Several dog owners may face fines of up to $50,000 for encouraging rabid acts

Pet owners look out for their furry pals' well-being and happiness.

However, they are also responsible for its behaviour in the community.

This responsibility is being underscored in one state as dog attacks soar to unprecedented levels.


The South Australian government took a firm stance on pet management and animal welfare when it proposed reforms for the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995.

Under the draft, if dogs attacked a person or another animal, which resulted in severe injury or death, owners could be fined up to $25,000—a tenfold increase from the current penalty of $2,500.


dog farms.jpeg
The South Australian government emphasised the importance of responsible pet ownership and breeding in their proposed reforms. Image Credit: Pexels/Blue Bird


The stakes are even higher if your dog was previously declared dangerous by a local council.

In such cases, an attack could result in a fine of up to $50,000 for the owner—a significant jump from the current $10,000 penalty.

Moreover, suppose an owner deliberately encouraged their pet to attack or harass a person or animal. In that case, the consequences lead to a severe fine of up to $100,000 or a prison sentence of up to four years.


'The South Australian government is making sure penalties for violent dog attacks are a strong deterrent to ensure owners do everything they can to control their dogs,' Deputy Premier Susan Close stated.

This is a stark reminder to owners of dogs with a history of aggression to maintain strict control over their pets at all times.

The proposed changes—currently open for public consultation—also target the operation of puppy farms.

To combat the cruelty risks associated with breeding operations, the government proposed a cap of 50 female animals per breeding program and a maximum of five litters per female dog.

To further regulate the breeding industry, the proposal included:
  • A licensing and assessment system
  • Criminal background checks for breeders
  • Mandatory reporting for each litter
These measures aim to ensure that breeders operate ethically and transparently, with the animals' welfare being paramount.

Breeders who operate without a licence may face different penalties, including fines of up to $10,000.


This is part of the government's effort to eliminate unlicensed and potentially unethical breeding practices.

The South Australian government claimed that these proposed laws are among the strictest in the country, reflecting a growing trend towards more rigorous animal management and welfare standards.

Dog owners must stay informed about these potential changes to the law.

Not only could they have a significant financial impact, but they also emphasise the importance of responsible pet ownership and pet owner's roles in ensuring the safety and well-being of their community.
Key Takeaways

  • South Australian dog owners could face fines of up to $50,000 for dog attacks, with the government proposing reforms to increase penalties.
  • The penalties for dog attacks that cause severe injury or death could be up to $25,000. It could increase to $50,000 if the dog is already subject to a dangerous dog order.
  • Owners who incite their dogs to attack could face even harsher penalties, including a fine of up to $100,000 or imprisonment for up to four years.
  • The reforms also target puppy farms, proposing a limit on breeding and stringent licensing, including criminal background checks for breeders.
How do you feel about these proposed penalties? Will the proposed changes promote responsible pet ownership and prevent dog attacks? Share your insights with us in the comments below.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored
I live in South Australia, and this change is LONG OVERDUE. Our Golden retriever was attacked in a park at Murray Bridge two years ago and was lucky to survive. Our dog was on a leash and was attacked by an off leash pit-bull that charged her from 100 metres away. That dog then also attacked our car with us and our dog in it, after the initial attack. The owners were drop kick Bogans. Despite the whole thing being witnessed by two council workers on their lunch break, and filmed by a bi stander, the Murray Bridge council gave us the run around and took little action until we got the media involved (TV news and daily newspaper). Even then we were unable to find out the final outcome in relation to what, if anything, was done about the attacking dog. There are too many irresponsible dog owners in the community. If you are doing the right thing, you have nothing to fear from this change in our dog laws. Unfortunately, those that are the offenders are generally those that should not have dogs and will not have the money to pay the hefty fines, and will probably still be let off with a slap on the wrist.
 
Perhaps some barbed wire over the fence or would that be unsightly? The neighbours had a collie next door to us once and it killed are hens but she was adamant it wasn't her dog .
Definitely unsightly when there's blood all over the fence.
 
