Dogs Leave Pony For Dead, The Law On Side

[tybrax]

These dogs should of being destroyed!!

tybrax

[Crisovar]

How many "accidently escaped and played with stock" incidents should livestock owners have to endure.

Personally I am sickened by some of the injuries inflicted by "just playing" "just likes to chase them" pet dogs.

How many sheep, or horses should we watch be injured whilst we try to work out what the dog is up to.

If one of my dogs managed to end up in someones paddock with their stock, as much as I would grieve its loss I would accept the reasoning behind the gunshot.

As animal owners it is our job to keep them safe, for me that means keeping my dogs secure, and my livestock safe.

history says the only one who suffers is the dogs?

Tell that to the foals and lambs that didn't get a chance even to stand, to the sheep and goats with no tongues and windpipes flapping in the breeze, to the horses with broken or degloved legs, then tell it to the owners of the same.

[myValkyrie]

Another reason I have decided if I ever have problems with dogs I will be researching a flock guardian breed of dog to help me patrol.

Wonder what people who think if their dog perishes due to one of those, after all he/she probably didn't mean it did they?

Our Maremmas are kept far busier deterring wandering town dogs (they look after goats & mini horses) than anything else - absolutely worth their weight in gold.

Horrific story - my heart goes out to this lady & her poor little ponies :rolleyes:

[casowner]

I do have a CASD and the reason we got him was because of d!ckhead neighbours finding it funny watching their jack russells chase my emus through barbed wire fences and my mare and her new born foal all in front of me, my partner and our children. The new neighbours have 2 cocker spaniels that wander and me being the nice neighbour put my flock guardian in the house so to avoid what the realistic outcome would be if he caught them, why? to avoid neighbourly conflict, they are nice people and nice dogs. I came home last Saturday night (and for some reason penned Jake before I left) to find my son's beloved bunny who we had recently fought tooth and nail to save from bloat missing. We had been on a waiting list for a year to get her breed and we all loved her dearly. We found her Monday night dead near their fenceline she was covered in dry slobber, the skin pulled from the bone on one leg. My guess is that she was a cocker play toy, I don't have proof but no fox slobbers all over rabbits and leaves no other bite marks except where they probably pulled her by the leg out of the pen.

In future Jake will do what he was bred and raised to do and that is to live with, protect and defend his flock. The consequences are the dogs owners, not mine. My little boy cries every day for his pet and I cry with him and I am tired of losing beloved animals due to people that can't keep their animals on their property.

[persephone]

Around here it is common knowledge that if someone's dog strays and chases stock- it will never get home.

Those dogs caught in the act should have been euth'd.AND the owner should have been made to pay all costs.

[spottychick]

Which part of this isn't strict enough in your opinion?

NO immediate substantial fine issued to the owner.

NO order given or action taken to ensure that the dogs owner pay all costs incurred by the pony owner.

NO seizing of dogs until the owner shows that they have installed proper fencing to keep the dogs in and have taken whatever actions the Council deems necessary for the safety of other animals and people living in the area.

The dangerous dog order should be an additional condition imposed on the dog owners but by itself it's pointless.

As I have said a MILLION times, this isn't about wanting harsher punishment against the dogs - they are just doing what (some) dogs do, particularly if they've been badly raised and handled. This is about not penalising the dogs owners or doing anything to make them do the right thing and not doing anything to compensate the pony's owners for these horrific events.

There's no point in putting the dogs to sleep if you do nothing to the owners. They will just get other dogs and do the same thing all over again.

There's no point in simply issuing "dangerous dog" orders and doing nothing else. The owners will just get rid of the dogs and get some new ones or completely ignore the orders and then the dogs get out and do it again and THEN get seized and PTS (like I've seen happen here).

And still the pony owners get no recompense for their suffering and expenses and no sense of security knowing the idiot dog owners are still sitting there letting their dogs do whatever they like - especially while the council fart-arses about getting their act together to issue a notice of intention, then waiting for the appeal to be lodged, going through the appeal process yadda yadda yadda. Meanwhile, the dogs are still THERE, nothing has changed and the pony owners are under seige.

