New Laws For Dog Owners In Victoria

[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?

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.

I haven't had too much of a problem either, with excess dog permits, but I was knocked back once, due to having had a barking dog complaint on record, at the property for which the permit would be issued. That complaint was due to my old dog having had a stroke, and crying a lot, despite all attempts to rectify the situation, and speaking to all my neighbours BEFORE a complaint was lodged. The poor old boy settled down after approx a fortnight, but my neighbour, who I had explained the situation to, and who had sympathised with me, and had sworn her 'budgie was louder' than my dog, had already found the time to put a complaint in writing. The inspector who visited, unannounced, did not see(or rather, hear!) a problem, really, but the local council thought that they would be remiss in granting the permit, because I had already had ONE complaint. I have discussed this issue elsewhere. I rectified the situation by moving later, and have not had a problem with excess permits since. I agree, of course, with some regulation of numbers, but it is a pity that a 'puppy farm,' as such, can keep several hundred dogs on a property that they have a pre-existing dog permit for, and a person in a residential area, even with a 1/4 acre block like we have currently, has to apply for a permit to keep a third dog. These permits are reliant on your neighbours' approval, and council's agreement. As a small-time breeder, I am also very attached to my dogs. I do not own 'breeders', therefore, I would like to keep my dogs as they age, and own a younger dog or two. As I have said before, I have been a rep for the Responsible Pet Ed Program Of Vic, and need my dogs for the program, too. I am an obedience instructor and trial competitor, and my dogs are very well socialised and cared for. We are on the lookout for property zoned rural, where we will be very happy with a 5 dog limit. It's just sad that one complaint can threaten a responsible owner's permission to keep that extra dog. And I do know a lot of people frightened to try to register that third dog...I am very much for responsible ownership, but I think NSW has a better arangement, with no limit on no's, as long as animals are well-cared for. Surely, somewhere in the middle could be an acceptable compromise? I don't intend to own a houseful of dogs/cats!!!Also, if laws are never challenged by the people they affect, then they would never be changed, would they?!!! Sorry, all a bit , I know, I do tend to get a bit carried away...!

[malsrock]

Is an excess of dogs in Victoria like having 3, something that's really policed???. I have known quite a few people in SA that have had 3 dogs, 2 registered and the 3rd unregistered and have done so for years without any dramas. Not to say this should be done, but what are odds of being caught with a 3rd dog???.

Fiona

[Parkeyre]

Is an excess of dogs in Victoria like having 3, something that's really policed???. I have known quite a few people in SA that have had 3 dogs, 2 registered and the 3rd unregistered and have done so for years without any dramas. Not to say this should be done, but what are odds of being caught with a 3rd dog???.

Fiona

I think it depends on the councils.

I'm in SA and we have three dogs, all registered to the property under my name.

there are no restrictions in my council. I could have a hundred dogs if I registered them annually.

[sumosmum]

I agree, I think it does depend on the council. My mum had three dogs, registered the three of them. Then she got a letter back saying she needed a permit for the extra one, but they still registered them all, and sent tags for them. Enclosed with the letter was an application for the permit. She just completed the permit app. with the details of the dogs, posted it back and received the permission letter in the mail a week or so later. But, we don't have to pay for the permit. No neighbour permission/signatures required either. I think it is just to keep the records in order.

[PaddyForever]

I agree, I think it does depend on the council. My mum had three dogs, registered the three of them. Then she got a letter back saying she needed a permit for the extra one, but they still registered them all, and sent tags for them. Enclosed with the letter was an application for the permit. She just completed the permit app. with the details of the dogs, posted it back and received the permission letter in the mail a week or so later. But, we don't have to pay for the permit. No neighbour permission/signatures required either. I think it is just to keep the records in order.

With our council, an application for a permit costs $65, which is payable with the application, and regardless of whether it is successful, or not. I have been told that the inspector who visited me, has since left the shire, and that he had made life a bit difficult for everyone, and that comes from the council rep who visited me to give me my current permit. Although the first inspector had the discression to grant the permit before taking it to council, he chose to forgo that option. I could understand it, if someone was not caring for their animals, but in my case, it was so the opposite...Just because of that single complaint...I guess you can always take the chance and try to register an extra animal, without the permit, and hope they don't notice the others you already have, but it would not really be legal. As a rep for the program I have mentioned, I feel it is my duty to be a responsible owner, and to promote that. I once had a problem, that when on a rural property, my neighbour's dogs came up as registered to my property, and I had to prove they weren't mine, before they would add my new puppy, and that was with my dogs fitting in to the permit I already had. I just wanted to register the puppy! I currently have a really good relationship with our local laws officer, which is a good thing...

[anniek]

Is an excess of dogs in Victoria like having 3, something that's really policed???. I have known quite a few people in SA that have had 3 dogs, 2 registered and the 3rd unregistered and have done so for years without any dramas. Not to say this should be done, but what are odds of being caught with a 3rd dog???.

Fiona

It can also depend on where you get your third dog from. For example if you adopt from the RSPA they notify your council and then the council will "remind" you that your dog must be registered etc.. If it is a third dog they will "remind" you that you need a permit.

[malsrock]

I have read in some councils, not sure which one's they were, you had to get the 3rd dog BEFORE you could apply for the permit which meant if they knocked it back, they knew you had 3 dogs and you were forced to get rid of one I mean, how can you just get rid of one, that's stupidly so unfair when they are part of your family which is no wonder someone may look for an alternative option legal or not.

Fiona

[Kirty]

Yes, you need to own and register the extra animals before you can apply for a permit. A permit in my council costs $170 PER YEAR plus the rego's for each animal which are $30 each per year.

[Remarkabull]

Yes, you need to own and register the extra animals before you can apply for a permit. A permit in my council costs $170 PER YEAR plus the rego's for each animal which are $30 each per year.

I am so glad I'm leaving VIC soon. It would cost me a fortune. I haven't bothered registering any of mine with local council as I knew we would only be here for 6 months or so.

[Mum to Emma]

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

I have found that the the Black Dog martingale cotton webbing collars don't leave a mark on short haired dogs.

[HeavyPaws]

Lord, we should all get together, buy an island and make our own dog rules.

The government would get rid of us, we'd get rid of them.

Dogs and people would be happy.