Steve

What a sick world we live in.

Would appear to be wide open to corruption then. If the law says the dog should be on a leash or she will be fined how can they give an opinion- the dog was either on leash or not in an on leash area - Bad enough no one is policing dog laws but when they get the offence rubbed up their noses they get to choose for one and maybe not another - what a joke.

Up to the Council's discretion once they've concluded the investigation. Ill bite - why is it up to the council's discretion ?

and no leash in an on leash area gets you trouble AND I HOPE A FINE.

So does the JRT owner get a fine?

If the JRT was off leash then its owner is at fault - did the other break free or all the time it was being "attacked" was the other dog still on lead? Stupid reporting yet again. Either way people need to leash their dogs and have under effective control./

http://www.gazette.net/article/20130827/NEWS/130829268/1070/dog-flu-spotted-in-montgomery&template=gazette Dog flu spotted in Montgomery Virus can’t spread to humans By Ryan Marshall Staff Writer A strain of “highly contagious” canine influenza has emerged in Montgomery County, although the virus isn’t believed to be capable of spreading to humans. The virus has been identified in six dogs in the county since mid-August, two of which have died, according to an Aug. 22 bulletin released from the state Department of Agriculture to veterinarians and health and government officials. The disease comes in two varieties — a mild form with a cough and a more severe form that can cause potentially deadly respiratory disease, according to the bulletin, which calls it “highly contagious.” The cough in the more mild variety can last from 10 to 21 days despite treatment by antibiotics, while the more severe form has responded best to treatment by a combination of antibiotics and intravenous fluid therapy to keep the dog hydrated. One of the problems of recognizing canine influenza is that the early symptoms of coughing and sneezing can be caused by any of about a dozen illnesses, said Mike Berbert, a veterinarian at Gaithersburg Animal Hospital. But it also can develop into pneumonia, characterized by symptoms such as fever, weakness, lethargy and loss of appetite, he said. According to the Centers for Disease Control, some dogs can have virtually no symptoms from canine influenza while others’ reactions can be severe, but the number of dogs that die generally is very small. The state bulletin said previous outbreaks have seen a fatality rate of 1 to 5 percent of dogs who get the disease. “It is too early in the reporting of this disease event to provide good epidemiological data,” according to the bulletin. “As more information on this current virus strain is gathered and evaluated, additional information will be provided.” The virus can be spread by sneezing or coughing of other dogs, contact with objects that have been contaminated or by people who deal with both sick and healthy dogs. There have been no reported cases of the disease spreading from dogs to humans, according to the CDC. While they wouldn’t want anyone whose dog sneezes to bring their dog to the vet, owners should be alert, especially if their dog has been around areas with other dogs such as dog parks, grooming parlors or kennels, Berbert said. Montgomery County will keep the five dog parks it maintains open, but has posted signs in the park letting dog owners know the symptoms of the dog flu, said Melissa Chotiner, a spokeswoman for the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Dog owners also may want to temporarily avoid places where large numbers of dogs gather, b.j. Altschul, a spokeswoman for the Montgomery County Humane Society, said in an email Tuesday. They should make sure that any boarding facility is extremely clean and has a way to isolate any dog that begins showing symptoms, she said. Berbert said he wasn’t aware of any previous cases in Montgomery County, although because the symptoms look so much like those of other illnesses, the virus may have been seen without anyone knowing it. The flu’s uniqueness means many dogs haven’t built up an immunity to it, he said. “This is a pretty new organism,” he said.

Agreed

Which one the owner or the vet?

Yes I would and the law says if I can walk in and there is no warning regarding the dogs that the assumption is that the dogs wont hurt me. If the gate were locked or there was a warning then I wouldn't .

Agreed - as it stands now with no one complaining about it and no rangers taking a proactive approach and door knocking to ensure its dealt with. That dog was restricted breed and they were breeding them - they should have been stopped long ago and the laws are in place to do it - so while I agree if the attack hadnt happened we may have seen more like that dog being produced by thise people we wouldnt have seen more of that dog being produced or that dog being out of control if the property had been inspected and people around them had said something way before that happened. They were breaking the law long before the dog killed the child and people knew that and saw it as no big deal because laws re dogs are seen by the general population as being in consequential.

