shiner Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Yes, they may seize a dog for rushing. The relevant bits of the Act are as follows: s.29 29 Offences and liability relating to dog attacks (7)If a dog rushes at or chases any person, the person in apparent control of the dog at the time the dog rushed at or chased the first-mentioned person, whether or not the owner of the dog, is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty of not more than 4 penalty units. (8)If a dog rushes at or chases any person, the owner of the dog, if not liable for the offence under subsection (7), is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty of not more than 4 penalty units. s.81 81 Seizure of dog urged or trained to attack or having attacked (1)An authorised officer of a Council may seize a dog that is in the municipal district of that Council if— (a) the owner has been found guilty of an offence under section 28 or 28A with respect to that dog; or (b) the authorised officer reasonably suspects that the owner has committed an offence under section 28 or 28A with respect to that dog. (2)An authorised officer of a Council may seize a dog that is in the municipal district of that Council if— (a) a person has been found guilty of an offence under section 29 with respect to that dog; or (b) the authorised officer reasonably suspects that a person has committed an offence under section 29 with respect to that dog. They would be back with a warrant if the owner refused to hand over. So my understanding from reading this is, they have used 2(b). As no proof other than heresay (not a proof) has been established. I believe 2(b) is unconstitutional; it relies solely on the council rangers discretion, and therefore should be easily challenged by an efficient legal council. I am not a lawyer, but I do know how to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiner Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 (edited) ........<edit>… Pookie is definitely Shar Pei cross Staffy, from the way he acts, his affection to them and especially the way he lays down with all four legs out and stomach flat to the ground. They said that only Staffys can lay the way Pookie lays......<edit>....... I was advised from them to hire an independent accredited Dog Breed Assessor to come in assess Pookie because they are more qualified then the council workers...<edit>.... This is a tragic story, and my heart goes out to you and Pookie. The more I think about this the more convinced I am that the council in question, is in trouble here. I wouldn't rely on what the pound workers have told you though. Good news; Staffys and Sharpeis will lay in the way described, I've also seen Jack Russels, Pugs and Cavaliers, and a few other breeds doing the same thing. Bad news; Apbt's and Amstaffs will do it too. Please don't use it as a defence. Its sad that so called "experts" would misinform you in that way. A breed assessment sounds like a good way to go. What about a DNA test? Surely that would settle the argument on breed, which seems to be the main issue. In my opinion the council has no evidence to support the claim, that Pookie is Pit Bull, so they should provide evidence. I.e. Pay for the DNA test. Please keep us informed as this travesty unfolds. FREE POOKIE! Edited April 8, 2012 by shiner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APBT Club of Aust Inc. Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Unfotunately unless your dog came back as a purebred American Staffordshire Terrier than a DNA test is of little use. I'm saying that VCAT will not accept it as it's been tried already. Our state government only chose to protect the pure bred Am Staff from this dragonian law. The poor old cross breeds can all get led off to be slaughtered. The fact is that if a dog fits within their standard, than it can be declared to be a Restricted Breed, "a Pit Bull". The dog could be a Labrador or even a Poodle, it doesn't matter. I know this sounds rediculous but that's the law. I have thought of making another thread on here just to put it to the test, just to show how stupid this law is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Unfotunately unless your dog came back as a purebred American Staffordshire Terrier than a DNA test is of little use. I'm saying that VCAT will not accept it as it's been tried already. Our state government only chose to protect the pure bred Am Staff from this dragonian law. The poor old cross breeds can all get led off to be slaughtered. The fact is that if a dog fits within their standard, than it can be declared to be a Restricted Breed, "a Pit Bull". The dog could be a Labrador or even a Poodle, it doesn't matter. I know this sounds rediculous but that's the law. I have thought of making another thread on here just to put it to the test, just to show how stupid this law is. Doesn't the legislation permit breed determination by a vet? Ultimately as I understand it, if you could find a vet to declare in their professional opinion the dog is not a restricted breed such a declaration will rectify the situation is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiner Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Unfotunately unless your dog came back as a purebred American Staffordshire Terrier than a DNA test is of little use. I'm saying that VCAT will not accept it as it's been tried already. Our state government only chose to protect the pure bred Am Staff from this dragonian law. The poor old cross breeds can all get led off to be slaughtered. The fact is that if a dog fits within their standard, than it can be declared to be a Restricted Breed, "a Pit Bull". The dog could be a Labrador or even a Poodle, it doesn't matter. I know this sounds rediculous but that's the law. I have thought of making another thread on here just to put it to the test, just to show how stupid this law is. Thankyou for posting that. What is the 'standard'? a link will be fine if you have explained this before. I am brand new to the internet world of Dogs. I wasn't aware this ridiculous legislation had been put into practice. Has it been tested in court yet? Again a link is fine. Never saw myself becoming politically active before, but I think thats going to change. What would my first step be? Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APBT Club of Aust Inc. Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Doesn't the legislation permit breed determination by a vet? Ultimately as I understand it, if you could find a vet to declare in their professional opinion the dog is not a restricted breed such a declaration will rectify the situation is that correct? The AVA have advised its members against this and since the standard was amended in January the only declaration a vet can make that would assist an owner is that the dog is an American Staffordshire Terrier. Gazetted Standard: http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2011/GG2011S283.pdf Amendment to Standard 9th Jan 2012: http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2012/GG2012S032.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zug Zug Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Yes, they may seize a dog for rushing. The relevant bits of the Act are as follows: s.29 29 Offences and liability relating to dog attacks (7)If a dog rushes at or chases any person, the person in apparent control of the dog at the time the dog rushed at or chased the first-mentioned person, whether or not the owner of the dog, is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty of not more than 4 penalty units. (8)If a dog rushes at or chases any person, the owner of the dog, if not liable for the offence under subsection (7), is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty of not more than 4 penalty units. s.81 81 Seizure of dog urged or trained to attack or having attacked (1)An authorised officer of a Council may seize a dog that is in the municipal district of that Council if— (a) the owner has been found guilty of an offence under section 28 or 28A with respect to that dog; or (b) the authorised officer reasonably suspects that the owner has committed an offence under section 28 or 28A with respect to that dog. (2)An authorised officer of a Council may seize a dog that is in the municipal district of that Council if— (a) a person has been found guilty of an offence under section 29 with respect to that dog; or (b) the authorised officer reasonably suspects that a person has committed an offence under section 29 with respect to that dog. They would be back with a warrant if the owner refused to hand over. So my understanding from reading this is, they have used 2(b). As no proof other than heresay (not a proof) has been established. I believe 2(b) is unconstitutional; it relies solely on the council rangers discretion, and therefore should be easily challenged by an efficient legal council. I am not a lawyer, but I do know how to read. Shiner as you say, you are not a lawyer. You are not able to give legal advice. The OP is asking for help, but I don't believe this would be a helpful avenue and it could be counterproductive. Also, there is a very big difference between a Council (i.e. a local government) and legal counsel. This person needs real legal advice. Not armchair advice that is really just someone's opinion. She is trying to get her dog back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) How horrible I wondered if this would happen. Even some pure traditional style Shar pei can resemble crosses or pitties if you don't know any better. Does your dog have a purple tongue? I think Amanda of Shar pei rescue inc. has had a lot of Shar peixstaffies. I was going to suggest maybe seeing if her vet would certify your dog but I guess that is no use if it has changed as APBT Club says. What a horrible law. Hope you are able to get some help soon. Edited April 9, 2012 by Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemini Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Hi, I was horrified when I read your post and the more I read it the peed off I got. I was in a similar situation with a dog I use to own a few years, she was a staffy x ridgeback and had just turned 1 yr old, I was renting a house that was next door to a homebased day care centre and every day there were a couple of kids that use to hang over my fence and torment the hell out of my dogs, they would call the dogs over to the fence( and as my dogs had never been mistreated by anyone they had meet they would go over to the kids thinking they were going to get a pat from these kids ) which was not the case, these kids proceded to throw anything they could get their hands on from toys to rocks and even good sized pieces of wood, there was 1 kids that I caught that hit my staffy X in the head with a plastic cricket bat. I was constantly telling these kids and the women that ran the daycare to stop hanging over the fence and to stop tormenting my dogs, I also told the real estate that I was renting the house