Up until just recently, a council could seize a dog it deemed to be a ‘pit bull’, take him to the pound who would then kill him, and only his owner would feel the pain of losing a family member. Today social media allows us powerful and immediate connection, so we ALL feel the pain of families torn apart by BSL.
Tomorrow (Monday 15th May) Milo will be killed for the way he looks.
Also tomorrow, pups Bear and Kooda will be killed for looking a certain way.
These dogs have never hurt anyone.
These dogs have families who love them.
The community will not be any safer once they are dead.
But we will all be just a little bit affected, as we are all now connected – by the internet and by our love of our dogs – and know just what these poor owners must be going through tonight.
I am beyond angry, hurt, ashamed and disgusted that these beautiful family dogs can be killed based on their appearance. I just can’t get my head around it, it makes no sense whatsoever :( It’s a sad day for society as a whole when legislation can get passed that has no merit, no scientific backing, and is not wanted by an overwhelming majority of its citizens. Absolutley disgusted :(
My heart breaks for the owners of dogs taken out of loving homes due to this barbaric legislation. What a sick, heartless society we live…..
The wording American pit bull terrier’ or ‘pit bull terrier’ used as an easily identifiable breed of dog is clearly vague and in no way sufficiently clear and precise therefore violates equal protection and due process, by not stipulating specific guidelines to inhibit Councils Animal Control Officers from enforcing the law in an arbitrary or discriminatory fashion and on the ground that the ordinance’s definition of an American pit bull terrier’ ,pit bull terrier, is on its face unconstitutionally vague or void due to vagueness.
Misfeasance a form of wrongdoing, especially the doing of something lawful in an unlawful way so that the rights of others are infringed. Generally, a civil defendant will be liable for misfeasance if the defendant owed a duty of care toward the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty of care by improperly performing a legal act, and the improper performance resulted in harm to the plaintiff. misfeasance n. management of a business, public office or other responsibility in which there are errors and an unfortunate result through mistake or carelessness, but without evil intent and/or violation of law. Misfeasance is distinguished from “malfeasance” which is conduct in violation of the law.
There is absolutely NO methodology in existence anywhere in the world by which the breed components of a dog of unknown parentage can be identified with any level of certainty. Any government/council/individual/pound who says they can is kidding themselves and committing fraud.
That these experts in dog breed identification held training to a level supported in the “Rules of Law” as a true expert….
tybrax
OMG, this is the most appalling thing ive heard, when there are so many countries appealing this law, because it doesnt work. Owners need to be made responsible,you cant kill a dog for the way it looks any dog is capable of biting. Just another knee jerking stupid law!
what sent an email to
‘[email protected]’
Insanity at its best. You kill because of the way its looks and its name since when has that been justice.
Today Bear and Kokoda will be killed for looking a certain way.
These dogs have never hurt anyone.
These dogs have families who love them.
The community will not be any safer once they are dead.
But we will all be just a little bit affected, as we are all now connected – by the internet and by our love of our dogs – and know just what these poor owners must be going through.
We as a family of over 25,000 animal welfare people on face book do not support your laws and we do not support you.
SHAME ON THE GOVERNMENT THEY RUSHED THIS THROUGH WITHOUT ANY THOUGHT, YET THEY STILL ALLOW PUPPYFARMS TO THRIVE THIS GOVERNMENT IS A REAL JOKE . JUST BECAUSE OF A DOGS APPEARANCE NEXT THEY WILL HAVE A LAW AGAINST LABS. WHILE THE PUPPY FARMS ARE ALLOWED TO BREED IN FREEDOM . WAKE UP WE DONT WANT BSL . SO SORRY FOR THEESE DOGS LOOKS SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. IT IS BARBARIC LEGISLATION . MY HEART BREAKS FOR THEESE DOGS. :(
WHY CANT THEY ABOLISH PUPPY FARMS AS QUICK.
I WANT OSCARS LAW
i am so disgusted and heartbroken. words cannot describe the sadness i am feeling for these furbabies and their families. To judge a breed by its looks its discriminating and just plain IDIOTIC! when will the government/councils start putting time into the real problems like puppy farms, dog fighting rings? instead they are seizing good family pets/members and euthanizing them for their looks. and what moron came up with the idea to judge a breed by its looks? really? because i could swear that Bear & Koda look Mastiff x ridgeback? in saying that even if they were pitbull what have they done wrong? do they have irresponsible owners? have they attacked anyone? did milo do anything wrong? this BSL (bull S@&t law) needs to be stopped before more of our innocent family members are taken away from us. BLAME THE IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS NOT THE BREED!!!!!
