melzawelza

Can't say for sure about QLD but in both NSW and VIC the onus is on you to prove that your dog ISN'T a restricted breed. The ways in which you go about that is different in each state but the onus is still on you, not the Council. That's all not really relevant though as the dog is being declared dangerous, not restricted.

It sounds to me like they are declaring the dog dangerous based on his breeding and using the actions of his parents as justification. They can't declare the dog dangerous based on its breeding. They can only declare it restricted for that reason. If they have decided to declare the dog dangerous, not restricted then the dog itself must have seriously attacked - its all there in the link to the act I posted.

If your paperwork says 'dangerous' and not 'restricted' as you've said, then they're not acting based on breed, do leave that for now (doesn't mean they won't try it later). Call them up, quote that section of the act to them and tell them you would like, IN WRITING, a description of the supposed incident fitting that description that your boy was involved in.

So they are declaring your dog because his parents attacked another dog? I am not wel versed in the QLD legislation, only NSW, but there is no way you could Declare a dog in NSW based on that and from memory of looking through the QLD legisllation it was similar. I would find it very hard to believe that what they are doing is as per the Act. You will have an amount of time to appeal this declaration in court (in NSW it's 28 days. Not sure about QLD). Ensure you lodge the appeal within this time frame or you will be forced to comply without question. There should be instructions on how to do so in the paperwork they gave you. Please seek legal advice from a solicitor that has a good understanding of your Act. ETA: sorry for spelling mistakes - iPhone. The OP has said the paperwork is declaring her dog dangerous, not restricted, so they are not declaring based on his breed. Ok I've just looked up the QLD act and it says in regards to declaring dangerous or menacing dogs: This is Part 4, section 89: (2) A dangerous dog declaration may be made for a dog only if the dog— (a) has seriously attacked, or acted in a way that caused fear to, a person or another animal; or (b) may, in the opinion of an authorised person having regard to the way the dog has behaved towards a person or another animal, seriously attack, or act in a way that causes fear to, the person or animal. (3) A menacing dog declaration may be made for a dog only if a ground mentioned in subsection (2) exists for the dog, except that the attack was not serious. You say your dog has done neither, therefore they cannot declare your dog. You need to ask them to show proof that YOUR dog has done one or more of these things, not his parents. Link here: http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2008/08AC074.pdf

Rebecca, can you please tell us the wording on the piece of paper given to you? Is your dog being declared DANGEROUS or is it being declared RESTRICTED? Which word is being used?

Disagree with mandatory desexing for the simple reason that it doesn't work.

I just googled "Bandog" & up came adds for breeders & puppies for sale in Queensland...so they can't be too illegal. Google Pit bull puppies and see just how many come up and how much people are paying from them ;) It's not really a good indication of whether a breed is banned or not but all you have to do to be sure is look at the legislation and 'Bandogs' are not on any of the lists Australia wide from my understanding. However - is a bandog not a cross breed that is made up of Pit Bull and various other breeds? If so, maybe they are declaring your dog restricted based on this?

Is it dangerous dog or restricted dog? Sorry I don't know the QLD legislation, only NSW but you have a right to know what the allegations are against your dog so that you can defend yourself/your dog against them. Is it based on breed (i.e have they decided that he is a pit bull)? If not, then something has allegedly happened to bring about the order and you need to demand an explanation from them. Don't let up - call them constantly until you speak to someone. If QLD is anything like NSW you will have a finite amount of time to defend your dog/situation.

Well my girl has been on Black Hawk for a while now (not sure how long, maybe a month?) and she's doing really well on it! Her coat is looking lovely and shiny and I realised this week that she isn't chewing herself and scratching all the time like she used to. She loves it (although she eats anything!!) and I actually have to feed her less of the black hawk to keep weight on her, which is making it even MORE cost effective! All in all - love it!! Almost finished the cat's food now so will be getting some for them too.

Yep this happened to me when I got my girl from the pound - her tail is long and thin on the end and she'd been wagging it non stop for three weeks in the pound - it was a bloody pulp by the time I got her. Yep, I had the blood splattered walls, doors etc.. I think I started a thread here as well! I tried wrapping it up but she just ripped it off. I have no idea how I got it to heal in the end, I think I just kept her far away from any walls or doorways as much as possible when I knew she'd be excited (i.e me coming home). I put betadine on it whenever I could. When I examined it closely I'm pretty sure what I was seeing was actually bone. It did eventually heal and is perfectly fine now, never opens up. If you part the hair the part that was affected grows no hair now, and is just a big, thick, hardened piece of scar tissue. Not sure if that's much help, my girls only got bad in the first place due to being confined in the pound so once we removed her from that situation we got there eventually. Not sure if you'll be able to have the same result.

Please, please do not leave him unsupervised with children! No dog should be left unsupervised but ESPECIALLY a dog showing the behaviour you are describing. I agree with getting a professional in to assess the situation.

You've got it backwards. The crappy owners who drop the ball are more likely to go for tough looking dogs - hence the result you describe. If you're a crappy owner who wants to be cool you're not really likely to go for a poodle.

I can't believe a councillor would say that, especially publicly!!!!

T there is an option on the CAR for 'unknown' when entering breed and I've looked up dogs that were chipped as unknown x unknown so I'm assuming you can chip them as such (I'm not an authorized identifier so can't say for sure, just based on what I've seen on the CAR)

Please note that my statement that cats are able to roam applies to NSW only - I don't know the legislation in other states. I know that some Council's in VIC have cat curfews and the cat can't wander onto someone's property more than twice (I think?) so the laws may be different elsewhere too. But in NSW - there is technically no such thing as a stray cat and cats can wander wherever they like. Doesn't mean we can't make the choice to protect our cats by keeping them inside and/or in an enclosure. Mine are never outside unsupervised.

Unfortunately not, cats are allowed to wander wherever they like and are not required to be contained in any way.

Sorry, I added some more to my post if no one saw and added some more thoughts on the matter. She *could* be in a bit of a sticky situation. I really, really don't think it'd hold up in court at all but that doesn't stop them placing the order anyway, as they can essentially do whatever they like - your only recourse is appealing in court which is obviously costly and stressful. Best bet is to prevent that order being placed in the first place through whatever means you can (paying the vet bills (WITH letter stating it is goodwill only!), reading up on the Act and being prepared to show the Council that you know what you're talking about and won't back down). Clyde send me a PM if it gets to that point and I'll send you my number to pass on to them to help them out. From what you've said though the cat owners haven't complained or anything yet, she just rang up to check. Fingers crossed her paying the bill will mean that they don't contact the Council and she won't have to deal with any of this hypothetical.

But wouldn't almost killing the cat be classed as 'unreasonable aggression'? Appreciate the help with this too, Cheers. I guess it depends on the opinion of the officer. I wouldn't consider it unreasonable aggression for a dog to almost kill a cat on it's property (and I'm a cat owner so no biases there!). That's what dogs do. I still feel that it would be cancelled out by section 16. The act is meant to be read as a whole and while if you read section 33 on it's own you would probably think they had the right to declare, section 16 refers to this specific scenario and clearly states an offence has not been committed. Problem is a lot of this can be speculation and the Council officer's personal opinion. I really think on appeal it wouldn't hold up but that doesn't stop them from issuing the declaration, and you can never truly know the outcome of the courts. All your friend can do is show them she knows what she is talking about by quoting sections of the act and telling them she WILL appeal should they place the declaration (Whether she can afford to or not is beside the point, they have to believe she will). That will make them think long and hard as to whether their declaration would stand up in court. ETA: I'm mulling this over a little more and thinking that 33 could override what is said in 16 I guess, say if someone tresspassed and the dog killed them. You would probably say that even though section 16 says it's not an offence, it's still unreasonable aggression and declare the dog dangerous. The problem with the companion animals act is all the way through there are areas that are really subjective. What is 'Unreasonable aggression?', how do you define it? I don't think the scenario you describe is unreasonable but obviously this Council does. If they decide to go ahead with the declaration your friend has to appeal in Court so that someone 'higher' can decide if it was unreasonable or not.

Which Council Rozzie? (PM if you prefer). I'm thinking what they are insinuating may be that that this would be in say a situation where a friend was there, invited in etc and the dog attacked, as opposed to an animal actually tresspassing. As section 16 clearly states no offence is committed if an animal or person has tresspassed. OP- if they want to pay the bill they can do so along with a letter stating that it is an act of good will and in no way admits any liability for the incident.

Is this NSW we're talking about? If so no, they shouldn't be declaring the dog dangerous and have no grounds to stand on. Here is a link to the act: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+87+1998+cd+0+N Scroll to section 16 and read 2b (2) It is not an offence under this section if the incident occurred: (a) as a result of the dog being teased, mistreated, attacked or otherwise provoked, or (b) as a result of the person or animal trespassing on the property on which the dog was being kept, or © as a result of the dog acting in reasonable defence of a person or property, or (d) in the course of lawful hunting, or (e) in the course of the working of stock by the dog or the training of the dog in the working of stock. Either the Council doesn't understand the act they're enforcing or they're bluffing her which they often do. ETA: The section they are referring to is section 33 in regards to dangerous dogs: 33 Meaning of “dangerous” (1) For the purposes of this Division, a dog is dangerous if it: (a) has, without provocation, attacked or killed a person or animal (other than vermin), or (b) has, without provocation, repeatedly threatened to attack or repeatedly chased a person or animal (other than vermin), or © has displayed unreasonable aggression towards a person or animal (other than vermin), or(d) is kept or used for the purposes of hunting. The attack would not be deemed unreasonable though based on section 16 and the definition of what an attack is.

I can't find this thread? Can you link it? Nevermind, found it! It's in the BSL section.

Hi Pookie, I'm so sorry to hear that you are dealing with this. Please contact the APBT club if you haven't already (Alkhe gave you the link to their thread). If you could also PM me your contact details I will put you in touch with Linda Watson who has been assisting people going to VCAT as well. Do you have any photos of Pookie?

I can't find this thread? Can you link it?

This is true also. Most idiots choose bull breeds.

I would say its more that SIZE matters rather than breed. You're not scared of an oodle cos they're tiny. I too am worried about unleashed bull breeds and I have a (friendly) one myself. But I worry about any large dog that could do damage. It's unfair to make out that only the bull breeds can do significant damage. They can, no doubt about that, but so can any med-large size dog.