melzawelza

Danny's D this isn't a council matter - council officers will just refer you to the RSPCA or Animal Welfare League. Rangers don't look after cruelty issues - you need to contact one of the two above, or if its a desperate situation (you can see a dog in distress) you would contact the police :)

Might not be fear or anxiety though, could be prey drive and looking at the breed mix that is probably likely.

If he lives in housing commission he is not allowed to own a declared dangerous dog. As soon as Housing Commission get wind of him having a dog that is declared dangerous (the Council will likely alert them), they will insist the dog is removed. Because you can't rehome a declared dog, unless he moves he will have to put the dog to sleep. He will also not be able to build the enclosure in his housing commission property. Not going to fight his battle for him i helped him out as much as i can, he can do the rest. Of course, not your battle. But worthwhile letting him know that as soon as HC get wind of the dog being declared they will insist the dog is removed. His only option will be to PTS.

If he lives in housing commission he is not allowed to own a declared dangerous dog. As soon as Housing Commission get wind of him having a dog that is declared dangerous (the Council will likely alert them), they will insist the dog is removed. Because you can't rehome a declared dog, unless he moves he will have to put the dog to sleep. He will also not be able to build the enclosure in his housing commission property.

I'm not sure that is the correct interpretation melzawelza. NSW Companion Animals Act 1998 I believe a dog teathered to a fixed object or structure is not held or secured to a person and further, it is only permitted in off-leash type areas. This is understood in regard to the meaning of 'on leash' which is inclusive of being held (or secured to) the person. Regards. If you keep reading: It is legal, but as you said earlier you could still be charged depending on the dog's behaviour while secured. I did keep reading, and I read very well, thank you. :laugh: Sub-section 5, part (f) should not be taken out of context and Sub-section 5 must be read as a whole. Selective pieces of it cannot be taken to mean something that is not implied. Sub-section 5 refers to areas other than public places, not footpaths etc. For example, a dog may be teathered to the back of a ute. The back of a ute is not a public place, or a place of exception, such as an offleash area. Sub-section 5 part (f), specifically, and in particular, does not refer to teathering a dog to a post in a public place. That is why Sub-section 5 is needed, it is a different circumstance to Sub-section 1. Sub-section 1 and Sub-section 5 are different they are not the same. And they are not interchangable. Further, "Just because a dog is not on a lead in an off-leash area, or is secured in a cage or vehicle or is tethered to a fixed object or structure, does not mean that an offence under section 16 is not committed if the dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal, whether or not any injury is caused." Leave your dog unattended away from your property at your own peril. It doesn't say 'this sub-section doesn't apply' it says this Section doesn't apply. Meaning Section 13. Meaning the part about being held by an owner. It is perfectly legal to leave your dog tethered. If it wasn't I'd be able to spend my whole day booking people for it if I wanted to. I agree that leaving your dog tethered is mental and I'd never do it, but it is definitely legal in NSW to do so. If your dog bites someone while tethered you can have action taken against you, just like if your dog bites someone while you're walking it down the street you can have action taken against you.

I'm not sure that is the correct interpretation melzawelza. NSW Companion Animals Act 1998 I believe a dog teathered to a fixed object or structure is not held or secured to a person and further, it is only permitted in off-leash type areas. This is understood in regard to the meaning of 'on leash' which is inclusive of being held (or secured to) the person. Regards. See 5 (f) of that very same section:

Is this in NSW? If so, the dog is considered under effective control if it is tethered to a fixed structure.

How bloody awful and completely unacceptable. That poor family and their little dog. I also agree that even if the dog was barked at that is no excuse for the dog to then disembowel and kill the dog. Typical irresponsible owner who slinks away to shirk responsibility.

People have the right to unobstructed access to your front door. If you don't want people walking in your front yard then put a lock on the door. How else is she going to come and knock on your door? What if it was a salesperson or a girl scout? What if your dog had gone further than just rushing and barking?

Apologies, you are correct that UKC was first - ten years prior to ADBA, who started in 1909. So both have registered APBT for a very long time. There are lots of breeds that aren't registered with FCI affiliated registries, doesn't mean they aren't pure breeds. UKC and ADBA registered dogs have incredibly lengthy pedigrees behind them. I know it's ADBA, that was a typo.

