DOCSLIB.ORG

Research Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Research Brief Research Brief New reports, bills and updates of latest research Parliamentary Library Research Service Department of Parliamentary Services ISSN 1836-7828 (Print) 1836-8050 (Online) Number 6 May 2010 Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010 This Research Brief includes the following sections: Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 1. Second Reading Speech............................................................................................ 2 2. Background................................................................................................................. 2 3. The Act ....................................................................................................................... 5 4. The Bill........................................................................................................................ 7 5. Views of Stakeholders .............................................................................................. 11 6. Other Jurisdictions.................................................................................................... 14 References ................................................................................................................... 19 NB: Readers should note that this Research Brief was current at the time of its preparation prior to the conclusion of debate on the Bill by the Victorian Parliament. For further information please visit the Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents website @ http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au. Introduction On 4 May 2010 the Victorian Government introduced the Domestic Animals Amendment (Dangerous Dogs) Bill 2010 (‘the Bill’). The Bill amends the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (‘the Act’). The main purpose of the Bill is to make further provision for the registration of restricted breed dogs and to amend the definition of a restricted breed dog, to provide that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) may review declarations of restricted breed dogs and to abolish review panels, and to increase penalties for certain offences. The Bill also further enables the making of declarations of dangerous dogs and menacing dogs and provides further destruction powers for dogs to be destroyed by authorised Council officers. The proposed legislation was signalled in the 2010 Annual Statement of Government Intentions and responds to public concern around recent dog attacks in Victoria. Parliamentary Library Research Service 1. Second Reading Speech The Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. Joe Helper gave the second reading speech for the Bill on 6 May 2010.1 Mr Helper stated that the Bill addressed community needs and expectations over serious dog attacks and responsible dog ownership and education. He also stated that the Bill did this by strengthening council powers to control and destroy dogs that are a danger to the community, by increasing penalties for irresponsible owners whose conduct has allowed dogs to attack, by increasing resources for educating dog owners and by reforming the existing restricted breed regime. The Minister said that ‘It is a central tenet of dog management legislation that a dog is confined, registered and identifiable to its owner’, yet he noted that an estimated 40 per cent of dog owners fail to register their animals. He also noted that effective regulation, including compliance, animal management services and public education programs depended on registration. The Minister noted that in 2003 the Victorian Government introduced restricted breed dog legislation. The Minister stated: As at January 2010 there were 335 restricted breed dogs in Victoria. However, microchip identification registry declarations by owners suggest that there are several times that number of this type of dog in the community that are registered as another almost identical breed or as a crossbreed of another breed. This means that these dogs are not being kept in accordance with the strict controls that apply to restricted breed dogs that may be kept under the Act.2 He went on to say that in order to better regulate restricted breed dogs, ‘in place of the current prohibition’, the Bill provides a two year amnesty period that will allow owners to register restricted breed dogs and thereby bring them under the existing strict controls. The Bill also provides a standard to be prescribed to assist with the identification of a dog as one of the restricted breed dogs, including dogs that are a crossbreed. 2. Background Legislative Background In 1991 Australia banned the importation of the following dogs: American Pit Bulls, Pit Bull Terriers, Fila Brasileiros, Dogo Argentinas and Japanese Tosas. This was not the first time Australia has restricted certain breeds of dogs from entering Australia as from 1928-1972 the importation of German Shepherds was banned, following concern that they would breed with dingos and attack sheep. Other states also placed bans on German Shepherds (then more commonly known as Alsatians), such as South Australia with the Alsatian Dog Act 1934. South Australia did not repeal its legislation prohibiting Alsatians until 1983 with the Alsatian Dog Repeal Act 1983. Legislation in Victoria pertaining to the management of dogs is contained in the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (‘the Act’) and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986. The Domestic Animals Regulations 2005 further provides for the management of 1 Victoria, Legislative Assembly (2010) Debates, 6 May, pp. 1722-1723. 