Proposed New Victorian Dog Laws Dead Wrong

[Erny]

Do any Dogs Victoria members read these lists?

You mean here on DOL? Yes they do. Lots of them. I don't know if any/many of the executive committee members read them though. Although I presume they do, even if just quietly.

In the conversation I had with VicDogs (when I was suggesting 'we' need to be stronger against this Bill and even to the other of the laws that have been allowed to be passed and that stifle what we can do with our dogs) it was implied that we have to be nice to Government and that 'we' (VicDogs) can't go in too hard because they wanted their relationship to be kept 'nice'. This was not verbatim and in fact the mention of it was only one small moment in time during our conversation.

I don't see why a relationship can't be kept 'nice' but yet still have the strength of conviction expressed by saying "no" and still being polite and factual to explain the reasons behind "no". I don't like bargaining with rights, fairness, democracy. It feels like a sell-out.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Erny

[Steve]

In the rescue forum -relating to the proposed legislation with shelters and pounds I asked Why does a government care if a foster carer keeps a dog for 6 months before it goes to a new home? Why does a government care if baby puppies are sent home with someone to try to save them?

Now here I ask what does a government care what breed a dog is ? If its dangerous then its dangerous. Why does a government need or want for that matter legislation which is breed specific?

What's in it for the government to bring in laws which allow dogs to be put down sooner ? The community isnt at risk while they hang onto a dog for a few more days. Who stands to gain from this? Same answer as the question pertaining to foster carers - The only ones who stand to gain are the pounds and shelters.

All I see is less accountability to the people who donate funds to them and more money for the government.The unintended consequences of higher fines etc is more dogs left in pounds = more money even if they are killed and higher revenue from fines.

Plain and simple its about who is piddling in who's pockets because it makes no sense whats so ever for a government to make laws about how long a foster carer can look after an animal or about whether baby puppies can be helped. In the year 2010 fo any governemnet to stick to a concept of breed specific legislation all it does is demonstrate their ignorance and rather than be part of the solution they are part of the problem.

the solution

Allow pounds and shelters to put their own policies in place and be trasparent about those polices to allow people to be aware of them before they donate.

if they dont have policies designed to cut down killrates etc then donors will put their money some place else.

Allow all dogs regardless of breed to be treated equally with a fair and reasonable system in place for temp testing and mandatory holding times.

When a dog is found at large unless it is judged to be potentially dangerous because of its behaviour give them a free ride home the first time and counsel the owners about how to prevent it happening again. If it is judged to be potentailly dangerous because of its behaviour give it a fair assessment over a reasonable time frame.

[Erny]

Thanks for your post Steve. I think all the points you raise would be good points to raise, ask and discuss in our letters to Government.

And how did this thread make its way to Page 2 !!!!! :D :p :D *bump*

Edited May 25, 2010 by Erny

[Casster17]

Erny - is it worth getting this on MTR 1377, and make the plite of dog owners in victoria publically known???

I'm sure most average people on the street won't understand the impact of this legislation.

their contact number (03) 8420 1377 or open line: 131 873

Just a Suggestion Erny...

[Erny]

Erny - is it worth getting this on MTR 1377, and make the plite of dog owners in victoria publically known???

That would be great provided it can be made clear and not twisted as though we are trying to suggest that dangerous dogs be granted freedom (that's how some media's could spin it if it's not worded carefully and with forethought.

[mikebailey]

Do any Dogs Victoria members read these lists?

In the conversation I had with VicDogs (when I was suggesting 'we' need to be stronger against this Bill and even to the other of the laws that have been allowed to be passed and that stifle what we can do with our dogs) it was implied that we have to be nice to Government and that 'we' (VicDogs) can't go in too hard because they wanted their relationship to be kept 'nice'. This was not verbatim and in fact the mention of it was only one small moment in time during our conversation.

What is Dogs Vic leadership getting from this 'relationship' that justifies playing down real threats to their members dogs?

[Erny]

What is Dogs Vic leadership getting from this 'relationship' that justifies playing down real threats to their members dogs?

I don't know, Mike. I've puzzled over that myself. What agenda, if they have one?

