melzawelza

Yes, that'd be a good start , mel. Is there anything in the legislation that says muzzling & signage should be an immediate, urgent requirement? Like in this case, where there's sufficient evidence of deliberate attack on innocent dogs & their owners who were behaving within the law.? Those two requirements would contribute to community safety, while more detailed assessment was happening. If it's not in the legislation, it ought to be. Same principle that a damaged building must be immediately buttressed and signage warnings put on the perimeter.... to protect passing public. Not unless the Council has declared the dogs to be dangerous, menacing or restricted. Or if they negotiated a control order with that requirement, but it would need to be signed off in the courts before it would actually be required. So, mel, the public get protected from immediately obvious dodgy buildings.... but not from immediately obvious dodgy dogs. It'd be good if the legislation was altered to allow Councils to slap on an immediate, temporary control order re muzzling & signage. That is, pending the outcome of further investigations & then relevant application of the legislation for permanent solution. The temporary measures might be lifted. applied in the long-term, or other solutions put in place. Potentially you could get a dog muzzled straight away if you issued a notice of intention to declare dangerous or menacing straight away and then investigated while the notice was on the dog(some Councils do do this) but a lot of Councils feel it is best to gather all information first before moving towards orders etc. Usually that only takes a few days. Only a declaration requires signage though. Council also has the power to seize and impound the dog within 72 hours of an attack and leave it in the pound while investigating. I've done it a few times with attacks that are really serious or if I think that it is likely that another attack could happen while I was investigating and deciding what action to take. I'm only offering information on what is contained within the Companion Animals Act and Regulations (NSW only) in relation to dog attacks. Apologies if that was not clear. ETA: If you are referring specifically to the post you quoted, when I say that I would likely go for a control order in this sort of situation I'm talking about me as a council officer if I was investigating and actioning a case like this - that wasn't advice for HazyWal. That's the way I read it Melz that you were talking about yourself as a coucil officer, no need to apologise and I don't expect legal advice on a public forum or even via PM. I am very grateful for the links, the offer of legislation based questions and your well wishes. Thank you. Thanks HazyWal and no problems. I hope whatever the outcome is from Council, that it is the right one and these dogs are never given the opportunity to do the same again. It's totally unacceptable that it's happened and even worse that your poor dogs were muzzled and couldn't defend themselves.

Yes, that'd be a good start , mel. Is there anything in the legislation that says muzzling & signage should be an immediate, urgent requirement? Like in this case, where there's sufficient evidence of deliberate attack on innocent dogs & their owners who were behaving within the law.? Those two requirements would contribute to community safety, while more detailed assessment was happening. If it's not in the legislation, it ought to be. Same principle that a damaged building must be immediately buttressed and signage warnings put on the perimeter.... to protect passing public. Not unless the Council has declared the dogs to be dangerous, menacing or restricted. Or if they negotiated a control order with that requirement, but it would need to be signed off in the courts before it would actually be required.

