Matthew_B Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I understand. I think I'd be mortified if my dog was to ever do something like that. I just don't agree with emotion ruling when logic would make a fairer assessment. If my dog attacked anyone while in my presence without provocation I would have a hard time justifying keeping him. A stranger enters without invitation? Different story. I suppose the key question then is "is a 10 year old child entering a property without invitation, 'sufficient provocation' to justify what these dogs were able to do". For many people in the community, the answer is "no". Well in my current thought process (which may change with time and experience) I guess I'm not within that part of the community. You, and other dog owners who think that a dog inflicting serious injuries in the mere defence of property (as opposed to the safety of its owner) is acceptable. All I can say is for anyone who wishes to have a dog like this, do the dog and the wider public a favour and keep it behind padlocked gates. Tragedies like this happen because people fail to socialise, train and/or contain their dogs. It will be the dogs that pay, each and every time something like this happens. You owe it to your dog to protect it. if you care for your dog, it's actually far more important that you do that for your dog than that your dog protect you. If you want your house protected, buy a security system. Don't allow dogs of questionable stability to maim members of the community who do no more than exercise poor judgment. And this is where you misunderstand me. I do not wish to own a dog like that. I do not own a dog like that. I just wish that dogs don't suffer the idiocy of the owner or a trespasser. We are not at odds on this issue. I do however think that whatever I have in my yard is not the business of others. Stay out. If I can keep the dog in the yard, you can keep out. Keeping the dog inside your yard is only HALF of your responsibility as its owner. Keeping other people out is the other half and that's where the owners of these two dogs failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 In response to amax: Nope it doesvt. It is no unlawful to enter someone's front yard if the gate is unlocked. If they ask you to leave you have to. If the gate is locked and you jump over the fence it is unlawful. Are you honestly suggesting that if you pop over to your neighbours house to say hi , enter through an unlocked gate then it is okay for them to " release the hounds" on you without even asking uou to leave? That is not now the law works. The reason the police are saying the owner might not be accountable is because some reports say the gate was locked and the kid jumped the fence. There will be a definition for locked at law which will be something like providing a disengagement mechanism is activated to open the gate, it will be considered locked by definition and unlocking the gate for entry without permission will be unlawful entry or something to that effect. Unlawful means "trespassing". The law on trepass is long and voluminous. A person who can open a gate and walk to your front door is not trespassing and does not, in the absence of any prohibition to enter, require your permission to walk to your front door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulesP Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Show me that definition please.... You are legally required to provide safe passage to your front door. That is the law. Can you give me a link to this law? Not being a smart arse but I can't find one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavik Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 The first property we rented was a battle-ax block, we were the back property, and there was only one fence for our part of the property, no separate back and front yard. So the dogs were able to run in the yard, and to get to the front door you had to walk through the yard with the dogs. This was obviously not ideal, but it was not easy to find rentals which allowed pets. For the most part it presented no problem, either we were there to greet visitors and make sure the dogs didn't get out, or we were able to put them in crates for eg workmen. But we did have one time when the landlord came over unannounced in the evening when it was dark and raining, and Diesel stood and barked at him . Luckily the landlord was understanding, and Diesel only alert barked, nothing more (think he was around 9 months old at the time), but it did give me a fright! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korbin13 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Trespassing laws for NSW, where I think the incident occurred. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ilpa1901264/s4.html INCLOSED LANDS PROTECTION ACT 1901 - SECT 4Unlawful entry on inclosed lands 4 Unlawful entry on inclosed lands (1) Any person who, without lawful excuse (proof of which lies on the person), enters into inclosed lands without the consent of the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands, or who remains on those lands after being requested by the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands to leave those lands, is liable to a penalty not exceeding: (a) 10 penalty units in the case of prescribed premises, or (b) 5 penalty units in any other case. And definition of inclosed lands. