Rspca Australia Says Bsl Law Ineffective,

[Steve]

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2013/06/07/repeal_bsl/

VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA—Public outrage is growing in Australia (and indeed worldwide) over the law known as BSL, Breed Specific Legislation which is killing innocent dogs simply because of their appearance and their breed.

In the Monash Council, a young dog named Kerser received a last minute stay of execution on Monday and in the Cardinia Council, although conceding they were wrong before the Supreme Court, the government refuses to voluntarily dismiss the death edict against a family dog named Rocket.

Both dogs had been seized by the government and ordered destroyed simply because of a subjective decision that they “look” like a pit bull, a restricted breed.

Under Victoria’s BSL, the council can seize any dog that they deem to be a restricted breed and unregistered, killing them if they determine they match the standard characteristics of the banned breed.

Under a state law passed in September 2011, “dangerous dogs” are required to be registered, microchipped, spayed/neutered, and muzzled when in public.

Councils were given the power to destroy dogs whose owners failed to comply. The law automatically deems as “dangerous,” the American Pit Bull Terrier, Fila Brasileiro, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Presa Canarios.

The RSPCA Austrialia, (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), an organization that promotes animal welfare, has publicly challenged BSL in a letter written June 7 to Peter Walsh, Minister for Agriculture and Food Security.

A dog named Kerser is being housed at the RSPCA and was to have been euthanized on Monday at 5 p.m., the latest victim of breed specific legislation. Kerser was seized last December when he was just eight months old. Jade was given an hour to say her goodbyes to Kerser but miraculously, the Barristers Animal Welfare Panel intervened hours before Kerser was to be put down to help secure a 14-day stay, pending filing of appeal papers. The Panel has agreed to arrange counsel to conduct the appeal.His owner, Jade Applebee, had just moved into a new area and hadn’t had time to fence in her backyard. She got a knock on her door from an angry neighbor who gleefully told her that her prized baby Kerser was in the custody of the Monash Council because the neighbor had called the council’s animal control officers after finding Kerser in his backyard.

Unbeknownst to Jade, there was a rotten board in the backyard fence which Kerser had found and escaped the yard. The dog had caused no damage, had not bitten anyone, he was simply exploring having just moved to the neighborhood.

The ACO’s arbitrarily determined that Kerser, who Applebee says was sold to her as an American Staffordshire terrier, looks like a pit bull terrier, a breed banned in Victoria. They claimed that an inspection at the Burwood RSPCA pound had confirmed that Kerser was indeed a pit bull.

Applebee, 27, said she was shocked. She said the dog has never shown any signs of aggression and she believed the dog to be as had been represented which is not a prohibited breed. She says the seizure occurred just 24 hours before she had planned to register Kerser as she had just moved into her new home in Mount Waverley three days previous. Kerser had been staying with a friend.

Just a week previous to Kerser being seized, Monash Council had lost a similar BSL case at the Supreme Court level, a case on which they had expended $100,000 of taxpayers money to try and kill a dog because of its appearance.

The first Supreme Court challenge against a restricted breed decision of VCAT resulted in two death decisions against dogs named Baby (Rapta) and Tia being set aside.

The council was ordered to pay the $100,000 costs in hopes it would deter them from bringing similar actions but they did it again with Kerser, a case which has prompted international outage and demands for BSL to be destroyed rather than innocent family dogs.

A petition to SAVE KERSER, ROCKET & MYLO FROM BEING EUTHANIZED had gathered over 44,000 signatures as of Friday.

Mylo, an 11-year old child’s best friend, is yet another dog seized, deemed to be a restricted breed because of his appearance, who has been ordered to die. Mylo’s story is here: https://www.facebook.com/StopThemFromKillingMylo

Kerser’s Facebook page is here: https://www.facebook.com/FreeKerser?fref=ts

Rocket’s page is here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Help-save-Rocket-Another-victim-of-Victorian-BSL/323124094447754?fref=ts

It’s been over 15 months since Rocket’s owner, Arthur Kalamaras, has seen his beloved dog. He has only just recently learned where the dog is being held but he hasn’t been allowed to visit him.Rocket, a Staffordshire mix whose death verdict handed down by the Cardinia Council was vacated in December by the Supreme Court after the Council conceded defeat and was been granted a new hearing before a new administrative judge in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Two days of hearings have just concluded with supporters optimistic that at the next hearing on June 13, Rocket will finally be freed.

Rocket was seized last spring because based on his looks.

During a severe storm last spring, part of fencing surrounding the backyard of the residence where Rocket lives blew down. Obviously scared by the storm, he got out of the backyard but he didn’t leave the property. He wasn’t running at large, he wasn’t on “public” property. He went and waited on his own front doorstep for his owners to come home.

But someone saw Rocket patiently waiting and reporting the sweet, lovable innocent dog to the Cardinia Shire Council as being a loose dog. He’s since been under a death order, held in a secret location for the past 15 months.

As with Kerser, there is no history of problems or complaints involving Rocket. His situation is a one time incident that occurred due to an act of God, a weather-related incident and even though loose, he never left his yard, he wasn’t “running at large” as falsely charged nor is he a restricted breed as inadmissible DNA testing has shown.

