Scary New Laws - Did Anyone Get This Email?

[Kirty]

A lady I know received an email because she is a registered microchip implanter. It contained info regarding new laws that are currently being brought in. Apparently they have already been approved? They included higher registration fees, higher fines for having too many animals or unregistered animals, more power for councils to destroy animals, changes to BSL and other things. It was very scary. I will try and get a copy of the email tomorrow but did anyone else get it?

[Aetherglow]

A lady I know received an email because she is a registered microchip implanter. It contained info regarding new laws that are currently being brought in. Apparently they have already been approved? They included higher registration fees, higher fines for having too many animals or unregistered animals, more power for councils to destroy animals, changes to BSL and other things. It was very scary. I will try and get a copy of the email tomorrow but did anyone else get it?

If you're referring to the new Vic state registration laws (which I don't think are official yet but appear certain to go through), there's another thread:

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=201746

[Kirty]

Yes, that last page is pretty much what was emailed today. I had seen the original stuff but had no idea it was already going ahead.

[Erny]

If you're referring to the new Vic state registration laws (which I don't think are official yet but appear certain to go through), there's another thread:

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=201746

They are official. Royal Assent was granted yesterday.

They don't listen.

They won't listen.

Half of them don't even understand what the laws actually mean - they even explained it incorrectly when they debated them.

They're not interested in anything that they're not afraid will hurt by way of votes.

[Erny]

Yes, that last page is pretty much what was emailed today. I had seen the original stuff but had no idea it was already going ahead.

Hope you sent in letters to the pollies, Kirty. Even though it went through anyway.

[sumosmum]

A lot of people are unaware of these new laws. Apparently they are in from 1st Sep.

The first knowledge a lot of people will have of the new laws will probably when they get in trouble for breaking them.

The whole process was disgusting, and they were not going to listen to anyone. The Labour and Liberal parties were all determined to get this through. Even certain MPs who think the new laws are dreadful would not stand up and voice how they really felt. I am just disgusted in the whole thing.

This is very scary stuff, and everyone should read and know what is going on.

Expect a rise in registration fees next year. We will be paying for these new laws.

To the Organisations and clubs who backed this Bill, shame on you. You make me sick. You have sold owners, dogs and cats out over this.

[baciandollie76]

I dont really understand what the new laws are, i went to the website but its all legal speak and i dont understand. Could someone tell me what all this is about..... thanks a lot

[mita]

I'm appalled that the excellent lobbying from people associated with DOL, fell on deaf ears. And that the legislation has been passed anyway.

[sumosmum]

I'm appalled that the excellent lobbying from people associated with DOL, fell on deaf ears. And that the legislation has been passed anyway.

They just did not want to listen at all Mita. Really poor show for government, I think.

They actually received an overwhelming amount of letters of disapproval from what I have heard, but it became apparent that they were going to push this through no matter what was suggested or said. Very disappointing.

[sumosmum]

I dont really understand what the new laws are, i went to the website but its all legal speak and i dont understand. Could someone tell me what all this is about..... thanks a lot

If you go to the link below, to the Research Brief for the Bill, you may find it easier to understand. It contains the information and explanations. Also shows who supported the new Laws. A long read, but shows more.

I found the Brief easier than reading the DAA Amendment 2010 in conjunction with the Domestic Animals Act 1994.... to hard going from one to the other. I will still post a link to the Domestic Animals Amendment 2010 and Domestic Animals Act 1994. Think I have all of that correct, please let me know if I have that wrong or if the links don't work.

Research Brief DAA 2010 Bill

Domestic Animals Act 1994

Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Act 2010

Hope that helps baciandollie76.

[jacqui835]

The Act defines whether or not a dog is dangerous on the basis of its deed, which, according to the Department of Primary Industries recognises that ‘not all members of a breed of dogs behave in exactly the same way’.17 But then: The Act states that a person must not keep a restricted breed dog unless the person acquired the dog before the commencement of section 15 of the Primary Industries Act (Further Amendment) Act 2005. The penalty for an offence is 10 penalty units. This prevents people acquiring restricted breed dogs. This legislation also gave Councils the power to seize and destroy restricted breed dogs if they have not been previously registered, declared and living in Victoria prior to 2 November 2005. Doesn't sound like individuals are receiving much recognition at all.

Proposed section 84TC empowers Councils to destroy a seized dog on the basis that it is at large or in a place not permitted by Council order and where the dog is a declared dangerous dog. The dog may be destroyed no earlier than 24 hours after a record is made confirming the preconditions to destruction, including that the dog is a declared dangerous dog. However, if there is information that leads to a ‘reasonable belief’ by the authorised officer that the dog was at large because of an act or omission by a person other than the owner the Council may not destroy the dog.

Clause 15 requires Councils to provide details of dogs destroyed in the above circumstances and include information such as the time and date of destruction of the dog and certain information relating to the dog and its owner. The Council must also provide information relating to the reasons for the dog being destroyed such as the basis upon which an authorised officer formed the reasonable belief that was likely to commit an offence under section 29 (in the case of new section 84TA).

So they can kill someone's dog after only 24 hours even if it has no prior convictions to its name, for so much as running towards people? Doesn't look these laws are making it very hard for them at all. To kill someone's pet, I think you should have a bloody good reason not to mention something more than the belief of the council guy that the dog was perhaps only likely to commit an offense. And additionally, to kill a dog, this offense should have to be something more than merely running towards people. They claim that one of the aims of this bill is to somehow better educate people on dog ownership, but I really don't see how it would have any hope of achieving that. This just looks like the sort of thing that will lead to a lot of people's pets being killed without having actually done anything wrong. Gosh I am so glad I don't live in Victoria right now, this is one of the worst modern pieces of legislation I have seen, and that is saying something these days!