Tralee

Thanks for that further information. I understand there's now similar language in the laws here, too. It opens the way for how the person involved interprets the dog's behaviour. Simply the presence of a largish dog, coming close while on the loose, could make some people feel menanced. There appears to be some element of someone vulnerable feeling under threat in such a way, in this case (from Tralee's description). Recently, I came across a Ridgie-type dog lost & looking a bit anxious. I called to him, hoping to secure him until I could read his ID.... but he lunged towards me with a growl. I could tell it was fear & a warning. If he'd wanted to bite/attack me, he could have. I phoned the Council & gave his location & explained he was frightened so was a bit reactive, but that people who didn't read his behaviour that way, could be very frightened. So there is quite an investigative call to make... interpreting a dog's actual behaviours, the individual responses of people. and aligning that with the options in the law. Absolutely, it's not an easy job by any stretch and what bothers me is the amount of Councils that don't have a designated companion animal office - they just have general rangers with absolutely zero understanding of dog behaviour, body language, motivations etc doing the job. Well, Halle - bloody - luiah. You don't suppose the Ranger went OTT and then found himself out of his depth. ?? That may or may not have happened, I don't know as you haven't given any details of the actual incident. That is beside the point anyway, my issue has never been the incident itself, or the actions taken by the ranger and whether they were actions I would have taken, and I've said a few times I think that you offering the compromise of a Control Order was a good move. My issue has always been that you have misrepresented the facts in this thread by stating that you had won an appeal in court and your dogs now were classified as any other dog in NSW. Both of those statements are false, and by doing that you put other people who may be appealing declarations at risk by providing false information on the outcome. I also had big issue with you posting it in the BSL section and muddying the line between Dangerous Dog and Restricted Dog (which is already done enough in the media and elsewhere). ETA: And in fact based on the information provided I think it's unlikely that the Ranger totally bungled it up, because if he/she did and you could prove it your Barrister wouldn't have told you to settle for a Control, she would have told you to go all the way to appeal to really show the Council up, get costs and ensure your dogs were cleared. Well that's really great advice. Even God does not play dice with the Universe. Beggars belief really. You should disqualify yourself from the discussion because you have a vested interest.

Did the dogs in this case 'attack' in ways that fit the descriptions of dangerous dog behaviours as set out in the legislation? If so, the Council would fail in their responsibility if they didn't adhere to the label 'dangerous dog'. If not, then the label 'dangerous' with all its consequences wouldn't apply. All I can find is the OP saying the police described the incident as 'minor'. But that's not descriptive of actual dog behaviours. So doesn't answer the question. What is beyond question, is that the dogs were on the loose outside their property. And the owner would well be ordered, by the Council, to set in place future containment management ... with whatever penalties would follow from any failure. I realise I have to spell it out for the satisfaction of those still too willing to villify the dogs. The meeting of terms by the Council and myself has hidden wisdom that cannot be found by trying to read between the lines. Namely: The incident that occurred was not the result of a failure to manage the dogs in accordance with existing dog ownership conditions but was entirely due the fact that the gate at the rear of the property was compromised by a person consequently arrested by police. In light of this evidence it was highly prudent to offer to manage the dogs within a "controlled space" What this does is prevent joe public from releasing my dogs again. The council saw the wisdom in my proposal and accepted my terms. I think it is a great idea and the fence is currently being built. A controlled space is not runs, or anything like the conditions that are mandatory under a DDD. It can be any size, does not require concrete flooring in a kennell, etc. You know, some people are saying I am lucky but it is the Council who has been extremely embarrassed by this ordeal. Word around town is, ... well I don't have to go into that here.