2 ibid. 2 Parliamentary Library Research Service dogs and sets out requirements for dangerous dogs and restricted breed dogs such as requirements for dog enclosures and warning signs that must be displayed. The purpose of the Domestic Animals Act is to ‘promote animal welfare, the responsible ownership of dogs and cats and the protection of the environment…’. Among other things, the Act provides for a registration and identification scheme for dogs and cats and sets out the powers and duties of Councils with respect to the control of dogs and cats. The Act allows Councils to declare that a dog is a dangerous dog, a menacing dog or a restricted breed dog. The Act also gives Councils the power to seize and dispose of dogs or cats under certain circumstances. Owners of dogs and cats have explicit responsibilities according to the Act, such as to not abandon that animal (10 penalty units) and to not allow that animal to ‘be a nuisance’ (1 penalty unit). In 2001 the Animals Legislation (Responsible Ownership) Act declared particular breeds of dogs to be restricted in line with Commonwealth legislation. It also increased the penalty for liability for a dog attack so that if a dangerous dog attacks or bites any person or animal the owner will be liable for a fine of 120 penalty units or six months in jail, and increased the fine from $500 to $1000 for a dog that is not a declared dangerous dog that attacks someone. In 2003 the Victorian Government introduced restricted breed dog legislation to stop the breeding of dangerous and restricted breed dogs. In 2005 the Primary Industries Acts (Further Amendment) Act 2005 made several changes to legislation regarding restricted breed dogs, including: . doubling penalty units for failing to declare a restricted breed dog or for giving false information about restricted breed dogs; . requiring the compulsory desexing of dangerous or restricted breed dogs; . requiring dangerous, menacing or restricted breed dogs to be microchipped; . prohibiting Councils from registering restricted breed dogs, but allowing Councils to renew registrations for restricted breed dogs; and . allowing authorised officers of the Council to seize and destroy unregistered restricted breed dogs.3 Dog Attacks in the Community It has been reported that Australia has the highest incidence of pet ownership per household in the world with more than two thirds of households owning pets.4 It is estimated that Australia has a canine population of about 4 million. In the media it has also been reported that almost six people are attacked by dogs every day in Victoria with more than 2,000 people treated at a hospital for dog bites in 2008, with the lengths of stays ranging from two days to more than a month.5 In 2009 almost one dog attack a week was reported to the Greater Geelong City Council, yet the number of registered dangerous dogs had dropped by almost half.6 Examples of recent dog attacks that have received media coverage include the attack by a Pit Bull-Staffordshire cross terrier in March 2010 of a 67-year-old woman. The 3 See B. Lesman (2005) Primary Industries Acts (Further Amendment) Bill 2005, D-Brief No. 6, September, Parliamentary Library Research Service, Parliament of Victoria. 4 DOGS Victoria (2010) ‘Caring for Dogs’, viewed 21 May 2010, <http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/Content.asp?ID=160>. 5 A. Wright (2010) ‘Six people a day fall victim to dog attacks’, Herald Sun, 11 May. There is currently no comprehensive reporting system for dog attacks in Australia. 6 K.A. Hobbs (2010) ‘Rise in Geelong dog attacks’, Geelong Advertiser, 13 May. 3 Parliamentary Library Research Service woman’s arm was partially severed by the dog which was the ‘family pet’.7 In October 2009, an American Pit Bull Terrier attacked a man in Melbourne and killed his two dogs.8 In February 2008 an 11-year-old Melbourne girl was hospitalised after being bitten by the family dog, which was believed to be a Labrador.9 In late 2007 a nine-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Use of Dogs by Youth Groups and Youth Gangs
    Crime Law Soc Change (2011) 55:405–420 DOI 10.1007/s10611-011-9294-5 Friends, status symbols and weapons: the use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs Jennifer Maher & Harriet Pierpoint Published online: 21 April 2011 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 Abstract Recent UK media reports and government responses evidence a rising concern over irresponsible dog ownership, particularly the use of so-called status or weapon dogs. Youth criminal and antisocial behaviour using these dogs has been widely reported in urban areas and associated with street-based youth groups, in particular, the growing phenomenon of UK youth gangs. This article reports on the findings and implications of a small-scale study, comprising interviews with 25 youths and seven animal welfare and youth practitioners, which aimed to identify the nature of animal use and abuse in youth groups and gangs. It found that over half of the youths belonged to a youth gang and the remainder a youth group, with the majority owning an animal which was most often a ‘status’ dog (e.g., bull breed/type). Analysis revealed that dogs were used mainly for socialising and companionship, protection and enhancing status. More than 20 types of animal abuse were described by youths and practitioners. Introduction Concern over youth ownership of so-called status, weapon or bling dogs has entered both the public and political domain in the United Kingdom [UK]. This is evident in: a) increased negative media attention on youth dog owners and ‘dangerous dogs’ [13, 40], b) increased reporting of youth’s dog fighting by the public to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [RSPCA] [35], and c) current governmental discourse and policy which has led to—the development of the Metropolitan Police Status Dog Unit [SDU], a provision of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 (s.35) prohibiting gangs using ‘status’ dogs in public, and proposals to J.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Dogs, Young People and Criminalisation: Towards a Preventative Strateg Y
