After my breed specific legislation letter writing spree, I just received a extremely concerning letter from The Hon. Brendan O’Connor MP (via Amanda Rishworth MP) regarding dangerous dog legislation is South Australia.
Photos © Ruthless Photos
This post is a call to action. Now is the time to immediately write a letter of protest to Brendan O’Connor. We do not want South Australia to replicate the mistakes of Victoria’s breed specific dog legislation.
Letter from Brendan O'Connor - click to enlarge
The most fundamental aspect of the letter is this:
…the Australian Government … is taking steps to protect Australians from dangerous dogs… The Attorney-General and I have written to our State and Territory counterparts to encourage them to develop nationally consistent laws relating to the registration and management of dangerous dogs, including offences and penalties.
To me, there is no doubt, that these ‘nationally consistent laws’ mean copying the flawed and devastating laws hurriedly passed in Victoria, as a knee jerk reaction to the tragic death of Ayen Chol. Already, Dr Karen Davies has described how “for the first time in 20 years I am questioning if I still want to do this job” euthanasing a sweet natured dog that unfortunately met the current description of a ‘pit bull’. Then there stories of councils refusing to register dogs of pit bull type, leaving them vulnerable to euthanasia. And rangers being abused while seizing unregistered pitties and systematically doorknocking to ensure annihilation of pitbulls in some council areas.
And, amongst this, dog bites are still happening in Victoria.
All dog savvy people know that this is only the beginning of the ‘epic fail’ that is Breed Specific Legislation. Sadly, it seems that politics is more interested in looking sexy than reducing dog bites.
I have a letter written to both Brendan O’Connor and John Rau (the Attorney-General), and they’re provided in a more general fashion below. You are most welcome to copy and paste these, word for word, or write similar letters to these individuals. Please, please do something. We can only try.
Brendan O’Connor can be contacted through his online form, or by emailing mha@ag.gov.au
Dear Mr O’Connor,
I appreciate that you have taken the time to respond Tegan Whalan’s comments regarding dangerous dog legislation, and it seems that we are both dedicated to reducing the incidence of dog bites in the community.
However, I am troubled that your interest in developing “nationally consistent laws” regarding dangerous dogs may lead to replication of Victoria’s Liberal Government’s heinous, ineffective, knee-jerk legislation. I hope that the Labor government can provide a more sensible and thoughtful approach to the dog bite conundrum.
The rushed nature of the Bailleu government’s bill has become clear in the aftermath of the legislation, with pit bull type dogs being euthanised, councils refusing to register pit bull type dogs, and rangers systematically doorknocking areas, and being abused, in order to enforce this legislation.
The most concerning aspect of this is that legislation targeting breed, as seen in Victoria, has never been shown to be effective in reducing the incidence of dog bites. That is, the Liberal government has chosen to invest in an ineffective, flawed, and costly scheme that will do little to improve public safety.
Governments in the Netherlands, in Spain, in the UK, and in Denmark, have all implemented breed restrictions and have not found a reduction in dog bites. In fact, in the UK, dog bites increased by 50% following the introduction of legislation and, in Denmark, dog bites increased by 60%. Not only are regulations restricting breeds ineffective in reducing dog bites, they can actually be counterproductive. I am sure that, with your interest in protecting Australians from dog bites, you can see how any legislation involving restrictions on particular breeds is unlikely to establish these goals.
I must congratulate the SA Labor government for its continued funding of the Dog and Cat Management Board. This board is a key educational body for dogs in South Australia, and its continued support is imperative for the education of all members of the community: adults, children, and dog owners. Dog bites are a multifaceted problem, and education is key to reaching all elements of the dog bite problem.
Many council areas struggle to effectively upkeep the legislation as specified in the Dog and Cat Management Act. I would encourage your government to consider increasing resources available to councils, so that rangers can more effectively monitor and manage dogs in their area.
I am sure that you and the Labor Party will commit to legislation that has been proven to work in reducing the incidence of dog bites, instead of engaging in irrational and ineffective legislation like that introduced by the Victorian Liberal Party. The dog world, including associations such as the Australian Veterinary Association, rejects breed specific legislation that will do nothing to reduce dog bites. The dog world looks forward to a more logical and rational proposal from the SA Labor Party.
I welcome your email, phone call, or if you wish to meet with me in person. My number is xxxx
Sincerely,
John Rau can be emailed at attorney-general@agd.sa.gov.au
Dear Mr Rau,
It is my understanding that you have been in discussions with Mr Brendan O’Connor regarding dangerous dog legislation. I am dedicated to reducing the incidence of dog bites in the community, and I am growing concerned that South Australia may replicate the recent ineffective, knee-jerk legislation implemented in Victoria.
The rushed nature this bill has become clear in the aftermath of the legislation, with pit bull type dogs being euthanised, councils refusing to register pit bull type dogs, and rangers systematically doorknocking areas, and being abused, in order to enforce this legislation.
The most concerning aspect of this is that legislation targeting breed, as seen in Victoria, has never been shown to be effective in reducing the incidence of dog bites. That is, this flawed, and costly scheme that will do little to improve public safety.
