Killer Family Dogs............

[jerryd]

Returning home earlier I spot two dogs on my property, one black Labrador type dog with collar and one ****zu type dog with tail. :mad: both running around our block of land, one runs down through the trees into the creek.
I stop my van and see it in the creek with a dead chicken in it's mouth :censored: On further investigations this dog has killed my two pet turkeys and there young (7 chicks) two young pet chickens, one pedigree cockerel and probably 7-8 egg laying chickens :censored: The dog has ripped through a large enclosure to get the turkeys out.

The dog is then heard again terrifying more chickens that have scattered so I give chase and try and spear it with a lump of 4x2 timber. It then leaves the property. Only now is the carnage that this dog has done been taken in and I'm shaking with rage :twisted:

Eventually we track down where we think these dogs live and confront the owner who confirms that the two dogs do live there. He says that a workman left the gates open and that's how they escaped. He denies that his dogs were killers and would never harm anything. However after telling him that two witnesses would confirm that it was his dogs that were responsible he changes his attitude.

So should I report him to the police ?? Should I or can I legally charge him for damages ?? My main concern is that this dog could attack a small child and I told him so, his final word was that he would have the dog put down and it wouldn't bother us again.

The only bonus was that it didn't get our pet duck and her six babies.

[twitchy]

A lot of dogs that kill game wont hurt people, been that way for ever. Dogs that are trained to guard houses from people are what you need to look out for. In saying this I would still be looking for restitution for your poor family animals that were killed. Which will only happen if you call the cops.

[kenl]

I would say most certainly report it to the police and ranger, if that it is what you have in your area.

To many people have dogs that are unsocialised and untrained, the owners need to be held to account for the dogs actions and word needs to get around so that the other deadbeat owners wake up to themselves.

To many trophy dogs is also part of the problem, but maybe not here?

Rant over

[sheerluck]

Having been through something similar recently, the best thing you can do is get on to your local council, the animal control section, tonight.

The cops won't give a stuff, they have no powers to do anything, and in my case it was my wife that was attacked, and ended up with nearly a week in hospital.

[beagleONE]

We had a similar scenario on our property back in the day.
Demanded reimbursement for the lambs lost, and time wasted.
Made it very clear that if said dogs were seen on our property again, they would shot on the spot.

We were not interested in having their dog put down, accidents occur.
But preventable accidents dont happen twice.

[DT-P38]

I'm no expert but I would say involve the authorities if you can't get a satisfactory result from the owner. Remember they are your neighbour and try to think of their situation as well. I can bet you are angry as all get out, and I probably would be too... but take a step back and (try to) keep your cool.

Tell (and show) them of your loss (and grief) and give them a list of your wants. If you can manage it, sleep on it and get yourself composed before you react with haste and handle it the wrong way.

Feel real sorry for what you have described as a blood bath... if its possible, try to get the neighbour involved in helping with the clean up in some way. Share the experience with them as much as you can (if you can).

[carlschmid2002]

Take photos and document the evidence. I would still report it to council so as you have a record. I love dogs but if this had of happened to me they both would have got a lead aspirin.

[TheTree]

Hi,

It sounds harsh, but a lead injection is the way farmers normally deal with this.

You are perfectly within your rights to shoot the dogs if they come back on your property.

I would tell your neighbour to keep his dogs under control or you will take sad but necessary action

Good luck
Steve

[JDNSW]

A few years ago, my wife and I came home from a wedding about midnight, and found we had a large, friendly dog socialising with ours. No collar. Spent a morning phoning round looking for an owner, eventually decided that it must belong to a place with no phone about 3k away, so put it in the back of the 2a and took it there - guess was right. They said it did not have a collar in case it got hung up in a fence or something. I informed them that it was lucky it turned up at our place - anyone else would probably shoot first.

Three months later, my next door neighbour found it and one of the owner's other dogs rounding up and killing his sheep (seven dead). He shot both dogs and called the police - who did attend, and then went and had words to the owners. My neighbour did not follow my advice which was to load the sheep and the dogs into the ute and deliver them to the dog owners, together with an invoice for the sheep, the ammunition, and the delivery.

