KatrinaM Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Zug Zug, The yard was to keep dogs in, not keep people out. Most busy kids I know would climb two fences like that with ease, my nephew is two and it would a breeze for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Saw more on this on the ABC news last night. According to that report, the owner of the dogs had received a number of notices to do things about them and the allegation is that council had failed to ensure the notices were adhered to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KatrinaM Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 From what I can work out those notices were in 2004 and the owner was given a "final warning" in May 2004. Tyra was killed in July 2006. Its a big gap without any more issues so it sounds like tying them up in a fenced off area in the yard was what was done to prevent them getting out and being a problem. Realisticly the dogs cant have been too much of a concern if the kids were regularly let play with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 When I was a little kid of 6, we lived in Alice Springs. The guy up the road had 3 Dobermanns that I used to be allowed to go play with, and I even walked one of them regularly. One day I went to go play with the dogs and the police were there destroying them - some idiot had climbed the back fence (apparently with intent to burglarise) and the dogs had attacked him - the burglar didn't survive the encounter, so his family screamed blue murder for the dogs to be shot. I was highly traumatised by what happened to those 3 gentle dogs for doing what they were actually there for - and contained to their own yard by the way. Note: I was only ever allowed to play with the dogs if the owner let me into the yard - I never opened the gate myself and just sauntered in. I still don't see why council should be held accountable for an attack that happened when the dogs were chained up in their own yard, and some neighbourhood kid wandered in uninvited... I suppose there is also a call for the dogs in question to be destroyed... *sigh* T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 From what I can work out those notices were in 2004 and the owner was given a "final warning" in May 2004. Tyra was killed in July 2006. Its a big gap without any more issues so it sounds like tying them up in a fenced off area in the yard was what was done to prevent them getting out and being a problem. Realisticly the dogs cant have been too much of a concern if the kids were regularly let play with them. We don't know for sure whether there were more issues or not. The ranger's diaries for the period under examination were "stolen from his brief case". Make of that what you will. Tdierkx, the dogs were destroyed years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 I don't think the issue is who to blame. Blame everyone. Blame no one. Blame the kid. Blame the mom, and while you're at it, blame the dad too. It's sexist to assume the mom was responsible for child containment. Blame the council. Blame the dog owners. Blame, blame, blame, blame . . . useless stuff. It is stupid that the council is trying to prevent by putting restrictions on 'hunting dogs' . . . which presumably includes gun dogs, used to retrieve felled game or flush out birds. Does it include ratters, too? I think the bottom line is that intelligent dog owners need to get more involved in local politics. If they leave decisions to clueless people, you end out with clueless regulations, enforced by clueless people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RottnBullies Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 When I was a little kid of 6, we lived in Alice Springs. The guy up the road had 3 Dobermanns that I used to be allowed to go play with, and I even walked one of them regularly. One day I went to go play with the dogs and the police were there destroying them - some idiot had climbed the back fence (apparently with intent to burglarise) and the dogs had attacked him - the burglar didn't survive the encounter, so his family screamed blue murder for the dogs to be shot. I was highly traumatised by what happened to those 3 gentle dogs for doing what they were actually there for - and contained to their own yard by the way. Note: I was only ever allowed to play with the dogs if the owner let me into the yard - I never opened the gate myself and just sauntered in. I still don't see why council should be held accountable for an attack that happened when the dogs were chained up in their own yard, and some neighbourhood kid wandered in uninvited... I suppose there is also a call for the dogs in question to be destroyed... *sigh* T. Sorry OT.....but this really broke my heart. What hope Is there when the law protects criminals, even though this one paid with his life but he also destroyed another family In the process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KatrinaM Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) Funny how these things go missing, I wonder who had something to hide (or something to find). It was silly of me to assume there had been no problems in between without any proof. DOCS recieved a flogging about the case and their lack of action at the time, (her Dad was even on the phone to them trying to contact the case worker, as unkown to anybody Tyra lay dying) I doubt it has made the life of any child that comes the their attention any better but it did see a knee jerk reaction against dogs forced upon councils that has proven unfair and unworkable. Edited May 11, 2011 by KatrinaM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) I don't think the issue is who to blame. Blame everyone. Blame no one. Blame the kid. Blame the mom, and while you're at it, blame the dad too. It's sexist to assume the mom was responsible for child containment. Blame the council. Blame the dog owners. Blame, blame, blame, blame . . . useless stuff. It is stupid that the council is trying to prevent by putting restrictions on 'hunting dogs' . . . which presumably includes gun dogs, used to retrieve felled game or flush out birds. Does it include ratters, too? I think the bottom line is that intelligent dog owners need to get more involved in local politics. If they leave decisions to clueless people, you end out with clueless regulations, enforced by clueless people. No it does not apply to Gundogs, used to flush etc, nor does it apply to dogs that dispose of rats, rabbits and the like. (2) A dog is not, for the purposes of subsection (1) (d), to be regarded as being kept or used for the purposes of hunting if it is used only to locate, flush, point or retrieve birds or vermin. "Vermin" for the purposes of this subsection includes small pest animals only (such as rodents). ETA: It's part