mikebailey

I don't think it could hurt to make submissions to the media. - Mike

I include the list to all members of the Legislative Assembly at the bottom. Let them all know. :-) - Mike

Great work people! Lawyers for Animals has put together a great submission. The NDTF have been fantastic in voicing their support for dogs. Bill Sykes office has informed me that they've been getting responses from individuals and organisations. As a vet, Bill seems to be taking a personal interest in this issue. It looks like we have two more weeks before it gets debated in Parliament. We should use this time to spread the word. Our politicians have dogs and may not realise how serious the implications of this Bill is. I've created a page with contact details of the relevant pollies.

I don't know, Mike. I've puzzled over that myself. What agenda, if they have one? It looks like we may have another couple of weeks to spread the word. For those who have a blog, website, facebook, etc, please add links to the following page: Concerns over Dog Law - Mike

In the conversation I had with VicDogs (when I was suggesting 'we' need to be stronger against this Bill and even to the other of the laws that have been allowed to be passed and that stifle what we can do with our dogs) it was implied that we have to be nice to Government and that 'we' (VicDogs) can't go in too hard because they wanted their relationship to be kept 'nice'. This was not verbatim and in fact the mention of it was only one small moment in time during our conversation. What is Dogs Vic leadership getting from this 'relationship' that justifies playing down real threats to their members dogs?

I was hoping there would be some discussion about this. I posted their response here earlier today. Do any Dogs Victoria members read these lists?

Did the envelope have a round window displaying the coin? Lort Smith sent me one like that recently. There must be a fund raiser using that gimmick. - Mike

PETA's kill rate is sickening. - Mike

This week Victorian Parliament will be debating the Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010. It affects all dogs and their owners in Victoria. My response to it can be viewed here. Peter Frost, president of Dogs Victoria, has been involved in the consultative process over this Bill. He's even on the state's Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. So why is he publicly proclaiming his support of the Bill and telling his members that, "These new laws should not provide a threat to DOGS Victoria members or any dog owners who responsibly care for their dogs in this manner." - Peter Frost, Dogs Victoria President Any owner, no matter how careful, can have a dog escape (tradesman or visitor leaves gate open, thunderstorm or fireworks scare dog). Fines of up to $1195 should not be given to responsible owners for a rare accident. An owner who is late in paying their registration renewal should not be fined up to $2395. This is also over the top for a minor offence. How much is the fine for running a red light? Which is more serious? The 'pit bull' provisions in the Bill present a risk to other breeds. The Bill allows that dogs fitting a description for 'pit bulls' will be treated as pit bulls, even if they are mixed breeds. It does not exclude AmStaffs or other breeds that look similar from being declared Pit Bulls. How can Peter Frost and Dogs Victoria support this Bill? They claim to only represent their members however in this instance I believe they are letting their members down. By sitting on the AWAC, Peter Frost should be working for the welfare of all dogs, not just purebreds. I'm sure a lot of Dogs Victoria members will be disappointed in the way their leader is handling this. - Mike

Goodfordogs.org has up to date information and analysis on Brumby's 'Dangerous Dogs' Bill. The Bill is listed for debate in the Legislative Assembly next week, sometime after 2pm, Tue 25 May 2010. They may not get to it on Tuesday. From memory it is item number 7. For background/updates, keep watching Goodfordogs.org - Mike