|
BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION IN
AUSTRALIA
This page is dedicated to any
material that becomes available to use in research for the Breed
Specific Bans legislations that are taking place in Australia during
2001- 2003
This is site is not covered by our
copyright, so please feel free to copy whatever you need and past
onto your own site, or pass onto friends. We need to stop and make
it ILLEGAL for the Australian Federal and State governments to ban
dogs based solely on their breed.
As issues comes to hand I will put
them here.
Please click on the
images below for enlarged pic, to then save or spread the word about
the injustices of dogs, right click, 'properties' copy properties
and save as a html code.
The Brisbane Courier
Mail article, 17th June 2003
THE HANSARD REPORT AND WHAT STARTED BSL IN QLD
Nita
Cunningham Member for Bundaberg
Hansard 27 November 2001 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND
OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2)
Hon. J. I. CUNNINGHAM
(Bundaberg-ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Planning)
(2.37 p.m.): I move- That the bill be now read a second time. The
purpose of the Local Government and Other Legislation
Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 is to amend the Local Government
Act 1993-LGA-to achieve a number of objectives in the areas of
control over specific dog breeds, increased membership of the Local
Government Grants Commission, the powers of joint local
governments, and the application of the state government
powers of financial oversight in the Statutory Bodies Financial
Arrangements Act 1982-SBFA Act-to local government owned
corporations-LGOCs. The Bill also amends the Queensland
Treasury Corporation Act 1988 to make clear that in applying the
SBFA Act to LGOCs, the performance dividend requirements do not
apply.
Firstly, the bill
establishes a state regulatory framework for dog breeds that are
subject to the Commonwealth's importation ban and crossbreeds of
these dogs. Secondly, the bill will expand the membership of the
Local Government Grants Commission from five to six, and will
require this additional member to have particular knowledge of
Aboriginal and Islander councils. Thirdly, the bill will clarify
that a joint local government may, with the consent of its
component local governments, disperse funds that are not required
for the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction for any other local
government purpose. A parallel amendment is proposed to
clarify that the Townsville-Thuringowa Water Supply Board may also
disperse such funds in this way. Fourthly, the bill will enable the
state to supervise the financial arrangements of LGOCs under the
SBFA Act. I will outline the components of the bill in the order in
which they are presented.
Firstly, I will address the proposed amendments to
establish a state regulatory framework for dog breeds that are
subject to the Commonwealth's importation ban. The proposed
amendments provide for the creation of a state framework of minimum
standards for the regulation of breeds of dog the importation of
which is prohibited by the Commonwealth, namely, dogo Argentino,
fila Brasileiro, Japanese tosa, American pit bull terrier or pit
bull terrier, and crossbreeds of these dogs-referred to as
restricted dogs.
The Commonwealth Customs (Prohibited Imports)
Regulation gives effect to the federal government's decision
of 25 November 1991 to exclude from entry into Australia dogs which
pose a threat to public health and safety.
The key elements of the Bill are-
(a) placing controls and conditions upon the keeping
of restricted dogs;
(b) prohibiting the breeding, sale or exchange and
requiring the de-sexing of restricted dogs;
(c) enabling the destruction of a restricted dog in
specified circumstances; and
(d) providing for local governments to be responsible
for the administration and implementation of this regime.
These key elements are based on an assessment of the
approaches of the other Australian states to legislation for the
regulation of breeds of dog prohibited from importation by the
Commonwealth. State frameworks to address this issue have been
developed in New South Wales (Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW)) and
South Australia (Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (SA)). Further,
Victoria has recently introduced a bill, and Western Australia has
announced its intention to prepare legislation to introduce a
substantially similar regulatory framework for the regulation of
restricted dogs.
In developing proposals for legislation, a number of
issues have been considered to ensure that the regime is workable
for councils and will achieve the objectives previously outlined.
The bill deems those breeds of dog prohibited from importation by
the Commonwealth to be restricted dogs. An owner of a
restricted dog is responsible for applying to the council for the
area where the dog is kept to obtain a permit for keeping the dog.
