Dangerous Dog Declaration

[Tralee]

Hi All.

I thought it would be a useful exercise to share with others my successful appeal against a Dangerous Dog Declaration.

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013, the Local Court upheld my appeal against the Local Council who had issued a Dangerous Dog Declaration against my Maremma.

I should point out that the dogs were never dangerous and that the problem stems largely from the current criteria within The Companion Animals Act (1998).

However, it did not help to have a Ranger who was an indolent, bungling incompetent.

I would be happy to provide more details if they could be of use to anyone else.

Tralee

[tdierikx]

What did your Maremma allegedly do in order to attract the attention of the rangers Tralee?

T.

[Tralee]

What did your Maremma allegedly do in order to attract the attention of the rangers Tralee?

T.

All four of them actually.

We we given four Dangerous Dog Declarations.

The week before, some crazy from the needle exchange across the road (I live near the Base Hospital), rampaged through the yard and broke all the fences and gates.

I found the dogs attending our property when I returned from work and no issues had been reported.

But the following weekend (Sunday), the four dogs breached the gate and were at large while I was out.

Apparently, they went up to a women, who it turns out had psychiatric issues.

The Senior Police Constable who attended said that it was a minor incident but the lady involved was shaken up.

The Ranger did not see it that way and declared all four dogs dangerous.

It was simply absurd.

I appealed the Dangerous Dog Declarations on the grounds that the dogs, either individually or in any number together, are not dangerous.

The debarkle that followed as the Council tried to defend the Keystone Kapers of our ex-Ranger would be a comedy of errors if it wasn't so tragic.

I euthanised one of my dogs who I mistakenly thought had bitten someone.

By the time I discovered that the the Ranger was full of shite it was too late for my beloved puppy girl.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Tralee

[tdierikx]

I'm so glad that you successfully appealed the DD order Tralee... and also send you hugs for the girl you lost.

T.

[GeckoTree]

What would be your tips in dealing with a proposed dangerous dog declaration?

What are the defences to an offence in NSW?

[Tralee]

What would be your tips in dealing with a proposed dangerous dog declaration?

What are the defences to an offence in NSW?

Hi GT.

Firstly, I must make the comment that dangerous dogs do exist, I've seen at least one.

Secondly, any dog may be precipitated into a dangerous dog situation due to poor management.

In NSW, dogs can be declared dangerous at the drop of a hat, so I do not wish to support DOs whose dogs are known to be dangerous, either do I wish to provide excuses for DOs who not do take the responsibility of DO seriously.

Lastly, the advice given is an advocacy for the dog/s welfare.

1. Following an incident, either witnessed or reported, the DO can send the dog out of NSW where it is not under the jurisdiction of The NSW Companion Animals Act (1998) The Act.

I sent Flynnch to Queensland because he is an absconder and if they wander from property the fine is $5000 once an Intention to Declare Dog Dangerous is received.

Fortuitously, the Council could not prosecute Flynnch because the Court has no jurisdiction under The Act for a dog not kept in NSW.

2. I had the two big dogs Temperament Tested by Paw Power and they passed without fault.

These reports were sent to Council.

3. I have an excellent Barrister.

After an alleged incident, the Ranger will make an appointment to inspect the property.

If the dogs are present, the Ranger may inform the DO that they intend to issue an "Intention to Declare Dog/s Dangerous Notification".

This is virtually the same as a Dangerous Dog Declaration except it is stayed for 28 days while the DO can prepare and deliver a response.

Following the receipt of the DO's response, the Council will make a decision.

My Ranger didn't bother to check that one of the dogs had been euthanised or that another was kept Queensland.

Consequently, we received a Dangerous Dog Declaration for a dead dog and another one for a dog not in NSW.

The Temperament Reports for the other two dogs weren't even considered.

We were sent another two Dangerous Dog Declarations on two dogs that were demonstrably not dangerous.

We also received four infringement notices of $550, one for each dog.

In my case, the Ranger had not done his job or fulfilled the requirements of due process under law, either did he meet the expectation of his civil responsibility as a Council Ranger.

When I went to Court to appeal the Dangerous Dog Declarations and the Infringement Notices I wasn't challenging the alleged incident, I was counter suing the Ranger for being an indolent and incompetent arse.

My advise GT, if someone honestly believes, and knows unequivocally, that their dog is not dangerous they should strenuously object and vigorously protest any such accusations and appeal any such Declarations in Court.

