Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Poll should pit bulls be banned in sydney

tybrax
May 2nd, 2005, 09:01 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/

please help by voting we are losing this.

tybrax

babyrocky1
May 2nd, 2005, 10:57 AM
Hi Tybrax, Ive looked through the link again and again but Im not seeing the pole. Its still before noon here, can you advise?

kellyla
May 2nd, 2005, 12:18 PM
I can find a link to a story but still looking for a poll

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Parents-of-savaged-boy-call-for-ban-on-pitbulls/2005/04/30/1114635788927.html?oneclick=true

melanie
May 2nd, 2005, 05:26 PM
ok, go to your LGA website and you will find that PBs are banned to an extent and under BSL in NSW and esp city area. you cannot own a pb in NSW without special licence, high insurance and you have to justify why (ie betternment of breed etc).

yes there are a number of Pb that are still around, their owners dont register them and often say they are crossed. you can legally have a cross in NSW. and studies have shown the numbers or PB has dropped dramatically (RSPCA, LGA sites).

but as far as the law is concerned they already did it over 5yrs ago, its jsut that most ppl dont realise. that is why you do not se a high number of PB in NSW, the law is too strict.

i have a mate out in the bush who has one, but he keeps it well hidden. oh and half the time they say PB and they mean staffie.

i saw that dog that this is all over on the news and he did not seem to be all PB to me, a good mix actually. but of course the scare mongers out there drum it up to sell papers and harass good dogs.

no PB should still stay under BSL here in NSW, simply because it has proven effective to an extent. but not banned entirely, if we do that then we should ban howard asnd bob carr also, they are vicious little dogs.

and the sydney Morning herald is jsut a scare monger, they wont be able to do anything, they are just trying to terrify ppl. next week it wont be mentioned, they jsut want to sell papers, stupid ^%$#&*(*&. the smh will nto9 tell you that legislation already exists, it does not fare well for their terrorist tactics.

and as far as that attack goes, why is a 9yo boy wandering the streets of sydney on his own anyway, he is lucky not to be snached. his parents of course wont take responsibility. the kid is 9yo and should ahve been under supervision, not walking the streets alone in the first place. crap i dont even feel comfy in some areas in the mid day on a back street.

i will try and find the info today if i get the time.

screw smh, screw irrisponsible parents and dog owners, and most of all, screw the fat cats who have no realistic experiences or ideals.

just realised your in QLD, i dont know about your laws for BSL there, only familiar with NSW.

melanie
May 2nd, 2005, 05:36 PM
here is the legislation for BSL in NSW, the state in which the child was attacked-


This is the current legislation in NSW relevant to restricted breeds

NSW Companion Animals Act 1998 No. 87
Division 5 Special restrictions for other dogs

55 Restricted dogs
The following dogs are restricted dogs for the purposes of this Act:
(a) pit bull terriers,
(b) American pit bull terriers,
© Japanese tosas,
(d) Argentinian fighting dogs (dogo Argentino),
(e) Brazilian fighting dogs (fila Brasileiro),
(f) any other dog of a breed, kind or description prescribed by the regulations as restricted for the purposes of this Division.
Note. For example, dogs used as guard dogs by security personnel could be prescribed as restricted dogs.

56 Owner of restricted dog must comply with control requirements
(1) The owner of a restricted dog must ensure that the following requirements are complied with:
(a) While the dog is on property on which the dog is ordinarily kept, the dog must be kept in a child-proof enclosure.
(b) The dog must not at any time be in the sole charge of a person under the age of 18 years.
© One or more signs must be displayed on that property showing the words “Warning Dangerous Dog” in letters clearly visible from the boundaries of the property on which the dog is ordinarily kept or, if the regulations provide for the signs required by this paragraph, complying with the regulations.
(d) When the dog is away from the property where it is ordinarily kept the dog must, despite any other provision of this Act, be under the effective control of some competent person by means of an adequate chain, cord or leash and have a muzzle securely fixed on its mouth in such a manner as will prevent it from biting any person or animal. This paragraph does not apply when paragraph (e) applies.
(e) If the dog is taken by or on behalf of the owner to any property on which the dog is to be kept temporarily (for example, the premises of a veterinary surgeon or a boarding kennel), the owner must ensure that while the dog is on that property:
(i) the dog is under the effective control of some competent person by means of an adequate chain, cord or leash, or
(ii) the dog is otherwise under effective control so as to prevent it from attacking any person or animal and one or more signs are displayed on that property as provided by paragraph ©.
(f) The dog must not be sold to a person under the age of 18 years.
(g) The owner must notify the council of the area in which the dog is ordinarily kept of the following matters within the time specified in relation to each of those matters:
(i) that the dog (with or without provocation) has attacked or injured a person or animal (other than vermin)—notice to be given within 24 hours after the attack or injury,
(ii) that the dog cannot be found—notice to be given within 24 hours after the dog’s absence is first noticed,
(iii) that the dog has died—notice to be given as soon as practicable after the death,
(iv) that the ownership of the dog has changed—notice to be given within 24 hours after the change of ownership,
(v) that the dog is no longer being ordinarily kept in the area of the council—notice to be given as soon as practicable after the change of location,
(vi) that the dog is being ordinarily kept at a different location in the area of the council—notice to be given as soon as practicable after the change of location.
(h)The dog must, if more than 6 months old, be registered under this Act if not already so registered.
(2) An owner of a dog who does not comply with any of the requirements of this section is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.
(3) The requirements imposed under this section on the owner of a restricted dog are additional to the other requirements of this Act imposed on the owner of a dog.
(4) In the event of an inconsistency between this section and the provisions of any agreement, covenant or instrument, this section is to prevail, but to the extent only of the inconsistency.


