Jump to content

My Greyhounds Were Attacked Today :(


Recommended Posts

The fact that these two dogs were intent on taking on 2 much larger dogs just for the hell of it speaks volumes for the fact that one slip up by the owner, and it will certainly happen again.

At the very least they should be slapped with a menacing dog order - on top of the already issued fines and any other restitution required in the way of vet costs for Maddie and Stan's treatment.

I couldn't give 2 shits if the owner of those dogs was financially viable or not - her dogs have attacked without provocation and caused injury to innocent parties - she needs to step up to her responsibilities in owning dogs that are aggressive towards other animals (there's no 100% correlation between DA and HA, so I'm not bringing up the "what if it were a child" argument - but plenty of others have).

HW - what was the doctor's verdict on your hand and foot injuries?

T.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

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.

Edited by mita
Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps my use of the words "scott free" was inconsidered. What I meant, was that despite the severity of the attacks on HazyWal's dogs and consequent injuries to herself, the woman and her dogs are going to be unaffected, except for the fines. :shrug: Maybe not scott free in financial terms but certainly scott free in terms of being held responsible and being seen to be held responsible by the relevant authorities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I understand on one hand what you're saying Melzawelza, I still don't understand how dogs who have attacked in such a vicious and unprovoked manner can have a determination made that they aren't to be declared dangerous. Absolutely each case should be taken on its merits and an attack of a much lesser nature or that was provoked, might very justly not result in a dog not being declared dangerous, particularly if measures are put in place to ensure it doesn't happen again and if needed, the owner participates in a behaviour modification program. Dogs that will attack unprovoked and with the intent to do serious damage, as in the attack on HW's dogs, do not have a place in our society or at the very least, should only be allowed to remain in the care of their owner under the strictest of conditions. Financial penalties for the owner do not prevent this from happening to another dog.

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

Because the Police don't administer and enforce the legislation which relates to companion animals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want something done go to the News Papers contact the local TV and go from their, nothing like a bit of public opinion to turn the tide against these dogs that attacked.

People love human interest stories.

Good luck.

I would go through council and exhaust all avenues there first (within a specific time frame).

Keep media up your sleeve though as council hate bad media!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the owner of the attacking dogs is unemployed, then she just may qualify for Legal Aid. That would either be free or not very much cost to her. My guess is Legal Aid would be far cheaper than paying the ongoing veterinary and medical expenses for dogs and owner. Legal Aid does have a means test, as far as I know.

I very much doubt Legal Aid would assist in any way shape or form.

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

Because the Police don't administer and enforce the legislation which relates to companion animals.

Yep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If my dogs did that I would take them to the vet to be put to sleep - I do not want to own dogs who behave in that way.

If, for some reason that is just beyond my capabilities to fathom, someone does want to own dogs that would behave in this manner then such dogs need to be adequately contained in a manner that does not mean they can be inadvertantly let out.

What I do want is to be able to walk my dogs without fear and for other people to be able to do the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not understanding why her financial circumstances should be taken into account, all that should be considered is the hazard posed by the dogs. If they pose a risk to passersby then they need to be treated appropriately.

Yes mistakes happen but if this person now understands what their dogs are likely to do then they should of their own accord be taking steps to up their containment. If they can't afford to do so then they can't afford these dogs. The public do not need to be exposed to risk because of the owners lack of financial resources. I'm appalled that on top of being subjected to an attack you must now go through further trouble HW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not understanding why her financial circumstances should be taken into account, all that should be considered is the hazard posed by the dogs. If they pose a risk to passersby then they need to be treated appropriately.

Yes mistakes happen but if this person now understands what their dogs are likely to do then they should of their own accord be taking steps to up their containment. If they can't afford to do so then they can't afford these dogs. The public do not need to be exposed to risk because of the owners lack of financial resources. I'm appalled that on top of being subjected to an attack you must now go through further trouble HW.

Well said, Hankdog.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we now focusing on whether or not the dog owner is unemployed, partnered, eligible for Legal Aid etc.,? That's not our business. The Council's business is to assess if she has the ability and sense to keep her DA dogs strictly contained to her own property or if they need to declare them as Dangerous Dogs.

