Dangerous Dog Declaration

[Are You Serious Jo]

I'm not sure why your having a go at Mel, they are right, your dogs have a control order, you admitted this yourself. You didn't win at all and for your sake it might be good to understand what you have to do in order to keep your dogs safe from further council intervention. If you'd won you would have walked away with no control order. No one offers to have a control order put on their dogs at their request unless the alternative is worse, so you just took the lesser of two evils but the power was with the council. That is not winning.

[mita]

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

Yes, that's what I read into your account, Tralee, a negotiated agreement, with the Council, to contain your dogs in a way that'd prevent another problem.

If so, a positive outcome for you & your dogs. But seems you've paid a high emotional & financial price.

Your experience would be of general interest for dog owners (who are under NSW council law conditions).

Any p/breed or mixed-breed dog can be vulnerable for being declared Dangerous, if a certain situation falls out that way. (There was a sweet little tib spaniel boy in Brisbane who was declared Dangerous,) Goes past BSL issues where it's the breed that's the impetus. So I understand people saying it's not relevant on this BSL forum.

You had as much right as any other citizen to query that the actual situation your dogs were in, fitted the descriptions of 'dangerous dog' in the ways set out in the legislation (which I just looked up). There's all sorts of consequences which would follow if your dogs had to live with that label.

Seems your action to have the situation reviewed was successful, so your dogs were no longer seen as 'dangerous' .... but certainly in need of containment management.

You anger seems to be coming from why the situation wasn't scrutinized so carefully in the first instance. As I said before, you've finally got a more positive outcome with a negotiated control order, but you've paid a price.

Edited March 4, 2013 by mita

[megan_]

Agree with Clyde. Don't understand why that makes the council greedy and lazy. Four large guardian breeds were out roaming - they do need to be suitably contained.

The controls agreed to (live in pens, on leash when on public property) are most of the controls that dangerous dogs need to live by.

[Are You Serious Jo]

I just realised, if they all had a DD order would they have to wear muzzles at shows or are the show grounds exempt? That would be an end to showing if they did. It looks like the council were actually quite considerate because they could have refused to settle and if you lost you'd be a hell of a lot worse off. They must have had enough to put a case forward because otherwise your barrister would have advised to go to court. You might want to look at the council in a more positive light tralee because they could have sunk you and they didn't, not sure that makes them greedy and corrupt.

[melzawelza]

I just realised, if they all had a DD order would they have to wear muzzles at shows or are the show grounds exempt? That would be an end to showing if they did. It looks like the council were actually quite considerate because they could have refused to settle and if you lost you'd be a hell of a lot worse off. They must have had enough to put a case forward because otherwise your barrister would have advised to go to court. You might want to look at the council in a more positive light tralee because they could have sunk you and they didn't, not sure that makes them greedy and corrupt.

Not only would they have to be muzzled at shows but they would have to be desexed. I agree that the Council could have easily refused the Control Order (many Councils in my experience completely refuse to even entertain the thought of a Control Order as if the dogs attack again there is the worry that they could be strung up for lessening the restrictions) and he could have then lost in Court and had all of those conditions and more enforced. The fact that his Barrister recommended he take the Control Order shows that there was doubt as to his ability to win in Court during the appeal.

Edited March 4, 2013 by melzawelza

[mita]

I agree that the Council could have easily refused the Control Order (many Councils in my experience completely refuse to even entertain the thought of a Control Order as if the dogs attack again there is the worry that they could be strung up for lessening the restrictions)

Did the dogs in this case 'attack' in ways that fit the descriptions of dangerous dog behaviours as set out in the legislation?

If so, the Council would fail in their responsibility if they didn't adhere to the label 'dangerous dog'.

If not, then the label 'dangerous' with all its consequences wouldn't apply.

All I can find is the OP saying the police described the incident as 'minor'. But that's not descriptive of actual dog behaviours. So doesn't answer the question.

What is beyond question, is that the dogs were on the loose outside their property. And the owner would well be ordered, by the Council, to set in place future containment management ... with whatever penalties would follow from any failure.

