Sticky Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Interview with Bill Bruce (Calgary animal control director) on Ineffective Dog Laws. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticky Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Interview with Dr. Victoria Voith Dr. Victoria Voith describes her research concluding that there is little correlation between dog adoption agencies’ identification of probable breed composition with the identification of breeds by DNA analysis. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 so how many registered Am Staffs are going to be pulled aside because they are of pit bull type or supposedly a cross as determined by Ranger Joe, then all crap hits the fan because they are not on the dangerous dog register and hey presto dog is seized???? I hope I am wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corrie Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 If your dog is out on the street without a leash, make the fine a few thousand dollars. People would rush to build secure fencing very quickly. They'd drop the 'the kids let the dogs out' excuses very quickly and would ensure that the dogs don't get out. I agree that the fines need to be hiked up for roaming dogs but I also think there needs to be a balance between the cost of the fine and the enforcement. I would like to see the councils really concentrate their energy into policing the roaming dog problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceilidh Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Just curious, has anyone here offered up their advice, as experts, to solve this problem? If so, what was the response from the relevant Government? , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda K Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 and so it begins, day 1 of the hotline and it had over 100 phone calls yesterday to the dob in a dog hotline, resulting n 37 dogs being reported to council to be investigated, wonder just how many of those are truly dangerous, and how many are neighbour disputes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticky Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Have just looked at the legislation passed last night and there is nothing about cross breeds. The main change is this: 3 Approval of standard (1) In section 3(3) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994, for "a standard prescribed by the 10 regulations" substitute "an approved standard". (2) After section 3(3) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 insert— "(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) an approved standard is a standard that has been approved by the Minister and published in 5 the Government Gazette.". S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 can anyone get a hold of the gazette when it comes out ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leema Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Yes, sticky, which means we wait for what the approved standard describes... Which will ultimately be a smooth coated muscular dog with a big head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 can anyone get a hold of the gazette when it comes out ? It should be online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 can anyone get a hold of the gazette when it comes out ? It should be online. The NSW one's are Anyone know where to find it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticky Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 can anyone get a hold of the gazette when it comes out ? It should be online. The NSW one's are Anyone know where to find it ? According to Hansard it should be in the Gazette Thursday. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 can anyone get a hold of the gazette when it comes out ? It should be online. The NSW one's are Anyone know where to find it ? Victorian Government Gazette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticky Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Hansard of 30/8/11 makes interesting reading: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/daily-hansard/Assembly_2011/Assembly_Jul-Dec_2011_Daily_30_August_2011.pdf http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/daily-hansard/Council_Jul-Dec_2011_Daily_30_August_2011.pdf S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Hansard of 30/8/11 makes interesting reading: http://www.parliamen...August_2011.pdf http://www.parliamen...August_2011.pdf S Thanks for posting that, Sticky. I encourage others to download these and then do search on 'pit bull'. They are long documents and 90% -irrelevant to the issue, but the 10% is the core of the issue. My take is that the grounds for legal challenge are HUGE. The law requires that the deprivation of property (ie, seizing a dog) requires standards that are confined and structured rather than arbitrary or unclear, and are accessible to the public and formulated precisely. I see no way that 'pit bull X' can be defined in a way that is not arbitrary or unclear, and publishing the standard in a couple places that 99% of the public is unaware of, one month before the law is enacted hardly passes the test of being accessible to the public. I'm in the US and not in a position to do so, but I think concerned people should begin building a legal fund and fight this monster. I'd guess about 10% of the dogs in Australia will fall in grey areas. Some civil disobedience might also be useful: eg. registering every staffy, staffy X, and other potentially pit bull like dog, also vaguely pit bull looking pedigree dogs who are not at all pit bull (I've had some Labs who would qualify) and swamping the offices in a clearly advertised way. Below are a few of the juicy bits (p. 37 and 38 of http://www.parliamen...August_2011.pdf . The bill will provide that a dog that falls within the ‘approved standard’ that relates to restricted breed dogs in Victoria is to be taken to be a restricted breed dog. The bill will allow the Minister for Agriculture and Food Security to approve the standard and will require publication of the approved standard in the Victoria Government Gazette. The approved standard will also be available on the Department of Primary Industries website. The published standard will provide clear guidance to council’s authorised officers and the general public on what type of dog constitutes a restricted breed. This will make enforcement easier for council officers and remove doubt on the identification of these dogs so as to allow them to be declared a restricted breed in a speedy manner. This is important because councils are seeking certainty that a dog can be declared a restricted breed and that the declaration will be endorsed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal when challenged. Without this certainty council authorised officers may be reluctant to declare restricted breed dogs and enforce the act. The bill will remove the existing two-year amnesty that was introduced on 1 September 2010 on the keeping and registration of restricted breed dogs. The current amnesty provisions allow registration of a restricted breed dog until September 2012, provided the dog was in Victoria before 30 September 2010. The amnesty also lifted the prohibition on keeping a restricted breed dog during the amnesty period and then following that period if the dog was registered during the amnesty period. The bill will cut short the amnesty period. This means that from 30 September 2011 the possession and keeping of a restricted breed dog will be illegal unless the dog was in Victoria before the start of the amnesty Right to property (section 20) Section 20 of the charter act provides that a