Proposed New Victorian Dog Laws Dead Wrong

[Erny]

Good onya, CM.

Every one voice is an extra to the mix. Don't worry about writing skills. And don't worry that you live outside Vic.

Thanks for contributing .

[Echo]

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.

You will probably be wasting your time requesting a meeting with DogsVic.

Their response to the proposed legislation is very weak, and does nothing at all to address the very real possibility of innocent dogs being unjustly killed.

As you can see from their response below, they believe this legislation will not affect DogsVic members.

They even thought it was a positive thing, to have the time frame for the killing altered fro 24 hours, to 48. How very generous of them. If a dog "suspected" of being dangerous or menacing has been safely contained and impounded, what is the rush to kill it? Why can we not stay with the time frame of 8 days, giving the responsible dog owner, plenty of time to find and reclaim their animal?

Proposed New Dangerous Dogs Legislation

DOGS Victoria has been in contact with the Office of the Minister for Agriculture (the Honourable Joe Helper) to get details of recent media announcements of new legislation to better control dangerous dogs and prevent dog attacks.

The Minister’s office has confirmed that:

• The proposed legislation will strengthen the powers of local Councils to deal with dogs involved in aggressive attacks on other dogs and people

• The proposed legislation provides that dogs involved in aggressive dog attacks that are not registered with a Council may be contained or euthanized at the discretion of the Council

• Owners of such dogs who fail to register their dogs will have no right of appeal against any Council decision of the dog.

The Minister’s office believes that this legislation, which is still to go to Parliament for approval, will better police the activities of “underground” breeding activities, and owners who fail to register their dogs.

The message is clear:

If you register your dogs with your local Council, you have nothing to fear from the new legislation, which aims to promote Responsible Dog Ownership in this way.DOGS Victoria will continue to promote on the radio and in newspapers the importance for new purchasers to ensure they receive ANKC registration papers from an affiliated DOGS Victoria breeder to ensure that they are not being sold cross-breeds by unscrupulous breeders.

DOGS Victoria is the peak body for purebred dogs in Victoria.

The only requested changes were:

1. To provide flexibility for members of DOGS Victoria to remove dog collars with registration ID when in public places if this interfered with grooming arrangements for show dogs (members would be required to carry alternative proof of registration)

2. To recommend that the Responsible Dow Owners program developed by DOGS Victoria be a prescribed program for persons who have breached Council regulations that require dogs to be contained on their property and on leash when outside their property.

A further consultation took place last week on 22 March 2010.

The major amendment to the proposed amendments since the informal consultation appears to be a more precise definition of the grounds on which a Council can seize and possibly destroy a dog involved in an act of aggression or menace.

This more precise definition gives greater protection to owners of such dogs. The Council must satisfy 3 requirements – that the dog is at large, unregistered and involved in an act of aggression or menace, before it can order its destruction. The Minister’s office is clear that such dogs are unlikely to be owned by members of DOGS Victoria and is very clear about our various Rules, Regulations and Codes in relation to these matters.

We have suggested that the timeframe for Councils to act to seize and destroy a dog should be extended from 24 hours to 48 hours to allow more time for the owner to come forward.

The President again commented that this legislation is unlikely to affect members of DOGS Victoria whose dogs are not at large, off-leash or involved in acts of aggression or menace.All the previous suggestions made by DOGS Victoria (see 1 & 2 above) have been incorporated into the regulations as requested.

It was noted that the legislation is being driven personally by the Premier in response to recent dog attacks.

Title DOMESTIC ANIMALS AMENDMENT (DANGEROUS DOGS) BILL

House ASSEMBLY

Activity Second Reading

Members HELPER

Date 6 May 2010

6 May 2010 ASSEMBLY

page 62

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 Act

1986 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.

*** DAILY HANSARD *** PROOF VERSION ONLY *** DO NOT QUOTE ***I

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.

I*** DAILY HANSARD *** PROOF VERSION ONLY *** DO NOT QUOTE ***I

http://tex.parliament.vic.gov.au/bin/texhtmlt?form =VicHansard.dumpall&startpage=6.. . 11/05/201()

Victorian Parliamentary Hansard - Parliament of Victoria Page 2 of 2

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.

Page 63

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.

I*** DAILY HANSARD *** PROOF VERSION ONLY *** DO NOT QUOTE ***I

The bill provides for a standard to be preicribed 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.

As you can see from the above, this debate has been adjourned until 20th May.

So if any of you want to register a protest, the time to do so is nearly gone. I have done so and urge as many people as possible to also act quickly.