Regards

Edited February 20, 2013 by Tralee

[Tralee]

I just provide my recent correspondence as an encouragement to others, and as an initial statement that the Companion Animals Act NSW is too harsh and stringent and therefore we need to begin lobbying to have the Law changed and pursue greater protections for our dogs and DOs.

Date: 26/2/13

Dear XXXX

RE: YOU ats LISMORE COUNCIL-DANGEROUS DOG DECLARATION

I confirm my appearance on your behalf at the xxxxxxx Local Court on the 12 and 26 February 2013 in relation to your appeals against 3 Dangerous dog declarations and your election in relation to 4 infringement notices.

I confirm that on the 12/2/13,the Council withdrew their declaration that the dogs were dangerous and therefore your 3 appeals against the dangerous dog declarations were upheld. It was noted that both parties had settled the matter in the terms set out in the consent orders signed by you and the Council’s representative on the 12/2/13, The Magistrate then made a control order, pursuant to s.47 of the Companion Animals Act 1998, in the terms of the consent orders.

Likewise, on the 26/2/13, the 3 infringement notices against Winja, Sooki and Flynnch were withdrawn.

I enclose my Memorandum of Fees and your file.

Yours faithfully

Xxxxx Xxxxxxx

CHAMBERS

Regards

[melzawelza]

I just provide my recent correspondence as an encouragement to others, and as an initial statement that the Companion Animals Act NSW is too harsh and stringent and therefore we need to begin lobbying to have the Law changed and pursue greater protections for our dogs and DOs.

Date: 26/2/13

Dear XXXX

RE: YOU ats LISMORE COUNCIL-DANGEROUS DOG DECLARATION

I confirm my appearance on your behalf at the xxxxxxx Local Court on the 12 and 26 February 2013 in relation to your appeals against 3 Dangerous dog declarations and your election in relation to 4 infringement notices.

I confirm that on the 12/2/13,the Council withdrew their declaration that the dogs were dangerous and therefore your 3 appeals against the dangerous dog declarations were upheld. It was noted that both parties had settled the matter in the terms set out in the consent orders signed by you and the Council’s representative on the 12/2/13, The Magistrate then made a control order, pursuant to s.47 of the Companion Animals Act 1998, in the terms of the consent orders.

Likewise, on the 26/2/13, the 3 infringement notices against Winja, Sooki and Flynnch were withdrawn.

I enclose my Memorandum of Fees and your file.

Yours faithfully

Xxxxx Xxxxxxx

CHAMBERS

Regards

Wait, so you didn't successfully appeal the Orders at all, you just willingly entered a consent order with the Council's agreement. That isn't successfully beating a dangerous dog order, that's just the Council being happy to lessen the restrictions on your dogs seeing as you were appealing anyway. Your dogs aren't considered like any other dog now, which would happen if you had successfully appealed a DD order, they just have a different type of Order on them.

ETA: This thread shouldn't even be in the BSL section. Dogs that are targeted because of BSL have done nothing wrong. They are targeted specifically because of their appearance. Your dogs escaped your property and obviously did something if you've had a Dangerous Dog declaration and now a Control Order. Worlds apart.

Edited March 1, 2013 by melzawelza

[Tralee]

I just provide my recent correspondence as an encouragement to others, and as an initial statement that the Companion Animals Act NSW is too harsh and stringent and therefore we need to begin lobbying to have the Law changed and pursue greater protections for our dogs and DOs.

Date: 26/2/13

Dear XXXX

RE: YOU ats LISMORE COUNCIL-DANGEROUS DOG DECLARATION

I confirm my appearance on your behalf at the xxxxxxx Local Court on the 12 and 26 February 2013 in relation to your appeals against 3 Dangerous dog declarations and your election in relation to 4 infringement notices.

I confirm that on the 12/2/13,the Council withdrew their declaration that the dogs were dangerous and therefore your 3 appeals against the dangerous dog declarations were upheld. It was noted that both parties had settled the matter in the terms set out in the consent orders signed by you and the Councils representative on the 12/2/13, The Magistrate then made a control order, pursuant to s.47 of the Companion Animals Act 1998, in the terms of the consent orders.

Likewise, on the 26/2/13, the 3 infringement notices against Winja, Sooki and Flynnch were withdrawn.

I enclose my Memorandum of Fees and your file.

Yours faithfully

Xxxxx Xxxxxxx

CHAMBERS

Regards

Wait, so you didn't successfully appeal the Orders at all, you just willingly entered a consent order with the Council's agreement. That isn't successfully beating a dangerous dog order, that's just the Council being happy to lessen the restrictions on your dogs seeing as you were appealing anyway. Your dogs aren't considered like any other dog now, which would happen if you had successfully appealed a DD order, they just have a different type of Order on them.

