Jump to content

Aust Officials To Kill Pit Bulls, Other 'dangerous' Breeds


lmwvic
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://news.vin.com/VINNews.aspx?articleId=19920

Australian officials to kill pit bulls, other 'dangerous' breeds

September 29, 2011

By:

Angie DeRosa

For The VIN News Service

A law takes effect Friday in Victoria, Australia, that could be the country's toughest regulation of the American pit bull terrier and four other dog breeds, based on the notion that some breeds are inherently dangerous.

The crackdown — spurred by several recent attacks including last month's mauling death of a 4-year-old Melbourne girl — has veterinarians in Australia and other countries objecting to the idea that certain types of dogs are more likely than others to bite. Practitioners also fear that they will be dragged into Victoria's efforts to kill pit bulls by being asked to identify and euthanize them.

Beginning Friday, authorities will knock on doors in Victoria, seizing and euthanizing any American pit bull terrier — or dog that looks like one — that is not registered as a restricted breed with local officials. Owners of lookalikes such as American Staffordshire terriers need a certificate from a veterinarian or pedigree papers from breed registry groups that prove their ancestry.

In addition to the American pit bull terrier, the restriction in Victoria includes the perro de presa canario, dogo Argentino (Argentinian fighting dog), Japanese tosa and fila Brasileiro (Brazilian fighting dog). Pit bulls are the most common among the restricted breeds in Victoria. To keep a restricted dog, owners must register their dogs with local municipal councils and prove that the animals are spayed and neutered, microchipped, housed in an inescapable enclosure, muzzled and leashed off premises, among other requirements.

Dogs of mixed ancestry that visibly show characteristics of any of the restricted breeds are included in the regulation. Exactly what those characteristics are is not defined.

In addition to the ban, legislation recently introduced by the Victorian Coalition Government in Parliament proposes that owners with dogs of restricted breeds or are declared dangerous face up to 10 years in jail if their dogs kill someone.

Branding entire breeds as dangerous has incited an outcry from veterinary communities in Australia and the United States. In North America, cities such as Denver and Toronto have faced similar controversy when area politicians used legislation to target pit bulls and other breeds. Breed restrictions of varying kinds exist in dozens of U.S. cities and currently are being discussed in municipalities from Maine to Mississippi.

On Aug. 31, the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) spoke out against the legislation through a media release. AVA Victorian President Dr. Susan Maastricht lamented that innocent family pets are becoming scapegoats for aggressive dogs. She noted that dog bite incidents aren't limited to pit bull breeds.

“The risk is this could lull the community into a false sense of security and do little to address the overall problem of dog bites,” she said. “... Dogs of any breed known to be aggressive and potentially dangerous must be properly housed and restrained. But just declaring that some breeds are dangerous and others aren’t is misleading."

To spread this message, the AVA has adopted the slogan “Ban the deed, not the breed.” The group's campaign focuses on educating the public about what causes dogs to bite as well as responsible ownership, which involves socializing and training family pets.

Joining the AVA's efforts is the Veterinary Defence Association, Ltd. (VDA), a non-profit group that provides legal defense for veterinarians in the United States, South Africa, Canada, Europe, South America and Australia. Founder David Carser, a veterinarian and lawyer, has put out a call for veterinarians worldwide to protest Victoria's breed ban.

The VDA has issued an alert to its Australian members and a letter of protest to the Victorian Parliament. Carser encourages others to take similar action.

“You don’t have to like pit bulls,” he said. “You just have to hate man’s inhumanity toward pit bulls.”

When it comes to breed-specific legislation, many veterinarians are staunch critics. The American Veterinary Medical Association opposes laws targeting pit bulls and other breeds on grounds that dangerous dogs are a product of irresponsible owners, and casting a blanket policy encompassing a breed is excessive.

Confusion also stems from the fact that by itself, the pit bull does not constitute a breed. Rather, it is a general term that covers dogs with similar traits and characteristics such as American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers and American bulldogs.

“There are more than 10 other breeds that may be confused visually with a pit bull or a pit bull cross,” Carser, of the VDA, wrote in an email to the VIN News Service.

Considering that owners and authorities will bring dogs to be euthanized to Victorian veterinarians, the identification of a dog's breed carries a high level of legal risk, Carser said.

With power to determine and certify whether a dog is of a breed on the restricted list, Victorian veterinarians could be held liable if a dog deemed to be of an unrestricted breed subsequently bites someone. On the other hand, veterinarians could be sued if they wrongly label a dog as a restricted breed and it's euthanized, Carser said.

Another potential legal pitfall: It's foreseeable that Victorian veterinarians could be in breach of their ethical obligation to practice using scientifically justifiable and defendable principles, Carser said. Evaluating whether a dog is a pit bull — and therefore should live or die — based on appearance is largely subjective. DNA analysis reputably has no value, he added.

