{"id":675,"date":"2011-12-03T10:46:27","date_gmt":"2011-12-03T00:16:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/?p=675"},"modified":"2021-08-02T14:43:05","modified_gmt":"2021-08-02T04:13:05","slug":"national-bsl-say-no","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/leemakennels.com\/blog\/dogs-and-politics\/national-bsl-say-no\/","title":{"rendered":"National BSL? Say no!"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

Photos \u00a9 Ruthless Photos<\/p><\/div>\n

Here I go again! \u00a0If you have not sent letters to Brendan O’Connor or John Rau rejecting national BSL, click here to see past letter proformas<\/a>.<\/p>\n

If you have, good, now I’ve got another letter for you to send.<\/p>\n

This letter I have tailored to be sent to Jay Weatherhill (SA Premier) and Paul Caica (minister for sustainability, environment, and conservation). \u00a0I also sent it to my local member.<\/p>\n

It is (loosely) based on CommunityK9’s letter<\/a>, which I also suggest you look at and consider sending. (If you’re not in SA, they have some recommendations on who you should be contacting. I’m a bit of a politics failure, so their suggested\u00a0recipient\u00a0list is a great help.)<\/p>\n

You might even want to use bits of mine and bits of their’s. \u00a0I don’t mind. As long as you send a letter, I’m happy!<\/p>\n

So, without further adieu, here’s the letter to be sent to Jay Weatherill (via\u00a0vaughan.julienne@dpc.sa.gov.au) and Paul Caica (minister.caica@sa.gov.au).<\/p>\n

Dear<\/p>\n

It has come to my attention that the Federal Attorney General is encouraging national dangerous dog legislation.\u00a0 While I am not against national dog laws per say, I am deeply concerned that any national legislation introduced may replicate the flawed legislation recently instated in Victoria.<\/p>\n

I am sure that you and I are both committed to reducing the incidence of dog bites in the community.\u00a0 However, all evidence available clearly shows that dog legislation based on a particular breed or type of dog (like the legislation recently introduced in Victoria) is ineffective in reducing dog bites. Indeed, breed specific legislation in the UK and in Denmark correlated with the incidence of dog bites increasing by 50% and 60% respectively.<\/p>\n

I am terribly troubled that Victoria may see a similar spike in dog bites with their new legislation.\u00a0\u00a0 In the interest of public safety, I urge you to reject any federal breed-specific legislation.\u00a0 It is clear that it is ineffective in reducing dog bites, and merely a tokenistic effort to concede to public pressure.<\/p>\n

Instead, I would encourage the Federal Attorney General to engage in dog safety strategies that have been proven effective.\u00a0 This includes tough penalties for owners of any dog<\/em> that is aggressive, and education that combats all areas of the dog bite conundrum.\u00a0 That is, education for new dog owners to ensure they socialise their animals extensively, and also embracing education for parents and children to ensure that all child-dog interactions are appropriate, safe, and respectful.<\/p>\n

I must acknowledge and congratulate the Labor government for its continued funding of the Dog and Cat Management Board.\u00a0 This board provides a fundamental educational role in the community, and is a key component for any education-based approaches to the dog bite problem.<\/p>\n

Australia needs to respect the public safety failures seen internationally, and instead embrace rationale and efficient legislation.\u00a0 I urge you to commit to the well-being of the community and embrace breed-neutral, owner-focussed legislation that targets the appropriate \u2018end of the leash\u2019.<\/p>\n

I welcome your email, phone call, or if you wish to meet with me in person. My number is xxxx<\/p>\n

Sincerely,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

 
\n