ETA: This thread shouldn't even be in the BSL section. Dogs that are targeted because of BSL have done nothing wrong. They are targeted specifically because of their appearance. Your dogs escaped your property and obviously did something if you've had a Dangerous Dog declaration and now a Control Order. Worlds apart.

I confirm that on the 12/2/13,the Council withdrew their declaration that the dogs were dangerous and therefore your 3 appeals against the dangerous dog declarations were upheld.

Wait, so you didn't successfully appeal the Orders at all

Can you run that by me again?

I confirm that on the 12/2/13,the Council withdrew their declaration that the dogs were dangerous ...

Your dogs escaped your property and obviously did something if you've had a Dangerous Dog declaration

Can you run that by us all again?

The Magistrate then made a control order, pursuant to s.47 of the Companion Animals Act 1998, in the terms of the consent orders

Your dogs aren't considered like any other dog now

The Companion Animals Act is a control order, the same obligations and penalties apply.

Can you please make a further public case for all of us to read about the issue you raise?

Edited March 1, 2013 by Tralee

[YOLO]

However, it did not help to have a Ranger who was an indolent, bungling incompetent.

Hard to beleive isn't it.

Unfortunately so many councils have figured out just what a great money spinner RESPONSIBLE dog owners are.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Big D

[Tralee]

However, it did not help to have a Ranger who was an indolent, bungling incompetent.

Hard to believe isn't it.

Unfortunately so many councils have figured out just what a great money spinner RESPONSIBLE dog owners are.

Yep! Totally agree.

Pure revenue raising.

Fantastic analysis of the thread BTW.

Kudos to you.

[Tralee]

ETA: This thread shouldn't even be in the BSL section. Dogs that are targeted because of BSL have done nothing wrong. They are targeted specifically because of their appearance. Your dogs escaped your property and obviously did something if you've had a Dangerous Dog declaration and now a Control Order. Worlds apart.

I'm just totally confused here.

Dogs get listed on BSL because of their history.

More breeds will be added if 'false negatives' like mine are allowed to be included.

That's the whole point of opposing BSL.

Dogs are condemend due to a false negative.

Just to reiterate, my dogs were off property because some egeit, consequently arrested by police, rampaged through the yard and broke all the fences and gates. The fact that they didn't do something which is an offense under The Act is the reason the DDD were revoked.

The next time a Maremma is defended in a Court overseen by this Judge, 'she' will be au fait with the Breed and Maremma will be moved even further from the BSL list.

What have you done today??

[melzawelza]

I just provide my recent correspondence as an encouragement to others, and as an initial statement that the Companion Animals Act NSW is too harsh and stringent and therefore we need to begin lobbying to have the Law changed and pursue greater protections for our dogs and DOs.

Date: 26/2/13

Dear XXXX

RE: YOU ats LISMORE COUNCIL-DANGEROUS DOG DECLARATION

I confirm my appearance on your behalf at the xxxxxxx Local Court on the 12 and 26 February 2013 in relation to your appeals against 3 Dangerous dog declarations and your election in relation to 4 infringement notices.

I confirm that on the 12/2/13,the Council withdrew their declaration that the dogs were dangerous and therefore your 3 appeals against the dangerous dog declarations were upheld. It was noted that both parties had settled the matter in the terms set out in the consent orders signed by you and the Council’s representative on the 12/2/13, The Magistrate then made a control order, pursuant to s.47 of the Companion Animals Act 1998, in the terms of the consent orders.

Likewise, on the 26/2/13, the 3 infringement notices against Winja, Sooki and Flynnch were withdrawn.

I enclose my Memorandum of Fees and your file.

Yours faithfully

Xxxxx Xxxxxxx

CHAMBERS

Regards

Wait, so you didn't successfully appeal the Orders at all, you just willingly entered a consent order with the Council's agreement. That isn't successfully beating a dangerous dog order, that's just the Council being happy to lessen the restrictions on your dogs seeing as you were appealing anyway. Your dogs aren't considered like any other dog now, which would happen if you had successfully appealed a DD order, they just have a different type of Order on them.

ETA: This thread shouldn't even be in the BSL section. Dogs that are targeted because of BSL have done nothing wrong. They are targeted specifically because of their appearance. Your dogs escaped your property and obviously did something if you've had a Dangerous Dog declaration and now a Control Order. Worlds apart.