John

[Goenin]

Mate that's sad.
We lost 11 laying chooks. 2 roosters and our love pet gala.
We knew it was next doors Labrador but couldn't prove it.
In a year we had built up our chooks again reinforced the ground wire.
Almost to the day our gala was out on our nature strip. I called it and it came straight to me calling his name.
We were so amazed our little bloke came back and had him for a further 5 years.

If a dog is on your property you have every right to put it down.

Good luck buddy.

[chopper]

Be careful how you dispense self justice ,
you are not in your right's to shot any ones dog

[jerryd]

Thanks for all the replies, a friend took some pics of the dead birds and I've taken some of the damage also. I cleaned up the carnage before the wife and boys got home as it wasn't a pretty sight :(

We did find two baby turkeys that had somehow survived, both seem traumatised and haven't stopped calling for the parents, they are now indoors and hopefully will be okay :) The remaining four chickens are a bit quiet too this morning but I'm sure they'll soon forget.

The dogs live about a kilometre away so not exactly neighbours and I don't possess a gun.
I'm not after revenge or a big fat cheque, but if he was to put a letter of apology, a bunch of flowers for the wife and a $50 note in for the boys to buy a new pet or two then I'd be happy with that.

We'll see what happens.

[richard4u2]

Be careful how you dispense self justice ,
you are not in your right's to shot any ones dog
in w.a. on rural or semi rural land you do have that legal right if it is harassing or attacking your live stock

[RisingSun]

In QLD you are completely within your rights to shoot an animal that is chasing / interfering with your stock, that's why we have guns. Doesn't matter what type, although the chihuahuas are harder to hit.
Only advice is registered weapon, licensed shooter. That is all the police will check if a complaint is made that you killed Fido. Hard for the owner to argue that their animal was not chasing cattle when it is dead on your property.

Dogs are great, dogs that recreationally chase cattle / sheep / chickens are the bains of your neighbours life.

I regularly offer the advice to drop any dog chasing your cattle regardless if it has a collar, bell, pure bred pedigree. In QLD an animal is only allowed off the owners property when under proper and effective control, anything else is in breach of legislation and the owner doesn't have a leg to stand on if you state it was interfering with your stock.

[d@rk51d3]

in w.a. on rural or semi rural land you do have that legal right if it is harassing or attacking your live stock


I think the comment was made with regards to this post:

"If a dog is on your property you have every right to put it down"

[RisingSun]

Jerryd contact your local council and let them know ASAP, sometimes when the animal management unit turns up to their door, asks why the dogs not registered, explains that due to the events council has the right to declare the animals dangerous $$$$$$, but the owner would only like an apology , some form of reimbursement it prompts some people that are a little south of decent to do the right thing.
It also means it is on record if this is not the first occurrence, or if a neighbour suffers the same fate in the future.

Good luck, doesn't remove what has been done, but assists in moving forward.

[ramblingboy42]

Its a real pity the dog has to suffer due to owners irresponsibility.

I found out my dog likes to socialise.....the neighbours say they don't mind because she is a lovely dog.

But I do mind and closed gates are only a jumping exercise.

So, after evening feedtime , unless we are outside with her , she is placed on a chain next to her kennel, bed, box of toys and waterbowl , until one of us let her off in the morning.

She knows now if we are going out somewhere and doors and windows close , keys rattle , she is waiting at her bed for the chain to be attached.

It's not difficult to do and everyone is happy.....even the dog.

[Sitec]

Hello there. I'm able to see this from both sides like quite a few of us. I have two dogs, both black, one is a Lab x Mastiff. He's the biggest sook/boof head I know and I'd be absolutely lost without him. That said, if ever he chased stock and got peppered then so be it. The instinct to chase and kill will always be there in a dog. This morning, the Kelpie cross lab rounds a rabbit up.. straight into the jaws of Boof Head. He gets board and gives it to Tomcat! Possums are the other prey of choice! If you can cope with working with the dog owner and coming to some agreement, then great, but if not, then yes, you are prob within your rights to take it to a higher level. Good luck.

[TheTree]

Hi,

Of course I meant to have the right to put it down if it is harassing and killing your animals, not just because it is on your land, sorry about that.

And naturally it is always best to try other means first

Steve

[lewy]

They will come back next time they get out if something is not done to retrain them.

[Goenin]

Be careful how you dispense self justice ,
you are not in your right's to shot any ones dog

Absolutely you are. Yes it has to be harassing but who's to know the offending will out of action.

