Proposed Nuisance Dog Order

[MooBoo]

We have just recieved a proposed nuisance dog order for 2 of our dogs. They escaped from our new house the day after we moved in. We were told the dogs had attacked a pug who was sitting on a beach which is clearly marked as no dogs allowed, while its owner and her daughter were swimming.

The council came out 5 days later and took their photo and microchip details etc, saw where we had fixed the problem - they had pushed a wire fence under the house down - and said everything looked great. The council adviced the owner to take her dog to the vet but she said it was fine. The ranger said that because of this, the fact that we had fixed everything and it was their first day in a new environment he believed nothing would come of it, but it would still need to go to a panel to be decided.

Today on the proposal it states that both dogs attacked this dog and it received puncture wounds - this is the first we have heard of this - and that obviously the dogs were offleash and not under effective control - as was her dog.

The notice says we can contest the notice in writing on or before 5pm 8th dec. Today is the 8 dec, and we don't get home before 5pm - it only arrived today. If we don't contest then the dogs will be declared a nuisance 7 days after the date of the notice which is the 1 dec, so they are now declared a nuisance.

The terms we have been given are:

- ensure dog is under effective control of a competent person by means of an adequate chain, cord or leash that is attached to the dog and that is being held by the person whenever it is in a public place - this happens anyway, as they have terrible recall.

- take resonable precautions to prevent your dog from escaping the confines of your property - this has already been done and the ranger has sighted it.

- prevent your dog from endangering the health and safety of any person or animal, a example of this would be enrolling your dog in behavioural and obedience classes - this one I don't understand???

The order will remain in place for 6 months. A nuisance dog order is final and is not subject to any appeal or review.

Is there now nothing we can do?? Is this all that happens???

Thankyou in advance

[poodlefan]

Ask for an extension to contest the order or appeal the declaration.

Ask for evidence of the pug's injuries.

[KKDD]

have a talk to the ranger about what it means. Most rangers are very reasonable people who dont want to make life difficult for you if you are genuinely doing your best to fix the problem. They see a lot worse that people like yourself.

I think nuisance orders are temporary too - so if the order stands, you may just need to keep your dogs out of trouble for 6 months (check that with the ranger though).

[MissMaddy]

Call Steve at K9pro. He has experience in these sort of things and can help you in the right way to procede.

[dogslife]

A nuisance order is just a way to get people to take their dog to training and to try and get some extra control over them.

It appears that it expires after 6 mths and it looks like you are doing everything anyway.

If what you have written is all you have to do then I would just accept it and wait the 6 mths out.

[MooBoo]

Ask for an extension to contest the order or appeal the declaration.

Ask for evidence of the pug's injuries.

OH is going to ring tomorrow to find out about an extension - Dogs are registered in his name

I want some evidence of the injuries, this is the part that irks me as all along we were told there was no injury and the owner hasn't contacted us for costs etc, which I most definitely would have had it been the other way around.

A nuisance order is just a way to get people to take their dog to training and to try and get some extra control over them.

It appears that it expires after 6 mths and it looks like you are doing everything anyway.

If what you have written is all you have to do then I would just accept it and wait the 6 mths out.

They are the only terms listed, do I have to get training, is that what the third one is saying, I don't quite understand that one. I will get OH to find out tomorrow.

[Flaves]

A nuisance order is just a way to get people to take their dog to training and to try and get some extra control over them.

It appears that it expires after 6 mths and it looks like you are doing everything anyway.

If what you have written is all you have to do then I would just accept it and wait the 6 mths out.

I agree with this

Your dogs did get out and they did attack a dog - it doesnt matter if it was in a non dog area, your dogs were in the wrong having got out and attacked another dog

[abed]

I would be interested to know what evidence they had to determine the OP's dogs were involved???.

[Greytmate]

I would be interested to know what evidence they had to determine the OP's dogs were involved???.

The OP has admitted that her dogs were involved.

[Remarkabull]

I once had a neighbour that had a GSD that wouldn't stop barking. It eventually was declared a nuisance dog and as far as I saw (or heard) nothing was done about it and 6 months later the ranger knocked on my door to ask if the dog was still a problem and if enough people said it was then he would keep the dog on a nuisance order for another 6 months. I asked why as it didn't do anything to help stop the problem, he told me that if a dog is a declared nuisance and if any complaints are made or breaches of the order occur then the owners will receive an instant fine.

If you are sure that the dogs will not be able to escape or cause any problems then I would just wear it for 6 months and then it goes away.

[raz]

We have just recieved a proposed nuisance dog order for 2 of our dogs. They escaped from our new house the day after we moved in. We were told the dogs had attacked a pug who was sitting on a beach which is clearly marked as no dogs allowed, while its owner and her daughter were swimming.

Your dogs got out and attacked another dog - your words. Wear it. It's lucky you're not up for vet bills.

