Proceedings OF ThE - Australian Institute of Animal Management Inc

92 Proceedings 2012
AIAM Annual Conference on Animal Management
Rationalisation for change
The New South Wales judicial system when used for
dealing with human offenders is also tiered, where
by first time offenders are given a lenient penalty or
a minimal custodial sentence. This penalty is given
where the circumstances involving the incidents
are minor; however, should this person re-offend
the penalties are increased and adjusted to suit the
crime.
When dealing with companion animals, this similar
approach could be applied, as in most cases there
are mitigating circumstance that must be taken into
consideration when applying a control order.
Often, when a dog has committed an offence, i.e.
roaming, nuisance or a dog attack, these offences
can be traced back to their owner’s responsibility or
person/s in charge of the dog at the time.
• yMaybe a gate is left open by a visitor to the
property and the dog roams or the owner is not
responsible to care for their dog appropriately; or
• yThe owner is not aware or responsible to ensure
their dog’s actions or noise emanating from the
dog are controlled; or
• yThe owner has not socialised their dog with
humans or other dogs and it has been allowed
to display various levels of aggression without
correction
The dog may be the catalyst for applying control
orders; however, should the dog be guilty of an
offence when acting on instinct?
If the control orders were broken down as previously
mentioned in this document, then the dog’s welfare
could be taken into account and have the appropriate
levels of control orders to fit the crime.
The owner’s ignorance or inability to take
responsibility for their dog’s behaviour should not
be held against the dog who is acting on instinct,
the natural drive that is present in most breeds to a
varying degree.
It must be remembered dogs can think, however, they
cannot reason.
Typical scenarios
Case 1
Bailey, Female American Bulldog, lifetime registered
and desexed
Chronology
2 November 2010 dog attack at Illawong Ave.
Subject dog attacked a cat caused
life ending injuries to the cat.
10 November 2010 Warning letter sent to owner
advising of the attack and that any
further attack may result in dog
being declared dangerous.
B
B
O
I
bailey escaped from her property
and attacked and killed a cat,
Bailey was roaming for a short
time when she noticed a cat, the
cat ran, and Bailey gave chase
and killed the cat.
bailey was impounded by Council
for roaming on the street.
owner interviewed who stated:
“Bailey has never liked cats”. A
hole in the fence on the owner’s
property was identified as the
location Bailey escaped through.
infringements and warning letter
were issued for attack.
18 May 2011 dog attack on Caloola Ave.
Subject dog attacked a cat caused
life ending injuries to the cat.
Bailey and an accomplice “Abbey”
(GSD X) sniffed out, attacked and
killed the cat.
O
owner once again stated: “Bailey
doesn’t like cats” and thought it
“OK” for cats to be killed by dogs,
especially if the cat was feral or
unregistered. Bailey had escaped
through the same hole in the
fence as the previous attack.
1 June 2011 Notice of Intention to Declare Dog
Dangerous was served.
7 June 2011 owner of dog makes
representations in response to the
Notice of Intention.
9 June 2011 Council responds to the Owner’s
representations by way of letter.
17 June 2011 dog declared dangerous on 17
June 2011