'search & Destroy Mission'

[WreckitWhippet]

I reckon those people that sell and pin papers will be rubbing there hands with glee over this stuff.

yep... all it's done is create a black market for ANKC papers and cast doubt over every ANKC dog.

[Quickasyoucan]

was in the little box off to the side, about 2/3 of the way down the page, where it says When is a pit bull not a pit bull

http://images.theage.com.au/2011/08/31/2592689/pitbull_ipad-200x0.jpg

Personally I don't get the certificate from a vet thing. Since when were they breed experts. I thought they were there to look after dogs health, not assist in their destruction.

[GeckoTree]

nods it started in 05 from what i can remember, might have even happened before.

[Sticky]

This is what Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) had to say in the LC last night:

P67 Hansard

Now what will happen is simply that an approved

standard will be gazetted. It will be the minister’s

choice and decision as to how that standard is to be

created. It could be a description; it could be words; it

could be pictures; it could be measurements. In the

most extreme example it could be a picture of a stick

dog. That would be an extremely wide provision and

may be very helpful to the minister. It might give

officers completely open-ended power, but will it fix

the problem? That is the question that I do not yet know

the answer to, but certainly from the information in the

explanatory memorandum to the reality of the bill, there

is a change to the mechanics of this bill. It is not simply

the bringing forward of a previous set of processes.

There is now a change to the process, and that is that

the standard prescribed by the regulations becomes an

approved standard — in practical terms, whatever the

minister wants and puts into regulation.

I fear that will be the beginning, not the end, of the

argument, because down the line there may be other

dog attacks by other breeds, there may be calls for those

breeds to become restricted and there may or may not

be arguments about what defines that breed and so

forth.

S

[Sticky]

was in the little box off to the side, about 2/3 of the way down the page, where it says When is a pit bull not a pit bull

http://images.theage.com.au/2011/08/31/2592689/pitbull_ipad-200x0.jpg

no source is given for this image. I suspect it was created by the Age.

S

[GeckoTree]

I'd be very surprised if it's not a hash up of the 2005 one Sticky , 3 groups were offering 'expertise' for DCAT on that, much to the downfall of it, still No APBT stake holder willing, why would they?.

IMO and it's only opinion, next time around they will cripple themselves once and for all.

[Leema]

Seemingly, by Hansard, John Lenders seems like an alright bloke sceptical of the Baillieu government's plan. I emailed him. His email is: [email protected]

Dear John,

I am writing to express my thanks for your critical comments to the recent amendments made by the Liberal Party to the Companion Animals Act. When reading the Handsard document, I was impressed with your understanding of the dog bite issue and the issues inherent in the amendments to the act. I was pleased to see that the Labor Party was providing a more thoughtful approach to legislation that appears rushed and illogical.

The most obvious flaw in the changed scheme is the intent to classify dogs as ‘pitbulls’ by their physical characteristics. This is an erroneous proposition. In reality, the legislation is targeting dogs of a particular appearance. As you so thoughtfully said, this presents the problem of the pendulum swinging 'the other way'. American Staffordshire Terriers are a very similar breed to American Pitbull Terriers, and it is likely that any definition describing a 'pit bull' will also encompass American Staffordshires. Indeed, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and mongrels of, are very popular, and it is likely that many innocent pets with no pit bull heritage would be condemned with these legislation changes. Again, as you intuitively noted, these owners may not even be aware that their animals could be deemed as 'dangerous' under the new definition, and may be at risk of their pets being destroyed.

Furthermore, as you observed, there is a risk that more breeds will be included in the restricted breed list, causing more legislative changes and more expense.

Ultimately, legislation such as that seen in Victoria (that is, legislation that specifies restrictions on dogs based on breeds) have not been seen to be effective in any country in which they have been implemented. You are right to be sceptical that this mechanism will be effective. History tells us it will not be.

The public wants to see a reduction in dog bites. I fear the strategy introduced here will not be effective at this goal.

Councils need to be provided with better resources, full stop, especially in regard to ranger-hours. Currently, rangers struggle to uphold existing legislation, resulting in many dogs roaming at large - such as the dog who tragically entered the Chol family home. Indeed, this dog was not even registered with council. It is a fallacy for the Liberal Government to believe that councils can sufficiently fund their current dog management, let alone increased dog management as a result of these legislative changes.

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.

I am sure that you and the Labor Party will be interested in making a decision that actually works to reduce the incidence of dog bites in Victoria, such as educational strategies, rather than supporting the heinous proposals by the Liberal Party. The dog world can clearly see the holes in the Ballieu government’s incompetent and hastily drafted strategy, and would surely embrace a more logical proposal from the opposition.

I welcome your email or phone call. My phone number is xxx.

Kind regards,

[sumosmum]

Seemingly, by Hansard, John Lenders seems like an alright bloke sceptical of the Baillieu government's plan. I emailed him. His email is: [email protected]

Dear John,

I am writing to express my thanks for your critical comments to the recent amendments made by the Liberal Party to the Companion Animals Act. When reading the Handsard document, I was impressed with your understanding of the dog bite issue and the issues inherent in the amendments to the act. I was pleased to see that the Labor Party was providing a more thoughtful approach to legislation that appears rushed and illogical.

