gillbear Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/nsw-woman-fined-15k-over-qld-dogs-attack/story-e6frfku9-1227120217945 A COUNCIL on Queensland's Sunshine Coast says it will continue pursuing irresponsible dog owners after prosecuting a woman over an attack by her german shepherd. NSW woman Janet Todd Walker was fined $15,000 and convicted of grievous bodily harm after her dog Benny mauled the leg of an 82-year-old man at Caloundra in August. She is the first person to be convicted of grievous bodily harm over a dog mauling in Queensland. The Caloundra Magistrates Court heard the animal had previously been declared dangerous in Ms Walker's home town and she had been ordered to use a muzzle on the dog in public. "This 82-year-old man was out for a stroll, minding his own business, when the dog attacked him and mauled his calf," Sunshine Coast regional council's Sheryl Krome said. The dog was surrendered to council and euthanased. Ms Krome encouraged residents to report attacks and said there had been 20 prosecutions so far in 2014. "It's time dog owners took responsibility of managing and controlling their animals so innocent people and pets are protected." Magistrate Stephanie Tonkin said on Tuesday the owner had an obligation to protect the public and had clearly failed, as she knew the dog was dangerous. The fine was a deterrent to the rest of the community and showed the irresponsible behaviour of the owner was unacceptable, Ms Tonkin said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stressmagnet Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Seems like the wrong species was euthanised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Good. Time to sheet home the responsibility for these kinds of attacks to where it rightly belongs. My sympathies are confined to the gentleman who was attacked and the dog that paid the ultimate price for its owner's failure to control it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhou Xuanyao Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 The problem here, potentially, is that the dog was previously declared dangerous. I wonder if that was a decisive factor in the issuance of the fine and the conviction. I'm tentatively in support of action being taken against the owners of dogs that attack under certain circumstances, but not if it's contingent on prior dangerous dog declarations by council as their declarations are a load of bunk, for example Pitbulls are dangerous dogs straight off the bat, so it would create more bias against Pitbull owners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 The problem here, potentially, is that the dog was previously declared dangerous. I wonder if that was a decisive factor in the issuance of the fine and the conviction. I'm tentatively in support of action being taken against the owners of dogs that attack under certain circumstances, but not if it's contingent on prior dangerous dog declarations by council as their declarations are a load of bunk, for example Pitbulls are dangerous dogs straight off the bat, so it would create more bias against Pitbull owners I don't know about other states but in Tasmania, they are a restricted breed, which isn't a dangerous dog unless it does something to get itself declared a dangerous dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhou Xuanyao Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 In NSW, I understand that all restricted breeds are also dangerous dogs. For evidence, it can be noted that the requirements for keeping a dangerous dog are the same, as far as I can tell, as those for keeping a restricted breed. So, in the event that the previous dangerous dog declaration had a role in the outcome of this case, it makes sense that the precedent is a good fit for restricted breeds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Good to see dog attack considered as GBH! Good to see a fine high enough to deter. It would be good if some of the $$ went to the old fellow. Strange journalism. The guy was attacked. Not just his leg. Hope he recovers well. That can't be taken for granted at 82. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 In NSW, I understand that all restricted breeds are also dangerous dogs. For evidence, it can be noted that the requirements for keeping a dangerous dog are the same, as far as I can tell, as those for keeping a restricted breed. So, in the event that the previous dangerous dog declaration had a role in the outcome of this case, it makes sense that the precedent is a good fit for restricted breeds In NSW a 'dangerous dog' and a 'restricted dog' are not one and the same and the terms are not interchangeable. The requirements for keeping are very similar but on a couple of points they are actually MORE stringent on the 'restricted dog' that has done nothing wrong as opposed to the 'dangerous dog' that has actually been involved in an incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhou Xuanyao Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 That's right, what I mean is that a restricted dog is (effectively) a dangerous dog, but a dangerous dog isn't necessarily a restricted dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 That's right, what I mean is that a restricted dog is (effectively) a dangerous dog, but a dangerous dog isn't necessarily a restricted dog. Ah, yes - they're effectively one and the same as far as keeping requirements. Unfortunately everywhere there is escalating punitive measures for 'declared' dogs includes restricted in that bunch. I have no problems for it being a much harsher penalty if your dog has previously been declared dangerous - as that shows some serious ongoing mismanagement of a dog, but I agree with you that it's ridiculous for a restricted dog to be included in that. Getting rid of BSL is the only real solution to that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbedWire Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Good to see dog attack considered as GBH! Good to see a fine high enough to deter. It would be good if some of the $$ went to the old fellow. Strange journalism. The guy was attacked. Not just his leg. Hope he recovers well. That can't be taken for granted at 82. Totally agree SG. The guy may never feel safe again and his quality of life may be gone forever. So many times it is the elderly who are attack victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhou Xuanyao Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 If the declaration was a factor as speculated then as much as I may