Dangerous Dog Survey

[emilee]

Survey on DPI website in regards to Dangerous Dog Legislation

http://dpidangerousdogs.questionpro.com/

[WreckitWhippet]

Done

[Jimmay]

Did it also.

Kind of worrying the 'destroy straight away because of "suspected" threat due to size or breed' question.

[WreckitWhippet]

I've pointed out that by destroying the dog straight away, they limit their opportunities to find and fine the owner. They are better off holding the dog for the minimum number of days required for a stray, if the owner comes forward to claim, fine and then destroy the animal.

Micropchips also fail, we experienced this last year with a dog that we know was 100% chipped and registered , yet the chip failed to scan, after trying the entire body and two scanners. Registered and chipped dogs could well be destroyed in error.

ETA: that size or breed should play no part in the decision to seize but rather any aggressive actions of the dog towards people or other animals.

Edited January 17, 2010 by SBT123

[sandgrubber]

Done. I think this should be posted on the General Forum as it looks like they're proposing a broad erosion of a dog's rights . . . beyond BSL. Eg, a dog biting a child, because the child is torturing it, would be at risk under proposed rules. Dogs deserve some right to a fair trial before getting the death penalty, or a lifetime of home detention under the 'dangerous' label.

[spottychick]

Oooh did I have a thing or two to say on that survey!!!!!

[geo]

Done, hopefully the answers we write will be listened to. It would seem by the questions that they were probably written by someone who has no grasp of animal ownership.

[mita]

Done. I think this should be posted on the General Forum as it looks like they're proposing a broad erosion of a dog's rights . . . beyond BSL. Eg, a dog biting a child, because the child is torturing it, would be at risk under proposed rules. Dogs deserve some right to a fair trial before getting the death penalty, or a lifetime of home detention under the 'dangerous' label.

I agree, sandgrubber. Ignores context completely.

Also agree with jimmay about the 'suspected threat' because of 'size or breed'. That's the stuff of madness...a large dog or a Rotti would only have to be thought to be looking sideways at someone, to be carted off to the hangman. Any blunt law which could arise from this, would not so much ensure public safety, as engender fear and loathing about certain breeds & sizes of dogs.

There's a large, evidence & experience based pool of knowledge about dog aggression, dog bites & dog attacks. Not a shred of that is reflected in the survey's questions. Go tell 'em!

Edited January 18, 2010 by mita

[Affirmation]

Have answered it.

I don't think they'll appreciate my thoughts

I was rather blunt.

What are they hoping to achieve ? Victoria - a dog free state ?? :D

Meanwhile, every day people are dying in car crashes, or waiting for medical treatment which I think is more deserving of the governments time and money, than doing survey's on whether rangers have the right to seize and destroy any dog.

Like I said on the other thread, I'm sure alot of voters love their dogs.

[mita]

What are they hoping to achieve ? Victoria - a dog free state ?? :D

Or a fantasy place where only Stepford Dogs are allowed. Anyone remember the Stepford Wives novel & movie.....where ideal, but robot, wives were produced.

Edited January 18, 2010 by mita

[Affirmation]

Either that Mita, or maybe they'll let you have a "Furreal" one ??

Wonder if the Furreal ones will make good drug and bomb detection dogs ?? Maybe the Government will train Goldfish for those jobs as I don't think they pose any risk to humans :D

[Incavale]

DONE

[RottnBullies]

Victoria the land of constant nightmares one after another!

what the hell Is wrong with this place!

[Kreed]

Signed. Thanks for the link. Some very scary wording in there indeed.

k

[GRLC]

i let them have a piece of my mind ;)

You can tell straight away that the questions and legislation is made by people who have no expertise whatsoever with dogs or dog management . idiots . some of the questions were just sooo shocking especially the first one .

makes me so mad

[tybrax]

http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/newsroom/9200.html

COMMUNITY VIEWS SOUGHT IN BID TO STAMP OUT DOG ATTACKS

From the Minister for Agriculture

Friday, 15 January 2010

The Brumby Labor Government will seek the views of the community as it

prepares to introduce legislation to toughen laws around dangerous dogs.

Visiting the Nillumbik Regional Pound today, Agriculture Minister Joe Helper

said the Government was launching an online survey to ensure any proposed

dangerous dogs legislation meets community expectations.

“The Brumby Labor Government understands the community wants a tough stance to reduce dog attacks and that’s why we are making changes to the laws around

dangerous dogs,” Mr Helper said.

“We have taken action to toughen legislation in recent years but clearly the

message needs to be reinforced that owning a dog is an important responsibility that comes with conditions.

“In 2005, the Government introduced laws to stop the breeding of dangerous and

restricted breed dogs, including pit bulls. We also doubled the penalties for

irresponsible dog owners in 2007.

“But we have seen an unacceptable number of dog attacks in the community in

the last 12 months. There are too many people flouting existing laws by not

registering their dogs, or not ensuring dangerous dogs are suitably restrained.

“To those people we say the net is closing in and their irresponsible

behaviour will simply not be tolerated.”

Mr Helper said the new laws would further toughen penalties but also give

local councils more powers in dealing with unregistered and dangerous dogs.

“Proposed changes to the legislation would remove the right of appeal for

owners and allow council officers more time to focus on the job of keeping

dangerous dogs off Victorian streets,” Mr Helper said.

“We need to give councils greater power so they can operate more effectively

in stopping dangerous dog attacks.

“The survey launched today asks important questions of the community such as

whether they feel councils should be able to immediately seize and destroy

unregistered dangerous dogs found at large.”

Other survey questions include:

• If a stray dog is suspected by a council officer to be a danger to the

public by virtue of its size, breed or disposition and it is also not

registered – should councils have the power to immediately seize and destroy

the dog?

• If a dog has already been declared a “dangerous dog” by a council and it

is found at large should councils be able to seize it and immediately destroy it?

• Should there be a penalty for possession of an unregistered dog and what

should that penalty be?

• Should medical practitioners or hospitals be required to report any dog

bites to the Government Chief Medical Officer or the Police or Councils?

• Should restricted breed (such as pit bull) owners be able to keep their

animal only if its de-sexed and muzzled when off the property and registered

or should they all be destroyed?

The Government is planning to introduce its dangerous dog legislation into

Parliament later in 2010.

Mr Helper said the survey would be available by visiting www.dpi.vic.gov.au

and would be open until Monday, 15 February, 2010.

tybrax

[Sam&Saki]

Filled out the survey and made it very clear that irresponsible dog owners need to be punished; not dogs who've done nothing wrong but been born the breed that happens to be the media scapegoat of the moment.

I encourage everyone who hasn't yet, to do likewise.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Lets keep it rational folks they are unlikely to take much notice of submissions which are emotionally charged.

[Pointees]

Done.

[Tapferhund]

Lo Pan, If we go by past experiences, I doubt they will take much notice anyway. Typical Govt going through the motions of looking like they are doing the right thing......but in the end will do what THEY want anyway.