Edited March 4, 2013 by mita

[Are You Serious Jo]

Sounds like you were actually very lucky tralee and I'd be a whole lot nicer to those rangers

[melzawelza]

I agree that the Council could have easily refused the Control Order (many Councils in my experience completely refuse to even entertain the thought of a Control Order as if the dogs attack again there is the worry that they could be strung up for lessening the restrictions)

Did the dogs in this case 'attack' in ways that fit the descriptions of dangerous dog behaviours as set out in the legislation?

If so, the Council would fail in their responsibility if they didn't adhere to the label 'dangerous dog'.

If not, then the label 'dangerous' with all its consequences wouldn't apply.

All I can find is the OP saying the police described the incident as 'minor'. But that's not descriptive of actual dog behaviours. So doesn't answer the question.

What is beyond question, is that the dogs were on the loose outside their property. And the owner would well be ordered, by the Council, to set in place future containment management ... with whatever penalties would follow from any failure.

Councils have discretion when it comes to the outcome of reported attacks. Basically in ascending order of seriousness the result can be - no action, warning, fine(s), nuisance order, control order, dangerous dog declaration.

You couldn't issue a dangerous dog declaration or seek a control order simply because the dogs had escaped their property. Both are results of a reported attack. Bearing in mind that an attack as defined in the Act can be rushing behaviour, chasing, harassing etc, we wouldn't be declaring every dog dangerous that performed any of those actions, or we'd be declaring dogs every day of the week. We have to make a judgement call based on the severity of the incident and whether it came about from other breaches (i.e dogs escaping), and we need to be able to justify such a decision. Each Council is different in their approach, some are very hard when it comes to dog matters, others are softer.

[megan_]

I agree that the Council could have easily refused the Control Order (many Councils in my experience completely refuse to even entertain the thought of a Control Order as if the dogs attack again there is the worry that they could be strung up for lessening the restrictions)

Did the dogs in this case 'attack' in ways that fit the descriptions of dangerous dog behaviours as set out in the legislation?

If so, the Council would fail in their responsibility if they didn't adhere to the label 'dangerous dog'.

If not, then the label 'dangerous' with all its consequences wouldn't apply.

All I can find is the OP saying the police described the incident as 'minor'. But that's not descriptive of actual dog behaviours. So doesn't answer the question.

What is beyond question, is that the dogs were on the loose outside their property. And the owner would well be ordered, by the Council, to set in place future containment management ... with whatever penalties would follow from any failure.

A dangerous dog declaration doesn't mean that a dog is dangerous - it is just the name of the declaration. I don't know about NSW, but in Vic a dog merely needs to look menacing or charge/approach a person so that the person feels threatened to be declared dangerous.

[mita]

Bearing in mind that an attack as defined in the Act can be rushing behaviour, chasing, harassing etc, we wouldn't be declaring every dog dangerous that performed any of those actions, or we'd be declaring dogs every day of the week. We have to make a judgement call based on the severity of the incident and whether it came about from other breaches (i.e dogs escaping), and we need to be able to justify such a decision. Each Council is different in their approach, some are very hard when it comes to dog matters, others are softer.

Thanks for that further information.

I understand there's now similar language in the laws here, too. It opens the way for how the person involved interprets the dog's behaviour. Simply the presence of a largish dog, coming close while on the loose, could make some people feel menanced.

There appears to be some element of someone vulnerable feeling under threat in such a way, in this case (from Tralee's description).

Recently, I came across a Ridgie-type dog lost & looking a bit anxious. I called to him, hoping to secure him until I could read his ID.... but he lunged towards me with a growl. I could tell it was fear & a warning. If he'd wanted to bite/attack me, he could have. I phoned the Council & gave his location & explained he was frightened so was a bit reactive, but that people who didn't read his behaviour that way, could be very frightened.

So there is quite an investigative call to make... interpreting a dog's actual behaviours, the individual responses of people. and aligning that with the options in the law.

Edited March 4, 2013 by mita

[melzawelza]

Bearing in mind that an attack as defined in the Act can be rushing behaviour, chasing, harassing etc, we wouldn't be declaring every dog dangerous that performed any of those actions, or we'd be declaring dogs every day of the week. We have to make a judgement call based on the severity of the incident and whether it came about from other breaches (i.e dogs escaping), and we need to be able to justify such a decision. Each Council is different in their approach, some are very hard when it comes to dog matters, others are softer.

