Stressmagnet Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 "It's time dog owners took responsibility of managing and controlling their animals so innocent people and pets are protected." Yes. Deed not breed exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redsonic Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Who the hell takes their (declared) dangerous dog on holidays and thinks that they can relax the restricions on it because they are on holidays... the dog should have been muzzled and wearing it's special collar at the very least! Hope the hit to the hip pocket hurts enough to wake them up to responsible ownership. T. Agree about the holiday attitude. I bet the caravan park they were staying at (if that's where they parked their motorhome) would have been thrilled to know they had a dangerous dog with them. Does anyone know if the dangerous dog legislation has local, state. or federal jurisdiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Does anyone know if the dangerous dog legislation has local, state. or federal jurisdiction? State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Hmmm... so crossing a border suddenly renders a dog "not dangerous"? Stupid laws... no wonder people are confused... T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) Some people, if a dog is dangerous to others * declared or not * muzzle it in public, it isn't rocket surgery. The dog doesn't bloody care if it's muzzled or not on walkies. Edited November 13, 2014 by DaffyDuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stressmagnet Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Some people, if a dog is dangerous to others * declared or not * muzzle it in public, it isn't rocket surgery. The dog doesn't bloody care if it's muzzled or not on walkies. Nothing to add to this but a trumpet fanfare and snare drums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Gifts Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Some people, if a dog is dangerous to others * declared or not * muzzle it in public, it isn't rocket surgery. The dog doesn't bloody care if it's muzzled or not on walkies. Nothing to add to this but a trumpet fanfare and snare drums. Give it a full orchestra I say! This dog could've still led a long and full life if it weren't for a neglectful owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Hmmm... so crossing a border suddenly renders a dog "not dangerous"? Stupid laws... no wonder people are confused... T. No. Some State dog legislations have a provision that a dog declared dangerous in another State is automatically dangerous in that State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Good for the Council for reinforcing their legislation. Wish others would take the hint. And good for the court for setting a penalty which will make others think carefully. Simple - if your dog bites people, or dogs, have it under control ALL the time or don't have it. Some owners obviously need assistance to grasp the seriousness of their dog's behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 I don't consider complying with relevant legislation to be the right thing to do, it's the opposite that is true. Near enough nobody complies with it to the communities credit, if they did the government would have won and Pitbulls would have become extinct or close to it in most parts of this country by now. Is that a good thing? I think not. The reality is that isolated spikes and resurgencies in government resolve aside, years of a collective middle finger has seen BSL broadly fizzle to little more than text on a stamped piece of paper, but there's still plenty of work to be done. The abolition movement is winning and the only time the legal system is taken into account is when it can be used to undermine the government. If you won't obey one set of laws because you don't believe them to be fair, how can you be trusted to obey other dog control laws? I have to push this point all the time with new greyhound owners- breaking laws will not help get those laws changed. Breaking laws makes you, as a representative owner of the breed, look irresponsible. Not that this has anything to do with BSL, still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhou Xuanyao Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 What evidence have you got to show that breaking BSL laws won't help get them changed? I'd suggest the evidence is stacked in favour of the opposite premise. Besides that, they need not necessarily be changed if they're not being enforced because the resistance they're up against makes it too unrealistic/morale draining/intimidating to bother. How it makes us look depends on the observer, its relative. Not too worried about what you think, my concern is with liberty and outcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddy Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 What evidence have you got to show that breaking BSL laws won't help get them changed? I'd suggest the evidence is stacked in favour of the opposite premise. Besides that, they need not necessarily be changed if they're not being enforced because the resistance they're up against makes it too unrealistic/morale draining/intimidating to bother. How it makes us look depends on the observer, its relative. Not too worried about what you think, my concern is with liberty and outcome What evidence do you have that breaking laws gets them changed? In other cases (gun laws being a good example), a decrease in compliance tends to lead to increased pressure to even further tighten those laws (increased penalties, greater restrictions, etc) to address that. It was a lack of compliance in Victoria that lead to Ayen Chol's death and the public demand for tighter restricted dog laws. But whatever, the OP had nothing to do with restricted breeds and there is no reason it would impact specifically on restricted breeds, as has already been pointed out several times. Put your axe away, already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhou Xuanyao Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Oh yep one of those 40kg Pitbulls again. