Dog Attacks Cat In Dogs Own Yard

[Clyde]

A friend just phoned to tell me that a friend of hers has just moved house and her SBT has attacked the neighbours cat. The neighbours cat must be used to the yard. The cat might not live. Anyway, the dog owner is paying for the vet bills, she has phoned council and has been told that she can have her dog deemed dangerous due to 'unreasonable aggression'. I can't remember the clause number in the Comp Animals Act, think it might have been 32. The dog owner actually wants to pay for the cats vet bills as she feels awful but is concerned about the council side of things. She always keeps her dogs in a safely fenced so it hardly seems fair to me. I am sure I have seen on here that a dog owner is not liable if the cat is on their property? Turns out it's not the case.

[Rozzie]

What council?

[melzawelza]

Is this NSW we're talking about?

If so no, they shouldn't be declaring the dog dangerous and have no grounds to stand on.

Here is a link to the act:

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+87+1998+cd+0+N

Scroll to section 16 and read 2b

(2) It is not an offence under this section if the incident occurred:

(a) as a result of the dog being teased, mistreated, attacked or otherwise provoked, or

(b) as a result of the person or animal trespassing on the property on which the dog was being kept, or

© as a result of the dog acting in reasonable defence of a person or property, or

(d) in the course of lawful hunting, or

(e) in the course of the working of stock by the dog or the training of the dog in the working of stock.

Either the Council doesn't understand the act they're enforcing or they're bluffing her which they often do.

ETA:

The section they are referring to is section 33 in regards to dangerous dogs:

33 Meaning of “dangerous”

(1) For the purposes of this Division, a dog is dangerous if it:

(a) has, without provocation, attacked or killed a person or animal (other than vermin), or

(b) has, without provocation, repeatedly threatened to attack or repeatedly chased a person or animal (other than vermin), or

© has displayed unreasonable aggression towards a person or animal (other than vermin), or(d) is kept or used for the purposes of hunting.

The attack would not be deemed unreasonable though based on section 16 and the definition of what an attack is.

Edited April 17, 2012 by melzawelza

[j]

In the ACT, there is a defence for a dog attacking a person or animal - however it appears that it is only if it attacks a person on their own property

50 Offences of attacking or harassing

(1) A carer with a dog must not, without reasonable excuse, allow the

dog to attack or harass a person or animal.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) The keeper of a dog commits an offence if the dog attacks or

harasses a person or animal when it is not with a carer.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

(3) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (2), it is a defence

if—

(a) the defendant establishes that the person or animal provoked

the dog; or

(b) the person or animal was attacked or harassed because the dog

came to the aid of its keeper, or another person or animal that

the dog could reasonably be expected to protect; or

© if the attack or harassment was on premises occupied by the

defendant, the defendant establishes that—

(i) the person was on the premises without reasonable

excuse; or

(ii) the person failed to take reasonable care for the person’s

own safety.

[Rozzie]

If your dog has attacked on your own property the Council may have your dog declared dangerous.

from one council site, and that was either person or another animal..

Edited April 17, 2012 by Rozzie

[melzawelza]

If your dog has attacked on your own property the Council may have your dog declared dangerous.

from one council site, and that was either person or another animal..

Which Council Rozzie? (PM if you prefer).

I'm thinking what they are insinuating may be that that this would be in say a situation where a friend was there, invited in etc and the dog attacked, as opposed to an animal actually tresspassing. As section 16 clearly states no offence is committed if an animal or person has tresspassed.

OP- if they want to pay the bill they can do so along with a letter stating that it is an act of good will and in no way admits any liability for the incident.

Edited April 17, 2012 by melzawelza

[Clyde]

Is this NSW we're talking about?

If so no, they shouldn't be declaring the dog dangerous and have no grounds to stand on.

Here is a link to the act:

http://www.legislati...+87+1998+cd+0+N

Scroll to section 16 and read 2b

(2) It is not an offence under this section if the incident occurred:

(a) as a result of the dog being teased, mistreated, attacked or otherwise provoked, or

(b) as a result of the person or animal trespassing on the property on which the dog was being kept, or

© as a result of the dog acting in reasonable defence of a person or property, or

(d) in the course of lawful hunting, or

(e) in the course of the working of stock by the dog or the training of the dog in the working of stock.

