StaceyB

So sorry for your loss Teebs

There will be an ongoing investigation...there might be details we are unaware of. I agree with you, if all 6 dogs were involved in the attack, then all six really need to be PTS, but there must be a reason we don't know about...maybe the owners only surrendered three willingly, and are fighting for the others, and there might be red tape involved, or not enough proof of the others involvement...who knows? I read in one of the articles that the other 3 dogs had been removed from the property when the rangers arrived to seize them all. I think they are just delaying the inevitable though, if 3 dogs were put down over the attack it's very unlikely that 3 others involved in the same attack would be let off. I am a bit curious to know what the breed of the 6th dog is though, only because they listed the breeds of the other 5...

I doubt that saying anything in this situation would have made one bit of difference. Given the childs language I don't think they would care much for the moral high ground and would probably just tell you to F off and mind your own business; living in a low socio-economic area has taught me to be a bit cynical and just keep my mouth shut , last time we tried to do the right thing it ended up getting our dog baited (luckily they were your stereotypical white trash idiots and couldn't got it right so there was nothing more then a sore tummy and an arvo in the vets for observation). Hopefully the pups that went to the staff members will be well taken care of though, they may not know any better but it doesn't mean they will be bad owners. ETA - not purely based on the kids language btw, but on the overall info given about the family

I agree, if they were my dogs I wouldn't hesitate to have them PTS. It would rip my heart out to do it, but it would be done.

I would assume that the child and dogs were supervised, just on the grounds that 6 large dogs trained and used for hunting could very quickly and easily kill a child and the adults would have had to have been close by to shield the girl so quickly. Having said that though, they should have been locked away securely. Anything could have set them off and it's likely that we'll never know what happened in the moments leading up to the attack. My heart goes out to the girl and her family as well as the owners of these dogs. It's a terrible and traumatic even for everyone and I hope the girl recovers well.

IMO it's up to the owner to know the temprement of the breed and their individual dog and treat it accordingly. My dog is dog aggressive (breed trait) and an escape artist, it's my responsibility to ensure that she is contained at all times and not put in a situation where an attack it likely to occur. It's not my dogs fault that her breed was bred and used for dog fighting for 100's of generations, you can't do anything about natural instinct. It's just too easy to open the local paper and just buy a dog because it's the right price with no thought to the temperament and development of the breed so people end up with a dog they have no idea how to handle. Ultimately, regardless of whether the person is a responsible owner or not they are legally responsible for anything and everything that dog does. I have spend a lot of money on training and behaviourists over the years and my dog is contained as best I can but if she got out and caused a car accident or attacked another animal etc then I am responsible for that.

I actually think thats not a bad idea, kind of like a public liability policy.

A lot of folk freeze in situations like that.. especially situations they have not been trained for. These are cops though, not untrained men. Even if they haven't been trained to deal with a dog attack specifically they would surely have had training in dealing with crazies with lethal weapons. If you can sort out an idiot with a knife or gun dealing with a dog is not that much of a stretch.

Oh, that is just disgraceful! Poor dog, I feel so sorry for the owner. All over a damn clerical error At least they had the decency to offer a public apology though.

I hope she made a formal complaint to the council about it! What an absolute sh!t of thing to say to anyone, let alone a pregnant woman who'd just watched her puppy being attacked and killed. Some dog owners really need a good smack in the head! If they are going to own a dog that has attacked the very least they can do is step up and take responsibilty for it. RIP Sophie and all the others who have suffered such horrible ends.

In WA a pet bond is standard. I have always paid it and it's a normal part of the standard lease agreement, just doesnt get filled out if you don't have a pet. I have found that the area you look at is a big factor for how many pet friendly rentals there are too. I live in a low socio-economic area and it's probably about a 50/50 chance of getting somewhere pet friendly. I do hate the whole pets or kids arguement though, the most damage thats been caused to my current house is a few big chips in the walls from the vacuum cleaner banging into the corners/door frames. Yes, my dog digs the odd hole in the yard and yes, my 2 yr old has drawn on the walls a few times. And both are told off each time it happens and we clean it up. If the tennant is responsible and actually cares about the place they live pets and children wont be a problem. An irresponsible tennant is going to cause damage regardless of what 'dependants' they have.

Poor little thing. Very lucky the injuries werent worse with that many spines.

Thats exactly it Megan, you can supervise till the cows come home but if you dont know what warning behaviours to look for there's not much you can do to prevent a disaster - and even then accidents still happen. A dog can be totally fine, have the best training in the world and very tolerant 95% of the time, but just like us there will be some times when they are just not in the mood to tolerate being grabbed at, hugged or played with by a toddler because they are rough and full on and unfortunately at this age there's only so much you can do to explain or show them how to play with the dog.

