Erny

Nor should you, nor any of us. It is not fair.

Ok - I've just spent today until now, finishing off what I hope is a letter which makes sense and doesn't ramble toooooo much. My problem is that when the Government put up laws that are erroneous, I can't help but assume they can't see how they are erroneous, so I am compelled to explain it to them, give them examples, etc. etc. I've asked many 'please explain' type questions in my letter as well. But these will most likely just be added with the other of my letters that are comprised of questions and which still have not been answered. Hopefully though, these explanations and questions will assist Members of the Opposition to understand how these laws can unfairly impact and also arm them with some of the questions that need to be raised when the proposed Bill is debated. I'd post the letter up here, except that it proved to be 8 pages worth - a tad long for here. But if anyone wants it, feel free to PM me with your email address and I'll send it. I need a coffee break and my poor neglected dog needs to come out for a walk. ..... But oh no!! Can't go. Can't find his plastic Council tag. Now that's a conundrum. What about that Council by-law that strive/d to make a 'one walk a day' mandatory? Fined if we do. Fined if we don't? Photo curteousy of AnnieK, who came out yesterday to take some shots. It was freezing and we about got blown away with some of the wind gusts. AnnieK LOL ..... told you it was windy.

I'd think the same. That's great, Grumpette. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would have thought the definition should be prescribed by the Government and suitably clarified, rather than granting an "applicable association" the power to set definitions that would impact the public. If they did that, then at any time VicDogs had a meeting, they could easily change their definition, which would leave many people who were encompassed into the 'elite' group (let's not forget there will be many who are undemocratically and negatively biased by this law), out of the protection they thought they had. Apart from the fact that this law shouldn't even be in any set of proposed Bill, be it this one or any future one. All that aside, it is likely/possible that the Bill will be read next week, with Parliamentary sitting commencing on Tuesday. So regardless, a response may not be available from VicDogs in sufficient time. But it would be interesting to read their response. Mind you - this is completely silly. It is a stupid law that shouldn't have been written in, in the first place and we shouldn't even have to be discussing it as though it has any merit. It's quite an insult, really.

In case it was missed, this was my other question : "Also, we don't know, do we, if what the Government defines by "exhibited the dog for show purposes" extends to trialling, agility competition etc. etc.?" Anyone know (for certain)? Or is this a definition we need to ask the Government on?

Well, you said it twice, so you must be sure about that.

Thanks Steve. Would be good if you could check those 'things' out and let us know when you can. In the meantime, I edited my preceding post with the addition of a further question. You were too fast for me : But going to now (just finished meal preparation for my dog's food tomorrow - running a bit behind with time, as we all do and often are). I'll check back here tomorrow.

Yep - that's what I thought. Thanks guys. Makes it a very narrow playing field, doesn't it. A complete mandate. Also, we don't know, do we, if what the Government defines by "exhibited the dog for show purposes" extends to trialing, agility competition etc. etc.?

Could someone help me out here with an explanation please? From "the Brief" : What could be the possible variations on "applicable association" ?

This is exactly my argument. We don't need to entertain the argument of "not fair" (other than the fact that it does reveal prejudice and discrimination allowances). The point is, it is a stupid and unnecessary law. If a person is with their council-registered and microchipped dog who is under effective control of their owner/handler in an area that is designated off-lead is more than easily identifiable. I know that first-hand. So with all of the above having been ticked on the check-list, what is so necessary about having a plastic tag? What makes this particular component of the proposed law even more laughable is that if the person in charge of that dog has the tag on their person but not on the dog, the fine can still be imposed. (*cough* unless you and your dog is a VicDogs member, of course). So, what difference did the wearing of the tag on the dog have compared to not, when all else was easily able to be ticked off the check list anyway? I agree Steve. Something is very off kilter. ETA: Come to think of it ............ if Council Registration along with the dog having to wear its tag is so absolutely and mandatorily necessary (because if it wasn't, why is the Government pushing for these fines), then what's the point in microchipping as well? Don't take this the wrong way - I think chipping is good because all of us logical owners understand that there are times when it is safer for dogs to not wear collars, or where those collars or tags accidentally come off, but I'm trying to view it from the angle that the Government is forcing us to view it as a result of these laws. We have to microchip to ID our dogs or we cop fines and our dog could pay the penalty with his life. AND We have to have an outside plastic tag to ID our dogs or we cop fines and our dog could pay the penalty with his life. What next? Will our dogs have to start complying with the "100 points" system that opening bank accounts have? The plastic tag thing is simply over-kill. Serious pun intended. ETA: And ok .... back to the VicDogs matter. The Council Officer comes across a person and his/her dog whilst they are out walking in an off-lead designated park area somewhere within that Council's precinct, does all the ID checks and balances on the dog but notices the dog is not wearing its tag. The owner says "oh wait, I have the tag in my pocket". The Council Officer says "that's not good enough - it must be on your dog and it isn't so I'm going to penalise you $240.00." The owner says "oh no .... it's ok. I and my dog are VicDog members and I exhibited my dog at a show within the last 12 months." How is the Council Officer going to be able to check that one out? Is s/he going to spend time making phone calls to Vic Dogs? What if it is outside VicDog hours, or you get their answering machine and have to wait until they can call you back? Will owners now have to go around with their VicDog ID in their pockets? Oh - and also with their "show card" to prove they exhibited their dog in a show in the last year? What if they forget it? Will they bring in a law that says they can fine you for not wearing your VicDog member's ID and for not having your "show" card on you? When will any of this ever stop?!!!