A few months ago, a dog escaped their yard and killed a small child.
Today, the state has killed three dogs – not because of anything they did but because they possibly *may* have looked somewhat similar to that first dog.
Sound absurd to you? Cos it sure does to me.
What can be done to support the owners of Bear n Koda and Milo??
Do they want people to protest outside VCAT or the pound??
If they were my dogs I would want to know that others care. I would do anything to get my dogs back …whether legally, legalish or otherwise.
As I understand it the council have issued a statement on Milo and he will not/has not been killed.
Also as I understand it Bear and Kooda will NOT be killed tomorrow and have 28 days from 10 May to appeal the decision.
From what I’ve seen on Facebook, especially in regards to Mylo, the family are completely aware that he is a pit bull. They have also admitted to not registering him during the amnesty because they thought he would get put down.
The dog had been missing for a couple of days before getting picked up, and was undesexed, unmicrochipped and unregistered. Is that really responsible pet ownership at all?
@Rian,
I don’t know which bits of what you’ve said are true, but even if they are all true it doesn’t change the fact Mylo is on death row solely because of his breed.
But mostly, should these details be true, what it really highlights is how ineffective these laws are in getting people to comply with other responsible pet ownership behaviours. We *want* dogs to be desexed, registered, microchipped (+ socialised, trained, under a vet’s care) and for families to be confident to contact council when their pet goes missing so they can reunited.
Driving these owners underground because they’re afraid their pet will be seized and killed makes the situation worse for the dogs, and longer-term much, much worse for the community.
The information regarding what I’ve stated is all freely viewable on Facebook. This is a specific situation in which the owners have acted irresponsibly and whilst aware of the laws, especially those within Brimbank council which is renowned for their strictness within their pet registration (ie. cannot register the dog if it is not desexed [unless you have an exemption] and dog must be microchipped to be registered) due to the attack on Ayen Chol which hurtled BSL into reality in the first place.
I’d love to hear your opinion on the following: Say Mylo is released to his owners, they comply with Brimbank Councils regulations and he is desexed and microchipped, and then Mylo begins to show signs of aggression and at some point attacks someone, who is responsible then?
Will the witch hunt be on the council because they allowed this dog to return to the community, or would it fall on the owners for not looking after their pet responsibly?
Easy – it is the joint responsibility of the council and the owner to keep Mylo safe in the future.
This wrong-headed approach of targeting breeds is putting huge amounts of resources into chasing the ‘pit bull boogyman’, while ignoring those things we know actually are signals that lead to a bite.
If a dog is a large breed, undesexed animal – that is a signal that there is a potential problem. This is why it is important to have open registration process (the ability to register your animal with NO arbitrary restrictions like ‘breed’, pet limits or desexing requirements) to allow council to know exactly where ALL these dogs are located and give them a chance to make contact with the owner to improve the situation.
If a dog is found roaming – that is a signal there is a potential problem. This is why it is important to have an incremental form of enforcement; the dog can get out once and hurts no one, it will be considered an ‘accident’ and it will be returned straight home (avoiding the pound). If the dog gets out more than once, then a much stronger deterrent is applied and more directions applied before they can get their dog back.
If a dog is reported by neighbours as making them feel unsafe, to be fence aggressing, or not being contained appropriately at all times – that is a signal there is a potential problem. This is why it is important for an animal management team to take a consultative approach, rather than a slash-and-burn one which puts them at odds with their community. Often these issues can be resolved BEFORE something goes wrong.
If a dog has a ‘near miss’ with another dog or person – that is a signal there is a potential problem. Bites rarely if ever happen in isolation. This is why it is important to educate your community on what constitutes safe and responsible pet ownership and give them the facilities and the ability to train and socialise their animals.
Keeping their dogs safe is the responsibility of owners. Looking for these signals and acting early rather than reactively is the responsibility of councils.
Seizing pets because they look a certain way achieves neither of these aims.
Read about Calgary; they have a 90-95% dog licensing compliance rate. They also have the lowest number of aggressive dog incidents they’ve had in over 25 years; no BSL.
As you are probably well aware the laws don’t just target ‘pit bulls’ but as there are only the American pit bull terrier (or pit bull terrier) and one dogo Argentino in Victoria it becomes generalised to this breed.
The laws aren’t without precedent, especially those within the council area that Mylo was found.
In terms of what you have mentioned, Mylo’s case fits many of the hypotheticals you have given. He was found roaming and had been missing for at least 2-3 days. Without proper identification such as a microchip or registration (which he is lacking) he had to go to the pound, as there would be no other avenue to get him home.
