What Is The Definition Of "adequate Fencing"

[Tilly]

I was reading the article about the two cross-bred dogs Thurston and Bowen. First they attacked a Lhasa Apso who entered their yard (apparently under the fence) and then a couple of days later bite a child who was leaning over the fence attempting to hit them with something.

In particular ... there was a comment by A Antoniolli that the "dogs were seized because the fencing was inadequate".

Now ... there no reference to the dogs escaping their yard and I have always assumed "adequate fencing" would mean a suitable fence in which to keep your dogs in the yard. Now it seems adequate fencing might mean a fence in which to keep stupid people and their animals out of your yard.

What is your view on "adequate fencing" and it there anywhere that specifies what "adequate fencing" actually means?

Articles below...

Dogs seized after attack

Andrew Korner | 5th May 2010

Thurston and Bowen have been seized by Ipswich City Council following Sunday’s attack.

IPSWICH City Council has seized two dogs following an attack on an elderly Ipswich woman and her treasured pooch.

Crystal Boatfield, 70, said her six-year-old Lhasa Apso, Sonny Boy, was attacked after it strayed from her yard in Bannerman Street, Riverview, on Sunday.

Although it was not certain whether Sonny Boy crawled under the neighbour’s fence or was dragged under after approaching foreign territory, he ended up being bitten numerous times by the two large male dogs.

Ms Boatfield was then bitten on the hands and legs as she tried to rescue her dog.

“It was about 6pm Sunday night. The girl across the road started screaming and all I could see was this other dog trying to pull Sonny in through the fence. He was vicious and just wouldn’t let go,” she said.

“How he got into the yard I don’t even know, but I was either protecting him or he was trying to protect me.”

The owners of cross-bred dogs Thurston and Bowen – which were both named after the North Queensland rugby league players – said their dogs were simply guarding their territory.

Despite being cleared of any wrong-doing, Kristina Carney said she and partner Steven Noon would build a new fence to keep their dogs confined to the back half of the yard.

“I do not believe my dogs would drag another dog into the yard to attack it, in fact I don’t think my dogs’ heads would even fit under the fence,” Ms Carney said.

“They are two big male dogs full of testosterone who were in their own yard at the time. I just really want people to know that they are not vicious mongrel dogs.”

Ms Boatfield was treated for bite marks to her hands and legs after Sunday’s attack and is resting at home.

Sonny Boy was treated by an RSPCA vet and is still recovering.

Ipswich City Council officers seized Thurston and Bowen – classed as an American Staffordshire cross and a bull Arab cross – following another incident on Monday.

A child from a neighbouring property allegedly leaned over the back fence and attempted to hit one of the dogs with an object, prompting the animal to jump up and snap at the child, causing a minor injury.

Health and Regulation Committee chairman Andrew Antoniolli said the child’s parents did not make a complaint due to the circumstances of the incident.

“The dogs have been seized and lodged at the Ipswich City Council pound until council is satisfied the fencing at the property is sufficient,” Cr Antoniolli said.

“The owners of the dogs have co-operated fully and at no stage has there been any suggestion the dogs have left the property. Both incidents appear to have been sparked by the dogs being annoyed by means out of their control.”

Council is considering whether or not Bowen and Thurston should be declared as dangerous dogs.

Meanwhile, Australian Veterinary Association president Dr Mark Lawrie warned all dogs had the potential to bite if threatened.

Despite a downward trend in the number of attacks on children aged nine or less, young children are still the highest risk group for dog bite injuries.

Readers Comments...

Posted by Royston92 from East Ipswich, Queensland

05 May 2010 8:24 p.m. | Suggest removal » | Post reply »

I don't understand why these dogs were seized they were in their own yard and provoked by others. The dog laws are over the top and anyone who has to deal with them would agree. I think the Mayor and Councillors are empire builders and need to realise they are elected to serve residents as are their staff. At this point I firmly believe that they are their own law and care little, if at all about these dog owners or anything other than an election win. I think the dog owners should get an apology from councillor Antoniolli because these dogs should have never been touched by the dog squad.

