Survey For Dangerous Dog Legislation On Vic Dpi

[Silvawilow]

Completed survey. Can only pray that these proposal become legislation

[mokhahouse]

I completed the survey but I went back over my answers several times fine tuning them. I do not want to hand any power to unqualified council officers to make judgements on any dog especially a seize and destroy mentality. I dont have much faith that my answers will alter whatever legislation is being put forward but I was at least able to have a say and not just answer yes or no. The questions were very loaded and I suggest people read them and read them again before formulating there answers.

[Kelpie-i]

Done!

Agree that first question is loaded. Part of my answer to that was that the situation has many variables and if the officer makes a decision based on and/or is only able so "suspect" then he/she should not be employed as a council animal control officer.

[spottychick]

I said such important life and death decisions should NEVER be left up to Councils or their employees who don't exactly have a history of making sound decisions about ANYTHING, let alone whether or not to take a dogs life.

[Nannas]

Agreed.

What if the Ranger is just having a bad day or life crisis and is in one hell of a bad mood??

What if the dog belongs to someone the Rangers etc don't like??

[Longcoat]

Completed the survey. I think everyone needs to stand up for the idea that a dog should not be condemned to death (or confinement as 'dangerous') without a fair trial. I'm reminded of a recent local story where dog bit child and got the green needle. After the lethal dose was administered they discovered that the poor dog's ear was full of staples . . . it bit the kid only as a last resort in attempt to escape torture. Mindless slinging of the 'dangerous' label helps neither dogs, nor people.

A dog biting a child is generally the evil of all evil's in the canine world, but kids can do some really silly things to provoke being bitten like stapling a dogs ear. There was something else I read about a kid shoving a pencil into a dogs ear with the same result after the dog being PTS, they found what the child had done to the dog

[spottychick]

Completed the survey. I think everyone needs to stand up for the idea that a dog should not be condemned to death (or confinement as 'dangerous') without a fair trial. I'm reminded of a recent local story where dog bit child and got the green needle. After the lethal dose was administered they discovered that the poor dog's ear was full of staples . . . it bit the kid only as a last resort in attempt to escape torture. Mindless slinging of the 'dangerous' label helps neither dogs, nor people.

A dog biting a child is generally the evil of all evil's in the canine world, but kids can do some really silly things to provoke being bitten like stapling a dogs ear. There was something else I read about a kid shoving a pencil into a dogs ear with the same result after the dog being PTS, they found what the child had done to the dog

In these cases the parents should be prosecuted for endangering the life of their child AND animal cruelty.

[grumpette]

This just illustrates that parental supervision is the easiest way to reduce the number of dog bites involving children. Supervise or separate.

So simple and so easy to do, yet it seems to be so hard to get this message across to the community

Most (around 80%) of dog bite incidents involving children under 12 occur in the family home or that of a family member or friend. They are therefore being bitten by their own dog or one known to them. Not the stray dog the ranger is after.

[Odin-Genie]

Survey completed. I stressed that instead of destroying dogs there needs to be hefty fines for dog owners whose dogs roam or bite. Destroying a dog may not affect those who don't care to keep their dogs safe. They would simply go and get another dog. The only way to make people responsible is to educate them as well as fine them.

[Erny]

Ok ..... I just prattled some of my thoughts off. I don't know why, but I never seem to be able to word things well when I'm typing in those little boxes. Maybe because the whole of what I'm saying is not always visible.

These are the answers I gave :

If a stray dog is suspected by a council officer to be a danger to the public by virtue of its size, breed or disposition and it is also not registered – should councils have the power to immediately seize and destroy the dog?

DEFINITELY NOT. I am not prepared to endorse approval of power to a council officer to have a dog destroyed because some Council Officer 'thinks' it might be a danger because the dog is big; or because the Council Officer favours (or dislikes) certain Breeds (reference Breed Specific Legislation). And what of the words "by virtue of its disposition" ??? What "disposition" are they talking about? To answer yes to this question leaves it open to inexperienced and unknowledgeable people making rash and fatal (for the dog) decisions that may well be unnecessary, but are irreversible. "Sorry" won't cut it.

If a dog has already been declared a “dangerous dog” by a council and it is found at large should councils be able to seize it and immediately destroy it?

NO. My reason behind this answer is that the declaration of "dangerous dog" under the law doesn't really mean the dog IS dangerous. To give licence for some council employee to arrange for its death is folly and will impact greatly on the owners (family) of that dog - a dog that by all common sense may well actually not really be a dangerous dog.

Should there be a penalty for possession of an unregistered dog, and what should that penalty be?

I used to think registration of a dog with Council was something that should be for every dog. To me, this provided identity and the ability to retrace an owner in the instance of the dog straying. Nowadays we have mandatory microchipping, which I believe is more beneficial. So, each provides a form of ID and ownership. IF I thought that the majority of moneys from dog registrations went back into matters pertaining to dogs and facilities for dog-owners to enjoy their dogs, then my answer to registrations and penalities if not registered would be yes. But as that is not my understanding my answer must be "NO" as I can recognise where Council registration and mandatory Microchipping is an overlap of the same purpose (ie ID) and causes an owner 2 expenses.

