Jump to content

My Greyhounds Were Attacked Today :(


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 469
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[

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.

Yes, that'd be a good start , mel.

Is there anything in the legislation that says muzzling & signage should be an immediate, urgent requirement? Like in this case, where there's sufficient evidence of deliberate attack on innocent dogs & their owners who were behaving within the law.?

Those two requirements would contribute to community safety, while more detailed assessment was happening.

If it's not in the legislation, it ought to be.

Same principle that a damaged building must be immediately buttressed and signage warnings put on the perimeter.... to protect passing public.

Edited by mita
Link to post
Share on other sites

[

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.

Yes, that'd be a good start , mel.

Is there anything in the legislation that says muzzling & signage should be an immediate, urgent requirement? Like in this case, where there's sufficient evidence of deliberate attack on innocent dogs & their owners who were behaving within the law.?

Those two requirements would contribute to community safety, while more detailed assessment was happening.

If it's not in the legislation, it ought to be.

Same principle that a damaged building must be immediately buttressed and signage warnings put on the perimeter.... to protect passing public.

Not unless the Council has declared the dogs to be dangerous, menacing or restricted. Or if they negotiated a control order with that requirement, but it would need to be signed off in the courts before it would actually be required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[

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.

Yes, that'd be a good start , mel.

Is there anything in the legislation that says muzzling & signage should be an immediate, urgent requirement? Like in this case, where there's sufficient evidence of deliberate attack on innocent dogs & their owners who were behaving within the law.?

Those two requirements would contribute to community safety, while more detailed assessment was happening.

If it's not in the legislation, it ought to be.

Same principle that a damaged building must be immediately buttressed and signage warnings put on the perimeter.... to protect passing public.

Not unless the Council has declared the dogs to be dangerous, menacing or restricted. Or if they negotiated a control order with that requirement, but it would need to be signed off in the courts before it would actually be required.

So, mel, the public get protected from immediately obvious dodgy buildings.... but not from immediately obvious dodgy dogs.

It'd be good if the legislation was altered to allow Councils to slap on an immediate, temporary control order re muzzling & signage.

That is, pending the outcome of further investigations & then relevant application of the legislation for permanent solution.

The temporary measures might be lifted. applied in the long-term, or other solutions put in place.

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.

That's the way I read it Melz that you were talking about yourself as a coucil officer, no need to apologise and I don't expect legal advice on a public forum or even via PM. I am very grateful for the links, the offer of legislation based questions and your well wishes. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for not posting yesterday about my injuries but I had a little bit of a meltdown :(

I had x-rays done this morning on my hand and foot and should have the results at about 4pm. My Doc is concerned about fractures in my hand, maybe the first and second knuckle as well. Because of my arthritis my hands swell like balloons anyway so it was hard for her to tell.

I spoke to a dear old lady on a walking stick who was walking her old Lab past my house this morning as she does everyday. She lives two doors up from these dogs and she told me they are always out, the back fence has fallen down in parts and when she has them out the front they just jump over. She thinks she will be ok as she can hit them with her walking stick but I told her she would have no chance. I asked her if she saw them out to please ring the ranger immediately but she said she doesn't want to get involved :( I can't make her, she a lovely old lady and her hubby has dementia.

ETA I drove past this house this morning and the woman has not even put a chain and lock on the front gate as the ranger advised her to do immediately. It still has a frayed peice of orange string that loops over the gate, this woman has learnt nothing :mad

Edited by HazyWal
Link to post
Share on other sites

[

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.

Yes, that'd be a good start , mel.

Is there anything in the legislation that says muzzling & signage should be an immediate, urgent requirement? Like in this case, where there's sufficient evidence of deliberate attack on innocent dogs & their owners who were behaving within the law.?

Those two requirements would contribute to community safety, while more detailed assessment was happening.

If it's not in the legislation, it ought to be.

Same principle that a damaged building must be immediately buttressed and signage warnings put on the perimeter.... to protect passing public.

Not unless the Council has declared the dogs to be dangerous, menacing or restricted. Or if they negotiated a control order with that requirement, but it would need to be signed off in the courts before it would actually be required.

So, mel, the public get protected from immediately obvious dodgy buildings.... but not from immediately obvious dodgy dogs.

It'd be good if the legislation was altered to allow Councils to slap on an immediate, temporary control order re muzzling & signage.

That is, pending the outcome of further investigations & then relevant application of the legislation for permanent solution.

The temporary measures might be lifted. applied in the long-term, or other solutions put in place.

Potentially you could get a dog muzzled straight away if you issued a notice of intention to declare dangerous or menacing straight away and then investigated while the notice was on the dog(some Councils do do this) but a lot of Councils feel it is best to gather all information first before moving towards orders etc. Usually that only takes a few days. Only a declaration requires signage though.

