Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: First Steps,,,

  1. #1

    Exclamation First Steps,,,

    I have posted this on the end of the other thread as well but thought perhaps this might be a better idea to get the templates seen in a clean thread rather than wade through 12 pages and maybe miss them.

    Permission to cross post .

    ************************************************** *******

    Hi All

    Below are 2 different sample templates for your letter to the Gold Coast City Council, please remember that for your letter to have a real impact you MUST personalize it, so please change the templates as you feel fit. Please attention your letter to Dale ****son.

    Cheers

    Mell

    Version 1


    TO:
    Mr Dale ****son
    Chief Executive Officer
    Gold Coast City Council
    PO Box 5042
    Gold Coast MC 9729
    gcccmail@goldcoast.qld.gov.au

    CC:
    Colette McCool
    Directory of Community Services
    Gold Coast City Council
    cmccool@goldcoast.qld.gov.au

    Desley Boyle
    Minister for Local Government
    Po Box 15031
    City East QLD 4002
    lgatsip@ministerial.qld.gov.au

    Dear

    I have been made aware of a court submission by the Gold Coast City Council to have a legal ruling that an American Staffordshire Terrier is the same breed as the American Pit Bull Terrier, thus requiring them to comply with restricted breed legislation or breed specific legislation. This submission by council ignores the fact that the American Staffordshire Terrier has been recognized as a legitimate breed in its own right by the American Kennel Club, the recognized governing body for pedigree dogs in America and the Australian National Kennel Club.

    The American Staffordshire terrier has been specifically bred based on phenotype to produce a dog in line with our recognized breed standard, which includes specific structural requirements but also details the stable temperament required of the show dog and family companion the American Staffordshire terrier was established for. Furthermore GTG laboratories, specialists in DNA profiling for canines have ran blind samples comparing the Amstaff and the Pit Bull and are of the opinion the 2 breeds are now genetically unique and separate here in Australia. This scientific evidence would render your current submission void.

    The consequences of the court submission detailed by Gold Coast Council, have an immediate impact for all Amstaff owners in QLD, this will mean thousands of dogs and their owners could face the heart ache of breed specific legislation despite the fact their dogs are innocent of any crime other then being a particular breed. In addition to this your submission sets a legal precedence for other states to follow suit, the impact on the Amstaff community nationally will be horrendous.

    I would ask the council to withdraw their submission, and to work with the ANKC and the American Staffordshire breed community to find a better way to resolve the issue of enforcing BSL legislation, rather then campaigning to have the American Staffordshire terrier added to the restricted breed listings.

    Best regards


    Version 2

    TO:
    Mr Dale ****son
    Chief Executive Officer
    Gold Coast City Council
    PO Box 5042
    Gold Coast MC 9729
    gcccmail@goldcoast.qld.gov.au

    CC:
    Colette McCool
    Directory of Community Services
    Gold Coast City Council
    cmccool@goldcoast.qld.gov.au

    Desley Boyle
    Minister for Local Government
    Po Box 15031
    City East QLD 4002
    lgatsip@ministerial.qld.gov.au



    Mr ****inson,
    It is with great concern that the I has learned of the Gold Coast City Council’s Respondents Outline of Submissions recently presented to the QLD Supreme Court in the case of Kylie Shivers vs. Gold Coast City Council.
    It is concerning firstly that the information submitted to argue that the American Staffordshire Terrier (Amstaff) and the American Pitbull Terrier (APBT) are the same breed of dog is clearly inaccurate, and secondly that the acceptance of this submission by the judge, based on inaccurate and incomplete material, has far-reaching consequences outside of the current case before the QLD Supreme Court.
    Point 42 of the submission suggests “The Amstaff and the APBT is the same breed of dog”. This is incorrect. There is ample evidence available to indicate that the Amstaff and the APBT are in fact two distinct breeds. In this regard please consider the following:

    • The Amstaff was first recognised as a breed by the American Kennel Club in 1936 and today is a pure bred dog with its own closed gene pool, closed pedigree registry and individual Breed Standard. The Amstaff is distinguished from the APBT by this closed gene pool, with the Amstaff gene pool serviced exclusively by AKC registered Amstaffs, free from any outside genetic input by APBT or any other breed of dog.

    • Mr George Sofronidis BSc (Hons), Manager of Animal Diagnostics for Genetic Technologies Limited (GTG), specialists in DNA profiling for canines, has confirmed his company have been able to identify a distinguishing genetic breed marker for the Amstaff in Australia. GTG have run blind samples comparing the Amstaff and the APBT and are of the scientific opinion the 2 breeds are now genetically unique and separate here in Australia.

    • The Amstaff is recognised by majority of the world’s major canine governing bodies, such as the American Kennel Club (AKC), Europe’s Fédération Cynologique Internationale (FCI), and the Australian National Kennel Council (ANKC), as a distinct breed in its own right. In contrast none of these organizations recognize the APBT or allow it to be cross bred with the Amstaff.

    • The Amstaff represents 84 years of selective breeding to produce a companion, working and show dog of outstanding temperament and stability. The emphasis in breeding Amstaffs is on stable, predictable temperaments, correct conformation and sound health.

    • While these two breeds shared common ancestors almost 100 years ago, as canine authority Joe Stahlkuppe points out “Today, these breeds are not the same. In the over half a century that they have largely been bred separately gradually they have become two different breeds.”

