August 10th, 2005, 10:20 AM
Sorry guys haven't been on for a while but as you can see we have been very busy fighting BSL. The latest out come.
THE GOLD COAST COUNCIL IS REVIEWING ITS CONTROVERSIAL DOG LAWS
AFTER SUCCESSFUL COURT ACTION BY ANGRY PET OWNERS.
COUNCIL BUREAUCRATS HAVE ADMITTED TO FLAWS IN THE SYSTEM AFTER
AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRES TERRIERS WERE MISTAKEN FOR BANNED PIT BULLS.
A NEW REPORT :highfive: ON THE ISSUE, TO BE CONSIDERED BY GOLD COAST COUNCIL
ON MONDAY, LISTS REPEALING THE CONTENTIONS LAS AS ONE OPTION TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROBLEM.
HOWEVER, IT SAYS THAT WOULD RAISE DANGEROUS ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND COULD ENCOURAGE AN INFLUX OF PIT BULL'S TO THE CITY.
IT IS MORE LIKELY COUNCELLORS WILL AGREE TO A SIGNIFICANT ABOUT TURN ON THIER STRICT DOG POLICY BY ALLOWING BELATED REGISTRATION OF PIT BULLS THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE GOLD COAST FOR YEARS.
THE POTENTIAL CHANGES COME AFTER LAST WEEKS LAND MARK COURT CASE
WHICH SAW AN ALLEGED UNREGISTERED PIT BULL RETURNED TO ITS OWNER
ALTHOUGH THE COUNCIL CLAIMED IT SHOULD BE DESTROYED.
FONZIE WAS RESCUED FROM DEATH ROW AFTER HIS OWNER SUCCESSFULLY
CLAIMED HIS PET WAS AN AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER.
THE CITY COUNCIL'S TOUGH DOG LAWS CAME INTO EFFECT IN SEPTEMBER
2003 PROHIBITING PIT BULLS AND THERE CROSSBREEDS BEING REGISTERED IN THE CITY .
THOSE ALREADY REGISTERED WITH THE COUNCIL WERE ABLE TO REMAIN
THE NEW REPORT, BY COUNCIL'S ANIMAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION ADMITS
THERE ARE SUFFICENT PROBLEM WITH BREED IDENTIFICATION BECAUSE PIT BULLS AND AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRES ARE SO SIMILAR.
THE REPORT RECOMMENDS INCREASED TRAINING OF COUNCIL OFFICERS
SO THEY CAN BE BETTER IDENTIFY DANGEROUS DOGS.
ITS ALSO RECOMMENDS THE DOG LAWS BE CHANGED SO RESIDENTS WHO HAVE OWNED A DANGEROUS DOG FOR YEARS, BUT WHERE NOT AWARE
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BELATEDLY REGISTER THEIR PET.
UNDER THE CURRENT LAW ANY UNREGISTERED DOG DETERMINED TO BE A PIT BULL IS DESTROYED.
MAYOR RON CLARKE SAID THAT HE WANTED A VETERINARY PANEL SET UP INSTEAD OF USING COUNCIL OFFICERS TO IDENTIFY DANGEROUS DOGS .
HOWEVER, THE AUSTRALIAN VETERNARIAN ASSOCIATION DID NOT SUPPORT THE MOVE.
"AT LEAST WE CAN AMEND THE LAW SO PEOPLE WHO WERE CAUGHT SHORT AND DIDN'T NO THERE DOG WAS BANNED CAN STILL GET A PERMIT," SAID CR.CLARKE.
HE SAID REPEALING THE DANGEROUS DOG LAWS WAS SIMPLY NOT A FEASIBLE OPTION FOR THE COUNCIL .
"THAT LEAVES US WIDE OPEN FOR LITIGATION HE SAID,"HE SAID.
AS LONG AS WE CAN MAKE SURE PEOPLE RETAIN THIER PETS IF THEY ARE WELL BEHAVED , AND THATS'S BALANCED WITH BETTER TRAINING FOR OUR OFFICERS, THE SITUATION IS GOOD"
ACTING HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES CHAIRWOMEN CR JAN GREW
SAID THE PROBLEM REGARDING THE IDENTIFICATION OF PIT BULLS
WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL.
"ITS AN ISSUE GLOBALLY, " SAID CR GREW.
"ITS IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ABSOLUTELY SURE OF THE BREED OF THE DOG", AND THAT'S QUITE DIFFICULT WHEN WE HAVE CROSSBREEDS.
"THATS WHY WE WILL HAVE INCREASED IDENTIFICATION TRAINING.
I AM OVER THE MOON, LETS CALL IT THE BEATTIE SIDE STEP.
