Proposed New Victorian Dog Laws Dead Wrong

[Erny]

This report has saved me a little bit of work as I have been trying to juggle a number of things at once and making really slow progress. It fast tracks things a bit by linking the report here. The intro is copy/pasted to give you the idea of what it is about, but it would be good if you would link to the site and read through. I haven't finished reading it all myself but as this is an urgent matter requiring urgent action, I thought I'd post it up here.

It is ironic that this is a dangerous law .......... proposed under "dangerous" dog act. Sometimes I wonder who should be declared the more dangerous - the dogs, or the law-makers. But anyway, it needs letters. I've almost done mine - it's a few pages (because that's just my style) and it's not a documentary as such, it is all words coming from the heart but spelling it out to Mr. Brumby/Mr. Helper/Parliament where and how it can and will be so wrong, and how it will hurt the wrong dogs and the wrong people.

So, once again, fellow Victorians (and any one else who will help us plead our cases and objections .... gawd, needing to fight these stupidities are such time wasters ), please put pen to paper and write down your thoughts about this proposed law. Let the politicians know your dissatisfaction and objections. I'll post up my letter once I've completed it. People can perhaps gain some ideas just to start themselves off from there. I plan to send mine not only to Joe Helper and John Brumby, but also to send a copy of it with a short covering letter to as many MP's as I possibly can. I'm also in the throws of organising a petition, but there is no way I will have that ready to rock and roll before 20th May (to my knowledge Victoria hasn't changed its draconian laws of petition since the last I did one, which means no electronic signatures - everything original and snail mail) ..... at the very least the petition will bring awareness of this idiotic and dangerous law to the attention of many (and it is an election year ) and if the Law goes ahead, I can lodge the petition in Parliament to register our objections.

It's going to be debated in Parliament on 20th May - that's 3 days' time. They don't give people, who have to work and don't get paid to try to sort out s*%t laws before they happen (or after) ..... unlike the pollies who get paid well for the s*%t laws they conjure up, very much time to have a fair go. :

on 6 May 2010, Victorian Agriculture Minister Joe Helper tabled a proposed bill amending dangerous dog laws, essentially giving more powers to local council officers to kill dogs on the spot, as well as increasing fines etc. The bill is to be debated in a few days on 20 May.

Please read on for more information :

Proposed Bill on (not really) Dangerous Dog Law - Victoria (where else? )

Edited to add - this thread has become really long, and rambles its way through trying to understand what the heck is going on.

Post #49 Page 4 provides people with a very basic short letter they can send in.

Post #49 Page 4 provides people with a link to someone else's response they should attach with that very basic short letter.

Post #49 Page 4 provides people with a link to the contact information for all Members of Legislative Assembly, which is who we need to be writing into.

Post #150 Page 10 provides people with a letter (by me) which poses questions to Govt. Use it to help you form your own, of even copy/paste it and attach it to your covering email, telling all the MLA's that you too want direct, clear and succinct answers to them (as opposed to standard 'groomed' letters which skirt around answering anything).

Post #283 Page 19 is a summary (as best as I can give it) of the proposed Bill, based on the Parliamentary Library Research Brief - the link for which has somehow disappeared and is made dysfunctional. Gremlins or intentional, I don't know.

Please note that I'm still working my way through the brief and will be continuing to update Post #283 as I go. So please keep checking into it. There's a note on the bottom of the post that tells you what page of the Brief I'm up to, so you'll know when I am completed. As best I can be.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

*Bump*

Concerning these latest amendments, they have only been passed by the lower house and now need to be introduced into the upper house to be debated and passed, and then given royal assent, before they become law.

We need to seek out members in the upper house, expressing our concerns, as they are the ones who vote on whether the law should be passed (or as debate has not concluded in the lower house, maybe seeking out your local member so they can raise issues on your behalf).

Please don't ignore this until the regulation/law is passed and granted royal assent. ACTION NOW, is required - it doesn't matter how good a letter writer you are or are not. Just let your concerns be known.

URGENTLY

Posting a response to the "TV Hound" site I linked is also likely to be helpful.

Please don't be backwards in having your say. Pretend as if you are posting in a DOL thread . LOL .... except keep it polite and address it to your polly .

Edited May 18, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

No responses?

No comments?

