Proposed New Victorian Dog Laws Dead Wrong

[mikebailey]

Thank you for that post, Mike. And I agree - that was an excellent submission by the LFA.

I wonder - do you think it would do well for a copy of the Bill, along with a copy of the LFA (which begins to make sense of what the Bill is about and what problems it will create) to the media, as is?

I don't think it could hurt to make submissions to the media.

- Mike

[Casster17]

Got the same reply as most from the member in ballarat

[mikebailey]

The term "Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness" has been referenced quite a bit : in the proposed Bill itself :

To ensure procedural fairness ...

(which, although I'm not a lawyer, is suggesting to me that the Government acknowledges that this Bill is one that deserves observation of Procedural Fairness) ; in a number of the responses which have been submitted to Government; and also, I think in some of the posts in this thread (I think I've used the term several times).

For those who are not aware of the rules of "Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness" but would like to know and understand more of it I've provided a link below. It is a NSW publication but I couldn't find a better Victorian one.

It's not too tedious to read and it isn't too lengthy.

Rules of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I've just added a post about Natural Justice / Procedural Fairness to Goodfordogs.org

http://www.goodfordogs.org/blog/2010/05/27/natural-justice/

- Mike

[~Shepherd~]

I have just alerted our local Leader Newspaper also.

[Erny]

I don't think it could hurt to make submissions to the media.

Submission to Mr. Neil Mitchell 3AW made.

[Erny]

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

Have emailed MTF1377 as well .

Thank you, Casster17 ;)

I have just alerted our local Leader Newspaper also.

Good stuff, Chewbacca ;).

Edited May 27, 2010 by Erny

[Casster17]

great look forward to hearing about it on the radio... hopefully all clear cut and not twisted...

Good Luck Erny... again if you require any further help... Hollar I don't live far from you...

[Erny]

great look forward to hearing about it on the radio... hopefully all clear cut and not twisted...

Good Luck Erny... again if you require any further help... Hollar I don't live far from you...

Thanks Casster17. I'm doing no more than anyone else can and is. Just letters and more letters - and trying to use any feasible mode I can to spread the word on this. That's the sort of thing we all need to do. We've got a whole 2 weeks to do this (ETA: well, actually, it's 10 days) and to demonstrate to the Government that there are many people who do not agree with the Bill Joe Helper proposes. If others contacted the radio stations about this as well, it might demonstrate to them (ie the radio presenters) that people out there are interested and concerned and where the radio presenters might not have initially thought it newsworthy, interest generated and shown might have them change their minds.

As the submission by "Lawyers for Animals" points out (and as I pointed out earlier in this thread) this is NOT just about "Dangerous Dogs" as we know them from Govt definition pov. This is about ALL dogs. But the title of the proposed Bill is misleading that way, which is why everyone should have this brought to their attention or they could find themselves quite shocked and heartbroken when the one thing they never thought would or could happen to them and theirs, does.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Erny

[~Shepherd~]

Written to the editor of the Herald Sun

[Erny]

Written to the editor of the Herald Sun

[APBT Club of Aust Inc.]

As the submission by "Lawyers for Animals" points out (and as I pointed out earlier in this thread) this is NOT just about "Dangerous Dogs" as we know them from Govt definition pov. This is about ALL dogs. But the title of the proposed Bill is misleading that way, which is why everyone should have this brought to their attention or they could find themselves quite shocked and heartbroken when the one thing they never thought would or could happen to them and theirs, does.

Isn't this just typical of the current Gov't. In their "Dangerous Dog survey" they just had to add the questions on Restricted Breeds as well.

Edited for typo

Edited May 27, 2010 by APBT Club of Aust Inc.

[mita]

Great work people!

Lawyers for Animals has put together a great submission.

The NDTF have been fantastic in voicing their support for dogs.

Glad to hear it. I wrote earlier, that the proposed legislation has a loaded phrase. Which says legal action of some sort, can be commenced against a dog (any dog) that an authorised person thinks likely to bite, attack....or even chase.

Likely? The dog hasn't done anything yet. That would have to be thought thro' in very practical terms!

Who'd need BSL with this phrase in legislation? It's ADL....All Dog Legislation.

Now, tho', it seems far more than just this point has been put under the microscope! Brilliant that Lawyers for Animals have got involved.

Good on you, Victorian folk, who've hung in there....& achieved that. And produced articulate & useful submissions.

It's too late to start reacting after legislation has been passed....& starts affecting pet owners & dogs, adversely.

[Erny]

Mita - thank you for your support and encouragement. Victoria cops the brunt of prohibitive and stifling dog laws and it is a shame that our Canine Dog Authority - the largest and main in the State, aren't working harder (in fact from all accounts they're not working at all, because they are "comfortable" with the terms of the proposed Bill - in fairness, they did work to change the "48 hours" from "24 hours") to help us and that in that respect, we're somewhat on our own. But even without VicDogs, the rest of us together have the capacity to be awesome .