Posted by AAntoniolli from Ipswich, Queensland

06 May 2010 11:08 p.m. | Suggest removal » | Post reply »

@ Royston92 of East Ipswich - If you read the article carefully you will see why the action was taken. Firstly the laws are not our own, they are set by the State under the Animal Management Act. I agree these dogs never left their property, however two separate attacks occurred and by law they must be investigated. Clearly, and regardless of the fact that the dogs were contained to their yard, they were still able to bite a person and another dog either under, through or over the existing fence. The dogs were seized because the fencing was inadequate and that there was a further risk that others could be bitten by these dogs. This is a sensible approach to what is a very unusual set of circumstances. I use the example of a dog that can jump up and bite the postie as he delivers the mail. In that example the fence would clearly be inadequate and should be raised to protect the mailman and others. In the matter above, it's obvious that changes are required to the fencing. Therefore, once the fencing has been improved to the reasonable satisfaction of our staff and a prudent investigation of the attacks has been undertaken then the dogs are likely to be promptly returned to the owner. Regarding the declaration of the dogs, that too is a requirement of the State Law and the outcome will be dependent upon the investigation and the requirements of the legislation. It is clear to see that our hands are tied by the State legislation. Obviously other matters relating to the initial attack on 'Sonny Boy' will also be investigated. I certainly do not need to make any apology either for myself or on behalf of the actions of our staff for taking a sensible approach towards ensuring public safety. I applaud and thank the dog owners for their co-operation and understanding.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Tilly

[MolassesLass]

Seems to be whatever the council thinks.

From Local Law No.7

Fencing and enclosure requirements

62 (1) A person must not keep a dog on any premises without fencing the premises or a sufficient part thereof, or providing on the premises an enclosure or other means, sufficient and suitable in the opinion of the local government to:

(a) effectively prevent a dog leaving or escaping from the premises; and

(b) provide adequate freedom for a dog to exercise, having due regard in both matters to the breed, size, and nature of the dog; and

© comply with the requirements of the subordinate local law.

Maximum Penalty -10 Penalty Units

(2) It is a defence against a breach of subsection (1) if the person has a reasonable and lawful excuse.

Maybe even though the attacks occured within the yard, the fencing wasn't adequate.

ETA:

Perhaps the dogs were declared menacing or dangerous and the existing fencing doesn't meet the laws required for those type of dogs.

Whatever it is, it's scary to think you've got to be responsible for keeping other animals and people out rather than just keeping your dogs in.

Edited May 7, 2010 by molasseslass

[Tilly]

I know that when my brother and his wife got a dog they had to have fences at least 1.2 metres high ... that height wouldn't stop someone from leaning over the fence and getting bitten. The fence was more then adequate to keep this particular dog (and even our dogs) in the yard but not adequate to protect the public from getting bitten … or even another dog from jumping over or entering the yard.

We have 8ft timber paling fences which are padlocked ... but in reality someone who wants to get in can still climb them. So, if someone climbs over my fence and gets bitten or killed in my yard by my dogs … then would the fence be considered adequate because it hasn’t stopped someone from getting injured/killed.

[16Paws]

I remember years ago they used to specify fence heights in Logan Council. From memory you had to have 1.2m for anything up to medium size dog and 1.5 or 1.8 for large dogs. Don't know if this is still the case.

[MolassesLass]

Cr Andrew Antoniolli has posted previously, maybe he will again.

16Paws - yes still the law. Dogs under 8kg must have 1m+ fences and over is 1.8m+

Edited May 7, 2010 by molasseslass

[Greytmate]

Brisbane and Ipswich CC have fencing regulations for domestic dogs in their subordinate local laws, and they are available to look up.

Here is the relevant one.

Part 8 Miscellaneous

17 Fencing and enclosure requirements (LL section 62)

(1) An enclosure for the purpose of section 62 of the local law should be

adequate in order to restrict the dog to the premises.

Example – a pool enclosure, tennis court, balcony, verandah or similar may not be

considered suitable.

(2) If the enclosure abuts public or private property, the fencing should not

allow any part of the dogs anatomy to cross the property boundary.