If an owner does not voluntarily undertake the application for a
permit, the council may commence the process to declare a dog to be
a restricted dog. If this occurs, the owner must then obtain a
permit for the dog. A person under 18 years of age cannot be a
registered owner of a restricted dog.
When an owner of a restricted dog obtains a permit,
they must comply with the permit conditions. These conditions relate
to the keeping of the dog in accordance with the expectations of
public health and safety and include ensuring-
* the dog wears the required identification tag at
all times;
*the dog wears a muzzle and is under effective
control in a public place;
* the dog is kept in an enclosure which complies with
the requirements under the bill and proposed regulation;
*a sign is attached to the entrance of a place
containing the enclosure giving public notice of the restricted dog;
and
*that the permit holder notifies the council of any
change in their residential address.
A restricted dog permit must be renewed annually and
is not transferable between local government areas. This
means if an owner and restricted dog wish to relocate to a different
local government area, the owner will need to apply to the
relevant council to obtain a permit for keeping a restricted dog at
an address in the area. A restricted dog can only be kept at a place
where there is a detached dwelling on the land, and a responsible
person usually resides in the dwelling. In the interests of animal
welfare and public health and safety, it is not considered
appropriate for these dogs to be kept in multi-residential dwelling
situations such as apartment and townhouse complexes or caravan
parks.
The bill provides that it is an offence not to have a
permit for a restricted dog. It will also be an offence to breach
any of the permit conditions, with the maximum penalty for any such
breach being 75 penalty units, that is, $5,625. Other offence
provisions include a maximum penalty of 300 penalty units, or
$22,500, if a person allows or encourages a restricted dog to attack
or cause fear to a person or animal.
It is intended that the legislation will commence
upon a date fixed by proclamation. However, the bill includes
transitional provisions which in effect delay the implementation of
the new permit system. Councils will have four months from the date
of proclamation of the legislation to review their local laws and
repeal any redundant provisions using a truncated local law-making
process. At the expiry of this period, each council must notify
their community of the regulatory framework in place in their area
for the keeping of restricted dogs. As the intention is that
the state legislation will provide a minimum standard, more
stringent standards for the keeping of restricted dogs may
apply in different local government areas. Owners of
restricted dogs will have six weeks from the date of the expiry
of the review period to comply with the regulatory requirements for
the keeping of restricted dogs in their local government
area.
I will now discuss how the new state legislation will
interact with existing and future local government local laws
dealing with the regulation of dogs. This is a complex issue given
that many councils have been willing to exercise jurisdiction in the
regulation of dogs on the basis of behaviour and/or breed. In
developing the bill, my department has consulted extensively with a
number of key internal and external stakeholders to negotiate a
workable framework for local governments.
Currently, the main control on dangerous dogs in
Queensland is through local government local laws. A
model local law, Model Local Law No. 4 (Keeping and Control of
Animals) 2000, has been approved to facilitate local government
regulation of dangerous dogs. Model Local Law No. 4 includes a
framework for the regulation of dogs declared dangerous on the basis
of behaviour or breed. Under the Model Local Law, a local
government can declare dogs that attack, threaten attack or
exhibit other behaviours that threaten public safety to be dangerous
dogs and apply conditions on the keeping of such dogs. A local
government may also, by subordinate local law, prohibit the
keeping of a specified breed of dog. All local governments, except
one, have adopted a local law which is either the Model Local Law or
is substantially the same. A number of local governments have a
subordinate local law which prohibits the keeping of the breeds of
dog prohibited from importation by the Commonwealth in their area.
As councils have been willing to exercise
jurisdiction on this matter, the state legislation provides minimum
standards for the regulation of restricted dogs. This means
local governments can prescribe higher standards or impose higher
responsibilities on the owner of a restricted dog through existing
or new local laws. Where a council has a local law which prohibits
restricted dogs, the local law will apply in that local
government area instead of Chapter 17A of the bill.
