As we all cherish the companionship of our furry friends, it's essential to be aware of the local regulations that come with pet ownership.

A recent incident on the Sunshine Coast is a stark reminder that even the most well-intentioned dog owners can find themselves on the wrong side of the law, facing hefty fines for seemingly minor infractions.

Robyn, a fashion boutique owner at Moffat Beach, was enjoying a peaceful coffee break with her Blue Heeler, Violet, when she was unexpectedly approached by council workers.

Despite Violet being leashed and sitting quietly by Robyn's feet, the officers deemed the dog not under 'effective control' because the lead was resting on Robyn's foot rather than being held in her hand.

Dog owner Robyn received a huge fine over a small mistake. Credit: @whitandwatt / Instagram

This small oversight led to a staggering $806 fine, leaving Robyn in a state of shock and frustration.

‘I've got a small business and I'm struggling with that, and the council hits you with this,' she said.

'Violet was on lead, had a collar on, she was underneath my foot.'

'Dark hats, dark sunglasses, my dog is deaf and she actually got a bit frightened by them,' she added.

Robyn insisted she was on her rented property, not in a public area, and called the council the following day to check their decision.

The shop owner was initially told she wouldn't be fined, just given a warning. However, just days later, she received a fine.

The struggling retailer called the council in tears and even reached out to her local mayor.

‘I explained to her (the council worker) that we are lucky to keep our doors open in such tough times,’ she said.

When Robyn reminded them that the council workers had previously assured her it would just be a warning, she claimed the response she received was simply, ‘Sorry about that.’

Determined not to pay the fine, the shop owner says she plans to take Violet to court with her.

‘I've been going through a lot of financial stress, so it's easy for me to break down and bawl my eyes out because I'm trying to keep my shop afloat,’ she said.

Robyn believed dog owners need ‘clear clarification’ on the rules, as ‘a lot of people’ put the lead under their foot as well.

The Queensland Government has recently intensified its enforcement of these rules, with increased penalties that can even lead to imprisonment for owners of dogs that exhibit bad behaviour.

On the Sunshine Coast Council website, the updated state-wide laws are clearly outlined.

‘The Queensland Government has updated the penalty for not effectively controlling your dog in a public place,' it said.

'An on-the-spot fine will increase to $806. This includes having a dog off-leash in an on-leash area. Or, if the dog is in an off-leash area, the owner must be able to control the dog using voice command.'

Robyn's story is a cautionary tale for all dog owners. It's not just about the fine but also about understanding and adhering to local laws to ensure the safety and well-being of our pets and the community.

The incident has rallied local support for Robyn, with many calling the fine excessive and indicative of 'dog owner bullying’.

‘Had a similar experience—the council is a brick wall for these matters but happy to charge through the roof for rates,' one said.

Another added, 'Unbelievable! Will absolutely go in and complain on behalf of you.'

You can watch the video below:

Credit: @whitandwatt / Instagram​

Key Takeaways

• A Sunshine Coast boutique owner received an $806 fine for not holding her dog's leash in her hand while sitting outside her store.
• The council workers deemed the dog, Violet, to be not under effective control, despite her calm behaviour and being leashed.
• The shop owner, Robyn, contended that she was within her rented premises, not a public space, and had been initially told she would only receive a warning.
• Robyn has voiced her frustration over the lack of clear rules for dog owners regarding leash control and has gained local support against what is considered an excessive fine.

Have you ever faced a similar situation with your pet? Do you believe the laws are clear enough, or is there a need for better clarification? Let us know in the comments below!

 

[Ann Melling]

I have a beautiful dog, which I rarely walk in public space. Whether we like it or not, they are similar to people and can have instant dislike to other dogs. I don't want any dog or person to get injured in a dog fight.
I sympathise with the lady and believe it was an over reaction from the workers. Surely a warning would have been the better option.

They did give her a warning and then someone decided to send a fine out to her

 

[Jennylolo]

Unfortunately a leash held under a foot is not under control. It can easily pull and get away. It's really pushing the rules of being on a leash.

 

[Kman]

They did give her a warning and then someone decided to send a fine out to her

That's not really a warning then is it.

 

[Mika in the van]

I’m with the council but the fine is way too high. If our council enforced that law it wouldn‘t need the ratepayers to fund its new offices! We see far more dogs off leash than on leash in our zone. It’s annoying when you’re driving up the road and you have to watch out for peoples dogs because they like to free.

 

[Mika in the van]

I thought we got rid of the gestapo long ago I wondered where they went..is there anything we CAN do these days councils need to be reminded that THEY are there to manage OUR county (ITS NOT THEIRS) they are servants of the comunity NOT THE LORDS of the district, by all means fine guilty parties of breaches but when it comes to preventative legislation this must be up to the GOVERNMENT to lay down the law for AUSTRALIA OR THE STATE not just a district or shire....its really about revenue as far as councils go

That’s what rules are and councils job to enforce it. Yes the fine is way too high but perhaps the council in question is tired of dog attack complaints.

 

[Izzabel]

I was mowing the nature strip and my dog was walking up and down with me. Council Inspectorwalked up and asked. "Is that your dog"? My dog stayed quietly by my side and I said "Yes and she's not bothering anyone" Reply "That doesn't matter. She should be on a leash. You can be fined." What a jerk?

 

[Izzabel]

That’s what rules are and councils job to enforce it. Yes the fine is way too high but perhaps the council in question is tired of dog attack complaints.

