The Beginning Of The End

[poodlefan]

My guess is that while that tone of email continues to be used, the chance of IPO enthusiasts influencing any of the "consipirators" against them will be negligible.

Time to get cooler heads on this one HR and now.

PF .... you often have good ideas. Any suggestions (bearing in mind the urgency)?

Yes. Find the highest priced barrister you can afford to defend this..

And check to see if the defendants HAVE broken the law. If the law has changed, has this made a previously lawful activity unlawful. You can claim to have done nothing wrong and you can believe it - but that doesn't make the claim stand up in court.

[Erny]

Question HR? When this matter goes to Court and let's assume the prosecutors lose the case ..... do they have to pay the Court costs of the defendants?

That's a good question erny. One that I dont know the answer to.

PF They have been calling Schtzhund Dog sport for over a decade. Back in the days that I was involved with the clubs they called it dogsport.

HR - Am I right in thinking that the authorities believe they have now 'got them' because of the more recent regulations regarding "dogs not being allowed to bite something being worn"? Prior to that I think the laws were ambiguous and as Schuthund trained dogs are not trained to attack a person, but rather, to bite a particular 'item' that's why the authorities haven't been able to nab them in the past.

[Herr Rottweiler]

Question HR? When this matter goes to Court and let's assume the prosecutors lose the case ..... do they have to pay the Court costs of the defendants?

That's a good question erny. One that I dont know the answer to.

PF They have been calling Schtzhund Dog sport for over a decade. Back in the days that I was involved with the clubs they called it dogsport.

HR - Am I right in thinking that the authorities believe they have now 'got them' because of the more recent regulations regarding "dogs not being allowed to bite something being worn"? Prior to that I think the laws were ambiguous and as Schuthund trained dogs are not trained to attack a person, but rather, to bite a particular 'item' that's why the authorities haven't been able to nab them in the past.

I would suggest that you are right on the money Erny. After all they did threaten Steve Austin with proescution at an Animal Expo for playing tug of war on stage with his dog as a reward.

[Erny]

And check to see if the defendants HAVE broken the law. If the law has changed, has this made a previously lawful activity unlawful. You can claim to have done nothing wrong and you can believe it - but that doesn't make the claim stand up in court.

Sure PF. But if I've read the above correctly, are you suggesting that we all must roll over and not fight the case (individually or otherwise) whenever a law is changed and we realise that what we've been doing for decades is now out-lawed? Regulations can be written in with the swish of a biro .... the Government set it up that way so that it could, with bearly any formal political process to follow.

In discussions pertaining to something else I was working on some while ago, I spoke to a Solicitor about Government regulation and he told me they (the Government) could write a regulation to ban the wearing of pink hats if they wanted to.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Erny

[Erny]

Yes. Find the highest priced barrister you can afford to defend this..

I presume that's what they are doing and why the funds are required. Once they lose this case, it will become precedent and any attempt to seek justice in similar instances will be futile.

[Erny]

Question HR? When this matter goes to Court and let's assume the prosecutors lose the case ..... do they have to pay the Court costs of the defendants?

If the activity is now illegal, I'd not be making any such assumption Erny.

I'm not making an assumption PF.

Is it?

I'm not the expert but I think it might be being deemed illegal because of more recently introduced regulation. As I understand it, for decades and until recently it hasn't been illegal.

[Herr Rottweiler]

Sure PF. But if I've read the above correctly, are you suggesting that we all must roll over and not fight the case (individually or otherwise) whenever a law is changed and we realise that what we've been doing for decades is now out-lawed? Regulations can be written in with the swish of a biro .... the Government set it up that way so that it could, with bearly any formal political process to follow.

Really erny? The Government stoops to such levels!

The most shocking points to note is that they make it sound like their doing us a favour.

Fear is such a reliable motivator in political circles

[Erny]

Really erny? The Government stoops to such levels!

Better go hide your pink hat, HR. (Refer edit to my above post).