..... is anyone out there going to do something?

Am I one of just two or three?

Help?

I've just spent an age loading a list of MLC's emails into my outlook express address book. Maybe I can send anyone who's interested a copy of it, so save them looking and loading. Not sure how transferring that info works and whether it is easy or not, but am willing to try if it makes someone elses busy lives easier, for the want of letters reaching these people in time before they debate on Thursday.

[Steve]

Sorry Erny ,just saw this thread. We [MDBA ] have been in there telling them what we think but based on experience Im not hopeful of being able to head it off.

[~Shepherd~]

Shisonhousan. I will action tomorrow. Can you make your first post more clear about the presenting issues?

[Jeff Jones]

No responses?

No comments?

frown.gif ..... is anyone out there going to do something?

Sorry, I only just noticed this thread. I will type up a letter tomorrow morning.

[~Shepherd~]

Keep bumping this thread Erny, there arent many views as it keeps sliding off the page. Ive been around a fair bit of the day and didnt notice it either.

[Fastgals]

Erny, have the results of the survey on this proposed bill ever been published? I would be very interested to see what the response actually was - particularly to giving council rangers life or death powers where they "perceive" a dog to be dangerous.

[Erny]

Shisonhousan. I will action tomorrow. Can you make your first post more clear about the presenting issues?

Hey, Chewbacca. Thanks.

Chewbacca, or anyone else ..... If you want to email me ERNY and I'll try to email to you my contact list for MLC's to send it to (I'm sending it to two MLA's as well : Joe Helper and John Brumby Premier). As I've mentioned, I've not done that before but I'm sure I saw something that indicated I could send email addresses to others. Not sure if it will work for a distribution list though, but I can give it a go.

Just to make things a bit easier, I'm including a link to the names and contacts of the MLC's in Vic Govt

MLC Member List

Here's a copy of the "Statement of Compatibility" made by Mr Helper to Parliament. I'm afraid I'm all over the shop on this one myself - simply because of my panic in trying to do everything at once (including understanding it all) to be in time to submit my letter.

DOMESTIC ANIMALS AMENDMENT (DANGEROUS DOGS) BILL

Statement of compatibility

Mr HELPER (Minister for Agriculture) tabled following statement in accordance with Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, I make this statement of compatibility with respect to the Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010.

In my opinion, the Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights protected by the charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.

Overview of bill

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Domestic Animals Act 1994 to:

a. allow the registration of restricted breed dogs under certain circumstances and to amend the definition of a restricted breed dog;

b. provide that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal may review declarations of restricted breed dogs and to abolish any review panel currently constituted to review such declarations;

c. increase penalties for certain offences;

d. further enable the making of declarations in respect of dangerous dogs and menacing dogs;

e. provide for dogs to be destroyed in certain circumstances; and

f. make other miscellaneous amendments and consequential amendments to the act.

Human rights issues

Human rights protected by the charter that are relevant to the bill

Certain provisions of the bill may engage the right to property under section 20 and the right to a fair hearing under section 24 of the charter.

I deal with each of these issues in turn.

Section 20 — the right to property

Section 20 of the charter establishes a right for an individual not to be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law. The right in section 20 of the charter

only prohibits a deprivation of property that is carried out other than in accordance with law. This requires that the powers which authorise the deprivation of property be conferred by legislation or common law, be confined and structured rather than arbitrary or unclear, and be accessible to the public and formulated precisely.

Clause 23, which will insert new sections 84TA, 84TB and 84TC into the act, provides new discretionary powers for authorised officers and councils to destroy a dog in certain circumstances.

Destruction of a dog that is a danger to the public

New section 84TA provides that an authorised officer may destroy a dog in a situation where all of the following conditions are satisfied:

based on where the dog is found, an authorised officer holds a reasonable belief that the owner of the dog would be guilty of an offence under section 24 (dog found at large outside the premises of the owner or not securely confined to the owner’s premises) or section 26 (dog found in a prohibited or restricted place);

the dog is unregistered;

the owner is unable to be identified; and

the authorised officer reasonably believes that the behaviour of the dog at the time of the seizure has resulted or is likely to result in the commission of an offence under section 29 of the act (relating to dogs attacking, biting, rushing or chasing).

