The NT Government is under pressure to crack down on dangerous dogs from a grandmother who thought her hand was being ripped from her arm during one of the 240 alleged dog attacks in the Darwin and Palmerston City Council areas over the past eight months.

Key points: Diana Thompson wants the NT Government to implement a Dog Act

Diana Thompson wants the NT Government to implement a Dog Act This would see owners of dogs involved in attacks face criminal charges and major penalties

This would see owners of dogs involved in attacks face criminal charges and major penalties It would also have third-party insurance included in dog registrations

Palmerston resident Diana Thompson had teeth broken, bones crushed, tissue ripped from her arm, three tendons severed and an artery damaged during an attack while walking her own dog in late February.

The 77-year-old endured four operations and spent almost three weeks in hospital.

Her greyhound was also hurt in the attack, and medical treatment cost more than $900 in veterinary bills.

The Palmerston City Council spent more than a month investigating the incident, which resulted in a $450 fine for the owners of the dog that attacked.

The council is still seeking a court order to have the dog destroyed.

Proposal to see dog owners face major penalties

But current legislation and council bylaws failed to help Ms Thompson, who believes the only way to be compensated for mounting medical and veterinary bills is by launching a civil case, which she has not decided whether to pursue.

So last week she and partner Paul Sedman lodged a submission to the NT Parliament's Animal Protection Bill, calling for action.

It outlined their idea for a 'Dog Act', which would cover seven areas.

"Both Diana and myself are totally dumbfounded by the lack of any real controls, and find this incident totally unacceptable for our Territory community that we have lived in and loved for so many years," Mr Sedman wrote in the submission.

"Our councils, although the rangers do as good a job as possible with the current bylaws, don't seem equipped to handle the legal ramifications of this dog security issue.

"These problems have been around for too long and need a strong NT Government approach to do it now — you will have support from the majority of the community."

Their proposal would see owners of dogs that attack face criminal charges and major penalties "that actually have teeth".

They also called for the immediate euthanising of a dog that attacks a person in public, and for third-party insurance to be included in dog registrations.

A public education campaign, heavy fines for owners not restraining their dogs at any time and minimum fencing standards were also put forward.

The Department of Primary Industry and Resources said it would not be able to comment on their ideas until the committee process has been completed.

The submission was made to the Animal Protection Bill, which is currently with the Social Scrutiny Committee.

The bill seeks to repeal the current Animal Welfare Act and create a new Animal Protection Act, to strengthen animal welfare policies.

Diana Thompson attached this photo to the submission, showing her dog attack injuries. ( Supplied: Diana Thompson and Paul Sedman )

More than seven people attacked a week

Since July 1 last year, Palmerston City Council received 74 dog attack complaints, while Darwin City Council said 166 dog attacks, of varying severity, were alleged during the same period.

That equated to more than seven attacks a week over the eight months.

However, earlier this month Palmerston City Council chief executive Luccio Cerarelli said there had been 15 attacks in the Palmerston municipality.

ABC is awaiting a response as to why the counts were so different.

While the Darwin Council said 46 dogs were euthanised during the eight months, only nine were involved in attacks.

Earlier this month, Mr Cerarelli said council undertook various education programs for dog owners.

He also said the investigation into Ms Thompson's attack would take five to 10 days — whereas it ended up taking more than a month.

But the council said as it was pursuing this matter through court it would not be appropriate to comment at this stage.