The non-action described in your post does nothing for anyone, least of all the owners of the pony or the dogs themselves.

Several of the dogs that roam freely around our town have dangerous dog orders on them, BIG DEAL. Everyone ignores that because they are fine with people, horses and other dogs (mostly). ANd yes they keep killing sheep (and local cats, chickens, wildlife and rabbits), the owners of the sheep haven't yet caught them in the act so they don't know which dogs they are. So they will just shoot the next dog/s they see anywhere near their property - which is likely to be the nice golden retriever from down the road who wouldn't hurt a fly but does tend to roam a bit.

Most recently the Council was on the verge of seizing one declared dog (who had attacked children - hence the whole town demanded action) so the owner shot it, pretended it had simply "disappeared" during the fireworks and now he's got a brand new kelpie puppy. That dog is destined to be as vicious as it's predecessor and that's a tragedy. NOthing has changed, the owner hasn't learnt a thing and the local people will be at risk again in a few months time.

[all that glitters]

I do have a CASD and the reason we got him was because of d!ckhead neighbours finding it funny watching their jack russells chase my emus through barbed wire fences and my mare and her new born foal all in front of me, my partner and our children. The new neighbours have 2 cocker spaniels that wander and me being the nice neighbour put my flock guardian in the house so to avoid what the realistic outcome would be if he caught them, why? to avoid neighbourly conflict, they are nice people and nice dogs. I came home last Saturday night (and for some reason penned Jake before I left) to find my son's beloved bunny who we had recently fought tooth and nail to save from bloat missing. We had been on a waiting list for a year to get her breed and we all loved her dearly. We found her Monday night dead near their fenceline she was covered in dry slobber, the skin pulled from the bone on one leg. My guess is that she was a cocker play toy, I don't have proof but no fox slobbers all over rabbits and leaves no other bite marks except where they probably pulled her by the leg out of the pen.

In future Jake will do what he was bred and raised to do and that is to live with, protect and defend his flock. The consequences are the dogs owners, not mine. My little boy cries every day for his pet and I cry with him and I am tired of losing beloved animals due to people that can't keep their animals on their property.

Thats terrible :rolleyes:

[shel]

...

For the Council to issue a dangerous dog order, the horse owner will have needed to make a formal complaint about the dog roaming. There absolutely are fines for roaming dogs. Are they enough? Worth examining maybe, though I expect at least some thought went into them.

There is no precedent that Council act as 'judge and jury' in a civil matter. A ranger (or Council) can't say to someone, you must pay this person X. Its completely outside the scope of their authority. While it seems 'fair' that the dog owner pay the horse owner damages, it's a matter for civil court. There has to proof presented in a formal way.

As stated in the original article, the Council can impound the dog if it's not secured properly. Does this guy have a perfect adequate enclosure, but the dogs got let out somehow? No one knows. We're only getting one side of the story in the article. If the dogs get out again (proving there is a genuine problem with confinement) then they can be seized.

During an attack, the property owner is able to protect themselves

'person who owns the property is legally entitled to injure or destroy the dog to prevent it from further harassing or killing'.

After the event however until the paperwork is sorted, in the eyes of the Council the dog owner has just as many rights as the horse owner. Boring I know, but hey, we decided to have a democracy where government officials can't just go around doing whatever the hell they like to the public (unless you're in Victoria, where they'll be packing guns and shooting strays).

Even if we got the most draconian, the most wizz-bang fine-based, impoundment heavy law we're still going to have a frustrating lapse between when the person was wronged and when we have all the authorities through to prosecute the owner. Such is the governmental solution.

.....

Its worth noting that usually in these cases it's a problem with 'enforcement of existing law' rather than the need for stronger laws.

Strengthening existing laws when the problem is actually enforcement, brings about a weird schizophrenic result where the law is completely not enforced... then enforced so heavily as to be seen to be unfair.