I agree with one of your points. I don't believe the woman has got off 'scott free'... especially in relation to financial cost. Where I differ is that there's enough reason for the dogs to be declared 'dangerous dogs' ... in respect to their demonstrated behaviour if circumstances lead to their getting out again. You say that NSW law would then require her to build secure runs that she clearly cannot afford. Which appears to be a fact. However, that leaves these dogs at risk for doing damage in the future. Because their situation remains exactly the same as what allowed this horrible incident to happen. Members of the public who live in the area.... & who walk their dogs past that house... remain at the same level of risk that HW and her dogs innocently faced. The owner cannot guarantee there'd never be a 'slip' again. I believe that those passing dog walkers need to be made aware of that. The simple signage. 'Dangerous Dogs' on the gate would alert people. I'd avoid like poison walking my dogs past a house with that Council-required sign. You say that the Gosford Council can exercise discretion. And so not require her to build containment runs that she can't afford. OK, why can't they exercise discretion by requiring a Caution: Dangerous Dogs sign be placed on her gate? To meet the Council's obligation towards the general community. To fit the NSW law, could the sign use the terminology, 'Danger: Menacing Dogs'? Quite true.... because the situation remains dangerous. I'd be furious if I lived in the area & found out that it was being 'air-brushed' by the Council as if it didn't exist. The dogs have to be secured adequately, there is no doubt about that. But the owners may have already secured them adequately with a standard dog run which is more than adequate for 99% of dogs. The enclosure required for a Dangerous Dog declaration is absolutely ridiculous and complete overkill for most dogs, plus it's a permanent structure that requires a sealed concrete slab with drainage to be laid, so renters can't construct it even if they do have the money. Bear in mind this cannot be modified in any way shape or form, if the dog is declared it MUST be kept as per these regs or euthanased: No other state requires anything so specific and detailed as this when a dog is declared dangerous. From what I've read most other states just essentially say the backyard has to be secure, and it's up to the Council to ensure that on a property-by-property basis. I can understand why, if the owners have already taken different precautions that are suitable to ensure the dog can't escape (like getting a standard dog run for them and giving a signed undertaking that the dogs will be kept in it unless inside the house or being exercised on leash), the Council would be reluctant to declare them knowing that they would just have to seize and euthanase them in three months. Personally, I'd be going for a menacing order on the dogs, which would still have the requirements like the dangerous dog signage and muzzles but would allow a standard dog run to be used instead. But the Council may feel the injury is too serious for Menacing. I'm not saying the Council are right or wrong in their decision. There is no way that I can know if they are or they aren't, as I am not privy to all the information they would be. But I do understand wanting to avoid killing two dogs if there are other alternatives that still ensure the safety of the community. ETA: Actually what I would probably go for would be a control order on the dogs so that I could specify exactly what I wanted the owners to do. This incurs costs for the Council though if the owners don't agree to pay them though so they may be reluctant. I hope your dogs are feeling better tonight HazyWal. Terrifying experience. Like I said please feel free to ask me any legislation based questions if you have them. You should clarify that you are only providing legal information and not legal advice unless you're the holder of a current NSW practising certificate. I'm only offering information on what is contained within the Companion Animals Act and Regulations (NSW only) in relation to dog attacks. Apologies if that was not clear. ETA: If you are referring specifically to the post you quoted, when I say that I would likely go for a control order in this sort of situation I'm talking about me as a council officer if I was investigating and actioning a case like this - that wasn't advice for HazyWal.

I agree with one of your points. I don't believe the woman has got off 'scott free'... especially in relation to financial cost. Where I differ is that there's enough reason for the dogs to be declared 'dangerous dogs' ... in respect to their demonstrated behaviour if circumstances lead to their getting out again. You say that NSW law would then require her to build secure runs that she clearly cannot afford. Which appears to be a fact. However, that leaves these dogs at risk for doing damage in the future. Because their situation remains exactly the same as what allowed this horrible incident to happen. Members of the public who live in the area.... & who walk their dogs past that house... remain at the same level of risk that HW and her dogs innocently faced. The owner cannot guarantee there'd never be a 'slip' again. I believe that those passing dog walkers need to be made aware of that. The simple signage. 'Dangerous Dogs' on the gate would alert people. I'd avoid like poison walking my dogs past a house with that Council-required sign. You say that the Gosford Council can exercise discretion. And so not require her to build containment runs that she can't afford. OK, why can't they exercise discretion by requiring a Caution: Dangerous Dogs sign be placed on her gate? To meet the Council's obligation towards the general community. To fit the NSW law, could the sign use the terminology, 'Danger: Menacing Dogs'? Quite true.... because the situation remains dangerous. I'd be furious if I lived in the area & found out that it was being 'air-brushed' by the Council as if it didn't exist. The dogs have to be secured adequately, there is no doubt about that. But the owners may have already secured them adequately with a standard dog run which is more than adequate for 99% of dogs. The enclosure required for a Dangerous Dog declaration is absolutely ridiculous and complete overkill for most dogs, plus it's a permanent structure that requires a sealed concrete slab with drainage to be laid, so renters can't construct it even if they do have the money. Bear in mind this cannot be modified in any way shape or form, if the dog is declared it MUST be kept as per these regs or euthanased: No other state requires anything so specific and detailed as this when a dog is declared dangerous. From what I've read most other states just essentially say the backyard has to be secure, and it's up to the Council to ensure that on a property-by-property basis. I can understand why, if the owners have already taken different precautions that are suitable to ensure the dog can't escape (like getting a standard dog run for them and giving a signed undertaking that the dogs will be kept in it unless inside the house or being exercised on leash), the Council would be reluctant to declare them knowing that they would just have to seize and euthanase them in three months. Personally, I'd be going for a menacing order on the dogs, which would still have the requirements like the dangerous dog signage and muzzles but would allow a standard dog run to be used instead. But the Council may feel the injury is too serious for Menacing. I'm not saying the Council are right or wrong in their decision. There is no way that I can know if they are or they aren't, as I am not privy to all the information they would be. But I do understand wanting to avoid killing two dogs if there are other alternatives that still ensure the safety of the community. ETA: Actually what I would probably go for would be a control order on the dogs so that I could specify exactly what I wanted the owners to do. This incurs costs for the Council though if the owners don't agree to pay them though so they may be reluctant. I hope your dogs are feeling better tonight HazyWal. Terrifying experience. Like I said please feel free to ask me any legislation based questions if you have them.

