Council Seizing & Destroying Staffy's

[zara]

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.

I disagree with this statement I am sorry. If a dog is presented with pedigree papers of ANKC registration would require to be proven otherwise and would be a very creative long shot in my opinion for a dog to be determined as a Pitbull when papered and microchiped as a permitted ANKC recognised breed. In fact, I don't think the targeting of such a dog would make it past first base in a prosecution case, neither would I imagine that a ranger would attempt a prosecution case when presented with papers for an unrestricted and recognised breed, and why would they bother when the correct boxes are ticked anyway?

Edited September 30, 2011 by zara

[Alyosha]

I'm not overly familiar with Vcat, but based on the administrative appeals process generally - 12 months would be not unusual. Seeing as councils are normally strapped to run existing pounds, maintaining new extensive kennelling facilities for seized dogs would be a stretch at best.

[poodlefan]

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 ?

Don't waste your time. The Constitution limits the powers of one government only - the Federal Government. None of the laws being made about dogs are Federal laws and I honestly doubt that you'd find any basis in the Constitution to challenge them.

A whole bunch of laws apply to those harming others - mostly criminal law. Civil law regulates the conduct of court matters between litigants in non-criminal matters. Common law is simply "judge made" law that fills gaps in our legal system.

You'd have a better bet with a good property lawyer IMO.. start with the basis of compensation for seized property and see how much the State is prepared to pay for all this seized and destroyed dogs.

Edited September 30, 2011 by poodlefan

[GeckoTree]

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.

In all likelihood they probably didn't think that far ahead being the reactionary thing they came up with.

Edited September 30, 2011 by -GT-

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

I think you could argue giving all the breed id power to ANKC and affiliates is a restraint of trade. That would make the state law a breach of the federal constitution but you'd need a lawyer and several doggy life times to prove it.

That would be helpful - to find ways in which this state law breaches the federal law.

According to discussions I've been having via email with DPI in Vic, you need the ANKC affiliate pedigree papers, or a letter from the vet saying your dog is "a particular breed". Too bad if your dog is mixed breed not one breed. Though as I wrote somewhere else, I'm thinking of inventing a new breed "heelolliepie" for mine.

You won't get ANKC papers for an APBT, and if a vet declares your dog one of these - it will still need to be registered and restricted.

Nothing protects the BYB staffy unless you get a note from a vet. Theoretically (tho unlikely), a grumpy council ranger could confiscate an unregistered poodle cross by declaring the other half a "pitbull". Whether it looks like a pitbull is subjective. My dog - while clearly cattle dog cross to anyone familiar with that breed, could be anything in the other half, and given I'm not prepared to register it in Vic for a week training seminar, it could be declared an unregistered pitbull cross - and confiscated and then I've got dog life times in a legal battle to get her out. Not worth the risk and the DPI guy recommended not bringing her.

I think I need to meet my local state rep and have a discussion about it, so emotional knee jerk laws don't get enacted here. I'm all for treating the owner of a savage dog the same as one who kills someone with a car or gun, or leaves a loaded gun lying around where other people can access it.

I really can't fix the Vic laws but they will get less money for dog training camps and certain grey nomads are going to avoid them too.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Mrs Rusty Bucket

[Little Gifts]

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.

Ah yes but they are not creating laws, only legislation, and none of what they do should breach our rights under the constitution. The constitution sits over the top.

[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.

:thumbsup:

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

Contact my sister Sue Maynes at flora dot reachnet dot com dot au She has been assisting barristers with several cases. She is quite well known for speaking about constitutional matters involving farmers in Australia and if you google her name you will find links to her so you can verify that. When I spoke to her about this issue (her son owns an Amstaff and I own a BST here in QLD) she was very interested in what was happening.

[poodlefan]

Ah yes but they are not creating laws, only legislation, and none of what they do should breach our rights under the constitution. The constitution sits over the top.

Legislation IS law.

[Little Gifts]

Poodlefan there is a movement within the farming community, including at least one barrister, challenging state and local council legislation and actions right now in the high courts. They have been steadily doing so for a couple of years now. Mainly farming issues that I know of relating to land use, particularly in NSW. As you would know with law matters that once precendents are set other cases can be fought on the basis of those outcomes. I think the barrister involved is doing lots of pro-bono work for the farmers.

I'm not sure how long ago VCAT came in to being in Vic as we had the same thing happen in QLD - we created QCAT only a few years back. I think cases up here are going through QCAT fairly quickly from what I see through work but from a state govt perspective we are still pursuing actions as needed with our clients regardless of what is before QCAT. Say for instance that a foster carer wishes to have a decision reversed regarding a child in care having been removed from their home. The child remains removed and in a different placement and is only returned if QCAT over rules the department's decision. So I am assuming that with a dog it would remain in the 'care' (using that word loosely) of the council until the matter comes before the tribunal and an outcome is made.

