Erny

Continued from Post #283 .... how can a Council Officer, who has ID\'d the dog, confirmed it as a \"declared dangerous\" dog, know or not know at the time that the dog escaped not at the reasonable fault of the owner? Isn\'t that leaving a lot of power for the Council Officer to be permitted to make assumptions, assumptions potentially based on nothing? I agree with this last (highlighted by me) part. That's how much more of our laws should be heading. Make it lawful that dog-owners DO something constructive, instead of banning things left right and centre. This at least is headed in the right direction. --- Ok - I think it is good that there is a right of review. But given earlier on in the Bill there is the law that will render any dog, no matter the breed, whose description fits the breed description standard of a restricted breed dog, will be deemed to be that restricted breed dog no matter what its breeding really is. So, this occurs, and then that dog's owner has the right to apply to the VCAT Review panel (not sure what fees are involved with that). Basically, the dog-owner has the onus of proof put upon him/her. Prove your dog to be innocent of being a restricted breed. If you don't then your dog will suffer the consequences of being a restricted breed. --- People with deemed "restricted breed dogs" are required to comply with the restrictions imposed on them (ID; housing; etc) within 60 days of a notice of declaration having been served. If a VCAT review is applied for though, the owner will have 30 days after the VCAT decision affirms "restricted breed" imposition. --- I'm more concerned, regardless of whether reviews are heard by the review panel or by VCAT, with the qualifications of the people who would be prescribed to review these matters. I have no idea on this - either from the past, present or future. Anyone who knows more on this, please enlighten me. --- Continues at Post #288 Page 20

This post deleted/edited because I've finished working my way through the Parliamentary Library Research Brief. Refer posts #283, #287 and #288.

Thanks - but the 'brief' is not the bill. There is more info in the "Brief".

From the Parliamentary Library Research Brief (which is now disappeareded ) : Which means that if the description of your dog, regardless of its breed, falls within the description of the standards for another (restricted) breed, then your dog is no longer the breed you thought it was (in the eyes of the law) but is one of the restricted breeds dogs. ---- If you have not registered your dog with Council by the time it reaches 12 weeks of age, the fine for not registering is increased from the current $1,168.20 to $2,336.40. If you forget/fail to renew your dog (or cat's) registration, the fine is increased from $1,168.20 to $2,336.40. ---- If a dog escapes your yard (even through no fault of your own) during the day, the penalty for that increases from $351.00 to $717.00. If a dog escapes your yard (even through no fault of your own) during the night, the penalty for that increases from $598.00 to $1195.00 (notably, seasons such as New Years Eve is going to be a very financially lucrative time for some orgs and authorities) --- So, this means that if your dog is out with you and isn't wearing its plastic council tag on its body (even if you have it in your pocket) then you can be fined. I think from memory the amount is about $240.00 - I need to back track to that bit of detail. BUT if you are a VicDogs member AND you have "exhibited your dog for show" in the previous 12 months, and you are in an off-leash area, then you are exempt from this law and immune to the fine. Is THIS why VicDogs are "happy with the proposed laws as written"? Do I need to get out there and strut my dog around the show ring once a year, and then I too will have amnesty from the imposition of this law, as far as it relates to designated off-lead areas? Somewhat discriminative, what? --- So, for any who have tubes tied, that won't suffice as "desexing" under the terms of this Bill. --- I'm not sure what the "amnesty" is about or from? And are they saying that if your dog is of a breed that happens to fit the description of the breed standard of a restricted breed dog, that it's up to you to take advantage of this amnesty period by declaring your dog to be one of the restricted breeds even though you know that it is not really that breed? (Refer first para in this post.) Ahhhh, ok - I think this next bit makes sense of what they are driving at with this "amnesty" thing (above) : ..... --- I don't know what to make of this one (above) - what it means; what it allows; how it could or would impact; etc. Anyone else have any thoughts or ideas about what it really means to us? --- Without a lawful definition of "likely" the word is rendered subjective, and open to interpretation by whoever it is that might have been empowered with the right to execute the animal. What the Bill does not specify is what qualifications those "authorised" persons have to have. For example, generally speaking, police have training behind them that helps them to think before they shoot and to know how to do it properly. Also, I'm a bit foggy on what method of destruction someone like a Council Officer (doesn't the Bill carry over the authorisation for immediate destruction to them as well?) carries on them for the purposes of destroying animals. Are Council Officers licensed to carry guns ..... even if the greater part of their job might be to place parking tickets under the windscreens of vehicles who have outstayed their welcome in designated timed parking bays? Help me out here - is there something I'm not seeing or something I am misunderstanding? --- Ok - so, the council plastic tag is missing for whatever reason, and the microchip doesn't scan. The Council only have to give 48 hours for the owner to come forth. That time period is HUGELY problematic in itself. One whole day can disappear before a dog is found to have been missing. It isn't necessarily going to be the case that the Council the dog is picked up by is going to be the same Council of the dog-owner's jurisdiction. The dog-owner can't rely on voice description of the dog to pounds over the phone - we all know that misdescriptions are not so infrequent. So a further and final day can easily pass. The owner IS identifiable, it's just that the harsh time restraints makes it near impossible and far less likely for the frantic dog owner to make him/her self be known. But according to this law, the owner wasn't identifiable in the prerequisite time period so the Council may go ahead and destroy. The other thing that is very wrong here is that there is NO GOOD REASON THAT HELPS THE COMMUNITY for the dog to be destroyed inside 48 hours as opposed to the 8 day period that is currently in force. WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS? The only thing I've been able to identify is that it will increase the potential for revenue gain for the Council and/or Pound. There is also that subjective word "likely" again, as well as subjective words "reasonably believed". I would also like to know from the Government what penalties will apply to the officers who are appointed with the power to destruct under the above terms, if those terms are breached? Are these people to be held as unaccountable to the people they hurt by wrongful destruction of their family pet? --- Am I just jaded by all of this? Reading the above, to me, is just pressuring the people who will be authorised with the power for the decision of destruction within 48 hours, to go ahead and make that decision quickly, before they run out of time for the 'right' to do so. What is all this 'haste' about? "Haste makes waste" is an old and very wise phrase. I'm really puzzled by this "hurry up" pressure the Government is applying and the fact that the Community is NOT further disadvantaged by the dog once it is impounded, whether that be for 48 hours or 8 days. There has to be a hidden agenda somewhere here. --- Again - perhaps because I'm jaded and distrusting of the potential for hidden agenda which seems to have sown its way in and through the laws under the proposed Bill. But .... reading the above, doesn't it go to follow that the Council would be more evidently held liable if a dog did cause serious injury? And if that is the case, doesn't this law place the Council Officer in a safer position to go ahead and destroy the dog, just in case his judgement call of "it should be ok" is in correct? And of course, there's the subjective wording of "reasonably believes" here as well. What accountability does the Council have to the residents of Victoria, the ones who own these dogs who are killed? I'm more concerned that the Bill DOES NOT assert as to the pre-requisite training that such a person authorised with this power must have before that power can be used. --- Continued in Post #287 ..... next page (20)