Everyone has the right to live safe from roaming dogs. If you have a problem in your town it probably isn't that you don't have enough laws, it's that the community hasn't demanded from council that animal management are well resourced and enforcing incrementally existing laws. Nipping the problem in the bud, so to speak.

Edited February 18, 2010 by shel

[WoofnHoof]

Whilst I am aware that accidents happen and some dogs may chase stock or other animals when they get out. I am still of the opinion that any dog seen worrying my stock will be disposed of.

I have seen 30 odd sheep ripped apart with unborn lambs ripped out of them, many still alive and having to be shot. You don't get over something like that very quickly.

I have two sheep here, they were bottle fed from around 12 hours of age, they were crated and I got up during the night to give feeds. I have a horse that was born here and I got to see his very first steps, I have an aged Clydesdale mare with arthritis who would find it very hard to evade an attack, I have cats and Guinea pigs, some babies I have bred and raised myslef. I have WHippets and an aged Stafford. Any fight would kill my Stafford and if my Whippets couldn't out run them, they would be badly injured as well.

Now tell me in all honesty that it is okay if even just one of them is injured or slaughtered and it is okay if the perpetrator gets away with it????? I am really sorry but I cannot agree. Those dogs slaughtered a pony, they inflicted agony and drawn out suffering on an animal that in no way could defend itsself. But they should be allowed to remain where they were AFTER they came back and tried to drag the carcass of a pony away??????

They should have been euthanased and if it happened on my place they would have been shot - no questions asked, no second chances given. I would not risk another or my animals to them.

Incidentaly in the properties around us we have Cattle dogs, Pitbulls, kelpies and Border Collies among others. None roam, we have never had a problem in 11 years. They are all close enough that the could easily reach our place but they are confined and monitored appropriately.

The perpetrator is a dog, not a human with the capacity to inflict pain for the fun of it or understand the consequences of their actions, they are animals acting on instinct it's not like killing them will set an example for other dogs not to do the same. An eye for an eye doesn't exactly mean anything to the animals themselves, so would you be killing the dog to prevent it happening again or just out of sheer vengance?

By all means fine the owners, order them to compensate and make them realise the importance of keeping their dogs contained but everyone knows accidents can happen and dogs can get out, I say this as the owner of horses who are extremely valuable to me and I would be utterly gutted (and more) if someone's dog (or even mine) injured or killed them but I wouldn't be baying for the blood of the dog, it wouldn't bring my animals back.

Many of the examples here are a result of irresponsible dog ownership where dogs are getting out time and time again and where the owners of the dogs are totally insensitive to the issue but if it were a one-off and the owner were truly remorseful and taking steps to ensure the dog is more securely contained in the future would you still be insisting on PTS?

I understand both sides of the equation as the owner of a high prey drive dog and the owner of prey animals it's my job to ensure that never the two meet and I would have no mercy for the owner of any dog who did not take that responsibility seriously, but I wouldn't take out my anger and sorrow on the dog itself.

[spottychick]

The perpetrator is a dog, not a human with the capacity to inflict pain for the fun of it or understand the consequences of their actions, they are animals acting on instinct it's not like killing them will set an example for other dogs not to do the same. An eye for an eye doesn't exactly mean anything to the animals themselves, so would you be killing the dog to prevent it happening again or just out of sheer vengance?

By all means fine the owners, order them to compensate and make them realise the importance of keeping their dogs contained but everyone knows accidents can happen and dogs can get out, I say this as the owner of horses who are extremely valuable to me and I would be utterly gutted (and more) if someone's dog (or even mine) injured or killed them but I wouldn't be baying for the blood of the dog, it wouldn't bring my animals back.

Many of the examples here are a result of irresponsible dog ownership where dogs are getting out time and time again and where the owners of the dogs are totally insensitive to the issue but if it were a one-off and the owner were truly remorseful and taking steps to ensure the dog is more securely contained in the future would you still be insisting on PTS?

I understand both sides of the equation as the owner of a high prey drive dog and the owner of prey animals it's my job to ensure that never the two meet and I would have no mercy for the owner of any dog who did not take that responsibility seriously, but I wouldn't take out my anger and sorrow on the dog itself.

