Two pig dogs that jumped a fence to kill a neighbour’s German Shepherd have had their death sentence confirmed by a Canberra tribunal.
- Original decision to destroy dogs Kogan and Boo upheld
- Appeal rejected because dogs still considered a threat
- Argument that dogs could be confined rejected
The ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) last year upheld a decision by the territory to have the two Bull Arab-cross dogs destroyed as they posed a future danger to the public and other animals.
The tribunal heard the dogs, named Kogan and Boo, were kept by their owner for pig hunting, and kept in his backyard.
The dogs’ owner appealed that decision to the Appeals Tribunal, but presidential member Mary-Therese Daniel this week confirmed the original decision.
“Given that the dogs have attacked and killed an animal, and they have hunting experience, I consider that they are more likely to attack again, especially if similar circumstances arise,” she wrote in a decision published this week.
“I am satisfied that if Kogan or Boo gets loose again each is likely to attack and kill any animal they identify as prey or a threat.
In January 2018, the pair jumped a 1.6-metre-high fence and attacked and killed a German Shepherd that lived in a neighbouring property.
The homeowners returned to find Kogan and Boo in their backyard, their dog dead, and hair and blood spread across the area.
ACT Domestic Services seized the pair and ordered they be destroyed due to concerns the dogs could be a future danger to the community.
Owner says dogs won’t escape again
The owner unsuccessfully challenged the death sentence in the ACAT, but then appealed that decision to the Appeals Tribunal.
He argued there was no proof Boo had taken part in the attack, saying the most likely scenario was that Kogan went over the fence first, that the German Shepherd responded defensively, provoking the attack, and Boo arrived after the other dog had been killed.
The owner also provided photographs of a dog cage that was under construction, which he argued would prevent them escaping and harming other animals in the future.
But Ms Daniel dismissed both grounds of appeal.
In relation to the dog cages and offer to keep them confined, Ms Daniel conceded the risk would be reduced, but she said she was not satisfied that the dogs could be caged in the long term.
“Assuming they were to be kept in the cages, it remains possible that the dogs will get out, particularly if the appellant has to rely on a third party to care for them from time to time,” she said.
“Given the dogs appear to have years left to live, I expect escape from the cages into the backyard will occur on one or more occasions.
“If this happens, both Kogan and Boo have the ability to get out of the yard.
“I am not satisfied that Kogan or Boo either can, or will reliably, be kept confined if returned to the appellant.”
Ms Daniel also wrote that she was not satisfied that the attack had been provoked or that there had been any other “exculpatory circumstances”.
Topics: dog, animal-attacks, human-interest, canberra-2600, act
Lawn Mowing Service