Jed !!!! Awesome!!!! Welcome back!! And, to keep to topic ............... what you said .

Only if you, your dog and your location at the time fit the other of the criteria. It remains discriminatory though. It means that people and their dogs who belong to a dog fraternity (ie VicDogs) and who exhibit their dog/s by having shown it at least once in the preceding 12 months get special privileges in the eyes of the law. When someone else (or even the same person) with a different dog even though in the same location doing the same thing/s, is not entitled to those privileges. Law that discriminates, to my knowledge, is illegal. This aside from the fact that the proposed law on council tags being worn by dogs even though those dogs are with their owners, is completely dumb and proves no beneficial service the the community or anyone else, other than it is a lawful way for authorities to pinch you for money. This proposed law, IMO, shouldn't even be being entertained. At all. To do so somehow honours it with some worth. And the point is, there is no worth in it, as far as I can fathom.

Good idea Erny, Perhaps it might pay for an AST owner to enquire. I'd be asking the president so you get it straight from the horses mouth. And in writing, so that accuracy of communication isn't lost a long the way. Anyone able to do this?

I've started a new thread for the above more recent posts, Steve. I trust that's ok with everyone? Not because I don't welcome this information here - I do. But because I think it is relevant for not just Victorians and the plight we have running at the moment, but for everyone, wherever they are. And for their dogs, whatever they might be.

Steve Are you saying that people with a x breed or one of those nasty Restricted Breed dogs can also join MDBA? I thought you were just another purebreed organisation. Not that my dogs aren't purebreeds, they're just not recognised by the ANKC. Good heavens I hope you're not serious! In the beginning all of the original board of the MDBA were members of the EDBA in fact they were office bearers of the EDBA and founding members and part of the reason we set up was to join everyone together to have a united voice. Power in numbers and demonstrate that our members could be trusted to do the right thing by the community and the dogs they owned. Our breeder members are purebred breeders but that includes breeders of breeds which are not recognised by the ANKC. Our pet owner members own all manner of breeds and cross breeds and our rescue members rescue both purebred and mixed breed dogs. We wanted to gather responsible dog owners,breeders, rescue and canine professionals under one umbrella with opt in codes of conduct to be able to ask for exemptions and similar with government because our members have somethings that no other org has - unity where we have dogs in common regardless of breed or part thereof and a voluntary membership.it means when we go in we represent all dog owners and not just those who belong to one group. So in answer to your question we welcome all dog owners who can agree to our codes of conduct. Up until now we have been in and fighting and sometimes we even smell victory in our nostrils but we have been capped at the post by the piddling boys because they have CC support and do deals all over the place because of the numbers. So please, x breed and restricted breed owners by all means apply and come join us. Its only $22 . Thought I'd start a new thread for this. It is relevant to what us Victorians are trying to deal with at the moment, in regards to our laws and the proposed (more) laws the Victorian Government want to bring in to add to the patchwork quilt they've already created. But it is also relevant for everyone else as well, and as such, believe that it deserves separate attention.

Perhaps we can ask VicDogs for confirmation?

Yes people. Please do. It doesn't cost much to join and many voices build the strength of one.