I agree with one of your points. I don't believe the woman has got off 'scott free'... especially in relation to financial cost. Where I differ is that there's enough reason for the dogs to be declared 'dangerous dogs' ... in respect to their demonstrated behaviour if circumstances lead to their getting out again. You say that NSW law would then require her to build secure runs that she clearly cannot afford. Which appears to be a fact. However, that leaves these dogs at risk for doing damage in the future. Because their situation remains exactly the same as what allowed this horrible incident to happen. Members of the public who live in the area.... & who walk their dogs past that house... remain at the same level of risk that HW and her dogs innocently faced. The owner cannot guarantee there'd never be a 'slip' again. I believe that those passing dog walkers need to be made aware of that. The simple signage. 'Dangerous Dogs' on the gate would alert people. I'd avoid like poison walking my dogs past a house with that Council-required sign. You say that the Gosford Council can exercise discretion. And so not require her to build containment runs that she can't afford. OK, why can't they exercise discretion by requiring a Caution: Dangerous Dogs sign be placed on her gate? To meet the Council's obligation towards the general community. To fit the NSW law, could the sign use the terminology, 'Danger: Menacing Dogs'? Quite true.... because the situation remains dangerous. I'd be furious if I lived in the area & found out that it was being 'air-brushed' by the Council as if it didn't exist. The dogs have to be secured adequately, there is no doubt about that. But the owners may have already secured them adequately with a standard dog run which is more than adequate for 99% of dogs. The enclosure required for a Dangerous Dog declaration is absolutely ridiculous and complete overkill for most dogs, plus it's a permanent structure that requires a sealed concrete slab with drainage to be laid, so renters can't construct it even if they do have the money. Bear in mind this cannot be modified in any way shape or form, if the dog is declared it MUST be kept as per these regs or euthanased: No other state requires anything so specific and detailed as this when a dog is declared dangerous. From what I've read most other states just essentially say the backyard has to be secure, and it's up to the Council to ensure that on a property-by-property basis. I can understand why, if the owners have already taken different precautions that are suitable to ensure the dog can't escape (like getting a standard dog run for them and giving a signed undertaking that the dogs will be kept in it unless inside the house or being exercised on leash), the Council would be reluctant to declare them knowing that they would just have to seize and euthanase them in three months. Personally, I'd be going for a menacing order on the dogs, which would still have the requirements like the dangerous dog signage and muzzles but would allow a standard dog run to be used instead. But the Council may feel the injury is too serious for Menacing. I'm not saying the Council are right or wrong in their decision. There is no way that I can know if they are or they aren't, as I am not privy to all the information they would be. But I do understand wanting to avoid killing two dogs if there are other alternatives that still ensure the safety of the community.

