Dog Attack and poor form from the Rangers

[rockman]

i am glad that you can blame the owners , unfortunatly it will be the dogs that suffer for the owners stupidty

The dogs in question are pit bull mix.

I don't blame the dogs, we don't know how these dogs are treated.

I blame the owner, as far as I am concerned, they have a responsibility to keep their dogs under control at all times and if they attack someone for what ever reason, they wear the consequences.

I agree with others, if my dog attacked someone, it would be put down without question. I would also be prepared to face what ever legal action was leveled at me because of it.

As I said earlier, I cannot for the life of me, understand how anyone could stand there and watch their dogs attacking someone and not raise a finger to help.

I just hope that they get what is due, that's all nothing more and nothing less.

[dazzler]

Hi Graeme,

Sounds like a plan.

I wonder if the council where it happened has a policy in relation to how they manage dog attacks.  If this happened today and they have already decided what the outcome is that is incredibly short period. 


cheers

[Homer_Jay]

I have always been of the understanding of the law is that people need to be able to access your front door. If you are attacked between the front gate and the front door then the dog owners are in the you know what.

I am sick of irresponsible dog owners. We have an acreage property that is slowly getting surrounded by residential development. We often have domestic dogs chase and kill our chickens and geese. On a few occasions they round up and chase our horses. One killed the neighbours pet goats.

We used to catch them and tie them up and call the pound, now I just 'dispose' of them all. Might sound harsh, and yes it isn't the dogs fault, but owners need to take responsibility.

[GraemeL]

Hi Graeme,

Sounds like a plan.

I wonder if the council where it happened has a policy in relation to how they manage dog attacks.  If this happened today and they have already decided what the outcome is that is incredibly short period. 


cheers

It happened on Monday, the ranger that originally dealt with it is on leave, go figure. It only took them one day to decide on what action they were going to take. This is another concern.
There has been no mention from the ranger in regards to putting the dogs down, which in my opinion is a good thing.

Thanks again for the advice and ideas, I will let you know the outcome.

[Dingo0163]

To start , I hope your daughter is ok. In the OP you say your ex is a full time carer who was picking up her client. Is her client physically or mentally impaired , or is she your daughters carer? You also said that it was the first time your ex picked up this client from this address. If the dogs weren't his and he is handicapped this might explain why he didn't / couldn't do anything about the dogs. There is no excuse for the dogs owner though , as long as he was home at the time. If they were my dogs the council wouldn't get a chance to put them down. My rule is one unprovoked bite , one bullet. 

[oldmate]

Ok so, sorry to her your daughter got bitten, that really sucks.

But serious, you blame the owner? What the hell was your ex doing taking your daughter to work for? Then sending her to the front door of a house, she either

1) has never been too
Or
2) she new there may be part pit bull dogs residing in the yard?

Really only person to blame here is your ex, for putting your daughter in the situation to start with.

Hope your daughter gets better.

[MDS69]

Apart from involving the ranger have you contacted the police.

[chester ver2.0]

GraemeL i am in Perth if you need a hand with anything PM me

[GraemeL]

To start , I hope your daughter is ok. In the OP you say your ex is a full time carer who was picking up her client. Is her client physically or mentally impaired , or is she your daughters carer? You also said that it was the first time your ex picked up this client from this address. If the dogs weren't his and he is handicapped this might explain why he didn't / couldn't do anything about the dogs. There is no excuse for the dogs owner though , as long as he was home at the time. If they were my dogs the council wouldn't get a chance to put them down. My rule is one unprovoked bite , one bullet. 

The client is a young female, and is mentally impaired, she is my daughters age and they are good friends.
The client does not live there, the owner of the property let the dogs out.
See my previous post about the client being at the property.

Ok so, sorry to her your daughter got bitten, that really sucks.

But serious, you blame the owner? What the hell was your ex doing taking your daughter to work for? Then sending her to the front door of a house, she either

1) has never been too
Or
2) she new there may be part pit bull dogs residing in the yard?

Really only person to blame here is your ex, for putting your daughter in the situation to start with.

Hope your daughter gets better.

Really??

Yes I blame the owner, even if the above was true, it doesn't excuse the actions of the owner regardless of the circumstances. The owner stood by and ALLOWED the UNPROVOKED attack to take place, they also allowed it to continue without any intervention on their part.

My daughter is very good friends with the client, this is why it was her that went to collect her. The ex was picking up the client with my daughter on the way to the recreation center. It is there that another carer takes over the care of my daughter and the activities for each are planned out for that day.

