New Laws For Dog Owners In Victoria

[cheekycairn]

The Victorian Government has recently introduced a range of new laws to better protect the community from dangerous dogs.

Councils now have the power to seize and impound dogs that are found wandering at large in public if they are unregistered/unidentifiable, and the Authorised Officer believes that the dog is a danger to the public (eg has attacked or is likely to attack). If unclaimed by the owner within 48 hours, the dog can be euthanased.

If a dog that has previously been declared as a Dangerous Dog (due to attack) is found wandering at large, it can be seized and impounded, and euthanased after 24 hours. Owners must contact the council within 24 hours of impoundment if they wish to prove there were mitigating circumstances for the dog being at large (if this can be proven, the owner may be able to reclaim the dog).

Council Officers also have the power to immediately destroy a dog if it is behaving in such a way that it will cause imminent serious injury or death to a person or other animal.

Responsible dog owners will not be affected by these laws. Registering, identifying and keeping dogs on the property will prevent the possibility of them being seized and impounded.

All cats and dogs aged 3 months and over must be registered with the local council, and must wear their council identification marker whenever they are off the property.

New laws have also been introduced that affect owners of declared Menacing, Dangerous and Restricted Breed Dogs. You can access the new legislation (version 42 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994) via: http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/

For more information about these legislation amendments, visit www.dpi.vic.gov.au/animalwelfare or call 136 186.

[Sue]

48 hours does not give a person time to contact and reclaim a lost pet, especially if the pet has been transported out of the dogs local area by the finder if the description of the pet differs from the description of the pound.

I remember a "red rottwieller" puppy that was advertised as lost on a NZ site. The picture showed a mastiff cross puppy which did not appear to be a rotti in any way. They were determined to continue with their description as this is what the were told the puppy was. As the pound would be thinking they were looking for a rotti looking dog with a strange colouring, this puppy would have died.

These laws are unfair to all owners, and responsible owners are in danger of losing their pets. After all, dogs are not benign beings. They will take an opportunity to escape and go walkabout.

[shel]

That's if you can afford to pick up your pet at all...

Errant dog owners face harsher fines

Herald Sun, 1st Sept 2010

WANDERING dogs deemed an imminent threat to people could be destroyed on the spot under laws coming into effect today.

Pet owners who fail to register their dogs or cats face doubled fines of almost $2400.

New penalties include:

DOUBLING of potential fines for owners who fail to apply for or renew dog and/or cat registrations to $2389.

FINES up to $717 for dogs found wandering during the day.

FINES doubled to $4778 if a dog attacks someone.

The laws also broaden the criteria for declaring a dog menacing or dangerous.

.

Edited September 1, 2010 by shel

[Nekhbet]

welcome to the shittiest state in the country

[jerojath]

welcome to the shittiest state in the country

Yup.

[PaddyForever]

I didn't disagree with the main gist of the new laws, except for the time allocated to the poor dog whose owners have gone away...!I hope they do a proper temperament test on the dogs involved, and not simply assume that they are OF A BREED which may be likely to attack! Surely, a dog that could pass a temperament test could be given a little more time for his owner to search for him, or be allowed to be possibly rehomed? I was shocked to see the size of the fines that could be involved, too. Doesn't really give some owners the incentive to stand up and admit that they own Fido, does it?! Another revenue raiser, me doth think...!

[sumosmum]

I didn't disagree with the main gist of the new laws, except for the time allocated to the poor dog whose owners have gone away...!I hope they do a proper temperament test on the dogs involved, and not simply assume that they are OF A BREED which may be likely to attack! Surely, a dog that could pass a temperament test could be given a little more time for his owner to search for him, or be allowed to be possibly rehomed? I was shocked to see the size of the fines that could be involved, too. Doesn't really give some owners the incentive to stand up and admit that they own Fido, does it?! Another revenue raiser, me doth think...!

I disagree with the new laws.

Doesn't mention anything about a temperament test! This is for a dog that has no collar and no chip. Don't forget, collars fall off, can be taken off by other people, and chips can get missed.

"Clause 23 inserts new sections into the Act that allow for Councils to destroy a dog that is not registered and the owner is not identifiable, that is at large and that is reasonably believed to have caused or is likely to cause an offence under section 29 (attacking or biting a person or animal, or rushing at or chasing any person). If all of these preconditions are met, Councils may destroy the dog no sooner than 48 hours after a record is made by an authorised officer."

So, from what I gather from the above quote, if the council thinks the dog may attack or rush at a person or animal if it were lose, then they can to destroy it within 48hours. Keep in mind, to get to this point, they would already have the dog in custody. Why can't they just keep it for the 8 days. It can't do any harm if it is already locked up! Too many ifs, thinks and mays for my liking!

