Blog

Concerns over Dog Law

On May 10, 2010, in Victoria, by Mike Bailey

Click to view the Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010

Updates:

[11 May 2010] Stronger powers to destroy dogs
[12 May 2010] Massive fines for lost dogs
[13 May 2010] Breed Specific or Looks Specific?
[19 May 2010] Our Letter Outlining Concerns
[27 May 2010] Voice Your Objections
[27 May 2010] The Bill Fails to Ensure Natural Justice

On Wed 5 May 2010, the Victorian Government’s proposed “Dangerous Dogs” Bill was revealed to the public. While we support efforts to promote responsible pet ownership and reduce the incidence of dog attacks, we believe this legislation is severely flawed in several areas. The Bill has been enacted and came into effect on 1 September 2010.

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?

Over the next couple of weeks we’ll be examining the Bill in depth. Stay tuned for more updates.

About the author

Mike Bailey

+Mike Bailey founded GoodForDogs.org to help raise the profile of dogs and cats needing a second chance. The project started as an online Animal Shelter Map to make it easier for potential adopters to find these animals. Over the next year this journey has led Mike to a Puppy Farm, Victorian Parliament, Washington DC as well as many shelters around the country. He created StopTheClock, a campaign to abolish Victoria's 28 Day Rule for shelters. Mike is currently working on websites to help people find shelter dogs for sale in Perth and Melbourne

Visit Authors Website

38 Responses to “Concerns over Dog Law”

Kelly Lezarde says:

May 10, 2010 at 10:09 pm

This bill will devastate many people and allow too many good dogs to be misjudged and unneccesarily destroyed. Council officers are not qualified to make judgements on a dogs behaviour or breed. These dogs need to be assessed properly by a dog behaviourist and given an opportunity to have some defence for their circumstance. There are way too many variables that can affect the behaviour of a dog in different circumstances and environments, these issues need to be investigated thoroughly not passed off as too difficult or time consuming.
Mia Shaw says:

May 11, 2010 at 2:29 pm

Having a missing animal is very traumatic. As you frantically try to do the right thing to find them, animal shelters are the places you must visit on a daily basis. These places can be heavy going, as most animals are often scared, fretting, possibly aggressive or by contrast extremely reserved & unpredictable, certainly not themselves, especially if they have been captured from the streets from the council.
Recently I went through the pain & sadness of having a missing dog, only to have her find her way back home after 2 days. She had been hit by a car. She was a very, very different animal for the first 48 hours back home & that was after vet care, food, love & shelter. I can’t even imagine what she would have been like at a pound if taken there.
My point being it is impossible to assess an animal under these conditions. Impossible, cruel & unfair. How could this law even be considered?
Robyn says:

May 11, 2010 at 2:58 pm

I am a responsible dog owner, but this bill is completely flawed on so many levels! For starters, raising the $ amount to retrieve your dog from the pound is ludicrous! It would be hard enough already for a struggling family/person(as myself) to pay the current amount! It would only make it harder financially and emotionally on the average Jo Blo!
Secondly, some council officers are not even trained in animal behavior to be able to make a decision wether a dog is a danger or not, and this bill proposes that an officer can make that decision by seeing if a dog chases a cat or not!? How rediculous! My dogs are very tame, but they would chase a cat! it would be a fun thing for them, does that make them vicious? NO! Also, on the council form for re registering your dog, it clearly states that if your dog has been speyed/neutered since its last registry, you get a discount. When I went and paid my yearly register 2 months ago, I told them I had my dog done and showed them the papers, but I didn’t get the discount! so why have it on the form that you do, if you don’t!? another money making sceme is why! and to get ppl in to register their dogs again! Getting back to the bill, I have had, on others behalf, had run ins with councils over the mistreatment of family pets that were ‘put down’ over red tape B.S! A little girls dog was taken from her and murdered by an incompitent uncaring council and officer, if these laws are going to change for the public, they should be changed for the councils officers as well!! Dogs are not just pets, they are FAMILY MEMBERS!!!!
Julie-Anne says:

May 11, 2010 at 3:21 pm

This Bill should not be introduced to make it easy for Councils to put dogs down, because they appear dangerous, when in fact they may not be, due to their size, breed etc. Look at the whole equation and not just part of. After all, dogs behave in ways they know how too in different situations. How about cracking down on the puppy farm dilemma instead or the dog fighting rings? End the vicious cycle of so many dogs ending up in death row, due to irresponsible people and puppy factory farmers, who exploit companion animals purely for profit. Imagine the savings that would be made by re-homing all the dogs within the overcrowded shelters, instead of ending their lives with the needle, because of so many ridiculous excuses such as “Oh we are moving and cannot take our dog with us” or “we have no time anymore for our pet.” Companion animals are non-disposable and are souls too. As a Government, you can lead the way and break this cycle instead of increasing jurisdiction for Councils to easily put down dogs, by educating the public about responsible pet ownership, where they remain with you for life. This means educating the public that if a dog shows signs of aggression, due to fear or uncertainty, have them muzzled out in public and parent’s keep watch on your children at all times near different companion animals. The dogs deserve the right to live and this Bill will certainly fail to protect them.
JuJu says:

May 11, 2010 at 5:19 pm

My question is: “Since when did COUNCIL WORKERS have the right or expertize to euthanize dogs?”
- Mike Bailey says:
  
  May 11, 2010 at 5:42 pm
  
  Council AMOs use their skills to perform an important and sometimes dangerous job. They shouldn’t be painted as ‘the bad guys’.
  