The authorised officer is required to record information in respect of each of these matters including the reasons for holding the beliefs

The council must decide whether or not to destroy the dog within 48 hours of the authorised officer recording the relevant information, after which time the dog may be destroyed.

If, following a decision to destroy the dog, information comes to light that is sufficient to enable the identification of the owner, the power to destroy is no longer valid. Section 84M then applies, which permits the owner to recover the dog.

Immediate destruction of dog that may cause serious injury or death

New section 84TB creates a discretionary power whereby an authorised officer may immediately destroy a dog. This may only occur in circumstances where the officer reasonably believes the dog is behaving in a manner or in circumstances that will result in imminent serious injury or death to a person or other animal.

Destruction of declared dangerous dog found at large

Under new section 84TC, the council has a discretionary power to destroy a dog after a 24-hour period in circumstances where:

based on where the dog is found, the authorised officer reasonably believes that the owner of the dog would be guilty of an offence under section 24 (dog at large or not

securely confined) or section 26 (dog found in a prohibited or restricted area); and

the authorised officer has made inquiries and found that the dog has previously been declared a dangerous dog under section 34(1)(a);

The council must decide whether or not to destroy the dog within 24 hours of the authorised officer recording the relevant information, after which time the dog may be destroyed.

The power to destroy does not apply if the authorised officer reasonably believes that the reason the dog was found at large, not securely confined or in a prohibited or restricted area was due to circumstances outside the owner’s control (for example, where the dog was released by a third party, not being a person in control of the dog). In these circumstances, the owner will be able to recover the dog in accordance with section 84M.

While the right to property is engaged as a dog could be considered ‘property’ and the provisions authorise deprivation of such property through destruction, in my opinion these provisions do not limit the right. This is because the deprivation is authorised by law, the powers are appropriately circumscribed and not arbitrary. Given the potential danger to members of the community caused by dogs attacking in public places, it is reasonable that strict measures be in place for the control of dogs that are found at large.

Section 24 — fair hearing

Section 24(1) of the charter provides that a person who is a party to a civil proceeding has the right to have the proceeding decided by a competent, or independent impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing.

I do not consider that a power to destroy a dog would constitute a ‘civil proceeding’ that would engage section 24 of the charter. However, even if such decisions can be characterised as civil proceedings, a decision taken under section 84TA or 84TC may be challenged by judicial review both under common law and pursuant to the Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic). Therefore, the right would not be limited.

With regard to the discretionary power under section 84TB, this may only be exercised in extreme cases where death or serious injury is imminent. It would frustrate the purpose of the provision if the decision were amenable to review, given the pressing safety concerns that would necessitate the immediate destruction of a dog. Therefore, any limitation on the right would be justifiable under section 7(2) of the charter.

I note that an authorised officer is a public authority for the purpose of section 38 of the charter and must therefore act in a manner which is compatible with human rights and in making decisions, give proper consideration to relevant human rights. I also note that the powers to destroy are discretionary and do not mandate conduct on the part of authorised officer and councils.

Conclusion

I consider that the bill is compatible with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities because to the extent that some provisions do raise human rights issues:

these provisions do not limit human rights; or

to the extent that some provisions may limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Joe Helper, MP Minister for Agriculture

Second reading

Mr HELPER (Minister for Agriculture) — I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010 amends the Domestic Animals Act 1994, to address community needs and expectations over serious dog attacks and responsible dog ownership and education.

The bill will do this by strengthening council powers to control and destroy dogs that are a danger to the community, increasing penalties for irresponsible owners whose conduct has allowed dogs to attack, increasing resources for educating dog owners and by reforming the existing restricted breed regime.

Currently a dog seized while at large must be held in the pound for a minimum of eight days even if there is no way of identifying its owner. The bill will give an authorised council officer power to destroy a dog 48 hours after seizure if the dog was straying, is unidentifiable and is considered a danger to the community.

The bill will also allow an authorised officer to immediately destroy any dog that is behaving in such a manner or in such circumstances that the officer reasonably believes it will cause imminent serious injury or death to a person or other animal. This power currently exists for officers authorised under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act1986 but will now be extended to council officers under the Domestic Animals Act 1994.

In the case of dangerous dogs found at large, the bill will give an authorised council officer power to destroy the dog 24 hours after confirming it is a declared ‘dangerous dog’ under the act. This is a dog that has previously been proven to have attacked and caused serious injury.

