sandgrubber

The AVA position, however, (see http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/new-dog-laws-victoria) is strongly against the BSL part of the law. Extract: “AVA supports many parts of the legislation, but we were particularly vocal against the breed specific regulations. AVA policy is that ‘deed, not breed’ should be the determining factor in the assessment and treatment of dogs. This fact has been well communicated to both the Bureau and the Minister, who are fully conversant with AVA’s position,” said Bill. The AVA’s special interest group for animal behaviour, together with the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists, produced an excellent submission on the proposed legislation, which was submitted to the Bureau of Animal Welfare and to the Minister. The key area of disagreement is over the breed specific parts of the legislation, essentially the restrictions on Pit Bull Terriers. The restricted breeds include: American Pit Bull Terrier (or Pit Bull Terrier), Perro de Presa Canario (or Presa Canario), Dogo Argentino, Japanese Tosa, or Fila Brasileiro. Breeds other than Pit Bulls and their crosses are either unrepresented or nearly so in Victoria. The biggest problem is determining whether an animal is actually a Pit Bull or Pit Bull cross, or whether it is a cross involving other breeds. There is no DNA test which can identify an animal as a Pit Bull or cross, so the determination can only be made on physical appearance. This is a grey area that can, and will be, contested in court.

See also test published in the Gazette on 30 August. Links are in Sticky's post on p. 49 of Child Killed by Dog thread. These give the legislative discussion / rationalisation of the changes in the Law.

Thanks for posting that, Sticky. I encourage others to download these and then do search on 'pit bull'. They are long documents and 90% -irrelevant to the issue, but the 10% is the core of the issue. My take is that the grounds for legal challenge are HUGE. The law requires that the deprivation of property (ie, seizing a dog) requires standards that are confined and structured rather than arbitrary or unclear, and are accessible to the public and formulated precisely. I see no way that 'pit bull X' can be defined in a way that is not arbitrary or unclear, and publishing the standard in a couple places that 99% of the public is unaware of, one month before the law is enacted hardly passes the test of being accessible to the public. I'm in the US and not in a position to do so, but I think concerned people should begin building a legal fund and fight this monster. I'd guess about 10% of the dogs in Australia will fall in grey areas. Some civil disobedience might also be useful: eg. registering every staffy, staffy X, and other potentially pit bull like dog, also vaguely pit bull looking pedigree dogs who are not at all pit bull (I've had some Labs who would qualify) and swamping the offices in a clearly advertised way. Below are a few of the juicy bits (p. 37 and 38 of http://www.parliamen...August_2011.pdf . The bill will provide that a dog that falls within the ‘approved standard’ that relates to restricted breed dogs in Victoria is to be taken to be a restricted breed dog. The bill will allow the Minister for Agriculture and Food Security to approve the standard and will require publication of the approved standard in the Victoria Government Gazette. The approved standard will also be available on the Department of Primary Industries website. The published standard will provide clear guidance to council’s authorised officers and the general public on what type of dog constitutes a restricted breed. This will make enforcement easier for council officers and remove doubt on the identification of these dogs so as to allow them to be declared a restricted breed in a speedy manner. This is important because councils are seeking certainty that a dog can be declared a restricted breed and that the declaration will be endorsed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal when challenged. Without this certainty council authorised officers may be reluctant to declare restricted breed dogs and enforce the act. The bill will remove the existing two-year amnesty that was introduced on 1 September 2010 on the keeping and registration of restricted breed dogs. The current amnesty provisions allow registration of a restricted breed dog until September 2012, provided the dog was in Victoria before 30 September 2010. The amnesty also lifted the prohibition on keeping a restricted breed dog during the amnesty period and then following that period if the dog was registered during the amnesty period. The bill will cut short the amnesty period. This means that from 30 September 2011 the possession and keeping of a restricted breed dog will be illegal unless the dog was in Victoria before the start of the amnesty Right to property (section 20) Section 20 of the charter act provides that a person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law. A deprivation of property is permitted if the powers which authorise the deprivation are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than arbitrary or unclear, and are accessible to the public and formulated precisely. The effect of removing the amnesty means that an owner who has failed to register their restricted breed dog before the commencement of this bill may have their dog seized by an authorised officer of the council and ultimately destroyed. In my opinion, this provision does not limit section 20 due to a number of reasons. The current prohibition relating to restricted breeds has been in place since 11 December 2007, is confined to five distinct breeds of dogs, clearly sets out the responsibilities of owners and the seizure powers of authorised officers and has been widely publicised to the community. Also the Domestic Animals Act 1994 requires all dogs to be registered from three months of age so there is an existing requirement for registration under section 10 of that act. The amnesty was enacted in 2010 with the purpose of encouraging the registration of existing unregistered restricted breeds or restricted breeds incorrectly registered as another breed. Owners of unregistered restricted breeds have been well aware that the possession of such dogs is illegal and could not have had a reasonable expectation of the lasting nature of the amnesty. The proposed ending of the amnesty has also been clearly communicated in the media, and will only come into effect on 30 September 2011, giving owners who have failed to take note of the amnesty time to comply with the requirement to register. Any resulting deprivation of property that will result following the ending of the amnesty will in my opinion not be arbitrary, given the significant public safety issues at stake, the limited number of breeds subject and the ability of owners to still comply with their obligations prior to commencement. Furthermore, there are safeguards present in the Domestic Animals Act 1994 to allow an owner to seek return of the seized dog if it is able to be registered and to seek review to VCAT of a refusal of a council to register a restricted breed that is able to be registered or a declaration of an authorised officer that a certain dog is a restricted breed. Accordingly, I conclude that this amendment is compatible with the right to property in section 20 of the charter act.

