Immediate Threat To All Dogs And Owners

[tdierikx]

"Relevant stakeholders" - meaning RSPCA and the like, who are traditionally the ones pushing this silly BSL crap, yes?

I'd like to see the state/national canine bodies stand up and lobby to get members onto committees like this... do something boody positive for your members FFS!

T.

[tdierikx]

OK - the Taskforce who came up with these recommendations consisted of... (from DLG website)

The Taskforce was chaired by the Member for Charlestown, Mr Andrew Cornwell MP, and consisted of representatives of the following organisations, invited by the Ministers to participate:

Animal Welfare League NSW,

Australian Companion Animal Council,

Australian Institute of Local Government Rangers,

Australian Veterinary Association,

Cat Protection Society of NSW,

Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW,

Dogs NSW,

Pet Industry Association Australia, and

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals NSW.

Looks like the groups who always call loudest for BSL had the largest representation... *sigh*

T.

[melzawelza]

OK - the Taskforce who came up with these recommendations consisted of... (from DLG website)

The Taskforce was chaired by the Member for Charlestown, Mr Andrew Cornwell MP, and consisted of representatives of the following organisations, invited by the Ministers to participate:

Animal Welfare League NSW,

Australian Companion Animal Council,

Australian Institute of Local Government Rangers,

Australian Veterinary Association,

Cat Protection Society of NSW,

Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW,

Dogs NSW,

Pet Industry Association Australia, and

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals NSW.

Looks like the groups who always call loudest for BSL had the largest representation... *sigh*

T.

The Taskforce didnt come up with any of these recommendations. They have essentially come out of nowhere and just been added in to the response to their actual recommendations.

The taskforce only recommended breed neutral stuff.

[~Anne~]

Now Plan B, your second post was more to order. Well done although you could still do with some improvement.

I don't recall saying anything about sitting back and waiting for a negative conclusion either. I swear you have a problem with comprehension.

I've been around for a while and I am not new to BSL. I've written countless submissions, met with political representatives, coordinated media releases, and was even once interviewed on national radio about the issues surrounding this legislation. I understand the issues. Terrifying people into thinking that their dogs are in imminent danger is not the response that I think this development needs.

[~Anne~]

OK - the Taskforce who came up with these recommendations consisted of... (from DLG website)

The Taskforce was chaired by the Member for Charlestown, Mr Andrew Cornwell MP, and consisted of representatives of the following organisations, invited by the Ministers to participate:

Animal Welfare League NSW,

Australian Companion Animal Council,

Australian Institute of Local Government Rangers,

Australian Veterinary Association,

Cat Protection Society of NSW,

Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW,

Dogs NSW,

Pet Industry Association Australia, and

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals NSW.

Looks like the groups who always call loudest for BSL had the largest representation... *sigh*

T.

The Taskforce didnt come up with any of these recommendations. They have essentially come out of nowhere and just been added in to the response to their actual recommendations.

The taskforce only recommended breed neutral stuff.

That isn't what the site states.

I find it difficult to copy and paste on my iPad but it states in the second paragraph that the "Government is pleased to support most Taskforce recommendations..." That to me indicates, or at the very least implicates, the Taskforce as being the one making the recommendations.

Edited February 4, 2014 by ~Anne~

[melzawelza]

OK - the Taskforce who came up with these recommendations consisted of... (from DLG website)

The Taskforce was chaired by the Member for Charlestown, Mr Andrew Cornwell MP, and consisted of representatives of the following organisations, invited by the Ministers to participate:

Animal Welfare League NSW,

Australian Companion Animal Council,

Australian Institute of Local Government Rangers,

Australian Veterinary Association,

Cat Protection Society of NSW,

Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW,

Dogs NSW,

Pet Industry Association Australia, and

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals NSW.

Looks like the groups who always call loudest for BSL had the largest representation... *sigh*

T.

The Taskforce didnt come up with any of these recommendations. They have essentially come out of nowhere and just been added in to the response to their actual recommendations.

The taskforce only recommended breed neutral stuff.

That isn't what the site states.

I find it difficult to copy and past on my iPad but it states in the second paragraph that the "Government is pleased to support most Taskforce recommendations..." That to me indicates, or at the very least implicates, the Taskforce as being the one making the recommendations.

Go read the taskforce recommendations. They came out last year. There are no breed specific recommendations contained within.

[~Anne~]

You mean this document?

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Companion%20Animals%20Taskforce%20report%20-%20Recommendations%20regarding%20dangerous%20dog%20management.pdf

[~Anne~]

I honestly haven't gone through it word for word but the recommendations match up on first glance.

