Judy Gard - All Done

[Erny]

Position Vacant

From Dogs Victoria Website :

On behalf of the members of management committee, and all members of DOGS Victoria, I would like to thank Elizabeth White for all her hard work whilst in the position of Chief Executive of our association. Elizabeth has submitted her resignation from the position to take up a similar position with another organisation. We wish her well in her new job. Peter Frost

The advertisement for the position of Chief Executive of DOGS Victoria has been placed on www.seek.com.au

Couldn't find the ad.

[Erny]

Are interstate CC Members allowed to utilise the Victorian KCC grounds (including the exercise yards)?

[Zug Zug]

Am I understanding this thread correctly? Someone had their dogs removed (seized) because they'd been de-barked? Even though the dogs were well cared for?

Please correct me. That doesn't make sense to me. What would be the point of seizing these dogs?

Or perhaps I have completely misunderstood what this is about.

no you have understood except the "crime" was not the debarking but the showing of a debarked dog

I am amazed. Honestly I think that makes it even more absurd.

If debarking is against the law in that state, or was done unlawfully in some way, then surely a fine would suffice. To the owner and maybe also to the vet who did it. But I don't see the point of seizing the dogs.

And if showing the debarked dogs was against the rules of the Canine Council, how does that become a crime? Why would showing vs. not showing even be relevant from a legal/animal welfare standpoint?

[Steve]

Not sure if its true or not but I was told yesterday 3 directors of Dogs NSW had dun a bunk plus Ms Davies.

Last time I looked one was under the microscope by Asic too.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Am I understanding this thread correctly? Someone had their dogs removed (seized) because they'd been de-barked? Even though the dogs were well cared for?

Please correct me. That doesn't make sense to me. What would be the point of seizing these dogs?

Or perhaps I have completely misunderstood what this is about.

no you have understood except the "crime" was not the debarking but the showing of a debarked dog

I am amazed. Honestly I think that makes it even more absurd.

If debarking is against the law in that state, or was done unlawfully in some way, then surely a fine would suffice. To the owner and maybe also to the vet who did it. But I don't see the point of seizing the dogs.

And if showing the debarked dogs was against the rules of the Canine Council, how does that become a crime? Why would showing vs. not showing even be relevant from a legal/animal welfare standpoint?

excellent and logical questions ZZ unfortunately there are no real logical answers

[Steve]

Am I understanding this thread correctly? Someone had their dogs removed (seized) because they'd been de-barked? Even though the dogs were well cared for?

Please correct me. That doesn't make sense to me. What would be the point of seizing these dogs?

Or perhaps I have completely misunderstood what this is about.

no you have understood except the "crime" was not the debarking but the showing of a debarked dog

I am amazed. Honestly I think that makes it even more absurd.

If debarking is against the law in that state, or was done unlawfully in some way, then surely a fine would suffice. To the owner and maybe also to the vet who did it. But I don't see the point of seizing the dogs.

And if showing the debarked dogs was against the rules of the Canine Council, how does that become a crime? Why would showing vs. not showing even be relevant from a legal/animal welfare standpoint?

It is against state law - Prevention to Cruelty to Animals Act which is why the RSPCA were able to do what they did.

[mita]

We're not alone in being confused by the Vic law about debarking dogs. There's an excellent website, Rural Law Online, which provides a guide to the law for Victorian primary producers. This site only says this:

It's an offence to debark a dog except on the advice of a veterinary surgeon.

Says nothing about ...BUT if you live near the state border & go to vet in NSW, then it IS an offence. Even tho' that vet's work is fine under NSW law.

So any poor soul following this well-intended info, would find themselves in exactly the same position as JG did.

The site requests feedback. Someone should tell them.

http://www.rurallaw.org.au/handbook/xml/ch04s02s03.php

Edited November 20, 2010 by mita

[SpikesPuppy]

If I bred a dog, sent it interstate or overseas and it's new owners had it debarked, that dog could never again be exhibited in Victoria. Its like a person going overseas and having a procedure that is illegal in Victoria done (say Late stage abortion for eg) then returning home and being punished for it. It makes no effing sense! And must surely be a breach of our personal freedoms? Is the legislation even legal, I mean really?

Also, did we ever find out the definition of exhibit in regard to this legislation???

[mita]

SP, I also think there's civil liberties issues in the playing out of this legislation. When I first read the legislation, I had to keep checking if I'd read correctly.

If a dog is illegally debarked in Victoria, then the owner has committed an offence. But if that is a showdog, which is then 'exhibited', that attracts a further offence. This seems like discrimination to me. Same offence, but non-showdogs walking around don't attract a 2nd offence.

However, showdogs walking around a showring, do.

[Erny]

This seems like discrimination to me. Same offence, but non-showdogs walking around don't attract a 2nd offence.

However, showdogs walking around a showring, do.

Discrimination is pretty rife throughout our various Victorian dog laws.

Eg.

Dog #1 in Public Place - Microchipped and Council Reg'd. Not actually wearing Council Rego Tag on collar. Ka Ching! $240.00 Fine to that dog owner, thank you very much.

Dog #2 in Public Place - Microchipped and Council Reg'd. Not actually wearing Council Rego Tag on collar. But has been shown at Dogs Victoria Sanctioned event in last 12 months. That's ok then. No fine to that dog owner.

