More Laws That Will Probably Go Unenforced...

[tdierikx]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/rangers-will-be-given-power-to-remove-menacing-dogs-20130819-2s7dz.html

State cabinet is expected to approve a new category of "menacing or potentially dangerous dog" within days following the fatal attack on toddler Deeon Higgins at Deniliquin this month.

Under existing legislation there are restrictions on two types of dogs - "dangerous" dogs and five breeds of "restricted" dogs.

The Companion Animals Act will be amended to allow council rangers to declare a dog "potentially dangerous" and take it off the streets if it has shown "aggressive tendencies", even if it does not have a history of attacks.

Local Government Minister Don Page foreshadowed the move at a budget estimates hearing when answering a question from opposition local government spokeswoman Sophie Cotsis. Ms Cotsis said there had been nearly 10,000 dog attacks in NSW in the past two years and Mr Page had failed to act on a report from the Companion Animals Taskforce that had been sitting on his desk since February.

Advertisement

Mr Page said menacing dogs may not have to be secured in a childproof enclosure like a dangerous dog but would need to be on a lead and possibly muzzled if taken out in public. "Certainly it would need to be under the control of a person over 18 years of age," he said.

Cabinet will consider adding to the restricted dog breeds and recovery of registration fees from the 600,000 dogs in NSW that are microchipped but not registered.

*sigh*

T.

[tdierikx]

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/nsw-to-introduce-new-dog-law-after-attacks/story-e6frfku9-1226701003867

THE NSW government will toughen the state's dog laws, including introducing a new category of menacing dogs, following a recent fatal attack on a toddler.

The changes follows the death of two-year-old Deeon Higgins, who was mauled by his cousin's bullmastiff in Deniliquin in the state's southwest this month. The dog had not been considered dangerous before the attack.

Councils will be able to order the owners of dogs that have not attacked but are deemed aggressive to have their dogs desexed, wear a muzzle and never to be left alone with someone under the age of 18, The Daily Telegraph has reported.

Owners who ignore the tough rules for dogs categorised as menacing, dangerous or restricted will face maximum jail time of five years if their dog then attacks.

Under current legislation a dog has to attack before it can be declared dangerous.

"This is a more proactive approach that is followed in other jurisdictions," Local Government Minister Don Page told the newspaper.

Fines will increase to a maximum of $77,000 from $55,000 for owners who fail to comply.

The NSW government originally received recommendations for tougher dog laws from the Companion Animals Taskforce in February, the Telegraph said.

----------------------

What isn't mentioned is how a dog will be identified as being "dangerous" or "potentially dangerous" - or in the words of this article "deemed aggressive"...

T.

[melzawelza]

IF this is implemented properly it could be a really good thing.

Currently the only option we have following an attack that puts ANY restriction whatsoever on how the dog is managed is a Dangerous Dog declaration. This entails the full enclosure, with a concrete floor, walls and a roof, which costs at least 3k to build and can't be complied with by people in apartments or townhouses. This is absolute overkill for most dog attacks, which are fairly minor in nature and with some education and management would never happen again, especially if the backyard is already secure and the incident didn't happen as a result of an escape, and what you have is Council officers either going overkill with a dangerous dog declaration (which could result in the dog being destroyed if the owner can't comply) or under-kill and simply issuing a fine but placing no restriction on the dog or the owner.

Having the ability to get a dog muzzled and on-leash in public with a secure backyard but WITHOUT the incredibly onerous enclosure could be a huge win for the dogs in some cases (where they would have been declared dangerous and had to live a terrible life or be euthanased) or for the community in others (when really the dog needs some restrictions but the Council can't do so without the whole hog and therefore doesn't).

I remain sceptical at this point as to whether this will actually be written and implemented in a workable way, seeing as no one actually on the ground enforcing these laws has been consulted. But I live in hope.

ETA that most Councils go the overkill route since the Tyra Kehune case. It's better to take too much action than not enough and something else happen. So if it's implemented properly this could be really good for dog owners and save a hell of a lot of dead dogs or dogs living their lives in a cage that don't need to.

Edited August 20, 2013 by melzawelza

[WreckitWhippet]

Doesn't do a thing to stop the attacks that occur by "known" dogs. Children especially, are often bitten in the family home or that or a friend or relative by a known dog.

Secure dogs and yards and we won't have to worry about additional legislation for "menacing" dogs. There's already a law that says you keep your dog in your own yard and when it's out it's on a leash, unless it's a designated leash free area. Surely there's enough there

[RuralPug]

And how will that stop another attack like that of poor little Deeon? That dog had no history of rushing or aggression to people and was safely confined in its own yard.

'Tis cheaper to knee-jerk legislate than find the funding to educate dog owners and child carers about managing interactions.