[mikebailey]

What is Dogs Vic leadership getting from this 'relationship' that justifies playing down real threats to their members dogs?

I don't know, Mike. I've puzzled over that myself. What agenda, if they have one?

It looks like we may have another couple of weeks to spread the word.

For those who have a blog, website, facebook, etc, please add links to the following page:

Concerns over Dog Law

- Mike

[Erny]

It looks like we may have another couple of weeks to spread the word.

For those who have a blog, website, facebook, etc, please add links to the following page:

Concerns over Dog Law

- Mike

Thanks Mike. And as you've mentioned elsewhere that the Procedures Office informed you, the debate could have been delayed in response to the public interest that they've been receiving. I hope that's the case and if it is, it is heartening.

It is also very indicative of why the more letters we can get in the better it will be.

I'm going to check on and *bump* the other "Poll" thread to see how many Victorian DOL people might have made responses to Government.

REMINDER : If any of you haven't written in and are loathe to because you don't like letter writing; don't have time; etc. please refer to Post #49 on Page 4 of this thread. You will find there that I've put up a short template letter that you can copy/paste and send in to Government along with either a copy of Mike's "response to government" (refer the link that Mike has repeated above) or a printed out hard copy, if you are sending in by mail.

In the said post #49 I also provided a contact list for MP's. (ie MLA's Lower House)

Your letters can also be sent in to MLC's MLC (Upper House) Member List

Please. NOW is the time we need to act. It won't take that much of your time but could save a lot more (ie time; money; and devastation) further down the track.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

:D x 100

Going by the "Poll" thread ONLY SEVEN Victorian DOL Members have written into the Government!!!! (Good on those seven people ... proud of you )

Come on Victorians. I know we can DO better than that because we ARE better than that.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

The home of 7 people????

Edited May 25, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

There seems to be some perception that these proposed laws are "likely" to impact only "certain" breeds.

Please know that this is NOT the case.

They have the very real and likely potential to affect ANY and ALL our breeds.

Maybe that's why there don't seem to be that many people who have responded "yes" to the "Poll" thread. Are they sitting back because they think THEY are safe, because of the breed of dog they have (or because they don't have 'certain' commonly targeted breeds)?

Don't be complacent.

I don't want to hear of the heartache, stress and trauma that will occur when someone finds themselves and their dog/s caught under any one of the proposed law amendments. And we can only ensure against that if we work to stop the proposed law amendments being passed in the first place. "I didn't think it would or could happen to me ....... " is going to be when it is too late.

If you're the least bit interested in doing that, you need to act NOW.

Sorry for the caps but they are there for emphasis and this IS urgent and IS important.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Erny

[Dame Aussie]

I have just emailed my letters off....I wrote to every single email address on your list.

Thank you Erny for bringing this to my attention

Edited May 25, 2010 by Aussie3

[Erny]

Thank YOU, Aussie3.

Or more particularly, all our Victorian DOGS thank you .

[APBT Club of Aust Inc.]

I have only received 3 responses from my email sent to both the MLA's and MLC's Honestly thought a few more would have responded even just to acknowledge receipt.

These have been Bill Sykes, Ted Baillieu and Bruce Atkinson.

How is everyone else fairing?

[Erny]

Out of the 80 odd emails I have sent, Bill Sykes and Bruce Atkinson have responded/acknowledged.

ETA: Sorry - Ted Baillieu has also acknowledged.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Erny

[animalia]

I have received acknowledgment from only William Sykes and Ted Baillieu and I have also emailed A LOT of ministers.

[APBT Club of Aust Inc.]

Notice it's only Liberals and one National party member that have replied or even acknowledged receipt.

Hope you included me in that 7 Erny.

Edited May 25, 2010 by APBT Club of Aust Inc.

[Erny]

Notice it's only Liberals and one National party member that have replied or even acknowledged receipt.

Hope you included me in that 7 Erny.

Nine Ten now, last time I checked, APBT .

Edited May 25, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

I believe the Doberman Club have a committee meeting on Monday night at which it is likely they'll discuss the proposed changes.