The bill specifically provides the matters on which
councils may make a local law to prescribe a higher standard,
obligation or responsibility for the owner. These matters include
requirements for an application, permit conditions and public notice
of the dog's presence at the place where the restricted dog is kept.
However, a local government must comply with those parts in
the bill dealing with the declaration process, the seizure and
destruction of restricted dogs and the procedures and
evidentiary rules for appeals to the Magistrates Court. It is
important that a consistent standard is applied across the state on
these procedural matters. The bill also provides that a council's
local laws on matters relevant to owners of all types of dogs will
apply to the owners of restricted dogs, for example, the
maximum number of dogs to be kept at a place in the area.
In developing the bill consideration has been given
to the difficult issue of breed identification. As there is no
scientific means of proving that a dog is of a restricted breed, or
a crossbreed, identification is based on the physical
characteristics of the dog.
The bill provides two methods for declaring a dog to
be a restricted dog, and a council may decide the appropriate method
on a case-by- case basis.
The first method involves a council obtaining an
expert opinion on a dog's breed from a veterinary surgeon and
subsequently notifying an owner of this opinion and the intention to
declare a dog to be a restricted dog. An owner could then make
written representations to the council, for example, arguing, on the
basis of a veterinarian or breed certificate, that their dog is not
a restricted dog. In these circumstances, a council must consider
all the evidence before it when making its decision on a dog's
declaration status. There is no appeal on the merits of a decision
if this method of declaration is used.
However, an owner retains the right to judicial
review of the council's decision.
The second method provides for an authorised officer
of a council to declare a dog to be a restricted dog. Where a
council uses this declaration method, an owner has a right of appeal
to the Magistrates Court, where they may present evidence that the
dog is not one of the restricted breeds.
The bill requires each local government that
permits the keeping of restricted dogs in their area to
create and maintain a register of restricted dogs. The
register has to be open for public inspection, and include the
following details-
*the address where the dog is kept; and
*a detailed physical description of the restricted
dog.
In order to maintain the privacy of certain members
of the community, the bill provides that persons who are protected
from the disclosure of their name and address under the Valuation of
Land Act 1944 for the purposes of local government records,
such as the voters roll or land roll, are similarly protected under
the restricted dog register provisions. A protected person is a
person whose personal safety or property would be placed at risk if
their name and postal address were included on such public records.
In enforcing this legislation the bill provides that
a council may rely on powers of entry in Chapter 15, Parts 4 and 5,
of the LGA, or on powers of entry contained in a local law on
dangerous dogs under section 1105 of the LGA. The intent is to
enable councils to utilise powers of entry under local laws to
enforce the legislation on restricted dogs, thus allowing
consistency in the administration and enforcement of dangerous and
restricted dog matters. My department will provide training to
councils in relation to carrying out local law reviews and the
identification of these breeds of dog.
It is proposed that technical advisers will be
engaged to develop materials and facilitate training sessions across
the state in relation to breed identification issues. The Department
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Policy will coordinate
similar training sessions for Aboriginal and island councils. As you
would expect with a sensitive subject such as this, there are mixed
views on the proposals in the bill.
Of the 253 submissions received
from the public when the draft legislative proposals were released
for comment in mid-September 2001, 218 were opposed (including 179
form letters) and 34 were in support, and one could not be
classified.
The
Australian Veterinary Association also did not support the bill.
The main reasons for the opposition revolved around
the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in reducing dog
attacks, the difficulty of breed identification and the need for
education regarding responsible pet ownership. In response, I would
simply say there are certain fighting dogs you cannot now bring into
Australia and to reduce the risk to public health and safety the
bill provides that if you have one of these dogs or a crossbreed in
Queensland, extra controls will now apply. These controls are
based on the approaches taken in other states. The Department of
Primary Industries also provides funding for community education on
pet ownership. Other submissions received by my department were
largely supportive of the proposals in the bill.
Although its general policy on animal
management does not support breed-specific regulation, due to recent
events the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(Queensland) does support the proposed state regulatory framework
for restricted dogs, which parallels the Commonwealth legislation.
The Canine Control Council-CCC-also
supports the proposed regulatory framework for restricted dogs.