It is a central tenet of dog management legislation that a dog is confined, registered and identifiable to its owner. Effective regulation — including compliance, return of lost animals to owners, animal management services and public education programs — depends on registration. Yet an estimated 40 per cent of dog owners fail to register their animals. The bill will double the penalties for not applying for registration and for an animal not wearing the council identification marker when off the owners’ premises. As well, the bill will give authorised officers explicit power to scan a dog for a microchip to identify it for enforcement purposes under the act.

It is in the nature of dogs to stray if they are not responsibly confined. To provide greater incentive for responsible dog ownership, the penalties for an owner allowing a dog to be at large will be doubled from 3 to 6 penalty units for a dog at large during the day and from 5 to 10 penalty units for a dog at large during the evening.

Serious dog attacks often hospitalise the victim and sometimes cause death. The community expects serious penalties to apply. The act currently provides for a penalty, for a declared dangerous dog attacking or biting a person, of 120 penalty units or six months imprisonment. By contrast the penalty for any other dog is a maximum 20 penalty units. The bill will double this to 40 penalty units.

The bill also provides new powers for the Magistrates Court to order an owner guilty of an offence under the act to attend a training course relating to responsible dog ownership, or for the dog and owner to attend an approved obedience training course.

Community responsible pet ownership education programs and information, council officer training, government advisory support services for councils and animal management research are well received by councils and the community. These initiatives are funded from the existing levy of $1 for every cat registration and $2.50 for every dog registration. As these rates have remained unchanged since 2001, the bill will increase the existing levy to $2 and $3.50 respectively. The increased revenue will facilitate expansion of all of these successful programs.

The bill broadens the criteria for the declaration of a ‘menacing’ and ‘dangerous dog’. It will allow a dog that causes a non-serious bite injury on a person or animal to be declared a ‘menacing dog’ and a dog that has been the subject of a second or subsequent attack or rushing offence to be declared a ‘dangerous dog’.

In 2003 the government introduced restricted breed dog legislation into Victoria to regulate the ownership and keeping of dogs whose importation is prohibited under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 of the commonwealth.

As at January 2010 there were 335 restricted breed dogs declared in Victoria. However, microchip identification registry declarations by owners suggest that there are several times that number of this type of dog in the community that are registered as another almost identical breed or as a crossbreed of another breed. This means that these dogs are not being kept in accordance with the strict controls that apply to restricted breed dogs that may be kept under the act.

In order to better regulate restricted breed dogs, in place of the current prohibition, the bill provides for a two-year amnesty period to allow owners to register restricted breed dogs and thereby bring them under the existing strict controls. The amnesty will only apply to dogs in Victoria immediately before the amnesty begins.

The bill provides for a standard to be prescribed to assist with the identification of a dog as one of the restricted breed dogs. If a dog fits within the standard it will be included in the definition of a restricted breed dog whether or not the dog is a cross breed.

To ensure procedural fairness and transparency of process, the bill provides for appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal from a declaration of a restricted breed dog. This will replace the current provisions in the act providing for an appeals panel.

Lastly, the bill will clarify the authorisation requirements for the implanting of microchips and ensures that only veterinary practitioners can implant horses. It will also make several machinery and housekeeping amendments to clarify provisions of the Domestic Animals Act 1994.

I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr McINTOSH (Kew).

Debate adjourned until Thursday, 20 May.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

Not sure what you mean by your question, Chewbacca.

Here is my letter. It is 4 pages long (sorry ). I don't want to bog down DOL with it so if Troy prefers or asks, I'll remove it. But maybe its contents will help clarify.

I also need to add a disclaimer. I haven't had enough time myself to pour through word for word the proposed amendment. Also, my letter is probably my worst work yet - only for the matter of the haste that I've had to give it. It is at least something, but I hate the fact that I know I could do much, much better. In this case, I've allowed my distress emotion to creep in.

