NSW Pet Dog Poisoned with 1080 Poison - Used without Warning?

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now
5 July 2014
1
0
1
Hi, was hoping for some advice about a case involving a pet dog that was poisoned and symptoms exactly matched 1080 poison. This poison was being used in the local state forest in NSW but was not used on the private property on which the dog died. The dog never left the property. There were no warning signs anywhere on the road that the property is located on, nor in the immediate area.

The owners of the property were not contacted and informed of the use in the area and certainly not on their property. Would the owners of the dog qualify for any form of compensation? Is there a legal obligation to inform property owners in writing that bait is being laid in their area?

Thanks
 

Tim W

Lawyer
LawTap Verified
28 April 2014
4,068
737
2,894
Sydney
Hi, was hoping for some advice about a case...
All we can do here is provide general information, which is not, and cannot be, a substitute for fully considered legal advice.
... involving a pet dog that was poisoned and symptoms exactly matched 1080 foxbait poison.
Is that a vet's formal opinion, following a post mortem on the dog? Or your layman's opinion?
This poison was being used in the local state forest in NSW but was not used on the private property on which the dog died. The dog never left the property.
Well, if the bait was laid in the forest, but not on the property, and the dog never left the property (a claim which you would need to support with evidence), then it defies logic for the dog to have consumed the bait otherwise than on your land.
There were no warning signs anywhere on the road that the property is located on, nor in the immediate area. The owners of the property were not contacted and informed of the use in the area and certainly not on their property.
Are you within 1 km of the land (forest, farm, or private) where the bait was laid?
Would the owners of the dog qualify for any form of compensation?
From whom?
In order to make a successful claim against a user of 1080, if the dog never left the property,
how will you show that another landholder (whether an authorised 1080 user or not)
is responsible for the death of your dog?
Is there a legal obligation to inform property owners in writing that bait is being laid in their area?
For some entities, some of the time.
NSWG makes orders relating to the use of pesticides.
In particular, there is the Pesticide Control (1080 Liquid Concentrate and Bait Products) Order 2010.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John R

winston wolf

Well-Known Member
21 April 2014
424
115
894
Adelaide
changefpa.com.au
I agree with Tim but would add that the bait could be carried to the dog by another animal, say a bird or rat.
I'm not sure of dose but the dog could also have eaten say a rat that had eaten the 1080.
Having said that I think you would need the dogs stomach contents tested before you could definitively blame 1080.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tim W and John R

gravhund

Member
1 August 2017
1
0
1
Well, if the bait was laid in the forest, but not on the property, and the dog never left the property (a claim which you would need to support with evidence), then it defies logic for the dog to have consumed the bait otherwise than on your land.

No, unfortunately it does not defy logic. 1080 sensitivity varies with species, and some species (and some mildly poisoned animals) can take up to 48 hours to die from 1080 poisoning. Dogs are extremely sensitive to 1080, and die easily from primary as well as secondary poisoning. Species that are less sensitive can make it quite far with 1080 in their bodies, so the dog could have been poisoned from scavenging on the property or catching a poisoned animal, even if no baits were laid on or near the property.