‘Unusual’ case of dog attack on deer

Press, 15 September 1988, Page 26

‘Unusual’ case of dog attack on deer

A “good Samaritan” act by a man in caring for a bull terrier dog which he found on the street led to his prosecution in the District Court yesterday. The charge arose from the dog’s escaping and attacking deer on a deer farm on the outskirts of the city. The defendant, aged 46, was discharged without conviction on a charge of being the owner of a bull terrier dog which attacked deer on May 26. Judge Fogarty accepted submissions by defence counsel, Mr I. Hunt, for a discharge without conviction and for suppression of the defendant’s name from publication. ■The defendant originally pleaded not guilty to the charge, but changed his plea to guilty yesterday.

Sergeant K. J. Morrison said the complainant, a deer farmer, saw and shot the dog on his property on the early morning of May

24. Two fallow deer were found to be distressed. The complainant considered the animals had suffered enough from the dog attack, and without seeking a veterinary inspection, cut their throats. The two deer were valued at $3500. A post-mortem examination on the two deer showed little injury and it was difficult to determine why they had had to be destroyed. When questioned the defendant said he could not understand the dog’s escaping from the compound in which it was housed, Sergeant Morrison said. Mr Hunt said the defendant had found the dog loose near his property early in May. Because it was of a breed used by “certain groups” for dog fighting he was concerned it would get into the wrong hands, so caught it and secured it on his property. He notified the

local authority’s dog inspector and it was taken to a dog pound but the owner could not be found. The defendant took back the dog, deciding to make further attempts to find the owner. These included approaching a bull terrier society. He did not advertise the dog for fear of attracting the interest of “undesirables.” Mr Hunt detailed the security of the compound in which the dog had been housed, and said the defendant had not reckoned on the strength of the dog in wrenching the bottom of wire mesh fencing with its muzzle, forcing its way out and then going to the complainant’s deer farm. Mr Hunt said the defendant did not accept that the dog physically attacked the deer, in the sense of savaging them. He did accept that the dog went on to the property and frightened the deer. A veterinary surgeon had concluded that while

there was a possibility some of the injuries were caused by the dog, it was equally possible they were caused by the deer running into a fence, counsel said. This veterinarian’s opinion was that the deer need not have been destroyed. Mr Hunt said the defendant found himself in this situation because of his responsible action of caring for the dog while he tried to find its owner. The Judge said the case was an unusual one of its type. The whole incident was unfortunate from the point of view of everybody concerned. Photographs of the compound in which the defendant had kept the dog showed that it appeared very secure.

It was amazing that the dog had the strength and knowledge to escape from it, he said.