I confirm that on the 12/2/13,the Council withdrew their declaration that the dogs were dangerous and therefore your 3 appeals against the dangerous dog declarations were upheld.

Wait, so you didn't successfully appeal the Orders at all

Can you run that by me again?

I confirm that on the 12/2/13,the Council withdrew their declaration that the dogs were dangerous ...

Your dogs escaped your property and obviously did something if you've had a Dangerous Dog declaration

Can you run that by us all again?

The Magistrate then made a control order, pursuant to s.47 of the Companion Animals Act 1998, in the terms of the consent orders

Your dogs aren't considered like any other dog now

The Companion Animals Act is a control order, the same obligations and penalties apply.

Can you please make a further public case for all of us to read about the issue you raise?

The Orders HAVE to be revoked for the Control Order to be put in place, that comes part and parcel with the Control Order. What are the terms of your Control Order? Usually they are to do with extra controls on the keeping of the dog, behavioral retraining or desexing.

A Control Order is NOT just the normal terms of the CAA. It is a separate order that can be made in lieu of a declaration or if the parties agree to it during the appeal process. If you've agreed to a Control order you haven't cleared your dogs, you've just managed to lessen the restrictions on them. Their microchips will display that they are subject to a control order whenever an officer looks them up, and the terms of that control order.

Section 47 of CAA

47 Control orders

(1) A control order is an order of a Court that the owner of a dog take such action (other than destroying the dog) within the period specified in the order as the Court thinks necessary to prevent, or reduce the likelihood of, the dog attacking or causing injury to persons or animals.

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

(a) in proceedings for an offence under section 16, 17, 49, 51 or 56 of this Act, or under section 35A of the Crimes Act 1900,

(b) on an appeal under this Act against the declaration by an authorised officer of a council that a dog is dangerous or against a council’s refusal to revoke such a declaration,

© on the Court declaring the dog to be dangerous under Division 2.

(3) The action that a control order can require the owner of a dog to take includes (without limiting any of the requirements that apply in relation to the dog under section 51 or 56) the following action:

(a) the desexing of the dog,

(b) the behavioural or socialisation training of the dog.

(4) A control order can be made in addition to any other order made by the Court in the proceedings concerned.

If you've been given a control order or done one by Consent (I'm assuming it was by consent seeing as that wording was used in your letter) then your dogs are not just like any other dog now. You have a Control Order on you which has strict penalties for non-compliance. If the Council hadn't agreed to a control order you may well have lost your case appealing the declaration.

I'll say it again that Dangerous Dog matters have NOTHING to do with Restricted Breed cases and by you trying to make out that your case is in anyway similar muddies the water and equates restricted breeds with dangerous dogs.

I'll say it again - your dogs/you have breached the companion animals act in some way, clearly by the escape but your dogs must also have been considered to attack someone if you've been given a declaration and then a control order. That is WORLDS apart from a dog being seized from it's home that has never escaped, never attacked anything - based solely on it's appearance.

Your dogs were not declared because they were Maremma, they were declared because they breached the Act.

To equate that your situation is similar to people that have had their pets seized based solely on appearance is offensive.

[Tralee]

The Orders HAVE to be revoked for the Control Order to be put in place, that comes part and parcel with the Control Order. What are the terms of your Control Order? Usually they are to do with extra controls on the keeping of the dog, behavioral retraining or desexing.

A Control Order is NOT just the normal terms of the CAA. It is a separate order that can be made in lieu of a declaration or if the parties agree to it during the appeal process. If you've agreed to a Control order you haven't cleared your dogs, you've just managed to lessen the restrictions on them. Their microchips will display that they are subject to a control order whenever an officer looks them up, and the terms of that control order.

Section 47 of CAA

47 Control orders

(1) A control order is an order of a Court that the owner of a dog take such action (other than destroying the dog) within the period specified in the order as the Court thinks necessary to prevent, or reduce the likelihood of, the dog attacking or causing injury to persons or animals.

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

(a) in proceedings for an offence under section 16, 17, 49, 51 or 56 of this Act, or under section 35A of the Crimes Act 1900,

(b) on an appeal under this Act against the declaration by an authorised officer of a council that a dog is dangerous or against a council’s refusal to revoke such a declaration,

© on the Court declaring the dog to be dangerous under Division 2.

(3) The action that a control order can require the owner of a dog to take includes (without limiting any of the requirements that apply in relation to the dog under section 51 or 56) the following action:

(a) the desexing of the dog,

(b) the behavioural or socialisation training of the dog.

