Ava - 'dangerous Dogs - A Sensible Solution'

[Sabby]

i m glad this was finally released! When the Task Force released the Discussion Paper earlier this year on Getting To Zero, I thought it would take a lot longer for a report on Breed Specific legislation to come out. This is a welcome surprise.

its a step in the right direction in that it places a lot more responsibilty on dog owners. Many people do take dog onwership lightly but if this gets accepted (did someone say the minister has already rejected it??)people will be forced to consider a lot more factors when it comes to dog ownership.

As a owner of two sight hounds (and two indoor cats), i have been scared to death on occassion that the Dangerous Dog Law may apply to me one day if im not careful! i take them to dog parks ONLY when there are only big dogs there, and do alot of training and desenstization around my cats. im aware that if my cats ever got out, my dogs drive would kick in and my cats would pay:( But the boys are angels with my cats while indoors.

i have also had to tell parents at dog parks that their 3yr old shouldnt really be racing around the dog park, screaming as dogs love to chase and there is no guarantee dogs wont chase them!! Something like that has never happened thankfully but i would hate my dogs to have to pay for what they were bred for.

All in all, i dont leave my house with them without thinking about all the management involved in taking them somewhere!

Something that bugs me (and its only a small point) But i come across this at least once a day in the inner city

3. Dog under effective control

(a) A dog is under the effective control of a person in a public place if the dog is –

i. on a road or road-related area in a built-up area, or any other public place declared by

the relevant council to be an area where a dog must be on a lead, and the dog is

secured and restrained by means of a lead not more than 2 metres long held by hand

by a person able to control the dog; or

ii. tethered to a fixed object by a lead not more than 2 metres long for a period not more

than 30 minutes.

Wouldnt it be better bite prevention to NOT allow dogs to be tethered on busy inner city streets unsupervised? i see kids run up to big dogs that have been tied up like this and i actually cringe, waiting for something to happen! Knowing that a dog is more likely to bite when tethered, and feeling trapped, i would think the dog would not be "under effective control"

[Maddy]

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.

Killing a possum or a cat would not be considered reasonable defence of person or property. Same with killing birds (and try keeping those out of your yard- we have a bird killing foster at the moment and there's really nothing we can do to stop it, short of draping a huge net over the entire property- which the council wouldn't allow anyway)

Edited to add..

In Tasmania, as I've also previously mentioned in this thread, vermin are not excluded so a dog that kills a mouse or a feral rabbit or a starling could be declared dangerous, just as if it had killed someone's pet.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Hardy's Angel

[Inevitablue]

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.

Completely agree. If each council had x number of specialised dog rangers working in a proactive manner in the area then potential problems can be addressed. Unfortunately this wouldnt generate income like parking officers do.

Imagine having knowledgeable dog officers who spend time at dog parks, actually walk through communities and make observations. That dog which rushes the old pailing fence everytime another dog walks past can be identified and the owners told to improve the fencing. The dogs which are the park bullies can be given 30 days notice to implement a training regime or be banned from the park. Use council registration fees to split the parks into 2 sections. Accredit local dog schools and the attendance (and passing) of the schools can be used towards cheaper fees. Go back to an annual registration fee so that those who have done the proactive training get heavily reduced fees.

Have an anonymous number that people can register their concern about certain dogs and the specialised dog ranger can visit. The dog that spends its life on a chain will have improved quality of life - if the rangers are aware of the dog. At the moment if you were to ring council with concerns about a non socialised, frustrated dog the response would be 'has it done anything wrong?' Send the ranger there and find out why the dog lives on a chain. If its lack of animal husbandry knowledge then the officer can see that they are educated. If its because the dog is a social status and a vehicle for intimidation then the owners can be forced to make changes, or lose the dog.

These rangers should be getting to know all of the dogs living in their specified area.

[Steve]

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.

Agreed -

[JulesP]

My council does have reduced rates for an obedience trained dog. Ok it is the same price as for a desexed dog but the thought is there.

[mita]

There needs to be two current status categories a dog can be assessed as. One, Nuisance....and two, Dangerous.

At the moment, 'dangerous' is being declared after the fact of serious harm/injury/cause of death.

Behaviours that accompany potential to be dangerous, would likely have already shown up prior to that crisis...like, .frequently being on the loose, seriously menacing incidents etc. This indicates the dog is currently a Nuisance.

What is needed is a system that takes such reports seriously, assesses owner's management and assesses the dog's behaviour.

