New Laws Double Penalties For Failing To Register Dogs In Vic

[MelodysMum]

I think it's great to encourage registration of dogs, but this is giving councils power that is really scary! What if the dog has been registered but their microchip doesn't scan or they have lost their collar?

New laws double penalties for failing to register dogs

AAP May 07, 2010 7:06AM

TOUGH new laws to rid the community of dangerous dogs have been introduced in Victoria.

Under the laws, council officers will be given sweeping powers to seize and destroy unregistered dogs found unsupervised in public areas, if they are believed to pose a risk.

The maximum penalties will double for failing to register an animal and for dogs found not wearing council identification tags.

A two-year amnesty will give owners the chance to register restricted breed dogs under new criteria.

Agriculture Minister Joe Helper said the new laws set down clear criteria to help councils determine if a dog should be declared as a restricted breed dog.

"These tough new laws will give council officers the authority to seize and destroy unregistered or unidentifiable dogs found unsupervised in a public place if they reasonably believe the dog is a danger to public safety," he said in a statement.

"The proposed legislation will also empower an authorised officer to immediately destroy any dog that they believe will cause imminent serious injury or death to a person or another animal."

The changes to the Domestic Animals Act 1994 also include new powers for the Magistrates' Court to order an owner found guilty of an offence to attend a responsible dog ownership training or approved obedience course.

New laws double penalties for failing to register dogs

Edited May 7, 2010 by WendyH

[Bisart Dobes]

This applies to declared dangerous dogs and restricted breeds only.

[BJean]

This applies to declared dangerous dogs and restricted breeds only.

Yes restricted breeds

because Council can differentiate between a staffy and a PB?

or a labxridgeback and a PB?

I remember one SE ranger telling me: "if it has yellow eyes it's part PB."

(Because Kangals/Anatolians are PitBulls x mastiff, didn't ya know?)

[Jed]

Oh, lilli, please remember if it has a red nose it is a pitbull too.

Scary laws, Wendy, scary laws

[casowner]

I thought the main criteria was yellow eyes, red noses, short hair and that is enough proof to prove a pitty.

God help us all

[MelodysMum]

This applies to declared dangerous dogs and restricted breeds only.

No, it doesn't!! If we could trust councils to do the right thing that might be what it means, but have you actually read it? :D

Under the laws, council officers will be given sweeping powers to seize and destroy unregistered dogs found unsupervised in public areas, if they are believed to pose a risk.

"These tough new laws will give council officers the authority to seize and destroy unregistered or unidentifiable dogs found unsupervised in a public place if they reasonably believe the dog is a danger to public safety," he said in a statement.

"The proposed legislation will also empower an authorised officer to immediately destroy any dog that they believe will cause imminent serious injury or death to a person or another animal."

I can see a lot of redneck council officers thinking some completely innocent family pets are a danger to public safety because they look the wrong way!! It doesn't say they have to have been declared dangerous or be restricted breeds!! The council officer just has to believe they pose a danger!

The last part says ANY DOG!!!

Edited May 8, 2010 by WendyH