Still gestapo tactics. Council animal inspectors are there to serve the people not to hand out fines. Do they get promoted or paid according to the amount of money they bring into the Council coffers. Give a warning and maybe a third strike a fine is issued, but let the fine reflect the crime!!!

 

[Kman]

I was mowing the nature strip and my dog was walking up and down with me. Council Inspectorwalked up and asked. "Is that your dog"? My dog stayed quietly by my side and I said "Yes and she's not bothering anyone" Reply "That doesn't matter. She should be on a leash. You can be fined." What a jerk?

You were lucky then. You got a slightly decent inspector.

 

[Kaj]

With you on that . There is an Dog Obedience tool which is called "Park". This is where you stand on the lead so the dog cannot go anywhere. This is used when you need both hands to do something.
Good luvk.

 

[oldsalt]

I thought I read she wasn't in a public space but on her own rented premises.....doesn't that make any difference?

She was on her property and the dog did have a collar and leash. If the dog had wanted to ''attack'' the poor useless council revenue raising employee then the restrain she had on the dog would have stopped it getting too far. Even if she had it around her feet is would not have taken long to grab the lead and halt the dog going any futher. It really is a step too far by the scaby council.

 

[Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka]

In my view if the dog was kept on her private property then the following applies and the fine should be withdrawn:
There is an excellent article at https://constitutionwatch.com.au/fee-simple/ which also refers to

Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34; 919230 33 CLR 1 (9August 1923)

QUOTE

Fee Simple.​

Posted onMay 10, 2022AuthorEditor

What is an Estate in Fee Simple?



Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34 (1923) 33 CLR 1

(9 August 1923)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KNOX C.J., ISAACS, HIGGINS, GAVAN DUFFY AND STARKE JJ.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PLAINTIFF

AGAINST

THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES AND ANOTHER DEFENDANTS

1920-1923: SYDNEY, Dec. 1-3, 1920; Mar. 21-29, 1922; Aug. 9, 1923 33 CLR 1

Extracts from Commonwealth Law Reports Volume 33 / 33 CLR 1:-

(1920) 33 CLR 1 at 42​

ISAACS J. In Challis's Real Property, 3rd ed., p. 218,

it is stated with perfect accuracy:—

“In the language of the English law, the word fee signifies an estate of inheritance as distinguished from a less estate; not, as in the language of the feudists, a subject of tenure as distinguished from an allodium.”

“Allodium being wholly unknown to English law, the latter distinction would in fact have no meaning.” “A fee simple is the most extensive in quantum, and the most absolute in respect to the rights which it confers, of all estates known to the law.”

“It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful right to exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land, every act of ownership which can enter into the imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste; and, for all practical purposes of ownership, it differs from the absolute dominion of a chattel,

in nothing except the physical indestructibility of its subject.”

“Besides these rights of ownership, a fee simple at the present day confers an absolute right, both of alienation inter vivos and of devise by will.” 2

Extracts from Commonwealth Law Reports Volume 33 / 33 CLR 1:-

(1920) 33 CLR 1 at 45

 

[Jay Jay]

To the dog owner:

My leashed dog was attacked by an unleashed dog in a leased public area twice in two days with owners calling their dog back with thier dog not obeying their orders. So I am not sympathetic to dog owners with unleashed dogs. Incidently, my dog would cost $8,000 to buy as a puppy and vet fees would greatly exceed $800.

However, what does leased/unleased actually mean. Your dog was on a leash?

You need proper legal advice … which is going to cost you a whole lot more than the $800 fine, and there is no guarantee of winning at court.

I note that you say that the dog is partly deaf, that would be a good reason to have a tight hold of the leash as the dog may not hear you call the dog back if it left you? Further, the reporting officers ‘scared’ your dog. A scared dog might be more inclined to bite the danger, hence all the more reason for having the dog on a tight leash?

If you go to court, do yourself a favour and don’t mention that the reporting officers scared your deaf dog.

in my view, an $800 fine is not enough for dog owners to have unleashed dogs in a leased area!

However a court may reduce that fine, or alternatively, having a party deaf and easily easily dog may increase such a modest fine with court costs.

If I saw a dog wearing a collar on a lead of some type running wild in a park with no person near the dig, would that dog be then be ‘Unleash’ at law? And the difference to that example and these facts would be … no running dog. But does that really make a legal difference?

The dog WAS leashed. Did you not read the article properly?

 

[Gerrit H. Schorel-Hlavka]

If a council can fine you for a dog on your property then they may do the same having a dog in the backyard! My blog https://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati shows how I resist council’s unconstitutional dictatorship in Victoria. The same applies in Queensland, etc.

 

[Yani]

The question I ask is. When a dog or pet is registered at this council in question. Does the council give the owner an up-to-date list of the regulations and responsibilities that are expected to be adhered to?

 

[Veggiepatch]

The question I ask is. When a dog or pet is registered at this council in question. Does the council give the owner an up-to-date list of the regulations and responsibilities that are expected to be adhered to?

Extend that to changes to motor vehicle laws and regulations by the respective State governments.

 

[Yani]

Extend that to changes to motor vehicle laws and regulations by the respective State governments.

That's a valid point.

 

[Mika in the van]

To all those owners who think their dogs should be allowed to go unleashed, who are you going to blame if they get run over? The poor car driver? The poor dog? Or will you accept responsibility?
We have more unleashed dogs than leashed dogs walking in our estate (all in an 80 Kmph zone).