Gold Coast resident Maria Childs is planning an appeal after her staffy was declared dangerous

This is how staffy and ‘good girl’ Maddie became the poster pooch for a movement fighting the Gold Coast’s ‘unjust’ dog laws. Read what happened

Gold Coast resident Maria Childs is planning an appeal through the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal after her eight-year-old English staffy, Maddie, was declared dangerous.

The only thing more emotive than a dog, is a dog attack.

Whether involving an adult, child or another fur baby, it’s a horrific experience that can leave an entire neighbourhood terrified as to when, where or whether there will be another victim.

But have we allowed our emotion to blur our objectivity when it comes to determining whether a bark might worsen to a bite?

A growing number of owners, lawyers and community safety advocates are pushing to muzzle our lawmakers, as they argue a fear of civil liability has led to a legal over-reach.

Gold Coast resident Maria Childs has just launched a petition against council and is planning an appeal through the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal after her eight-year-old English staffy, Maddie, was declared dangerous.

In the petition, Ms Childs said Maddie was attacked and cornered by two dachsunds and bit back in defence.

She said despite evidence from an animal behaviour expert and veterinarians, as well as more than 40 letters and emails referencing Maddie’s ‘good character’, her dog was still declared dangerous.

Gold Coast resident Maria Childs is planning an appeal through the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal after her eight-year-old English staffy, Maddie, was declared dangerous.

“You just don’t understand how bad the law is for your dog and how little defence you have,” said Ms Childs.

“Maddie has always been well-behaved and never had any previous incidents or conflicts with other dogs. However, following the recent incident, Maddie was unjustly labeled as dangerous, while the dogs that instigated the attack are allowed to roam freely.

“We provided the City of Gold Coast Council with our witness statements (and) statements regarding the dachshunds’ aggressive behaviour that entire afternoon so that they could understand that Maddie is a calm and beautiful natured dog who is no threat to anyone.

“The council never once wanted to meet with Maddie to see her nature even though one inspector stated, ‘I am sure she is a good girl’ in declaring her dangerous.”

The City of Gold Coast stated it may regulate a dog as dangerous or menacing if it had acted in a way to cause fear to a person or animal, bitten or attacked a personal or animal, or been previously regulated by another local government.

“Appeals can be made in writing to the City’s Animal Management team within timelines provided in the relevant correspondence issued to an owner/keeper. Once a written appeal is received, a review of the case is conducted. Each case is considered on its own merit.”

Ms Childs said while she was offered an internal review, she felt it was not objective as it was carried out by the same team and she would now take her case to QCAT.

She said the dangerous dog declaration meant Maddie must be muzzled whenever outside her unit, that she must be housed inside a small enclosure within the unit whenever they were not present, that she could not be off-leash anywhere but inside the unit and that she must always wear a bright red and yellow collar, signifying she was declared dangerous.

“Please know that if Maddie was in any way a danger to the public, we would not be fighting this declaration,” said Ms Childs.

Gold Coast resident Maria Childs is planning an appeal through the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal after her eight-year-old English staffy, Maddie, was declared dangerous.

Now, it’s easy to assume that this is a case of upset owners biting back at authorities, but it seems that Maddie’s family are not alone in this plight.

Not only is there a Facebook group, dubbed ‘declared but NOT dangerous dog support group’ for affected Queensland owners, but lawyer Annie Greenaway said this state was the worst when it came to over-zealous animal laws.

“The dog laws in Queensland are a joke,” said Ms Greenaway, who runs Lawyers for Companion Animals.

“They allow absolute zero tolerance for provocation. If a dog has a 10-year history of perfect behaviour but then reacts to extreme provocation, the dog will be declared dangerous once a proposal has been issued.

“Some council staff talk to me in despair at the dog laws. They don’t like declaring many of the dogs but their hands are tied by the legislation.

“Councils have far too much power and some abuse this. The dog laws in Queensland do not keep residents safer, not in the least.”

Ms Greenaway said her law firm had assisted in hundreds of cases, and was often successful in overturning council declarations.

Law firm Armstrong Legal stated that, in Queensland, a local government, council officer or authorised person could declare that a dog was dangerous or menacing even on the basis that it was ‘likely to attack or terrify another animal or person’.

There is absolutely no doubt that the safety of our community should be paramount, but dog owners should also feel safe that they won’t be pre-emptively hounded, no pun intended.

While humans, rightly, receive precedence, surely there is room too for some animal justice.

Every dog has its day, after all.