see merit under some circumstances, given the balance of interests I can't support this prosecution or others like it; for me, doing so would be digging the discriminitive hole Pitbulls and their owners are in even deeper. Having said that, it's true that the majority of council officers, at least in my experience, don't take the restricted breed rules seriously, but I'm not comfortable about putting my faith in that tacit discretion, the only thing that goes far enough is the official abolition of BSL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alibi Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I watched it on TV, they said the dog had attacked before hence the dangerous dog status. It looked like they had taken the dog with them on a trip as the dog was in a motor home on the news, they lived in NSW and it looked like they had taken the dog on holidays with them to the sunny coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbedWire Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 If the declaration was a factor as speculated then as much as I may see merit under some circumstances, given the balance of interests I can't support this prosecution or others like it; for me, doing so would be digging the discriminitive hole Pitbulls and their owners are in even deeper. Having said that, it's true that the majority of council officers, at least in my experience, don't take the restricted breed rules seriously, but I'm not comfortable about putting my faith in that tacit discretion, the only thing that goes far enough is the official abolition of BSL. With all due respect the dog mentioned in the OP is a German shepherd. BSL has its own forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 If the declaration was a factor as speculated then as much as I may see merit under some circumstances, given the balance of interests I can't support this prosecution or others like it; for me, doing so would be digging the discriminitive hole Pitbulls and their owners are in even deeper. Having said that, it's true that the majority of council officers, at least in my experience, don't take the restricted breed rules seriously, but I'm not comfortable about putting my faith in that tacit discretion, the only thing that goes far enough is the official abolition of BSL. Don't allow your dog to attack someone and you'll have nothing to worry about? If PB owners are obeying relevant legislation, there's actually less chance their dogs will bite someone (hard to bite with a muzzle on) so it shouldn't be a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loving my Oldies Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Good to see dog attack considered as GBH! Good to see a fine high enough to deter. It would be good if some of the $$ went to the old fellow. Strange journalism. The guy was attacked. Not just his leg. Hope he recovers well. That can't be taken for granted at 82. Agree on both these points, sandgrubber. That poor man - 82 year old flesh just does not heal from those sorts of injuries. He is probably already on all sorts of medication that could possibly inhibit healing. I still have the scars from being bitten badly on the wrist several years ago. The scar from one particularly deep bite still gets all rough and the skin peels. So my deepest sympathies to that man. The fine $$$ should go to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanzenhund Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Good. Serious attacks by dogs owned by irresponsible owners deserve the full force of prosecution. And, with respect this is NOT about BSL. If you have a restricted breed, or any other dog, and you are irresponsible enough to have your dog in a situation where it causes injury to a person (or another animal), then you deserve to have the book thrown at you. The clincher in this case was that the dog owners were found to have been negligent and irresponsible in the management of the dog - simples :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhou Xuanyao Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I don't consider complying with relevant legislation to be the right thing to do, it's the opposite that is true. Near enough nobody complies with it to the communities credit, if they did the government would have won and Pitbulls would have become extinct or close to it in most parts of this country by now. Is that a good thing? I think not. The reality is that isolated spikes and resurgencies in government resolve aside, years of a collective middle finger has seen BSL broadly fizzle to little more than text on a stamped piece of paper, but there's still plenty of work to be done. The abolition movement is winning and the only time the legal system is taken into account is when it can be used to undermine the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Gifts Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Good. Serious attacks by dogs owned by irresponsible owners deserve the full force of prosecution. And, with respect this is NOT about BSL. If you have a restricted breed, or any other dog, and you are irresponsible enough to have your dog in a situation where it causes injury to a person (or another animal), then you deserve to have the book thrown at you. The clincher in this case was that the dog owners were found to have been negligent and irresponsible in the management of the dog - simples :) Sadly it is still the dog that pays the biggest price with its life. If the owner had only ensured it remained muzzled in public it could still be alive. I'm glad the GBH charge was made and that it stuck. Maybe having to pay out some money will make this idiot think twice about owning another dog. I'm surprised this thread has gotten so many comments about pitbulls and BSL. Isn't this what those of us who are ' deed not breed' want? The dog has already been declared dangerous due to previous incidents and the owner has not followed the rules. Yes its breed has been identified but at least it has been in a sensible way. The story bias for me was clearly about the neglect of the owner, not the dangerous nature of the dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Who the hell takes their (declared) dangerous dog on holidays and thinks that they can relax the restricions on it because they are on holidays... the dog should have been muzzled and wearing it's special collar at the very least! Hope the hit to the hip pocket hurts enough to wake them up to responsible ownership. T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now