    Dangerous Dogs_AW2:Layout 1 20/4/11 16:23 Page 1 Research Project Report: Status dogs, young people and criminalisation: towards a preventative strateg y Authors: Professor Gordon Hughes, Dr Jenny Maher and Claire Lawson April 2011 Submitted to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals by the Cardiff Centre for Crime, Law and Justice, Cardiff University Dangerous Dogs_AW2:Layout 1 20/4/11 16:23 Page 2 2 Research Project Report: Status dogs, young people and criminalisation: towards a preventative strategy Biographies Professor Gordon Hughes is Chair in Criminology at the Centre for Crime, Law and Justice at Cardiff University. He was previously Professor of Criminology at the Open University. His research interests lie in problem-solving and expertise in crime control; community safety and crime prevention; young people, communities and justice; and criminal and social justice and devolution in the UK. His publications include the following books, The Politics of Crime and Community (2007), Youth Justice (2003), Restorative Justice (2003), Crime Prevention and Community Safety: New Directions (2002), Community and Crime Control: The New Politics of Public Safety (2002) and Understanding Crime Prevention (1998 and 2010 Chinese translation edition). Jenny Maher is a lecturer and researcher in Criminology at the University of Glamorgan, Cardiff. Her research interests relate to 1) animal abuse, 2) youth violence and 3) youth gangs. She organised the 2010 Cardiff symposium ‘Situating Animal Abuse in Criminology’ and has co-edited the special journal issue on animal (in Crime, Law and Social Change) abuse that emerged from the symposium. Her previous research projects include: the use and abuse of animals among youth groups and gangs, knife crime among young people, a comparative European study on ‘peer violence among young people in public space’ and ‘youth gangs’ - the focus of her PhD thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Dog Control and Welfare
    House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Dog Control and Welfare Seventh Report of Session 2012–13 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/efracom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 6 February 2013 HC 575 Published on 15 February 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £20.00 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its associated bodies. Current membership Miss Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Thirsk and Malton) (Chair) Thomas Docherty (Labour, Dunfermline and West Fife) Richard Drax, (Conservative, South Dorset) George Eustice (Conservative, Camborne and Redruth) Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North) Mrs Mary Glindon (Labour, North Tyneside) Iain McKenzie (Labour, Inverclyde) Sheryll Murray (Conservative, South East Cornwall) Neil Parish (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) Ms Margaret Ritchie (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down) Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall) Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) was also a member of the Committee during this inquiry. Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Friends, Status Symbols and Weapons: the Use of Dogs by Youth Groups and Youth Gangs Maher, Jennifer; Pierpoint, Harriet
    www.ssoar.info Friends, status symbols and weapons: the use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs Maher, Jennifer; Pierpoint, Harriet Postprint / Postprint Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: www.peerproject.eu Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Maher, J., & Pierpoint, H. (2011). Friends, status symbols and weapons: the use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs. Crime, Law and Social Change, 55(5), 405-420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-011-9294-5 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter dem "PEER Licence Agreement zur This document is made available under the "PEER Licence Verfügung" gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zum PEER-Projekt finden Agreement ". For more Information regarding the PEER-project Sie hier: http://www.peerproject.eu Gewährt wird ein nicht see: http://www.peerproject.eu This document is solely intended exklusives, nicht übertragbares, persönliches und beschränktes for your personal, non-commercial use.All of the copies of Recht auf Nutzung dieses Dokuments. Dieses Dokument this documents must retain all copyright information and other ist ausschließlich für den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen information regarding legal protection. You are not allowed to alter Gebrauch bestimmt. Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments this document in any way, to copy it for public or commercial müssen alle Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise purposes, to exhibit the document in public, to perform, distribute auf gesetzlichen Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses or otherwise use the document in public. Dokument nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen By using this particular document, you accept the above-stated Sie dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke conditions of use.
