Zhou Xuanyao

Yes sometimes dogs are skinned alive, like you say they believe the meat tastes better if the animal is is tortured before death. The Racoon Dog, amongst other animals are killed primarily for their fur, but I am not convinced that domestic dogs are killed for their fur even though it may be on sold.

I don't know if the Chinese kill dogs for their fur, perhaps the fur is from dogs slaughtered primarily for meat.

Fascinating link to the Italian Newf life guards !

Drawing another long bow, Joe. Because there is compelling evidence to suggest that BSL is a failure and efforts to reduce dog attacks would be better focussed elsewhere; reducing dog attacks is the aim, after all.

Joe, just because someone's desire to own a Pitbull outweighs their desire to avoid any associated consequences, doesn't mean they are happy about any associated consequences, only that they choose to own a Pitbull despite them. This does not imply that anyone should cop a knock on the door on the chin, far from it. edit - superfluous

The government has marginalized many restricted breed owners and their dogs with their prejudiced BSL. The truth is the group as a whole has nothing to apologize for and has no case to answer, despite some people's haughty fantasies in which hapless RB owners seek their approval. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum; I share some of the concerns you have raised as do most people, but they are part of the broader context of animal management.

Poodiful, the lack of results speak for themselves, and with other social and political pressure mounting, including the RSPCA condemning BSL, the laws are going, it's just a matter of time. I think they are already unofficially all but dead in the water in some parts of Australia, and were never accepted in the first place by many councils. Whoever doesn't like it can go sing in the street, restricted breed owners and supporters are not obligated to convince anybody of anything, nor do they bear any responsibility to put forward strategies for reducing dog attacks.

Poor little mate, hopefully he comes good and gets adopted by someone who will take care of him properly

Nicely put Hardy's Angel.

Its expected they will be charged under the companion animals act ? The offenders in this case probably can't believe their good fortune. Supposing events unfolded as described in the article, it sounds like the dog was used as a weapon which caused the victim serious harm. I'd prefer that one or both of the so called "hoons" were charged with something relating to assault with a weapon. If he did really lose part of his penis, there is no telling what he might do; the cops may find themselves pulling two bodies out of a ditch sometime in the near future. As for another mark against the Pitbull, sure, but there is no evidence any Pitbull was involved in this case. eta I followed the posted link and had a listen to the video in which a police officer involved in the incident said that they are still investigating, but a charge of assault causing grievous bodily harm is among the possibilities pending further investigation. The report is not consistent with much of what he said, for instance, he says the police don't even know if the alleged offenders released the dog.

poochiemama, for me, supporting Buster because he is, at least allegedly, a Golden Retriever, is a problem because I'd consider that a reinforcement of breed bias which is what BSL is predicated on. This is quite different to supporting Buster on grounds which are not motivated by breed. I personally do not support routine euthanasia of dogs which have been involved in attacks, a position which I have been criticized for more than once on this forum, so my support for Buster is not at the expense of other breeds, and in fact promotes breed equality. Whereas, for example, if you look at the general tone of the comments in response to articles covering this story on at least one of the news sites (I only looked at one) you will probably see the type of support which I condemn in the strongest terms. They are promoting breed prejudice and furthering ignorance, that kind of help is the sort I think we can do without.

Thanks K9.

I agree. I had a look at K9Force's facebook page. I wonder why he is willing to attempt to intervene on behalf of this particular dog. The reasoning he has provided could be applied to many other cases just as easily. Has he attempted other interventions of this nature with the council after dog attacks on humans in the past ?

Thanks for giving your side. Unfortunately, your account of the conditions in which the council kept the dog, the way they manipulated the situation, and the way they "temperament tested" him all rings true. Ultimately of course if the dog was contained, none of this would have happened, but nonetheless, I do sympathize with you all and I totally understand what Rocco did.

Blaming a dog for anything, under any circumstance, is absurd, much less blaming one for offending the latest trends in cultural sensibilities. Humans bare all the responsibility for how dogs are kept, how we interact with them, and to what and whom they have access. The only bias in defending a dog against blame is the bias toward reason. Perhaps folks would like to phone the central office of canine criminal masterminds and ask them to send their members a memo advising that they ought not bite intruders because as of the last 5 minutes the practice has begun to fall out of favour.

Glad to hear the little mate has been returned.

I support the keeping of pets which guard, I am against BSL, and I blame some of the humans involved in this incident for the destruction of the dog, all of which is perfectly reconcilable with "deed not breed". A few people have implied that the person who gets bitten should not be apportioned any blame, I don't agree. I understand that there is a taboo about blaming victims or perceived victims, but that does not mean that in any given case the injured could have played no role in facilitating their injury. In this particular case, based on the information at hand, I attribute some of the blame to the police officer who was bitten, and the rest to the dog owners, for reasons stated.

I didn't address keeping dogs as guards, I addressed keeping pet dogs which do incidentally guard. If you are of the opinion that people who support the keeping of pet dogs which guard (and of course could possibly bite an uninvited intruder) are the peril, as you put it, of dog ownership as we know it, then yours is the opinion which is marginal my friend not mine. Lets be quite clear, I have not said I support dogs blocking access to a front door or intercom, that's not my position. I only said that despite any law or ideal, police do face these situations at times. The inquiry might be better focused on how these situations should be dealt with when they do inevitably arise.

In your opinion. In mine, pet dog's which guard property are welcome in society. This is a general claim and has nothing to do with your alleged reservation of judgement about the breed involved in this case, which is why I did not include it in the quote.

It would make no difference if everyone who had Pitbull's kept them in a secure run, the rate of attacks reportedly involving Pitbulls would not be affected, because for the most part a dogs breed has little bearing on how it is reported.

I'd be interested in finding out more of the details. The police do have a call to respond to, so I think these situations might often be tricky from the police's perspective as well. I wonder if they have any suggested procedures for a situation like this, and what the nature of those procedures are. Ideally, people could allow access to the front door, or an intercom at the front gate, but that is not always the case. So when faced with a situation where there are large dogs between you and the front door, we make a choice, and the choice he made was likely to get him bitten.

One possible explanation for why it was well groomed could be because they do, or expect to, make money out of exhibiting the dog it in some way. A Chinese speaker might have some better insight on what was going on, but it looked like this might have been a training method, it looked like he was trying to get it to sit and remain upright in a certain pose, as well as standing. He seemed to be punishing the dog even when it was doing the right thing.

I first read this as Why the hell can't the dog be locked away in the mailbox Sorry, not a funny story... Then why are you rofling ? Quick, solemn face back on. Sounds like another dysfunctional local government situation coming out of England. People are not having their mail delivered because the postman would sooner stop delivering to an entire street than boot the dog next time it comes near him, and the council won't take effective action, so the women with her 3kg dog control the neighbourhood.

Link to The National People and Pets Survey 2006 is here http://www.petnet.com.au/sites/default/fil...d_Pets_2006.pdf

What happens in the country is not something we should necessarily accept as being the best method, nor does the situation draw as many parallels as it may at first seem to. Their primary motivation is economic, and residents are few and far between. Farmers shoot dogs which come onto their properties and attack their stock, this is different to voluntarily taking your pet onto a public street where it encounters other dogs lose on that public street. Country laws and traditions are subject to their own scrutiny. I am not making any call on whether or not I agree with country practices, I am just saying it is not some kind of infallible paradigm that we must compare everything else against to see if we are doing it right