tybrax

The pit bull is the usual suspect Richard Guilliatt From: The Australian November 27, 2009 10:49AM Increase Text Size Decrease Text Size Print Email Share Add to Digg Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Kwoff Add to Myspace Add to Newsvine What are these? John Mokomoko, with a picture of his imprisoned dog, has led the fightback by owners, and is determined to make authorities pay. Source: The Australian 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. Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar. <H3 class=heading>Related Coverage</H3> Maltese terriers 'dangerous' Courier Mail, 24 Oct 2009 Meet the maltese terror The Australian, 24 Oct 2009 Alarm at dog risk Herald Sun, 24 Oct 2009 Councils given licence to kill stray dogs The Australian, 19 Oct 2009 Breed bans are not the way to go Herald Sun, 19 Oct 2009 End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar. 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 breedsâ€. “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 breedsâ€. 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 gunâ€. 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 “Mag­dalenaâ€. “His dog was given the needle as he helplessly watched while being held by ambos/cops.†Mused “Hyacinthâ€: “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. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/the-pit-bull-is-the-usual-suspect/story-e6frg8h6-1225804507090 tybrax

THE GYMPIE TIMES 30TH OCT. 2008. BY CRAIG WARHURST. THE ongoing saga of Rusty the dog and his misidentification is about "to be played played out for the second time, according to Rusty's owner Daryn Willis. Mr Willis says he is going the Gympie Regional Council and staff members for the misuse of power (Misfeasance)bu a public officer. The alleged misuse of power relates back to a year long struggle Mr. Willis had with Council dog control officers who believed Rusty may have been a dangerous American pit bull terrier a prohibited breed. Mr. Willis Claims Council continued to harrass his family by bringing police on to his property while council officers assessed Rusty, asking for DNA samples and numerous other calls challenging Rusty's true identity, all after Mr Willls showed Council a letter form his Barrister Stephen Clinton Fynes. The letter told Council of Supreme Court proceedings that firstly saved Rusty form Redcliffe City Council's dog death row after they to thought he was a dangerous breed. A second Supreme Court Case in 2006 saved another dog in Logan City and exposed the 22 point checklist, used by Councils across Queensland to identify dangerous breeds, as seriously flawed and may be misidentifying innocent family dogs form all over the state. Mr.Willis says Gympie Regional Council dog control officers contiued to use the 22 point checklist, the same test that misidentified Rusty in Redcliffe: even after Councils own legal form King and Company alerted them and other Qld Councils to its inherent problems in 2006. The dog owner said all he wanted form Council was an apology for staff actions, an assurance Gympie Regional Council would not use the 22 point checklist as a means to harrass any other innocent dogs, in the region and to leave his family alone. But Mr. Willis claims instead of apologising the Council tried to intimidate him by getting lawyers to do there bidding. "Unfortunately this leaves me know other action , but to do the same," Mr.Willis said. A Gympie Regional Council spokesman said they have been using the 22 point checklist as a tool to identify banned dog breeds since 2002, but wasn't destroying dogs. He said the Council hadn't banned dangerous breeds like some other Councils, but owners had to comply with the sate legislation. Gympie Regional Council Chief executive officer Ken Mason said he wouldn't comment on Court action but all Council was asking Mr. Willis to do was be a responsible dog owner, register his pet and keep it under control. Mr. Mason said Council had decided to take know further action against Rusty because it is hard to positively identify the dog. Mr. Willis has applied to Council under the Freedom of Information Act for over 200 documents relating to Gympie Regional Council officers alleged harassment. GYMPIE TIMES QLD 30TH OCT.2008. CRAIG WARHURST. DOG IDENTITY TEST "MORALLY WRONG" Up to 15,000 innocent dogs from all over Queensland may have been put down because of the flawed 22 point checklist used to identify American pit bull terriers according to paralegal researcher John Mokomoko. Mr. Mokomoko spoke to The Gympie times from his Gold Coast office this week after helping Daryn Willis in his fight against the Gympie Regional Council. He said the 22 point identity test used by the Qld Councils, including the Gympie Regional Council, where a dog scoring 45 points and over out of 66 is declared an American pit bull terrier and euthanased, was flawed and 'MORALLY WRONG'. He cited two Supreme Court Cases and advice from Gympie Regional Council's own law firm, King and Co, to support his claims and warned councilors and officers they could be up for tens of thousand of dollars in damages claims for dogs misidentified, harassed or killed under the system. 'King & Company (legal firm) had advised councils back in 2006 to investigate other ways to identify prohibited breeds rather than the 22 point checklist test, 'Mr. Mokomoko said. 'Its impossible to visually look at a dog and determine what type it is because so many cross breeds can look similar to American pit bulls. 'I can list at least four cases in Gympie we know of since then (2006), where people have had animals put down because of the test. 'That's taking someone's property and destroying it under false pretences,' he said. Mr.Mokomoko said pet owners could only stop the destruction orders by taking councils to court and for ordinary people the cost made it inpossible. The researcher said he had turned over 32 cases of misidentification of restricted breeds in South East Qld during the past three years and he has six law firms ready to work on the test case. 'Daryn Willis isn't vindictive,' Mr.Mokomoko said. 'He has been pushed to far and doesn't want this to happen to anyone else. Gympie Regional Council pushed it right to the limit. 'We were prepared to except an apology and assurance that they would stop using the 22 point checklist and self trained identification experts. He was prepared to let things drop, but they went too far,' he said. http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b7.... tybrax