    [Show full text]
  • Bloodline: Tackling Dog Fighting in the Community
    Bloodline: Tackling Dog Fighting in the Community 1 Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 4 1. Dog Fighting in the United Kingdom ......................................................................... 8 1.1 The lack of primary data ...................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Legislation ........................................................................................................................... 10 1.3 Public Opinion .................................................................................................................... 12 1.4 Dog fighting as a ‘gateway’ or ‘broken window’ crime ................................................. 13 1.5 Link with human welfare ................................................................................................... 14 2. Project Bloodline ....................................................................................................... 16 2.1 Strategy ...................................................................................................................................17 2.2 Phase 1: Research and Stakeholder Engagement - Scanning .................................. 18 2.3 Phase 2: Defining the problem – Analysis ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Phd Thesis Claire Lawson FINAL
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Online Research @ Cardiff Dogs and the Criminology of Control A case study of contemporary policy making in England and Wales Claire Lawson BA(Hons), MSc, PhD SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES CARDIFF UNIVERSITY 2019 ii Abstract This thesis explores the nexus of criminology and public policy analysis in order to better understand and explain the policy making processes in relation to the control of dogs in society. It does this through an empirical study of policy responses to the phenomenon of ‘status’ and ‘dangerous’ dogs in England and Wales, primarily during the past three decades. An influential body of work has suggested an expanding trend in punitiveness within Western societies over the past few decades. At the forefront of sociological thinking in this field is David Garland’s Culture of Control that theorises that the advent of late- modernity, with its adjusted macro-social conditions, has ushered in this new approach to law and order. As a theoretical scaffold, grand theories such as these can be useful, but this case study also seeks to go further into the empirical particulars of policy making in order to understand how a culture of control unfolds in relation to the lesser-explored arena of dangerous dogs. The methodological elements employed were two-fold and included both an extensive documentary analysis (including academic work, policy documents and legislation) recounted via a history of the present, and a thematic analysis produced from the empirical data of key policy actors' accounts (involving a programme of semi-structured elite interviews, n=25) gained via my unique insider-researcher access as a professional member of the dog policy network.
    [Show full text]
  • Children & People Injured & Killed in Dog Attacks
    WARNING – GRAPHIC IMAGES CWU "Bite-Back" Campaign Children & People Injured & Killed in Dog Attacks Including Sections on Children, Adults, Postal Workers, Police and Guide Dogs. "How many more children must be killed and injured by dogs before effective laws come into force?" - heartbroken mum Veronica Lynch. Mother of Kelly Lynch who was killed by dogs in 1989 Compiled by Dave Joyce CWU National Health & Safety Officer May 2013 Version 13 Page 1 of 92 Index Introduction: - Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 - 2011 The Facts, - Dogs Act 1871 - The CWU Bite-Back Campaign, Key Facts and Figures. Section 1 - Dog Attacks on Children Section 2 - Fatal Dog Attacks in UK - Children & Adults Section 3 - Dog Attacks on Postal Workers Section 4 - Dog Attacks on Police Section 4 - Dog Attacks on Guide Dogs Page 2 of 92 Introduction DDA 1991 - History and Origin In 1989 an 11 year old girl, Kelly Lynch, was killed by two Rottweiler’s in Scotland (See Section 2). Over the following few years a series of high profile attacks on members of the public followed by dogs alleged to be American Pit Bull Terriers. The cases of 6 year-old Rukshana Khan from Bradford and Frank Tempest from Lincoln, both of whom sustained horrific injuries in the spring of 1991 galvanised opinion that something needed to be done. The response of John Major's Government was to direct the Home Secretary, Kenneth Baker, to draft the Dangerous Dogs Act. The Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 became law on 24 July 1991. DDA 1991 - How Effective? How effective has the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 been? - The CWU and many others believe it is one of the worst pieces of legislation to find its way onto the statute books! It certainly provides insufficient protection for the public, for Postal workers, BT and others workers and children and it has disappointed victims when they realise what the police can effectively achieve! Directly as a result of the CWU's 'Bite-Back' Campaign, new legislation has been passed in terms of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Dogs (Amendment) Act Northern Ireland 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Dog Control and Welfare