Thanks for that further information.

I understand there's now similar language in the laws here, too. It opens the way for how the person involved interprets the dog's behaviour. Simply the presence of a largish dog, coming close while on the loose, could make some people feel menanced.

There appears to be some element of someone vulnerable feeling under threat in such a way, in this case (from Tralee's description).

Recently, I came across a Ridgie-type dog lost & looking a bit anxious. I called to him, hoping to secure him until I could read his ID.... but he lunged towards me with a growl. I could tell it was fear & a warning. If he'd wanted to bite/attack me, he could have. I phoned the Council & gave his location & explained he was frightened so was a bit reactive, but that people who didn't read his behaviour that way, could be very frightened.

So there is quite an investigative call to make... interpreting a dog's actual behaviours, the individual responses of people. and aligning that with the options in the law.

Absolutely, it's not an easy job by any stretch and what bothers me is the amount of Councils that don't have a designated companion animal office - they just have general rangers with absolutely zero understanding of dog behaviour, body language, motivations etc doing the job.

[mita]

Absolutely, it's not an easy job by any stretch and what bothers me is the amount of Councils that don't have a designated companion animal office - they just have general rangers with absolutely zero understanding of dog behaviour, body language, motivations etc doing the job.

Agree totally.

[Tempus Fugit]

Shame the moderator(s) haven't moved this thread to the General forum by now.

An issue is that if LPDs are actually doing the job they are supposed to do, they will be out in the paddocks guarding sheep, where fences are easily damaged, allowing stock and dogs to escape.

Perhaps instead of pursuing LPD owners through courts, because people don't know how to behave around an LPD, state governments could educate people about how to behave around LPDs such as this comic strip issued by the French government

You can find a link to the parent website here .

It is in french but you can get the gist of the material if you have a web browser with a facility to translate french into english.

[Tralee]

Bearing in mind that an attack as defined in the Act can be rushing behaviour, chasing, harassing etc, we wouldn't be declaring every dog dangerous that performed any of those actions, or we'd be declaring dogs every day of the week. We have to make a judgement call based on the severity of the incident and whether it came about from other breaches (i.e dogs escaping), and we need to be able to justify such a decision. Each Council is different in their approach, some are very hard when it comes to dog matters, others are softer.

Thanks for that further information.

I understand there's now similar language in the laws here, too. It opens the way for how the person involved interprets the dog's behaviour. Simply the presence of a largish dog, coming close while on the loose, could make some people feel menanced.

There appears to be some element of someone vulnerable feeling under threat in such a way, in this case (from Tralee's description).

Recently, I came across a Ridgie-type dog lost & looking a bit anxious. I called to him, hoping to secure him until I could read his ID.... but he lunged towards me with a growl. I could tell it was fear & a warning. If he'd wanted to bite/attack me, he could have. I phoned the Council & gave his location & explained he was frightened so was a bit reactive, but that people who didn't read his behaviour that way, could be very frightened.

So there is quite an investigative call to make... interpreting a dog's actual behaviours, the individual responses of people. and aligning that with the options in the law.

Absolutely, it's not an easy job by any stretch and what bothers me is the amount of Councils that don't have a designated companion animal office - they just have general rangers with absolutely zero understanding of dog behaviour, body language, motivations etc doing the job.

Well, Halle - bloody - luiah.

You don't suppose the Ranger went OTT and then found himself out of his depth. ??

[melzawelza]

Bearing in mind that an attack as defined in the Act can be rushing behaviour, chasing, harassing etc, we wouldn't be declaring every dog dangerous that performed any of those actions, or we'd be declaring dogs every day of the week. We have to make a judgement call based on the severity of the incident and whether it came about from other breaches (i.e dogs escaping), and we need to be able to justify such a decision. Each Council is different in their approach, some are very hard when it comes to dog matters, others are softer.

Thanks for that further information.

