Strict New Dog Laws

[Zereuloh]

Sorry if this has already been posted here, just came across it and couldn't find it listed and thought i'd post it here to see what everyone's thoughts were

http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/17912968/victorian-government-to-introduce-strict-laws-for-owners-of-dangerous/

[Dory the Doted One]

Sorry if this has already been posted here, just came across it and couldn't find it listed and thought i'd post it here to see what everyone's thoughts were

http://au.news.yahoo...s-of-dangerous/

Just how thorough are they or will they be in their investigations of incidents? I'm really curious. What if the 'attacking' dog was provoked in anyway? It all looks grand and good on the surface, but I can see a time when people are going to feel really anxious about any social contact with others 'just in case' something goes wrong.

[Rascalmyshadow]

Sounds like its going to be scary just to take our dogs for a walk. Seems Mr Walsh is peeved that so called pitbull owners are winning court cases.

[Ronda]

its in the hearld sun as well

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/pet-bans-jail-time-for-irresponsible-dog-owners-under-new-government-crackdown/story-fni0fee2-1226675633767

[curly]

I'd want to know if these proposed laws would apply to all dogs? Would that little fluffy mongrel that gave me a deliberate, aggressive, painful bite be declared dangerous and it's owner banned? Bet it would only apply to big dogs. Specifically, big, 'scary' looking dogs.

Sorry kids, I can't let you pat my dog, I have to protect him.

[Dory the Doted One]

I'd want to know if these proposed laws would apply to all dogs? Would that little fluffy mongrel that gave me a deliberate, aggressive, painful bite be declared dangerous and it's owner banned? Bet it would only apply to big dogs. Specifically, big, 'scary' looking dogs.

Sorry kids, I can't let you pat my dog, I have to protect him.

That's pretty much how I feel, when I read the article.

[Trisven13]

But, as Devil's advocate, if there are people out there with dogs that have TWENTY charges surely we don't want those dogs out there or, if it is more than one dog, those people owning dogs????? Based on the article.

[alpha bet]

But, as Devil's advocate, if there are people out there with dogs that have TWENTY charges surely we don't want those dogs out there or, if it is more than one dog, those people owning dogs????? Based on the article.

Exactly, often people here saying its not the dog's fault its the owners fault - There has to be ways to ban some people from owning dogs.... they don't deserve them.

[Tempus Fugit]

I'd want to know if these proposed laws would apply to all dogs? Would that little fluffy mongrel that gave me a deliberate, aggressive, painful bite be declared dangerous and it's owner banned? Bet it would only apply to big dogs. Specifically, big, 'scary' looking dogs.

Sorry kids, I can't let you pat my dog, I have to protect him.

There was a case in Ireland recently where a teacher allowed her OH to take the family malamute to school for the kids to see and pat 'as a treat'.

Result: A child mauled and the dog executed. Allegedly the dog had never shown any sign of aggression in the past.

One would hope in the case of the proposed Victorian laws that a 10 year ban would only apply to offences of similar severity to traffic offences meriting a 10 year licence disqualification.

Furthermore, while trumpeting harsher laws for dog owners, what is the Victorian Government doing to keep us safe from attacks by other humans?

eg recent items:

• Police have arrested a 28-year-old Reservoir man after a young mum was dragged into a laneway and sexually assaulted in North Melbourne.
• Expectant mum bashed, robbed : Seven News can reveal police are hunting yet another predatory man who targeted a vulnerable victim as she walked home, Cameron Baud reports.

[BoxerB]

I'd want to know if these proposed laws would apply to all dogs? Would that little fluffy mongrel that gave me a deliberate, aggressive, painful bite be declared dangerous and it's owner banned? Bet it would only apply to big dogs. Specifically, big, 'scary' looking dogs.

Sorry kids, I can't let you pat my dog, I have to protect him.

The owner should be banned, cause that owner who let that happen, can tomorrow go out and buy a mastiff and allow that same behavior from a much larger dog than that little fluffy mongrel.

Any time a dog attack is mentioned we read 50 pages on here how its the owners fault, 100%, and only the owners fault.

Off of that logic, i don't see the issue here?

Regardless of the size of your dog, if it attacks/bites someone you pay the price. It's pretty simple and i agree with it.

It's my job to 100% ensure my dog cannot in any circumstances bite someone, and if i can't do that, then it's on me. Right?

I completely support the ban on owners ANY time a dog bites. No issue with it.

The only part that concerns me is what happens to the dog in these situations

[Kirislin]

Pretty good incentive to control our dogs.

[megan_]

I'd want to know if these proposed laws would apply to all dogs? Would that little fluffy mongrel that gave me a deliberate, aggressive, painful bite be declared dangerous and it's owner banned? Bet it would only apply to big dogs. Specifically, big, 'scary' looking dogs.

Sorry kids, I can't let you pat my dog, I have to protect him.

Yes - the law applies to all breeds and a dog can be declared dangerous in Victoria for charging - no bite required.

I agree with Trisven. People who have dogs with aggression issues need to manage those dogs or not own dogs.

[RuralPug]

Pretty stupid making more laws when they don't enforce the ones already in place - or, worse, enforce them subjectively so that breeds damned by the media are prosecuted, dogs owned by the mayor's niece are not.

If leash laws were enforced with vigour and loose dogs collared with alacrity then 90% of attacks wouldn't happen. There are already laws in place here and there where a person can be banned from keeping animals under Cruelty to Animals legislation - result the next animal is "owned" by the spouse or other family member and is not registered anyway.

