Rehoming Dogs With History Of Livestock Attacks?

[tobie]

After reading the thread about Ned and how the previous owners other dog killed a lamb and he had his dog pts for this. I noticed a few people were against the dog being pts for this. This got me thinking as from working in animal shelters for years now I have seen councils declare dogs dangerous for killing live stock on numerous occassions (I'm not saying I agree with this) I'm just saying it is reality and is a consequence of what can happen if the attack is brought to the attention of council.

I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on whether a dog with a history of killing live stock should or should not be rehomed knowing that this dog could/would be declared dangerous by council if they were aware of the matter. At work we have no choice but to pts these dogs whether we like it or not. Do rescue groups rehome dogs with a history of killing live stock or are they pts?

[Podengo]

We got a 4 year old Doberman (breeder rehome) with a history of killing sheep, even though we lived on a farm with sheep. Never had any problems with her, just kept a close eye on her and didn't give her any opportunities to be alone with stock (a caution extended to all dogs living on the farm).

[Guest donatella]

I'm not sure how it can be declared dangerous when it is a natural breed instinct in many. Can you declare it dangerous for doing something instinctual?

[Clyde]

I've rehomed rescues who have killed chooks and one who has killed a cat. The chook thing is totally acceptable IMO, the cat thing made me uneasy but she found an owner who was aware and responsible. I am sure one or two of my own dogs would kill a strange cat!

[tobie]

I'm not sure how it can be declared dangerous when it is a natural breed instinct in many. Can you declare it dangerous for doing something instinctual?

Below is a link to the CAA NSW regarding Dangerous Dogs. Like I said its not about whether I agree with it but it is the law in NSW. Declaring a dog dangerous is to prevent the dog from doing the same thing again. I guess it is the only way the gov/councils can prevent something from happening again as it has all ready been proven that the owner can not be relied upon to control the dog in the first place.

I guess if your the owner of a much loved horse that has been mauled or valuable live stock that has been killed you wouldn't care less if it was the instinct of the dog. The owner should have been aware and responsible enough to prevent this in the first place.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s33.html

[Guest donatella]

I'm not sure how it can be declared dangerous when it is a natural breed instinct in many. Can you declare it dangerous for doing something instinctual?

Below is a link to the CAA NSW regarding Dangerous Dogs. Like I said its not about whether I agree with it but it is the law in NSW. Declaring a dog dangerous is to prevent the dog from doing the same thing again. I guess it is the only way the gov/councils can prevent something from happening again as it has all ready been proven that the owner can not be relied upon to control the dog in the first place.

I guess if your the owner of a much loved horse that has been mauled or valuable live stock that has been killed you wouldn't care less if it was the instinct of the dog. The owner should have been aware and responsible enough to prevent this in the first place.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s33.html

Absolutely, if you live on a farm with livestock and have a prey driven breed and don't train it or protect the livestock with adequate fencing then wonder why it gets into your chooks then you're a dickhead.

Likewise if you live in an area with chooks and don't restrain your dog properly and it gets into someone elses chooks its your fault. I'm not sure why the dog needs to be declared dangerous, the owner should have taken the steps to prevent it, especially if it is instinct within a particular breed.

Edited August 7, 2012 by donatella

[SkySoaringMagpie]

That's interesting, thanks for the link to the legislation. The status of "dangerous dog" still has to be declared to take effect tho' doesn't it? I suppose the tricky bit is if you disclose the history, you might trigger that provision? I can't find any definition of "proposed dangerous dog" in the legislation.

Tricky, because there are plenty of dogs that are not "dangerous" merely because they are owned by people who are responsible and don't allow them ever to get into a situation where they can kill a chook (or whatever). Mine for example, I wouldn't let them anywhere near chooks - they've never killed one, not because they wouldn't but because they don't get to!!

[Plan B]

I'm not sure how it can be declared dangerous when it is a natural breed instinct in many.

Even though it can, I strongly agree that it is a natural thing.

I personally can't understand how a dog can be deemed dangerous if it has attacked or killed livestock. It doesn't mean it's necessarily dangerous, just acting on instincts. Some dogs have higher prey drives than others.

As for rehoming - I don't see why they couldn't be rehomed to capable hands/homes that are nowhere near livestock.

[Guest Ams]

I will rehome if they've killed chickens (IMHO chickens are professional victims and are asking to be nommed anyway). If livestock such as goats, sheep or cattle are involved then no I will not rehome. I live in a rural area and have given this assurance to my community and as much as it sometimes hurts to do so, I will honor this.

[melzawelza]

That's interesting, thanks for the link to the legislation. The status of "dangerous dog" still has to be declared to take effect tho' doesn't it? I suppose the tricky bit is if you disclose the history, you might trigger that provision? I can't find any definition of "proposed dangerous dog" in the legislation.

Tricky, because there are plenty of dogs that are not "dangerous" merely because they are owned by people who are responsible and don't allow them ever to get into a situation where they can kill a chook (or whatever). Mine for example, I wouldn't let them anywhere near chooks - they've never killed one, not because they wouldn't but because they don't get to!!

A dog isn't automatically a dangerous dog simply because it has performed the behaviour, it has to be declared as such by the Council.

