HOW DOES YOUR DOG RATE

Below is video footage of 2 Gold Coast City Council ACO's performing the Check List

Click here for Part 1

Click here for Part 2

Click here for Part 3

"LOGAN CITY COUNCIL CHECK LIST"

VETS LETTER

Thank you for letter re the Councils Breed Identification checklist. The Council's Breed specific Legislation makes no sense at all. The checklist they have produced makes no sense at all. I have spoken to the Council directly about this matter in reference to 2 of my own client's dogs. One identification was successfully overturned and the other was not. The Breed Specific Legislation itself is flawed. It has been proven that BSL does not reduce the incidence of dog bites. In fact a UK study in 1991 compared the number of bites before BSL was introduced in a particular region. The conclusion from the study was that there was no impact on the number of dog bites. However litigation due to dog bit injuries almost doubled.

In answer to your questions.

1/ NO. This checklist is totally unworkable. It was constructed by paraphrasing a breed standard description from a breed society. It is not scientific or repeatable or consistent.

2/ NO. There are too many genetic factors on the list. for example point 5 "Upper teeth meet tightly over teeth (scissor bite)'-All DOGS HAVE THIS DESIGN UNLESS THEY HAVE A DEFORMED JAW. Therefore 80% of dogs score a 3 point. 7 "Eyes round to almond "- Eyeballs are all round. The opening made by the eyelids is always an almond or oval shape. In fact the following points on the checklist are all genetic and therefore a meaningless method of distinguishing one breeds from the other. Points 5,7,10,11,15,and 16. (l wrote a letter to the council about this matter a while ago. After this they changed the point system because l stated that no BRICK l have ever seen is shaped like a dogs head. They added the word WEDGE and underlined it after this. I still don't understand what they are trying to get at) the other problem with the list is the vague descriptions offered. Very few points on the list are quantitative which makes it useless.

3/ This is not true. I believe that this specific piece of legislation has never been fully challenged in a Court setting. I know that the ruling was overturned for one of my clients. I also believe that if it were properly challenged in Court that is would fail. It fails a common sense test, it is not quantitative and the very legislation they are trying to enforce (BSL) does not reduce the number of attacks, nor does it target the breeds that cause the most bites.

4/ Not to a quantitative level and certainly not using the list. The 2 breeds come from the same stock. Essential there is very little difference and a large degree of cross over. Anyway this is not the point. The AVA and others have stated the position of BAN THE DEED NOT THE BREED. The last line in the whole point of the problem. Banning one breed of dog will never reduce the number or severity of dog attacks. Most dog attacks are caused by the family pet biting an owner. All breeds are represented in this category so banning one of them is not going to make a difference. The other stupidity of this Legislation is that the Councils have chosen to ban breeds based on emotion and media exposure rather than any logical thought. If you were going to ban a breed to reduce dog attacks what would you do?

I would first collect data about the last several years of dog attacks in my area, list the breeds involved and ban the top 5. This list would not include the Pit bull terrier or Staffy in any Shire in the country. The German Shepard And Australian Cattle dog would be well above these breeds even when correcting for population size .etc. I don't know what council would have the guts to BAN the Australian cattle dog. This begs the question - Is this legislation a political response based on emotions rather than a well thought out approach to dog control and protecting the public?

I am all for controlling any dog that is aggressive or a threat to public health. In fact l would be happily see a zero tolerance approach taken against any dog of any breed that bites either human or an animal regardless the circumstances. There is no need for any dog to bite a person or an animal and cause injury. If they do so even once l believes they should be destroyed. Police and guard dogs all fall under this same ruling. They can be well trained to subdue someone without causing great harm. There is already good dog legislation in place. I believe the Council should spend energy enforcing existing rules and forget about BSL as it is a waste of time and resources.

DR. Jamie Mulchay.

"GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL CHECK LIST"

 

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 (3.2) head RATIO	0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __
2. Head Shape- has a wedged shaped skull 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 slightly over lower teeth (scissor bite).	0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __
6. Ears- set high on head and free from wrinkles.	0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __
7. Eyes- round to almond (eye appear triangular).	0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __
8. Eyes- set apart, low down on skull.	0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __
9. Nose- wide open nostrils.	0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __
10. Neck- muscular and slightly arched.	0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __
11. Neck – Tapers from shoulder to head (neck straight)	0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __
12. Neck – free from looseness of skin.	0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __
13. Shoulders – strong, muscular with wide sloping shoulder blades	0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __
14. Loin –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 loins slightly tucked	0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __
17. Chest – deep, but not to broad, with well sprung ribs	0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __
18. Tail –short in comparison to the size of the dog, tapers to a fine point and not carried over the back	0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __
19. Legs- medium to large, round boned and reasonably strong	0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __
20. Feet- of medium size	0__ 1__ 2 __ 3 __
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 , Fenstermacher (1996 pp. 84,133) YES	Yes____  No____
25. Weight- 30kg.

Reference UKC Breed Standard , date viewed 25/11/06.
Fenstermacher T1996, American Pit bull Terriers, T.F.H. Publications, The United States of America.