Dear Members of Parliament

MLC’s

MLA’s

URGENT

RE: PROPOSED DOMESTIC ANIMALS AMENDMENT (DANGEROUS DOGS) BILL

DEBATE SCHEDULED : 20TH MAY, 2010

This letter is written to you for the urgency it requires. More details reports and objections will follow, but it takes time to collate the information and format detailed objections to argue even the most flawed of Government proposals and decisions - astoundingly, many of those decisions especially relating to dogs are indeed flawed and seemingly passed without sufficient though and discussion with the appropriate people. (“Appropriate” meaning people with extensive knowledge of dogs, dog behaviour and as a consequence also, dog-owners.)

So, for the moment, this is my correspondence to you from me at a personal level, even though I am heavily involved in the dog fraternity at a knowledgeable and experienced level.

This recent law you have allowed/propose to pass which gives power to Council Officers to kill a dog within 48 hours of impoundment and/or to declare a dog “dangerous” on the say-so of a Council employee (who, by the granting of this power, is not prohibited from subjective opinion, as inaccurate as that can be), quite frankly, scares the begeebies out of me. Nothing in the Bill that was passed/is proposed (discussion for which is adjourned until Thursday, 20th May) (“the Bill”), sites anything about the experience and knowledge the people, whom you as Government have empowered with such a final, irreversible and highly potential devastating and grief strickening power, to act as “Decision Makers”.

The spirit of the Bill you have passed/propose and the power you have laid in the Council’s hands dictates that should any one of them decide that he/she felt the dog’s “bark” was threatening; the dog’s fearful body language (potentially fearful only for the fact that it is in an overwhelming environment), he/she might decide without recourse to ANYONE that the dog be killed. How do you know …. respected politicians, how can you guarantee us, that a dog’s “bark” won’t be misconstrued by the Council person who witnesses it? How can you guarantee that any one Council person witnessing the behaviour of any of the dogs he/she crosses paths with, is interpreting that behaviour accurately?

This lends itself to out of control authoritarianism, something that I know a good number of people have already unduly and unfairly suffered from.

No right of recourse.

One person’s word, with, once the dog is dead, no evidence remaining to give right to challenge or provide contrary evidence to.

Forty-eight hours?

Heaven forbid, Mr. Politician, if you own a dog and it escapes your property through no fault of your own. Perhaps by some irresponsible and ill-meaning person, who breaks through a gateway and leaves it open. Perhaps by some natural disaster (storm damage, for example) that leaves an opening for a dog to escape. Perhaps through ground movement caused by drought, the latch has come away from its mainstay post – something innocent, unexpected and undetectable until it occurs and allows the gate to swing free (Note : the latter has happened to me, on a full height, good quality electronic gate lock system – and it was deadlocked as well!).

And then, of course, potentially on a Saturday morning. You’re at work, so you don’t get home until considerably later. When you find your dog missing, all the pounds are closed and you are unable to speak with them outside their office hours. There’s one whole day gone, and you’ve not been able to accomplish anything. On Sunday morning, you ring your local pound, but they do not have a record of your dog. Perhaps your dog travelled far enough away to some other district. And so you spend the rest of your Sunday (presuming you’re privileged enough not to need to work on that day either) ringing around.

In the meantime, your dog is found by the authorities and impounded in some far away unanticipated district. Your dog’s been scanned, but the micro-chip which you KNOW you had implanted, does not ‘read’. Faulty scanner? Perhaps a chip that doesn’t read on the scanner used by that pound? Or perhaps the chip has travelled and is simply missed by the scanner. Your dog is registered with Council, but how easy is it for your dog to be impounded by some other Council – the result of your dog perhaps being led astray or travelling a good distance. Conscious of the dangers of leaving a collar on your unsupervised dog (deaths by accidental strangulation can and do occur), you don’t leave a collar on your dog during the day. But your fences are good and offer the security you need to qualify as “suitable and safe containment”, so you think you’ve opted for the safer option. Your dog, generally a friendly, happy dog, is overwhelmed and frightened by the strangers who have grabbed him, put him in a pen in a strange but noisy environment and he can’t help but to be a bit wary of these people who stare at him, and he barks a warning – “go away; don’t hurt me”. The Council Officer perceives your dog’s reaction as threatening and decrees that your dog might be a danger to the community. So he writes your dog a death sentence and, if immediate death has not previously been decreed (lucky dog), notes how many hours your dog has left for you to find him.

