Dangerous Dogs Discussion Paper Qld

[Stitch]

Queensland State Govt. released a discussion paper last week regarding whether irresponsible dog owners should be banned from keeping a dog.

Minister for Local Govt. Paul Lucas said the paper looked at a range of measures to protect the community from dangerous dogs, including giving councils the power to issue on the spot fines and prohibiting people from owning dogs.

Key issues raised in the discussion paper are:

Civil Liability

Penalties for attack offences

Managing potientially dangerous dogs

Appeal rights and timeframes

Destruction powers

All this sounds fair enough but as with all these kind of things the devil is sometimes in the detail which may impact adversely on innocent dog owners so it needs to be read with this in mind.

To view and make a submission visit www.dlgp.qld.gov.au

[melzawelza]

"potentially dangerous" worries me. This probably means specific breeds.

[Stitch]

I would just like councils to start to enforce the existing rules and regulations.

I can't take my dogs on a walk around here because we are in a rural area and people let their dogs off the leash when walking in the street.

Seems like the rules here are only for places where there are footpaths!!!

I asked for council to put up signs saying dogs were to be on leash but they said they couldn't do that in a street situation!!!

However I can also see the other side of this because dogs are a very good deterrant to robberies, so I like a dog that barks at strangers when they are home, behind a fence and in their own territory.

These things have to be fair for all, not just always slanted against dog owners.

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

Thanks for the link! I think I'll make a suggestion or three... hopefully shift the focus onto the human owners and off of the BSL.

[SpotTheDog]

There's a survey as well as the opportunity to respond to the paper, but be sure to read the paper before answering the survey so that you properly understand the Queensland definitions of a regulated dog (an umbrella title that includes both dogs proven to have behavioural issues, and restricted breeds who are assumed to have potential behaviour issues based on appearance!)

I read the survey, then read the paper, then answered the survey - and my first round answers would have been different to the ones I submitted after reading the paper (and would have oboviously revealed that I hadn't read teh paper!)

[Greytmate]

"potentially dangerous" worries me. This probably means specific breeds.

No it doesn't mean that.

This is what is on the website.

Managing potentially dangerous dogs.

Research demonstrates that dogs involved in fatalities and serious maulings often

have a history of unaddressed menacing or aggressive behaviour. In order to

address those menacing tendencies before an escalation to harmful behaviour, the

menacing dog classification was introduced.

Research demonstrates that dogs involved in fatalities and serious maulings often

The keeping and control conditions of the menacing dog declaration—while similar to

the dangerous dog conditions—have a significant difference in how the dog can be

socialised and interact in society. There are however considerable costs imposed on

the owner of a menacing dog to comply with the strict keeping and control

conditions.

The keeping and control conditions of the menacing dog declaration—while similar to

the dangerous dog conditions—have a significant difference in how the dog can be

socialised and interact in society. There are however considerable costs imposed on

the owner of a menacing dog to comply with the strict keeping and control

conditions.

As the AMCDA’s attack offences relate to attacks both on people and animals and

are also subjective in nature they are not deemed as suitable to be specified as

infringement notice offences.

However, a dog owner may allow his or her dog to behave aggressively in a public

place creating a nuisance to other persons utilising the public area. This type of

behaviour would be considered a minor offence that would not warrant the dog being

declared as a menacing dog nor the owner being prosecuted under the attack

offences. In this situation local governments have suggested they should have the

ability to issue a small ‘on-the-spot’ fine or a compliance notice.

However, a dog owner may allow his or her dog to behave aggressively in a public

place creating a nuisance to other persons utilising the public area. This type of

behaviour would be considered a minor offence that would not warrant the dog being

declared as a menacing dog nor the owner being prosecuted under the attack

offences. In this situation local governments have suggested they should have the

ability to issue a small ‘on-the-spot’ fine or a compliance notice.

As fines can be a useful method of imposing an immediate punitive and deterrent

effect, it may be appropriate to grant local governments this extra tool to discourage

irresponsible dog ownership.

You could read the document before you decide whether to worry or not. I'm all for discouraging irresponsible dog ownership and being proactive so that potential problems don't become real ones.