Sticky
-
Posts
71 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sticky
-
-
-
-
Sort of related, but a good read anyway (you can read Chap 1 for free).
Panic by David Marr
http://ebooks.readings.com.au/product/9781921870477
S
There is also an extract here:
where he writes:
Lloyd replied: "Take News Limited out of the equation and you probably can talk about it fairly." He accused News Limited newspapers of being "the driving force behind moral panic in this country. Join with them commercial television: Channel Seven, Channel Nine and Channel Ten. I've worked at two of those places. They drive moral panic and the agenda they have is set by The Daily Telegraph and The Herald Sun in Melbourne. Take them out of the equation or stop listening to them – if politicians would stop listening to them – then we wouldn't have the moral panic we're talking about." -
And this as well:
VCAT to rule on death sentence for 'restricted breed' dogs
S
-
Hugh Wirth has also changed his tune:
S
-
If you haven't done the survey yet do it now.
S
-
-
-
Crime, Law and Social Change (2011) 55:391–403 DOI 10.1007/s10611-011-9293-6
Then they came for the dogs!
Simon Hallsworth
Published online: 15 April 2011 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract
This paper examines the British state’s desire to liquidate the Pit Bull as a breed. It examines the moral panic that brought the Pit Bull Terrier to public attention and traces the government’s knee-jerk response that resulted in the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991), the legal instrument that mandated Britain’s first attempt at canine genocide. Though public protection was the stated justification of this exercise in state violence, there was and is no evidence to support the case for canine killing through the indiscriminate blanket medium of breed specific legislation. Far from conceiving the dog an aggressor and humans its victims, this paper precedes on the assumption that the dogs are the victims and humans the inhuman aggressor. The paper concludes by examining the factors that provoked the UK’s descent into mass dog killing.
ETA link: http://www.springerlink.com/content/b0443t7441128441/
Excellent article!
+1000
S
-
-
-
It should really say something to the Govenment of Victoria, but I guess the fact that the AVA isn't prepared to ID a dog on visuals alone, means nothing.
It would have been the perfect time for the AVA to stand up and say this is bullshit.
The AVA has taken a strong stand. They did so in testimony to the committee that was formulating the legislation and continue to take the same stand.
http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/new-dog-laws-victoria
Dog groups haven't capitalised on this stand.
According to the incredible Herald Sun, the AVA continues to hold the same position.
Having stated that breed cannot be determined visually and DNA tests are unreliable, the AVA cannot recommend that its members do breed determinations. They don't seem to be forbidding vets from doing so . . . so finding the 'right' vet may become like finding the right doctor was for avoiding the draft during the Vietnam War.
From the AVA 19 Sept 2011
S
-
New legislation is here:
The chance of anyone ever being found guilty seems extremely unlikely. Just basically more fluff from the Vic gov.
S
That's not my take on it... These laws are extremely draconian, reckless in controling your "dangerous" breed dog (even if you know its harmless), can result in 5 years prison- that's in the absence of any attack. Maybe just letting it off the leash at the beach may get you 5 years prison, no matter how well behaved and socialized the dog is. These laws are OUTRAGEOUS.
The point I was making was the dog has to be a declared Dangerous, menacing or restricted dog for the legislation to take affect. In how many cases on the past has this been the case?
S
-
New legislation is here:
The chance of anyone ever being found guilty seems extremely unlikely. Just basically more fluff from the Vic gov.
S
-
I received this reply from the DPI regarding the application of the guidelines:
In response to your questions regarding the Government approved standard for restricted breed dogs in Victoria, an Authorised Officer of Council has the power to declare a dog to be of a restricted breed if the dog meets the definition of a restricted breed dog or falls within the standard approved by the Government under the Domestic Animals Act 1994.It is for the individual Officers to form their opinion on a dog and use the standard as they see fit to determine whether a dog is of a restricted breed or not.
Thank you for your email,
So basically anything goes.
S
-
I read a similar article. This is what concerns me:
Any American pit bull terrier not registered by September 30 will be destroyed.
The biggest question for me is who is actually policing it? Any old joe who gets hired by council is then qualified to pick pit from non pit?
I am all for the owner being accountable for the dogs actions, but there should be more focus on pushing training, socialisation etc, rather than wiping out a breed to magically make the world a better place.
Misleading quote, they don't have the power to immediately destroy your dog without going through the proper process.
S
-
It gets me that the government is assuming its the genetics of the breed which is bad, rather than understanding that surely in the vast majority of circumstances dog attacks are due to negligence, seriously inappropriate socialization of the animal or lack of socialization, and a poor understanding of dog behavior as animals. Surely the solution is to ensure quality breeding programs by reputable people for such dogs, and to increase education to the public about dogs. I mean combine this with significant penalties for inappropriate management of dogs by the public, such as allowing them to escape, or inappropriate aggressive behavior. Just how I feel the issue should be handled, without all the hysterics.
