Get involved in assisting the fight against BSL

When news shows BSL is being considered or promoted all dog lovers should write in protest and be heard as a force. Write your own letters and make your voice heard! Your dog(s) need you!
.
Effective letter writing to politicians or newspapers re BSL
.
It is advisable when emailing or writing to a Minister in charge of state laws, to send a copy to the relevant state Shadow Minister. Addresses are found at the government web site
.
.Other states can be found by replacing 'nsw' in http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au with appropriate state eg http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au
Letters need to be kept brief and to the point and if addressed to the editor for a newspaper, keep them about 200-250 words long and 300 to a politician
Breed clubs could gather to plan a number of letters and have each member enlist another supporter Assist them to vary their letter a little and send the letters off on the same day for maximum impact.
Breed clubs could gather to plan a number of letters and have each member enlist another supporter Assist them to vary their letter a little and send the letters off on the same day for maximum impact.
It is suggested you take a sentence each of the introductions and state your objection then either one or two of the particular concerns, and one of the conclusions to write a 4/5 paragraph letter Other short additions may come to mind as you write…check total words and adjust
Now read it through and ensure it is coherent and in one grammatical tense. If there are too many long sentences, take one here and there and change it into two short snappy ones
Conclude with "sincerely" and your usual signature and include your name and address on the letter
Suggested introductions
As a dog owner for many years, I am concerned about effects of the government's...
I have owned dogs for x years and I do not agree with...
As a parent and a responsible dog owner, I object to...
As a dog breeder, I know the problem of dog attacks will not be solved with...
As many different dogs bite, I deplore your narrow, unfair imposition on some owners, with...
x years breeding/training dogs shows it is unscientific nominating any breed as all aggressive as in...
I am a dog owner, and voter, appalled at unwarranted, unfair measures introduced in...
These introductions will all end with "recent restricted dog legislation"
State your objection
A small percentage of dogs to be restricted does nothing to address issues of ...
Dogs not the worst attackers treated unfairly will not guarantee safety from...
Restricting a small group of dogs due to type will not prevent...
Dog attacks involve numerous breeds and crossbreeds, so a breed restriction will not stop...
Blaming a type of dog for all attacks, punishing it before it even offends, can never prevent...
If any local dog population has just one type isolated/restricted, this will not prevent the...
Punishing one section of dogs will do nothing to save children from the dangers of...
These will all end with "…other dogs biting and attacking"
State your case (select two to copy and keep a word count)
Breed bans have not slowed down illegal activities or dog attacks as research shows. They enhance illegal dog fighting and participants become cautious and change breeds etc. Unfortunately then, more breeds become restricted unfairly! Strong laws which penalize the owners, regardless of the breed are valid and have merit in protecting the public with a degree of precision characterizing effective legislation. It is owner specific legislation which will work!
These laws treat innocent dog owners as criminals, when they have committed no offence - dog ownership is a privilege which is abused by a small number, who should be the target of penalties! Our rights, however, include expecting fair laws from government, not those pandering to anti dog lobbyists who will not be satisfied until OTHER BREEDS are restricted too! Many dog owners now turn in disgust and fear, to a political party which will support fair and encouraging dog laws!
You are not addressing the larger % of private dog attack situations and only a small part of public ones, as numerous breeds are involved, when not properly confined or socialised. It is irresponsible to claim such laws as a safety measure - we have dangerous dog laws which apply now, to all dogs and owners -strengthen and enforce them and say “NO” to anti dog lobbies who will agitate for OTHER BREEDS to also be restricted, and punish more innocent voters!
Public place attacks account for only 20% of all dog attacks - these restrictions cannot guarantee a reduction in the unacceptable risk to children from a known dog in or near their home. (see Victorian Hansard for Nov. 21 2001, Lib member S McArthur) Measures are needed which will apply equally to all situations and recognize the owner is in charge of the dog and responsible for its behaviour
How can restricting 2% (Qld) or 3% (Vic) of dogs which attacked provide safety for the public and especially children bitten most often by dogs which irresponsible or neglectful owners have not contained correctly? Would not the restricted measures be more appropriately applied to ALL proven dangerous dogs of whatever breed? In all cases, an owner is actually responsible for the dog, whether legally or illegally owned ,and must be made to conform to expected community standards of safety