[WreckitWhippet]

Sorry but there is no immediate threat to any dog that I own or breed. I might need to register annually and display a microchip when advertising but my happy well adjusted ANKC and Council registered dogs are in no danger.

[tdierikx]

So the answer is that people should only own pedigreed dogs as pets WIW?

What about those of us who actually prefer our mixed breed dogs for their "individuality" in looks? As long as said mixed breeds are of sound temperament, then it shouldn't matter that they may be made up of dog knows what breed background, no?

T.

[juice]

Until they list the dogs they are going to put on the list I am really scared, and don't forget breeds like the Rough collie were on the list in Italy I believe( sure I will be corrected), so cute looking fluffy dogs may not be except forever.

[melzawelza]

You mean this document?

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Companion%20Animals%20Taskforce%20report%20-%20Recommendations%20regarding%20dangerous%20dog%20management.pdf

Yes and the first one which was aimed at reducing euthanasia in shelters.

Many of the recommendations in the latest document were from the taskforce. None of the breed-specific ones were in there.

I've read it back to front numerous times and made a submission on it personally and on behalf of an organisation. These breed specific recommendations are not in there. You can either just believe me or read it yourself, it's up to you.

Sorry but there is no immediate threat to any dog that I own or breed. I might need to register annually and display a microchip when advertising but my happy well adjusted ANKC and Council registered dogs are in no danger.

You do realise they are looking to add more breeds to the menacing and restricted list? Why exactly do you feel your pedigree dogs would not be subject to this? They will be the first ones to be caught up as they are easily identified as of said breed. You do realise that pedigree dogs are banned and restricted in many countries around the world?

[~Anne~]

So which recommendations weren't made by the Taskforce? I'm not attempting to be difficult nor do I necessarily disbelieve you. If you can clarify where the Government has added in specific recommendations, that were not recommendations of the Taskforce, it might help readers understand what the issues are.

[melzawelza]

So which recommendations weren't made by the Taskforce? I'm not attempting to be difficult nor do I necessarily disbelieve you. If you can clarify where the Government has added in specific recommendations, that were not recommendations of the Taskforce, it might help readers understand what the issues are.

...... the breed specific ones in the original post.

Edited February 4, 2014 by melzawelza

[~Anne~]

Ok! I'll do it for you for the sake of members reading this post and trying to determine if they should be concerned and or what they can do about it;

-The above mentioned Group to consider and advise on applying the new ‘Menacing’ dog category, which has onerous and extensive ownership requirements almost as restrictive as the ‘Dangerous’ category, to other breeds of dog not already restricted. Menacing dogs cannot be rehomed.

I'm assuming the above mention group is the Taskforce? Who knows. However, you've said that the Taskforce didn't make these recommendations but the Government did.

The Taskforce recommendation reads:

Recommendation 1.1 - Amend the CA Act to introduce a “potentially dangerous” dog category.

The Government's response is:

Supported.

Implemented through the Companion Animals (Amendment) Act 2013.

Control category termed ‘Menacing Dog’.

Government will ask the Reference Group (see rec 22) to consider and advise on applying this category to specific high risk breeds.

Am I on the right track? You'll forgive me if I have to do it post by post.

Edited February 4, 2014 by ~Anne~

[Tralee]

Immediate threat to all dog owners. That's a little alarmist don't you think?

I raced into this thread thinking my dogs were at risk of imminent death.

I had visions of a murderous spree being undertaken by masked madmen.

I can well understand the concerns but whipping dog owners into a frenzy with irrational and broadly based statements will not help the cause in my opinion.

Not irrational and overstated at all.

Having been through the courts with Dangerous Dog Declarations I am under a serious threat.

I keep, and love, Maremmas.

My plans include a long and successful relationship over the few decades I have remaining with this divine breed.

I'm not opposed to going to live elsewhere.

This Planet Stupid stuff is just getting intolerable.

[~Anne~]

The next section of the first post states;

- The group to consider whether additional breeds should be added to the Restricted breeds list. Restricted breeds have even more onerous keeping requirements than Menacing dogs, with the addition of the requirement to keep the dog in a purpose-built enclosure in the backyard that restricts who can access the dog and costs easily $3-4k to construct. Restricted breeds cannot be rehomed.

Again, I assume the Group is the Taskforce? It doesn't fit with your statement though they didn't make the recommendation so I'm not sure until you clarify.

The Taskforce recommendation was:

As per my previous post.