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ilpa1901264/s3.html#inclosed_lands "Inclosed lands" means:(a) prescribed premises, or (b) any land, either public or private, inclosed or surrounded by any fence, wall or other erection, or partly by a fence, wall or other erection and partly by a canal or by some natural feature such as a river or cliff by which its boundaries may be known or recognised, including the whole or part of any building or structure and any land occupied or used in connection with the whole or part of any building or structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) But someone walking into an unlocked front yard isn't an intruder - the law says you must provide safe passage to your front door. That's a good point. And it's the reason why we've always had sturdy side gates so the dogs are kept in the back. Leaves a clear path to front door. I honestly don't know if that's a law or not. But it's made commonsense to me. Edited July 11, 2014 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 So with those NSW Trespassing laws the owners did all the right things. I don't see anything about the gate having to be locked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 So with those NSW Trespassing laws the owners did all the right things. I don't see anything about the gate having to be locked? Focus on this part of the law: (1) Any person who, without lawful excuse (proof of which lies on the person)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 So with those NSW Trespassing laws the owners did all the right things. I don't see anything about the gate having to be locked? Focus on this part of the law: (1) Any person who, without lawful excuse (proof of which lies on the person)... Did the child have an excuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) So with those NSW Trespassing laws the owners did all the right things. I don't see anything about the gate having to be locked? Focus on this part of the law: (1) Any person who, without lawful excuse (proof of which lies on the person)... Did the child have an excuse? I think he was going to knock on the front door and ask if his brother was there. No suggestion he was going to break in and knock off the Play Station. Edited July 11, 2014 by Haredown Whippets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 In this instance what happened to the kid was horrible, the dogs being euthed was horrible [though can understand why the owner did so]. In the suburbs I had chained and padlocked gates with alsynite to cover the bars, well away from the road - the front door was totally accessible. Still didn't stop kids jumping the padlocked fence and getting in with the huskies They [the dogs] never did anything, but it used to make me angry and I felt like my privacy was violated. If you've taken all the steps you can and kids still jump the fence what can you do??!! In that case to me you have done everything you can and would not be responsible in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amax-1 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 So with those NSW Trespassing laws the owners did all the right things. I don't see anything about the gate having to be locked? Focus on this part of the law: (1) Any person who, without lawful excuse (proof of which lies on the person)... Did the child have an excuse? I think he was going to knock on the front door and ask if his brother was there. No suggestion he was going to break in and knock off the Play Station. "Lawful excuse" means to perform a duty, a meter reader, postman delivering a parcel etc, an official purpose for trespass to conduct a role. In the event that police encounter a yard where dogs are likely to attack on entry, police can't shoot the dogs to gain safe entry even with an arrest or search warrant. They have to call Animal Control and have the ranger attend to remove the dogs in a proper manner and maintain the dogs safety also. There is no law whatsoever that allows a person to test dog reactivity or place themselves at risk by entering premises containing dogs regardless of the duty in which they are bound to perform. The gate being signed warning of dogs present removes the lure factor of perceived safety when the advice is "enter at own risk" at the gate where access to the property is made. Everything reasonably had been done by the owners of these dogs to unsure public safety. If any front door access laws do exist, the dog owners may have breached that law, but in breach of such a law doesn't excuse anyone for disregarding variables that may impact upon their own safety by making entry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diana R Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Show me that definition please.... You are legally required to provide safe passage to your front door. That is the law. Can you give me a link to this law? Not being a smart arse but I can't find one. In Victoria, it's spelt out on the DEPI website that this is the case, though I can't find it spelt out in the DAA I assume it's been interpreted as such previously (the DAA is pretty vague in how the containment section is written), though it could also be in the DA Regulations as I haven't looked through those. You can also be fined for not properly containing your dog if your fences are currently containing your dogs (i.e. they are still in your yard), but they COULD get through (including under or over) your fence. If this had have happened in Victoria, the dog owners would also be liable as they weren't complying with containment laws. DEPI website summary of our containment responsibilities http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/pets/dogs/legal-requirements-for-dog-owners/confine-your-dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavNrott Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 "Lawful excuse" means to perform a duty, a meter reader, postman delivering a parcel etc, an official purpose for trespass to conduct a role. In the event that police encounter a yard where dogs are likely to attack on entry, police can't shoot the dogs to gain safe entry even with an arrest or search warrant. They have to call Animal Control and have the ranger attend to remove the dogs in a proper manner and maintain the dogs safety also. There is no law whatsoever that allows a person to test dog reactivity or place themselves at risk by entering premises containing dogs regardless of the duty in which they are