How Can Peter Frost (dogs Vic President) Support These Terrible La

[mikebailey]

This week Victorian Parliament will be debating the Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010. It affects all dogs and their owners in Victoria.

My response to it can be viewed here.

Peter Frost, president of Dogs Victoria, has been involved in the consultative process over this Bill. He's even on the state's Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. So why is he publicly proclaiming his support of the Bill and telling his members that,

"These new laws should not provide a threat to DOGS Victoria members or any dog owners who responsibly care for their dogs in this manner."

- Peter Frost, Dogs Victoria President

Any owner, no matter how careful, can have a dog escape (tradesman or visitor leaves gate open, thunderstorm or fireworks scare dog). Fines of up to $1195 should not be given to responsible owners for a rare accident. An owner who is late in paying their registration renewal should not be fined up to $2395. This is also over the top for a minor offence. How much is the fine for running a red light? Which is more serious?

The 'pit bull' provisions in the Bill present a risk to other breeds. The Bill allows that dogs fitting a description for 'pit bulls' will be treated as pit bulls, even if they are mixed breeds. It does not exclude AmStaffs or other breeds that look similar from being declared Pit Bulls.

How can Peter Frost and Dogs Victoria support this Bill? They claim to only represent their members however in this instance I believe they are letting their members down. By sitting on the AWAC, Peter Frost should be working for the welfare of all dogs, not just purebreds.

I'm sure a lot of Dogs Victoria members will be disappointed in the way their leader is handling this.

- Mike

Edited May 24, 2010 by mikebailey