The most obvious flaw in the changed scheme is the intent to classify dogs as ‘pitbulls’ by their physical characteristics. This is an erroneous proposition. In reality, the legislation is targeting dogs of a particular appearance. As you so thoughtfully said, this presents the problem of the pendulum swinging 'the other way'. American Staffordshire Terriers are a very similar breed to American Pitbull Terriers, and it is likely that any definition describing a 'pit bull' will also encompass American Staffordshires. Indeed, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and mongrels of, are very popular, and it is likely that many innocent pets with no pit bull heritage would be condemned with these legislation changes. Again, as you intuitively noted, these owners may not even be aware that their animals could be deemed as 'dangerous' under the new definition, and may be at risk of their pets being destroyed.

Furthermore, as you observed, there is a risk that more breeds will be included in the restricted breed list, causing more legislative changes and more expense.

Ultimately, legislation such as that seen in Victoria (that is, legislation that specifies restrictions on dogs based on breeds) have not been seen to be effective in any country in which they have been implemented. You are right to be sceptical that this mechanism will be effective. History tells us it will not be.

The public wants to see a reduction in dog bites. I fear the strategy introduced here will not be effective at this goal.

Councils need to be provided with better resources, full stop, especially in regard to ranger-hours. Currently, rangers struggle to uphold existing legislation, resulting in many dogs roaming at large - such as the dog who tragically entered the Chol family home. Indeed, this dog was not even registered with council. It is a fallacy for the Liberal Government to believe that councils can sufficiently fund their current dog management, let alone increased dog management as a result of these legislative changes.

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.

I am sure that you and the Labor Party will be interested in making a decision that actually works to reduce the incidence of dog bites in Victoria, such as educational strategies, rather than supporting the heinous proposals by the Liberal Party. The dog world can clearly see the holes in the Ballieu government’s incompetent and hastily drafted strategy, and would surely embrace a more logical proposal from the opposition.

I welcome your email or phone call. My phone number is xxx.

Kind regards,

John Lenders is a nice man, but it is a shame the Labour Party has pledged it support in whatever the Libs do regarding toughening up the dog laws. The Greens guy, Barber seemed like he was on the mark, but unfortunately they don't have the numbers to make any difference. The Greens were the only ones who spoke up last lot of Dog Laws that went through as well. Good on you Leema, for writing and contributing to this with your knowledge on this matter to the Pollies. I think too often, people whinge and complain about things, and don't actually do anything or voice their opinions to the pollies.

[Erny]

So is your dog a restricted breed? If it isn't, there is no law that you have to desex, but your dog should be registered.

Not true, it seems.

City of Frankston :

As of 1 September 2008, all newly registered Cats and dogs must be permanently identified e.g. microchipped and desexed from the age of three months.

So it appears that it is not Victorian State Law, but Council By-Law ergo whether you were legally obliged to desex would depend on the Council jurisdiction you lived in. Silly .... for those who recognise that keeping their dog entire for a longer period is actually of benefit to the dog's health, the By-Law only encourages people to dodge registration, at least until later on. Yet again another law that tears naturally law-abiding people between abiding the law as they normally would, or following what they believe is something that is in the best interests of the welfare of the dog.

Banning things (in this case, undesexed dogs and dog breeds) only drives things 'under-ground' and out of reach of control, order and delivery of education.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Erny

[Mim]

Does anyone have a website that I can get all the emails of Victorian MPs to voice my concerns?

I will also be emailing WA MPs and my local mayor.

I feel sick about this legislation.

[Kajirin]

On the SA 7 news tonight there was mention that SA's dog and cat management board 'may' look into toughening up our laws regarding restricted/banned breeds and dog laws.

Of course can't find anything on the yahoo7 site [uhg I hate that site].

[sumosmum]

Does anyone have a website that I can get all the emails of Victorian MPs to voice my concerns?

I will also be emailing WA MPs and my local mayor.

I feel sick about this legislation.

There you go. List of Vic Parl Members and email

Hope the link works. You can change the criteria down the bottom of the page for which information you would like about the members.

[Leema]

Does anyone have a website that I can get all the emails of Victorian MPs to voice my concerns?

Hi Mim. I am not Victorian, but have made a note of these names from the Hansard document of people I hope I'll have time to contact. These people all engaged, in some way, with the discussion regarding the DD legislation amendments.

