Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 138

Thread: Victoria; Seized Dog's Future 'up to VCAT' *BUTCH IS HOME*!

  1. #101
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bayswater, Western Australia
    Posts
    134

    Default

    All my dogs have been registered, and all my current three dogs are registered and micro-chipped. They all wear collars when they are outside my yard with their current registration tags and with dog tags that detail their name, their owners name, their address, and my phone numbers. As other dog owners have stated, I also pick up their dog poo with plastic bags and I don't allow my dogs to be a problem with other dogs, or my neighbours, or any member of the public. Call me lazy if you like, but I just do not want to have to deal with the crap that one gets if one doesn't do what is required of a dog owner here in WA.

    I know the WA Dog Act from beginning to end, and the WA Restricted Breed Regulations. If any DogForum member lives in WA and wants to know how to live peacefully in WA in their Dogo Argentino/Pit Bull/Canary Island dog/Fila Brasiliero/Tosa Inu and not be on the receiving end of their local council's ire, just message me and I will be happy to tell you how this can be.

    The thing is, one of my three dogs would be identified as a pit bull terrier if I was unfortunate enough to live in nazi Victoria. Sheesh! If I lived in Victoria with a dog that looked like my Hobbes, I'd move to the ACT, the Northern Territory, or WA. My dogs are part of my family and I'd defend them as I would my human children. If one of my dogs was threatened with being killed, I'd move to another state or territory. It is not hard, it just depends on what you are prepared to do to protect your dog. My dogs are faithfull and would defend me to their last breath (OK, maybe that's only true of Hobbes my pit bull LOL; the other two would run away). I am obliged to do the same for Hobbes (and the other two as well).

    I am pained to admit it, but I have to agree with some of what Peter70 has said in his recent posts. As a dog owner, it is your responsibility to know and understand your legal responsibilies and to jump through the required legal hoops.

    While I have a bucketload of sympathy for the Thurstons and I believe that they have been treated unconscionably, deceptively and with contempt by their council, they should have registered their dog 6 years ago. However, only an absolute scum-bag would say that they and their dog deserve what is being meted out to them after they tried to do the right thing and were tricked and deliberately misled by their council.

    Here in WA, you could refer the actions of a council like those that the Thurstons have experienced to the Corruption and Crimes Commission.

    It would appear that all Victoria has is the VCAT, and all that VCAT does is put their rubber stamp of approval on anything they are called to adjudicate on.

    ricey

  2. #102

    Default

    And what would they have registered the dog as 6 years ago?
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Rural Victoria
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChoppaChop View Post
    And what would they have registered the dog as 6 years ago?
    The original restricted breed state legislation came into force in 2005. So, six years ago, If they had chosen to register him as the restricted breed that they claim he is, he would have had to have been desexed and microchipped before he could be registered. If they had chosen to register him as a staffy (and he would have more staffy genetics as a pure pit bull than many dogs registered across this country as staffy) then he could have been registered without being desexed or chipped.He would still be with them today, and safe, instead of being in danger of his life. Previously accepted registrations cannot be revoked or renewal refused without cause nor could council have seized the dog (unless it actually menaced or injured someone).

    Councils could only refuse registration on the grounds of appearance AFTER the new laws came out and could only seize unregistered dogs under those stupid new BSL laws.

    Peter is clearly not saying that the owners alone are responsible for Butch's plight. Nor am I, but poor Butch wouldn't be suffering and in mortal danger if they had cared enough about him to register and microchip him at any time over those 6 years. It does appear to have been the "just a dog, why should we pay for ID tags or microchips" syndrome. Equally, if the State Govt hadn't made those stupid laws and if that council hadn't chosen to make the owners an example (or a test case), Butch wouldn't be in danger.