“I am deeply worried about the threat to thousands of harmless and much loved family pets...” Theresa Villiers, UK Conservative MEP. This sensible and humane lady echoes my horror and my sentiments as a voter, I am appalled by your legislation
Where are the evaluations of existing laws? And the full facts on dog attacks in private as well as public, along with dog populations and breed popularity for comparisons and setting new goals for ordinances? Such facts are among the matters any full review should cover before introducing any new measures especially these unsustainable illogical BSL measures
As was said in the UK, this is the worst kind of legislation,”...legislation which defies commonsense and which denies normal and compassionate treatment of citizens and animals alike. Most importantly, it is UNNECESSARY legislation. (Dr R Mugford, re DDA 1991 ,UK in 1993 speech) Your government is ill-advised to appease media calls for action with rushed and indefensible laws, which will invite litigation and garner enormous costs
Innocent dogs of cross and related breeds, plus their law-abiding owners, will suffer under unfair restrictions when they are not attackers at all. Dr Mugford (UK 1993 re Dangerous Dogs Act 1991) publicly stated such breed bans defied any.”..boundaries between what is a Pitbull terrier, an American Staffordshire terrier, a Staffordshire or other breeds, including mongrels. If ever there was a dog for which Breed Specific Legislation was least appropriate, it must be the American Pit Bull Terrier!” Surely offending dogs and their owners must be the government's target!
BSL is not needed, it is unjust, cruel to animals and will prove expensive on the public purse as has occurred in USA with numerous Constitutional challenges and UK with costs of $14 mill in the first two years of their DDA, as recorded by AVA in submissions
I find it unacceptable the government is prepared to waste funds on doomed measures aimed at only a small facet of the dog attack problems, when it could effect much public education about responsible dog ownership for less expense and address the real issues of human control and owning of dogs, where the possible dangers begin
Treating law-abiding owners like criminals will do nothing to stop illegal dog owners or dog fighters. They need special penalties under the law ,as do any other lawbreakers. But it may turn voters against the government as happened in UK and Germany, due to severe ,cruel dog laws
Dog fighting occurred prior to any Commonwealth import ban and will continue with other breeds being abused, should authorities seem to get close -education should be promoted and include wise selection of breed for a family's lifetime pet and of a new owner by any breeder
By legitimizing crossbreeds as dangerous dogs with this legislation, the government is encouraging much wider restrictions and concurrent cruel measures, than its original clauses in the laws adding to the cruelty and unfairness. As anti dog lobbies seize opportunities, which has happened in Europe, Germany, USA -inevitably, there will be calls for more breeds to be banned, and again, undemocratic and unscientific restrictions placed on law abiding owners of innocent dogs, especially larger dogs, while nothing is done to correct the main problems of poor ownership and containment of dogs by lawless and irresponsible owners!
What about the rights of the owners with well behaved dogs! When one dog attacks, thousands more similar dogs are home behaving properly—I will not vote for a government which punishes them all in the name of an illogical “safety” drive, based on failed measures worldwide!
Dogs and or dog breeds are not inherently evil, and they do not have the capacity to plan evil intentions. People on the other hand, are far more complex and often do form evil intentions. It is this type of person who has contributed to poor reputations of dogs and breeds. We must not allow them to succeed, lobby for or cause more dog breeds to be added to ineffective and cruel laws - rather we must acknowledge the dog/human bond and make owner onus the cornerstone of dog laws - otherwise the issues of what led to any dog attack and whether a victim may have contributed to it, will not be uncovered to teach us how to avoid many repetitions.
Dogs live in families with owners and children. They must be trained and contained by owners in all situations, and this responsibility must be accepted at purchase with all legal implications. Breed restrictions do not achieve this outcome
I find it totally unacceptable that even the illegal dog fighter can access British justice under these restrictions but an owner of a “restricted dog” is guilty and must prove the innocence of the dog by breed, not offence! Dr R Mugford (UK, 1993 re the DDA) deplored this type of legislation and called for it to be rescinded as "the normal burden of proof, usual in British law, is reversed so that the defendant must prove that his dog is not of the type…” It is unthinkable you will withhold justice from a dog owner and allow it to apply to the perpetrator of any heinous crime - your legislation does this!
