Proposed New Victorian Dog Laws Dead Wrong

[Erny]

No news. Although it is in the "Orders of the Day" list for today, I'm informed it isn't in the "list of Government Business", which means it still might not be heard today or even this week.

I don't know why or how Govt process works, so I can't explain it. But the point is that we have more time.

I think a good idea would be for all those who have written in, if your letters ask questions or even if you just haven't received acknowledgement, re-issue another email to all the MLA's and ask for their acknowledgement and response. That's what I'll be doing.

For all those who haven't written in, please don't turn your back on this. I wouldn't wish it on anyone's dog, but it could just be yours that gets caught under one or more of the laws under this Bill, and then you'll be seeking help and support to try to fight it and save your dog - if it is not already too late by that stage. So, as drudgingly boring as it might seem; as hard as it might be to scrounge an hour or less out of your very busy lives, please help us all help ourselves and the jolly lot of us, and do something now.

From an interested and concerned dog-owner, I've received advice that you can now view Parliamentary debates live via your website (thanks for that info - you know who you are .... didn't want to dob you in incase you preferred it that way). I would like to catch this one, when it is debated - nature of my work takes me out and about though, so I don't know if the timing will be such that I'll be able to. Not knowing exactly when it will be debated makes it awkward as well. Apparently Govt have spent much money setting this up, but haven't publicised the fact that it is available, that much if at all.

But for those who would like to and can glance in, the link to Parliamentary live broadcast is below. May be handy to have a few cans of red bull lined up in front of you though.

Live Broadcast - Parliament of Victoria

Edited June 8, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

I'm having problems with the live broadcast link. You need to "accept terms and conditions" before the player will load to connect you with Parliament. I accept "terms and conditions" but every time I click the button for Legislative Assembly, it keeps telling me the same message about accepting terms and conditions first.

Don't know if anyone else is experiencing that problem.

[mackiemad]

hey erny. i wrote in a few days ago to Brumby and my local member- the leader for the opposition! i also sent another email last night just to remind them.

i was perhaps a little passionate in the second email, saying that it would turn into a doggy version of phrenology-see a dog with a big skull or certain coat or markings and condemn it right there... perhaps a little melodramatci but i wanted to get the message across

also, with the q and a show- you can sms a question for next week (when they will be talking about animal rights, monday on ABC1 at 9:30-10:30pm) or leave a question on the site- i don't think you have to call in physically.

and i should be studying so i haven't clicked on the link- i just came on here for an update if there was one...

[Erny]

Thanks Mackiemad - and good for you for your efforts :D .

I think my issue with the Parliamentary Live Broadcast is that it needs Java. I'm not computer savvy, but I don't think I have it loaded to this computer, so I'm trying to load it now and see what happens.

If all of a sudden you find I'm not on DOL, you know I've done something wrong!!!

ETA: Seems to be working now, so I guess I did the right thing (phew). Except they're at lunch, so there's no broadcast until they come back in at 2pm.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Erny

[APBT Club of Aust Inc.]

If you're a dog owner, or if you just love dogs, please use the templates offered here and send to all our state polititions. Our dogs can't speak for themselves we must do this for them.

It's not over till the final curtain.

[sumosmum]

If you're a dog owner, or if you just love dogs, please use the templates offered here and send to all our state polititions. Our dogs can't speak for themselves we must do this for them.

It's not over till the final curtain.

Yep, keep up the pressure. Even a good idea if you can call in or telephone the office of your local member and have a word to them about this proposed law. If they don't get enough feedback and objection, they won't understand how unhappy a lot of people are about this. They can't read minds, we need to let them know how we feel.

We need to do this for the sake of all our dogs. Our dogs need us to stand up for them. Ask friends and family if they can also add their voice. This is so important.

ETA proposed

Edited June 8, 2010 by sumosmum

[Casster17]

was it debated yesterday????????

[Erny]

No, it wasn't.

I just got off the phone from Parliament House to enquire, as I was a bit puzzled about a couple of things, and I was informally informed that the proposed Bill will NOT be debated this week.

