My Greyhounds Were Attacked Today :(

[Loving my Oldies]

Just this is so friggin' serious, as we all know.

It is no wonder that some people end up taking the law into their own hands. If the laws of our country can't provide us with justice, where do we turn?

Naturally, I am not talking about revenge; I am talking about the perpetrator taking responsibility and making amends.

HW and her dogs have been severely injured, physically and emotionally and financially, and the perpetrator is allowed to shrug her shoulders and walk away scott free.

[VizslaMomma]

HW and her dogs have been severely injured, physically and emotionally and financially, and the perpetrator is allowed to shrug her shoulders and walk away scott free.

This. In a nutshell.

Law is too soft.

[BC Crazy]

Jesus HazyWal, poor Stan & Maddie. Those injuries are shocking & photo's

don't show the mental anguish or damage all of this may of caused

Give them a big cuddle from us. Fast healing thoughts sent your way

The law sux, honestly, what do dogs like these ones have to do before something is

done with them & their clueless owners held accountable for their animals. Oh yeah,

that's right, we wait until someone is killed or they kill someone's precious pet

before we take action. All too little & miles too late for my liking

Edited April 8, 2014 by BC Crazy

[mita]

The ranger just came and saw me to let me know the outcome of yesterdays meeting with the owner of these dogs and she told me again that she highly doubts the dangerous dog dec will go through She said it may but she highly doubts it.

Frankly, it's not just a matter to be discussed with the owner of these dogs.... it's a matter for all community members who live & walk in her area.

That section of the public need to know there's a pair of dogs that are bloody dangerous to passing dogs on leads & to their owners... if there's any hitch in containment. Predictably so, because it's already happened, with evidence.

Don't know what the details are in NSW... but in Brisbane, a clear sign gets put on the fence. 'Dangerous Dog'. A good alert to people walking dogs, to consider giving that house/street a wide berth. In fact, the public has a right & a need to know.

So some local media publicity on those lines would be useful. If the Council does not take steps to alert people of possible danger from these dogs, based on their history, then it's failing its duty of care re public safety.

Edited April 8, 2014 by mita

[mita]

Double post

Edited April 8, 2014 by mita

[Guest Wildthing]

If the owner of the attacking dogs is unemployed, then she just may qualify for Legal Aid. That would either be free or not very much cost to her. My guess is Legal Aid would be far cheaper than paying the ongoing veterinary and medical expenses for dogs and owner. Legal Aid does have a means test, as far as I know.

I wish you all a speedy recovery with out any lasting psychological affects to anyone (almost impossible for some of you)

I have never got over my cat being killed in its own house about 15 years ago by neighbours roaming dogs who were always out on a regular basis. Some of the other cats were so badly traumatised they took days to recover. Owners of dogs received seven $75 fines at the time and the dogs were kept in after that - I made sure of that one as I reported them everytime they were out until the owners got the message I meant business.

[~Anne~]

How come dogs who have never attacked anyone can be euthanised and yet dogs that have attacked, and no one denies this, are not?

[biker girl]

How come dogs who have never attacked anyone can be euthanised and yet dogs that have attacked, and no one denies this, are not?

because the law is an arse...............

[pie]

How come dogs who have never attacked anyone can be euthanised and yet dogs that have attacked, and no one denies this, are not?

Mind boggling isn't it.

[trinabean]

How come dogs who have never attacked anyone can be euthanised and yet dogs that have attacked, and no one denies this, are not?

because the law is an arse...............

Yup.

HW I'm so upset for you and your dogs, especially after seeing their injuries.

[tdierikx]

What has the doctor said about your hand and foot HW? I hope it's just bruising... but the description of your hand sounded pretty nasty...

Zeddy sends Stan, Maddie, and you some of her special healing slobber kisses... seriously, Zeddy spit is the best thing for wounds - heal mine up in no time!

T.

[OSoSwift]

I would want to know WHY it is unlikely to stick. I would want quotes of the current law as to why it won't stick!

It is bullshit, contact melza.

[oakway]

If you want something done go to the News Papers contact the local TV and go from their, nothing like a bit of public opinion to turn the tide against these dogs that attacked.

People love human interest stories.

Good luck.

[dididog]

Such a shame that you, the victim have to do all of this and this lady is exempt from doing anything. The amount of damage that dog did to Maddie if directed at a child's face or at a smaller dog's throat would have had a devastating effect, does the council want to wait til that happens to do something? I think most Australians would much prefer their tax dollars being spent on taking action against actual proven dangerous dogs such as these than being spent removing loving dogs from loving homes and the ensuing court and accommodation fees that follow.

Even if these dogs are only DA, by the sounds of their ferocity it wouldn't take much for the attack to turn on a child or person with the dogs or even in HW's case cause an injury trying to stop the attack.

Absolute disgrace that this has happened to you, I sincerely hope you can work out a way that sees this owner and her dogs managed properly.

[dee lee]

HW, did you tell the ranger what Melzawelza said? I'm wondering how he can justifying essentially ignoring what these dogs did.

I would suggest contacting, by email (for an official record), the head ranger and also the Gosford Mayor with a full and detailed description of the incident. Outlining the legalities that Mel posted earlier.

Insist on action, throw the mother of all tanties if they don't follow through. Don't let this woman get off Scott free!

Then contact your local papers, I'm guessing they'll love a story like yours.

[gillbear]

I would want to know WHY it is unlikely to stick. I would want quotes of the current law as to why it won't stick!

It is bullshit, contact melza.