of the Companion Animals ACT 1998, not a council bylaw. Edited May 11, 2011 by ReadySetGo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 Thanks for the correction. Foot in mouth. I don't think the issue is who to blame. Blame everyone. Blame no one. Blame the kid. Blame the mom, and while you're at it, blame the dad too. It's sexist to assume the mom was responsible for child containment. Blame the council. Blame the dog owners. Blame, blame, blame, blame . . . useless stuff. It is stupid that the council is trying to prevent by putting restrictions on 'hunting dogs' . . . which presumably includes gun dogs, used to retrieve felled game or flush out birds. Does it include ratters, too? I think the bottom line is that intelligent dog owners need to get more involved in local politics. If they leave decisions to clueless people, you end out with clueless regulations, enforced by clueless people. No it does not apply to Gundogs, used to flush etc, nor does it apply to dogs that dispose of rats, rabbits and the like. (2) A dog is not, for the purposes of subsection (1) (d), to be regarded as being kept or used for the purposes of hunting if it is used only to locate, flush, point or retrieve birds or vermin. "Vermin" for the purposes of this subsection includes small pest animals only (such as rodents). ETA: It's part of the Companion Animals ACT 1998, not a council bylaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavNrott Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 I remember when this tragedy happened. At the time it was alleged that Tyra had been wandering the streets for some hours whilst her mother was allegedly out playing the pokies. It was also alleged that it was a regular occurence to see little Tyra roaming the streets without supervision. It was established, I believe, that the father was not a resident in the home where the mother, her young son and Tyra lived. It was also said that the dogs were not wandering around in their owners back yard but were confined in a locked enclosure in the yard and that Tyra managed to prise the gate open widely enough to enable her to squeeze through. It was alleged that Tyra had to somehow squeeze through two closed or locked gates to get into the dog enclosure. Tyra, it was said, was roaming the streets carrying a dead chook under her arm! We can only hope that justice will be seen to be done in this case. Hopefully it will not further add to the opinion of many, if not most law abiding citizens that the law is an ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Andrea Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 (edited) When I was a little kid of 6, we lived in Alice Springs. The guy up the road had 3 Dobermanns that I used to be allowed to go play with, and I even walked one of them regularly. One day I went to go play with the dogs and the police were there destroying them - some idiot had climbed the back fence (apparently with intent to burglarise) and the dogs had attacked him - the burglar didn't survive the encounter, so his family screamed blue murder for the dogs to be shot. I was highly traumatised by what happened to those 3 gentle dogs for doing what they were actually there for - and contained to their own yard by the way. Note: I was only ever allowed to play with the dogs if the owner let me into the yard - I never opened the gate myself and just sauntered in. I still don't see why council should be held accountable for an attack that happened when the dogs were chained up in their own yard, and some neighbourhood kid wandered in uninvited... I suppose there is also a call for the dogs in question to be destroyed... *sigh* T. Sorry OT.....but this really broke my heart. What hope Is there when the law protects criminals, even though this one paid with his life but he also destroyed another family In the process My worry too Rottn and tdierikx - I am no more so trivialising this poor childs death than anyone else - it is tragic - but it does worry me the way the world is heading......... Where does ones responsibility lie for others actions.......it's getting absurd ..........when does an intruders rights superseed that of another and their loved ones in their own home! Should I now hope that if a person jumps into my very well secured yard in attempt to commit a crime against me my dogs will calmly sit by while they enter and leave my premises?.......might as well remove all security dogs in other places protecting property also as doing their job will likely cause them a green dream too. Edited May 11, 2011 by Just Andrea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john.davey.1960 Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 I well remember this case and can't believe it is still going on. In my considered opinion the issue was lack of adult supervision of the poor girl. The dogs did not attack her from memory but but played roughly with her. Hopefully all the facts will come out this time. The judge I believe should recuse himself for what I can only describe as ignorant comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacqui835 Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 When I was a little kid of 6, we lived in Alice Springs. The guy up the road had 3 Dobermanns that I used to be allowed to go play with, and I even walked one of them regularly. One day I went to go play with the dogs and the police were there destroying them - some idiot had climbed the back fence (apparently with intent to burglarise) and the dogs had attacked him - the burglar didn't survive the encounter, so his family screamed blue murder for the dogs to be shot. I was highly traumatised by what happened to those 3 gentle dogs for doing what they were actually there for - and contained to their own yard by the way. Note: I was only ever allowed to play with the dogs if the owner let me into the yard - I never opened the gate myself and just sauntered in. I still don't see why council should be held accountable for an attack that happened when the dogs were chained up in their own yard, and some neighbourhood kid wandered in uninvited... I suppose there is also a call for the dogs in question to be destroyed... *sigh* T. Sorry OT.....but this really broke my heart. What hope Is there when the law protects criminals, even though this one paid with his life but he also destroyed another family In the process Mine too Sounds like they were the perfect dogs - and who in their right mind jumps off the fence into a yard with 3 dobermans?? I would not want to come up against that person because they would have had to of been a complete lunatic and probably on drugs. Bit OT, but, what is the law in these instances? I ask because recently we have had people sneaking around our house at night - they seem to watch for when we take the dog