About “education”: It shouldn’t be incumbent on two year olds, three year olds and four year olds to know how not to be killed by dogs.

The death of Ayen Chol was a terrible tragedy but it does not justify the knee jerk response that ignores the advice of experts in the area of dog bite accident prevention. You may not be aware of what the Victorian Govt is planning in response to this freak occurrence.

We know how to reduce the prevalence dog bite accidents just like we know how to reduce SIDS. If you care about this issue you can help by spreading the word:

http://www.petnet.com.au/dogs-n-kids-booklet/

The majority of dog bite accidents occur in the home and involve a dog belonging to a friend of family member. Two year olds are the most frequently injured in dog bite accidents, followed by three year olds.

The majority of dog bite accidents are preventable through responsible ownership along with education of children and parents about how to remain safe around dogs.

“We know from experience that all dogs have the potential to react aggressively if scared or threatened but most dogs don’t bite, so the banning of some breeds over others doesn’t make sense.”

Ayen Chol was from a neighbouring property.

It then goes on about how to educate children on how to be “safe” with dogs.

If the AVA wishes to say that all non-service dogs are a danger, then I’m happy to take them at their word. They may regret those words though!

My very beautiful and expensive pure bred American Bulldog falls nicely into virtually all those descriptions except for his curly tail

The current proposed changes to the laws in Victoria, whereby “Dog Inspectors” determine whether or not a dog is a pitbull (regardless of what it is registered as) in order to remove/destroy the dog are fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional on their face.

In the Australian Communist Party & Ors v The Commonwealth & Ors (1951) 83 CLR 1, Justice Fullagar stated (at page 259) that:

“A power to make laws with respect to lighthouses does not authorize the making of a law with respect to anything which is, in the opinion of the law-maker, a lighthouse. A power to make a proclamation carrying legal consequences with respect to a lighthouse is one thing: a power to make a similar proclamation with respect to anything which in the opinion of the Governor-General is a lighthouse is another thing.”

This law violates precisely that principle, neither a Council nor the State Government can rise higher than their Constitutional Source any more than the Commonwealth Government can. To do so would be to utterly violate the “Rule of Law” our entire Constitutional System is predicated upon the existence of (Dixon J, ibid). If you know of anyone who is facing the loss of their dog, because it is a Staffy-x or APBT Cross in Victoria, please let me know.

Aaron Small