dancinbcs Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 CAA amendments State lifetime registration is staying with a small increase in price and to indexed to inflation. Most of the rest refers to the new term of "menacing" dogs as well as dangerous and restricted dogs. I particularly like the part about it being an offence to allow your dog to rush at, chase or attack any person or animal except vermin. Hopefully this will be enforced with all the idiots that think it is ok to let an untrained dog off lead to rush at any dog or person it sees. Off lead area or not it is not ok for any dog to rush at another person or dog and now we have a law against it. There are some bits in here that will not be popular but it could have been so much worse. These amendments have been passed and everyone should read them. There is more re breeders to be discussed and decided in 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiecuddles Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Glad they are keeping lifetime registration. I've lived in places with yearly rego and there are so many animals that are simply not registered at all because people don't want to have to pay every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Katdogs posted a thread about his earlier with a link to a document that is a little easier to absorb. See the thread here: http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/253430-changes-to-nsw-laws/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 The menacing thing is fantastic, it's going to result it a lot of dogs being declared menacing rather than dangerous, which will be a better life for the dogs and their owners. I was super excited until I read this: 33A Meaning of “menacing” and “menacing breed or kind of dog”(1) For the purposes of this Act, a dog is menacing if it: (a) has displayed unreasonable aggression towards a person or animal (other than vermin), or (b) has, without provocation, attacked a person or animal (other than vermin) but without causing serious injury or death. (2) The regulations may declare a breed or kind of dog to be a menacing breed or kind of dog. (3) The Minister is not to recommend the making of a regulation under subsection (2) unless the Minister is satisfied that the breed or kind of dog concerned displays characteristics associated with menacing behaviour. APage 7 Companion Animals Amendment Bill 2013 [NSW] Schedule 1 Amendment of Companion Animals Act 1998 No 87 failure to comply with this subsection does not invalidate the regulation concerned. You guys realise that they have just made it super easy to, and clearly have the intentions to, add more breeds to BSL under the menacing category? Owners of any large, powerful breed should be very afraid. They wouldn't have put that in unless they intend to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mixeduppup Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 If they bring BSL into this state like they have done in Vic I'll be moving so far outback that no one will care what I own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 The menacing thing is fantastic, it's going to result it a lot of dogs being declared menacing rather than dangerous, which will be a better life for the dogs and their owners. I was super excited until I read this: 33A Meaning of "menacing" and "menacing breed or kind of dog"(1) For the purposes of this Act, a dog is menacing if it: (a) has displayed unreasonable aggression towards a person or animal (other than vermin), or (b) has, without provocation, attacked a person or animal (other than vermin) but without causing serious injury or death. (2) The regulations may declare a breed or kind of dog to be a menacing breed or kind of dog. (3) The Minister is not to recommend the making of a regulation under subsection (2) unless the Minister is satisfied that the breed or kind of dog concerned displays characteristics associated with menacing behaviour. APage 7 Companion Animals Amendment Bill 2013 [NSW] Schedule 1 Amendment of Companion Animals Act 1998 No 87 failure to comply with this subsection does not invalidate the regulation concerned. You guys realise that they have just made it super easy to, and clearly have the intentions to, add more breeds to BSL under the menacing category? Owners of any large, powerful breed should be very afraid. They wouldn't have put that in unless they intend to use it. Yep there goes the Maremma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 (edited) The menacing thing is fantastic, it's going to result it a lot of dogs being declared menacing rather than dangerous, which will be a better life for the dogs and their owners. I was super excited until I read this: 33A Meaning of “menacing” and “menacing breed or kind of dog”(1) For the purposes of this Act, a dog is menacing if it: (a) has displayed unreasonable aggression towards a person or animal (other than vermin), or (b) has, without provocation, attacked a person or animal (other than vermin) but without causing serious injury or death. (2) The regulations may declare a breed or kind of dog to be a menacing breed or kind of dog. (3) The Minister is not to recommend the making of a regulation under subsection (2) unless the Minister is satisfied that the breed or kind of dog concerned displays characteristics associated with menacing behaviour. APage 7 Companion Animals Amendment Bill 2013 [NSW] Schedule 1 Amendment of Companion Animals Act 1998 No 87 failure to comply with this subsection does not invalidate the regulation concerned. You guys realise that they have just made it super easy to, and clearly have the intentions to, add more breeds to BSL under the menacing category? Owners of any large, powerful breed should be very afraid. They wouldn't have put that in unless they intend to use it. I agree with Melza. Alarm bells rang loud for me the moment I read "… unless the Minister is satisfied that the breed or kind of dog concerned displays characteristics associated with menacing behaviour. …" So the Minister makes the decision based on whether