ACT Woman Fails to Overturn Ruling Her Pit Bull X Should Be Put Down ABC News 8/10/24

[Deeds]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-08/act-woman-fail-overturn-acat-ruling-dog-buddha-be-destroyed/104442016

[Mairead]

I would like to know who was the trainer who said the dog could be retrained. Problem would be, the dog would go back to the same owner, because a declared dangerous dog can't be rehomed?

 

[tdierikx]

Quote

A Canberra woman has failed to overturn a ruling by the ACT's Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) that her pit bull cross Buddha should be destroyed after he bit a man in an unprovoked attack in 2021.

 

Buddha had a long history with the government unit, after coming to notice following a fight with another dog owned by the same person, when both were taken to the RSPCA for treatment in early 2021.

But Buddha's owner challenged that, and instead he was declared a 'dangerous dog', which required a special licence and strict controls including that he wear a muzzle, be on a leash and wear a dangerous dog collar.

It was only two months later that he bit the man, who was a stranger, on the right thigh.

There had been no warning, and the dog was not muzzled or wearing the dangerous dog collar.

But the original assessor stood by his judgement, pointing out that the dog had tried to bite him in his protective bite suit during the test.

Mr Hockings pointed to the events during other assessments when the dog had tried to bite the assessors in their protective bite suits.

 

OK... two months and one previous event does not constitute a "long history"...

 

Assessing a reactive dog while wearing bite suits would be somewhat overwhelming for a dog with reactive issues, wouldn't one think?

 

The fact that the owner did not comply with the dangerous dog order by not having it muzzled or wearing the dangerous dog collar, and letting go of the lead in a public place, shows the level of compliance she was willing to go to (or not)... so definitely her fault in the case of the bite to the human victim.

 

In the end, it's the dog who has paid the price for it's owner's complacency... IMHO, she should also be held accountable is some way other than just losing her dog.

 

T.