Why the Change? Civil Action. http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/About_the_d...ty/misfeasance/ The Bill. http://www.cairns.qld.gov.au/content/counc...p&e_cl6.pdf Hi Melp l do have stats from a couple years ago, l will see if l can get an update. Chrissie aka tybrax

Edition B - MainFRI 10 OCT 2008, Page 007 New Bill has few teeth for savage dogs Back to the bad old days as changes loosen leash By by Geoff Chambers council reporter DANGEROUS cross-bred dogs, including the notorious American pitbull terrier, could be allowed to run free on the Gold Coast under new state laws. Council heavies are perplexed by plans to overhaul the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Bill, which would weaken restrictions on dangerous dogs. The changes would make it tougher for council officers to keep track of pure-bred and cross-bred dogs and leave the council in the dark on the declaration of dangerous dogs. Dog owners could also cop bigger infringement fines, with a ..wandering at large' charge increasing from $75 to $220 and dangerous dog fines increasing from $375 to $1760. Robina councillor and pet expo convener Jan Grew said the victims of dog attacks would be ..outraged' if the relaxation was adopted. An animal lover, Cr Grew revealed that she and her Jack Russell dog had been involved in an attack this week. She said the proposed Bill would remove the ability to prohibit restricted dogs and those dog owners would be able to undermine the system, similar to the ..bad old days'. ....These mooted changes would be horrendous for any person who has been involved in a dog attack,'' said Cr Grew. ....They would be sickened and appalled by this piece of legislation. ....The community expects that council delivers a stringent animal management service and to change this would be outrageous. ....I was involved in a dog attack with my Jack Russell and we need to keep check on what dogs are out there and the types of owners allowed to keep these dogs. '' Council CEO Dale Dickson will write to Local Government Minister Warren Pitt outlining the councillors' fears about the Bill including the removal of cross-breeds from the restricted dog list and the removal of the prohibition on restricted dogs being kept and sold. Mr Dickson will also ask the State Government to re-consider its fine increases because dog owners responded better to smaller fines. Councillors have told The Bulletin they are worried that the State Government will ignore their concerns. In 2004, there were 550 attacks by dogs on the Coast but that figure has dropped dramatically over the years. Mayor Ron Clarke said attacks on humans have also dramatically dropped since the banning of dangerous breeds. ....It is not a question of just limiting this to pure breeds. It is the cross- breeds that are the real worry,'' he said. ....From what officers tell me they are the big problem and the most dangerous. There is no pure-bred registry. ....So basically according to this Bill, there are no restrictions on breeding, keeping or on-selling of these dogs. '' He said dogs including the pitbull and savage cross-breeds must be included in any restricted dog list. Council officers would also be removed by the Bill from the process of declaring a dangerous dog. The Bill supports a blanket approach, where officers would not look at attacks on a ..case by case' basis. ....This is just another case of bureaucracy gone mad,'' said Cr Clarke. GO THE FOUR MOUSEKETEERS TYBRAX