Any dog on my property is not saying g'day and wants a bone. It's there for its own reason.

You are by law told to keep pests controlled on your property..
If you have a dog down the bottom paddock how are you to know it has a collar or not. It looks and acts like a wild dog.
Wild dogs must be shot and hung up for others to be aware.

Please note I am not talking about suburbs.

[Bushie]

Victoria

DOMESTIC ANIMALS ACT 1994 - SECT 30

Owner of livestock able to destroy dog or cat found at large near livestock
(1) The owner (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/daa1994163/s3.html#owner'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=farming) of any animals or birds kept for farming purposes, any person authorised by the owner (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/daa1994163/s3.html#owner'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=farming) or an authorised officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/daa1994163/s3.html#authorised_officer'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=farming) may destroy any dog or cat found at large—
(a) in the place where the animals or birds are confined; or
(b) if the animals or birds are tethered, in the vicinity of the animals or birds.
(2) The owner (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/daa1994163/s3.html#owner'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=farming), a person authorised by the owner (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/daa1994163/s3.html#owner'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=farming) or authorised officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/daa1994163/s3.html#authorised_officer'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=farming) does not incur any civil or criminal liability for acting under subsection (1).
NSW

COMPANION ANIMALS ACT 1998 - SECT 22

Action to protect persons and property against dogs 22 Action to protect persons and property (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#property'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=destroy) against dogs
(1) Any person may lawfully seize a dog if that action is reasonable and necessary for the prevention of damage to property (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#property'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=destroy).
(2) Any person may lawfully seize, injure or destroy a dog if that action is reasonable and necessary for the protection of any person or animal (other than vermin) from injury or death


(3) However, subsection (2) does not authorise the seizure of, injury to or destruction of a dog that is engaged in the droving, tending, working or protection of stock unless the action is reasonable and necessary for the protection of a person from injury or death.
(5) If a dog that is not under the effective control of some competent person enters any inclosed lands within the meaning of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ilpa1901264/'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=destroy) and approaches any animal being farmed on the land, the occupier of the land or any person authorised by the occupier can lawfully injure or destroy the dog if he or she reasonably believes that the dog will molest, attack or cause injury to any of those animals.
(6) An authorised officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#authorised_officer'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=destroy) who finds a dog attacking or harassing an animal (other than vermin) within a wildlife protection area (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#area'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=destroy) (as defined in section 14 (1) (h)) can lawfully injure or destroy the dog if there is no other reasonably practicable way of protecting the animal.
(7) A person who takes action under the authority of this section that results in the injury to or death of a dog must:
(a) take reasonable steps to ensure that an injured dog receives any necessary treatment, and
(b) report the matter to an authorised officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#authorised_officer'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=destroy) (unless the person is an authorised officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#authorised_officer'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=destroy)) and comply with such reasonable directions as the authorised officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#authorised_officer'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=destroy) may give for the purpose of causing the dog to be returned to its owner (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s12a.html#owner'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=destroy) or taken to a council pound (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#council_pound'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=destroy), and
(c) take reasonable steps to inform the owner (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s7.html#the_owner'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=destroy) of the dog.
(8) An authorised officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#authorised_officer) is not to give a direction under this section for the purpose of causing a dog to be taken to a council pound (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#council_pound'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=destroy) unless the authorised officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#authorised_officer'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=destroy) is satisfied that the owner (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s7.html#the_owner'stem=0&synonyms=0&query=destroy) of the dog cannot be identified.
(9) Nothing in this section authorises a contravention of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 .
(10) The authority conferred by this section to destroy a dog extends only to authorising the destruction of the dog in a manner that causes it to die quickly and without unnecessary suffering.


"Inclosed lands" means:
(a) prescribed premises (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ilpa1901264/s3.html#prescribed_premises), or
(b) any land, either public or private, inclosed or surrounded by any fence, wall or other erection, or partly by a fence, wall or other erection and partly by a canal or by some natural feature such as a river or cliff by which its boundaries may be known or recognised, including the whole or part of any building or structure and any land occupied or used in connection with the whole or part of any building or structure. Qld

LAND PROTECTION (PEST AND STOCK ROUTE MANAGEMENT) ACT 2002 - SECT 95

95 Destruction of particular dogs
(1) This section applies if an owner of land that is not in an urban district, or an authorised person, reasonably believes a dog on the land—
(a) is not under someone's control; and
(b) is attacking, or is about to attack, stock on the land. (2) The authorised person or owner may destroy the dog .
(3) Compensation is not payable for the destruction.
I imagine each state/territory would have something similar, under some piece of legislation.

