A ST JAMES man says he is disappointed that the City of Canning has decided not to |officially classify as dangerous two dogs he says escaped from their yard and mauled his chickens.
Adrian, who did not want his surname published, said the dogs – a kelpie and mastiff cross – regularly escaped their block and wandered throughout neighbours’ yards.
He said the dogs entered his yard about 6.30am one day last month and attacked his chickens, injuring three and killing one.
He saw the mauling and reported it to the City of Canning.
A City spokeswoman said:
“The City has completed an investigation into the alleged incident and is currently reviewing an appropriate course of action.”
Adrian said the attack happened after the City had installed a trailer fitted with CCTV to monitor the dogs.
However, the mauling incident on January 6 was not recorded because the City had removed the batteries from the camera to recharge them.
The City spokeswoman confirmed the timeline.
“After receiving a complaint by a ratepayer, the City installed a CCTV camera on a trailer to see if video of an |offence could be recorded.
“The trailer was fitted and tested by the City on 17 |December 2016 and placed in view of the supplied address.
“It was re-fitted and tested again after the City took the camera offline to charge the batteries from 30 December 2016 to 2 January 2017.
“It was then fitted and tested again from January 10 to January 17. All instances when the camera was tested it was in working order,” she said.
Adrian said he felt the City was not taking the incident |seriously and called on the council to deem the dogs dangerous under section 33E of the Dog Act.
The Act states: A local government (can) … declare an individual dog to be a dangerous dog (declared) if, in the opinion of the local government or that person – the dog has caused injury or damage by an attack on, or chasing, a person, animal or vehicle.
“These dogs are a risk to the area. They have shown they have a propensity to attack and I would hate to think what would happen six months down the track if a child is mauled,” Adrian said.
The dogs were later impounded after they were found roaming the street but were returned to their owner.
“It is ridiculous to think the council waited for the dogs to commit further offences before impounding them,” Adrian said. “They are an accountable agency and they are treating the public as though they are uneducated. I want the City of Canning to take the matter |seriously.”
The City spokeswoman disputed the dogs in question were known for roaming the streets.
“The address in question does not have a record with the City of being notorious for escaping dogs,” she said.