On the 13The Sep.2008 l lost my beautiful girl was given her wings. The Queen of BSL was 12 years old and my greatest inspiration in fighting BSL. To my darling girl we love you and will always cherish you. Forever in our hearts. Reunited the her man Brax. Your loving mum and family xxxxxxxxxxx Michelle aka amlovinya and Chrissie aka tybrax Tybrax and son Chris aka Peewee. tybrax

Sorry forgot to add we have a solictor that goes pron bono for us. Also if your dog scores under 45 the dog is safe, scoring over 45 your dog is deemed a pit bull type. Queensland Government copied your laws. Tybrax

Thank you for your comments here is our website feel free to read the true stories also the 22 checklist truth. ACO D.P. descredited herself in Court she states she taught herself of the internet and she went on to train all ACO in Qld. Self proclaimed expert. http://www.victimsofbsl.com/ tybrax and Jon.

22 point checklist. Ratings - 0 - Does not comply NB :- (comment required) 1 - Partly Complies 2 - Substantially Complies 3 - Fully Complies Body Part Rating Please make comments 1. Head - medium in length and is brick wedge shaped 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ Councils have added wedge 2. Head shape - has a skull shape which is flat and widest at the ears with prominent cheeks free from wrinkles 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 3. Muzzle - square, wide and deep 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 4. Muzzle - well pronounced jaws, displaying strength 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 5. Upper teeth - meet tightly over lower teeth (scissor bite) 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 6. Ears - set high on the head and free from wrinkles 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 7. Eyes - round to almond 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ Councils have added almond 8. Eyes - set far apart, low down on the skull 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 9. Nose - wide open flared nostrils 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ Councils have added flared 10. Neck - muscular and slightly arched 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 11. Neck - tapers from shoulder to head 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 12. Neck - free from looseness of skin 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 13. Shoulders - strong and muscular with wide sloping shoulder blades 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 14. Back - short and strong 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 15. Back - slightly sloping from withers to rump 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 16. Back - slightly arched at the loins with the loins slightly tucked 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 17. Chest - deep, but not too broad, with well wide sprung ribs 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ Council add well 18. Tail - short in comparison to the size of the dog, tapers to a fine point and not carried over the back and dose not extend beyond the hocks 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ Council added Does not extend over hocks 19. Legs - medium to large, round boned and reasonably strong 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 20. Feet – of medium size should be in proportion to leg size 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ Council have added should be proportion to leg size 21. Thighs - well developed muscles 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 22. Coat - short and stiff to touch 0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __ 23. Height - from withers to ground ____________cm 24. Common photo match Yes____ No____ Total Points: _________/66 Officers Comments:....................................................................... ........... Vet Name:........................................................................... ....................... Qualifications:................................................................. ........................... Veterinary Stamp or Staple Business Card........................................... So many dog would fit the criteria of this piece of rubbish. tybrax