Just being ignorent here, but aren't Amstaff's really Pitbulls? Not quite..there was a breed divide. Yes, one is registered, the other isnt. The APBT has been registered with the ABDA since the late 1800s. They are not recognised by the ANKC but the ANKC isn't the be-all and end all. Getting back to the original topic how do they KNOW that they have a APBT and NOT an AST? is it just a case of calling what they like better? Well it goes both ways. If they say their unpapered dog is an Amstaff how do they know it's an Amstaff and not an APBT? At the end of the day, an unpapered dog is an unknown dog. My dog is a rescue but I know who bred her. The person who bred her says she's a pure bred 'pit bull' and a friend who used to show and breed pedigree APBT before the bans also thinks she's pure. I call her a "Pit Bull type dog' because that is what she is. She fits the 'type' but I don't know her history so I don't want to call her pure bred anything.

As I said when I shared this on facebook, looks like Moreton Bay really want to be spending tens of thousands in legal fees when they lose in court just like Gold Coast City Council did.

Oh how sad

They don't need to turn a blind eye anyway, it's allowed :) Companion Animals Act Section 14 (4)

Correct legislation paired with owner education has been proven to reduce dog attacks by huge amounts overseas. You can say 'people need common sense' all you want but the fact of the matter is people DON'T have common sense when it comes to dogs and needs plenty of education and adequate legislation. It's not necessarily legislation that's much tighter than what we have currently, just different.

This is ridiculous. They have been sending dogs out to foster carers since they started, under their own name NOT another rescue group. I wonder if they've had so many bad experiences of dogs in foster homes that they're stopping doing it? I hope so.

Horrible horrible horrible. I hope it does prompt a an overhaul of the DDA, as in 20 years of focusing on breed only their attacks have gone UP. It's criminal really that Governments persist with legislation that is proven to be ineffective and ignoring the type of approach that is proven to reduce dog attacks.

I'll have to put mine on too because I agree. Useless in this situation because the dog just learns to never come back when called but if your situation and timing is right a flick with the end of the lead across the rump is a good distractor/breaks focus/gains attention if you need to use it.

He was such a joy to have at my house, darling boy. He's got the best new home now!! :D

Caz... I don't know what to say. My god. I am so sorry. I would go after them for everything they're worth. Not because I wanted money but because taking money from people who would so blatantly disregard the welfare of the animals in their care is the only way to teach them a lesson. Be strong xx

If I was an Amstaff breeder I'd just be concerned with BSL being in existence, not the fact that people are trying to save their dogs lives. The only way to stop it is to end BSL. Edit: I see very few red nosed dogs in pounds being listed as pure bred Amstaffs. Most are listed as Amstaff X and that's absolutely plausible.

If I was an Amstaff breeder I'd just be concerned with BSL being in existence, not the fact that people are trying to save their dogs lives. The only way to stop it is to end BSL.

Not really, as it's the Amstaff breed that most often wears the results of poor or deliberately misleading breed identifications on potential restricted breed types. If I was an Amstaff breeder or judge - too right I would want to be be having a say on what was classed as an example of my breed within the community. And when it comes down to it - the Amstaff breed standard doesn't contain red or brown noses, they are not accepted in the breed. So the "Amstaff" that left BP this week, chipped as such - is not one. If there is a problem with that dog down the track, the reputation goes back to the Amstaff breed, and the ANKC who recognise it. I'm not anti pitbull by a long shot. But I think pound breed identification is pretty poor at the best of times and at the worst of times has the potential to damage the reputation of many breeds and even breeders that don't deserve it. I've been told by some of my Amstaff breeder friends that red noses crop up ever so occasionally. Very, very rare in this country but happens nonetheless. And why wouldn't it, they're genetically identical dogs - nothing was added to the APBT to create the Amstaff, and there are still dogs in the states that are dual registered.

My dog is CocoA (chocolate coloured) so I'm going to say she's original :laugh:

He wouldn't have a leg to stand on. You have every right to report his off leash dog that rushes yours. Report him again for this latest incident. Exactly. You could also report him to the property manager and ask that they take action against him. He not only lets his dog run loose, but he has now threatened you as well. You are entitled to quiet enjoyment of your property. This man needs to be told to leave you alone. I'd do this too.