I was in the midst of working through this and needed to go back to it - but all of a sudden the link has disappeared with a "404" message instead. What the flick is going on!! Do they (the Govt) all of a sudden not want us to see it?? Am I becoming too paranoid?

That's an excellent idea! It is an excellent idea - and I'd do it myself. Right at this moment though I'm flat out reading the Parliamentary Library Research Paper, and trying to formulate something in writing from that with, as much as possible, a fine tooth comb approach. Also have another response to give my local MP (Luke Donnellan) as what he's responded to me with is not dissimilar to the response that Naturally Wild and Kelpie-i have both received from their own MP (Joanne). Must admit I'm a bit stressed at the moment. Too much on the go which HAS to be dealt with all at once. So I'd love to give a full account of where we are up to, but the developments keep happening rather than stopping to give me a chance.

Thanks ZA. I realise there may be more than what is represented in the "DOL poll" and to all those whom are working on it but aren't showing hands, good on you. Thanks for helping to spread the word and encourage responses. If anything is going to work, that will. And hold on to those letters, everyone - as we may well need them when/if the matter goes to Upper House (round 2). At least party numbers in the Upper House are a bit more even.

I've emailed Luke Donnellan, my local MP, again. He was going to find out some "reasoning" from the Government, for this proposed Bill. But perhaps Parliament and his good self has been too busy, as I've not heard from him. Hopefully he'll be able to come back to me soon.

I've already provided one or two short letter templates in this thread. (Refer Post #49 Page 4) And I've also provided the link to the letters that short letter refers to. (Also Post #49 Page 4) And I've also provided the link that provides all the names and email contacts for all the MLA's. (Also Post #49 Page 4) And I've also put up one or two of my own letters, so people can use them to copy/relate to, to assist with formulating their own letters. (Refer Post #150 Page 10) Appreciate the suggestion, SE7EN, but I'm not sure what more help I can provide? Although this thread has become quite lengthy, so I guess it would be easy enough for people to skim over and miss these. Would be great if you and many more of you could contribute. Numbers. We need numbers.

