Rspca Letter To Victorian Premier

[huck house]

http://www.rspcavic.org/documents/Campaigns/BSL/RSPCA-Min_Walsh_BSL_7JUN2013.pdf

[juice]

Actually I thought they did originally support it?

It seems now it is on their doorstep and they are dealing with the fallout they don't like it.

Much as I dislike them, if it gets an overturn on BSL its a good thing.

I can't open the link

[Guest Ams]

7 June 2013

The Hon Peter Walsh MP

Minister for Agriculture and Food Security

Level 20

1 Spring Street

MELBOURNE VIC 3000 By email to: [email protected]

Dear Minister Walsh

RE: BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION

We are writing to you regarding Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) that was

introduced in 2011. As we have made clear on several occasions previously, the

RSPCA does not support BSL. Our view, based on the available international

scientific evidence, is that any dog may be dangerous and that dogs should not be

declared as ‘dangerous’ on the basis of breed. While we recognise that there is a

strong genetic component in a dog’s propensity for aggressive behaviour, their

trigger point for aggression and capacity to inflict serious injury is not isolated to

any specific breed. The RSPCA does not believe that BSL is in any way effective in

preventing or reducing dog attacks, or in protecting the public from dangerous

dogs.

RSPCA Victoria collected data on the number of dogs (by breed) seized by councils

and brought into our metropolitan shelters in Melbourne in the 2010-11 financial

year. This data showed that larger working breeds are more likely than other

breeds of dog to be seized by council officers for menacing and/or dangerous

behaviour but only two out of the total of 110 were pit bulls. In fact there were 95

dogs of 13 other breeds more commonly seized than pit bulls.

We have attached the RSPCA Information Paper - Preventing Dog Attacks in the

Community for your information. The information paper provides important

supporting evidence for a preventative approach to dog attacks which should be

read in conjunction with our information paper. You may also like to read the

Australian Veterinary Association’s ‘Dangerous dogs – a sensible solution: Policy

and model legislative framework’ which can be found at:

http://www.ava.com.au/sites/default/files/AVA_website/pdfs/Dangerous%20dogs

%20-%20a%20sensible%20solution%20FINAL.pdf

We would like the results of the Parliamentary Steering Committee review of

dangerous dogs legislation made available to the public. These results are

important to allow the public to be fully informed as to why this legislation was

introduced. We would like to make it clear; that we were not consulted prior to

this legislation coming into effect and have not had these results made available to

us, even though we shared our concerns with this Committee early in 2012. We

have also attached for your reference, our previous feedback which we sent to you

soon after the legislation was introduced.

As I am sure you are aware, on Monday of this week we had anti-BSL protestors

outside our Burwood East shelter who were protesting against the planned

euthanasia of Kerser, who had been classed as a pit bull under the breed standards H:\executive\CEO\CORRESPONDENCE\2013\Min_Walsh_BSL_7JUN2013.doc

2.

by Monash Council. Under BSL we are required to humanely euthanase Kerser,

purely on the basis of his breed and regardless of Kerser’s temperament. At the

time of this protest we received a phone call stating that there was a bomb on our

site, and therefore our whole site was evacuated. As I am sure you can

appreciate, the risk posed to RSPCA staff and animals was unacceptable. Not only

did this situation threaten the lives of our staff and animals, but a full scale

evacuation also endangers the lives of animals that need critical care in our vet

clinic.

We are supportive of the need to reduce dog attacks in the community; however,

we feel that this can be achieved in ways other than by this legislation.

We will be making this letter available to our supporters on our website, to inform

them of our position relating to BSL. We will be strongly encouraging them to

write to their local MP asking for amendments to this legislation.

Yours sincerely

MARIA MERCURIO

Chief Executive Officer

RSPCA (Victoria)

Attachs.

CC: The Hon Dr Denis Napthine MP by email to: [email protected]

[Dame Aussie]

That is AWESOME!

Whether or not it has any effect is another thing but fingers crossed!

[mita]

Well, my wish has come true. I recently posted that I couldn't understand why the Victorian authorities weren't using a brilliant paper from the Australian Veterinary Association as a reference & guide.

