lmwvic

Petition for another dog heading to the Supreme Court at: http://www.causes.com/actions/1731598-free-bobo?token=Ra69T6vHMqrFKV0WBP9YQuKF&utm_campaign=activity_progress_mailer%2Fnth_action_taken&utm_medium=email&utm_source=causes Please sign and share

Great result in the Supreme Court. Both dogs (one with puppies) now home for Christmas. Another dog's Supreme Court Appeal allowed on basis of previous Supreme Court finding. At this stage Rocket is heading back to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for another review. Hopefully Council involved will see sense and send this dog home also! For more info see http://www.facebook.com/DogsOnTrialDOTVictoria

Yes, they may seize a dog for rushing. The relevant bits of the Act are as follows: s.29 29 Offences and liability relating to dog attacks (7)If a dog rushes at or chases any person, the person in apparent control of the dog at the time the dog rushed at or chased the first-mentioned person, whether or not the owner of the dog, is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty of not more than 4 penalty units. (8)If a dog rushes at or chases any person, the owner of the dog, if not liable for the offence under subsection (7), is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty of not more than 4 penalty units. s.81 81 Seizure of dog urged or trained to attack or having attacked (1)An authorised officer of a Council may seize a dog that is in the municipal district of that Council if— (a) the owner has been found guilty of an offence under section 28 or 28A with respect to that dog; or (b) the authorised officer reasonably suspects that the owner has committed an offence under section 28 or 28A with respect to that dog. (2)An authorised officer of a Council may seize a dog that is in the municipal district of that Council if— (a) a person has been found guilty of an offence under section 29 with respect to that dog; or (b) the authorised officer reasonably suspects that a person has committed an offence under section 29 with respect to that dog. They would be back with a warrant if the owner refused to hand over.

Pookie, Some of the information provided above is incorrect. Your dog CANNOT be declared dangerous as a result of a so-called rush. The Act has clear requirements for the declaration of a dog as a dangerous dog. Your description of the incident would only permit the Council to declare your dog menacing. Get a statement from your neighbour that your dog was called, responded and ran PAST the child. I would think this does not constitute a rush except to the two-legged bullies you are dealing with. After all, if the dog was rushing the child it would not have run straight past. With respect to the restricted breed declaration. If you do not win in VCAT your dog's declaration as a restricted breed will remain. However, you may register him as a restricted breed and take him home because he was registered (as any breed) with your Council and he was in existence in Victoria prior to September 1, 2010. There will be additional requirements such as the manner of housing that you must comply with. Best Wishes

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2012/03/09/home_for_venus/ © By June Maxam LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND—After being locked away from her owner for almost a year, Venus is going home! The death sentence lodged against Venus, a Staffordshire bull terrier cross, was vacated Friday in a Liverpool appeals court. A year ago this month, Venus, then a year and a day old, was seized by police under the United Kingdom’s draconian Dangerous Dog Act because she was arbitrarily labeled a “pit bull type”. In July, 2011, a judge ordered her destroyed and she’s been on death row since then. Her sister, born just moments apart, had been exempted under the UK’s breed specific legislation. An assessment video of Venus, conducted in July, 2011 by assessor Guy Richardson, some four months after she was seized, showed what a near-perfect, well-behaved, docile, socialized dog she is. It seemed clear that the original judge had seriously abused his discretion in issuing the destruction order. Venus, owned by Victoria Flynn from Kent,England, was seized with her litter-sister Athena in March 2011. Their ‘mum’ had travelled to visit relatives in Liverpool for the weekend, taking Venus and Athena with her, as she couldn’t bear to be apart from them. Last July, even after viewing the assessment view, the judge, one man playing God and perhaps with a personal bias towards pit bulls or maybe the owner, refused to accept the honest and open assessment, unrealistically decreeing that Venus was a threat to public safety and that she should be destroyed rather than be exempted and returned to her owner as Athena has been. The dog was seized by Constable P. Casson, “dog legislation officer” of the Merseyside Police. In the 13 minute long assessment video in which the dog is virtually terrorized by the assessor and yet remains totally docile and obedient, the assessor labels her as “friendly and quite well-behaved”. Athena had been returned eight days after she was seized as police decided she wasn’t ‘of type’, but they kept Venus under section 4b of the Dangerous Dog Act, despite both dogs being of the same litter. Athena’s owner was not allowed to collect her due to Venus being kept at the same kennels. Venus’ owner has not been allowed to visit Venus since she was seized in March and the dog has been held in captivity in a secret location. At the initial court hearing in July, Venus and her owner had no legal representation as because Venus’ assessment report was so glowing, it was thought she would be going home. Venus had passed her police and individual behavior assessments deeming her to be safe and a danger to no one. The judge however refused to take these assessments into consideration, seemingly hell bent to kill an innocent dog. Flynn was represented at the appeal on Friday. A behaviorist for the defense went toe to toe with infamous dog trainer Peter Tallack, the proescution’s witness but when the dust was settled, Tallack had his tail between his legs and Venus was headed home. The solicitor, who is also a veterinarian, insisted on Venus’ assessment video being seen by the judge to argue the point of measurements. The supporter said that judge denied the prosecution kennel costs totaling 240 pounds or about $376, from the date of seizure because he said the magistrates should have dealt with the case months ago. The judge praised Victoria’s care of the dog and said he had no qualms about releasing her once the dog was tattooed and the paperwork completed. The original appeal date for Venus in an effort to save the dog’s life was set for Sept. 26 in Liverpool Crown Court. Her owner was told she had to raise £3,000 to £4,000 to pay court fees plus £10 per day police kennel fees. That date was canceled and an appeal date was set for Dec. 21 which was also then canceled. A petition pleading for the court and government to return Venus to her owner and litter mate has collected over 13,000 signatures. 3-9-12

