B-Q Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 This is getting seriously terrifying. Is there any sort of org to get behind that are fighting this and speaking out? like the EDBA or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RottnBullies Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 This is getting seriously terrifying. Is there any sort of org to get behind that are fighting this and speaking out? like the EDBA or something? I'm sure there are many working on It, but I agree there needs to be an Org and a national one at that, I think WA Is working towards one, not too sure on the details though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RottnBullies Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 My dogs are registered. They are registered as what i believe them to be which is not a restricted breed. But this standard is so broad that they and MANY others may be considered to be of 'pit bull type'. So i should register them as restricted breeds and keep them as such (which would drive them crazy- never to be off lead again or walk without a muzzle) just in case someone thinks they are?? This is ridiculous. Hey, with a few exceptions, greyhound owners have been forced to walk their dogs with a muzzle for years (and they know the dangers of letting them off leash). You don't hear them complaining ... I don't think you actually thought about what you posted there, but there Is no comparison... at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 As has been said- 2 wrongs don't make a right. Greyhounds can also be assessed and then walk without a muzzle, they can be off lead in someones backyard and can certainly be off lead and no muzzle in a house. There is NO comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 As has been said- 2 wrongs don't make a right. Greyhounds can also be assessed and then walk without a muzzle, they can be off lead in someones backyard and can certainly be off lead and no muzzle in a house. There is NO comparison. And that can happen because greyhound people were able to put a logical argument forward to get the law changed. Team Pitbull don't operate like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I agree Greytmate. But that doesn't help the situation many responsible dog owners are in now- people who never thought they even had a pit bull or pit bull cross! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
experiencedfun Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Question./.....since the introduction of mandatory microchipping prior to council registration came in....how will people justify changing the breed of dog... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 My dogs are registered. They are registered as what i believe them to be which is not a restricted breed. But this standard is so broad that they and MANY others may be considered to be of 'pit bull type'. So i should register them as restricted breeds and keep them as such (which would drive them crazy- never to be off lead again or walk without a muzzle) just in case someone thinks they are?? This is ridiculous. Cosmolo - under the Q&A for the DPI site, given that your dogs are registered already, if someone dobs them in as a pitbull type and the authorised person agrees, then, when your rego expires, it will be up to the council whether or not you have to register as a restricted breed. Mum to Emma - the restrictions on pit bull types are a lot more than just muzzled when walked. And yes - lots of greyhound people are against this and have lobied for dogs that pass an assessment to be allowed to go outside without a muzzle (in Vic GAP greyhounds never need to be muzzled). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 My dogs are registered. They are registered as what i believe them to be which is not a restricted breed. But this standard is so broad that they and MANY others may be considered to be of 'pit bull type'. So i should register them as restricted breeds and keep them as such (which would drive them crazy- never to be off lead again or walk without a muzzle) just in case someone thinks they are?? This is ridiculous. Cosmolo - under the Q&A for the DPI site, given that your dogs are registered already, if someone dobs them in as a pitbull type and the authorised person agrees, then, when your rego expires, it will be up to the council whether or not you have to register as a restricted breed. Mum to Emma - the restrictions on pit bull types are a lot more than just muzzled when walked. And yes - lots of greyhound people are against this and have lobied for dogs that pass an assessment to be allowed to go outside without a muzzle (in Vic GAP greyhounds never need to be muzzled). The information posted on DPI doesn't specify what the dogs need to have been registered as. Being already registered with the Council as non-dangerous dogs may not be sufficient. A vigalante ACO may read the regs to mean they need to have been previously registered as a Dangerous Dog for prior registration to count. The Law is badly written, and needs to be challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Yes thats right- keep my 2 active dogs in such a way that would drive them crazy. I dont think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda K Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 given the talk this morning by both the Fed gov & opposition, certainly sounds like they want to try and make a national heading on this too, and both parties are taking up the sharks on legs thing, so would think on this there would certainly be support on both sides. Doubt anywhere will be safe for any dogs that they deem to be of a threatening breed, and I would not be thinking I was safe as my breed is not a threat, your breed is safe only so long as the baying mobs deem it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Yes thats right- keep my 2 active dogs in such a way that would drive them crazy. I dont think so. Cosmolo, have you been able to find out any information regarding the standard and crossbreed dogs. Does the dog need to fit every point on the standard to be deemed as restricted? Or is there a certain percentage that the dog has to fit before it is accused of being restricted? I don't know if I have been looking in the wrong place, but I can't find anything. I also wonder about the Vet Cert part of the legislation. Is a vet able to state that a dog is a breed other than Amstaff. It is written so poorly, and vaguely, this doesn't seem clear to me. Can the vet certify that he honesty believes a dog to be a cross of certain breeds? If they are saying a council worker is able to make this decision, surely a vet is able to as well! Has anyone found any information about this. I have emailed asking the Minister and another MP, but still no reply......a week later, and time is ticking by.... So many of us with adopted dogs and cross breeds need the answers to these questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I don't know the answers i'm afraid. I wish i did though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Yes thats right- keep my 2 active dogs in such a way that would drive them crazy. I dont think so. Cosmolo, have you been able to find out any information regarding the standard and crossbreed dogs. Does the dog need to fit every point on the standard to be deemed as restricted? Or is there a certain percentage that the dog has to fit before it is accused of being restricted? I don't know if I have been looking in the wrong place, but I can't find anything. I also wonder about the Vet Cert part of the legislation. Is a vet able to state that a dog is a breed other than Amstaff. It is written so poorly, and vaguely, this doesn't seem clear to me. Can the vet certify that he honesty believes a dog to be a cross of certain breeds? If they are saying a council worker is able to make this decision, surely a vet is able to as well! Has anyone found any information about this. I have emailed asking the Minister and another MP, but still no reply......a week later, and time is ticking by.... So many of us with adopted dogs and cross breeds need the answers to these questions? According to the bill's sponsor, P.R. Hall (see http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/members/id/99 ): Section 20 of the charter act provides that a person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law. A deprivation of property is permitted if the powers which authorise the deprivation are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than arbitrary or unclear, and are accessible to the public and formulated precisely. The large number of unanswered questions potentially invalidates the Law is under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights. It may be worth filing a complaint to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission . . . or at least giving them a call. It would be worth writing to Peter Hall, who sponsored the bill. Also to Mr Barber from Northern Metropolitan (http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/members/id/1680 ), who questioned would receive adequate public discussion or achieve adequate clarity in the discussion in the Daily Hansard, 30 August 2011. A phone call to Barber might be worth the time. He may be sympathetic, and in a position to a) direct you to advice; and b) use information about your situation to bring pressure to bare on the powers that be to clarify . . .or admit that clarity is not possible. Mr Hall has justified the standard cause one vet, one all breeds judge, and one council officer were involved in its formulation. He fails to mention that the Australian Veterinary Association came out strongly against the breed specific parts of the legislation, in part because it is not possible to unambiguously identify breed. 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