It's called Dangerous Dogs: A sensible solution, policy & model legislative framework. And bless, RSPCA Vic.... they've recommended that it be read in conjunction with their own position paper.

http://www.ava.com.au/sites/default/files/AVA_website/pdfs/Dangerous%20dogs%20-%20a%20sensible%20solution%20FINAL.pdf

[BlackJaq]

Good. Alas, I believe it will probably make no difference. But still better than nothing.

[ricey]

Hi all,

The RSPCA has come full circle on this issue, and I think that this is mainly due to the efforts of Lynne Bradshaw who is national president of the RSPCA. Lynne has worked tirelessly to overturn the previously pro BSL policy of the RSPCA that was instigated by Hugh Wirth. It should be noted that Hugh Wirth was responsible for the political agitation that resulted in Australia mindlessly copying the UK's Dangerous Dog Act of 1991.

Even Hugh Wirth has seen the error of his ways and has since recanted, stating that all the research shows that breed specific legislation does not work.

I think that we are at the edge of a possible breakthrough; the AVA and the RSPCA have an unambiguous policy platform- breed specific legislation does not and can not work. However, it is a pity about the shameful stance of the gutter press, and opportunistic politicians. Bill Shorten for example, who has referred to pit bulls as 'sharks on legs'. Bill is, as we know, the only reason that there has not been a prime ministerial spill and subsequent vote...... Not a person who likes to accept political realities.....

I have a pit bull, and I am embarrassed to admit that my Hobbes would probably love Bill Shorten and cover him with licks and kisses. Pit bulls, they are probably not the best judges of human character. After all our species has done to pit bulls, they still seem to love us. Aren't dogs crazy!?

Seriously, if the AVA and the RSPCA are behind us on this issue, then I think we have a chance of winning, or at least laying claim to the high moral ground. Any of you know a tame journalist who works for one of the major papers that could possibly run with an "enlightened" article on dogs? A young gung ho journo could make their reputation by breaking this story.

ricey

[P.W.]

What the RSPCA says now differs from their original stance, they were great supporters of BSL along with the lost dogs home, does any one remember Dr Hugh Worth & Graeme Smith? Their support for BSL in the media influencing the public and submissions to government were instrumental in BSL becoming law.

[mita]

There's been extensive research since those earlier days. Now science backs up the fact that going after breeds per se, is the wrong direction. Many dog owners were always aware of that, from their own anecdotal experiences.

Good to see the organizations like RSPCA & the Veterinary Associations are up to date with the studies.

[BlackJaq]

Looks like we might finally be heading in the right direction: http://bawp.org.au/victorian-labor-opposition-move-parliamentary-review-breed-specific-legislation/

[ricey]

What the RSPCA says now differs from their original stance, they were great supporters of BSL along with the lost dogs home, does any one remember Dr Hugh Worth & Graeme Smith? Their support for BSL in the media influencing the public and submissions to government were instrumental in BSL becoming law.

Yes, I remember well. At least Hugh Wirth has recognised the errors of his previous pro BSL stance and has recanted. I respect him for that, as any of us can make mistakes and I laud him for so publicly and openly admitting he was wrong about BSL. It would be churlish of any of us to continue to deride Hugh Wirth. Hugh Wirth has shown himself to be a 'wirthwhile' human being LOL!

However, Graeme Smith continues to be a nasty anti-dog campaigner that should not not be pissed on if he is on fire. The 'Lost Dogs Home' FFS! I'd say "abandon hope all you dogs who enter here". The dip stick who runs this "shelter" really does not like dogs, and should be court ordered to not have anything to do with dogs.

ricey

[Jingle Bells]

BSL is rubbish. Glad the RSPCA wrote the letter. I wish it would stop. Too many good dogs being killed for no reason.

[Amax-1]

I don't support the abolition of BSL because it's all about Pit bull's which is a breed I am personally sick and tired of hearing about. Having said that, I don't support the culling of innocent dogs by appearance, if it's a good dog regardless of appearance it should have the rights to live it's life based on temperament testing.