    But he is in danger, due to all of those parties taking the action or inaction that they did. And the blame should be equally shared, in my view. And it does chafe me a little that those owners are not taking responsibility for their failure and that some appear to want to absolve them of any share in the consequences of their failure to act. I agree that BSL laws are stupid and that to allow council officers to decree breed by interpretation of a physical description is downright ludicrous and need to be revoked. Campaigning for a stupid BSL law to be revoked is excellent - but doing so by appearing to condone widespread non-compliance with a law that applies to all breeds is,to me, senseless.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    I don't think this is about "condoning widespread non-compliance with a law that applies to all breeds is" but about the fact that the consequences are too harsh only for some breeds.

    6 years ago these people did not know that one day their dog could be seized and PTS for non compliance. They only knew shortly before they did try to register him. And then were punished for doing so by having their dog taken away.

    That is a very different situation from someone getting a restricted breed pup now in VIC (which I understand is illegal? Let's then say they move to VIC with their restricted breed dog) and not registering them.

    The SWF owner who didn't register their 6yo dog is still happily walking their dog without council tags...

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Rural Victoria
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beloz View Post
    ...

    The SWF owner who didn't register their 6yo dog is still happily walking their dog without council tags...
    The point that I was trying to make is that the the pitty owner who DID register their 6yo dog is still happily walking their dog WITH council tags and their dog is in no danger.

    Poor Butch.

    And I agree that breed discrimination is wrong, has always been wrong, and is even more wrong now that the law says "If it has such and such a beak and such and such feet, it is a duck" - and that legal description includes swans, geese, coots etc etc that Blind Frankie can see are not ducks, regardless that swans geese and coots are just as likely to poo on the path as ducks anyway.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Beloz you still fail to accept that had they registered thier dog 6 years ago there would be no story.
    How come you can't accept it?
    The whole story is a tragedy but it began 6 years ago will they chose to ignore THE EXISTING LAWS that were in place

  7. #107

    Default

    For heavens sake!!

    Even 6 years ago it was not so black and white for a 'Pitty' owner and we all know it!

    We have differing opinions.
    Such is life.

    Let it go now ..... the dog in the end paid the ultimate price..... something that should never have to happen in todays society.
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  8. #108

    Default

    Lets put this to bed once and for all hey? In November 2005 thats 6 years ago from September 2011, you could not register an APBT in that name * first amnesty did not occur until some time after in the state of Victoria, check legislation dates if you so all so wish.
    Beau.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beau View Post
    Lets put this to bed once and for all hey? In November 2005 thats 6 years ago from September 2011, you could not register an APBT in that name * first amnesty did not occur until some time after in the state of Victoria, check legislation dates if you so all so wish.
    Beau.
    Ok, I've been googling and can't find specific dates, but to my understanding;

    From Feb (??) 2002, importation of APBT into Australia was banned, however as long as the dog was in Victoria prior to 1 Sept 2010, it could have been registered as an APBT and therefore subject to restricted breed conditions. Going by the DPI website, however, it could also have been registered as a cross breed or AST. The amnesty on registrations did have an end date, however, the Ayen Chol tragedy prompted the makers to bring forward the amnestys end date.

    So, yes, an APBT could have been registered as such in Victoria in 2005.

    ETA: From Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 (and prior to the new legislation);
    (1A) A Council may register a restricted breed dog if—
    (a) the dog was in Victoria immediately before the commencement of section 12 of the Primary Industries Acts (Further Amendment) Act 2005; and
    (b) the dog is currently registered with the Council as a breed of dog other than a restricted breed dog.

    So, depending on exact dates, an APBT owner would have to have the dog registered prior to commencement of Section 12 (still looking for that) AND have the dog registered as any other breed.

    So, it's getting complicated for pet owners to really know their way around the rules here IMO

    I'm not sure quite what I think yet, just adding data....
    Last edited by Villain & Flirtt; 06-05-2012 at 06:16 PM. Reason: Fat fingers!

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,596

    Default

    If they had chosen not to register their dog at all...there would be no story either. And the dog would still be alive and well.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •