So Angry

[Nekhbet]

by the way there are always payment plans available for fines. Fines not paid go to Civic Compliance Vic and from there you arrange payment plans of whatever you afford, they are very understanding about it.

[justin19801]

Fines should be there for the irresponsible. Pedestrians don't pay to use footpaths, I don't pay each time council fixes roads, cyclists donn't pay for cycle paths, I don't pay to use the local library; that's what rates are for. The User Pays excuse is simply a deterrent to dog ownership. If ACOs don't like it they should get another job, like street sweeping (which we don't pay for either).

All my dogs are chipped but that's because I chose to chip them, there are plenty of cases of chipped dogs being killed and honest citizens being stopped in the street by "I'm a Special Constable you know" types and their dogs scanned when they're not lost. MANDATORY chippining is not about dogs, it's about controlling people.

If we don't stand up to politicians who introduce these laws at the behest of groups such as R$PCA then we will ,lose the ability to breed and finally own dogs.

[BittyMooPeeb]

The fines are seperate to any impounding fees and charges. I actually think that part of the system works well, the dogs are claimed and then the owner cops the applicable fines for having a dog at large, unregistered, not chipped etc.

You could contest the first the unregistered bit but should think yourself lucky that the dogs were impounded and not kept by someone who could have picked them up.

There's also no point blaming the breeder for the paperwork. You would have recieved a white piece of paper from the breeders local council when the first change of ownership was completed. It's up to you as the new owner to confirm those details are correct. Again it's your responsibility to make sure details are correct upon lifetime registration and that you maintain them throughout the dogs life.

If the breeder didn't put Nickojoys address on the paperwork, he could not have been sent the white page .

I think the fines are excessive, but unless they are wrong, you need to pay them.

[Greytmate]

The times I have had to get dogs out of the pound, it has only cost about $150 max. That covers the cost of somebody picking up the dog and paperwork.

Better in the pound than squashed on the road.

However I wish councils would subsidise their animal management departments instead of subsidising useless community things that I don't need or want.

[WreckitWhippet]

The fines are seperate to any impounding fees and charges. I actually think that part of the system works well, the dogs are claimed and then the owner cops the applicable fines for having a dog at large, unregistered, not chipped etc.

You could contest the first the unregistered bit but should think yourself lucky that the dogs were impounded and not kept by someone who could have picked them up.

There's also no point blaming the breeder for the paperwork. You would have recieved a white piece of paper from the breeders local council when the first change of ownership was completed. It's up to you as the new owner to confirm those details are correct. Again it's your responsibility to make sure details are correct upon lifetime registration and that you maintain them throughout the dogs life.

If the breeder didn't put Nickojoys address on the paperwork, he could not have been sent the white page .

I think the fines are excessive, but unless they are wrong, you need to pay them.

The pup could not have been registered in Nickojoys name if a change of ownership had not taken place.

If the change of ownership were incomplete or if the initial chip for were incomplete, council would not have processed it.

Even if for arguements sake nothing was ever process by council, no paperwork was sent etc, Nickojoy has been involved in rescue and rehoming long enough to know that she needed to chase it up with the breeder and to make sure that the transfer went through.

The process for NSW is that the breeder chips in their name ( or the new owner if all details are known at the time and the owner signs the form ). The form is them processed by council and the pups details are recorded on the register. From there the breeder completes a change of ownership form, using the buyers details, the buyer signs that and the breeder than sends that into council within 14 days.

The buyer revieces a white paper (NSW Companion Animal Certificate of Identification ) from the breeders council, that has all of the details on it, it also states that the animal is currently unregistered and that the new owner will need to do so. That is also the time which you make sure you details are correct

That certificate is taken to the new owners local council and the puppy is registered before or at 6 months of age.

The new owner then recieves a Certificate Of Registration, which again has all of the details on it.

The breeders gets an initial cert of ID, the buyer gets one when the change of ownership takes place and then there is a cert of registraion issued. There's a paper trail a mile long for a dog or puppy chipped in NSW. Leave one mandatory detail off at any point in the process and council is on your back before they'll process it.