As already stated, it is most likely a lost cause, especially when our own organisation, DogsVic, has not registered any concern on our behalf.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Echo

[Erny]

They even thought it was a positive thing, to have the time frame for the killing altered fro 24 hours, to 48. How very generous of them.

.... except, the way I read it, it is being altered from the previous mandatory 8 days DOWN to 48 hours. That's if, of course, the Council Officer didn't think the dog having a bark at him/her was enough to be considered menacing and a threat to imminent injury, in which case he can choose to euth without any time frame elapsing.

This is my understanding of it. I've worked on this in such a rush it was a matter of choice : Read it all completely thoroughly OR do up a letter and send it out. Because I couldn't do both and there is an urgency behind it, I read quickly and wrote quickly. Don't like doing things that way, but Govt process doesn't really care about the fact that this is not a full time paid job for us, but of course it is for them.

[Erny]

*bump*

My letter has been sent to 40 different MLC's and 2 MP's (Helper and Brumby).

[mita]

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

Good grief. They're going to have to recruit authorised officers with psychic powers. This stuff says an authorised person can PTS a dog....because he/she says it's likely to commit an offence, which may be attacking or biting or rushing or chasing.

What goes on in the minds of law-drafters in Victoria?

This law would make it legal for any dog to be killed because someone didn't like the shape of its face or the cut of its jib and thereby entertained fantasies of it attacking or biting or rushing or chasing.

Apart from booking nuggety and/or bigger dogs in to get cosmetic surgery or shortening of legs ('please make him look like a sweet Peke!'), what on earth could owners do? Tho' with 'chasing' on the list, no legs at all would be a plus.

Good on you, Erny, for raising awareness & encouraging proactive action.

Edited May 19, 2010 by mita

[Erny]

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.

BD - Contacted and spoke with E White today. I'll start by saying that she was good to speak with - don't know if that's because she's very skilled at PR's or whether it is because she really takes on board what people are saying and would be open to a change of mind.

BUT, in essence, I'm informed that VicDogs are "comfortable" with the laws proposed by this Bill in that :

VicDog members are responsible dog owners and therefore the (tragedy?) of the laws is not likely to affect VicDog Members' dogs.

That the incidence of the "trifecta" (ie Unidentifiable dog; accidental escape; aggression) is going to be very rare for a VicDog Member's dog because VicDog Members are responsible.

That VicDogs is placing assumption on the Council Officer/person having the experience to be able to properly judge a dog's behaviour.

This is not exactly word for word as it was a verbal discussion, but is mighty close.

I did thank Elizabeth for her time on the telephone as she did at least seem willing to allow me to express my view and did engage in a bit of discussion about it.

But the upshot is that VicDogs are "comfortable" with the proposed law as worded.

Apparently the "48 hour" period was initially going to be "24 hours" but it was VicDogs who worked to have that changed to the "48 hour" period and they believe that gives sufficient time for anyone who is a VicDog member to be able to locate their dog in the event something happened to occasion it to be "at large".

As Elizabeth was pushed for time I did suggest/ask for a meeting, perhaps after hours, but she was already booked up with pre-committed meetings.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Erny

[mita]

BUT, in essence, I'm informed that VicDogs are "comfortable" with the laws proposed by this Bill in that :

VicDog members are responsible dog owners and therefore the (tragedy?) of the laws is not likely to affect VicDog Members' dogs.

That the incidence of the "trifecta" (ie Unidentifiable dog; accidental escape; aggression) is going to be very rare for a VicDog Member's dog because VicDog Members are responsible.

That VicDogs is placing assumption on the Council Officer/person having the experience to be able to properly judge a dog's behaviour.

This is not exactly word for word as it was a verbal discussion, but is mighty close.

What? The way that law is drafted, the 'likely' offence of attacking, biting, rushing, chasing leading to PTS would hold, whether the dog was identifiable or not.

There's nothing that says but if the dog is identifiable then the authorised person will look the other way & won't have visions of it doing any of those things

And nor is there any law of nature that says the dogs of Vic Dogs members can never accidentally escape.

Vic dog people already have a cruelty law where one section basically allows any dog at all to be seized. It doesn't have to be disabled or distressed. Because there's one section of that law which says 'things can be taken for evidence'....& a 'thing' can be a dog. And that caught a registered breeder.

Looks like, here we go again with this law.....if it gets thro'. This time we have psychic powers leading to a dog's being PTS.

Edited May 19, 2010 by mita

[Aidan]

Holy smokes, I can see why they would want to protect officers charged with duty of care for the public but there has to be a defined test of what constitutes a danger to the public.

