Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: The Victorian "Pitbull" Standard

  1. #1

    Default The Victorian "Pitbull" Standard

    Here it is

    http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazett...GG2011S283.pdf

    I am so friggin glad I do not live in Victoria, so many of those pictures look like Phoenix. No joke. I feel like crying.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    It reads like a standard?? Have they taken this from the Amstaff standard or something??

    Even this sounds very much like it comes from a standard;
    Eyes can be all colours except blue

    At least we know that blue eyed dogs are safe (maybe there is a touch of Adolf in the person who authored the descriptor.....)
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anne View Post
    It reads like a standard?? Have they taken this from the Amstaff standard or something??

    Even this sounds very much like it comes from a standard;
    Eyes can be all colours except blue

    At least we know that blue eyed dogs are safe (maybe there is a touch of Adolf in the person who authored the descriptor.....)
    No it would most be pulled form the ADBA and UKC American Pitbull Terrier Breed Standards. Which is actually illegal because in the Tango case the ADBA and UKC said that their Standards were not an accurate means of identifying dogs only in judging them. And it actually states that on the Standards.

    LOL it also says White is unacceptable so I guess all white dogs are safe...?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anne View Post
    It reads like a standard?? Have they taken this from the Amstaff standard or something??

    Even this sounds very much like it comes from a standard;
    Eyes can be all colours except blue

    At least we know that blue eyed dogs are safe (maybe there is a touch of Adolf in the person who authored the descriptor.....)
    Soo as I read that i thought the same thing about the blue eyes!!
    Rubylisious


  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    And does this mean that white dogs are safe?

    All colours and combination of colours are acceptable, with the exception of blue merle and pure white.

    The whole thing is bizarre?! It reads like a standard, not an identification document.
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    I just saw that you also saw the white dog comment.

    How weird is this document!
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anne View Post
    I just saw that you also saw the white dog comment.

    How weird is this document!
    Blue eyes and white hair?? OMG it is Hitler!!!
    Rubylisious


  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,561

    Default

    Yes, that's what my reference was to Adolf.
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

  9. #9

    Default

    Yeah, they are going to be in a lot of trouble with this document. It is another version of Qld's 22 point checklist which was VERY quickly discredited in court. ADBA and UKC have said that their standards CANNOT be used to identify breeds of dog. People need to fight if they have their dogs taken, they need to fight like John and Kylie did here and the other 80 people who have in recent years. If they fight back then this will quickly stop being used.
    I know Tybrax will be onto this and making sure people in Victoria know that this is fraudulent and cannot be used.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    That is a ridiculous document to use for identification purposes indeed.

    But I did find this quite interesting:
    "A dog that meets the description of a dog in this Part is an American Pit Bull Terrier; except a dog in respect of which the owner has one of the following certificates stating that the dog is an American Staffordshire Terrier –
    a. a pedigree certificate from the Australian National Kennel Council;
    b. a pedigree certificate from a member body of the Australian National Kennel Council;
    c. a pedigree certificate from a national breed council registered with the Australian National Kennel Council;
    d. a certificate signed by a veterinary practitioner stating, or to the effect, that the dog is of a particular breed."
    Last edited by Beloz; 09-01-2011 at 01:07 PM.

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
  •