I'm more than happy to provide you with information on the legislation HazyWal. PM me if you have any questions. Contrary to most in the thread though I am not going to say that the Council are taking the wrong path by deciding not to declare the dogs dangerous. A lot of people are saying the woman is getting off scott free... That isn't the case. She has copped over 1k in fines and also paid vet bills so far on top of that. Potentially they may have fined for the escapes too which would be abother $440. For someone unemployed that is a pretty hefty consequence and also deterrant. As I said before. The Council always has discretion. So while they absolutely have the discretion to declare the dogs and the evidence is there to do so, they also have the discretion to look at this individual situation and decide NOT to as well. To build an enclosure for two dangerous dogs would likely cost in the vicinity of $4-5k. If they don't have the money or they are renting and they can't build it, the only option for the dogs is euthanasia. In my opinion the enclosure is complete overkill for 99% of dogs. The specs are totally ridiculous and over the top and no other state has such a requirement for their dangerous dog orders. The owner may have already put in a normal dog run (wouldn't fit the DD specs) or modified the property in some way to contain the dogs adequately and ensure they can't escape again. If there is no history on them this is the first stuff up. Council may feel that the punishment and deterrent of the fines plus what the woman has put in place is enough to ensure that something similar doesn't happen again, and that declaring them will only result in two dead dogs. Under privacy they wouldn't be able to tell you all this sort of stuff about the other owner if it was the cade. I have declared many dogs dangerous, some resulting in euthanasia if the owners can't/won't comply, and I have also NOT declared many dogs that I potentially could have, because I looked their individual decision and decided that I could ensure community safety without it (and without the death of the dogs). Some of the victims were ok with my decision and got it, some weren't. So for this reason I am reluctant to jump in and say that the Council is useless and not doing their jobs etc. I would prefer a Council look at every individual situation and use the myriad of different consequences at our disposal for the best possible result, than be a Council that declare EVERYTHING dangerous regardless of the individual situation and end up with lots of dead dogs that really didn't need to die to protect the community. I'm not saying that this is the case. Maybe they are just being totally soft and the owner is totally useless and has done nothing, and it is a really bad idea not to declare... but I don't have enough information to make that call. That said, they shouldn't be telling you things that aren't true (like saying they can't declare the dog for a first occasion). I always stand by my decision as my own and never fluff the truth to take the heat off myself if I think the victim wont be happy. It's not right. Edited for terrible phone typing

Have you never seen an inept handler being pulled along by a leashed dog, or in this case, two leashed dogs? edited to fix quote. Yes, it happened to me with 2 GSD's in defence drive and I couldn't restrained them easily and since then I have never walked 2 large dogs together for that reason. With knowledge of that, I tend to give 2 dog handlers greater distance on approach. In which case I don't get why you asked the above quoted question. I don't know that the dogs dragging the handler was the case in this matter was it? Whilst it may have been the case, it may also have been that the handler had them by the collar and the jogger was so close to the dogs the handler was unable to prevent contact which makes a difference as to who's at fault. Not really. There are a few defenses for dog attacks: Just walking close to a dog in public is not enough to be considered that the dog was provoked, or that it needed to defend it's owner. If your dog gives someone stitches in their face and your excuse to the Council officer is 'but she walked close to us' - good luck avoiding a declaration.

By the fact that this incident occurred the dogs already meet the definition of Dangerous or Menacing (posted above). The owner has 7 days to submit representations unless Council gives them an extension. There is no definites as far as the reps are concerned. The Council must consider them but the reps submitted, even if there's a positive behaviourist report, do not automatically mean the dogs mustn't be declared. It's up to the Council's discretion whether to declare or not. The Council may choose not to declare - and may feel that $1100 fines plus the vet bills is enough of a punishment and deterrent if the owner has shown that they can and will contain the dogs in future. It's entirely up to them, and they have a broader knowledge of the entire situation than any of us here. But if they are telling you HazyWal that because it's a first offence they CAN'T declare, and that their hands are tied by the legislation - that is not true.

I'm not meaning to disparage your ranger and they may have a legitimate reason for deciding not to declare the dogs... but if they are telling you that the legislation states that there has to be a second incident before they can declare the dogs menacing or dangerous and that it isn't an option for them then that is bull. The Act is here: NSW Companion Animals Act 1998

Just FYI if she sticks on the bills Council won't be able to get involved - that's a civil matter between the two parties. So if she sticks you'll need to pursue it yourself civilly. Also, you can report to the police if you want to but they'll just refer it back to Council. Council have more powers than police (placing orders etc) Pretty poor form that she is now refusing to pay further.