If she is not smart enough and dedicated enough to keep her dogs contained (in the opinion of the Council) then the dogs should be euthanised because this is very likely to happen next time someone inadvertently leaves her front gate open. These dogs should not have had access to the front gate.

Together with the fines she has already incurred she should pay any further vet costs for HazyWals dogs and her medical costs if any. The suggestion of a Dangerous Dogs sign on the fence is a good idea. Surely the Council could manage to convince the dog owner of these conditions...or else. The Council has a choice about whether to declare these dogs as Dangerous Dogs with all the attendant DD conditions and apparently they're not inclined to do so.

I don't like the idea of euthanising dogs because of owner stupidity though I'm sure I'd feel differently if my dogs were attacked. Many on here have DA dogs but they're responsible owners who take necessary precautions. I've owned a DA dog that I took in as a stray and subsequently found the owner who didn't want him. He lived to be 15yo without having the opportunity to attack other dogs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the council won't act on the basis of the injuries to the dogs, wouldn't the injuries HW suffered put the attack into a different category?? I can't believe they aren't taking stronger action based on Stan and Maddy's injuries, but surely once a person is injured too they need to take it much, much further?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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:

24 Enclosure requirements for dangerous or restricted dogs

(1) For the purposes of sections 51 (1) © and 56 (1) (a1) of the Act, the requirements set out in subclauses (2)–(4) are prescribed as the requirements that must be complied with in relation to an enclosure for a dangerous or restricted dog.

(2) The enclosure must:

(a) be fully enclosed, constructed and maintained in such a way so that the dog is not able to dig or otherwise escape under, over or through the enclosure, and

(b) be constructed in such a way so that a person cannot have access to it without the assistance of an occupier of the property who is above the age of 18 years, and

© be designed to prevent children from having access to the enclosure, and

(d) not be located on the property in such a way so that people are required to pass through the enclosure to gain access to other parts of the property, and

(e) have a minimum height of 1.8 m and a minimum width of 1.8 m, and

(f) have an area of not less than 10 square metres for each dangerous or restricted dog kept on the property, and

(g) have walls that are fixed to the floor and constructed to be no more than 50 mm from the floor, and

(h) have walls, a fixed covering and a gate that are constructed of:

(i) brick, timber, iron or similar solid materials, or

(ii) mesh that complies with subclause (4), or

(iii) a combination of the materials referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), and

(i) have a floor that is constructed of sealed concrete and graded to fall to a drain for the removal of effluent, and

(j) provide a weatherproof sleeping area of sufficient dimensions to enable each dangerous or restricted dog kept on the property to shelter from the weather.

(3) Any gate to the enclosure must:

(a) contain a self-closing and self-latching mechanism that enables the enclosure to be securely locked when the dog is in the enclosure, and

(b) be kept locked when the dog is in the enclosure, and

© display the warning sign referred to in clause 26.

(4) Mesh used in the construction of an enclosure must be:

(a) chain mesh manufactured from at least 3.15 mm wire to form a maximum mesh spacing of 50 mm, or

(b) weldmesh manufactured from at least 4 mm wire with a maximum mesh spacing of 50 mm.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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:

24 Enclosure requirements for dangerous or restricted dogs

(1) For the purposes of sections 51 (1) © and 56 (1) (a1) of the Act, the requirements set out in subclauses (2)–(4) are prescribed as the requirements that must be complied with in relation to an enclosure for a dangerous or restricted dog.

