Proposed New Victorian Dog Laws Dead Wrong

[*Avanti*]

Post 49 bumped

Thanks Wendy. Steve (MDBA) has contributed as well. But we'll need more than that. We CAN head them off at the pass, if we get enough people driven to put pen to paper.

Although individual letters are the best, I acknowledge that some people find that too hard (time poor; don't like writing letters .... mind you, I don't particularly like to write them either).

So what I propose here is that every person who wants to help in at least one way could write a simple covering letter - something like the following :

Covering email letter :

"Dear Parliamentary Member

I support and endorse the objections and content encompassed in the attached response to Government by Good for Dogs and would ask that you not only accept these points as though they were my own writing, but also take on board and heed the refutes and information it provides, as though it was I who was the author – BEFORE the

Government proceeds to passing of yet even more laws that are flawed and which have the tendency to target the responsible people and not those who are the mainstay causes for community interference by their own dogs; and which do NOT and have not had any effect on the lowering of bite statistics; nor which embraces the ideology of “education”. “

Attachment to email :

With your email, attach the GoodforDogs response - the link for this is http://www.goodfordogs.org/blog/wp-content...nse_to_Bill.pdf .

And this is the Member of Legislative Assembly contact list which will give you all the names, addresses and email addresses you can send to (the more the merrier).

Legislative Assembly (Vic) Member Contact List

Of course, the "GoodforDogs" well thought out response may actually make sense to you of what the proposals are and how they are likely to (adversively) affect us, to the degree that you might like to take from that and formulate your own individual response. That would be great, but at the very least, please respond to Government one way or the other. Better something than nothing at all.

Cheers, and let's band together to fight this now. Once the law is passed the effort to change it when we see and experience the wrongs that it will cause, will be a far greater task than the one at hand.

Good one Erny, I'll get some into the post as well.

Edited May 25, 2010 by WhiteEagle

[Erny]

Good one Erny, I'll get some into the post as well.

Thanks WhiteEagle. Looking at the Poll (other thread) I can see the letter writing effort has now been adopted by ELEVEN people out of the Victorian DOL community.

Good on ya's

ETA: It might be good to cross post/link this thread to the Breed Sub Forum area. I don't have permission to start a new topic there, so perhaps someone could? It would do well to make sure as much as we can that breed clubs know about what's going on and understand the possible impact this could have, and make the most of the opportunity we may have regarding the possible additional time available to be able to write letters in.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Erny

[blissirritated]

Erny, I don't mean to sound rude or dense (but that'd only make me the average DOLer anyway *boom tish*) but maybe the reason you haven't had much real response to this thread is because the OP doesn't... make much sense? Is it a carry-on thread from another subforum? It assumes that the reader knows that the "proposed law" exists and what it is and something about a report, but I'm guessing that the problem is that people don't know and aren't aware (which is why this thread is here to tell them to write in to their local gov members about it?)

[Erny]

Blissirritated - I agree the OP wasn't the most eloquent in its structure. At the start, I wasn't even sure about the proposed Bill and its status. Which is why in the heading to the thread I've referred people to certain post numbers. Links to the proposed Bill and also to another site where a Government Response has been prepared (and which in itself I think helps to make clear the wrongs of the proposed Bill) have also been given.

This was kind of thrown at me and one way or the other I have tried to (a) bring people's awareness to it and (b) tried to make sense of it and of what was going on. Initially the Bill was reported as having been passed by Lower House, but that turned out to be wrong. So it wasn't completely clear sailing for me either.

Bad timing for me - everything has come up all at once and I truly haven't had time to concentrate on this as much as I'd like to have, but regardless of that, something needed to be done as nothing much seemed to be being done beforehand. (ETA : What I mean by that is that some people were making the effort, but it seemed some help was needed to bring more awareness to it.) So I apologise to everyone who might have thought I could have done better - I could have, had I had more time. This wasn't a task that I wanted to take on simply due to other loads and commitments, but it was too important to ignore and attention and action was required.

If you do this in this order :

Know that the proposed Bill is there. (link supplied Post #1) (contrary to first reports, it is NOT passed .... yet)

Read it.

Read the "GoodforDogs" response. (link supplied Post #47)

Read/scan some of the other posts which also raise a few good questions/explanations and demonstrate how the laws, if passed, could impact.