Identification issues will lead to calls for wider application of these restrictions, as happens in USA. Already some Qld shires are discussing breed additions, whilst SA and NSW governments are said to be looking at bans for breeds implicated in attacks. This is disturbing, as we don't have mandatory reporting to access full bite figures, and current statistics don't detail many important factors, when it is known popular breeds will always be included in deeds and misdeeds due to their numbers. Meantime, complacency and poor ownership will continue - will the government anger thousands of dog owners around the country/state and add to these breed restrictions?
Radio airtime after dog attacks has recently been used quite unfairly, for misrepresentation of breeds and calls for bans on old and popular breeds - obviously without just cause and knowledge of the relevant issues, or the opportunity for breeders/owners to reply publicly
Australian National Kennel Council and Australian Veterinary Association speak out against BSL measures and their policies support penalties for “punish the deed not the breed”. All canine research shows the strongest factor in dog aggression is its quality of ownership, since all breeds have representatives with degrees of some of the varying types of aggression – no breed has been proven to be All aggressive or All Non aggressive
Overseas, Breed Specific Legislation has failed to impact on dog attacks - why do you copy failed measures when it would not be acceptable for other types of laws, especially against the advice of all stakeholders in canine matters? 42% of Australians own dogs and we vote! USA has shown breeds beyond the first are added when dog attacks still continue, again, without cause or proven reason - surely your government does not intend to ban all dogs, before it evaluates its dog control issues and investigates all reports of bad ownership, penalising cruel, unlawful owners and repeat offenders under laws most owners keep? Would you ban one make of 4 wheel drive involved in a serious road accident, and say you have solved the problems, while other drivers continue to flout laws?
In Prince George's County (USA) a 1997 breed ban, in which 2,400 dogs were euthanised, has been considered a failure, the county is considering repealing the ban, TWO THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED innocent dogs, in one country only, dead because of their breed. Still dogs attack. Who said If we don't learn from the past, we are doomed to repeat it?
When the media turns against the government due to public outcries for losing their pets, when the voters cast you out and hate you, how will you tell your own children what sort of laws you supported, ignoring real issues of kids at risk from family and loose dogs, while you spent taxpayer money on denigrating and hounding to death dogs of law abiding citizens. I am disgusted and seek a party with fair policy
“I am deeply worried about the threat to thousands of harmless and much loved family pets..” Theresa Villiers, UK Conservative MEP. This sensible and humane lady echoes my horror and my sentiments –as a voter, I am appalled by your legislation Conclusions
The most effective dangerous dog laws are those that place the legal responsibility for a dog's actions on the dog's owner rather than on the dog - these laws must be rescinded!Dogs exist in society at the grace of man who owns, trains, uses or abuses them, they respond with instinctive senses or trained behaviour to situations, not reasoned and planned action –owners read the laws and must obey them or be heavily penalised
I urge the government to rescind these undemocratic laws and increase support for enforcement of unilaterally applied sensible containment and control laws for all dogs and owners - eg leash laws and off leash areas, education, fence checks and rewards for training the dog. Then the main offenders must be severely penalized even not permitted the privilege of dog ownership
The best laws hold the owner of any breed of dog accountable for bite victim's pain and suffering and they mandate certain corrective measures to be a deterrent as well as withhold the privileges of dog ownership from the unworthy. Kindly rescind the breed restrictive clauses and treat all owners and dogs fairly and unilaterally—apply fair ownership rules, checks and graded and serious penalties for offenders
These laws are unfit for a democracy and must go! I urge you to take note of the stake holders in dog matters - AVA policy encompasses a task force, education and support for unilateral sensible containment laws. I am sure everyone will support harsh penalties for those who cruelly break the laws, as most of us are law abiding dog lovers and voters!
Problems stem from inadequate enforcement of democratic laws and inadequate training to deal with problem dogs in a humane way, plus a lack of education in canine matters Laws like California's and the new one developed in Chicago late 2001 are excellent examples of placing onus for dog control squarely on the owner of the dog - governments must return to these fair measures and support councils and education programs about responsible ownership
Unpopular and cruel BSL measures will bring undesirable results at the ballot box
.
General Information info@edba.org.au
Mailing Address PO Box 8035 Monash University LPO Clayton Victoria 3800
State Representatives nsw@edba.org.au vic@edba.org.au saust@edba.org.au qld@edba.org.au wa@edba.org.au