So to put it simply, the ex was on her way into work, with my daughter and because her client was along the way, she stopped off to pick up her client.

Apart from involving the ranger have you contacted the police.

No they were not, I wish they were.

GraemeL i am in Perth if you need a hand with anything PM me

Chester, that is very kind of you, I will PM you shortly with some info we can discuss if that's ok

[oldmate]

Fair enough mate, the whole story helps, regardless, knowing that there was pit bulls on site no way in hell would I send my daughter in by herself.

Hope your daughter recovers mate.

[GraemeL]

Fair enough mate, the whole story helps, regardless, knowing that there was pit bulls on site no way in hell would I send my daughter in by herself.

Hope your daughter recovers mate.

No worries, we are all entitled to our opinions, whether others agree or not. There have been some very good points put forward in this discussion and I will be re thinking my actions as a result.

[achjimmy]

Graeme

Sorry to hear about this. Do what you think is correct. Unfortntley this is how it is nowdays. If it had been a far worse tradedy (and thank god it wasn't) the law would be involved and the dogs would be put down. Unfortunately they will be allowed to go on and do it again. Just like the parole given to criminals to allow them out to reoffend until tradedy strikes.

[jetcrew]

Graeme

Sorry to hear about this. Do what you think is correct. Unfortntley this is how it is nowdays. If it had been a far worse tradedy (and thank god it wasn't) the law would be involved and the dogs would be put down. Unfortunately they will be allowed to go on and do it again. Just like the parole given to criminals to allow them out to reoffend until tradedy strikes.

So true and well written

Nothing happens ...until something happens..

jet

[GraemeL]

That is what I said to the ranger, what if the dogs latched onto her throat instead of her leg and foot. I didn't get a reply.

As it turns out the owner is well known to the authorities, Kalgoorlie is a large but small town and the ex is worried there may be some retaliation if we push it.

So now I have to re think things and decide if it is worth the potential risk of putting the daughter and ex in a situation that could turn ugly.

But maybe that is why the rangers are not going with a prosecution, because they feel it would be a waste of time and effort.

The daughter has to have ex rays on her left ankle, as the swelling hasn't gone down and she is unable to walk on it as yet.

[scott oz]

Mate good to hear the daughter is OK.

In NSW as I understand it the dog act only applies outside the house boundary. But if you enter someones property the owner has a general responsibility for you safety. (Note new laws have been passed recently)

I think you'll find the rangers are correct given the incident happened within the premisses.

My suggestion would  be if you're so concerned go down the the local magistrate and take out a claim against the occupiers of the house  . Assuming you are your daughters legal guardian.

You could go  to the local legal aid office with your daughter and I'm sure they'd be interested.

The advantage of this is
You make the owners responsible by taking action against them not the dogs by using the ranges.
It forces the owners (house or dog owner) to court.

If you daughter has legal aid probably not cost to you and if you loose your daughter probably has no assets so all is good. Further in the local courts costs that can be awarded against you are relatively minimal.

Go the occupier of the house and or owner of the dogs.

Just read you post above you in WA. 

Just go to the local legal aid or magistrate. Thanks what I'd do with ratbags like that. I know of a few cases where people are so  called "known to authorities". Usually it's a bluff.

One thing which you should consider is what are you after? Getting the dogs put down compensation for daughter? The compensation may be a easier solution.

In any-event I hope you get it resolved

[GraemeL]

I have finally finished a letter that I will be sending off to the CEO.

I feel the conditions I have listed in the letter are very fair and achievable and is the best outcome for everyone, including the two dogs.
If the shire agrees to enforce them along with the infringements, it will not only teach the owner to be responsible in the future, it will also benefit the dogs in question, through obedience training.

Hopefully this will be enough.

[geopaj]

I'm not a lawyer or dog control expert but, to me, the purpose of the visit and the issue of your EX 'working' is irrelevant.

To me, it doesn't matter - Chantelle could have kicked on the door to collect money for the Red Cross Red Shield Appeal, she could have been lost and asking for directions... does she need a "legitimate reason"? - at the end of the day, I think knocking on someone's door and getting attacked by their dog is unacceptable!

ps If it were my dog it would be getting put down immediately.

[Cruiser 105Tvan]

I Think a no win no fee Solicitor(Lawyer (F***EN Yanks.) would love this.
I'd seriously consider a "contributory negligence claim" against the 'statues' that didn't help your daughter too. 
By clearly failing to do something reasonably expected, they've mad the situation worse. 

Clearly fails as a good samaritan situation.
And yes there is a 'Common Law right' to approach the front door of premises for whatever reason.
If it had been the 'Law' at the front door, those dogs wouldn't have walked away.