The RSPCA letter to Minister Walsh follows:

The Hon Peter Walsh MP

Minister for Agriculture and Food Security

Level 20

1 Spring Street

MELBOURNE VIC 3000 By email to: [email protected]

[Guest Wildthing]

When will they ever learn????? (Council's and RSPCA)

[Christina]

Guess another lesson to be learned is

Don't call the council or RSPCA unless the animal would obviously be better off dead.

Who ever knows what the sad & tragic outcome can be & it doesn't seem based on any common sense either.

[Dame Aussie]

The RSPCA is trying to get rid of BSL, read the letter

[minimax]

I thought they were pro-BSL originally?

[Dame Aussie]

I'm not sure, if they were they've changed their tune!

[melzawelza]

They definitely were, and Hugh Wirth still seems to be fundamentally, but he's been gagged by the powers that be thankfully.

The RSPCA has been instrumental in the initial implementation of BSL, and have been disgustingly quiet in Victoria over the past 18 months, but I'm very glad to see them actually stepping up to the plate on this. Now all they need to do is refuse to euthanase dogs that have been seized purely on appearance.

[Dame Aussie]

Fingers crossed.

[Dame Aussie]

Gremlins!

Edited June 9, 2013 by Aussie3

[minimax]

They definitely were, and Hugh Wirth still seems to be fundamentally, but he's been gagged by the powers that be thankfully.

The RSPCA has been instrumental in the initial implementation of BSL, and have been disgustingly quiet in Victoria over the past 18 months, but I'm very glad to see them actually stepping up to the plate on this. Now all they need to do is refuse to euthanase dogs that have been seized purely on appearance.

Their profits must have been affected, that would be one of the only things to really encourage them to change their mind.

[mantis]

They definitely were, and Hugh Wirth still seems to be fundamentally, but he's been gagged by the powers that be thankfully.

The RSPCA has been instrumental in the initial implementation of BSL, and have been disgustingly quiet in Victoria over the past 18 months, but I'm very glad to see them actually stepping up to the plate on this. Now all they need to do is refuse to euthanase dogs that have been seized purely on appearance.

Their profits must have been affected, that would be one of the only things to really encourage them to change their mind.

Was just about to post that. I think they have realised it's hurting them financially, supporting BSL. All they care about is money, animals come second.

Edited June 9, 2013 by mantis

[Dame Aussie]

I don't care why they've changed their mind, I've never liked them anyway, but this is a good thing for the dogs. If it works that is.

[mantis]

I don't care why they've changed their mind, I've never liked them anyway, but this is a good thing for the dogs. If it works that is.

Agree.

[minimax]

I don't care why they've changed their mind, I've never liked them anyway, but this is a good thing for the dogs. If it works that is.

Agree.

To a degree, as long as they don't change their mind back just as easily.

[corvus]

I thought they were pro-BSL originally?

They were by virtue of the fact a couple of CEOs were. The majority of the organisation was never pro-BSL. A friend of mine used to be in a managerial role at the RSPCA and told me how hard he and his colleagues tried to persuade the very few people at the top that were forcing the entire organisation behind BSL that it was a bad move. They even put together a video showing a pitbull they had come through one of the shelters doing all the things pitbulls were supposed to not be safe doing. They sent it off and begged and pleaded and were basically told the dog in the video could not possibly be a pitbull BECAUSE it was obviously a great dog. You can't argue with that level of cognitive dissonance.

Those people are no longer there. I'm surprised the RSPCA haven't been pushing for a repeal. Probably a crapload more cognitive dissonance thanks to those who put them in the situation they are now in.

[Guest Wildthing]

The RSPCA is trying to get rid of BSL, read the letter

I did read the letter and was referring to the council who still want to kill a dog because of what may be incorrect identification. The council has already had costs awarded against them to the tune of $100,000.00, but they still want to proceed with another euthanasing on a dog that may not be covered under the BSL. Although RSPCA appear to be wanting to repeal the BSL legislation, they are just as likely to change their mind yet again. Hence my comments.

[Salukifan]

Took them long enough...

[GeckoTree]

Being pro BSL is not popular when everyone else was against it from the start, they kinda stuck out like a sore thumb. They changed there tune a few years ago. But still support it in BSL states through actions.

Actions speak louder than words, always have always will.

Edited June 9, 2013 by GeckoTree

[Dame Aussie]

The RSPCA is trying to get rid of BSL, read the letter

I did read the letter and was referring to the council who still want to kill a dog because of what may be incorrect identification. The council has already had costs awarded against them to the tune of $100,000.00, but they still want to proceed with another euthanasing on a dog that may not be covered under the BSL. Although RSPCA appear to be wanting to repeal the BSL legislation, they are just as likely to change their mind yet again. Hence my comments.

Oh yes, I totally agree about council. They're the worst offenders in this whole mess.

[JaneH]

The RSPCA is trying to get rid of BSL, read the letter

I did read the letter and was referring to the council who still want to kill a dog because of what may be incorrect identification. The council has already had costs awarded against them to the tune of $100,000.00, but they still want to proceed with another euthanasing on a dog that may not be covered under the BSL. Although RSPCA appear to be wanting to repeal the BSL legislation, they are just as likely to change their mind yet again. Hence my comments.

As far as the council is concerned - it is not their money - it is a money tree that they have - called ratepayers! They can spend and spend and just raise the rates and ancillary charges to cover the shortfall in budget.