While agree with forcing pet owners to be responsible for their pet's aggression. If you have a pet dog of any breed and someone breaks into your home or property and your pet dog bites and injures the person committing the crime. I would hope such legislation does not cover would be thieves and criminals allowing them to sue homeowners if they have been bitten or injured by the family pet dog protecting its owners and their property. If a thief or criminal wishes to break into someone's home, then everyone has the right to defend their family and property. If the thief or criminal is injured during that confrontation, then they should have NO LEGAL RECOURSE over the homeowner or their pet dogs. If someone breaks into my home or property, then as far as I am concerned, they are armed, and they intend to harm my family and I would do everything in my power to stop them in their tracks.
While agree with forcing pet owners to be responsible for their pet's aggression. If you have a pet dog of any breed and someone breaks into your home or property and your pet dog bites and injures the person committing the crime. I would hope such legislation does not cover would be thieves and criminals allowing them to sue homeowners if they have been bitten or injured by the family pet dog protecting its owners and their property. If a thief or criminal wishes to break into someone's home, then everyone has the right to defend their family and property. If the thief or criminal is injured during that confrontation, then they should have NO LEGAL RECOURSE over the homeowner or their pet dogs. If someone breaks into my home or property, then as far as I am concerned, they are armed, and they intend to harm my family and I would do everything in my power to stop them in their tracks.
At the moment if anyone came to our property my 9 month German Shepherd would lick them to death but we are hoping she will get more protective as she gets older. l thought if a dog attacked an intruder in your home that it was their fault as they shouldn't be there in the first place
Definitely unsightly when there's blood all over the fence.
l know and l think it would be unsightly too but do you really think the dogs would even try it? .The only other thing would be using the hose
 
Thank goodness one state government is taking this issue seriously. Here's hoping other states follow suite. I am sick of having to defend myself against uncontrolled dogs racing towards me on my daily walk around the neighborhood. A reassurance from the owner that 'oh he doesn't bite' is not good enough. Most dog owners are responsible and lovely people, but there are still some rude and irresponsible pet owner who need to be reined in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marni
Definitely a good idea.
The cap of 50 breeding females seems astronomically high. If that's not puppy farming, I don't know what is.
I used to breed and show Siamese cats when I was younger.
Most people who breed for the love of animals would not have anywhere near that many, that is a money making exercise.
I never had any more than three breeding females
Many people bought dogs during COVID, when the prices were ridiculous, $5000 and up, with $! signs in their eyes.
Now that the prices are back around $1000 many of these dogs have been abandoned.
If you intend to buy a puppy firstly find an ethical breeder, choose a pup that suits your lifestyle. No sense buying an active breed if you don't have the hours required to walk it.
Puppies can be destructive, it is your responsibility to keep an eye on them and put in the necessary training so that you and your pet can live harmoniously together.
Dogs give unjudgemental love and will love you for ever.
Best friend you will ever have.
There are no bad dogs, just bad owners.
There are some breeds that can be more aggressive than others.
Don't choose one of these if looking for a family pet.
I currently have a rotti, have also had a doberman. Both beautiful dogs, great guard dogs but both great with children and they both get on great with my two little tibbies.
Loved our Doberman. Was so good with our kids. Saved us a couple of times as well. Perpetrators would run when the dog showed up
 
  • Like
Reactions: mylittletibbies
100% the pet owner is responsible for their pet…..also I agree there are no bad dogs, only bad owners…..Make sure to choose the right pet, one that you know you will be able to control. Please also think of homing a rescued pet…..there are not many better things to do than that, and the feeling you get is just the best 🤷‍♀️ 😇
 
I've travelled extensively through Europe, and in many cities, dogs must be muzzled if they are out of the home, this includes dogs on leashes. The muzzles allowed the dog to drink water, but not to open their mouth wide enough to bite anyone, or another dog! Why not make this law Australiawide?
 
I thought puppy farms in SA were the thing of the past, pet stores to my understanding do not have puppies for sale. Many stores closed due to not being able to sell puppies anymore. I could be mistaken, the upside was that people could get dogs from reputable breeders, the down side they are charging exorbitant prices for puppies. I agree that the owner should be responsible for the dog, if that dog attacks someone they should be fined, and sadly the dog would need to be euthanized. However making them pay that amount would be fine if that money went to the medical needs of the person/s that dog had attacked. If you are a pet owner then you are responsible for your dog/s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mylittletibbies

Join the conversation

News, deals, games, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.

Seniors Discount Club

The SDC searches for the best deals, discounts, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.
  1. New members
  2. Jokes & fun
  3. Photography
  4. Nostalgia / Yesterday's Australia
  5. Food and Lifestyle
  6. Money Saving Hacks
  7. Offtopic / Everything else
  • We believe that retirement should be a time to relax and enjoy life, not worry about money. That's why we're here to help our members make the most of their retirement years. If you're over 60 and looking for ways to save money, connect with others, and have a laugh, we’d love to have you aboard.
  • Advertise with us

User Menu

Enjoyed Reading our Story?

  • Share this forum to your loved ones.
Change Weather Postcode×
Change Petrol Postcode×