So, what IF the chip is missed when the dog is scanned.

[Souff]

That's if you can afford to pick up your pet at all...

Errant dog owners face harsher fines

Herald Sun, 1st Sept 2010

WANDERING dogs deemed an imminent threat to people could be destroyed on the spot under laws coming into effect t

Pet owners who fail to register their dogs or cats face doubled fines of almost $2400.

New penalties include:

DOUBLING of potential fines for owners who fail to apply for or renew dog and/or cat registrations to $2389.

FINES up to $717 for dogs found wandering during the day.

FINES doubled to $4778 if a dog attacks someone.

The laws also broaden the criteria for declaring a dog menacing or dangerous.

So up goes the number of dogs not being claimed, and up goes the number of pups not being microchipped.

Some governments just don't get it .... fines like these are the making of more problems.

Laws were meant to serve the community, not serve the egos of idealists who want to live in a utopian place. Laws like this only serve to do one thing ... to drive the problems underground.

Souff

[Staranais]

Councils now have the power to seize and impound dogs that are found wandering at large in public if they are unregistered/unidentifiable, and the Authorised Officer believes that the dog is a danger to the public (eg has attacked or is likely to attack). If unclaimed by the owner within 48 hours, the dog can be euthanased.

That is very sad. My girl has never wandered. But god forbid she one day escapes the yard and a council officer decides she looks like she's "likely" to attack someone...

[Steve]

welcome to the shittiest state in the country

Yep.

[Adza]

I didn't disagree with the main gist of the new laws, except for the time allocated to the poor dog whose owners have gone away...!I hope they do a proper temperament test on the dogs involved, and not simply assume that they are OF A BREED which may be likely to attack! Surely, a dog that could pass a temperament test could be given a little more time for his owner to search for him, or be allowed to be possibly rehomed? I was shocked to see the size of the fines that could be involved, too. Doesn't really give some owners the incentive to stand up and admit that they own Fido, does it?! Another revenue raiser, me doth think...!

I disagree with the new laws.

Doesn't mention anything about a temperament test! This is for a dog that has no collar and no chip. Don't forget, collars fall off, can be taken off by other people, and chips can get missed.

"Clause 23 inserts new sections into the Act that allow for Councils to destroy a dog that is not registered and the owner is not identifiable, that is at large and that is reasonably believed to have caused or is likely to cause an offence under section 29 (attacking or biting a person or animal, or rushing at or chasing any person). If all of these preconditions are met, Councils may destroy the dog no sooner than 48 hours after a record is made by an authorised officer."

So, from what I gather from the above quote, if the council thinks the dog may attack or rush at a person or animal if it were lose, then they can to destroy it within 48hours. Keep in mind, to get to this point, they would already have the dog in custody. Why can't they just keep it for the 8 days. It can't do any harm if it is already locked up! Too many ifs, thinks and mays for my liking!

So, what IF the chip is missed when the dog is scanned.

That's right, of course councils will never explain the "IF's" I hear too many times from people their dog got out and was microchipped and had been at the council pound the whole time and sometimes, they didn't even have the info in the system yet! I really hope this blows up in their face. They really think they know whats best for the country.

[GeckoTree]

so some agro dog owners might be dumb, but are they so dumb not to know that registering a dog means that they have claimed ownership on it the second they sign on the dotted line. lol.get a fine for 'non' ownership my arse. thats like finding a stray and claimin Dotty down the road fed it a cookie, it sept on her porch so it must be hers. Fine her some money great land of babylon . Can one even be fined without being first being convicted? If its paid then your guilty you admitted it, but if not it should be proved you own it or not somehow.

Would they even give a sht lol, the price of a brand spankin new 50 buck mutt is a lot cheaper the fine.

Again they grabbed the shitty end of the pole and danced with it..

[Aussienot]

Is there any difference in the handling of lost animal who are identified? (i.e. registered with council) Can they, and will they, be held any longer than non registered dogs? And what happens to dogs who are identified, but wander across council boundaries? Is there a central state register?

Disappointing the blurring of 'lost dog' versus 'dangerous dog' ideas in this legislation.

[Nekhbet]

it's basically giving powers to rangers that if they see a lose dog, deem it a risk (that is their own opinion) it can be euthed without appeal. If they cannot ID it (collar fell off, chip moved) they can euth it.

basically we're applying the South Park excuse

OMG IT WAS COMING RIGHT FOR US!

ETA as for better protect ... not one law pertains to prevention or proper education to ensure dogs dont get into this situation. THey're all closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Just pure revenue and showing how little idea they have how to fix the dog problem.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Nekhbet

[megan_]

Small fluffies will be safe. Probably be deemed "cute" for trying to bite the ranger. Bull breeds are the target of this. If hte ranger isn't keen on dogs, the big, brindle dogs will pay the price.

