Re: Training And The Law In Vic

[RottnBullies]

Hi,

Could someone direct me to the specific clause that was added recently about It being an offense for a dog

to bite any object from a handler, I think that included not being able to play tugs etc with your dog

If I could get a link please,

much appreciated

[dogdude]

Certainly hope not!! Next they will be banning food training for fear of your dog eating you!!!

[Nekhbet]

Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act

1994

No. 81 of 1994

Version incorporating amendments as at 12 December 2007

28 Offence to set on dog to attack

A person must not wilfully set on or urge a dog to

attack, bite, rush at or chase any person or animal

except when hunting in accordance with the

provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals Act 1986.

Penalty: 120 penalty units or imprisonment for

6 months.

28A Offence to train dogs to attack

A person must not train a dog to attack, bite, rush

at, chase or in any way menace persons, animals

or anything worn by persons, unless the dog is so

trained—

(a) in the course of conducting a domestic

animal business on premises that is

registered under Part 4, if training of such a

nature is authorised under that registration;

and

(b) that person—

(i) is conducting; or

(ii) is employed by a person who is

conducting—

a domestic animal business on premises that

is registered under Part 4.

Penalty: 60 penalty units or imprisonment for

3 months.

34A Dangerous dogs

A dog is a dangerous dog if—

(a) the dog is kept as a guard dog for the

purpose of guarding non-residential

premises; or

(b) the dog has been trained to attack or bite any

person or any thing when attached to or worn

by a person.

37 Notification of Council

(1) Immediately upon becoming the owner of a dog

that has been trained to attack or bite any person

or any thing when attached to or worn by a

person, the owner of the dog must so notify the

Council of the municipal district in which the dog

is kept.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

(1A) Immediately upon a dog commencing training to

attack or bite any person or any thing when

attached to or worn by a person, the owner of the

dog must notify the Council of the municipal

district in which the dog is kept that the dog is

being so trained.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

(1B) The owner of a dog kept as a guard dog for the

purpose of guarding non-residential premises

must, within 24 hours of commencing to keep the

dog for that purpose, notify the Council of the

municipal district in which the dog is kept that the

dog is being kept for that purpose.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/DPI/nrenfa.nsf/9...%20Dec%2007.pdf

Edited November 16, 2008 by Nekhbet

[dogdude]

I would presume that tugs are ok then.

[cramet]

no tugs

"quote"

34A Dangerous dogs

A dog is a dangerous dog if—

(a) the dog is kept as a guard dog for the

purpose of guarding non-residential

premises; or

(b) the dog has been trained to attack or bite any

person or any thing when attached to or worn

by a person.

i wouldnt be to conserned (spl?) about it though

i havnt seen or been told of some one doing any thing about it

Edited November 17, 2008 by cramet

[J...]

Steve Austin mentioned this at the seminar I went to, someone at the Pet Expo (I think?) was told to stop playing tug with their dog before it was taken any further. Was a person of authority i.e DPI/council ranger etc.

Pippi, Lablover & kelpiei were at the same seminar, maybe they will pop in and fill in my memory blanks.

[MolassesLass]

Has anyone been charged with an offence for playing tug yet?

It wouldn't stand up in court, would it?!

[squeak]

Steve Austin mentioned this at the seminar I went to, someone at the Pet Expo (I think?) was told to stop playing tug with their dog before it was taken any further. Was a person of authority i.e DPI/council ranger etc.

Pippi, Lablover & kelpiei were at the same seminar, maybe they will pop in and fill in my memory blanks.

May I ask which seminar and if it was in NSW or VIC?

[shoemonster]

They would have trouble if they went to a flyball comp wouldnt they, nearly every person would be in trouble

[Purpley]

There are currently amendments being passed through at the moment in regards to the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act. and it will be passed. Again the proper departments that are there to protect us and our animals didn't realise until it was too late. I will grab my copy of the changes and see whether this clause has been ammended, but I think it still stands.

I was told of Steve Austins comment too, by someone that went to the Vic seminar.

[RottnBullies]

Thanks all

Pretty sad what's happening to mans best friend, It's beyond ridiculous imo

There are currently amendments being passed through at the moment in regards to the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act. and it will be passed. Again the proper departments that are there to protect us and our animals didn't realise until it was too late. I will grab my copy of the changes and see whether this clause has been ammended, but I think it still stands.

I'd appreciate that, thanks

[arawnhaus]

Goodness gracious me.What the........................

Ridiculous.

[Erny]

There are currently amendments being passed through at the moment in regards to the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act. and it will be passed. Again the proper departments that are there to protect us and our animals didn't realise until it was too late. I will grab my copy of the changes and see whether this clause has been ammended, but I think it still stands.

I was told of Steve Austins comment too, by someone that went to the Vic seminar.

