Nothing 'minor' about my dog attack incident, claims victim

A LEONGATHA resident, who was out walking her dog in a residential street, claims she was rushed at by two dogs coming out of a nearby property,  bitten and bowled over.

The owners of the dogs have since taken issue with those claims.

"She was rushed at by one dog," they say, and not bowled over. They do however acknowledge that two of their dogs came out of the property.

Bev* who is in her late seventies, claims she sustained bites to her hand, fingers, thumb and elbow as she tried to defend her own dog.

The owners of the offending dog say there's no evidence of dog bites.

"You should say she 'allegedly' sustained bites because there's no evidence that she was bitten," they say.

The victim claims she ended up on the ground unable to move her arm properly and "covered in blood". Bev called her husband to come and get her, who also called an ambulance. 

One of the dogs' owners, according to the injured person, retrieved the two animals, stating "they were just playing", put them in the car and drove away.

The owners of the dogs categorically deny that's how it happened.

"The owner of the dogs stayed with the lady until an ambulance arrived. She did not leave her side but backed away to allow the paramedics to do their work."

Bev subsequently underwent a shoulder reconstruction as a result of the fall.

The dog owners say the fall had nothing to do with the dogs.

"The reason for the fall had nothing to do with the dogs which were already under control and back in the property by the time the lady fell over," he said, claiming the woman actually tripped over in a hole in O'Neill Street, Leongatha left following construction work in the area.

The surgery left the couple $6000 out of pocket, they say, Bev in a sling for six weeks, and having to undergo countless hours of physiotherapy to regain full range of movement in her arm. 

A council officer attended a few days later and assessed the alleged bites Bev sustained, which had mostly healed by then, it has been reported.

According to Bev, the officer did not take her fall or shoulder injury into account and declared the incident as "minor".

The owner of the two dogs said it was standard practice, as explained by the shire staff, only to take into account injuries that could be proved to be the result of a dog attack, rather than a fall.

It has been confirmed by the South Gippsland Shire Council that has been taken: "The dog owner has received infringements; however Council will not be proceeding with prosecution of a serious attack".

The reason cited for this is that under The Domestic Animals Act 1994, the burden of proof applies.  

South Gippsland Shire Council confirmed that Menacing and Dangerous Declarations are also managed under the Act and stated that: "At this stage there is not enough evidence for Council to commence the process of a declaration in relation to this animal".

It has also been alleged by the victim that a couple of weeks prior to the incident the same dog had rushed the couple's own dog, causing it an injured spine resulting in a limp, and a visit to the vet and anti-inflammatories were needed.

The owners of the two dogs say there is no proof that either of their dogs were involved.

"That dog is well known around here for being nasty," said Bev's husband.

The owners of the two dogs take issue with that statement as well, saying the dog is not "known" and that there is no doumentation of any previous incident.

In the South Gippsland Shire Council's Domestic Animal Management Plan 2022-2025, it states that a dangerous dog is one that a council has declared dangerous because it has bitten a person or animal, causing serious injury or death. 

However, between 2021-2022, 37 dog attacks or rushes were reported to South Gippsland Shire Council but only three dogs were Registered Declared Dogs – known to be dangerous, menacing or of a restricted breed.

The couple say they are frustrated with the council for not acting to declare the dog as dangerous, despite claims of evidence that the dog is dangerous, with no fencing in the dog owners' front yard to prevent similar incidents happening in the future. 

"The one dog which is known to be quite vicious and horrible needs to be euthanised, or it has got to be under some sort of strict control," said Bev's husband.

The owners repeated that neither dog is "known" to be vicious.

The couple would like to at least see changes made to leash laws for dogs outside their homes, which is a view supported by 64 per cent of people in South Gippsland, according to South Gippsland Shire Council's Domestic Animal Management Plan 2022-2025. 

Council has stated that during the consultation for both the development of the Domestic Animal Management Plan 2022-2025 and the General Local Law 2024, Council received feedback in relation to dogs on leash in South Gippsland. 

But for Council to implement this as law, it has to be Gazetted as a Council Order under the Act and this is not included in Council's General Local Law.

South Gippsland Shire Council stated that further consultation to consider the development of this Order is proposed to commence later this year.

Further, the owners of the two dogs have put forward a reason why the woman may have sustained cuts on her hand.

"After she fell over, we helped her unravel a chain from the lead she had wrapped around her hand and saw some blood coming from under the chain which she must have sustained when she fell over," he said, repeating there was no evidence the lady was bitten.

"We helped her call her husband on the phone. He wasn't even there at the time."

The fact remains, however, that at least one of the dogs left the owners' property and rushed at the woman. This has been agreed by the parties. What happened after that is open to conjecture and the shire's local laws officers appear to have had the same problem getting to the facts of the matter.

*Name changed for confidentiality.