A shooting group’s refusal to allow an assistance dog on a hunting trip does not amount to discrimination, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia has ruled.
Retiree James Klein challenged a 2022 decision made by the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Queensland) Inc (SSAA) that he could not attend a feral-animal hunt in scrubland with his Psychiatric Assistance Dog.
In a judgment delivered in Brisbane on 25 February, Judge Egan dismissed Mr Klein’s complaint made to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), ruling safety in the use of firearms was paramount.
Mr Klein, 76, submitted he relied on four-year-old boxer Annie for help to manage stress and anxiety, and argued the dog should have been allowed to accompany him on the “Amiens project” in the New England Tablelands of New South Wales planned for May 2022.
An assistance dog had accompanied him on two such hunts in 2015-16, but he had not sought permission from the association on either project. On one trip, the association’s team leader had refused to allow Mr Klein to take his dog but relented once a land owner gave permission.
On the Amiens Project registration form in May 2022, Mr Klein did not nominate he wanted to take Annie. He later emailed SSAA’s Conservation and Wildlife Management (CWM) sub-committee, which was running the project, about his perceived rights.
In December 2022, he was advised by SSAA that: “After much consideration, it is not in the best interest for an assistance dog to attend a project for feral animal control, nor is it appropriate for any assistance dog/animal to be left unattended on a private property whilst a SSAA CWM Qld Project is being conducted.”
Four days later, Mr Klein lodged a complaint with the AHRC, related to the association’s refusal to provide him with contact details of the project property owners to enable him to ask permission to bring the dog onto their properties.
Judge Egan accepted evidence from the association’s safety officer that the presence of a dog elevated the risk of serious harm to a participant, especially in rough terrain and where a vehicle had not been specially modified to allow safe shooting from it.
He also accepted evidence from the association president in relation to potential safety issues that could arise from having the dog at the hunt, such as slip, trip and fall concerns; hunting at night; and the dog becoming frightened and biting a team member.
The leader of the 78,000-member group also raised the high probability of a negligent or accidental discharge of a firearm as a result of manoeuvring with firearms and a dog, including injury to the dog.
She also raised concern that if the dog was left at camp by itself, it could break loose and become lost, where it could be shot by property owners or hunters, or pick up poison bait.
Judge Egan found … “it was not discriminatory conduct toward the applicant for the association to prevent all its members from taking animals with them on a shoot based upon, and relevantly because of, safety concerns”.
“The fact of the applicant’s disability, even accepting that the existence of an assistance animal merged into the applicant’s disability, played no part in the making of the decision,” he said.
He said action taken to protect other shooters from their possible death at the hands of Mr Klein was not action which placed the member in a less favourable position than other members, under the Act.
In all the circumstances, the association’s refusal placed Mr Klein in a “less precarious, better, or more favourable position that if he had been allowed to take the dog with him”, he said.
“The added dynamic of a dog being introduced into a live firing environment on a feral animal shoot, particularly when it was intended that the dog would remain inside the applicant’s unmodified vehicle when the applicant was shooting from it, would have clearly increased the risk of distraction on the part of the applicant, increasing the risk of serious harm or death being suffered not only by other shooters, but conceivably by the applicant as well,” he said.
“There is a myriad of circumstances in which one might imagine how a momentary distraction to the applicant’s concentration caused by actions on the part of the dog could result in a fatality.
“The decision of the association was one designed to protect people such as the applicant from themselves – from their own recklessness.”
Judge Egan pointed out that parliament could not have intended that a decision of the association designed to protect human life would be found as unlawful on the ground of disability discrimination.
“Further, the association’s decision negated the possibility of the applicant facing criminal charges in the event of a mishap causally related to the presence of the dog on a shoot,” he said.
“It further protected the association and its members from civil claims, unprotected as they likely were, from claims arising out of misadventure causally related to the presence of the dog on a shoot, especially where the applicant’s stated intention was to shoot from his unmodified 4WD vehicle.”
Share this article