dog-owner, I am very very sorry for your loss. Ignore the self-righteous. It is not your fault (and it is not the fault of the dogs)-what has happened to you could potentially happen to any dog owner.

In this instance Nillumbik Pound operated by Nillumbik Council was not at fault. The Local Laws Officers / Rangers / Dog Catchers were Banyule Council employees. The dog was taken there out of normal hours. Banyule Council at that time contracted to use the facilities at Nillumbik to house their impounded dogs. Interestingly, I understand the two involved left Council employ shortly after to go, god knows where and do god knows what?????

No doubt about it. They were slaughtered!

The two "restricted breed" dogs were slaughtered also. Humanely of course! By the Council doing the Government's bidding.

This is the Age's version http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/tot-mauled-in-savage-dog-attack-20111117-1nkg3.html Tot mauled in savage dog attack Steven Talevski November 17, 2011 - 2:44PM At least three people - including a year-old baby boy - have been attacked by a savage dog in Melbourne's west today. And the child and a woman were only saved when a passer-by bundled them into his car as the bull terrier circled the vehicle in Burnside about 11am. Paramedic Mathew Singh said a man intervened and stopped the attack. "The dog had apparently attacked the boy who suffered minor scratches to his face," Mr Singh said. "The dog then turned its attention to the man who had stopped and attacked him but he wasn't hurt." The passer-by put the woman and the baby into his car as the dog was circling and threatening to attack and drove them to a nearby medical centre. “His efforts certainly reduced the chance of further attack,” Mr Singh said. Mr Singh said a neighbour who heard the commotion and came to assist was also attacked and suffered minor injuries. The dog was later caught by Melton Council rangers and the police. A spokeswoman from the Melton Shire said that the dog had been taken to the Melton pound where it will remain in custody until investigations by the Melton Shire and Victoria police conclude. Mauled=minor scratches and "The dog then turned its attention to the man who had stopped and attacked him but he wasn't hurt." ??????????????????????????????

Great effort shekhina! :)

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/dog-lovers-rally-in-defence-of-a-breed-of-their-own-20111020-1ma99.html Dog lovers rally in defence of a breed of their own Stathi Paxinos October 21, 2011 Veterinarian Karen Davies, with Sonny, a registered pit bull, dislikes breed-specific laws. Photo: Jason South JUST days after the Victorian government ended its amnesty on unregistered restricted-breed dogs, Point Cook veterinarian Karen Davies did something that hurt her more than anything else in her career. Her two decades as a vet has included a stint in the emotionally draining area of working with shelter animals. But earlier this month, she put down a healthy and seemingly well-adjusted dog because of the way it looked. Haunted by the experience, she posted an entry on her clinic's Facebook page, which read in part: ''Today for the first time in 20 years I am questioning if I still want to do this job. My staff and I are all in tears after having to put down our first pit bull under the new legislation. ''He had been dumped, by an owner who had put in the time for this magnificent dog to be friendly to all, shake hands and worse still licked my face with kisses as he passed … to the unknown dog that now sleeps in the arms of my staff with our tears, may life make you look different next time because in this life that was your only flaw.'' The comments were picked up online and posted on online discussion groups and Dr Davies has now been propelled into the front line of those fighting breed-specific legislation at rallies in Melbourne and Sydney tomorrow. She will be a speaker at the rally that will start at Federation Square and march to Parliament House to protest against the method of the crackdown on restricted breeds. Council officers are now able to use visual guidelines to seize and possibly put down a dog that looks like an American pit bull terrier or a cross if it has not been registered as a restricted breed. This has led to people dumping dogs on the street or at veterinary clinics, rather than complying with the requirements. ''Putting to sleep a perfectly healthy animal that would fit into any happy home for no reason other than he had a label on him because of his looks was dreadful,'' she said. Dr Davies and rally organisers believe that dangerous dogs of any breed should be destroyed. But they point to countries, such as the Netherlands and Italy, which have repealed breed-specific legislation, to argue that the current approach does not reduce dog attacks. In Victoria there are five types of dogs classified as restricted breeds, but dog trainer Brad Griggs, who has helped organise the Melbourne rally, said there was no science to back such policies. Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh said yesterday the government had been pleased with the way the regulations had been received, helping raise awareness in the community. ''My view is there has been overwhelming support for what we've done with the restricted-breed dogs,'' he said. ''People want to feel safe in their community from those particular types of dogs, and we have done that.'' He was not able to provide the number of dogs that had been surrendered, impounded or destroyed, or how many were subject to an appeal. ''It would be a number of weeks before the first lot of statistics come through,'' he said. The Lost Dogs Home's managing director, Graeme Smith, said he ''fully supports'' the government's move. ''I'm not going to stand by and see dogs kill other animals or people,'' Dr Smith said. ''I'm strong on it, and I won't [kowtow to] people who are trying to wreck the government's initiatives.''