[poodlefan]

Question HR? When this matter goes to Court and let's assume the prosecutors lose the case ..... do they have to pay the Court costs of the defendants?

If the activity is now illegal, I'd not be making any such assumption Erny.

I'm not making an assumption PF.

Is it?

I'm not the expert but I think it might be being deemed illegal because of more recently introduced regulation. As I understand it, for decades and until recently it hasn't been illegal.

If the defendants have continued with a practice that is now illegal and have been charged with breaching the newly introduced law, then their chances of beating the charges are slim. It then comes down to real legal argument about the letter/spirit of the law AND good mitigation.

BTW, I checked the Victorian Domestic Animals act.. any IPO trained dog IS considered a "dangerous dog" under Victorian law. That invokes all the dangerous dog keeping requirements.

[Erny]

HR - I really think it comes back to this though : ie that we need to know the charges that have been made so that the people from whom supportive funds are being sought can determine that the charges have no other basis other than a conflict with the regulation they've recently written in. If it can also be shown there is no evidence/record of Schutzhund trained dogs having caused harm within the community it would more clearly reveal the baselessness for the Government spending whatever $$$$$ of the tax-payers money to take these people to Court.

[Erny]

PF - You don't think it is about time that frivolous or fruitless laws are fought? Once Schutzhund is 'picked off' it will NEVER get back in again ..... at least I'm sure, not in my lifetime.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Erny

[Cosmolo]

First off- i do think the law sucks..

But- i always thought that dogs trained for bite work had to be declared dangerous and kept as such. So if there have been dogs being trained for bite work and not declared- isn't that illegal..?

[Luke W]

I am getting really tired of how inch by inch, topic by topic, dog enthusiasts are being suffocated in what they do and somehow or other it all gets done under the guise of "dog-welfare".

I don't think this one is under the guise of dog welfare.

I thinks it's a reaction to dog attacks and 'dangerous dogs'.

As a related issue...any proposals on how continue to allow well run Schutzhund clubs and resposible owners and trainers while helping to reassure the community that the law can deal with Micko who trains his bully Killer to attack?

Perhaps we need some accredited training organisations/clubs, some guidelines, etc?

How is the situation handled in Europe?

[Erny]

First off- i do think the law sucks..

But- i always thought that dogs trained for bite work had to be declared dangerous and kept as such. So if there have been dogs being trained for bite work and not declared- isn't that illegal..?

Not for as long as you might think Cosmolo. Schutzhund wasn't illegal because it was a dog sport where dogs were taught to target an item, not a person. If I'm correct, I believe that's why the authorities were unable to 'get them' in the past. But now they changed the wording in their regulation so now they can 'pick them off'. That's as I understand it anyway. I'm not involved in Schutzhund so I'm only going by some basic understanding that I've read and heard over the while.

[poodlefan]

Sure PF. But if I've read the above correctly, are you suggesting that we all must roll over and not fight the case (individually or otherwise) whenever a law is changed and we realise that what we've been doing for decades is now out-lawed? Regulations can be written in with the swish of a biro .... the Government set it up that way so that it could, with bearly any formal political process to follow.

Really erny? The Government stoops to such levels!

The most shocking points to note is that they make it sound like their doing us a favour.

Fear is such a reliable motivator in political circles

The best time to fight laws is when they are being introduced. What you have to consider now is that fighting a charge that on the face of it WILL be proven, is completely pointless. As I said, the Court isn't going to get into whether or not this is a good law. Its on the books so if the elements of the offence are proven, then the result is inevitable.

Votes are the best motivator in political circles. There is absolutely no way a small group of dog sports enthusiasts will motivate a change in the law without finding a way to broaden their issue. Pissing off other dog folk and the lawmakers (as the BSL folk found out) is not the way to do that.

[Erny]

I am getting really tired of how inch by inch, topic by topic, dog enthusiasts are being suffocated in what they do and somehow or other it all gets done under the guise of "dog-welfare".

