sumosmum

Nah Erny, I agree the whole thing is just one big mess and very confusing. I have heard so much rubbish from the Gov on this, and they don't know what they are talking about half the time. They won't even answer questions that are quite simple about their own Act that they have rushed through parliament. The reason for this I suspect, is they just don't know the answer. They rushed this through so quickly, and it is a catastrophe waiting to happen IMO. The above is only what I think it is, but I don't know if it is how it is or not. And of course, this is all open for the councils to also have their own understanding of what it all means, and that is where the real problems will start. I just hope that owners who may get stung, don't just believe what the councils are telling them until they have fully confirmed it. And if the councils are doing the wrong thing, I hope these owners will take things further and get the facts. That way, eventually, things will have to be looked at again. But all this is going to take a long time I think, and a lot of heartache for some poor owners. I am not sure, but I think the individual councils can make their own decisions on having certain dogs in their areas. Such as, certain breeds, even the ones that are not restricted by the state government with bylaws. Someone else may be able to confirm that. I think it may have happened in some areas in Queensland maybe. OT, Erny, I hope you are feeling well and getting stronger. :D

I think that interview was just after the incident where the little girl died. I personally think Neill Mitchell is an idiot, but anyway, from what I can see, they are talking about dogs that aren't registered at all. The way I am reading it, and I hope this is the case, if a dog was already registered prior to Sep 30 as something else, and it is declared restricted by the council, the owners can appeal. If the do appeal and lose, or if they don't appeal and accept it, the dog is then put on the Restricted Breed register and is able to be kept according to the regs. DPI Restricted breed info from the above link, From 30 September 2011 it will be an offence for an owner to keep a restricted breed dog if it does not comply with the following conditions - Dog was in Victoria prior to 1 September 2010 and Dog was registered prior to 30 September 2011. and then this From 30 September 2011, the Domestic Animals Act 1994 states that the only restricted breed dogs that can be kept or registered are those that were: in Victoria prior to 1 September 2010 and registered (as any breed) prior to 30 September 2011. From that above, I think it is saying that only dogs already here and registered will be accepted, if declared as RB. Any restricted breed dog purchased, or moving here after 1 Sep 2010, can not be a new registration as a RB, and any other dog not registered at all by 30 Sep 2011 who is declared as RB after that date, can not be registered(brand new registrations not accepted). That is just how I read it. And once again, in the interview, confusion over Dangerous Dog and Restricted Breed dog. I wish someone would tell that Minister that a Dangerous Dog has been declared due to its actions. A Restricted Breed dog has done nothing wrong, and is being judged by the way it looks only. There is a difference!

Hoping and praying for good news tomorrow. Love and hugs to Mindy and her family.

Healing vibes, hugs and prayers for Mindy and her family.

Yes, that is true, I didn't mean that dogs are safe if registering a dog as another breed. It won't be safe. What I meant is that all dogs should be registered and if they are then challenged on breed, they have the right to appeal. If they aren't registered at all, I don't think they have much to fight with.

All dog owners and lovers of all breeds should be involved in this. Not just the bull breeds. Any of these idiots who get dogs to be tough, I would say will now go and deliberately purchase dogs that are outside the standard. Other breeds will be in the firing line in future. This should be a wake up call to all owners. It can happen to their dogs. I think this is going to be a long long battle, but it needs to be opposed and fought. Breed bans won't solve the dog attack problems. They will still happen, but the government won't lose face straight away. They won't give this one up easily, so be prepared, everyone will have to be in this long term. Everyone, with all breeds, or other breeds will be added I think.

I think the advertisement is a disgrace. Snarling dogs in the background. Next thing they will be telling us is that restricted breeds snarl and growl differently than other breeds. Just a disgrace, and more propaganda to lead people to believe breed bans are the answer. A far better advertisement would have been to just make an announcement to all dog owners regarding the new laws. Leave out the bloody dramatics!

No, they are also targeting crossbreed pit bulls, and we don't know really if they need to meet every point on the standard or not. We can't seem to get an answer to this question, so better to assume nobody is okay and safe with this at the moment. And yes, all dogs must be registered as what the owner believes them to be as far as breed is concerned.