person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law. A deprivation of property is permitted if the powers which authorise the deprivation are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than arbitrary or unclear, and are accessible to the public and formulated precisely. The effect of removing the amnesty means that an owner who has failed to register their restricted breed dog before the commencement of this bill may have their dog seized by an authorised officer of the council and ultimately destroyed. In my opinion, this provision does not limit section 20 due to a number of reasons. The current prohibition relating to restricted breeds has been in place since 11 December 2007, is confined to five distinct breeds of dogs, clearly sets out the responsibilities of owners and the seizure powers of authorised officers and has been widely publicised to the community. Also the Domestic Animals Act 1994 requires all dogs to be registered from three months of age so there is an existing requirement for registration under section 10 of that act. The amnesty was enacted in 2010 with the purpose of encouraging the registration of existing unregistered restricted breeds or restricted breeds incorrectly registered as another breed. Owners of unregistered restricted breeds have been well aware that the possession of such dogs is illegal and could not have had a reasonable expectation of the lasting nature of the amnesty. The proposed ending of the amnesty has also been clearly communicated in the media, and will only come into effect on 30 September 2011, giving owners who have failed to take note of the amnesty time to comply with the requirement to register. Any resulting deprivation of property that will result following the ending of the amnesty will in my opinion not be arbitrary, given the significant public safety issues at stake, the limited number of breeds subject and the ability of owners to still comply with their obligations prior to commencement. Furthermore, there are safeguards present in the Domestic Animals Act 1994 to allow an owner to seek return of the seized dog if it is able to be registered and to seek review to VCAT of a refusal of a council to register a restricted breed that is able to be registered or a declaration of an authorised officer that a certain dog is a restricted breed. Accordingly, I conclude that this amendment is compatible with the right to property in section 20 of the charter act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmwvic Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Also from the Legislative Council Daily Hansard, Tuesday August 30, 2011 http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/daily-hansard/Council_Jul-Dec_2011_Daily_30_August_2011.pdf Refer page 72, spoken by Hon. P. R. HALL (Minister for Higher Education and Skills) The following text: “The next point I want to make is in respect of the question of the development of the standard. When the Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Act 2010 was passed by the Parliament my understanding is that a working party was put in place at that time by the previous government with the aim of developing a standard that could be used by authorised officers of council to assess matters associated with these restricted breed-type dogs. Since that act came into being in 2010 a working party has been formed that has gone about the task of developing these standards. Following the 2010 legislative amendment the working party consisted of a veterinarian who previously participated in the then minister’s restricted dog breed panel and was on the executive of the Australian Veterinary Association. There was also a world-recognised all-breeds judge and there was an experienced authorised officer from a local council, so pretty much the same composition that the previous government had in place has been carried over to the finalisation of the standard that we now have applying to this piece of legislation.” The vet is Dr Patricia Stewart, Secretary and Treasurer of the Victorian AVA Committee. The ANKC All Breeds Dog Judge is Glenda Cook, a Corgi breeder. Courtesy of Dogs Victoria? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Also from the Legislative Council Daily Hansard, Tuesday August 30, 2011 http://www.parliamen...August_2011.pdf Refer page 72, spoken by Hon. P. R. HALL (Minister for Higher Education and Skills) The following text: "The next point I want to make is in respect of the question of the development of the standard. When the Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Act 2010 was passed by the Parliament my understanding is that a working party was put in place at that time by the previous government with the aim of developing a standard that could be used by authorised officers of council to assess matters associated with these restricted breed-type dogs. Since that act came into being in 2010 a working party has been formed that has gone about the task of developing these standards. Following the 2010 legislative amendment the working party consisted of a veterinarian who previously participated in the then minister's restricted dog breed panel and was on the executive of the Australian Veterinary Association. There was also a world-recognised all-breeds judge and there was an experienced authorised officer from a local council, so pretty much the same composition that the previous government had in place has been carried over to the finalisation of the standard that we now have applying to this piece of legislation." The vet is Dr Patricia Stewart, Secretary and Treasurer of the Victorian AVA Committee. The ANKC All Breeds Dog Judge is Glenda Cook, a Corgi breeder. Courtesy of Dogs Victoria? The AVA position, however, (see http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/new-dog-laws-victoria) is strongly against the BSL part of the law. Extract: “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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncarter Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 anyone know what will become of the owner? what penalties etc? Its interesting that case in Canada where the husky mauled the child, the childs mother (17 years old at the time) got charged with manslaughter. Bet this guy gets a slap on the wrist. link I cannot believe there has been next to no negative media coverage of the owner and their stupidity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leema Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Owner penalties are supposed to be introduced into the Crime Act in the next fortnight or so, according to Hansard and a politician that have emailed me back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DBT Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Yet another tragic loss of life http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/connecticut-toddler-mauled-to-death-by-pit-bulls/story-e6frea73-1226156791176 A 20-month-old southern Connecticut girl was mauled to death after being attacked by as many as three pit bulls. The child was visiting her aunt's apartment in West Haven when the attack occurred on Friday, authorities said. She was pronounced dead at Yale-New Haven Hospital, WVIT-TV said. As many as three dogs were involved in the fatal attack and those animals have been euthanised, WVIT reported. A West Haven police officer said the dogs had been put into another room when the girl was visiting but somehow managed to get out. An investigation is underway, police said. The girl's aunt told The New Haven Register that the dogs had never before been aggressive, but neighbours told police they had previously seen signs of aggression. Read more at WVIT-TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now