Dogs On The Menacing Dog List

[55chevy]

It sounded like a good idea at first but the implementation has made it pointless. The ONLY difference between owing a dangerous dog and a menacing dog is that the dog doesn't have to wear the flouro collar and doesn't have to be muzzled in public. It still has to pay the $300+ a year in registration, still has to have a sign on your fence, still must be kept in a super-max enclosure, no kids, no selling without special conditions etc. So, big waste of tax-payers money when these dogs could already be declared dangerous for causing fear.

Yes exactly, I agree. People could also lodge complaints on the basis of not liking someone or their dog claiming fear resulting in a menacing dog order that isn't really warranted. There are many fence runners who bark at people close to their property in large proportions which is quite normal dog behaviour that could too easily be vulnerable for an issue to be lodged against them unfairly under this legislation.

[geo]

ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lo pan, you're right. How on earth will this ever be policed fairly?

My dog and a friends dog just had a play over the park, now to us that was play, but to complaining nancy it's a dog fighting ring!

My bitch barks at the fence if you ride past it, but if you stop and comeover to her she'll wag her tail and want pats through the fence?

So it totally depends on joe publics perception and their disposition, whether they like dogs or not, whether they like you or not.

So how can this be a good law?

Greytmate; declaring a dog menacing because someone thinks it's menacing to them is not good, just you wait til someone says your dog looks mean i'm reporting it!! It is a proposterous, unworkable and completely non sensical way of curbing animal attacks.

You want better dogs in society, change society.

[supercharged]

Some dogs are dangerous, and I do like the ideology, but I fear it's execution will be flawed and it will not be implemented in a way which is just.

Menacing is defined by this law as causing fear to a person or animal.

Different people have different thesholds to fear, and different prejudices and perceptions of dogs and dog behavior.

Under this law, if you walk a timid or unsocialized dog and it becomes afraid of another dog being walked in the vicinity, then that other dog meets the definition of "menacing". If someone walks past a house and starts at the sound of a barking dog, then that dog could be declared menacing. If someone simply does not like the look of a dog and is afraid or claims to be afraid, that dog could be declared menacing.

I think this law is too open ended. In the end it comes down to the council officer's opinion, and I do not want to place my confidence in the judgement of council officers.

Had exactly this happen to us - my big blue cattle boy used to rush the fence, no barking but hackles up (we were on 2.5 acres fully fenced), a lady with a border collie used to walk every day, female dog off lead which used to toilet on our easement and then ruck up the grass like a male....our boy took a great dislike to it.

We receive in the mail an order to keep our dog away from the front fence and to stop him getting out (this lady tried to report that our dog had left the property to harass her and her dog?!) or the dog will be declared dangerous (he never hurt a fly in his entire lifetime mind you), ranger then turns up and tries it on with the hubby - who politely told him to get his facts straight and get off the property! All because our boy was apparently causing her fear by running to the gate!

Its gonna be fraught with danger in policing it......

[Greytmate]

Greytmate; declaring a dog menacing because someone thinks it's menacing to them is not good, just you wait til someone says your dog looks mean i'm reporting it!! It is a proposterous, unworkable and completely non sensical way of curbing animal attacks.

You want better dogs in society, change society.

In 2008 I spent a lot of time in consultation with the department about the new state act , and I did speak to them about that particular law.

I've posted my view of it a few times, I have spoken to some of the people that are expected to enforce it, they explained it and gave examples of how it would be used and it all sounded fair enough to me.

So I'm happy enough. I got the laws I want. If you don't feel the same, go out and change society or something, don't argue with me about it.

[geo]

I'm not arguing greytmate, just voicing my opinion.

Seriously how can anyone who owns a dog or has any insight into animal behavior think this is a good law

It may serve some purpose if the animal was only declared menacing by an expert animal behaviorist not any member of the public.

Then the owners can work on improving the dogs behavior and have the menacing order removed.

[Greytmate]

I'm not arguing greytmate, just voicing my opinion.

Seriously how can anyone who owns a dog or has any insight into animal behavior think this is a good law

It may serve some purpose if the animal was only declared menacing by an expert animal behaviorist not any member of the public.

