Cosmolo Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) Thats pretty much it aussielover- except i'd replace dangerous with restricted. Though the media and the policy makers use the terms interchangably. Thats whats running through my head at the moment Megan. I just can't get my head around it either- that someone could come and take my dog and kill it with no process or appeal.. I am freaking out a bit to be honest. Especially as my dogs are plastered all over my website, my car, travel everywhere.. Edited August 30, 2011 by Cosmolo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trinabean Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Is it too late to lobby the powers-that-be for due process/appeal to use temperament testing? So unfair that so many beautiful dogs with be tarred with the same brush as being 'dangerous' when temperament testing could clear them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inevitablue Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 What's going to happen with the papered Amstaff's in Vic, if the Vic Gov run with the AST is a APBT theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 The government aren't listening to anyone- except the voice of a scared and ill informed general public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 [quote name='Cosmolo' timestamp='1314697369' I am freaking out a bit to be honest. Especially as my dogs are plastered all over my website, my car, travel everywhere.. Cosmolo - I'm not a ranger but I honestly don't think your dogs will be targeted. They don't have that solid bull breed look and they're too tall. They don't have the smiley grin either. They are also so well behaved. I'm sure there are roaming and nuisance dogs who will fail the test even though they don't look like pitbulls, but your dogs don't fit into that category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekhbet Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 The government is listening to the Lost Dogs Home. Awesome. Cosmolo if you're NOT home lock the dogs in the house. We're going to even though we have a pedigree DDB. I dont want my dog taken while I'm not home because some ignorant council worker decides he's an APBT due to muscles and red colouration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leema Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) Sent this to Ted Baillieu through http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/contact.html Dear Ted,I am writing to you as I am very concerned about legislation being introduced in Victoria regarding dangerous dogs. I understand that your government is trying to make changes that reduce dog bites, which is an admirable goal. As you understand, dog bites are a multifaceted problem requiring many avenues of attack. However, I fear your new strategy will not see a change in dog bite statistics as you hoped. Implementing legislation that specifies particular requirements for pit bulls has been implemented, at different times and in a variety of conditions, globally. However, it has never been seen to decrease the incidence of dog bites. My concern is that your legislation, by targeting pit bulls, will also fall into the ineffective category. In order to reduce dog bites, we need to be providing councils with sufficient resources to enforce existing legislation. There are too many instances of dogs roaming at large and existing unregistered, due to the inability of rangers to uphold existing legislation. Additional funding should be provided for these means. Additionally, I think public education - for dog owners, adults, and children - could go a long way in ensuring stable dogs in the community, and safe interactions by others. This is also an area that could benefit from increasing funding. I fully support proposals that make dog owners responsible for their dog's behaviour. This would allow owners of dogs that bite or kill to be prosecuted for offences, including manslaughter. Hopefully this type of change would make dog owners think twice about owning an aggressive animal. Your current proposal seeks to classify dogs as 'pitbulls' by their physical characteristics. This is an impossibility. In reality, the legislation is targeting dogs of a particular appearance. As staffordshire bull terriers, and mongrels of, are popular breeds, it is likely that many innocent pets with no pit bull heritage would be condemned with these legislation changes. Indeed, as staffordshire bull terriers are a very popular breed, I am sure a number of voters will be incredibly disgruntled by this problematic move that targets their pets, guilty of no offence. As a public figure, I know it is often difficult to make changes to assertions. However, considering the circumstances, I think a more elaborate review of the literature regarding dog bite strategies (i.e. what has and hasn't worked) is necessary to ensure that dog bites are reduced. It would be foolish to invest in a scheme that does not deliver a reduction in dog bites. Ultimately, we want something that WORKS, not something that looks good on paper. I fear that the strategy that you are proposing does nothing to truly reduce dog bites. I welcome your email or phone call. My phone number is xxxx ETA: I am posting these in the hopes it will assist others in their letter writing. Edited August 30, 2011 by Leema Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekhbet Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 They're going to include possible crosses in there too. No proof - problem. Lost Dogs Home is behind this big time. They believe that pit bulls and their mixes can just snap with no warning even if they seem OK. I am strongly urging people to provide their council with certified copies of DNA tests and pedigree papers NOW before rangers start rattling gates and knocking on fences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombie Bait Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 It worries me if this becomes federal. My boy was bought as an 8 week old pup from the RSPCA listed as a mastiff x rotty. We think he is a lab x staffy but we have been told he looks like: a bandog (mastiff x pit bull), heinz 57, greyhound x god knows what, ridgeback x, the list goes on. He is brindle, 30kg, broad head, broad chest, narrow waist, "shark like grin". He also probably wouldnt pass a temp test if tested. He is curently registered with our