I don't know many people who believe that dogs being stolen is a myth. But many people, myself included, are sick of the assumption that every single dog theft is for dog fighting purposes, when they have been yet to see any credible evidence of this being the case even on a small scale let alone on a massive scale as hysterical facebooking posts indicate. Glad to see these dogs have been returned home and the police are taking it so seriously.

I'm so sorry to hear this HazyWal. Absolutely awful. Make sure you report it to Council and take photos of both the dogs injuries and your own to send to them.

The dogs were leashed not running free at large, so why was she so close to the dogs for them to make contact?. The dog handler was initially compliant by having them leashed and what happened from there is what holds my interest given that leashed dogs are technically community safe?. No they are not. Just because a dog is leashed doesn't mean an attack can't happen and be prosecuted/actioned. Section 13 of the Act in NSW (Which covers dogs being leashed in public) also has this note: "Note. Just because a dog is not on a lead in an off-leash area, or is secured in a cage or vehicle or is tethered to a fixed object or structure, does not mean that an offence under section 16 is not committed if the dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal, whether or not any injury is caused." So even if a dog is tethered somewhere, if it bites someone it is still an attack.

I think they can, as Council registration is stored separately to microchip info. Here in NSW it's an all-in-one Government run registry which is overall really good as far as what you can do with it, but severely lacks in this area.

Yes, you can look up animals on a street by street basis or with a microchip number. In yoir case it's likely they just ran the surrounding streets one by one to see what cropped up. But you can't just search and bring up all the, for eg, Labradors in the suburb.

Council registration data base and chip database are one in the same in NSW. You can do reports of how many dogs are in the area and how many of each breed but you can't pull owner contact info from that. It's pretty frustrating.

This will be shocking to many but no ability whatsoever to do that. We can't pull up on the CAR a list of the dogs of X breed in the Council area, if it is not a breed subject to BSL. You can do a 'restricted dog' search and it will bring up all the restricted dogs in the area, or a Greenhound search and it will bring up all the greys with muzzle exemptions (which I doubt these are), but any other breed.... nope. I got a report about an attack from two Basenjis at a particular park. You would think a rare breed like basenji it would be pretty easy to identify the dogs if their chips were up to date. Nope. After 45 minutes of individually searching every street in the surrounding area I gave up, and had to go and hang around the park instead. Total waste of precious resources and time when I may have been able to get a lead if I could search a list of all Basenjis in my council area. Another small thing showing how all the focus is on BSL breeds and not dogs in general, to the detriment of the community.

I hope if they are Greys they weren't green collared. The program is very new in NSW and took a lot to get it in - if a green collared dog (a dog that has passed the test) behaved in this manner it will call the whole program into question, and with the NSW Gov currently investigating adding more breeds to the BSL list it could have serious rammifications. Well said.

US goes to extremes on both ends . . . lots of teacups and mini's around. Mini potbelly pigs are increasingly common. Then there are pocket pets = sugar gliders. I've never heard of a pitterpat . . . googled and, you're right, they've been around for a long time . . . I guess that name doesn't catch on here cause it's too cutesy and the pit crowd goes more for spunk. The 'PitterPats' are usually bred for working ability as opposed to pets anyway so probably not overly common for the cutesy side of things.

Talk about sensationalising it... the language they use is ridiculous. Poor woman. Hopefully she isn't too badly affected by this emotionally as well as physically.

In NSW if the dog is on lead and the owner is holding it the dog is considered controlled. That doesn't negate an attack happening though, which is a separate offence.

This doesn't seem right. Just because the dogs were on lead doesn't mean it's ok to let them attack people. If the man lost control of his car and ran over some people - he'd still be liable. Very few police officers know or understand the Companion Animals Act. Action can certainly be taken if the owners are located, regardless of whether they were leashed or not. Poor woman, how awful. I also wonder if possibly the dog was very over-excited and boisterous, rather than having serious intent to injure. Regardless though, a tooth connected clearly and injured her severely - there is serious concern for the owner's ability to control their dogs regardless of whether the intent was aggressive or not.

I'm so sorry. This must have been absolutely devastating for you.

I'm so sorry to hear that Spyda Where do you live and how did BSL target your dingo?

I remember that first thread well, and the ridiculous replies from one poster. I'm very sorry to hear that your suspicions were correct. Hopefully at the very least the dogs are declared dangerous.