Dogs Seized

[Erny]

The News (Berwick) Star News Group 10th March 2011

A NARRE Warren woman says she is angry that council officers entered her yard when she was away from home and removed her dogs on allegations of biting.

Meagan King said she and her two children feel like they have lost members of their family after finding out their dogs were seized.

But the City of Casey Manager of Community Safety Caroline Bell said the council investigated all reports of dog attacks, bites, rushes and took such matters very seriously.

Ms Bell said that at 5.50pm on Sunday 6 March, the council received an after hours complaint that a person had been bitten by a dog or dogs at the address in Narre Warren.

“As a result, two bull mastiff type dogs were seized by a council authorised officer,” Ms Bell said.

“In this particular case the owner was not home at the time and information was left at the front door notifying that the animals had been seized due to a reported attack. “The matter was discussed with the owner (Monday) at the Casey Council Customer Service Centre in Narre Warren.

“Following completion of the investigation, the council will determine any further action.”

Ms King said she felt the council officers should have waited until she was home to take her dogs. “I took my children to the beach, and when I returned, my dogs were gone,” Ms King said.

“I called the police to report them missing but they told me Casey Council took the dogs because they received reports of them biting someone.

“I asked the council for more details but they didn't give me any. My dogs have never hurt anyone, I don't believe they have done it.”

Ms Bell said the council did not need a permit to enter a yard.

“An authorised officer can seize a dog if he or she reasonably suspects that a person has committed an offence ... relating to dog attacks,” she said.

Casey prosecuted 29 cases relating to animal matters in 2010.

Two hundred and ten dog attacks were reported for the same period.

[Erny]

So someone can say a dog bit them and they can blame it on yours and Council will come around and seize your dogs in your absence on that person's say so?

Edited March 13, 2011 by Erny

[RottnBullies]

Would love to know where the dogs were at time of alleged bite?

But something just doesn't ring rightn here, I hope the owner can get to the truth of the matter for the sake of her dogs

Pretty scary stuff there Erny If that Is the case, what's to stop anyone on doing that sort of thing just to get at people when In actual fact the dogs haven't done anything wrong

[Erny]

Pretty scary stuff there ...

Sure is. The Government have made it that we are liable for everything yet own nothing. As though everything is only on loan.

[sumosmum]

Don't they have to get a warrant? That is probably what is meant by they left a notice on the front door.

This seems to be the way councils operate. They don't notify the owner that a complaint has even been made against them. They don't question them prior to seizing the dogs. And they always seem to call around to take the dogs while the people are not at home. Very familiar story here!

They do however go nosing around prior to taking the dogs. And they do that in such a way that the owner doesn't even know.

I hope people are becoming aware of all of this, and realize this is what happens in Victoria now!

Thanks Erny for posting.

[Steve]

Where were the dogs when they supposedly bit someone ?

[sumosmum]

Would love to know where the dogs were at time of alleged bite?

But something just doesn't ring rightn here, I hope the owner can get to the truth of the matter for the sake of her dogs

Pretty scary stuff there Erny If that Is the case, what's to stop anyone on doing that sort of thing just to get at people when In actual fact the dogs haven't done anything wrong

There is nothing to stop them it seems. You are guilty until proven innocent, or just give up because they have either made you broke, or you don't have the knowledge or means to fight them.

I don't know if these dogs did what they are accused of, but because councils in Victoria have been given this much power, the way things are conducted seems to depend on how ethical and honest the councils are.

I hope the owner in this article has contacted the ombudsman if they feel they have been treated unfairly. Ombudsman Victoria have been contacted by others with similar issues.

[laeral]

That is all kinds of wrong.

So councils can just come and take your 'property' without your knowledge or due process?

Wheres the proof, or at least some sort of investigation?

[RottnBullies]

Aren't dogs considered ones "Property"?

Therefore going In without so much as a warrant or at least waiting for owners to return and then question be considered stealing?

Surely It wasn't grave enough for them that they couldn't wait till someone was home, they really do seem to make sure no one Is there before they go in and seize, just wrong on so many levels

“I asked the council for more details but they didn't give me any. My dogs have never hurt anyone, I don't believe they have done it.”

And what's with this??? Why In the hell wouldn't they tell her anything? So they're allowed to withhold Information too now!

ETA: to add more

Edited March 13, 2011 by RottnBullies

[Erny]

I don't trust Newspaper Reports - I don't think they report exact facts. And who knows if there is more to this story than meets the eye. I'd like to know the truth on it though. There is too much skulduggery going on and when I read things like this it makes me feel like I'd just like to go away somewhere. Me and my dog. But I don't know where to go because it seems the world has gone mad.

[sumosmum]

What I would like to know is this. When these last lot of Vic dog laws went through, there was talk in parliament that the councils had a procedure the they needed to follow. There was some flow chart, showing them step by step what they must do to enforce these laws.

Does anyone have any idea, where we can see these procedures?

It seems that they are just doing whatever they like at the moment. We are stuck with these laws at the moment, so I think we should all be aware of the right way for them to use them, and we would then know if people are being dealt with according to the law.

Can anyone help with information on this?

[MolassesLass]

So someone can say a dog bit them and they can blame it on yours and Council will come around and seize your dogs in your absence on that person's say so?

And I bet if your dogs aren't happy about being taken from their yard by a stranger, they will be slapped with a dangerous dog order.

I don't think council officers can enter your house while you're out - time to keep all dogs locked in the house when the owner isn't home!

