The Beginning Of The End

[Erny]

Without the information of charges we can all make plenty of assumptions. Some correct and some not so correct.

I find it is always better to know the complete facts before going off half-cocked.

The letter regarding Michael Burns' case is a good one to keep in mind, but the big thing is to show the community what the benefits of Schutzhund trained dogs are. This does not necessarily mean doing demonstrations but to highlight the achievements that these dogs and handlers have made by any means possible. (Use instances of intrastate, interstate and international achievements also).

John McDonald may be worth speaking with some of the gundog fraternity and see what they have done to change their image of being "gun totting cowboys" sending dogs out after harmless game. Use this information to your advantage.

Focus on and highlight the achievements, afterall the prosecution will be out there wanting to project an image of fear for the community at large. Portray a different image.

To add to the above, if there is anyway to calculate how many (if any at all) of the Sch trained dogs have been reported to council as a 'nuisance' dog, this info could be helpful. After all - on one hand the Councils are crying that there are so many nuisance reports on their books and so few people to deal with them, yet on the other hand they are endeavouring to close down a sport that will result in an even more narrowed field of canine discipline and mental stimulation than we already have.

I recognise this is an almost impossible task as given the Council has been trying to target Schutzhund for some time now, who would want to put their hand up to be recognised as a Sch member ?????? But something to keep in mind. Perhaps you don't even have to prove this. Maybe just ask the question to Council and let them try to answer it, seeing as it is they who is decrying this sport as some sort of training towards achieving dangerous dogs .

[Steve]

Could someone point me to the exact wording of the legislation and how do we find out what these people have been charged with?

Did this all come in around October?.

[Erny]

Could someone point me to the exact wording of the legislation and how do we find out what these people have been charged with?

I think we're still waiting on this information, Steve.

Did this all come in around October?.

To my knowledge, it was considerably earlier than that when 'papers' were served on those mentioned in the OP. I don't know what has been going on as far as their legal battle from back then is concerned and I'm only presuming at this stage that it relates to the Court case that is now imminent.

In the meantime though, Court Case aside (and I by no means intend to make light of it nor do I want to give the impression that it will not affect the sport of Sch Training overall), I think some action to oppose the suppression of the sport that the authorities have been seemingly working hard to bring about regulations so they can in fact target it, is required.

ETA: Does that last sentence make sense? I think I'm getting tired - it's been a big day .

Edited December 15, 2008 by Erny

[Luke W]

.

Edited December 20, 2008 by left the building

[olestony]

Well thats possibly one of the saddest things I have read in a long time, I wish you all the best in trying to reason with the legislators.

[Steve]

Could someone point me to the exact wording of the legislation and how do we find out what these people have been charged with?

Did this all come in around October?.

I think this is at least some of the relevent legislation:

Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 - SECT 28A

Offence to train dogs to attack

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.

From here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/con...94294/s28a.html

Entire Act here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/con...t/danaa1994294/

Thanks Luke - you're good at this.

Someone check me - Is this saying you are able to train attack dogs if you own a registered animal business?

You're going to have to go a bit slowly for me as I havent looked at this before.

It reads to me that as long as you apply for a domestic animal business and they give approval for you to do this activity that you're free to do so ?

Makes me feel that Im missing the point because Im not seeing anything telling me the activity is illegal.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Steve

[Steve]

Sorry - Is this act saying that its O.K. to have or own a dog trained in this manner as long as its only trained at a registered domestic animal business premises?

Just want to understand what is and what is not allowed and where before I start yelling.

[Nekhbet]

As far as I can see 'domestic animal business' means

- pet shop

- boarding kennel/cattery

- animal shelter

- dog/cat breeder

http://www.egipps.vic.gov.au/webforms/AS-F11.pdf

remember it also states 'if authorised under that registration'

so security companies/kennels would be the ones that would have it in their provision I assume.

ETA - a little OT but have you seen many places now have a list of prohibited breeds (like doggy daycares) that their 'insurance' wont cover! And not one of them is a shutzhund breed

Edited December 15, 2008 by Nekhbet

[Steve]

Too bad about these two lines in that email. I think it is about time the pure breed dog people took a good look in there own backyard as there many people exploiting the dog for there own monetary gain and at the end of the day it is all us dog lovers that will suffer.