Council also has the power to seize and impound the dog within 72 hours of an attack and leave it in the pound while investigating. I've done it a few times with attacks that are really serious or if I think that it is likely that another attack could happen while I was investigating and deciding what action to take.

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.

That's the way I read it Melz that you were talking about yourself as a coucil officer, no need to apologise and I don't expect legal advice on a public forum or even via PM. I am very grateful for the links, the offer of legislation based questions and your well wishes. Thank you.

Thanks HazyWal and no problems. I hope whatever the outcome is from Council, that it is the right one and these dogs are never given the opportunity to do the same again. It's totally unacceptable that it's happened and even worse that your poor dogs were muzzled and couldn't defend themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HW - hope your hand will be ok - keep a diary of discussions you have with the ranger - or anyone else. Ring the ranger and say that she has done nothing to the front fence/gate. Sending you positive vibes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you take a photo of it HW and contact the council again?

I was about to suggest the same. Keep on them to do something about it.

--Lhok

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you take a photo of it HW and contact the council again?

I was about to suggest the same. Keep on them to do something about it.

--Lhok

Yep I rang council and the ranger handling my case had left for the day but I spoke to another ranger who noted my reference number and my concerns and my ranger will call me tomorrow. I couldn't take a photo as I was driving and they were sitting on the front verandah with the dogs.

Good news on my hand and foot, no fractures, bruising and soft tissue damage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was really worried about your hand HW... thank dog there's nothing broken!

Seriously! These people are beyond idiotic! They are fully aware of the damage their dogs are capable of, yet they aren't making ANY moves to try to stop another incident happening? I'd be completely livid if I drove past and saw them with the dogs out the front again...

Next time, just stop the car and snap a photo with your phone... bugger what they may think...

If the council don't declare the dogs at least menacing (or put in place a control order), then I'd be going to the media with the whole sorry story - and I'd give the media the address where they live so they can hassle them for good measure!

Funny how if either of the dogs were tan staffy types with red noses, they'd have been declared or euthed already, yes?

T.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So sad that you have to keep fighting and persisting when you have done nothing wrong, things are stressful enough without all that crap. It should have been fixed and dealt with immediately so that you could walk safely and not worry ... It also works on behalf of everyone else that has to walk down the street.

Can't see the point of having laws when councils appear to be able to choose whether or not they will implement them.

I'm glad your hand wasn't broken and send you best wishes for a speedy recovery and a good result with the situation.

Don't give up - you are right to fight. Hope Maddie's a bit better today..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank goodness no broken bones, HazyWal, nevertheless still a bad result for you.

Can't see the point of having laws when councils appear to be able to choose whether or not they will implement them.

All it would take for peace to reign is for the relevant bodies to implement the Companion Animals Act. Few council officers seem to have any will, or commitment, or sense of civic duty, or pride in a job well done.

Edited by Dame Danny's Darling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you take a photo of it HW and contact the council again?

I was about to suggest the same. Keep on them to do something about it.

--Lhok

Yep I rang council and the ranger handling my case had left for the day but I spoke to another ranger who noted my reference number and my concerns and my ranger will call me tomorrow. I couldn't take a photo as I was driving and they were sitting on the front verandah with the dogs.

Good news on my hand and foot, no fractures, bruising and soft tissue damage.

Thank goodness your hand and foot are not broken. Wishing you and the greys a speedy recovery.

--Lhok

Link to post
Share on other sites

So sad that you have to keep fighting and persisting when you have done nothing wrong, things are stressful enough without all that crap. It should have been fixed and dealt with immediately so that you could walk safely and not worry ... It also works on behalf of everyone else that has to walk down the street.

Can't see the point of having laws when councils appear to be able to choose whether or not they will implement them.

I'm glad your hand wasn't broken and send you best wishes for a speedy recovery and a good result with the situation.

Don't give up - you are right to fight. Hope Maddie's a bit better today..

I won't give up...I can't. I will do everything in my power to make sure this stupid woman will not put anyone through this ever again. It is 4 days since our lives changed forever and this woman STILL hasn't taken the simple step of putting a chain and padlock on the gate. I spoke to my next door neighbour today when she saw me struggling to lift Maddie out the car and she was horrified when she saw her injuries, moreso when I told her what had happened. She knew which house it was immediately and said the staffy used to scare her when she walked her old dog (now passed) past the house. I asked her to ring the ranger if she sees them out and she said she would for sure. My next step is to door knock the people I know in the street and ask them to report any time they see them. I know I will get full support as the locals love my greys and will be upset to hear what has happened.

I've feared this for 4 years since I've had my muzzled greys, I knew it would happen it was just a matter of when and stuffed if she will get away with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please consider going to the media with this, HazyWal :( .

I wonder what triggered this attack? I also wonder whether it has happened before, but, as with you, Council seems to be reluctant to take it to a just conclusion and so no one every got to hear about it.

Good luck with your plans.

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...