Proposed New Victorian Dog Laws Dead Wrong

[arrow]

As the owner of a much-loved dog who lost her collar (with rego tag) while I was actually walking her on lead, this Bill really scares me.

[~Shepherd~]

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.

which paper Erny?

[grumpette]

E-mail finally sent

[Erny]

As the owner of a much-loved dog who lost her collar (with rego tag) while I was actually walking her on lead, this Bill really scares me.

Not only that, but what's the point? I mean, what will being able to fine you for your dog not wearing its plastic council tag, when you're out there with your dog, help in anything? Your dog's registered (a method of ID and a fee to Council) - that's easily checked electronically by one of the council officer's hand held thingies (or a quick phone call back to Council Office). Your dog's microchipped (so ID'd yet again, and again, another fee) - that's easily checked by way of scanner.

So what's this particular fine about? What harm are you causing the Council or the Community because your dog's not sporting a council tag, even though your dog is with you on lead and IS registered and IS microchipped?

The only beneficiaries of this law and the fine that it will attract, is an increase in easy revenue for Council/Government.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Erny

[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.

which paper Erny?

I can't remember exactly. The Leader, I think, but I'm not sure which district. Yarra Glen or something like that?? I've asked for a link once it is published - when I know it, I'll put it up.

[Erny]

E-mail finally sent

Yay!!

[~Shepherd~]

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.

which paper Erny?

I can't remember exactly. The Leader, I think, but I'm not sure which district. Yarra Glen or something like that?? I've asked for a link once it is published - when I know it, I'll put it up.

Ive not heard back from the diamond valley one. I was hoping they had contacted another writer. I will follow up tuesday

[Erny]

Good one, Chewbacca

You know, I don't know of any one Labor MP who has responded directly to questions asked by any of us, about this Bill. Questions which in themselves point out the flaws and the wrongs of the laws contained within the proposed Bill.

I have a feeling they've been 'groomed' in some shape or form. Groomed into either not saying anything, or groomed into being careful about what they say. I also have a feeling that they will try to 'soften' the reality of the laws and somehow make out as though they won't affect us, that they don't intend for them to target us. VicDogs seem to carry that faith, somehow. I don't.

Problem is, that's pretty much the case with any of the laws they've passed (especially in recent years). But I don't see any of the same people who voted for the passing of those laws, come running when surprise surprise, they DO affect the responsible law-abiding people. And most of the stories I have read and heard of where those laws have been administrated and applied, have been not to people and dogs that truly deserved them. Thing is, the laws don't say "these won't apply to responsible dog owners". The laws don't explicitly give an 'out' to someone (or someone's dog) who have been lynched by these laws, but who might be a first time offender, or where a mistake that was outside of their control or responsibility occurred. And what good if they did anyway, if the person's dog is already dead. "Oops. Sorry."

And how many times have any of us heard from authorities "we have to work within and by the law", at the same time they are nodding as though agreeing with you that in your instance the law is not fair?

And besides - what's the definition of "responsible dog-owner" in the eyes of the law? Is there such a definition?

And I'm getting these feelings I've expressed above due to the very absence of responses. In all, I've sent something in the vicinity of 234 emails (3 different letters) to every single MLA. Two have acknowledged, and one has explicitly responded (Mr. Bill Sykes, Liberal Party - thank you, sir ). Not a one single response have I received from any one of the Labor MP's and given that the Lower House is a Labor Mandate, that's a lot of Labor MP's who aren't responding. Why?

Edited June 11, 2010 by Erny

[sumosmum]

I received an acknowledgment from Ted Baillieu's office saying that they had received my email and would be looking at it. Thanking me for drawing his attention to the matter. That is it, nothing else.

Well, it's a long weekend, plenty of time to send more emails, ask more questions and point out how wrong this all is.

Keep the pressure up, don't let them think we have forgotten about it, or that they can just fob us off. I don't intend to give up on this, and will keep writing and questioning this. For the sake of dogs.

[Erny]

I received an acknowledgment from Ted Baillieu's office saying that they had received my email and would be looking at it. Thanking me for drawing his attention to the matter. That is it, nothing else.

Well, it's a long weekend, plenty of time to send more emails, ask more questions and point out how wrong this all is.

Keep the pressure up, don't let them think we have forgotten about it, or that they can just fob us off. I don't intend to give up on this, and will keep writing and questioning this. For the sake of dogs.

