Council Seizing & Destroying Staffy's

[DerRottweiler]

If anyone needs a vet declaration in Melbourne, PM me. A genuine vet who cares about protecting dogs.

A mate of mine got his Staffy registered on its basis.

[zara]

Although this legislation can unfairly effect owners and dogs of the type targeted, at least now they have recognised the dogs involved in savage attacks are actually cross breeds of Pitbull like appearance and are not genuine APBT's as the media sensationalise them all to be and does represent a more accurate account of the situation.

The legislation also guides people towards registered breeders producing papered Bull breedings which I think is a step in the right direction for the imnprovement of temperament quality in the types of breeds targeted. BYB crossbreeds in comparison to the breeding of dogs by breed enthusiasts and specialst breeders has no comparison and if the trend becomes to own Bull breeds without the potential of having dogs seized and misidentified means buying papered dogs from registered breeders in the long term is a good thing?.

Whilst I see what you are saying, there an already an abundance of unethical, puppy milling, AST breeders around, and this is just going to make the situation worse! I fear it will only be a matter of time before one of these dogs that is breed for money, without health or temperament in mind, and who is sold to the highest bidder will be the next thing splashed all over the newspaper.

Do you think the irresponsible will pay the price though?. I have found a trend for the most irresponsible dog owners I know don't value their pets as a monetary investment, it's like the cheaper the better it's only a dog mentality and if they loose it from misadventure, they can easily and cheaply get another one to replace it. But if they have to pay good money for a puppy I am thinking people then start to look around at breeders and what they are producing or they don't get a dog which is probably a good thing if they are not prepared to put in the effort required to own a dog responsibly perhaps?

[~Anne~]

These new laws sicken me. Every time I read a thread like this it horrifies me. Dog help the innocent in this mess.

[sumosmum]

Regarding dogs already registered as staffies, the council has to honor that ergo for the remainder of the registration year. Once that is up, then the council will determine whether the dog has PB in it ornot.

I don't think this is the case Megan. The new laws come into effect tomorrow, so after tomorrow they can decide to declare the dogs registered as Staffy's to be Restricted Breeds if they believe they fit the standard.

If the dog is registered or not, the owner still has the right to appeal through VCAT. If the appeal is lost, the unregistered dog may then be destroyed.

If the dog is registered prior to tomorrow, and the council decides to declare the dog Restricted Breed, the owner can appeal. If the owner loses, the dog may be able to be registered as a restricted breed, and live life under those regs, if the dog was in Victoria prior to 1st September 2010 and was registered with the council before 30 September 2011. However, if the council decides, and I believe they are able to, to not have any more Restricted Breeds registered in their area, that dog can then be destroyed.

If the dog is not registered by 30 September 2011, tomorrow, and the council declares the dog a Restricted Breed, and the owner appeals to VCAT and loses the appeal, the dog can be destroyed.

We will soon be finding out how this is all going to pan out.

Amstaffs with pedigree certs have an exemption and so do un papered Amstaffs if the owner has a certificate to that effect from a vet.

The problem is that if another dog fits the description on the Standard, they are then deemed to be Restricted. So, any dog fitting the description regardless of breeding other than Amstaffs are at risk. And that is one of the legal problems with the wording of the legislation.

Owners of other dogs can get a certificate from a vet stating what the breed of the dog is,(this may help, but there is nothing stated to guarantee this) but please note, they only real exemptions in the standard are for American Staffordshire Terriers, papered, and unpapered with a Vet Certificate.

A lot is going to depend how reasonable and fair the councils are going to be with this. But all they have to do really, is prove that a dog fits the magical standard to declare the dog.

[Little Gifts]

If DNA profiling cannot identify an APBT then how the hell are council officers able to do it with their little checklists? That is just ludicrous!

And I also need to get some clarification - are these laws state govt ones created and passed in state parliament for councils across each state to administer or are they local council by-laws? I know there are some people on DOL with legal knowledge but my understanding is that constitional law would still be over and above both state and local laws so if they are breaching constitional rights they could be tested if someone is brave enough and financially fluid enough to do so? My older sister does a lot of constitional law stuff regarding state and local laws placed on farmers that breaches constitional law and there is a group taking cases to the highest court fighting these breaches. I'll have a chat to her about where pets might fit under this as obviously farm animals would be considered differently.

