melzawelza

I may have misinterpreted what you mean here but certainly in NSW the GIPA Act protects the complainants identity and there are harsh outcomes for Councils or Council Officers that disclose personal information about a complainant to the person they have complained about. I would imagine other states have similar legislation.

No. No no no no no. This is the exact reason BSL has such an impact on "pit bulls" -- because everything remotely looking like one is one. Pit bull is short for American Pit Bull Terrier. Nothing else. It might have been once but the term has evolved and now means exactly what is described at the link (love that page). Animal farm foundation have some good info on the way this term has changed and evolved to now essentially mean any mixed breed dog that lacks any characteristics of NOT being a 'pit bull'.

Thanks, Mel. So what's been counted is reports from members of the public to Council.... & it's not necessarily being injured. And includes harrassing/chasing/ rushing. So that's counting fear as well as injury. Not that I'm saying you have to do it.... but there'd be a different picture of dog bites in the community, if reporting came thro' medical treatment sources. That would only pick up actual injury. Because in-home bites, of all levels, would be picked up... & they're the most common, especially of children. Owners would likely never report their own dog to council (under a serious level)... & would make their own arrangements about getting the injury treated & what to do about the dog. Pity both systems don't exist because both sets of information are useful for doing something about problems. Agree totally! The system is better than the other states in that it's at least mandatory from one source and the information is all collated by the Gov, but as you said it misses out all the in-home bites by the family dog (the majority of dog bites) and the numbers you read in the report include all incidents, including incidents where the dog does not make any contact with the victim. The other place is falls down is that there is no mandatory obligation for doctors/hospitals or the Police to report dog attacks to the Council in which the incident occurred. Sometimes the police are called following a dog attack rather than the Council and while most of the time they're great at passing the information on to the local Council there have been instances where they haven't.

Yes, question I asked, too. I'd like to find out what the reporting processes are which collect the data. So a further question... Have reporting systems been ratcheted up following so much media attention given to very serious dog attacks? So that dog bites are being reported more? I don't know. WreckitWhippet pointed out in post #2 that mandatory reporting had come into effect during the period, I was a bit surprised that on this forum we would accept that dog aggression had increased especially after this was pointed out. But I'd like to know what those ratcheted up processes are. In the past, there was a recording system thro' hospital data/records. The definition of a dog bite for reporting in stats, was one that required hospital treatment. Has a mandatory system extended that to GPs, ambulance centres etc? If so, those bites below the level of hospital treatment will now be counted. If stats come from medical treatment sources, then in-home bites would more likely be picked up. And most bites, especially of children, happen in their homes. Or is the data collected only via reports by the public to animal management? If so, there's now the definition of 'rushing' as an 'attack'. And would in-home bites be picked up? Those stats only tell us anything of use, if we know who's reporting what to whom & how. Mita, the mandatory reporting is only for local Councils. We have to report the attack to the DLG through the Companion Animals Register within 72 hours of it being reported to Council. You have to fill in many sections relating to whether the dog was leashed, supervised, or provoked, and put in the level of injury. The attack is linked to the dog's microchip. The reported requirements include anything as defined as an attack by th Act so all the harassing/chasing etc incidents with no injury. Breed is automatically entered from the microchip but for lots of attacks the attacking dog is never found so the breed is then whatever the victim perceived the dog to be. It's why the breed listing on the stats should always be taken with a grain of salt.

Yep. This is the definition of an 'attack' in NSW from Section 16 of the Companion Animals Act. Then keep in mind that any dog that has attacked can be declared dangerous...

Hadn't even thought of that Awful.

T, one of the experienced tibbie breeders used to say the same as you. Except she said the longest hold-out had been 3 days! My memory's a bit vague, but I think she used to say to put the food down, then if not touched in 20 minutes take it away ... & keep repeating that. Same strategy used here. My last foster (total stress head) held out for four days before giving in. She ate perfectly fine after that. Yep!

Even with the increased number, it's still an incredibly low number for the size of the city. What I find surprising is how drastically the dog aggression indicators dropped from 1985 to 2005 in Calgary. Ie, the new laws came in after the problem was greatly ameliorated. See http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3a%2f%2fwww.calgary.ca%2fCSPS%2fABS%2fDocuments%2fAnimal-Services%2fAnimal-statistics%2fReports%2520of%2520Dog%2520Aggression%2520Over%2520Time.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1 Yes, I agree. Clearly the laws they had were having a brilliant effect on aggressive incidents, I wonder what prompted changing the laws.