the dog concerned is of a particular breed or type that has been identified (in the Government's view, of course) that such BREED is a breed type that is menacing. Other alarm bells rang as well - based on experience here in Victoria. Terminology is the big thing and all it takes is for one person's word against another's as to whether a dog did really "rush" or didn't "rush", and so on. Split hairs, precedent set …. and all the Governments seek to do is 'TOUGHEN LAWS". That's the catch phrase for the Government here …. "TOUGHEN" - instead of looking to better and different laws (because that takes a bit more thought and penmanship), they stay set on what they have and simply "toughen" them. In other words, add more and more breeds to the ban list and so on. Your laws can be the very beginning of the same as what we've ended up with here. For your dogs' sake, I hope I'm wrong. Edited November 17, 2013 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 The menacing thing is fantastic, it's going to result it a lot of dogs being declared menacing rather than dangerous, which will be a better life for the dogs and their owners. I was super excited until I read this: 33A Meaning of “menacing” and “menacing breed or kind of dog”(1) For the purposes of this Act, a dog is menacing if it: (a) has displayed unreasonable aggression towards a person or animal (other than vermin), or (b) has, without provocation, attacked a person or animal (other than vermin) but without causing serious injury or death. (2) The regulations may declare a breed or kind of dog to be a menacing breed or kind of dog. (3) The Minister is not to recommend the making of a regulation under subsection (2) unless the Minister is satisfied that the breed or kind of dog concerned displays characteristics associated with menacing behaviour. APage 7 Companion Animals Amendment Bill 2013 [NSW] Schedule 1 Amendment of Companion Animals Act 1998 No 87 failure to comply with this subsection does not invalidate the regulation concerned. You guys realise that they have just made it super easy to, and clearly have the intentions to, add more breeds to BSL under the menacing category? Owners of any large, powerful breed should be very afraid. They wouldn't have put that in unless they intend to use it. Yep agreed, I think any large guarding, guardian breed, or bull breed is walking a very thin line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mixeduppup Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 I have a maremma and a bullarab. I'm so worried Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Who the hell was on the committe that put together these stupid amendments? Was there one? T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Tdierikx Council officers on the ground actually enforcing this legislation certainly weren't. The menacing thing without the breed basis is great. There will be so many less dogs cooped up in a cage or dead because the council will now have the option to go e menacing rather than dangerous following an incident. A lot of the time we are pretty much forced into a dangerous dog declaration even though it is totally overkill, because we have no other option at our disposal apart from a fine. This is actually a good thing for most dogs involved in an incident. It's the breed specific part that is so scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Who wants to make a bet on how long they will take to scoop the Bull Mastiff up as a menacing breed... After-all, they have been grooming the public to see them as the new pitbull for a fair while now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yarracully Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 The menacing thing is fantastic, it's going to result it a lot of dogs being declared menacing rather than dangerous, which will be a better life for the dogs and their owners. I was super excited until I read this: 33A Meaning of “menacing” and “menacing breed or kind of dog”(1) For the purposes of this Act, a dog is menacing if it: (a) has displayed unreasonable aggression towards a person or animal (other than vermin), or (b) has, without provocation, attacked a person or animal (other than vermin) but without causing serious injury or death. (2) The regulations may declare a breed or kind of dog to be a menacing breed or kind of dog. (3) The Minister is not to recommend the making of a regulation under subsection (2) unless the Minister is satisfied that the breed or kind of dog concerned displays characteristics associated with menacing behaviour. APage 7 Companion Animals Amendment Bill 2013 [NSW] Schedule 1 Amendment of Companion Animals Act 1998 No 87 failure to comply with this subsection does not invalidate the regulation concerned. You guys realise that they have just made it super easy to, and clearly have the intentions to, add more breeds to BSL under the menacing category? Owners of any large, powerful breed should be very afraid. They wouldn't have put that in unless they intend to use it. May not apply to large breed dogs only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 When was the last time anyone here heard of any small breed dog being declared dangerous? Even after it has wilfully attacked on more than one occasion? Regardless of new legislation, I still don't see it being applied equally to small breed dogs. There is still the stupid misconception that smaller dogs "don't do that much damage"... As someone who for many years had a complete phobia about small dogs and being bitten by same - after having one too many bad experiences - I'm not a fan of any legislation that will NOT be applied equally across the breed spectrum. I'm still much more cautious when approaching a smaller breed dog than a large breed, even after a number of years in rescue and learning to handle all sorts of dogs under all sorts of conditions. For example, I'm more comfortable approaching a stray staffy/pit mix with young pups to protect, than approaching a solo SWF I don't know... strange, but true... *sigh* T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Her Majesty Dogmad Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 (edited) When was the last time anyone here heard of any small breed dog being declared dangerous? Even after it has wilfully attacked on more than one occasion? Regardless of new legislation, I still don't see it being applied equally to small breed dogs. There is still the stupid misconception that smaller dogs "don't do that much damage"... As someone who for many years had a complete phobia about small dogs and being bitten by same - after having one too many bad experiences - I'm not a fan of any legislation that will NOT be applied equally across the breed spectrum. I'm still much more cautious when approaching a smaller breed dog than a large breed, even after a number of years in rescue and learning to handle all sorts of dogs under all sorts of conditions. For example, I'm more comfortable approaching a stray staffy/pit mix with young pups to protect, than approaching a solo SWF I don't know... strange, but true... *sigh* T. I agree with your assessment of your fear, very strange. Small dogs have been declared dangerous, don't you worry. Edited November 18, 2013 by dogmad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 (edited) When was the last time anyone here heard of any small breed dog being declared dangerous? Even after it has wilfully attacked on more than one occasion? Regardless of new legislation, I still don't see it being applied equally to small breed dogs. There is still the stupid misconception that smaller dogs "don't do that much damage"... As someone who for many years had a complete phobia about small dogs and being bitten by same - after having one too many bad experiences - I'm not a fan of any legislation that will NOT be applied equally across the breed spectrum. I'm still much more cautious when approaching a smaller breed dog than a large breed, even after a number of years in rescue and learning to handle all sorts of dogs under all sorts of conditions. For example, I'm more comfortable approaching a stray staffy/pit mix with young pups to protect, than approaching a solo SWF I don't know... strange, but true... *sigh* T. I agree with your assessment of your fear, very strange. Small dogs have been declared dangerous, don't you worry. Any fear or bias against an entire 'type' or breed of dog is irrational, including yours. Edited November 18, 2013 by melzawelza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatic Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 CAA amendments State lifetime registration is staying with a small increase in price and to indexed to inflation. Most of the rest refers to the new term of "menacing" dogs as well as dangerous and restricted dogs. I particularly like the part about it being an offence to allow your dog to rush at, chase or attack any person or animal except vermin. Hopefully this will be enforced with all the idiots that think it is ok to let an untrained dog off lead to rush at any dog or person it sees. Off lead area or not it is not ok for any dog to rush at another person or dog and now we have a law against it. There are some bits in here that will not be popular but it could have been so much worse. These amendments have been passed and everyone should read them. There is more re breeders to be discussed and decided in 2014. Thanks for the heads-up! Just to be clear, the "rush at, chase or attack any person or animal except vermin" reference is in the Offences and Penalties section. It describes an offence. It doesn't relate to the categories of "dangerous, menacing or restricted dogs" except to say that the penalties are higher in those cases. For the new "menacing dog" category, the key term is "unreasonable aggression" which is not defined. The test for "unreasonable aggression" is: whether an ordinary dog placed in the same circumstances of the allegedly dangerous or menacing dog would have behaved in such a manner. See 9.4.2 of GUIDELINE ON THE EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS UNDER THE COMPANION ANIMALS ACT Now! What's an "ordinary dog" again? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Yea, I'd be interested in how they determine this? Ordinary dogs under poor management show chasing, rushing and even "attacking" behaviors all the time. Lots of dogs will react this way to cats. Do they count cats as pets or pest animals now? Or does it depend if the cat is owned or feral? And how is the dog meant to know the difference? Lol questions over questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Yea, I'd be interested in how they determine this? Ordinary dogs under poor management show chasing, rushing and even "attacking" behaviors all the time. Lots of dogs will react this way to cats. Do they count cats as pets or pest animals now? Or does it depend if the cat is owned or feral? And how is the dog meant to know the difference? Lol questions over questions. Currently if a dog attacks a cat off it's own property it is most likely to earn a Dangerous Dog Declaration. The incident is viewed the same in the legislation whether it's a person, a dog or a cat. Only vermin is excepted. The Menacing thing might allow some dogs to get menacing rather than Dangerous for these incidents, although it's unlikely as most dogs will kill or do a real number on a cat if they get to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJaq Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 (edited) Yes, cats certainly are a bit out there.. On one hand, they don't have to be confined to their own property or accompanied by an owner, but on another hand, if one jumps out at your dog from a bush and the dog kills fluffy then the dog is in the shit.... Also I remember them crapping all over my yard and walking by the windows to tease the dogs when we still lived in town.. I really wish cats were dealt with the same as dogs and had to stay on their own property at all times unless on leash and accompanied by an owner... :p Edited November 19, 2013 by BlackJaq 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