Although the CCC acknowledged that identification of dogs by breed
can be very difficult in some circumstances, it is prepared to
continue to assist councils in breed identification.
The Local Government Association of
Queensland advised it supports the proposed regulatory framework
and noted that, at its annual conferences, resolutions have been
passed calling on the state government to enact legislation
for the control of pit bull terriers and pit bull terrier type dogs.
The response from local governments has also been generally
supportive of the proposed regulatory framework. However, some
councils were concerned with enforcement of the regulatory
framework.
Next, I shall turn to the proposed amendments in
relation to membership of the Local Government Grants
Commission. The commission is responsible for making recommendations
for the distribution of the financial assistance grants to
Queensland's 125 local governments as well as the 32 Aboriginal
and Torres Strait island councils. Its current membership draws on
people with a wide range of experience in local government
matters. However, it has no member with particular experience and
knowledge of the circumstances and operating environments of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait island local governments. This proposed
amendment will expand the membership of the commission from five to
six members, with the additional member to have particular knowledge
of Aboriginal and island councils. All stakeholders consulted
support this amendment.
I will now turn to the proposed amendments concerning
joint local governments. This is a clarifying amendment intended to
ensure that the original policy intention of the Local Government
Act 1993 is achieved. Under the LGA, joint local governments are
given exclusive jurisdiction in their geographic area for the
functions for which they were created. These functions can be as
varied as supplying bulk water, running saleyards or libraries where
it is convenient for the function to be conducted over the area of
more than one local government. Once a joint local
government is created, the component local governments cannot
exercise jurisdiction over the matters given to the joint local
government.
The LGA also provides for a joint local government
to undertake other local government functions if its
component local governments agree. It was always intended that a
joint local government could expend surplus funds on any
purpose within the broad jurisdiction given to local governments.
However, this power was subject to the component local governments
agreeing on the purpose for which the funds would be spent. The need
for a clarifying amendment arose when advice was sought in respect
of a proposal from the Caloundra-Maroochy Water Supply Board. The
board's jurisdiction is to provide bulk water to the Caloundra City
and Maroochy Shire Councils and to establish recreational facilities
at the board's bulk water storage facilities.
The board has also been engaged in electricity
generation as an additional function in reliance on existing
provisions in the act. However, the board wishes to expand its
current electricity generation operations from hydroelectricity to
wind farming, and to expend funds not required for water supply
purposes on these new activities. The proposed amendment will
clarify that a joint local government may disburse funds that
are not required for its exclusive jurisdiction for another local
government purpose, provided all the component local governments
agree. This additional function does not become part of the joint
local government's exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, both a
joint local government and its component local governments
will be able to concurrently undertake such functions. Similar
amendments are proposed to the provisions dealing with the
Townsville-Thuringowa Water Supply Board. Earlier this year, the
Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2001
converted the Townsville-Thuringowa Water Supply Board to a new
local government entity similar, but not identical, to a
joint local government. The purpose of the board is to supply
bulk water to the Townsville and Thuringowa City Councils and to
other bulk water consumers in its operational area. It was also
given the ability to expend surplus funds on local government
functions with the approval of its component local governments.
Therefore, a parallel amendment is now proposed to the LGA to
clarify that the board may in fact disburse funds in this manner.
Lastly, I will turn to the proposed amendments in
relation to Local Government Owned Corporations (LGOCs).
Under the LGA, local governments may establish LGOCs to conduct
business activities in a similar way to state government
business activities set up as government owned corporations
(GOCs). No LGOCs presently operate in Queensland, but Hervey
Bay City Council has advised that it intends to establish one for
its water and sewerage business activities by January 2002. It is
expected that a number of LGOCs may be established by other councils
in the near future.
The addition of this amendment to the bill is
primarily to ensure that LGOCs obtain state approval for financial
arrangements in the same way that any local government that
wishes to borrow must obtain approval. Applying the SBFA Act to
LGOCs requires a related technical amendment to the Queensland
Treasury Corporation Act 1988-to clarify the state performance
dividend requirements do not apply to LGOCs. I commend the bill to
the House.
