Sunshine Coast Daily - Front Page

[Maxiewolf]

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/02/20/review-flags-changes-dog-laws/

SHOULD councils be given greater power to kill dogs responsible for attacks on people or other dogs?

That's one of several contentious issues being canvassed in a State Government discussion paper released yesterday as part of a review of the laws governing the state's cats and dogs.

Updates to the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 are on the drawing board, with particular focus on the classification of "dangerous" dogs, penalties against their owners and the power of councils to have the dogs put down.

Local Government Minister Paul Lucas said the paper was designed to discourage irresponsible dog ownership.

The proposed changes would put further responsibility on councils to fine owners and even euthanase dogs which injured a person or another animal.

Under the existing 2008 Act, a dog that has been deemed dangerous or menacing, regardless of its breed, has to be declared a "regulated" dog before its owner can be prosecuted.

Restricted breeds that are banned from importation into Australia, are automatically "regulated" and if it kills or harms a human, the law allows for it to be destroyed.

However, if a dog that is not "regulated" acts in a similar way, a much lesser penalty applies.

One of the key discussion points in the government paper is how dogs should be classified and whether councils should be allowed to destroy any dog automatically deemed "dangerous" because of an attack.

The paper also outlines the possibility of allowing councils to give on-the-spot fines or compliance notices to owners who allow their dogs to behave dangerously in public.

Buderim dog owner Bryce Perron welcomes the discussion but said many people presumed his staffordshire terrier Tito was dangerous simply because his breed was seen as "tough".

"It is because he is quite strong and looks tough that people presume he is dangerous, when really he is the gentlest natured dog around," he said.

"A dog will only become dangerous when its owner treats it with violence and teaches it to act that way.

"It is completely up to the individual owner to ensure the safety of others by training and socialising their dog."

Other measures raised in the discussion paper include ensuring victims of dog attacks received compensation for physical, emotional and financial injuries.

As the law now stands, a person must prove the owner of the dog showed such disregard for the life and safety of others to deserve a punishment.

That can be difficult to prove, especially if the dog did not have an aggressive history or the dog was not declared a "regulated" dog.

Mr Lucas said the changes would ensure punishment was handed out to any irresponsible dog owner who allowed their dog to act in a dangerous manner.

"I think there's a good argument for people to have a fast tracked and simplified method of recovering compensation for medical or vet fees from the guilty parties," he said.

The discussion paper is available at dlgp.qld.gov.au. Submissions close on April 16.

DECLARED DANGEROUS DOG

A dog that has seriously attacked, or acted in a way that caused fear to, a person or another animal.

DECLARED MENACING DOG

A dog that has attacked, or acted in a way that caused fear to, a person or another animal.

REGULATED DOG

A declared dangerous dog, a declared menacing dog and a restricted dog.

RESTRICTED DOG

A dog of a breed prohibited from importation into Australia, included Dogo Argentino or Argentine Mastiff, Fila Brasileiro, Japanese tosa, American Pit Bull Terrier or pit bull terrier, and Perro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario.

KEY ISSUES RAISED

Civil liability - where a court may award compensation to the victim of a dog.

Penalties for attack offences.

Managing potentially dangerous dogs.

Appeal rights and timeframes.

Destruction powers.

A council that cant enforce its current dog laws shouldn't be given MORE power to cover up the products of their lack of management in my opinion. I never see a ranger in the parks, I never see a ranger just walking around being seen... I never see a ranger handing out fines for dogs off lead in places where the law tells people they should be on leads.

Start Fining people big money when their dogs escape from their yards the FIRST time, that way people might start securing their dogs out of fear of having their pockets punished since most of these people obviously don't care about the safety of their dog, other people or other dogs because they think its okay for their dogs to be out.

Off lead dog parks should have a full time ranger there to ensure people who obviously have no control over their unsocialised/untrained dogs - are asked to leave or be fined for not having control over their dogs. There wouldn't BE this many dog attacks if people where AFRAID of the Laws.

