Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 138

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

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mymatejack View Post
    i'll have to go back and re-read the legislation but i think hyacinth you have just opened a massive can of legal worms. i.e any dog that is deemed to meet the visual standard is an APBT UNLESS its an amstaff, so even if you have ANKC papers to prove that your dog is a poodle(as per your example) its still an APBT unless you can prove its an amstaff. hmm, going to go read up again now
    Hyac is spot on. IF you have a papered Amstaff (or a vet letter to say your dog is an Amstaff) you can present those documents to make your dog safe from seizure or to have it returned. If, however, my Dobes were seized because a ranger believed they fitted the visual standard (this is far from impossible)- I could not simply present their papers... Nope... Unless you can prove Amstaff, (and your dog is seized) you have an ABPT and have to go to VCAT to try to get your dog back.

    So the legislation inadvertently protects papered Amstaffs and puts every other breed at risk.

    Law making at it's finest!

  2. #52

    Default

    And the biggest worry is....this was all brought to peoples attention before the laws made it in...but it was not questioned,or if it was it was 'swept away' ......

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChoppaChop View Post
    And the biggest worry is....this was all brought to peoples attention before the laws made it in...but it was not questioned,or if it was it was 'swept away' ......
    I have been involved with efforts to fight these laws since they were tabled. BUT it has been impossibly difficult to get huge numbers of dog owners to join the campaign because your average Joe has absolutely no comprehension how these laws impact them. Most think if they don't have a Pitty, they're safe. It simply isn't true and many innocently unaware people are being blindsided.

    Unless there is massive public outcry, these laws will not only stay, but they will grow- it is not inconceivable that the future under BSL will have any dog taller than 30cm and over 10kg impacted. Dogs and families will continue to suffer. This ISN'T just about the APBT (though they are the current scapegoat)- it's about a future where we WILL lose our right to own larger breeds.

    I'm not scaremongering here, these ARE possibilities!

  4. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Villain & Flirtt View Post
    I have been involved with efforts to fight these laws since they were tabled. BUT it has been impossibly difficult to get huge numbers of dog owners to join the campaign because your average Joe has absolutely no comprehension how these laws impact them. Most think if they don't have a Pitty, they're safe. It simply isn't true and many innocently unaware people are being blindsided.

    Unless there is massive public outcry, these laws will not only stay, but they will grow- it is not inconceivable that the future under BSL will have any dog taller than 30cm and over 10kg impacted. Dogs and families will continue to suffer. This ISN'T just about the APBT (though they are the current scapegoat)- it's about a future where we WILL lose our right to own larger breeds.

    I'm not scaremongering here, these ARE possibilities!

    I 100 percent agree with you V&F and have been trying to say that from the get go... reaching thousands apon thousands of dog owners who dont own a 'bull' breed who then believe they are safe, that it could never happen to them..... has been all but impossible. Having the greater majority dog owner on the one page seems also an impossible goal.

    I see it where all we'll need to do is buy batteries for our dogs.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bayswater, Western Australia
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peter70 View Post
    Nice to log on and see a personal attack, but from you Ricey i would expect little else.

    Maybe do some research on my previous posts instead of googling wikipedia you would know that im a train driver hence "whistleblower" Bahhahahahaha.


    Mr and Ms Thurston had budgeted to pay for desexing and microchipping, and Mr Muir said they arrived to register the dog without enough cash because a council officer had incorrectly advised them of the cost.

    Mr Thurston offered to go home and get more money but was advised he could return the following day.


    Must have been some budget i mean dog was 6 years old???


    All sounds pretty convincing to me NOT. Seems everyone is to blame but the owners? I mean all this information is being provided by a third party, that party being the President of The American Pitbull Association, so it must be true???? as clearly he would have no vested interest in the case???
    If it was all as clear cut as you have me believe i would find it hard pressed that the matter hasnt come under any major scrutiny IMO!!!!!!! . I guess when you leave things to the last minute you put yourself or as in this case your dog at risk, the laws gave you more than 24 hours notice.
    As for questioning my input, just because i have a different view on the matter doesnt mean im not entitled to my opinion and if you dont like it, stiff, dont read it!!!! And in future i'll continue to have have my opinion whether you think im entitled to it, or whether you like it or not.
    Hi Peter,

    my post was not a personal attack, but if you thought it was I'd have to say that you are way too sensitive.