Then the owners can work on improving the dogs behavior and have the menacing order removed.

By knowing how this law will be applied.

But then, I am the sort of person that would never allow my dogs access to a boundary fence. I have always put internal fences in to keep my dogs back from property boundaries.

Those using dogs to guard their boundaries might find this law affecting them. Which is a good thing, as people should be able to walk in public areas without feeling threatened by large aggressive dogs behind small flimsy fences.

[geo]

By knowing how this law will be applied.

But then, I am the sort of person that would never allow my dogs access to a boundary fence. I have always put internal fences in to keep my dogs back from property boundaries.

Those using dogs to guard their boundaries might find this law affecting them. Which is a good thing, as people should be able to walk in public areas without feeling threatened by large aggressive dogs behind small flimsy fences.

Applying this law fairly will be the biggest issue.

Some peoples yards aren't big enough for 2 fences.

Large aggressive dog behind a fence does not equal a HA dog outside the yard, same for small aggressive dogs.

I totally agree about flimsy fences, this is a definate problem and conatinment of animals is a must.

And i agree about people feeling safe in public areas, but a law has to be workable for it to be effective. Complaints should be referred to competent people not run of the mill ACO's who think they're the law, along with follow ups and advice.

[Adza]

I have a neighbour who is terrified of dogs in general, so how would that work? of course it's going to cause fear because she is totally scared of dogs?

[Odin-Genie]

Applying this law fairly will be the biggest issue.

Some peoples yards aren't big enough for 2 fences.

Large aggressive dog behind a fence does not equal a HA dog outside the yard, same for small aggressive dogs.

I totally agree about flimsy fences, this is a definate problem and conatinment of animals is a must.

And i agree about people feeling safe in public areas, but a law has to be workable for it to be effective. Complaints should be referred to competent people not run of the mill ACO's who think they're the law, along with follow ups and advice.

Totally agree. I think it's fair enough to enforce strong fences. That should be the case for all dogs, not just the ones declared 'menacing'. But to have to put a notice declaring you have a menacing dog just because someone got scared is extremely unfair on dog owners. I had some people over once who were so scared of dogs that they wouldn't be in the same room as my 3 month old puppy. If that puppy ran up to someone on the other side of the fence who had a dog phobia, it could easily be declared menacing.

Also, at present this is about front yards. But when this law is enforced, it's likely that neighbours who don't like dogs would want to enforce it for shared fence lines. So if there is a dog in the back yard with a shared fence, the neighbour on the other side could claim they find it scary and get it declared menacing.

I understand the principle of the law, but I really really hope this never becomes the law in NSW. I don't have enough trust in the council's ability to judge a dog's temperament to be able to make a fair call. If it was just about putting up strong fences, I wouldn't have an issue. But a notice about or declaration of a menacing dog could very quickly become the precursor for a dangerous dog declaration, leading to severe restrictions or PTS orders.

[MolassesLass]

Greytmate; declaring a dog menacing because someone thinks it's menacing to them is not good, just you wait til someone says your dog looks mean i'm reporting it!! It is a proposterous, unworkable and completely non sensical way of curbing animal attacks.

You want better dogs in society, change society.

In 2008 I spent a lot of time in consultation with the department about the new state act , and I did speak to them about that particular law.

Did anyone explain why the dangerous dog law was not enough, since it already covered dogs who "scare" others? And already had all the required penalties applied?

[Greytmate]

Greytmate; declaring a dog menacing because someone thinks it's menacing to them is not good, just you wait til someone says your dog looks mean i'm reporting it!! It is a proposterous, unworkable and completely non sensical way of curbing animal attacks.

You want better dogs in society, change society.

In 2008 I spent a lot of time in consultation with the department about the new state act , and I did speak to them about that particular law.

Did anyone explain why the dangerous dog law was not enough, since it already covered dogs who "scare" others? And already had all the required penalties applied?

The dangerous dog law was too much.

The new law means that dogs that cause (reasonable people) to be fearful, or who are only involved in a minor incident don't all have to be declared dangerous any more. There is now an option for council to give a milder penalty than just having to declare a dog dangerous.