  While I’m sure there are some AMO’s who have completed their Certificate of Dog Behaviour it’s not a requirement for the role. Unqualified staff should not be put in the assessing dog behaviour to decide whether they should be destroyed.
Robyn says:

May 13, 2010 at 10:35 pm

Mike Bailey says:
May 11, 2010 at 5:42 pm

Council AMOs use their skills to perform an important and sometimes dangerous job. They shouldn’t be painted as ‘the bad guys’.

While I’m sure there are some AMO’s who have completed their Certificate of Dog Behaviour it’s not a requirement for the role.

*Well Mike, maybe it SHOULD BE a requirement!!
Cassie says:

May 14, 2010 at 8:49 pm

I think that some of you commenting actually need to go and work as an AMO. Try to enforce the current legislation- what a joke! Time for it to be changed and for people to start getting serious about responsible pet ownership!
Judi says:

May 20, 2010 at 7:30 pm

I wrote my letter objecting to the passing of this Bill into law – for all its flaws. I emailed it to all 40 MLC’s as well as to Mr. Joe Helper and Mr. John Brumby. How do we find out whether the Bill was debated by the Upper House today and the outcome – if, in fact, it was debated rather than adjourned?
Mike Bailey says:

May 20, 2010 at 10:33 pm

The Bill is listed for debate in the Legislative Assembly on Tue 25th May. It should be debated some time after 2PM but this may not be until the 26th or 27th.

Judi, it’s great to have a qualified behaviourist giving their opinion on this. Would you like to share your letter here?

The Liberals have received my response to the Bill. It can be downloaded here.
Judi says:

May 20, 2010 at 11:31 pm

Hi Mike, and thank you. I’m afraid my letter, for which I had very little time to put it together (I had 48hrs, thinking it was 20th for the debate – was that adjourned, because Hansard had it scheduled for debate today???) was not done as I would normally do. Because I didn’t have time to think it, I wrote as I thought it and basically it was at a level no more professional than anyone else who can see and understand the flaws that abound in this proposed law. I’m happy enough to put it up – but as I mentioned, it’s not my best work and I wrote it not on a professional level, but as a very concerned (and responsible) dog owner.

So – if the Bill is listed for debate in the Legislative Assembly on 25th May, our letters are best forwarded for the attention of MP’s (lower house). Have I got that right? If so, then I will arrange to email what I’ve written to all the MP’s I possibly can tomorrow.
Judi says:

May 20, 2010 at 11:32 pm

Oh – and it’s not short. I think it is about 3 or 4 pages long (typed). A bit long to put it up here perhaps?
Judi says:

May 20, 2010 at 11:36 pm

And sorry to clog up your blog, but need to add …..

Have had a quick read through what you’ve written, Mike, and to be honest, it puts mine to shame. So well done. I have been writing on another forum trying to muster up some extra action and it would be great if you would allow me to link your letter to the thread I’ve created in the forum for this purpose. Is that possible? I’m not sure that forum rules allow me to link directly to your blog.
Mike Bailey says:

May 20, 2010 at 11:59 pm

Hi Judi,

Don’t sell yourself short. In sending your objections to MPs, you’ve done more than most people. We’re all busy and it’s hard to find time for these things.

Feel free to repost the Goodfordogs.org response.

Can you contact me directly re: debate dates?

– Mike
mike@goodfordogs.org
Judi says:

May 21, 2010 at 12:10 am

Thanks Mike – contacting you now.
Judi says:

May 23, 2010 at 7:04 pm

Mike – the link to your response to Govt isn’t working anymore. Gremlins? Are you able to bring it back up? There are many emails which have gone out and have referred to the response by way of link.

Cheers
Judi
Mike Bailey says:

May 23, 2010 at 8:43 pm

Fixed now. Thanks for reporting it!
Judi says:

May 24, 2010 at 4:07 pm

I’ve just been informed by Mr. Bill Sykes that it is his understanding the Bill, at this stage, is now not being debated in this Parliamentary week. The next sitting of Parliament is in the week commencing 7 June 2010.

Are you able to check that, Mike?
Simone says:

May 24, 2010 at 4:09 pm

One wonders if this law is all about revenue raising for the councils.
Judi says:

May 24, 2010 at 4:16 pm

Simone – not to mention that I’d be very surprised if the “animal welfare shelters” are putting their hands up to object either. They will still get their prescribed fee for every euth, but now they’ll get it faster and easier.

How convenient.
Mike Bailey says:

May 24, 2010 at 4:22 pm

Hi Judi,

The Bill is listed in Notice Paper No. 165 for debate this week in the Legislative Assembly. http://bit.ly/dzm9FQ

I’ve been in touch with Bill Sykes office who told me it’s not scheduled for debate this week. They were unable to refer me to any document that confirms that.