Typically anti BLS activists support their case by fingering other breeds and this I find extremely annoying top the point there is more chance of adding breeds to the list by their reckless highlights not overturning BSL....they are a dangerous lot IMHO.

RSPCA Victoria collected data on the number of dogs (by breed) seized by councils

and brought into our metropolitan shelters in Melbourne in the 2010-11 financial

year. This data showed that larger working breeds are more likely than other

breeds of dog to be seized by council officers for menacing and/or dangerous

behaviour but only two out of the total of 110 were pit bulls. In fact there were 95

dogs of 13 other breeds more commonly seized than pit bulls.

What they have done in support of their Pit Bull case is fingered working breeds....excellent, so they have dobbed in GSD's, Rotties, Dobes, Belgians and the like to free the Pit Bull......what's sort of idiots are we dealing with in anti BSL regimes I ask

Edited August 24, 2014 by Amax-1

[Jed]

Far too little far too late.

Tens of thousands of dogs have died due to their previous stance.

AVA has always been anti BSL. Kirsty Seksel was president of the AVA years ago, and said a lot against BSL

Hi, PW, pleased to see you here. Course I remember Hugely and Graeme Smith. Lovely fellows. Hugely was the one who also bagged tail docking as "cruel" whilst owning several docked terriers; and suggested euthing a GR puppy on his radio show for mouthing.

[Amax-1]

AVA has always been anti BSL.

So why don't their members who are legally empowered to free dogs from death row sign them off as Amstaff's and release them?

[melzawelza]

I don't support the abolition of BSL because it's all about Pit bull's which is a breed I am personally sick and tired of hearing about. Having said that, I don't support the culling of innocent dogs by appearance, if it's a good dog regardless of appearance it should have the rights to live it's life based on temperament testing.

Typically anti BLS activists support their case by fingering other breeds and this I find extremely annoying top the point there is more chance of adding breeds to the list by their reckless highlights not overturning BSL....they are a dangerous lot IMHO.

RSPCA Victoria collected data on the number of dogs (by breed) seized by councils

and brought into our metropolitan shelters in Melbourne in the 2010-11 financial

year. This data showed that larger working breeds are more likely than other

breeds of dog to be seized by council officers for menacing and/or dangerous

behaviour but only two out of the total of 110 were pit bulls. In fact there were 95

dogs of 13 other breeds more commonly seized than pit bulls.

What they have done in support of their Pit Bull case is fingered working breeds....excellent, so they have dobbed in GSD's, Rotties, Dobes, Belgians and the like to free the Pit Bull......what's sort of idiots are we dealing with in anti BSL regimes I ask

Plenty of people who do not agree with BSL also don't agree with blaming other breeds. I certainly don't and it drives me nuts too seeing as it plays into the BSL mindset. You can't say 'all dogs are individuals and dogs shouldn't be judged by their appearance' and then say 'Maltese are way more aggressive anyway!!'. It's ridiculous.

You can't judge whether BSL is worthwhile or not based on those people though, that's crazy. There are groups now trying to educate the masses and move them away from this ineffective advocacy anyway. Team Dog is one of them:

Consider Your Language

If you're sick of hearing about 'Pit Bulls' then you should be against BSL. It's been proven time and time again that it actually drives up dog attacks in the areas that it is implemented and that there is also incredible media bias in reporting attacks with the words 'Pit Bull' much more than all the attacks with dogs identified as other breeds.

If you want to see less dog attacks (which I'm sure you do, because anyone living in a community that has dogs wants to see a reduction in dog attacks) then you wouldn't be supporting BSL in any way. There is such an enormous volume of evidence now as to how much of a global fail this approach has been, that it's impossible for anyone to still cling to this model as a solution and retain credibility.

AVA has always been anti BSL.

So why don't their members who are legally empowered to free dogs from death row sign them off as Amstaff's and release them?

Personal liability worries. They are scared that if they sign off a dog as an Amstaff and then the dog is involved in some kind of incident that the authorities will say it's a Pit Bull and they're liable for signing it off.

In NSW breed assessors are protected from liability - it's written into the Act. Not so in Victoria.

