1. Welcome to Pit Bull Chat!

    We are a diverse group of Pit Bull enthusiasts devoted to the preservation of the American Pit Bull Terrier.

    Our educational and informational discussion forum about the American Pit Bull Terrier and all other bull breeds is a venue for members to discuss topics, share ideas and come together with the common goal to preserve and promote our canine breed of choice.

    Here you will find discussions on topics concerning health, training, events, rescue, breed specific legislation and history. We are the premier forum for America’s dog, The American Pit Bull Terrier.

    We welcome you and invite you to join our family.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

    Dismiss Notice

Queensland/Gold Coast, Australia: The pit bull is the usual suspect

Discussion in 'Breed Specific Legislation' started by StopBSL.com, Nov 29, 2009.

  1. StopBSL.com

    StopBSL.com StopBSL.com RSS Feed

    Visit the link below to read a lengthy but interesting article on the effects of the breed ban in Australia, featuring two major problems: breed identification and expense to enforce (lawsuits). The pit bull is the usual suspect | The Australian The pit bull is the usual suspect Posted in Breed Identification, Outside of U.S., Results of BSL [​IMG]

    More from StopBSL.com...

    NO one is quite sure how Tango the dog managed to escape the electrified fence of his backyard enclosure on the Gold Coast in April 2004. But when council dog catchers came across the brindle-and-white pooch loping around the suburban streets of Parkwood later that day, they bundled him into a van on suspicion of being an American pit bull terrier – an offence punishable by death in certain parts of Queensland. It was the beginning of a five-year saga that has made Tango the poster-boy in the War on Dogs.

    A year before Tango went for his unauthorised walk, Gold Coast City Council had introduced the harshest pit-bull crackdown in the country, warning that any unregistered or wrongly registered pit bulls would be euthanased. The zero-tolerance policy had been announced after a 30-year-old woman crossing a street south of Surfers Paradise was attacked from behind by an unregistered pit bull that savaged her face, almost tore off her bottom lip and ripped open a gash in her right calf that required 100 stitches. The victim, Jayne Gair, had hobbled into the council chambers on crutches a month after the attack, her face a mess of red welts, to demand the banning of the dogs.
    But as Gold Coast City Council has discovered to its great cost, banning pit bulls is not as easy as it might seem.


    Related Coverage


    Take the case of Tango: council officers who examined the dog decreed that he met the criteria for an American pit bull terrier cross-breed. But the dog’s owners, John Mokomoko and Kylie Chivers, insisted he was an American Staffordshire terrier cross-breed. After hiring a lawyer to get Tango off death row and transferred to a kennel in NSW – where he still lives in exile to this day – they began investigating the council’s identification procedures.
    Since then John Mokomoko has become the Gold Coast City Council’s worst nightmare, a relentlessly methodical litigant who has helped humiliate the expertise of council dog catchers in court and amassed a file on 5000 Queensland dogs that he claims were either destroyed or forced interstate on the basis of wrongful identification as pit bulls. In February he aims to convince the Queensland Supreme Court that Tango got a bum rap, and that thousands of dogs like him across Queensland may have been wrongfully dispatched to the big kennel in the sky. The case, he believes, will open a floodgate of *litigation. “I’ve got a list of around 5000 dog owners in southeast Queensland who are waiting for someone to get a win in the Supreme Court,” he says. “Each case could eventually cost the councils at least half a million dollars. Once the precedent has been set, it’ll open a Pandora’s box.”

    Bred for savagery
    When British noblemen of the early 1800s began mating English bulldogs with terriers to produce a pit-fighting breed of indefatigable savagery, they were not trying to create the perfect family pet. Yet the “bull-and-terrier” dogs that once tore each other’s throats out for the entertainment of the 19th-century gentry have, against all odds, produced an extended family of bull-breeds that now rank among the most popular dogs of the 21st century.
    There is little resemblance between the British bull terrier, with its stumpy legs and distinctive, egg-shaped head, and the much taller American pit bull terrier, just as there’s a marked difference between the compact British Staffordshire bull terrier – the Staffie – and its larger and more powerful American counterpart. But when *people talk of “pit bulls” they are often referring to any or all of these dogs, not to mention the dizzying array of mongrel cross-breeds that have proliferated over the past century. The Staffie is now the second most popular dog in NSW and edges closer every year to stealing the crown from the placid labrador.