Thanks for that further information. I understand there's now similar language in the laws here, too. It opens the way for how the person involved interprets the dog's behaviour. Simply the presence of a largish dog, coming close while on the loose, could make some people feel menanced. There appears to be some element of someone vulnerable feeling under threat in such a way, in this case (from Tralee's description). Recently, I came across a Ridgie-type dog lost & looking a bit anxious. I called to him, hoping to secure him until I could read his ID.... but he lunged towards me with a growl. I could tell it was fear & a warning. If he'd wanted to bite/attack me, he could have. I phoned the Council & gave his location & explained he was frightened so was a bit reactive, but that people who didn't read his behaviour that way, could be very frightened. So there is quite an investigative call to make... interpreting a dog's actual behaviours, the individual responses of people. and aligning that with the options in the law. Absolutely, it's not an easy job by any stretch and what bothers me is the amount of Councils that don't have a designated companion animal office - they just have general rangers with absolutely zero understanding of dog behaviour, body language, motivations etc doing the job. Well, Halle - bloody - luiah. You don't suppose the Ranger went OTT and then found himself out of his depth. ??

You know, sometimes accidents happen and the consequences are well out of proportion with the antecedents. You have no idea what the Council proposed in lieu of the DDDs and how much my dogs stood to lose because one person thought they could do what ever they wanted to whomever they chose. Nor can you adequately account for my deliberations in this matter or possibly know how I played my cards or know how close I kept them to my chest. The Council accepted my terms to which I conceded on the advice of my Barrister. There could have been an infinite number of other scenarios in an infinite number of parallel Universes. I might have gone to court, and I might have won. But Magistrates do not look kindly on people who waste court time. My decision was obvious. The result shows how stupidity and laziness is both dangerous and expensive. It has cost me because I took the time and made the effort to correct what was more than likely an entrenched abuse of power. I don't know why it was my dogs and I who were chosen to expose the corruption of the Council Ranger but I welcomed the task given to me, and I am thankfull for the wisdom it has provided. It is a basic Catholic tenet that we stand up for Social Justice whatever the cost. It has cost me financially but I have gained more in so many other ways. Every DO should be totally and completely au fait with the consequences of a DDD. And they should also be appraised of what Rangers can and cannot do and what can be done if they disagree. You can bet then, there wouldn't be any of the little niggling incidents that occur daily.

I think your best position is that: There is an expectation that dogs in off leash areas will behave like dogs. Therefore there is an obligation on each dog owner to provide for the welfare of the dog. Irrespective of the off leash expectations dogs are still protected by the provisions that it is not an offense if the dogs is; provoked teased or protecting property. Property includes protecting your person. My case was a bit dfferent. My dogs were simply at large and unfortunately encountered a woman with psychiatric issues. The Council's case that the dogs were ordinarily dangerous was vacuous. DDD Revoked

Its not ludicrous at all. What it does is it points out how seriously DOs should take their responsibilities and obligations when it comes to protecting their dogs. I don't know about Victoria but in NSW the Declaration can be annulled after twelve months. But you are absolutely right, a DDD is no life for a dog.

Basically yes, except I have an added incentive, entirely voluntary, to protect my dogs from the public and other peoples' dogs. I elicted the requirements of the Control Order entirely with the intention to increase the integrity of my own dogs' management practices. Some people seem to think that I don't have the requisite intelligence to do that. What you have done is gotten yourself out of a DD tag and instead have an order that if breached have serious consequences, your dogs are not free, you are now bound by the control order. It's been no win for you, it's been a concession to avoid having them declared dangerous. The status of your dogs has nothing to do with BSL, any dog can be declared "dangerous" only those dogs that are thought to be of a restricted breed or cross can have an NOI to declare them to be of a resticted breed. The dogs are not dangerous. The dogs are not even aggressive. What has been brought to light though is that there are many people who are insufferably and incurably stupid.