57 Restricted dog can be seized if owner cannot comply with control requirements
(1) An authorised officer can seize a restricted dog if of the opinion that the requirements of section 56 are not reasonably capable of being complied with at the property where the dog is ordinarily kept.
(2) An authorised officer can enter any land (but not premises) for the purpose of exercising the authorised officer’s powers under this section.
(3) Part 7 (Procedures for dealing with seized animals) then applies in respect of the dog, except that a claim for the dog cannot be made under section 64 (Unclaimed animals can be sold or destroyed) unless an authorised officer of the council of the area in which the dog is ordinarily kept is satisfied that the requirements of section 56 are reasonably capable of being complied with at the property where the dog is ordinarily kept.
Note.The result of this section is that a restricted dog that is seized can be destroyed under Part 7 after the waiting period (usually 14 days) provided for in that Part after the dog is seized unless the ability to comply with section 56 can be demonstrated within that time.

58 Civil liability of owner of restricted dog
The mere fact that a dog is a restricted dog does not affect the civil liability of the owner of the dog in any proceedings (other than proceedings under this Act).


This Act was/is under review with submissions closing in June 2003.
The NSW Department of Local Government is required by section 97 of the Companion Animals Act 1998 to review the Act after a period of 5 years (ie: in 2003). The review will focus on whether the policy objectives of the Act remain valid, and whether the terms of the Act remain appropriate for securing those objectives. The objective of the Companion Animals Act is to provide for the effective and responsible care and management of companion animals by:
· creating a system of permanent identification and lifetime registration of cats and dogs;
· strenthening restictions applying to dangerous dogs;
· reducing the number of dogs and cats that are abandoned and euthanased; and
· reducing the number of unowned and feral animals.

Within 12 months of 5 years operation the Minister for Local Government will table a report on the review in both Houses of Parliament.

There were no changes as a result of this review with respect to restricted dogs.

Companion Animals Act and Regulation are available at: www.legislation.nsw.gov.au


this is New South Wales only, not other states. PS- LGA is your local government area, sorry bout that. boy thats alot of requirements for a dog.

tybrax
May 2nd, 2005, 06:10 PM
http://smh.com.au/polls/national/form.html

try this, tybrax

babyrocky1
May 2nd, 2005, 06:16 PM
Wow I voted but its looking really bad for us. Jump in everyone!!!!

melanie
May 2nd, 2005, 06:20 PM
plese dont panic, the smh is of no significane legally and if you look at the type of polls they do you will realize that they are totally not serious and meaningless. as you can see below the titles of their polls indicate the type of tabliod (i would not call them a true paper) and i would think from reading it over the years that it is a bit of a boys club tabloid also.

from smh website-

Disclaimer: These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.

Unemployment benefit abuse : Should the dole rules be tougher?

Being required to wear miniskirt at work : Do you agree with the ruling?

38% agreed , good indication fo this papers demographics :D


Stopping development around airports : Rate the decision
Agree:

Baggage handler and camel head : Should he be sacked?


did you read the legislation i posted, did it make sense, i can be clearer if needed. but no they are already BSL, they will never be banned, the papers just like to sell and they go and get you all worked up, i wonder did you buy the smh because of this story? i wonder how many didi......

melanie
May 2nd, 2005, 06:25 PM
well if you want to fall for the terrorist tactic of the scare mongers go for it, you can join the rest.

if you will look at the actual facts of this paper etc, you will note it has and cannot have no bearing on the case. these sort of polls dont make laws they sell papers, its the governments own assesments that make laws. this is not the first or the last time it has happened, and nothing has ever been changed to banned from BSL status, yes our government is really really dumb, but i must say they are certainly not that dumb :rolleyes:

if the smh says its raining outside, you really should go check for yourself.

i think i may jsut write to them using this site as an example of their successful terrorist activities. im not being mean here, it jsut fascinates me how effect they really are, to infiltrate on such sensible ppl. i do give them a round of applause for their efforts :D

melanie
May 2nd, 2005, 07:33 PM
sorry forgot to ask you, what is BSL like in QLD, i have not look at it in your state before. thanks

tybrax
May 3rd, 2005, 05:55 AM
The primeminister Mr Carr has stated these dogs are killing maching and must be made extinct. :mad:

BSL in Queensland is the cruelest state to live in.
Check out Raelenes story on my website, her boy was seized while she was not home, sprayed with capsicum spray, and shot dead in his cage and what
for nothing innocent, Buddy did no wrong and suffered terribly because of BSL
we have Amstaffs being id as pitties and killed, so many dogs are miss identified and killed, check the the QLD gov check list on how they id our dogs.