    With their hulking physique and reputation for unpredictable violence – not to mention their popularity among drug-dealers – bull-breed dogs have become the Public Enemy No.1 of the canine world. Last month a pit bull rampaged through a Melbourne suburb, killing a cat and a shitzu-maltese dog, savaging two other dogs, terrifying two young girls and latching its jaws around the forearm of the dead shitzu’s owner, who fought the animal for 15 minutes before paramedics gave it a lethal injection. A day after the attack, Victorian Premier John Brumby announced a renewed crackdown on dangerous dogs, while the president of the RSPCA in Victoria, Dr Hugh Wirth, called for the mass extermination of all American pit bulls.


    Wirth’s remarks caused outrage in the blogosphere of pit-bull enthusiasts, who have long chanted the mantra of “deed not breed” – that irresponsible owners and dangerous dogs should be targeted, not entire breeds. Dr Stephen Collier, an anthropologist at the University of New England, says he has found no verifiable deaths from pit-bull attack in Australia since 1986, and he asserts that “there is no specific research to demonstrate that dogs bred for fighting are more dangerous than other breeds”.


    “That is rubbish,” retorts Wirth, who says temperament is embedded in different breeds via generations of selective mating. That is why Australian heelers, raised for the dangerous task of herding cattle, have a hair-trigger perception of threat that makes them more prone to biting than, say, a retriever, whose gentle disposition and soft mouths were prized when it came to retrieving downed game birds for hunters.
    “When we get to the American pit bull terrier,” says Wirth, “you have here a dog deliberately bred for fighting. Now, dog fighting is a very vicious sport; someone is always going to die. And these dogs know what to do: they know to be on tiptoes; they know to aim their huge bulk at the shoulder of the opposition, to force it to collapse on its back; and once the opponent is down, with one swift turn of 180 degrees, they are on the neck and ripping it apart.”
    Few of Wirth’s peers in animal welfare publicly support his call for mass extermination – which is, in fact, contrary to RSPCA national policy – but his reservations about the breed are widely shared. Dr Dennis Smith, a veteran *animal behaviourist based in NSW, once had to use a screwdriver to prise open a pit bull’s teeth from a veterinary nurse’s arm, an experience that convinced him the animal has a locking jaw. (This common conviction, however, is dismissed as a myth by US biology professor I. Lehr Brisbin, who has studied pit-bull physiognomy.)


    The popularity of bull breeds does appear to have coincided with a rise in dog attacks. Monash University’s Injury Surveillance Unit reports that hospital admissions for dog bites in Victoria rose 16 per cent on a per-capita basis from 1999-2007; NSW recorded 823 dog attacks in its last quarterly report, 142 of them requiring medical treatment. And while it may be true that a pit bull is yet to kill anyone in Australia, the breed is 10 times more likely to bite than a cattle dog, according to NSW statistics. The Staffie – for which even Hugh Wirth professes a deep affection – is now the leading breed for attacks in NSW, involved in five times more incidents than labradors.
    The standard political response to the problem has been bans on “dangerous breeds”. In 1991, the Hawke government banned the importation of four fighting dogs – the American pit bull terrier, Brazilian mastiff, Japanese tosa and Argentine dogo – following a series of attacks, including one in which a two-month-old baby in western Sydney was killed. But of the four breeds, the latter three barely exist in Australia, and none had been implicated in the baby’s death, which involved a bull terrier. Since then, however, “breed specific laws” have proliferated around the world. In 2001, a spate of attacks in Queensland spurred then premier Peter Beattie to introduce compulsory desexing of all four breeds, likening the pit bull to “a loaded gun”. The governments of NSW, Victoria and Western Australia soon followed suit.