Yep and they should be out walking being there in the middle of it when it's happening. I hear there is no funding but a couple of fines a day pays a wage and if they start doing whatthey are supposed to do life for everyone including them becomes much easier. I hear there isnt enough work for them to justify them only working in animal control but if they picked up a bit of prevention and education type duties every one wins. Councils everywhere dont hestiate to tell us that only approx 1 third of all dogs are registered - they just accept it and do nothing about it. Time we started yelling and rallying about it. Yes, I agree,this is part of the problem. I have always thought that the councils are part of the problem. If they had done their jobs properly, we may not have been in this situation. And I have always wondered how they come up with the figures of how many dogs aren't registered. If they can state figures, they must know where these dogs are, so why are they still unregistered? And in my area, the current trend is to walk your dog early in the morning, or after business hours, weekends, with the dog off lead, either running 3 houses ahead or behind the owner. The owner usually sporting the leash around the neck, like some sort of fashion statement. Cracking down on these people would surely cut down the risk of an incident. And when these owners do this with 2 dogs, the problem is worse. They can't grab 2 dogs at once if something does look like happening. Add to that, earphones in the ears, and they don't even realise at times that the dog has caused a problem because the dogs are out of sight and owners don't hear anything.

What about the 'I Disagree with the 2010 Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill!' facebook group? The group has Mike Bailey, a big voice in the issue. No, Mike Bailey's group is Good for Dogs, which is about all dog matters. 'I Disagree with the 2010 Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill!' is mostly about the dog laws in Victoria, but has other dogs stuff at times.

A lot would be rescue dogs too. The AVA have said they have advised their vets to "proceed with caution" regarding the certifying of breeds of dogs. That is what they told me today when I called.

The vet isn't certifying that the dog is not a Dangerous Dog, they would only be commenting on the breed. So that should not be a problem. I have always thought along your lines. If a council worker is accepted as being able to pick a breed or cross, why would the word of a vet not be taken! Same idea, just the other way around. It is actually very honest of AVA to say that they can't pick a breed as we know. They seem to be the ones telling the facts here I think.

With this in mind. This will hurt owners too. Because now how is Melissa Brown (who got the letter from the Council, the letter which is a couple posts above) going to get a Vet Cert saying her dog is an Amstaff and take it to this meeting? So no the AVA won't be helping the Govt but really leaves anyone with crossbreeds in the lurch seeing as they have no one to say there dog isn't a PB. It's a lose lose situation. It is a lose lose situation. Hard to tell from this article, and I am still trying to contact someone at AVA, but if the BAW asked the AVA prior to the act going through, and already had this answer from AVA, why are they allowed to put this in the act. It is a bit like setting us up to fail in my mind. Very misleading.That is my point. Spoke to AVA lady, and she said their vets are advised to proceed with caution and it isn't a good idea to certify breed. She told me to call DPI. DPI Told me that they can certify that a dog isn't a restricted breed, but not have to state a breed. .......don't know about that. She also said that they can tell if a dog is a restricted dog because the tail will not go above the back and they can tell by the teeth!, and she herself has a Amstaff/lab cross!

Rang DPI and was told that a vet can certify that a dog isn't a restricted breed and not have to state the breed. Also was told that an APBT can't get its tail above its back, and they can also tell by the dogs teeth. I asked well what about cross restricted and didn't get any answer. She said that they have not been told that AVA will not certify that dogs are of a certain breed. And they can tell cause of the tail and teeth.

The lady on the phone for AVA said they have advised their vets to proceed with caution. She said it isn't possible to judge a breed on visual exam. She has told me to ring DPI for clarification. So I still don't know if this was told to BAW prior to the Act going through.

In this article, this, The AVA was asked, by the Bureau of Animal Welfare, if Victorian veterinarians would be willing or not to examine a seized animal to decide if it was a restricted breed and should be euthanised. Then straight after it, this, The AVA advised the bureau that AVA members would not be willing to provide certification of unknown breeds based on a physical examination alone and more evidence would be required before that decision was made. If the BAW already knew that AVA could not certify the breed/s of a seized dog by physical exam, it must stand to reason that they can not certify the breed/s of a dog who is taken to the vet for the same reason. If the Gov already knew this, why did they put this in the Act as an exception, acceptable way to prove a dog was not a Restricted Breed. It is giving an option that does not exist. It would be misleading and deceiving. I am trying to contact AVA to find out what the story is here.