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. We're not talking about other cases, we're talking about BSL. I would contribute my evidence but would not wish it to look like 'axe grinding', if you would really like me to present you with my case please start another topic or PM me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Hmmm... so crossing a border suddenly renders a dog "not dangerous"? Stupid laws... no wonder people are confused... T. Hmmm... so crossing a border suddenly renders a dog "not dangerous"? Stupid laws... no wonder people are confused... T. No. Some State dog legislations have a provision that a dog declared dangerous in another State is automatically dangerous in that State. Or, the conditions of the licence include that it cannot be taken from the state/territory that the licence is granted in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 How on earth did a discussion about a GSD attacking turn into a conversation about pitbulls? I'm glad she got fined. I wish all people with attacking dogs got fined. It might prompt people to behave more responsibly, pay attention to their dog's behaviour and seek help when there are small indicators that things aren't perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billy55 Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 How on earth did a discussion about a GSD attacking turn into a conversation about pitbulls? I'm glad she got fined. I wish all people with attacking dogs got fined. It might prompt people to behave more responsibly, pay attention to their dog's behaviour and seek help when there are small indicators that things aren't perfect. Indeed, or how did it even get around to mentioning BSL? This case has nothing to do do with any specific breed, simply the fact that the owner knew the dogs was dangerous, was under obligation to keep it muzzled in public, keep it restrained, all of which she was unwilling and/or incapable of doing. In other words, a very irresponsible and dangerous dog owner. Ms Walker appealled her sentence on 24 the April on the grounds it was excessive. At the hearing the following came to light, quote The offence was against section 194 the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld). Subsection (1) imposed a duty upon the dog owner to take reasonable steps to ensure the dog did not attack or cause fear to someone else or another animal. The appellant’s Alsatian dog, Benny, had attacked an elderly man, causing a grievous injury. Mr Rowlands had the misfortune to be walking along the public footpath where the appellant had taken her dog to toilet. Without warning, Benny lunged at Mr Rowland and ripped his calf open. It was a gruesome injury that could have resulted in amputation or death. Mr Rowlands was hospitalised for an extended period. He underwent two operations. While awaiting a skin graft, the wound became infected and he was transferred from Nambour Hospital to the Royal Brisbane Hospital. He underwent two operations. There is now a hole in his leg the size of a hand. He had been a fit and active walker. He now stays at home. Although Mr Rowlands had no reason to foresee the danger of the situation, the appellant ought to have appreciated it and reasonably avoided the incident. Two years earlier, the Greater Taree Council had declared Benny to be a dangerous dog. There had been two investigations into attacks upon smaller dogs. Later in September 2012, Benny had attacked and bitten a woman on the thigh. Stitches were required. The declaration of dangerousness was made in December 2012 and conditions were imposed upon Benny’s management. They included safe fencing and a warning sign on the property where he was housed, as well as the use of a leash and muzzle when he was outside of the property. Those were the conditions of the local council and operable when the dog was in the district. They also articulated a reasonable standard of care for the management of the dog to protect the public. The appeal judge also said this "The appellant knew the dog had a propensity to attack. She knew it was dangerous. She knew it ought to be muzzled in public. The use of a muzzle was a minimum standard for the protection of the community at large. It seems that the appellant took Benny on holiday with no serioous prospect of complying with her duty under section 194. It was high risk conduct that caused severe injury and diminished the quality of a man’s life. It was a very serious example of the offence. As her honour identified, general deference was an important consideration for protection of the public. A strong and dangerous dog on the street without proper management poses a threat to anyone in the vicinity. It is a particularly chilling prospect for those most vulnerable, like children and the elderly. The message of high accountability ought to be unambiguous. The intention underlying section 194 is to make the offender accountable for the actions of her dog. " As part of her defence it was submitted that she was stressed by a preliminary test for colon cancer, against a family history for that disease. She had suffered from depression for eight years and was adversely affected by her medication. Her doctor opined that the appellant’s judgment would have been impaired, and that “(t)his would have contributed to her taking out the dog unrestrained.” She also tried to put up a case she was not financial to pay the fine, but this was not substantiated. I mean what a load of rubbish! Nevertheless less the appeal was allowed for Mrs Walker to give fresh evidence in relation to her sentencing under Qld's Penalties and Sentencing Act. Source http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QDC15-087.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westiemum Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Good. Time to sheet home the responsibility for these kinds of attacks to where it rightly belongs. My sympathies are confined to the gentleman who was attacked and the dog that paid the ultimate price for its owner's failure to control it. Yes exactly. Well said HDW. 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