WreckitWhippet Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I only caught part of it on the news but I'm assuming by the statement on behalf of which ever states Govenment, that some one has effectively taken a council to court and won over a restricted breed declaration. I certainly got the impression that which ever state it was, is now going to look at further tightening the legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Are you referring to this item? I only caught part of it on the news but I'm assuming by the statement on behalf of which ever states Govenment, that some one has effectively taken a council to court and won over a restricted breed declaration. I certainly got the impression that which ever state it was, is now going to look at further tightening the legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Link Court blow to push on dangerous dog breeds Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/court-blow-to-push-on-dangerous-dog-breeds-20130126- 2ddw1.html#ixzz2J9Kei748My link Court blow to push on dangerous dog breeds Illustration: Matt Golding. THE Supreme Court has dealt the Baillieu government's campaign to rid the state of dangerous dogs a major blow by granting a reprieve to two dogs deemed American pit bull terriers by Darebin and Monash councils. The court overturned a decision by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which, agreeing with the councils, had ruled the dogs complied with the legal definition of a restricted breed and should be put down. The Supreme Court ordered the two councils to pay more than $200,000 in legal fees and pound costs, a move expected to deter other legal challenges by local governments. VCAT had made an error of law in ruling the dogs were American pit bulls, said Justice Stephen Kaye, who ruled the physical characteristics of a dog must have a closer association with government guidelines for dangerous breeds. The appeal case has highlighted the difficulties in identifying dogs believed to be pit bull terriers and could undermine the laws introduced in September 2011 following the fatal mauling of four-year-old St Albans girl Ayen Chol. Under the contentious laws, all American pit bull terriers must be placed on a dangerous dog register, microchipped, desexed and muzzled when in public. Councils were given the power to destroy dogs whose owners failed to comply. Owners face 10 years' prison if their pets are responsible for the death of a person. Monash mayor Micaela Drieberg urged the state government to amend the legislation following the recent Supreme Court decision, which had ''raised the bar very high''. ''The government brought in these laws with the best of intentions, but the laws are not working. We're keen to see the state government refine the laws to address the issues that are coming up,'' Cr Drieberg said. She said most councils faced massive legal costs every time a dog was declared to be a restricted breed. The dog at the centre of the legal dispute with Monash Council, Rapta, was recently returned to its owner, while Darebin council was forced to return a dog called Tia that had been impounded for several months. A Darebin council spokeswoman said the court decision would not be appealed but would serve as a guide when assessing dogs in future. The court ruling has been hailed as a victory by owners of affected breeds, who have vowed to mount further court action against councils. American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia president Colin Muir confirmed the organisation had helped fund several legal challenges. Mr Muir said the recent decision would provide greater certainty for owners and discourage councils from taking legal action without proof a dog was one of the five breeds designated as dangerous by the government. ''The councils and the government need to know that we're not going away. These laws don't work; the government knows this but are just interested in being seen to be doing something,'' Mr Muir said. He said most dogs found to be pit bull terriers by council staff had never been involved in an attack. Hospital admissions due to dog-related injuries rose from 451 in 2000-01 to 717 in 2010, according to figures collected by Monash University's Victorian Injury Surveillance Unit. ■[email protected] Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz2J9K8pEqm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 That's the one... Now what needs to happen is for more people to take local councils to court or at the very least threaten to do so via Solicitors letter as local councils aren't going to want to be spending rate payer dollars , enforcing State Gov legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 That's the one... Now what needs to happen is for more people to take local councils to court or at the very least threaten to do so via Solicitors letter as local councils aren't going to want to be spending rate payer dollars , enforcing State Gov legislation. Very true. At this moment, there is fund raising underway to do just that. The people who have been helping with these cases, and indeed have offered to help all cases that have come up in VCAT are fundraising on Facebook. There is at the moment an online auction being run, and there is a Rock Gig that is being held for the owners and dogs in February. The facebook page, Dogs On Trial Victoria has details of cases, decisions and fundraising. The cost for an owner if they lose in VCAT and decide to appeal in the Supreme Court is enormous. Not many owners would have that kind of money available. The appeal for Rapta (Baby) cost $30,000. I am not sure if I am allowed to put the facebook links on the forum, but if anyone would like the links, or information, please PM me. I would also like to add that some councils are informing owners that they will have to pay boarding for their dog while waiting for the appeals to come up in court. In most cases, this is not the case, and is being used as a strategy by councils to try and deter appeals. Rapta was held for around 15months, and the owner legally didn't have to pay for kenneling fees. And didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 send me the link... