Dangerous Dog Declaration

[melzawelza]

So the main question is what would the council do if you didn't put them in runs?

She also recommended that I accept the Control Orders.

That means that your barrister thought you had a good chance of losing in Court if you went to appeal. If you had a good chance of winning there would have been no issues of you going all the way to Court and defeating the declaration so that your dogs would not have control orders and extra restrictions on them.

ETA: I should add that I'm glad your dogs have a control order with the specified conditions rather than a dangerous dog declaration. I hate declaring dogs dangerous as the restrictions are incredibly onerous and really overkill for most dogs. Unfortunately if the owner refuses to enter into a Control Order I usually have no choice but to issue the declaration. What I'm taking issue with is the way you are totally downplaying the outcome and the fact that this would possibly influence others who need sound advice if they are appealing an Order, not false hope.

Edited March 3, 2013 by melzawelza

[Are You Serious Jo]

Thanks for explaining that Mel, it's not an area that I've had to go into so an interpretation is helpful. Tralee, do you understand what Mel has said and why your heading and assertions are untrue? I would hate to see anyone disputing a DD case to get the wrong end of the stick based on this thread.

[Tralee]

So the main question is what would the council do if you didn't put them in runs?

She also recommended that I accept the Control Orders.

That means that your barrister thought you had a good chance of losing in Court if you went to appeal. If you had a good chance of winning there would have been no issues of you going all the way to Court and defeating the declaration so that your dogs would not have control orders and extra restrictions on them.

ETA: I should add that I'm glad your dogs have a control order with the specified conditions rather than a dangerous dog declaration. I hate declaring dogs dangerous as the restrictions are incredibly onerous and really overkill for most dogs. But I'm taking issue with the way you are lessening what happened and would possibly influence others who need sound advice if they are appealing an Order, not false hope.

I think your compassion for my dogs is a false sentiment.

I am quite au fait with the type of analyses you make.

I designed the conditions of the concessions made for the control orders.

It had nothing to do with losing in Court but rather further costs to my Barrister.

You are second guessing my Barrister.

You are trying to override the decision of a Magistrate.

You are making unfounded assumptions about the advice given to the Council by their legal representatives.

Your status is the same as the Ranger who has been exposed as incompetent, indolent and untenable.

You make the same mistake in condeming my dogs.

To wit:

Part 5 – Dangerous dogs

Division 1 – Power to declare dogs dangerous.

37 Authorised officer must consider dog owner's objections

(1) The owner has 7 days after the date the notice is given in which to object to the proposed declaration.

(2) If the owner does not object within that time, the authorised officer can proceed to make the declaration after the 7 days have passed.

(3) If the owner does object within that time, the authorised officer must first consider the objection before proceeding to make the declaration.

(4) A reference in this section to the authorised officer is a reference to any authorised officer of the council and is not limited to the authorised officer who gave the notice.

The Ranger did not consider my objections and subsequently placed a DDD on a dead dog and another DDD on a dog not kept in NSW.

How much do you need to know?

You are not privy to the facts and will not accept that the dogs were simply off property.

ETA: I am glad the Ranger no longer works in our council area and I pray for the dogs that are in your jurisdiction.

[minimax]

So basically, your dogs are as free as mine and you have no restrictions on where they can be and what they can do as a result of the situation you found yourself/them involved in?

[melzawelza]

I think you genuinely don't understand the control order on your dogs and the seriousness of such an order. Please ensure you comply at all times because if you are caught not doing so by Council you will be facing heavy fines and possibly destruction of your dogs. The Order is not optional. It is a Court Order. I would hate to see that happen because you didn't fully understand the Order placed upon them.

[Tralee]

If a Control Order is breached the Council can issue a Court Attendance Notice to the owner of the dog and prosecute for breach of the Control Order.

Section 49 of the Act states:

49 Failure to comply with destruction or control order

The owner of a dog who does not comply with a destruction or control order under this Division is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units.

1 Penalty unit in NSW is $110 so the max fine for this breach would be $11,000.

If you breach the Control Order the Courts could also destroy the dog in question or remove it from you:

48 Destruction orders

(1) A destruction order is an order of a Court that the owner of a dog destroy the dog or cause the dog to be destroyed, or that a dog be destroyed by some person authorised by the Court, within the period specified in the order.