Stay tuned. I'm wondering if many of you realise exactly how serious and how bad these laws are. I'm really running so short of time - I have put much of my own work (work that helps me to pay my own dog's very very expensive food bills) on the back burner, working on much of this. Stuff I really didn't set out to take on or head-up, but too important to not. I need to re-read some stuff through, but there are some quite (more) alarming revelations to these laws that your Labor Government wants to bring in and I don't think enough people understand how it DOES and WILL affect your dogs. Parliament sitting resumes on 22nd June. That's the beginning of next week. MORE letters. SHOW them. I'm exhausting myself but those of you who haven't yet written, we need you. You need you. Your dog needs you.

Oooooh .... like valium?

And they do, which astounds me even more. What also is horrible and irresponsible on the Government's part is that it seems to be using and ready to rely on a lot of media reports as a basis for passing laws. Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness?? I think NOT. And of course, under the guise of "addressing community needs and expectations" the Government have been soooooo concerned about us that they are going to increase the amount of their portion of registration fees that are collected by Council from those of us who ARE responsible pet owners. Yet they try to indicate this law is not for the "responsible" .... it's to target the "irresponsible". Yep. Gotcha. Really. It is ALL ABOUT the responsible pet owners. One way or the other, WE will be the one's who pay - either through our pockets or at the expense of our dogs' lives. Or both.

Why do you ask, BD? Curious. And I agree - bad age for pup to have this happen, if it had to happen at all. Once he's physically well enough, enrolment to a reputable dog school with instructors who have canine behaviour knowledge under their belt, would be what I'd recommend. And ASAP. It will be a case of easy does it, but as fast as possible.

This is no reflection on you, Teal - perhaps more on the information given out (or not) by Vets (???) but I'm amazed at how many people who still think that vaccinating their dog to Canine Cough means their dog won't get it, and who are not aware that it is also an airborne thing, and who are not aware that there are 100's of different strains of it for which vaccination doesn't cover.

Some of the stuff written in this piece of information, which is available on the internet to the public via the Parliamentary Library Research Service, leaves me a bit gobsmacked : LINK TO 2010 Dangerous Dogs This just being ONE of those things : Go on. Have a read. As boring and as laborious as it might be. Then ask yourself questions of how this new proposed Bill is supposed to make things better for the community. Victoria - if you don't fight this now, then you invite it. If you invite it, you must want it. Lord only knows why.

Does your dog give you ANY indication of wanting to toilet? Even if it is the wrong indication? I don't know why, but in his younger days, my boy stood and looked towards the front door on one occasion. I (wrongly) suspected that he might be trying to tell me he wanted to go outside for the toilet. I confess to puzzling on it a bit, given that he has been taught to go out the back to toilet. I thought perhaps it was because this was the only spot he could be to indicate 'outside' where I could see him at the time. So I got up and let him out. I was wrong - he wanted to go outside because he'd left a toy out there which he obviously wanted back. From that one occasion, he began to repeat the behaviour. But instead of letting him out the front, I'd indicate towards the back door and open it for him, go out with him and give him the toilet command. Of course, a treat afterwards. He is now performing this behaviour to indicate 'toilet required' more often and more reliably. If he goes out but it isn't for the toilet, I do an about turn and come back inside. He's normally following me, but I ignore him and go back to what I was doing. He's only just now beginning to come to me (indicating frustration) if I'm not anywhere to see him looking to the door and on those couple of recent occasions I ask "you want to go out to the toilet?", he wags his tail vibrantly and we head straight to the back door. I'm hoping that he's cottoned on to this new communication between the two of us. I don't really think that using a clicker is that necessary - after all, what behaviour are you going to mark and is the dog pairing it with it needing to go to the toilet at all? If the dog performs a behaviour and you are able to respond correctly by letting him out, then the relief of being able to toilet where he has learnt (and is therefore the most comfortable) is in itself rewarding. As far as a doggy door is concerned, whilst that would solve the issue for your dog being inside when you're not home, it doesn't really teach a dog to (a) indicate to you his need to be let out for the toilet nor (b) to hold on until he has indicated and you can let him out. Doggy doors might be well and good and some might not care that their dog doesn't have to learn to 'tell' or 'hold on' ..... but it can be very annoying for someone else who you might have asked to look after your dog at their place on the odd occasion or two (or three). If your dog is inside when you're not home and therefore can't let him out, he's going to learn (if he hasn't already) to toilet inside, and would therefore be less likely to worry about trying to 'send you a sign'. Sometimes those 'signs' are really obscure, so you need to look for them if they are there at all, even subtly. Correct reinforcement (eg. your dog taking relief at having been able to go to the toilet where he'd prefer to - assuming outside) will have him repeat the behaviour and you are likely to find the 'indicating behaviour' not quite so obscure after a few correct repetitions. The 'sign' might not even be one that was intended by your dog, but if you are able to put 2 + 2 together and come up with 4, you might be able to pair the 'sign' with the 'action' (ie of him going out to the toilet) by sheer coincidental luck. But all this goes back to the first question of whether your dog gives you any indication at all. I think the main thing is that your dog is not put in a position where he ever gets to toilet inside, as why tell you he needs to go out if he thinks in his mind that it's ok not to? Not sure if all of that made sense.

