Jump to content

My Greyhounds Were Attacked Today :(


Recommended Posts

What I just don't understand is that councils will impound dogs because of what they look like but seem unwilling to take action when there is an issue. I am sure I am not alone in thinking this!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 469
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What I just don't understand is that councils will impound dogs because of what they look like but seem unwilling to take action when there is an issue. I am sure I am not alone in thinking this!!

You certainly aren't :mad:mad .

I might be defaming some good people, but very generally speaking, I think council workers are extremely under-committed and not at all bothered whether they do a good job or not.

From some of the stories told on this forum, it seems to be getting worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you need help to pay the ongoing vet costs? I am happy to send some dollars. Do not be ashamed to ask.

Count me in as well.

Or, if HW is too genteel to ask, let's simply do something in any case to show we stand with her and her lovely dogs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I just don't understand is that councils will impound dogs because of what they look like but seem unwilling to take action when there is an issue. I am sure I am not alone in thinking this!!

It's f*$#&ing ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I just don't understand is that councils will impound dogs because of what they look like but seem unwilling to take action when there is an issue. I am sure I am not alone in thinking this!!

It's f*$#&ing ridiculous.

It is because Councils appear to get away with these issues.

Grossly unfair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds so wrong to me :( who is the victim in all of this? It's BS that people take no responsibility for their animals :mad

I hope Stan and Maddie are feeling ok today ...give them an ear scratch and cuddle from me :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like she started out doing the right thing but has now gotten some legal advice. Now it all gets complicated and ugly and the lawyers make money. How for all concerned.

I hope the dogs and you are feeling better today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I say she is bluffing and hasn't engaged the advice of a solicitor..

I would think a solicitors letter from yours to her, would get her opening her wallet again :)

It might cost you to get the letter done up but I think it would be worth it, if there are going to be ongoing costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the council realise you were injured as a result of the attack too? Surely if a human was injured they are forced to take a harder line approach than simply if they attack another animal?

I'm not angling for the dogs to be euthed but I do think they need to have some sort of order to ensure they are appropriately contained.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes KC. Lets not forget this whole shocking incident could of been a whole lot more shocking. The could have maulded HW. Killed one of her lovely greys These dogs could of grabbed a smaller dog/ or even a child . I mean who knows. They need to be managed accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your never ending support.

Staffyluv I also call bullshit on the solicitor and the ranger said exactly the same today. If she had rung a solicitor and said "um my dogs got out today and attacked two muzzled on lead greyhounds and she wants me to keep paying these damn vet bills" I'm pretty sure said solicitor would say " you better suck it up and pay sunshine because you have broken the law".

Looking at my sweet Maddie struggling through no fault of her own enrages me but I can only do what the NSW laws allow, as pathetic as it is. The fact that this has to happen again to get justice is a joke. The ranger was fantastic today and was also disheartened by the law :(

ETA I went to the police and as I was already told they can do nothing.

Edited by HazyWal
Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you engaged a solicitor and sent her a letter demanding she pay up? Would she escalate or fold?

And I'd be happy to helpful with that cost wise to.

Many years ago I was walking my gap grey in a halti. We were approached by a large breed off lead dog. The dog was stalking us. I stopped and connected the lead to the collar and took off the halti. I wanted my dog to be able to fight back if needed.

The idea of your on lead muzzled greys getting attacked and being unable to defend themselves makes me bloody furious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ETA I went to the police and as I was already told they can do nothing.

That has to be just convenient f**king bullshit.

The woman has committed a crime by not having her dogs properly contained; they have attacked other dogs; they have injured a civilian.

How can they possible stand behind: it isn't in our remit. :mad:mad:mad

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your never ending support.

Staffyluv I also call bullshit on the solicitor and the ranger said exactly the same today. If she had rung a solicitor and said "um my dogs got out today and attacked two muzzled on lead greyhounds and she wants me to keep paying these damn vet bills" I'm pretty sure said solicitor would say " you better suck it up and pay sunshine because you have broken the law".

Looking at my sweet Maddie struggling through no fault of her own enrages me but I can only do what the NSW laws allow, as pathetic as it is. The fact that this has to happen again to get justice is a joke. The ranger was fantastic today and was also disheartened by the law :(

ETA I went to the police and as I was already told they can do nothing.

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.

33 Meaning of “dangerous”

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a dog is dangerous if it:

(a) has, without provocation, attacked or killed a person or animal (other than vermin), or

(b) has, without provocation, repeatedly threatened to attack or repeatedly chased a person or animal (other than vermin), or

© (Repealed)

(d) is kept or used for the purposes of hunting.

33A Meaning of “menacing” and “menacing breed or kind of dog”

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a dog is menacing if it:

(a) has displayed unreasonable aggression towards a person or animal (other than vermin), or

(b) has, without provocation, attacked a person or animal (other than vermin) but without causing serious injury or death.

The Act is here:

NSW Companion Animals Act 1998

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you engaged a solicitor and sent her a letter demanding she pay up? Would she escalate or fold?

Sheridan she told me the other day that she was unemployed and was worried about how she would pay. She paid the bill at EVH via credit card, whether the credit card is full I don't know. Now she has an $1100 fine to pay and if she is as broke as she told me and doesn't pay it within the allotted time her licence and car registration will be cancelled.

Rebanne I'm hearin' you, the screams from both of my dogs I will never forget and my feeble attempts to punch and kick the attacking dogs with my stupid arthritis will haunt me forever. While Maddie is unpredictable with other dogs, and I have made no secret of that I am well aware of what she is capable of, she knew full well she was a beaten favourite on the day and as for poor Stanley...well he didn't have a bloody chance :( I am heartbroken over what has happened but flogging a dead horse is pointless I feel, the law is sadly not on our side even though we abide by it to the letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowing HW as I do, she will not back down you can be assured of that.

I believe the ranger can issue a notice to declare the dogs dangerous, then the owner has 14 days to prove they are not. If they can come up with credible evidence they are not ( I am guessing a behaviourist report) then they can have the order over turned. If it was a second incident it would hold regardless of proof or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...