Re: Training And The Law In Vic

[Jessca]

According to this legislation its illegal if (secnario) you walk past a dog, it grabs what you were holding in your hand, you struggle to get it off the dog, there for fighting/pulling/tugging with the dog. that dog is know DANGEROUS!!

Quick everyone lock yourself in a room, nearly every dog in the world is DANGEROUS!!

No Erny, i remember it also as held by a person. i'll go look through my comp i have the thing somewhere.

as to Steve Austin, he told as that, yes, at a vic seminar he was taken aside and warned about playing "tug" with his dog.

ETA - All i could find was the one from 2007, and it was as above. hmmm must have been mistaken.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Jessca

[Purpley]

There is a few changes that will impact on boarding kennels if something happens, just by changing the wording to 'handler' instead of owner.

VCA do have a voice, they just always seem to late to use it.

[ness]

I was reading that thinking are pups all going to be declared dangerous until they reach a certain age. They all bite, tug, growl at people. I have encouraged my pup to tug on my jumper so I have something I can reward with any time however that would mean she would be declared dangerous under this proposed legislation. She certainly doesn't try it on a stranger and neither do I encourage it.

The other example I could imagine would be what if you clipped the dogs lead around your waist and the dog had been taught to tug on the lead and decided to jump up at you to get the lead.

Edited November 17, 2008 by ness

[Nekhbet]

I have encouraged my pup to tug on my jumper so I have something I can reward with any time

see this is where i wouldnt only because one day an over enthusiastic pup may take a bite of your arm instead. Or another dog may mistake a kids sleeve as fun and take a mouthful.

sometimes we have to be conscientious as to what we teach our dogs and the far reaching implications. As for playing tug Steve had a ball with my DDB in the middle of the guide dog training centre

The law is trying to prevent problems and illegal bitework. Frankly bitework should be more structured and have clubs registered with the government but I wouldnt be slapping a DD on every dog that has done bitework. There are some pet dogs out there that are more dangerous then trained bitework dogs so its not a guarentee you will create a psychopath.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Nekhbet

[ness]

ok I didn't admit to setting out to train it but because she does it I thought I better go about creating a situation I was in charge of and could control. If she was going to do it I needed to be able to stop her doing it and what better what to get a good stop if you can also then allow the dog to do so when you say. She is also a quiet and slightly timid girl so I was hesitant of shutting down to much drive if I discouraged it to early on. So there was method in my madness. Mainly she gets tug toys or leads. If she was a more outgoing sort I probably would have put a stop to it sooner but everything about her interactions with anybody other than family is gentle so I am not to worried if she gets over the top with me.

I guess what it comes down to is you decide what you want to do with a particular type of dog and that shouldn't be dictated by legislation.

[arawnhaus]

Ness, Yes maybe not reward tugging your jumper.I think allowing this will lead the pup to unintentional problems later on.If you have a mouthy puppy and don't show boundaries on yourself,then as it grows older the dog may not process you are the handler and can be serious, especially when you want compliance.I'm sure the dog would want to but could get caught between understanding why it should.

and as already said others will become a target to.Ever been caught accidently by the skin? Now that is ouchy!

Edited November 17, 2008 by Delkerabo

[Jessca]

Ive always found that a trained dog is a safe dog. if you teach the dog what biting is, and when to and not to do it, then the dog knows when it is and is not allowed to bite. my dog for example knows that is only allowed to bite/tug a certain toy (when commanded to, which is "play"), and NOTHING else.

if a dog does not know what it is doing how does it know what is right and wrong??

also kaiser does not care at all for food, so his motivation is a game of tug if he works well, food does not do s**t for motivation, unless i starve him of his breakfast, which i dont want to do.

[ness]

Thats a bit what I was getting at Jessca - the dog was already exhibiting the behavior and it was about getting control of something the dog was already doing in an uncontrolled instance. Sure I could have punished her as a method of controlling it but I didn't think that appropriate in the circumstances based on her temperament and considering I really did want a dog with good tug/play/toy drive.

[Erny]

Some info has come in from a friend/colleague (who is pretty up with dog laws and understanding them) which suggests that the regulation quoted (s34) is NOT designed to attribute the lable "dangerous dog" to dogs who engage in the game of tug.

I have a bit of checking up to do as he's given me some areas to look at and to read. I'll do that as soon as I can and get back to you here.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Erny

[ness]

If might not be meant to but it could (if a lawyer wanted to try and argue a point then trust me the definition could include that).

[Erny]

If might not be meant to but it could (if a lawyer wanted to try and argue a point then trust me the definition could include that).