Yes i agree, but as stated page one or two my opinion on why that isn't happening, And some of the current laws fail on large scales even with enforcement after all they allow farming. And I agree with 24 hour contact to council ranger, not 2 days a go I had a beautiful looking mastiff in my horse paddock playing with my dogs who were in their pen. this was at 11pm, I have a girl locked on the enclosed veranda and locked in her crate who is in season, which is why is was probably visiting. I told him to pi** off and he growled at me and ran away, I was within my house yard and knowingly safe, and I interpret his growl as 'leave me alone don't chase me'. But the point was he was not where he should be at the wrong time of day. And why should the public risk approaching a strange dog, the boy in my yard wasn't aggressive but if he didn't leave and acting on his sensors due to girl in season and I cornered him and put a rope on him and tried to shove him in my car to keep my girl safe, what would he have done? But if you ring some councils during office hours with a strange dog on the property they say' try and catch it'. which would mean close proximity cause most normal people don't have a lunge bar or whatever they are called they are unable to come out until later this afternoon or until tomorrow cause our range is not on duty today. The government failure just keeps on going. Can you please answer the bolded part of my question? Your response regarding "farming" still being legal is not exactly an answer there... As for approaching strange dogs wandering the streets or in our yards - I've had my share of those that I've had to deal with because they always seem to be about when a ranger ISN"T available to come and deal with them. Then again, I'm not your average Joe Public when it comes to dealing with dogs either - I've got a few courses on handling dangerous dogs under my belt, and have been in rescue for a few years where one of my jobs is selection of dogs from the pounds we deal with - I have to be able to understand dog body language under stressful conditions in order to work out which pound dogs are going to be rehomable or not. Add that to the fact that the rescue I work with deals with a lot of sick or injured dogs who may be under even more stress than normal, and with a much higher propensity to bite because of same - I've yet to be bitten by any dog (roaming or rescue). The fact remains that we DO have plenty of laws regarding dogs, that if enforced without fear or favour, would definitely have an impact upon some of the issues we are discussing in these threads... but we need the proper numbers of those tasked with enforcement of said laws increased to a level where they CAN do it effectively. T. Yep and the only way they are going to do more about it is if the community demands it and makes it a big deal.

Any dog is dangerous - and its not just about crossbreeds or dogs which are bred with poor temperaments. Ive been around dogs my whole life and the only scar I carry from a bite came from a purebred silky . One of the most horrible cases in this county was about a couple of little girls walking in a park in Melbourne where a pair of dogs were allowed to run off leash because they were well trained - purebred show dogs in fact and were known to have great temperaments. That incident resulted in death for one of the girls. I agree that the dog in the Ayen Chol case should never have been bred .Yes we can cut down the risk factor and a chi is going to do less damage than a giant breed and some dogs will react differently under pressure if it snaps but all dogs need to be contained by their owners and we should be checking that people who own dogs have them safety contained and they understand the consequences for them and the dog if they dont. No breeder in the state of Victoria can own more than 3 fertile dogs without having to have special permits and have their homes inspected and be watched and monitored to ensure they are within the code for breeding dogs. Crazy people run around in the night to catch them out in case they allow more than two dogs to sleep together or they don't leave a water bowl for them overnight. Yet we allow people to live in suburbia and shrug off dog owners breaking the law or dogs which look like they are coming over the fence to attack and we think they can. We don't report them ,we don't actively do anything to ensure our neighbourhood is safe in fact we are more likely to dob someone in for having a dog that barks than we are to dob them in because the dog is constantly out of its yard or we can see its a disaster waiting to happen. If we are walking on the street and some rabid human comes out and yells at us and threatens us we tell the cops. We lament the bad breeding and the bad environmental issues that mad person but we still acknowledge he is behaving in an unacceptable manner and he is potentially dangerous and we want him and what he is doing dealt with here and now to ensure we and every one else he feels he would like to do this to is protected. If something goes wrong with a dog we want to blame the breeder or the kid that stuck knitting needles in its ears for making it crazier in the first place and no doubt about it there is ample evidence to prove the breeder or the torturer or neglect has a huge impact but they are separate issues to the one we are dealing with. Regardless of why the dog got like it is - it is how it is and as dog owners we should be responsible for keeping them in and doing what needs to be done to ensure others rights are respected and that risks are lowered. The whole breeding for temperament thing is definitely needing to be addressed but when you stand face to face with a dog that wants to rip the fence apart to kill your child , when you are sitting in your home and some killer comes in and takes your childs life away while you watch - how the dog became that way is secondary because regardless of the whys the dog should have been contained .At that point the owner is responsible because they owned a dog - one which could kill better and easier than most others and they didnt manage it. While we take the next couple of decades to work out whether its a crossbreeding thing or a purebred thing or an entire dog thing, a type of breeder thing, a pet shop thing or an everything thing each of us should be playing our part and we dont. We excuse and empathize with the owners,take a different route, carry a big stick , complain here , feel bad if we dob them in after we are bitten or terrified and ask why when it happens and someone is hurt. Then the owners go on to breed them and it goes on.

