Goodfordogs website blog has a wellwritten section on the new “dangerous dogs law”. From the website:
“On Wed 5 May 2010, the Victorian Government’s proposed “Dangerous Dogs” Bill was revealed to the public. It’s not expected that the Bill will be debated until the next sitting week (starting Tue 8 June).
A major focus of the Bill is “strengthening council powers to control and destroy dogs“. The Bill is overly broad in its criteria for which dogs may be killed and lacks sufficient safeguards to protect the innocent. For example, a council officer would be permitted to kill a lost dog after 48 hours if the dog was unregistered and the officer reasonably believed that the dog was likely to rush at or chase a person if the dog were at large [ref. 23(1)(c)].”
DRP Comment: Once again a State Government does what’s best to cover it’s a**e to fend off any potential liability.
Actions you can take: read the entire blog page to read good information about what is wrong with the proposed legislation and also and then take the actions recommended – contact Victorias policymakers. Do it now!
There is also a great section on Breed Specific Bans which seeks to remove Pit Bulls from society. Why are other countries abandoning Breed Specific Legislation or Bans yet our policy makers are introducing it?? Watch the video.
We suppose this is why RSPCA ACT CEO Michael Linke has recently adopted a mushy Pitt Bull from their Canberra Shelter…….
“Dear Mssrs Brumby, Helper and Sykes.
We are an advocacy and information group dedicated to fighting the causes of massive killing of healthy animals in Australian Pounds and Shelters – over 250,000 a year die because of unregulated breeding, effective marketing by the pet industry and ineffective State and Council laws that do little for true animal welfare.
We are very upset to hear that Victoria is planning to introduce a draconian “dangerous dogs Bill”.
The proposed legislation is severely flawed in several areas.
A major focus of the Bill is “strengthening council powers to control and destroy dogs“. The Bill is overly broad in its criteria for which dogs may be killed and lacks sufficient safeguards to protect the innocent. For example, a council officer would be permitted to kill a lost dog after 48 hours if the dog was unregistered and the officer reasonably believed that the dog was likely to rush at or chase a person if the dog were at large [ref. 23(1)(c)].
The Bill also increases penalties including a fine of up to $1168 for reclaiming your lost dog from the pound (or up to triple if its registration has lapsed). How does a struggling parent explain to their kids that they can’t afford to get the family dog back?
We understand the need to protect people, but this law will result in more un-necessary deaths of animals at council hands.
This Bill Fails to Ensure Procedural Fairness
Currently, Councils must hold impounded dogs for 8 days to enable their owners to be reunited with them. The Bill would allow Council officers to kill unregistered dogs found at large after 48 hours on the suspicion that they might commit an offence in future if allowed to roam. Councils would have an incentive to kill dogs after 48 hours instead of keeping them the full 8 days as it would save money and cage space (the ‘bias’ rule). The Bill does not require that owners are notified or given a right to be heard (the ‘hearing’ rule). The Bill doesn’t require any evidence that the dog has or will harm any person or animal for it to be destroyed (the ‘no evidence’ rule).
It is very bad legislation and you should not allow it to pass in its current form.
Yours Sincerely Paul Archer email@example.com“