Dog Laws In The Australian Capital Territory

[koalathebear]

Does anyone know if there have been any new changes to the dangerous dog legislation in the ACT? The reason I ask is that a friend is doing some renovation work and wanted to put up a sign saying that he had dogs in his yard to remind people not to leave the gate open. He says that a friend of his who is a ranger advised him against this as this can be taken as a declaration that you have a dangerous dog!?!

My understanding is that the sign is not criteria for a dangerous dog but rather, if you have a dangerous dog, you are required to take certain steps including put up a sign at your premises. Does anyone know if there has been anything new?

We have a "beware of the dog" sign for our two. They're not dangerous and I doubt they'd bite anyone but we want to deter random people from leaping in the back (eg ACTEW people) ... We probably don't need it because the dogs bark when people approach anyway so if people can't figure out from THAT there are dogs, they'd be pretty dopey ...

Edited November 8, 2011 by koalathebear

[Vehs]

could always check here:

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/live/pets/keeping_dogs_in_the_act#dangerous

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2000-86/current/pdf/2000-86.pdf

I think there was a discussion on DOL that a sign just opens you up to legal trouble if anything happens. I just padlock all my gates and am lucky in this place that the meters are in front of the gate. At parents house we had to make arrangements for D to be elsewhere if a meter check was happening.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Vehs

[whiskedaway]

You can get "Don't let the dog out" signs? Not sure if that would be more suitable?

[koalathebear]

Thanks Vehs, I looked at those two but they seemed to confirm my initial understanding i.e. sign came after a declaration not before it.

Section 28 of the Domestic Animals Act 2000 (the Act) provides that:

(1) The registrar may issue a warning sign to a keeper of a dangerous dog.

(2) If the registrar issues a warning sign, the keeper of the dog must ensure that the warning sign is displayed at the premises where the dog is kept so that it can be readily seen by a person about to enter the premises through a gate or door.

i.e. once a dog is declared dangerous it might need to have a warning sign displayed

Section 22 of the Act provides as follows:

22 Declarations—dangerous dogs

(1) The registrar must declare a dog to be a dangerous dog if—

(a) the dog has been trained as a guard dog, or is kept as a guard dog for guarding premises other than residential premises; or

(b) a decision has been made under a law of a State in relation to the dog, the effect of which is comparable to a declaration under this section.

(2) The registrar may declare a dog to be a dangerous dog if the dog has attacked or harassed a person or animal.

(3) In making a decision under subsection (2), the registrar must consider the circumstances surrounding the attack or harassment.

(4) Subsection (3) does not limit the matters the registrar may consider.

22(1) and (2) clearly don't apply. Section 22(4) might at a stretch given that it implies the registrar can consider any factors he/she likes when considering if a dog is dangerous for the purposes of sub-section (3) - but that is still only after the dog has attacked/harassed someone as contemplated by subsection (2).

It seems odd that the mere existence of a sign saying "warning beware of the dog" sign could be a criteria for consideration. I'm not fussed because our gates are locked and their barking is vocal enough to let people know their are dogs there, but I can see why my colleague needs a sign up if he's going to be having new tradesmen coming and going during the renovation process and he doens't want them leaving the gate open.

ETA:

whiskedaway: sounds like a good idea I had a tradesman recently who wanted to jump into our backyard when we ewren't home to examine how far the trees were from the power line for the purposes of a quote. He said he wasn't afraid of Kelpies. Even though I knew our dogs wouldn't bite, I didn't want them to get into the habit of thinking it was ok for strange men to leap into our yard so I asked the tree surgeon to come when we were at home :p

Edited November 8, 2011 by koalathebear

[tiff-689]

i was under the impression that councils have the list of dangerous dogs they have registered and it is those people that have to follow the dangerous dog act. My two are council registered, neither are declared dangerous dogs, and i have two beware of dogs signs which can be seen from the main road we are on. The signs were there when we moved in but we've never had an issue.

[Simply Grand]

Ktb I'm thinking putting up signs saying 'Close the Gate' and 'Don't let dogs out' or 'Dogs on premises' (can you get those?) might be more effective if people are coming and going anyway. Not saying people are silly ;) but some may not actually make the connection to make sure the gates are closed from a Beware of the Dog sign.

[Leema]

I don't think it's law, I think it's just a 'suggestion' that signs should not indicate that the dog is dangerous.

E.g. "Beware of Dog" indicates knowledge that the dog is dangerous (or else why would you say 'beware'?)

Signs like, "I live here" (with a picture of a dog) and "please shut the gate" are more appropriate and less vulnerable to litigation.