[Erny]

What? The way that law is drafted, the 'likely' offence of attacking, biting, rushing, chasing leading to PTS would hold, whether the dog was identifiable or not.

But VicDogs say that VicDogs members are responsible dog-owners and therefore their dogs are trained and wouldn't be aggressive.

And remember - if the law DID 'catch' a VicDogs dog and unfairly had it killed before the dog's owner could locate it and do anything about it ...... it would only be one - a "very rare" occurrence.

Cold comfort THAT would be to the "one" it happens to.

ETA: Something also that struck me ..... before we even got talking, I was asked by VicDogs what sort of dog I have.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Erny

[mita]

What? The way that law is drafted, the 'likely' offence of attacking, biting, rushing, chasing leading to PTS would hold, whether the dog was identifiable or not.

But VicDogs say that VicDogs members are responsible dog-owners and therefore their dogs are trained and wouldn't be aggressive.

Does anyone know what 'likely means? The dog doesn't have to be aggressive & could be trained down to its sock tops. This law allows an authorised person to form an opinion about what a dog is likely to do. Based on no other information than they've come face to face with the dog who's got out.

No worries, tho', DogsVic could advise its members to train their dogs to say, 'Hello! I'm owned by a member of DogsVic. They are responsible dog-owners who train their dogs which aren't aggressive.'

And the authorised person could say, 'All right, then. You may be a Rottie (or a GSD or a Dobe) who's a bit antsy from the stress of being lost & with a stranger staring at it. But I feel better now.'

This is a Victorian issue. So end of my contribution.

[Erny]

Thanks Mita - yes, it's a Victorian issue but your (and anyone else's) contribution to the thread is appreciated.

It's not too late for Victorians to do their letter writing. Thank goodness for the invention of "email" communications. THIS is the sort of thing we can put that sort of speed of delivery to good use.

ANY letter - it doesn't have to be long-winded or detailed, merely polite. Express your concerns, worries and dissatisfaction at forethought to things that can happen even when people are "responsible dog-owners".

What about that other case about the voice-lowering issue where the dog-owner's dogs were seized because she broke the law of "not allowed to exhibit"? Didn't I read somewhere on DOL that the law went through and although VicDogs were aware of it, they "assumed" it would never happen?

[Bisart Dobes]

The sad thing is its not just a Victorian issue - these things have a way of creeping their way around the country. We as a dog loving population have no voice, no real support and no-one in our canine controls who really has a pair and the the gumption or the care factor to stand up and use them.

;)

[Erny]

Well, we can only do what we can do. Letter write - send it about. It is supposed to be debated tomorrow, but who knows if the debate won't again be adjourned.

[*Avanti*]

It's not too late for Victorians to do their letter writing. Thank goodness for the invention of "email" communications. THIS is the sort of thing we can put that sort of speed of delivery to good use.

ANY letter - it doesn't have to be long-winded or detailed, merely polite. Express your concerns, worries and dissatisfaction at forethought to things that can happen even when people are "responsible dog-owners".

Thanks for posting this Erny. I'll try and piece together an email by the 20th (tomorrow), the clock's ticking!

[Erny]

It's not too late for Victorians to do their letter writing. Thank goodness for the invention of "email" communications. THIS is the sort of thing we can put that sort of speed of delivery to good use.

ANY letter - it doesn't have to be long-winded or detailed, merely polite. Express your concerns, worries and dissatisfaction at forethought to things that can happen even when people are "responsible dog-owners".

Thanks for posting this Erny. I'll try and piece together an email by the 20th (tomorrow), the clock's ticking!

Good on you, WhiteEagle.

DOL member "Andrea&John" has done the same as have, I expect (trust; hope) others have as well.

If you want the email contact list for the 40 or so MLC's to send to, let me know and I'll email it to you. Not sure how it works : ie if you have Outlook, whether it means you can then simply click one button so your letter shoots to all of them (that's how I did it), but can try it if you wish . Will need you to email me Pro-K9 if this is what you would like me to do.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Erny

[~Shepherd~]

Not the best letter in the world, but done.

[Erny]

Not the best letter in the world, but done.

Yay, Chewbacca.

[*Avanti*]

If you want the email contact list for the 40 or so MLC's to send to, let me know and I'll email it to you.

Thanks Erny, I sent you an email.

[Erny]

If you want the email contact list for the 40 or so MLC's to send to, let me know and I'll email it to you.

Thanks Erny, I sent you an email.

Have replied to your email, WE. Thanks .

[Kelpie-i]

Done mine....fingers crossed!