No - but from what I gather there's some 'notes' from when the regulation went in that stipulates it does not include the general game of tug that most of us enjoy with our pet dogs. I'll check it up later. Have some things to do and dogs to work, so I'll have to come back to this.

Edited November 18, 2008 by Erny

[Kelpie-i]

If this is correct, then the selling of plush and squeaky toys and other "tug" related items would need to be prohibited from pet stores.

[Danois]

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

There is no way that this will ever be interpreted to include prohibition of tug games.

There is very specific ways in which statutes are interpreted and there is even an Act on exactly that.

You will note that that Section 34A is within the context of training a dog to attack. A game of tug is not training a dog to attack. Horus was also correct regarding the 'attached' part. This suggests a connection between the item and the person - not simply holding a tug toy or even having it clipped to a belt. You have not trained the dog to attack the orbee ball on the belt.

I think those concerned are unnecessarily worried and reading way too much into something.

[Kelpie-i]

I agree Danois, it is definitely open to interpretation and we may certainly be reading into this too deeply.

Laws are put into place for many different reasons and this particular law is quite obviously targetting protection trained dogs, not the ordinary every day pet dog who loves a tug game. I highly doubt you would be taken to court merely because you played a general game of tug of war with your dog. The cost/benefit ratio to do this would not be favourable for the law makers.

[Just Midol]

Even then, targeting protection trained dogs is pathetic.

They are probably safer than the majority of pets. Prot dogs do need additional restrictions, but not the dangerous dog tag.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Lord Midol

[Jessca]

i will always stick by my saying(well its not mine but you get the point) " a trained dog is a safe dog"

if a dog is trained to only ever do something on command, and at NO other time then it is far safer than the dog that does not know what "biting" is and does not know what it is doing wrong when it bite's someone.

i hope that makes sense.

the main reason for all this is that they are targeting Schutzhund, when IMO it is just trick training. you take the sleeve away and the dog wouldn't know what to do(in most cases)

[Nekhbet]

ahh yes but the law has created so many backyard cowboys here in Victoria that even so called professionals have astounded me with there stupidity at what they consider training.

The good trainers (oddly enough) left and few that remain are normal around there here hills. So I beg to differ that a dog that is 'security trained' is better then the average pet. Yes a PROPERLY trained dog is better. But some security or civil dogs are just bonkers. We need a change in the law to help prevent these animals not restrictions that ironically create more of them.

[Odin-Genie]

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.

The Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act is proposed to be amended by Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. Given below are excerpts from teh explanatory memorandum:

PART 4—AMENDMENTS TO DOMESTIC (FERAL AND

NUISANCE) ANIMALS ACT 1994

Clause 19 substitutes section 29 of the DFNA Act to provide offences for

dog attacks in respect of both the owner of a dog and any person

in apparent control of the dog at the time of the offence.

Clause 20 substitutes section 41A(5) of the DFNA Act to enable a court to

order a Council to declare a dog to be a menacing dog if a person,

whether or not the owner of the dog, is found guilty of an offence

under section 29(7) or (8) in respect of the dog.

Clause 21 amends section 68A(1) of the DFNA Act to require municipal

councils to prepare a domestic animal management plan every

4 years instead of every 3 years.

Clause 22 substitutes section 81 of the DFNA Act to enable the Council to

seize a dog if a person has been found guilty of an offence under

section 29 in respect of the dog or the authorised officer

reasonably suspects that a person has committed an offence under

section 29 with respect to the dog. Previously the requirement in

section 81 was that the owner of the dog had to be found guilty

of, or suspected of committing, such an offence.

Clause 23 amends section 84P of the DFNA Act to enable a Council to

destroy a dog seized under Part 7A of the Act if a person, other

than the dog's owner, has been found guilty of an offence under

section 29 with respect to the dog.

Clause 24 amends section 84Q(1) of the DFNA Act so that section also

applies to a person, other than the owner, who is suspected of

committing an offence under section 29. Consequently, the

heading to section 84Q is also amended.

Clause 25 amends section 85(1) of the DFNA Act to enable the offences in

sections 29(5) and 29(7), which have replaced the offences in

current sections 29(3) and 29(4), to be enforced by infringement

notice.

Clause 26 inserts new section 104 into the DFNA Act, which is a

transitional provision that provides that, despite the

commencement of clause 21 of the Bill, which amends

section 68A of that Act to change the requirement to prepare

domestic animal plans from every 3 years to every 4 years,

Councils are still required to prepare their first domestic animal

management plans within 3 years after section 68A came into

operation.

Some parts of the Animals Legislation Amendment (Animal Care) Act 2007 No. 65 which amend the DFNA have not been proclaimed. This includes changing the title to Domestic Animals Act 1994. However, there are no proposed amendments to s 34A.