TYBRAX NEWS- A CASE WILL BE BOUGHT FORWARD AGAINST THE GOLD COAST
COUNCIL IT WILL BE A TEST CASE TO MAKE WAY FOR FUTURE LAWSUITS FOR
COMPENSATION. FOR INFO CONTACT email@example.com
August 10th, 2005, 05:05 PM
Congratulations Tybrax!!!!! :highfive: I know how hard and how long you have been working on this and Im very glad many dogs will have their lives spared and come out of the closet because of this, its too bad you couldn't get them to repeal it though. I wonder too how they arrived at the decision to ban pit bulls but not staffies. Many here are under the impression that they are pretty much the same dog. Anyway luckily for you guys they made that distinction. Congrats again!!! Please keep us posted!
August 10th, 2005, 05:25 PM
lol the bettie side step, your funny :p great to see ya.
well thats a bit of good news isnt it, i didnt see that on the NSW news but thats no surprise :rolleyes:
its jsut shocking the way they use registration to enforce a ban,to me thats so dangerous. i know a young man here who cannot register his PB so he has not registered him, and he keeps him in the bush, now i think that is potentially very dangerous for ppl to not know the dog is there, at least they should let him register so we know whats going on, i think its the insurance that is a bgi issue to, thousands of dollars in NSW to keep a PB, its stupid, i think its wrong for anyone to have to pay to keep their pets, if your a breeder of any dog then fine, but not the family dog.. registration is there so we all know what is going on out there, i hate it when they use it as a deterrent.
we are under the often good and often bad companion animals act, whats your QLD legisaltion called???
in a place like the gold coast i think registration is very important, esp for dogs safety, get lost up there and it woudl be hard, i reckon anyway. poor charlie would not last long if she was lsot up there for sure, no road sense...
but at least now they will ahve the oppertunity...
now as far as breed goes, well thats jsut near impossible half the time dont ya think?? i mean the other day i met a dog at a cafe, i thought it was a PB cross, it was beautiful, and i was having a good cuddle, any way the owern tells me she was actually Amrican Staffodshire, now i got confused because i love staffies, and she didnt look wht a normal stafife looked like, you know the little stubby buggers with the beatiful faces, she was taller and hand a longer nose.. so its easy to get it wrong...i can totally see why the vets said no, how could they do it being the judge for death sorta thing, good on em for taking a stand... but still if its up to the council thatsjsut downright scary....
but im glad there is a greater chance for rego now, at leasst it may save a few lives. its sick how they tlak about PBs, im so sick of all the ppl that say 'oh their jsut dangerous and terrible dogs' and i always ask 'when was the last time you saw a PB' and most say NEVER. it kills me, ppl make me so angry around here, bloody rednecks the lot of em.....
any way sory for the rant, im glad to hear the council is trying to be flexible, weather they do it or not i would like to see but its a good start foreward :highfive:
September 13th, 2005, 07:23 PM
Pitbull exile over
THE welcome sign is back up for banished, dangerous pitbulls.
Up to 30 restricted dogs, previously exiled to other areas of Australia, will be allowed back on the Gold Coast after Gold Coast City Council backflipped on its controversial dog laws yesterday.
But the ruling came too late for many dogs, which have already been destroyed on the council's orders.
Councillors were forced to have a change of heart after several american staffordshire terriers were mistaken for banned pitbulls, due to a flawed breed identification system.
A landmark court case last year saw an alleged unregistered pitbull returned to its owner, although the council claimed it should be destroyed.
Fonzie was rescued from death row after his owner successfully proved his pet was an american stafford-shire terrier.
Cr Dawn Crichlow yesterday said at least 60 animals had been destroyed or banished from the Coast since the laws were enacted two years ago.
They included pitbulls, which were not given permits because their owners did not realise they were a restricted breed, and american staffordshire terriers mistaken for pitbulls by council officers.
The council will write to their owners, inviting them to re-apply for restricted dog permits.
However, Cr Crichlow said the 'cruel' laws were 'impossible right from the start'.
Dog owners had been forced to send their pets as far afield as Adelaide to rescue them from being destroyed by the council, she said.
Yesterday's decision does not completely repeal the dog laws and no new pitbulls will be allowed in the region.
The city council's tough dog laws came into effect in September, 2003, prohibiting any new pitbulls and their crossbreeds being registered in the city.
Although those already registered were able to remain for life, many owners became innocent victims of the law when their dogs, which they believed were staffies, were labelled pitbulls by council and removed.
Tugun's Gena Boag, who has shuffled her beloved pitbull around the Tweed and Brisbane because of the strict rules, said she was hopeful Oshiris would be allowed to return.
