Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 54

Thread: Does BSL Have a Role in Our Society?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    361

    Default

    Do you not see that keeping Pitbulls at home is what's causing the problem? They're unsocialised and unexercised and going out of their minds with pent up energy. I don't believe in killing healthy dogs either, so I disagree with your solution. The answer, as I said before, is responsible ownership. Get rid of BSL. Allow the dogs go to puppy school and dog training classes. Allow them to be walked in public and interact with society. Keeping them behind closed doors is not the answer IMO.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Near Newcastle, NSW
    Posts
    4,215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ruthless View Post
    Do you not see that keeping Pitbulls at home is what's causing the problem? They're unsocialised and unexercised and going out of their minds with pent up energy. I don't believe in killing healthy dogs either, so I disagree with your solution. The answer, as I said before, is responsible ownership. Get rid of BSL. Allow the dogs go to puppy school and dog training classes. Allow them to be walked in public and interact with society. Keeping them behind closed doors is not the answer IMO.
    I agree...100%!!!

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sunshine Coast, Qld
    Posts
    909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ruthless View Post
    Do you not see that keeping Pitbulls at home is what's causing the problem? They're unsocialised and unexercised and going out of their minds with pent up energy. I don't believe in killing healthy dogs either, so I disagree with your solution. The answer, as I said before, is responsible ownership. Get rid of BSL. Allow the dogs go to puppy school and dog training classes. Allow them to be walked in public and interact with society. Keeping them behind closed doors is not the answer IMO.
    This is assuming that the owners are responsible enough to do this, unfortunately that is not always the case.

    So, we're back to, how do you enforce owners to be more responsible? License tests would be a start at least and, as I have said previously, having to have a license before you get a dog.
    The best things in life, aren't things

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Near Newcastle, NSW
    Posts
    4,215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tkay View Post
    This is assuming that the owners are responsible enough to do this, unfortunately that is not always the case.

    So, we're back to, how do you enforce owners to be more responsible? License tests would be a start at least and, as I have said previously, having to have a license before you get a dog.
    could work...but just because people have a drivers license...doesn't mean ALL are responsible drivers

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sunshine Coast, Qld
    Posts
    909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleasanta View Post
    could work...but just because people have a drivers license...doesn't mean ALL are responsible drivers
    No, I realise this. I don't think you will ever make ALL dog owners, or drivers, responsible but it's about reducing the amount of the crappy ones, and hopefully putting off some who can't be bothered to take the test
    The best things in life, aren't things

  6. #46

    Default

    Below is New Zealands discussion, they do have a licence system now, but from all I have heard its a crock of unenforceable doodaa lol.
    INC pro's and cons.


    Option 5: Owner Licensing
    The Current Law

    Dogs must be registered with local councils. The location and ownership of each dog is identified in the dog registration information. Dog owners are not required to be registered.


    What Change is Being Discussed?

    General or targeted licensing of dog owners could be required in addition to registering a dog.
    Lawful ownership and control of dogs could be restricted to licensed owners.
    Registered dogs could be linked to licensed owners.
    Education courses or levels of knowledge could be prerequisites for a licence, with the option for regular re-testing.
    Being an unlicensed dog owner would lead to consequences such as the automatic loss of the dog, either for re-homing or destruction, and penalties for unlicensed ownership.


    The Pros and Cons of Change
    Licensing All Dog Owners

    The rationale for the suggestion of licensing all dog owners is to help to ensure that people owning and controlling dogs are fit and proper persons. Owner licensing has long had its advocates. There is a strong public view that irresponsible dog owners are a major problem, particularly in combination with dogs perceived as being associated with a higher risk of causing harm than other dogs (high-risk dogs).

    Licensing owners would strongly reinforce owner responsibility for dog behaviour and dog safety.

    Owner training could reduce the risk of a dog causing harm, as it enables the owner to keep the dog under better control. Effective testing and enforcement could reduce irresponsible ownership and better ensure animal welfare.

    An Ad Hoc Ministerial Group on Dog Control considered owner licensing in 2003, but did not recommend it. The Group thought that owner licensing would make it more difficult to legally own a dog and could increase illegal dog ownership. Illegal ownership, would in turn, make it harder to identify who has dogs that may be associated with high risk and where they are kept.