Meanwhile, you’ve been frantically trying to find your dog. Many of the places you’ve rung perhaps close at 4pm(ish). You only have a matter of hours left. You don’t even know if he’s been collected and is being detained at a Pound. So you need to cover all bases. You dig out a current photo and you print it off with a notice seeking his whereabouts. You drive around your district, posting up the posters, knocking on doors “have you seen my dog?” and leaving the posters at Pet Stores, Schools (oh no, wait – they’re closed), Vet Clinics and so many other places where you think it might gain the necessary attention. You’ve lodged calls with a number of pounds – a few calls have been “we’ll get back to you” and perhaps even some of them have gone to a voice message that suggests they’ll call you back. Hours are slipping by.

Back at the Pound, where your dog is being held and only desperately wanting to return to the security of his home and back with you, the person who he knows, trusts and feels safe with, the Council Officer checks his watch. It’s 5pm. The phones are closed. Your dog has until 9am the next morning and his “48 hours” will be up.

You have spent the rest of your Sunday, right into the night, searching. Some of the calls you made to a few Pounds have not been returned. They are busy people. And presumably, they don’t know of your dog, or they would have called you. It’s dark now. You’ll resume your search and phone calls tomorrow.

Next morning, you start ringing the Pounds again. Perhaps you haven’t rung the right Pound? Perhaps your dog is somewhere else? Looking through the yellow pages, busy punching keys on your computer keyboard surfing ‘google’ for pound locations and telephone numbers. But it’s too early. They’re not open to telephone calls just yet. It’s Monday morning and you need to get to work. You’ll ring from there.

You arrive at work and first thing is a meeting that can’t be avoided. It finishes at 11.00am and you anxiously run back to your office to your phone. You ring another Pound. “Have you got my dog?” And the Council person responds : “We did have your dog. He was brought in early Saturday morning. We scanned him, but WE couldn’t find a chip. He wore no collar and tag. He barked at us and was exhibiting fear behaviour. We imagined this dog might cause harm to the community. Forty-eight hours went by and we didn’t hear from anyone. So I’m sorry, sir, but your dog is dead.”

That was just one of any number of scenarios that carry the very real potential of occurring and I would hate to be at the realm of the emotional torture that those sort of mistakes which come from haste and poor/wrong judgements cause people.

Victoria IS a Nanny-State. Its laws (especially, but not only in relation to dogs, dog-ownership and dog-training) are more and more prohibitive, based on a “ban-it” mentality and such attitude commonly only goes to serve to negate education, not embrace and utilise it.

EDUCATION is the key, yet at so many turns, I see and feel the shackles that stifle and bind us against the ability and potential for “education” to be used. More and more the authorities (Government and Council levels) push, via regulation and by-laws, to confine our dogs away from ‘life’, yet simultaneously expect they should automatically know well enough to be able to behave in ‘life’. The more you push them away, the worse YOU are making it.

And in the meantime, for all Victoria’s “ban-it” laws/regulations, bite stats have not improved. We continue to try to communicate to you that the approach is wrong, but you continue to stifle our ability to turn that around to make a difference.

The dog-owners and dogs of Victoria have been fairly continuously hard hit by restrictive law after restrictive law to the point that it is suffocating. There are so many people you are negatively affecting by these laws, and it is usually the most law-abiding and responsible dog owners that are suffering. I know myself that I, responsible that I am and always intend to be, have got to the point where I am afraid that I or my dog might put one foot out of place and be ‘nabbed’ for it. I am frightened, that one error and the wording of your laws you see fit to pass, will give power to someone not even sufficiently knowledgeable to make decisions, to take and kill my dog. My dog – who has done nothing wrong in his lifetime, but heaven help him should he bark at someone who decides to take it the wrong way.

“Not your intent” you say? Bad luck – even if someone wanted to dispute the actions of the proposed regulation/legislation on the basis of “intent”, their dog would be well dead by then.

I can well imagine many dogs will die by the hands who sign this Bill and granted Council power for life or death decisions even in the absence of sufficient time for the dog to be traced by its owners to be able to object, clarify and arrange independent assessment.

In my view this is yet another breach of the rules which make up Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness and the fact that it seems Government and whomsoever it appoints are exempt from them is terrifying me and also makes it quite clear that democracy is not being observed by the Government in this State.

I have not had long enough to address this in a format that is devoid of emotion, but I do believe that regardless, it does address the facts of it and I hope you have read in it the seriousness and grave warning of the error Government may well be on the brink of making.

