Proposed New Victorian Dog Laws Dead Wrong

[Erny]

Also, a suggestion, I've just come upon this thread (don't hang out in general that much) & although I've had a quick flick through I'm loath to read 18 pages (sorry!) Selfish but I suspect many other people may feel the same way, even if they live locally. Could anyone summarise the current state of affairs? Perhaps we could summarise & ask for it to be made a temporary sticky at the top, so it doesn't need bumping?

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.

[Erny]

Research Brief Domestic Animals Amendment (DangerousDogs) Bill 2010

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?

[Erny]

From the Parliamentary Library Research Brief (which is now disappeareded ) :

"A new section 3(3) is inserted into the Act to specify that in this Act 'a dog that falls within a standard prescribed by the regulations for a breed of dog specified in a paragraph of the definition of restricted breed dog is taken to be a dog of that breed."

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)

---

Clause 8(1) of the Bill also doubles the penalty (from 1 penalty unit to 2 penalty units) for dogs and cats that are found outside the owner's premises without the identification required by Section 19 of the Act (and that are required to be registered with the local council).

A new exemption category is inserted stating that :

An exemption is to apply to a dog that is in a designated off-leash area, whose owner is a member of an applicable association, whose owner has, in the previous 12 months exhibite the dog for show purposes at a fixture conducted by an applicable association and where the person in apparent control of the dog has with him or her the council identification marker."

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?

---

The Bill inserts the definition 'desexing' into the Act which is defined as, in relation to a dog or cat, 'a surgical procedure to remove all or part of the reproductive organs of the dog or cat to prevent it breeding and to prevent or eliminate secondary sexual behaviours.'

So, for any who have tubes tied, that won't suffice as "desexing" under the terms of this Bill.

---

The Bill provides a two year amnesty period. Section 17 of the Act provides for Councils to register dangerous and restricted breed dogs. The Bill provides an amnesty period of two years to give owners the opportunity to register restricted breed dogs under new criteria. During this two year amnesty period, the Council may register a dog that was previously registered as a dog of another breed, providing that the dog was in Victoria before the commencement of this clause.

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) : .....

Clause 13 of the Bill inserts a new section, 41EA. The new section substitutes the existing prohibition against the keeping of a restricted breed dog, which stated that a restricted breed dog is prohibited unless the dog was acquired before the commencement of section 15 of the Primary Industries Act (Further Amendment) Act 2005.

The new provision will allow the keeping of a restricted breed dog for a two year period from the commencement of clause 7, after which time it will only be permitted if the dog was registered during the two year amnesty period as either a restricted breed dog or another breed of dog.

As the Explanatory Memorandum states, 'the provision will not allow the keeping of a restricted breed dog that was not in Victoria before the commencement of the 2 year "amnesty" period'.

---

Clause 29 provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations for or with respect to prescribing a standard for restricted breed dogs.

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?

---

Section 23(4) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (POCTA) provides for an inspector to destroy any animal if the animal 'is behaving in such a manner and there are such circumstances that it is likely that the animal will cause death or serious injury to any person or another animal'. For the purposes of the POCTA Act, the following persons are general inspectors:

(a) any member of the police force; and

(b) any person who is -

(i) an inspector of livestock appointed under the Livestock Disease Control Act 1994; or

(ii) a full-time or part-time officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals -

and who is approved as a general inspector by the Minister in writing; and

(c ) Any person who is an authorised officer under section 72 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 and who is approved as a general inspector by the Minister in writing, but only in respect of an alleged offence committed or a circumstance occurring in the municipal district for which that person is an authorised office.

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?

---

Clause 23 inserts new sections into the Act that allow for Councils to destroy a dog that is not registered and the owner is not identifiable, that is at large and that is reasonably believed to have caused or is likely to cause an offence under section 29 (attacking or biting a person or animal, or rushing at or chasing any person). If all of these preconditions are met, Councils may destroy the dog no sooner than 48 hours after a record is made by an authorised officer.