I understand where you are coming from regarding an open registration process, but that would be an ‘in a perfect world situation’. As it stands, Mylo’s owners were aware of the registration process, aware of the amnesty and chose to ignore it in their words ‘out of ignorance’. The owners have failed in their responsibility to keep the dog safe.
What do you think the right thing to do in this situation would be? Give the owners a slap on the wrist, return the dog to them as is and then go from there? In your current hypothetical that would be the way it would work, no?
Then if the dog escapes again maybe look at imposing that the owners get him registered, desexed, etc.? I agree with you that bites rarely/if ever happen in isolation but I can’t help but wonder if the situation would be different if, whilst on his journey around the streets of Brimbank council, Mylo had of attacked a dog or person.
But he didn’t. So what we essentially have is a lost dog and some owners who failed to do some paperwork.
Should Mylo die because of that?
Will the community be safer once he is dead? (keeping in mind the role of the laws is claimed to be community safety, not ‘punishing owners via their dogs’)
The ideal thing to do in this situation would be to interview the owners to find out why they hadn’t been complying. Were they afraid Mylo would be seized? Were they unaware of the requirements? How were they keeping him – was he part of the household and did he go places with the family? Had he ever caused other problems in the neighbourhood, or was he living without bothering anyone until the day he got lost?
In short: look for reasons NOT to kill Mylo, but instead see if the problems were small enough to be overcome.
Of course, this is all much easier to do if you’ve not gone ballistic on ‘pit bull type’ dogs, getting all bull breed owners in your community off-side thinking you’re coming for their dogs next.
Calgary is not some ‘ideal world’ – it’s a real city. If we know what we’re doing *isn’t* working to protect the community and the pets who live in them; and what they are doing *is* working, keeping all dogs regardless of breed from becoming a nuisance; then it’s crazy that we persist with our approach..
It’s unfortunate that there’s a dog stuck in the middle of all this but I think it’s rather obvious that the owners of Mylo are textbook irresponsible pet owners. They have put him in this situation. How can you overlook that and say they should just get a slap on the wrist to begin with? If Mylo is found to not be restricted he should be re-homed with another family.
Instead of hypotheticals, let’s look at the facts. They didn’t just ‘fail’ to do some paperwork as you so lightly put it. They CHOSE to fail to neuter him – (try telling any man you know that a vasectomy is just a matter of paperwork), they CHOSE to fail to keep him enclosed on their property and they CHOSE to fail to chip and register him. Why defend these owners when they have CHOSEN to go against all the fundamentals of responsible ownership? From what I’ve seen they have been well aware of the rules and just chosen to break them. All their information is contradictory and it all points to knowing their dog was a restricted breed yet now crying ignorance. All they are doing is perpetuating the stereotype of what kind of people opt to have pit bulls; giving the rest of the pitty loving community a bad rap. I wish they would just disappear because they are not doing the cause here in Victoria any justice.
There’s lots of laws I don’t agree with. I don’t just break them at will. And it’s all fair and good for savingpets to take the opportunity to try and change the laws they disagree with but you’re failing to address the owners responsibility in all this and it’s a bias that sticks out like Mylo’s balls.
Dogs often get loose and lost.
People often keep undesexed dogs.
People are often imperfect and do wrong things like not register their pets.
And you know what we do? We try and fix the problems and get the animals home.
What we’re proposing we do in this case – to teach these owners a ‘lesson’- is kill their dog.
THAT’LL LEARN THEM!!
I’m sure they won’t just get another dog. Maybe a large breed of a different colour so they don’t get caught up in this disproven and ineffective legislation next time.
And this dog – I have no idea whether he’s a nice dog or a mean dog – but regardless, he’ll be dead.
Oh well, no matter.
…
Of course I’m not defending the owners if they’ve done the wrong thing. I think they should be fined, or whatever penalty we’d have imposed if this dog had been a labrador, gotten loose one day and ended up in the pound. If the dog had gotten himself into trouble, then declare him – if his owners don’t want to comply, he gets rehomed. Whatever.
What I don’t think we should do is support legislation which demands we kill a dog because of his owners transgressions.
Also, the two options for Mylo are not just ‘return to owner’ or ‘kill dog’. If the owners are found to be unfit owners, and Mylo is found on appropriate examination to be a safe dog, there is no reason (other than that stupid law) that he couldn’t be rehomed.
He shouldn’t be killed because of the law, or because of his people. The owners not doing the right thing does not absolve the council of having to do the ‘right’ thing also.