With this in mind. This will hurt owners too. Because now how is Melissa Brown (who got the letter from the Council, the letter which is a couple posts above) going to get a Vet Cert saying her dog is an Amstaff and take it to this meeting? So no the AVA won't be helping the Govt but really leaves anyone with crossbreeds in the lurch seeing as they have no one to say there dog isn't a PB. It's a lose lose situation. It is a lose lose situation. Hard to tell from this article, and I am still trying to contact someone at AVA, but if the BAW asked the AVA prior to the act going through, and already had this answer from AVA, why are they allowed to put this in the act. It is a bit like setting us up to fail in my mind. Very misleading.That is my point.

This article states the The AVA advised the bureau that AVA members would not be willing to provide certification of unknown breeds based on a physical examination alone and more evidence would be required before that decision was made. I am trying to contact AVA to confirm this. Does anyone have any phone numbers please? http://www.spec.com.au/?sp=2&id=12452 Dangerous dog legislation is not the whole answer More from the Hamilton Spectator 6 September 2011 LISA CAMERON THE State Government’s new legislation to crack down on dangerous and restricted dogs has been met with some apprehension by south-west veterinarians. Representatives from both Hamilton Animal Health and Hamilton Vetcare said while a definite solution was needed, this alternative might not have a strong effect on such a complex problem. The tragic death of a four-year old girl in Melbourne, after she was mauled by a pit bull cross, has heightened the debate on what to do with dangerous and restricted breed dogs. The State Government introduced new legislation to Parliament this week to better police restricted breed dogs and create a massive incentive for owners to register their animals. Minister for Agriculture and Food Security, Peter Walsh said the legislation was the first of several measures to get rid of restricted breed dogs including pit bulls. “The legislation…ends the amnesty to register restricted breeds on September 29, meaning any dog identified as a pit bull not registered after that time can be seized and destroyed,” he said. “The changes will close legal loopholes to ensure pit bull crosses become a restricted breed and a visual standard for identifying pit bull terriers will be gazetted tomorrow to prevent some of these dogs escaping regulation because of uncertainty over their breed.” Both Hamilton Animal Health’s Dr Kristabel Lewis and Hamilton Vetcare’s Dr Lauren Alexander –Shrive said just focusing on pit bulls was no way to fix the serious problem of dangerous dogs. Dr Lewis said the new planned legislation was focusing on pit bull cross breeds, but it was sometimes very difficult to determine the breed of an animal based on appearance alone. She said all dogs, no matter what breed, could present a danger depending on the situation and how that dog had been raised. “You can’t predict it and you can’t tell which dog it is going to be; it is such a risk particularly to children. “I do worry that if you get rid of one breed then you are going to possibly find that another breed, maybe in ten years or so, will come forward that have been bred to be aggressive. Getting rid of one breed is not going to fix the problem; people have to take more responsibility.” Dr Lewis said it was the responsibility of the owner to ensure their dog was restrained and housed correctly and that it was trained and behaved in a safe matter. She said not just restricted breed dogs could be dangerous with dogs known to attack if their territory was invaded, or if they were panicked or scared. Dr Alexander-Shrive urged all south-west residents to register their dog ahead of September 29 so there would be no chance that their animal would be seized by council. She said the restricted breed issue was serious and unfortunately there was no easy solution that would fix the problem. “Some cross bred dogs look like a dog on the restricted breeds list but they are not. It is really important that people register their dogs so they are not seized by mistake. “This new legislation is a good thing because it will encourage people to register their animals. However a lot more is needed and owners need to ensure they take responsibility of the housing and behavioural training of their animal.” The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) has described the new legislation as a short-term solution with the risk of lulling the community into a false sense of security that the danger is over. AVA Victorian president, Susan Maastricht said the new legislation would do little to address the overall problem of dog bites and attacks. “It’s important to recognise that most dogs don’t bite, and only a tiny proportion of dogs are aggressive,” she said. “However, effective control and management of these aggressive dogs is absolutely necessary through regulation that works. Owners must be held responsible for the education, control and actions of their dogs.” Dr Maastricht said declaring that some breeds were dangerous and others were not was misleading. The AVA was asked, by the Bureau of Animal Welfare, if Victorian veterinarians would be willing or not to examine a seized animal to decide if it was a restricted breed and should be euthanised. The AVA advised the bureau that AVA members would not be willing to provide certification of unknown breeds based on a physical examination alone and more evidence would be required before that decision was made. Southern Grampians Shire local laws co-ordinator, Brain Urwin said the new legislation and any improvement regarding dangerous dogs would be welcomed by the shire. He said council advised people against owning a dangerous dog and welcomed another plan by the State Government to employ more Animal Control officers for Victorian shires. “Council welcomes any initiatives regarding more employment of Animal Control officers in the shire,” Mr Urwin said. “Council does not have a dedicated animal control officer, but has two full-time Local Laws officers and part of their roles/ duties it to attend to animal control issues on an as needed basis.”