I agree that it sounds like just 1 snap rather than an "attack" as such, but we don't know if they dog and child were unsupervised. It happens because toddlers are erratic and things can happen very quickly whether someone is watching or not. I always supervise my 2yr old playing with our dog and she has been given a few warnings when she's gotten too rough for Gypsy to tolerate, and they are very quickly separated. I do the best I can to teach my daughter how to interact properly with the dog, but she is 2 years old and doesn't have the understanding that an older child would. There are no details about the incident reported in any of the articles so there is no way to know what the circumstances are.

Regardless of who was caring for the girl at the time she should not have been outside unsupervised at that age let a lone at night. I hadn't heard about the chicken carcass, but I had heard the other details at the time (dogs were in an enclosure and the child scaled a fence 2 houses away to get to the dogs...) I dont blame the dogs in this situation at all. Put a motivator like a chicken carcass in with a pack of dogs and things will get ugly. The child can't be blamed either, she was 4 years old and had no concept that what she was doing was dangerous. The fault lies with whoever was caring for her at the time, either the parents or a babysitter, they had a duty of care towards the child and they failed in that responsibility. A dangerous dog declaration would have made bugger all of a difference really. The dog were already in a locked enclosure and I dont think a 4 year old is going to pay much attention to dangerous dog signs or high vis collars.

I agree with all of these, but would add desexing, unless they are used for showing/breeding. OH & lots of love. I agree with all of these. Also, putting in the effort to correct any issues that arise (like re-training when situations change and undesirable behaviours start happening) and realising when you're in over your head and need help. And worst case scenario (whether from illness, injury or behavioural issues) when it's time to consider having the dog PTS, as hard as that choice is.

I see that remark as being rude & insensitive & quite stupid under the circumstances. Even if the child was a silly little brat that ran up to the dog, which he obviously is not, no mother with a child that is badly injured & traumatised needs to be told this or be told how to feel about the dog at this moment. Hopefully the child will come out of this ok mentally & physically & kind words to this effect is all she needs right now. The rest can be sorted later, including the fate of the dog. Agree. It is totally the dog owners responsibility. An even tempered dog doesn't just snap. If I take my dog to someone's house or stall in this case, how my dog behaves would be totally my responsibility. If there are kids around, it would be my responsibility to ensure that my dogs don't harm them. I am sorry but I disagree with that and feel in this day and age "everything" is lumped onto the dog owner where in many cases these incidents could have been avoided with some good parental education for children how to behave around other people's dogs. We don't know the exact circumstances of this case, but if the dog was leashed and under handler control, there is no need for a child to be within a close proximity of the dog with the assumption that the dog is ok. It's getting worse by the day in general where parents allow their children to rush at and want to pat everyone's dog, then blame the dog owner when it turns to s&*%. As a child, I went to many shows with my nanna, she was an exhibitor and my mum was a trainer/handler and the golden rule I was taught from an early age was to leave other people's dogs alone, don't approach them and don't pat them because they can bite. It wasn't about blame, it was about proactive bite prevention management for children in those days I am talking 40 years ago now, but the system worked and being raised to respect what a dog may be capable of and learn the truth of potential dog behaviour didn't effect me or cause me to fear dogs, quite the opposite in fact. We were taught with our own dogs never to stare them out at close range, never to blow in their face or poke at them stupidly etc, we were taught the good and bad things about dogs and to respect an unknown dog's personal space and I have to be honest to say that many of these incidents involving childen had the children been taught the old school rules that I learned, most of these incidents wouldn't have happened. Putting dogs to sleep and having dog owners charged with offences after the fact doesn't undo the pain and trauma inflicted upon a child, but preventative manangement with proper eductation does prevent many these terrible situations occurring in the first place, it's not about right or wrong, it's about protecting childen from the vulnerability of suffering injuries from dogs when we are dealing with animals who can be unpredicatable. No dog is 100% bullet proof and no child IMHO should ever be led to believe that they are for my 2 cents worth. I think thats a very broad generalisation m-sass. Yes, there are some parents out there who have no sense around strange dogs and dont teach their children the correct way to interact with them, but the same can be said about dog owners. I seriously doubt that these generalisations are at all relevant in this situation. I would assume that both the dog owner and the childs mother would be fairly experienced in dealing with dogs given that they were at a dog show. I do agree with your last statement that no dog is 100% bomb proof and children should be taught that, I try to instill that lesson in my daughter every time we see a dog out in public. Theres really not enough information available here to know without doubt what happened, for all we know the dog could have been bitten on the arse by an ant or something and then bitten the closest thing (which would account for no warnings from the dog) out of pain and shock

I hope your boy makes a quick recovery Shezz, both pysically and emotionally.

Sounds to me like curiosity. If she's not been around such a little kitten before she probably doesnt know what to make of it.

Thats really sad, what a horrible way to find out. Really crappy on the councils part!