Ms Ryall (member for Mitcham)

Peter Walsh

Ms Allan (Bendigo East)

Mr Hodgett (Kilsyth)

Mr Pallas (Tarneit)

Mr Crisp (Mildura)

Ms Campbell (Pascoe Vale)

Mr Languiller (Derrimut)

Ms Beattie (Yuroke)

Mr John Lenders (Southern Metropolitan)

Mr Ramsay (Western Victoria)

Mr Barber (Northern Metropolitan)

I've found everyone easy to find by a Google search.

sumosmum - I feel I can't do 'nothing', even though I have no idea who these people are. I have to Google them AND which party they belong too. Lenders made some really sceptical statements in the Handsard, and that is why I felt the need to contact him. I may have been slightly flattering - politicians like that, don't they? ;)

[Leema]

For those concerned about the introduction of this legislation in South Australia, I have sent this email to both Mike Rann and Isobel Redmond.

Mike Rann: http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php?option=com_forme&Itemid=0&fid=1

Isobel Redmond: http://www.isobelredmond.com.au/Contact.aspx

Dear xxx,

I am writing to you as I am very concerned about legislation being introduced in Victoria regarding dangerous dogs, and that similar legislation may make its way to South Australia.

The new Victorian legislation seeks to make any dog appearing as a 'pit bull type' classified as dangerous dogs, and encourages members of the public to report any dogs their suspect are a pit bull.

I find this heinous as pit bulls cannot be identified by physical characteristics, or even DNA, and in reality the legislation is targeting any ‘bully breed’ like dog. As staffordshire terriers, and mongrels of, are popular breeds, it is likely that many innocent pets will be condemned with these legislation changes.

It is unnerving that such colossal money will be spent on this project, even implementing a hotline, when there is no scientific basis to this process. By this I mean: In no country where there has been a pitbull ban has there also been a decrease in dog bites.

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.

As a concerned resident, I was hoping that you may direct me to the best place in which I can make my arguments against any changes in the Dog and Cat Management Act. I am very unsettled about these developments in Victoria and how it may impact on pet ownership in South Australia.

I welcome your email or phone call. My phone number is xxx.

Kind regards,

[Kajirin]

Thanks Leema :D

[Mim]

Thanks guys

Leema I am working off your letter templates and will be spamming every MP I can.

[Leema]

Glad to know people are utilising my emails as templates. They are not legendary letters, but I rather something get sent than nothing - even if they have to hear my same bullshit a few times from a few different sources.

[Jumabaar]

This article in todays Age seems to answer this

My link

which says that if you have papers or a vet certificate showing the dog is not a pit bull, that you should be OK

Hi Linda is says:

New regulations to be released tomorrow by the Baillieu government will also mean dogs that meet the description of a pit bull but who are described as American Staffordshire terriers by their owners, will need certificate of pedigree evidence to prove the dog is an American Staffordshire terrier

I can't find the bit that says a vet certificate will suffice? In fact, it doesn't even mention DNA evidence as being sufficient - all Amstaff's are pitbulls unless pedigrees.

Just another quote from this article-

In addition to the new breed rules, Minister for Agriculture and Food Security Peter Walsh said there would soon be tough new laws for dog owners. ''There will be amendments in there where owners of restricted breed type dogs and dangerous dogs will be held accountable for the actions of their dog,'' Mr Walsh said.

So will there be any accountability for people who don't own restricted breeds? Or will the legislation for crappy owners also be tied to the dogs breed?

[rep628]

lilli I suspect most people don't have any understanding of what has been passed - they read that the government is clamping down on dangerous dogs and think that must be a good thing. They don't think that their staffy x pet lying at their feet will be impacted because "it isn't a pitbull". They think if their dog is registered with the council it will be fine - even many DOLers here seem to think that.

Little do they know that by the above definitions and the description that GT put up, most staffy-types would fall under the "pitbull" classification.

Exactly, and at this point in the legislation (or at least, what I have read), they have made NO attempt to make the punishments more steep for the irresponsible owners of ANY dog. Again, the ignorant public feels like enough has been done. Again, there will be a fatal attack in the future because of the lack of effective, breed neutral legislation.

Poor Ayen's family - this arse hat of an owner is going to get away with this. They will get a slap on the wrist and go and buy another dog - except it'll probably be a big and shaggy thing (Great Pyr X, etc etc) since anything remotely short haired & Molosser-like in type without pedigree will be dead in Vic !!!!! It truly makes me ill, her death has been in vain.

[SpotTheDog]

My understanding of the legislation is as follows:

My bitsa bull arab X type mutt is registered as a bull arab X with the local shire council.

Let's say I'm at agility and one of the other owners takes a dislike to me and my mutt. They can use the dob-a-dog hotline and report me and the hound.

The ranger then approaches me and asks if my dog is registered. I say yes, as a bull arab X.

Then the ranger pulls out the appearance checklist, and makes some ticks based on the look of my dog. They then say they believe my dog is a pitbull X.

I have no papers. I have no DNA tests. My dog is a rescue mongrel. He's tan and white (check), has a large square head (check), has a scissor bite (check), is within the weight range (check), and has a wrinkly forehead (check).

What now? Under the legislation, my understanding is that the rangers can impound and euthanise my dog, in spite of no priors, no problems, no aggression and no roaming, just because I haven't accurately registered him?

Am I correct in what I portray here?

And if I am correct, are they on crack?