Dogs Seized

[pipsqueak]

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.

I belive that the Companion Animal Act applies Australia-wide - NOT just NSW - but I did say I wasn't a legal person.

[Steve]

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.

I belive that the Companion Animal Act applies Australia-wide - NOT just NSW - but I did say I wasn't a legal person.

No only NSW.

[Steve]

Are you sure they were taken from her yard and they were not at large?

[Evolving]

Are you sure they were taken from her yard and they were not at large?

If they were at large would they come and put a seizure notice on your front door?

[sumosmum]

They can and do come in to the property. It is written into our act, they are doing it as Authorised Officers from what I can make out.

The thing is, they need to have a reason for the warrant. They MAY, have trumped up something to say that they suspect the dogs to be restricted breeds. They probably won't follow through with this, but it is used as an excuse to get the warrant. This has been done recently. I do know this for a fact. They then take the dogs. They did bring the police with the case that I know of. They left the Warrant on the front door. I think this is written into the Magistrates Act and some of the rules there about serving warrants. The only difference with the warrants given to the councils Authorised Officers is that they do not have the power to arrest a person with this warrant.

[pipsqueak]

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.

I belive that the Companion Animal Act applies Australia-wide - NOT just NSW - but I did say I wasn't a legal person.

No only NSW.

ok, sorry, I stand corrected

[Alyosha]

There is so little information here, that conclusions really can't be drawn. You can presume any and all manner of circumstances, but that won't help at all.

See how easy it is to assume (example): The dogs could have got out of their yard, attacked a person or dog etc and been followed by a victim/witness back to their home property. Council called, dogs directly identified to council officers (authorised officers). Dogs seized, notice left for owner. Matter under investigation, owner to be spoken to once victim/witness evidence has been obtained. So owner has to wait for investigation.

See, no unlawful behaviour, no outlandish behaviour. Yet we can assume the other way around and expect that something siniater is going on in the first place. If it was one of us, or one of our dogs that had been bitten we would be howling for appropriate action. So don't criticise action when you don't know the basis of it.

[Keira&Phoenix]

Are you sure they were taken from her yard and they were not at large?

The article says the dogs were seized from the owners yard.

It also says they received a call at 5:50 an after hours call about an attack at that address (not exact wording) so sounds to me like the dogs where still on their property.

[sumosmum]

There is so little information here, that conclusions really can't be drawn. You can presume any and all manner of circumstances, but that won't help at all.

See how easy it is to assume (example): The dogs could have got out of their yard, attacked a person or dog etc and been followed by a victim/witness back to their home property. Council called, dogs directly identified to council officers (authorised officers). Dogs seized, notice left for owner. Matter under investigation, owner to be spoken to once victim/witness evidence has been obtained. So owner has to wait for investigation.

See, no unlawful behaviour, no outlandish behaviour. Yet we can assume the other way around and expect that something siniater is going on in the first place. If it was one of us, or one of our dogs that had been bitten we would be howling for appropriate action. So don't criticise action when you don't know the basis of it.

Yes very true Alyosha. They do say the dogs were taken from the yard, but they may have run home. Who knows?

I do know they do things the other way at some councils though. Hopefully this will get sorted in the correct manner.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

future dog trainer

As best I can tell the rules about dog and cat management vary from state to state, but in SA, WA, NSW they're almost identical - like they copied each other.

QLD rules are getting tougher by the day - eg about breeding and dangerous dogs.

VICs rules are a complete mystery to me. I've got no idea what is ok and what isn't from those. It may be that they leave it entirely up to each council area in which case the council regs would be what we need to look up. It is interesting that council authorising itself to trespass on private property is against the constitution argument. There is only one constitution in OZ as far as I know.

I don't know much about Tas or NT rules. Except in Tas you cannot feed a dog Offal.

This is a link to the rules in Casey Council = it does look like they have not followed their own procedures.

http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/pets/article.asp?Item=3502

The alleged dog owner will be invited for a formal interview to respond to the allegations involving their dogs.

There's more stuff including a link to the state law (domestic animals act?) here

http://www.casey.vic.gov.au/pets/

actually the domestic animals act for Vic is here, its a big pdf - sorry

http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/W...E/94-81a050.doc

Edited March 14, 2011 by Mrs Rusty Bucket

[JoeK]

Seems little bit missing on the information? maybe dogs can get out the yard run out and bite somebody and run back in perhaps, then the ranger sieze them like that?

Joe

[gwenneth1]

A work colleague of mine (this is going back about 8 yrs ago) had her two staffy x dogs escape from her yard. (This remains a semi-mystery how, because there was no evidence of digging out, jumping over etc, she presumes that a meter reader who was going around that day did not secure the side gate properly although in the fallout, naturally it was vehmently denied by Elec Company).