[Talien]

Oh dear,

Saffioraire I hope this all gets sorted and everything turns out ok

xoxox tal

[Little Gifts]

OK, I spoke to my sister about Australia's Constitution.

Australia's Constition is a contract between free people living in this country and the Queen on how these free people chose to be governed by her servants (govt employees). Common Law is seperate to the Constitution but is intertwined as it relates to the operation of our society. Common Law is essentially how the govt deals with harm to the people and the Queen has given authority for her servants/employees to administer this law. The Constitution determines the process to be followed to create 'law', however, no new 'law' has been created in Australia since 1973. Everything else, whether state or local is actually only 'legislation'.

Common Law has nothing to do with animal ownership UNLESS your animal harms someone. There is nothing in our Constition saying govt can legislate what you own unless what you own harms others. Local by laws (legislation) have no legitimacy outside the town they are created for. State laws (legislation) have no legitimacy outside their state. They are in essence suggestions for community living and we obey them because we think we have to. Legislation can be changed on a whim and is approved outside what we agreed to under our Constitution so can't be recognised as Common Law or as even constitional in this country. Now can you see why on American crime shows people are always wagging their tongues about something being 'unconstitional'?

State and local laws have led to an increase in Civil Law, which is the exact opposite of Common Law. Under Civil Law state and local authorities are basically saying we don't trust you to do the right thing so are going to impose restrictions on you. We are removing your free will/rights and making the decision for you, even before any harm has been committed.

Under Australia's Constition our homes are our territories and we are able to do whatever we want and own whatever we want within the confines of our property as long as it does not harm others. Once harm occurs to others then Common Law applies. What is happening now is that council and the state govt are unconstitutionally telling us through legislation how many dogs and even what breed we can keep on our property on the basis that they might cause harm to others in the future, without that harm having even occured. Not only do they not have a right to enforce that but they have no right to tell us what type or breed of animal (let alone dog) we can and can't keep on our properties because that is not the basis of the agreement between the free people of this country and our sovereign.

So the problem is whether someone is willing and able to challenge this new legislation on it's constitional aspects as it is certainly going way too far in it's assertion that harm to others will occur by this specific breed and cross breed of dog in the future. They cannot predict that and in effect are causing harm to others themselves and breaching Common Law by pursuing this course of action and seizing/destroying other people's property.

[megan_]

Somosmum I got he info from the DPI website's FAQ

[Steve]

OK, I spoke to my sister about Australia's Constitution.

Australia's Constition is a contract between free people living in this country and the Queen on how these free people chose to be governed by her servants (govt employees). Common Law is seperate to the Constitution but is intertwined as it relates to the operation of our society. Common Law is essentially how the govt deals with harm to the people and the Queen has given authority for her servants/employees to administer this law. The Constitution determines the process to be followed to create 'law', however, no new 'law' has been created in Australia since 1973. Everything else, whether state or local is actually only 'legislation'.

Common Law has nothing to do with animal ownership UNLESS your animal harms someone. There is nothing in our Constition saying govt can legislate what you own unless what you own harms others. Local by laws (legislation) have no legitimacy outside the town they are created for. State laws (legislation) have no legitimacy outside their state. They are in essence suggestions for community living and we obey them because we think we have to. Legislation can be changed on a whim and is approved outside what we agreed to under our Constitution so can't be recognised as Common Law or as even constitional in this country. Now can you see why on American crime shows people are always wagging their tongues about something being 'unconstitional'?

State and local laws have led to an increase in Civil Law, which is the exact opposite of Common Law. Under Civil Law state and local authorities are basically saying we don't trust you to do the right thing so are going to impose restrictions on you. We are removing your free will/rights and making the decision for you, even before any harm has been committed.