Governments in the Netherlands, in Spain, in the UK, and in Denmark, have all implemented breed restrictions and have not found a reduction in dog bites. In fact, in the UK, dog bites increased by 50% following the introduction of legislation and, in Denmark, dog bites increased by 60%. Not only are regulations restricting breeds ineffective in reducing dog bites, they can actually be counterproductive. I am sure that, with your interest in protecting Australians from dog bites, you can see how any legislation involving restrictions on particular breeds is unlikely to establish these goals.
I must acknowledge the Dog and Cat Management Board, and the imperative role it plays in educating the community on dogs and safety. Dog bites are a multifaceted problem, and so the delivery of programs to adults, children, and dog owners through the Board is key in reducing dog bites.
Many council areas struggle to effectively upkeep the legislation as specified in the Dog and Cat Management Act. I would fully support any moves to increase resources available to councils, so that rangers can more effectively monitor and manage dogs in their area.
I am sure you share my commitment legislation that has been proven to work in reducing the incidence of dog bites, instead of engaging in irrational and ineffective legislation like that introduced in Victoria. The dog world, including associations such as the Australian Veterinary Association, rejects breed specific legislation that will do nothing to reduce dog bites. The dog world looks forward to a more logical and rational proposal that can truly make a difference.
I welcome your email, phone call, or if you wish to meet with me in person. My number is xxxx
Sincerely,
Please, please, do something in regard to this matter. Share this post (Twitter, Facebook, whatever) and write letters and make noise.
what gets me is the last name of the persons pushing the laws they are a middle eastern name and we all know they dont like animals.maybe not all but the majority but it annoys me because the dog is as good as its owner,even when i did dog obedience a long time ago alot of men used there dogs as an ego trip.
this is supposed to be a democratic society so how can someone come in your yard and take your dog when it hasnt done anything wrong ?
where is this country going,im in nsw and hope we dont go there but am an ex vic and i am disgusted in whats happening.
hopefully common sense prevails.
Hi Gary. Thanks for your comment. I think education programs are particularly important for those from different cultures who may not be used to the way we raise, handle, and keep dogs in Australia. In many cultures, dogs are used as guard animals, are dirty scavengers, or are just not pets. I think we really need good quality education programs for reaching these groups and advising, “Most dogs are friendly!”
I am really concerned about what’s happening, too, hence why I’m trying to raise awareness and get letter writing through my blog. Perhaps is any of these members can 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 letters, they may reconsider their position. We can only hope and try.
The laws in NSW, like QLD and most other states are hardly better than VIC. They still require all APBTs to be de-sexed. This is nothing less than canine genocide. It is completely unjust. It’s time for determined action to get rid of breed bans. The letter writing campaigns are not going to cut it. The Federal and state governments have been recieving letters stating a logical and informed position on BSL for 20 years now. What has this achieved? Nothing. It is time to challenge the federal legislation in court and if this fails, we need to undergoe a coordinated campaign of nationwide overt civil disobedience. Think about it. Our governments don’t give a damn about animals. Their failure to do anything about the thousands of dogs and cats put down in shelters across the nation each year will tell you as much. Also, at this time 85% of Australians believe that the APBT should be banned. It would be electoral suicide for any party to willingly soften BSL. If we were living in a direct democracy the APBT would be in the same position it is now. The only way to change the law is to change the law in any reasonable time frame is to force the change on the government and the people, either through legal challenge, or through creating a situation where our governments can no longer afford to stay with their current program of canine genocide. We must not tolerate a situation where dogs of good temperament are put down simply because of their breed. We must fight the ban by any nonviolent means necessary.
Hi Joel. If you can let me know specifics on what I should do, please do. I am quite novice at anything like this, and I can only do the best I can. However, I am very good at doing what I’m told.
Pingback: National BSL? Say no! | Some Thoughts About Dogs
I applaud your effort. But I must point out that Australia’s BSL was introduced by Labor governments at state level–and the impetus came from the RSPCA initially
The current Victorian laws are an extension of the horror that Labor introduced.
I am against them and as a Liberal Party member have made my feelings known and will continue to do so
I am also interested in ways this legislation may be challenged,and would donate if there was a strong case and an owner with the stomach to take the law and politicians on!.
Hi Jazza. BSL is a very Labor government thing, and I’m surprised that the Liberal government in Victoria has taken moves to ‘strengthen’ such a Labor policy. However, when we write letters, I always try to be as supportive of the letter-receiver as possible. I can’t put them offside if I hope they listen!
Desexing our pets is not a genocide act. In fact it prolongs their life span. Its been proven if a female dog or cat is desexed before her first cycle, she has a 0% chance of getting uterine or mammary cancer as she ages. However allowing one cycle increases that risk by 50%, a second cycle byanother 50%. 2 cycles have just increased her risk of cancer by 75% (I hope that made sense) and that continues got however many cycles she may have. Its similar in makes. Not desexing increases their chance of cancer as well. I just thought id mention it. I agree with the rest of your statement though. BSL has to stop!
Thanks for commenting, Sanja. Desexing also increases the risk of some cancers! Like osteosarcoma, with the incidence being as high as 25% in rottweilers that are desexed. I plan to do a series of posts on the pros and cons of desexing sometime soon – you may be interested.