THE VETERINARY- JENI HOOD – Oct. 2001
Proposals for
a national dangerous dog policy and an industry-based Animal
Management Officer (AMO) training package dominated the 10th
National Urban Animal Management (UAM) conference, held this year in
Melbourne in August.
The UAM is
widely recognized as the peak advisory body in urban animal
management and has a membership comprising of veterinarians, animal
management officers, senior local law officers, councilors, state
government advisors and animal welfare agencies.
UAM
Co-convener, Adelaide private practitioner and member of the DOG AND
CAT MANAGEMENT BOARD of SOUTH AUSTRALIA, Dr Ian McBryde, said: “The
UAM’s national dangerous dog policy is priority issue. Delegates
voted to proceed immediately with the formulation of a national
strategic plan, including a multi-tiered approach to aggressive
dogs, that will provide interstate consistency in harm-minimisation
associated with such dogs”.
Dr McBryde
said that it was hoped that the much needed national policy would be
ready for presentation at the UAM conference in 2003. The plan would
take the form of a template that could be adopted around Australia
by local councils and be easily incorporated into local by-laws or
state or territory laws.
He said it
could involve veterinarians being involved in declaring dogs to be
dangerous. Dr McBryde also said that UAM delegates felt that there
was an urgent need for a national dangerous dog register.
UAM Convener
and fellow veterinarian, Dr Dick Murray, said: “Throughout Australia
the dogs are the same, the people are the same. It stands to reason
that the best remedies are going to be same also. The tendency for
dangerous dog incidents to draw ‘political’ knee jerk reactions is
famous.
“There is
always a lot of emotion with everyone running off in different
directions. ‘Ban the breed’ and ‘shoot all the dingoes’ type
responses don’t ever solve much. But they will always keep on being
trotted out when the pressure is on until there is a proper national
policy approach to the whole issue.”
Keynote
speaker, Dr Dennis Fetko, a US animal behaviour psychologist,
addressed delegates on dog aggression and attacks. He said that
there was no basis for believing in breed specific aggression and
warned that if this notion was promoted, people would be more
fearful of certain breeds and this could, in fact, increase the
chances of aggression. Dr Fetko also told the conference of the
difficulties in accurate breed identification, even by experts.
The majority
of delegates supported the ‘deed not breed’ principle in a survey
conducted on the first day.
A national
AMO training package will also be developed by the UAM to meet
industry needs. Dr McBryde said the accredited training scheme will
be modeled on the highly successful veterinary nurses training
scheme.
UAM’s
involvement, he said, was “with the blessing and assistance of the
Australian National Training Authority”.
BAN THE DEED NOT THE BREED – BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION AND
ALTHERNATIVES TO LEGISLATING
The AVA stand on
the proposed Breed Ban Specific Legislation.
INTRODUCTION
At present both
the Victorian and Queensland Governments are investigating Breed
Specific Legislation to address dog bit issues. As professionals in
the veterinary industry, our opinion, based on scientific evidence
and not emotion, is important both to legislators and the public.
After extensive
review of available research, literature searches, and best practice
reviews of legislation and regulation in Australian states and
overseas, this article aims to give a brief summary of the most
important issues associated with Breed Specific Legislation.
Due to the
ineffectiveness, inability of enforcement and cost of Breed Specific
Legislation, alternatives are strongly recommended and discussed
within this paper.
Dog bites are
highly publicized and the government is being pressured to response
with solutions. Initially Breed Specific Legislation will target the
Pit Bull Terrier however other breed’s \can be added to the list.
Eg. Burdekin Shire Council, Queensland is considering five breeds
(Rottweiler, Doberman, German Shepherd, Bullmastiff and Pit Bull
Terrier).
AVA POLICY
CLEARLY STATES:
“The AVA
supports the development of dangerous dog legislation provided it
refers to deed and not breed.”
“Targeting a
specific breed is not appropriate. The main problems relate to
irresponsible ownership and lack of education.”