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?

---

The Explanatory Memorandum states that this 'power is discretionary rather than mandatory and a decision to destroy or not destroy the dog must be made before the end of the period of 48 hours after the record is made and the decision must be recorded'.

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.

---

Proposed section 84TB allows Councils to immediately destroy a dog if the authorised officer 'reasonably believes that the dog is behaving in a manner or in circumstances that will result in imminent serious injury or death to a person or other animal'. This applies whether or not the owner is identifiable.

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)

Edited June 17, 2010 by Erny

[cavNrott]

Erny I got a 404 message too. Clicked on the home page and then on the right under 'quick links' you will see 'find a bill'. That will take you to the bill.

[Erny]

Erny I got a 404 message too. Clicked on the home page and then on the right under 'quick links' you will see 'find a bill'. That will take you to the bill.

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

[Erny]

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

Edited June 17, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

Continued from Post #283

Proposed section 84TC empowers Councils todestroy a seized dog on the basis that it is at large or in a place not permitted by Council order and where the dog is a declared dangerous dog. The dog may be destroyed no earlier than 24 hours after a record is made confirming the preconditions to destruction, including that the dog is a declared dangerous dog. However, if there is information that leads to a \'reasonable belief\' by the authorised officer that the dog was at large because of an act or omission by a person other than the owner the Council may not destroy the dog.

.... 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?

Clause 15 requires Councils to provide details of dogs destroyed in the above circumstances and include information such as the time and date of destruction of the dog and certain information relating to the dog and its owner. The Council must also provide information relating to the reasons for the dog being destroyed such as the basis upon which an authorised officer formed the reasonable belief that was likely to commit an offence under section 29 (in the case of new section 84TA).

Section 84X of the Act relates to the power of Courts to order payment of costs and the disposal of destroyed dogs and cats. If an owner of a dog is found guilty of an offence, the Magistrates' Court may order that the dog be sold or destroyed and that the owner pay the amount fixed by the Council for the responsible costs and expenses incurred by the Council during any period, until the outcome of the proceeding, that the Council has had custody of the animal. A new section is added by Clause 25 of the Bill to allow Courts to require the owner to attend a training course relating to responsible dog ownership and/or that the owner and dog attend obedience training.

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.

---

Clause 26 provides for the owner of a dog declared to be a restricted breed dog to apply for this decision to be reviewed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) within 28 days.

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.

---

In the Bill, VCAT replaces the review panel referred to in the Act and provides that this panel is to be abolished and for its members to go out of office when the Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Act 2010 comes into operation (Clause 30). If the review panel has already begun to hear a reveiw, they may continue to hear the review and make a determination of the matter.

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.

---

Section 69 of the Act provides that each Council must pay an amount to the Treasurer in respect of each registration fee collected annually for the registration of dogs and cats. Currently, Councils must pay $1.00 in respect of each cat registered, which the Bill proposes to increase to $2.00 in Clause 17 of the Bill. Councils must pay the Treasurer $2.50 for each dog registered, which is to be increased to $3.50.

The Minister states that this levy funds initiatives that encourage community responsible pet ownership education programs and information, council officer training, government advisory support services for Councils and animal management research. The Minister states that these rates have remained unchanged since 2001 and that the increased revenue will facilitate the expansion of the above mentioned programs. ...

Continues at Post #288 Page 20

Edited June 17, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

Continued from Post #287 Page 20

Views of Stakeholders

Lost Dogs' Home Chief Executive Graeme Smith said the proposed legislation would offer little public protection, stating, "The number of declared dangerous dogs known to and registered by authorities is the tip of the iceberg compared to the number of dogs with the potential to turn killer. Dr. Smith noted that there are about 10,000 dangerous Pit Bull Terrier types in Victoria, however only 277 are registered as restricted breed.

Wonder how Graeme Smith knows the numbers of "Pit Bull Terrier types" - what does he think a "Pit Bull Terrier type" is?