As I said before, I like the French system which has the power to haul the owner in and require that the person undertakes and obtains a Certificate of Competency in managing their dog. It also has the power to require that a behavior vet assesses the dog.

Also the French system requires that each puppy has an ID number that identifies its source & which can track course of life. That allows cross-referencing.

And there should be collection of statistics by the authorities on features surrounding reported incidents with dogs....which includes variables like area , or whether the dog is registered or not....and owner characteristics. Interesting to see if the same pattern emerges here as in the US...serious dog problems tend to be found with owners who don't register them.

Then, if the authorities get serious about following up unregistered dogs, they may stumble on a number of dogs who have current worrying behaviours, and /or who are being mismanaged by their owners in a worrying way. At that point, the French system would model the next steps...

Edited August 13, 2012 by mita

[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.

Completely agree. If each council had x number of specialised dog rangers working in a proactive manner in the area then potential problems can be addressed. Unfortunately this wouldnt generate income like parking officers do.

Imagine having knowledgeable dog officers who spend time at dog parks, actually walk through communities and make observations. That dog which rushes the old pailing fence everytime another dog walks past can be identified and the owners told to improve the fencing. The dogs which are the park bullies can be given 30 days notice to implement a training regime or be banned from the park. Use council registration fees to split the parks into 2 sections. Accredit local dog schools and the attendance (and passing) of the schools can be used towards cheaper fees. Go back to an annual registration fee so that those who have done the proactive training get heavily reduced fees.

Have an anonymous number that people can register their concern about certain dogs and the specialised dog ranger can visit. The dog that spends its life on a chain will have improved quality of life - if the rangers are aware of the dog. At the moment if you were to ring council with concerns about a non socialised, frustrated dog the response would be 'has it done anything wrong?' Send the ranger there and find out why the dog lives on a chain. If its lack of animal husbandry knowledge then the officer can see that they are educated. If its because the dog is a social status and a vehicle for intimidation then the owners can be forced to make changes, or lose the dog.

These rangers should be getting to know all of the dogs living in their specified area.

According to council reps only about 15% of dogs in most shires in NSW are actually registered. Seems to me if there was a proactive focus rather than a reactive one we would see more registrations = more revenue and more fines = more revenue and surely enough to cover a wage.

It would equal less disasters and less impact and cost for everyone.

Would mean we could all enjoy our own dogs and their company when we take them for walks etc without the fear of being grabbed by a dog at large.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Steve

[Steve]

There needs to be two current status categories a dog can be assessed as. One, Nuisance....and two, Dangerous.

At the moment, 'dangerous' is being declared after the fact of serious harm/injury/cause of death.

Better but that still requires the dog to display a certain behaviour to be categorised and Id like to see a situation where the fact that its a dog is taken as a sign that how it is kept and managed should be given consideration before the behaviour is a potential threat or pain in the neck.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Steve

[mita]

There needs to be two current status categories a dog can be assessed as. One, Nuisance....and two, Dangerous.

At the moment, 'dangerous' is being declared after the fact of serious harm/injury/cause of death.

Better but that still requires the dog to display a certain behaviour to be categorised and Id like to see a situation where the fact that its a dog is taken as a sign that how it is kept and managed should be given consideration before the behaviour is a potential threat or pain in the neck.

The rest of my post pointed out how the French system married the two variables. Dog behaviour and owner behaviour in managing or mismanaging their dog. The French never separate them. Neither did my suggestion which described how it could also be done here. Especially in taking seriously and following up reported nuisance incidents.

I also picked up the US research that mismanagement tends to be found among owners who don't register their dogs (no....not all....nor exclusively so....but the chances are higher). I spelled out, in the final paragraph, how following that up, seriously, could dig out numbers of dogs being mismanaged by owners in a worrisome way. And which could lead to more nuisance or serious problems.

What we might lack here.....but the French have....is something in law which requires such owners to step up to learn about and then show competency in managing their dog. Though, I notice that the more recent Q'ld law covers the right (& importance) of designated authorities to intervene in an 'educational' way re owners' managing of animals.

Edited August 13, 2012 by mita

[Steve]

There needs to be two current status categories a dog can be assessed as. One, Nuisance....and two, Dangerous.

At the moment, 'dangerous' is being declared after the fact of serious harm/injury/cause of death.

Better but that still requires the dog to display a certain behaviour to be categorised and Id like to see a situation where the fact that its a dog is taken as a sign that how it is kept and managed should be given consideration before the behaviour is a potential threat or pain in the neck.