(2) A destruction order can be made by a Court in the following circumstances:

(a) on conviction of the owner of the dog of an offence under section 35A of the Crimes Act 1900, or under section 16, 17, 49, 51 or 56 of this Act,

(b) on confirming the declaration by an authorised officer of a council that a dog is dangerous or a council’s refusal to revoke such a declaration.

(3) However, a Court must not make a destruction order unless it is satisfied that the making of a control order, or an order permanently removing the dog from its owner (which the Court is, by this subsection, authorised to make), will not be sufficient to protect the public from any threat posed by the dog.

This kind of bullshit is just totally and extremely bizarre.

Do you think for a minute I would put my dogs in jeopardy if I thought there was an inkling of a chance that any orders would be breached.

You haven't read the brief.

The gates and fences were rampaged by an unknown person consequently arrested by police.

An interior fenced compound will prevent the public having access to my dogs as much as you might pretend it is to protect the public from my dogs.

My dogs' security will not be breached again.

The dogs were not, are not, and have not been aggressive.

A fact confirmed by the attending judge at my puppy boy's last dog show at Durack.

You know, the more you try to condemn my dogs, the more my doubts increase about your suitability as a Companion Animal Officer.

The post belongs in BSL because Maremmas should never be candidates for BSL

[Tralee]

So basically, your dogs are as free as mine and you have no restrictions on where they can be and what they can do as a result of the situation you found yourself/them involved in?

Basically yes, except I have an added incentive, entirely voluntary, to protect my dogs from the public and other peoples' dogs.

I elicted the requirements of the Control Order entirely with the intention to increase the integrity of my own dogs' management practices.

Some people seem to think that I don't have the requisite intelligence to do that.

[Clyde]

What Tralee has done, but is not understanding for himself, is that Tralee and the council have come to a mutually agreeable compromise on the containment of his dogs. Without this compromise the outcome could have been entirely different.

I agree with Melz, this has nothing to do with BSL.

[Tralee]

What Tralee has done, but is not understanding for himself, is that Tralee and the council have come to a mutually agreeable compromise on the containment of his dogs. Without this compromise the outcome could have been entirely different.

I agree with Melz, this has nothing to do with BSL.

Well, whether it is misplaced in BSL is by the by.

But with all due respect Clyde, the Council conceded to my demands.

I don't cry wolf, but in this instance I pursued the Ranger and the Council with everything I had.

I wish people would read the comments.

The Ranger did not do his job, everything else is irrelevant.

This was a Social Justice issue.

I had an obligation and a responsibility to all the other DOs in our Council area to expose the 'drunken' incompetence of those entrusted with a Duty of Care to the Community.

I hope this can be put to bed now.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Tralee

[melzawelza]

If your focus was to show up the rangers incompetence (and it sounds like there was a degree of that there if you were able to prove that someone busted your fence but you were still fined for the escape), why didn't you actually go all the way to court to have the matter dismissed and costs awarded to you ( I'm assuming you paid your own costs if you entered a control order upon appeal) and to clear your dog of all Orders?

You may not realise it but by making an offer to comply with a control order you haven't cleared your dogs at all and you've essentially confirmed that your dogs need extra precautions than any other by having a court order placed on them to say they need a second inner fence to contain them and can never be allowed unleashed in any public place.

Don't get me wrong, I think if you didn't have much chance of winning an appeal in court then offering to consent to those conditions was a good move and the same thing I'd do if it were my dog (and often what I hope dog owners will do when I've been forced to declare their dogs dangerous and I know they're going to lose their appeal) but you have misrepresented the entire case in this thread.

Edited March 3, 2013 by melzawelza

[WreckitWhippet]

So basically, your dogs are as free as mine and you have no restrictions on where they can be and what they can do as a result of the situation you found yourself/them involved in?

Basically yes, except I have an added incentive, entirely voluntary, to protect my dogs from the public and other peoples' dogs.

I elicted the requirements of the Control Order entirely with the intention to increase the integrity of my own dogs' management practices.

Some people seem to think that I don't have the requisite intelligence to do that.

What you have done is gotten yourself out of a DD tag and instead have an order that if breached have serious consequences, your dogs are not free, you are now bound by the control order. It's been no win for you, it's been a concession to avoid having them declared dangerous.

The status of your dogs has nothing to do with BSL, any dog can be declared "dangerous" only those dogs that are thought to be of a restricted breed or cross can have an NOI to declare them to be of a resticted breed.

[melzawelza]

So basically, your dogs are as free as mine and you have no restrictions on where they can be and what they can do as a result of the situation you found yourself/them involved in?

