lmwvic

I also received Bill Syke's correspondence. He commended Peter Walsh's speech????? Clearly, they just don't get it.

Nobody in the Bureau of Animal Welfare has seen any results from the Dangerous Dogs Survey conducted in January unless I have been lied to! It could only have been considered by the Minister's office who ran it.

I have just finished reading the Parliamentary Library Research Brief and I am astonished at the misleading and incorrect information in it! I clearly have assumed incorrectly that Parliamentary Library Research Briefs would be sound and unbiased research. I'm furious at the inaccuracies and false information. It is also very interesting that the Research Brief has disappeared from the Parliamentary Website. Why?

Doesn't sound like they gave you guidelines with clear criteria. Did they give you anything to follow?

oops sorry Vic dogs is the only one relating to dogs - there are 3 for cats. Knew that was what you meant

Or more seriously, MDBA

In the latest version of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (No.81 of 1994) Part 1 Preliminary, on page 3 has: applicable organisation means an organisation that is declared by the Minister under section 5A to be an applicable organisation; On page 9, 5A Applicable organisations and recognised organisations (1) The Minister may declare, by notice published in the Government Gazette, that an organisation is an applicable organisation if— (a) the organisation has applied to the Minister to be declared an applicable organisation; and (b) the Minister is satisfied that the organization meets the criteria set out in the relevant guidelines; and © the organisation does not represent owners of dogs of a breed whose importation into Australia is prohibited under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 of the Commonwealth. (1A) The Minister may declare, by notice published in the Government Gazette, that an organisation is a recognised organisation if— (a) the organisation has applied to the Minister to be declared a recognised organisation; and (b) the organisation represents the owners of restricted breed dogs; and © the Minister is satisfied that the organization meets the criteria set out in the relevant guidelines. (2) An application to be an applicable organisation or a recognised organisation must include— (a) a copy of the organisation's annual report of the preceding year; and (b) the organisation's code of ethics and details of how the code is enforced; and © the outcome of any disciplinary action taken by the organisation for breaches of the ethics code during the preceding year; and (d) any other information required by the Minister. Not sure where to find the “relevant guidelines” setting out the criteria as referred to in (1) (b) At the moment the following are recognized as applicable organizations: (see http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/DPI/nrenfa.nsf/L...ganisations.pdf The Cat Authority of Victoria Inc. Dogs Victoria Waratah National Cat Alliance Inc. Feline Control Council (Victoria) Inc. The Governing Council of the Cat Fancy (Victoria Inc.) Definate need for other applicable dog organisations. How about "Real Dogs Victoria Inc."

I also cannot access the Parliamentary Library Research Brief. Did anyone save it?

I can enlighten you on the current process. When a Council declares a dog as a restricted breed the owner may pay a non-refundable fee ($234 at the moment) within 30 days for a review of that declaration by a panel consisting of 3 persons appointed by the Minister as being "experts" in breed identification. Originally the panels were to consist of one person from the VCA, one from an Animal Welfare ?? Organisation (RSPCA or Lost Dogs) and a member from the APBT Club of Australia. Suffice to say that didn't last long. I can't recall the last panel when the APBT participated. The VCA (or Dogs Victoria as they are now known) provided the Government with Judges interested in participating. Originally Lost Dogs provided members including Graeme Smith and Kevin Apostolides. They had a hissy fit after a Supreme Court decision (of December 2007) was successful and quit. Wonderful! The dog concerned was subsequently unanimously said to be NOT a restricted breed and after 9-10 months incarceration by the Council concerned (Mornington) released to its owner in February 2008. The RSPCA supplies vets (although I don't know of any Veterinary Course that includes Dog Breed identification). The panel members are also paid for their services by the Government. In the case of the RSPCA I do not know whether they receive the payment or their staff participating receive it directly. One ANKC judge (who has never bred a bull breed in his life, currently has fox terriers and is a Dogs Victoria Committee member) seems to be particularly favoured by the Minister Joe Helper (or should I say the Bureau of Animal Welfare) and has quite a little money spinner sideline going. He has positively identified many dogs as "PURE BRED" American Pit Bull Terriers resulting in death for some. Another ANKC judge has also positively identified dogs as purebred APBTs. The RSPCA Chief vet also thinks he has qualifications to identify a dog's genetic history by its physical characteristics. Apparently he does not care if the dog dies. After all, in his own words they "euth" any pit bull type dog that is unfortunate enough to end up in the RSPCA shelter. Such a nice turn of phrase! Hopefully one of these days these people will bear the brunt of legal action. They are receiving payment for a service that is a figment of their and the Government's imagination. Isn't that fraud? :D

Imwvic .... I'm trying to back track to where you first brought up about "that" government survey but (probably because I'm in a hurry) can't find it. If you have referenced to it because someone else brought it up, I can't back track (without wading through posts) because you've not quoted who or what you are responding to. I'm trying to recall what the survey was about. Sorry, Erny I didn't bring up "that" government survey. See below This was the infamous online survey on "Dangerous Dogs" on the Department of Primary Industries home page. If you wish I can post the questions asked. I am in the process of applying for these results under FOI. I fully understand FOI's are not free having done a few over the years. This one will cost at least $500 but will be worth every cent. Unfortunately the process is lengthy!

That government "survey" had around 1700 responses. Minister Joe Helper's Office staff (aka advisors) invented this so called "survey" and the Minister's Office compiled the responses. They have kept the results very quiet for obvious reasons. According to the Bureau of Animal Welfare (BAW) even they have not been privy to the results. The only way to access the responses will be through Freedom of Information With respect to the current legislation BAW went through a "consultation" process with their selected privileged "stakeholders". BAW's definition of stakeholders is: 'Stakeholders' are major representative organisations whose member's interests might be impacted eg Dogs Victoria, RSPCA, Animals Australia, PIAA, DAMIC, MAV, VFF, AWAC, AVA, community Groups, Councils, Lost Dogs home, Animal Aid, Australian ABPT Club etc as distinct to individuals. We would expect these to consult with their subordinate organisations and members in order to develop opinion of a broad number of individuals' Also, "With legislation we approach a sample of affected stakeholder organisations to get some initial reaction to government proposals. The exposure in Parliament of a draft bill is considered as the community consultation phase and we notify as many organisations as possible(who are expected to notify their subordinate organisations)" In the most recent consultation about this legislation with a sample of affected stakeholders the stakeholders were not provided with anything in writing with which they could consult with their members or any sub-member organisation. They were simply asked to respond to a set of questions put to them verbally. Minutes provided only had the stakeholders immediate responses from these meetings. There were no minuted questions!

The Government have the majority in the Lower house (Legislative Assembly) but do not in the Upper House (Legislative Council) It is really important to focus also on the Upper House, particularly all of the opposition. It could be stopped there.

The APBT Club of Australia Inc. have donated a book to raise money for Jed. The book is "The World of the American Pit Bull Terrier" by Richard F. Stratton. This book is A4 size, 288 pages and is out of print. Item is being auctioned at : http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=196415

Another badly worded poll! By dangerous dogs they are meaning APBTs so please vote accordingly. At: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/brumby-gi...o-1225788517614! Do you support councils having shoot-to-kill powers over dangerous dogs? Yes 80.63% (716 votes) No 19.37% (172 votes) Total votes: 888

Let me guess LOST DOGS HOME - yes they are lost if they ever get their hands on them

On ninemsn: Should it be illegal to keep pit-bull terriers as pets? Silly question really considering legislation already in existence in various States. Current vote is Yes - 20908 and No - 6335. Go to http://ninemsn.com.au/ and it is about 1/3 down the page. If you delete your cookies you may vote again.