I was concerned that the Govt could choose to not debate the proposed Bill, but to simply put it to a Vote. If this occurred, the proposed Bill would probably be passed, simply because the Government have the numbers. (But that's when it would go to Upper House, where the numbers of Govt and Opposition are more even.)

I was informally informed (with 99.9% confidence) that the proposed Bill WILL be debated and will NOT just go to the Vote, simply because of the amount of emails and letters the Government have been receiving from us public .

So it goes to show that our letters and emails ARE having an effect. Keep them up, people - it's not a waste of time and we need them more now than ever.

Ok - back to the main point of this post. The proposed Bill was not debated this week and by all accounts it is not going to be debated this week. Which means that it won't be debated until at the earliest, the next sitting week, which commences 22nd June.

So we have even more time to keep up with the emails/letters.

The proposed Bill might go through regardless, because of Government numbers outweighing opposition. I'm informed that the individuals who make up the Government are not likely to debate or vote against a Bill proposed by one of their own (sheep ). Apparently it is put to the vote by the party at Corcus (sp?) level before it is put up. Only thing is that at that stage, they haven't received all our emails/letters and don't have the advantage of having it clearly pointed out how faulty their proposed laws are.

For me, it is a clear waste of taxes and our time and effort. But hey ..... that seems to be the way of it, with Government.

The thing is, I still think that keeping up the emails/letters - demanding answers and responses to our emails/letters already sent (especially, but not only, from those in Labor) are very worthwhile at this stage. Because it shows us number strong. Because it just might be enough to weaken their resolve due to the fact we are raising very valid points which reveal how erroneous the laws within their proposed Bill are.

The following is a first draft of a follow-up letter which I intend to send, yet again, to EVERY single Member of Legislative Assembly :

I am re-attaching one of the letters that I sent to every single Member of Legislative Assembly (email dated ***).

Out of all of the 78 MP's who received it I have received two acknowledgements and one response.

Not one Member of the Labor Government have made any attempt to answer the questions that I have raised in that letter.

If Government cannot answer to those very valid questions raised by my email (or any of the other many emails/letters it has received from others), then why is the proposed Bill still being put up as a candidate to become law?

Putting up and passing erroneous laws is not only ludicrous, it is unfair, futile and another example of an extreme waste of time and money.

I would like to receive from Government, especially Mr. Joe Helper MP, who is I believe the author/proposer of the Bill, some direct answers to my direct questions and concerns before the Bill is debated or voted on. If direct, logical and fair answers to those direct questions and concerns cannot be given, then why is the proposed Bill continuing to even be considered?

Edited June 9, 2010 by Erny

[mackiemad]

soo-good thing they are actually going to debate it! i was feeling a bit dismal abuot that for a while...

i only wrote emails to 2 MP's before, erny do you have a template that i can use to send emails to everyone? i'm sure there was one back in this thread somewhere but i can't seem to find it. and i'm going to attach the lawyers for animals thing as a suggested alternative.

we should as keep sending our complaints just as a reminder to keep it on their radar!

[Erny]

Hi Mackiemad. Below is a link to all the contact info for the MLA's (Victoria)

Members of Legislative Assembly Contact List

In letters, ask direct questions, if you can. At least that way you would have a reasonable reason as to why you should be able to expect a response.

I've put it up before, but not sure how long ago in this thread, but below is a copy of one of the letters I sent in which asked questions. This was before the "Lawyers for Animals" response was known to me, but I was pleased to see that their response mirrored my concerns, points and questions as well. One of the points that I remember I did not raise but which LFA have and which I think has an importance is that the proposed Bill is mis-titled. It is misleading in that it has people thinking the laws don't and won't affect them because they do not own a "Dangerous Dog" (as defined by the law). This proposed Bill is about, can and will affect ALL dogs. But because of the title description, public interest which potentially would have been given, will not be.

Some of the formatting is lost due to the copy/paste but I think it remains relatively clear.

