Mitchell Shire Council may soon learn that the community’s bite is a lot worse than its bark if its reaction to the charges against Tallarook farmer Denis Leahy is any indication.
Last week the Review reported that council is taking Mr Leahy to court claiming he unlawfully destroyed two dogs.
Mr Leahy is charged under section 84ZA of the Domestic Animals Act, which states it is an offence to unlawfully seize or destroy a dog or cat. However, section 30 of the Act also states the owner of any animals or birds kept for farming purposes, may destroy any dog or cat found at large in the place where the animals or birds are confined.
At present an offence under section 84ZA carries a penalty of not more than three penalty units, raising the question of a cost benefit to both council and its ratepayers. The maximum fine would be $576 – far less than the legal costs of obtaining that result.
This has raised questions from the community ranging from council wasting rate money to apparent unfair double standards.
The Review asked council why the owner of the dogs has not been charged as they were allowed to wander at large in contravention of the act and could council justify yet another expense against ratepayer funds.
Mitchell Shire chief executive Brett Luxford responded saying that council was unable to comment on the details of the matter as it was before the court.
In last week’s Review, Seymour farmer Lance Mark questioned why council had decided not to prosecute the dog’s identified owner, by allowing their dogs to wander at large.
“Our Human Rights law requires Mitchell Shire to treat everyone fairly and equally. There are no two options to ensure justice,” Mr Mark wrote.
“What a disgusting use of ratepayer’s money to pursue a farmer for protecting his livelihood and animals. Surely there are more important things to spend our money on,” Pyalong farmer, Leone Ryan wrote.
David Waye, in this week’s Letters to the Editor, expressed concern that if council is successful in prosecuting Mr Leahy, then all farmers should be worried.
“If affected by wandering predatory dogs, they may be forced to make choices between sacrificing their own stock to avoid prosecution, or protecting their stock and facing prosecution,” he said.
Mr Waye suggested that council is refining its campaigns by zeroing in onto a respected farmer for the ‘crime’ of protecting his own property.
Kim Studd suggested that if the farmer saw the dogs attacking his sheep, he had a right to protect them.
“And what do council and RSPCA do with harmless animals if no one collects them? They put them down rather than allowing rescue centres to save them.”
Rural journalist Fran Cleland described the situation as an “absolute disgrace” stating that Mr Leahy was defending his flock.
“If you have ever seen what a dog attack does to a helpless sheep you would understand his actions,” she wrote.
