Ava - 'dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'

[Maddy]

I see the point of the proposal being that no matter what breed of dog you own, whether they may have potential drive to attack cats, dogs, humans or whatever, the responsibility lies with the owner to ensure that NO attacks happen?

You just can't compare the danger posed to cats with danger posed to humans, they're two entirely different things.

If all dogs that would chase (and possibly injure a cat) if they got the chance were to be declared potentially dangerous dogs, the ramifications would be severe.

In Tasmania, a dog that attacks any animal may be declared dangerous, this includes vermin- does this consider prey drive, breed or purpose? No, obviously it does not. Part of the problem with the proposal is the generalisation of definitions, without considering that a dog can kill something without there being any aggression present. Prey drive is prey drive, aggression is aggression, a dog that chases cats is not necessarily a dog likely to attack children.

[megan_]

This is already the definition.

Just finished reading this and while some of the proposed solutions are great, the proposed definition of dangerous dog had me really worried..

Dangerous dog

Any dog that:

(a) Causes a serious injury to a person or

domestic animal; or

(g) Kills a person or domestic animal

Where would this leave a lot of sighthounds and other breeds with higher prey drive?

All of my own greyhounds would kill a cat if they got the chance but they're certainly not dangerous dogs so far as public safety goes.

Prey drive and aggression aren't the same thing so lumping them together is very unfair.

[melzawelza]

I see the point of the proposal being that no matter what breed of dog you own, whether they may have potential drive to attack cats, dogs, humans or whatever, the responsibility lies with the owner to ensure that NO attacks happen?

You just can't compare the danger posed to cats with danger posed to humans, they're two entirely different things.

If all dogs that would chase (and possibly injure a cat) if they got the chance were to be declared potentially dangerous dogs, the ramifications would be severe.

In Tasmania, a dog that attacks any animal may be declared dangerous, this includes vermin- does this consider prey drive, breed or purpose? No, obviously it does not. Part of the problem with the proposal is the generalisation of definitions, without considering that a dog can kill something without there being any aggression present. Prey drive is prey drive, aggression is aggression, a dog that chases cats is not necessarily a dog likely to attack children.

The dog actually has to do something to be declared PD or Dangerous. So a dog with prey drive that has always been kept under control will not be declared.

'The label of PD or Dangerous dog is not solely to do with human aggression. By that logic dogs also shouldn't be declared dangerous if they kill another dog, as there is no correlation between dog aggression and human aggression.

Yes it's prey drive not aggression. But at the end of the day. The point is someone's pet cat was killed because the owner was irresponsible, you can't just ignore that - action has to be taken.

As I said, dogs are regularly declared dangerous in NSW for killing cats and from what Megan said this is the same in other states too. This provision already exists.

[JulesP]

Yes it's prey drive not aggression. But at the end of the day. The point is someone's pet cat was killed because the owner was irresponsible, you can't just ignore that - action has to be taken.

Fair enough if the dog jumps into the cat's garden and kills the cat. Not fair if the cat jumps into the dog's garden (after spending a couple of weeks annoying the dog from the top of the fence).

[Steve]

Its a step in a better direction than we have had but the focus is still on the dog and waiting for it to display certain behaviour and in my opinion the focus needs to change a bit.

Everywhere I know of it is a legal requirement to have your dog registered with your local council.

If council were doing their job and ensuring everyone was registering their dogs and calling in to see what fencing was in place and checking the level of owner stupidity they would be able to direct certain management issues to be put in place before the dog is in trouble , at large causing a problem or biting someone. If they had done this in Victoria where the child was killed in her own home ,the dog would have been registered , the dog would have been in an environment where it couldnt escape and it couldnt do what it did. Im not interested in killing the dog or fining the owner after the event - I want the event prevented. I want to be able to move around my neighbourhood , walk my dogs and my kids without concern that some idiot has not ensured their dogs are not able to bother me.

