Proposed New Victorian Dog Laws Dead Wrong

[Erny]

Erny have you had a chat to Luke yet???

Luke hasn't given anything that has been helpful, nor given any answers to the questions/concerns I've raised.

I'm not sure what Luke's 'stance' is on the Bill. I've asked, but haven't received a response to that question.

ETA: Received an email from Luke tonight. He's going to vote for the Bill.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Erny

[sumosmum]

i cannot believe that the liberals sat by and did nothign, at the very least, you're the opposition- OPPOSE!

very disappointed. i got the email from william sykes as well.

so who do we email now guys? lets not give up on this

Very disappointing.

I am not giving up. Still lots of questions to be answered.

Might have to look at this in a day or two when I feel a bit refreshed. There have been no real answers, and the whole thing looks just as vague as it did from the start.

Might be an idea to go here later on so that we can look at any other options or ideas. ;)

[lmwvic]

I also received Bill Syke's correspondence.

He commended Peter Walsh's speech?????

Clearly, they just don't get it.

[sumosmum]

I received a response from Christine Fyffe today regarding the Bill. Others probably received the same email. At least the Liberals have answered. I have received no response from any Labor MP as yet.

As she stated in her email,

"I strongly encourage you to raise any questions you may have with you own State Member. If you are unsure who that is, you can log on to the VEC website and search electorates based on your postcode. The VEC website is found at www.vec.vic.gov.au "

So, I intend to do just that. Bills can be amended in the Upper House. Even though the Lib/Nationals have said they will not oppose the Bill, who knows, may be there is a chance to get some things changed.

I intend to write to various members with more questions and good arguments, with facts to back things up.

[sumosmum]

I just thought I would add this to the old thread, in case anyone is interested.

As we know, the Bill was passed and the Amended Act came into force on 1st September 2010.

I just thought I would post this from the AVA. Shame they didn't speak up a bit earlier and a bit louder. Anyway, good to see they have done so now.

AVA on new Dog Laws

New dog laws in Victoria

Changes to the Victorian Domestic Animals Act 1994 took effect on 1 September. They attempt to address community concern about dog attacks and include the following changes.

*

Councils can now seize and impound wandering dogs if they are unidentifiable and believed to be a danger to the public. The dog can be euthanased within 48 hours if unclaimed.

*

A dog that has previously been declared a Dangerous Dog found wandering can be seized and impounded, and euthanased after 24 hours.

*

All cats and dogs 3 months of age and above must be registered and wear council identification on public property.

*

New laws have been introduced that affect declared Menacing, Dangerous and Restricted Breed Dogs.

“AVA was not consulted before the legislation was drawn up, but was shown an outline, and asked for comments, before the legislation was presented to Parliament,” said Victorian Division President, Bill Harkin.

“We were briefed by the Bureau of Animal Welfare (part of the Department of Primary Industries), and subsequently had meetings with the responsible Minister, Joe Helper, and the Shadow (Opposition) Parliamentary Secretary, Bill Sykes.”

“AVA supports many parts of the legislation, but we were particularly vocal against the breed specific regulations. AVA policy is that ‘deed, not breed’ should be the determining factor in the assessment and treatment of dogs. This fact has been well communicated to both the Bureau and the Minister, who are fully conversant with AVA’s position,” said Bill.

The AVA’s special interest group for animal behaviour, together with the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists, produced an excellent submission on the proposed legislation, which was submitted to the Bureau of Animal Welfare and to the Minister.

The key area of disagreement is over the breed specific parts of the legislation, essentially the restrictions on Pit Bull Terriers. The restricted breeds include: American Pit Bull Terrier (or Pit Bull Terrier), Perro de Presa Canario (or Presa Canario), Dogo Argentino, Japanese Tosa, or Fila Brasileiro. Breeds other than Pit Bulls and their crosses are either unrepresented or nearly so in Victoria. The biggest problem is determining whether an animal is actually a Pit Bull or Pit Bull cross, or whether it is a cross involving other breeds. There is no DNA test which can identify an animal as a Pit Bull or cross, so the determination can only be made on physical appearance. This is a grey area that can, and will be, contested in court.

