Wyndham City Council

[wolfgirl]

http://wyndham-leader.whereilive.com.au/ne...ggressive-dogs/

NEW laws making it an offence for dogs in Wyndham to act aggressively towards people or animals walking past their property have been passed.

Wyndham Council last night voted in the controversial local law, but following public feedback, backed down on others relating to controlling dogs behind private fences.

It had proposed to make it an offence for the city’s 18,000-plus dogs to bark continually along boundary fences at passersby, and wanted to ban dogs from being unsupervised in local front yards.

While these were scrapped, councillors passed a law making it an offence for dogs to behave in an offensive or threatening way by physically striking, biting or jumping at people or animals beyond the boundary of their owners’ property.

Fines can be imposed.

The council said the proposed laws were in response to 68 complaints about aggressive dogs running at fences last year, and another six this year.

It said the new laws would not resolve all objections, but achieved a balance between the expectations of dog owners and the needs of complainants.

The proposed laws were put forward as part of a review of the council’s local laws. They will come into force soon.

>> More details, including local reaction, in next week’s Wyndham Leader.

Edited April 28, 2010 by wolfgirl

[Dame Aussie]

As long as a dog cannot get through a fence I don't understand the problem?!

Half the dogs in our street attack the fence when we walk past...big deal. ;)

Councils need to spend their time on something important.....

[Jed]

Sorry, can you clarify please

While these were scrapped, councillors passed a law making it an offence for dogs to behave in an offensive or threatening way by physically striking, biting or jumping at people or animals beyond the boundary of their owners’ property

.

So they haven't substantially changed the laws, but dogs which are BEYOND their owner's property will be subject to fines?

Yes?

And if they are contained, but rush the fence and bark whilst still being contained by the fence, what then?

[wolfgirl]

Sorry, can you clarify please

While these were scrapped, councillors passed a law making it an offence for dogs to behave in an offensive or threatening way by physically striking, biting or jumping at people or animals beyond the boundary of their owners’ property

.

So they haven't substantially changed the laws, but dogs which are BEYOND their owner's property will be subject to fines?

Yes?

And if they are contained, but rush the fence and bark whilst still being contained by the fence, what then?

Jed I am happy to post what comes out in next week's paper

[Erny]

And if they are contained, but rush the fence and bark whilst still being contained by the fence, what then?

The way I read it, there are no penalties provided the dog is contained behind (and not beyond) property boundaries. I don't think there is any substantial change, except perhaps there is a subtlety in their new by-law that permits them to take action in the event that the dog pokes its nose through the fence; jumps up and leans over the fence; jumps up and puts its feet up on (and therefore a bit over) the fence etc.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Erny

[Jake-K9]

I read it as they can take action if the dog is showing any manner of "aggression" towards anything on the other side of the fence, regardless of if any part of the dog is protruding over or through the fence.

So if I lived in Wyndham I would be fined for the malinut running up and down the fence woofing his little head off everytime someone walks past while he is outside >_<

[Erny]

I read it as they can take action if the dog is showing any manner of "aggression" towards anything on the other side of the fence, regardless of if any part of the dog is protruding over or through the fence.

So if I lived in Wyndham I would be fined for the malinut running up and down the fence woofing his little head off everytime someone walks past while he is outside >_<

I don't see how you can read it that way, Jake-K9. Refer below, my highlights ...

... councillors passed a law making it an offence for dogs to behave in an offensive or threatening way by physically striking, biting or jumping at people or animals beyond the boundary of their owners’ property.

[Kelpie-i]

If that's the case, they could be one very busy Council.

[Jake-K9]

Erny, I took it as the "people or animals" being beyond the boundary... but I could be wrong... I do hope it means as you say that if the dog is somehow getting past or through the fence the owner can be fined (and so they should be), but if it's simply the dog having a go at something that's on the other side ('beyond') the fence, a lot of people are going to be in trouble >_<

[Erny]

... councillors passed a law making it an offence for dogs to behave in an offensive or threatening way by physically striking, biting or jumping at people or animals beyond the boundary of their owners’ property.

Ahhhhh .... yes, I see how you're reading it. I've redone the highlights to show how you saw it. The problem with words .... they can so often be read in more than just one way, which is in part what makes laws so wretched at times.

Good call, Jake-K9. I don't know the answer - hope it's not a case of sneaky sneaky stuff on the part of the Council. Surely not.