They should be taking the dog home the first time its out on the street free of charge and giving the owner a serve about consequences and checking the environment is suitable and that it wont happen again. Owners should be directed to either get a better fence and have to attend education classes on the requirements of being a responsible dog owner or loose their right to own the dog.We should also have a reward system in place which will help to promote positive behaviours and make those who are not doing the right thing socially unacceptable.

I saw Peter Higgins on the telly this morning saying he wants all dogs and their owners to have to do obedience training etc on a compulsory level.

Sorry, I can never see this happening either nor can I see that as being a solution.

[TheCheekyMonster]

Yes it's prey drive not aggression. But at the end of the day. The point is someone's pet cat was killed because the owner was irresponsible, you can't just ignore that - action has to be taken.

Fair enough if the dog jumps into the cat's garden and kills the cat. Not fair if the cat jumps into the dog's garden (after spending a couple of weeks annoying the dog from the top of the fence).

Cat owner should have kept its cat indoors/in its property.... it works both ways. cats should not be out roaming the streets, just as much as dogs shouldnt.

[Steve]

Ive got Maremma and they are here to guard my property - if a strange cat comes onto my property and they didnt ping it - Id be asking whats wrong with my breeding program. Completely different if I dont keep them contained on my property and they visit the neighbourhood cats in their own backyards and give them a serve.

edited to add - if they did this it would be my fault for not keeping them contained and I should be punished for that and made to ensure they can never get off my property again .That's why dogs have no rights because they are my property and I am responsible - they have no right to do what comes naturally any old place they want to because they are not able to be responsible. The dog [property owner ] is so why do BSL laws keep placing the responsibility on the dog to not show its instinctive behaviour? Nuts.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Steve

[Maddy]

Yes it's prey drive not aggression. But at the end of the day. The point is someone's pet cat was killed because the owner was irresponsible, you can't just ignore that - action has to be taken.

Fair enough if the dog jumps into the cat's garden and kills the cat. Not fair if the cat jumps into the dog's garden (after spending a couple of weeks annoying the dog from the top of the fence).

Cat owner should have kept its cat indoors/in its property.... it works both ways. cats should not be out roaming the streets, just as much as dogs shouldnt.

That still wouldn't "excuse" the dog though. The dog's owner becomes responsible for the safety of other peoples' pets which, in my opinion, is not fair.

For greyhounds (and many other breeds) chasing small animals isn't an abnormal behaviour, it's what they were bred for. Lumping them in with dogs that harm humans is ridiculous.

[melzawelza]

Fair enough if the dog jumps into the cat's garden and kills the cat. Not fair if the cat jumps into the dog's garden (after spending a couple of weeks annoying the dog from the top of the fence).

I agree completely. I can't remember if 'protection of persons or property' is in there. It certainly is already in NSW and I'm assuming other states, and would stay. This would only mean if the dog escaped and killed someone's cat out in public or on their property.

Cat owner should have kept its cat indoors/in its property.... it works both ways. cats should not be out roaming the streets, just as much as dogs shouldnt.

I agree (having two indoor cats myself) but the law doesn't. Not here in NSW anyway. Cats are able and allowed to roam. And while I believe all cats should be contained I'm not convinced it would be law. If it was, Council officers would be spending all of our time seizing wandering cats and putting nuisance orders on the owners, taking them to the pound... there'd be no time left to implement this proposed legislation.

That still wouldn't "excuse" the dog though. The dog's owner becomes responsible for the safety of other peoples' pets which, in my opinion, is not fair.

For greyhounds (and many other breeds) chasing small animals isn't an abnormal behaviour, it's what they were bred for. Lumping them in with dogs that harm humans is ridiculous.

You're missing the point that the 'Dangerous Dog' title in NSW and I think most states is not exclusively human aggression. It encompasses aggression towards other animals as well. If someone's dog killed your dog would you want them to be declared dangerous or would you say 'It's ok, don't declare them dangerous as they're not human aggressive so I wouldn't want to lump them in with dogs that harm humans'.

