tdierikx

Unfortunately you don't have to be very close to where government agents have dropped 1080 to control rabbits or foxes or other "pest" animals... ravens and other birds have been known to pick up the baits and drop them quite some distance from the original drop site. The symptoms you describe sound very much like 1080 poisoning.

Whatever caused the behaviour, I am very sorry for your loss... it's never easy to lose a beloved pet under scary circumstances. Much love and hugs to you...

T.

Maybe check MDBA (Master Dog Breeders Australia) to see if the breeder is listed with them?

https://www.mdba.net.au/

T.

Fly free with the angels sweet wee man... *sob*

T.

Any inquiry into the circumstances of this attack should include a necropsy of the dog (Ruben), to rule in or out any possibility that an underlying health issue may have contributed. Well bred dogs don't simply just "snap" and turn on their owners for no reason... especially to this level of aggression when none has ever been shown in the past.

The one and only incident of a dog (Rottweiler) "snapping" and randomly attacking that I'm personally aware of and knew the dog in question very well, a necropsy showed that it had had a brain tumour and bleed at the time the attack happened. Luckily in that incident, there were 4 large men (owners sons) in the vicinity who managed to contain the dog and stop it from doing any real harm to anyone. After it was put down, they had a necropsy done to find out what could have caused the dog to suddenly have such a massive temperament change, and the tumour/bleed was found.

T.

As someone who is a passionate Rottweiler "fan", I would have the second dog sent to God after it displayed that level of aggression toward me as its owner. I have owned several Rotties over the years, and never have I ever been in any way worried that they would "turn" on me under ANY circumstance. Even when they have had the odd spat with each other, none ever redirected that toward me when I intervened in said spat - and if there was ever any indication they would redirect towards me, I would have had that dog put down, as that behaviour is simply NOT to be tolerated under any circumstance. Rehoming a dog that has shown any propensity for directing aggression towards the hand that feeds it is not an option, an owner needs to put on their responsible citizen pants and do what is needed without fear or favour.

The restrictions required to be put in place in order to keep a declared dangerous dog are not conducive to actually rectifying the issue of what makes them "dangerous". Do the right thing, and save the dog the trauma of being kept in that manner for human vanity reasons.

T.

"A 2021 consultation put forward by the NSW Department of Primary Industry recommended the introduction of a private dog breeder licensing scheme.

The following year, the Companion Animals Amendment (Puppy Farms) Bill was passed in parliament allowing pet shops to sell from approved breeders."

Ummm... actually the Puppy Farms Bill did NOT get passed in 2022... it passed in the Legislative Council, but it missed the rise of parliament time cutoff before being debated and assented to by the Legislative Assembly, and is still on Emma Hurst's list of Bills to be presented in this current term of parliament. Funnily enough, she has been focusing on other Bills lower on her list so far and hasn't even tabled her latest run at the Puppy Farms Bill. The bill IS high on the list of Private Members Bills yet to be presented, but so far she's been avoiding tabling it... not sure why...

One thing to note is that Labor have their own plans to completely overhaul all animal welfare legislation in NSW in a similar fashion to what is being proposed in Victoria - and reading the discussion paper of what is being proposed there raises some major concerns that will affect all animal owners. It looks like NSW are waiting to see what happens with the Victorian proposal before going ahead with their take on matters in this state.

As for the over-representation of bull breeds and their crosses in pounds and shelters, and calls to ban breeding of any dogs (and or cats) until those animals are adopted is flawed. Most people do NOT want to take on an adolescent or adult larger breed powerfully built dog that has had little to no socialisation or basic training and is of an age where quite frankly, a lot of work needs to be done to make that dog a decent canine citizen. People want a puppy that is wired to learn what is expected of them easily, not a dog that has already formed habits that will be very hard to rehabilitate to a level that is fully acceptable to polite society. Then there are those who use "it's a rescue" as some sort of justification for not addressing certain behavioural issues in their dogs... and that needs to stop now IMHO.

T.

6 hours ago, grumpette said:

And I thought that Victoria was backward when it came to it's dog laws 

Considering the bruhaha with RSPCA QLD corruption and illegal dealings with targeted peoples in recent years, yet the state government is still deferring to them in animal welfare related matters... beggars belief really.

You just know it was RSPCA and councils that put forward the no appeals part of this stupid "proposal"...

T.

"Alison Smith, from the Local Government Association of Queensland, says a key recommendation is to fast-track decisions and appeals against seized dangerous animals."

It doesn't say that at all... what it actually proposes is to limit or negate any appeals against a decision made by authorities regarding a visual identification of a dog to be of a certain breed or mix of same, and results in a destruction order being made based on that visual observation. Apparently councils are currently saying it's not feasible (or humane) for them to hold an impounded dog for the length of time it takes to go through the proper legal processes before they can summarily destroy it. One wonders how bad council facilities are to deem them an inhumane place to hold an animal whose fate is in the balance.

There is also the fact that the actual legislation hasn't been presented yet, only a discussion paper has been presented for public "consultation".

The survey question regarding limiting appeals is as follows...

"Survey question 7 - Do you support limiting when appeals from external review decisions (QCAT) about a destruction order can be sought by owners, including placing  greater responsibility on owners to offer proof otherwise?"

Think about that wording... it blatantly places the onus on the dog owner (defendant) to prove their case, rather than the prosecuting body proving guilt. That is NOT how the legal system in this country actually works - although when it comes to animal related matters, it certainly seems that defendants are presumed guilty from the outset...

One needs to ask who was actually on the "taskforce" that produced these recommendations... the only info that my group (Animal Care Australia) could get when we asked was that DAF and RSPCA QLD were included... no confirmation that the Australian Veterinary Association, or Dogs QLD, or any other actual body representing the animal owning population had any input. Is it any wonder then that recommendations to make prosecutions easier and without appeal have come up?

