real pitbull is.

The people that want to bring out vicious tendancies will do it with any breed, regardless of legislation, it would be nice to have other breed owners supportive of pitbull owners, if everyone had the same standards of dog training and understanding as a committed pitbull owner the dog world would be a better place 'cause i tell you now most of them are so aware of their dogs and their surroundings that they are heads and shoulders above other dog owners.

Especially small dog owners who think they can let their dog run amok 'cause it's small.

Most bull breed owners are so aware/paranoid of how people perceive their dog that they really want to show how good their dog' breed can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mita   
There is a further release on the Dogs Qld site

http://www.dogsqueensland.org.au/News.aspx?id=218

Thanks for posting it. Some good positive things in that press release. It's well written & assures purebred dog owners there's cooperative efforts with the relevant authorities to find a solution to potential problems.

Full marks to Dogs Qld.

Reinforces what some DOLers have been urging. Get in & join & support the organisation which is doing something positive.

Edited by mita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have I got this right? If the State government in there review don't restrict the AST, then the Gold coast council will either restrict the AST in the local laws as they can, or it will mean Tango can live back home on the GC as he isnt restricted, and as shown, has satisfied the court he was an AST to prove breed.

Regardless of the state governments decision, I really think the ASTs days are numbered on the GC at least. I can't see this council would be at all happy to lose face with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to me that Dogs Qld are up to their old tricks, opposing BSL for ASTs but supporting it for APBTs. If they think this will save them they are mistaken. The two are one and the same breed and will continue to cost councils money defending until they too decide it's easier to sacrifice the AST. The following buyer Beware advice from DOL won't help

It is extremely important to ensure you are buying a papered pedigree dog from a reputable breeder. This is very important when purchasing Amstaffs since Breed Specific Legislation was passed in Australia. If you are buying a Amstaff puppy and the breeders cannot provide pedigree papers for your individual puppy, you will be taking the risk of your local council seizing your new puppy and identifying him/ her as a pitbull/ pitbull cross.

If one needs a piece of paper to tell the difference, well, it says it all. Better to fight BSL.

Edited by justin19801

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WANDERING STAFFIES FACE EXECUTION QLD

Category: Pets and Animals

Gold Coast Bulletin

8.4.2010.

AMERICAN Staffordshire terriers could find themselves on doggy death row if caught by city council animal management officers following a court ruling classing them as the same breed as pit bulls.

Kylie Chivers and John Mokomoko took on the council in court over the identification of their dog Tango as a pit bull, rather than an American Staffordshire but the Supreme Court ruled they are the same breed.

A council spokesman said they would not specifically target the American Staffordshire’s, but if they were found on the streets they would be treated as restricted dogs and taken to the pound and could potentially be destroyed as a restricted dog.

He said they were writing to the State Government to clarify if the law which prohibited all pit bulls from ....Queensland.... also included American Staffordshire’s.

A spokesman for the Department Infrastructure and Planning said the State Government never intended to include American Staffordshire terriers in the definition of a restricted dog.

Dog breeds restricted by the State Government include the dogo argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Japanese Tosa, American Pit Bull and any crossbreeds.

Edited by GeckoTree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that any of the CC's will send any of the ANKC breeds to the chopping block. They will however distance themselves as far as possible from the dogs without ANKC papers.

There's no need for the ANKC breeds to go down with the sinking Pit Bull ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diva   
Have I got this right? If the State government in there review don't restrict the AST, then the Gold coast council will either restrict the AST in the local laws as they can, or it will mean Tango can live back home on the GC as he isnt restricted, and as shown, has satisfied the court he was an AST to prove breed.

The bit about him being able to go home isn't right.

Yes the Court found him to be an AST.

But they also found that AST=APBT.

So by being an AST he is also a Pit Bull, and therefore restricted. In effect they found him to be both breeds as they decided the breeds were one and the same.

Edited by Diva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have I got this right? If the State government in there review don't restrict the AST, then the Gold coast council will either restrict the AST in the local laws as they can, or it will mean Tango can live back home on the GC as he isnt restricted, and as shown, has satisfied the court he was an AST to prove breed.

The bit about him being able to go home isn't right.

Yes the Court found him to be an AST.

But they also found that AST=APBT.

So by being an AST he is also a Pit Bull, and therefore restricted. In effect they found him to be both breeds as they decided the breeds were one and the same.

That's how I read it.

If APBT owners are going to be discriminated against it won't be long before one takes up a case forcing councils to enforce the law against ASTs. Better to fight BSL and have it overturned before that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

×