New Controls For Danger Dogs - Wa

[pie]

Dog owners face up to 10 years jail if their pet kills someone or puts a person's life in danger under tough new laws introduced in State Parliament yesterday.

Owners will also have to microchip new dogs from November 1 next year, unless the pets were already registered, under the tighter dangerous dog controls.

Introducing the reforms, Local Government Minister John Castrilli said the laws would help protect the community through increased controls over dangerous dogs and higher penalties encouraging more responsible ownership.

The laws would ban the sale, purchase, breeding and advertising of restricted breeds including American pit bulls, Argentinian fighting dogs and Perro de Presa Canarios.

Owners of restricted dogs would be forced to sterilise and microchip them within 30 days of the legislation taking effect.

Mr Castrilli said the laws would also expand the interpretation of dangerous dogs to include commercial security dogs.

He acknowledged that dogs not on the restricted breeds list could also be declared dangerous, with local governments getting the power to enforce restrictions on any dog which acted aggressively.

The owners of all dangerous dogs would be forced to put up warning signs, keep dogs muzzled and leashed when outside, and ensure the dogs wore collars identifying them as dangerous.

The laws would also hand more power to local councils to deal with barking dogs.

Mr Castrilli said there was widespread support for the new laws, including from the WA Local Government Association, the WA Rangers Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals WA.

RSPCA spokesman Tim Mayne said he supported most aspects of the new laws, especially compulsory microchipping and a provision to enable courts to force owners do a dog training course in place of, or in addition to, a penalty.

But he did not support the laws which applied specifically to dogs on the restricted breeds list, because he believed a dog's temperament was shaped by many factors such as training and whether the dog had been neglected or abused, rather than its breed.

He pointed out none of the dogs that mauled a six-year-old girl in Baldivis in June, leaving her with more than 100 stitches in her head, were restricted breeds.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/14557853/new-controls-for-danger-dogs/

[ncarter]

i thought the breeding of APBT's was already banned in WA.

The article in the paper today also said "If the amendments are accepted, local governments would also have the power to declare a dog "dangerous". Dont councils already have this power under current legislation??

[korbin13]

i thought the breeding of APBT's was already banned in WA.

The article in the paper today also said "If the amendments are accepted, local governments would also have the power to declare a dog "dangerous". Dont councils already have this power under current legislation??

Restricted breeds are supposed to be sterilised but there are no restrictions on breeding. The new legislation makes it an offence to breed restricted breeds.

And yes, WA councils already have the power to declare any dog dangerous under a set of guidelines.

Just a lot of fluffy vote grabbing rubbish that doesn't address any real issues.

I have added a link if you want a better look at the changes, I have only had a glance. Good to see they are going down the path of allowing racing greyhounds to go through a training program so that they can be walked without a muzzle.

http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/bills.nsf/4798E38D89B9F49A48257A5A001491FD/$File/EM%2B292-1B.pdf

[ncarter]

my feelings were that councils/local government dont enforce the current restricted breed legislation etc collars, cages, neuter. You never see restricted breeds with the fluoro collar. Just more legislation that doesnt work and wont be enforced.

[korbin13]

my feelings were that councils/local government dont enforce the current restricted breed legislation etc collars, cages, neuter. You never see restricted breeds with the fluoro collar. Just more legislation that doesnt work and wont be enforced.

How many registered restricted breed dogs are there in WA?

[OSoSwift]

Same as anywhere else. The only one we actually have is the American Pitbull. Down here we actually have quite a few

[ncarter]

How many registered restricted breed dogs are there in WA?

good question! im sure most of them are registred as amstaff X's and staffy X's.

[korbin13]

How many registered restricted breed dogs are there in WA?

good question! im sure most of them are registred as amstaff X's and staffy X's.

Probably because that's what most of them are! I would say that there are more cross breeds out there than APBT's. It would be interesting to have the numbers but I can't seem to find how many restricted breeds and declared dangerous dogs there are and the shires that they are in.

What I would like to see is owners of dogs who are involved in attacks undertake compulsory training. We know of people who had a dog attack another, they were given the choice to PTS or declare the dog dangerous. They had the dog PTS and then went out and bought another dog and have just put in the backyard like the other one, no socialisation, basically left by itself other than feeding and the occasional social activity in the backyard from 8 weeks old. Now this new dog will more than likely never do anything but they don't accept that their actions contributed to the attack. The dog was just 'bad'.

Interesting to see in this article the opposition has concerns and the acknowledgement that most pet owners do the right thing. And that the Victorian legislation hasn't stopped dog attacks. Like ncarter, I wish that someone would point out that if the current laws were enforced it would be just as effective.

http://www.smh.com.au/wa-news/new-dog-laws-could-mean-long-jail-sentences-20120815-247wf.html