Under Australia's Constition our homes are our territories and we are able to do whatever we want and own whatever we want within the confines of our property as long as it does not harm others. Once harm occurs to others then Common Law applies. What is happening now is that council and the state govt are unconstitutionally telling us through legislation how many dogs and even what breed we can keep on our property on the basis that they might cause harm to others in the future, without that harm having even occured. Not only do they not have a right to enforce that but they have no right to tell us what type or breed of animal (let alone dog) we can and can't keep on our properties because that is not the basis of the agreement between the free people of this country and our sovereign.

So the problem is whether someone is willing and able to challenge this new legislation on it's constitional aspects as it is certainly going way too far in it's assertion that harm to others will occur by this specific breed and cross breed of dog in the future. They cannot predict that and in effect are causing harm to others themselves and breaching Common Law by pursuing this course of action and seizing/destroying other people's property.

:thumbsup:

So where do you find a constitutional lawyer and how much do they cost ?

[Nekhbet]

The constitution also recognises the states rights to set their own laws.

Sect 118

Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every State.

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter5.htm

The American and Australian constitutions are two different things. Their 'Bill of Rights' is actually an amendment to their constitution (ie where it is the right to bare arms, the right to free speech etc) ours is not necessarily as clear cut as what you see on the TV. The right for states to create a legislature that they enforce is within the Australian constitution. The Federal court will not interfere until all the state courts are exhausted.

[Erny]

DNA testing is not considered proof under the Vic laws. The only way in Vic to prove that your dog isn't a pitbull is to either have the pedigreed certificate or a vet certificate.

But the only dog whose Pedigree Certificate will excuse it from the full strength of the laws (here in Victoria) is the AmStaff. Any other breed, even if ANKC registered .... if it fits the standard put out by the government, is caught up in the loop. So, all those who own other pure-breeds and have papers for them .... if your dog could by any stretch fit the said "standard", please don't be lulled into a false sense of security. You need to be out there working with the best of them in their efforts to plead the Government into a sense of procedural fairness and natural justice.

Saff - I sent you a message.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Erny

[zayda_asher]

The constitution also recognises the states rights to set their own laws.

Sect 118

Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every State.

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/chapter5.htm

The American and Australian constitutions are two different things. Their 'Bill of Rights' is actually an amendment to their constitution (ie where it is the right to bare arms, the right to free speech etc) ours is not necessarily as clear cut as what you see on the TV. The right for states to create a legislature that they enforce is within the Australian constitution. The Federal court will not interfere until all the state courts are exhausted.

Yes, this is what we were told years ago when we were looking in to it. We were advised that administrative law would be our best bet to challenge them on, as this is the branch of law that governs how the levels of Govt run everything. So finding a good administrative lawyer would be the bet bet, I believe. An expensive exercise, but someone may be able to find a dog friendly one that might to some low cost / pro Bono work.

[sumosmum]

Somosmum I got he info from the DPI website's FAQ

Thanks Megan, can you show me where please. I hope they aren't giving the incorrect information.

[Erny]

I am horrified and astounded that people aren't up in arms about this stupid, stupid law and how it is being implemented. . . . that there's more outrage about the PM being given a DD pup as a b'day present.

People are up in arms sandgrubber but yelling about it in DOL won't achieve anything. There is a lot of work being done behind the scenes in Victoria and rallies are being organized across the country to oppose these moves.

And that's the truth. And to all, please help where you can and will, whether you have a 'targeted' dog or not. These laws have the very real potential and ability to spread to other breeds like cancer, and that could include yours. We all have jobs to do and money to earn, and we're all tired. So please don't presume your assistance wouldn't be appreciated.

In terms of the general public creating a stink I would suggest that most have no real understanding of the laws and think that because they know their dog isn't a pitbull or that because their dog is registered with the council that the laws won't affect them.

And this is not the public's fault. It is the Government's. Not arguing with you, Snook. Just adding comment.

Once dogs start being seized the public furore will start.

And slim hope that this won't be too late for many of the dogs. Financial grief and a public that can't understand what's happening will pressure many into seeing no option other than to giving up on their dogs.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Erny

[sandgrubber]

The constitution also recognises the states rights to set their own laws.