The standard fencing laws are written fairly weakly though, which is fine given that most people make sure that they have an appropriate fence for their dog. But not all dog owners do bother with appropriate fencing, and this law enables council to act on aggressive dogs that are behind dangerously deteriorating fences. It is a prevention thing.

[Greytmate]

Applying this law fairly will be the biggest issue.

It will be applied when a valid complaint is made. Councils don't check everyone's properties, and they are very aware that many of the complaints they receive will be vexatious.

Some peoples yards aren't big enough for 2 fences.

I managed it when I lived in a corner unit. But if your yard is too small for a dog, don't get one.

Large aggressive dog behind a fence does not equal a HA dog outside the yard, same for small aggressive dogs.

I totally agree about flimsy fences, this is a definate problem and conatinment of animals is a must.

And i agree about people feeling safe in public areas, but a law has to be workable for it to be effective. Complaints should be referred to competent people not run of the mill ACO's who think they're the law, along with follow ups and advice.

It would be lovely if we spent millions on setting up a proper criminal justice system for dogs, where they can be tried by a magistrate and they are innocent until proven guilty and proper evidence is supplied.

But right now in QLD, we don't have that. ACO's do decide who is guilty and who is not. They did with the DD law, and they do now with the MD law. If it is the procedure of enforcement you have a problem with, getting rid of this law isn't going to change anything. There is still the community expectation that council should deal with aggressive dogs, and councils will deal with them as efficiently as they can.

If you want your local council to employ a canine behaviour expert to investigate every time somebody disputes a dog aggression incident, you need to talk to your local council. The only reason council acts on complaints at all is to reduce their own liability, so I don't see why they would want to make the process any more complicated or risky for them than it is now.

I think this law is workable. There are already dogs that have been declared menacing and who are now living behind secure fences.

[55chevy]

Greytmate; declaring a dog menacing because someone thinks it's menacing to them is not good, just you wait til someone says your dog looks mean i'm reporting it!! It is a proposterous, unworkable and completely non sensical way of curbing animal attacks.

You want better dogs in society, change society.

In 2008 I spent a lot of time in consultation with the department about the new state act , and I did speak to them about that particular law.

Did anyone explain why the dangerous dog law was not enough, since it already covered dogs who "scare" others? And already had all the required penalties applied?

The dangerous dog law was too much.

The new law means that dogs that cause (reasonable people) to be fearful, or who are only involved in a minor incident don't all have to be declared dangerous any more. There is now an option for council to give a milder penalty than just having to declare a dog dangerous.

The standard fencing laws are written fairly weakly though, which is fine given that most people make sure that they have an appropriate fence for their dog. But not all dog owners do bother with appropriate fencing, and this law enables council to act on aggressive dogs that are behind dangerously deteriorating fences. It is a prevention thing.

Greytmate,

Would you say that a barking dog behind a good 6 foot colourbond fence would be considered appropriately secured to aviod a menacing dog order???

[Staranais]

Greytmate; declaring a dog menacing because someone thinks it's menacing to them is not good, just you wait til someone says your dog looks mean i'm reporting it!! It is a proposterous, unworkable and completely non sensical way of curbing animal attacks.

You want better dogs in society, change society.

In 2008 I spent a lot of time in consultation with the department about the new state act , and I did speak to them about that particular law.

Did anyone explain why the dangerous dog law was not enough, since it already covered dogs who "scare" others? And already had all the required penalties applied?

The dangerous dog law was too much.

The new law means that dogs that cause (reasonable people) to be fearful, or who are only involved in a minor incident don't all have to be declared dangerous any more. There is now an option for council to give a milder penalty than just having to declare a dog dangerous.

The standard fencing laws are written fairly weakly though, which is fine given that most people make sure that they have an appropriate fence for their dog. But not all dog owners do bother with appropriate fencing, and this law enables council to act on aggressive dogs that are behind dangerously deteriorating fences. It is a prevention thing.

Greytmate,

Would you say that a barking dog behind a good 6 foot colourbond fence would be considered appropriately secured to aviod a menacing dog order???