Management of
dangerous dogs is in discussion worldwide and the AVA is currently
reviewing the policy to further clarify appropriate methods of
managing dangerous dogs.
Unfortunately,
regardless of legislation, there will always be a small minority of
dog owners who are not socially responsible. Dog bites are a serious
issue that adversely affects our profession. Veterinarians actively
aim to reduce dog bites, through encouragement of activities such as
socialization and training of puppies and dogs, support of Urban
Animal Management and the AVA’s PetPEP Program to increase education
of children about pets.
It is well
known that dogs, regardless of breed, offer social, psychological
and health benefits. Dogs are not only good for individuals but also
the community (Headkly B., Krause P. 1999, Mangosi S. 1999)
A SUMMARY OF
THE MAJOR ISSUES IS PROVIDED BELOW
ð
Effectiveness of breed
specific legislation
The
Victorian Bureau of Animal Welfare in the 1996 Regulatory Impact
Statement wrote: “The cost of breed specific identification alone
for the estimated 3000 dogs in question is estimated at US$ 14
million. Unfortunately this enforcement activity does not decrease
unacceptable behaviour in all dogs, as during the two years since
the UK law was enacted 293 incidents involving other breeds of dogs
were recorded.”A study by Klassen et al 1999, of hospital admission
rates pre- and post-introduction of the UK act in 1991 wrote: “This
comparative study clearly demonstrates little impact of attendances
for such injuries since the introduction of the 1991 act.”
ð
Dog bites are not
restricted to only one or even a selection of breeds
It is questionable to discriminate on
the basis of breed as many breeds and also crossbreeds are
represented in national and international dog bite statistics
(Dekalb County Georgia 1987, Bureau of Animal Welfare 1996,
NSW government media release 2001, Kneafsey B, Condon KC, 1994,
Kreisfeld R, Bordeaux S, 1998).
ð
Breed Specific
Legislation is unenforceable.
It is impossible with present technology
to definitively determine a breed with genetics. Phenotypically, it
arguably impossible to definitively determine a breed and overseas
has led to lengthy court battles. (Brisbin 2001, Lowe 2001). There
is usually no requirement for veterinarians to phenotypically
determine the breed. Phenotypic determination is usually by Local
Council workers such as Animal Control Officers with potentially
limited experience in breed identification.
ð
Breed is one of number
of factors that predispose to a dog biting
There are a number of factors which lead
to a dog biting of which genetics is only one, however the role
genetics plays is not well understood or documented (Lockwood &
Rindy 1987, Sherwell & Nancarrow 1992)
ð
Media misrepresents
breeds
There is
evidence that the media reflects certain breeds disproportionately
and sometimes also misrepresents breeds causing a misunderstanding
within the community (Podbersek 1994)
ð
Alternatives to Breed
Specific Legislation
Enforcement of current legislation and
support of current education projects will provide results that will
meet the objectives for all breeds of dog and be more harmonious to
implement within the community. “An underlying reason was evident
in many bites that were judged by the victims to be unprovoked; if
the public were more aware the numbers of these unfortunate
incidents might be reduced.” (Sherwell and Nancarrow, 1992)
Summary of alternative solutions.
- Legislation and prosecution –
suitable penalties for owners with offending dogs irrespective
of breed;
- Enforcement by local
government of the existing Act; and
- Support for existing models
of education designed for the reduction in dog bites and
encouragement of future programs designed for the reduction in
dog bites in both children and adults.
Alternative
solutions:
- Strict
legislation and prosecution of dog owners with offending dogs.
- Responsible
ownership of all breeds. This includes welfare as well as
complying with the council laws that occur in the local area
such as effective fencing.
- Selection
of the right breed for the family and community situation.
“Selectapet” has been used to aid in the selection of the most
appropriate breed for the home environment and helps over 12,000
pet owners internationally per week.
- Education
is the KEY. An emphasis by government education to increase
understanding particularly in the most affected groups (Thompson
PG, 1997).
