sandgrubber

I have been wondering about this too. I did ask a few people yesterday, and nobody seems to know at the moment. We will need to find out for sure, and soonish. It is so vague. This is doing my head in! I'd recommend calling Peter Walsh, MLA, Minister for Agriculture and Food Security in Victoria. Might be helpful if he got heaps of calls, making it clear that the ambiguities of the legislation he has sponsored put good dog owners into a state of terror. If you put your name on legislation, you should be willing to clarify it and to hear feedback on how it affects ordinary people.

The AVA came out strongly against the BSL section of the legislation. Dr. Stewart does not represent the AVA. http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/new-dog-laws-victoria “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.

None. I don't know any staffy that isn't a total love bunny wriggle bum but I can't see bull breeds being alive for very long at all in Victoria. And when they get rid of the bull breeds, they'll move onto the next breed and then the next and the next. I don't think Staffies will have much trouble with the standard. Here's a profile from the standard. I've never seen a staffie with a neck or, for that matter, legs like this.

I hope your Labrador has been neutered. Extremely aggressive anything is not acceptable in the breed standard. Btw. Labrador doesn't have an 'e' on the end. Personally, I think a lot of people should be breathing a sign of relief with publication of the standard. It is very detailed and would let through most bull X's I've met. Moreover, your dog can be exempted given " a certificate signed by a veterinary practitioner stating, or to the effect, that the dog is of a particular breed." Pedigree Am Staffs are also explicitly exempt. It's not good. It is stupid. But it could be a lot worse.

Thanks, Quickasyoucan, for posting the link. I'd be willing to bet that the VIC govt standard for identifying pit bulls is plagiarized. Would be wonderful to put the VIC government in a lawsuit for infringement of copyright . If anyone has the book it was taken from, please report. The format is similar to the format used in The Ultimate XXX series done by Howell dog books (I have the Labrador edition) but if that is the source, the text on the illustrations has been re-lettered. The good side . . . many of you with staffie X's are safe as this is quite specific. Everyone, look at the document. If you have a X-breed and are in fear, download it and print out a copy. It is extremely specific for a well-bred APBT and gives clear guidance as to the look. Not many dogs have this look. The easiest marker to use is the profile. . Tail and head will also rule out many breeds and X breeds. They have, stupidly, only shown males in profile, so it looks like a pit bull MUST have a penis . Also note, pedigree AmStaffs are explicitly excluded and a vet certificate gives you the all clear. Quote: A dog that meets the description of a dog in this Part is an American Pit Bull Terrier; except a dog in respect of which the owner has one of the following certificates stating that the dog is an American Staffordshire Terrier – a. a pedigree certificate from the Australian National Kennel Council; b. a pedigree certificate from a member body of the Australian National Kennel Council; c. a pedigree certificate from a national breed council registered with the Australian National Kennel Council; d. a certificate signed by a veterinary practitioner stating, or to the effect, that the dog is of a particular breed. The stupid side . . . it's so specific that it will probably catch unpapered Am Staffs who fit the standard and pit bulls, but let through poorly bred pit bulls. Thus only poorly bred pit bulls will survive in Victoria. And if you want to do pit bull crosses, all you need to do is breed to something that will fall outside the breed standard, eg, produce an 'incorrect' tail and loose skin around the neck, and bingo, you're safe. And, yes, I'm sure a trade in counterfeit AmStaff pedigrees will develop. IDIOTS!!!!!!! They should be screening based on temperament. There are some lovely, true to breed standard, APBT's. And HEAPS of dogs who don't fit the physical description in the Govt of Vic standard that have inherently aggressive temperaments and that warrant some sort of control, especially in the hands of people who live in high density neighborhoods and who have no credentials for managing dogs with inherent guarding/fighting/prey attack characteristics or unstable temperaments.

The Daily Hansard, the Hon. P. R. HALL (Minister for Higher Education and Skills) tabled the following: After this date [30 Sept 2011] any owner of an unregistered restricted breed dog will be liable for the offence of keeping a restricted breed dog, for which 10 penalty units apply. Furthermore, the restricted breed dog will also be able to be seized under section 79 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 and ultimately destroyed. This seems to mean, for example, that if you have a SBT or x-breed and don't feel a need to register as a restricted breed dog because you know it is not an APBT, but some official decides your dog is an APBT after reading the standard they are publishing, your dog is likely to be destroyed. I don't think that means totally unregistered . . . and I don't think prior registration, eg, as a SBT, helps. The justification for the law given in the Daily Hansard makes it clear that they are trying to crack down on people who pass off restricted breed dogs as non-restricted breeds.

Have you got any friendly boarding kennels in your area. When I ran one, we always had a slew of staffie X's, and I would have been confident that their owners would be happy to have them filmed for this cause. Most rescue organizations will be in the same situation. For that matter, call your local Rangers and ask what dogs are in detention at the moment. Good chance there are a few that they would have to PTS under the new rules. Make sure to point them to the AVA, which has posted a strong statement against visual standards, as well as a statement that DNA evidence won't work.

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.