See the posts under The Bill. The first part of the series of laws has published. Unfortunately, the breed identification issue shunted off into a "a standard that has been approved by the Minister and published in the Government Gazette." Don't know if this has been published . . . or will only show up after the 'amnesty' period ends.

Thinking about it, the analogy holds some water. The anti-pit bull hysteria does have an unsavory 'Final Solution' flavour. I would have bought the line if the word Nazi hadn't been used and the post had decried the search for a Final Solution.

Great shots, Krislin. I don't think dogs have the taste buds for 'hot'. Mine love wasabi peas, and will also eat haberno munchies that are too hot for me (and I like it hot). If it's crunchy and has some fat and protein, they'll eat it.

Boston. Now that I live in the US and they're reasonably available, including some breeders who breed for health. I think it's better not to have dogs that you can't lift. Hope I can lift a Lab into my 70's, but I don't count on 80.

Not at all. Many breeds had similar origins, minus the health tests.

Wonder if a breed club could sue a newspaper for libel for naming their breed, and showing a stock photo of their breed, when the dog was not of their breed? That might slow down the irresponsible journos. Btw, the dog looks a lot like a Rotti x Lab who often stayed at our boarding kennel. She tried to bite me a few times and was ferocious toward others. But once you got to know her she was a big sook.

Laws are enforced (or not enforced) by human beings. I'd say, if your dogs are friendly and obvious non-problems from a behavioural perspective, but might possibly be mistaken for a restricted breed X, talk with your local Rangers. Make your fears transparent. Having your documents organised should help, as the Rangers may need to justify actions they take. Ask them if there is any point to further documentation. It may turn out, in your local area, to be a mountain made from a molehill. I'd guess most Rangers have a list of dogs who have gotten complaint after complaint, and when the sh#t hits the fan they'll go to those addresses first . . . hotline or no hotline.

Thanks, Tempus Fugit. Is this IT? No increased penalties for owners where a dog does harm? No additional regulation of wandering dogs. The breed identification issue shunted off into a "a standard that has been approved by the Minister and published in the Government Gazette." And cutting off the opportunity to register as a restricted breed dog closed at the end of September. What a can of worms! Presumably the approved standard won't be published for a bit of time and information on it will be poorly distributed. So X-breed owners aren't going to know whether or not they need to register until AFTER it's too late to register. The standard is going to be a mess for reasons that have been discussed many times. So publication of the standard will leave things clear as mud. The lawyers are going to have fun with this one!