    Targeted Owner Licensing

    It could be possible to licence people who want to own high-risk dogs on the basis that the higher risk justifies greater assurance of an owner’s competence.

    Alternatively, licensing could be targeted at the character of owners. For example, licensing might be required for people who have committed offences under the Act or who have other relevant convictions.

    Breeder licensing

    Another variation could include the licensing of dog breeders to try to ensure that high-risk breeds are not perpetuated in the “gene pool”.

    There are issues about how such licensing would be enforced. Would licensing be the responsibility of councils or would it require more active involvement from central government agencies?

    Costs of licensing

    There would be significant costs associated with regulating, establishing, administering and enforcing owner licensing. Targeted licensing could also have a high cost per licence.

    Dog owners would be likely to be required to pay the cost of the licence. The costs of supporting and enforcing owner licensing would be an additional cost to councils who would, in turn, seek to recover those costs from dog owners and/or other licensees.

    Licensed owner privacy would need to be protected. Secure systems would need to be established to allow access to the registers only by relevant organisations. Alternatively there may be a justification for the register of licensed owners to be public information, if this would assist in compliance. The costs of maintaining these registers might also be recovered from dog owners and/or other licensees.

    Potential to Change Council Roles

    It is likely that owner licensing would require some form of centralised administration to work effectively across the whole country. The possible scope could range from the central operation of a database to support councils, to central government administration and operation of the system. The extent to which national standards are incorporated into a licensing system could also be relevant. As a result, licensing owners could reduce local council and community discretion in dog control matters.

    ------------------------------------------
    Discussion document
    26. The discussion document asked:
    whether submitters supported licensing of dog owners;
    if so, whether this should be for all dog owners or targeted in some way;
    whether dog breeders should be licensed;
    whether a central government agency or local authority should administer such a scheme; and
    how it should be funded.

    Results of submissions
    27. A small majority (58%) supported owner licensing. This was more popular with individual submitters (69% support) than with organisations (66% opposed). Of territorial authorities, 74% opposed it. The majority who supported licensing thought all dog owners should be licensed rather than targeting it to some owners. A larger majority (66%) supported dog breeder licensing. There was almost even support for central government agency and local authority administration of owner licensing. The majority thought owner licensing should be funded by dog owners through fees.

    Comment

    Owner licensing
    28. In 2003, owner licensing with an education/training prerequisite was considered by the Ad Hoc Ministerial Group on Dog Control. It was not recommended as an amendment to the Act because:
    making it more difficult to own a dog legally may well result in a greater proportion of dogs owned illegally; and
    facilitating legal ownership and registration provides opportunities to communicate with and educate owners, as well as allowing identification of dogs and where they are kept.

    29. It is not clear that licensing would offer sufficient additional benefits to make it worthwhile. People who currently do not register their dogs would be unlikely to obtain a licence. Local Government New Zealand commented: “the compliance and enforcement costs of licensing all owners would outweigh the benefits. The additional demands proposed on every dog owner could be expected to add little to dealing with non-compliant or irresponsible owners…Any licensing programme would require a centralised licensing/data capture point and require a high level of funding.”

    30. The Department knows of no other comparable jurisdictions that have implemented compulsory owner licensing.

    31. Implementation and enforcement would prove difficult and costly. Some submitters drew parallels with driver licensing or firearms licensing. One territorial authority noted that the majority of owners are responsible and do not come to the attention of territorial authorities, and that requiring responsible people to attain a licence would penalise the majority as a result of the actions of a minority. In multi-person households, the dog could be looked after by any number of people. It is not realistic to expect that the licensed person will be the only one in control of the dog. If one ‘fails’ their licence, the dog may still live at the residence owned by another household member. There are also people who walk other people’s dogs to consider.

    32. A number of submitters supporting owner licensing believed it should not cost anymore than current registration. This is considered unrealistic if owner licensing was to include some form of testing, an education component, and possibly mandatory property checks. One territorial authority noted that the cost of administering such a scheme would be significant and could not be justified when the objectives of dog control are considered. They also considered that there would be opposition from the rural community as the majority of problems are created by dogs from the urban areas.