Dear Helen, can I give you some advise for the future, please go out find out the facts before you listen to people that have no real knowledge or experience in an activity which they don't understand and are scared of because it looks dangerous.

This is why dog people and dog issues are such soft targets and why laws get raced through without much of a whimper. It divides us.

If you dont play the game you dont stand a chance.

Writing that made the writer look and sound like a redneck and anything else in that email which may have been worth noting would have been discounted.

Making the email public so it could be read by people who would make good allies didnt help the cause much either.Its one thing to be critical of the ANKC administration but that email takes a swipe at the members and given the chance the members would be behind you and you have a better chance of swinging them because of the members pressuring them than you do by shooting blanks.

Regardless of what you think about other dog groups and dog sports or people involved in politics or similar -trying to do what needs to be done

will mean having to play a bit the same way they do. Kissing butts, piddling in the right pockets,networking etc and not beating too many at any one time publicly over the head.

The ANKC have about 37000 members and you just chased half of them off.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Steve

[Nekhbet]

steve I'm wondering if there is a reason that was written? did someone in the purebreed community stand up and point fingers or what?

[Steve]

As far as I can see 'domestic animal business' means

- pet shop

- boarding kennel/cattery

- animal shelter

- dog/cat breeder

http://www.egipps.vic.gov.au/webforms/AS-F11.pdf

remember it also states 'if authorised under that registration'

so security companies/kennels would be the ones that would have it in their provision I assume.

ETA - a little OT but have you seen many places now have a list of prohibited breeds (like doggy daycares) that their 'insurance' wont cover! And not one of them is a shutzhund breed

O.K. I dont see any provision there for training facilities and given that a fair case could be made to the ACCC that people may be done out of being able to make a living and that this is a discrimminatory restriction of trade because people who are traing dogs to do other things dont have to be one of these places - If you could make a case that training these dogs in this manner is a way you make your living and that the restrictions on where they are able to be trained is preventing you from being able to do this you would at least be able to have the approval of premises considered which dont fit into a pet shop, shelter or breeder category. You see it seems the activity isnt illegal just where they are trained but if no-one can get approval unless they fit into one of these spots it restricts trade as long as its a business and not a hobby. If you make a good enough case the ACCC will fight them for you. - For Free.

[Nekhbet]

O.K. I dont see any provision there for training facilities

but dont most training facilities technically double as boarding kennels? Unless you are just having obedience classes on your property a trainer that works from home etc is not technically an animal business since they do not have animals on premises in a commercial manner.

So if you are having dogs stay at your facility you would be considered a boarding kennel?

[The Spotted Devil]

Steve - I think the other problem is that any dog trained in this manner would then be required to be muzzled and housed as a 'dangerous dog' under the legislation. Agree with your comment:

If you dont play the game you dont stand a chance.

[Steve]

Yes Ive no doubt that someone would have said something and there is much going on in Victoria that Id rather not speak of on a public forum which complicate things more than in other states.

But ,even though I very much understand the emotion and the frustration stuff like that shouldnt be put in writing.

The first smell they get of rednecks or cowboys will make em run a mile and they will simply give no credibilty to anything that comes next.

[Nekhbet]

Steve - I think the other problem is that any dog trained in this manner would then be required to be muzzled and housed as a 'dangerous dog' under the legislation.

yes thats what I dont understand. Makes for rather a useless security dog no? Although I dont know if security dogs are all technically considered 'trained' if you get my drift.

[Steve]

O.K. I dont see any provision there for training facilities

but dont most training facilities technically double as boarding kennels? Unless you are just having obedience classes on your property a trainer that works from home etc is not technically an animal business since they do not have animals on premises in a commercial manner.

So if you are having dogs stay at your facility you would be considered a boarding kennel?

Yes but what if I want to run training sessions and train these dogs for a living and I dont want them to stay on my premises? Where is the provision for this in the law. That is a restriction of trade.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Steve

[Steve]

Steve - I think the other problem is that any dog trained in this manner would then be required to be muzzled and housed as a 'dangerous dog' under the legislation.

yes thats what I dont understand. Makes for rather a useless security dog no? Although I dont know if security dogs are all technically considered 'trained' if you get my drift.