A dog that has killed someone's cat after escaping is dangerous towards people's cats. A dog that has killed another dog is dangerous towards dogs. A dog that has killed a human is dangerous towards humans. A dog can have all three or just one, but either way - if they have done the deed they are 'dangerous' under the eyes of the law.

This isn't a new proposal at all. Your profile says you're in Tasmania, the TAS dog control act says:

DOG CONTROL ACT 2000 - SECT 29

Division 3 - Dangerous dogs and restricted breed dogs 29. Declaration of particular dangerous dog

(1) A general manager, by notice served on the owner of a dog –

(a) may declare that dog to be a dangerous dog if –

(i) the dog has caused serious injury to a person or another animal; or

(ii) there is reasonable cause to believe that the dog is likely to cause serious injury to a person or another animal; and

(b) is to give reasons for the declaration in the notice; and

© is to advise the owner of the right of appeal under section 31.

(2) . . . . . . . .

Link:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/dca2000134/s29.html

So this has already been the case in your state since 2000. If you prevent your dog from escaping and killing people's cats then you have no worry.

I know where you're coming from, and it really sucks I agree. I had to declare a dog dangerous last week for escaping and killing a cat - and he was a lovely lovely dog. People friendly and dog friendly. The owners are unable to comply with the restrictions so they have to decide whether to appeal or surrender him to be put to sleep. It's heartbreaking and I've lost sleep over it. But at the same time, someone's pet has been killed because this dog has escaped. The dog does need to live in an enclosure to prevent such an escape from happening again.

Edited August 13, 2012 by melzawelza

[JulesP]

I know where you're coming from, and it really sucks I agree. I had to declare a dog dangerous last week for escaping and killing a cat - and he was a lovely lovely dog. People friendly and dog friendly. The owners are unable to comply with the restrictions so they have to decide whether to appeal or surrender him to be put to sleep. It's heartbreaking and I've lost sleep over it. But at the same time, someone's pet has been killed because this dog has escaped. The dog does need to live in an enclosure to prevent such an escape from happening again.

They can't or they don't want to?

[melzawelza]

I know where you're coming from, and it really sucks I agree. I had to declare a dog dangerous last week for escaping and killing a cat - and he was a lovely lovely dog. People friendly and dog friendly. The owners are unable to comply with the restrictions so they have to decide whether to appeal or surrender him to be put to sleep. It's heartbreaking and I've lost sleep over it. But at the same time, someone's pet has been killed because this dog has escaped. The dog does need to live in an enclosure to prevent such an escape from happening again.

They can't or they don't want to?

Can't. They are unable to create an enclosure to meet the specifications due to the way their backyard is constructed.

[JulesP]

I know where you're coming from, and it really sucks I agree. I had to declare a dog dangerous last week for escaping and killing a cat - and he was a lovely lovely dog. People friendly and dog friendly. The owners are unable to comply with the restrictions so they have to decide whether to appeal or surrender him to be put to sleep. It's heartbreaking and I've lost sleep over it. But at the same time, someone's pet has been killed because this dog has escaped. The dog does need to live in an enclosure to prevent such an escape from happening again.

They can't or they don't want to?

Can't. They are unable to create an enclosure to meet the specifications due to the way their backyard is constructed.

Can we help at all with ideas?

[nawnim]

As a cat owner I love my cat as much as my dogs. My cat is only kept in at nighttime. Because he is elderly it would be difficult to change his routine. If I was to get a younger cat in the future I would be looking into a cat enclosure. If my cat was to go into a dog's backyard and be attacked I would accept that it would be my cat's fault, but if my cat were to be sitting on his own front doorstep and he was attacked by a loose dog that wouod be a different matter and this has happened. I think owners of dogs with high prey drives do have a special responsibility to keep their dogs contained, and I have major issues with the way some dog owners think cats are fair game.

[melzawelza]

I know where you're coming from, and it really sucks I agree. I had to declare a dog dangerous last week for escaping and killing a cat - and he was a lovely lovely dog. People friendly and dog friendly. The owners are unable to comply with the restrictions so they have to decide whether to appeal or surrender him to be put to sleep. It's heartbreaking and I've lost sleep over it. But at the same time, someone's pet has been killed because this dog has escaped. The dog does need to live in an enclosure to prevent such an escape from happening again.