... So the story goes.

[pebbles]

I have seen a sign which said "Please keep this gate closed. Dogs loose on property". No 'beware of the Dog" but it could make people think twice about opening the gate.

[HazyWal]

I have a sign on the front of my house that says"A BIG DOG LIVES HERE".Seems to work if only they knew they were greyhounds. .

[Guest Ams]

I have a sign that says " Trespassers will be buried in the back yard" with a pic of a dog digging a hole. It's a comic one but does the job.

[tdierikx]

I was told by the police (in NSW) that a "Beware of Dog" sign can be taken as an admission that your dog may bite - and thus could be used against you should some idiot get bitten on your property.

The recommendation was a sign that asks people to keep the gate shut instead.

I lived with 4 Rotti's and a large scruffy mutt at the time... and the mailman used to actually stop at my front gate and walk up to the house gate and feed them all Schmacko's. Their bark when the mailman was coming was pure excitement - not a nasty bark between them for their fave daily visitor... *grin*

T.

[Simply Grand]

I actually think a good legal argument could be made that having a 'beware of the dog' sign bought from a shop is not any sort of legally enforceable admission that a dog is known to be dangerous.

But it unfortunately would cost money (and possibly the dog's life) to argue it so I probably wouldn't, although I would applaud someone who fought against the sign being used against their dog!

[Tempus Fugit]

I was told by the police (in NSW) that a "Beware of Dog" sign can be taken as an admission that your dog may bite - and thus could be used against you should some idiot get bitten on your property.

The recommendation was a sign that asks people to keep the gate shut instead.

T.

I agree with T.

Notwithstanding DD regs, lawyers have a way with twisting words. You should be able to get "Dog on Premises" and "Please shut the gate" signs from a hardware, pet or farm supply store if you are prepared visit a few places.

Personally, though, I would keep my dog inside the house while people are going in and out of the gate given the risk of the dog getting out while someone is going through the gate - and keep the gate padlocked at other times.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

I think the "beware of the dog" sign = dangerous dog sign is a myth.

Especially as all the specific law about containing dangerous dogs or restricted breeds - requires the "dangerous dog" sign, not "beware the dog"

To me "beware" is short for "be aware" ie "be alert not alarmed".

My mum has one on her gate - and it stops most people who don't know her. People who do know her are very surprised to occasionally encounter one of the visiting grand furkids.

If anyone can find any link to any law case that found someone guilty of something bad for having "beware the dog" on the gate - I'd like to see it.

It's bad when law enforcement people perpetrate the myth but if you ask them how they know that - you're likely to get some back pedaling.

[korbin13]

I actually think a good legal argument could be made that having a 'beware of the dog' sign bought from a shop is not any sort of legally enforceable admission that a dog is known to be dangerous.

But it unfortunately would cost money (and possibly the dog's life) to argue it so I probably wouldn't, although I would applaud someone who fought against the sign being used against their dog!

It would be an easy argument to win especially as at a guess I would think that about 99% of people just pop down to Bunnings and buy a sign. A lot of these type of law arguments are based on what a 'reasonable' person would do.

Also I have never actually heard that one of these signs being used against a dog, has anyone else? It seems like an armchair lawyers opinion

edit: Mrs RB sums it up nicely, I typed and didn't hit reply before going to another site!

Edited November 8, 2011 by korbin13

[Keshwar]

I think the "beware of the dog" sign = dangerous dog sign is a myth.

Especially as all the specific law about containing dangerous dogs or restricted breeds - requires the "dangerous dog" sign, not "beware the dog"

To me "beware" is short for "be aware" ie "be alert not alarmed".

My mum has one on her gate - and it stops most people who don't know her. People who do know her are very surprised to occasionally encounter one of the visiting grand furkids.

If anyone can find any link to any law case that found someone guilty of something bad for having "beware the dog" on the gate - I'd like to see it.

It's bad when law enforcement people perpetrate the myth but if you ask them how they know that - you're likely to get some back pedaling.

I've been asking this same question every time this topic comes up for a while now.

Still haven't had any takers.

[ness]

I think its a bit the case of why risk something that could become an issue for an over zealous lawyer - a bit of risk management. If alternatives exist then don't chance it.

[wuffles]

I just have padlocked gates with no sign. It's pretty obvious there are dogs in there if you attempt to get in as you'll get an earful

[tdierikx]

I don't need a sign nowadays... Zeddy is plenty happy to let strangers know there is a dog on the premises... *grin*

T.