I have to go out (running late, as has been usual for me over this past week) but please post back if posts #46 and onwards don't help to provide you the information you need to be able to make better sense of it.

Hoping this has helped and I'm sorry I could not present the thread and following posts in a better manner than I have.

This is not MY project. This is all of ours project. Mike Bailey is a good contact source to find out/clarify things as he's been watching this closely and working on it for longer than I.

Steve (Julie) is a good contact as well (she always seems to be able to see through things and ask some really great questions that even in the asking, make very valid points), but I know that Julie is incredibly busy with a load of other urgent and important stuff also.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Erny

[Kelpie-i]

I have just sent a fresh letter to all the MPs again.

But unlike you Erny, I have not received any aknowledgement email back from my first one.

[Casster17]

I have resent to all parlamentary members... But was not able to "request responce" but did mark it as urgent so I guess I will just wait and hope...

[Erny]

I'm in the midst of a new letter and arranging for emails to take it to all MLA's and MLC's.

Good work, people :D

Edited May 26, 2010 by Erny

[APBT Club of Aust Inc.]

I received another response of sorts today, got to be an ALP member.

I refer to your email to the Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development concerning the Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010.

As the matter raised falls within the area of responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture and Small Business, The Hon Joe Helper MP, I have forwarded your email to the Minister for consideration and direct response.

Like, Joe Helper is going to respond I think not

Might send an objection from one of my dogs maybe then they'll take more notice

[Erny]

Ok - perhaps I don't understand political process. But when a Bill is proposed and is up for debate, aren't all Members of the house it's being debated at supposed to attend the debate?

I KNOW that doesn't happen, but isn't it SUPPOSED to happen?

If every polly passed this on to Joe Helper, is he supposed to debate about it all by himself?

Which polly was your response from, APBT Club of Aust Inc ?

Edited May 26, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

This is my latest letter to Govt (sent to all MLA's)

I'll confess up front that I stole the questions/points that Steve (Julie) raised in this thread and included those in the letter.

This was my covering email :

Please find attached some questions and VERY serious and worrying concerns which have arisen in my mind and which need to be reasonably and sensibly answered by Government in the process of debating the lack of wisdom of the abovementioned proposed Bill.

“Ban” and “kill” is a mentality that is NOT targeting the people who are really the truly irresponsible dog-owners but they do more easily target and hurt the responsible of our dog-owners.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

-- Albert Einstein

Adding more of the same law style and expecting a different outcome I’m afraid is not only not going to help achieve the goal we would all, as responsible dog owners, like to achieve, but is going to hurt the very people you don’t intend to.

Please click the attachment to open.

And this was my letter :

Dear Members of Parliament

MLC’s

MLA’s

URGENT

RE: PROPOSED OMESTIC ANIMALS AMENDMENT (DANGEROUS DOGS) BILL

DEBATE SCHEDULED : 25TH MAY, 2010 (not yet debated)

In relation to the proposed Bill referred to above, the following questions and very serious concerns are some of those that need to be asked and answered with careful and cautious deliberation before any decision pertaining to the amendments are passed by parliament.

• Why do we have proposed new laws when the policing of current (albeit some flawed) laws are already not sufficiently policed?

• The proposed Bill outlines where the power to destroy dogs is broadened, but how does it propose to increase resources for educating dog owners pro-actively rather than reactively?

• What infallible procedures are in place to guarantee that a microchipped dog will not fail to be ID’d? Chip scanners have proven to sometimes be faulty; chips migrate within the dog’s body; some scanners do not read certain chips.

• What extensive education and experience must the Council Officers, to whom the Government wish to empower with the authority to immediately destroy a dog, have at the time of making that irreversible decision? How can it be guaranteed that such an opinion is not going to be a subjective decision?

• Why does the proposed Bill focus on heavy penalties for a dog-owner not having his/her dog wearing a Council registration marker if that dog is under the control of the dog-owner or appointed handler at the time? How does the community benefit from such a law? Council is easily able to communicate back to ‘base’ to confirm registration compliance. Many people utilise any one of various available training tools when out exercising their dogs – training tools/collars are not intended to remain on the dog without supervision. Consequently, these are not the collars that, if a dog wears one at home at all (note : safety of the dog can be compromised when wearing a collar of any sort in an unsupervised situation), the dog would be wearing at any time of escape. The only benefits that are identified here seem to relate to additional revenue gain for Council/Government.