A 'proposed dangerous dog' would be the equivalent of a dog with a Notice of Intent to declare it dangerous. There are provisions while the dog has a notice on it (leashed/muzzled) and the owners have time to submit representations as to why the oppose the proposed order.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

That's interesting, thanks for the link to the legislation. The status of "dangerous dog" still has to be declared to take effect tho' doesn't it? I suppose the tricky bit is if you disclose the history, you might trigger that provision? I can't find any definition of "proposed dangerous dog" in the legislation.

Tricky, because there are plenty of dogs that are not "dangerous" merely because they are owned by people who are responsible and don't allow them ever to get into a situation where they can kill a chook (or whatever). Mine for example, I wouldn't let them anywhere near chooks - they've never killed one, not because they wouldn't but because they don't get to!!

A dog isn't automatically a dangerous dog simply because it has performed the behaviour, it has to be declared as such by the Council.

A 'proposed dangerous dog' would be the equivalent of a dog with a Notice of Intent to declare it dangerous. There are provisions while the dog has a notice on it (leashed/muzzled) and the owners have time to submit representations as to why the oppose the proposed order.

So does this mean that even if the dog is presented with a verbal report of "he killed a sheep" the dog could still be rehomed responsibly - for example, to an inner suburban setting ?

[Guest Ams]

I would suggest asking questions such as:

Was the attack reported?

Is the dog under investigation by the relevant Council or Police?

Has an NOI been issued with respect to the dog?

Has the dog been declared a dangerous dog?

[meggie]

I will rehome if they've killed chickens (IMHO chickens are professional victims and are asking to be nommed anyway). If livestock such as goats, sheep or cattle are involved then no I will not rehome. I live in a rural area and have given this assurance to my community and as much as it sometimes hurts to do so, I will honor this.

Quite agree, Ams.

I have a whippet who had to be rehomed (through our local dog rescue) after he started killing his previous owners' neighbour's chooks in the country.

He came to live in town & has settled in fine as a house dog. We have chooks nearby, but since my backyard is well fenced he hasn't caused any problems.

He is a delightful dog & a great companion to me & my other whippet. It would have been a real shame if he had been PTS or, worse, shot by the neighbour for doing something that comes naturally to a whippet. Killing stock is another matter.

[melzawelza]

That's interesting, thanks for the link to the legislation. The status of "dangerous dog" still has to be declared to take effect tho' doesn't it? I suppose the tricky bit is if you disclose the history, you might trigger that provision? I can't find any definition of "proposed dangerous dog" in the legislation.

Tricky, because there are plenty of dogs that are not "dangerous" merely because they are owned by people who are responsible and don't allow them ever to get into a situation where they can kill a chook (or whatever). Mine for example, I wouldn't let them anywhere near chooks - they've never killed one, not because they wouldn't but because they don't get to!!

A dog isn't automatically a dangerous dog simply because it has performed the behaviour, it has to be declared as such by the Council.

A 'proposed dangerous dog' would be the equivalent of a dog with a Notice of Intent to declare it dangerous. There are provisions while the dog has a notice on it (leashed/muzzled) and the owners have time to submit representations as to why the oppose the proposed order.

So does this mean that even if the dog is presented with a verbal report of "he killed a sheep" the dog could still be rehomed responsibly - for example, to an inner suburban setting ?

SSM- Ams post is a good one.

A dog is only legally unable to be rehomed if it has been declared dangerous by a Council or is the subject of an NOI.

If the Council is unaware of the incident or has chosen not to declare the dog, then it is like any other dog as far as the Act/Council is concerned.

Councils have discretion when it comes to attacks. They are not obligated to declare any dog. So while one type of attack may result in a declaration in once Council area, another may choose a different path of action.

So basically, unless the dog is actually a declared dangerous dog (or is subject of a notice of intent to declare dangerous) you are not breaking the law by changing ownership.

[honeybun]

There are also dogs that kill birds, and I have met owners wanting to put their dog down because they killed either a wild bird or the family pet.

A couple of them had stupidly left the dog and the bird alone in the same room, with no supervision.

[Alyosha]

So does this mean that even if the dog is presented with a verbal report of "he killed a sheep" the dog could still be rehomed responsibly - for example, to an inner suburban setting ?

Yes. Like noted, it can be a discretionary thing. It can depend on a whole lot of things, including the circumstances and nature of the attack. It is almost traditional in some senses to automatically destroy a dog that has killed livestock. I think it harks back to the old beliefs like once a dog has killed it will seek to do it again and again - the bloodlust theory. "You'll never stop them killing once they've got the taste for it".

We do know more about dog behaviour these days, but the first response of destruction lingers.

Some attacks are horrific and people find it hard to see the dog in the same light. In this case pts may be a better option for the dog, if sensible rehoming is not available or the attack was of such a nature that it is feared the dog has an aggression issue that may lead to more problems. Serious attacks on other dogs could fall under this umbrella.

Sometimes an agreement to euthanase can avoid further action or criminal prosecution - ie a farmer agrees to not press charges if a dog owner agrees to destruction and compensation.

A dog must be declared to be dangerous in NSW. And it can be a long drawn out and difficult process. Often, if owners agree to pts, then it is a much more efficient option. Sad but true.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Thanks everyone, that has settled the questions I had after Tobie posted.

Alyosha, it's always useful to understand the lore as well as the law

[WreckitWhippet]

.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Pav Lova