KeithT

Seeing as you invited it .... "Jumping at people or animals" ..... the dog is behind the fence, so one could presume the dog is actually jumping at the fence. Nope .... that is NOT a "reasonable indication" of a lead up to a physical attack. In fact, it could be that if the fence wasn't there, the jumping up behaviour might not occur at all (not suggesting there should be no fencing). Does "striking" mean "baring teeth"? What about a dog who has poked its nose through the fence, is otherwise being friendly but is just a bit over the top with excitement? What about dogs who 'smile'? As far as I'm concerned, this all puts too much into the freedom of interpretation by people who potentially wouldn't have a clue about dogs and dog behaviour (and I'm afraid that does include some authoritarians). Like the lady who argued that a dog barked at her and that caused her to have a "turn". But the other side's story was the lady had a "turn" and the dog barked (understandably, due to unfamiliar behaviour by the human). If memory serves me correctly, the dog had a destruction order out on it. Heck ..... I've been more scared by parties the neighbours have had, than I am of walking past any of the houses who have dogs behind fences and who bark/jump or even growl up against them. Hi Erny, I'm just as stumped to be very honest. OK, leaving the baring of teeth (smiling) aside (a poor example I chose), my perspective is that if a point has been reached, where my dog has physically managed to put her paws over the fence (would have to be low), stretched out her head, snarl and managed to bite a passer-by, then too many things would have gone wrong. I went against the by-laws very strongly, but also had to come to an acceptance that if this were pushed through, I'd just have to take more care to keep my dog out of trouble to the best of my ability. At the end of the consultation period, my submission had approx. 30 signatures; I was surprised that the council reported only approximately 14 objections (out of the 18, 000) dogs registered. So there does not seem to be any choice but to work harder and keep my mutt out of the reach of the complainers. At least they removed "barking" from their criteria. I agree with what you said regarding people who are inherently afraid of/hate dogs - you can see that in one response by one chap who called himself "good" in the feedback section of the Wyndham Leader. Let's hope the council is intelligent enough to tell the difference between and aggressive dog and a serial complainer.

The fact that the newspaper reports that the Council "scrapped" its original proposal implies to me that it is not about the dogs 'offending' people who are on the otherside of the fence, provided all parts of the dog's body remain within the fenced boundaries. If that's not the case, then what proposal did the Council "scrap" exactly? I understand the council scrapped their proposal to ban dogs from being in front yards. They also removed the "barking" association with aggression behaviour. Under the previous wording, a dog that continually barked along the fence line would also be classified as menacing. Now, if a dog is physically biting, striking (*e.g. baring its teeth) or jumping at people or animals (even though they are beyond the boundary), it would be taken to be *reasonable indication* that there would be a lead up to a physical attack. *** The interpretations are mine and I could be wrong, but I hope this may promote more discussion.

Difficulty of course being the ever increasing restrictions imposed on dogs being kept further and more remotely away from the 'outside' world. Keep them away, yet ensure that when they are not that they have learnt how to deal with it. Yeah. I agree. This is a problem with rapid urbanisation. People forget we are actuall part of mother nature's world (and not the other way around) and forget about the responsibilities and adaptation that our four legged companions have to put up with.

I hope someone from the council will clarify, but this is what I have gathered from discussions with the person who was consulted. What the intention of the council has (spirit behind the by-law), is to provide the opportunity to approach the owner on an early intervention basis, where there is cause to believe that (e.g. if the fence were to collapse) the dog would actually continue to a physical attack. The intention of not to wait for an attack to occur, but to give the owner ample warning, and a chance to address an aggression issue that would potentially save the dog from being destroyed. However, I agree that the literal wording does not deliver anything more than what currently exists. The wording of "physical" and biting, jumping etc. beyond the boundary means physical contact and by then, the situation would already be irretrievable. Thus is the confusion. I am given to understand that the intention of the council is to give the owner a chance to address an aggression issue early, i.e. even though the dog is "protected" within the boundary of the property. The confrontation came along when one of the councillors said they were prepared for a backlash at the outset, which the majority of owners took wrongly as the council being anti-dog. The wording of the original set of laws was also ignorant, because it associated barking as an indication of aggression.

Kelpie-i, you raised a very good question because the law reads that the dog has to physically strike, bite or jump at a person or another animal beyond the boundary. This literally reduces the new law to almost nothing, which isn't already covered by current legislation. However, it was explained to me, that what the council is trying to achieve, is the little more power for pre-emptive intervention in a case where there is no doubt (for example) where if the fence were to collapse, the dog would leave the owner's boundary and continue to a physical attack. It was also explained that the council would not go around looking for dogs in front yards. They would react upon a complaint and will first work with the owner. This law gives them the little foothold to approach the owner, whereas in the past, the could not take the pre-emptive action. I was happy that they removed the "barking" component, upon the advice of the trainer. In their ignorance, the original laws associated barking with aggression. Therefore, for prosecution to occur, the owner would have to be seriously uncooperative. I understand that the council would be looking to the owner to take positive action. The fact that the law may not deliver the council's intentions is probably a good thing - it means they will have to think hard before going down this route.

Following the initial backlash against the original wording, the council initiated consultations with a few animal trainers and also with the Werribee Dog Obedience School. So they have scrapped a lot of the original clumsy wording. From what I understand, they are trying to resolve complaints where some dogs that are kept behind low-walled fences have been persistently rushing postal workers and people who walk past. These recalcitrant dog owners have not made any attempt to control their pets despite complaints and the council needed new powers to deal with these owners. Therefore, the law should be intepreted: that the dog should not react aggressively against animals and people (that/who are) beyond the boundary of the owner's property. Unfortunately, there are sensitivities that are culturally biased, which means that some people are afraid of, or have a dislike, for dogs regardless of circumstances and the council will need to deal with these incidents on a case by case basis. In England, there was news that a certain council started legislating against the display of figurines of pigs on bay-front windows. We just have to wait and see how far they will attempt to go. My reaction based on one councillor who declared that "the council was prepared for a backlash" which indicated that the council was going to force this law through regardless. Unfortunately, this is the sad result of a few irresponsible owners, a few people who complain about everything and a few councillors who are out to earn cheap votes. As dog owners, we now need to help our companions adapt and try to de-sensitise them based these new parameters.