Colleague found out when Police notified her at workplace that dogs were seized and one had been shot and was now kept at Police compound. Dog was NOT given any veterinarian treatment and was left to bleed within the compound for several hours. Police said they received a complaint of two "wild Pit Bulls terrorising the street and had gone to capture dogs where one was threatening so was "winged" to subdue him"

Close neighbours told colleague dogs were running around the street playing with each other and weeing on everything in sight, but at no stage were menacing anybody, except to cunningly keep an arms distance from a neighbour so they could enjoy their day out. Police turned up gave chase, one was cornered against its home's colourbond fence WHILE TRYING TO FIND A WAY BACK IN and in neighbour's words "was used for target practice by young cop", horrified neighbour started yelling at cop and raising hell, young cop did not keep shooting. In Police report "Dog threatened officer with imminent attack" was used to justify shooting the dog.

Cut a long story short, Police Prosecutor did a great job on Colleague saying we won't object to you paying a fine and having your dogs back, but if it goes to court we will be presenting a dangerous dog case and asking for dogs to be euthanised and if you fight it, the dogs will have to stay in compound until case is concluded. Highly distraught Colleague copped a fine, kept mouth shut and collected dogs, took shot dog to Vet immediately.. Shot dog made a full recovery, Vet complained to Police of treatment of dog. Of course, this is the brief version of the whole story, but after that, I have VERY LITTLE FAITH in some over zealous and moronic officials involved in such cases .

I had met these dogs and while one was a boisterous type in need of some consistent training, both were dog and people friendly types.

I know there are instances where dogs with stupid owners are a real threat, but I now ALWAYS wonder if there is another side to the story.

[Leelaa17]

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.

I know this is a reasonably old post but I am going to reply here anyway. I think this is appauling and would be more than furious if I came home to find my dogs taken. I think it is completely unacceptable for ANYONE (I don't give a s**t who they are) to come into your backyard regardless of whether you are home or not and take your dogs without evidence.

They say the dogs allegedly attacked or something around those lines... what a crock. So someone can turn around and say 'oh yeah my neighbours dog attacked me' and thats that. your dogs are gone...?

And we cant forget that 'attacking' doesnt just mean biting etc... re the quote above - 'rushes' (it has been said that a dog attack can not only be biting etc but can also be a dog barking at someone, a dog 'rushing' - or more correctly put - running towards someone)...

So therefore - in saying this.. if someone walked part my back fence (which backs onto a nunnery and horse paddock) and my dogs 'rushed' towards the fence - which they most certainly would as to protect their property and to find out who the person was - then they could be classified as attacking that person.

what. a. crock. of. shit.

[poodlefan]

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.

I'd put money on it.

A hypothetical example: I'm walking past said Narre Warren property when one of the dogs rushes out an open gate and bites me. I immediately report the offence.

Ranger calls, the owners aren't home but the dogs are and the gate is open.

Should the rangers just walk away?

You don't need a warrant to do something that is expressly authorised by law. If the legislation on dangerous dogs in Vic gives rangers powers to seize a dog after an incident is reported that's all that's required. There are a myriad of govt workers authorised to do all kinds of things by law including powers of entry, seizure and compulsion to produce records. If you don't know that, time to do some homework. Police generally only have powers with regard to certain kinds of law enforcement. Don't believe me? Then never run foul of the Australian Taxation Office

If those suggesting that this news report is evidence of a "police state" were on the receiving end of a bite from an unsecured dog, my guess is their views would be somewhat different. For all we know the fencing on the property in question is crap, the dogs are escape artists or they got a gate open. The only thing I find the slightest bit unbelieveable about this story is the speed with which the rangers reacted!

Edited March 31, 2011 by poodlefan

[Maddy]

I don't know much about Tas or NT rules. Except in Tas you cannot feed a dog Offal.

Although it probably sounds like a stupid law, it's there for a good reason and helps keep the state provisionally free of Hydatids.

Our laws relating to seizure of dogs are fairly similar in that the council can enter your property (and your house, if they apply for a warrant) and seize any dog on the property with nothing more than "reasonable belief" (not evidence, just belief :p ) that the owner has committed an offence required.

73. Entering land

(1) An authorised person who has reason to believe that the owner or person in charge of a dog has committed an offence against this Act may –

(a) enter onto land owned or occupied by that owner or person, but not any dwelling on that land; and

(b) search for and seize any dog on that land.

(2) An authorised person may apply to a magistrate for a warrant to enter any dwelling on that land to enforce any provision of this Act.

(3) A magistrate, by warrant, may empower an authorised person and any other person named in the warrant to enter a dwelling by force if –

(a) the dwelling is not occupied; or

(b) entry into the dwelling has been refused or is likely to be refused.

(4) A warrant continues in force until the purpose for which it was granted is satisfied.

(5) Division 4 of Part 3 applies in respect of a dog seized under this section as if it were a dog at large.

(6) If a dog is seized under this section, the relevant general manager must give the owner of the dog written notice stating –

(a) the offence against this Act that it is alleged has been committed; and

(b) any steps that the general manager requires to be undertaken before the dog is returned, to prevent the commission of the same or another offence against this Act; and

© that the dog may be disposed of or destroyed if not claimed within 5 days after the date of the notice.

[Steve]

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.

Sure is - dont suppose your sister might be interested in a bit of pro bono stuff Ive got a million questions for her.