Dog attack leaves Jumbunna community horrified by laws

*Warning: The following story is graphic in nature. Reader discretion is advised.

A DOG attack in the small hamlet of Jumbunna has left community members horrified and dismayed at council practices and the failure of laws to protect animals and people.

The attack occurred in early September when Jumbunna resident Annie heard her dog barking. She followed him out across her driveway to the paddock gate.

“On the other side of the gate there was this big black Mastiff dog with a spikey collar on and he was eating something,” Annie wrote in her victim impact statement. “I noticed that he had a bloody face.”

Two of Annie’s five alpacas were lying on the ground behind the dog. One was dead and the other was still alive, but half of its head had been mauled and brain matter was streaked across the ground.

Annie wanted to go in to check on the other alpacas but was scared the dog would attack her too.

“It is impossible to describe the horror of what I saw and not knowing if the rest of the flock were alive, dying or dead,” Annie said.

Annie called the vets who put the animal down and both alpacas were buried, she also informed the dog’s owner, who lives on a nearby property.

The council was notified, they retrieved the dog, which was surrendered by the owners, and Annie gave her statement.

While the mauling of her alpacas was traumatic enough, Annie believes the events following and the handling of her case by the council, leading up to the court hearing, were “abysmally insensitive and re-traumatising”.

Her concerns involve council allegedly failing to provide information about the time and date of the court hearing, saying her victim statement was ‘not good’ and in the ‘wrong format’ and being given incorrect information about accessing documents related to the court hearing.

South Gippsland Shire Council CEO Kerryn Ellis was asked for comment. She said that generally council will provide an update to the dog attack victim, advising when the first mention court date is to be held, and providing victims with a template sourced from the Victims of Crimes website.

Annie said she also felt pressed by the council officer to accept the reimbursement for the vet fees and cost to bury her alpacas, and when she refused, the officer, she said “got very stroppy and said that if I didn’t want it, he would pay it back to the dogs’ owners”.

“At no point was there any acknowledgement of the impact on me and my loss and suffering, and the suffering of those animals that got killed,” said Annie.

Annie said she was also informed the officers would be supporting a return of the dog to its owners in court, after classing the animal as a dangerous dog.

The hearing was held recently in the Korumburra Magistrates Court and the dog was released back to its owners.

What has left Annie and other people in the community dismayed is that the owners have 28 days to appeal the decision with VCAT and within those 28 days the dog is not legally required to be placed under the usual dangerous dog controls.

Annie said it feels like a never-ending horror movie.

“I’m living this horror movie every minute. I don’t have my animals. I go into the paddock, and I get panic attacks. The worst panic attack is, who’s going to be next?”

The owner of the dog, a two-year-old, 50-kilogram Mastiff, named ‘Bear’, said his pet had always been a very obedient dog.

Now that he has Bear back, he says he is complying with the restrictions for dangerous dogs, such as putting a muzzle and lead on the dog when walking, building an enclosure so the dog can’t escape and putting up signs on the property.

“It sucks that he is now classed as a dangerous dog,” but he says he won’t be contesting the ruling at VCAT.

“I don’t want anything bad to happen to Bear or anything bad to happen to any animal,” he said.

But some residents remain concerned about laws that allow a dangerous dog to remain in a rural area. They believe that Council isn’t valuing farmers in the area, or their livestock, putting the rights of dog owners ahead of the right to farm.

“This is a rural community where pretty much everyone has animals, either pets, livestock or both. We all feel that we have been let down by council,” she said.