Wreckit has it right - the laws that are already there are not being enforced, why add new ones that will be ignored in the same way?

[melzawelza]

Council officers have been asking for a lesser category of Dangerous Dog without the enclosure for at least the last three years, and this recommendation was made in Feb. Deeon hasn't prompted this, but it's made the Minister stop ignoring it. You're absolutely right that it wouldn't prevent what happened to Deoon. It won't prevent most attacks, because it's still only focusing on punitive measures rather than education and incentives for responsible pet ownership. But if it's implemented properly it will offer a better outcome for a lot of dogs that have been involved in an incident while still keeping the community safe.

[Alyosha]

And the dog in the Deeon case was a pig hunting dog. So already subject to Dangerous Dog restrictions under the Act. Should have been in a suitable enclosure etc. If the law had been complied with the child would be alive.

Although this new thing doesn't necessarily sound like massive overkill - I agree with the thread title. How about enforcing what is already legislated instead of bringing in new things??

[Sheilaheel02]

I agree that this will not necessarily have any impact on attacks by 'known' dogs. What greatly concerns me is the definition of 'potentially' dangerous and the interpretation. Personally, I think legislation has the 'potential' to impact a lot of dogs who are exhibiting normal canine behaviour. It will only take someone who has limited dog experience, is naturally fearful of dogs, or even vindictive to make a complaint.

I would support legislation if it could be proven to be effective at preventing dog attacks, but I am far from convinced this will and I can't abide the term 'potentially'. Surely, ethically, innocent until proven guilty and basic rights should apply whether you are human or canine?

Every day of our lives we put ourselves in scenarios that are potentially dangerous, whether that is by necessity or choice. We need to own it and stop trying to always place the blame elsewhere. The bottom line is you cannot legislate against stupidity and we live in reality (hopefully), not an artificial cocoon.

S

[Tempus Fugit]

And the dog in the Deeon case was a pig hunting dog. So already subject to Dangerous Dog restrictions under the Act. Should have been in a suitable enclosure etc. If the law had been complied with the child would be alive.

Although this new thing doesn't necessarily sound like massive overkill - I agree with the thread title. How about enforcing what is already legislated instead of bringing in new things??

I thought Kingston's owner denied that he had been used for pig hunting?

I wouldn't be surprised though if the freezer had been used to store dog meat along with the ice creams.

[OSoSwift]

Doesn't do a thing to stop the attacks that occur by "known" dogs. Children especially, are often bitten in the family home or that or a friend or relative by a known dog.

Secure dogs and yards and we won't have to worry about additional legislation for "menacing" dogs. There's already a law that says you keep your dog in your own yard and when it's out it's on a leash, unless it's a designated leash free area. Surely there's enough there

exactly what I was going to say.

[Dame Aussie]

Doesn't do a thing to stop the attacks that occur by "known" dogs. Children especially, are often bitten in the family home or that or a friend or relative by a known dog.

Secure dogs and yards and we won't have to worry about additional legislation for "menacing" dogs. There's already a law that says you keep your dog in your own yard and when it's out it's on a leash, unless it's a designated leash free area. Surely there's enough there

exactly what I was going to say.

Me too.

[LOLAFOLATA]

As much as I hate more laws, I wish legislation was brought in to stop backyard breeding of potentially dangerous dogs. I was looking on gumtree/trading post and shocked to see the numbers of large/giant cross breed pups being advertised. ie MastiffxBullmastiffxNeoxWolfiex???x???. Just reading some of the different crosses was making me feel sick. Some aren't even attractive puppies.

It horrifies me to think of some of these pups, possibly from parents with questionable temperaments, most likely ending up in the wrong hands. They're also adding to a huge canine population that can hardly be supported now. Many are purchased by irresponsible idiots, kept entire and allowed to breed indisciminately. And so it goes on.

The powers that be try bandaid solutions to be seen to address these problems. If they were truly genuine in their endeavours, they would start investing time and money to stop these potential killers being bred in the first place.

JMO

[tdierikx]

If the current laws were being enforced re mandatory microchipping (in NSW), the number of BYB's would decline...

T.

[ruthless]

As much as I hate more laws, I wish legislation was brought in to stop backyard breeding of potentially dangerous dogs.

All dogs are potentially dangerous.

[Dame Aussie]

As much as I hate more laws, I wish legislation was brought in to stop backyard breeding of potentially dangerous dogs.

All dogs are potentially dangerous.

You took the words out of my mouth.

[melzawelza]

As much as I hate more laws, I wish legislation was brought in to stop backyard breeding of potentially dangerous dogs.

All dogs are potentially dangerous.

You took the words out of my mouth.

And mine.

No successful animal management strategy in the world has ever succeeded by focusing on breeding.