Support
of existing programs:
- PetPEP by
the Australian Veterinary Association.
- Responsible
Pet Ownership Program by the Victorian State Government.
- “Dogs ‘n
Kids Program” by the Safety Centre of the Royal Children’s
Hospital in Melbourne.
- “Dog Safe”
by the Delta Society.
- Education
for dogs such as Puppy preschool tm at veterinary
clinics for socialization of puppies when they are young and
then obedience training such as Canine Good Citizen Program
(Delta). Socialisation is extremely important to teach dogs to
be friendly to other dogs, people and children.
- Emphasis on
local government by Urban Animal Management to create public
places that are harmonious for both dog owners and people
without dogs.
- Health and
suitability testing of puppies by experts such as Veterinary
Surgeons and qualified Animal Behaviourists.
-
Registration of litters to identify the sources of puppies and
more accurate record keeping of current dog populations.
- Increased
training of Veterinary Surgeons in animal behaviour and possibly
dog identification.
Conclusion
Negative media
reporting is prioritizing the issue for legislators. The concern is
that the proposed action will cost more and does not address the
problem.
It is important
as Veterinary Surgeons to support the government in making decisions
that WILL reduce dog bites. Breed Specific Legislation in the UK has
not reduced dog bites.
As professionals
we have an obligation to contribute to make our society safer
through expert opinion and education. Dog owners deserve legislation
that establishes a fair process by which specific dogs are
identified as “dangerous” based on stated measurable actions and
then allows appropriate penalties for irresponsible owners.
AVA Vic
Division
MAILING LISTS to voice your
objections:
Vic List
QLD LIST...
The Morning Bulletin
The Observer
Gold Coast Bulletin.
Queensland Times
email addresses.
Letters to the
Editor:
letters@qt.com.au
General Editorial Enquiries
QLD Times.
(no press releases) qt@qt.com.au
To email
reporters, send an email to [initial name]
@qt.com.au for example, to email chief-of-staff
Daniel Sankey, address it to:
dsankey@qt.com.au
The Courier-Mail
Letters to the Editor
More Addys New Zealand...
The Daily News, New Plymouth, New
Zealand.
BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION WORLD WIDE,
very useful links to keep you informed
A useful
letter:
Please copy and
RETYPE on your own paper prior to sending, being sure to REMOVE all
( ) s and their enclosures.
(if you type this with a 10
point font it will fit on one page)
(TO:..insert name here) (address) (city, state,zip)
(FROM:..Your name) (Your address)
(your city, state, zip)
Dear (insert name here):
To be useful, legislation must be
effective, enforcible, economical, and reasonably fair. Recently, a
bill (CITE BILL NUMBER HERE) has been placed before (RELEVANT BODY
ie., city council, etc,)that would fail all of these tests. This
legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge. .
The media and the inexperienced
would have you believe that these breeds are vicious and should be
prohibited. However, these very breeds as a whole have proven their
stability and good canine citizenry by becoming 'Search & Rescue
dogs, Therapy dogs working inside hospitals, professional Herding
dogs and family companions for years.
Our Country was not founded on the
restriction and punishment of the masses based on the actions of a
few....when has this changed?
A five year study published in the
Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically
considered both Rottweilers and "pit bulls", concluded in part that:
..statistics did not support the
assertion that any one breed was dangerous, ..when legislation is
focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is ...
unenforceable, confusing, and costly. .. focusing legislation on
dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem,
which is irresponsible owners.
In light of this and other
studies, we urge you to take the following actions:
1. Reject the current legislation,
which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue, that of
responsible ownership.
2. Actively pursue legislation
that would render owners liable for the actions of their pets, such
as a good non-breed specific dangerous dog law.
We suggest that the appropriate
policy should be "blame the owner, not the dog." Owners can and
should take responsibility for their pets.
Bottom line: the legislation
proposed will not only be unfair for responsible citizens but it
addresses the wrong problem. Voting for this proposal as it stands
only harms the law abiding responsible dog owner.
YOUR NAME
A new link:
YOUR DOG NET
|