Off Topic I know (sorry Steve) but it reveals even more of the stupidity, futility and discrimination created by our ill thought out laws. And this one did NOT go through without mention. There were objections. But the Labor Govt pushed it through regardless. And ashamedly, the Liberal/National Parties asserted the laws were flawed but in the same breath and sentence announced to Parliament they would not oppose them.

So we have a Government creating stupid, cruddy and faulty laws and we have a Coalition knowing they are stupid, cruddy and faulty laws but giving them a green light anyway. God help us .

Edited November 20, 2010 by Erny

[mita]

This seems like discrimination to me. Same offence, but non-showdogs walking around don't attract a 2nd offence.

However, showdogs walking around a showring, do.

Discrimination is pretty rife throughout our various Victorian dog laws.

Eg.

Dog #1 in Public Place - Microchipped and Council Reg'd. Not actually wearing Council Rego Tag on collar. Ka Ching! $240.00 Fine to that dog owner, thank you very much.

Dog #2 in Public Place - Microchipped and Council Reg'd. Not actually wearing Council Rego Tag on collar. But has been shown at Dogs Victoria Sanctioned event in last 12 months. That's ok then. No fine to that dog owner.

What?????

[Erny]

What?????

Yep. But not meant as a side track to Steve's thread.

[Erny]

I will be writing a message or two to both the Liberal and Labor Parties on the back of my ballot paper at the State Elections next Saturday. It won't be rude, but it will indicate how disillusioned I am and how futile they are.

I have it on good authority that this will NOT render my vote invalid/informal.

Perhaps there's an idea there - if all of us could indicate that we own dogs and we vote (or something along those lines) ???

Steve - any suggestions for a good message?

ETA: lol, or perhaps you can't put it up on a public forum

Edited November 20, 2010 by Erny

[SpikesPuppy]

I will be writing a message or two to both the Liberal and Labor Parties on the back of my ballot paper at the State Elections next Saturday. It won't be rude, but it will indicate how disillusioned I am and how futile they are.

I have it on good authority that this will NOT render my vote invalid/informal.

Perhaps there's an idea there - if all of us could indicate that we own dogs and we vote (or something along those lines) ???

Steve - any suggestions for a good message?

ETA: lol, or perhaps you can't put it up on a public forum

No it won't render your vote invalid but it won't be noticed or passed on. The ballot counters see so many notes, abuses, threats, insane rantings, even messages of support on the back of the papers that they don't pay any attention to them. Good idea but dunno if it's worth wasting your time? Maybe better off standing outside your local voting centre wearing a sandwich board to alert people to the cause lol.

Mita- yup. I don't think it's actualy a legal legislation personally. How does one put in a formal challenge to a law?!

[mita]

Mita- yup. I don't think it's actualy a legal legislation personally. How does one put in a formal challenge to a law?!

Here you go, SP. Victorian Law Reform Commission has a form that individuals or groups can fill in, re their concerns with a particular law.

https://submit.justice.vic.gov.au/CA2569180...uggest?OpenForm

[SpikesPuppy]

Mita- yup. I don't think it's actualy a legal legislation personally. How does one put in a formal challenge to a law?!

Here you go, SP. Victorian Law Reform Commission has a form that individuals or groups can fill in, re their concerns with a particular law.

https://submit.justice.vic.gov.au/CA2569180...uggest?OpenForm

Ah yes I did know about this- my brain is on holidays at the moment lol.

Thanks for the link ! It's worth a shot.....

[Paptacular!]

This seems like discrimination to me. Same offence, but non-showdogs walking around don't attract a 2nd offence.

However, showdogs walking around a showring, do.

Discrimination is pretty rife throughout our various Victorian dog laws.

Eg.

Dog #1 in Public Place - Microchipped and Council Reg'd. Not actually wearing Council Rego Tag on collar. Ka Ching! $240.00 Fine to that dog owner, thank you very much.

Dog #2 in Public Place - Microchipped and Council Reg'd. Not actually wearing Council Rego Tag on collar. But has been shown at Dogs Victoria Sanctioned event in last 12 months. That's ok then. No fine to that dog owner.

What?????

I agree... what?!?!

How will they know if the dog has been shown at a sanctioned event? Any doofus can say that, the council would have to take their word for it.

[Crysti_Lei]

Could I just point out to you that this is a state law and the RSPCA were simply doing what they have the authority to do under current legislation .Beat up the law - not the RSPCA.

The RSPCA slao has the authority to use disgression when it comes to enforcing that legislation. They chose to go after a soft target and just about destroyed her in the process. So, if its alright with everyone here, i will beat up the RSPCA.

[Steve]

I will be writing a message or two to both the Liberal and Labor Parties on the back of my ballot paper at the State Elections next Saturday. It won't be rude, but it will indicate how disillusioned I am and how futile they are.

I have it on good authority that this will NOT render my vote invalid/informal.

Perhaps there's an idea there - if all of us could indicate that we own dogs and we vote (or something along those lines) ???

Steve - any suggestions for a good message?

ETA: lol, or perhaps you can't put it up on a public forum

By now I was really hoping to find a candidate who's party wasnt giving a green light to more dog laws but I havent found one yet. If anyone does then we can push people to vote for them .In NSW the Nationals are looking like they may have a spot of common sense.

[Steve]

Could I just point out to you that this is a state law and the RSPCA were simply doing what they have the authority to do under current legislation .Beat up the law - not the RSPCA.

The RSPCA slao has the authority to use disgression when it comes to enforcing that legislation. They chose to go after a soft target and just about destroyed her in the process. So, if its alright with everyone here, i will beat up the RSPCA.

O.K.