I don't know why you insist on putting your poor analysis skills on display. You also argued that Part 3 - Section 13 - Subsection 1 and Subsection 5 (f) of the NSW Companion Animals Act 1998 are the same. Therefore, I have to make allowances for what you say. You are not a Barrister, either are you a Magistrate. Just as the matter was taken out of the hands of the Council Ranger, yourself as a Companion Animal Officer, have no overriding authority. Unlike you, I happen to realise that sometimes in my life I am going to meet people who know more than I do. The trick is whether you can recognise them when you do meet them. Of course, you will never meet any because you are a know it all. You can say that the dogs are restricted as many times as you like, but I can take them to Queensland whenever I please and they can run as free as a bird. If we are talking about what is miles apart then that freedom is miles away from a DDD. Further, the fence which I elected to erect to house the dogs can be a perimeter fence if I so choose. If fact, two sides of the current fence is already six foot. One other side, is the back of a two story house. The remaining fence line is about ten meters. I think you have made enough replies to adequately conclude that you don't know s#!^ There is no imposition on me or the dogs. My instructions to my Barrister was that the dogs must be reinstated to the original status before the IDD was issued. Her advice was to concede to the Councils acceptance of my terms. Its not rocket science. And Blind Freddy can see that you're trying to harangue your argument through. You know, civil authority doesn't stop at local councils or with Companion Animal Officers. There are many, many higher levels of erudition and thank God there is.

Well, whether it is misplaced in BSL is by the by. But with all due respect Clyde, the Council conceded to my demands. I don't cry wolf, but in this instance I pursued the Ranger and the Council with everything I had. I wish people would read the comments. The Ranger did not do his job, everything else is irrelevant. This was a Social Justice issue. I had an obligation and a responsibility to all the other DOs in our Council area to expose the 'drunken' incompetence of those entrusted with a Duty of Care to the Community. I hope this can be put to bed now.

Basically yes, except I have an added incentive, entirely voluntary, to protect my dogs from the public and other peoples' dogs. I elicted the requirements of the Control Order entirely with the intention to increase the integrity of my own dogs' management practices. Some people seem to think that I don't have the requisite intelligence to do that.

1 Penalty unit in NSW is $110 so the max fine for this breach would be $11,000. If you breach the Control Order the Courts could also destroy the dog in question or remove it from you: This kind of bullshit is just totally and extremely bizarre. Do you think for a minute I would put my dogs in jeopardy if I thought there was an inkling of a chance that any orders would be breached. You haven't read the brief. The gates and fences were rampaged by an unknown person consequently arrested by police. An interior fenced compound will prevent the public having access to my dogs as much as you might pretend it is to protect the public from my dogs. My dogs' security will not be breached again. The dogs were not, are not, and have not been aggressive. A fact confirmed by the attending judge at my puppy boy's last dog show at Durack. You know, the more you try to condemn my dogs, the more my doubts increase about your suitability as a Companion Animal Officer. The post belongs in BSL because Maremmas should never be candidates for BSL

She also recommended that I accept the Control Orders. That means that your barrister thought you had a good chance of losing in Court if you went to appeal. If you had a good chance of winning there would have been no issues of you going all the way to Court and defeating the declaration so that your dogs would not have control orders and extra restrictions on them. ETA: I should add that I'm glad your dogs have a control order with the specified conditions rather than a dangerous dog declaration. I hate declaring dogs dangerous as the restrictions are incredibly onerous and really overkill for most dogs. But I'm taking issue with the way you are lessening what happened and would possibly influence others who need sound advice if they are appealing an Order, not false hope. I think your compassion for my dogs is a false sentiment. I am quite au fait with the type of analyses you make. I designed the conditions of the concessions made for the control orders. It had nothing to do with losing in Court but rather further costs to my Barrister. You are second guessing my Barrister. You are trying to override the decision of a Magistrate. You are making unfounded assumptions about the advice given to the Council by their legal representatives. Your status is the same as the Ranger who has been exposed as incompetent, indolent and untenable. You make the same mistake in condeming my dogs. To wit: The Ranger did not consider my objections and subsequently placed a DDD on a dead dog and another DDD on a dog not kept in NSW. How much do you need to know? You are not privy to the facts and will not accept that the dogs were simply off property. ETA: I am glad the Ranger no longer works in our council area and I pray for the dogs that are in your jurisdiction.

Oops. Sunday morning, I don't know how that got in here. My apologies to the OP and commiserations at a time that is obviously causing great distress.

