New Measures Put Forward By Nsw

[RottnBullies]

LINK

SYDNEY 23 September 2011 The State Labor Opposition has called on the NSW Government to urgently examine new measures put forward by the NSW Deputy State Coroner to deal with dangerous dogs. Shadow Local Government Minister Sophie Cotsis said the coroner had asked the Government to consider several proposals following an inquest this week into the tragic and devastating death of a toddler mauled by a dog in the Riverina region two years ago.

These include:

• New criminal sanctions for those involved in dog attacks;
• Restricting the number of dogs that can be kept at suburban homes; and
• Education campaigns about safety issues around dogs and the need to properly supervise children when they are near dogs and other animal.

"Dog attacks are senseless and sickening – especially when the victim is a child," said Ms Cotsis.

"While NSW has strong dog laws, one attack is too many.

"The Deputy State Coroner has examined the evidence and asked the Government to look at these new proposals.

"This must be done at the earliest opportunity to help prevent more attacks."

Ms Cotsis said the Government should consider and publicly report on these and other proposals by the end of the year.

"The Deputy State Coroner's findings must be examined thoroughly and quickly," said Ms Cotsis.

"I have also recently called on the Government to look at new measures introduced in Victoria, including a dangerous dog hotline for people to report dogs they believe legally restricted or dangerous.

"These new measures should be considered alongside any proposals arising from the Deputy State Coroner's findings.

"In particular, there needs to be clearer and better co-ordinated approaches to dealing with dangerous dog attacks."

Edited September 23, 2011 by RottnBullies

[melzawelza]

Well they aren't jumping on the kill them all bandwagon so that's quite good. Restricting the number of dogs people can have is silly, and won't reduce dog attacks, but the first and third points are good.

All in all I'm pretty impressed that NSW is thinking *fairly* logically.

[Steve]

Except in NSW we dont have a restriction on how many dogs you can keep and dog attacks havent been shown to occur because someone has more or less dogs.Why introduce something which will restrict all dog owners when its not even part of the issue ?

[Inevitablue]

I always thought we had a 3 dog limit per household unless a registered breeder in NSW?

[Rysup]

No Invevitablue, there are no number restrictions in NSW and has not been for a very long time. Your council might try and tell you there is, but there is not.

[tdierikx]

Unenforceable "bylaws" set by some NSW councils are actually a "suggestion" as to the number of dogs per household. There are no actual laws to back them if you have more dogs and they try to do you for it.

I'm all for owners being held fully responsible for dog attacks, and hefty fines for same.

That said, they need to define what actually constitutes an "attack" under the law... dog rushing over exuberantly and a person falling over due to being startled doesn't constitute an attack IMHO...

Education is a bloody great idea - on all aspects of dog ownership and responsibilities please!

T.

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

Education is a bloody great idea - on all aspects of dog ownership and responsibilities please!

I second that T, hear hear.

Any proven dog attack should be dealt with - and I don't mean 'seize and kill problem solved' I mean, hold the owner accountable.

[sandgrubber]

Anybody here know the history of the WA 2-dog rule (which sets the default number of dogs/household at 2 but gives the councils the power to change the limit and grant exceptions)? An old Ocker I know said this law came in in the 70s cause lots of bushies were moving to the 'burbs and brought their pig dogs along. As he told it, this lead to situations where the streets were dangerous.

Is this more or less true?