Sticky Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) New legislation is here: http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs.nsf/ee665e366dcb6cb0ca256da400837f6b/280A7ABA6DD14BDECA25790A0011E320/$FILE/571189bi1.pdf The chance of anyone ever being found guilty seems extremely unlikely. Just basically more fluff from the Vic gov. S Edited September 15, 2011 by Sticky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybergenesis Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) New legislation is here: http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs.nsf/ee665e366dcb6cb0ca256da400837f6b/280A7ABA6DD14BDECA25790A0011E320/$FILE/571189bi1.pdf The chance of anyone ever being found guilty seems extremely unlikely. Just basically more fluff from the Vic gov. S That's not my take on it... These laws are extremely draconian, reckless in controling your "dangerous" breed dog (even if you know its harmless), can result in 5 years prison- that's in the absence of any attack. Maybe just letting it off the leash at the beach may get you 5 years prison, no matter how well behaved and socialized the dog is. These laws are OUTRAGEOUS. Edited September 15, 2011 by cybergenesis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I am glad owners will finally be held criminally liable for their dogs actions. It is the one good thing that will come out of all of this mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticky Posted September 15, 2011 Author Share Posted September 15, 2011 New legislation is here: http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs.nsf/ee665e366dcb6cb0ca256da400837f6b/280A7ABA6DD14BDECA25790A0011E320/$FILE/571189bi1.pdf The chance of anyone ever being found guilty seems extremely unlikely. Just basically more fluff from the Vic gov. S That's not my take on it... These laws are extremely draconian, reckless in controling your "dangerous" breed dog (even if you know its harmless), can result in 5 years prison- that's in the absence of any attack. Maybe just letting it off the leash at the beach may get you 5 years prison, no matter how well behaved and socialized the dog is. These laws are OUTRAGEOUS. The point I was making was the dog has to be a declared Dangerous, menacing or restricted dog for the legislation to take affect. In how many cases on the past has this been the case? S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerRottweiler Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) It isn't as bad as I first thought it would be. Very limitied scope. Let's say it applied beyond that scope.....then what? Even if so, I can already see several ways to get out of charges, namely, reasonable person. Is it unreasonable to let a dog loose in an off leash area, where that dog has never in its life displayed aggressive behaviour before? Glad that the rules for dogs on their own property have not changed. (Of course 'dangerous' or 'restricited' breeds would have be properly confined). Edited September 15, 2011 by DerRottweiler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quickasyoucan Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 So am I right in reading that if your dog is not a restricted breed and has not previously been declared dangerous or menacing then you cannot be prosecuted. So the dog that killed Ayen (not being at the time a restricted breed as it was a cross) and not being the subject of previous declarations, the owner would not have been prosecutable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerRottweiler Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) So am I right in reading that if your dog is not a restricted breed and has not previously been declared dangerous or menacing then you cannot be prosecuted. So the dog that killed Ayen (not being at the time a restricted breed as it was a cross) and not being the subject of previous declarations, the owner would not have been prosecutable. Pretty much. BUT the worrying part is when you read this (Domestic Animals ACt 1994): Domestic Animals Act 1994 - SECT 98A PART 7E IDENTIFICATION OF RESTRICTED BREED DOGS Power of authorised officers to make declarations as to breed of dogs 98A. Power of authorised officers to make declarations as to breed of dogs (1) If an authorised officer is of the opinion that a dog is a restricted breed dog, the authorised officer may make a declaration to the effect that the dog is a restricted breed dog. That's how they could get crosses....'looks like a pit to me'. Edited September 15, 2011 by DerRottweiler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) The point I was making was the dog has to be a declared Dangerous, menacing or restricted dog for the legislation to take affect. In how many cases on the past has this been the case? S That's a fair point, Sticky. You're right, in a sense the legislation still hones in on the dog, rather than squarely on an owner's behaviour. It's just slotting in to the questionable things about 'restricted' breeds that's in other legislation (as DR's posted). I wish there was a category of negligence in managing a dog.....any dog. ( Just like there's a possible charge of negligence in operating a motor vehicle. Any motor vehicle. ) But I need to read that legislation more carefully again. Thanks for posting it. Edited September 15, 2011 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RottnBullies Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 New legislation is here: http://www.legislati...E/571189bi1.pdf The chance of anyone ever being found guilty seems extremely unlikely. Just basically more fluff from the Vic gov. S Unbelievable! This just keeps on getting better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rep628 Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 New legislation is here: http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs.nsf/ee665e366dcb6cb0ca256da400837f6b/280A7ABA6DD14BDECA25790A0011E320/$FILE/571189bi1.pdf The chance of anyone ever being found guilty seems extremely unlikely. Just basically more fluff from the Vic gov. S So am I right in reading that if your dog is not a restricted breed and has not previously been declared dangerous or menacing then you cannot be prosecuted. So the dog that killed Ayen (not being at the time a restricted breed as it was a cross) and not being the subject of previous declarations, the owner would not have been prosecutable. Pretty much. BUT the worrying part is when you read this (Domestic Animals ACt 1994): Domestic Animals Act 1994 - SECT 98A PART 7E IDENTIFICATION OF RESTRICTED BREED DOGS Power of authorised officers to make declarations as to breed of dogs 98A. Power of authorised officers to make declarations as to breed of dogs (1) If an authorised officer is of the opinion that a dog is a restricted breed dog, the authorised officer may make a declaration to the effect that the dog is a restricted breed dog. That's how they could get crosses....'looks like a pit to me'. Well, my head has just exploded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horse2008 Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 So, this means that a staffy x whatever that looks kinda like what they think a pit bull looks like, it's as good as dead if an ACO calls you out? This is an absolute load of horseshite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kajirin Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Guess it comes under the 'if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck" mentality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kajirin Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Actually made me remember I had posted two pics in some news threads asking people to guess the breeds. Was interesting [will put them up on here]... Now I know what breeds they are crossed with, but I'd like to see an ACO properly id :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 They cant and this is why legislation like this all over the world has bombed because now and then you get someone who isnt willing to simply hand over the family pet and agree with the ACO and it takes mega bucks,stress and resources to deal with it in court. If ever there was a wake up call its now - register your dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Guess it comes under the 'if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck" mentality Except in this case they don't check for the quack!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 BUMP!!! Sarcasm (including my own) aside, this legislation is important. What are the liabilities? How do you deal with the a##-hole who chooses for 'mean' and socialises to create 'meaner' from mean. This legislation requires at least as much attention as the idiotic 'standard' that VIC is setting forward. fortunately, I'm not in VIC and don't need to worry about Victorian 'penalty units'. But if VIC dog owners want to get reasonable treatment before the law, they're going to have to read and understand proposed changes of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 This legislation will affect the people least able to afford it (as is ever the case). 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