Dangerous Dog Declaration Highlights Deficits in the Dog Control Act

It is alleged that a boy was attacked by a dog in Wynyard on the weekend when he ventured onto a nearby property. “The many news articles are only telling one side of this story, as the dog too received serious puncture wounds which required veterinary treatment,” said Animal Justice Party representative in Tasmania, Karen Bevis.

The dog, Kodi, was taken from his home and declared a dangerous dog by the Local Council. Whilst he returned home on Thursday 8 December, it was to a hastily constructed enclosure. This enclosure was a requirement, as a declared dangerous dog, before he could return home.

“Whilst the matter is under police investigation, this incident highlights a defect with the Dog Control Act. Dogs can be declared dangerous even when they are contained on their own property and confronted by intruders. Dogs can be found guilty and treated as such before full investigations have been made. The Act provides a defence for the dog of “being teased, abused or assaulted”, and yet in this case Council chose to declare the dog to be dangerous whilst police investigations are still underway to ascertain the circumstances,” stated Ms Bevis.

The outrage from dog owners about the treatment of Kodi on social media is evident. If a dog is fully contained to its own property, there is community expectation that it is the intruder that is in the wrong, and not the dog, regardless of who is the aggressor. In circumstances where a dog is physically attacked, it is not unreasonable to expect it to defend itself.

“This is not an isolated incident in Tasmania. The Dog Control Act needs to be amended to take account of individual circumstances and public expectations. A dog running free on the street that attacks is a very different circumstance to a dog who is reacting to intruders in his own contained yard.

“The Animal Justice Party calls for public consultation and discussion on bringing the law into line with public expectation and having a proper investigative process before the guilty verdict is proclaimed,” Ms Bevis concluded.

• Ed’s Note, TT has received this assurance: “note it was done correctly with accordance to how it was meant to go up, it is a enclosure only to house Kodi will not be required to live in it permanently but only when his owners are not at home as it is in accordance with the dangerous dog act. The council has done the job they are required to do which is required under the law as part of a huge line of steps in order to come to any conclusion of outcome … Matthew was very understanding and helpful in explaining the situation and progression of who has what part of the process to do in this particular matter. It is now up to police and the lawyer to investigate and come to a conclusion of if the dangerous dog verdict can be overturned in accordance to regulation. Kodi and his family as well as the child involved has been through a very traumatic time. Kodi is a wonderful dog who deserved to be home with his family “
Karen Bevis Animal Justice Party Tasmania