Thread: New dangerous dog laws

It all sounds good to me .

[FONT=arial][FONT=arial]Under the laws, council officers will be given sweeping powers to seize and destroy unregistered dogs found unsupervised in public areas, if they are believed to pose a risk.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=arial]
[/FONT]

[FONT=arial]

This was in the paper..if true.. I DON'T like!
What right does an under qualified person have to decide if a dog is dangerous or not. If these animal control officers saw some of the dogs I have helped modify behaviour for, they wouldn't be alive now! More respect for our dogs...

I wrote more here: http://www.loveourdogs.com.au/blogs/...d-more-respect[/FONT]

I agree with removing any unsupervised dog that is found wandering. They already do this with picking up strays etc. I think we have too many dogs and too many irresponsible owners a few less off the streets wouldn't hurt. If they find a dog with no way of knowing who owns/bred it and decide it's dangerous i think putting it down would also be beneficial. Responsible people don't let dogs roam, so we don't need to worry. If a microchipped dog is picked up and they decide it's a danger they shouldn't be allowed to destroy it however why was it free in the first place, owner should deal with the consequence of restrictions etc...

Well Amy I hope oneday one of your dogs doesn't "accidently" get out of your yard..and some animal control officer sees a rotty, and decides "nope its dangerous".. Sure you can say but my dogs are always secured away properly.. But in life accidents can and do happen.. I myself have never had any of my dogs wonder the streets. But I can NEVER guarantee it wil lnot happen.. I know of many dog owners that someone has entered a yard.. or a gate broke..or just an owner that had to rush of in an emergancy and forgot about a gate or dog in the yard. I have learnt in life..never say never.

To give an animal control officer "sweeping powers" to have dogs destroyed is a disgrace! Yep..just blame the dog....

Originally Posted by Amy Pattison

I agree with removing any unsupervised dog that is found wandering. They already do this with picking up strays etc. I think we have too many dogs and too many irresponsible owners a few less off the streets wouldn't hurt. If they find a dog with no way of knowing who owns/bred it and decide it's dangerous i think putting it down would also be beneficial. Responsible people don't let dogs roam, so we don't need to worry. If a microchipped dog is picked up and they decide it's a danger they shouldn't be allowed to destroy it however why was it free in the first place, owner should deal with the consequence of restrictions etc...

Yes Mark so do I. I will be responsible for whatever happened next. I know this. I understand accidents occur, animals suffer due to the hand of mans error.

QUOTE
To give an animal control officer "sweeping powers" to have dogs destroyed is a disgrace! Yep..just blame the dog...

I guess you wouldn't like my view on kill shelters either.

Hi Amy

I wasn't meaning to have a dig at you.. and yes ALL dog owners should be made responsible for their dogs..It's just sad that dogs will end up paying the ultimate price, even for an accident on the owners part. I believe ALL life is sacred..and to destroy a dog because it may possibly show a little aggression, because it is scared or confused is down right immoral.

Will animal control officers use their new powers responsibly? I doubt it, as they will not understand aggression, nor why the dog is showing some aggression. Some may even resort to destroying certain breeds, due to a dislike for them... Or "it looked at me funny..so it might be aggressive...best to destroy it" Power corrupts, and there should always be accountability..but if the animal control officer can just destroy a dog without real accountability..Then it is wrong.
Thousands of dogs already are destroyed by animal welfare and RSPCA shelters each year due to a poor understanding of dogs. This needs to stop. Owners need to pay, not the dogs!

Maybe we should euthanise any human that shows any form of aggression too, that is walking the streets?

We need to fight for our dogs rights..not sit back and say..well its the owners fault the dog was destroyed. Does that philosphy make it right? No.

The proposed legislation will also empower an authorised officer to immediately destroy any dog that they believe will cause imminent serious injury or death to a person or another animal.�

This is a problem. Discretion can always be swayed by bias, miseducation or total lack thereof. OK so say an officer sees a bull breed/rottweiler/shepherd etc on the street, thinks to themself 'hmmm thats one of them killer breeds' and *poof* dead dog. What about a dog that has been clipped by a car, suffered and injury or is just fearful then chased down to be caught and shows aggressive behavior - *poof* dead dog. No more appeal process people, power has been put into the hands of rangers.

Now if every one of them had say a cert in dog training and behavior then I would say, yep, ok at least we have a chance. You need NO formal animal experience to be a council ranger. None. And yet these people are given more discretionary power. Look at the problems the police force has with underexperienced officers given discreation, or historically when they had massive intakes of undereducated individuals. The poop hit the proverbial fan and they had to do massive damage control because it doesnt work, its something that always leads to failures and f**ups.

As for the extra $1, I dont buy it. Each counci has its own fee rates here in Vic. Wyndham are cheaper then here in City of Greater Geelong who are cheaper then some others - so how does that work then. Frankston council are now imposing mandatory desexing scheme and Geelong wants to follow suite next year (over my dead body). But what do we get now for our fees? Dog parks are becoming more and more constricted, most council pounds funnel their dogs to the Lost Dogs Home in Nth Melbourne with its huge kill rate (Geelong has a little pound but they do NO temperament testing before rehoming ... WTF???) Backyard breeders, puppy farmers, and people who neglect their dogs are not dealt with by the rangers. These are the people that cause the problems. I can tell you one asswipe puppy farmer here churns out at least a couple of hundred pups a year NONE of which are touched by humans until he sells them. He leaves them to be raised by their cage crazy mothers. Council says, nah no problem he's not a breeder. Well I can tell you selling that many large/giant/guarding breed pups raised like are liabilities to your community - last dog I had here bred by him took 3 people to pull from a crate with a pole, pin down and strap a muzzle on, it was essentially wild.
THe RSPCA has wiped its hands of dealing with most domestic animal issues, the councils have a massive case of hands over the ears la la la-ing away. So we up the laws to allow these people to randomly start killing dogs with no formal temp test instead of educating rangers and councils, and hitting the source of problems? Joy.

But then again, it's only a dog aye.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated�

Gandhi

What else needs to be said?