council as a lab x staffy. He is also locked inside our home and only let into our securely fenced yard whilst we are at home. I worry for all you responsible owners of bull breed crosses in Victoria. It would break my heart to lose Brembo over something like this so I can only imagine how worried you all are down there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncarter Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 can someone please explain to me. Say your in Victoria and you have some bullbreed X, but no APBT in it. Say the council comes knocking. Can a DNA test conclusively prove that your dog has no APBT in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOE Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 It was bound to happen stupid bloody people bloody idiots cant control their dogs, dont have proper fencing or are just too ignorant to ensure their animals are safe, the sad thing is that little girl but honestly 1 nip in the right place and a small child well. this is the death knell to bull breeds then they will be onto the next breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I hope you're right megan- but if the dogs Graeme Smith was pointing the finger at were anything to go by- who knows. Thats good advice nek- we usually leave them inside most days anyway but i guess now it will be every day, even if its sunny and gorgeous outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyosha Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 What's going to happen with the papered Amstaff's in Vic, if the Vic Gov run with the AST is a APBT theory? Isn't there case law on this? From Qld? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal House Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) They're going to include possible crosses in there too. No proof - problem. Lost Dogs Home is behind this big time. They believe that pit bulls and their mixes can just snap with no warning even if they seem OK. I am strongly urging people to provide their council with certified copies of DNA tests and pedigree papers NOW before rangers start rattling gates and knocking on fences. Will they accept DNA evidence that there is no pitbull though? Are the tests accurate? Im not up to speed with DNA in dog breeds. Edited August 30, 2011 by Bite Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpotTheDog Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Have sent calm and logical feedback to Ted Bailieu via the premier's website. Pleaded with them to recognise the dangers of identifying dogs using an arbitrary checklist. Requested they consider the cost to the taxpayer from owners of good natured, arbitrarily identified dogs contesting seize and destroy orders, and cited Bruce from Northern Ireland with a link. Pointed out the potential of abuse of report a dog hotlines as estranged partners and annoyed neighbours seek revenge for matters unrelated to pets. Pleaded with the office to utilise lessons learned from other places with high dog bite statistics, and cited the Calgary Model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Panzer Attack! Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I sincerely hope that every single poster on this forum is following Leema's example and is actually writing to their local seat instead of just posting on DOL. Please do it for the future of bull breeds in Australia I have small fwuffy dog but my heart was stolen by a big black dog that would no doubt be PTS if she was still in VIC once these laws come into play. Thank god she's safe (for now) in the ACT. ... and I know that this is not the right place to rage about it, but WTF are people doing breeding banned breeds when they know that this kind of thing is happening and it only takes one attack for things to get put into motion?!?!?!? HOW is illegally breeding and selling undesexed APBT, Dogos etc going to help ANYONE?! I 100% understand and agree that the current laws are bs but seriously, why?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekhbet Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 The tests do not cover APBT but saying that if your dog does have say 50/50 two recognised non APBT breeds then there is little room to argue. Something is better then nothing at all at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rottshowgirl Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 Leema, you write a good letter I hope everyone else is too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal House Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 The tests do not cover APBT but saying that if your dog does have say 50/50 two recognised non APBT breeds then there is little room to argue. Something is better then nothing at all at the moment. Yep, your right about that, thanks Nekhbet, I'll have to organise one I think, is it just a cheek swab at the vets? Leema, great letter by the way, I'll be writing tomorrow when my head is a bit clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RottnBullies Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 What's going to happen with the papered Amstaff's in Vic, if the Vic Gov run with the AST is a APBT theory? Isn't there case law on this? From Qld? Here are the amendments resulting from the QLD case, I dare say If they choose to run with the AST Is An APBT It can be fought and won Amendments to the AMCDA Amendments made to the AMCDA clarify that the AMCDA's policy intent is to restrict only those dog breeds expressly prohibited from importation by the Commonwealth - relevantly, APBTs but not Amstaffs. The definition of 'restricted dog' at section 63 of the AMCDA has been clarified with the insertion of new section 63(3), which provides that a 'breed' of a dog does not include a crossbreed of a breed. New section 63A has been introduced, which comprehensively sets out what constitutes evidence that a dog is of a particular breed (including a pedigree certificate from the Australian National Kennel Council, or a certificate from a veterinary surgeon). The new section also specifically clarifies that: • if a dog is of the breed Amstaff, it is not of the breed APBT, and • the breed APBT does not include a dog of the breed Amstaff. The amendments apply as if they had been in force from 6 April 2010, in order to ensure that there is no gap between the Supreme Court's decision and the amendments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now