Absolutely agree!!!

It's the owners fault NOT the dogs.

Shel - I see your point and thanks for taking the time to understand mine. I think we agree on a lot of things. But the law does need changing. WHile there are no adequate penalties for the owners (ie in the hip pocket or even loss of freedom) and the only real threat is that the dog/s might be punished a lot of irresponsible owners wont give a hoot and nothing will change.

Laws can be enacted to have severe on the spot fines that the dog owner then has the onus to take to court and appeal. There is plenty of precedent for this. And this kind of action, instead of just saying we'll slap an order on your dog and take it off you if you don't comply (so what?), is the only way they will take any attempt to intervene seriously.

As for compensation, if the law is seen to take the attack seriously, it will be easier for victims to get compensation and the process can be streamlined so that it's easier to do. For example, once it's clear the dog in question did the deed, the owner is automatically assigned responsibility for paying the vet bills and any other clearly defined expenses incurred by the victim. If they can issue a dangerous dog order they can issue an order to pay compensation at the same time, based on the same circumstances with a 7 day appeal built in for the dogs owner. If there's enough evidence to issue the DD order then there's enough to entitle the victim to having basic expenses met. Any question of further expenses or compensation for pain and suffering can then be a matter for civil courts.

My point is the existing laws and enforcement processes are clearly inadequate and BOTH need to be reformed.

And the emphasis needs to be on the dog OWNER not the dog.

[spottychick]

If you have a problem in your town it probably isn't that you don't have enough laws, it's that the community hasn't demanded from council that animal management are well resourced and enforcing incrementally existing laws. Nipping the problem in the bud, so to speak.

No, you misunderstand. The community are generally happy NOT having council intervene and would not dream of involving "the authorities" unless it's absolutely necessary. WHy? Because they have no faith in the existing laws or bumbling Council officers and would rather deal with it themselves.

They are country folk who have never seen any good come of calling in the authorities - the only time I've seen them do it is when a CHILD was hurt - as I explained in my post. But still, all that happened was that the dog in question had a "dangerous dog" order slapped on him which the owner promptly ignored. Locals were appalled and muttered about what a waste of time it was calling the council as they watched this dog running around the streets doing whatever it liked and it's owner just laughing at them. All of them knew that what was needed was serious action to be taken against the dogs OWNER, otherwise it was all just a joke to him. It's not like he cared one way or the other about what happened to his dog (or to the local kids).

A few weeks later, it predictably bit another child so it's owner shot it (it would probably have been shot by a local anyway if the owner hadn't done it). I doubt the council even know.

The council and it's lame regulations were seen as a complete waste of time and useless in this whole scenario - especially as now the idiot has another dog. He's probably training it to attack kiddies as I type.

People here will not bother calling the council at all next time. They'll just take matters into their own hands.

[shel]

And the emphasis needs to be on the dog OWNER not the dog.

And...

Take the little threats seriously.

As mentioned by others, this probably hasn't happened in isolation. If those dogs are owned by a nitwit, they have likely done other things that would be 'red flags' to animal management that they were a danger to others.

Rather than just zap the owner into financial oblivion once someone has been fatally injured, why not give the little signs the gravity they deserve?

There are models that do work to reduce dog attacks but it means being proactive, rather than reactive. After the fact punishment, doesn't reduce dog attacks, because they've already happened.

(US) Calgary dog attacks fall to lowest level in 25 years

This year, Bruce is launching a pilot project where he'll have six officers dedicated to following up every aggressive dog complaint to identify common factors in attacks that can be addressed in future bylaw enforcement and public education campaigns.

"We want to look at everything that led up to an aggressive dog attack," said Bruce. "We're hoping to find four to six common things that people do that causes dogs to bite. Our goal is not to have anyone bitten by a dog."

At the same time Bruce investigates softer approaches to addressing pet owner issues, he's also been given a bigger stick with which to penalize chronically non-compliant dog owners.

More solutions from Calgary (video)

Edited to add:

They are country folk who have never seen any good come of calling in the authorities.