Example – the fencing should be such that the dogs paw, snout or any other part of

the dog can not fit through the fence.

(3) The enclosure must provide a sheltered area from the elements for the

dog at all times.

(4) A runner is not considered a suitable enclosure.

IPSWICH CITY COUNCIL

Subordinate Local Law No. 7 – (Dogs) 2005

Edited May 7, 2010 by Greytmate

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

I imagine my front fence and most front fences in my burb would be inadequate because my dog can jump mine, and the others are too short to stop a big dog standing up and leaning over, or sticking a paw through.

So it wouldn't be ok to leave my dog off lead out the front if she was likely to chase or attack over the fence. And kiddies reaching over the fence is just asking for trouble, best prevented.

The back yard, has 2m high corrugated iron all round. And my dog doesn't jump that but there are dogs that can. So adequete for my dog, and not adequete for jumping dog. If there was a hole my dog could reach under and pull things through - that would not be adequete either.

Don't know enough about this particular event to say one way or another about the fencing.

I agree with the council person who said the big dogs were not at fault. Their patch was invaded.

[tdierikx]

Great - the owners of the dogs said they'd contain the dogs to the back part of the yard to stop them reacting if anotherdog or person stuck part of themselves over or under the current fence - and now they have a stupid child hanging over the back fence aggravating the dogs and the dogs get locked up??

Pretty soon we are all going to have to have massive cage enclosures in every yard that has a dog - to prevent the public from being stupid and getting bitten for invading the animals' territory uninvited...

*shakes head at political correctness protecting the stupid minorities*

T.

[GeckoTree]

Pretty much a solid fence it reads like.

Seems the Lhasa Apso's fencing wasn't adequate. If it was it wouldnt have wandered and been bitten.

Edited May 7, 2010 by GeckoTree

[Wazzat Xolo]

I was reading the article about the two cross-bred dogs Thurston and Bowen. First they attacked a Lhasa Apso who entered their yard (apparently under the fence) and then a couple of days later bite a child who was leaning over the fence attempting to hit them with something.

In particular ... there was a comment by A Antoniolli that the "dogs were seized because the fencing was inadequate".

Now ... there no reference to the dogs escaping their yard and I have always assumed "adequate fencing" would mean a suitable fence in which to keep your dogs in the yard. Now it seems adequate fencing might mean a fence in which to keep stupid people and their animals out of your yard.

What is your view on "adequate fencing" and it there anywhere that specifies what "adequate fencing" actually means?

Articles below...

Dogs seized after attack

Andrew Korner | 5th May 2010

Thurston and Bowen have been seized by Ipswich City Council following Sunday’s attack.

IPSWICH City Council has seized two dogs following an attack on an elderly Ipswich woman and her treasured pooch.

Crystal Boatfield, 70, said her six-year-old Lhasa Apso, Sonny Boy, was attacked after it strayed from her yard in Bannerman Street, Riverview, on Sunday.

Although it was not certain whether Sonny Boy crawled under the neighbour’s fence or was dragged under after approaching foreign territory, he ended up being bitten numerous times by the two large male dogs.

Ms Boatfield was then bitten on the hands and legs as she tried to rescue her dog.

“It was about 6pm Sunday night. The girl across the road started screaming and all I could see was this other dog trying to pull Sonny in through the fence. He was vicious and just wouldn’t let go,” she said.

“How he got into the yard I don’t even know, but I was either protecting him or he was trying to protect me.”

The owners of cross-bred dogs Thurston and Bowen – which were both named after the North Queensland rugby league players – said their dogs were simply guarding their territory.

Despite being cleared of any wrong-doing, Kristina Carney said she and partner Steven Noon would build a new fence to keep their dogs confined to the back half of the yard.

“I do not believe my dogs would drag another dog into the yard to attack it, in fact I don’t think my dogs’ heads would even fit under the fence,” Ms Carney said.

“They are two big male dogs full of testosterone who were in their own yard at the time. I just really want people to know that they are not vicious mongrel dogs.”

Ms Boatfield was treated for bite marks to her hands and legs after Sunday’s attack and is resting at home.

