Victoria has some of the strictest regulations in Australia for dog owners, with even more draconian laws surrounding the ownership of ‘restricted breed’ dogs.
According to Victorian law, a ‘restricted breed’ dog is a dog who is a ‘pit bull’, a ‘pit bull’ cross, or any other dog which meets the ‘standard’ for restricted breed dogs (a ‘pit bull type’), even if it is not a pit bull. This is regardless of the temperament of the dog, or whether it has ever caused a problem in its community.
The Victorian Domestic Animals Act specifies the following;
– Restricted breed dogs can only be registered if:
> the dog was in Victoria before 2010
> the dog is desexed and microchipped
In addition, any dog deemed to be ‘restricted breed’ and born after the amnesty ended (Sept 2011), cannot be registered and therefore must be seized and killed.
– Dogs and cats must wear ID when outside of their owners premises (2 penalty units)
One penalty unit is $140.84 in the 2012–13 financial year
– Dogs (any type) found at large (lost)
> daytime – up to 6 penalty units (or approx $850)
> nighttime – up to 10 penalty units (or approx $1,400)
These enormously high reclaim fees, work against everything we do to get pets safely home.
– It is an offence to set on dog to attack person or animal – up to 120 penalty units or 6 months prison (or approx $17,000)
– If a restricted breed dog attacks or bites any person or animal, causing death or a serious injury, the person in control of the dog at the time of the attack or biting – up to 120 units or 6 months prison (or approx $17,000)
– If a restricted breed dog attacks or bites any person or animal, the owner of the dog at the time of the attack or biting – up to 120 penalty units or 6 months prison (or approx $17,000)
(and the dog may be destroyed in any of these offences)
– Restricted breeds must adhere the to following requirements
> A prescribed enclosure (self closing and self latching gates, escape and dig proof, a minimum floor area of 10 square metres, a perimeter fence of 1.8 metres)
> Warning signs
> Muzzled at all times when in public
> Leashed at all times when in public
> Controlled by someone over 17
– Restricted breed dogs cannot be sold or transferred.
– Councils must keep a register of dangerous, menacing and restricted breed dogs including owners details.
– Councils may seize a restricted breed dog if it has made a decision to refuse to register the registration, or the dog can otherwise not be registered.
– Councils may seize a restricted breed dog that is not being kept under the restricted breed requirements (above)
– Councils may seize a dog that they believe to be a restricted breed dog.
– Councils can seize a dog that is unregistered.
– Councils can seize any dog at large (lost).
– Councils can seize dogs away from home (being walked etc) who aren’t wearing ID.
– Councils can apply for a search warrant if they believe there is a dog able to be seized under any of the specifications above (so they can visit when you’re not at home).
– Councils may kill a dog which has been seized at any time if the Council has made a decision to refuse to register or renew the registration of the dog
– Councils must kill restricted breed dogs within 8 days if their owner can’t be located.
– Councils may kill unidentified dogs after 48hrs if it is deemed to be acting dangerously.
– Councils may kill immediately any dog behaving in a manner or in circumstances that they believe will result in imminent serious injury or death to a person or other animal. This includes identified dogs.
– Costs for transport, impoundment, upkeep and disposal can be passed onto a dogs owners, even if the dog is killed.
In short, enormous powers for Councils to seize pets.
Regardless of the overreaching scope of these laws, the Herald Sun is not satisfied.
On news that over half of dog owners who challenge the determination by council that their dog meets the ‘restricted breed standard’, is being overturned by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), it called for even more laws for Councils;
The Government must therefore redraft what is difficult, but necessary, legislation.
No one can argue against the need to safeguard the public from dangerous dogs, such as the pit bull-cross that killed four-year-old Ayen Chol last year.
…
The flaw in the deed-versus-breed argument is that someone has to be savaged or threatened by a dog in front of witnesses before authorities can act. The Government needs to jerk their leash. Tighten the law and get rid of dogs that in rare cases kill, but often maim. There is no moral argument for keeping them.
Ignoring the recommendations of vets;
“While the AVA believes that dogs that have shown aggressive behaviour should be regulated strongly, you can’t tell whether a dog is dangerous just by looking at it, or even by its breed.
“We know that all dogs have the potential to react aggressively if scared or threatened but most dogs don’t bite people, so the banning of some breeds over others doesn’t make sense.
“The legislation in Victoria is not a solution. Experience in other parts of the world has shown that banning breeds doesn’t reduce dog bites. The AVA stands ready and willing to work with governments to find a more reasonable and realistic solution to what is obviously a complex issue.
and the RSPCA National;
The RSPCA does not support breed specific legislation, also known as BSL. Our view, based on the available international scientific evidence, is that any dog may be dangerous and that dogs should not be declared as ‘dangerous’ on the basis of breed. While we recognise that there is a strong genetic component in a dog’s propensity for aggressive behaviour, their trigger point for aggression and capacity to inflict serious injury, these factors are not isolated to any specific breed. The RSPCA does not believe that BSL is in any way effective in preventing or reducing dog attacks or in protecting the public from dangerous dogs.
The Herald Sun continue to try and generate slavering hysteria around dogs, despite the mounting evidence that no matter how enormous the powers given to Council, when they are focussed on breed rather than dangerous behaviour, innocent pets die while people continue to be harmed by truly dangerous animals.
About 150 pit bulls have been put down since the ‘restricted breed’ laws were introduced in September 2011, and another 20 are in pounds awaiting destruction. With delays in processing, and councils to spending “$27.50” a day to keep animals on death row, literally hundreds of thousands of dollars are being pumped into enforcing a law with no hope of success.
American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia secretary Bonnie Norton said neighbours were phoning the dangerous dogs hotline, resulting in councils searching properties.
“They are coming out and taking much-loved family pets that have done nothing wrong,” she said.
Shame on you Herald Sun.
Where are the canine experts and behaviouralists in the Herald Sun’s position on this matter.
Will ignorant Politicians enact further BSL to encompass working dogs and herding dog type breeds, like they did with the German Shepherd Dog back several decades back for 40+ years due to the powerful Farming lobby?
The idea of Council Officers coming in a taking one’s dog is an horrific thought.
There is nothing that justifies the taking of a life of a dog that has done nothing wrong. It is species racism, and should not be condoned. Rather than fear mongering the Herald Sun should be looking at the people who go to VCAT seeking justice without understanding that is not the role of VCAT. And justice is not served.
Kudos to the Herald Sun for delivering both sides of the argument and not sitting on the fence. They are stating that BSL is not a solution to the problem, but a band-aid fix to something that has to be researched much more deeply. Please correct me if I read it out of context.
I will never buy this crappy paper ever again. I plan to tell all my friends just how crappy it is. Stating that pit bulls have lost the right to live… For a start, “pit bull” is a meaningless term. It is a generic term meaning any stocky dog. Secondly, research clearly demonstrates that these types of dogs are being made a scapegoat. Lastly, what’s next? Let’s say we accept the dubious argument that these dogs are a specific breed, where will it end? What species or breed would you like to wipe off the face of the earth next? Such incredible bias.