Should medical practitioners or hospitals be required to report any dog bites to the Government Chief Medical Officer or the Police or Councils?

This one I haven't answered yet and wouldn't mind the input of thoughts of others. I don't like the idea of things such as this having to be reported and my inclination is to simply answer "NO". If I do, it will be the only one worded answer I've managed to give through the whole survey. LOL

Should restricted breed (i.e. pit bull) owners be able to keep their animal only if its de-sexed and muzzled when off the property and registered or should they all be destroyed?

They should definitely NOT all be destroyed. Breed Specific Legislation does not work and it will NEVER work. This was made painfully and abundantly clear even before BSL was adopted by our State. Pit Bull owners should be bound by the same rules, regulations, legislations, prohibitions and restrictions that prescribe to "Responsible Ownership" as it does for all of us. I fervently oppose the discriminations of BSL and suggest it has caused more problems, misunderstandings and misgivings by its very existence. It is a failed legislation. It should never have been adopted and this unfair and deleterious law should have by now been scrapped. IF however (as it seems) we do not have a choice in this and it is insisted that this be a "either this or either that" option, then I would venture to say that "de-sexed and muzzled when off property" is a better option (note : NOT a fair option) than forcing the killing of these dogs - family, loved, and companion animals.

Do you have any further comments you would like to make?

There are many rules, regulations, legislations that have been introduced into the State of Victoria and which pertain to dogs pursuant to both the Feral and Nuisance Animals Act as well as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act - rules which are greatly flawed and hurt the innocent and responsible dog owners rather than those they were designed to target. I think the Government would do well to seek conference with the actual people who are closely and every day involved in the training and behaviour of dogs as well as their welfare - begin to work with them and stop allowing mere politics to influence the content of regulations that continue to be imposed upon us.

LOL - for this last question I felt like starting off with "well, seeing as you asked ...." and then filling out sheets of A4 text to cover all my concerns about the powers they grant, the laws they create, the politics involved in those laws -vs- the common sense of them.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

When the survey is done, this pops up with a "thank you" note :

Thank you. The Victorian Government is planning to introduce its dangerous dog legislation into Parliament in 2010.

At the moment, BSL is "regulation". Regulations don't have to go through parliament to be passed in, so it is easier for the Government to make these rules without the hurdles imposed by parliamentary rule. Conversley, it is easier (note that I did not say "easy") to get regulations changed. Moreso than it is to have legislation changed.

Would someone please correct me if my understanding is wrong (or confirm if my understanding is correct)?

IOW - Government have seen fit to implement BSL as a part of the Feral and Nuisance Animals Act (I think this Act has a new name now), and not JUST as a regulation.

Wonder why they would do that, seeing as it is already proven to have failed ???

No. I don't "wonder" nothing any more .

Edited January 19, 2010 by Erny

[newfsie]

The questions are loaded but those with half a brain can break them down and answer beyond the simple yes/no

That is what I did.........My answers were long and I made a point of the fact that they need to take individual dog behaviour in consideration not it's breed..........Some of the nicest dogs I know are on the dangerous dogs list. It is all about who is on the other end of the lead

[Nannas]

When the survey is done, this pops up with a "thank you" note :

Thank you. The Victorian Government is planning to introduce its dangerous dog legislation into Parliament in 2010.

At the moment, BSL is "regulation". Regulations don't have to go through parliament to be passed in, so it is easier for the Government to make these rules without the hurdles imposed by parliamentary rule. Conversley, it is easier (note that I did not say "easy") to get regulations changed. Moreso than it is to have legislation changed.

Would someone please correct me if my understanding is wrong (or confirm if my understanding is correct)?

IOW - Government have seen fit to implement BSL as a part of the Feral and Nuisance Animals Act (I think this Act has a new name now), and not JUST as a regulation.

Wonder why they would do that, seeing as it is already proven to have failed ???

No. I don't "wonder" nothing any more .

They aren't changing BSL or really even asking about it.

They are upping the Dangerous Dog Legislation,,,that covers ALL dogs declared or deemed Dangerous,,,regardless of breed.

Even though there was a question about Restricted Breeds,,,,the questions were about ALL breeds...

I prefer DD legislation to BSL.

[Natsu chan]

Erny I said no about the reporting bites thing too. My feeling is that they will try via this to slap a DD order on anything that bites which of course if it's compulsory will include vets being bitten by dogs who are injured or other wise not themselves. Why should a dog who may be in tremendous pain and lashing out at someone hurting them be labelled as a dangerous dog. Then there's police and military animals. The questions made me feel rather ill too. I don't think Brumby likes dogs very much given the amount of anti dog legislation that has gone through since he's been in office.

I also pointed out that the least they could do was make annual registration state wide not on council basis which means if you move you have to pay for a whole years rego again, since council won't reduce it if you move half way through the year or do partial refunds. The truth is this will probably go through regardless of what we say just as everything else has.

[grumpette]

Should medical practitioners or hospitals be required to report any dog bites to the Government Chief Medical Officer or the Police or Councils?