    “The pit bull is a killing machine on a leash,” said then NSW premier Bob Carr in May 2005. “We want to breed these dogs out of existence.”

    At the sharp end
    Outlawing “dangerous breeds” is a surefire vote-getter for politicians, but it’s the council dog catchers who have to enforce the laws, and therein lies the rub. Confronting enraged dogs every day can be a thankless job; proving which particular enraged dog is a prohibited breed is not much easier. In Victoria last year, two-thirds of death sentences imposed by councils were overturned on appeal by a review panel of canine experts. Little wonder that councils have shown a marked lack of enthusiasm for enforcing the laws.


    The Queensland Government’s anti-dog laws of 2002 defined the “pit bull terrier” and its cross-breeds as a restricted breed requiring compulsory sterilisation and a backyard cage. Faced with the task of identifying such dogs, local councils across southern Queensland formed an expert committee that devised a 22‑point checklist drawn from the breeding guidelines for the American pit bull terrier. Little did councils realise, however, that in taking on pit bulls they would confront an incredibly dangerous, unpredictable and tenacious species capable of fighting to the death. Their owners.


    Two months after his dog Tango was imprisoned, John Mokomoko learnt that Gold Coast dog catchers had captured another wandering bull-terrier called Fonzie, owned by a 29-year-old man who’d been left a quadriplegic by a surfing accident. Mokomoko helped the dog’s owner, Justin Taylor, hire a lawyer to challenge the destruction order, and the Gold Coast City Council soon found itself mired in a public-relations disaster. On the opening day of his legal challenge, Taylor arrived at Southport Courthouse in his wheelchair and explained to the waiting media how Fonzie’s companionship had pulled him back from the brink of suicide; in the courtroom, Taylor’s lawyer ripped apart the credentials of the council’s animal control officer so comprehensively that the magistrate ruled that council staff lacked the training to properly identify Fonzie and ordered the dog returned to its owner.
    Mokomoko keeps a file on the Fonzie case, which was among the pile of 800-odd pages of documents he had waiting for me when we met one afternoon at his home on a suburban housing estate inland from Surfers Paradise. The documents – a litany of canine persecution divided into neatly bound case-files – sat on his lounge-room table in a big stack. Unfortunately for Gold Coast City Council, John Mokomoko is very, very organised; a stocky 47-year-old New Zealander with a greying goatee, he has an imperturbable demeanour honed by years of providing security to temperamental visiting celebrities, whose autographed photos smile down from his lounge-room wall.
    Unlike many people who own dogs capable of great violence, Mokomoko does not underestimate the danger such animals can pose, and he concedes that the sort of people attracted to owning them can be a problem in themselves. “Some people buy these dogs the same way they buy a sports car – as an extension of their ego,” he says. “People can go out there and buy whatever dog they want without having any knowledge of how to train and socialise it, and they don’t understand why it ends up eating their kids or biting the neighbour.”


    Mokomoko, in fact, kept his own dog, Tango, in an electrified enclosure in his backyard, and he’s convinced that someone deliberately let it loose back in April 2004. At the time, however, he and his partner took the advice of a lawyer and agreed to a court order that exiled Tango to a kennel across the NSW border. That’s where Tango has remained – at $21 a day – while Mokomoko has set about proving that his dog comes from pedigree American Staffordshire terrier stock. First he tracked down Tango’s *parents, Zeus and Jessie; then he took swabs from them (while being videotaped) and hired a genetic science laboratory in Victoria to match the dogs’ DNA samples. It’s this evidence he plans to present to the Queensland Supreme Court. (Gold Coast City Council refused to *discuss its dogs policy but said it reserved the right to protect ratepayers.)