Martyn

[shining]

We had very good friends look after our 2 Border-collie x kelpies (brother and sister)while we were OS (for a year). We both have farms. Long story short, our bitch hooked up with their bitch (of a similar breed) and started mauling their sheep. They were more pets than working dogs so weren't chained up as per normal when not working. Neither had exhibited this behaviour before and it was a real surprise. It was tough but both were sent to doggie heaven. Any other action would be been cruel for the stock and dogs.

[jonesfam]

Had this happen to us a few months ago.
Get onto your local council.
We did & the blokes that came out (that day) were very helpful & understanding.
They spoke to the owner & the dogs were sent away, fixed.
They also lent us a trap for a couple of weeks.
And everything is on record should there be a repeat.


BTW It's not always practical to have & shoot a gun even if you have a few acres. If you miss where does the bullet go?
Jonesfam

[scarry]

They will come back next time they get out if something is not done to retrain them.

You will never train them to stop that type of thing,particularly if they have done it before,and they are adult dogs.

Agree,if they ever get out again they will be back.

The only chance you have to stop a dog doing that type of thing is training very early when it is a young.It is very hard to change instinct.

We had an issue Christmas day 2012,our Springer got into one of my brothers kids quail cages,killed all twelve of them.
There is no way i could train her not to do it again,in fact every time we go over there she goes straight over to the quails new(and stronger) cage.

She comes back when called,and knows she shouldn't go near them,but instinct takes over.

[sheerluck]

Qld......
I imagine each state/territory would have something similar, under some piece of legislation.

Martyn

The interesting thing, Martyn, is that in QLD, stock is better protected than people are. We got a crash course in the relevant legislation after my wife was attacked. And it is pathetic.

[George130]

You must make sure the owners know or it will continue to happen. Notify council so it is on record for next time if they get out.

Our only issues so far was with neighbors sheep. Since there were also lambs mum took offense to our little ones and decided trampling was the solution. We spoke with owner and nothing was done so then spoke with ranger. Ranger has notified them that livestock out without supervision and road signage will be taken and sold.
They are also liable for all damages and costs to others.

Dogs are great but once they start this hunting game they will continue to hunt animals.

[Sprint]

BTW It's not always practical to have & shoot a gun even if you have a few acres. If you miss where does the bullet go?
Jonesfam

if you pull the trigger without knowing whats behind and within range of what you're aiming at, you're a bloody idiot....

[jonesfam]

if you pull the trigger without knowing whats behind and within range of what you're aiming at, you're a bloody idiot....
& I don't want to be a bloody idiot, hence, no gun.
Jonesfam

[dullbird]

Victoria
NSW
Qld
I imagine each state/territory would have something similar, under some piece of legislation.

Martyn

Think you would need to be careful about the legislation in NSW

And you would need to look up the definition of farmed.

Because to me a couple of sheep on 5 acres is possibly not farmed and therefore I don't think gives you legal grounds to destroy.

I'm not saying one way or the other all I'm saying us read your legislation carefully because a lot if people think they know the law until they find out that the misinterpretated what was written which can easily be done

[scarry]

We have been going to a medium size family property in SW Qld for over 40 years.It is over 12000 acres.

Any unknown dog they see is shot,collar,tracker,no collar,makes no difference.
If that doesn't happen to it,1080 will get it for sure.

Twenty five years ago they didn't use 1080,nor would they have shot a dog.
In fact in those days we would take our pet dogs out there with us.

But these days it is done all the time.

[rocket scientist]

Having been through something similar recently, the best thing you can do is get on to your local council, the animal control section, tonight.

The cops won't give a stuff, they have no powers to do anything, and in my case it was my wife that was attacked, and ended up with nearly a week in hospital.

Correct,
in these situations the ranger has more powers than the police to seize the dogs .
They should help you to prosecute the dog owner for damages.
Happens all the time in Vic. Presume the laws are similar in QLD.

