Lazor and Nick Josevski contributed to Ayen Chol’s death in 2011, according to Victorian Coroner Kim Parkinson.
Parkinson found the owners of “Rex”, an American Pit Bull, failed to follow existing laws requiring their dog be registered, desexed, microchipped and secured at their property.
Ayen died in her St. Albans home in 2011 when Rex escaped through an open door from his owners property. Rex attacked Ayne’s aunt and 5 year old cousin before turning on her.
In a statement released through their attorney, Ayen’s family said, “Ayen died because the dog owners failed to comply with the law.”
Coroner Parkinson has recommended that criminal sanctions apply to breeders of restricted breed dogs and that the onus of establishing whether a dog is classified as such rest on the woner rather than on authorities. She also recommended mandatory reporting by veterinarians of any restricted breed or suspected restricted breed dog which is unregistered, not desexed and not microchipped as required by law.
Ayen’s family asked the Government through their statement released by Attorney Ike Nwokolo, “I would encourage and ask on behalf of the family that the government put in place the recommendations.”
According to the coroner’s report, Zlate Lazarovski supplied Rex to his cousin Nick, therefore also contributing to Ayen’s death because he knew the dog breed was restricted and his breeding was unauthorized.
The Australian Veterinary Association did not support mandatory reporting of restricted breeds by Veterinarians, saying it is not possible to definitively identify a pit bull and stated the recommendations could discourage owners from seeking care for their animals leading them to suffer needlessly.
Manchester Sued Over Dog Ordinance
In a recently filed lawsuit, a resident claims Manchester’s pitbull ordinance is unconstitutional and vague.
By Carlos Restrepo
August 10, 2012
[... Manchester resident] McRoberts said in the lawsuit that her dogs were only characterized by Manchester police as “vicious” based on their appearance, not the actual breed or behavior of the dogs. The lawsuit states that appearance is subjective and open to interpretation, which gives Manchester too much discretion over what constitutes a vicious dog.
“…and thus violates the plaintiff’s constitutional rights (of due process),” the lawsuit states. [...]
McRoberts seeks for the court to declare Manchester’s ordinance unconstitutional and to be refunded for expenditures relating to this lawsuit. [...]
Full article retrieved 8/12/12 from http://townandcountry-manchester.patch.com/articles/manchester-sued-over-dog-ordinance
Posted in Breed Identification, Court Cases, Missouri, Results of BSL
Tagged animal control, breed specific legislation, city council, court, dangerous, dog, ordinance, pit bull
After nearly two years, an Oshawa dog owner has won a legal battle with the city. Animal control identified her nonaggressive dog as a “pit bull” and scheduled it for death; she fought the breed ID in court and finally won.
Ontario Bill 16 would repeal the “pit bull” ban and put a stop to senseless legal nightmares like this. If you have not already written to Ontario lawmakers to show your support for Bill 16, please do so today. (If you have, please continue to do so.)
‘Pit bull’ dispute: Oshawa woman wins battle to keep dog from being euthanized
Alyshah Hasham, Staff Reporter
If Scarlett is a pit bull she dies, if she is a Rhodesian ridgeback-boxer cross she lives.
Differentiating the two took a year-and-a-half-long legal battle for Scarlett’s owner Jane Nolan after Oshawa animal services workers labelled the dog a pit bull when she escaped into a neighbour’s yard. [...]
Since the pit bull isn’t considered a breed of dog in Canada — it’s a generic term used in the Dog Owner’s Liability Act to ban breeds like Staffordshire bull terriers or even dogs resembling them — it can be near impossible to identify them, even for vets.
“There is no scientific basis to assess whether a dog is a pit bull or not … Veterinarians, some will identify them, some don’t feel comfortable identifying them,” said Jerry Conlin, director of municipal law enforcement and licensing in Oshawa. [...]
Full article retrieved 4/29/12 from http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1168114–pit-bull-dispute-oshawa-woman-wins-battle-to-keep-dog-from-being-euthanized
Posted in Breed Identification, Canada, Results of BSL
Tagged animal control, ban, breed specific legislation, city council, dangerous, dog, legislation, legislature, pit bull, statewide
Waterford woman working to change township pit bull ban
Published: Friday, December 16, 2011
By CAROL HOPKINS, firstname.lastname@example.org
When Mary Dunham received a ticket from Waterford Township for having a pit bull in mid-October, she felt like a victim. [...]
A $170 DNA test on 6-year-old Keane that came back three weeks later showed him to be a Labrador-boxer mix.
[...] That incident has spurred her to try and change the township’s pit bull ban and create the Oakland County Dog Ownership Group and Specialists (ODOGS) support group.
Dunham, along with 10 supporters, have been meeting to discuss alternate ideas for Waterford.
“We’re pushing to get responsible pet ownership in place of the pit bull ban,” she said. [...]