[Howl]

Despite Impound fees I can understand, this is how my local pound operates, but another fine? Please - I will be having an appointment with the legal officer about this tomorrow and trust me I will not be paying the $220 fines as I was not aware at the time of the offence that it was an offence. Like doing a U turn at a intersection, if there is no sign, its legal....The $165 fines will get thrown out as I have all the supporting paperwork to prove the dogs were registered.

Actually, you can only do a U turn if there is a sign saying that you can....Not the other way around.

[Howl]

Despite some holier than thou responses these are absurd. The fines are just revenue raisers. Dogs get out, are let out etc. Accidents happen. Unless you are a habitual offender you should get a warning. There is an anti-dog movement in this country and this is one of the ways they enforce their views. Mandatory microchipping is not about controlling dogs but about controlling you.

Of course they are revenue raisers! Don't you understand what revenue is used for? It's used to fund the animal control program. No revenue means a pound cannot be built or maintained, no staff to run it, no food, water or shelter for the stray animals.

Yes accidents do happen. Those accidents cost the community money. Go and work in a pound for a week and see how many people come in with the explanation that it was an accident. They may be right, but does that mean they aren't responsible for the cost?

I don't believe there is an anti-dog movement. But there is a movement against irresponsible owners.

[J.H.M]

Despite Impound fees I can understand, this is how my local pound operates, but another fine? Please - I will be having an appointment with the legal officer about this tomorrow and trust me I will not be paying the $220 fines as I was not aware at the time of the offence that it was an offence. Like doing a U turn at a intersection, if there is no sign, its legal....The $165 fines will get thrown out as I have all the supporting paperwork to prove the dogs were registered.

Actually, you can only do a U turn if there is a sign saying that you can....Not the other way around.

I found that out the hard way

[Howl]

Despite Impound fees I can understand, this is how my local pound operates, but another fine? Please - I will be having an appointment with the legal officer about this tomorrow and trust me I will not be paying the $220 fines as I was not aware at the time of the offence that it was an offence. Like doing a U turn at a intersection, if there is no sign, its legal....The $165 fines will get thrown out as I have all the supporting paperwork to prove the dogs were registered.

Actually, you can only do a U turn if there is a sign saying that you can....Not the other way around.

I found that out the hard way

So did I!

[Cosmolo]

In Melbourne you can do a U turn unless otherwise signed

[WreckitWhippet]

Well, there's one thing for sure, you can't let a dog roam in NSW, regarldess of where you can and can't do a u-turn

[Greytmate]

Actually, you can only do a U turn if there is a sign saying that you can....Not the other way around.

Depends what state you are in.

[justin19801]

Despite some holier than thou responses these are absurd. The fines are just revenue raisers. Dogs get out, are let out etc. Accidents happen. Unless you are a habitual offender you should get a warning. There is an anti-dog movement in this country and this is one of the ways they enforce their views. Mandatory microchipping is not about controlling dogs but about controlling you.

Of course they are revenue raisers! Don't you understand what revenue is used for? It's used to fund the animal control program. No revenue means a pound cannot be built or maintained, no staff to run it, no food, water or shelter for the stray animals.

Yes accidents do happen. Those accidents cost the community money. Go and work in a pound for a week and see how many people come in with the explanation that it was an accident. They may be right, but does that mean they aren't responsible for the cost?

I don't believe there is an anti-dog movement. But there is a movement against irresponsible owners.

I thought that's what rates were for, Doh! Revenue raising yet dogs are still killed, ACOs still abusing their authority and Councils refusing to supply services our rates pay for. Revenue raising is right. Elect councillors who will fulfill their obligations to ratepayers, not no hopers lining their own pockets.

[Pointees]

I hear you - I got hit with a $500 fine last year because we re-registered our 2 dogs 4 days late. It was late because the info on their registration forms was incorrect (wrong breed, description, sex and owners) and we had insisted they change the info before we paid as we were convinced they wouldn't do it otherwise, and they ofcourse didn't notify us that they had made the changes - even though we contacted them a number of times!.