    By his own count, Mokomoko has spent about $500,000 in pursuit of his mission, which has included helping 57 people overturn *council kill-orders on their dogs. Along the way he has bedevilled Queensland’s local government bureaucracy with a blizzard of emails, lawyers’ letters, freedom-of-information requests, court actions and the occasional media stunt. Last February he staged an elaborate sting operation by installing hidden cameras in a Gold Coast woman’s house in order to record council dog catchers wrongly identifying her pet Staffie as a pit bull – footage he posted on YouTube. “I’m in the security industry,” he shrugs, “I’ve got closed-*circuit television equipment. But I did put a sign on the door saying: ‘The house is protected by CCTV.’”


    Mokomoko’s biggest victory, however, may be the case of Logan City Council v Rusty The Hound. Caught wandering in suburban Brisbane in April 2005, Rusty was impounded and sentenced to death after being identified as a pit bull by three council experts – one of whom was Deborah Pomeroy, a Brisbane City Council animal control supervisor who helped devise and teach the 22-point dog identification system used across southern Queensland. Mokomoko helped Rusty’s owner, Dino Da Fre, marshall a legal defence and the DNA evidence necessary to prove the dog was a Staffie cross-breed, and during the court hearing Pomeroy admitted she was self-trained, had no veterinarian qualifications and could claim no scientific basis for the identification system she’d helped devise. With its case in tatters, Logan City Council withdrew after six days of hearings, having spent more than $100,000.


    Just how much Queensland governments have spent on such proceedings is impossible to verify, but the case of Andrew Richards gives some sense. A disability pensioner who rescued and raised pit bulls on a property in the Gold Coast hinterland, Richards moved his 17 dogs and his elderly father into northern NSW in 2006 to escape the Queensland crackdown. Unable to afford the breed-assessment costs demanded by his new local council, Richards was forced to put down 10 of his dogs, and the council killed the rest after he failed to obtain compliance certificates for them. At one point, police and RSPCA personnel turned up at his property without a warrant and forced him to dig up the corpse of one of his dogs to prove the grave was full. A weathered figure with a bushranger beard and a propensity for long flights of rhetoric, Richards has embroiled councils in so many freedom-of-information requests, telephone tirades and legal proceedings that one council alone has spent $40,000 dealing with him. Last month he appeared in Southport magistrates’ court charged with threatening and harassing staff at Gold Coast City Council.


    “It’s bullshit – I haven’t threatened anyone,” Richard says. “I’m just someone who is persistent and annoying. I am absolutely relentless. All we want to do is own the world champion of dogs, the original nursemaid dog – that was the nickname they earned because they were so gentle with children – the pit bull. I intend importing and building a new family of dogs from the United States of America and overturning the federal laws and the piss-weak *prohibition of our dogs.”

    A breed apart
    Dog-lovers aren’t always the most rational people, as was proved recently when several went online to defend the pit bull that left a trail of corpses and injured victims in Melbourne. “I believe it wasn’t as aggressive as made out to be,” wrote “Aussiefloyd” on dogforum.com.au. “I must say that I also feel sorry for the owner of the ‘attacking’ dog,” added “Mag*dalena”. “His dog was given the needle as he helplessly watched while being held by ambos/cops.” Mused “Hyacinth”: “Sometimes I wonder if it’s mistaken identity. Great White Sharks have this problem.”


    In fact, the dog that killed the shitzu cross and lacerated its owner’s arm was registered as an American Staffordshire terrier, a breed that can legally be imported into Australia despite being widely regarded as an American pit bull terrier by another name. “They’re the same dog,” says Dennis Smith. “But the breeding clubs in the United States managed to *convince the American Canine Association that there’s a degree of separation, which allowed them to be registered as a separate breed.”