Calgary's model provides a defence for the dog if the victim was trespassing on the property. The dictionary definition for "Trespassing" is: Unless there is some clause in Calgary's bylaws that state that trespassing does not apply if the person is under X years old, then I would imagine there would be no prosecutions for such a situation, as the dog/owner has not committed an offence. The reason their bylaws specifically mention being on the owner's property is so that the Council can still take action even if the attack doesn't happen on public land. But that would only apply if the person (adult or child) was on the property legitimately and with permission. This comes from. Legal-help FAQ that seems to be Canada-wide. http://www.cliapei.c...ations/CRI6.pdf If my neighbour's children wander into my yard, are they trespassing? The Trespass to Property Act says that no child under the age of twelve may beprosecuted for trespassing. Children often wander from their own yards, and usually thesituation can be dealt with by asking them to leave or by calling their parents. Interesting, but the situation we're talking about wouldn't be about prosecuting the child, it's about the behaviour of the dog, and whether the relevant Act or Bylaw provides for action against the dog/owner. Unless there is a definition for 'trespassing' in the Calgary Bylaws for that specific Act, you would usually go by the the dictionary definition. I'd be very interesting to see what the Calgary Officer's interpretation of their bylaw provides for. My hunch is that there is defence for the dog.

Interesting, although as you said there is not necessarily more bites, just that there are more being reported. This quote suggests that the City have actually been using public education to encourage more people to report bites, so that would make sense. If more are reported, they can then work to get that number even lower overall. Even with the increased number, it's still an incredibly low number for the size of the city.

I don't think it's a question of fault. If she had ripped you it would have been appropriate that she be flagged as vicious and her owners given a kick in the butt to encourage them to get her to a behaviouist or put up a 'dangerous dog' sign. If the goal is to prevent dog attacks, dogs with a tendency to attack need to be identified and put into some sort of management that makes them less dangerous. Waiting till the dog does serious damage and then euth'ing it is not nice. Flagged as vicious? Dangerous dog warnings? In this hypothetical situation the dog bit an intruder on the property. Are dogs not allowed to be dogs anymore?? Certainly in NSW there would be no action that Could be taken by Council as the attack is not an offence if the person was trespassing on the dog's property. If the dog KILLED the intruder then maybe you could go after them under 'unreasonable aggression' but it'd be a precarious ledge you were balanced on.

Calgary's model provides a defence for the dog if the victim was trespassing on the property. The dictionary definition for "Trespassing" is: Unless there is some clause in Calgary's bylaws that state that trespassing does not apply if the person is under X years old, then I would imagine there would be no prosecutions for such a situation, as the dog/owner has not committed an offence. The reason their bylaws specifically mention being on the owner's property is so that the Council can still take action even if the attack doesn't happen on public land. But that would only apply if the person (adult or child) was on the property legitimately and with permission.

How absolutely horrific! Unbelievable that a pack of 15 stray dogs have been able to form and live completely outside any human responsibility. That poor woman. What a terrible way to go. Mantis, while I absolutely understand why it gets your back up it's really unhelpful to post this in every thread that Dogmad posts. She's allowed to post news articles for discussion, and those of us that wish to can comment on the thread itself if there is any breed specific denigration going on. No need to attack just for it being posted. You actually just end up making the whole thread about breed which is not an important factor in a case like this. Depends how you're defining 'Pit Bull'. If you're defining it as the generic catch-all term for any generic mixed breed dog that does not have any stand-out characteristics identifying it as NOT being a pit-bull type dog, as is usually done, then you're probably right. But if you're defining it as the dog having actual American Pit Bull Terrier blood, then that's not as likely (but of course still possible). Regardless, it doesn't actually matter what breed the ringleader or any of the other dogs were. There are so many other factors here that explain EXACTLY why this happened, and the last on the list when ordered by importance would be breed.

:confused: The majority of people looking for dogs on gumtree have never had to go through any sort of questioning as to their suitability as a pet owner, and most sellers on gumtree would happily let the person have the dog without any information. How does what you have just said indicate dog fighting in any way, shape or form?!

Never met the people at Orange so I have no idea if they fall into that category, but I've certainly met plenty of others that do. That said, there are a lot of Council Officers that are reasonable and ensure that every person is treated fairly and appraised of their rights, and that number seems to be increasing.

People are aware of the consequence of murder, but there are still murders taking place........so ramping up the punishment for irresponsible dog owners will do what exactly? It will more than quarter dog bites on a pro-rata basis in 25 years (However the solution is much more than just punishment - it's heavy education and assisting owners to comply first, then punishing if they still fail to meet their obligations) ETA: that is a link rather than just underlined. Click it!