(2) The enclosure must:

(a) be fully enclosed, constructed and maintained in such a way so that the dog is not able to dig or otherwise escape under, over or through the enclosure, and

(b) be constructed in such a way so that a person cannot have access to it without the assistance of an occupier of the property who is above the age of 18 years, and

© be designed to prevent children from having access to the enclosure, and

(d) not be located on the property in such a way so that people are required to pass through the enclosure to gain access to other parts of the property, and

(e) have a minimum height of 1.8 m and a minimum width of 1.8 m, and

(f) have an area of not less than 10 square metres for each dangerous or restricted dog kept on the property, and

(g) have walls that are fixed to the floor and constructed to be no more than 50 mm from the floor, and

(h) have walls, a fixed covering and a gate that are constructed of:

(i) brick, timber, iron or similar solid materials, or

(ii) mesh that complies with subclause (4), or

(iii) a combination of the materials referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), and

(i) have a floor that is constructed of sealed concrete and graded to fall to a drain for the removal of effluent, and

(j) provide a weatherproof sleeping area of sufficient dimensions to enable each dangerous or restricted dog kept on the property to shelter from the weather.

(3) Any gate to the enclosure must:

(a) contain a self-closing and self-latching mechanism that enables the enclosure to be securely locked when the dog is in the enclosure, and

(b) be kept locked when the dog is in the enclosure, and

© display the warning sign referred to in clause 26.

(4) Mesh used in the construction of an enclosure must be:

(a) chain mesh manufactured from at least 3.15 mm wire to form a maximum mesh spacing of 50 mm, or

(b) weldmesh manufactured from at least 4 mm wire with a maximum mesh spacing of 50 mm.

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.

47 Control orders

(1) A control order is an order of a Court that the owner of a dog take such action (other than destroying the dog) within the period specified in the order as the Court thinks necessary to prevent, or reduce the likelihood of, the dog attacking or causing injury to persons or animals.

(2) A control order can be made by a Court in the following circumstances:

(a) in proceedings for an offence under section 16, 17, 49, 51 or 56 of this Act, or under section 35A of the Crimes Act 1900,

(b) on an appeal under this Act against the declaration by an authorised officer of a council that a dog is dangerous or against a council’s refusal to revoke such a declaration,

© on the Court declaring the dog to be a dangerous dog or a menacing dog under Division 2.

(3) The action that a control order can require the owner of a dog to take includes (without limiting any of the requirements that apply in relation to the dog under section 51 or 56) the following action:

(a) the desexing of the dog,

(b) the behavioural or socialisation training of the dog,

© training that is associated with responsible pet ownership.

(4) A control order can be made in addition to any other order made by the Court in the proceedings concerned.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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:

24 Enclosure requirements for dangerous or restricted dogs

(1) For the purposes of sections 51 (1) © and 56 (1) (a1) of the Act, the requirements set out in subclauses (2)–(4) are prescribed as the requirements that must be complied with in relation to an enclosure for a dangerous or restricted dog.

(2) The enclosure must:

(a) be fully enclosed, constructed and maintained in such a way so that the dog is not able to dig or otherwise escape under, over or through the enclosure, and

(b) be constructed in such a way so that a person cannot have access to it without the assistance of an occupier of the property who is above the age of 18 years, and

© be designed to prevent children from having access to the enclosure, and

(d) not be located on the property in such a way so that people are required to pass through the enclosure to gain access to other parts of the property, and

(e) have a minimum height of 1.8 m and a minimum width of 1.8 m, and

(f) have an area of not less than 10 square metres for each dangerous or restricted dog kept on the property, and

(g) have walls that are fixed to the floor and constructed to be no more than 50 mm from the floor, and

(h) have walls, a fixed covering and a gate that are constructed of:

(i) brick, timber, iron or similar solid materials, or

(ii) mesh that complies with subclause (4), or

(iii) a combination of the materials referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), and

(i) have a floor that is constructed of sealed concrete and graded to fall to a drain for the removal of effluent, and

(j) provide a weatherproof sleeping area of sufficient dimensions to enable each dangerous or restricted dog kept on the property to shelter from the weather.

(3) Any gate to the enclosure must:

(a) contain a self-closing and self-latching mechanism that enables the enclosure to be securely locked when the dog is in the enclosure, and

(b) be kept locked when the dog is in the enclosure, and

© display the warning sign referred to in clause 26.

(4) Mesh used in the construction of an enclosure must be:

(a) chain mesh manufactured from at least 3.15 mm wire to form a maximum mesh spacing of 50 mm, or

(b) weldmesh manufactured from at least 4 mm wire with a maximum mesh spacing of 50 mm.