Yes - he was one of the people who "acknowledged" to me as well. Another Liberal MP.

Thanks for continuing to be motivated, Sumosmum. I know it is easy to give up. I assure you and everyone else who reads here that I have a tonne of other things to do and get done, and like everyone else need to spend my time to earn a living so I can continue to put butter on my bread (or more importantly, hehe .... to feed my dog). Even I need motivating at times. People such as yourself and the others who have also continued to push on (I won't name everyone as I'm sure to miss someone out) help to motivate me. Them, and the fact that this proposed Bill and the laws within it are WRONG and need to be stopped before grievous errors are made, albeit made in the "name of the law".

[NaturallyWild]

You know, I don't know of any one Labor MP who has responded directly to questions asked by any of us, about this Bill. Questions which in themselves point out the flaws and the wrongs of the laws contained within the proposed Bill.

I have a feeling they've been 'groomed' in some shape or form.

I've had a response back from one of the MPs. Apparently a flow chart will fix all the issues contained in the bill!!!! See below.

"Dear Tim,

I am a very keen dog owner and this legislation is not about breeds

(outside of the restricted breeds list which has not changed) but about the

behaviour of the dog and also whether or not your dog is at large and not

microchipped.or registered.

If all of those things come together at the one time, it is possible a dog

could be captured by this legislation. Even so you would still have at

least 48 hours to notice your dog missing and to then contact council and

identify the dog.

Councils will be provided with a flow chart on the use of the power to

destroy a dog, practice notes for consideration and will be provided with

standard operating procedures to ensure that they have correctly identified

that the power can be used and to assist the council to put in place checks

and balances before any dog is destroyed, this will ennable council

officers to understand what it is they have to demonstrate in order to

justify such dramatic action.

The powers in this Bill will not allow a family pet that is identifiable to

be destroyed unless the dog is actually attacking another animal or person.

The power to destroy is not triggered solely for being unregistered. The

dog has to be unidentifiable as well. Once all recording has been complete

(up to 24 hours) then the animal may be destroyed after a minimum of 48

hours - this could allow up to 72 hours from seizure before destruction.

If the dog is identified in the time period then the power to destroy is

NOT available any longer to the Council

The government’s view is that this provides a balance between giving owners

the time to identify their pet and sending a clear message that an

at-large, unregistered, unidentifiable dog that is in the reasonable view

of a Council Authorised Officer behaving in a manner causing or likely to

cause an offence will be seized and destroyed. In many cases this may be

the only risk that the irresponsible owners of these dogs will take notice

of and modify their behaviour.

Council currently has, and will continue to have, a minimum eight day

holding period for any dog seized (outside of these new provisions) to be

reunited with its owner after which the animal can be sent for re-homing or

if not rehoused could be destroyed.

Kind regards"

[Erny]

Thanks Tim. Another person has just emailed me as she too has received a reply - exactly the same as yours. There's holes in that reply. But I need to go fix my dinner and address that at another time. I think it will be worthy of a response back, pointing out to her where she is wrong. And where we can see through what she is trying to vale (sp?) over.

[NaturallyWild]

Thanks Tim. Another person has just emailed me as she too has received a reply - exactly the same as yours. There's holes in that reply. But I need to go fix my dinner and address that at another time. I think it will be worthy of a response back, pointing out to her where she is wrong. And where we can see through what she is trying to vale (sp?) over.

Me too. Lots of points not covered as well eg ridiculous fines. Will sit down when I have some time.

[mackiemad]

yeah, i got exactly the same response from her.

and an acknowledgement from baillieu-and given he is my representative (as in i live in his area) i had hoped for better.

i also got a response from a woman on behalf of a MP (can i say his seat?)

Dear xxx

Thank you for forwarding a copy of correspondence relating to Restricted Breed Review Panels.

The bill was not debated in this week of Parliament, as previously thought.

I will take your views into account when the bill is debated and I will advise you of the outcome of the debate when it occurs.

Regards

xxx

so i'm not sure that that is really a fab response, feels awfully like a cold shoulder, but we'll see how it goes...

[Erny]

LOL .... stand by. As parliament has finished "sitting" we can now expect a spat of watered down responses, especially from the Labor sector - responses that won't really hit at the heart of the erroneous laws that the Labor Party (ie Joe Helper) wants to bring in.