I am a HUGE advocate of Active Manuka Honey for many ailments, including wound dressing . Although on paws? Apart from being very sticky and leaving marks wherever Jacko walks (ants would looooove that LOL), chances are it will cause him to licking his paws.

Are you certain these 'blisters' are just from his bout of running on concrete? If you are, then a thorough soak and cleanse with something antibacterial (I tend to use Calendula Tea for this, but some diluted iodine, betadine or a soak, cleanse and then a spray with some other antibacterial spray - colourless would be better so you don't end up with foot print stains on your floor), dry well and then a generous application of Aloe Vera Gel. I'm not a Vet - this is just something I would do with my own dog. HERE's a link to some paw conditions (with additional links so you can do a bit of surfing) that you might want to read up on, given that we can't see the 'blisters' on Jacko's pads to know whether to be more concerned than just casual.

Very much points out the lunacy. Hhhhmmm .... might pass this on to all the MLA's, just to show them that parts of their current laws are already flawed and ridiculous, and yet they now want to add layers on to that. Aaagh ..... Victorian dog laws - they need an enema.

Thanks guys . Good to see people remain interested and concerned. I have a letter that was one of the responses by an MP (referred to recently by Naturally Wild). The letter wasn't sent to me, but I've drafted up a response by using the powers of microsoft word ("comment" facility), which makes points to this MP's response, drawing attention to where the response is unsatisfactory. I don't think that I will be able to post it here though, simply because all of the format is going to disappear. So, if anyone has received this MP's letter (seems to be a 'standard' letter from the MP) and wants some help in working up a response, feel free to email me Pro-K9 and I'll send it through to you. Hope it works for you though - I use XP, so the comments I've made might be lost on another version of word. I don't purport that my response is the best one as I know there are others working on their own, but I know that reading other people's words can help in the forming of individual letters and responses when words fail. Won't be on this much today due to commitments but will be back to check in at some stage through the day and more so in the evening. Keep up the good work . Cheers Erny

That was a great routine - thanks for linking. Kind of makes a laugh out of those who think biting a sleeve renders a dog dangerous, doesn't it? LOL .... it NEEDS to be done here in Victoria.

Not necessarily, if she's allowed to develop the habit in the first place. Sometimes coats need to be introduced to dogs. I didn't have my boy wear one until this winter. Last winter he was too young to be able to stop figitting with it, so I just put it on now and again, whilst I was around to supervise, and for very short periods of time. This season he's worn it whilst in Mum and Dad's yard when we've visited, and I just kept a watch through the windows when I wasn't outside with him. He coped with it much better, in fact, I'd go so far as to say very well - he paid it no mind at all and I think was smart enough to appreciate the warmth it provided. I used his maturity to my advantage. LOL .... when he was a pup he had some PJ's, but he used to grab the back leg/sleeve and tug on it, succeeding only to pull himself over. Gosh, those days feel like an age ago, yet simultaneously like only yesterday. Hard to believe we're now 2 years on.

I don't like the idea of something so aversely vaporous being on clothing or bedding of dogs. Your dog will have no way of getting away from it, even if she isn't doing anything wrong.

Anti-chew spray from Pet Stores. There's a few different varieties around. Success rate depends on how quickly you get onto the problem. Many wait until it has gone beyond the first little lick/nibble that indicates too much interest, and they won't work as well, if at all. I'm wondering though, how does your dog manage to get to the neck part of the coat to chew it?

I've never treated my current boy and never seen a flea on him. Don't see the point or any benefit (only harm) of chemical administration if there's no need for it.