~Anne~ Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 It's a media article?? The media can't get the breed right let alone facts about the changes to the Act. Regardless, I still can't see anything that states they will be killed though if they are mis-identified? The amendments do not suggest that mis-identified dogs will be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 What do you mean by misidentified? By the council or the owner? I'll find the quotes from the minister. In the news section there is a link to the hansard minutes which outline the discussion too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) A dog that is registered as something other than a Pb and then Council determining it has been incorrectly identified and is a Pb. Edited August 31, 2011 by ~Anne~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 So, it appears there is no basis for the fear of dogs being misdientified being killed. From a logic veiwpoint, why would Councils kill a dog mistakenly identified (or purposefully) as another breed, and yet allow a dog that is registered as a Pb live even though the Pb is allegedly the dog that is the risk? It doesn't make any sense what so ever. Issue fines, change the registration details, whatever, but kill the dog? I can't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 it appears to me all they are doing is identifying any dog they think will be potentially dangerous - by breed or part thereof and ensuring people who own them are having to do what is necessary to keep it contained and the community safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
experiencedfun Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Atanquin, can you please clarify this statement? particularly the bolded text. Just make sure your dog is inside and if it's not registered with the council then they actually have no right to take the dog as your the owner when you sign te council register papers then legally you don't own the dog but the council do . There is a bit more to it but might help to read about it if your worried I know I would be. You have to do alot of reading but would be worth it. If they find it of your property and thinks it's a pit then your a bit stuffed to put it simply there is a bit more to laws than meet the eye it also depends in the type but well worth reading Edited September 1, 2011 by experiencedfun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 It's a media article?? The media can't get the breed right let alone facts about the changes to the Act. Regardless, I still can't see anything that states they will be killed though if they are mis-identified? The amendments do not suggest that mis-identified dogs will be killed. The Daily Hansard, the Hon. P. R. HALL (Minister for Higher Education and Skills) tabled the following: After this date [30 Sept 2011] any owner of an unregistered restricted breed dog will be liable for the offence of keeping a restricted breed dog, for which 10 penalty units apply. Furthermore, the restricted breed dog will also be able to be seized under section 79 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 and ultimately destroyed. This seems to mean, for example, that if you have a SBT or x-breed and don't feel a need to register as a restricted breed dog because you know it is not an APBT, but some official decides your dog is an APBT after reading the standard they are publishing, your dog is likely to be destroyed. I don't think that means totally unregistered . . . and I don't think prior registration, eg, as a SBT, helps. The justification for the law given in the Daily Hansard makes it clear that they are trying to crack down on people who pass off restricted breed dogs as non-restricted breeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 It's a media article?? The media can't get the breed right let alone facts about the changes to the Act. Regardless, I still can't see anything that states they will be killed though if they are mis-identified? The amendments do not suggest that mis-identified dogs will be killed. The Daily Hansard, the Hon. P. R. HALL (Minister for Higher Education and Skills) tabled the following: After this date [30 Sept 2011] any owner of an unregistered restricted breed dog will be liable for the offence of keeping a restricted breed dog, for which 10 penalty units apply. Furthermore, the restricted breed dog will also be able to be seized under section 79 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 and ultimately destroyed. This seems to mean, for example, that if you have a SBT or x-breed and don't feel a need to register as a restricted breed dog because you know it is not an APBT, but some official decides your dog is an APBT after reading the standard they are publishing, your dog is likely to be destroyed. I don't think that means totally unregistered . . . and I don't think prior registration, eg, as a SBT, helps. The justification for the law given in the Daily Hansard makes it clear that they are trying to crack down on people who pass off restricted breed dogs as non-restricted breeds. But it does say 'unregistered' so why do you think it doesn't mean registered with Council? Is there a definition in the Act for the word 'regsitered'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'd love to see the written standard they have developed... with the pictures... T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'd love to see the written standard they have developed... with the pictures... T. It is linked in the news forum already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I'd love to see the written standard they have developed... with the pictures... T. http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2011/GG2011S283.pdf Pics on that. seems to be purebreed buggered if i know how they can determine X's like with mastiffs, airdales Amstaffs, or any number of them. The phenotypes would be all over the shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Figure 3 on page 4 is a pretty pure looking Stafford... doesn't look like Pit Bull at all... T. 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