Dog attacks fears

By MARA PATTISON-SOWDEN
A WOORI Yallock mother fears for the safety of her children and the community after being told a dog that tore through a neighbouring fence and killed her family’s dog will not be declared dangerous.
Daniel Kennedy said she feels like the Yarra Ranges Council decision to give the dog back to its owner without provisions has in turn caged herself and her four children.
She hasn’t been allowed in the family’s backyard since one of her Jack Russell dogs was killed two months ago.
She says it’s disappointing and scary that the laws put in place to protect the community are not doing their job to keep people safe.
Ms Kennedy said Yarra Ranges Council’s manager of community compliance had emailed a response to her concerns last Thursday.
The response advised that although council officers sympathised over the loss of her pet, they would not issue a dangerous dog declaration.
The email said the decision of whether to declare a dog dangerous was not one the council took lightly, and it had based its decision on views expressed by a magistrate, an independent panel review and an expert behavioural assessment of the dog.
But Mrs Kennedy said, apart from the initial ranger’s investigation, no one had listened to her side of the story.
“The ranger told me two likely outcomes – that the offending dog would likely be put down or declared dangerous – she didn’t give any other options, so I felt at ease,” she said.
“I feel like we’ve just been caged. There is nothing to stop that dog coming through the fence…I want that dog caged or muzzled to stop it doing what it already did.”
The council said the dog owner had pleaded guilty and was fined and ordered to pay costs at the Ringwood Magistrate’s Court on 21 June.
The German shepherd was released back to its owners following the court hearing, and the council handed its response down last week.
Mrs Kennedy said she felt the decision was unjust.
“My biggest concern is that the laws have failed to protect us…the dog has been returned to the owner without any provisions, and the Shire of Yarra Ranges hasn’t been very forthcoming in the way it’s been communicating,” she said.
“We have never been a voice in this case, never had an opportunity to say that we are scared as a community of the law not protecting us.
“I’m an animal lover, I don’t want the dog put down, but put some provisions on it.”
Ms Steel said that on the day of the attack she had received an urgent phone call from two neighbours Janine Knight and Alicia Batty several hours after dropping her children at school on Tuesday 29 May.
Her seven-year-old Jack Russell cross, Nibby, was lying on the ground bleeding while the German Shepherd paced the fence keeping the neighbours out. A vet report later showed it had suffered 16 puncture wounds and a damaged spinal cord.
Mrs Batty said she heard the incident happening and was screaming for the attacking dog to stop, before running to ask Mrs Knight for help.
The women couldn’t get into the backyard but could see the German Shepherd had ripped seven palings off the back fence to get through.
“The fact that dog ate through a new fence and then continued to attack – that’s vicious,” Mrs Knight said.
“I wanted to get in to get Nibby, but the German Shepherd actually charged at the fence where I was standing.
“We were told because of the severity of the attack and the fact it had eaten through the fence that it would have provisions or be destroyed.”
Nibby was taken to the vet for emergency treatment but died shortly after. Meanwhile the council ranger was called and seized the German Shepherd.
In a further statement, Yarra Ranges Council Director of Planning, Building and Health Andrew Paxton said while the ranger Mrs Kennedy spoke to immediately following the incident discussed some potential scenarios based on comparable past cases.
, “they did not make a definitive statement regarding the outcome of the specific case, as it would have been inappropriate to do so”.
“At the hearing, the council’s legal representative presented evidence gathered as part of the investigation to the magistrate,” he said.
“Only after hearing the evidence did the magistrate make his final decision, stating that ‘declaring the dog dangerous was not necessary’.”