The RSPCA's Victorian president, Dr Hugh Wirth has called for Pit Bulls to be exterminated, saying in the media that Pit Bulls are a menace and not suitable as pets. Dr Wirth also said that Pit Bulls 'are time bombs waiting for the right circumstances ... [the breed] is lethal because it was a breed that was developed purely for dog fighting, in other words, killing the opposition'. Mr Wirth says dog attacks continue to occur because of a mismatch between choice of dog and owner lifestyle, noting that genetically many dogs are still programmed for hunting and working.

Many Councils have welcomed the legislation, however some are concerned that Councils will be relatively powerless to prevent people from owning dangerous dog breeds. Leigh Harrison from Brimbank Council said there had been 111 reported dog attacks in Brimbank and there were 50 restricted-breed dogs and 49 registered dangerous dogs of non-restricted breeds. Brimbank Council had collected 1,251 stray dogs in the past year. However, Dr Peter Higgins, from the Australian National Kennel Council (ANKC), has expressed concern that the proposed legislation will 'do little' since rangers are overworked and there are not enough rangers to protect the community against dangerous dogs.

The ANKC state that they support legislation which seks to 'establish objective and clear criteria for determining whether a dog, irrespective of its breed, is dangerous' but 'will not support legislation which determines the "dangerousness" of a dog on the basis of breed alone.

Peter Frost, the President of DOGS Victoria, which is the state member body of the ANKC, said that the new laws did not provide a threat to any dog owners who responsibly care for their dogs. Mr. Frost also stated that DOGS Victoria was in the process of launching a responsible dog training program that would hel councils to educate residents on local dog laws and basic training techniques.

The Australian Companion Animal Council In (ACAC) does not support legislation that restricts or bans certain dogs based solely on the basis of the breed, viewing such legislation as 'ineffective, difficult to enforce and discriminatory' because 'a dog's breed is not a reliable indicator of its potential to exhibit aggressive behaviour'. ACAC state that all dogs have the potential to display aggression, regardless of breed, however few dogs will behave aggressively towards humans. ACAC state that 'legislation for the control of dangerous dogs should focus on the identification and control of individual dogs that have been shown to behave aggressively'. They further warn that bans on breeds, while difficult to enforce, may also lead to the formation of an underground network of breeders and owners of unregistered dogs. Moreover, ACAC argue that breed-specific legislation 'may also lead to a misconception that other breeds are not dangerous, so that dog owners may not appreciate the potential risks posed by their dogs, and fail to manage them responsibly'.

Many of the stakeholders mentioned above, such as the RSPCA, ACAC and DOGS Victoria, believe that community education about responsible dog ownership and education about choosing appropriate breeds is the most effective way to reduce dog attacks. Allie Jalbert, Manager of Animal Shelters for RSPCA Victoria, stated, 'the best chance of reducing dog attacks is a combination of education, obedience training, responsible ownership and bring the right dog into your home'.

Child protection groups, such as Kidsafe Victoria, have stated that they want Victorian Councils to publish monthly tallies of dog attacks in their area. NSW and Queensland has recently required councils to report dog attacks to state authorities. Kidsafe have also stated that they back the new dangerous dog legislation. In particular, Kidsafe support the increase in council officers' power to seize and destroy unregistered dogs and the doubling of penalties. Dr. Stokes, President of Kidsafe Victoria, has also called for compulsory obedience and social training for all dogs to be undertaken as part of dog licence requirements.

Several programs have been developed with child protection groups, local government authorities, health professionals and hospitals aimed at providing information on choosing an appropriate dog, socialising the dog and educating children in behaving safely around dogs, such as the Royal Children's Hospital's Safety Centre 'Dogs 'n' Kids' program.

The American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia Inc. have expressed concerns over the proposed legislation and have objected to not being included in the consultation process. They believe the deed should be punished rather than the breed.

---

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.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Erny

[Casster17]

thanks erny, I will wade through all that again and try and formulate the letter i will send tomorrow...

