- Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 


How does this compare with your dog laws

September 2nd, 2010, 11:18 AM
In my State in Australia .

As of today (1st September 2010)

New laws for dog owners

The Victorian Government has recently introduced a range of new laws to
better protect the community from dangerous dogs.

Councils now have the power to seize and impound dogs that are found
wandering at large in public if they are unregistered/unidentifiable, and
the Authorised Officer believes that the dog is a danger to the public (eg
has attacked or is likely to attack). If unclaimed by the owner within 48
hours, the dog can be euthanased.

If a dog that has previously been declared as a Dangerous Dog (due
to attack) is found wandering at large, it can be seized and impounded, and
euthanased after 24 hours. Owners must contact the council within 24 hours
of impoundment if they wish to prove there were mitigating circumstances for
the dog being at large (if this can be proven, the owner may be able to
reclaim the dog).

Council Officers also have the power to immediately destroy a dog if it is
behaving in such a way that it will cause imminent serious injury or death
to a person or other animal.

Responsible dog owners will not be affected by these laws. Registering,
identifying and keeping dogs on the property will prevent the possibility of
them being seized and impounded.

All cats and dogs aged 3 months and over must be registered with the local
council, and must wear their council identification marker whenever they are
off the property.

New laws have also been introduced that affect owners of declared Menacing,
Dangerous and Restricted Breed Dogs. You can access the new legislation
(version 42 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994) via:

For more information about these legislation amendments, visit or call 136 186.

I'd be interested to hear opinions but not tonight, I'm heading for bed.

September 3rd, 2010, 10:07 AM
Geesh, here in Canada if a dangerous dog was running free it probably wouldn't make it to the shelter, the police would just shoot it :rolleyes:

September 3rd, 2010, 10:20 AM
Hmmm, we think alike, it doesn't give people enough time to find their dog, especially if they were away say for a weekend when it got out and was picked up. I think they now have a zero tolerance attitude where aggressive dogs are concerned, and I also thought of chihuahuas seeing I've owned one. A vast percentage could be deemed to be menacing. :D I'd be very concerned for the big dogs though, what if the Council officer isn't honest, surely he could shoot your dog and say it attacked even if it didn't, just your word against his? And think how many dogs do want to protect their territory.
You'd have laughed if you saw my cattle dogs' reactions to our little 5lb Chi" girl. My big male cattle dog adored her and would sashay up, ears pricked so high they looked like rabbit ears, flirting madly, then very gently lick her on the head. :laughing: One of my blue cattle dog girls used to tease her, definitely not trying to harm her, and when little Jedda lost the plot and leapt up and latched onto her cheek, just swinging there, you'd swear Beejay though it was the biggest joke ever.

September 3rd, 2010, 10:31 AM
Love4himies, I didn't see your comment. I imagine that here anything looking remotely like a Pitbull might get a bullet now,(because of the bans) or Rotties, GSDs, ACDs etc.. Bear in mind that we don't have rabies here and that in the past these dogs just might be captured rather than shot. The joke of it it, thinking of them maybe stopping a fight with a bullet, is that they would probably shoot the big dog even when it was probably a snappy smaller dog that started the fight. The Fox Terrier we had when we were kids used to tackle anything, he even got slashed along the side by a GSD he thought he could beat. LOL. Game as they come, but stoopid.
I just have bad feelings about all this.

September 3rd, 2010, 12:20 PM
In Canada most towns/cities have their own rules/bylaws. They are all basically the same though. And, from what you have printed, unfortunately about as archaic as yours as well. IMO banning certain breeds of dogs is not going to stop the stupidity of irresponsible people who want to own large "bully" breeds for all the wrong reasons. IE: to "protect", fight or for "show". They will find a way to get around the rules.

September 4th, 2010, 01:13 AM
Unfortunately these new laws leave it up to a person's personal perception. So if a Council officer already has a bias against Pits or Rottis, that will probably end up causing certain dogs certain death, even if they have done nothing wrong other than being at large.
Just my:2cents:

September 4th, 2010, 02:48 AM
Hi all,Can I just add my own thoughts on this subject.Here in England only last weekend there was a case of two Rotties attacking a 10yr old girl and this follows on from a few quite recently being reported in the National press of dog attacks that has stirred up a lot of emotions in our small land compared to your vast Country so I do know how this problem affects us dog oweners.My Thought is that all people owning dogs are licenced just like for driving and when pups are born they get microchipped this data is added to the oweners licence and if dogs are sold or change oweners for what ever reason then the data goes onto the new oweners licence and removed from former keepers.People who have dogs that are not kept properly or commit offences get thier licences removed and are not allowed to keep them.This could be done by the courts after finding the severity of the indiscretion I dont mean instant banning of owenership for one case of fouling but you get the idea.