They can't or they don't want to?

Can't. They are unable to create an enclosure to meet the specifications due to the way their backyard is constructed.

Can we help at all with ideas?

Unfortunately no. I won't go into the specifics but they can't comply on a very fundamental level, there is no way they could. If there was I'd already be assisting them to do so, as this dog being PTS is a sad waste of a life.

This job can be very hard sometimes as it all comes down to human error but it is the dog that pays the ultimate price.

But the results of not declaring the dog can be that another pet is killed (and it would be, the dog has history). It does need to be kept secure. And while the dog is not human aggressive, a person or child could certainly be injured while trying to intervene while the dog is in prey drive.

My reason for bringing up this case is to show that while the dog is just 'being a dog' and is no threat to people, it still is in need of the restrictions that come with a PD or D label once it has shown it is able to escape and kill someone's pet. It's counter intuitive as we dog people don't think of a dog that kills a cat as 'dangerous', but in the eyes of the law they are.

[Maddy]

Fair enough if the dog jumps into the cat's garden and kills the cat. Not fair if the cat jumps into the dog's garden (after spending a couple of weeks annoying the dog from the top of the fence).

I agree completely. I can't remember if 'protection of persons or property' is in there. It certainly is already in NSW and I'm assuming other states, and would stay. This would only mean if the dog escaped and killed someone's cat out in public or on their property.

Cat owner should have kept its cat indoors/in its property.... it works both ways. cats should not be out roaming the streets, just as much as dogs shouldnt.

I agree (having two indoor cats myself) but the law doesn't. Not here in NSW anyway. Cats are able and allowed to roam. And while I believe all cats should be contained I'm not convinced it would be law. If it was, Council officers would be spending all of our time seizing wandering cats and putting nuisance orders on the owners, taking them to the pound... there'd be no time left to implement this proposed legislation.

That still wouldn't "excuse" the dog though. The dog's owner becomes responsible for the safety of other peoples' pets which, in my opinion, is not fair.

For greyhounds (and many other breeds) chasing small animals isn't an abnormal behaviour, it's what they were bred for. Lumping them in with dogs that harm humans is ridiculous.

You're missing the point that the 'Dangerous Dog' title in NSW and I think most states is not exclusively human aggression. It encompasses aggression towards other animals as well. If someone's dog killed your dog would you want them to be declared dangerous or would you say 'It's ok, don't declare them dangerous as they're not human aggressive so I wouldn't want to lump them in with dogs that harm humans'.

A dog that has killed someone's cat after escaping is dangerous towards people's cats. A dog that has killed another dog is dangerous towards dogs. A dog that has killed a human is dangerous towards humans. A dog can have all three or just one, but either way - if they have done the deed they are 'dangerous' under the eyes of the law.

This isn't a new proposal at all. Your profile says you're in Tasmania, the TAS dog control act says: *snip*

I assume you didn't read my post above where I mentioned what the laws were in Tasmania :) I'm well aware of them as, by Tasmanian law, both of my GAP-assessed greyhounds are dangerous dogs, by the definition of the term in Tasmanian law.

It's not just a matter of preventing escape (my dogs have never escaped and harmed anything), rather that it's virtually impossible to prevent other animals from coming into a suburban backyard, even with fencing built with the purpose of excluding other animals.

We have had other animals come into our yard and our dogs have killed them- this is through no fault in management- to access the dogs from the street, a person or animal would have to go over or through three gates, one of which has child-proof latching (and two of which can be padlocked).

The law as it currently stands means that my dogs (or any similar breeds of dogs) could be slapped with a DD declaration for doing something that the breed was bred for, on its own property, when the other animal had entered without the consent of the owner of the dog.

The AVA recommending this policy to continue, of ignoring certain breed behaviours (when they should absolutely know better) makes no sense to me. It's exchanging BSL for legislation that will put certain breeds at a severe disadvantage through generalising behaviours- which is no better than BSL (generalising behaviours of a breed).

