leopuppy04 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Just was emailed this - read through and then answer the survey. I think it's important they get as many views as possible, otherwise, we soon won't be able to own dogs by the sound of things! article: http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/newsroom/9200.html Survey: http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I can't find the survey??? Am I not looking correctly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leopuppy04 Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 On the far right hand side - big yellow banner link saying Dangeroud dogs survey etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Brown Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I can't find the survey??? Am I not looking correctly http://dpidangerousdogs.questionpro.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 On the far right hand side - big yellow banner link saying Dangeroud dogs survey etc... Just having one of those days!! . Did a boys look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastgals Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Completed this survey this morning. It asks questions that could lead to the implementation of (IMO) some seriously scarey legislation for Council powers in terms of restricted breeds and dangerous dogs. It horrifies me that our State Government is even considering some of this extreme legislation, and that they believe this is what Victorians might want. Bumping to ask all Victorian DOLers to check this survey out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leopuppy04 Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 Completed this survey this morning. It asks questions that could lead to the implementation of (IMO) some seriously scarey legislation for Council powers in terms of restricted breeds and dangerous dogs. It horrifies me that our State Government is even considering some of this extreme legislation, and that they believe this is what Victorians might want. Bumping to ask all Victorian DOLers to check this survey out. Tell me about it! I was dumbfounded when I read the questions. Such as "If we find a dog at large, should rangers be allowed to destroy the dog?!" It opens up a whole can of worms simply because dogs out of their comfort zone might act out of fear etc,etc. Scary to think of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnuckleBuster Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Does anyone here have a Facebook account and know how to list the link Help spread the word... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taters Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I put the link on my FB page I just copied it into my status asking all dog owners to complete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayreovi Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 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? Uhh wow, that is scary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilly Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 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? Uhh wow, that is scary! I responded with only by disposition and only if someone is directly at threat of harm. Size and breed don't make a dog dangerous. My comment at the end was about punishing the irresponsible owner and not the unfortunate animal who had the misfortune of being owned by them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piper Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 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? Uhh wow, that is scary! I responded with only by disposition and only if someone is directly at threat of harm. Size and breed don't make a dog dangerous. My comment at the end was about punishing the irresponsible owner and not the unfortunate animal who had the misfortune of being owned by them... I made some very similar coments as well - breed and size do not make a dangerous dog. It is the irresponsible owners who should be penalised, it is not the dog's fault a secure area is not provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDaz Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 What about question 2, should a classified dangerous dog be destroyed if it is caught on the loose. I said Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) What about question 2, should a classified dangerous dog be destroyed if it is caught on the loose.I said Yes. Why? A dog can be declared as a "Dangerous Dog" if it rushes someone or threatens them. It's too late for me to go looking up the wording of the law, but I recall the interpretation could be something along the lines of "the dog jumped up on a person; this frightened the person; the person ergo felt threatened". This is the problem with the law : it is too open to interpretation by each person who reads it - people ASSUME "Dangerous Dog" means the dog has shown real/genuine signs of being dangerous. That's not necessarily the case. Edited January 22, 2010 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowysal Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I filled it out as an owner of a dangerous dog and did not hold back in my condemnation either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDaz Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 What about question 2, should a classified dangerous dog be destroyed if it is caught on the loose.I said Yes. Why? A dog can be declared as a "Dangerous Dog" if it rushes someone or threatens them. It's too late for me to go looking up the wording of the law, but I recall the interpretation could be something along the lines of "the dog jumped up on a person; this frightened the person; the person ergo felt threatened". This is the problem with the law : it is too open to interpretation by each person who reads it - people ASSUME "Dangerous Dog" means the dog has shown real/genuine signs of being dangerous. That's not necessarily the case. Sorry, I admit I don’t know what is required to declare a dog as dangerous, I assumed it would be relevant to the term. My reasoning is that I walk two Staffy's every night and coming across this type of dog could be detrimental to all of us. I also see kids out playing as well. I figure a classified dangerous dog should be well secured, if it is not it is a danger to kids and others, if the owners have let it escape once they may again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 If the dog has already been declared dangerous, shouldn't it be contained where there is no possible way of escape anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teebs Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 done... didnt mean to type as much as i did down the bottom.. oh well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leopuppy04 Posted January 22, 2010 Author Share Posted January 22, 2010 What about question 2, should a classified dangerous dog be destroyed if it is caught on the loose.I said Yes. Why? A dog can be declared as a "Dangerous Dog" if it rushes someone or threatens them. It's too late for me to go looking up the wording of the law, but I recall the interpretation could be something along the lines of "the dog jumped up on a person; this frightened the person; the person ergo felt threatened". This is the problem with the law : it is too open to interpretation by each person who reads it - people ASSUME "Dangerous Dog" means the dog has shown real/genuine signs of being dangerous. That's not necessarily the case. Totally agree erny. If the dog has already been declared dangerous, shouldn't it be contained where there is no possible way of escape anyway? Technically, yes. although as we all know, this isn't always the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amika Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 What about question 2, should a classified dangerous dog be destroyed if it is caught on the loose.I said Yes. Why? A dog can be declared as a "Dangerous Dog" if it rushes someone or threatens them. It's too late for me to go looking up the wording of the law, but I recall the interpretation could be something along the lines of "the dog jumped up on a person; this frightened the person; the person ergo felt threatened". This is the problem with the law : it is too open to interpretation by each person who reads it - people ASSUME "Dangerous Dog" means the dog has shown real/genuine signs of being dangerous. That's not necessarily the case. Sorry, I admit I don't know what is required to declare a dog as dangerous, I assumed it would be relevant to the term. My reasoning is that I walk two Staffy's every night and coming across this type of dog could be detrimental to all of us. I also see kids out playing as well. I figure a classified dangerous dog should be well secured, if it is not it is a danger to kids and others, if the owners have let it escape once they may again. I'm afraid Erny is right on this one, a dog does not have to do very much at all to be declared dangerous, they do not have to be "aggressive", they do not have to be "dog agressive", the "rush" may be in excitement rather than agression and there is no distinction between the two and if the person or animal involved is frightened then its a "rush" and is enough to declare a dog dangerous. The "council" will declare the dog "dangerous" so that if something in the future was to happen their arse is covered.......the dog may not be genuinely aggressive or dangerous. Before a council declares a dog dangerous they should have to do a temperament test of the dog.....or at least meet the dog in question themselves!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now