To prevent instances like people not being able to read their dog's warning signs (as in the Malamute in school incident above) more education is needed - both of dogs AND owners, especially about getting a properly socialised puppy in the first place and learning how to read a dog.

[Santo66]

Just how thorough are they or will they be in their investigations of incidents? I'm really curious. What if the 'attacking' dog was provoked in anyway?

The proposed law appears more about banning dog ownership of convicted irresponsible owners than a tightening of circumstances in which a dog may bite. Provocation is a statutory defence which depends on circumstances for example what has been tested at law several times is an off leash dog attacking a leashed dog in a public place, leashed dog injures or kills the attacking dog is an act of provocation as it's reasonable for the leashed dog to defend it's self from attack........the off leash dog's owner caused the incident to occur from not having effective control, breaching leash laws in a public place etc etc. In these circumstances, the leashed dog's owners are not held responsible for the injury or death of the attacking dog under defence of provocation.

Then there are negligence issues, like walking a dog on leash on a crowded footpath someone steps on dog's foot accidently, dog lunges and bites that person...........something like that can be blurry......did the dog owner need to be in such close proximity to other people with their dog??........common sense prevails as a dog owner to avoid that, don't place your dog within leash range of other people, a bit of responsible forethought and you easily avoid these situations which in time become second nature when handling dogs.

especially about getting a properly socialised puppy in the first place and learning how to read a dog.

Socialisation isn't bullet proof either which can mask a dog's genetic instincts.......dog tolerates people due to socialisation but is not genetically stable and owners become negligent thinking their dog is great with people when in fact it's not.......something happens, dog reverts to genetic response and bites someone.........again reading the dog and knowing your dog can avoid these situations.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Santo66

[Silvawilow]

But, as Devil's advocate, if there are people out there with dogs that have TWENTY charges surely we don't want those dogs out there or, if it is more than one dog, those people owning dogs????? Based on the article.

Exactly what I was thinking!

[Maddy]

I think it has the potential to be a very good piece of legislation, depending on how it is enforced.

As has been said already, owners are the ones at fault so it makes a lot of sense to punish owners, provided they've been given an opportunity to learn how to be a better dog owner. If that fails, go ahead and ban them. Of course, in some cases, I think an immediate ban is appropriate (like the staffy/pom story) because it showed a level of negligence in regards to public safety that can't be excused.

The laws would mean that the average dog owner has to be more careful about what their dog does in public but frankly, I feel that's a good thing- there are plenty of clueless average dog owners out there who make walking dogs in public (especially dogs who need a bit of space), very unsafe and unenjoyable.

[mantis]

I think it has the potential to be a very good piece of legislation, depending on how it is enforced.

As has been said already, owners are the ones at fault so it makes a lot of sense to punish owners, provided they've been given an opportunity to learn how to be a better dog owner. If that fails, go ahead and ban them. Of course, in some cases, I think an immediate ban is appropriate (like the staffy/pom story) because it showed a level of negligence in regards to public safety that can't be excused.

The laws would mean that the average dog owner has to be more careful about what their dog does in public but frankly, I feel that's a good thing- there are plenty of clueless average dog owners out there who make walking dogs in public (especially dogs who need a bit of space), very unsafe and unenjoyable.

Exactly, it's like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

Councils don't enforce the laws now, which is why there are still dog attacks, enforce leash laws & proper fencing, dog attacks would drop significantly.

I'm also for people having to get a license to own a dog.

[Maddy]

I think it has the potential to be a very good piece of legislation, depending on how it is enforced.

As has been said already, owners are the ones at fault so it makes a lot of sense to punish owners, provided they've been given an opportunity to learn how to be a better dog owner. If that fails, go ahead and ban them. Of course, in some cases, I think an immediate ban is appropriate (like the staffy/pom story) because it showed a level of negligence in regards to public safety that can't be excused.

The laws would mean that the average dog owner has to be more careful about what their dog does in public but frankly, I feel that's a good thing- there are plenty of clueless average dog owners out there who make walking dogs in public (especially dogs who need a bit of space), very unsafe and unenjoyable.

Exactly, it's like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

Councils don't enforce the laws now, which is why there are still dog attacks, enforce leash laws & proper fencing, dog attacks would drop significantly.

I'm also for people having to get a license to own a dog.

If I had one wish..

We see it all the time at the area we walk- there's a fenced offlead area about two minutes walk from the carpark, the rest of the area is onlead as it's also a native water bird reserve but people get out of their cars (right next to the multiple signs about dogs being leashed) and let their dogs off, as if the law just doesn't apply to them. Sick of seeing it, sick of my (leashed) dogs being rushed, sick of hearing "oh, he's friendly, he just wants to say hello" as their dog starts to posture at mine

[Nekhbet]

Oh yay more laws for Victoria. Like we fecking need them, we've smothered the state to death when it comes to dog matters. We even banned the methods for controlling big powerful animals too. Genuis, big clap for another propaganda shitstorm from the Victorian government.

[Ruin Maniac]

My biggest concern is ***holes reporting dogs for "charging" them because they don't have to prove it happened with a medical bill. I know some people who hate dogs enough to file a false report. There was a discussion regarding dogs on our campus the other day and it's unbelievable the amount of fear and ignorance people had of the animals. They were advocating that dogs shouldn't be allowed in public at all.