(4) A control order can be made in addition to any other order made by the Court in the proceedings concerned.

If you've been given a control order or done one by Consent (I'm assuming it was by consent seeing as that wording was used in your letter) then your dogs are not just like any other dog now. You have a Control Order on you which has strict penalties for non-compliance. If the Council hadn't agreed to a control order you may well have lost your case appealing the declaration.

I'll say it again that Dangerous Dog matters have NOTHING to do with Restricted Breed cases and by you trying to make out that your case is in anyway similar muddies the water and equates restricted breeds with dangerous dogs.

I'll say it again - your dogs/you have breached the companion animals act in some way, clearly by the escape but your dogs must also have been considered to attack someone if you've been given a declaration and then a control order. That is WORLDS apart from a dog being seized from it's home that has never escaped, never attacked anything - based solely on it's appearance.

Your dogs were not declared because they were Maremma, they were declared because they breached the Act.

To equate that your situation is similar to people that have had their pets seized based solely on appearance is offensive.

I will be a gentleman and reply to your bigotted and prejudiced post.

You have no evidence, yet you hastily condemn the dogs.

The DDDs were revoked.

The compromise of a control order was accepted by the other party on My Terms.

I had one, and one only, stipulation.

The dogs must be reinstated to their original status before the Intention to Declare Dogs Dangerous was issued.

However, I also elected to voluntarily fence the dogs inside an internal compound.

The Council accepted My Terms

I am under no external restraints or authoritive enforcements.

There are six terms to the control order, two are against the council.

1. The declarations that the dogs, Winja, Flynnch and Sooki, are dangerous are revoked.

2. The Respondent will withdraw the infringement notices issued in relation to the dogs Winja, Flynnch and Sooki.

Three are normal requirements under The Companion Animals Act (1998)

1. The Applicant will ensure that all general responsibilities (such as but not limited to identification, registration, notification and management obligations) required of an animal owner under the provisions of the Companion Animals Act are fulfilled including but not limited to updating the Comapnion animals Register within (30) days of these Orders.

2. The dogs (Winja, Flynnch and Sooki) are not to enter a public area unless on a leash and under the effective control of a competent person.

The first order requires that the dogs are to be managed within a "controlled space' at any property at which they would ordinarily be kept. But this was my election and is no concession as I have always intended to purchase some portable fence panels for dog runs. Further, since this debarkle I am convinced that any persons' dogs should be kept away from where they can be accessed by the public. So I have gained some wisdom and improved my management practices.

As I have already stated, my Appeal against the DDDs was necessary because the Ranger was/is incapable of making independent decisions on his own. He needs someone else to do his thinking for him.

My appeal was to made in order to bring the Ranger before the court and expose his indolent, incompetent arse.

I get the sense you are a Ranger.

Well news to you. The general public are better educated, financed and more level headed than most Council Workers, including and not restricted to your lolly pop buddies.

The role of the Ranger is to facilitate, assist and help develop DO not nonce about in their vans issuing infringement notices just to fill the coffers of Councils treasury. Rangers are not revenue raisers: not around my property anyway.

If you don't do your job, fairly and impartially then we will call you to account.

I think that Gospel folk song is most relevant: If I Had a Hammer (It's the Hammer of Justice).

Oh BTW. There's a vacancy for a Ranger here if anyone's looking

[Are You Serious Jo]

What would have happened if you didn't agree to keep the dogs in runs? Was it presented to you as an option you could choose? I don't understand because it all points to you having the dogs not declared as long as they are kept in runs. If it were revoked unconditionally why the concession of runs in exchange for non DD status? You already considering having runs doesn't mean you chose it if they required it to drop the DD order. A clear understanding of all this could help people with unfair DD orders.

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

[Tralee]

What would have happened if you didn't agree to keep the dogs in runs? Was it presented to you as an option you could choose? I don't understand because it all points to you having the dogs not declared as long as they are kept in runs. If it were revoked unconditionally why the concession of runs in exchange for non DD status? You already considering having runs doesn't mean you chose it if they required it to drop the DD order. A clear understanding of all this could help people with unfair DD orders.

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

No.

The issue was not that the dogs were dangerous.

The issue was that the Ranger had not done his job.

He did not give the dogs their due legal process or fulfill his civil obligation as a Ranger.

Following an Intention to Declare Dog Dangerous the DO has 28 days to reply.