[dullbird]

That's twice I have seen that comment the rangers have more powers than the police

I find that very hard to believe as in NSW a police officer can uphold all ACTs

Ie the ranger has no more or less powers than the police. Whether police would actually want to deal with it when there is another regulatory body that can I doubt they would.

Still I can't imagine it would be different in other states

[Drover]

In NSW, the only additional powers to a Police Constable, afforded to Local Council (Ranger's) under the Companion Animals Act is the ability to declare a dog to be a nuisance, a menace or dangerous and then enforce the control requirements that come with each individual order.

[101RRS]

In a general sense Police need a warrant to enter a property without the owners approval (there are some exceptions) - other public officers often do not.

[sheerluck]

That's twice I have seen that comment the rangers have more powers than the police

I find that very hard to believe as in NSW a police officer can uphold all ACTs

Ie the ranger has no more or less powers than the police. Whether police would actually want to deal with it when there is another regulatory body that can I doubt they would.

Still I can't imagine it would be different in other states

Take it from me DB, I got that information from the horse's mouth so to speak.

I was given the low down on the local laws by both the council officers, and a sergeant and a snr constable at our local police station. The senior constable I spoke to was a Kiwi, and he was telling me how hamstrung they are in QLD compared to NZ, where effectively the situation is resolved by a police officer administering a lead injection.

However, in Qld, dogs have rights.......

Believe it or not, after seeing the inside of my wife's legs, I pretty much exhausted every avenue I could. ;)

[dullbird]

In a general sense Police need a warrant to enter a property without the owners approval (there are some exceptions) - other public officers often do not.

That's a very broad statement Garry lol

An actually doesn't really say one way or or the other
Police and exercise a power to enter a property under the prevention or cruelty to animals Act so is that one of the exceptions you talk about :D

An sheer luck I have met police that think the RSPCA have more power than them when it comes to animals and they don't its just no one has told them otherwise so they think and tell people they can't when in fact they can!

Which is why I'm still in doubt whether you got it from the horses mouth or not. I guess I will have to attempt to look it up myself and educate myself on the powers of the companion animals acts In Other states

[sheerluck]

.........An sheer luck I have met police that think the RSPCA have more power than them when it comes to animals and they don't its just no one has told them otherwise so they think and tell people they can't when in fact they can!

Which is why I'm still in doubt whether you got it from the horses mouth or not. I guess I will have to attempt to look it up myself and educate myself on the powers of the companion animals acts In Other states

Feel free to look it up yourself DB. Having spent several hours in the company of, or on the phone to, several animal control officers from Logan City Council, as well as the pair of QPS officers, and then hours on top studying the laws, a fair bit of time bending my local councillor's ear about exactly what I thought about the law, and then finally my local state MP.

The Qld laws are pathetic. And the senior LCC animal control officer that came out to speak to us said that he was embarrassed to be associated with them.
(No, I'm not kidding).

[dullbird]

hahah I thought you were in Vic or is that the OP thats in Vic

[sheerluck]

hahah I thought you were in Vic or is that the OP thats in Vic

Neither of us. Both up here in Qld, though Jerry is in a different LGA.

[dullbird]

I just tried to read your ACT for QLD


hahahah OMG its NOT and easy Act to read :D

the must frustrating thing is it talks about authorised officers and part of the definition of that is can be a public officer but doesn't give the definition for public officer.

See in the companion animals Act of NSW an "authorised officer" can declare a dog Dangerous for example...now under the definition of authorised officer in that ACT a police officer is an authorised officer..

and that was just the point I was trying to make as half the police force would have no idea that they are Authorised officers under that Act but they are because by default they are for many many acts.

Thats where I was coming from...but it appears that all states really are that different or I have done an even worse job of reading the act then I thought. :):D

[dullbird]

In NSW, the only additional powers to a Police Constable, afforded to Local Council (Ranger's) under the Companion Animals Act is the ability to declare a dog to be a nuisance, a menace or dangerous and then enforce the control requirements that come with each individual order.