The council then needs to use the money obtained from fining ignorant owners to hire dog trainers and provide free or cold coin donation obedience schools/ puppy classes for registered dogs. Give more people a REASON to register their dogs, Cos Right now.. I dont see the council doing very much to warrent me givng them my money, And I worry about them having more power to abuse.

[sandgrubber]

I'm not in QLD . . . but

I think giving victims of dog attacks greater rights to compensation is the most interesting bit in the measured discussed.

I think they're asking the wrong question . . . they should be asking how owners should be classified.

[german_shep_fan]

Just read the document. Scary stuff. I am going to write and send in my replies. Council's should definately NOT have more power to abuse when they are already incompetent.

Edited February 20, 2012 by german_shep_fan

[Souff]

Scary stuff?

No, I don't think so.

Definitely not scary to those who have been attacked, or to those who have had their small dogs killed or maimed in front of them, on what had otherwise been a nice walk in the fresh air.

Not too many years back if a dog was attacking a person in the street and the police car rocked up, it was "shoot first and talk later".

That is, of course, if they can find the owner of the attacking dog to talk to!

Probably still happens today in country towns and quite frankly, I will not condemn such action by any cops.

It could be my dog, or my child, or my elderly relative being attacked by a dog with far more strength and power than they could ever have.

And, if it were my dog that was doing the attacking?

Then I would want to know who the loser was who let my dog out on to the street!!!

If a storm had blown the gate open ... well it would be highly unlikely that my dog would have been outside in the yard if storms were around. The dogs are usually inside if I am not at home anyway. No barking to annoy neighbours, no escapes. And when I am at home they see it as their right to be inside with me.

Yes, there could be times when some useless member of the family had not closed the gate properly ... and if my dog paid the ultimate price for being outside that gate because of their total lack of thought, then they would be told about it in such a way that they would be checking that all gates were secure for the rest of their rotten lives.

The problem once again is caused by IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE, and as a result other people, or their dogs, SUFFER.

If I lived in a Council area where I thought the council would come down on me like a ton of bricks, or shoot my dog and then tell me, then let me assure all of you that I WOULD BE EVEN MORE OF A RESPONSIBLE OWNER THAN I ALREADY AM, and the padlocks would be back on the gates so that no other useless idiot could let my beautiful dogs out.

We owe it to our dogs to keep them safe, and this includes KEEPING THEM SAFE FROM THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

It is OUR DUTY as owners.

I just wish councils and governments would closely read the existing rule books and see what powers they already have, AND FULLY UTILISE THOSE POWERS, before spending more and more of taxpayers money inventing new rules.

Souff

Edited February 20, 2012 by Souff

[asal]

Scary stuff?

No, I don't think so.

Definitely not scary to those who have been attacked, or to those who have had their small dogs killed or maimed in front of them, on what had otherwise been a nice walk in the fresh air.

Not too many years back if a dog was attacking a person in the street and the police car rocked up, it was "shoot first and talk later".

That is, of course, if they can find the owner of the attacking dog to talk to!

Probably still happens today in country towns and quite frankly, I will not condemn such action by any cops.

It could be my dog, or my child, or my elderly relative being attacked by a dog with far more strength and power than they could ever have.

And, if it were my dog that was doing the attacking?

Then I would want to know who the loser was who let my dog out on to the street!!!

If a storm had blown the gate open ... well it would be highly unlikely that my dog would have been outside in the yard if storms were around. The dogs are usually inside if I am not at home anyway. No barking to annoy neighbours, no escapes. And when I am at home they see it as their right to be inside with me.

Yes, there could be times when some useless member of the family had not closed the gate properly ... and if my dog paid the ultimate price for being outside that gate because of their total lack of thought, then they would be told about it in such a way that they would be checking that all gates were secure for the rest of their rotten lives.

The problem once again is caused by IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE, and as a result other people, or their dogs, SUFFER.

If I lived in a Council area where I thought the council would come down on me like a ton of bricks, or shoot my dog and then tell me, then let me assure all of you that I WOULD BE EVEN MORE OF A RESPONSIBLE OWNER THAN I ALREADY AM, and the padlocks would be back on the gates so that no other useless idiot could let my beautiful dogs out.