Watch the video. The centrepiece of Calgary's model is for animal management to develop a relationship with its community that promotes responsible ownership and builds trust - and offers them a service for their $. Rather than see the public as an enemy to be coerced with more laws, more fines and more dranconian pet ownership criteria.

Edited February 19, 2010 by shel

[spottychick]

They are country folk who have never seen any good come of calling in the authorities.

Watch the video. The centrepiece of Calgary's model is for animal management to develop a relationship with its community that promotes responsible ownership and builds trust - and offers them a service for their $. Rather than see the public as an enemy to be coerced with more laws, more fines and more dranconian pet ownership criteria.

Oh that all sounds really good!!! Gotta walk the dogs now so I'll try and watch it when I get back. Hope it works on my slow dial up connection

[Sheilaheel02]

I have had issues with local dogs roaming where I live. I've spent a fortune upgrading fencing and electrifying fencing to keep other people's animals out as well as mine in.

I have tried to talk to the owners in a civil manner, but it proved pointless.

I reported the offending dogs and did a letter box drop putting everyone on notice.

The dogs continued to come onto my property and harass my horses, in front of me and in front of the neighbour, yet he just stood back and heckled me while I tried to get the dogs away.

I made several complaints to the local police and eventually had a visit from the Stock Squad. The officer who came out took a statement, offered me a neck rub (WTF?) and left again after reminding me that the offending neighbour could bait my dogs as he had threatened and there would be no proof so to think carefully about making a further complaint! I was livid. Eventually, we got a new local cop who did listen and went and gave the neighbour a formal warning and told him if it happened again he would fine him on the spot.

One offending dog was rehomed and the other eventually shot (not by me). They now have two more pig dogs but one consolation is that when they are not at home the dogs are kept in a dog run.

One of the other rednecks that lives out here has encouraged his dogs to chase me while I was on my horse riding up the road Same bloke who's pigdogs pulled down and ripped up their own horse. Stupid is as stupid does.....it's just not their dogs they are ignorant about, they have little consideration for anyone else and conduct themselves accordingly, so I can't for the life of me imagine them sitting down and watching a video on responsible dog ownership in the name of self-education.

So, yes, it is the owners who are to blame and they should be punished. These people are repeat offenders who never seem to learn a thing. They also think it's a very manly thing to do to try to intimidate and bully a woman because she is single - picked the WRONG woman fellas

Of course, if one of my neighbours dogs, for whatever reason gets out and just happens to wander on to my place, I either call them up to collect it or drop it home myself.

However, after having very little success following the normal legal processes, if there is a dog on my property chasing/attacking one of my horses and I am here to see it I will shoot it on the spot. If it were my own foster dogs chasing/attacking the horses and they wouldn't stop I'd shoot them too, though every precaution is taken to ensure that never happens. It's not something that I would find easy to do, but I'd definitely do it. My horses are not 'just livestock' whose lives can be compensated for in monetary terms, they are my pets and part of my family. I feel strongly that part of being a responsible animal owner is not only to ensure that my animals don't unneccessarily inconvenience others, but to protect my own animals from harm wherever possible.

RIP little ponies, you were also treasured pets and had every right to be safe on your own property. My sincere sympathies to the owners. I've lost a horse recently too and I am still devastated.

S

Edited February 19, 2010 by Sheilaheel02

[Lhok]

With all the laws in the world you won't be able to legislate out sheer human stupidity and ignorance..

The dogs across the road from my parents house constantly charge the fence, escape and have bitten on many occasions. Many people have complained about the dogs however all the council has done is go down the declared dangerous dog road, the people who own the dogs say they don't care about the laws regarding keeping their dogs on their property and when someone mention that they could get fined for it they said " I love to see the council get blood out of a stone."

What and how can someone deal with that when they don't even care about the law?

So while some people might get the idea with the dangerous dog laws I fully support some people in shooting dogs out of the need to protect themselves and their loved ones be it animal or human.

--Lhok

[Savane]

My animals have the right to live safely on my property, dog owners have the responsibility to keep their dogs on their own property.

