QLD is Cracking Down on Dangerous Dogs, But Some Say Banning Them is Complicated. ABC News 6/10/23.

[Deeds]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-06/queensland-dangerous-dog-breed-bans-attacks-explained/102763790

[tdierikx]

"Alison Smith, from the Local Government Association of Queensland, says a key recommendation is to fast-track decisions and appeals against seized dangerous animals."

 

It doesn't say that at all... what it actually proposes is to limit or negate any appeals against a decision made by authorities regarding a visual identification of a dog to be of a certain breed or mix of same, and results in a destruction order being made based on that visual observation. Apparently councils are currently saying it's not feasible (or humane) for them to hold an impounded dog for the length of time it takes to go through the proper legal processes before they can summarily destroy it. One wonders how bad council facilities are to deem them an inhumane place to hold an animal whose fate is in the balance.

 

There is also the fact that the actual legislation hasn't been presented yet, only a discussion paper has been presented for public "consultation".

 

The survey question regarding limiting appeals is as follows...

 

"Survey question 7 - Do you support limiting when appeals from external review decisions (QCAT) about a destruction order can be sought by owners, including placing  greater responsibility on owners to offer proof otherwise?"

 

Think about that wording... it blatantly places the onus on the dog owner (defendant) to prove their case, rather than the prosecuting body proving guilt. That is NOT how the legal system in this country actually works - although when it comes to animal related matters, it certainly seems that defendants are presumed guilty from the outset...

 

One needs to ask who was actually on the "taskforce" that produced these recommendations... the only info that my group (Animal Care Australia) could get when we asked was that DAF and RSPCA QLD were included... no confirmation that the Australian Veterinary Association, or Dogs QLD, or any other actual body representing the animal owning population had any input. Is it any wonder then that recommendations to make prosecutions easier and without appeal have come up?

 

An interesting point is that if the legislation is formed in such a way that it uses regulations to identify which breeds are subject to banning, then other breeds could summarily be added to those regulations at any point in time WITHOUT any public consultation. How long do you think it will be before other breeds are added surrepticiously by government in reaction to media reports of attacks? Case in point the 2 recent reports of Rottweiler attacks in Perth and Sydney... if Qld lists banned breeds in regulations rather than in legislation, then they could easily just add Rottweilers to that list without any consultation... or GSDs, or Labradors, or any other breed they deem "dangerous" for spurious reasons.

 

Just some food for thought...

 

T.

[grumpette]

And I thought that Victoria was backward when it came to it's dog laws 

[tdierikx]

6 hours ago, grumpette said:

And I thought that Victoria was backward when it came to it's dog laws 

 

Considering the bruhaha with RSPCA QLD corruption and illegal dealings with targeted peoples in recent years, yet the state government is still deferring to them in animal welfare related matters... beggars belief really.

 

You just know it was RSPCA and councils that put forward the no appeals part of this stupid "proposal"...

 

T.

[asal]

doesnt look like any progress being made in recognition "rspca" stands for corrupt.