We owe it to our dogs to keep them safe, and this includes KEEPING THEM SAFE FROM THEIR OWN ACTIONS.

It is OUR DUTY as owners.

I just wish councils and governments would closely read the existing rule books and see what powers they already have, AND FULLY UTILISE THOSE POWERS, before spending more and more of taxpayers money inventing new rules.

Souff

Absolutely right, Souff before they wasted all that time writing laws they dont stand by. that ws the (unwritten) rule

Edited February 20, 2012 by asal

[Maxiewolf]

Here you go Classic example of what's wrong with the Sunshine coast council - I rang them to report a problem dog, this dog lies in the middle of the street, wanders up and down the road, considers the whole street to be its territory, stalks, growls etc. I rang to explain to the council that I want to see this dog confined in its yard, that its not a stray and I've seen it walked on a leash before.

They wanted the exact address where the dog lived, and would not do any ground work on an approximate address (aka too hard for them to send a ranger to door knock a couple of houses in the area.) They wanted my exact name and address, and would not take it as an anonymous complaint (even though I am concerned the owner will know its me that has reported him, because he knows my car and has seen me fend his dog off my dogs before so I'm sure he has a good idea who will have reported him.) I gave my work address since that's what they had on file from where I fruitlessly complained about a savage dog breaking into my yard from a neighbours...

I said my husband is at home during the day and can call you when he sees the dog out "We don't have the resources to follow up on that" was the answer I got, I was also told if they happen to do a drive by, or call in to see the owner if the dog doesn't happen to be out at the time... Guess what.. they can/will do nothing but say that the dog has been seen out, and "advise" him on what to do.

They say they cant do anything unless they "Catch" the dog out. (She also asked if I could catch it and I said I wouldn't.) - BUT they wont/cant come at the time you report the dog IS OUT NOW???

So there you have it in a nutshell, thats the attitude of the sunshine coast council and their resources... and they want MORE laws they cant enforce? Yep good one.

[Souff]

Here you go Classic example of what's wrong with the Sunshine coast council - I rang them to report a problem dog, this dog lies in the middle of the street, wanders up and down the road, considers the whole street to be its territory, stalks, growls etc. I rang to explain to the council that I want to see this dog confined in its yard, that its not a stray and I've seen it walked on a leash before.

They wanted the exact address where the dog lived, and would not do any ground work on an approximate address (aka too hard for them to send a ranger to door knock a couple of houses in the area.) They wanted my exact name and address, and would not take it as an anonymous complaint (even though I am concerned the owner will know its me that has reported him, because he knows my car and has seen me fend his dog off my dogs before so I'm sure he has a good idea who will have reported him.) I gave my work address since that's what they had on file from where I fruitlessly complained about a savage dog breaking into my yard from a neighbours...

I said my husband is at home during the day and can call you when he sees the dog out "We don't have the resources to follow up on that" was the answer I got, I was also told if they happen to do a drive by, or call in to see the owner if the dog doesn't happen to be out at the time... Guess what.. they can/will do nothing but say that the dog has been seen out, and "advise" him on what to do.

They say they cant do anything unless they "Catch" the dog out. (She also asked if I could catch it and I said I wouldn't.) - BUT they wont/cant come at the time you report the dog IS OUT NOW???

So there you have it in a nutshell, thats the attitude of the sunshine coast council and their resources... and they want MORE laws they cant enforce? Yep good one.

Why not send these words to the paper, as a follow-up comment to their article?

It is good comment.

Souff

[german_shep_fan]

Here you go Classic example of what's wrong with the Sunshine coast council - I rang them to report a problem dog, this dog lies in the middle of the street, wanders up and down the road, considers the whole street to be its territory, stalks, growls etc. I rang to explain to the council that I want to see this dog confined in its yard, that its not a stray and I've seen it walked on a leash before.

They wanted the exact address where the dog lived, and would not do any ground work on an approximate address (aka too hard for them to send a ranger to door knock a couple of houses in the area.) They wanted my exact name and address, and would not take it as an anonymous complaint (even though I am concerned the owner will know its me that has reported him, because he knows my car and has seen me fend his dog off my dogs before so I'm sure he has a good idea who will have reported him.) I gave my work address since that's what they had on file from where I fruitlessly complained about a savage dog breaking into my yard from a neighbours...