Sonny Boy was treated by an RSPCA vet and is still recovering.

Ipswich City Council officers seized Thurston and Bowen – classed as an American Staffordshire cross and a bull Arab cross – following another incident on Monday.

A child from a neighbouring property allegedly leaned over the back fence and attempted to hit one of the dogs with an object, prompting the animal to jump up and snap at the child, causing a minor injury.

Health and Regulation Committee chairman Andrew Antoniolli said the child’s parents did not make a complaint due to the circumstances of the incident.

“The dogs have been seized and lodged at the Ipswich City Council pound until council is satisfied the fencing at the property is sufficient,” Cr Antoniolli said.

“The owners of the dogs have co-operated fully and at no stage has there been any suggestion the dogs have left the property. Both incidents appear to have been sparked by the dogs being annoyed by means out of their control.”

Council is considering whether or not Bowen and Thurston should be declared as dangerous dogs.

Meanwhile, Australian Veterinary Association president Dr Mark Lawrie warned all dogs had the potential to bite if threatened.

Despite a downward trend in the number of attacks on children aged nine or less, young children are still the highest risk group for dog bite injuries.

Readers Comments...

Posted by Royston92 from East Ipswich, Queensland

05 May 2010 8:24 p.m. | Suggest removal » | Post reply »

I don't understand why these dogs were seized they were in their own yard and provoked by others. The dog laws are over the top and anyone who has to deal with them would agree. I think the Mayor and Councillors are empire builders and need to realise they are elected to serve residents as are their staff. At this point I firmly believe that they are their own law and care little, if at all about these dog owners or anything other than an election win. I think the dog owners should get an apology from councillor Antoniolli because these dogs should have never been touched by the dog squad.

Posted by AAntoniolli from Ipswich, Queensland

06 May 2010 11:08 p.m. | Suggest removal » | Post reply »

@ Royston92 of East Ipswich - If you read the article carefully you will see why the action was taken. Firstly the laws are not our own, they are set by the State under the Animal Management Act. I agree these dogs never left their property, however two separate attacks occurred and by law they must be investigated. Clearly, and regardless of the fact that the dogs were contained to their yard, they were still able to bite a person and another dog either under, through or over the existing fence. The dogs were seized because the fencing was inadequate and that there was a further risk that others could be bitten by these dogs. This is a sensible approach to what is a very unusual set of circumstances. I use the example of a dog that can jump up and bite the postie as he delivers the mail. In that example the fence would clearly be inadequate and should be raised to protect the mailman and others. In the matter above, it's obvious that changes are required to the fencing. Therefore, once the fencing has been improved to the reasonable satisfaction of our staff and a prudent investigation of the attacks has been undertaken then the dogs are likely to be promptly returned to the owner. Regarding the declaration of the dogs, that too is a requirement of the State Law and the outcome will be dependent upon the investigation and the requirements of the legislation. It is clear to see that our hands are tied by the State legislation. Obviously other matters relating to the initial attack on 'Sonny Boy' will also be investigated. I certainly do not need to make any apology either for myself or on behalf of the actions of our staff for taking a sensible approach towards ensuring public safety. I applaud and thank the dog owners for their co-operation and understanding.

basically it is a fence that is adequate to confine the dog ( Most Dog laws and Local Laws state this ) DD Laws have their own stipulations, it is very open as all dogs are diff but basically they mean a 1ft high fence is not adequate for a Dobermann etc!

[Earthdog]

“It was about 6pm Sunday night. The girl across the road started screaming and all I could see was this other dog trying to pull Sonny in through the fence. He was vicious and just wouldn’t let go,” she said.

“How he got into the yard I don’t even know, but I was either protecting him or he was trying to protect me.”

Translation?

[Jed]

It's pretty useless challenging dog laws, but it seems to me, from reading the regulations, that the 2 dogs were sufficiently contained within the fence. The Lhasa (or part of him) was within the fence, the child was within the fence.

It also seems to me that the owners of the dogs would have a reasonable case in law, if they wanted to push it.

I agree with other posters, we will soon need fences to contain lions to stop others putting some part of their anatomy on our property.