I understand there's now similar language in the laws here, too. It opens the way for how the person involved interprets the dog's behaviour. Simply the presence of a largish dog, coming close while on the loose, could make some people feel menanced.

There appears to be some element of someone vulnerable feeling under threat in such a way, in this case (from Tralee's description).

Recently, I came across a Ridgie-type dog lost & looking a bit anxious. I called to him, hoping to secure him until I could read his ID.... but he lunged towards me with a growl. I could tell it was fear & a warning. If he'd wanted to bite/attack me, he could have. I phoned the Council & gave his location & explained he was frightened so was a bit reactive, but that people who didn't read his behaviour that way, could be very frightened.

So there is quite an investigative call to make... interpreting a dog's actual behaviours, the individual responses of people. and aligning that with the options in the law.

Absolutely, it's not an easy job by any stretch and what bothers me is the amount of Councils that don't have a designated companion animal office - they just have general rangers with absolutely zero understanding of dog behaviour, body language, motivations etc doing the job.

Well, Halle - bloody - luiah.

You don't suppose the Ranger went OTT and then found himself out of his depth. ??

That may or may not have happened, I don't know as you haven't given any details of the actual incident. That is beside the point anyway, my issue has never been the incident itself, or the actions taken by the ranger and whether they were actions I would have taken, and I've said a few times I think that you offering the compromise of a Control Order was a good move.

My issue has always been that you have misrepresented the facts in this thread by stating that you had won an appeal in court and your dogs now were classified as any other dog in NSW. Both of those statements are false, and by doing that you put other people who may be appealing declarations at risk by providing false information on the outcome.

I also had big issue with you posting it in the BSL section and muddying the line between Dangerous Dog and Restricted Dog (which is already done enough in the media and elsewhere).

ETA: And in fact based on the information provided I think it's unlikely that the Ranger totally bungled it up, because if he/she did and you could prove it your Barrister wouldn't have told you to settle for a Control, she would have told you to go all the way to appeal to really show the Council up, get costs and ensure your dogs were cleared.

Edited March 4, 2013 by melzawelza

[Tralee]

I agree that the Council could have easily refused the Control Order (many Councils in my experience completely refuse to even entertain the thought of a Control Order as if the dogs attack again there is the worry that they could be strung up for lessening the restrictions)

Did the dogs in this case 'attack' in ways that fit the descriptions of dangerous dog behaviours as set out in the legislation?

If so, the Council would fail in their responsibility if they didn't adhere to the label 'dangerous dog'.

If not, then the label 'dangerous' with all its consequences wouldn't apply.

All I can find is the OP saying the police described the incident as 'minor'. But that's not descriptive of actual dog behaviours. So doesn't answer the question.

What is beyond question, is that the dogs were on the loose outside their property. And the owner would well be ordered, by the Council, to set in place future containment management ... with whatever penalties would follow from any failure.

I realise I have to spell it out for the satisfaction of those still too willing to villify the dogs.

The meeting of terms by the Council and myself has hidden wisdom that cannot be found by trying to read between the lines.

Namely:

The incident that occurred was not the result of a failure to manage the dogs in accordance with existing dog ownership conditions but was entirely due the fact that the gate at the rear of the property was compromised by a person consequently arrested by police.

In light of this evidence it was highly prudent to offer to manage the dogs within a "controlled space"

What this does is prevent joe public from releasing my dogs again.

The council saw the wisdom in my proposal and accepted my terms.

I think it is a great idea and the fence is currently being built.

A controlled space is not runs, or anything like the conditions that are mandatory under a DDD.

It can be any size, does not require concrete flooring in a kennell, etc.

You know, some people are saying I am lucky but it is the Council who has been extremely embarrassed by this ordeal.

Word around town is, ... well I don't have to go into that here.

[Tralee]

Bearing in mind that an attack as defined in the Act can be rushing behaviour, chasing, harassing etc, we wouldn't be declaring every dog dangerous that performed any of those actions, or we'd be declaring dogs every day of the week. We have to make a judgement call based on the severity of the incident and whether it came about from other breaches (i.e dogs escaping), and we need to be able to justify such a decision. Each Council is different in their approach, some are very hard when it comes to dog matters, others are softer.