The government's response is:

As for my previous post. I've highlighted what I think your post quote is referring to;

Government will ask the Reference Group (see rec 22) to consider and advise on applying this category to specific high risk breeds.

Yes, I can see some possible reason for concern here, but it is in the hands of the Taskforce it seems.

[~Anne~]

Just on the above post - the Taskforce recommendations contained in their report is very broad on this. While they don't mention expanding the list of breeds, they talk about a recommending a new category almost indiscriminately.

To me the Government's recommendation is not exactly conclusive and could also mean that existing restricted breeds might also be considered for the lesser 'dangerous' category of 'menacing' dogs.

[melzawelza]

Sigh. It's seriously not that hard. Open two tabs up, read the breed specific parts in the most recent document then go read the recommendation for that particular point in full in the recommendations.

But seeing as you insist I do it for you here we go.

Here's the first taskforce recommendation point in full:

RECOMMENDATION 1.1

Amend the CA Act to introduce a “potentially dangerous” dog category

Numerous councils have raised concerns about the level of discretion available to council

officers to respond to less serious incidents involving dogs. For example, there are concerns

about the appropriateness of a council declaring a dog to be dangerous if it has rushed at

someone (with no resulting bite or injury) on a single occasion. However, in such

circumstances the issuing of a warning to the dog’s owner may not be considered a strong

enough response.

In some circumstances, councils are able to issue a nuisance order on a dog, which imposes

control restrictions of a lesser nature on the dog. However, the ability of councils to issue a

nuisance order in the circumstances described above is unclear, as the relevant provisions of

the CA Act only apply to dogs that repeatedly run at or chase people or animals, or cause

substantial damage to anything outside the property which they are kept.

It is also noted that councils may apply to the local court to issue a control order under section

47 of the CA Act. Such orders require the owner of a dog take a specified action or actions

within the specified period to prevent, or reduce the likelihood of, the dog attacking or causing

injury to persons or animals. However, some councils have expressed concerns that such

orders are inconsistently applied by courts and that the process for obtaining such orders can

be onerous.

The Taskforce notes that the AVA’s Dangerous dogs – a sensible solution report (2012),

argues for the establishment of a “Potentially dangerous dog” category, attracting control

requirements that are less stringent than those applied to declared dangerous dogs. A tiered

approach to dangerous dog regulation is also included in Victorian and Queensland legislation,

which both provide a “menacing dog” category for dogs whose behaviour causes fear in a

person or animal but have not necessarily attacked.

Council representatives also strongly support tiered dangerous dog regulation and have

highlighted other advantages to such an approach, including:

• the potential for fewer dogs to be euthanased as a result of their owner’s inability to

comply with the stringent control requirements which apply to dangerous dogs

• a potential decrease in appeals and referrals to court by aggrieved dog owners

• a potential increased ability for some dog owners in lower socio-economic areas to

meet the control conditions due to the reduced cost of compliance.

The Taskforce recommends that the CA Act be amended to provide a “potentially dangerous

dog” category. This should specify the circumstances under which a dog could be declared

“potentially dangerous”, including where a dog is perceived as threatening or has been

involved in a minor incident (ie: where no injury has resulted).

The amended CA Act should provide specific control requirements for such dogs, of a less

onerous nature than those applicable to dangerous dogs. For example, the prescribed

enclosure requirements for “potentially dangerous” dogs should, as a minimum, be childproof

and prevent the animal’s escape but should not prescribe the same degree of restriction as the

enclosure requirements applicable to dangerous dogs. This also recognises concerns that

prescribed enclosures under the CA Act may, in some cases, exacerbate the aggressive

behaviour of such dogs rather than limit it.

As the discretion of councils will be crucial to the successful implementation of such a

regulation, it may also be appropriate for the Division to issue advice to councils on the

application of these provisions through the Guideline on the Exercise of Functions.

The Gov's response to that particular part (you know it's the same part because of it's number):

DD1.1 Amend the Companion Animals Act to introduce a “potentially dangerous” dog category. Supported Implemented through the Companion Animals

(Amendment) Act 2013.

Control category termed ‘Menacing Dog’.

Government will ask the Reference Group (see rec 22) to consider and advise on applying this category to specific high risk breeds

The bold is the part that was not recommended by the taskforce and added by the Gov in the response.