Dear Members of Parliament

MLC’s

MLA’s

URGENT

RE: PROPOSED DOMESTIC ANIMALS AMENDMENT (DANGEROUS DOGS) BILL

DEBATE SCHEDULED : 25TH MAY, 2010 (not yet debated)

In relation to the proposed Bill referred to above, the following questions and very serious concerns are some of those that need to be asked and answered with careful and cautious deliberation before any decision pertaining to the amendments are passed by parliament.

• Why do we have proposed new laws when the policing of current (albeit some flawed) laws are already not sufficiently policed?

• The proposed Bill outlines where the power to destroy dogs is broadened, but how does it propose to increase resources for educating dog owners pro-actively rather than reactively?

• What infallible procedures are in place to guarantee that a micro-chipped dog cannot fail to be ID’d? Chip scanners have proven to sometimes be faulty; chips migrate within the dog’s body; some scanners do not read certain chips.

• What extensive education and experience must the Council Officers, to whom the Government wish to empower with the authority to immediately destroy a dog, have at the time of making that irreversible decision? How can it be guaranteed that such an opinion is not going to be a subjective decision?

• Why does the proposed Bill focus on heavy penalties for a dog-owner not having his/her dog wearing a Council registration marker if that dog is under the control of the dog-owner or appointed handler at the time? How does the community benefit from such a law? Council is easily able to communicate back to ‘base’ to confirm registration compliance. Many people utilise any one of various available training tools when out exercising their dogs – training tools/collars are not intended to remain on the dog without supervision. Consequently, these are not the collars that, if a dog wears one at home at all (note : safety of the dog can be compromised when wearing a collar of any sort in an unsupervised situation), the dog would be wearing at any time of escape. The only benefits that are identified here seem to relate to additional revenue gain for Council/Government.

• Many people opt to not have their dog wear a collar unless the dog is supervised. There have been numerous incidents of accidental death of family pet dogs through asphyxiation due to collar strangling.

• Why does government care what breed of dog it is? If it is dangerous, then it is dangerous – assuming the assessment and declaration of “dangerous” by definition is made by a person qualified and experienced to judge dog temperament and body language in a contextual situation.

• Given the above, why would Government need or for that matter want, legislation which is breed specific? (And which legislation was already proven failed law around the World before it was adopted by Government.)

• What is in it for the Government to bring in laws which allow dogs to be put down more quickly? The community is not at risk once the dog is impounded and held for a few more days? So who stands to gain from this?

o

The only ‘winner’ in this situation seems to be the shelter/pound, who still gains its income from every animal euthanized, but now gains it more quickly and can be rid of the animal so that it does not have to prove “dangerous”; and

o The Councils, who increase their revenue by the lawful imposition of increased fines – fines that no-one would have the ability to refute because the evidence of their dog’s behaviour has been destroyed.

• This is a grave breach of the laws of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness as the situation itself lends itself for biased gain by both Councils and Shelters/Pounds. It certainly does not prescribe to democracy.

• What is very apparent, if the amendments under the proposed Bill are passed by Government is:

o

Less to no accountability by Council – more money to Council.

o Less to no accountability by Shelters/Pounds to the same people who donate their hard-earned money to them (either direct or via the Government grants and subsidies) – more money to Shelters/Pounds.

• The unintended consequences of higher fines etc. is that there will be people who will be unable to pay and thus their dogs will be left to languish in the pounds/shelters – this for the lucky dogs whose lives aren’t stolen inside the 48 hour period prescribed by the proposed laws in certain circumstances.

• Why would Government (in another Bill, for example) attempt to make laws about how long a foster-carer can look after an animal or about whether baby puppies can be helped? Although foster care and shelters are not the subject of this Bill, all of these laws, when read collectively, leads one to really wonder where the sense of Government has gone, or what their objectives or hidden agendas are. In all of this, credibility, faith and trust in the same people who supported you to Government, is increasingly being destroyed by your hand. So it’s not just the dogs who are dying.

• For any Government to stick to a concept of breed specific legislation in the year 2010 only demonstrates ignorance and rather than being part of the solution, you become part of the problem.

