Rehoming A Dog Interstate – Brisbane To Victoria

[LDH]

We operate a rescue in south-east Qld and have received an application for one of our dogs. The home on offer appears excellent, and is in Victoria.

We are uncertain as to the dog’s exact breeding. Fortunately we have photos of both parents, but again would only be guessing as to their breed makeup. Certainly they are larger breeds, potentially with mastiff/staffy/amstaff in the mix. But I can’t be certain.

Obviously we want to rehome our dogs responsibly and don’t want to put the dog or prospective owners at any risk. If we were to arrange DNA testing, would that be sufficient?

I appreciate I am largely ignorant of the exact requirements of BSL and would appreciate any advice. Thank you in advance.

[Sheridan]

As I understand it, not in Victoria, where the identification is visual and not based on DNA.

[Little Gifts]

With all the BSL issues in Vic I think it is an awful risk if the dog or it's parents look like the restricted breeds. Perhaps look at the identification process they are using and consider that in relation to the dog they are interested in. If your dog doesn't look like the dogs they are using as a guide then you could make a call on it. The awful thing for all of you would be if the dog got down there, couldn't be registered because it was identified as a restricted breed, and got stuck in limbo land.

Here are the standards they are using to identify restricted breeds:

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/pets/about-pets/legislation-and-regulation/standard-for-restricted-breed-dogs

[Aphra]

DNA testing won't help. The Victorian legislation is visually-based and DNA tests are not allowed as any kind of proof. The dogs who have been killed under the legislation in Victoria have, by and large, not been pitbulls but various crosses, most probably Bullmastiff/Ridgeback/Lab/Boxer types.

Here are a list of photos of dogs who have been seized, and in several instances, killed, under the Victorian legislation: http://www.savingpet.../dogs-on-trial/

I don't think it's worth risking a dog who might be visually identified as a restricted breed. Once that happens the owner's only recourse is to the Victorian Administrative Tribunal and then the Supreme Court.

At the moment the onus is on the council to prove that a dog is a restricted breed dog, but the coroner's report into Ayen Chol recommended that Pitbull crossbreeds also be restricted and that the onus should fall on the owner, and not the council, to prove a dog's breed.

Given Victoria's track record with legislation, I'd expect to see even more restrictive laws introduced in the future.

A lot will depend on the council area the dog is being rehomed into, some councils, for whatever reason, are much more enthusiastic about seizing dogs than others. I asked a ranger at one councils who have seized a lot of dogs as restricted breeds how many of those dogs were also declared dangerous dogs, and the answer was none.

So the dog could be the kindest, best-behaved, sweetest tempered dog in the world, and that wouldn't save it if a council decides it is a restricted breed.

So the short answer is, I wouldn't risk rehoming a dog of that type into Victoria; it puts the dog at risk of death and the owner at risk of enormous heart break.

[LDH]

Thank you all very much for your replies and advice. We certainly aren't prepared to put our dog at risk, nor do we want to impose that sort of burden on prospective owners.

How very sad the system appears to be.

Thank you all again.

[melzawelza]

For the reasons the others have posted I wouldn't send any dog to Vic that looks even slightly bully. As you can see in Aphra's link, most of the dogs being seized are mutts and mixed breeds that have lost in the genetic lottery as far as the 'appearance' that is allowed in Victoria. It's a nightmare and it's heartbreaking.

[Little Gifts]

Aphra I just looked through that link and felt sick. Those family pets have been traumatised by months in a pound type environment simply for how they look (which is not something they can change). So happy for the owners who kept going but also sad for the families who may have just given up. It is the most ridiculous law and way of enforcing it. I really can't believe that the govt thought this would work.

[Sheridan]

My understanding is that if a dog is impounded the family can't even visit. Is that correct? What the hell is the thinking behind that one?

[melzawelza]

Sheridan there's nothing in the legislation to say that but I don't know of one Council yet that has allowed the family to visit. A lot don't even know where their dogs are being held.

[Sheridan]

Sheridan there's nothing in the legislation to say that but I don't know of one Council yet that has allowed the family to visit. A lot don't even know where their dogs are being held.

That's appalling, melz. Utterly disgusting that because a dog looks a particular way, a family is treated as criminals. Actually worse because at least criminals have visiting rights.

[Aphra]

Sheridan there's nothing in the legislation to say that but I don't know of one Council yet that has allowed the family to visit. A lot don't even know where their dogs are being held.

Most of the dogs are held at the Lost Dogs Home (not all, but most of the suburbs who seize the most dogs use the LDH as a pound service). The LDH gets around $300 for the eight days they impound dogs for councils when they operate as a pound. Some of these dogs seized under BSL have been held for months and months, into a year or more.

If the LDH holds a dog for say, 4 - 6 months, which seems to be about average for cases to work through VCAT and the courts, that means the LDH would receive something like $4500 - $6750 for each dog they have impounded under BSL. They'd be making upwards of $13,000 for a dog they hold for a year. Even if the dog goes back to the owner, the LDH wins because the council still pays the bill.

The LDH sit on all of the companion animal welfare committees advise the DPI on legislation, and of all the major animal welfare agencies in Victoria, the LDH are the ONLY one which is absolutely in favour of BSL.

I'm sure the financial incentive is important to them, but above and beyond that, by supporting BSL they encourage the idea that there is a population of "bad" dogs who aren't safe in the community, and that helps them justify their excuses for the LDH's high kill rates.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Aphra

[melzawelza]

Sheridan there's nothing in the legislation to say that but I don't know of one Council yet that has allowed the family to visit. A lot don't even know where their dogs are being held.

That's appalling, melz. Utterly disgusting that because a dog looks a particular way, a family is treated as criminals. Actually worse because at least criminals have visiting rights.