The Ranger obviously did not consider, and it is doubtful that he even looked, at the reply.

One of the dogs was euthanased, we then received a Dangerous Dog Declaration on a dead dog.

The Ranger didn't even contact the Vet. or verify that the dog was deceased.

The litany of errors just continued, it was embarrassing.

The first response from Council, after the appeal, was their request to settle out of court.

This is called: Save as to Costs.

I point out that if I had lost the Appeal I would have had to pay their costs.

They simply didn't have grounds to pursue it.

So, I refused their terms and continuously instructed my Barrister that the dogs must be reinstated to their original status before the incident occurred.

There was toing and froing from Council, each time their terms were reduced.

Finally, they accepted My Terms and the Truth, as they say, did out.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Tralee

[Are You Serious Jo]

Yes, I read that before, but what happens if you don't put your dogs in runs? What will the council do if your dogs aren't in runs?

[Tralee]

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

I realise that I hadn't answered your question.

Firstly, the dogs do no have to be kept in runs, it is simply a six foot fence of any area.

I believe I am a fair and resonable person.

Council would need to go to trial if I had not made some concessions.

That would cost Council at lot of money, particularly as they were undoubtedly going to lose.

Even so, I also consider myself to have a modicum of intelligence and took the advice of my legal council.

My Barrister told me that the Council had accepted MY Offer to voluntarily fence the dogs and pay one infringement for the dogs being off premises.

She also recommended that I accept the Control Orders.

It is small concession that I appear to be under some external constraints or authoritive enforcements when in fact the management of the dogs is my own design.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Tralee

[Are You Serious Jo]

Ok, thanks for answering. It appears thought that you didn't win unconditionally then and the council do have some continuing control over your dogs. I understand you settled but it was with a council order. It might be best to be completely upfront because it might lead to others getting themselves into trouble. If you don't have your dogs behind six foot fences can the council reinstate the DD order? That's not the same as having it revoked. As the future owner of an Anatolian I want to get the feel for council attitudes to LGDs.

[melzawelza]

Ok, thanks for answering. It appears thought that you didn't win unconditionally then and the council do have some continuing control over your dogs. I understand you settled but it was with a council order. It might be best to be completely upfront because it might lead to others getting themselves into trouble. If you don't have your dogs behind six foot fences can the council reinstate the DD order? That's not the same as having it revoked. As the future owner of an Anatolian I want to get the feel for council attitudes to LGDs.

Yes you're correct Reverend Jo. The dogs are still under an Order, just a different one - a Control Order. Not only do they have extra keeping requirements on them but it also states they must never be let off leash in public - so even in a leash-free area Tralee's dogs are not allowed to be let off leash.

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.

A control order is still a very big deal and Tralee seems to be either misrepresenting this or he actually doesn't understand it himself. I don't understand why if Tralee could prove that his dogs did not attack anyone he offered to enter into a control order, rather than just appealing the order. The order was only revoked because the dog can't have a dangerous dog declaration AND a control order at the same time, and the two parties agreed to a control order. The evidence was not tested in Court and then dismissed because there was no evidence of the offence. On the contrary, if a Control Order has been made and upheld by the court there definitely was evidence of the offence - so he's lucky that the Council agreed to it because they could have easily said no - declaration to stand and then he would have had to try to prove in Court that his dogs didn't attack anyone.

If it was found that the dogs did not attack anyone or do any behaviour that would constitute an attack under the Act there would be no need to put all the extra conditions and onerous consequences on Tralee, and he wouldn't have had any need to offer a control order and accept extra conditions on his dog.

I realise my tone has been quite curt but it really bothers me that Tralee is misrepresenting the situation which may jeapordise other people's appeals in the future if they were to take his advice. It also really irritates me that it's been posted in the BSL section because dogs subject to BSL are seized only on appearance, not because they have actually attacked.

Yes I'm a Companion Animal Officer in Sydney and a very compassionate one actually, I declare very few dogs dangerous, usually working with the owner to get them behaviour advice and assistance / modify their property etc and for the more serious incidents have entered into many control orders with dog owners so that they do not have to deal with the very onerous restrictions of a dangerous dog declaration (which is overkill for most dogs), but entering into a Control Order is still an Order, and it's actually an Order by the Court so holds a lot of weight. If you have a Control Order on your dog, it is recorded on the dogs' microchip and there are very strict penalties for not complying all the way up to destruction of your dog. You did not clear your dogs, you simply lessened the restrictions on them.

Edited March 3, 2013 by melzawelza