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.

47 Control orders

(1) A control order is an order of a Court that the owner of a dog take such action (other than destroying the dog) within the period specified in the order as the Court thinks necessary to prevent, or reduce the likelihood of, the dog attacking or causing injury to persons or animals.

(2) A control order can be made by a Court in the following circumstances:

(a) in proceedings for an offence under section 16, 17, 49, 51 or 56 of this Act, or under section 35A of the Crimes Act 1900,

(b) on an appeal under this Act against the declaration by an authorised officer of a council that a dog is dangerous or against a council’s refusal to revoke such a declaration,

© on the Court declaring the dog to be a dangerous dog or a menacing dog under Division 2.

(3) The action that a control order can require the owner of a dog to take includes (without limiting any of the requirements that apply in relation to the dog under section 51 or 56) the following action:

(a) the desexing of the dog,

(b) the behavioural or socialisation training of the dog,

© training that is associated with responsible pet ownership.

(4) A control order can be made in addition to any other order made by the Court in the proceedings concerned.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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:

24 Enclosure requirements for dangerous or restricted dogs

(1) For the purposes of sections 51 (1) © and 56 (1) (a1) of the Act, the requirements set out in subclauses (2)–(4) are prescribed as the requirements that must be complied with in relation to an enclosure for a dangerous or restricted dog.

(2) The enclosure must:

(a) be fully enclosed, constructed and maintained in such a way so that the dog is not able to dig or otherwise escape under, over or through the enclosure, and

(b) be constructed in such a way so that a person cannot have access to it without the assistance of an occupier of the property who is above the age of 18 years, and

© be designed to prevent children from having access to the enclosure, and

(d) not be located on the property in such a way so that people are required to pass through the enclosure to gain access to other parts of the property, and

(e) have a minimum height of 1.8 m and a minimum width of 1.8 m, and

(f) have an area of not less than 10 square metres for each dangerous or restricted dog kept on the property, and

(g) have walls that are fixed to the floor and constructed to be no more than 50 mm from the floor, and

(h) have walls, a fixed covering and a gate that are constructed of:

(i) brick, timber, iron or similar solid materials, or

(ii) mesh that complies with subclause (4), or

(iii) a combination of the materials referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), and

(i) have a floor that is constructed of sealed concrete and graded to fall to a drain for the removal of effluent, and

(j) provide a weatherproof sleeping area of sufficient dimensions to enable each dangerous or restricted dog kept on the property to shelter from the weather.

(3) Any gate to the enclosure must:

(a) contain a self-closing and self-latching mechanism that enables the enclosure to be securely locked when the dog is in the enclosure, and

(b) be kept locked when the dog is in the enclosure, and

© display the warning sign referred to in clause 26.

(4) Mesh used in the construction of an enclosure must be:

(a) chain mesh manufactured from at least 3.15 mm wire to form a maximum mesh spacing of 50 mm, or

(b) weldmesh manufactured from at least 4 mm wire with a maximum mesh spacing of 50 mm.

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.

47 Control orders

(1) A control order is an order of a Court that the owner of a dog take such action (other than destroying the dog) within the period specified in the order as the Court thinks necessary to prevent, or reduce the likelihood of, the dog attacking or causing injury to persons or animals.

(2) A control order can be made by a Court in the following circumstances:

(a) in proceedings for an offence under section 16, 17, 49, 51 or 56 of this Act, or under section 35A of the Crimes Act 1900,

(b) on an appeal under this Act against the declaration by an authorised officer of a council that a dog is dangerous or against a council’s refusal to revoke such a declaration,

© on the Court declaring the dog to be a dangerous dog or a menacing dog under Division 2.

(3) The action that a control order can require the owner of a dog to take includes (without limiting any of the requirements that apply in relation to the dog under section 51 or 56) the following action:

(a) the desexing of the dog,

(b) the behavioural or socialisation training of the dog,

© training that is associated with responsible pet ownership.

(4) A control order can be made in addition to any other order made by the Court in the proceedings concerned.

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.

Edited by melzawelza
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...