September 4th, 2010, 03:09 AM
Being the guardian of two 'not so friendly with strangers' dogs, I actually agree to some extent with most of those rules :shrug: (with the exception of breed bans of course). I don't allow anyone greeting my dogs without my supervision so I certainly don't want them running around the neighborhood.

Goldfields, the bylaws in our municipality are pretty similar and, although we too have bsl, it's not really enforced unless irresponsible guardians give anyone reason to (that goes for any aggressive dogs at large though). The pound/shelter responsible for our town holds dogs longer than 48 hours and, if guardians can't be located, they adopt the dogs out (first vaccinate/neuter/de-worm) or, they work with rescue organizations.

Stewart, I'm with you on licensing guardians, not just pets :thumbs up.

September 4th, 2010, 04:12 AM
Stewart, that all sounds good to me but then all mine are microchipped, ditto for pups I bred and sold. Often I'd be the second contact on the Central Animal Register form, to be contacted if the dog was impounded and they couldn't find the owner. We're slowly getting there down here in Oz, there's a move on to at least have all dogs microchipped.
LMPG has said exactly what I'm thinking though. She is concerned for the breed she has, I'd be most concerned for ACD's, which do have a reputation here. The dog ranger who was here before would be fine, he owned an ACD, but who knows whether he hates or fears Rotties and Pitbulls. And for them to be able to just put down any of those restricted breeds after the 2 year amnesty - they will have a field day. Yes, I think all dogs should be registered, microchipped, owners licenced etc. etc. but this is a death sentence for those with irresponsible owners and it's not the poor dog's fault. Those dogs don't even have to be deemed dangerous, they will be put down for not being registered. And no other breeds have that threat hanging over them. Very sad. LP, I really do believe this law will be enforced rigorously. :(

September 4th, 2010, 09:01 AM
Hmmm, we think alike, it doesn't give people enough time to find their dog, especially if they were away say for a weekend when it got out and was picked up. .
I dont know, first off, no one should go away for the weekend and leave their dog unattended. Secondly, I have "lost" mine twice, with in an hour I had called every vet clinic, dog catcher, pound with in an hours distance either way from our house. I dont wait it out like some do, if I dont know where my dogs are, I'm on the phone calling so that as soon as they get picked up (if they do) they know these dogs are being looked for.
Luckily, the dogs were just wandering through the bushes and returned home in a few hours, but it was still peace of mind knowing that everyone was on the look out for my dogs

I find your laws are far more fair than ours. I dont believe any dog should be running at large, ANY dog. Its just asking for problems.
And if your dog has bitten anyone, there is no way it should be roaming around.:2cents:

September 4th, 2010, 10:38 AM
Erykah1310 , in a perfect world everyone would be like you, but really there would be many reasons someone might leave a dog alone for a weekend. Not everyone's world revolves around their pets. We have only once in 35 years have a dog wander and that was my first red cattle dog, who jumped the fence and ambled along behind some kangaroos to see what they were. LOL. I had him back within minutes. So, I'm not worried about these laws personally, I just fear the outcome for some of the big dogs that certain people might be pleased to get rid of.
In what way are your laws tougher?
Can't discuss this now btw. We have floods due to hit this area early tomorrow so I'd best try for some sleep.

September 4th, 2010, 10:38 AM
I dont believe any dog should be running at large, ANY dog. Its just asking for problems.
And if your dog has bitten anyone, there is no way it should be roaming around.:2cents:

I totally agree.

September 4th, 2010, 07:58 PM
Erykah1310 , in a perfect world everyone would be like you, but really there would be many reasons someone might leave a dog alone for a weekend.
Really??? Completely alone? No one going to check on them or feeding them?

Hopefully you are safe from the floods that were expected:pray:

September 4th, 2010, 07:59 PM
I agree no dog should be roaming at large. However, sometimes it does happen but I don't think that should be a license to kill a dog if it has not committed any harm to anyone. Just being at large shouldn't be a death sentence because someone has a bias against a certain breed. I see this as a law that can be an excuse for someone to "power trip" and kill a dog just for the sake of killing it because they don't like the way it looks.

September 5th, 2010, 03:19 AM
Yes, to put it bluntly I don't trust the ones with the guns either. I'll bet we hear some terrible stories as time goes on.
Erykah1310, we're still safe and unsure whether floods will reach here or not. A friend's sheep are marooned by floodwater and someone over his way lost 400, however our end of the State has been lucky. The north and north east got maybe 3 times as much rain as we did. Stock losses could be enormous. :(