Pit Bull Exile Over Gold Coast

[tybrax]

Pitbull exile over
23Aug05

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

[tybrax]

please met Gena and Oshiris

[tybrax]

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.

lgaq comment

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

[tybrax]

To all who read this think before you start celebrating a win, council will let all dogs back to the state as long as you declare your pet to be a restricted dog,(Pit bull), thus relieving the council of any possible compensation claim for misidentifing your dog and the subsequent cost that you have incurred.

They have admitted they have got it wrong and are at fault, and are trying to worm out of its responsibility to compensate for thier conduct, they will claim they did not know what they were doing was wrong, they are innocent over worked victims as well.

The Gold Coast Council has been updated and informed what they were doing was illegal and fraudulant, for the past 16 months, with pressure put on them through members of the state Government, the Ombudsman, the courts and the information Commissioner brought about by myself.

Should anyone wish assistance in processing a compensation claim against the Gold Coast City Council I will be happy to supply the necessary paperwork to complete your claim.

John Mokomoko
jmoko2@hotmail.com

chrissie
tybrax1@msn.com