I said my husband is at home during the day and can call you when he sees the dog out "We don't have the resources to follow up on that" was the answer I got, I was also told if they happen to do a drive by, or call in to see the owner if the dog doesn't happen to be out at the time... Guess what.. they can/will do nothing but say that the dog has been seen out, and "advise" him on what to do.

They say they cant do anything unless they "Catch" the dog out. (She also asked if I could catch it and I said I wouldn't.) - BUT they wont/cant come at the time you report the dog IS OUT NOW???

So there you have it in a nutshell, thats the attitude of the sunshine coast council and their resources... and they want MORE laws they cant enforce? Yep good one.

Why not send these words to the paper, as a follow-up comment to their article?

It is good comment.

Souff

This sort of thing happens here too and is what worries me about the council having even more power when they cannot even make sense of their current laws.

I agree with Souff, send this in to the paper and their review!

[bianca.a]

No totally related but there has been a council officer (?) at North Shore beach of late handing out fines.

[WreckitWhippet]

It's not just QLD that suffers from inaction on the part of Councils. I've been told before that I would need to write a letter in regards to a roaming dog. Surely they have got to be bloody kidding, I'm calling and telling you it's out now, it stalks pedestrians and dogs being walked.

[german_shep_fan]

It's not just QLD that suffers from inaction on the part of Councils. I've been told before that I would need to write a letter in regards to a roaming dog. Surely they have got to be bloody kidding, I'm calling and telling you it's out now, it stalks pedestrians and dogs being walked.

Just bloody stupid! There is a dog two doors down who is aways out. Charges down its driveway and tries to bite my dogs heels and tries to bite me when i shoo it away. I left a note and nothing. Called council and oh no we have to see it out to take action I said what if this dog tries to bite my dogs face as it often does and my dog tries to retaliate? there is only so much any animal can take. Oh well then my dog is the problem apparently! Don't need any more laws that give them even more power to punish ppl in the right and let irresponsible ppl away with murder.

[GeckoTree]

errr no council should not automatically be give a power of death until all due process is done, ffs anything else is just flaming pitchforks and dribbling morons on a loud speaker, is that really wanted in t he 21'st century! Not in my book of life. and I am just like everyone else, lock up the blood lust nutters we don't need them. Sick motherf***ers who shouldnt have a place in society..

[GeckoTree]

Here you go Classic example of what's wrong with the Sunshine coast council - I rang them to report a problem dog, this dog lies in the middle of the street, wanders up and down the road, considers the whole street to be its territory, stalks, growls etc. I rang to explain to the council that I want to see this dog confined in its yard, that its not a stray and I've seen it walked on a leash before.

They wanted the exact address where the dog lived, and would not do any ground work on an approximate address (aka too hard for them to send a ranger to door knock a couple of houses in the area.) They wanted my exact name and address, and would not take it as an anonymous complaint (even though I am concerned the owner will know its me that has reported him, because he knows my car and has seen me fend his dog off my dogs before so I'm sure he has a good idea who will have reported him.) I gave my work address since that's what they had on file from where I fruitlessly complained about a savage dog breaking into my yard from a neighbours...

I said my husband is at home during the day and can call you when he sees the dog out "We don't have the resources to follow up on that" was the answer I got, I was also told if they happen to do a drive by, or call in to see the owner if the dog doesn't happen to be out at the time... Guess what.. they can/will do nothing but say that the dog has been seen out, and "advise" him on what to do.

They say they cant do anything unless they "Catch" the dog out. (She also asked if I could catch it and I said I wouldn't.) - BUT they wont/cant come at the time you report the dog IS OUT NOW???

So there you have it in a nutshell, thats the attitude of the sunshine coast council and their resources... and they want MORE laws they cant enforce? Yep good one.

You should be able to get a break down of you councils animal management budget via the animal management plan they have, ours is dismal, but its what it is, just a couple hundred grand, and shows how low animal management is on the greater 'scheming' of things.