Dog Attacks: 20 Victims Last Year

[Teebs]

http://www.centralwesterndaily.com.au/news/local/news/general/dog-attacks-20-victims-last-year/2570199.aspx

Dog attacks: 20 victims last year

28 May, 2012 04:00 AM

TWENTY people were victims of dog attacks in Orange last year, with eight of the attacks classified as serious.

Orange City Council spokesman Nick Redmond said the figures from the Division of Local Government can be attributed in part to the large number of dog owners in the city.

He said the latest figures on dog ownership showed there were 13,712 dogs in Orange, although council suspects there may be more.

“The [attack] figures aren’t perfect but they’re not bad,” Mr Redmond said. “We’d prefer zero, clearly.”

The Division of Local Government’s latest quarterly dog attack report for the three months to December 31 shows two serious dog attacks at the end of last year from 18 dog attacks during this period.

The number of dog attacks in Orange in the three months was 16 more than the number reported for Bathurst at the same time, despite both cities having a similar number of dogs.

Nine people were attacked by dogs in Orange between October 1 and December 31 last year, with 21 animals also attacked.

Orange’s dog attack figures were substantially higher than Bathurst’s figures in all categories, with Bathurst only registering one person attacked by a dog during this three-month period, and one dog attacked.

Mr Redmond cautioned against comparing councils’ figures saying each council interprets the NSW Companion Animals Act differently.

“We take a literal definition of the act,” he said.

“It [the definition of dog attack] can include a dog growling at someone.”

Mr Redmond said if a dog approached someone “aggressively” and is unrestrained, Orange City Council would register the incident as a dog attack.

He said dog attacks of any kind were “unacceptable”.

Mr Redmond said owners whose dogs were involved in dog attacks were asked to pay a hefty fine or hand over the dog to be euthanased, with 90 per cent of owners choosing to surrender their dogs.

“For some of them it’s a financial decision, others are distressed that their dog was involved in an attack and they don’t want it to happen again,” he said.

However, Mr Redmond said the majority of dog owners were responsible.

“They know dogs can’t go wandering the streets off the leash, and know their dog has to be kept in a solid enclosure,” he said.

Mr Redmond said council also tracked owners with a track record for surrendering dogs.

Figures from the Division of Local Government show there were 43 dog attacks in Orange last year.

[Dame Aussie]

Wonder how many people attacked other people in the year, bet it's more than 20......

[GeckoTree]

See thats what I don't get, there's an attack, then there's an 'attack' by lumping many and varied definitions of attack which do not match up to simple dictionary sources they just make themselves out to have a major dog management problem, which probably isn't the case at all.

[mita]

Wonder how many people attacked other people in the year, bet it's more than 20......

You're not wrong. I saw a research paper on people requiring medical treatment for dog bites and it pointed out that the stats for people needing treatment for assault by humans showed hugely more cases. By comparison, it's amazing how most dogs, who live so closely with humans, don't do harm.

But having said that, dog bites and attacks are a problem. Though, there's some good evidence how they might be prevented. So the emphasis should be on prevention.

[melzawelza]

Mr Redmond said owners whose dogs were involved in dog attacks were asked to pay a hefty fine or hand over the dog to be euthanased, with 90 per cent of owners choosing to surrender their dogs.

Sorry, what? The fine is $550. They don't have to have their dogs euthanased at all, the Council have no power to do this whatsoever unless the owner CHOOSES to surrender the dog. Somehow I don't think this is being conveyed to the dog owners though...

[WreckitWhippet]

Mr Redmond said owners whose dogs were involved in dog attacks were asked to pay a hefty fine or hand over the dog to be euthanased, with 90 per cent of owners choosing to surrender their dogs.

Sorry, what? The fine is $550. They don't have to have their dogs euthanased at all, the Council have no power to do this whatsoever unless the owner CHOOSES to surrender the dog. Somehow I don't think this is being conveyed to the dog owners though...

Try telling that to Orange City Council. They try it with every dog "attack" and also any chance they get where they think someone might have a restricted breed. I've been dealing with that council b/s for close to ten years now. I've helped save numerous dogs but sadly there are a lot out there that we didn't know about and couldn't help.

Just a couple to mention were a supposed "Pit Bull" that they seized, when they had no right to as the owner had not been issued with an NOI and that dog was subsequently found not to be a restricted breed, by way of breed assessment.

Then there was the Rotti that council claimed "attacked " a jogger and told the owner they had to hand it in or they would be fined for having a dangerous dog ( no NOI )

[huck house]

I think another reason people surrender and opt to euthanase so readily is because their dog is declared dangerous . So as well as a hefty fine , they must then comply with stringent laws on housing , signage and how their dog has to live...

Last month, a young couple allowed Darebin council to euth their two 5 year old husky's after the dogs killed a cat. ( the gym that backs onto their house was renovating and were careless with the temporary fencing.. Hence the dogs got out) . The council told them of their options , but they were overwhelmed by the gravity of how things were put to them . ..the consequences if there was any other incident with their dogs under the new Victorian dangerous dog laws.

[melzawelza]

Mr Redmond said owners whose dogs were involved in dog attacks were asked to pay a hefty fine or hand over the dog to be euthanased, with 90 per cent of owners choosing to surrender their dogs.

Sorry, what? The fine is $550. They don't have to have their dogs euthanased at all, the Council have no power to do this whatsoever unless the owner CHOOSES to surrender the dog. Somehow I don't think this is being conveyed to the dog owners though...

Try telling that to Orange City Council. They try it with every dog "attack" and also any chance they get where they think someone might have a restricted breed. I've been dealing with that council b/s for close to ten years now. I've helped save numerous dogs but sadly there are a lot out there that we didn't know about and couldn't help.

Just a couple to mention were a supposed "Pit Bull" that they seized, when they had no right to as the owner had not been issued with an NOI and that dog was subsequently found not to be a restricted breed, by way of breed assessment.

Then there was the Rotti that council claimed "attacked " a jogger and told the owner they had to hand it in or they would be fined for having a dangerous dog ( no NOI )

Thank you for helping those people in Orange, a lot of people have so much trouble understanding their rights so having someone with your knowledge helping them is absolutely invaluable.

Edited July 18, 2012 by melzawelza