So identify the issues.

You're not going to get it all your own way unless there is a system in place to know who is training them correctly and keeping them under control effectively when they are, because the people making the laws and the public [ voting currency] dont Understand - but also there ARE some people who dont have a clue or who will train them this way for unethical reasons and who have and will make you all look bad. You have to look at the politics and who's in the game to begin the strategy which will eventually win or you loose before you kick off.

[Nekhbet]

technically the law is trying to stop underground training - I dont have a problem with the IDEA but the practicality is stupid. But Southern Cross was actually acknowledged by the council and even on the city of Casey website as a dog training club. A club is not a business unless registered as such (something like ADT) and I would think restrictions came from 1) training done in a public space as authorised by council and 2) insurance restrictions.

You do have a point. You cannot train dogs in bitework (sport or otherwise) unless you are part of a domestic animal business and even then if council authorises you to on the registered business property.

but also there ARE some people who dont have a clue or who will train them this way for unethical reasons and who have and will make you all look bad

are we talking Schutzhund dogs or the stereotypical 'attack' dogs here. I dont know how a macho numbnut who wants a vicious dog could survive teh intitial talking to before joining a schutzhund club let alone train their dog to be a DD. Again this is the misconception - people who backyard train are not training 'schutzhund' they are training 'attack' two very different things, two very different methods and two very different outcomes.

If we temp tested or trialled more dogs before breeding I think we would have half the problems we have today. Read up on what is required for a Sch/IPO dog its actually quite a lot of control and skill before just running out and biting a sleeve. If the dog is not controlled or calm it fails, if it shows signs of aggression, dangerous or nervous behavior its not considered for training.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Nekhbet

[Steve]

technically the law is trying to stop underground training - I dont have a problem with the IDEA but the practicality is stupid. But Southern Cross was actually acknowledged by the council and even on the city of Casey website as a dog training club. A club is not a business unless registered as such (something like ADT) and I would think restrictions came from 1) training done in a public space as authorised by council and 2) insurance restrictions.

You do have a point. You cannot train dogs in bitework (sport or otherwise) unless you are part of a domestic animal business and even then if council authorises you to on the registered business property.

but also there ARE some people who dont have a clue or who will train them this way for unethical reasons and who have and will make you all look bad

are we talking Schutzhund dogs or the stereotypical 'attack' dogs here. I dont know how a macho numbnut who wants a vicious dog could survive teh intitial talking to before joining a schutzhund club let alone train their dog to be a DD. Again this is the misconception - people who backyard train are not training 'schutzhund' they are training 'attack' two very different things, two very different methods and two very different outcomes.

Ah yes but herein lies some of the problem - A club is not classed a domestic animal business.

The provision in the law is about where not who - stupid.

[Steve]

technically the law is trying to stop underground training - I dont have a problem with the IDEA but the practicality is stupid. But Southern Cross was actually acknowledged by the council and even on the city of Casey website as a dog training club. A club is not a business unless registered as such (something like ADT) and I would think restrictions came from 1) training done in a public space as authorised by council and 2) insurance restrictions.

You do have a point. You cannot train dogs in bitework (sport or otherwise) unless you are part of a domestic animal business and even then if council authorises you to on the registered business property.

but also there ARE some people who dont have a clue or who will train them this way for unethical reasons and who have and will make you all look bad

are we talking Schutzhund dogs or the stereotypical 'attack' dogs here. I dont know how a macho numbnut who wants a vicious dog could survive teh intitial talking to before joining a schutzhund club let alone train their dog to be a DD. Again this is the misconception - people who backyard train are not training 'schutzhund' they are training 'attack' two very different things, two very different methods and two very different outcomes.

Doesnt really matter what any of us are talking about because the law doesnt qualify it. It puts them both in the same basket.It makes no allowance for Schutzhund training to be different or exempt. If you train one anywhere other than on a domestic animals registered premises when you are the owner or employed by them - you're gone. Makes no difference how well or how rotten you do it. Go straight to gaol.