    33. The most common reason for supporting the proposal was that owners would have opportunities to learn, and would have to prove they had adequate knowledge about dogs.

    34. The introduction of owner licensing would mark a significant change to the dog control system. There is no compelling justification for introducing such a major change and no evidence that owner licensing would be beneficial without major costs in implementation and enforcement. Voluntary good owner schemes can facilitate responsible dog ownership. A number of territorial authorities currently give registration fee discounts to ‘responsible’ owners who have completed training, or for other ways of recognising responsible ownership. The promotion and endorsement of voluntary schemes would seem to be more desirable than introducing a compulsory form of owner licensing, which could be perceived as imposing more unnecessary regulation on the majority of responsible owners. As one submitter said: “We need a change in social behaviour and attitude, not more rules, thanks!” For these reasons, this option is not recommended for further consideration.

    Dog breeder licensing
    35. As noted, a majority supported dog breeder licensing.

    36. This would also be very difficult to enforce for some of the same reasons noted above. There are additional problems, identified by some territorial authorities, such as defining who is a breeder. Some submitters thought that anyone with an unneutered dog would have to be defined as a breeder. Only 40% of dogs (208,822) are recorded on the NDD at August 2008 as being neutered. This means that 310,100 dogs are not neutered. Given this number, the Department considers the machinery needed to define a breeder, implement and enforce breeder licensing would be considerable and costly, as it would likely require regular property checks.

    37. The Department considers education and incentives for neutering, such as reduced registration fees, are preferable to dog breeder licensing. No change is recommended.
    Last edited by Beau; 01-15-2010 at 11:03 AM. Reason: adding the submission, but ommiting the questions to cut down on space

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Near Newcastle, NSW
    Posts
    4,215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tkay View Post
    No, I realise this. I don't think you will ever make ALL dog owners, or drivers, responsible but it's about reducing the amount of the crappy ones, and hopefully putting off some who can't be bothered to take the test
    I just don't know how this can be done...effectively

    Dogs NSW implemented a written exam for getting a Breeders Prefix. I am sure this was done in hope that only responsible breeders would then ask for a prefix. The thing is...the test is a joke...it is way too easy...you do not need ANY knowledge because you get ALL the imformation and it is just a multiple choice test. If you can read and have $130 for the fee...you can get a prefix.

    Testing people doesn't change attitudes IMO. Severe punishment changes attitudes however. If we had severe punishments for crappy drivers, then I am sure they would think twice about speeding in the school zone. I say...take their bloody license...fine them BIG time IMMEDIATELY and maybe, just maybe the message would get across.

    Same goes for irresponsible owners of ANY dog and/or breed! Massive fines...a ban on them to own ANY dog for 5 years or whatever time limit...imprisonment if your dog injures someone or something or you acquire a dog while ban is in place. This BSL thing is crap! They call it BREED specific, but it is not breed specific at all. You can own, breed, sell. import, export etc a papered AmStaff, but an unregistered one you can not! In the matter of the AmStaff...they can call it registered versus unregistered legislation, which is absolutely horse sh!t!

    The rules should be...ANY dog (no matter what breed, size, colour etc...papered or not papered) that shows ANY type of aggression MUST be dealt with immediately and that goes for my preferred breed too...no exception.
    Last edited by Cleasanta; 01-15-2010 at 11:00 AM.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    361

    Default

    If the councils made an effort to enforce the current laws re roaming and offlead dogs that'd be a good start. It's pointless having more laws if they can't even be bothered enforcing the current ones.

  9. #49

    Default

    Reps Ruthless, It is the best way, feet on the street as they say.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,596

    Default

    Ruthless

    I don't think you read my post properly.

    You keep the dogs that are prone to attacking other dogs or people at home. The others - no matter what the breed - should be allowed out on the same basis as any dog.

    I can't see how you could argue that it's ok to let a dog or people aggressive dog out in public without a muzzle at least. You didn't read my post.

    And yes I've seen plenty of crazy dogs who don't get out enough to learn to behave properly when they're small and can't do much damage and they disgrace themselves so much - it's months before the owner is game to bring them out again - which only makes the problem worse.
    Last edited by Hyacinth; 01-15-2010 at 02:53 PM. Reason: I hate bad spelling - especially when I do it.

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
  •