Therefore, the Govt did not rescind the power for councils to add breeds at will, they made it state law, and so automatic—a greater threat than existed previously!

Yet CCCQ is pressing ahead in assisting implementation of the Breed Specific Legislation, and it can only be assumed this is due to the 'Catch 22' situation it has placed itself into Do nothing to assist and ANKC breeds may be added to the restrictions. Assist and still ANKC breeds may be added in certain shires and spread from there!

EDBA finds the break away from ANKC policy by the CCCQ supporting BSL to be totally unacceptable and deserving of censure from ANKC and other state canine bodies.

Mr Vickers, we ask you-- 

1. Exactly what is meant by "a positive contribution to public safety?” Does CCCQ have evidence unavailable to anyone else that the dogs restricted are the main cause of public risk? The government statistics referred to by the Premier, maintained at Gold Coast show otherwise, represented 1.8% of the attackers, while some ANKC breeds are as high as 18%. Mr Vickers, please tell us how this will stop attacks from the other 98.2% of dogs? And tell us how it will prevent the 80% of bites which occur in the home or nearby, with the family or a known dog, when children under 10 are most at risk?? Most of all, tell us where you obtained research that restricting dogs by breed is a successful public safety measure—it has failed in every country of the world where it has been introduced! 
2. ”Safeguarding member interests …etc“, would seem to mean showing how the restricted dogs differ from the similar ANKC breeds. There seems no other possible interpretation in light of no further explanation from Mr Vickers. 

But Mr Vickers, just WHO  is going to safeguard the interests of dog owners who are NOT CCCQ members in Qld.?? 

Again, we question knowledge of CCCQ:

1. What is a “pitbull”? The restricted dogs other than these types barely exist in our society so this law relates to the type of dog termed Pit Bull in the media. This is not a breed, it is a name given to a ”look” and many crossbred dogs look like this. So are CCCQ judges, in defiance of all credibility, so versed in possible dog breed combinations as to be termed “crossbreed experts”? That would indeed be remarkable if it could be believed! Further, are the 4 judges helping with the implementation UKC registered and ANKC registered? As the ANKC makes strong arguments to dis-associate from the American Pit Bull Terrier. Or do they just consider an attitude of close enough is good enough, while labelling family pets for destruction?  
2. No. The President of CCCQ will ask his judges to highlight “CCC registration certificates and ways to check on dog registrations and Microchips..” according to his message. But wouldn't local councils know about registration and microchips??? Isn't it naive again, to underestimate the black market in dog papers, pedigree forgery or dog substitution?? He fails to emphasise they will outline the points of the registered “bull” breeds, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the Amstaff, in particular, and by doing this, they will leave open the interpretation of other types/looks, so they will actually contribute to positive identifications of “pitbulls” to be restricted, seized and destroyed. Also, as the Breed clubs were anxiously seeking information and photographs recently, in their endeavour to make an American Staffordshire Terrier booklet in readiness for these training sessions, the close resemblance between APBT and AST, from common ancestry, has escaped nobody!  It appears a threat to the breed “cousin” of the restricted breed has motivated CCCQ into some sort of “quid pro quo” with the government. But will it last??? 

In 1991 the Commonwealth moved to ban importation of four breeds of dogs into Australia, including the American Pit Bull Terrier. The intention was thwarted, however, because of the lack of a standard breed definition as the breed is known by several names and continued to be imported into Australia as American Staffordshire Terrier, cross Labrador, etc. 

Australia is now home to many dogs which might be defined as 'pit bull type', including any breed or cross breed of dog which has been bred for fighting characteristics. If legislation in New South Wales was introduced to ban the breeds of dogs most commonly involved in attacks then German Shepherd Dogs, Rottweilers and Australian Cattle Dogs would be much higher on the list than 'pit bulls'.

Please refer to the law, which enables local shires to set restrictions higher than the new regulations and ADD BREEDS AT WILL, and refer to the Gold Coast Bulletin feature in 1996, called “The Bad Seeds” with a call for 6  ANKC breeds to be outlawed!
This law cannot be overridden and when dog attacks do not cease under these measures, the experience from overseas shows governments traditionally increase the numbers of breeds banned. So---CCCQ ”Sacrificing” Pit Bull dogs may make no difference in time to the BSL outcome in Qld.!