If my boy wandered onto another property and was shot, then that is my fault - not his or the property owner

I totally agree with this, I have many other animals and would be devestated if they were attacked by anothers dogs on my property. I certainly do love dogs by I love other animals too....

[Savane]

I came home last Saturday night (and for some reason penned Jake before I left) to find my son's beloved bunny who we had recently fought tooth and nail to save from bloat missing. We had been on a waiting list for a year to get her breed and we all loved her dearly. We found her Monday night dead near their fenceline she was covered in dry slobber, the skin pulled from the bone on one leg. My guess is that she was a cocker play toy, I don't have proof but no fox slobbers all over rabbits and leaves no other bite marks except where they probably pulled her by the leg out of the pen.

In future Jake will do what he was bred and raised to do and that is to live with, protect and defend his flock. The consequences are the dogs owners, not mine. My little boy cries every day for his pet and I cry with him and I am tired of losing beloved animals due to people that can't keep their animals on their property.

Oh that is heartbreaking, I am so sorry to hear that, I have a mini lop and would be devestated to hear such news. Some people too place less value of smaller animals and that really angers me, I have chicken that have been attacked by a small while maltese/terrior X and nothing was done by the ranger, the RSPCA defended all the wandering cats that used to try and kill the chicks too. So frustrating, if everyone could just look after their own pet responsibiliy this sort of thing wouldn't happen!! Please give Jake my sympathy

[centitout]

Thats another problem- idiots who know there way around the court system.If fined,or made to pay the vet bills-its just "cry poor" and they get to pay it off at $5 week for the next umpteen years.Not good enough to someone who may have to pay thousands in vet fees to save their ripped up animal.

[OSoSwift]

so would you be killing the dog to prevent it happening again or just out of sheer vengance?

No not for sheer vengence - not my style. The dog would be euthed to make sure it didn't happen again. We have been shown time and time again that people do not listen and do not take appropriate steps to stop it happening again. I would not risk that fact the animal would get out and attack or kill my defenceless animals again. If the same happened to my own dogs I would as mentioned before deeply mourn the loss of my dogs but would fully understand why it had been done.

It would be my fault my dogs had been allowed to raom.

Having said that a dog merely turning up at my place will get contained, have a feed,drink and any help it requires whilst the appropriate channels are followed to find it's owner as I have done in the past.

I will not shot a dog no questions asked, but kill, injure or maime one and that is what will happen.

My dog returned our neighbours dogs 4 times. They still didn't keep them home (had to go around 15 to 20kms to get to our property) so they disappeared.

[WoofnHoof]

so would you be killing the dog to prevent it happening again or just out of sheer vengance?

No not for sheer vengence - not my style. The dog would be euthed to make sure it didn't happen again. We have been shown time and time again that people do not listen and do not take appropriate steps to stop it happening again. I would not risk that fact the animal would get out and attack or kill my defenceless animals again. If the same happened to my own dogs I would as mentioned before deeply mourn the loss of my dogs but would fully understand why it had been done.

It would be my fault my dogs had been allowed to raom.

Having said that a dog merely turning up at my place will get contained, have a feed,drink and any help it requires whilst the appropriate channels are followed to find it's owner as I have done in the past.

I will not shot a dog no questions asked, but kill, injure or maime one and that is what will happen.

My dog returned our neighbours dogs 4 times. They still didn't keep them home (had to go around 15 to 20kms to get to our property) so they disappeared.

What if you didn't allow your dogs to roam but that they escaped for whatever reason? A storm might blow a tree onto your fences, any number of things can happen we've seen it here loads of times. I'm not talking about repeat offenders or irresponsible owners I'm talking about a one off escape that could not be forseen. If a dog has a high prey drive it's highly likely it will chase something that looks like prey, I suppose the answer is that no one should ever have a dog with high prey drive if you don't want it shot if it ever escapes.

Sheilaheel02:

My horses are not 'just livestock' whose lives can be compensated for in monetary terms, they are my pets and part of my family

As are mine.