I agree, its absolute bull. These dogs have clearly done enough by their actions as proof. The rangers have to abide by the current legislation, they dont get to pussfoot around it to appease this individual owner. Like others have said I would be making a meeting with the Head Ranger and demanding action.

[melzawelza]

I'm more than happy to provide you with information on the legislation HazyWal. PM me if you have any questions.

Contrary to most in the thread though I am not going to say that the Council are taking the wrong path by deciding not to declare the dogs dangerous.

A lot of people are saying the woman is getting off scott free... That isn't the case. She has copped over 1k in fines and also paid vet bills so far on top of that. Potentially they may have fined for the escapes too which would be abother $440. For someone unemployed that is a pretty hefty consequence and also deterrant.

As I said before. The Council always has discretion. So while they absolutely have the discretion to declare the dogs and the evidence is there to do so, they also have the discretion to look at this individual situation and decide NOT to as well.

To build an enclosure for two dangerous dogs would likely cost in the vicinity of $4-5k. If they don't have the money or they are renting and they can't build it, the only option for the dogs is euthanasia. In my opinion the enclosure is complete overkill for 99% of dogs. The specs are totally ridiculous and over the top and no other state has such a requirement for their dangerous dog orders.

The owner may have already put in a normal dog run (wouldn't fit the DD specs) or modified the property in some way to contain the dogs adequately and ensure they can't escape again. If there is no history on them this is the first stuff up.

Council may feel that the punishment and deterrent of the fines plus what the woman has put in place is enough to ensure that something similar doesn't happen again, and that declaring them will only result in two dead dogs.

Under privacy they wouldn't be able to tell you all this sort of stuff about the other owner if it was the cade.

I have declared many dogs dangerous, some resulting in euthanasia if the owners can't/won't comply, and I have also NOT declared many dogs that I potentially could have, because I looked their individual decision and decided that I could ensure community safety without it (and without the death of the dogs). Some of the victims were ok with my decision and got it, some weren't.

So for this reason I am reluctant to jump in and say that the Council is useless and not doing their jobs etc. I would prefer a Council look at every individual situation and use the myriad of different consequences at our disposal for the best possible result, than be a Council that declare EVERYTHING dangerous regardless of the individual situation and end up with lots of dead dogs that really didn't need to die to protect the community.

I'm not saying that this is the case. Maybe they are just being totally soft and the owner is totally useless and has done nothing, and it is a really bad idea not to declare... but I don't have enough information to make that call.

That said, they shouldn't be telling you things that aren't true (like saying they can't declare the dog for a first occasion). I always stand by my decision as my own and never fluff the truth to take the heat off myself if I think the victim wont be happy. It's not right.

Edited for terrible phone typing

Edited April 8, 2014 by melzawelza

[Adnil444]

So sorry to hear of this horrible senseless attack. I hope you and your lovely dogs are ok and I hope the owner of those attacking dogs are charged and they pay your costs.

[tdierikx]

The fact that these two dogs were intent on taking on 2 much larger dogs just for the hell of it speaks volumes for the fact that one slip up by the owner, and it will certainly happen again.

At the very least they should be slapped with a menacing dog order - on top of the already issued fines and any other restitution required in the way of vet costs for Maddie and Stan's treatment.

I couldn't give 2 shits if the owner of those dogs was financially viable or not - her dogs have attacked without provocation and caused injury to innocent parties - she needs to step up to her responsibilities in owning dogs that are aggressive towards other animals (there's no 100% correlation between DA and HA, so I'm not bringing up the "what if it were a child" argument - but plenty of others have).

HW - what was the doctor's verdict on your hand and foot injuries?

T.

[mita]

Contrary to most in the thread though I am not going to say that the Council are taking the wrong path by deciding not to declare the dogs dangerous.

A lot of people are saying the woman is getting off scott free... That isn't the case. She has copped over 1k in fines and also paid vet bills so far on top of that. Potentially they may have fined for the escapes too which would be abother $440. For someone unemployed that is a pretty hefty consequence and also deterrant.

As I said before. The Council always has discretion. So while they absolutely have the discretion to declare the dogs and the evidence is there to do so, they also have the discretion to look at this individual situation and decide NOT to as well.

I agree with one of your points.

I don't believe the woman has got off 'scott free'... especially in relation to financial cost.

Where I differ is that there's enough reason for the dogs to be declared 'dangerous dogs' ... in respect to their demonstrated behaviour if circumstances lead to their getting out again. You say that NSW law would then require her to build secure runs that she clearly cannot afford. Which appears to be a fact.

However, that leaves these dogs at risk for doing damage in the future. Because their situation remains exactly the same as what allowed this horrible incident to happen.

Members of the public who live in the area.... & who walk their dogs past that house... remain at the same level of risk that HW and her dogs innocently faced. The owner cannot guarantee there'd never be a 'slip' again. I believe that those passing dog walkers need to be made aware of that. The simple signage. 'Dangerous Dogs' on the gate would alert people. I'd avoid like poison walking my dogs past a house with that Council-required sign.

You say that the Gosford Council can exercise discretion. And so not require her to build containment runs that she can't afford.

OK, why can't they exercise discretion by requiring a Caution: Dangerous Dogs sign be placed on her gate? To meet the Council's obligation towards the general community. To fit the NSW law, could the sign use the terminology, 'Danger: Menacing Dogs'? Quite true.... because the situation remains dangerous.

I'd be furious if I lived in the area & found out that it was being 'air-brushed' by the Council as if it didn't exist.

Edited April 8, 2014 by mita