Either the Council doesn't understand the act they're enforcing or they're bluffing her which they often do.

ETA:

The section they are referring to is section 33 in regards to dangerous dogs:

33 Meaning of “dangerous”

(1) For the purposes of this Division, a dog is dangerous if it:

(a) has, without provocation, attacked or killed a person or animal (other than vermin), or

(b) has, without provocation, repeatedly threatened to attack or repeatedly chased a person or animal (other than vermin), or

© has displayed unreasonable aggression towards a person or animal (other than vermin), or(d) is kept or used for the purposes of hunting.

The attack would not be deemed unreasonable though based on section 16 and the definition of what an attack is.

But wouldn't almost killing the cat be classed as 'unreasonable aggression'?

Appreciate the help with this too, Cheers.

[melzawelza]

Is this NSW we're talking about?

If so no, they shouldn't be declaring the dog dangerous and have no grounds to stand on.

Here is a link to the act:

http://www.legislati...+87+1998+cd+0+N

Scroll to section 16 and read 2b

(2) It is not an offence under this section if the incident occurred:

(a) as a result of the dog being teased, mistreated, attacked or otherwise provoked, or

(b) as a result of the person or animal trespassing on the property on which the dog was being kept, or

© as a result of the dog acting in reasonable defence of a person or property, or

(d) in the course of lawful hunting, or

(e) in the course of the working of stock by the dog or the training of the dog in the working of stock.

Either the Council doesn't understand the act they're enforcing or they're bluffing her which they often do.

ETA:

The section they are referring to is section 33 in regards to dangerous dogs:

33 Meaning of “dangerous”

(1) For the purposes of this Division, a dog is dangerous if it:

(a) has, without provocation, attacked or killed a person or animal (other than vermin), or

(b) has, without provocation, repeatedly threatened to attack or repeatedly chased a person or animal (other than vermin), or

© has displayed unreasonable aggression towards a person or animal (other than vermin), or(d) is kept or used for the purposes of hunting.

The attack would not be deemed unreasonable though based on section 16 and the definition of what an attack is.

But wouldn't almost killing the cat be classed as 'unreasonable aggression'?

Appreciate the help with this too, Cheers.

I guess it depends on the opinion of the officer. I wouldn't consider it unreasonable aggression for a dog to almost kill a cat on it's property (and I'm a cat owner so no biases there!). That's what dogs do.

I still feel that it would be cancelled out by section 16. The act is meant to be read as a whole and while if you read section 33 on it's own you would probably think they had the right to declare, section 16 refers to this specific scenario and clearly states an offence has not been committed.

Problem is a lot of this can be speculation and the Council officer's personal opinion. I really think on appeal it wouldn't hold up but that doesn't stop them from issuing the declaration, and you can never truly know the outcome of the courts.

All your friend can do is show them she knows what she is talking about by quoting sections of the act and telling them she WILL appeal should they place the declaration (Whether she can afford to or not is beside the point, they have to believe she will). That will make them think long and hard as to whether their declaration would stand up in court.

ETA: I'm mulling this over a little more and thinking that 33 could override what is said in 16 I guess, say if someone tresspassed and the dog killed them. You would probably say that even though section 16 says it's not an offence, it's still unreasonable aggression and declare the dog dangerous. The problem with the companion animals act is all the way through there are areas that are really subjective. What is 'Unreasonable aggression?', how do you define it? I don't think the scenario you describe is unreasonable but obviously this Council does. If they decide to go ahead with the declaration your friend has to appeal in Court so that someone 'higher' can decide if it was unreasonable or not.

Edited July 18, 2012 by melzawelza

[Little Gifts]

This happened to me. A neighbours deaf cat decided to have a nap next to our compost bin, which is in a seperate fenced area from our backyard. The dogs came in with me (SBTs), spotted the cat, the cat panicked and the dogs pounced. They were all trapped in a corner of the fence with the compost bin on the other side so it was very difficult to save the cat. I did eventually and ran it across the road to another neighbour who is a vet. There were no obvious puncture wounds but the cat still passed away. The owner's had quite a number of cats so weren't overly worried. We buried the cat at their place and I bought them loads of food and toys for their remaining cats. I felt absolutely horrible and I know it was just an unfortunate situation but the owners could've made it very difficult for me still.