The rest of my post pointed out how the French system married the two variables. Dog behaviour and owner behaviour in managing or mismanaging their dog. The French never separate them. Neither did my suggestion which described how it could also be done here. Especially in taking seriously and following up reported nuisance incidents.

I also picked up the US research that mismanagement tends to be found among owners who don't register their dogs (no....not all....nor exclusively so....but the chances are higher). I spelled out, in the final paragraph, how following that up, seriously, could dig out numbers of dogs being mismanaged by owners in a worrisome way. And which could lead to more nuisance or serious problems.

What we might lack here.....but the French have....is something in law which requires such owners to step up to learn about and then show competency in managing their dog. Though, I notice that the more recent Q'ld law covers the right (& importance) of designated authorities to intervene in an 'educational' way re owners' managing of animals.

Yes I think I understood what the rest of your post was saying and in my opinion it is better and has merit but it still seems to me - correct me if I have taken it the wrong way - that it is only done when something either owner behaviour or dog behaviour in some way singles them out for this action. I would rather see everyone and every dog and the environment they are kept in assessed to try to eliminate more of the risk factors before they become a problem or obvious.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Steve

[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.

Killing a possum or a cat would not be considered reasonable defence of person or property. Same with killing birds (and try keeping those out of your yard- we have a bird killing foster at the moment and there's really nothing we can do to stop it, short of draping a huge net over the entire property- which the council wouldn't allow anyway)

Edited to add..

In Tasmania, as I've also previously mentioned in this thread, vermin are not excluded so a dog that kills a mouse or a feral rabbit or a starling could be declared dangerous, just as if it had killed someone's pet.

Now that I'm home and had another look at the act - here in NSW you wouldn't have to worry about that. The reasonable defence I quoted is there but section b protects against the situation you describe.

From section 16 (which covers attacks):

(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.

I'm pretty appalled that you don't have any such thing covering you in TAS. That isn't right.

[Steve]

If Tassie doesn't allow you exemption when another animal enters your property that is pretty shocking and my guy who pinged a hawk this morning to protect his charges would be a gonna and I was cheering him because he was doing his job.

[DobieMum]

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).

Agree with this comment 100%. In the past my guys have killed 2 cats, In both cases I rushed the cats to the vets and paid to have them buried. But these cats came into my yard.

[Maddy]

If Tassie doesn't allow you exemption when another animal enters your property that is pretty shocking and my guy who pinged a hawk this morning to protect his charges would be a gonna and I was cheering him because he was doing his job.

In the case of a livestock guardian defending stock against predators, I'd say you'd be safe down here.

On the other hand, your dog grabbing a rabbit in your house yard would be an entirely different thing.

[Tempus Fugit]

I love the way one species (dogs) is singled out. If a dog kills a cat the dog is dangerous, but if a cat kills a mouse or someone's pet canary or an endangered quoll there is bugger all ramifications for the cat. Maybe its because few people see a cat in the act of killing - out of sight out of mind. Again, I recall once walking past a pet store and this huge black cat rushed out and clawed its way up my bare leg. If a dog had caused me similar pain I could have had it declared.

As a victim of an assault, why can't we have humans classified dangerous or menacing and made to wear identifying labels so we know who they are? School bullies should be declared 'menacing', bikies and men who bash their spouses dangerous etc. They could be subjected to curfews and other restrictions and if we see them out on the streets during curfew hours we could report them to the police. But wait - humans have rights and vote. Dogs don't. It is far easier for governments to scapegoat dogs than deal with the total issue of keeping us safe from violence.

[Dame Aussie]

I love the way one species (dogs) is singled out. If a dog kills a cat the dog is dangerous, but if a cat kills a mouse or someone's pet canary or an endangered quoll there is bugger all ramifications for the cat. Maybe its because few people see a cat in the act of killing - out of sight out of mind. Again, I recall once walking past a pet store and this huge black cat rushed out and clawed its way up my bare leg. If a dog had caused me similar pain I could have had it declared.

As a victim of an assault, why can't we have humans classified dangerous or menacing and made to wear identifying labels so we know who they are? School bullies should be declared 'menacing', bikies and men who bash their spouses dangerous etc. They could be subjected to curfews and other restrictions and if we see them out on the streets during curfew hours we could report them to the police. But wait - humans have rights and vote. Dogs don't. It is far easier for governments to scapegoat dogs than deal with the total issue of keeping us safe from violence.

Agree!!!