• At an emotional yet humane level – killing a dog, especially through mis-judgement, can and has proven to cause emotional torture to a dog’s owner/family. Even ONE misguided error is more than I would wish for any one person to bear. The ‘kill-it-fast’ mentality that is mirrored by the laws within this proposed Bill leave this wide open for occurrence. “Sorry” isn’t going to cut it for the owner from whom his/her dog has been mistakenly and irreversibly taken and killed. Time is needed for forethought – not only in law making, but also in acting out the law. Yet by your laws, time is discouraged and it is hard to understand why, given the questions above. “Haste makes waste” and the proposed laws which encourage this will cause undue and unfair hardship upon dog owners and dog-owning families.

• What is the solution? Well, at least part of the solution is a change of tack – for all the prohibitive regulations and legislations that Government have persistently imposed (and which more often affect responsible dog-owners rather than target those they were created for in the first place) over these recent years, have bite injury statistics improved? So why not :

o Allow pounds and shelters to put their own policies in place and necessarily be transparent about those polices to allow people to be aware of them before they donate and support them. The people, the ones who elect Government to power, can be the judges of which pound/shelter serves them and their animals best.



This will encourage shelters/pounds to create better policies and encourage them to work towards cutting down kill rates instead of benefiting from them.

 It will also enable the public to make clear choices upon which they can base their decisions regarding where they will donate their money.

o

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.

o When a dog is found at large unless it is judged to be potentially dangerous because of its behaviour give it a free ride home the first time and counsel the owners about how to prevent it happening again. “EDUCATION”.

o If it is judged to be potentially dangerous because of its behaviour give it a fair assessment over a reasonable time frame.

o Talk to people who really know dogs and dog behaviour. Those who are in a position that cannot be compromised for bias whether that be for financial gain or other agenda.

o Render decision-makers/organisations accountable for their actions and have them obligated to observe the rules of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness. Any privileges which have been granted to anyone or any organisation/department etc. which permits exemption from that obligation needs to be re-addressed.

Regards

xxx

Edited June 9, 2010 by Erny

[Casster17]

This is good news Erny...

Our emails are working (well we hope so)... GO VICTORIAN DOG OWNERS!!!!!!!

I will send another round of emails using your other letter template.

Erny you have done amazing work... well done

[mackiemad]

thanks erny! sent emails to the whole lot of them, using partially your template and my own surmisings as well.

lets keep on going so we continue to have an effect!

[Erny]

Excellent, Mackiemad and Casster17 .

I'm also gratified to hear from another source who I've been communicating with to ensure awareness, that another Newspaper has taken up the story and is expected to publish soon. Well done to that person and everyone else who has taken it upon themselves to write in and voice now, along with the others of us who have also done so.

This is our Labor Government at *work*. It's election year.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Erny

[mackiemad]

funnily enough erny- that sentiment of it being an elections year and the gov's failure on water, Myki, police and public transport may have made it into my emails!

and again, i likened it to phrenology for dogs. oh, look, fat skull-must be a killer! i guess i hope that phrenology, now associated with the nazi's, will scare them into seeing what they're doing...??

[Erny]

funnily enough erny- that sentiment of it being an elections year and the gov's failure on water, Myki, police and public transport may have made it into my emails!

and again, i likened it to phrenology for dogs. oh, look, fat skull-must be a killer! i guess i hope that phrenology, now associated with the nazi's, will scare them into seeing what they're doing...??

Yeah, although try to keep letters emotionally minimalistic, otherwise they tend to stop reading after the first few lines.

And of course it goes without saying that the way we write is a representation of ourselves. We're responsible dog-owners. And we're civil.

Not suggesting you weren't any of these, Mackiemand .

[APBT Club of Aust Inc.]

BUMP

[Erny]

Another *bump* because I won't get much of a chance to monitor this today.

Morning! .

[Erny]

HaHAAAA !! You all thought I was going to give you a reprieve from reminding (and urging) you about this today, didn't you?

Nup.

It's too important.

[APBT Club of Aust Inc.]

BUMMER

Bump again

As Ernie says "this is far too important"

[haylz27]

You guys are doing a great job...

Bump.