Thanks for that further information.

I understand there's now similar language in the laws here, too. It opens the way for how the person involved interprets the dog's behaviour. Simply the presence of a largish dog, coming close while on the loose, could make some people feel menanced.

There appears to be some element of someone vulnerable feeling under threat in such a way, in this case (from Tralee's description).

Recently, I came across a Ridgie-type dog lost & looking a bit anxious. I called to him, hoping to secure him until I could read his ID.... but he lunged towards me with a growl. I could tell it was fear & a warning. If he'd wanted to bite/attack me, he could have. I phoned the Council & gave his location & explained he was frightened so was a bit reactive, but that people who didn't read his behaviour that way, could be very frightened.

So there is quite an investigative call to make... interpreting a dog's actual behaviours, the individual responses of people. and aligning that with the options in the law.

Absolutely, it's not an easy job by any stretch and what bothers me is the amount of Councils that don't have a designated companion animal office - they just have general rangers with absolutely zero understanding of dog behaviour, body language, motivations etc doing the job.

Well, Halle - bloody - luiah.

You don't suppose the Ranger went OTT and then found himself out of his depth. ??

That may or may not have happened, I don't know as you haven't given any details of the actual incident. That is beside the point anyway, my issue has never been the incident itself, or the actions taken by the ranger and whether they were actions I would have taken, and I've said a few times I think that you offering the compromise of a Control Order was a good move.

My issue has always been that you have misrepresented the facts in this thread by stating that you had won an appeal in court and your dogs now were classified as any other dog in NSW. Both of those statements are false, and by doing that you put other people who may be appealing declarations at risk by providing false information on the outcome.

I also had big issue with you posting it in the BSL section and muddying the line between Dangerous Dog and Restricted Dog (which is already done enough in the media and elsewhere).

ETA: And in fact based on the information provided I think it's unlikely that the Ranger totally bungled it up, because if he/she did and you could prove it your Barrister wouldn't have told you to settle for a Control, she would have told you to go all the way to appeal to really show the Council up, get costs and ensure your dogs were cleared.

Well that's really great advice.

Even God does not play dice with the Universe.

Beggars belief really.

You should disqualify yourself from the discussion because you have a vested interest.

[WreckitWhippet]

Bearing in mind that an attack as defined in the Act can be rushing behaviour, chasing, harassing etc, we wouldn't be declaring every dog dangerous that performed any of those actions, or we'd be declaring dogs every day of the week. We have to make a judgement call based on the severity of the incident and whether it came about from other breaches (i.e dogs escaping), and we need to be able to justify such a decision. Each Council is different in their approach, some are very hard when it comes to dog matters, others are softer.

Thanks for that further information.

I understand there's now similar language in the laws here, too. It opens the way for how the person involved interprets the dog's behaviour. Simply the presence of a largish dog, coming close while on the loose, could make some people feel menanced.

There appears to be some element of someone vulnerable feeling under threat in such a way, in this case (from Tralee's description).

Recently, I came across a Ridgie-type dog lost & looking a bit anxious. I called to him, hoping to secure him until I could read his ID.... but he lunged towards me with a growl. I could tell it was fear & a warning. If he'd wanted to bite/attack me, he could have. I phoned the Council & gave his location & explained he was frightened so was a bit reactive, but that people who didn't read his behaviour that way, could be very frightened.

So there is quite an investigative call to make... interpreting a dog's actual behaviours, the individual responses of people. and aligning that with the options in the law.

Absolutely, it's not an easy job by any stretch and what bothers me is the amount of Councils that don't have a designated companion animal office - they just have general rangers with absolutely zero understanding of dog behaviour, body language, motivations etc doing the job.

Well, Halle - bloody - luiah.

You don't suppose the Ranger went OTT and then found himself out of his depth. ??

That may or may not have happened, I don't know as you haven't given any details of the actual incident. That is beside the point anyway, my issue has never been the incident itself, or the actions taken by the ranger and whether they were actions I would have taken, and I've said a few times I think that you offering the compromise of a Control Order was a good move.