I wonder - with the "acknowledgements" which don't really tell us anything, are we allowed to ask what stance they'll be taking? Especially if the acknowledgement is from an MP who represents you directly?

I have some work to do on formulating another letter or two. It never rains but it pours though, as I have a couple of other more personal (but important) biggish things on the go at the moment that also need my urgent attention .

Edited June 11, 2010 by Erny

[sumosmum]

LOL .... stand by. As parliament has finished "sitting" we can now expect a spat of watered down responses, especially from the Labor sector - responses that won't really hit at the heart of the erroneous laws that the Labor Party (ie Joe Helper) wants to bring in.

I wonder - with the "acknowledgements" which don't really tell us anything, are we allowed to ask what stance they'll be taking? Especially if the acknowledgement is from an MP who represents you directly?

I have some work to do on formulating another letter or two. It never rains but it pours though, as I have a couple of other more personal (but important) biggish things on the go at the moment that also need my urgent attention .

I think we are able to ask what stance they will be taking. Especially if they are your local member. They represent their local electorate in Parliament, and we can ask questions on matters that concern us. That is the way it is suppose to work. Whether we get an answer, well I suppose that is another matter. They don't have to agree with us, but if they go against enough people in their electorate, that is when they get voted out. And that goes for any party. I don't know if that is the way it always turns out, but in my opinion, that's the way it should be. So yes, I think it is quite right to ask where they stand, and have even known people to make an appointment to go and speak to them or their staff. They should be accessible to the residents of their electorate.

[sumosmum]

I would like to know who gets the money that they would be able to collect from these proposed new fines. Does the council get to keep it all, or does the State Government get a percentage?

I know of one area where lots of dogs are walked off lead. I don't know why, but always see people walking the dog off lead, the dog at least one house frontage away from its owner and the owner merrily swinging the empty lead in their hand as they walk. This even happens straight out the front of where the ACO office is located. Now I have never seen or heard of the council fining these people with the fines that are available to them at the moment. So, what will happen if these laws go through? I doubt the council will all of a sudden grow a new work ethic? Or, if the council gets to keep all of the money, will they all of a sudden be motivated to do the job they are being paid for? That in itself is wrong to start with if that happens. They should just do the job that they are meant to do, and a lot of problems wouldn't happen in the first place.

[Erny]

Thanks Tim. Another person has just emailed me as she too has received a reply - exactly the same as yours. There's holes in that reply. But I need to go fix my dinner and address that at another time. I think it will be worthy of a response back, pointing out to her where she is wrong. And where we can see through what she is trying to vale (sp?) over.

Me too. Lots of points not covered as well eg ridiculous fines. Will sit down when I have some time.

Hey Tim. I've just spent the past hour working on a response that refutes much of the points Joanne (MP) has attempted to raise by way of answer to public concern over this proposed Bill. There are some points she hasn't addressed at all, although they relate more to fines, so whilst they still need to be answered, at least they aren't at the high end of the very real risk of tragedy that will occur under this Bill (although they might be if it comes to the fact that some people simply won't be able to afford to bail out their dogs from the pound).

I must admit that my brain isn't functioning as well as I know it can and I'm struggling to (a) be succinct and (b) to not allow Joanne's seemingly carefully 'steered' course through the obstacles this proposed Bill presents, to put me off track.

I've only done mine in a rough draft - one that I've used a different coloured font interspersing her actual letter. I'm happy to show you mine if you'll show me yours so to speak. I need some brain refreshment and some inspiration.

Or anybody?

Edited June 12, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

I've spent more time re-working my first draft response this afternoon/evening.

I won't be able to get to this (or DOL) much tomorrow, so ................ bumpity bump.

The purpose of this proposed Bill is purported to be "to address community needs". A primary question in my mind is how the laws encompassed within the proposed Bill will actually help the Community?

For example : a dog impounded for 48 hours instead of 8 days. That helps the Community, how?

For example : a dog on lead with its owner in a public place - is registered; microchipped; but is not wearing its plastic Council Tag. An increased fine. That helps the Community, how?

Ask this question in your mind as you go through each point of law that is comprised within the Bill, as you structure your letter/responses.

Ask the Government.

Insist on direct answers.

Don't be satisfied with any washed out; watered down; prettied up; and/or dumbed down; responses.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Erny

[APBT Club of Aust Inc.]

Bump!