The dog that killed Ayen Chol was the result of an irresponsible owner not containing it and ensuring it couldnt get out . No matter how much pain it may have been in or how cranky it was ,who bred it , or what adjective or noun we want to label it . That dog - all dogs - should be contained and we shouldnt have to wait until a dog kills a child to see that . No dog should be out running the streets. No excuses - full stop.

Corvus - I think some people disobey laws because the laws aren't enforced but mostly in this regard its about how society views the behaviour. People in part dont drink drive because they are afraid of the fines and charges but in the year 2013 its seen by the community /society as the wrong thing to do - it wasn't always viewed that way. In many areas especially small country towns anyone who gets pinged for drink driving is given sympathy and its mostly seen as no big deal and what a mongrel cop it is to dare to book them. And overall we are in a place where someone breaking dog laws is not really seen as doing the wrong thing. Because you or I are not that worried about wandering dogs doesnt change the fact that this is against the law and it is a symptom of who ever owns the dog being irresponsible. We hear all kinds of get off the hook excuses but the fact remains that we have laws associated with dog ownership and whether or not some of us dont mind wandering dogs shouldnt count . We have this massive anti breeder and anti puppy farm movement - just let someone get a wiff of a possible breach with any of that and watch the army with their blow flies come in to pressure the council and government to do their job or to introduce more laws to prevent one breeder and any other from being able to do what they dont have a problem with . The laws we have with dog ownership are not being enforced so why aren't we seeing name and shame pages on the net, why arent we seeing letters to the editor demanding the council take action, why aren't we attending council meetings and pushing for dog owners to hear what they need to do and make them do it ? Because most of us don't see it as a big deal or at least not big enough to take even small actions to put a focus on it . Until we do that no laws or prohibitions on breeding X type of dogs or owning X type of dogs will make any difference . Reality is until there is some kind of united movement which comes from the people at community level we can talk about it all we like but we go no where.

Yep me too.

So how do you plan to do that.......stop people breeding for aggression and stop people wanting aggressive dogs, making irresponsible people responsible, good luck with that No I know we wont stop everyone from breeding for aggression and I know we wont stop people wanting aggressive dogs but I do think we can have a fair shot at making more people responsible. Lets assume that bad breeding is the problem and people will always end up with cranky dogs.What should people who end up with cranky dogs do with them? Do we just allow them to blame the breeder for breeding this cranky dog and therefore eliminate their responsibility as an owner to manage it and keep the dog , other animals and people safe? Lets assume that wanting to own cranky dogs is the problem - what should people who own cranky dogs and who have chosen to take them on knowing they will be cranky do with them? Do we just allow them to blame the fact that they wanted a cranky dog and that's what they have so they have no responsibility to manage it and ensure the dog, other animals and people are safe? We actually do have a strategic plan to make dog owners more responsible, to make councils more accountable and communities move toward cleaning it all up and that's without one more law.

Aphra, IMO you're spot on. The stats would support your comment. And the worst case scenario you describe, is already happening. Agreed

Maybe you are right Anne but its not the media that makes it impossible for many of us to be able to walk our dogs without fear of dogs coming from no where and giving us grief. I can remember as a kid going to sell raffle tickets and a big dog taking myself and my friend on - she was the school champion runner and I beat her that day to make it to safety before the dog had me and I also remember one girl in my year who went over someone else's fence to get a ball and was attacked and scarred for life but these things were rare or at least I perceived them as rare . In most suburbs people have a hard time form other people's dogs - you only have to look at the number of people who come here who have had a bad experience or who carry a big stick or dont walk their dogs at all . All people who own dogs should be responsible for them and do what ever is required to control them - sure some will still bite etc but owners are responsible for lowering the risks not people who dont own them or governments.

What a horrible way to live. Poor kid.

http://gawker.com/a-three-year-old-dog-attack-survivor-was-shot-in-the-he-1193604039 In a round of awful, more-depressing-as-new-details-emerge news, a three-year-old boy — who recently survived a debilitating dog attack — is in critical but stable condition after someone shot him in the head while he slept last night in Brooklyn. The three-year-old, who was born prematurely, was apparently recovering after being attacked by a dog several months ago. According to the New York Daily News, the child had beenattacked by his mother's pitbull and had to wear a colostomy bag due to the severity of the bites. Police are investigating where the shot came from — ABC is reporting the possibility that the bullet was a stray round that came through a window, while NY1 says the shot may have been fired by adults arguing inside the apartment. The child was apparently shot in the left side of the head while he slept in a second-floor apartment around 3:30 am. Police have taken a 22-year-old man into custody for questioning and are currently awaiting a search warrant to investigate inside the building.

Yes those dogs should be removed from the gene pool but that takes the owner of the cranky dog doing the responsible thing and making a law to make him do it doesnt work. Its going to take US to take some action to push for owners to be responsible not just breeders. The problem is that owners are not being responsible.