No. See http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/new-dog-laws-victoria

So, you get a filo. Your neighbours see you have a huge, super-protective dog and stop robbing you. Instead, they all get filos, cause they're as afraid of crime as you are, and what's more, the dog looks cool. Are they all as responsible as you claim to be? Hell no. Oops, now we have 55 kg wandering dogs, bred to be extremely aggressive to strangers. There's a serious domestic and the police are called in. Oops, policeman in the hospital and dog gets shot dead. Your dog needs exercise to remain sane. You go out walking. Oops, the neighbor's fence isn't up to par. OMG!!!! What a dog fight! Oops, somebody stepped in to try and stop it and ended out in the hospital. The filo is a rich person's dog in Brazil, cause they're expensive to feed and manage. From what you say, I'd guess the folks in your neighbourhood aren't flush with cash. Deary deary, they find they can't afford to feed and otherwise care for the pup once it gets past 30 kg. But by that time, it has learned who is in its pack and now attacks everyone outside that circle. What happens when they try to rehome. PTS. If your neighbourhood is so dangerous, why not leave? There ARE dogs who are bred for low attack thresholds, low bite inhibition, and innate dislike of either strange people, strange dogs, or both. The filo is and extreme case where these traits (with respect to strange humans) are written into one of the two breed standards, and a large fraction of the dogs in that branch of breed are up to standard. It is not the breed that's the problem, it a pedigree showing many generations of breeding for dogs that will do 'the deed'. The APBT is not the filo. Sadly, there are pit bull lines bred for what I would call bad temperament, and individuals who manage to get bad temperament out of dogs who should have been fine. A large fraction of the breed is as gregarious and waggy as the average Australian SBT (at least in the California town I live in). And there are dogs who seem fine and then, god only knows why, snap and attack someone (eg, the recent tragic case in Pacifica where the pregnant woman was killed by her own dog . . . the folks concerned were active in pit bull rescue and trying to improve the image of the breed).

If you or others want to write letters to appropriate people, you can cite the AVA at http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/new-dog-laws-victoria The biggest problem is determining whether an animal is actually a Pit Bull or Pit Bull cross, or whether it is a cross involving other breeds. There is no DNA test which can identify an animal as a Pit Bull or cross, so the determination can only be made on physical appearance. This is a grey area that can, and will be, contested in court. I'd hope someone is setting up a court case to contest the law . . . at least, once it's published. It isn't clear what powers of search and seizure it gives, nor whom is empowered to search and seize.

Very offensive and should be removed. People have the right to make fools of themselves, though (at least in the USA, according to the Supreme Court) not to shout 'fire' in a crowded building. I don't see this starting a stampede. When I saw the Nazi'ism tag I expected a thread about pedigree dog breeding, eugenics, and fascist.