Erny I said yes to this. The reason being that it will help give a more accurate picture of bite statistics. Yes, you will still get breed bias to some degree when it comes to identifying the breed responsible, but it will capture the incidents of owners' dogs biting family members a lot better than currently recorded when people go to the emergency dept of hospitals. With a lot of dog bites people tend to go to their GP and that data is lost. It is possible that it will help balance some of the media hype surrounding dog bites.

[Erny]

Should medical practitioners or hospitals be required to report any dog bites to the Government Chief Medical Officer or the Police or Councils?

Erny I said yes to this. The reason being that it will help give a more accurate picture of bite statistics. Yes, you will still get breed bias to some degree when it comes to identifying the breed responsible, but it will capture the incidents of owners' dogs biting family members a lot better than currently recorded when people go to the emergency dept of hospitals. With a lot of dog bites people tend to go to their GP and that data is lost. It is possible that it will help balance some of the media hype surrounding dog bites.

I understand, Grumpette. That's why I deliberated about it. But, as the survey was going to kick me out if I didn't complete it in 15 minutes (because it had sat static), I answered "No".

My reasoning behind this is that EVERY dog bite stat recorded is a nail in dogs' coffins and there are many a times when the bite does not equate to an aggressive dog. For example, a dog who suffers a pencil being thrust down its ear cannal by a child; a dog who I might have worked with for the very reason that it was a bit snappy (leadership) and before behaviour modification had the opportunity to be effective, snapped me and caught my hand or whatever - I'd class that as "my fault" and whilst I might need a stitch or two, would not class that as something the dog or dogs in general should be tainted with. Another example would be one from when my own boy was a titchy pup with needle point sharp teeth. He and I made the mistake of heading for a crash course (accidentally). It was only an accident that his mouth was open as he went for a toy. It was only an accident that I bent down in his 'line' and his tooth caught my lip. It opened it up but fortunately didn't need stitches. If it did, then this potentially would have had to have been reported as a "dog bite" if this law was in.

I possibly wouldn't mind as much if we could have the equivalent of stats which indicated when dogs have been good - maybe that would weigh the balance a bit better.

[Erny]

The truth is this will probably go through regardless of what we say just as everything else has.

Yes. I fear this too. Often, the invitation for public submission is only a token offer by the Government - makes the public think they take into account our opinions and what we say. The other thing also is that the survey would be open to non-dog owning and potentially anti-dog people, many of whom perhaps don't have a clue other than what's been fed to them by the media, and who do not have any understanding of dogs and how the laws that are being and have been created are not working. But still, the Govt will be able to say "we asked the people, and we delivered". Neither of which would be a lie. Might be fruitless. But wouldn't be a lie.

At least we can say "we have been trying to tell you". For what that might be worth.

[Jed]

I answered "no" to the reporting question too. Medical staff have an avenue to report dog bites now. I would presume if the bite was a bad one or the medical staff weren't happy about it, they would report it.

I thought about whether reporting all bites would be useful for stats, but I wonder whether the dog's breed would be reported accurately, particularly as it would be given 2nd hand. Like Erny, it bothers me a bit that there could be false stats - if you stand on your chihuahua and he takes a chunk out of your toe, I would not like him to be declared, and you probably wouldn't either, and if you were the right type of person, you could blame the ACD next door for the bite

Some surveys in the past have come back to bite us, so I concentrated on sentences where they were possible, giving my point of view.

The survery looked to me as if the gov was justifying bringing in more/different rules, and wanted to justify them. But I am a bit paranoid, maybe they did want to know what people think.

[Amika]

QUOTE

Should medical practitioners or hospitals be required to report any dog bites to the Government Chief Medical Officer or the Police or Councils?

This one I haven't answered yet and wouldn't mind the input of thoughts of others. I don't like the idea of things such as this having to be reported and my inclination is to simply answer "NO". If I do, it will be the only one worded answer I've managed to give through the whole survey. LOL

Erny - My now 21 yr old daughter was bitten by our friend and neighbors dog when she was 4. Nasty bite around her eye and his bottom teeth actually ended up inside her mouth cutting into her gum. The dog was not provoked, however did go into protective mode for one of his pack members thinking she was in danger while the kids played. I'm a dog lover, my children are dog lovers. We were asked by doctors etc to report the incident and we refused. I believe it is up to the individuals involved and council should only step in if requested. The dog was PTS by the owners without consulting us.

[spottychick]

Amika - my point of view, for what it's worth is that this is open to abuse (eg neighbours who don't like your dog saying they were bitten by it) and over-burdens the medical fraternity if not done properly. If it was to work at all at minimum there would need to be strict and clear guidelines about what is required to be reported (eg NOT some accidental bite), what information is to be included (ef a bite in self-defence) and also in what happens to the information provided to the authorities. Due process MUST be applied properly and I'm really not confident it would be when it comes to dealing with "just animals". I also told them if this was to be applied then the opposite should also be enforced - ie Vets and medical staff be required to report all incidents of suspected or actual animal abuse that they come across (including those related to dog bites).

That was my speil more or less anyway.