    John Mokomoko agrees, and says the anomaly highlights the absurdity of bans aimed at specific breeds. His own dog would be legal if classified as an American staffie, but illegal if classified as a pit bull. Like many in the pro pit bull camp, he argues that bans have exacerbated the problem of rogue dogs by forcing registered pit bulls to live in caged and confined conditions that heighten their aggression, at the same time creating a black market of illegal breeding and unregistered dogs.
    In Britain, the RSPCA recently ditched its support for breed-bans after it became clear that dog attacks have increased since they were introduced. In Western Australia, the union representing council rangers has called the bans unenforceable because breeds are almost impossible to verify. Some talk hopefully of the day when dog breeds will be verifiable by DNA; others advocate compulsory obedience training for all dog owners. It’s the perennial problem of legislating to combat human stupidity.


    “There’s no doubt in my mind that these breeds are kept because of a deficiency in the owner’s personality,” says Hugh Wirth. “The person who comes walking down the street wearing a singlet and footie shorts with their great slathering Hound of the Baskerville on a leash gets a different feeling about themselves.”
    Meanwhile, in a kennel somewhere on the north coast of NSW, Tango has just racked up his fifth year of quasi-imprisonment. “We are going to sue everyone involved in this and bankrupt them,” says his owner cheerfully. “Just to teach them a lesson.”
     
  2. tybrax

    tybrax Puppy

    Thank you for posting the link and adding it to your website.
    l posted this in the News section.

    Tybrax
     
  3. tybrax

    tybrax Puppy

    Hon.Desley Boyle to Kill Amstaffs Save Pit Bulls ????

    Are the American Staffordshire terrier and the American Pit Bull terrier one breed or are they two different breeds of dog?

    It is generally accepted that the Amstaff and Pit bull came from a common blood line or stock, descending from the Staffordshire bull terrier originally.

    The split happened when the UKC, United Kennel Club, preferred their Pit bull stock to be bred for gameness or performance and other dog groups wanted to move towards conformation and show qualities.

    The American Staffordshire terrier was then line bred with the best of what was available within their registries to only other registered American Staffordshire terriers for the next 90 years, keeping this breed pure to the original blood line.

    What I found out here in Australia, at least, because there is no national registry for the American Pit Bull terrier and as this breed is not recognised by the Australian National Kennel Club or groups like the CCCQ ect, owners and breeders had an open hand at what they were allowed to do in regards to improving or enhancing the look of their particular dogs.

    When looking at individual breeders and their dogs, one will boast at how larger their blood lines head is or another will claim that theirs are the biggest most muscular Pit bulls in Australia, now looking nothing in anyway like the original American Pit Bull terrier from the USA, or in fact nothing like the original imported dogs to Australia.

    With the introduction of the BITSA DNA dog breed identification test, many American Pit Bull terrier owners were horrified that their secret cross breeding program would come to light exposing how their dogs came to be so individual and distinct from the original imported blood stock to Australia.

    After completing now over 30 DNA tests and working with the DNA lab in Victoria it had become indisputably clear that many of the once known American Pit Bull terriers are now showing to be nothing but lookalike cross breed dogs, holding any number of breeds unlike the original cross breed combination which was the American Pit Bull terrier.

    The American Pit Bull terriers breeders are not totally to blame for altering their breed or dilution of their blood line, as the prohibition on importing blood stock and the banning and destruction of good breeding stock by the Qld Governments BSL law 17A forced many if not all dogs to go underground. What choice did dog owners have? The blame rests still with this Qld Government who must hold part of the blame for all the consequences of this badly thought-out law.

    With the American Staffordshire terrier, the BITSA DNA identification test shows very clearly, scientifically and without any doubt that a suspected dog either is a pure breed American Staffordshire terrier or an American Staffordshire terrier cross breed dog, showing what it was cross bred with, or just a lookalike cross breed, showing what dogs made up the lookalike combination.

    With the court case run on the 29th of March, 2010, BRISBANE SUPREME Court. CHIVERS Vs Gold Coast City Council. Ms Chivers went to trial to fulfil a magistrate order asking her to prove her dog was an American Staffordshire terrier so she may be allowed to return her dog to her home on the Gold Coast.