Second Taskforce recommendation that is linked to a breed specific response in the Gov's latest:

RECOMMENDATION 3.4

The Minister for Local Government and NSW Attorney General should write to the

Federal Attorney General to request that a cross-jurisdictional working group be

established to develop a national dog attack and dangerous dog database

When a dog is declared dangerous in another State or Territory, there is currently no

automatic notification mechanism for other jurisdictions. Anecdotal evidence suggests that

significant numbers of dangerous dogs travel between States undetected, and as a result may

not have appropriate control restrictions placed on them.

As highlighted in the AVA’s Dangerous dogs – a sensible solution paper, the development of a

national dog attack and dangerous dog database, accessible by enforcement officers in all

States and Territories, could significantly address this issue. This view was also supported by

the local council representatives consulted by the Taskforce.

A national dog attack database would also support the improved collection of dog attack data.

NSW is the only jurisdiction which requires councils to report dog attack incidents. Therefore,

national dog attack statistics are considered incomplete and do not provide a true indication of

the scale and seriousness of attacks that take place.

Other jurisdictions have previously flagged proposals to establish a national approach to

dangerous dog management, including a 2011 request by the former Commonwealth Attorney

General to relevant State Ministers to work together to establish nationally consistent laws in

relation to dangerous and restricted dogs. However, to date, this has not come to realisation.

It is therefore recommended that the Minister for Local Government and the NSW Attorney

General write to the Commonwealth Attorney General to suggest that a cross-jurisdictional

working group be established to develop a national dog attack database. Such a group may

form the basis for future work on other cross-jurisdictional approaches to dangerous dog

management.

It is noted that, while other Australian jurisdictions require dogs to be microchipped, only NSW

operates a centralised, mandatory register of companion animals. Other jurisdictions rely on

privately operated databases. This poses a range of privacy and data compatibility issues,

which would need to be addressed if a national dog attack register were to be established.

The successful implementation of a cross-jurisdictional working group on this matter may also

lead to future opportunities to explore other relevant issues including (but not limited to):

• greater consistency in approaches to dangerous dog regulation and enforcement

across jurisdictions. For example, a national approach to dog registration may improve

cross-jurisdictional enforcement outcomes and the ability of authorities to monitor and

respond to trends affecting human health, such as the outbreaks of animal-borne

diseases like babesiosis and Hendra virus.

• the development of protocols for the sharing of information about disqualified dog

owners between jurisdictions, to help prevent disqualified owners from other States and

Territories from acquiring dogs in NSW

The Gov's response. Bold is the part not included in the taskforce recommendation.

DD3.4

The Minister for Local Government and NSW Attorney General should write to the Federal

Attorney General to request that a cross-jurisdictional working group be established to develop a

national dog attack and dangerous dog database.

Responsible Pet Ownership Reference Group to

consider whether additional breeds should be added to

the restricted breeds list.

Following advice from the Reference Group, the NSW

Government will also write to the Federal Government

to request a review of restricted breeds listed in the

Customs Act 1901 [Cwlth] to encourage a nationally

consistent approach to this issue that better reflects

the risks posed by certain breeds of dogs.

^^ In fact, this conclusion has nothing to do with the Taskforce's recommendation!

Last breed specific recommendation:

A Consider requiring veterinary surgeons to report to regulatory authorities if they are called to treat/

attend to a dog which is a restricted breed which is not microchipped, registered and/or desexed

Additional

initiative

Consult with the Vets Practitioners Board about this

issue and mechanisms to progress.

This one is not linked to any part of the taskforce paper at all and specifically says 'additional initiative' so it can't really get much clearer than that.

Edited February 4, 2014 by melzawelza

[WreckitWhippet]

You mean this document?

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Companion%20Animals%20Taskforce%20report%20-%20Recommendations%20regarding%20dangerous%20dog%20management.pdf

Yes and the first one which was aimed at reducing euthanasia in shelters.

Many of the recommendations in the latest document were from the taskforce. None of the breed-specific ones were in there.

I've read it back to front numerous times and made a submission on it personally and on behalf of an organisation. These breed specific recommendations are not in there. You can either just believe me or read it yourself, it's up to you.

Sorry but there is no immediate threat to any dog that I own or breed. I might need to register annually and display a microchip when advertising but my happy well adjusted ANKC and Council registered dogs are in no danger.

You do realise they are looking to add more breeds to the menacing and restricted list? Why exactly do you feel your pedigree dogs would not be subject to this? They will be the first ones to be caught up as they are easily identified as of said breed. You do realise that pedigree dogs are banned and restricted in many countries around the world?

Because the deal was done long ago when Dogs NSW the then Canine Council made sure that ANKC registered breeds were exempt.

Providing my animals do not menace, rush, attack, then there is no danger to them being declared restricted or dangerous.