Edited May 27, 2010 by Erny

[mita]

Mita - thank you for your support and encouragement. Victoria cops the brunt of prohibitive and stifling dog laws and it is a shame that our Canine Dog Authority - the largest and main in the State, aren't working harder to help us and that in that respect, we're somewhat on our own. But together, we can be awesome .

I dips my lid to you all, Erny! And you've kept the ball rolling here on DOL.

You Victorian folk are showing the way... how NOT to sit back & wait for proposed legislation (however well intended) to turn into a nightmare.

You guys ARE awesome in how you've worked together.

The Canine Dog Authority don't know what they're missing out on. Because, as we said, earlier in the thread, they're naive if they think the legislation in this form wouldn't affect purebred dogs.

Rotties, Dobes, GSDs....all the breeds that have feared BSL being extended to them...would find themselves in the firing line.

NO authorised person would look at a nervous lost Peke & think...'Likely to attack, bite chase etc'. But would this be the case, when faced with a nervous lost Rottie, Dobe, GSD???????? Breeds like that would be elected the dogs most likely....

Edited May 27, 2010 by mita

[Erny]

NO authorised person would look at a nervous lost Peke & think...'Likely to attack, bite chase etc'.

Perhaps, Mita. But if that little nervous lost Peke is remotely snappish, bet your bottom dollar it will go on the "48 hours" list.

The bigger dogs won't stand a chance, for sure. Even just recently a friend commented to me, after having visited one of our main shelters, how it seemed too coincidental the fact that the adoption pens housed all the med to small dogs, and death row was filled only with the larger dogs. But in this law, some of the little ones will get caught up in the net too.

And don't forget - it's not just about that (although unnecessary and unfair death to our dogs is the primary concern). It's about the disproportionate penalties as well. I know of people who have committed crimes against people who have got off with less than what they are proposing for the dogs.

And what's the point of a fine when you're out walking with your dog on lead, just because the Council tag isn't dangling from the dog's collar? Tags aren't necessary for ID. Council have those electronic devices where they can punch in and check on the spot if your dog is registered. Not to mention scanners for microchips. That angle just feels like revenue grabbing to me. And why would Council Officers spend their time jumping on top of people and their dogs when the people and their dogs are being responsible? Why not spend their time targeting the irresponsible? I'm afraid it just comes back to "easy money" in my mind.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Erny

[mita]

NO authorised person would look at a nervous lost Peke & think...'Likely to attack, bite chase etc'.

Perhaps, Mita. But if that little nervous lost Peke is remotely snappish, bet your bottom dollar it will go on the "48 hours" list.

The bigger dogs won't stand a chance, for sure. Even just recently a friend commented to me, after having visited one of our main shelters, how it seemed too coincidental the fact that the adoption pens housed all the med to small dogs, and death row was filled only with the larger dogs.

You're right, Erny. The frightened defensiveness of even the smallest dog will legally set it off towards god knows what.

Very true that there's already an in-built paranoia about 'big dogs'....& this legislation would 'legalise' it.

[~Shepherd~]

up there cazaly

[Erny]

up there cazaly

LOL

in there and fight ...

[mikebailey]

http://www.goodfordogs.org/blog/2010/05/27/natural-justice/

The Bill fails to Ensure Natural Justice

Part 5 of series examining proposed changes to Victoria’s Domestic Animals Act

What is Natural Justice / Procedural Fairness?

“The rules or principles of natural justice, also known as procedural fairness, have developed to ensure that decision-making is fair and reasonable. Put simply, natural justice involves decision-makers informing people of the case against them or their interests, giving them a right to be heard (the ‘hearing’ rule), not having a personal interest in the outcome (the rule against ‘bias’), and acting only on the basis of logically probative evidence (the ‘no evidence’ rule).”

- ‘Natural Justice/Procedural Fairness’. NSW Ombudsman

This Bill Fails to Ensure Procedural Fairness

Currently, Councils must hold impounded dogs for 8 days to enable their owners to be reunited with them. The Bill would allow Council officers to kill unregistered dogs found at large after 48 hours on the suspicion that they might commit an offence in future if allowed to roam. Councils would have an incentive to kill dogs after 48 hours instead of keeping them the full 8 days as it would save money and cage space (the ‘bias’ rule). The Bill does not require that owners are notified or given a right to be heard (the ‘hearing’ rule). The Bill doesn’t require any evidence that the dog has or will harm any person or animal for it to be destroyed (the ‘no evidence’ rule).

Procedural Fairness Is Part of Good Government

Victorian law is meant to ensure Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness. This Bill fails us in this regard.

“Decision-makers need to be aware of the requirements of procedural fairness when making decisions which affect a person’s rights or interests. Failure to notify a person of a potentially adverse decision, or to allow them an opportunity to be heard, is contrary to good government, and may result in the decision being set aside by a court.”

- ‘Procedural Fairness – The Hearing Rule’ Victorian Government Solicitors Office

[Erny]

up there cazaly

LOL

in there and fight ...

Whoops! Sitting on page 2 ???

... out there and at'em

Edited May 28, 2010 by Erny