Council growls

By Ed Merrison
BEWARE of the council, owners of dangerous dogs have been warned.
The Shire of Yarra Ranges has vigorously defended its tough dog attack laws after it was accused of going overboard in laying charges.
James Martin, shire community relations manager, said dog attacks had to be taken seriously as their consequences could be horrific.
He said the council would always take legal action where solid, corroborating evidence showed a dog had attacked another animal or person.
“We do this to protect the community from vicious dogs and irresponsible dog owners,” he said.
“Too many dog owners are behaving in an unbelievably irresponsible manner by not securing their dogs on their property.”
The council now has about 40 cases that are likely to proceed to the magistrates’ court, a number it says has been relatively constant over the past six months.
“These relate to dog attacks and it will be up to the magistrate to determine the appropriateness of the charges,” Mr Martin said.
His comments came after Anthony Stephan of Menzies Creek accused the shire of being over-zealous in handing out penalties.
Mr Stephan, who faces four court charges that centre on a dog attack involving Saki, his eight-year-old Maremma, believes the shire should have dealt with the incident outside court.
Shire officers believe Saki escaped Mr Stephan’s garden through an open gate and attacked another dog in the street in June.
The shire filed four charges against Mr Stephan: having a dog on the loose between sunrise and sunset; a dog attacking another dog in the street; a dog biting another dog in the street; and a dog being unregistered.
Mr Stephan, whose case was due to be heard at Ringwood Magistrates’ Court on Thursday, 14 September but has been adjourned at his request, said he objected to ‘harsh’ treatment he said went beyond the council’s duties.
“I’m not saying we’re completely innocent, I’m just saying we don’t deserve that sort of treatment by a council officer,” he said.
“I think it should definitely have just started with a fine. It could have been sorted out way before and my relationship with my council would have been excellent.”
Mr Martin denied that the council had gone overboard, saying it had followed standard procedure.
“In this case the attack was on another dog, but what if it had been a young child or an older person?” he said.
Mr Martin said the other owner involved in the attack had incurred a $500 veterinary bill.
He said Mr Stephan had not been singled out or victimised.
Mr Stephan said he did not believe his dog was dangerous and that the incident was probably a game that went too far. “Sure, I’m an animal lover, but I hate vicious dogs,” he said.