You score 45 and over your dog is deemed pit bull type, 66 is a pit bull.
under 45 your dog is safe.

The checklist is also on my website. http://www.geocities.com/tybrax1/

tybrax

melanie
May 3rd, 2005, 04:41 PM
apologies if it seemed i doubted you.

you are not going to believe theis, now i found ouit this stuff yesterday after you brought it up, i HAD LUNCH WITH state premier BOB CARR ON MONDAY :yuck: AT A LOCAL LAUNCH (new biodiversity strategy), and if i had known this i would have given it to him. there was only 15 of us there and i certainly could have, now im jsut kicking myslef. perhaps there will be a next time. dam dam dam, i dont like the man at all, and having him sit next to me jsut made me feel dirty :mad: i wish i had known, oh i am kicking myself. (i did give him grief over other issues though)

the telegraph is as bad as SMH, yesterdays paper featured a Pb in attack with a ban sign across his face, poor baby god i dont know what to do.

i had a look at how they are id here in NSW, i should have put it in with the other stuff, basically if the owner says its a staffie the local councils go with that till proven other wise or a vet disagrees..

but the news paper said this and help me out,im confused they say-

Pitbull terriers are also known as american staffodshire terriers, and american pitbulls. now it states on the next line that a staffodshire bull terrier is not of this breed.

so my Q is this- all my little staffie friends, who are they, is the normal staffie the american staffie or the staffodshire bull terrier what we call a staffie?? i am really worried, lots of our furry friends are staffies and we love them to bits, oh gosh.

basicalyl what they want to do from what i gather is to stop any breeding, importing of the dog, and all pb in the state must be registered and desexed (god knows what the insurance premiums will be grrrr). basically to stop any breeding ever again and to let the bred die out. well i am relieved in one sense, at least they are not saying kill all pb right now, but it jsut sucks what theywant.

im sure my GSD could do just as much damage as any otherdog including PB.

so help me, what od i do, i ahve made a poster for the back of the car, i will make a tshirt in the next week at my parents place (poster for car says 'never a bad dog, only bad owners,- save the pitbull). the tshirt will be similar. any ideas where i go to protest, any ideas of NSW groups that will protest?? i will research this today but any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

if they do this breed what is next, my baby GSD??

lets just ban all breeds till ther is nothing left but small toy breeds, that should suit mr carr.

i wil let you know of progres,and let me know what is goihng on on your side, cheers.

PS my mate in the bush does nothing to help this situation, his PB has been used for hunting and not treated the best (just like many piggin dogs), so he is not very nice to me, i dont blame him, i still think he is spunky, but no it does not help the rep stakes having young men using them in this way (young irrisponsible men) oh and this is not a close mate, havent seen him in a few mths...

bugger, bugger, bugger, bugger 0h what to do what to do. HELP would be greatly appreciated

melanie
May 3rd, 2005, 04:42 PM
ps- they are already banned form being imported by the commonwealth govt, not a bad thing really, im not into the live animal trades......... :thumbs up

oh and mr carr is jsut one redneck politician among many, he cannot make laws on his own and the legal system in this state does not allow for one politician with vested interest to form laws on his own.. yes he is entitled to an opinion, right or wrong he is still allowed, but he is jsut fueling a very small fire which may get bigger. so dont take his statement as the be all and end all of legal creation in this state.

in this mornings paper i just read a q and A section-
it states the govt has not ruled out a ban or new restrictions on PB,

this does not mean its even going to happen, it jsut may its a possibility. but nip it in the bud now would be good.

babyrocky1
May 4th, 2005, 07:51 PM
Melanie, I think you need to get local people together and organize as fast as you can. Thats what we are doing in Ontario as best as we can, you have a powerful enemy in that politicain as we all know first hand here what theyre capable of. Keep on the media, theres tons of resaearch already done on this site. Start to educate your press and don't let them get away with misinformation! Don't think that theyll just drop it. As we have seen here, the media whips people up into a frenzy, just to sell papers I guess, and t
then the politicians circle like vultures for the kill, no offence to VULTURES!
As for which dog is a pit bull, Here an American Staffordshire Terrier, A Staffordshire bull terrier{nanny dog} a Pit Bull terrier, and any cross or any dog looking like any of these dogs or crosses of these dogs is a "pit bull" I bought my dog as an "American Staffordshire Terrrier, I don't know what the difference is between him and a pit bull or if there is one. In Ontario there is no distinction theyre all Banned! We are fighting for all of them! fMaybe you can find some amunition in the Committee Hearings that took place in Ontario.