I don't think this one is under the guise of dog welfare.

I thinks it's a reaction to dog attacks and 'dangerous dogs'.

Yes - you're right, Luke W. It's often under the 'guise' of something though.

As a related issue...any proposals on how continue to allow well run Schutzhund clubs and resposible owners and trainers while helping to reassure the community that the law can deal with Micko who trains his bully Killer to attack?

Perhaps we need some accredited training organisations/clubs, some guidelines, etc?

How is the situation handled in Europe?

That's a good starting point Luke W. Any ideas to answers, HR? Or can you invite any from others whom are more familiar with the nitty gritty of this training than I?

[poodlefan]

PF - You don't think it is about time that frivolous or fruitless laws are fought? Once Schutzhund is 'picked off' it will NEVER get back in again ..... at least I'm sure, not in my lifetime.

If you want to argue that these laws are frivolous and fruitless Erny then you have to play that ball, not the man (or woman).

Consider that your average community member (dog owner or not) will need to be convinced that training a dog to target a person (yes, its the sleeve but a person is wearing it) does not encourage such dogs to attack.

Fight that belief with facts and data. Don't make insulting comments about bureaucracies, animal rights groups, the ANKC and conspiracies because you will be alienating the very groups with the numbers to assist or derail your campaign.

Edited December 10, 2008 by poodlefan

[Cosmolo]

Thanks Erny- thats what OH just said. Was anyone notified of the law change? ie the clubs themselves?

[Erny]

The best time to fight laws is when they are being introduced. What you have to consider now is that fighting a charge that on the face of it WILL be proven, is completely pointless. As I said, the Court isn't going to get into whether or not this is a good law. Its on the books so if the elements of the offence are proven, then the result is inevitable.

Votes are the best motivator in political circles. There is absolutely no way a small group of dog sports enthusiasts will motivate a change in the law without finding a way to broaden their issue. Pissing off other dog folk (my highlights) and the lawmakers (as the BSL folk found out) is not the way to do that.

I agree to an extent with what you've written PF. I think the 'positive approach' is the better as well and I prefer that myself for a variety of reasons. However, when regulations are being introduced, they are generally already written. Public comment is invited, but it still boils down to Govt Body decision and if their mind is made up, there's not much to be done. We've seen that through the BSL fight, the PPCollar objections (2004); tail docking laws; and so on and so forth.

There's got to be some essence in a sport which has been conducted for decades and longer -vs- a regulation that the Government slipped in that now gives them the legal 'right' to 'pick them off'. And in the absence of the charges being for anything other than a breach of that regulation (which is something I would like clarification of), the time to oppose the charges has to be now, surely?

Are you saying that this is "pissing off other dog folk"?

ETA: Just to clarify - this isn't "my" campaign.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Erny

[poodlefan]

There's got to be some essence in a sport which has been conducted for decades and longer -vs- a regulation that the Government slipped in that now gives them the legal 'right' to 'pick them off'. And in the absence of the charges being for anything other than a breach of that regulation (which is something I would like clarification of), the time to oppose the charges has to be now, surely?

Courts determine laws, they don't make them. If the offence is on the books and the elements of the offence are made out, then any arguments as to the tradition, morality or philosophy of the offence or the offender are moot. The court won't give a damn I'm afraid.

If IPO enthusiasts missed the change in the law, that won't matter either I'm afraid. Ignorance of the law is not usually a defence. Frankly they may be better off with a guilty plea and some shit hot mitigation/character references.

Are you saying that this is "pissing off other dog folk"?

Suggesting that the ANKC is one of the conspirators against IPO clubs is heading in that direction IMO. We all know the ANKC doesn't support IPO. To suggest that the ANKC has actually taken action to see it outlawed is a very long bow that requires substantiation. Otherwise, its going to piss members off.

Edited December 10, 2008 by poodlefan