    • While it is true that the United Kennel Club (UKC) allows Amstaffs to be “dual-registered” as APBT, neither the UKC nor its practice of dual registration are recognised by any of the world’s major canine governing bodies.

    • The Amstaff is not considered a restricted breed by any Commonwealth or state legislation.

    I am very concerned is that if the Court rules in favour of the Gold Coast City Council’s submission, based as it is on inaccurate information, this has the potential to set a legal precedence whereby the Amstaff could incorrectly, and quite unjustly, be considered a restricted breed. This has the potential to negatively impact upon an entire, recognised pure breed, representing tens of thousands of dogs and their owners, for the sake of one Court case involving one dog. This is in contrast to the Commonwealth Customs (Prohibited Imports) Act 1956, upon which all State breed specific legislation is based, which clearly defines the restricted breeds and the Amstaff is not mentioned in this Act. No doubt such a situation would result in significant public outcry and numerous legal challenges by individuals and organisations based on the evidence presented above including the existence of a distinguishing genetic marker for the Amstaff.
    Therefore I respectfully request that they the Gold Coast City Council withdraw this submission based on its inaccuracy and the wide ranging implications outside of the case itself.
    Yours Sincerely,
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  2. #2

    Default

    Hi all,

    My name is Lincoln Hancock and I am the Secretary of the American Staffordshire Terrier Club of Victoria Inc. I have never posted on this forum however there are a few questions I think need an answer on this thread.

    Firstly with regards to this case, the Amstaff clubs in QLD, Vic, WA and both of the NSW clubs, have been working on this situation in a co-ordinated manner since Tuesday. We are being assisted by DOGS QLD, the ANKC and those involved in the case legally.

    The submission that is currently before the judge relates to the case of Kylie Shivers vs Gold Coast City Council (commonly known as the Tango case) and as has been stated here the foundation of the submission is that the Amstaff and the APBT are the same breed and thus Tango is in fact a Restricted Breed. If the judge agrees with this submission then a legal precedence is set in QLD whereby the Amstaff could be considered a Restricted Breed. This legal precedence, while not binding outside of QLD, will hold enormous weight and likely cause a domino effect around the country.

    The judge can only rule on the submission before him and no counter submission can be made. This is the reason why we are unable to address the greater issue of the unjust nature of Breed Specific Legislation and its proven inability to reduce the number of dog incidents in the community. If you would like to see our organisation’s position on BSL please visit our webpage at American Staffordshire Terrier Club of Victoria Inc (it is in need of updating tho). Please let it be clear that none of the Amstaff clubs support BSL in any form.

    Some comments I’d like to address... Firstly the Amstaff is not the same as the American Pitbull Terrier. While it is true they come from common foundations, so too does the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and by that flawed logic all three breeds are the same. All three breeds trace back to established English stock from the mid 1800s. Both the Amstaff and the SBT have closed gene pools and are bred to distinct breed Standards with particular emphasis that differs to that of the APBT. Every modern breed was created in this manner and if we were to ignore this and follow the logic set forth by the GCCC submission to it’s logical conclusion, then all our dogs are just wolves. In Australia we now have access to a distinguishing genetic marker to separate the Amstaff and the APBT population. Anyway the second sample letter, which was drafted by myself (and contained less typo’s at the time LOL) and is an adaption of the letter sent by the ASTCV Inc to the GCCC, goes into more detail on this.

    Occy, I am astounded at your comments. I’m unsure how many ANKC registered American Staffordshire Terriers you have had contact with but in general this is a very stable breed. In fact under the American Temperament Test Society temperament test, our breed has achieved a pass rate higher then the all breeds average and higher then many popular breeds. If you would like to meet some Amstaffs than I invite you to attend the ASTCV’s Championship Show on June 12 at KCC Park in Skye, Vic, and as my guest I will personally introduce you to approximately 120 rock solid, stable American Staffordshire Terriers and their owners. I am sure you will have a different view of the breed once you have met a large number of registered dogs personally.

    Someone asked what promotional work is done by the Amstaff community? In 2009 the ASTCV had stalls at 9 different Community Pet Expo’s in Victoria. Our club has been attending every pet expo possible for over 5 years now, where our vibrant stalls provide information to the general public and allow them to meet and pat our member’s wonderful dogs. For the past 6 years we have attended the Caulfield Pet & Animal Expo which is the largest of its kind in Australia with well over 15 000 visitors over 3 days. In addition we promote our breed thru a number of other avenues both to the public and within the pure bred dog community and have been very active on the legislative front in Victoria. We always aim to do more so any suggestions would be wonderful!

    Finally, if anyone would like assist with the current situation please use one of the template’s posted and adapt it in your own words and send it ASAP to the names listed. ASAP means NOW. The judge will rule early next week. Convincing the GCCC to withdraw their submission, based both on it being inaccurate and also the wide ranging implications it carries outside the Tango case, is the best possible outcome and to do so will prevent a long drawn out appeals process.

    Due to time constraints I am not in a position to respond to every question that may be raised on this thread but feel free to give me a call with any concerns or questions you might want discuss. My number is available at astcvic.com .

    Thanks for your time,

    Lincoln Hancock
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  3. #3

    Default

    Please , can we keep this a a positive , on topic thread
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  4. #4

    Default

    Sent my emails first thing this morning. Let me know if there is anyone else we need to loby!

  5. #5

    Default

    Thanks so much Boh
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

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
  •