BANNED- BREED FIGHTER CAST CHECKLIST DOUBT. BY BRENT MELVILLE LOCAL SUN 16TH SEPT. 2008. Gold Coast City Council officers have been warned they could face personal civil damages in Court if they continue to use a 22 point checklist to impound "restricted- breed" dogs. The warning comes from a Gold Coast paralegal and Security firm operater, Jon Mokomoko, who is campaigning against municipal bylaws banning the pit bull terrier dogs. He maintains the 22 point checklist being used by councils if fraudulent and cites two Court cases and advice from a Brisbane law firm, King and Company, which specialises in local government matters, to support his claim. He said Gold Coast council, Logan,Redcliffe councils had all lost cases, proving the 22 point checklist was seriously flawed. Mr.Mokomoko warned senior Gold Coast council officers that Councillors that damages could run into "tens of thousands of dollars" for individual actions. "The Gold Coast Council probaly has destroyed 70 to 80 dogs using the "checklist" he said. "Thats taking someone's private property and destroying it under false pretences." The Gold Coast Council last week refused to comment on the issue. Mr. Mokomoko said he had overturned nine cases of restricted - breed rulings on the Gold Coast over the past 3 years and 23 other in South east Qld. One such case was reported by the Sun in Feburary this year when Mr.Mokomoko used security camera's to film council animal control officers using the 22 point checklist on a dog at Currumbin owned by Fiona Gibson. Two animal control officers declared the American Staffordshire dog to be a banned pit bull terrier. But following Mr.Mokomoko's intervention they later told Ms. Gibson the dog's score sheet had been "recalculated" and did no qualify as a pit bull. Mr.Mokomoko said anyone who had a dog identified as a restricted breed by the Council using the 22 point checklist "cannot lose" if they contact him and followed his advice. "King and Company (solictors) have told the Councils to stop using the checklist until it is validated,"he said. "But they are still using it and l'am advising dog owners affected by it to take civil action if officers continue to use it. "These officers could be sued for MISFEASANCE and, under Qld law, council officers do not have indemnity and this has been made clear in a notice on the website of the Department of Premier and Cabinet." The state Government confirmed 'the State may not be liable for its actions of its officers which ammount to MISFEASANCE. TYBRAX R.I.P. My beautiful girl Tyra. xx

RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES http://www.povn.com/rdows e-mail rdows@... Cherie Graves, chairwoman 323922 N. Hwy 2 Newport, WA 99156 (509)447-2821 paragon@... Hermine Stover, secretary, press liaison 23280 Stephanie, Perris, CA 92570 hermine@... California Director, Jan Dykema bestuvall@... Colorado Director, Nick Van Duren checknick@... POSITION STATEMENT ON THE USE OF BREED STANDARDS IN BSL Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States is opposed to the inclusion of dog breed standards in breed specific legislation for the following reasons: Breed standards are not public domain, but are owned by either the respective breed parent organizations, or by the dog registry. American Kennel Club registered dogs’ breed standards are owned by their respective parent club. All of the other dog registries in the United States own copyright to the breed standards of the dogs that they register. Their utilization in breed specific legislation is a copyright infringement, and is an illegal usage. Breed standards are an ideal, not a mold. Only the most perfect specimens of any breed of dog will conform to its breed standard. Breed standards were not intended to be used as breed recognition devices, but as a gauge of quality for dogs when be judged in licensed conformation dog shows. The only way to determine if any dog is of a specific breed is through registration, and pedigree. Breed standards are for the intended usage of breeders to determine sound, healthy stock, and for licensed dog show judges who are trained, and tested in the understanding of the nuances of the breed standards for making dog show placements at events sanctioned by dog registries. Veterinarians are not trained in breed identification, they are trained in veterinary medicine. Veterinarians are not qualified to make breed determinations as are required in many breed specific ordinances. Parent organizations holding copyrights to breed standards, and those registries that hold copyrights have cease and desist letters available to be sent to cities, counties, or municipalities whose codes, or ordinances include improper usage of said copyrighted materials. Contact the following to report violations. American Dog Breeders Association adba@... United Kennel Club doglaw@... American Kennel Club to reach parent organizations DOGLAW@... All American Dog Registry aadrlegislation@... Contact RDOWS we will send out our Model Dog Owner Regulations, and our Position Statements to any city, county, or municipality. I am not sure if this has been posted, the Qld Government use the UKC breed standards to identify pit bulls. tybrax

Thank you for all your warm welcomes, Sarah its me from BBOL. I was lead to this forum by Amanda from EDDR we have had contact over a couple years regarding BSL. tybrax

Hello my name is tybrax and l hail from Queensland Australia. My website's are called Victims of BSL. The true stories of families that have suffered at the hands of the councils. http://www.geocities.com/tybrax1/ tybrax