Please stop, think, discuss with people who are knowledgeable (not a charity organisation whose interest is not solely dedicated to dog-training and behaviour) and do not hand such final and very potentially devastating power to a Council Officer whose previous job (or even current position) includes that of issuing parking fines on vehicles that are beyond their allocated parking time period.

Yours sincerely

[Bisart Dobes]

Letter going straight to Mr Useless. Though been there done that with Tail Docking and I think you may as well bash your head against a brick wall.

Judy - have you contact the management of Dogs Vic to ask where their representation / opposition is on this. Do you have the time to get a meeting at the office with CEO - E White and the President P Frost. If you can get it out of normal hours happy to accompany you.

As at January 2010 there were 335 restricted breed dogs declared in Victoria. - does anyone have this list ?? I did write and request it but have never received anything . . .

[Erny]

Hey BD. Doubt that I'll get a chance. I'm panicking at the fact that this week (of all the weeks ) I've got so many commitments on it's not funny. I'll give them a ring though and see what I can muddle.

Thing is with this one is that it's not really 'my baby' - IE Unlike the PPCollar campaign, where I pretty much knew the laws inside out, upside down, all the readings etc. etc. by Govt (after 3 years of work, one could expect a more thorough knowledge) ..... I haven't had time to get 'into' this one. So I'm skim reading and responding as best I can from what I have absorbed.

What's the earliest time you'd be able to make a meeting? Not sure what I can tell them, other than what's written. And yes, it did cross my mind to wander whether DogsVic might venture to be pro-active and stand up for us doggy members and our dogs.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

Letter going straight to Mr Useless.

Careful. I got so used to calling him that, that by slip of tongue that's how his name came out when I went to Parliament and spoke with a polly there and presented the Petition. Oops . It was such an honest mistake, the polly had a good laugh.

LOL

[~Shepherd~]

Letter going straight to Mr Useless.

Careful. I got so used to calling him that, that by slip of tongue that's how his name came out when I went to Parliament and spoke with a polly there and presented the Petition. Oops . It was such an honest mistake, the polly had a good laugh.

LOL

emailed you :D

[Erny]

I'm presuming that "TV Hounds" (refer 1st link in OP) would be using some of the comments being posted on their site (just guessing at that - haven't had a chance to speak with Debbie in that respect) so in addition to letters, a comment (as one might comment to a news article) in their site might also help.

[Bisart Dobes]

Oooops Sorry Erny :D - any time from 6pm this week next week can pm you. Hate to be a naysayer but once it gets to this stage we really don't have any luck. We even went through legal channels with the taildocking and had a serious high up contact on the inside of Mr Helpers team who assisted in constructing letters and presentations/meetings (who was/is on our side) and still we got nowhere.

Still if we don't try !!!

[Erny]

Still if we don't try !!!

THAT's the attitude I take. Don't get me wrong - I don't go around holding my breath. But I do go around saying (at least to myself) ..... "I tried". No one can ask more than that. Better than apathy.

[Erny]

There's a question mark over whether this Bill has been "passed" or not. I just simply haven't had a chance to go searching for the nitty gritties, but someone else has and I'm told by him that it has NOT been "passed". Wrongly reported as "passed". So PLEASE do not think this is a lost cause.

Mind you, funny (not) how it didn't surprise me that a Govt could "pass" a Bill but adjourn discussion about it until later. My first thought on that notion was .... "typical".

Edited May 18, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

Sorry Erny ,just saw this thread. We [MDBA ] have been in there telling them what we think but based on experience Im not hopeful of being able to head it off.

Thanks Steve. Every bit helps. I guess they'll know why they'll be losing even more voters' support, when the election time comes around, if they don't stop hurting us to the point of extinction, through the sheer suffocation of all their prohibitive and "killing" laws.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Erny

[pawsaroundoz]

Hi all I don't know as Mr Helper will take much notice of my email I sent him last night given I cannot effect his votes at any upcoming polls ( being away up here in NT) but I did tell him I was 1st and foremost a Victorian Aussie and one day would get home again so you never know.

I too went on a bit but tried to refrain from getting too mushy and also tried to raise all of my serious grounds for concern (to say the least)

I hope he does read the email.

Annie