We had the fine overturned, but had to have a meeting with the head of animal control and the mayor in order to get it done!

(I should add they decided to use late payments to revenue raise last year - they admitted it in the meeting we had! - but after the huge negative reaction backtracked fast.)

Its very painful when mishaps happen.

I had one of my dogs dropped off at 'my house' which happened to be a house down the road instead...

Council picked up my dog from the neighbours yard, cost $70 to get her out that day!! And then I got a $231 fine in the mail...

[Howl]

Despite some holier than thou responses these are absurd. The fines are just revenue raisers. Dogs get out, are let out etc. Accidents happen. Unless you are a habitual offender you should get a warning. There is an anti-dog movement in this country and this is one of the ways they enforce their views. Mandatory microchipping is not about controlling dogs but about controlling you.

Of course they are revenue raisers! Don't you understand what revenue is used for? It's used to fund the animal control program. No revenue means a pound cannot be built or maintained, no staff to run it, no food, water or shelter for the stray animals.

Yes accidents do happen. Those accidents cost the community money. Go and work in a pound for a week and see how many people come in with the explanation that it was an accident. They may be right, but does that mean they aren't responsible for the cost?

I don't believe there is an anti-dog movement. But there is a movement against irresponsible owners.

I thought that's what rates were for, Doh! Revenue raising yet dogs are still killed, ACOs still abusing their authority and Councils refusing to supply services our rates pay for. Revenue raising is right. Elect councillors who will fulfill their obligations to ratepayers, not no hopers lining their own pockets.

No - check your rates bill - it will tell you what you are paying rates for, usually rubbish, water, and wastewater/sewerage, usually an environmental and fire levy.

Any revenue 'raised' is put back into all kinds of local government programs including works, infrastructure, parks and gardens, etc, etc. It is not a Christmas party fund or a black hole for that matter. Most government budgets factor in revenue to help with expenditure costs. I'm not sure what you mean by the connection with "revenue raising yet dogs are still killed"??? You obviously have a gripe with a local government somewhere but it seems a bit harsh to tar the whole country with that view.

[Snout Girl]

I find the fact that you can be fined for your dog not wearing a collar a little absurd.

If, for instance, Bert were to get out (only possible if someone broke in and managed to bolt cut our $100 security lock) and were picked up, I would wear the fine for him 'roaming' as I would be grateful he was alive and ok.

But if I was to receive a fine because he wasnt wearing a collar, I would take issue with that. I have been advised by a specialist surgeon that Bert is never allowed to wear a collar again. He has had throat surgery.

I am sure that he is not the only dog who cant wear a collar for one legimate reason or another. That rule seems a little absurd.

[Tim'sMum]

Nickojoy.....I think the fines are VERY hefty. Try to appeal on the 'registration' fines if the the dogs are registered.

If paying it all in one go is a problem, I think you can apply to pay it off in installments. Worth asking about at least.

[Okami]

I personally think the fines are excessive.

[Enigma01au]

I personally think the fines are just right! The reason they are high is to act as a deterant to dog owners so they make more of an effort to stop their dogs roaming the street.

Without laying blame at anyone, I'm sure you'll be making changes to make sure the dogs don't "go walkies" again! Therefore, the fines system works!

It doesn't matter how the dogs got out, the fact is they WERE out.....

JMHO.....

[iffykharma]

I find the fact that you can be fined for your dog not wearing a collar a little absurd.

If, for instance, Bert were to get out (only possible if someone broke in and managed to bolt cut our $100 security lock) and were picked up, I would wear the fine for him 'roaming' as I would be grateful he was alive and ok.

But if I was to receive a fine because he wasnt wearing a collar, I would take issue with that. I have been advised by a specialist surgeon that Bert is never allowed to wear a collar again. He has had throat surgery.

I am sure that he is not the only dog who cant wear a collar for one legimate reason or another. That rule seems a little absurd.

And if you were to appeal that fine on those grounds, it would probably be waived.