There is genuine community concern over dog attacks, which tend to get a great deal of media attention, and the public perception is that Pit Bulls are behind most of them (despite all evidence to the contrary). The push for these legislative amendments has come from the highest level of government, and the Opposition did not oppose the Bill in Parliament.

“The best that we can hope for is that future amendments will be made in less electorally sensitive times, and that the legislation can be made to work as effectively as possible. Hopefully the scientific guidance that we can offer will be of assistance in the long term,” concluded Bill Harkin.

[Erny]

Thanks Sumosmum, for putting this up.

There's something I find wrong or disturbing with a few things in that report/media release though. But I need to bring my stirred thoughts together .......... and don my glasses so I can read it better, LOL.

I'll be back .

[Erny]

AVA on new Dog Laws

AVA supports many parts of the legislation ...

I would like to know which "many parts" of the legislation the AVA supports. IMO there certainly aren't many parts that will not prove problematic to innocent people and innocent dogs in the future, now that the legislation is in force.

... but we were particularly vocal against the breed specific regulations. AVA policy is that ‘deed, not breed’ should be the determining factor in the assessment and treatment of dogs. This fact has been well communicated to both the Bureau and the Minister, who are fully conversant with AVA’s position,” said Bill.

The AVA’s special interest group for animal behaviour, together with the Australian College of Veterinary Scientists, produced an excellent submission on the proposed legislation, which was submitted to the Bureau of Animal Welfare and to the Minister.

I'd be interested to see a copy of that.

The key area of disagreement is over the breed specific parts of the legislation, essentially the restrictions on Pit Bull Terriers. The restricted breeds include: American Pit Bull Terrier (or Pit Bull Terrier), Perro de Presa Canario (or Presa Canario), Dogo Argentino, Japanese Tosa, or Fila Brasileiro. Breeds other than Pit Bulls and their crosses are either unrepresented or nearly so in Victoria. The biggest problem is determining whether an animal is actually a Pit Bull or Pit Bull cross, or whether it is a cross involving other breeds. There is no DNA test which can identify an animal as a Pit Bull or cross, so the determination can only be made on physical appearance. This is a grey area that can, and will be, contested in court.

There is genuine community concern over dog attacks, which tend to get a great deal of media attention, and the public perception is that Pit Bulls are behind most of them (despite all evidence to the contrary).

I'm glad the AVA acknowledge the unfairness of BSL (not to mention its futility in reducing bite stats). But doesn't one of the laws that have been passed with the Bill (I need a refresher) allow a dog whose description might match the standards of a Restricted Breed dog to be called a Restricted Breed Dog, even though that dog is not a Restricted Breed Dog and has papers/documents to prove it? Doesn't that make DNA testing for some/many dogs somewhat moot?

The push for these legislative amendments has come from the highest level of government, and the Opposition did not oppose the Bill in Parliament.

Agree with them there - what a disappointment THAT was. Liberals were heard saying (in the Parliamentary debate) .... "the laws are flawed, but we are not going to oppose them". When asked the reason? "It was a compromise." So in essence, us and our dogs have been sold out for some other Bill (not dog related) that they (the parliamentarians) have more interest in. Anyway, I digress, although I remain completely disillusioned by all members of Parliament. Lower House. Upper House. Labor. Liberal. Nationals. Sue Pennicuik of the Greens was the only one who spoke up, out and against the laws with any degree of evidence of understanding of them.

[Staranais]

New dog laws in Victoria

Changes to the Victorian Domestic Animals Act 1994 took effect on 1 September. They attempt to address community concern about dog attacks and include the following changes.

*

Councils can now seize and impound wandering dogs if they are unidentifiable and believed to be a danger to the public. The dog can be euthanased within 48 hours if unclaimed.

Well I know where I'm not moving to when I graduate!