Monday, February 18, 2008 11:24 PM

Subject: [OzShow] Your local Councils - Update –

 ALL VICTORIANS TAKE NOTE

Below is posted with permission to cross post from the author.> Before I post that, I have some great news.  Mornington Peninsula did a back flip and it is in writing - THE FIRST WIN.

 We have to remain calm, but very diligent.

There are reports now that other councils may be attempting to take Whitehorse's lead. Reports that Mornington Peninsula, Casey and Cardinia may also attempt this strategy have been received in recent days. This item is therefore now important for all residents of Victoria

So what precisely are they trying to do. They are making desexing of all dogs in their area of jurisdiction mandatory unless the owners satisfy (all of) 3 requirements:

1. The owner of the dog must be a member of the VCA

2. The dogs must be registered with the VCA

3. The owner (or more correctly their residence) must be a registered "domestic animal breeding establishment"

1 & 2 are not all that much of a problem, 3 is. Many people simply would not be able to do this. I am an example of this scenario. I contacted my council who is one of the 3 additional councils reported to be going down the same path (which they confirmed). On points 1 & 2 I clearly comply, so I asked for information on how I would comply with point 3 and I was put through to the Town Planning Department. I was advised that I would need to apply for a Town Planning Permit and after looking more closely I was advised that this essentially would be a waste of time because it would be refused as my property is covered by a Significant Environmental Overlay. Therefore, if (or more likely when) my council adopts this same Animal Management Policy I will be forced to either desex my dogs, move or apply, be rejected and then take this through VCAT. None of these is an acceptable outcome.

This has led me to look more closely at the statutes. I believe that Whitehorse and other like minded councils are misinterpreting the statute that they rely upon to set down Animal Management Plans. On this particular issue they are relying on the provisions of the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 (a piece of State legislation).

Section 10B of that act provides the provisions for Dogs and Cats that are exempt from desexing as follows:

10B. Dogs and cats that are exempt from desexing

(1) The following dogs and cats do not have to be desexed to be registered or to have their registration renewed by a Council:

(a) a dog or cat that is owned by a person or body that conducts a domestic animal business under which dogs or cats are bred and the dog or cat is used for breeding purposes in connection with that business;

(b) a dog or cat that is owned by a person who is a current member of an applicable organisation and the animal is registered with that organisation;

(c) a dangerous dog that is kept as a guard dog for non-residential premises;

(d) a dangerous dog that has undergone protection training in accordance with any relevant Code of Practice made under section 59;

(e) a dog or cat that is the subject of written veterinary advice that the health of the dog or cat is liable to be significantly prejudiced if it is desexed;

(f) a dog or cat that is of a class of dog or cat that is exempt under a resolution made under section 10A from a requirement to be desexed.

(2) A Council may, in any resolution made under section 10A, exempt a class of dog or cat from any requirement to be desexed for the purposes of registration or the renewal of registration.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a dangerous dog or a restricted breed dog.

 Under these provisions a member of the VCA is exempt by virtue of Section 10B (1) (b). What Whitehorse and other like minded councils seem to be doing is interpreting this statute as having an "and" in between 10B(1)(a) and 10B(1)(b), which is quite incorrect. It clearly has no linkage in the statute and they are interpreting this incorrectly. Whether this is an innocent error or something more sinister, who knows, but they are bringing in local laws that are not supported by the legislation that they rely on for those local laws.

Every dog owner in the state of Victoria should now be looking closely at the Domestic Animal Management Plans being put forward by their councils to ensure they are not making this same misinterpretation. Obviously where they are it is in your own best interests to point this error out to them as soon as possible. In the meantime the VCA hopefully will be doing what it can with the Department of Primary Industry who manage the statute in questions to ensure that councils are given correct guidance in interpreting this area of the legislation properly

 Please feel free to use this if you wish.

 Kind regards,

 David