out, and then they try and steal our gas hot water thing (3 times in 4 months - police have been useless and we joke that we need a 2nd dog that we don't love that we just leave at home to guard, since they seem to be so scared of them). Anyway, point is sometimes we hear noises, the dog barks and we take the dog with us to investigate. It's always dark and they always disappear (it's true we don't live in a great environment but this seems to be your lot if you want to rent with a dog...) I'm not sure what he'd do if he saw someone, but if there was someone there, and the dog attacked them, would our dog be in trouble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeK Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 When I was a little kid of 6, we lived in Alice Springs. The guy up the road had 3 Dobermanns that I used to be allowed to go play with, and I even walked one of them regularly. One day I went to go play with the dogs and the police were there destroying them - some idiot had climbed the back fence (apparently with intent to burglarise) and the dogs had attacked him - the burglar didn't survive the encounter, so his family screamed blue murder for the dogs to be shot. I was highly traumatised by what happened to those 3 gentle dogs for doing what they were actually there for - and contained to their own yard by the way. Note: I was only ever allowed to play with the dogs if the owner let me into the yard - I never opened the gate myself and just sauntered in. I still don't see why council should be held accountable for an attack that happened when the dogs were chained up in their own yard, and some neighbourhood kid wandered in uninvited... I suppose there is also a call for the dogs in question to be destroyed... *sigh* T. Sorry OT.....but this really broke my heart. What hope Is there when the law protects criminals, even though this one paid with his life but he also destroyed another family In the process Mine too Sounds like they were the perfect dogs - and who in their right mind jumps off the fence into a yard with 3 dobermans?? I would not want to come up against that person because they would have had to of been a complete lunatic and probably on drugs. Bit OT, but, what is the law in these instances? I ask because recently we have had people sneaking around our house at night - they seem to watch for when we take the dog out, and then they try and steal our gas hot water thing (3 times in 4 months - police have been useless and we joke that we need a 2nd dog that we don't love that we just leave at home to guard, since they seem to be so scared of them). Anyway, point is sometimes we hear noises, the dog barks and we take the dog with us to investigate. It's always dark and they always disappear (it's true we don't live in a great environment but this seems to be your lot if you want to rent with a dog...) I'm not sure what he'd do if he saw someone, but if there was someone there, and the dog attacked them, would our dog be in trouble? A pet dog is allowed to attack somebody who come over the back fence or break into the house is no worries, but restricted breed dog or protection trained dog and the dogs working to hunt having to be licenced at the council as dangerous dogs and have the sign on the gate and proper enclosure. Is working out in the rules on some council if you have trained protection dog and is licenced as protection dog is difficult to use him to fight offender off and the circumstance is very small if he bite somebody you dont get holding the liability. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stordimento Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Where does ones responsibility lie for others actions.......it's getting absurd ..........when does an intruders rights superseed that of another and their loved ones in their own home! Should I now hope that if a person jumps into my very well secured yard in attempt to commit a crime against me my dogs will calmly sit by while they enter and leave my premises?.......might as well remove all security dogs in other places protecting property also as doing their job will likely cause them a green dream too. I'm with you on this one. My neighbors recently, on one very stormy night had some criminals un-techscrew their back fence, then shed and walk 2 motor bikes out the back with no-one knowing since the thunder was so loud, obviously a well organized plan. By some teenagers so it turns out. my yard, and several others, has a big black X painted on the back fence so they remember where the dogs are. If only they put this much time and effort into getting a job hey! I'm a single mum of 2 young kids, my dog is my security! If they tried that at my house i could only hope they left with some serious puncture wounds. And hey if they tried to sue.. you can't get blood out of a stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katdogs Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) Judge awards damages to father and brother of girl mauled to death by dogs May 25, 2011 - 12:58PM The father and brother of a four-year-old girl mauled to death in a dog attack in rural NSW have been awarded more than $120,000 in damages. Peter Kuehne and his son Dylan, now 12, sued Warren Shire Council for negligence, claiming it failed to exercise powers given to it by the Companion Animals Act. In July 2006, Tyra Kuehne was mauled to death by one or more of six pig hunting dogs kept in the backyard of a property in Warren, in the central west of NSW. In the NSW District Court today, Judge Michael ordered the council to pay Mr Kuehne $95,330 in damages and his young son $28,506 in damages. Mr Kuehne claimed the council failed to act on complaints about the risk posed by the dogs. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/judge-awards-damages-to-father-and-brother-of-girl-mauled-to-death-by-dogs-20110525-1f3if.html#ixzz1NKe1HAXV Edited May 25, 2011 by Katdogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterpaws Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I wouldn't mind reading that judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I wouldn't mind reading that judgement. me too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quickasyoucan Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) I can see flood gates opening for lawsuits against councils. Wonder if contributory negligence was taken into account ie the allegations that the child was left unsupervised and often found wandering. I thought the law relating to pig dogs having to be kept in enclosures was post this poor child's death? Therefore why did the dogs need to be declared dangerous okay I see there there was prior history of unacted upon complaints. Edited May 25, 2011 by Quickasyoucan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now