"It was totally unfair in the first place, he's such a gentle dog you can put a duck, cat or chicken in front of him and he won't touch them," she said.
"He's never hurt anyone kids can poke him and pull his tail and he won't do a thing."
Ms Boag said she had even been forced to hide Oshiris on the Gold Coast at times after his registration and restrictive dog permit was refused because she was 21 days late in reapplying.
Cr Crichlow said Ms Boag should be able to bring Oshiris home.
"Good on her," said Cr Crichlow.
Cr Rob Molhoek raised concerns that the council would be liable if a returned dog attacked a person or other animal.
However, council officers said it would not be an issue, provided the owners followed the rules set down for restricted dogs, such as muzzling them.
tybrax and kylielou:clap:
Gold Coast Bulletin.
23rd August 2005
September 13th, 2005, 07:27 PM
Oshiris and his owner Gena.
September 13th, 2005, 07:38 PM
This is only the first of three stages, council have tried to do the Beattie side step, it's not our fault it's the local councils fault.
Local councils say its not our fault it's the state governments fault because they have not given proper training to our officers.
The Local Government Association of Queensland Inc, state in a topic for thier annual meeting for the 29th August 2005 to the 1st of September 2005:
In summary, recent court cases have highlighted problems with the current legislative arrangements and processes and this has caused undue financial burden on Local Governments. The issues of concern relate to:-
- lack of accredited training available for officers
- inconsistent breed prohibitions across the State
- informal assessment process
- lack of technical experience in some of the restricted/prohibited breeds
Logan City Council recently resolved to write to the Queensland Premier the Hon Peter Beattie MP requesting:-
1. A Government review of the existing legislation on restricted dog breeds with a view to adopting legislative measures which ban specific breeds state wide; and
2. Giving credence to the assessment processes by enshrining a process in State legislation
In light of the above there is a need for the state government to develop consistent state wide policies to deal with prohibited dangerous dog breeds.
This matter has not been considered by Annual Conference since the introduction of dog breed specific legislation as part of the Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2001.
Shortcomings in the legislation and, particularly, the difficulties in identification of restricted breeds has been highlighted in recent court cases. This has resulted in a situation where there is currently no agreed process available to identify an animal as a restricted breed.
The proposal to seek statewide legislation to prohibit certain dog breeds is, to some extent, inconsistent with this policy.
Regardless of the conference decision regarding the prohibition of certain breeds, the need to resolve the issue of identification processes for these breeds is required as a matter of urgency.
This is the council's way of saying "oops", we have killed thousands of dogs, now we better find a way to legally justifing our actions.
"Locking the stable doors after the horse has bolted"
The first problem brought to thier attention was the wording and use of the term American Pit bull terrier, was the wording of the restricted dog laws unconstitutionally vague and therefore be void due to vagueness? Every Minister did the Beattie side step on that one, even the Minister Desley Boyle could not answer the simple question, her response was she assumed someone would have looked into this before the law was enacted.
The second problem was the use of the checklist, which is before the Ombudsman as we speak and should we have the need will be before a magistrate to formally remove this document for good.
The third problem for councils and the R.S.P.C.A will be the matter of compensation, for all people disadvantaged by this law, which now can be considered as theft of an individuals private property by fraud.
All councils and the R.S.P.C.A have over the course of several months been advised of thier actions and have ignored repeated attempts for them to take the time to understand what they are doing and stop, well now they can pay for the privilage of thier ignorance.
kylielou and tybrax
September 14th, 2005, 04:42 PM
well thats a bit of good news for the day, it will be interesting to see how the RSPCA and local councils deal with the thefit issue, and if i were in the position of someone taking and killing my dog, well as im sure you would , i would give them hell and make them pay, its only fair....
of course this is a start, not as solution but its on the way...
thanks mate, we really appreciate the updates and the great news, its nice to smile over this issue for once. :D
and how wonderful for gene, to have her boy back, and that photo is brilliant, its true love, i love those girl and her dog stories...
again thanks for the update, sure didnt see that on channel 10 news last night, but im sure they dont want to advertise it, they should be a bit embarassed and shamed if you ask me, i wouldnt want to advertise my stuff ups either :o
September 14th, 2005, 04:56 PM
Thanks Tybrax, its good to see people fighting back successfully. The Toronto candle light vigil payed tribute to Pit Bulls all over the world that had died uncecessarily from these bans, the Gold Coast was one of the places mentioned by name. It was a really beautiful vigil so I wanted to let you know that we are all thinking of you as well as our fight begins its legal challenge :grouphug:
September 16th, 2005, 01:31 AM
And thanks for the Good News!
Australian Cattle Dogs were rumored to be on the Gold Coast BSL list next.