[APBT Club of Aust Inc.]

I have been told by a reliable source that Dogs Vic. are assisting the government to come up with a scale to identify dogs as PIT BULL TYPE. :D

VCA registered AST's will be supplied with a card with microchip & Dogs Vic. registration details and councils will be advised that they are exempt.

Guess this will be done for SBT's as well.

Amazing what some will do to protect their own interests.

[Erny]

I have been told by a reliable source that Dogs Vic. are assisting the government to come up with a scale to identify dogs as PIT BULL TYPE. :D

VCA registered AST's will be supplied with a card with microchip & Dogs Vic. registration details and councils will be advised that they are exempt.

Guess this will be done for SBT's as well.

Amazing what some will do to protect their own interests.

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

[APBT Club of Aust Inc.]

Sorry Erny,

Hadn't been on the forum for a few days so hadn't read everything before I posted.

What I've been told would cover clause 29.

Edited June 17, 2010 by APBT Club of Aust Inc.

[lmwvic]

Clause 26 provides for the owner of a dog declared to be a restricted breed dog to apply for this decision to be reviewed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) within 28 days.

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.

In the Bill, VCAT replaces the review panel referred to in the Act and provides that this panel is to be abolished and for its members to go out of office when the Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Act 2010 comes into operation (Clause 30). If the review panel has already begun to hear a reveiw, they may continue to hear the review and make a determination of the matter.

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.

I can enlighten you on the current process.

When a Council declares a dog as a restricted breed the owner may pay a non-refundable fee ($234 at the moment) within 30 days for a review of that declaration by a panel consisting of 3 persons appointed by the Minister as being "experts" in breed identification. Originally the panels were to consist of one person from the VCA, one from an Animal Welfare ?? Organisation (RSPCA or Lost Dogs) and a member from the APBT Club of Australia. Suffice to say that didn't last long. I can't recall the last panel when the APBT participated.

The VCA (or Dogs Victoria as they are now known) provided the Government with Judges interested in participating.

Originally Lost Dogs provided members including Graeme Smith and Kevin Apostolides. They had a hissy fit after a Supreme Court decision (of December 2007) was successful and quit. Wonderful! The dog concerned was subsequently unanimously said to be NOT a restricted breed and after 9-10 months incarceration by the Council concerned (Mornington) released to its owner in February 2008.

The RSPCA supplies vets (although I don't know of any Veterinary Course that includes Dog Breed identification).

The panel members are also paid for their services by the Government. In the case of the RSPCA I do not know whether they receive the payment or their staff participating receive it directly.

One ANKC judge (who has never bred a bull breed in his life, currently has fox terriers and is a Dogs Victoria Committee member) seems to be particularly favoured by the Minister Joe Helper (or should I say the Bureau of Animal Welfare) and has quite a little money spinner sideline going. He has positively identified many dogs as "PURE BRED" American Pit Bull Terriers resulting in death for some. Another ANKC judge has also positively identified dogs as purebred APBTs.

The RSPCA Chief vet also thinks he has qualifications to identify a dog's genetic history by its physical characteristics. Apparently he does not care if the dog dies. After all, in his own words they "euth" any pit bull type dog that is unfortunate enough to end up in the RSPCA shelter. Such a nice turn of phrase!

Hopefully one of these days these people will bear the brunt of legal action. They are receiving payment for a service that is a figment of their and the Government's imagination. Isn't that fraud? :D

Edited June 17, 2010 by lmwvic

[lmwvic]

I also cannot access the Parliamentary Library Research Brief. Did anyone save it?

[Erny]

I also cannot access the Parliamentary Library Research Brief. Did anyone save it?

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.

[Erny]

From "The Brief" :

Clause 26 provides for the owner of a dog declared to be a restricted breed dog to apply for this decision to be reviewed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) within 28 days.

From "The Brief" :

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.