Exactly. I have no issue with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club promoting the virtues of their breed (and incidently I am a Staffordshire Bull Terrier owner) but I find it offensive that they are prepared to denigrate another breed they most likely have no experience with.

When will the ANKC breed clubs get their heads out of the sand and start protecting all dogs regardless of their preferred breed??????

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-war-on-terrier-perfect-pet-or-killing-machine-20111001-1l331.html ONE is an outlawed killer, feared for its brutality. The other is the sook of the canine world, a favoured family pet, thanks to its seemingly bottomless need to show and receive affection. At first glance it can be hard to tell the difference, and for the owners of Staffordshire bull terriers, the state government crackdown on the pit bull terrier menace is making for nervous days. Already, Staffie owners deal with the nervous glances and hurried sidesteps as they go for a walk with their pet. Now they contend with an even bigger worry, as the public is invited to dob in dangerous dogs, and council rangers are told to identify problem breeds on sight, something even canine experts say is difficult. It's a problem Fiona Gillies knows well with her pet, Riley. ''Sometimes when we go to the playground with him, you clear the playground,'' she says. ''You'll see people pick up their small dogs and walk off. ''I was walking around the Tan with him and a ranger came up and asked me if I had the proper papers for the dog. Which we do, of course. People are very confused.'' The state government's dangerous and restricted breeds legislation is aimed at clearing streets and neighbourhoods of aggressive breeds, after a fatal attack on four-year-old Ayen Chol, of St Albans, last month. But there is concern that harmless pets and innocent breeds will be swept up in the campaign. As of last Friday, dogs deemed in the ''restricted and dangerous category'' can be confiscated and put down. Fiona Gillies & Holly with their family Staffordshire terrier Riley. Pic By Craig Sillitoe CSZ/The Sunday Age28/9/2011 The rush to amend legislation after the Chol tragedy worries Reece Fry, president of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club of Victoria, who has embarked on a campaign to help people recognise the differences between Staffies and the breeds being targeted. ''It's a knee-jerk thing, a typical government knee-jerk, thinking 'we better do something quickly','' Mr Fry said. ''People see 'bull' in the name and they assume you've got a bad breed. If they are going to do it properly and give council rangers these powers, they need to educate the rangers to recognise the breeds of dog. It's obvious the public has this misconception, and I'd guess many rangers have this misconception as well.'' It is of particular importance with Staffies, simply because there are so many of them, Mr Fry says. ''They are in the top five dogs in Australia as pets, and that's because they are loving, friendly and loyal. It's because of their nature.'' Mr Fry hates even talking about pit bulls and Staffies in the same sentence. ''Pit bulls have a much bigger head. They are generally just bigger. Staffies are shorter, they're not as long, they've got shorter legs, and their temperament is totally different to that of a pit bull.'' But concrete identification of any breed is difficult, experts say, even for vets. Cross-breeding, even in the distant past, can complicate identification. There are Staffordshire bull terriers, popularly known as English Staffies; there are American Staffordshire terriers; there are pit bull terriers; and then there are the cross-breeds, such as the pit-bull-mastiff cross that attacked Ayen Chol. Maria Mercurio, of the RSPCA, said the association had concerns about the new laws, in line with its policy that when it comes to dogs: ''We talk about the deed, not the breed. Any breed of dog can be dangerous.'' And when it comes to nailing a particular breed she is worried mistakes inevitably will be made. ''It's nearly impossible to say with any certainty,'' she says. ''And there is no DNA test that can tell with any certainty. This is not an exact science. Vets are saying, 'We're not going to do it.' It's too fraught.'' Susan Maastricht, president of the Victorian division of the Australian Veterinary Association, agrees. The association is seeking legal advice on the responsibilities and liabilities of vets under the new rules. ''The Australian Veterinary Association believes the legislation proposed in Victoria is not a long-term solution,'' she says. ''The risk is that this could lull the community into a false sense of security.''