through what was going on and if they could contact the women and have a word to her, which they did. Then one day after coming back home from shopping the towns animal control person turned up and said that he was there to seize my " pitbull " as it had bitten one of the children from the day care next door, well this really got me really angry and I started to abuse him, I told him to make sure he had his facts right before he accused any of my dogs of biting anyone, the first fact was that the dog in question was not a pitbull as I will not own a pitbull ( don't like the breed never have & never will )second fact if I see any kind of aggression in my dogs it is dealt with immediately and third fact was the kid that was supposedly "bitten" by my dog was constantly tormenting my dogs and had been told numerous times to stop doing it, and if he thought that he was going to seize my dog he had better have damn good prove that this kid wasn't tormenting my dog when it was bitten. I then told him to get the hell off my place and if he wanted to take it further I would see him and my neighbours and the kids parents in court and he then replied well they want you to pay the doctors bill to treat the wound,I looked at him and said P*** off you have got to be bloody joking and get the f*** off my place, he did and he never came back to get my dog, and the kids never hung over my fence again and tormented my dogs. What you need to do is get a lawyer( if you are renting and if you are working but not getting the above award wage you are able to get legal aid ), go and see all your neighbours that witness the event and ask them too write statements about what they witness, threaten the council that if they can't prove that your dog is a pitbull or part pitbull, that they must have the dog have a DNA test, this is the only way to prove that a dog is or isn't of a certain breed, you may have to pay for the DNA test but when it proves that your dog isn't a pitbull or pitbull X you can then get your lawyer to write an letter of order to the council to threaten them that if the dog is not returned to you that you will press charges against the council for illegally seizing your dog purely on the fact that it " looks like a pitbull ", if there wasn't anyone that was injured, bitten or attack by your dog the only thing that they can do is to fine you for not having the dog on a leash in a public area and causing a nuance to others. If your dog microchipped, desexed and vaccinated its bred should be listed on the national dog registry, you should also have its breed on the microchipping papers as well as its vaccination records and your vet should also have it on their records what breed your dog is, and if you tell your vet about what the council has done they may do the DNA test for you and let you pay the cost of it off, ( doesn't hurt to ask, and you won't know if you don't ask ), you can also get your dog assessed by a independant dog trainer ( preferrably one that is not from your area and has nothing to do with your council and the RSPCA and can give you a written report on the temperament and nature of your dog, your lawyer (if you get one) can help you with all this, but you must not let your council, dog pound employees or the RSPCA know anything about what you are doing as they will try their hardest to stop you from doing all of this. If you would like to talk to me about what is happening please do as it helps to talk to someone that isn't involved. You can contact me via email at [email protected] And for everyone else if you read the post properly the dog was not rushing at the person it was running past them to go home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkhe Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Pookie, have you had any luck with finding a lawyer or anything? Any updates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobecrazy Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) Hi there There is a new test that determines what breeds are in mixed breeds (you can prove there is not 80% pitbull, then if they dont let up you can take that test as evidence and counter sue for emotional stress). Ask your vet or google haha. Good luck! Council's are horrid. Edited April 18, 2012 by Dobecrazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemini Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Just interested to know, can a ranger come and sieze a dog they accuse of rushing etc? or is it just bullying, and you have the right to refuse to hand it over? No, They are not allowed to enter you property and sieze any animal, they are not the police and if they have taken a dog or any animal from your yard with out your permission or/ and knowledge the are breaking the law. Stealing and trespassing are illegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemini Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 DNA is submittable in court,you can even find out what breds a dogs grandparents are, they dna show dogs to prove that their breeding is the right breeding that is stated on the dogs papers. Pookie is your dog Microchipped ? If so this is a legal government document and no one can over ride a legal government document not even a judge.Can you pm me please Pookie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juice Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 not happened to me, just interested to know, owning a bull breed its a good thing to know. 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