    She was not only successful in proving this point uncontested, she also was able to prove that the method of identification used by councils in South East Qld in identification of suspected Pit bull terriers was knowingly false, and that the Qld Government staff, (Animal Control Officers for respective Councils) held no formal or academic qualifications clearly showing they could and would never be considered an expert, in any field in dog breed identification or experts in general under the rule of law.

    However in a final twist, at the end of the trial, the GCCC Barrister entered a new submission, which was never presented to Ms Chivers Barrister, changing their whole point of view, stating they had admitted over the past 7 years they had got things wrong and now seen the light and found the truth.

    Despite presenting expert evidence in some 10 to 20 trials, that the American Staffordshire terrier and the American Pit Bull terrier were two separate breeds and that with the training of their expert Debora Pomeroy and the 22 point checklist they could without any reservation prove that the dogs were two separate breeds, they now contend that they are the same breed of dog.

    As this was submitted at the end of the trial, Ms Chivers Barrister without prior notification had 10 minutes to come up with a reply, thus leaving it to the judge to base his decision on what was before him, the court ruled that an American Staffordshire terrier and the American Pit Bull terrier were the same breed.

    Ms Chivers Barrister was clearly blindsided, the rules or principles of natural justice, also known as procedural fairness, were developed to ensure that decision-making is fair and reasonable. Put simply, natural justice involves decision-makers informing people of the case against them or their interests, giving them a right to be heard (the ‘hearing’ rule), not having a personal interest in the outcome (the rule against ‘bias’), and acting only on the basis of logically probative evidence (the ‘no evidence’ rule).†And in a way the judge showed he knew this by his comments and not awarding any costs a clear indication that one side did not follow the rules.

    How does this affect dog owners? As the Gold Coast City Council so cleverly tricked a Supreme Court Judge in giving a false ruling, by disobeying the rules or principles of natural justice, their win has given all Pit bull terrier owners a free get out of jail card. I will explain.

    The GCCC’s win that American Staffordshire terriers and American Pit bull terriers are one and the same.

    Here's the Kicker, there is a DNA test for the Amstaff, 100% accurate, the same test that all the American Staffordshire terrier clubs use to check the validity of a suspected members true breed, the same test the ANKC and the CCCQ use, that is the BITSA Dog Breed Identification DNA test.

    Therefore there is a DNA test for Pit bulls...the Amstaff DNA test, so any other dog that does not conform to the Pit bull DNA test (Amstaff DNA test) must not be a Pit bull terrier.

    With me so far....


    Kill all the Amstaffs, a group of the dog community that have never caused any problems just so a dog called Tango could not be returned to the Gold Coast and win at all costs, has in effect made the GCCC set the Pit bulls free to breed/grow in number and really become a problem as the Pit bull terrier will never pass the Amstaff test.

    Just think, when the Restricted dog owners (Gold Coast and South East Qld) find out that all they have to do is send a DNA test to the lab and should the results come back their dog is not an American Staffordshire terrier, they then, don’t have an American Pit bull terrier, no need to put the signs on their gates, no extra fees, compensation for the harassment /desexing their dogs, then the need for an explanation to why the GCCC falsely identified their pet wrongly in the first place?

    Wow, Gold Coast City Council how smart do you feel now!


    The QLD Government’s Honorable Desley Boyle, Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships who has had two terms as Minister for Local Government over the past 7 years, and Mr Logan Timms, Senior Policy Officer of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, have been placed in this situation by the GCCC. They are in a stalemate situation; it’s finally up to the dog owners in QLD to write to the Minister demanding that she fix this problem immediately, sack the GCCC or resign enabling hopefully another Minister to come up with a competent solution to fix this problem.

    There is currently a case on the GCCC "Whereo" and "Mau" who were both placed under a destruction order by the Gold Coast City Council, Animal Management (Cats and Dog) Act 2008, section 127, Destruction Order.2010/01, Both dogs have been tested for Breed identification, known as BITSA which you are familiar with, and the results are:
    Whereo: Boston Terrier/ Golden Retriever
    Mau: Staffordshire Bull terrier/ Boxer

    Both do not hold the cross breeding to be American Pit bull terriers (or American Staffordshire terriers either, same thing) so how is it that they were identified as American Pit bull terriers or restricted dogs or how have they broken the law?