[Odin-Genie]

This is for a dog that has no collar and no chip. Don't forget, collars fall off, can be taken off by other people, and chips can get missed.

"Clause 23 inserts new sections into the Act that allow for Councils to destroy a dog that is not registered and the owner is not identifiable, that is at large and that is reasonably believed to have caused or is likely to cause an offence under section 29 (attacking or biting a person or animal, or rushing at or chasing any person). If all of these preconditions are met, Councils may destroy the dog no sooner than 48 hours after a record is made by an authorised officer."

So, from what I gather from the above quote, if the council thinks the dog may attack or rush at a person or animal if it were lose, then they can to destroy it within 48hours. Keep in mind, to get to this point, they would already have the dog in custody. Why can't they just keep it for the 8 days. It can't do any harm if it is already locked up! Too many ifs, thinks and mays for my liking!

So, what IF the chip is missed when the dog is scanned.

This is what would worry me too. Rangers aren't usually qualified to read a dog's body language. If a dog runs up to them happily, they might qualify it as rushing and decide to destroy it :p

I'm all for stopping people from letting their dogs roam, but accidents do happen. 48 hours is just not enough.

[brightonrock]

I'm looking for collars that are ok to put on show dogs so their coats are not affected too much. Mine are all microchipped but a collar id sounds like a good thing with these laws.

Can anyone recommend any collars, small dog ones

Thank You

[Nekhbet]

stretchy cat collars are good, soft and if they get caught can slip off for safety

[PaddyForever]

I didn't disagree with the main gist of the new laws, except for the time allocated to the poor dog whose owners have gone away...!I hope they do a proper temperament test on the dogs involved, and not simply assume that they are OF A BREED which may be likely to attack! Surely, a dog that could pass a temperament test could be given a little more time for his owner to search for him, or be allowed to be possibly rehomed? I was shocked to see the size of the fines that could be involved, too. Doesn't really give some owners the incentive to stand up and admit that they own Fido, does it?! Another revenue raiser, me doth think...!

I disagree with the new laws.

Doesn't mention anything about a temperament test! This is for a dog that has no collar and no chip. Don't forget, collars fall off, can be taken off by other people, and chips can get missed.

"Clause 23 inserts new sections into the Act that allow for Councils to destroy a dog that is not registered and the owner is not identifiable, that is at large and that is reasonably believed to have caused or is likely to cause an offence under section 29 (attacking or biting a person or animal, or rushing at or chasing any person). If all of these preconditions are met, Councils may destroy the dog no sooner than 48 hours after a record is made by an authorised officer."

So, from what I gather from the above quote, if the council thinks the dog may attack or rush at a person or animal if it were lose, then they can to destroy it within 48hours. Keep in mind, to get to this point, they would already have the dog in custody. Why can't they just keep it for the 8 days. It can't do any harm if it is already locked up! Too many ifs, thinks and mays for my liking!

So, what IF the chip is missed when the dog is scanned.

Hi- I hope by 'above quote', you aren't quoting me, as my quote is 'the above quote' here, and has been used again in reff to these new laws! What I said was that I hadn't disagreed with 'the main gist' of the new laws, but I wanted to know how they would clarify them, i.e, what would be the criteria for considering a dog as 'likely to attack'? I also commented about the lack of time allocated to said dogs, and the high price of the fines involved, so obviously I am not 'all for', these new laws, either. Just wanted to clarify that! I personally think that wandering dogs should be collected by council, for their own welfare, but enough time allocated to locate the owner. I think dogs, and cats, should be microchipped, to HELP identify said owners, remembering that it may very well have been the BREEDER who had the animal microchipped. If responsible, they should have a record of the buyer. Dangerous dogs, who are menacing people or property, should be captured and contained, and again, enough time allocated to find the owners, as there could be many reasons as to why a wandering dog could exhibit 'dangerous' behaviour, through fear, maltreatment, illness, etc. And I know that not all points were covered by the quoting of the laws in the original quote. I do think that people should be held more accountable for the welfare of their pets, and the welfare of the general public, though. Sometimes, a dog could be wandering for a genuine reason, but the irresponsible owners give us all, and sometimes, our breeds, a bad name. Something that is not discussed enough, are the silly laws that govern the numbers of dogs that we are allowed to keep in certain areas. I have had to get several excess animal permits, but a lot of people would be afraid to apply for them, in case they got knocked back, and then receieved a council visit...This puts some people off registering their extra dog/cat, and therefore, perhaps loathe to collect them from a shelter, as they would have to admit the ownership of an unregistered animal, and cop the fines. Of course there should be limits, but two dogs and two cats, is not enough for the commited animal owner, esp one involved in showing, obedience, etc, and could even promote the practise of 'retiring' aging dogs, to make way for the new. Is it NSW who doesn't police numbers, as long as animals are well kept and cared for?