This refers to deaths outside Australia It refers to harming Australian Citizens. As this is the Australian Criminal Code it doesn't apply in other countries as they have their own laws. Section B covers the scenario. And Raz, no-one has said specifically that they hate children (that I am aware of). But they have made their feelings clear on the subject, they obviously do not like children. There are many here who don't. Not everyone has to like kids, but if you make comments that you would leave a child to die in a burning house on a public forum then you'd better expect to cop some sh!t over it. ETA - just for the sake of clarity - that was a general 'you' not a specific 'you'.

And seeing as how you live on the other side of the country and my oldest child is 2 I'd be wonder WTF they were doing there too Just because a child is nearby doesnt automatically mean they did anything either, Id be more interested in finding out what caused the fire before I start pointing fingers.

Really? could you please cite the relevant sections of legislation? You have legal no duty of care if someone has a heart attack in the street, even if you are in the medical profession, and it could be said that you are making a concious choice to allow them to potentially die. Obviously if you are a firefighter or something and you choose to not help them or rescue an animal first, then you could be held legally responsible. I really don't see how, as an average person, you could possibly be held responsible for another persons accidental death even if you decided to get your own family (including pets) out of harms way first. Australian Criminal Code - Sect 115.2 And since the original statement that has gotten most peoples backs up refers to a burning house where their dogs are kept it is a reasonable assumption that this would be your own home, therefore there is an implied duty of care for any child (as a legal minor) left in your care. Sorry, don't really know where I've said it's okay to do that. I certainly haven't labelled the child in question. I know other people have, but I haven't, and I haven't condoned it either. You may not have called others psychopaths but others have on here, and why is it a moot point? When it comes down to personal attacks it's just not okay. Its a moot point about the "they shouldn't have kids" statements flying around. People with strong negative options towards children are unlikely to have them (because if you dislike children that much you would do anything you can to avoid having them), therefore the statement is moot. My statement about it being ok to label a child was in response to others saying its not ok to label people as psychopaths. Same principle. If one is ok, why not the other? This is not aimed specifically at you Mr.Mister. There are a whole lot of generalisations and BS flying around this thread.

Actually, it is. Why is it that people who vehemently hold one perspective believe anyone who has a different perspective is nuts? Because the person who posted it was not talking about what they'd do in a panic, or through fear and adrenaline. The reality of what they'd do may not match what they think they'd do, but at the end of the day a few posters here posted they'd be 100% certain they'd deliberately CHOOSE to save their dog and leave someone to die. That is not about a belief system or a matter of opinion, it's openly stating they value their dog's life over another human simply because they don't know that human. That is lacking in basic empathy and yep, I think anyone who TRULY feels that way and isn't just saying it get a rise, needs some psychological help. Really, I'd hate for the general public to read this thread....it just confirms their belief that those 'crazy' dog people arguing about BSL and such have no grip on reality and are putting dogs ahead of people. And I wonder if those same people would happily cop the Negligent Manslaughter charges and the prison time associated just so they know that their pet (who would be dead by the time they got out of prison) was saved from a burning building. I actually feel a bit sad for people who would value their pets over people to that extent, I think they are very likely to end up sad and alone with no-one to care for them but a dog. I love my dog, but I certainly do not value her life above the lives of my children, partner, friends or family - or even random children (rude or otherwise) for that matter. (and lets see how long it takes for that comment to be taken out of context!) There is no legal requirement to risk your life by rushing in to a burning building to save anyone so suggestions of criminal prosecution are ridiculous. Thanks ever so much for your pity and prediction of a sad, lonely life. My friends and family would no doubt disagree with you. If you are in a burning building and make a concious choice to save a dog over a child, then yes, you do have a duty of care and legal responsibility for allowing that person to die because of a choice you made. And do you value your firends and family over the life of your dog? See the part about context that I wrote in my post?? This is what I was talking about when I wondered how long it would take to be taken out of context. Public forum + outlandish statement = public judgement and scrutiny. How is that fascinating or even particularly surprising? In my humble opinion, I really don't think anyone can accurately judge someone as a psychopath over the internet. People seem to love throwing these kinds of labels around on the internet, but really of all places to judge, the net is the absolute worst. I'm not saying no one can have an opinion on it. I just don't think that 'psychopath' and 'I hope you never have children' are really the kind of things to spout out to someone you've never even met. But its ok to label a child as mentally disabled based on one incident? And for the record, I personally never labelled anyone as a psychopath or said they should never have children (although I think that is a moot point given the opinions of some in this thread). I said that the course of action based on concious choice was criminally negligent. As the law states that if someone dies as a direct result of a choice you made then you are held accountable (i.e. mansluaghter, negligence causing bodily harm, negligence causing death etc) then that choice is actually a criminal act that carries a significant peanalty.

Public forum + outlandish statement = public judgement and scrutiny. How is that fascinating or even particularly surprising?