The ACT Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld a decision by Domestic Animals to destroy two Bull Arab cross dogs which had scaled a two-metre fence to kill a German shepherd next door this year.

"The tribunal considers that the combination of being hunting dogs with the attack of Khan [the German shepherd] leads to them being considered as a future danger to the public or another animal," a decision published last week said.

The tribunal heard the Bull Arab crosses, named Kogan and Boo, had been cared for by the owner’s partner as he had been interstate for work in January.

Between 8.30am and 7pm, the dogs jumped a two-metre high Colorbond fence and attacked and killed a German shepherd, Khan, who lived there.

Khan's family returned home that evening to find Kogan and Boo in their backyard, Khan dead, and tufts of black hair and blood spread around a concreted area.

There was blood on Kogan's nose.

Rangers seized Kogan and Boo and Animal Services decided to destroy the pair as it could not be satisfied that the hunting dogs would not be a danger to the public or another animal if released back into the community.

The dog's owner asked the ACAT to review the decision, offering to fix the fences to prevent future escape, build a new secure enclosure, and have the animals de-sexed.

The tribunal heard the man used the animals for pig hunting and had an unused secured dog run in his backyard.

The owner argued the decision to destory his animals had been unfair as they had not been temperament tested and assumptions made by the investigator had been incorrect and unfair given his animals were pig hunting dogs.

He also complained about the length of time it had taken to complete the investigation.

The owner asked the tribunal to declare the dogs dangerous, fine him, and the enclosures be inspected upon the dogs' return to him.

He also argued there was no evidence that Boo had been involved in the fatal attack and, therefore, should not be euthanased.

The tribunal heard character references attested to the owner's affection for his dogs and the dogs’ obedience and good behaviour.

ACAT senior member Mary Brennan found that, based on the ferocity and severity of the fatal attack, the tribunal could not be "reasonably satisfied that either dog is unlikely to be a danger to the public or another animal".

She dismissed the application to save the dogs.

"The respondent submitted that their training as hunting dogs coupled with the killing of Khan, demonstrated a likelihood that this behaviour may be repeated," Ms Brennan wrote.

"The tribunal's attention was also drawn to the fact that Khan was attacked at the site of his head and neck which, if repeated, would be likely to result in serious injury or death to any future victim.

"The tribunal notes and regrets the distress this case has caused to the applicant."