I certainly wouldn't wish it on any dog but I bet few councils would be set up to care for dogs long term while matters went to VCAT? Perhaps that is a weak point in their plan and we should encourage anyone with a seized animal to appeal through VCAT whatever the outcome?

And legislation is civil law (not common law) but was not created according to the agreed processes under the constitution. That is if you recognise the constitution as the defining or over-arching contract or rules for operating this country.

Gotta fly - late for a dental appointment.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Puppy_Sniffer

[dancinbcs]

Are council officers in Vic able to enter a house without a police warrant? I know they can enter a yard but would be interested to know if they are legally able to enter a house if refused entry by the owner.

[Terujo]

Are council officers in Vic able to enter a house without a police warrant? I know they can enter a yard but would be interested to know if they are legally able to enter a house if refused entry by the owner.

Not if you don't answer the door ;)

[Ruffles]

A council officer is legally allowed to enter land or any vechicle but not a building used as a place of residence.

[Alyosha]

I think it could be very important for any owner of a seized dog to lodge an appeal through the VCAT immediately. It will keep the dog alive and put pressure on the seizing body. Maybe if they go nuts seizing dogs and then realise they have to look after them all some rationality might be injected into the situation.

[poodlefan]

And legislation is civil law (not common law) but was not created according to the agreed processes under the constitution. That is if you recognise the constitution as the defining or over-arching contract or rules for operating this country.

Gotta fly - late for a dental appointment.

Criminal legislation is criminal law PS.. no two ways about it. Not all other legislation is civil law either. Civil law is the law that governs disputes between individuals and organisations.

Any legislation passed by any Parliament is law.

The Constitution defines some law created or implemented in this country but not all. It says "here are the powers of the Commonwealth and the States have the rest". It has no bill of rights.

Edited September 30, 2011 by poodlefan

[Little Gifts]

Thank you for clarifying Poodlefan. I knew criminal law was seperate from civil and more likely to have been approved under the agreed parliamentary processes given it does link to harm of others? I obviously don't know all their is to know about the law as it relates to our constitution but find it very interesting and am continuing to develop my understanding of it. My interest was originally around media law and I have to use numerous pieces of state and federal legislation in my job and always find people's (including magistrates) various interpretations of some aspects of it interesting. I also understand Queensland has its own constitution and I am yet to establish in my brain how it links (or doesn't) with the commonwealth constitution.

[Crisovar]

I would like to see those responsible for pushing through these laws made to stand and watch the destruction of innocent dogs with wagging tails that lick the faces and hands of those killing them.

:mad

BSL is bullshit legislation nothing more nothing less.

Those that are still sitting on the fence, those that are convinced it is necessary, and those that feel that owners who do the right thing have nothing to fear should watch too.

[tdierikx]

What about this scenario?

Council seizes a mixed breed dog that they have "identified" as a Pitbull or cross of same.

Council has no room to house and care for said dog as the "storage" facility is full.

Council then destroys a few impounded "illegal" dogs to make room for new arrivals that are coming in by the truckfull...

As dogs are regarded under the law as possessions - your only real recourse is to sue for the monetary "value" of said dog - which as a crossbreed isn't all that much. Not to mention that legal costs to mount such a case would probably outweigh the monetary "value" of said dog...

I'm not seeing a winning situation here for the poor dog owner... *sigh*

T.

[Cosmolo]

The other issue is the welfare of the dog if they are impounded. I have one dog who would not cope for behvaioural reasons and another who would not cope for health reasons. I would have to decide whether me going through the process would truly be in the best interest of the dogs.

I wonder if they would let you keep them at home though if they are already registered as non pit bull cross? Surely thats the only way they'd be able to do it.

[JulesP]

The other issue is the welfare of the dog if they are impounded. I have one dog who would not cope for behvaioural reasons and another who would not cope for health reasons. I would have to decide whether me going through the process would truly be in the best interest of the dogs.

I wonder if they would let you keep them at home though if they are already registered as non pit bull cross? Surely thats the only way they'd be able to do it.

Cosmolo do you have a run? If you don't it may be a good idea to get one. Just in case. It might prevent the dogs from being removed if you already have a run set up. Just in case someone complains about them.

[Kiara&Heidi]

I wonder if they would let you keep them at home though if they are already registered as non pit bull cross? Surely thats the only way they'd be able to do it.

I think it would be much more likely that you would be allowed to appeal through VCAT while keeping the dog as a pit bull cross under restricted conditions (so that you could hopefully keep them under normal, non restricted conditions in the future). Otherwise couldn't the dog be siezed and destroyed at any time?