Inquiry Into The Effectiveness Of Bsl In Keeping The

[Kajirin]

signed and shared

[dezzyno.1]

signed and shared

[mita]

Hopes are for it to also result in a meeting with Napthine or Walsh about it. The more signatures, the better chance of this happening, if it will. We can all only but try, and that's what we will do and it all comes with your help.

Good on all involved with this petition & hoped for meeting with the authorities. From what I've seen of the Victorian draft code re BSL, it has nothing to offer for community safety re dog attacks.

I hope loads of people sign.

[Sabbath]

Signed. I fail to understand the argument that supports BSL in any way.

[Guest Ams]

Signed and shared

[Erny]

Signed. I fail to understand the argument that supports BSL in any way.

I agree, Sabbath. The problem being, we've been saying that to Govt for years ….. AND offering a better solution. A "solution" that is just that - a "solution" and not the dismal, failed, flawed, destined for continuous doom that our current BSL is and always will be.

This petition is to have it that the Government must look at BSL - from the beginning to what it is now - and ask itself the questions we've been asking for years. And provide itself with the answers. If those answers are not sufficient and do not validate BSL, then BSL MUST be addressed.

Thanks to everyone for signing and sharing. Please keep it up. Don't let my silence have you think we don't need any more signatures. We have a long way to go but we can get there - and we'll get there fast the more the word spreads and continues to spread.

Edited February 21, 2014 by Erny

[mita]

[ Don't let my silence have you think we don't need any more signatures. We have a long way to go but we can get there - and we'll get there fast the more the word spreads and continues to spread.

Unashamedly keep bumping it.

Important for other states, too. If that anti-science stuff about dogs gets into law in Victoria... it ups the chances of some other state governments following.

[Erny]

They've changed the assessment criteria used for Councils to determine if a dog is of a restricted breed or not.

Of the new criteria, the dog only needs to meet a whisker over half of all total points.

And even then, it only needs to meet "substantially" (which could mean to them, half or more) of each individual point.

So in effect, the dog only has to fit the criteria by one quarter over all.

Pffffft.

The worst is that all dogs who have already been seized and who have won their appeals but are still going through the Court loops, can be re-assessed by this new assessment criteria and may, according to Government, fit the bill where previously they did not.

Of course all these changes are only to make it so Councils can win their cases more easily.

Thanks for the *bump* Mita.

And please, everyone - share it with whatever groups you belong with (including Obedience Clubs etc etc).

[mita]

Of course all these changes are only to make it so Councils can win their cases more easily.

I'd say you're dead right. All based on a scientifically flawed understand of dog behaviour,

[moosmum]

Done.

[leannek]

Signed and shared

[greytpets]

signed too.