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 It now appears that the Premier of Victoria doesn't agree with the Supreme Court and has no respect for their decision. With Dogs Victoria now assisting councils and the government, I hope that with this latest statement from the premier, they can see exactly what they have bought in to. Ted Baillieu appears to have no respect for the court system in which these dogs won their appeals legally. With his statement in this article, he still says "these dogs" are restricted breeds, so I guess we don't need to have a judicial system any more, we can just ask Ted. Baillieu could toughen Dangerous Dog Laws Baillieu could toughen dangerous dog laws THE Victorian government could again toughen laws against dangerous dogs, after a court overturned the decision to put down two animals deemed to be pit bull terriers. The Domestic Animals Act was strengthened in 2011 after four-year-old Ayen Chol was mauled to death by a neighbour's pit bull mastiff in suburban St Albans. Under the Act, dangerous breeds such as pit bulls can only be kept if they were registered in Victoria before September 2011. The Supreme Court of Victoria in November ruled in favour of two people whose dogs had been deemed pit bulls by local councils and were due to be put down. The court found the dogs did not meet the definition of the breed as described in the legislation. Mr Baillieu on Sunday said his government would look at amending current laws. "There is no place for dangerous dogs in Victoria," he told reporters in Melbourne. "If we have to change legislation, we will change it. "We remained determined to get these dogs off the streets, get these dogs out of our lives and get these dogs out of Victoria." A coronial investigation into Ayen's death recommended the onus of establishing that a dog is a restricted breed should lie with its owners and not authorities. The coroner also suggested veterinarians be required to report to authorities their knowledge of any restricted breed or suspected restricted breed dog which is unregistered, not desexed and not microchipped. Mr Baillieu said the government would soon respond to the coroner's recommendations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 I agree with him " there is no place for dangerous dogs " , however he needs to understand that a "dangerous dog" can be any dog or any breed or cross. Once he can work out the difference between a "dangerous dog" and a "resticted breed" be might be able to make some headway towards ridding the State of "dangerus dogs" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Yep, totally agree, we don't need Dangerous dogs, however he is referring to the dogs who won their appeal in the Supreme Court. They had not been involved in an incident, or accused of Dangerous Dog. In fact, one of the dogs, the one who was impounded for 15 months, is one of the best dogs i have ever met, with other dogs, other animals and people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 (edited) Insane. that man is a menace! And the coroner in Ayen Chol's case must be mentally impaired. I have read the report, it was hideous. They refused to do an internal autopsy even after finding ulcerated bed sores from sleeping on hard surfaces (concrete?) on the dog! It was obviously in pain but that never even figured into their report, they simply concluded that it was a pitbull, hence it killed that girl! What a joke! It was also suspected to have been kept chained.... Edited January 27, 2013 by BlackJaq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Baillieu is a cretin. So glad these two dogs got to go home :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k9angel Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 So glad these two dogs got to go home :) Me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Me too. Every time they want to 'Tighten shit up' they dig themselves a deeper and deeper hole, it costs everyone more and more to enforce it. They can never win the war on PB terrier because well we all know why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmwvic Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Petition for another dog heading to the Supreme Court at: http://www.causes.com/actions/1731598-free-bobo?token=Ra69T6vHMqrFKV0WBP9YQuKF&utm_campaign=activity_progress_mailer%2Fnth_action_taken&utm_medium=email&utm_source=causes Please sign and share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocketeer Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 i applaud people who have the guts to "stick it to the man!". 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