Texto retirado de: http://www.edba.org.au/howtohelppage.htm

Scrapping of dog blacklist proposed

Published on the 09-07-2008

Welfare Undersecretary Francesca Martini on Tuesday launched a campaign to scrap Italy's blacklist of dangerous dogs, replacing it with a law making owners more responsible for their pet's training and behaviour.
''There will be no prejudicial list that catalogues animals on the basis of their race by the end of the summer,'' Martini pledged.
Under the current law, there is a list of 17 breeds that are considered potentially dangerous, including Rottweilers, pit bull terriers, bull mastiffs and American bulldogs.
Owners of these breeds are required to keep them muzzled in public places and ensure that they pose no danger to others, while failure to respect the law can result in the animal being put down.
Martini's plan to scrap the list immediately came under fire from parents' association MOIGE and consumer group Codacons.
''It's undeniable that races such as pitbulls, Rottweilers and Argentinian dogos can be very dangerous and in many cases have severely wounded or killed people,'' said MOIGE president Maria Rita Munizzi.
''While an investment into the training for dog owners may be valuable, it's equally important not to let our guard down with these races - we have to consider the potential danger which can be aggravated by the inexperience of children,'' she added.
Codacons said the number of dog attacks had reduced dramatically since the 2004 introduction of the black list for the earmarked breeds.
''The dramatic accidents since have mainly involved breeds excluded from the list like Staffordshire Terriers or Bordeaux Mastiffs, or dogs on the list but inside owners' homes, where the law does not apply,'' it said.
''Research shows that for a dog it's normal to react by biting human beings, and this cannot just be put down to a lack of training''.
But Martini's proposal received support from animal rights organisation ENPA.
''We know the list is useless, damaging and creates collective psychosis and phobias,'' said ENPA President Carla Rocchi, adding that the organisation had years of experience of rehabilitating so-called dangerous breeds who had been trained for the illegal dog fighting market.
''Even an ex-fighter trained to be ferocious can be reeducated to be sweet and live peacefully with man,'' she said.
ITALY HOME TO 600,000 STRAY DOGS
Martini also appealed to Italians not to ditch their pets when they go on holiday - an annual occurrence over the summer months.
A 2004 law introducing 1,000-10,000 euro fines and a one-year jail term for holidayers offenders has so far failed to stem the practice, with some 150,000 dogs and 200,000 cats abandoned each year.
Most of the suddenly unwanted pets are left by roadsides as their owners set out for beach or mountain resorts, and an estimated 85% of dogs die within 20 days of being abandoned.
According to Welfare Ministry figures presented on Tuesday, there are 600,000 stray dogs in Italy, only a third of which are in kennels.
Puglia is the region with the most strays at 70,700 dogs, followed by Campania (70,000), Sicily (68,000), Calabria (65,000) and Lazio (60,000).
In addition to carrying infectious diseases and harming livestock, stray dogs wandering on roads can cause accidents, the ministry said.

Retirado de: http://www.italymag.co.uk/italy/politics/scrapping-dog-blacklist-proposed

Metam os olhos nisto caros governantes

"A Inglaterra não tem pena de morte para humanos, mas tem-na para cães. Durante a decada de 90 um pit bull terrier chamado Dempsey esteve perto de ser a sua primeira vítima. Em vez disso, foi o centro de uma acessa discussão internacional sobre os direitos dos animais. A lei inglesa sobre cães perigosos, de 1991, foi aprovada após vários ataques muito publicitados de cães a crianças. A lei declarou ilegal possui cães de raças "perigosas" (cão de fila brasileiro, dog argentino, tosa e pit bull terrier sem uma autorização do tribunal, e exigia a quem beneficiasse desta autorização que, sempre que fora de casa, conservassem os seus cães presos pela trela e açaimados. A pena por não cumprimento destas disposições era a morte - não do irresponsável dono mas sim do cão. Foi por esta altura que Dempsey, uma cadela pit bull terrier americana de seis anos, cuja dona residia em Londres e se chamava Dianne Fanneran, foi levada foi levada a passear por uma sua amiga em Abril de 1992. Dempsey começou o passeio devidamente açaimada e presa à trela mas, a certa altura começou a sufocar e a sua companheira humana tirou-lhe o açaime para que a cadela pudesse vomitar. A infracção foi de imediato identificada por dois policias que passava, os quais avançaram e "prenderam" Dempsey. Três meses mais tarde, no Tribunal de Ealing, a cadela foi condenada à morte com base na Lei dos Cães Perigoso.Começou então uma batalha legal de três anos para Fanneran e para a sua infeliz cadela, que passou esse tempo em diversos canis da cidade. O caso arrastou-se pelo sistema legal inglês, chegando eventualmente à Câmara dos Lordes, para voltar aos tribunais novamente. Entretanto, os defensores dos direitos dos animais puseram-se do lado de Dempsey, protestanto energicamente contra a injustiça deste caso em particular e contra a lei em geral. A actriz Brigitte Bardot, activista dos direitos animais, chegou a oferecer asilo político em França ao pit bull. Finalmente, em Novembro de 2002 o caso foi arquivado - não por o governo constatar a loucura dos seus actos, mas devido a uma tecnicalidade.Dempsey foi libertado e viveu até à respeitável idade de dezassete anos. Porém, a Lei dos Cães Perigosos continua em vigor. Em 2002 chegou a atingir a Princesa Ana, filha da Rainha Isabel II de Inglaterra, quando um dos seus bull terriers atacou duas crianças. O cão nao foi condenado à pena de morte, mas a princesa pagou uma multa de 500 libras.In, 100 cães que mudaram o mundo