I am going to go to the meeting if possible. There has been another letter issued after the original one, and it explains further about what is going on. The new letter states how a person can get a vet certificate as to breed. The new letter also said to disregard the first letter. I will try to attack a link to the second letter. second letter I don't know, but it seems to me the meeting is to explain things more fully to residents. Will have to wait and see I suppose. Can you make that public access, I don't have a fb account to log in with. Will try, I hope this works. ETA Sorry it is so big, I am not good at this stuff.

I am going to go to the meeting if possible. There has been another letter issued after the original one, and it explains further about what is going on. The new letter states how a person can get a vet certificate as to breed. The new letter also said to disregard the first letter. I will try to attack a link to the second letter. second letter I don't know, but it seems to me the meeting is to explain things more fully to residents. Will have to wait and see I suppose.

I emailed the Minister and an MP. The MP also passed my questions on to the Minister. Now, 12 days later, still waiting for an answer. They did get my mail because they asked for my postal address in reply. Apparently that is so they can reply in writing. But I wanted to know if a vet could certify as to any breed, or if they could only certify as to Amstaff. The way it was worded, and being grouped into the paragraph, made it look like the vet exception was only for amstaffs, but the wording was off. It said a vet could certify as to A breed, not THE breed. I also asked if a vet could certify a crossbreed if they were stating what they honestly thought the cross breeds were. I know there is no possible way to absolutely prove the breeds in a mutt on sight, but I figured that if we are to believe a council worker can do it that way, surely a Vet would be able to also do this. I can't find answers to these questions anywhere!

Your friend needs to contact their local MP. Make an appointment to see the MP and get them to earn their money. This is what they are there for.

That's funny ! One of the nicest looking PB's I have seen was all white ! The owner used to walk it with a chain collar so thick it would pull a ship (chain that is...not the dog)LOL Yep, the whole deal is rubbish.

I heard the dog was a Lab that had attacked. I then heard a report and the breed wasn't mentioned. The channel 10 news reported that it was a large white dog and that the man was walking his Pomeranian. The Herald sun reports that the man was walking his Jack Russell Terrier. Oh well, it sounds like it doesn't fit the Breed Standard for Victoria, because according to it, Pit bulls don't come in white. Brad Griggs was on Chanel 10 news interviewed outside Parliament House. He stated it wasn't a genetic problem and it is about time the government stopped treating it as such. They are treating the problem in a way to gain votes, and not stopping attacks.

I can't believe that someone would be unhappy about having that in a contract. The option that, if things do go wrong, the breeder will take the dog back. To me, that is a great commitment from a great breeder. I had that option years ago with an expensive dog, and I didn't ever want to return him, but it was just a nice thing to have if something ever happened and I couldn't keep him.I wouldn't have expected a cent back, and in fact, I would have been so glad if the need did arise, that I could do the right thing by the dog, and give him to someone who cared. I probably would have offered to give them money for helping me!