People who wish to learn more can email the ODOGS group at email@example.com.
The Facebook page can be found at www.facebook.com/pages/ODOGS-Oakland-Co-Dog-Ownership-Group-and-Specialist/308483512515529
Full article and video can be found here: http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2011/12/16/news/local_news/doc4eea8e331c535130545284.txt?viewmode=fullstory
Contact info for city officials
Waterford Board of Trustees, 5200 Civic Center Drive, Waterford, MI 48329
Online contact form: http://twp.waterford.mi.us/Reference-Desk/Comments-Suggestions.aspx
City Clerk Kari Vlaeminck, (248) 674-6266
Fax (248) 674-5466
Posted in Breed Identification, Michigan, Proposal to Repeal, Results of BSL
Tagged animal control, ban, breed specific legislation, city council, community, dog, meeting, ordinance, pit bull
Another sad case in Ontario, where a dog’s physical appearance determines whether it lives or dies. It took a warrant and four police officers, in addition to the animal control officer, to seize a pet dog that “appears to be” a pit bull. The burden of proof of innocence is now on the owner, who must prove that the dog is NOT a “pit bull.”
Dog lovers protest breed ban after pet seized
By PETE FISHER, NORTHUMBERLAND TODAY
Updated 1 day ago
COBOURG/PORT HOPE -Punish the deed, not the breed: that was the message of a protest Saturday in front of the Northumberland County courthouse in Cobourg.
Tracey Van Slyke organized the protest after Animal Control officer Ross Barth and four Port Hope Police officers served a warrant at her home on Wednesday, March 9, and subsequently seized her 11-month-old dog, Chaos.
Officers said Chaos appears to be a pit bull, and therefore falls under banned breed legislation which states that no pit bulls are to be born after the legislation was enacted in August 2005.[...]
“I don’t believe I ever had an illegal dog,” Van Slyke said at Saturday’s protest.
[...] Barth said he has to act under the law when a complaint is made, and if the owners can prove the animal is not a pit bull it would be released back to them.
“I can’t say whether I agree with the law or not,” he said. “That’s not for me to decide. The law is in place and I have to enforce the law.”
Barth said nobody involved in this incident wants to see the dog destroyed, “but we know if the court decides we have no option.”[...]
Full article retrieved 3/15/11 from http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3024723
Breed identification, which must be performed in places with breed-specific legislation, is a subjective process. In this case, the owners of Lennox not only have a DNA breed-ID test that proves Lennox’s genetic makeup, the city had licensed Lennox (meaning, they did not consider him a banned breed) for over five years. Dog owners living in places with BSL can never be sure that their dog won’t be targeted.
To learn more about how to save Lennox, visit http://www.savelennox.co.uk
Owner of death row dog Lennox tells of her family’s agony
Monday, 15 November 2010
Family fight to save their pet seized by wardens
The heartbroken owner of a pet dog which has been living on ‘death row’ for six months is still waiting to learn its fate after it was seized because it was deemed to be a dangerous breed.
Caroline Barnes said that six-year-old Lennox is a cross between an American bulldog and a Labrador crossed with a Staffordshire bull terrier.
However, staff from Belfast City Council called at her home in May, using what she alleges was a warrant for a different address, and impounded him after he was deemed to be a banned American pit bull terrier-type because of his leg and muzzle measurements.[...]
Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/owner-of-death-row-dog-lennox-tells-of-her-familyrsquos-agony-15004210.html
In April 2010, the owners of an American Staffordshire Terrier named Tango were told that their dog was a banned “pit bull.” Tango had not behaved badly–he was just guilty of looking like a “bad dog.”
Tango’s owners spent $500,000 in their effort to prove that their dog was an American Staffordshire Terrier, not an American Pit Bull Terrier. The court ultimately accepted that their dog was an American Staffordshire Terrier, then ruled that AmStaffs were “pit bulls,” and therefore the dog was banned. Tango was at risk for being killed by the city, so he was relocated.
In September 2010, the local goverment issued a clarification that AmStaffs were not banned “pit bulls.” This meant that Tango and other AmStaffs were allowed to be registered in Gold Coast again. Tango’s owners intend to sue Gold Coast in order to recoup their expenses.
All alerts for Gold Coast: http://stopbsl.com/?s=gold+coast
Dogfight continues despite freedom
Jessica Johnston | November 10th, 2010
[...]Tango’s owners John Mokomoko and Kylie Chivers plan to sue the Gold Coast City Council to recover the $500,000 they have spent proving their dog’s breed.[...]
”We’ve spent over $40,000 in kennel fees alone and we didn’t break the law.”[...]
She said they would be attempting to recover costs from Council for the botched banishment.
”They owe us… for six years AmStaffs were allowed to live here, he was registered, desexed, microchipped.
”They really singled us out.”[...]
Full article retrieved 11/10/10 from http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2010/11/10/269731_gold-coast-news.html