In the Bill, VCAT replaces the review panel referred to in the Act and provides that this panel is to be abolished and for its members to go out of office when the Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Act 2010 comes into operation (Clause 30). If the review panel has already begun to hear a reveiw, they may continue to hear the review and make a determination of the matter.

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.

I can enlighten you on the current process.

When a Council declares a dog as a restricted breed the owner may pay a non-refundable fee ($234 at the moment) within 30 days for a review of that declaration by a panel consisting of 3 persons appointed by the Minister as being "experts" in breed identification. Originally the panels were to consist of one person from the VCA, one from an Animal Welfare ?? Organisation (RSPCA or Lost Dogs) and a member from the APBT Club of Australia. Suffice to say that didn't last long. I can't recall the last panel when the APBT participated.

The VCA (or Dogs Victoria as they are now known) provided the Government with Judges interested in participating.

Originally Lost Dogs provided members including Graeme Smith and Kevin Apostolides. They had a hissy fit after a Supreme Court decision (of December 2007) was successful and quit. Wonderful! The dog concerned was subsequently unanimously said to be NOT a restricted breed and after 9-10 months incarceration by the Council concerned (Mornington) released to its owner in February 2008.

The RSPCA supplies vets (although I don't know of any Veterinary Course that includes Dog Breed identification).

The panel members are also paid for their services by the Government. In the case of the RSPCA I do not know whether they receive the payment or their staff participating receive it directly.

One ANKC judge (who has never bred a bull breed in his life, currently has fox terriers and is a Dogs Victoria Committee member) seems to be particularly favoured by the Minister Joe Helper (or should I say the Bureau of Animal Welfare) and has quite a little money spinner sideline going. He has positively identified many dogs as "PURE BRED" American Pit Bull Terriers resulting in death for some. Another ANKC judge has also positively identified dogs as purebred APBTs.

The RSPCA Chief vet also thinks he has qualifications to identify a dog's genetic history by its physical characteristics. Apparently he does not care if the dog dies. After all, in his own words they "euth" any pit bull type dog that is unfortunate enough to end up in the RSPCA shelter. Such a nice turn of phrase!

Hopefully one of these days these people will bear the brunt of legal action. They are receiving payment for a service that is a figment of their and the Government's imagination. Isn't that fraud? :D

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?

[zayda_asher]

I also cannot access the Parliamentary Library Research Brief. Did anyone save it?

Unfortunately, the link 'broke down' 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.

Lesson here is to always download whilst you can... this happens a lot!

Edited June 20, 2010 by zayda_asher

[Erny]

Lesson here is to always download whilst you can... this happens a lot!

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.

[zayda_asher]

Lesson here is to always download whilst you can... this happens a lot!

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.

I haven't used windows in years, so I'm not sure where everything is in it now... Most things used to go into the "my documents" folder unless you specified somewhere else, so it might be worth checking there

[mita]

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"?

What? If so, this is discrimination against other dogs (& their owners). How on earth did such a discriminatory proposal get written into a proposed law that's supposed to deal with 'dangerous' dogs? Which is supposed to be about dogs' behaviour....& especially how certain owners allow their dogs to become 'dangerous'. Membership in any kind of association....& attendance in a show ring at least once a year...have no direct bearing on a dog's behaviour.

General dog owners of Victoria should be very annoyed about this. It borders on the farcical. Maybe general dog owners should see if they could get membership for their dogs in the Melbourne Club....& make sure they turn up to the bar for an annual drink (accompanied by their dog). Then, petition the government to get members of the Melbourne Club exempted from these proposed laws. If the Melbourne Club won't cooperate....try the St Vincent de Paul Society. And, if not them, keep trying to find an organisation which will. Doesn't have to have any direct relationship to dogs' behaviour.

Farces aside....I wonder if VicDogs realise the law will apply to the dogs they sell to people, as pets (who will then find themselves cut off from VicDogs' mantle of safety under the law). Do they have any concern about this?

Edited June 18, 2010 by mita