    House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Dog Control and Welfare Written Evidence Only those submissions, written specifically for the Committee and accepted by the Committee as evidence for the inquiry Dog Control and Welfare are included. List of written evidence 1 Linda Buxton 4 2 Claire Horton-Bussey 6 3 Jolanda Hill DVM, MRCVS 7 4 Animal Wardens 8 5 Anna-Lisa Browne, The Dog House 10 6 Carol Fowler, Dog Health Campaigner 12 7 Local Government Association 16 8 Janetta Bensouilah 19 9 The Northern Centre for Canine Behaviour 20 10 Diane Foreman 24 11 Essex Animal Welfare Forum (EAWF) 26 12 Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council 29 13 Chris Laurence 32 14 Countryside Alliance 36 15 National Dog Warden Association 41 16 Mr & Mrs Sainsbury 44 17 Mrs Louise Haig 49 18 Anonymous Contributor 50 19 Maria Burke 51 20 Mary Davis 52 21 Sophie Zoghbi 53 22 Barbara Sheringham 55 23 Animal Behaviour and Training Council 56 24 RSPCA 58 25 David Ward 63 26 Gary Miller 65 27 Angela Kennedy 66 28 Jaqi Bunn 70 29 Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society (DLPS) 73 30 Felicity Lynch 75 31 Mandy Dumont 77 32 Blue Cross 78 33 Canine Action UK 82 34 Anonymous Contributor 84 35 Simon JR Adams BSc. BVMS. MRCVS. Veterinarian and Welfare Adviser 86 36 Naomi Mignone 91 37 Greater Merseyside Dog Welfare Forum 92 38 Dr Kasia Szpakowska 94 39 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare 96 40 Guide Dogs for the Blind Association 97 41 Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC) 101 42 British Association for Shooting and Conservation 103 42 Supplementary
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Dogs by Youth Groups and Youth Gangs
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE Author manuscript, published in "Crime, Law and Social Change 55, 5 (2011) 405-420" DOIprovided : 10.1007/s10611-011-9294-5 by University of South Wales Research Explorer 1 Friends, status symbols and weapons: The use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs. Jennifer Maher and Harriet Pierpoint Abstract Recent UK media reports and government responses evidence a rising concern over irresponsible dog ownership, particularly the use of so-called status or weapon dogs. Youth criminal and antisocial behaviour using these dogs has been widely reported in urban areas and associated with street-based youth groups, in particular, the growing phenomenon of UK youth gangs. This article reports on the findings and implications of a small-scale study, comprising interviews with 25 youths and seven animal welfare and youth practitioners, which aimed to identify the nature of animal use and abuse in youth groups and gangs. It found that over half of the youths belonged to a youth gang and the remainder a youth group, with the majority owning an animal which was most often a „status‟ dog (e.g., bull breed). Analysis revealed that dogs were used mainly for socialising and companionship, protection and enhancing status. More than 20 types of animal abuse were described by youths and practitioners. Keywords: status dog, dangerous dog, animal abuse, youth groups, youth gangs Introduction Concern over youth ownership of so-called status, weapon or bling dogs has entered both the United Kingdom [UK] public and political domain.
    [Show full text]
  • Friends, Status Symbols and Weapons: the Use of Dogs by Youth Groups and Youth Gangs Jennifer Maher, Harriet Pierpoint
    Friends, status symbols and weapons: the use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs Jennifer Maher, Harriet Pierpoint To cite this version: Jennifer Maher, Harriet Pierpoint. Friends, status symbols and weapons: the use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs. Crime, Law and Social Change, Springer Verlag, 2011, 55 (5), pp.405-420. 10.1007/s10611-011-9294-5. hal-00690064 HAL Id: hal-00690064 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00690064 Submitted on 21 Apr 2012 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. 1 Friends, status symbols and weapons: The use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs. Jennifer Maher and Harriet Pierpoint Abstract Recent UK media reports and government responses evidence a rising concern over irresponsible dog ownership, particularly the use of so-called status or weapon dogs. Youth criminal and antisocial behaviour using these dogs has been widely reported in urban areas and associated with street-based youth groups, in particular, the growing phenomenon of UK youth gangs. This article reports on the findings and implications of a small-scale study, comprising interviews with 25 youths and seven animal welfare and youth practitioners, which aimed to identify the nature of animal use and abuse in youth groups and gangs.
    [Show full text]