If she was guilty she deserves to be punished. My problem is that if she were accused of anything else she would be prosecuted by the public prosecutor and she wouldnt have to pay for that - all she would be responsible for is her own legal fees to defend herself or she may be even eligible for legal aid and she has the right to defend herself. Her legal fees would not include the 83,000 which the RSPCA says it spent in prosecuting her.

Well I think that what is bred , how its bred,how many are bred and who breeds or sells it is a part of it but it isnt the major part of it . Every time we look at the things we as dog owners deal with on a daily basis and the attacks and reports we hear via the media, someone wants to say its about too many being bred, too many something being bred some call for the stopping of all breeding others call for the stopping of some breeding ,mandatory desexing more laws etc . Its a social issue and whilst I agree its mostly about education its also about consequences and how the world perceives the problem too. It seems to be O.K. to let the dog run wild placing itself and the rest of the world at risk as long as when it comes home it has a nice bed to sleep in, as long as it doesn't have fleas .People who visit this forum some of whom have commented in this thread allow their dogs to walk and run without a leash in on leash areas and they will tell us all about how thats O.K. better for the dog and its justified ,their dogs are well trained have great recall blah blah blah - so they believe their dogs are special and everyone watching thinks the same - one dog walking with its owner without a leash and that leads to loads of owners walking without a leash and everyone on the street has to pretend they are not worried when they see a dog approaching off lead and deal with it if the owners are wrong and the dog isnt under control. The law says you have to walk your dog on a lead and in most places it tells you how long the lead can be , most places dont allow an extendable lead either .This is the only time apart from designated off leash areas where a dog can be outside of your property . If its off your property and not on a leash you break the law - but we as a society do nothing about it . if you have a dog you have to have adequate fencing and you dont get let off the hook if someone leaves the gate open or the dog can jump the fence , if there is a hole in the fence or it can go over under or through it - but we will allow them off the hook and agree never mind it can happen no matter how hard you try - crap. if we see someone with a dog off leash that should be on leash we need to report them take their photo put it on the net to show them breaking the law , we need to report to the council that someone in our street has a dog which we dont believe the fence will contain, we need to have rangers doing house knocks to ensure dogs are contained and that there never is an accident that could have been avoided . You are responsible for your dog regardless of who bred it or what type of dog it is whether its cranky or soft and sweet . You need to feed it well, provide for it , help it to not hurt or annoy anyone or anything else, you need to keep it safe ,you need to prevent it from having unwanted litters and the rest of the stuff that dogs would do if they were able to. We shouldnt need laws to direct minute ridiculous un enforceable conditions all we need is to be responsible for our property. As Australian we have a right to own dogs but with any right comes a responsibility and Im sick to death of people who own dogs being let off the hook some how because they can blame the breeder or anyone else when they have not been responsible and until we start to focus on that one thing no matter how well we do everything else nothing will change. If it was just about education people who visit this forum who know the law and still walk their dogs off leash wouldn't exist.

http://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/story/1727902/woman-fined-100000-in-pet-cruelty-disgrace/?cs=2452 A woman has been ordered to pay more than $111,000 in fines and costs after pleading guilty to "disgraceful" acts of animal cruelty. The charges were laid after RSPCA inspectors and Shoalhaven City Council rangers responded to complaints of animal cruelty and went to Marion's house on November 30 last year.Janine Marion of Terara pleaded guilty to 14 charges of aggravated animal cruelty against eight cats and 12 dogs in her care when she appeared in Nowra Local Court this week. During their investigations, they saw two poodle crossbreeds on short, tangled tethers and two other poodle crossbreeds tethered to a car, all without access to water. The court heard eight cats were discovered squashed inside three cages inside the car. Urine and faeces covered the car's upholstery, and none of the cats had access to water. Magistrate Michael Stoddart heard that Marion tried to remove the cat cages from the vehicle before being cautioned by the inspectors and asked to move away. When she refused, police were called. The four poodle crossbreeds, four cattle crossbreed pups, a Maltese crossbreed pup and a silky terrier crossbreed were seized from other parts of the property. These animals also had no access to food or water. Inspection of the interior of the house revealed a further two poodle crossbreed pups in a carry cage. Both pups were underweight and were immediately seized. Veterinary examination of the animals found several of them to be severely underweight and six tested positive for hookworm. In sentencing, Mr Stoddart said Marion's conduct towards the animals had been "disgraceful and shameful" and their condition "stomach churning". She was ordered to pay $28,000 in fines and $83,243.58 in professional fees.He placed Marion on a two-year good behaviour bond, prohibited her from owning animals for five years and instructed her to report to police for fingerprinting.