[sumosmum]

So someone can say a dog bit them and they can blame it on yours and Council will come around and seize your dogs in your absence on that person's say so?

And I bet if your dogs aren't happy about being taken from their yard by a stranger, they will be slapped with a dangerous dog order.

I don't think council officers can enter your house while you're out - time to keep all dogs locked in the house when the owner isn't home!

Hi ML, they get a warrant, and bring the police with them. That is what usually happens. Then they seem to be able to enter the house. That is what they have done on other cases I have known about recently. They do all of this without even asking the other side of the story.

And they always seem to do it when people have gone out, either to work, or just out for the day!

[tybrax]

I don't think council officers can enter your house while you're out.

They have done this heaps of times in Qld. Buddy case come's to mind. No warrant Buddy was sprayed with capsicum spray,seized while

his family were out..

As for News paper reports are nothing but media hype, they proved that with there story in the hearld sun on the 12th March!!

tybrax

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

a person had been bitten by a dog or dogs at the address in Narre Warren.

I can't figure out what the vic dog laws mean, they're so convoluted, but every other state - has an exception for dogs biting in defence of their own property. Ie what was that person doing at the address where the dogs could reach him/her?

I really don't like the idea of council entering my house with out my permission to seize my dog when I'm not home. Even the police need a warrant authorised by a judge and probable cause and the say so of a neighbour who hates dogs is not probable cause.

[pipsqueak]

I am NOT a legal person, but I will post a link to the Companion Animals Act 1998 which might help...

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/con...998174/s18.html

"Section 18

Dog that has attacked or bitten may be secured or seized

s.18 Dog that has attacked or bitten may be secured or seized

(1) If a dog attacks or bites any person or animal (except vermin) otherwise than in the circumstances referred to in section 16 (2), an authorised officer may, at any time within 72 hours after the attack or bite:

(a) secure the dog on property that the officer has reason to believe is occupied by the dog’s owner, or

(b) seize the dog.

(2) Any other person may seize the dog if the dog is on property owned or occupied by the person.

(3) If the dog is on property that an authorised officer has reason to believe is occupied by the dog’s owner, the officer may seize the dog only if the officer is satisfied that:

(a) the dog cannot be kept adequately secured on that property, or

(b) the dog cannot be kept under the effective control of some competent person while it is on that property, or

© the owner of the dog has repeatedly failed to keep the dog secured on that property or under the effective control of a competent person while it is on that property (regardless of whether the dog is secured or under effective control at the relevant time).

(4) An authorised officer who, under this section, secures or seizes a dog on property that the officer has reason to believe is property occupied by the dog’s owner must, before leaving that property, prepare a notice setting out:

(a) the reasons why the dog has been secured or seized, and

(b) the method by which the dog has been secured, or the place to which it has been taken, as the case may be.

(5) The notice must be left:

(a) in a conspicuous place on the property, or

(b) with a person (being a person apparently above the age of 16 years) who appears to be an occupier of the property.

(6) This section applies whether or not any injury is caused to a person or animal by the dog’s attack or bite. "

[Christina]

I don't know why we knock communist/dictator type countries. We are following so closely towards walking in their footsteps. Slowly & blindingly.

Why aren't we screaming for our rights.

[Keira&Phoenix]

WHAT THE H&%L

So it seems the dogs were in their property when they were seized so where is the person who is alleging the so called "attack" say this happened? Did this person stick their hand through a fence and get their hand bitten, if so they more than deserve it for sticking their hand in with an unknown dog.

What disturbs me most is a)taking the dogs off the property while the owners are out b) that the council cannot provide the owner with details of what happened...c) that just anybody can apparently enter our properties to seize dogs or apparently pat them without thought and get bitten

What is the point in owning a property now, you get no privacy because apparently anyone can just enter whenever they want.

This is so wrong in so many ways.

Like Christina said we are taking steps towards becoming some kind of communist country, so much for laid back Australia, freedom of speech, so on and so forth.

Erny maybe us doggie lovers should get together and make some sort of community out in the bush somewhere away from the crazy government and people who fuel them Like a nudist colony but a dogist colony LOL

Edited March 14, 2011 by Keira&Phoenix

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

future dog trainer

it would help if you could post the releavant rules for Victoria not NSW since Vic is where Narre Warren is.

But like I said - good luck figuring out what the Victorian rules are/mean.

[Little Gifts]

What I think is odd is that the owner rang the police and the police told her the dogs had been seized. The council does not have powers over and above the police. The police are the only party that should be able to enter private property and seize something under legal grounds and they'd need a court order to even do that. Our legal system is based on innocent until proven guilty so council by laws do not have the power to contradict that either. If the owner had been made aware of the allegations and agreed to keep the dogs safely confined until an investigation proved it was them only then could the council seize those dogs legally.

My older sister works on land rights legal cases. Not Indigenous land rights but those where say a council or some environmental plan tells a farm owner what he can and can't do on his property. Numerous council by-laws and state govt laws (expect in Qld) contradict our constitutional and contractual laws and they threaten us with powers they don't really have. Unfortunately not many people fight this stuff as it needs to go to the highest court. So at its very basic with this case - the council enters a binding contract between this owner and her dogs if they accept her registration for these dogs ie they are accepting that she is the owner of these dogs. Under constitutional law they are not recognised law enforcers so they are in fact trespassing and stealing her property by entering and removing these dogs without her approval. It's an interesting area of law.