[Clyde]

Thanks Melz, that's been a big help, much appreciated. I agree with you too, while I am a cat over I completely understand why a dog would do this.

[Rozzie]

That was Mosman. There are many others like it...

[aussielover]

I think in theory it is possible that the dog could be declared dangerous. If the council is particularly harsh or anti-dog, they could probably declare the dog. Most councils are fairly reasonable though and any reasonable person would see that there was very little the owner of the dog could realistically do to prevent the incident. The owner of the cat on the other hand could have easily kept their pet contained to their own property (as is required by law?) and the incident wouldn't of happened at all.

I would not advise the owner of the dog to pay the vet bills. They are not at fault, the cat's owners are. Paying the vet bill may be seen as an admission on liability, even if they have a statement saying otherwise.

I hope your friend has a good outcome.

BTW is there a law requiring cat owners to keep cats contained on their own property?

Edited April 17, 2012 by aussielover

[melzawelza]

Sorry, I added some more to my post if no one saw and added some more thoughts on the matter. She *could* be in a bit of a sticky situation. I really, really don't think it'd hold up in court at all but that doesn't stop them placing the order anyway, as they can essentially do whatever they like - your only recourse is appealing in court which is obviously costly and stressful. Best bet is to prevent that order being placed in the first place through whatever means you can (paying the vet bills (WITH letter stating it is goodwill only!), reading up on the Act and being prepared to show the Council that you know what you're talking about and won't back down).

Clyde send me a PM if it gets to that point and I'll send you my number to pass on to them to help them out.

From what you've said though the cat owners haven't complained or anything yet, she just rang up to check. Fingers crossed her paying the bill will mean that they don't contact the Council and she won't have to deal with any of this hypothetical.

Edited April 17, 2012 by melzawelza

[melzawelza]

I think in theory it is possible that the dog could be declared dangerous. If the council is particularly harsh or anti-dog, they could probably declare the dog. Most councils are fairly reasonable though and any reasonable person would see that there was very little the owner of the dog could realistically do to prevent the incident. The owner of the cat on the other hand could have easily kept their pet contained to their own property (as is required by law?) and the incident wouldn't of happened at all.

I would not advise the owner of the dog to pay the vet bills. They are not at fault, the cat's owners are. Paying the vet bill may be seen as an admission on liability, even if they have a statement saying otherwise.

I hope your friend has a good outcome.

Unfortunately not, cats are allowed to wander wherever they like and are not required to be contained in any way.

[Cavstar]

Who has phoned the council? Your friend or the dog owner?

Many years ago I owned a beautiful white persian cat. She was just gorgeous. One day I got a call at work from the people across the road to say that their dog (I don't know what breed) had attacked her & she was in a bad way. They got my number from her tag - I'd never spoken to these people in my life.

I rush the half hour home from work & find my poor little cat mauled almost to death & completely drenched from where they had to put the hose on the dog to get it off my cat. They hadn't even put a towel or anything over her to try and keep her warm & calm. They didnt give a sh*t. No apology.. nothing.

Despite me spending hundreds on my little one having her jaw rewired & puncture wounds repaired I had to make the horrible decision to PTS as she wasn't recovering.

I was devastated but what made it worse was the fact that I heard nothing from the people across the road again. They didn't pop round to ask after her or even put a note in my letterbox... nothing. It was a heartbreaking experience & I haven't thought about it in a long long time.

[Dame Aussie]

Who has phoned the council? Your friend or the dog owner?

Many years ago I owned a beautiful white persian cat. She was just gorgeous. One day I got a call at work from the people across the road to say that their dog (I don't know what breed) had attacked her & she was in a bad way. They got my number from her tag - I'd never spoken to these people in my life.

I rush the half hour home from work & find my poor little cat mauled almost to death & completely drenched from where they had to put the hose on the dog to get it off my cat. They hadn't even put a towel or anything over her to try and keep her warm & calm. They didnt give a sh*t. No apology.. nothing.