There's a good overview of genes and environment in relation to both animal & human behaviour here.
http://www.biologyreference.com/Ar-Bi/Behavior-Genetic-Basis-of.html
What you need to be arguing is the disconnection between physical appearance and behaviour.
see:
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Irizarry%20viewpoint.pdf
The “science” of inferring cognitive and behavioral traits from physical properties of the head and skull (called phrenology) had been discredited in the last century (20th century). Why we would allow laws based on phrenology to be enacted in the 21st century is a question worth investigatingS
-
They were notified of this happening In 2004 Tybrax did contact them at that time
They need to be notified again as they won't realise what is happening.
Here is the UKC standard:
http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/AmericanPitBullTerrierRevisedNovember12008
S
-
New on the DPI website. No insight on how the standard should be applied though.
Frequently Asked Questions – Restricted Breed Dogs
S
-
Looking for resources to use in your letter writing?
Have a look here:
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legislation/ineffective-laws/
S
-
Anyone know how this standard will be applied? It implies that a dog has to meet all the criteria.
S
-
Someone called me last night and told me that the vet letter will only help if it says the dog is of pure breed.
The certificate only applies to Amstaffs:
1. A dog that meets the description of a dog in this Part is an American Pit Bull Terrier; excepta dog in respect of which the owner has one of the following certificates stating that the dog
is an American Staffordshire Terrier –
a. a pedigree certificate from the Australian National Kennel Council;
b. a pedigree certificate from a member body of the Australian National Kennel
Council;
c. a pedigree certificate from a national breed council registered with the Australian
National Kennel Council;
d. a certificate signed by a veterinary practitioner stating, or to the effect, that the dog is
of a particular breed.
S
-
How do they intend to apply this? There is no guidance in the standard.
S
-
Seemingly, by Hansard, John Lenders seems like an alright bloke sceptical of the Baillieu government's plan. I emailed him. His email is: [email protected]
Dear John,I am writing to express my thanks for your critical comments to the recent amendments made by the Liberal Party to the Companion Animals Act. When reading the Handsard document, I was impressed with your understanding of the dog bite issue and the issues inherent in the amendments to the act. I was pleased to see that the Labor Party was providing a more thoughtful approach to legislation that appears rushed and illogical.
The most obvious flaw in the changed scheme is the intent to classify dogs as ‘pitbulls’ by their physical characteristics. This is an erroneous proposition. In reality, the legislation is targeting dogs of a particular appearance. As you so thoughtfully said, this presents the problem of the pendulum swinging 'the other way'. American Staffordshire Terriers are a very similar breed to American Pitbull Terriers, and it is likely that any definition describing a 'pit bull' will also encompass American Staffordshires. Indeed, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and mongrels of, are very popular, and it is likely that many innocent pets with no pit bull heritage would be condemned with these legislation changes. Again, as you intuitively noted, these owners may not even be aware that their animals could be deemed as 'dangerous' under the new definition, and may be at risk of their pets being destroyed.
Furthermore, as you observed, there is a risk that more breeds will be included in the restricted breed list, causing more legislative changes and more expense.
Ultimately, legislation such as that seen in Victoria (that is, legislation that specifies restrictions on dogs based on breeds) have not been seen to be effective in any country in which they have been implemented. You are right to be sceptical that this mechanism will be effective. History tells us it will not be.
The public wants to see a reduction in dog bites. I fear the strategy introduced here will not be effective at this goal.
Councils need to be provided with better resources, full stop, especially in regard to ranger-hours. Currently, rangers struggle to uphold existing legislation, resulting in many dogs roaming at large - such as the dog who tragically entered the Chol family home. Indeed, this dog was not even registered with council. It is a fallacy for the Liberal Government to believe that councils can sufficiently fund their current dog management, let alone increased dog management as a result of these legislative changes.
I fully support proposals that make dog owners responsible for their dog’s behaviour. This would allow owners of dogs that bite or kill to be prosecuted for offences, including manslaughter. Hopefully this type of change would make dog owners think twice about owning an aggressive animal.
I am sure that you and the Labor Party will be interested in making a decision that actually works to reduce the incidence of dog bites in Victoria, such as educational strategies, rather than supporting the heinous proposals by the Liberal Party. The dog world can clearly see the holes in the Ballieu government’s incompetent and hastily drafted strategy, and would surely embrace a more logical proposal from the opposition.
I welcome your email or phone call. My phone number is xxx.
Kind regards,
I think you are referring to the speech by Mr BARBER (Northern Metropolitan) , Lender didn't say much of any consequence in his speech.
S
A Case-control Study Of Dog Bite Risk
in General Dog Discussion
Posted
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/18/Suppl_1/A3.2.abstract?etoc
"Breed did not appear to be a factor "
S