However, as noted in the Vic Daily Hansard of 30 August, which billeted this legislative disaster, there are questions about whether it is lawful under section 28 of the Vic Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (charter act)

[dancinbcs]

These new laws are targetting those that have been trying to flaunt the existing laws. There is an immediate solution until the legality of it all can be questioned. Register the dogs as required and comply with regulations, that are similar to the conditions that racing Greyhounds must be kept under. Any dog as strong and powerful as a Pitbull should be kept under these conditions anyway. Their agility and strength means they can easily escape from a normal fenced yard so they need to properly confined for their own protection. Wearing a muzzle in public also isn't the end of the world. Greyhounds and many working dogs wear them without a drama. With the public fear of these types of dogs, you would need rocks in your head to have one off lead in public.

There are lots of "Pitbull types" (not SBTs) in my area of NSW and I can almost guarantee that they aren't registered Amstaffs but I am yet to see one being walked with a muzzle on. They are just about the only breed you see being walked or running loose in the streets around here, so the laws are not being upheld in NSW and the morons that own them are just creating more of a problem that will come back to bite them all.

[Erny]

It is not so simple and black and white, dancinbcs. The laws are so poorly written, much is reliant on the trust of Council authorities, in Victoria, at least. And THAT is not good enough, nor fair, not clear and gives no-one definite reliable guidelines. The Councils don't have to accept registrations if they don't want. That leaves those dogs open to being seized, just because of the way they look. And there are so many dogs that could fit the standard they prescribe eg. lab x boxer.

These laws are NOT just about PB's, AmStaffs and Staffies (not to suggest that it wouldn't matter if it did), but the letter of the law has made a far more reaching sweep than you might be thinking.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Erny

[sandgrubber]

It is not so simple and black and white, dancinbcs. The laws are so poorly written, much is reliant on the trust of Council authorities, in Victoria, at least. And THAT is not good enough, nor fair, not clear and gives no-one definite reliable guidelines. The Councils don't have to accept registrations if they don't want. That leaves those dogs open to being seized, just because of the way they look. And there are so many dogs that could fit the standard they prescribe eg. lab x boxer.

These laws are NOT just about PB's, AmStaffs and Staffies (not to suggest that it wouldn't matter if it did), but the letter of the law has made a far more reaching sweep than you might be thinking.

I couldn't agree more. These stupid, stupid laws will allow the survival of X-breeds, such as bull breed x mastiff hybrids bred for 'big game' and 'protection', while pts-ing the unfortunate sweet tempered dog, adopted from a shelter, who happens, through some accident of his mutt pedigree and a local ACO's harsh judgement, seems to qualify as a restricted breed by the DPI 'standard'. APPEARANCE DOES NOT PREDICT BEHAVIOUR. Full stop.

Internationally, you'll find breeders who are working to produce the biggest, meanest brute dog you can imagine. They take some pit bull with fighting credentials, some mastiff, some this and some that, and test them in a particularly aggressive form of schutz training . . . or set them on wild boars in some ugly blood sport. I have no doubt, the equivalent exists in Australia, perhaps as some segment of the 'pig dog' community (pig hunting is important in controlling feral pigs, and dogs have a role to play, but some use it as cover for blood sport). If the law weren't an ass, it would target the macho-dog breeders and their clients, rather than focus on the unfortunates whose pets happen to have the wrong look.

As it stands, we still don't know if the dog who killed Ayen Chol would have been banned under the Vic dog standard.

[Alyosha]

Does the govt have some sort of plan for when they start seizing dogs and people start launching Vcat appeals? All those dogs will then have to be kennelled and provided for, and an appeal is not a fast process... They are surely going to need multiple kennelling complexes and staff and resources to maintain them.

[Cosmolo]

the laws might be targetting one group of people- but they effect a whole group of dogs. A group of dogs who have done nothing wrong, have been kept responsibly, trained and socialised well.

I realise greyhounds have been wearing muzzles for years- but at least they can have an assessment and if deemed safe, be muzzle free. It is also not that easy to quickly get an adult dog used to wearing a muzzle whenever they are outside of a pen. They can't even be off lead without muzzle in their house or backyard- pretty sure greyhounds can.

So we take an active dog, lock it in a pen and never let it off lead- ever. Mine would go insane.

I'm not sure Alyosha- does anyone have any idea how long the process of appeal can take?