Thank you Brochan and Vulcarum,This issue seems to be finally...

  1. 5,236 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 35
    Thank you Brochan and Vulcarum,

    This issue seems to be finally making a bit of sense.

    "Australia has a ban on aggressive dog breeds that were specifically bred for fighting. Importing these breeds to Australia is not permitted by law. This ban is in place to safeguard the public and other animals. Dog breeds that are banned in Australia areit Bull Terrier breeds, including American Pit Bull TerrierDogo ArgentinoFila BrasileiroJapanese TosaPerro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario

    The ban also extends to mix breeds of these breeds and to dogs that display any visible characteristics of the breeds mentioned above."

    To the best of my knowledge the Commonwealth has no jurisdiction over matters related to dog ownership. It can only prohibit the importation of breeds that it may judge to pose a danger to the community. Jurisdiction over matters related to the ownership of dogs rests with the state legislatures, with local councils (probably by delegation) being able to declare ( any particular) dog a restricted breed by virtue of having displayed any visible characteristics of the breeds mentioned above."

    Restricted dogs are so called because their ownership is being subjected to additional laws governing the keeping of restricted breed dogs.

    In other words, the ban is on the importation and not on ownership. One can still have a restricted dog breed, albeit subject to extra conditions.

    The problem for the owners of restricted breeds and for their insurers is that according to the law a claimant for civil compensation for damages caused by a restricted breed dog does not need to prove the existence of negligence on the part of the owner because that is automatically assumed, an assumption that cannot be changed even if the act leading to the claim had nothing to do with that animal's supposed propensity for aggressive behavior.

    Because at law a competent person is a person with the capacity to perform certain tasks adequately or to a certain standard and that knows the limits of one's competence ( for instance, a GP in order to be competent needs to know when to pass the patient to the care of a specialist) I thought about the possibility of the Australian Veterinary Association with its dog behavior specialists being in position to be accepted as a competent authority, which I now realize to be wrong.

    This is my ( a layperson) interpretation.











 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.