I realise that I hadn't answered your question. Firstly, the dogs do no have to be kept in runs, it is simply a six foot fence of any area. I believe I am a fair and resonable person. Council would need to go to trial if I had not made some concessions. That would cost Council at lot of money, particularly as they were undoubtedly going to lose. Even so, I also consider myself to have a modicum of intelligence and took the advice of my legal council. My Barrister told me that the Council had accepted MY Offer to voluntarily fence the dogs and pay one infringement for the dogs being off premises. She also recommended that I accept the Control Orders. It is small concession that I appear to be under some external constraints or authoritive enforcements when in fact the management of the dogs is my own design.

No. The issue was not that the dogs were dangerous. The issue was that the Ranger had not done his job. He did not give the dogs their due legal process or fulfill his civil obligation as a Ranger. Following an Intention to Declare Dog Dangerous the DO has 28 days to reply. The Ranger obviously did not consider, and it is doubtful that he even looked, at the reply. One of the dogs was euthanased, we then received a Dangerous Dog Declaration on a dead dog. The Ranger didn't even contact the Vet. or verify that the dog was deceased. The litany of errors just continued, it was embarrassing. The first response from Council, after the appeal, was their request to settle out of court. This is called: Save as to Costs. I point out that if I had lost the Appeal I would have had to pay their costs. They simply didn't have grounds to pursue it. So, I refused their terms and continuously instructed my Barrister that the dogs must be reinstated to their original status before the incident occurred. There was toing and froing from Council, each time their terms were reduced. Finally, they accepted My Terms and the Truth, as they say, did out.

I think your best position is that: There is an expectation that dogs in off leash areas will behave like dogs. Therefore there is an obligation on each dog owner to provide for the welfare of the dog. Irrespective of the off leash expectations dogs are still protected by the provisions that it is not an offense if the dogs is; provoked teased or protecting property. Property includes protecting your person. My case was a bit dfferent. My dogs were simply at large and unfortunately encountered a woman with psychiatric issues. The Council's case that the dogs were ordinarily dangerous was vacous. DDDs revoked

If you've been given a control order or done one by Consent (I'm assuming it was by consent seeing as that wording was used in your letter) then your dogs are not just like any other dog now. You have a Control Order on you which has strict penalties for non-compliance. If the Council hadn't agreed to a control order you may well have lost your case appealing the declaration. I'll say it again that Dangerous Dog matters have NOTHING to do with Restricted Breed cases and by you trying to make out that your case is in anyway similar muddies the water and equates restricted breeds with dangerous dogs. I'll say it again - your dogs/you have breached the companion animals act in some way, clearly by the escape but your dogs must also have been considered to attack someone if you've been given a declaration and then a control order. That is WORLDS apart from a dog being seized from it's home that has never escaped, never attacked anything - based solely on it's appearance. Your dogs were not declared because they were Maremma, they were declared because they breached the Act. To equate that your situation is similar to people that have had their pets seized based solely on appearance is offensive. I will be a gentleman and reply to your bigotted and prejudiced post. You have no evidence, yet you hastily condemn the dogs. The DDDs were revoked. The compromise of a control order was accepted by the other party on My Terms. I had one, and one only, stipulation. The dogs must be reinstated to their original status before the Intention to Declare Dogs Dangerous was issued. However, I also elected to voluntarily fence the dogs inside an internal compound. The Council accepted My Terms I am under no external restraints or authoritive enforcements. There are six terms to the control order, two are against the council. 1. The declarations that the dogs, Winja, Flynnch and Sooki, are dangerous are revoked. 2. The Respondent will withdraw the infringement notices issued in relation to the dogs Winja, Flynnch and Sooki. Three are normal requirements under The Companion Animals Act (1998) 1. The Applicant will ensure that all general responsibilities (such as but not limited to identification, registration, notification and management obligations) required of an animal owner under the provisions of the Companion Animals Act are fulfilled including but not limited to updating the Comapnion animals Register within (30) days of these Orders. 2. The dogs (Winja, Flynnch and Sooki) are not to enter a public area unless on a leash and under the effective control of a competent person. The first order requires that the dogs are to be managed within a "controlled space' at any property at which they would ordinarily be kept. But this was my election and is no concession as I have always intended to purchase some portable fence panels for dog runs. Further, since this debarkle I am convinced that any persons' dogs should be kept away from where they can be accessed by the public. So I have gained some wisdom and improved my management practices. As I have already stated, my Appeal against the DDDs was necessary because the Ranger was/is incapable of making independent decisions on his own. He needs someone else to do his thinking for him. My appeal was to made in order to bring the Ranger before the court and expose his indolent, incompetent arse. I get the sense you are a Ranger. Well news to you. The general public are better educated, financed and more level headed than most Council Workers, including and not restricted to your lolly pop buddies. The role of the Ranger is to facilitate, assist and help develop DO not nonce about in their vans issuing infringement notices just to fill the coffers of Councils treasury. Rangers are not revenue raisers: not around my property anyway. If you don't do your job, fairly and impartially then we will call you to account. I think that Gospel folk song is most relevant: If I Had a Hammer (It's the Hammer of Justice). Oh BTW. There's a vacancy for a Ranger here if anyone's looking