• Many people opt to not have their dog wear a collar unless the dog is supervised. There have been numerous incidents of accidental death of family pet dogs through asphyxiation due to collar strangling.

• Why does government care what breed of dog it is? If it is dangerous, then it is dangerous – assuming the assessment and declaration of “dangerous” by definition is made by a person qualified and experienced to judge dog temperament and body language in a contextual situation.

• Given the above, why would Government need or for that matter want, legislation which is breed specific? (And which legislation was already proven failed law around the World before it was adopted by Government.)

• What is in it for the Government to bring in laws which allow dogs to be put down more quickly? The community is not at risk once the dog is impounded and held for a few more days? So who stands to gain from this?

o The only ‘winner’ in this situation seems to be the shelter/pound, who still gains its income from every animal euthanized, but now gains it more quickly and can be rid of the animal so that it does not have to prove “dangerous”; and

o The Councils, who increase their revenue by the lawful imposition of increased fines – fines that no-one would have the ability to refute because the evidence of their dog’s behaviour has been destroyed.

• This is a grave breach of the laws of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness as the situation itself lends itself for biased gain by both Councils and Shelters/Pounds. It certainly does not prescribe to democracy.

• What is very apparent, if the amendments under the proposed Bill are passed by Government is:

o Less to no accountability by Council – more money to Council.

o Less to no accountability by Shelters/Pounds to the same people who donate their hard-earned money to them (either direct or via the Government grants and subsidies) – more money to Shelters/Pounds.

• The unintended consequences of higher fines etc. is that there will be people who will be unable to pay and thus their dogs will be left to languish in the pounds/shelters – this for the lucky dogs whose lives aren’t stolen inside the 48 hour period prescribed by the proposed laws in certain circumstances.

• Why would Government (in another Bill, for example) attempt to make laws about how long a foster-carer can look after an animal or about whether baby puppies can be helped? Although foster care and shelters are not the subject of this Bill, all of these laws, when read collectively, leads one to really wonder where the sense of Government has gone, or what their objectives or hidden agendas are. In all of this, credibility, faith and trust in the same people who supported you to Government, is increasingly being destroyed by your hand. So it’s not just the dogs who are dying.

• For any Government to stick to a concept of breed specific legislation in the year 2010 only demonstrates ignorance and rather than being part of the solution, you become part of the problem.

• At an emotional yet humane level – killing a dog, especially through mis-judgement, can and has proven to cause emotional torture to a dog’s owner/family. Even ONE misguided error is more than I would wish for any one person to bear. The ‘kill-it-fast’ mentality that is mirrored by the laws within this proposed Bill leave this wide open for occurrence. “Sorry” isn’t going to cut it for the owner from whom his/her dog has been mistakenly and irreversibly taken and killed. Time is needed for forethought – not only in law making, but also in acting out the law. Yet by your laws, time is discouraged and it is hard to understand why, given the questions above. “Haste makes waste” and the proposed laws which encourage this will cause undue and unfair hardship upon dog owners and dog-owning families.

• What is the solution? Well, at least part of the solution is a change of tack – for all the prohibitive regulations and legislations that Government have persistently imposed (and which more often affect responsible dog-owners rather than target those they were created for in the first place) over these recent years, have bite injury statistics improved? So why not :

o Allow pounds and shelters to put their own policies in place and necessarily be transparent about those polices to allow people to be aware of them before they donate and support them. The people, the ones who elect Government to power, can be the judges of which pound/shelter serves them and their animals best.

 This will encourage shelters/pounds to create better policies and encourage them to work towards cutting down kill rates instead of benefiting from them.

 It will also enable the public to make clear choices upon which they can base their decisions regarding where they will donate their money.

o Allow all dogs regardless of breed to be treated equally with a fair and reasonable system in place for temp testing and mandatory holding times.

o When a dog is found at large unless it is judged to be potentially dangerous because of its behaviour give it a free ride home the first time and counsel the owners about how to prevent it happening again. “EDUCATION”.

o If it is judged to be potentially dangerous because of its behaviour give it a fair assessment over a reasonable time frame.

o Talk to people who really know dogs and dog behaviour. Those who are in a position that cannot be compromised for bias whether that be for financial gain or other agenda.

o Render decision-makers/organisations accountable for their actions and have them obligated to observe the rules of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness. Any privileges which have been granted to anyone or any organisation/department etc. which permits exemption from that obligation needs to be re-addressed.