It would seem in light of the above statement and many others the EDBA has on our record the days of the AmStaff & Staffordshire Bull Terrier are numbered. Further the move by the QCCC to assist and support BSL may well be at the detriment to ANKC breeds and certainly innocent crossbreeds. When the council (ACOs) and QCCC Judges wrongly identify more than 50% of Non APBT, their image in the eye of the public will be permanently damaged as the custodians of the Canine race. Who in the QCCC is going to step up and be the Jan Eaches of Australia? This man, an RSPCA inspector in the UK, caused irreparable damage to the name of the RSPCA by helping with the enforcement of the DDA. As their top Pit Bull inspector he was on average responsible for a 50% success rate with identification of the APBT. Is that success rate or failure??? These are innocent dogs and owners lives you are playing with!!!

It is interesting to note that the President's message contains advice for clubs to establish and maintain regular contact with their local govt officials—is this to offer subjective identification of dogs? To try to gain special treatment for the CCCQ dogs?

How very sad—it takes a situation such as innocent family pets being seized under restrictive legislation—and consequent fear of pure breed misidentification. It has not taken love of dogs or support of responsible owners, one notices for the CCCQ to promote liaison of dog clubs with their local councils?

One final point—the CCCQ President notes other states have similar laws, as if this makes the actions of the canine organisation legitimate Are actions not to be based on policy and reliable data any more? 

Is the AVA policy and the ANKC  policy of “punish the deed not the breed”  overridden by the fact that ALP governments in Qld. and Vic choose to enact BSL simultaneously?  Would this apply to any other proposed canine regulation?

Should the Qld. govt apply resources to widespread seizure of restricted dogs, there will be a repeat of the suffering, litigation and costs in UK and Germany---the RSPCA lost its public following in the UK as a result of its support, the AKC was long behind the other active canine organisations in USA in trying to stop BSL measures, and owners are marshalling in Germany What will be the position then of the CCCQ? Will the QCCC support the same restrictions on ANKC breeds if they are proposed for restriction at state or Local Government Levels? As the Government and general public will see them as Hypocritical if they do not! As many ANKC breeds already rate higher in the statistics.

One possible answer We suggest they may resign when it becomes clear their actions are elitist to the common dog owner, and they have played a part in condemning innocent family pets. Over 80% of dogs are crossbreeds. 

Other special interest groups
CANINE CONTROL COUNCIL MEMBERS 

As a result of the dog's role in society or their owners' circumstances, many categories of dog owners apply for and receive reduced registration fees. Canine Control Councils have repeatedly sought and sometimes gained reduced fees for their members, based on a belief that being a member of that organisation equates with being a more responsible dog owner than other dog owners in the community. However, an analysis of any council complaint or behavioural clinic records will show that Canine Control Council members are generally no better at managing their dogs' behaviour, nor is having a pedigree dog any reason to believe it is less likely to bite than a crossbred. 

Reduced registration fees should not be given to "professional breeders" in an organisation whose preferred practices are counter-productive to reducing serious animal management problems, such as dog attacks on people. 
Questionable breeding and management practises that perpetuate animal management problems include: 

• Breeding to a physical and not a behavioural standard. Shy and aggressive dogs are often bred from because of their fashionable lines and good conformation, and then sold as pets to unsuspecting owners.  
• Non-sterilisation of surplus breeding stock.  
• The sale of aged, poorly socialised kennelled dogs and bitches.  
• The sale of pups at the most economical and not the most behaviourally suitable time.  
• The breeding of thousands of the guarding type breeds that are responsible for many attacks on people, and failing to provide information and assistance on preventing and managing this problem.  

Many authors have questioned the dubious genetic manipulations of breeders and the proliferation of hereditary diseases in pedigree dogs (Wolfensohn 1981, Willis 1991). The public should also be made aware of the negative behavioural consequences of some of these practices. 

Although crossbred dogs are prominent in public bite statistics, this reflects their numbers in the population and the level of care and supervision they are given, and not the typical behavioural profile of the crossbreed. In private homes pedigree dogs are responsible for as many attacks on people as crossbreeds (Wright 1991). It could be that this is caused by promoting dominant characteristics in such dogs as a result of standards set for the show ring.