But what if it still scares someone? People aren't always rational about what scares them. So does the owner have to build an even bigger fence, then?

I've had a woman act terrified as I walked my dog past her on the street (politely, on leash), turns out she was just terrified of anything that looked like a GSD. Goodness knows what she would have done if the dog had barked. I don't think that makes my dog menacing, but it sounds like technically, under this law, the dog could be declared so just on her word that the dog was scary?

[geo]

I managed it when I lived in a corner unit. But if your yard is too small for a dog, don't get one.

It would be lovely if we spent millions on setting up a proper criminal justice system for dogs, where they can be tried by a magistrate and they are innocent until proven guilty and proper evidence is supplied.

There is still the community expectation that council should deal with aggressive dogs, and councils will deal with them as efficiently as they can.

The only reason council acts on complaints at all is to reduce their own liability, so I don't see why they would want to make the process any more complicated or risky for them than it is now.

I think this law is workable. There are already dogs that have been declared menacing and who are now living behind secure fences.

I agree people with little to no back yards should proably not own dogs, but having a secure fence is good enough for me, though totally warranted with some dogs.

Community expectation: Little to none as we know how apethetic the Australian nation is so why should they generally give a second though to menacing dogs, for most the only thing they know about the "laws" is what Current Affairs tells them. It seems the only people who do care are responsible dog owners who're trying to make it better, but then we all have different views as this thread certainly shows.

Maybe more community consultation and information would help.

If councils are going to enforce the law they help create, they can bloody well be held responsible and liable for their actions taken. As should dog owners be liable for their dogs.

We all pay our rates and expect professional service not half arsed band aid remedies, that will serve little purpose in protectin the public.

If you could imagine a demographic of likely irresponsible owners are they likely to follow council guidelines? remember the council has to rely on the public for a complaint first and in your typical housing estate that may not happen. Then when they do get a complaint, said owner is just as likely to move as he/she wouldn't own the house or get rid of his dog. So in effect it will not stop these types of owners.

Then you have a good owner with a secure fence, though he owns a large breed that likes to woof when another dog pisses on his fenceline.

The thing is this owner lives in a nice area, where people like the suburb to be quiet and don't like riff raff with large dogs, (because all ruffians own large dogs and have tattoos don't you know:). So nana down the road complains 'cause she missed what Kerri Anne was talking about, next thing, whammo council restriction.

It seems like this law may create more work and waste more time for the council, as the decent owners will fight everything to clear a good dogs name.

[Greytmate]

Greytmate; declaring a dog menacing because someone thinks it's menacing to them is not good, just you wait til someone says your dog looks mean i'm reporting it!! It is a proposterous, unworkable and completely non sensical way of curbing animal attacks.

You want better dogs in society, change society.

In 2008 I spent a lot of time in consultation with the department about the new state act , and I did speak to them about that particular law.

Did anyone explain why the dangerous dog law was not enough, since it already covered dogs who "scare" others? And already had all the required penalties applied?

The dangerous dog law was too much.

The new law means that dogs that cause (reasonable people) to be fearful, or who are only involved in a minor incident don't all have to be declared dangerous any more. There is now an option for council to give a milder penalty than just having to declare a dog dangerous.

The standard fencing laws are written fairly weakly though, which is fine given that most people make sure that they have an appropriate fence for their dog. But not all dog owners do bother with appropriate fencing, and this law enables council to act on aggressive dogs that are behind dangerously deteriorating fences. It is a prevention thing.

Greytmate,

Would you say that a barking dog behind a good 6 foot colourbond fence would be considered appropriately secured to aviod a menacing dog order???

I would guess so if the fence is secure and people cannot inadvertently enter the dog's yard if they were wanting to knock on the front door.

If the dog is throwing itself against the fence and damaging it, things might be different.

I would expect the ACO to inspect properly. It is a bit pointless discussing hypothetical situations.

If the barking is excessive it comes under a different law, that we already have in place.

But what if it still scares someone? People aren't always rational about what scares them. So does the owner have to build an even bigger fence, then?