    This Supreme Court has in effect, with the Introduction of the BITSA DNA Testing, made BSL section of the Animal Management (Cats & Dogs) Act 2008 in Qld Unworkable, therefore powerless and ineffectual.

    The first of many back cases to come forward.

    Mr Logan Timms, Senior Policy Officer of the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, has been made fully aware of this case for well over a month and has done???

    Contact Mr Logan Timms on 3033 0594 or email logan.timms@dip.qld.gov.au , logan.timms@dlgsr.qld.gov.au .

    Contact Minister Desley Boyle on (07) 3227 8819 (07) 3227 8819 or email LGATSIP@ministerial.qld.gov.au or PO Box 15031, CITY EAST QLD 4002.


    Kylie Chivers
    tybrax
     
  4. My pit is Sasha

    My pit is Sasha Good Dog

    It is apparent from Dr. Wirth's comments that he knows absolutely nothing about what actually took place in the ring when dogs fought. Perhaps he should look at the deficiency in his own personality.

    And the "veteran" behaviorist that uses a screwdriver rather than a break stick (because apparently knowing nothing about the breed he didn't think to have one present) doesn't appear too bright either.
     
  5. skubasteve

    skubasteve Puppy

    terrible country

    i am glad i found this - i have really looked forward to someday vacationing in austrailia but now??? what a bunch of stupid fuc@s you have there. if they came for my dogs they would have to worry about me not them. just knowing how stupid and intolerant the govt is there is enough to make me spend my american $$$ to visit a more educated country. fuc@ you austrailia
     
  6. junkyard

    junkyard Puppy

    steve as an Australian i am highly offended with what you have said, F@@k you Australia? a very mature thing to say about a country who is fighting side by side with your troops in the middle east.
    To completely write off a country due to its dog laws is stupid an obviously uneducated, and if thats your attitude go and offend someone elses country on your holiday.
    The great thing about my country is that even someone with that sort of attitude will still be welcomed and treated like family, if you left your arrogance in customs.


    My country is a commonwealth country so we pretty much go by the same laws as the UK, with a few variables for each different state or territory.
    as you may have figured by reading the above writtings, these new laws on the gold coast are not anything to do with the breeds involved whatsoever, it has become a personal war, a David and Goliath, if you will with neither party wanting to lose, the defendend has a track record of being very smart and on his battle with his own dog, he has also helped defend many other owners of misidentified dogs with varied results.
    To spite all owners and the breed itselfi feel this council will do whatever in its power to win and even if that means twisting words and banning extra breeds.
    The very sad part is in the state mentioned[QLD] other councils close to the one in question have adopted the laws the GCCC has adopted and the effect spreads like the infection bsl is.

    I moved to the state mentioned and the laws they have are working in the eradication of the apbt. In my home state the laws are somewhat more leinient, and it isnt uncommon to see a happy apbt walking down the street with is even happier owner. In more than two years of living in the state i only came across two apbt on the street with their owner.


    PS; I have since moved back to my home state where i do not have to hide my dogs or their breed, yes we have bsl laws here but i can walk my dog up the street without fear of it being seized.
     
  7. My pit is Sasha

    My pit is Sasha Good Dog

    Yep, you guys do have some stupid laws. Unfortunately so do we.
     
  8. skubasteve

    skubasteve Puppy

    ok, so my tantrum above was a written after spending the evening with my 2 dogs and then a few drinks. when i read about the way the govt there is focusing so much energy on pits it really got my blood boiling and i wanted to say something at that very moment. i apologize for not thinking before my rough comments. i would still like to visit for sure and i know there are many dog lovers there and they are fighting for the breed. my post should have been directed at austrailian pit haters not just austrailia in general.
     

Share This Page