Edited August 31, 2014 by melzawelza

[Amax-1]

Personal liability worries. They are scared that if they sign off a dog as an Amstaff and then the dog is involved in some kind of incident that the authorities will say it's a Pit Bull and they're liable for signing it off.

I disagree with that. A vet isn't liable for signing off a dog as environmentally safe, they are signing off on breed, so if they can't scientifically prove a dog is a Pit Bull and they need to employ a visual test which the Amstaff fits, they can't scientifically prove that a dog isn't an Amstaff to prosecute a vet for an incorrect breed assessment so they have nothing to worry about. It just takes a vet brave enough to sign a piece of paper and not hide behind lip service to free a dog unfairly subject to euthanasia by appearance. If someone had a dog fitting the visual description and produced a vet declaration as an Amstaff to an ACO, compliance would be more the nature of the exercise not questioning the vets breed assessment. An ACO can't seize a dog fitting the visual description when the owner produces an Amstaff declaration as ownership the dog then complies with legislation whether in fact it is a pure breed Amstaff or not?

BSL is about Pit Bull restriction as the other listed breeds don't exist if they do it's a miniscule number, so perhaps it should be about freeing the Pit Bull from the list, not the abolishment of BSL? The GSD Club freed the GSD from the list when subject to BSL by breed promotion proving to politicians that the breed was safe where they consequently overturned the restriction. What people don't understand is abolishing BSL means the introduction of more supposed dangerous breeds and that will never happen.....the first one who gets chomped by a Dogo or Fila it's going to hit the fan big time......no one is going to abolish BSL entirely for the introduction of breeds that are not here in the first place to cause a safety concern. It's not only about Pit Bulls, it also about opening the gate to the rest on the list and who in reality is going to do this to appease a small number of anti BSL supporters versus the greater community?

Someone told me about 5 years ago that a Pitbull breeder ran a litter off Amstaff papers.....not sure the truth in it, but the breeder for some time now has produced working line Amstaff's......bit naughty, but pretty smart legalising Pit Bulls from another angle :D

[melzawelza]

Personal liability worries. They are scared that if they sign off a dog as an Amstaff and then the dog is involved in some kind of incident that the authorities will say it's a Pit Bull and they're liable for signing it off.

I disagree with that. A vet isn't liable for signing off a dog as environmentally safe, they are signing off on breed, so if they can't scientifically prove a dog is a Pit Bull and they need to employ a visual test which the Amstaff fits, they can't scientifically prove that a dog isn't an Amstaff to prosecute a vet for an incorrect breed assessment so they have nothing to worry about. It just takes a vet brave enough to sign a piece of paper and not hide behind lip service to free a dog unfairly subject to euthanasia by appearance. If someone had a dog fitting the visual description and produced a vet declaration as an Amstaff to an ACO, compliance would be more the nature of the exercise not questioning the vets breed assessment. An ACO can't seize a dog fitting the visual description when the owner produces an Amstaff declaration as ownership the dog then complies with legislation whether in fact it is a pure breed Amstaff or not?

I agree, it's unlikely that any case could be made but that doesn't stop people from being extremely nervous in the current litigious society w live in. There are some vets that will stand up for what's right and do it but they're few and far between.

BSL is about Pit Bull restriction as the other listed breeds don't exist if they do it's a miniscule number, so perhaps it should be about freeing the Pit Bull from the list, not the abolishment of BSL? The GSD Club freed the GSD from the list when subject to BSL by breed promotion proving to politicians that the breed was safe where they consequently overturned the restriction. What people don't understand is abolishing BSL means the introduction of more supposed dangerous breeds and that will never happen.....the first one who gets chomped by a Dogo or Fila it's going to hit the fan big time......no one is going to abolish BSL entirely for the introduction of breeds that are not here in the first place to cause a safety concern. It's not only about Pit Bulls, it also about opening the gate to the rest on the list and who in reality is going to do this to appease a small number of anti BSL supporters versus the greater community?