I've had a woman act terrified as I walked my dog past her on the street (politely, on leash), turns out she was just terrified of anything that looked like a GSD. Goodness knows what she would have done if the dog had barked. I don't think that makes my dog menacing, but it sounds like technically, under this law, the dog could be declared so just on her word that the dog was scary?

The enforcement process requires ACOs to make decisions on what a 'reasonable' person would think. It is unreasonable to fear most dogs. The fear might be very real, but if it is created by past experience and not by the actions of the dog being investigated, the council would be unlikely to act.

[kyliestar]

Under the new laws, introduced last year, dogs can be declared menacing if they cause fear, which could include a behaviour such as rushing at a person on the other side of a fence.

Oh good god, that's ridiculous. If someone's really scared of dogs, then me walking my girl past them on a leash could "cause fear". That's their problem, it shouldn't be made into ours.

I read it the opposite way, all those nasty little mongrels that rush at you while you are walking past their front yard. You should be able to go for a walk without having to plan your trip to get past these ferals safely.

we live near a high school and our back fence runs along the pathway, young kids bang on the fence as they go past and taunt him, so he barks whenever someone walks past, this is hardly menacing, he can't get out and he is only reacting to other people intimidating him yet this behaviour could be reported and could have him put down. ridiculous.

[Greytmate]

we live near a high school and our back fence runs along the pathway, young kids bang on the fence as they go past and taunt him, so he barks whenever someone walks past, this is hardly menacing, he can't get out and he is only reacting to other people intimidating him yet this behaviour could be reported and could have him put down. ridiculous.

Your comment is ridiculous.

Nobody is even talking about putting dogs down. That isn't what this law is about at all.

If you keep your dog where people can taunt it and intimidate it, I feel very sorry for it. That doesn't sound like a good environment for a dog.

[geo]

If you keep your dog where people can taunt it and intimidate it, I feel very sorry for it. That doesn't sound like a good environment for a dog.

Greytmate, should we change everything in our lives because of rude little kids. How about when they do tease the dog you wait outside for them and amend their behavior.

Your comment is like me saying, "I better not send my kid to school because she may get taunted their and that's not a good environment for a kid"!!!

better keep her at home then eh?

[55chevy]

Greytmate; declaring a dog menacing because someone thinks it's menacing to them is not good, just you wait til someone says your dog looks mean i'm reporting it!! It is a proposterous, unworkable and completely non sensical way of curbing animal attacks.

You want better dogs in society, change society.

In 2008 I spent a lot of time in consultation with the department about the new state act , and I did speak to them about that particular law.

Did anyone explain why the dangerous dog law was not enough, since it already covered dogs who "scare" others? And already had all the required penalties applied?

The dangerous dog law was too much.

The new law means that dogs that cause (reasonable people) to be fearful, or who are only involved in a minor incident don't all have to be declared dangerous any more. There is now an option for council to give a milder penalty than just having to declare a dog dangerous.

The standard fencing laws are written fairly weakly though, which is fine given that most people make sure that they have an appropriate fence for their dog. But not all dog owners do bother with appropriate fencing, and this law enables council to act on aggressive dogs that are behind dangerously deteriorating fences. It is a prevention thing.

Greytmate,

Would you say that a barking dog behind a good 6 foot colourbond fence would be considered appropriately secured to aviod a menacing dog order???

But what if it still scares someone? People aren't always rational about what scares them. So does the owner have to build an even bigger fence, then?

I've had a woman act terrified as I walked my dog past her on the street (politely, on leash), turns out she was just terrified of anything that looked like a GSD. Goodness knows what she would have done if the dog had barked. I don't think that makes my dog menacing, but it sounds like technically, under this law, the dog could be declared so just on her word that the dog was scary?

I think a solicitors involvement could shut that scenario down fairly quickly and is probably the reason the law is not acted upon in large proportions being too difficult to make accurate assessments of a dog that hasn't done anything versus someone's state of mind. Some attacks and bites don't aquire enough evidence for prosecution at times and trying to prove fear, good luck, I am thinking even if someone wet their pants, they could have done so purposely to exaggerate the situation

Edited November 27, 2010 by 55chevy