    I merely pointed out your view was that the Thurstons were only themselves to blame.

    Is that not what you said?

    Didn't you say "Unfortunately like it or not the law is in place, it was thier responsibilty to have the dog registered by the specified date, clearly they havent now theyre at the mercy of VCAT. Lucky for them though VCAT is probably one of Victorias biggest shambles anyway."

    ricey

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ricey View Post
    I think that the main problem with peter70's position is that he refuses to accept that there appears to have been devious and deceiptful misconduct on the part of the council. Peter70 prides himself in his avatar as a "Whistle Blower".

    He is hardly a whistle blower; whistle blowers are defined as:

    "A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct) occurring in a government department, a public or private organization, or a company. The alleged misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues)." (wikipedia)

    In fact, peter70 has shown by his posts to be the antithesis of a whistle blower, as he is actively supporting the apparent dishonest and deceitful actions of the Ballarat council.


    (removed ricey's mind reading thought) In this case, the Thurstons tried do do what was necessary to register their pet, but were given misleading and incorrect information by a council officer. When they returned the following day to do what they were told was necessary to secure their pet's future, the council acted to impound their dog. That is deceiptful and misleading conduct on the part of the council, and if peter70 really was a whistle blower he would be doing whatever he could to expose the councils actions to the wider public.

    But he isn't doing that is he? He's just saying "the Thurstons missed the deadline so its all their fault! Nananananana!"

    Of all the posts on this thread, I suggest that peter70's posts (all 6 of them) have been the least helpful and the most divisive. peter70, I'd suggest that if you can't bring yourself to say something helpful you should (say nothing - H).

    ricey
    Quote Originally Posted by ricey View Post
    Hi Peter,

    my post was not a personal attack, but if you thought it was I'd have to say that you are way too sensitive.

    I merely pointed out your view was that the Thurstons were only themselves to blame.

    Is that not what you said?

    Didn't you say "Unfortunately like it or not the law is in place, it was thier responsibilty to have the dog registered by the specified date, clearly they havent now theyre at the mercy of VCAT. Lucky for them though VCAT is probably one of Victorias biggest shambles anyway."

    ricey
    Ricey- are you serious? Your first quote was far more than "merely pointing out"... For the record, I have now hit the "report" button so the moderators can decide for themselves whether you were personally attacking or not. I see no acknowledgement that your inferences and accusations about peter70's "whistleblower" moniker were inaccurate.

    For the record, I also agree that the council's actions were deceitful.

    However there are a few questions raised in all of this for me;

    One assumes the Thurston's were aware they did infact own a Pit Bull Terrier (and that APBT are a restructed breed in Vic). I would also assume they were aware that dogs are required to be registered. Unfortunately, ignorance is not a defense under the law.

    so either
    a) the Thurstons did not know they owned a Pit Bull and were unaware that councils require registration of all dogs
    b) they were aware they owned a Pit Bull and were unaware that councils require registration of all dogs
    c) they were unaware the owned a Pit Bull but were aware councils require registration of all dogs
    d) they were aware they owned a Pit Bull and were aware that councils require registration of all dogs.

    Whichever one is correct (and I dont know this) will then impact how their actions are perceived. Again- remember ignorance is no defense under the law

    Now, one assumes that the Thurston's did indeed become aware of the requirement to register (and it is unknown if they became aware of the requirements to register a restricted breed) and did attempt to recitfy the situation. Council then behaved, IMHO, deceitfully.

    Unfortunately, it is animal owners who are unaware of (or choose to ignore) legal reqirements around keeping pets that have gotten us into the situation we have now- dogs who roam, dogs off leash, unregistered dogs, and a lack of knowledge about canine behaviour. Frankly, I dont give a flying fig if you never teach your dog to sit, drop, beg, roll over etc- but I believe that some knowledge around responsible dog ownership is non-negotiable.

    Ricey- opinions and personal attacks like the ones you have posted do little to help. People out there are already far too ready to jump on the band wagon and tar large dog owners with the same aggressive, stupid, macho brush as they tar the dogs with. We don't need to hear how "my dog would never hurt a flea". Your dog may or may not- but we need to be hearing sensible, non-emotive arguments about the poor way the legislation has been written, and the fact that as it stands it does far too little to protect the community. We need rational arguments about the fact that BSL does not work and we need to band together and unite. Not quibble between ourselves.