A Parliament of Victoria staffer assured me that as it’s listed in the Orders of the Day it may be debated. It’s listed as item 7 so they may not get to it until Wed or Thu.

– Mike
Mike Bailey says:

May 24, 2010 at 4:26 pm

I’ve been told some Animal Welfare organizations raised objections and others have so far remained silent. It’s not too late for them to get on board and speak up for the dogs in this state.
Judi says:

May 24, 2010 at 4:30 pm

Thanks Mike. Sounds like a case of “not sure” ? I presume we just have to presume that the debate is imminent. I’ve found Bill Sykes to be a nice person to communicate with – at least he gives me responses which are not just the usual computer generated responses one often gets and I wonder where he would have gotten the information that he did? Puzzlement.
Mike Bailey says:

May 24, 2010 at 4:45 pm

Judi, the party whip provided that info to Bill’s office and reconfirmed it today.

I guess I’m just a ‘doubting Thomas’. The Legislative Assembly has it listed in Orders of the Day so until I see something to contradict that it’s what I’ll be going with.
Judi says:

May 24, 2010 at 4:50 pm

No wonder politics confuses me :rolleyes:
Mike Bailey says:

May 24, 2010 at 5:04 pm

I’ve been assured they’ll be prepared if the debate is held tomorrow.
Judi says:

May 24, 2010 at 5:07 pm

Queried the above with Mr Sykes (before your response came in, Mike). He’s explained : “A bill can be listed on the Orders of the Day but not necessarily feature on the government business program for that week.

Whilst the Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010 is listed in the Orders of the Day for this Parliamentary Sitting week it is not on the government business program. ”

I am treating the issue as though it MAY be debated this week, but with it in mind that it might not be. This meaning that everyone who is yet to write a letter/email – there is time but treat it urgently.
Judi says:

May 24, 2010 at 6:04 pm

Mike – to your post at 5.04pm.

Good – glad you mentioned that. Because it was a fleeting (and worrying) thought that crossed my mind that the pollies could rock up unprepared for it.
missjenny says:

May 25, 2010 at 4:49 pm

I’ve been told it’s not on the list of government business this week and will be debated in the week of 8/9/10 June 2010, but the Assembly Procedures Office said that doesn’t mean it couldn’t come on this week.
Mike Bailey says:

May 25, 2010 at 4:55 pm

Thanks for the update missjenny.

The Procedures Office told me they may have delayed the debate in response to the large amount of public interest. I guess this gives us more time to spread the word.
Mike Bailey says:

May 25, 2010 at 11:16 pm

I can confirm they didn’t debate it tonight.
Tell our politicians how you feel says:

May 27, 2010 at 1:06 am

[…] your objection to proposed changes to Victoria’s Domestic Animals Act John Brumby […]
The Bill fails to Ensure Natural Justice says:

May 27, 2010 at 12:08 pm

[…] Part 4 of series examining proposed changes to Victoria’s Domestic Animals Act […]
Judi says:

June 1, 2010 at 12:00 am

Any more updates Mike? Or has it been quiet on the home front, pending next week?
Judi says:

June 7, 2010 at 5:39 pm

Looking to see where this item is on the Parliamentary debate list ??? Will see what I can scout
Judi says:

June 7, 2010 at 5:49 pm

Seems it is on the list for debate tomorrow (Tuesday, 8th June) and is the second item down. So if I understand government process enough, it seems likely that it will be read.

Hoping that everyone has written in. Even a two lined letter stating your objection and concerns.

Even emailing it tonight to the MLA’s means it will be in their “inbox” when they open up tomorrow.

Your dog. Your voice.
Debbie says:

June 8, 2010 at 4:28 pm

What an absolute joke!
If all dogs were to be compuslory microchipped this is enough! Isn’t this all important information stored in a central database to which all council and vets have access too!
Registering your dog! For what! More money grabbing, only to rob from the hard working, allowing powers to be to rob a family from their beloved pooch!
I’m sure the animal welfare organisations have enough problems already with so many animals in their shelters!
Serioiusly, think long and hard about this!
We need more Education, awareness, tougher laws on where we buy animals from! Start watching the Dog Whisperer Ceasar Millan from the US and learn that it is not the dog it is the behaviour or lack of from the owner about responsible pet ownership! It’s just to darn easy for both the young and old to purchase a dog unaware of their role and responsibilities which come with owning any animal!
Simon says:

June 16, 2010 at 4:21 pm

A friend of mine after being told twice there was no dog answering his discription at the pound, happened to spy a familliar snout as he was leaving. The dog was about to be destroyed.
Recently (in Frankston area I believe)a family’s pet WAS destroyed, by mistake. Proposed changes would seem to increase the likelyhood of more inocent family members dying.
Address the cause, not the effect.
More education, more off-leash facilities, more responsible owners

"Twitter messages not available." — Goodfordogs

Blog

Concerns over Dog Law

Mike Bailey

38 Responses to “Concerns over Dog Law”

Recent Posts

Pages

Stay In Touch

More

Contact