Regards

Edited May 26, 2010 by Erny

[APBT Club of Aust Inc.]

[quote

Which polly was your response from, APBT Club of Aust Inc ?

Hi Erny

The email actually came from a Beverley B Meldrum. The name didn't sound familiar to me so I check the list and the Minister for Children and Early Childhood Development is Ms Maxine Morand (Mount Waverley electorate)

[Erny]

I've written to her as well - no acknowledgement/response as yet.

[mikebailey]

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.

[Erny]

Thank you for that post, Mike. And I agree - that was an excellent submission by the LFA.

I wonder - do you think it would do well for a copy of the Bill, along with a copy of the LFA (which begins to make sense of what the Bill is about and what problems it will create) to the media, as is?

May I clarify as well, please .... you've given a link to the contact details of "relevant" pollies. But these are not the ONLY pollies we should now be directing our letters to, are they? I'd be inclined to suggest they would be the main ones but not the only ones ?????

[Erny]

The term "Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness" has been referenced quite a bit : in the proposed Bill itself :

To ensure procedural fairness ...

(which, although I'm not a lawyer, is suggesting to me that the Government acknowledges that this Bill is one that deserves observation of Procedural Fairness) ; in a number of the responses which have been submitted to Government; and also, I think in some of the posts in this thread (I think I've used the term several times).

For those who are not aware of the rules of "Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness" but would like to know and understand more of it I've provided a link below. It is a NSW publication but I couldn't find a better Victorian one.

It's not too tedious to read and it isn't too lengthy.

Rules of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness

Edited May 27, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

I thought this part of the "Lawyers for Animals" response was particularly pertinant, given the evidence already shown in this thread that some people think this proposed Bill only relates to declared "Dangerous Dogs" . As I have mentioned earlier here, the laws under this proposed Bill, if it gets through, can and will affect ANY dog :

We respectfully note that the title of the Bill is misleading, in its reference to “Dangerous Dogs”. Two of the three most significant provisions increase the powers of Councils to destroy any dogs, whether or not they have been declared a ‘dangerous dog’ by a Council following procedures under the Act.

For any one who thinks the Government will do what it wants anyway, so don't bother - believe me, I know and understand first hand your frustrations and despair that might cause you to being unable to muster the energy to do anything about this proposed Bill.

It is possible that the Government will do what it wants, anyway, regardless of our objections and very good reasoning for it not to.

But it is DEFINITE that it will do what it wants if we don't voice out, for the sake of our dogs (and ourselves) now.

Because of the letters that have been submitted already , we have politicians who have taken an interest in this matter. If they are to debate for us because they now understand our views and objections, we need to 'arm' them further by showing how many of us have grave concerns about this Bill. We can only do that by communicating how number strong us Victorians are. This doesn't preclude letters from interstaters, as that all goes to assist. Every law that is passed in one State is one step closer to the same or similar law being adopted in another, and another ....

As Mike has said, we have another two weeks within which to take the opportunity to know that our voice was one that joined the throng of others, to make a difference.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Erny

[tybrax]

Great Submisson

tybrax

[Erny]

I have resent to all parlamentary members... But was not able to "request responce" but did mark it as urgent so I guess I will just wait and hope...

Don't worry Casster17 .... all of my emails have a "request response" but I've hardly received any. They must be hitting the "no" button their end, or they haven't opened the email. It takes a while before I receive "not read" or "deleted before read" messages.

[Erny]

I have just sent a fresh letter to all the MPs again.

But unlike you Erny, I have not received any aknowledgement email back from my first one.

Perhaps they have been inundated .

Thanks for doing another letter to them, Kelpie-i .

Edited May 27, 2010 by Erny

[mikebailey]

Thank you for that post, Mike. And I agree - that was an excellent submission by the LFA.

May I clarify as well, please .... you've given a link to the contact details of "relevant" pollies. But these are not the ONLY pollies we should now be directing our letters to, are they? I'd be inclined to suggest they would be the main ones but not the only ones ?????

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

- Mike