[Alkhe]

I've just started reading the report - from the first 5 pages I'm really, really pleased.

The four points below encapsulate some of the most significant problems with the current Victorian legislation. It's great to see them actually recognised explicitly.

The failure of breed-specific legislation to prevent dog attacks is due to a number of factors.

- Firstly, breed on its own is not an effective indicator or predictor of aggression in

dogs.

- Secondly, it is not possible to precisely determine the breed of the types of dogs

targeted by breed-specific legislation by appearance or by DNA analysis.

- Thirdly, the number of animals that would need to be removed from a community to

have a meaningful impact on hospital admissions is so high that the removal of any

one breed would have negligible impact.

- Finally, breed-specific legislation ignores the human element whereby dog owners

who desire this kind of dog will simply substitute another breed of dog of similar size,

strength and perception of aggressive tendencies.

[Allerzeit]

It's not just a matter of preventing escape (my dogs have never escaped and harmed anything), rather that it's virtually impossible to prevent other animals from coming into a suburban backyard, even with fencing built with the purpose of excluding other animals.

Yes! We have wildlife that comes into our house yards - possums, pademelons, rabbits - and in large numbers. We have good fencing, and our dogs are contained, and we are very, very careful to keep our dogs contained. But, we can't prevent wildlife from getting in (unless we live in a bubble, we're always going to have possums at the very least). If any of our dogs kill wildlife that enters our yard, just through exhibiting normal prey drive, they are considered to be dangerous dogs according to Tasmanian law

[melzawelza]

I haven't read further into the TAS act, will have a look when I get home, but here in NSW your dogs would not be declared dangerous due to the 'reasonable Defence of person or property' ( or something along those lines) exclusion.

If you do not have that in TAS then I completely agree, it is unreasonable.

Edited August 13, 2012 by melzawelza

[Kavik]

A friend of my OH's has a Cattle Dog that is a declared dangerous dog - human aggressive and has bitten several people including a child ( doesn't like children). Somehow they were able toget around the enclosure law and he lives in a crate in their house - no idea how they managed that!

I am mainly worried because they are expecting a child at the end of the year - does not sound like a good situation to me

[Steve]

I know where you're coming from, and it really sucks I agree. I had to declare a dog dangerous last week for escaping and killing a cat - and he was a lovely lovely dog. People friendly and dog friendly. The owners are unable to comply with the restrictions so they have to decide whether to appeal or surrender him to be put to sleep. It's heartbreaking and I've lost sleep over it. But at the same time, someone's pet has been killed because this dog has escaped. The dog does need to live in an enclosure to prevent such an escape from happening again.

They can't or they don't want to?

Can't. They are unable to create an enclosure to meet the specifications due to the way their backyard is constructed.

Can we help at all with ideas?

Unfortunately no. I won't go into the specifics but they can't comply on a very fundamental level, there is no way they could. If there was I'd already be assisting them to do so, as this dog being PTS is a sad waste of a life.

This job can be very hard sometimes as it all comes down to human error but it is the dog that pays the ultimate price.

But the results of not declaring the dog can be that another pet is killed (and it would be, the dog has history). It does need to be kept secure. And while the dog is not human aggressive, a person or child could certainly be injured while trying to intervene while the dog is in prey drive.

My reason for bringing up this case is to show that while the dog is just 'being a dog' and is no threat to people, it still is in need of the restrictions that come with a PD or D label once it has shown it is able to escape and kill someone's pet. It's counter intuitive as we dog people don't think of a dog that kills a cat as 'dangerous', but in the eyes of the law they are.

All dogs are just being dogs - its why the onus is on the owner to ensure that all of the what ifs are covered. The dog shouldn't have to be in a position in the first place where it is able to hurt another animal or human. If they couldn't contain it in the first place they shouldn't have had it. Sorry I think waiting until the dog has committed some kind of act which is considered against the law before anything is done is stupid.