GRAPHIC IMAGES BELOW
A man who suffered life-threatening injuries because of a dog attack says if it had been his wife, daughter or a small child instead they likely would have been killed.
Malcolm Thorp was attacked by a dangerous Great Dane-mastiff cross while on a morning walk in Chifley in August last year.
Doctors told him he could have suffered a stroke due to undetected internal bleeding caused by a nick in a vein or artery in his arm.
Mr Thorp said if the ACT government investigated owners more thoroughly prior to granting dangerous dog licences he could have been spared severe trauma.
Darren Zolotto, 48, was sentenced in the ACT Magistrates Court last week for not complying with the conditions of a dangerous dog licence and for keeping a dog that attacked a person.
Two years prior to the attack the dog, Zue, jumped off Zolotto's ute and mauled a small dog being walked by its owner.
Zue was spared as Zolotto applied for and was granted the dangerous dog licence, which carries strict rules for how the dog must be kept.
The dog was put down shortly after attacking Mr Thorp.
In court, Zolotto's lawyer said his client suffered from mental health issues and his finances were controlled by the public trustee, meaning he was unable to pay Mr Thorp for lost wages.
Mr Thorp said it wasn't about money for him, fully expecting to be denied a cent, but about the safety concerns for the community.
"This was a killing machine," Mr Thorp said.
"If it had been my wife or my daughter or a small child it would have been a totally different outcome.
"[The government] gave [Zolotto] a licence in the first place, what did Domestic Animal Services do to check he was abiding by the conditions?"
While Mr Thorp was sympathetic to the man's mental health issues, he questioned whether that should have precluded him from obtaining the dangerous dog licence and said the government needed to implement a more comprehensive character test.
Shadow minister for urban services Nicole Lawder, who has been a vocal advocate for tougher dangerous dog laws, said she had heard lots of anecdotal evidence that Domestic Animal Services (DAS) was under resourced.
Ms Lawder said DAS officers had a tough job and had "more than enough on their plate" to also be doing random checks on dangerous dogs, and that making it much harder to keep a dangerous dog was the solution.
"If a dog causes the death of a domestic animal the research shows they may be more likely to attack again. We don't want that to happen," she said.
"If you're not prepared to take every step to ensure your dog cannot attack again, you shouldn't have that dog."
An ACT government spokeswoman said community safety was the primary concern when deciding whether to grant dangerous dog licences.
"[DAS] will continue to work with those people who have been issued with a dangerous dog licence to insure they are compliant with the requirements of their licence," she said.
"This will include physical checks of the applicant's property prior to and after the issuing of a dangerous dog licence, as well as the annual renewal of the licence."
DAS rangers can now do random compliance checks, she said.
An owner's character was considered with supporting evidence, she said, but it was incumbent upon applicants to provide truthful information.
Mr Thorp said when he was attacked Zue pushed through a faulty gate and was not kept in his enclosure as the licence stipulated.