Despite me spending hundreds on my little one having her jaw rewired & puncture wounds repaired I had to make the horrible decision to PTS as she wasn't recovering.

I was devastated but what made it worse was the fact that I heard nothing from the people across the road again. They didn't pop round to ask after her or even put a note in my letterbox... nothing. It was a heartbreaking experience & I haven't thought about it in a long long time.

Sorry to sound harsh but perhaps if you'd kept your cat contained instead of letting it wander it wouldn't be dead. Whilst most people would apologise and feel terrible their dog had done this to someone else's pet they're not actually at fault in any way and probably get pissed off with roaming cats entering their yard all the time.

Agree. When will cat owners realise they can't just let their animals roam in other people's properties!!!

I wouldn't be paying one cent.

ETA: I think any council that would declare this dog dangerous needs to have their head read. It was in its own yard minding its own business ffs. This makes me so angry.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Aussie3

[Cavstar]

Who has phoned the council? Your friend or the dog owner?

Many years ago I owned a beautiful white persian cat. She was just gorgeous. One day I got a call at work from the people across the road to say that their dog (I don't know what breed) had attacked her & she was in a bad way. They got my number from her tag - I'd never spoken to these people in my life.

I rush the half hour home from work & find my poor little cat mauled almost to death & completely drenched from where they had to put the hose on the dog to get it off my cat. They hadn't even put a towel or anything over her to try and keep her warm & calm. They didnt give a sh*t. No apology.. nothing.

Despite me spending hundreds on my little one having her jaw rewired & puncture wounds repaired I had to make the horrible decision to PTS as she wasn't recovering.

I was devastated but what made it worse was the fact that I heard nothing from the people across the road again. They didn't pop round to ask after her or even put a note in my letterbox... nothing. It was a heartbreaking experience & I haven't thought about it in a long long time.

Sorry to sound harsh but perhaps if you'd kept your cat contained instead of letting it wander it wouldn't be dead. Whilst most people would apologise and feel terrible their dog had done this to someone else's pet they're not actually at fault in any way and probably get pissed off with roaming cats entering their yard all the time.

I never said that their dog was at fault & never implied that they should have paid the vet bills. You think after 13 years I haven't beaten myself up enough over this? I really don't need pointing out that if the cat was kept indoors it would never have happened.

I was confused by the OP as to who called the council.. was it her friend or the dogs owner?? If I was in the OP's friends shoes I would be over the mooon that they just showed concern towards the cat. I wouldnt as I didn't expect the dogs owner to foot the bills.

[Clyde]

I was confused by the OP as to who called the council.. was it her friend or the dogs owner?? If I was in the OP's friends shoes I would be over the mooon that they just showed concern towards the cat. I wouldnt as I didn't expect the dogs owner to foot the bills.

It was a member of the dog owners family (my friend) who phoned to check. The dog owner feels awful about it and has morally done all the right things but is now concerned after her relative (my friend) said she could be in deep poo. I guess they are now just worried about the legal ramifications so I said I'd ask the DOL folk.The neighbours didn't see the attack but the dog owners were home when it happened and rushed the cat straight over where the owners were home and took the cat straight to the vet. So at this point they don't know if the cat made it or not.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Clyde

[Little Gifts]

If it is not illegal for a cat to wander then there is no point to what ifs. A tragic incident is still a painful loss. I don't think any animal lover wants to experience their animal being attacked or even their animal attacking another. The best we can do is learn from our experiences and truly know our animals because you can risk minimise but you can't control everything.

[Dame Aussie]

If it is not illegal for a cat to wander then there is no point to what ifs. A tragic incident is still a painful loss. I don't think any animal lover wants to experience their animal being attacked or even their animal attacking another. The best we can do is learn from our experiences and truly know our animals because you can risk minimise but you can't control everything.

You're right, you can't control everything, but if the cat was not allowed to wander it wouldn't be fighting for it's life right now.

I just don't get how some cat owners don't understand this?! I know if I had a cat wandering all day I'd be terrified it would get stolen, bashed, eaten by a dog or hit by a car! My nerves would be shot.

It makes me angry though that through no fault of their own these people are now having to worry about their dogs welfare.