Basically yes, except I have an added incentive, entirely voluntary, to protect my dogs from the public and other peoples' dogs.

I elicted the requirements of the Control Order entirely with the intention to increase the integrity of my own dogs' management practices.

Some people seem to think that I don't have the requisite intelligence to do that.

What you have done is gotten yourself out of a DD tag and instead have an order that if breached have serious consequences, your dogs are not free, you are now bound by the control order. It's been no win for you, it's been a concession to avoid having them declared dangerous.

The status of your dogs has nothing to do with BSL, any dog can be declared "dangerous" only those dogs that are thought to be of a restricted breed or cross can have an NOI to declare them to be of a resticted breed.

Yes! Thankyou, that's a perfect succinct way to put it rather than my long winded explanations! :laugh:

[WreckitWhippet]

So basically, your dogs are as free as mine and you have no restrictions on where they can be and what they can do as a result of the situation you found yourself/them involved in?

Basically yes, except I have an added incentive, entirely voluntary, to protect my dogs from the public and other peoples' dogs.

I elicted the requirements of the Control Order entirely with the intention to increase the integrity of my own dogs' management practices.

Some people seem to think that I don't have the requisite intelligence to do that.

What you have done is gotten yourself out of a DD tag and instead have an order that if breached have serious consequences, your dogs are not free, you are now bound by the control order. It's been no win for you, it's been a concession to avoid having them declared dangerous.

The status of your dogs has nothing to do with BSL, any dog can be declared "dangerous" only those dogs that are thought to be of a restricted breed or cross can have an NOI to declare them to be of a resticted breed.

Yes! Thankyou, that's a perfect succinct way to put it rather than my long winded explanations! :laugh:

No worries, sometimes you have to dumb it down a bit for people to grasp the concept.

[gillbear]

What you have done is gotten yourself out of a DD tag and instead have an order that if breached have serious consequences, your dogs are not free, you are now bound by the control order. It's been no win for you, it's been a concession to avoid having them declared dangerous.

The status of your dogs has nothing to do with BSL, any dog can be declared "dangerous" only those dogs that are thought to be of a restricted breed or cross can have an NOI to declare them to be of a resticted breed.

Yes! Thankyou, that's a perfect succinct way to put it rather than my long winded explanations! :laugh:

No worries, sometimes you have to dumb it down a bit for people to grasp the concept.

[Tralee]

If your focus was to show up the rangers incompetence (and it sounds like there was a degree of that there if you were able to prove that someone busted your fence but you were still fined for the escape), why didn't you actually go all the way to court to have the matter dismissed and costs awarded to you ( I'm assuming you paid your own costs if you entered a control order upon appeal) and to clear your dog of all Orders?

You may not realise it but by making an offer to comply with a control order you haven't cleared your dogs at all and you've essentially confirmed that your dogs need extra precautions than any other by having a court order placed on them to say they need a second inner fence to contain them and can never be allowed unleashed in any public place.

Don't get me wrong, I think if you didn't have much chance of winning an appeal in court then offering to consent to those conditions was a good move and the same thing I'd do if it were my dog (and often what I hope dog owners will do when I've been forced to declare their dogs dangerous and I know they're going to lose their appeal) but you have misrepresented the entire case in this thread.

I don't know why you insist on putting your poor analysis skills on display.

You also argued that Part 3 - Section 13 - Subsection 1 and Subsection 5 (f) of the NSW Companion Animals Act 1998 are the same.

Therefore, I have to make allowances for what you say.

You are not a Barrister, either are you a Magistrate.

Just as the matter was taken out of the hands of the Council Ranger, yourself as a Companion Animal Officer, have no overriding authority.

Unlike you, I happen to realise that sometimes in my life I am going to meet people who know more than I do.

The trick is whether you can recognise them when you do meet them.

Of course, you will never meet any because you are a know it all.

You can say that the dogs are restricted as many times as you like, but I can take them to Queensland whenever I please and they can run as free as a bird.

If we are talking about what is miles apart then that freedom is miles away from a DDD.

Further, the fence which I elected to erect to house the dogs can be a perimeter fence if I so choose.

If fact, two sides of the current fence is already six foot.

One other side, is the back of a two story house.

The remaining fence line is about ten meters.

I think you have made enough replies to adequately conclude that you don't know s#!^

There is no imposition on me or the dogs.

My instructions to my Barrister was that the dogs must be reinstated to the original status before the IDD was issued.