Drover I just read the compaion animals Act and it says:

34 Authorised officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#authorised_officer) may declare dog to be dangerous dog (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#dangerous_dog) or menacing dog (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#menacing_dog)


(1) An authorised officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#authorised_officer) of a council (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#council) may declare a dog to be a dangerous dog (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#dangerous_dog) if the authorised officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#authorised_officer) is satisfied that:
(a) the dog is dangerous (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#dangerous), or
(b) the dog has been declared a dangerous dog (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#dangerous_dog) under a law of another State or a Territory that corresponds with this Act.
(1A) An authorised officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#authorised_officer) of a council (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#council) may declare a dog to be a menacing dog (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#menacing_dog) if the authorised officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#authorised_officer) is satisfied that:
(a) the dog is menacing (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#menacing), or
(b) the dog is of a menacing breed or kind of dog (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#menacing_breed_or_kind_of_dog) (or a cross-breed of a menacing breed or kind of dog (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#menacing_breed_or_kind_of_dog)), or
(c) the dog has been declared a menacing dog (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#menacing_dog) under a law of another State or a Territory that corresponds with this Act.
(1B) A declaration may be made under this section even if the dog is ordinarily kept in another council (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#council)’s area (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#area).
(1C) The regulations may prescribe procedures that must be followed or matters that must be considered (or both) before an authorised officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#authorised_officer) makes a declaration under subsection (1A) (b).
(2) A declaration can be made on the officer’s own initiative or on the written application of a police officer or any other person.
(3) A declaration has effect throughout the State. It is not limited in its operation to the area (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#area) of the council (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#council) whose authorised officer (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#authorised_officer) made the declaration.

Now it says that the Authorised officer of a council

however in the definition of authorised officer

it says

"authorised officer" means:
(a) an employee of a local authority (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s6.html#local_authority) authorised by the local authority (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s6.html#local_authority) for the purposes of this Act, or
(b) a police officer.


So technically a police officer is considered an authorised officer under the definitions of this act so really the ranger does not have any more power they have the same power.

Sorry for the cut and paste:)

Sorry to the OP this has kind of gone off track a bit.

[sheerluck]

......however in the definition of authorised officer

it says

"authorised officer" means:
(a) an employee of a local authority (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s6.html#local_authority) authorised by the local authority (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s6.html#local_authority) for the purposes of this Act, or
(b) a police officer.


So technically a police officer is considered an authorised officer under the definitions of this act so really the ranger does not have any more power they have the same power.

Sorry for the cut and paste:)

Sorry to the OP this has kind of gone off track a bit.
[/INDENT]

This is still kind of relevant to the OP, but this is how the QLD equivalent to what you posted defines "authorised person":


Authorised persons Appointment and qualifications
Chapter 5 Part 1
(1) The chief executive officer of a local government may appoint any of the following persons as an authorised person to investigate, monitor and enforce compliance with this Act—
(a) an employee of the local government;
(b) a person prescribed under a regulation.

No mention specifically for police officers like you have in the NSW legislation.

The text in it's full glory, for anyone suffering from insomnia, is here https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2008/08AC074.pdf#

[RisingSun]

You will also find in QLD when a warrant is given to an Authorised Officer, and police are in attendance, the Authorised Officer is senior officer over the police, and they can only act under the legislation that the warrant is granted under.

The other issue is if the matter goes to court and the local council loses costs are awarded against the Authorised Officer, the local council usually covers the costs but if they refuse, the person who signed the declaration gets lumped with the costs.

[dullbird]

Yeah I know Sheerluck that's what I'm talking about but it doesn't give the definition of a public service officer...

did they tell you what that was by definition? its possible that that a public service officer could be a police officer perhaps? I dont know! public service I think is generally government isn't it the fact it has officer on the end makes me wonder.

like I said I found it hard to read the QLD Act as you can see from the NSW act the definition is very clear.

Appointment and qualifications
(1) The chief executive may appoint an individual as an authorised officer.
(2) However, an individual may be appointed as an authorised officer only if—
(a) the individual is—
(i) a public service officer or employee; or
(ii) included in a class of individuals declared under a regulation to be an approved class of persons for this section; and
(b) the chief executive is satisfied the individual has—
(i) the necessary expertise or experience to be an authorised officer; and
(ii) satisfactorily finished training approved by the chief executive.
(3) Subsection (2) does not limit the issues the chief executive
may consider when deciding whether to appoint an individual
as an authorised officer.