Edited September 2, 2010 by PaddyForever

[sumosmum]

I didn't disagree with the main gist of the new laws, except for the time allocated to the poor dog whose owners have gone away...!I hope they do a proper temperament test on the dogs involved, and not simply assume that they are OF A BREED which may be likely to attack! Surely, a dog that could pass a temperament test could be given a little more time for his owner to search for him, or be allowed to be possibly rehomed? I was shocked to see the size of the fines that could be involved, too. Doesn't really give some owners the incentive to stand up and admit that they own Fido, does it?! Another revenue raiser, me doth think...!

I disagree with the new laws.

Doesn't mention anything about a temperament test! This is for a dog that has no collar and no chip. Don't forget, collars fall off, can be taken off by other people, and chips can get missed.

"Clause 23 inserts new sections into the Act that allow for Councils to destroy a dog that is not registered and the owner is not identifiable, that is at large and that is reasonably believed to have caused or is likely to cause an offence under section 29 (attacking or biting a person or animal, or rushing at or chasing any person). If all of these preconditions are met, Councils may destroy the dog no sooner than 48 hours after a record is made by an authorised officer."

So, from what I gather from the above quote, if the council thinks the dog may attack or rush at a person or animal if it were lose, then they can to destroy it within 48hours. Keep in mind, to get to this point, they would already have the dog in custody. Why can't they just keep it for the 8 days. It can't do any harm if it is already locked up! Too many ifs, thinks and mays for my liking!

So, what IF the chip is missed when the dog is scanned.

Hi- I hope by 'above quote', you aren't quoting me, as my quote is 'the above quote' here, and has been used again in reff to these new laws! What I said was that I hadn't disagreed with 'the main gist' of the new laws, but I wanted to know how they would clarify them, i.e, what would be the criteria for considering a dog as 'likely to attack'? I also commented about the lack of time allocated to said dogs, and the high price of the fines involved, so obviously I am not 'all for', these new laws, either. Just wanted to clarify that! I personally think that wandering dogs should be collected by council, for their own welfare, but enough time allocated to locate the owner. I think dogs, and cats, should be microchipped, to HELP identify said owners, remembering that it may very well have been the BREEDER who had the animal microchipped. If responsible, they should have a record of the buyer. Dangerous dogs, who are menacing people or property, should be captured and contained, and again, enough time allocated to find the owners, as there could be many reasons as to why a wandering dog could exhibit 'dangerous' behaviour, through fear, maltreatment, illness, etc. And I know that not all points were covered by the quoting of the laws in the original quote. I do think that people should be held more accountable for the welfare of their pets, and the welfare of the general public, though. Sometimes, a dog could be wandering for a genuine reason, but the irresponsible owners give us all, and sometimes, our breeds, a bad name. Something that is not discussed enough, are the silly laws that govern the numbers of dogs that we are allowed to keep in certain areas. I have had to get several excess animal permits, but a lot of people would be afraid to apply for them, in case they got knocked back, and then receieved a council visit...This puts some people off registering their extra dog/cat, and therefore, perhaps loathe to collect them from a shelter, as they would have to admit the ownership of an unregistered animal, and cop the fines. Of course there should be limits, but two dogs and two cats, is not enough for the commited animal owner, esp one involved in showing, obedience, etc, and could even promote the practise of 'retiring' aging dogs, to make way for the new. Is it NSW who doesn't police numbers, as long as animals are well kept and cared for?

No, by above quote I meant the quote above where I was typing. The part with quotation marks. That quote was from the Research Brief for the new laws.

Of course, dogs should not roam. However, their should be enough time for their owners to claim them from the pound.

With ACO's picking up strays and fining people for walking their dog's offlead in onlead areas, well, I think if they did their job better in the first place, people would be more compliant and there may not have been any need for these new harsh laws. The council in my area does not do anything much unless an actual complaint is made. I have never heard of them fining or warning anyone for walking their dog off lead. Really annoys me, lots of offlead dogs in this area. I wonder if they will all of a sudden get a new energy now and actually do the job they are supposed to do. It wouldn't surprise me, much more rewarding for the council now!

I don't really see a problem with people having to get excess animal permits. Some people have far too many animals and do not look after them correctly. I have not had a problem getting extra dog permits.

Anyway, the law is in now so we shall just have to put up with it for the moment.