Wyndham City Council

[Ms James]

Hah! I was in the local rag whinging about the proposed law a few months back, they used an old photo, though. The local rag always rings me up for a quote when there's something animal-related going on. Apparently I'm the only dog owner in Wyndham. They got me while I was half-asleep, too Otherwise I would have had a few more choice things to say about it.

Under their wording, I would be fined for my dogs running out the front of my (unfenced) property. When I take my dogs out, I open the front door and say "car". They then bolt out like bulls at the gate and wait by the car. To anyone walking past, they could freak out that there are 2 dogs running out a door. My dogs couldn't give two stuffs that there's someone walking past, to them, the car is the great big fat reward and far more interesting than any other distraction in the street. Most people wouldn't understand this and would automatically react by calling the council - especially in this area.

[Jake-K9]

The wording still leaves it open for interpretation, Keith. Does it mean that the dogs are somehow getting beyond their boundary fence when they are biting, striking, or jumping at the fence, or does it mean that these actions are not permissible when directed at a person or animal which is beyond their boundary fence?

[Erny]

The wording still leaves it open for interpretation, Keith. Does it mean that the dogs are somehow getting beyond their boundary fence when they are biting, striking, or jumping at the fence, or does it mean that these actions are not permissible when directed at a person or animal which is beyond their boundary fence?

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?

[Jake-K9]

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.

Just went back and re-read your original post - seems I have interpreted it correctly....

[Erny]

As dog owners, we now need to help our companions adapt and try to de-sensitise them based these new parameters.

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.

[KeithT]

The wording still leaves it open for interpretation, Keith. Does it mean that the dogs are somehow getting beyond their boundary fence when they are biting, striking, or jumping at the fence, or does it mean that these actions are not permissible when directed at a person or animal which is beyond their boundary fence?

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.

[KeithT]

As dog owners, we now need to help our companions adapt and try to de-sensitise them based these new parameters.

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.

[KeithT]

The wording still leaves it open for interpretation, Keith. Does it mean that the dogs are somehow getting beyond their boundary fence when they are biting, striking, or jumping at the fence, or does it mean that these actions are not permissible when directed at a person or animal which is beyond their boundary fence?

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.

[Erny]

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.

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.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Erny

[KeithT]

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.

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.

Edited April 30, 2010 by KeithT

[wolfgirl]

This was in our other local paper that came out today

http://thebanner.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

TOUGH new dog laws were due to be considered by Wyndham Council at last night’s meeting.

Under controversial draft proposals revealed in January, it would have been an offence for any dog to act in an offensive or threatening manner by physically striking, biting or jumping at any person or other animal beyond the boundary fence of a property. It was also intended to ban dogs being left unsupervised in front yards, however, this was not part of the final recommendation.

The changes came in response to complaints to the council from Australia Post employees and residents who had been attacked, rushed at or frightened by dogs kept in the front yard of properties.

Fourteen objections were received to the proposed amendments, as well as a further objection with 30 signatures. According to a council report, many viewed its approach as being too blunt and recommended the issue be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

As a result, an offence will now only apply when the council receives a complaint about a dog behaving in an offensive or threatening manner.

When this occurs, a local laws officer will address the issue with the owner through information and education. If unsuccessful, they will attempt to develop an individual animal management plan. Should this fail to work, officers can impose a plan, which requires the owner to take actions to manage the dog’s behaviour. Any breaches not remedied after a warning could result in a fine.

Owners of dogs declared by the council as menacing must also display a warning sign at all entrances to the premise where the animal is kept.

Last year, the council received 68 complaints from residents regarding aggressive dogs running at fences.

[Natsu chan]

Why couldn't they just specify that dogs contained in front yards need fences of certain dimensions and that letter boxes must be able to be safely accessed from the street? With all the subdivision going on in Melbourne of late I'd imagine a lot of people don't have a backyard anymore.

[Erny]

Last year, the council received 68 complaints from residents regarding aggressive dogs running at fences.

The population of Wyndham City is reported as being 145,070. Of that amount there's been a sum total of 68 complaints to the City of Wyndham (within what time frame?). How many of that total sum of 68 complaints actually ARE because the dogs running at the fences are aggressive? Has the Council actually verified the behaviour, or are they only reliant on each of the 68 individuals (assuming this is about 68 different individuals and not some of the same) interpretation of what aggression is (or isn't) ?

I wish I could get some of the changes within my Council district based on only a populous of 68 people wanting it.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Erny