Her advice was to concede to the Councils acceptance of my terms.

Its not rocket science.

And Blind Freddy can see that you're trying to harangue your argument through.

You know, civil authority doesn't stop at local councils or with Companion Animal Officers.

There are many, many higher levels of erudition and thank God there is.

[Tralee]

So basically, your dogs are as free as mine and you have no restrictions on where they can be and what they can do as a result of the situation you found yourself/them involved in?

Basically yes, except I have an added incentive, entirely voluntary, to protect my dogs from the public and other peoples' dogs.

I elicted the requirements of the Control Order entirely with the intention to increase the integrity of my own dogs' management practices.

Some people seem to think that I don't have the requisite intelligence to do that.

What you have done is gotten yourself out of a DD tag and instead have an order that if breached have serious consequences, your dogs are not free, you are now bound by the control order. It's been no win for you, it's been a concession to avoid having them declared dangerous.

The status of your dogs has nothing to do with BSL, any dog can be declared "dangerous" only those dogs that are thought to be of a restricted breed or cross can have an NOI to declare them to be of a resticted breed.

The dogs are not dangerous.

The dogs are not even aggressive.

What has been brought to light though is that there are many people who are insufferably and incurably stupid.

[minimax]

So your dogs have a control order on them in NSW, Yes?

[Tralee]

So your dogs have a control order on them in NSW, Yes?

You know, sometimes accidents happen and the consequences are well out of proportion with the antecedents.

You have no idea what the Council proposed in lieu of the DDDs and how much my dogs stood to lose because one person thought they could do what ever they wanted to whomever they chose.

Nor can you adequately account for my deliberations in this matter or possibly know how I played my cards or know how close I kept them to my chest.

The Council accepted my terms to which I conceded on the advice of my Barrister.

There could have been an infinite number of other scenarios in an infinite number of parallel Universes.

I might have gone to court, and I might have won.

But Magistrates do not look kindly on people who waste court time.

My decision was obvious.

The result shows how stupidity and laziness is both dangerous and expensive.

It has cost me because I took the time and made the effort to correct what was more than likely an entrenched abuse of power.

I don't know why it was my dogs and I who were chosen to expose the corruption of the Council Ranger but I welcomed the task given to me, and I am thankfull for the wisdom it has provided.

It is a basic Catholic tenet that we stand up for Social Justice whatever the cost.

It has cost me financially but I have gained more in so many other ways.

Every DO should be totally and completely au fait with the consequences of a DDD.

And they should also be appraised of what Rangers can and cannot do and what can be done if they disagree.

You can bet then, there wouldn't be any of the little niggling incidents that occur daily.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Tralee

[WreckitWhippet]

Of course the Council "accepted" your terms, they accepted them because they can police and enforce a control order. Break the terms and conditions of the control order and council can take action against you.

Your dogs are not free to live as every non offending dog is in the state of NSW, they are bound by the control order.

You can dress it up anyway you like but you did not win, you conceded the what are essentially some lesser controls and avoided having to lock them up in a cage that requires a DA and meets the CAA strict requirements.

[minimax]

So your dogs have a control order on them in NSW, Yes?

You know, sometimes accidents happen and the consequences are well out of proportion with the antecedents.

You have no idea what the Council proposed in lieu of the DDDs and how much my dogs stood to lose because one person thought they could do what ever they wanted to whomever they chose.

Nor can you adequately account for my deliberations in this matter or possibly know how I played my cards or know how close I kept them to my chest.

The Council accepted my terms to which I conceded on the advice of my Barrister.

There could have been an infinite number of other scenarios in an infinite number of parallel Universes.

I might have gone to court, and I might have won.

But Magistrates do not look kindly on people who waste court time.

My decision was obvious.

The result shows how stupidity and laziness is both dangerous and expensive.

It has cost me because I took the time and made the effort to correct what was more than likely an entrenched abuse of power.

I don't know why it was my dogs and I who were chosen to expose the corruption of the Council Ranger but I welcomed the task given to me, and I am thankfull for the wisdom it has provided.

It is a basic Catholic tenet that we stand up for Social Justice whatever the cost.

It has cost me financially but I have gained more in so many other ways.

Every DO should be totally and completely au fait with the consequences of a DDD.

And they should also be appraised of what Rangers can and cannot do and what can be done if they disagree.

You can bet then, there wouldn't be any of the little niggling incidents that occur daily.

So, that's a yes, for anyone playing at home.