bound to perform. The gate being signed warning of dogs present removes the lure factor of perceived safety when the advice is "enter at own risk" at the gate where access to the property is made. Everything reasonably had been done by the owners of these dogs to unsure public safety. If any front door access laws do exist, the dog owners may have breached that law, but in breach of such a law doesn't excuse anyone for disregarding variables that may impact upon their own safety by making entry. No, everything reasonably had NOT been done by the owners of the dogs to ensure public safety. The dogs should have been securely gated in the back yard. Has it been established if the brother of the 10yo boy was even likely to have been on dog owners property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amax-1 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 "Lawful excuse" means to perform a duty, a meter reader, postman delivering a parcel etc, an official purpose for trespass to conduct a role. In the event that police encounter a yard where dogs are likely to attack on entry, police can't shoot the dogs to gain safe entry even with an arrest or search warrant. They have to call Animal Control and have the ranger attend to remove the dogs in a proper manner and maintain the dogs safety also. There is no law whatsoever that allows a person to test dog reactivity or place themselves at risk by entering premises containing dogs regardless of the duty in which they are bound to perform. The gate being signed warning of dogs present removes the lure factor of perceived safety when the advice is "enter at own risk" at the gate where access to the property is made. Everything reasonably had been done by the owners of these dogs to unsure public safety. If any front door access laws do exist, the dog owners may have breached that law, but in breach of such a law doesn't excuse anyone for disregarding variables that may impact upon their own safety by making entry. No, everything reasonably had NOT been done by the owners of the dogs to ensure public safety. The dogs should have been securely gated in the back yard. Has it been established if the brother of the 10yo boy was even likely to have been on dog owners property? The Companion Animal Act would need to reflect that in order for a breach of law to be established and subsequent charges raised. Prosecutors can only raise charges against breaches of relevant laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrunoDi Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Out of curiosity did the kid go through the front gate? Or did he jump the fence? I had a Dog who would react if somebody came over the (back) fence as somebody startled him that way when he was young but had no issue with them if they came through the actual gate. I can imagine if I was sleeping and something came flying over the fence and landed hard I would be startled. No excuse for the attack, but may explain the Dogs behaviour (considering the owners had kids and if this kid was actually looking for his brother the dogs more than likely knew him) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrunoDi Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Out of curiosity did the kid go through the front gate? Or did he jump the fence? I had a Dog who would react if somebody came over the (back) fence as somebody startled him that way when he was young but had no issue with them if they came through the actual gate. I can imagine if I was sleeping and something came flying over the fence and landed hard I would be startled. No excuse for the attack, but may explain the Dogs behaviour (considering the owners had kids and if this kid was actually looking for his brother the dogs more than likely knew him) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavNrott Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 "Lawful excuse" means to perform a duty, a meter reader, postman delivering a parcel etc, an official purpose for trespass to conduct a role. In the event that police encounter a yard where dogs are likely to attack on entry, police can't shoot the dogs to gain safe entry even with an arrest or search warrant. They have to call Animal Control and have the ranger attend to remove the dogs in a proper manner and maintain the dogs safety also. There is no law whatsoever that allows a person to test dog reactivity or place themselves at risk by entering premises containing dogs regardless of the duty in which they are bound to perform. The gate being signed warning of dogs present removes the lure factor of perceived safety when the advice is "enter at own risk" at the gate where access to the property is made. Everything reasonably had been done by the owners of these dogs to unsure public safety. If any front door access laws do exist, the dog owners may have breached that law, but in breach of such a law doesn't excuse anyone for disregarding variables that may impact upon their own safety by making entry. No, everything reasonably had NOT been done by the owners of the dogs to ensure public safety. The dogs should have been securely gated in the back yard. Has it been established if the brother of the 10yo boy was even likely to have been on dog owners property? The Companion Animal Act would need to reflect that in order for a breach of law to be established and subsequent charges raised. Prosecutors can only raise charges against breaches of relevant laws. Look really, to hell with the Companion Animal Act. I talking about plain old common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabbath Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Common sense means not entering a yard with a dog in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodoggies2001 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Common sense means not entering a yard with a dog in it. Even a 10 year old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now