As a result, the VDA advises its members to avoid issuing any certificate identifying a dog's breed and to refuse to euthanize a dog on the basis of breed unless the owner has signed a euthanasia consent form specifically designed for such incidents.

While the logistics of executing Victoria's breed ban are still being worked out, national legislation in Australia appears to be brewing.

On Aug. 18, Victoria's Premier Ted Baillieu noted during a press conference that legislation is being drafted. As for killing dogs of breeds deemed "dangerous" in Victoria, he professed an urgency to be "rid of these dogs as soon as we possibly can."

Edited by lmwvic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Words spoken by a Vet this morning

"Today for the first time in 20 years I am questioning if I still want to do this job. My staff and I are all in tears after having to put down our first Pit Bull under the new legislation. He had been dumped, by an owner who had put in the time for this magnificent dog to be friendly to all, shake hands and worse still licked my face with kisses as he passed. To all the friends that I have made in the shelter systems and council officers etc over the years, you have my thoughts with you as you too are forced to apply an unjust law. I have no issue with "bad dogs" and bad owners being labelled, but this is not the way to do it. To the unknown dog that now sleeps in the arms of my staff with our tears, may life make you look different next time because in this life that was your only flaw."

:cry: :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words spoken by a Vet this morning

"Today for the first time in 20 years I am questioning if I still want to do this job. My staff and I are all in tears after having to put down our first Pit Bull under the new legislation. He had been dumped, by an owner who had put in the time for this magnificent dog to be friendly to all, shake hands and worse still licked my face with kisses as he passed. To all the friends that I have made in the shelter systems and council officers etc over the years, you have my thoughts with you as you too are forced to apply an unjust law. I have no issue with "bad dogs" and bad owners being labelled, but this is not the way to do it. To the unknown dog that now sleeps in the arms of my staff with our tears, may life make you look different next time because in this life that was your only flaw."

:cry: :cry:

That is heartbreaking. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would love to read the legislation that's allowing the seizure of dogs from properties.

its hard enough to lawfully enter or gain a warrant to enter a persons property to lock up a human for offences.

has anyone read or seen what legislation is being used to seize dogs specific to council folk gaining access and entry to a property for the purpose of assessing or seizing a dog? ? Are they going into houses against owners consent and grabbing dogs or door knocking and hoping people are stupid enough to let them in?

Id be telling any council.inspector to leave my property and that i revoke my tacit consent to them being on my land until id seen some documentation giving them a lawful right to be on my property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riley's Mum, the bill itself is in a thread in this section and I'm pretty sure it has "bill" in the title. I'm on my phone so it's hard to look for it and paste the link but it's probably only on the second or third page.

The new Law is in the form of amendments to the the Domestic Animals Act of 1994 . . . so you have to put the amendments into context of the legislation they amend to read them correctly. Below is what was passed. I doubt it gives right of entry. But I would not be surprised if some gung ho enforcers in some shires go door to door asking to do something like 'check your dog'.

There is an associated Bill, which I think is still awaiting a signature from the Queen's representative, which roughly quadruples penalties if your dangerous or menacing dog kills or endangers someone. The latter is clear as mud. It's entirely couched in terms of 'penalty units'. You gotta know something about Victorian law to make sense of it.

see http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/bill/cadaaaapb2011542.txt/cgi-bin/download.cgi/download/au/legis/vic/bill/cadaaaapb2011542.txt

Domestic Animals Amendment

(Restricted Breeds) Act 2011†

No. 39 of 2011

[Assented to 31 August 2011]

The Parliament of Victoria enacts:

1 Purpose

The main purpose of this Act is to make further

provision with respect to the keeping of restricted

breed dogs.

2 Commencement

This Act comes into operation on 30 September

2011.

Authorised by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel

1

Domestic Animals Amendment (Restricted Breeds) Act 2011

No. 39 of 2011

3 Approval of standard

(1) In section 3(3) of the Domestic Animals Act

1994, for "a standard prescribed by the

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

the Government Gazette.".

4 Limitations on registration of restricted breed dogs

For section 17(1A) of the Domestic Animals Act

1994 substitute—

"(1A) A Council may register a dog as a restricted

breed dog if—

(a) the dog was in Victoria immediately

before the commencement of the

Domestic Animals Amendment

(Dangerous Dogs) Act 2010; and

(b) the dog was registered in Victoria

immediately before the commencement

of the Domestic Animals Amendment

(Restricted Breeds) Act 2011.

Note

Under sections 10A(4) and 10C(6), a Council cannot

register a restricted breed dog unless the dog is

desexed (subject to the exception under section

10B(1)(e)) and the dog has been implanted with a

prescribed permanent identification device.".