[scott oz]

Ok

Foget the emotional stuff.

Councils "enforce" regulations. If the owner of the dogs/house dispute it you will have to go to court to prove the council case in anyevent.

Just go to your local legal aid and take civil acton for compensation far more effective and you get some control. If you let council run the case it is someone just complaing about dogs.  You're the bad guy.

If you feel so strongly "just do it".

[Cruiser 105Tvan]

Ok

Forget the emotional stuff.

Councils "enforce" regulations. If the owner of the dogs/house dispute it you will have to go to court to prove the council case in any event.

Just go to your local legal aid and take civil action for compensation far more effective and you get some control. If you let council run the case it is someone just complaining about dogs.  You're the bad guy.

If you feel so strongly "just do it".

Exactly.

[dazzler]

Ok

Foget the emotional stuff.

Councils "enforce" regulations. If the owner of the dogs/house dispute it you will have to go to court to prove the council case in anyevent.

Just go to your local legal aid and take civil acton for compensation far more effective and you get some control. If you let council run the case it is someone just complaing about dogs.  You're the bad guy.

If you feel so strongly "just do it".

This is one of the reasons I am supportive of infringements in this area (UNLESS: the attack was a serious one requiring surgery).  The simple fact is that the infringement will 99 times out of 100 end in a higher fine than the court will give.

The fines are usually pretty good and for the owner to contest them they need to pay their legal costs which are substantial.  If the rangers have sufficient evidence for the court to accept a prima facie case exists (that is that a reasonable person would consider their to be sufficient enough of a case to take to court) then even if they lose costs are not normally awarded against council.  So the owner gets off but still pays in legal costs.

But generally, the fine is paid as they cant afford the legal costs.

Also, declaring dogs to be dangerous under most state laws now is much easier and they must stay in an enclosure so there is no need for them to be put down.

Hope it all goes well!

cheers


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ozstickman]

Yeah get onto A current affair but make sure you mention that you think there was a truck driver there too! Seems ACA hate us truckies it should get them there quick!

[scott oz]

This is one of the reasons I am supportive of infringements in this area (UNLESS: the attack was a serious one requiring surgery).  The simple fact is that the infringement will 99 times out of 100 end in a higher fine than the court will give.

The fines are usually pretty good and for the owner to contest them they need to pay their legal costs which are substantial.  If the rangers have sufficient evidence for the court to accept a prima facie case exists (that is that a reasonable person would consider their to be sufficient enough of a case to take to court) then even if they lose costs are not normally awarded against council.  So the owner gets off but still pays in legal costs.

But generally, the fine is paid as they cant afford the legal costs.

Also, declaring dogs to be dangerous under most state laws now is much easier and they must stay in an enclosure so there is no need for them to be put down.

Hope it all goes well!

cheers


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sorry but an injured person now suffering frpm a phobia about dog etc etch the court compensation is far likely to be higher.

[dazzler]

Hi Scott.  How many times have you taken these matters to court?  I did this for a iving.  Classic example.  Blue heeler bite to leg of 63 yo walking down the street.  Hospital for four weeks, skin grafts, a year to walk without a cane.  $600.  Fine was $650. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GraemeL]

Thanks for the support, my daughter i recovering slowly. X-rays on her ankle don't show any broken bones, but she still has to have an ultrasound.
She is getting around ok but still has some pain in her foot and ankle. we are hoping it is just sever bruising.

I would like to get one thing clear, it is not about MONEY and I have no intentions of seeking legal advice, or seeking any form of monetary compensation.
We will leave that to the Americans 

I have discussed things with several people, including rangers, members here as well as a lawyer. After taking everything into consideration I am happy with the infringements along with some conditions that I am hopeful the shire will enforce.

These conditions are...
The owner agrees in writing to attend an obedience training course with the two dogs.
The owner must satisfactorily complete such a course.
The Shire decides the appropriate obedience course.
The shire is to monitor the behavior and well being of the two dogs for a period of not less than 6 months.

If the owner fails to agree to these conditions or fails to complete the obedience course, the dogs are to be removed from their control and re-homed with someone that is prepared to train them.
The shire will move to have the matter heard before a magistrate.

We feel this would be the best outcome for all involved, it allows the dogs owner the option, accept the conditions or it goes to court.

It will show the owner that they do have a responsibility and that they are required under the law to keep control of any animal in their care.
It will also prove to be the best option for the two dogs, they will be better trained and better behaved, so hopefully regardless of what happens in the future, they won't act aggressively.