[Erny]

A bit rough, Raz? The OP was "told" her dog attacked a pug. The OP was also "told" there was no damage/injury.

[raz]

A bit rough, Raz? The OP was "told" her dog attacked a pug. The OP was also "told" there was no damage/injury.

Is it rough, Erny? The Op has said his/her dogs got out and attacked a dog sitting on the beach. He/she has received an order from Council. Good on them for fixing the fence to make sure they dont get out again but to ask how to deal with an order based on the fact the pug was on a prohibited area for dogs - c'mon now.

[sandgrubber]

My experience with councils is that they often require people to do things yesterday. They also realise that this happens. Don't throw out the envelope so you can show the postmark. Even if there was no attack, dogs roaming free in public areas isn't ok, and could be valid reason for a nuisance order . . . I think the best thing you can do is make it clear that you won't allow a repeat . . . and don't allow a repeat. Six months isn't that long. In effect all you got was a warning. Sounds fair to me.

[Erny]

A bit rough, Raz? The OP was "told" her dog attacked a pug. The OP was also "told" there was no damage/injury.

Is it rough, Erny? The Op has said his/her dogs got out and attacked a dog sitting on the beach. He/she has received an order from Council. Good on them for fixing the fence to make sure they dont get out again but to ask how to deal with an order based on the fact the pug was on a prohibited area for dogs - c'mon now.

No. The OP is saying this is what s/he has been "told" her dog did. Unless I've missed something (:confused), it is hearsay, especially since there seems to be no evidence and also especially since the initial enquiry resulted in the OP being informed there was no damage/injury sustained.

I'll be happy to stand corrected if it is myself who is mis-reading the information.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Erny

[Baby Dragon]

..

Edited December 9, 2010 by Baby Dragon

[raz]

No. The OP is saying this is what s/he has been "told" her dog did. Unless I've missed something (:confused), it is hearsay, especially since there seems to be no evidence and also especially since the initial enquiry resulted in the OP being informed there was no damage/injury sustained.

I'll be happy to stand corrected if it is myself who is mis-reading the information.

Well all we can go off is what's in the OP. OP said her dogs got out after one day at a new house. I'm sure the owners of the attacked dog didnt just do a random search of someone in the white pages and successfully find someone whose dogs got out. Dont mean to be a smart ass but I have a pug who weighs 4.5 kilos. If she'd been sitting somewhere and was attacked by 2 roaming dogs (granted she wouldnt be sitting unsupervised in a dog prohibited area but that's beside the point) she'd probably be dead. If your dogs are at large and attack another dog, you're in breach. As said by a previous poster, looks like the OP got off with a warning. Why fight that when they know their dogs were loose?

[Greytmate]

My views are sort of different to what a lot of people are saying. You don't want it on your dogs' records that it attacked and caused puncture wounds to another dog if this didn't happen. And you were told there were no injuries.

I would be ringing them, asking for an extension to contest it and then asking for proof of injury to the other dog. It may only be a 6 month order, and you might have gotten the same order whether there were puncture wounds to the other dog or not, however I would be asking for proof of the other dog's injuries, or asking them to retract that part of the complaint.

I wouldn't. What if the dogs are then declared dangerous rather than just being a nuisance? Not sure of NSW laws, but the nuisance dog order doesn't seem to be too onerous.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Greytmate

[Baby Dragon]

My views are sort of different to what a lot of people are saying. You don't want it on your dogs' records that it attacked and caused puncture wounds to another dog if this didn't happen. And you were told there were no injuries.

I would be ringing them, asking for an extension to contest it and then asking for proof of injury to the other dog. It may only be a 6 month order, and you might have gotten the same order whether there were puncture wounds to the other dog or not, however I would be asking for proof of the other dog's injuries, or asking them to retract that part of the complaint.

I wouldn't. What if the dogs are then declared dangerous rather than just being a nuisance? Not sure of NSW laws, but the nuisance dog order doesn't seem to be too onerous.

Can they really do that? That seems a bit off, just because she asks for proof

If so, then forget what I said.

[megan_]

My views are sort of different to what a lot of people are saying. You don't want it on your dogs' records that it attacked and caused puncture wounds to another dog if this didn't happen. And you were told there were no injuries.

I would be ringing them, asking for an extension to contest it and then asking for proof of injury to the other dog. It may only be a 6 month order, and you might have gotten the same order whether there were puncture wounds to the other dog or not, however I would be asking for proof of the other dog's injuries, or asking them to retract that part of the complaint.

I wouldn't. What if the dogs are then declared dangerous rather than just being a nuisance? Not sure of NSW laws, but the nuisance dog order doesn't seem to be too onerous.

In Victoria, I think the dogs would have been declared dangerous. Even rushing another person or dog fits the bill.