Advice please - response to dangerous dog order

[westiemum]

Hi All,

 

Just an update - the owner now has some very good advice which she needs to work through confidentially, thanks to you guys. 

 

So when its all done and dusted, so we can all learn from it I'll come back if I can - but I can't at the moment.  Thank you all - you've all been incredibly helpful.

 

Sit tight!

Edited January 9, 2018 by westiemum

[Malamum]

I have no better advise that what you''ve already been given but I am curious about the report to the council.

 

Did the owner just do this of their own accord or did the parents of the child do it (or insist the owner do it)?

[westiemum]

MM the owner reported of their own accord but I'm not sure how much coercion there was or as I said earlier whether or not she was confused by s56 of the Act.

 

 

[Malamum]

1 hour ago, westiemum said:

MM the owner reported of their own accord but I'm not sure how much coercion there was or as I said earlier whether or not she was confused by s56 of the Act.

 

 

Apologies, I noted that mention but I missed the link.

 

Now what I've read that section I'm inclined to say that she has interpreted section 56 differently to how I would.     To me that says you must notify the council of any of those thing when the dog is already subjected to an order, not if any of those things happen full stop.

 

If my understanding is incorrect does that mean we are supposed to notify the council when our dogs die?  I didn't.

 

The reason I asked the original question is that we had something similar happen many many years ago but it wasn't a kid, it was a grown drunk adult to purposely scared our dog  when he was asleep and he got bitten and this post got me thinking about that as we never notified the council. 

 

Anyway sorry to derail the thread as none of that helps your friend.

[Tempus Fugit]

4 hours ago, Malamum said:

Apologies, I noted that mention but I missed the link.

 

Now what I've read that section I'm inclined to say that she has interpreted section 56 differently to how I would.     To me that says you must notify the council of any of those thing when the dog is already subjected to an order, not if any of those things happen full stop.

 

If my understanding is incorrect does that mean we are supposed to notify the council when our dogs die?  I didn't.

 

The reason I asked the original question is that we had something similar happen many many years ago but it wasn't a kid, it was a grown drunk adult to purposely scared our dog  when he was asleep and he got bitten and this post got me thinking about that as we never notified the council. 

 

Anyway sorry to derail the thread as none of that helps your friend.

I think it would depend on the jurisdiction. In the ACT, for instance:

 

DOMESTIC ANIMALS ACT 2000 - SECT 50B

Obligations of keeper or carer if dog attacks

    (1)     This section applies if—

        (a)     a keeper or carer of a dog is with the dog; and

        (b)     the dog attacks a person or a person's animal (the affected person ).

    (2)     The keeper or carer must, if asked by the affected person, give the affected person—

        (a)     reasonable assistance as requested; and

        (b)     the keeper or carer's name, address and contact details.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

    (3)     If the attack caused serious injury to a person or animal, the keeper or carer must tell the registrar about the attack as soon as practicable after the attack.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

 

Elsewhere in the legislation it is a defence from prosecution if the person or animal provoked the dog.

[Tassie]

17 hours ago, Malamum said:

Apologies, I noted that mention but I missed the link.

 

Now what I've read that section I'm inclined to say that she has interpreted section 56 differently to how I would.     To me that says you must notify the council of any of those thing when the dog is already subjected to an order, not if any of those things happen full stop.

 

If my understanding is incorrect does that mean we are supposed to notify the council when our dogs die?  I didn't.

 

The reason I asked the original question is that we had something similar happen many many years ago but it wasn't a kid, it was a grown drunk adult to purposely scared our dog  when he was asleep and he got bitten and this post got me thinking about that as we never notified the council. 

 

Anyway sorry to derail the thread as none of that helps your friend.

It's worth checking this.   In my municipality .. and I think all over Tasmania, ... the answer is Yes .. you are required to notify a dog's death ... I actually returned the lifetime ID tag our council issues, but in any case, they would put the death against that tag number in their records, so that no one else coul use the tag on an unregistered dog.

 

Sorry for the OT, @westiemum.

[sandgrubber]

19 hours ago, Tassie said:

It's worth checking this.   In my municipality .. and I think all over Tasmania, ... the answer is Yes .. you are required to notify a dog's death ... I actually returned the lifetime ID tag our council issues, but in any case, they would put the death against that tag number in their records, so that no one else coul use the tag on an unregistered dog.

 

Sorry for the OT, @westiemum.

So, and I'm not suggesting it, the OP's friend could report the dog had died and give it a new name?

[Tempus Fugit]

One of the reasons compulsory microchipping was brought in.

[westiemum]

No worries everyone - its really good discussion as there are variations depending on jurisdiction, all over the country. 

 

I've learned soooo much over the last few days - particularly about how to manage these things from the experts. 

 

It will probably be a few weeks , but when I'm in position to 'report back', I'll come back and let you know what we did and how we got on, as there have been further complications. It might help others in the future. 

 

Suffice to say at this point, your advice has been incredibly important to this family - so thank you all.   

[Tassie]

1 hour ago, Tempus Fugit said:

One of the reasons compulsory microchipping was brought in.

Yes ..  the microchip is on the record ... here at least, dog cannot be registered without the microchip.

[Zombie Bait]

@westiemum I went through a very simular situation with my dog Brembo. If you need any advice or the owners would like to talk to someone who has been through this before, feel free to pm me and I'm happy to give you my contact details. 

 

 

[juice]

Gosh I remember all you went through for him , you did amazing .

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

I am a bit late...

 

The dog and cat management act and regulations were "updated" in july last year but as best I can tell the rules about attack haven't changed much.

There is a defence against the attack rule - about the dog being reasonably used to protect person or property but the wording is very vague - theoretically a dog ought to be able to defend itself against an attacking child.  But with these things dogs are guilty until proven innocent and have very few rights.

Parents are crap at supervising toddlers - if you go by the number of toddlers that drown in their own back yard pools or get run over by their own parents.  Horrible.   I think it's a risk to let a dog be loose at a party where there are going to be small (or even big) children and parents and dog owners unsupervised.  

I am planning some house warming parties where this might be a problem and evil hound will probably end up in my crate in my bedroom or a locked bathroom or even my car.  She's good with children mostly but not sure how nice she'd be if a toddler tried to poke her in the eye (they all try this at least once) and I wasn't there to prevent it.

There is also a defence buried in the act somewhere about if the owner of the dog took reasonable steps to prevent the interaction and it happened anyway eg child broke into the bedroom and then opened the crate and then attacked the dog...

And somewhere in there (or the regulations) if a doctor that is treating the injury thinks it is very severe and likely to happen again - they have to report it.  The rules are vague on this too ie it is doctor's discretion.

I do know of a dog that bit a child in a playground - where the dog should not have been, got declared, and then undeclared.  The owner does not understand why.  She was mortified that her dog bit the child (something to do with the child lying on a skateboard racing near the dog).

There are a tonne of rules in that act that never get enforced - ie dogs harrassing and menancing ie being allowed to charge up to people and dogs at the parks... that and picking up after the dog.

There is some way of appealing but the grounds for appeal were not clear to me on the read I just had.  You have to read the act and the regulations.

http://www.dogandcatboard.com.au/the-act-regulations

 

One bit I did find useful is I don't have to have an id collar on my dog if it interfers with her stitches... yay.  But having said that - she's not going to be running loose anywhere until the stitches are out.  And not for a while after that but the tags sit against the stitches so she's been wearing her agility comp collar (there's also an exception for dogs in organised dog competitions not having to wear rego tags).