[Jake-K9]

Yep!

I am having a case of the cbf's tonight and thus haven't bothered with quotes... I think I need to finish my drink and go to bed :/

[Erny]

Jake-K9 - Further to my previous post, I've submitted a question to the Leader Newspaper (via Community Comment) asking for clarification of what the by-law actually intends. Don't know if it will get published or not.

[Jake-K9]

Erny, good on you and good luck, lets hope they give you a truthful answer at least!

[Erny]

I see my question was published (I also note a grammatical error on my part ). Will be interested to see if there is a response forthcoming.

[Dame Aussie]

Jake-K9 - Further to my previous post, I've submitted a question to the Leader Newspaper (via Community Comment) asking for clarification of what the by-law actually intends. Don't know if it will get published or not.

Nice one Erny, I also read it as Jake-K9 did, which is why I was

Hopefully they can clarify sooner rather than later!

[Jake-K9]

I just went and read the linked article (I hadn't looked at it last night) and the first sentence says:

NEW laws making it an offence for dogs in Wyndham to act aggressively towards people or animals walking past their property have been passed.

*sigh* Impending hornet's nest...

[KeithT]

Following the initial backlash against the original wording, the council initiated consultations with a few animal trainers and also with the Werribee Dog Obedience School. So they have scrapped a lot of the original clumsy wording.

From what I understand, they are trying to resolve complaints where some dogs that are kept behind low-walled fences have been persistently rushing postal workers and people who walk past. These recalcitrant dog owners have not made any attempt to control their pets despite complaints and the council needed new powers to deal with these owners.

Therefore, the law should be intepreted: that the dog should not react aggressively against animals and people (that/who are) beyond the boundary of the owner's property.

Unfortunately, there are sensitivities that are culturally biased, which means that some people are afraid of, or have a dislike, for dogs regardless of circumstances and the council will need to deal with these incidents on a case by case basis. In England, there was news that a certain council started legislating against the display of figurines of pigs on bay-front windows. We just have to wait and see how far they will attempt to go.

My reaction based on one councillor who declared that "the council was prepared for a backlash" which indicated that the council was going to force this law through regardless.

Unfortunately, this is the sad result of a few irresponsible owners, a few people who complain about everything and a few councillors who are out to earn cheap votes.

As dog owners, we now need to help our companions adapt and try to de-sensitise them based these new parameters.

[Kelpie-i]

Therefore, the law should be intepreted: that the dog should not react aggressively against animals and people (that/who are) beyond the boundary of the owner's property.

But this does not indicate anything different than it current is at the moment. The animal in question has to be BEYOND the property's boundary, meaning OUTSIDE the boundary. Correct???

[ness]

From what has been posted its only an offence if:

"by physically striking, biting or jumping at people or animals beyond the boundary of their owners’ property"

So fence running and barking wouldn't necessarily fit under this definition as it might not constitute physically striking (and certainly wouldn't be considered biting or jumping AT people). It also says beyond the boundary of their owner's property. I can see it getting messy if a dog barks at a postie who has stuck a hand over the fence to put mail inside the mail box. To me the person has then placed a body part on the property and is therefore no longer beyond the boundary. I don't think the changed wording really seeks to clarify anything from a legal perspective and just raises more questions.

[KeithT]

Kelpie-i, you raised a very good question because the law reads that the dog has to physically strike, bite or jump at a person or another animal beyond the boundary. This literally reduces the new law to almost nothing, which isn't already covered by current legislation.

However, it was explained to me, that what the council is trying to achieve, is the little more power for pre-emptive intervention in a case where there is no doubt (for example) where if the fence were to collapse, the dog would leave the owner's boundary and continue to a physical attack.

It was also explained that the council would not go around looking for dogs in front yards. They would react upon a complaint and will first work with the owner. This law gives them the little foothold to approach the owner, whereas in the past, the could not take the pre-emptive action.

I was happy that they removed the "barking" component, upon the advice of the trainer. In their ignorance, the original laws associated barking with aggression.

Therefore, for prosecution to occur, the owner would have to be seriously uncooperative. I understand that the council would be looking to the owner to take positive action.

The fact that the law may not deliver the council's intentions is probably a good thing - it means they will have to think hard before going down this route.

Edited April 29, 2010 by KeithT