Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: The Judgement; Re Tango 6/4/10

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Near Newcastle, NSW
    Posts
    4,215

    Default

    Respectfully borrowed and cross posted from Tybrax's Facebook page:

    "Council has passed the buck onto the state gov. Logan Timms has stated he cannot comment as he has not read the submission but would like to hear from people with their concerns. Logan Timms State gov, The Department’s postal address is PO Box 15031, City East, Queensland 4002"
    Last edited by Cleasanta; 04-07-2010 at 03:57 PM.

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beau View Post
    Yeah highlighted is the part that would have AST owners and breeders, and clubs and associations quaking in their socks. It was allways foretold though. But then it's allways a wait and see with these things, next step would be state government involvement to make a clarification on the definition of a pitbull.


    [45] In this case there is unchallenged evidence as to the identity of the APBT and the AmStaff.

    The conclusion that I draw from that evidence is that the name “American
    Staffordshire Terrier” is a name which was adopted in the United States of America for purposes of promotion or other similar reasons and that that name was applied to American Pit Bull Terriers.

    All the evidence points to the same dog being given different names, that is, American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier, so that a dog recognised as being of one of those “breeds” is the same as a dog identified as being of the other “breed”. That practice appears to have been adopted in Australia.

    It follows then that the views held by the Council when it entered into the “consent order” were unfounded and that there is no difference
    between an APBT and AmStaff. Therefore, as I am satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that Tango is an AmStaff it follows that Tango is also an ABPT and is thus subject to the restrictions under the local laws referred above.

    Conclusion
    [46] The applicant is not the owner of the dog the subject of this application. The dog “Tango” is an American Pit Bull Terrier and is, thus, subject to the Council’s
    Subordinate Local Law No. 12 (Keeping and Control of Animals) 2007
    I'm not sure if the council has banned Pitbulls or just restricted them.

    It does seem like the judge on hearing the evidence of one woman who has died now, has decided that an Amstaff and a Pitbull are the same.

    However I can't see how the same reasoning couldn't be used to argue that all dogs are the same breed having descended from the same creature/species ie a wolf.

    So all dogs are pitbulls by the judge's reasoning.

    But if you had read "the beak of the finch" about finches on an island of the galapagos who have massive deaths and then regenerations depending on how the seasons favour various food sources and therefor beak sizes, that these birds change between several different species or breeds in the space of a couple of years of good or bad seasons.

    The line between breed or species is very very blurry at the edges. I've seen this with vast reclassifications across fish and botanical species.

    So it would be possible to selectively breed from Pitbulls and come up with a new breed with a more reliably docile temperment. And the judge seems unaware of this. As do some genetic scientists whose stuff I've seen posted on the net about pitbulls vs amstaff.

    I hope it gets challenged otherwise every dog will eventually be "restricted". They'll just keep backing up the ancestral lines.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,428

    Default

    They are banned in QLD. PTS or relocation out of state is only option.

    They have since changed this though. It went back to court. The APBT and AST are no longer classed as one and the same.

    There are some conditions etc I believe. Will try to find the article.

  4. #14

    Default

    No the APBT is not banned in Qld, & never have been at all.
    They are however prohibited to reside in some local councils and shires under local by laws.

    many would think they are banned in qld because the local councils who have banned them are all they hear talking about them.

    In Qld State legislation they are a regulated/restricted breed by permit.
    Last edited by Beau; 08-16-2010 at 03:28 PM.
    If you find yourself going through hell; Don't stay. Just keep on going.
    Beau.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,428

    Default

    Thanks for correcting that for me Beau!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    423

    Default

    And so now,after the last announcement by the Gov, if you think laterally clever people, there are no APBT dogs in QLD so BSL is stuffed.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Occy View Post
    I think the more significant thing is the comment about amstaff/pit by the judge
    All the evidence points to the same dog being given different names, that is, American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier, so that a dog recognised as being of one of those “breeds” is the same as a dog identified as being of the other “breed”. That practice appears to have been adopted in Australia.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •