melzawelza Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) Via Team Dog . NSW set to add new breeds to current Breed Discriminatory LegislationYesterday, the NSW Government's released their response to the recommendations from the Companion Animals Taskforce recommendations from last year. There are some fantastic recommendations here that the Government have committed to implementing, such as funding more extensive dog –related educational programs for pre-school aged children and new parents, and the development of a community-wide socially responsible pet ownership education campaign, among many others. They have also agreed to the development of a ‘Responsible Pet Ownership Reference Group’, to research and make recommendations to the Government. Unfortunately, these great initiatives are darkly overshadowed by many recommendations within the report encouraging an extension of Breed Discriminatory Legislation both in NSW and Federally. These recommendations are: -The above mentioned Group to consider and advise on applying the new ‘Menacing’ dog category, which has onerous and extensive ownership requirements almost as restrictive as the ‘Dangerous’ category, to other breeds of dog not already restricted. Menacing dogs cannot be rehomed. - The group to consider whether additional breeds should be added to the Restricted breeds list. Restricted breeds have even more onerous keeping requirements than Menacing dogs, with the addition of the requirement to keep the dog in a purpose-built enclosure in the backyard that restricts who can access the dog and costs easily $3-4k to construct. Restricted breeds cannot be rehomed. - After deciding on breeds that should be added to the Restricted list, the NSW Government will write to the Federal Government to request a review of restricted breeds listed in the Customs Act 1901 “to encourage a nationally consistent approach to this issue that better reflects the risks posed by certain breeds of dogs”. The Customs Act prohibits the import of certain breeds in to Australia, so this has the potential to end the importation of even more breeds to Australia. - Consider requiring veterinary surgeons to report to regulatory authorities if they are called to treat / attend to a dog which is a restricted breed which is not microchipped, registered and/or desexed. This will only result in dogs failing to receive veterinary treatment, and therefore eliminate a very important contact for any owner to learn about appropriate care for their dog. The only outcome for this can be more dog attacks resulting from less responsible ownership. These suggestions are a real and immediate threat not only to owners of currently restricted breeds, but owners of any other breeds that the NSW Government decides are 'high risk'. The implementation of any of these recommendations would result in the large scale killing of dogs based on appearance, not behaviour, with no real benefit to community safety. This type of legislation is also incredibly costly to enforce, taking funds away from the positive programs specified, and taking Ranger resources away from investigating actual Dangerous dogs, regardless of breed. It has been proven time and time again both here and internationally to be a complete and utter failure at improving public safety, and is currently being repealed all over the world. Hundreds of thousands of people saw our picture and post about Bonnie, who was killed in a Sydney pound by Breed Discriminatory Legislation only very recently. You, the public, showed us that you want smart legislation, not breed specific legislation through our #BonnieLives campaign. There is now the potential for Bonnie’s story to be replayed over and over again, with dogs that look like her as well as many other dogs that look different to her, too. Please share this post to bring this immediate threat to dog ownership and public safety in NSW and Australia to the attention of the masses. Please also like our page, Team Dog, to keep up to date, as we will be formulating a plan moving forward to attempt to prevent these recommendations becoming a reality. Read the full response here: http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Government%20Response%20to%20Companion%20Animals%20Taskforce%20Recommendations.pdf Direct link to post here. Please share if you are on Facebook. This has the potential to end the breeding and showing of breeds in NSW (menacing and restricted dogs must be desexed) and also the import of said breeds in to Australia. Edited February 4, 2014 by melzawelza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Shit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Gifts Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 That's another state to add to my list of places to avoid. Do they not research anything from other states or countries on this issue? It's like when they get scared they put more rules in place to try and 'fix' it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 That's another state to add to my list of places to avoid. Do they not research anything from other states or countries on this issue? It's like when they get scared they put more rules in place to try and 'fix' it. Unfortunately this has the potential to affect dogs and dog owners Federally, if they succeed in having more breeds added to the import prohibitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 This country has really turned to @#%!. Run by a bunch of mental midgets. Followed by a bunch of mental midgets. Change the script. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Immediate threat to all dog owners. That's a little alarmist don't you think? I raced into this thread thinking my dogs were at risk of imminent death. I had visions of a murderous spree being undertaken by masked madmen. I can well understand the concerns but whipping dog owners into a frenzy with irrational and broadly based statements will not help the cause in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) Immediate threat to all dog owners. That's a little alarmist don't you think? I raced into this thread thinking my dogs were at risk of imminent death. I had visions of a murderous spree being undertaken by masked madmen. I can well understand the concerns but whipping dog owners into a frenzy with irrational and broadly based statements will not help the cause in my opinion. If you don't think this is an immediate threat to dog owners and dog ownership them I think you're underestimating the situation. ETA: Might not be masked madmen, but how about uniformed animal control officers and police breaking into your house and seizing your dog while you're out doing the shopping, to take it to be killed? You come home to feces and urine all over your house due to your dog being so terrified. That's the reality and it's exactly that which happened in Victoria recently. Edited February 4, 2014 by melzawelza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I really hate this country now NZ here I come! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan B Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I can well understand the concerns but whipping dog owners into a frenzy with irrational and broadly based statements will not help the cause in my opinion. Because sitting back and watching VIC go to the crapper worked so well. And if you really thought a forum post was going to warn you about masked men right outside your window, that's a little concerning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) More alarm! I think you need to look at thinking of strategies that might actually work, not playing scare tactics and senselessly aiming to frighten people. No-one will be breaking in to my home and stealing my dogs anytime soon. I'm quite certain of that. I can well understand the concerns but whipping dog owners into a frenzy with irrational and broadly based statements will not help the cause in my opinion. Because sitting back and watching VIC go to the crapper worked so well. And if you really thought a forum post was going to warn you about masked men right outside your window, that's a little concerning. Plan B, your ability to actually read appears to be deteriorating. If I were you, I'd be more concerned about that then being worried about something that was never said. Masked men? Outside my window? Really? :laugh: Edited February 4, 2014 by ~Anne~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Maeby Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) I'm not clear what the threat is (for example to me as an owner of a purebred Pug)? I'm sorry, I don't understand. Can someone please spell it out for me really clearly? :) Edited February 4, 2014 by puggedforlife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apocalypsepwnie Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Immediate threat to all dog owners. That's a little alarmist don't you think? I raced into this thread thinking my dogs were at risk of imminent death. I had visions of a murderous spree being undertaken by masked madmen. I can well understand the concerns but whipping dog owners into a frenzy with irrational and broadly based statements will not help the cause in my opinion.If you don't think this is an immediate threat to dog owners and dog ownership them I think you're underestimating the situation.ETA: Might not be masked madmen, but how about uniformed animal control officers and police breaking into your house and seizing your dog while you're out doing the shopping, to take it to be killed? You come home to feces and urine all over your house due to your dog being so terrified. That's the reality and it's exactly that which happened in Victoria recently. The enemy hiding in plain sight. The monsters are not under our beds, there are inside of us. I feared for this. I fear for myself and anyone with a bull or mastiff breed/type dog. Even other breeds come under their model of 'dangerous dog breed' that was released recently. How can anyone look into Bonnie's eyes and not see her soul. The picture used SCREAMS to me that she was a dog who just wanted someone to love her as unconditionally as she loved them. Give her a chance. I'm going to give Vinnie extra cuddles from now on as it seems my time may be limited with him if this is passed. Even at 12 weeks the discrimination and recoil we have suffered is beyond a joke. I already know of the eroneous complaints made about dogs that are actioned. It only takes one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavik Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Wonder what breeds will be added? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Who the hell was on the committee that thought up these new recommendations? Where were representatives from a more balanced background? T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 Tdeirikx none of the breed specific stuff in here was actually in the taskforce recommendations, so it seems the minister himself has been the one who has taken the initiative to add it all in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Does anyone know the composition of the 'Responsible Pet Ownership Reference Group' mentioned in the OP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 ... and who is the Minister responsible? I think a letter writing campaign may be in order here... T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan B Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) Plan B, your ability to actually read appears to be deteriorating. If I were you, I'd be more concerned about that then being worried about something that was never said. Masked men? Outside my widow? Really? :laugh: Ugh. I expanded upon your rather fantastical reply. So sue me. But let's at least stay on topic. If you don't want to discuss the issue within the thread and instead want to argue semantics and how it was posted, maybe just leave it at that? I'm not clear what the threat is (for example to me as an owner of a purebred Pug)? I'm sorry, I don't understand. Can someone please spell it out for me really clearly? :) Because while the Pug breed is very unlikely to be restricted or classed as "menacing," this type of legislation promotes the idea that those breeds that are restricted are unfriendly, and those that aren't are friendly. A lot of time, effort, and money goes into this proven to fail legislation and way of thinking that, ultimately, makes your community unsafe. So while these recommendations don't target your dog specifically, the side effect is that you/your dog could very well become the victim of bad, ineffective legislation. The threat to all pet owners is there. It's an immediate threat. And, okay, just to please someone, you can sit back and finish your cup of tea before deciding to move against it, but leave it too long and more and more dogs will lose their lives - as we've seen before. Edited February 4, 2014 by Plan B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 The solution is actually to ban screwed up owners... but that would be too hard, yes? So let's ban breeds that "look" a certain way instead... that's way easier... but it won't work either. T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 Does anyone know the composition of the 'Responsible Pet Ownership Reference Group' mentioned in the OP? The Minister (Don Page) is appointing 'relevant stakeholders'. Who they will be and whether they have been appointed yet I do not know. 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