Edited by sandgrubber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

feel sorry for the unsuspecting puppy buyers that have bought a pup after september 2010 these pups can not be registered and will be put to sleep if they fall into the description they did not ask to be born it is sad and heart renching and not many seem to realise the problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words spoken by a Vet this morning

"Today for the first time in 20 years I am questioning if I still want to do this job. My staff and I are all in tears after having to put down our first Pit Bull under the new legislation. He had been dumped, by an owner who had put in the time for this magnificent dog to be friendly to all, shake hands and worse still licked my face with kisses as he passed. To all the friends that I have made in the shelter systems and council officers etc over the years, you have my thoughts with you as you too are forced to apply an unjust law. I have no issue with "bad dogs" and bad owners being labelled, but this is not the way to do it. To the unknown dog that now sleeps in the arms of my staff with our tears, may life make you look different next time because in this life that was your only flaw."

:cry: :cry:

This is horrifying. My heart breaks for those having to do these sorts of things.

I too, would be refusing entry to any council worker to my property, but how long it that going to help with this sort of legislation behind it? Sooner or later they'll turn up with a police and a warrant :(

I'm writing a letter now to the Victorian government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

feel sorry for the unsuspecting puppy buyers that have bought a pup after september 2010 these pups can not be registered and will be put to sleep if they fall into the description they did not ask to be born it is sad and heart renching and not many seem to realise the problem

Good to see some empathy. My dogs aren't bull breeds, and I'm not in Victoria. It seems to me that, because we love our own dogs, we should stand together and do what we can to help those unfortunates who are now trying to protect their best friends from this outrageous law.

btw.

People who bought a pup before Sept 2010 get hit just as badly as those who bought after. It's now too late to register.

I feel especially bad for people who rescued a cross breed who looks too much like an APBT to their local ranger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would love to read the legislation that's allowing the seizure of dogs from properties.

its hard enough to lawfully enter or gain a warrant to enter a persons property to lock up a human for offences.

has anyone read or seen what legislation is being used to seize dogs specific to council folk gaining access and entry to a property for the purpose of assessing or seizing a dog? ? Are they going into houses against owners consent and grabbing dogs or door knocking and hoping people are stupid enough to let them in?

Id be telling any council.inspector to leave my property and that i revoke my tacit consent to them being on my land until id seen some documentation giving them a lawful right to be on my property.

I agree, I would be doing the same. Trespass. Some councils will probably try to put things over people, and unfortunately some owners will believe them. Not all, but some. They do have a procedure they need to follow and I worry that a lot of people will just believe what the council workers tell them.

They need to put their decision to declare the dog a Restricted Breed in writing within 7 days. Then, the owner has 28 days to appeal to VCAT. During that time of waiting for the VCAT day, the council can at their discretion leave the dog with the owner, and during that time, the dog does NOT need to be kept under Restricted Breed regs. Lets face it, there are only so many spaces for dogs in pounds, so depending on how many dogs are targetted, they may run out of space. Also, I believe they have trouble getting owners to pay the bording in these circumstances, so the councils may be out of pocket, and they won't like that. This is what I have been told anyway, by a Solicitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't vets hold a strike or something? Refuse to euthanise? :( This news makes me so sad.

That won't work, If owners are wishing to euth and their vet won't do It, they'll just dump them In the pounds to do, and as horrible as It sounds I'd rather the vets do It as they're probably known to the dog, rather than sitting In a pound stressed waiting to die at the hands of strangers :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words spoken by a Vet this morning

"Today for the first time in 20 years I am questioning if I still want to do this job. My staff and I are all in tears after having to put down our first Pit Bull under the new legislation. He had been dumped, by an owner who had put in the time for this magnificent dog to be friendly to all, shake hands and worse still licked my face with kisses as he passed. To all the friends that I have made in the shelter systems and council officers etc over the years, you have my thoughts with you as you too are forced to apply an unjust law. I have no issue with "bad dogs" and bad owners being labelled, but this is not the way to do it. To the unknown dog that now sleeps in the arms of my staff with our tears, may life make you look different next time because in this life that was your only flaw."

:cry: :cry:

:cry: :cry: :cry::(

this just broke my heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts are with all the dog owners in Victoria. When will people learn it's not the breed, it's the humans.

Poor poor dogs. I hope this is overturned or something. Its just not right. Every dog has the capacity to hurt a person if it wants to. It doesn't matter what breed it is. It is dependant on owners training their dogs.

Gah this whole thing is just stupid and shouldn't be happening. What's next?

Hmm I"m going to see if the CEO of RSPCA ACT has made any comments regarding this. He himself owns a lovely pit bull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...