    ETA- I am in no way suggesting that we should all know everything before we do anything... though I do have an expectation that people continue to learn and seek information especially when it is to protect themselves, their animals and the community. We all DO start somewhere after all!!

    As far as I know, thinking and questioning are yet to become illegal (in Victoria anyway, lol) but stay tuned on that one.
    Last edited by Villain & Flirtt; 05-07-2012 at 10:01 AM. Reason: added last paragraph

  7. #57

    Default

    Peter70 - I believe what you have said is very true - and also do not believe that you are being sensitive - as stated previously!

    Villain & Flirtt - excellent post !

    Now I'll add my thoughts -

    Law abiding citizens who own dogs have enough bl**dy rules and laws to follow at the moment without having more thrust their way.

    If these people had not registered their dog previously and it was 6 years old - then why didn't they ? Oh that is right, there are some rules for some people and the rest just - shrug their shoulders, keep under the radar and when caught out - say but I didn't know ! Pfft !

    The Victorian situation was a total knee jerk reaction by government. Councils have enough laws already to control animals in the community - but they are never policed. That is the problem - pure and simple !

    So what do they do - they bring in new laws to fix a problem that should have been easily sorted by previous laws !

    I can guarantee that councils right throughout Australia have no damn idea as to the number of 'pets' that are sitting in yards in their respective areas - again laws are not being policed.

    So what does the future hold ? More rules and laws I expect - which will be really sad !

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Villain & Flirtt View Post
    Unless there is massive public outcry, these laws will not only stay, but they will grow- it is not inconceivable that the future under BSL will have any dog taller than 30cm and over 10kg impacted. Dogs and families will continue to suffer. This ISN'T just about the APBT (though they are the current scapegoat)- it's about a future where we WILL lose our right to own larger breeds.

    I'm not scaremongering here, these ARE possibilities!
    What can we do? I'm not being smart, I'm being serious. What productive things can we do to register our protest? I've signed a couple of petitions, but I'm unaware of anything else I can do.

    For the record, I do think that as per your next post, some knowledge around responsible dog ownership is non-negotiable. Whether the owners were ignorant, or specifically trying to evade the law, we'll probably never know. I do think that they have behaved somewhat irresponsibly though, and it is their dog that will/has suffered the consequences. Unfortunately, it is people like this: ignorant and irresponsible, that make poor dog owners. (I am not talking about these owners specifically, but people in general).

    Whether on this occasion, council has been intentionally deceitful, or is just a typical disorganised, poorly communicated government office is also speculation. As someone who has spent a lot of time in government employ, I tend to suspect the latter, to be honest.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Ricey
    Cmon surely you cant be serious? How could one not assume it was personal after all you only referrred to ME. I only got to read your post after the mods had removed some bits.
    Yours sincerely
    Sensitive Pete

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    D-Dog; Thankyou, great question!

    Start by modelling responsible dog ownership (I'm not suggesting you don't, btw)- have your dog registered, leashed, contain your dog, pick up it's poo, let your dogs be ambassadors for dogs.

    Talk to people- family, friends, colleagues. Tell them what these laws are really about- determining purely by visual means the presence of danger. Tell them how anyone can be impacted. Encourage them to promote and model responsible ownership.

    Teach others and kids how to be safe around dogs. Teach that ANY dog can and might bite given the right circumstances. Show children how to properly behave around dogs- asking for permission to approach/ pat, being calm, not running, squealing and allowing behaviours that have the potential to cause risk. Promote active supervision with kids and dogs.

    Write letters to your local member and/ or state parliamentarian. Write to your local newspaper or local group newsletters. Talk to your local councillors. Encourage others to do the same.

    Avoid getting bogged down by breed. We all have breed preferences and it will bring you unstuck. Stick to the way the legislation fails.

    Stand on a tall building with a megaphone.... Just EDUCATE people about the fact we have knee-jerk laws rushed through by people who don't understand dog behavior and it could impact anyone.

    Above all, highlight how BSL is a form of visual discrimination- falsely giving the impression that a dog that looks one way is dangerous, whilst one that looks a different way is safe. Get Mr and Mrs Joe Public to see that it does nothing to protect them, their kids, the community or the dogs.

    The more people we get talking and writing letters, being responsible and encouraging the behavior in others, the more chance we have to make change- in many ways.

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
  •