Many solicitors will take on dog cases. In fact, I have a Barrister and when I approached her about my dogs, she said: "I love dog cases"

Twelve weeks seems to be a common recovery time. We nursed a dog recently, post surgery, that was restricted in movement for six weeks. It is hard not to give in to them and let them move around. No explosive movements, I would have thought, and no jumping would have been the instructions. Anyway, I would do it all again just to see that look in his eye. Glad to see Cooper is home with you.

A mini wouldn't be much more than 8kg if that, still no match for 25/30kg dog.....a GSD is considered a medium sized dog so a mini Schnauzer is still quite a small dog I would think? A GSD is a large breed. No offence meant.

I'm just totally confused here. Dogs get listed on BSL because of their history. More breeds will be added if 'false negatives' like mine are allowed to be included. That's the whole point of opposing BSL. Dogs are condemend due to a false negative. Just to reiterate, my dogs were off property because some egeit, consequently arrested by police, rampaged through the yard and broke all the fences and gates. The fact that they didn't do something which is an offense under The Act is the reason the DDD were revoked. The next time a Maremma is defended in a Court overseen by this Judge, 'she' will be au fait with the Breed and Maremma will be moved even further from the BSL list. What have you done today??

Hard to believe isn't it. Unfortunately so many councils have figured out just what a great money spinner RESPONSIBLE dog owners are. Yep! Totally agree. Pure revenue raising. Fantastic analysis of the thread BTW. Kudos to you.

Regards Wait, so you didn't successfully appeal the Orders at all, you just willingly entered a consent order with the Council's agreement. That isn't successfully beating a dangerous dog order, that's just the Council being happy to lessen the restrictions on your dogs seeing as you were appealing anyway. Your dogs aren't considered like any other dog now, which would happen if you had successfully appealed a DD order, they just have a different type of Order on them. ETA: This thread shouldn't even be in the BSL section. Dogs that are targeted because of BSL have done nothing wrong. They are targeted specifically because of their appearance. Your dogs escaped your property and obviously did something if you've had a Dangerous Dog declaration and now a Control Order. Worlds apart. I confirm that on the 12/2/13,the Council withdrew their declaration that the dogs were dangerous and therefore your 3 appeals against the dangerous dog declarations were upheld. Can you run that by me again? I confirm that on the 12/2/13,the Council withdrew their declaration that the dogs were dangerous ... Can you run that by us all again? The Magistrate then made a control order, pursuant to s.47 of the Companion Animals Act 1998, in the terms of the consent orders The Companion Animals Act is a control order, the same obligations and penalties apply. Can you please make a further public case for all of us to read about the issue you raise?

I've had five at once, all large breed, and all Maremma. I don't think you can have too many. However, it becomes too many when they cannot be cared for, otherwise there is no limit.

I would need to look it up but definately not over $80. I've prog tested twice in last few years and presently think it is a waste of money.