Intelligent people are against BSL because it doesn't work - dog attacks typically rise under BSL. That includes any breed it has ever been imposed on (of which there have been many all around the world). We aren't in it to 'free the Pit Bull', we're in it to change the harmful and incorrect belief in the general consciousness that aggression is a breed problem, not an owner problem. Until we get out of this mindset we'll never move forward and actually start putting a nice dent in our dog attacks. Places around the world have no BSL and have well resourced and legislated animal management programs, and enjoy an extremely low dog attack rate. We don't need different laws for certain breeds, it's completely unnecessary.

Someone told me about 5 years ago that a Pitbull breeder ran a litter off Amstaff papers.....not sure the truth in it, but the breeder for some time now has produced working line Amstaff's......bit naughty, but pretty smart legalising Pit Bulls from another angle :D

The UKC dual registers dogs as both APBT and AmStaff so you can quite easily bred a litter that are both Amstaffs and APBT.

Edited August 31, 2014 by melzawelza

[Amax-1]

Intelligent people are against BSL because it doesn't work - dog attacks typically rise under BSL. That includes any breed it has ever been imposed on (of which there have been many all around the world). We aren't in it to 'free the Pit Bull', we're in it to change the harmful and incorrect belief in the general consciousness that aggression is a breed problem, not an owner problem. Until we get out of this mindset we'll never move forward and actually start putting a nice dent in our dog attacks. Places around the world have no BSL and have well resourced and legislated animal management programs, and enjoy an extremely low dog attack rate. We don't need different laws for certain breeds, it's completely unnecessary.

The general community see BSL as restricting a breed of dog that they can't be bitten by if they don't exist. If BSL was abolished and a child was killed by a newly imported Fila, they would argue had the breed remained restricted, the child would not have been killed by a Fila and probably would be still alive. It's a big risk for a government to abolish BSL as it's probably not anti BSL supporters who will cause them election defeat. Personally I don't see BSL as an easy thing to abolish from a political stand point? The destruction of dogs on appearance is stupid, ok check them out but if they pass a temperament assessment that should release them from concern IMHO

[BarbedWire]

Personal liability worries. They are scared that if they sign off a dog as an Amstaff and then the dog is involved in some kind of incident that the authorities will say it's a Pit Bull and they're liable for signing it off.

I disagree with that. A vet isn't liable for signing off a dog as environmentally safe, they are signing off on breed, so if they can't scientifically prove a dog is a Pit Bull and they need to employ a visual test which the Amstaff fits, they can't scientifically prove that a dog isn't an Amstaff to prosecute a vet for an incorrect breed assessment so they have nothing to worry about. It just takes a vet brave enough to sign a piece of paper and not hide behind lip service to free a dog unfairly subject to euthanasia by appearance. If someone had a dog fitting the visual description and produced a vet declaration as an Amstaff to an ACO, compliance would be more the nature of the exercise not questioning the vets breed assessment. An ACO can't seize a dog fitting the visual description when the owner produces an Amstaff declaration as ownership the dog then complies with legislation whether in fact it is a pure breed Amstaff or not?

BSL is about Pit Bull restriction as the other listed breeds don't exist if they do it's a miniscule number, so perhaps it should be about freeing the Pit Bull from the list, not the abolishment of BSL? The GSD Club freed the GSD from the list when subject to BSL by breed promotion proving to politicians that the breed was safe where they consequently overturned the restriction. What people don't understand is abolishing BSL means the introduction of more supposed dangerous breeds and that will never happen.....the first one who gets chomped by a Dogo or Fila it's going to hit the fan big time......no one is going to abolish BSL entirely for the introduction of breeds that are not here in the first place to cause a safety concern. It's not only about Pit Bulls, it also about opening the gate to the rest on the list and who in reality is going to do this to appease a small number of anti BSL supporters versus the greater community?

Someone told me about 5 years ago that a Pitbull breeder ran a litter off Amstaff papers.....not sure the truth in it, but the breeder for some time now has produced working line Amstaff's......bit naughty, but pretty smart legalising Pit Bulls from another angle :D

This is a very interesting discussion and I am out of my depth but (see bolded part) I just wanted to know what do working Amstaffs do?