- 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
|