My issue has always been that you have misrepresented the facts in this thread by stating that you had won an appeal in court and your dogs now were classified as any other dog in NSW. Both of those statements are false, and by doing that you put other people who may be appealing declarations at risk by providing false information on the outcome.

I also had big issue with you posting it in the BSL section and muddying the line between Dangerous Dog and Restricted Dog (which is already done enough in the media and elsewhere).

ETA: And in fact based on the information provided I think it's unlikely that the Ranger totally bungled it up, because if he/she did and you could prove it your Barrister wouldn't have told you to settle for a Control, she would have told you to go all the way to appeal to really show the Council up, get costs and ensure your dogs were cleared.

This and this.

Tralee just doesn't get it, he can dress it up any way he likes but the facts are he did not win an appeal, he conceeded by accepting a control order and is now bound by it. Tralee fails to grasp the enormity of the situation

[melzawelza]

Bearing in mind that an attack as defined in the Act can be rushing behaviour, chasing, harassing etc, we wouldn't be declaring every dog dangerous that performed any of those actions, or we'd be declaring dogs every day of the week. We have to make a judgement call based on the severity of the incident and whether it came about from other breaches (i.e dogs escaping), and we need to be able to justify such a decision. Each Council is different in their approach, some are very hard when it comes to dog matters, others are softer.

Thanks for that further information.

I understand there's now similar language in the laws here, too. It opens the way for how the person involved interprets the dog's behaviour. Simply the presence of a largish dog, coming close while on the loose, could make some people feel menanced.

There appears to be some element of someone vulnerable feeling under threat in such a way, in this case (from Tralee's description).

Recently, I came across a Ridgie-type dog lost & looking a bit anxious. I called to him, hoping to secure him until I could read his ID.... but he lunged towards me with a growl. I could tell it was fear & a warning. If he'd wanted to bite/attack me, he could have. I phoned the Council & gave his location & explained he was frightened so was a bit reactive, but that people who didn't read his behaviour that way, could be very frightened.

So there is quite an investigative call to make... interpreting a dog's actual behaviours, the individual responses of people. and aligning that with the options in the law.

Absolutely, it's not an easy job by any stretch and what bothers me is the amount of Councils that don't have a designated companion animal office - they just have general rangers with absolutely zero understanding of dog behaviour, body language, motivations etc doing the job.

Well, Halle - bloody - luiah.

You don't suppose the Ranger went OTT and then found himself out of his depth. ??

That may or may not have happened, I don't know as you haven't given any details of the actual incident. That is beside the point anyway, my issue has never been the incident itself, or the actions taken by the ranger and whether they were actions I would have taken, and I've said a few times I think that you offering the compromise of a Control Order was a good move.

My issue has always been that you have misrepresented the facts in this thread by stating that you had won an appeal in court and your dogs now were classified as any other dog in NSW. Both of those statements are false, and by doing that you put other people who may be appealing declarations at risk by providing false information on the outcome.

I also had big issue with you posting it in the BSL section and muddying the line between Dangerous Dog and Restricted Dog (which is already done enough in the media and elsewhere).

ETA: And in fact based on the information provided I think it's unlikely that the Ranger totally bungled it up, because if he/she did and you could prove it your Barrister wouldn't have told you to settle for a Control, she would have told you to go all the way to appeal to really show the Council up, get costs and ensure your dogs were cleared.

This and this.

Tralee just doesn't get it, he can dress it up any way he likes but the facts are he did not win an appeal, he conceeded by accepting a control order and is now bound by it. Tralee fails to grasp the enormity of the situation

Yep which really worries me.

[megan_]

All dogs need to be contained where Joe Public can't release them, especially dogs who run in a pack and have a strong guarding instinct. Don't need the council to tell you that.

Tralee - you seem to delight in talking in riddles and not stating the facts. I assume you do this to annoy people and muddy the situation. Putting a whole lot of threads together it seems like one dog was accused of biting a woman with psychiatric issues, you put the dog down based on what the ranger told you and then you found out that the dog hadn't bitten any one.

Is that what happened? Yes or no answers only please.

ETA: In which case, I totally understand being angry at the council and I myself would take legal action.

Edited March 5, 2013 by megan_