The whole story is heartbreaking If the dog was charging with intent to attack then I can't blame the officer for reacting, and the dog shouldn't have been loose. But I really hope it wasn't a typical Pit Bull enthusiastic greeting, as that would just make the whole thing even sadder. I still feel for the officer too, but I just wish that Police Officers received more training in regards to the handling of dogs and reading dog body language.

Sounds like a good group and there certainly needs to be some training opportunities in the area for pet owners. Many Council Officers unfortunately don't tell the owners of dogs all their rights and options, and try and pressure people to surrender their pets for euthanasia to make their job easier. While these people exist in these roles then groups like this are needed to help ensure that dog owners are fully aware of their rights and can make an informed decision if their dog is subject to any sort of action or enforcement.

Terrible. Can only imagine how it would have been to experience that. I hope he can heal physically and emotionally.

Good to hear something that actually works... & some pounds showing how. It's still a ridiculous system that is detrimental to the community and the dogs (last year it saw a dog drop fourteen puppies in the pound because they had to wait for the breed assessor to come out before releasing her. Any other dog would have been immediately released under duty of care), but it's certainly much better than Victoria :)

Ah. I think I've been brain-damaged from the stuff that comes out of Victoria re dogs. I must say, I've been impressed by the lovely, lovely natured 'bully' type dogs that come up for adoption at AWL Qld. Few years back, when applying BSL was at its hysterical worst, those dogs would've been condemned on sight Absolutely, was happening here a few years ago too. But the legislation in NSW gives every dog at least a shot to be rehomed, as Pit x are not restricted if they pass a temp test, and very few breed assessors are ever confident enough to say a dog is a pure bred pit bull (as the likelihood of that is pretty slim!). Most pounds are getting with the program and allowing every dog in their care the opportunity to be rehomed if their temps are good :)

That's great :) if they want to talk practically to another pound about it then Rach at Renbury, Marcia at Blacktown and Lisa at Sutherland are all lovely people and I'm sure would be more than happy to chat to them. Basically they chip the dog as belonging to the pound, issue a notice of intention and go through the process the same way the owner would. If they're concerned that the money may be wasted they can wait until the adopter or rescue have stepped up for the dog so they can pass on that cost.

It is not the way it needs to be. The rangers have two options to save the lives of more dogs in their pounds. 1. Not attempt to breed ID dogs by their appearance, as it is unscientific. 2. If they choose to breed ID dogs, follow it through and complete a breed/temperament assessment process which is highly likely to allow the dog to be rehomed if it has a good temperament. This is what every major pound in Sydney does. The cost is passed on to the adopter or rescue that is taking the dog. Sorry that is crap. The dog was unmicrochipped, therefore it was not a restricted dog at the time of impound. The rangers chose to try and apply an unscientific process of visual breed ID to the dog. Sorry.... but what Trisven wrote is factual. I'm puzzled why you called it 'crap'. The dog did not have a chance of being rehomed, because the the Council rangers had categorized him as a restricted breed. BSL legislation relies totally on a visual appraisal, as you say. And even worse, from a science point of view, it's based on a belief that the appearance of a dog, not its behaviour, is predictive of aggressive traits. Different matter entirely if the dog had failed a behavioral assessment.... That's not how it works in NSW Mita. There is a process that can be followed to clear a dog, and a Ranger's word is not 'gold' like it is in Victoria.

Sorry that is crap. The dog was unmicrochipped, therefore it was not a restricted dog at the time of impound. The rangers chose to try and apply an unscientific process of visual breed ID to the dog. The Rangers are not breed assessors. If they 'suspected' the dog to be a restricted dog they could have followed the breed/temperament assessment process set out in the Act, which would have been incredibly likely to clear the dog and allow it to be rehomed. The Rangers/Council also lied to the press and said that the dog would have to be euthanased anyway if found to be a restricted breed. This is NOT the case when the dog has owners that wish to reclaim the dog, as this one did. They seem to be being very over-zealous in their perceived 'powers' when it comes to restricted dogs, which is resulting in dead dogs. That is to be condemned.

It may seem minor but this kind of language and jargon is very pervasive and has a wide-reaching negative effect. The way language is used is everything, really. It's not necessarily 'correcting' but it's certainly worth highlighting and picking up when it happens. Very glad to see that she's with a foster carer now, and that the Ranger has done so much for her.