Are there? I am fully aware of the proposed Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 2008, but not of the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act. Although I did here talk somewhere along the line that it would be changed and I recall one of those changes was that the name of the Act would drop the "Feral and Nuisance" words out of its title.

Steve might be right, although I would suggest confirmation be obtained by reading the Act itself rather than taking someone else's word for it.

[Erny]

This is from the version of the DFNA Act which includes amendments as at December 2007

28A Offence to train dogs to attack

A person must not train a dog to attack, bite, rush at, chase or in any way menace persons, animals or anything worn by persons, unless the dog is so trained—

(a) in the course of conducting a domestic animal business on premises that is registered under Part 4, if training of such a nature is authorised under that registration;

and

(b) that person—

(i) is conducting; or

(ii) is employed by a person who is conducting—

a domestic animal business on premises that

is registered under Part 4.

Penalty: 60 penalty units or imprisonment for

3 months.

34A Dangerous dogs

A dog is a dangerous dog if—

(a) the dog is kept as a guard dog for the purpose of guarding non-residential premises; or

(b) the dog has been trained to attack or bite any person or any thing when attached to or worn by a person.

Some amendments were made to the Act again in June 2008, but none of them appear to affect either of the above sections.

I cannot find anything via google that suggests a review of the DFNA is currently underway so I'd be interested with what you turn up, Issis.

[Purpley]

Yep Erny there is - it was having its 3rd reading last friday I think. It will be passed and again certain places did nothing about it.

[horus]

no tugs

"quote"

34A Dangerous dogs

A dog is a dangerous dog if—

(a) the dog is kept as a guard dog for the

purpose of guarding non-residential

premises; or

(b) the dog has been trained to attack or bite any

person or any thing when attached to or worn

by a person.

Wouldn't this depend on the definition of 'attached'? To me 'attached' and 'holding' (as you would with a tug) are two completely different things

[Bisart Dobes]

You can go online to the Vic Gov Site and read the Hansard transcripts from the sittings - they are generally up about 24 hrs after the sitting - though they generally make you want to :D and then .

I think it is disgusting that 'Yet Again' the VCA or Dogs Victoria haven't had a real voice in this issue on the behalf of their members despite being contacted regarding this and BSL on numerous occasions.

Perhaps the Obedience, Tracking, Fly Ball, Agility and Jumping community need to form a working party to provide a united voice Aus Wide that would have the numbers to make a difference to these ridiculous 'laws'.

One of my dogs uses the lead as his 'tug', another has a 'sheep' that baa's, another has a squeaky kong ball in a sock, another just a sock, and the last one just about anything though he prefers to choose it from the training bag at the start of training - they all tug, pull, BITE, growl, shake and NEVER EVER HAVE THEY HURT ME OR ANYONE ELSE and never ever do you see me doing this - .

Sick of being told what to do with my dogs .............

Bernadette

Bisart Dobermanns

http://bisartdobermanns.homestead.com

[Erny]

no tugs

"quote"

34A Dangerous dogs

A dog is a dangerous dog if—

(a) the dog is kept as a guard dog for the

purpose of guarding non-residential

premises; or

(b) the dog has been trained to attack or bite any

person or any thing when attached to or worn

by a person.

Wouldn't this depend on the definition of 'attached'? To me 'attached' and 'holding' (as you would with a tug) are two completely different things

Yes - I have thought the same Horus. What worries me is when the Govt DOES leave things open to interpretation. I mean, I have an Orbee Ball that I have begun using in drive training for my 5.5 mo dog (switching from my earlier tug). I have it attached to my accessory belt so it is simply 'there' if I need it. He's (being) trained to tug on that - but training is not complete and there are more than numerous times that he bites on it and tries to tug it from my belt. So, if an authority wanted to 'stick it to me' they might add that in to their list of "breach of orders". Sure .... I might win it in Court, but the point being that it is not clear enough and I might need to go to Court (and encounter the expenses that go with that) to prove them wrong. Some authorities and organisations rely on that as a way of suppressing people and their rights, IMO. It boils down to me not trusting them to be reasonable.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Erny

[Erny]

I think it is disgusting that 'Yet Again' the VCA or Dogs Victoria haven't had a real voice in this issue on the behalf of their members despite being contacted regarding this and BSL on numerous occasions.

I agree - except that the VCA/DogsVic do have a voice don't they? They are certainly one of the "key organisations" to and with whom the Government has sought opinion on matters relating to dogs in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations both in 2004 and currently for the POCTA regulation review.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Erny

[Erny]

Going back, I'm wondering if what I've put up a couple of posts ago isn't the 'revised' edition already?

I could have sworn that it used to include the words "held" by a person.

Will have to back-track older versions of the DFNA.