Does anyone have a link to the text of the law? The AVA news item says a lot, and sounds on target http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/new-dog-laws-victoria Changes to the Victorian Domestic Animals Act 1994 took effect on 1 September. They attempt to address community concern about dog attacks and include the following changes. Councils can now seize and impound wandering dogs if they are unidentifiable and believed to be a danger to the public. The dog can be euthanased within 48 hours if unclaimed. A dog that has previously been declared a Dangerous Dog found wandering can be seized and impounded, and euthanased after 24 hours. All cats and dogs 3 months of age and above must be registered and wear council identification on public property. New laws have been introduced that affect declared Menacing, Dangerous and Restricted Breed Dogs. . . . . "AVA supports many parts of the legislation, but we were particularly vocal against the breed specific regulations. AVA policy is that 'deed, not breed' should be the determining factor in the assessment and treatment of dogs. This fact has been well communicated to both the Bureau and the Minister, who are fully conversant with AVA's position," said Bill. The AVA's special interest group for animal behaviour, together with the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists, produced an excellent submission on the proposed legislation, which was submitted to the Bureau of Animal Welfare and to the Minister. The key area of disagreement is over the breed specific parts of the legislation, essentially the restrictions on Pit Bull Terriers. The restricted breeds include: American Pit Bull Terrier (or Pit Bull Terrier), Perro de Presa Canario (or Presa Canario), Dogo Argentino, Japanese Tosa, or Fila Brasileiro. Breeds other than Pit Bulls and their crosses are either unrepresented or nearly so in Victoria. The biggest problem is determining whether an animal is actually a Pit Bull or Pit Bull cross, or whether it is a cross involving other breeds. There is no DNA test which can identify an animal as a Pit Bull or cross, so the determination can only be made on physical appearance. This is a grey area that can, and will be, contested in court.

Snakes are cold blooded and their activity is temperature dependent. At 18 C, you're not likely to see many snakes and those you see will be moving real slow. (I was told 20 C, but based on personal experience, I'd put the number a little lower). When I lived in WA, I did walkies around sunrise to get minimum temperature and lowest snake activity. Snakes don't enter true hibernation, and a warm spell in winter will wake them up.

No problem. If you don't like the separation of the yoghurt, whip up the eggs with the yoghurt. You could even throw in some oatmeal and flaxseed and other goodies and make a healthy 'ice cream'. Egg yolk is a good emulisfier and should help keep the yoghurt from separating. But really, separation of yoghurt doesn't affect its nutritional value, and it's hard to get anything to grow on dairy products that will harm a dog. I feed moldy cheese ends to mine all the time.

My Lab girls usually do double digits, though 10 is most common. I have only topped up when mastitis caused nursing problems . . . or there was a runt who was getting pushed off so much that he/she needed a little help. Remember, newborns don't drink nearly as much milk as they will at 4 weeks. If you start giving them milk+clean ground meat at ~18 days, you can begin taking the pressure off the bitch as the pressure starts to get heavy. I would invest in a puppy litter feeding dish (see, eg. http://www.amazon.com/Puppy-Litter-Feeding-Dish-Inch/dp/B003VTQ0JM) cause it gets messy when they're learning to feed. These will handle nine pups or even 10, you may want two if you end up with a dozen.

Sorry to hear about what happened. I'd do more than send an email. I would phone and ask to talk to the Chief Ranger . . . make a real stink . . . until I see some sign that the dogs are in solid confinement and their owners have gotten a serious fine. Lots of people these days ignore email, and the person responsible for reading it is often low on the totem-pole.

Contact details for Bill Shorten are at: http://www.billshorten.com.au/more/index.cfm?Fuseaction=more_43084 ph. (03) 9326 1300 If you happen to live in his district, I'd suggest dropping him a line, or giving a call.

Enlarged nipples, possible without whelping. Saggy bags, in my experience, only develop through nursing. They may require a large litter and heavy milk production. Not sure.

I'd say the real question is how humans get along, not how dogs get along. One of my dogs threw up on my sister-in-law's rug and they have since been banned from the house. The result . . . I no longer visit. If you take a hard line, you may prevent future visits from your in-laws. If that's what you want, go for it. If you want to make it work, I'm sure you can. If worse comes to worse and your pup gets too rough, the poodle can be put in a bedroom when people can't or don't want to watch out for problems.

Has anyone experimented with meds used on cattle for tick prevention? eg fluazuron? http://www.ah.novart...ak_cattle.shtml or Mitaban (seems to be prescription only for dogs. . . amitraz is active ingredient . . . widely used for cattle . . .applied as a drench . . . also used for mange mites)

Yes, I've got no idea. Sandgrubber, if you add 'Don't know' to the poll options, I'd choose that. I thought about putting a 'don't know' in, but it would have swamped all the other answers, so I decided to force a choice.