Agreed totally Sheridan. I can't imagine how I'd feel if it were my dog. Some had been held for over a year before being released (or killed, as Bobo was). From what I understand Rocket's owners still don't know where he is and he'd be coming up to a year now.

Aphra I agree totally with your post and assessment or why LDH love BSL so much.

[Little Gifts]

The original poster was LDH but here in QLD. Do they operate as very separate entities? Am I wrong to assume if they are using the same name they support the same organisational values? Why then would they not be simply contacting their Victorian counterparts for advice on this dog and how BSL might affect it?

I'm confused now.

[Aphra]

The poster LDH is an individual and a member of a rescue group in QLD. It's just coincidence that they have the same user name as the acronym for the Lost Dogs Home in Victoria; they've not associated in any way. I took the discussion a bit off-topic I'm afraid.

The original poster was LDH but here in QLD. Do they operate as very separate entities? Am I wrong to assume if they are using the same name they support the same organisational values? Why then would they not be simply contacting their Victorian counterparts for advice on this dog and how BSL might affect it?

I'm confused now.

[Sheridan]

Sheridan there's nothing in the legislation to say that but I don't know of one Council yet that has allowed the family to visit. A lot don't even know where their dogs are being held.

Most of the dogs are held at the Lost Dogs Home (not all, but most of the suburbs who seize the most dogs use the LDH as a pound service). The LDH gets around $300 for the eight days they impound dogs for councils when they operate as a pound. Some of these dogs seized under BSL have been held for months and months, into a year or more.

If the LDH holds a dog for say, 4 - 6 months, which seems to be about average for cases to work through VCAT and the courts, that means the LDH would receive something like $4500 - $6750 for each dog they have impounded under BSL. They'd be making upwards of $13,000 for a dog they hold for a year. Even if the dog goes back to the owner, the LDH wins because the council still pays the bill.

The LDH sit on all of the companion animal welfare committees advise the DPI on legislation, and of all the major animal welfare agencies in Victoria, the LDH are the ONLY one which is absolutely in favour of BSL.

I'm sure the financial incentive is important to them, but above and beyond that, by supporting BSL they encourage the idea that there is a population of "bad" dogs who aren't safe in the community, and that helps them justify their excuses for the LDH's high kill rates.

I'm sure I don't need to repeat my opinion of LDH to those in this forum. Everyone has heard it before ... ;)

Sheridan there's nothing in the legislation to say that but I don't know of one Council yet that has allowed the family to visit. A lot don't even know where their dogs are being held.

That's appalling, melz. Utterly disgusting that because a dog looks a particular way, a family is treated as criminals. Actually worse because at least criminals have visiting rights.

Agreed totally Sheridan. I can't imagine how I'd feel if it were my dog. Some had been held for over a year before being released (or killed, as Bobo was). From what I understand Rocket's owners still don't know where he is and he'd be coming up to a year now.

Aphra I agree totally with your post and assessment or why LDH love BSL so much.

I think there is a FB page for Rocket?

The original poster was LDH but here in QLD. Do they operate as very separate entities? Am I wrong to assume if they are using the same name they support the same organisational values? Why then would they not be simply contacting their Victorian counterparts for advice on this dog and how BSL might affect it?

I'm confused now.

I think that's accidental. Admittedly, I blinked when I first saw it ...

Edited April 23, 2013 by Sheridan

[melzawelza]

I think there is a FB page for Rocket?

Yep!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Help-save-Rocket-Another-victim-of-Victorian-BSL/323124094447754?fref=ts

[LDH]

Thank you Aphra. I have no connection with the Lost Dogs’ Home. LDH happens to be my initials. But I appreciate it might create confusion so should perhaps I should change my account name :)

The poster LDH is an individual and a member of a rescue group in QLD. It's just coincidence that they have the same user name as the acronym for the Lost Dogs Home in Victoria; they've not associated in any way. I took the discussion a bit off-topic I'm afraid.

The original poster was LDH but here in QLD. Do they operate as very separate entities? Am I wrong to assume if they are using the same name they support the same organisational values? Why then would they not be simply contacting their Victorian counterparts for advice on this dog and how BSL might affect it?

I'm confused now.

[LDH]

Interestingly the prospective adopter states her local ranger is happy to provide written confirmation that our dog, based on the photos he has viewed of her, would not be classified as a restricted breed. He is apparently also happy to state in writing, a classification as a restricted breed would require assessment by 3 separate individials, and would be based on temperament. But my understanding is that the legislation uniformly applies to the entire State?

That’s not to suggest that will sway our decision at all.

[Aphra]

The legislation has no provision for temperament assessment. In NSW there is a temperament assessment process, but that doesn't exist in Victoria. Dogs can, and have, been seized by individual rangers. Dogs Victoria (who should be deeply ashamed of themselves) make themselves available as breed assessors, but unless an owner is willing to appeal to VCAT they don't have much recourse once the council has their dog. A vet certificate stating the breed might be some protection, but I'd be cautious about this, particularly if the dog is chipped as a Stafford or Amstaff X.

It's also all very well for one, individual ranger to be reasonable, but people change jobs or move house and other people may not be so reasonable. Lots of people, including councils, don't understand the legislation, probably because it isn't very logical, so I suppose reasonable people have some trouble making sense of it.

Interestingly the prospective adopter states her local ranger is happy to provide written confirmation that our dog, based on the photos he has viewed of her, would not be classified as a restricted breed. He is apparently also happy to state in writing, a classification as a restricted breed would require assessment by 3 separate individials, and would be based on temperament. But my understanding is that the legislation uniformly applies to the entire State?

That's not to suggest that will sway our decision at all.