I don't know, and it is a question I have raised in the most recent letter to Government that I'm in the throws of compiling at the moment. It strikes me as not, Mita Also, get this : The proposed Bill is purported to be about being a responsible dog-owner. VicDogs purport similar. So, Jane/John Doe have a VicDogs registered pure bred dog and also own a mixed breed and/or ANKC unrecognised dog. Jane/John Doe show their pure bred dog, but obviously don't show the mixed breed/ANKC unrecognised dog. Both dogs are Council registered and microchipped. Jane/John Doe are in a public place with their dogs each on lead. But the dogs aren't wearing their plastic council tag. (Could be for whatever reason - won't make a big deal about that because it simply shouldn't matter.) Council Officer approaches Jane/John Doe and successfully scans the dog for a chip. Council Officer asks Jane/John Doe to give ID info, which Council subsequently punches into one of their hand-held mobile thingies. Result confirms both dogs are registered. Council Officer points out the law and says to Jane/John Doe that they have to pay a penalty for the mixed breed/ANKC unrecognised dog not wearing its plastic tag, even though ID has been able to be confirmed (could even be that Jane/John Doe have the Council tag in their pocket - wouldn't matter). But the other pure-bred VicDog member dog isn't subject to a fine, because he strutted around the show ring sometime in the past 12 months. My questions? What the heck has anything of this got to do with or lead to promoting responsible dog-ownership? What the heck benefit does any of this provide the community (ie if the mixed breed dog WAS wearing its plastic tag) ? I simply do not get it and it alarms me to think that something so punitive and unbeneficial can make its way into even being proposed as law. The ONLY way I see this one is that it is a lawful means for the Government/Council to extract more money out of people and dogs that aren't doing anything wrong and who are quite potentially doing everything right. Astounding.

I'm no computer funky ..... I thought it did an auto download. But now I'm trying to find how to bring up the download box to check. I'm probably wrong. I have a hard copy and it's been scanned in page by page, so I have it 'saved' that way.

From "The Brief" : From "The Brief" : Thanks for explaining, Imwvic. So, currently, "the panel" doesn't really comprise of any person who is "expert" at breed ID of these dogs. That's bad as it is. What sort of 'panel' of people are we likely to be able to expect when this reign is handed over to VCAT?

Unfortunately, the link 'broke down' :D whilst I was still working through it and before a 'save'. I managed to print a hard copy of it though, and it is from that which I quoted much of it in my preceding posts. I didn't include the first few pages, which was a pre-amble of the current laws/restrictions of the Act.

If it's not written in the law, then that's not a given.

I think it is no mean feat to get yourself and your dog to Masters Agility level. Well done. You're obviously doing something right.

What does that stand for? Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, I think. It's about teaching/encouraging people to focus on positive things rather than on negative things.

Continued from Post #287 Page 20 Views of Stakeholders Wonder how Graeme Smith knows the numbers of "Pit Bull Terrier types" - what does he think a "Pit Bull Terrier type" is? --- The remainder of the brief goes on about "other jurisdictions" (NSW, NT, QLD, SA, WA, ACT and TAS; as well as NZ, Norfolk Island, United Kingdom and America) and what they can do in terms of declaring dogs dangerous; restricted dogs; bite stat estimations etc. This comprises 5 pages of the brief (14 through to 18). The remaining pages is a compilation of the reference sources for the information used as the basis of the brief (and I assume, the Bill). What is notable is how many sources for the basis of forming this proposed Bill are media sources (Herald Sun, etc). Ok - having done all of this here, I hope it has helped those who have the desire to more fully understand how this proposed Bill WILL affect you and your dogs, no matter the breed. I also hope that you will post your comments to any or all of the specific parts of the Bill (please quote the parts you are referring to for ease of reference). I am in the throws of trying to put together another letter (which will be directed to every Member of Legislative Assembly) and there are some parts I simply am either blank on, or am too gobsmacked to think straight on them. Your thoughts may help me include comments that I might not have thought of. I also hope that what I've written in posts #283, #287 and #288 might help and inspire you for your own bout of letter writing. Remember - Parliament sits again come Monday and this proposed Bill may very well be debated in that sitting period. Also remember that it is election year. Your voices need to be heard now, as every voice represents a *vote* and it will prove notable how many of those *votes* may be potentially lost if the Government don't take heed of our concerns and opinions.