An interesting point is that if the legislation is formed in such a way that it uses regulations to identify which breeds are subject to banning, then other breeds could summarily be added to those regulations at any point in time WITHOUT any public consultation. How long do you think it will be before other breeds are added surrepticiously by government in reaction to media reports of attacks? Case in point the 2 recent reports of Rottweiler attacks in Perth and Sydney... if Qld lists banned breeds in regulations rather than in legislation, then they could easily just add Rottweilers to that list without any consultation... or GSDs, or Labradors, or any other breed they deem "dangerous" for spurious reasons.

Just some food for thought...

T.

Zyrtec is popular because it's such an easy dosage rate of 1mg/kg once a day.

I get allergies myself, but the over-the-counter unrestricted stuff doesn't work for me... I take the pseudo loaded ones... so can't give those to my dogs... errr!

I might have to grab a box of Zyrtec for my doggy medicine kit... thanks for the reminder.

T.

It's stories like this that make one ashamed to be of the same species as the monsters who perpetrate these kinds of acts.

I think the punishment should fit the crime when it comes to this sort of monster... grrr! And the bastard isn't even one iota remorseful for what he's done...

T.

"loved ones said the infections were likely caused by the dog’s teeth that weren’t brushed the morning of the attack"

Seriously? The narrative is being controlled by the people running the fundraising page... who have now doubled the goal amount from 15k to 30k... seeing as they managed to hit that original goal fairly quickly. I wonder if the woman in hospital even knows what they are doing in her name here...

The media are lapping it up too... and I'm astounded by the fact they don't seem to have even tried to corroborate the claims with the hospital or police, or anyone actually involved with the actual care of Ms Piil.

It's much more likely that Ms Piil has contracted some sort of bug in and of the hospital, and not one from unbrushed dog's teeth... if the claims are true about said infection.

T.

"All vertebrate animals are sentient, and that means that they have emotional experiences that matter to them," Dr Cobb says.

I think one can take it as read that ALL animals are sentient (in the true meaning of the word at least, where they experience something relative to the environment they are in) - invertebrates too - but caution needs to be taken when comparing their experiences and reactions to same relative to how humans "feel" things. Animals are not human, and they do not necessarily process the world the same way we do.

Recent studies have even shown that plants may be sentient too... but that's a whole different kettle of fish... errr!

T.

Fly free with the angels sweet Widget... and please pass on my love and hugs to Marcus, as he must be so sad right now...

T.

The behaviour described by the neighbour where one dog came to see what was happening at the fence when the other dog was jumping up at said neighbour, but then going back to maul the owner some more, is not normal behaviour in my realm of experience with the breed. I could understand if the 2 dogs went back to fighting each other, but to continue attacking a person once the other dog was distracted... not normal at all.

As for the names of the 2 dogs - Bronx and Harlem - I don't think they are necessarily "tough" names... albeit not names I'd choose, as they are kinda stereotypical for the breed.

We will probably never know what the real trigger was for this particular attack, which is a shame, because knowing what the causes are for something like this can help predict or curtail that sort of thing in the future... but hey, let's just ban them all because one or two haven't been shining examples of the perfect dog.

T.

I'd had multiple male and female Rotties over the years who cohabited perfectly fine... until the 2 that decided not to... and neither of those 2 were purebred Rottweilers... in fact the main aggressor wasn't even the Rotti cross, it was the Labrador. Both were female and desexed.

I understand fully why the incident(s) between them started, and when they continued to hate each other, I made sure they were separated at all times. It's not really rocket science to realise that a problem won't fix itself, and when all attempts to retrain them to not hate each other don't work, separation is the only solution really. Rehoming was not an option in either case for me, as how could I choose which of my beloved pets would have to leave? For me, separation wasn't as onerous a task, as I live alone, so no chance of anyone making a mistake and letting them run together.

Unfortunately, not all pet owners are fully clued into signs that their pets may not be getting along as famously as they think... and then some major incident occurs, and the owners end up saying "there weren't any signs", but there probably were plenty of signs, just the owner didn't understand what those signs were until it all went pear-shaped.

T.

9 hours ago, Amazetl said:

I think the problem is that what if the recent attacks that happened were also never showing any prior signs and then it just happened due to circumstances? Or was it more breeding aggression into the lines? Were there signs before?

For an attack this serious, there would have been some sign that something wasn't all sunshine and roses - in both Rottweiler attack scenarios... unfortunately, some (read most) people aren't equipped to realise that a problem is brewing until it's too late. Then there are those people who source certain breed types because they think they need some sort of "tough" pet, and they don't socialise the dogs because that would take the "mean" out of them... *sigh*

T.

On 18/09/2023 at 6:39 PM, Dogsfevr said:

2 boys having a fight she tried to separate .

Our human instinct is to do something to stop such things, but sometimes it's just not possible if the dogs have entered that stage of intent to harm each other, or anyone/anything else entering the sphere of said fight.

As I have said before in other dog-human attack stories/posts, there is often some factor that led up to the outcome... nice to see that follow-up reporting is actually advising of some of those factors in recent reports - unfortunately most people will not read follow-up reports that "explain" what happened, rather focusing on the first report and yelling for bans based on no facts at all... grrr!

T.

As someone who is waiting patiently for a well-bred and sound tempered Rotti from an amazing breeder of same, I'll be really ticked off if the government decides to ban the breed before I get the chance to share my life with him. I'll be even more ticked off if once I do have him in my life, the law changes to make it impossible for me to share him with others as a great example of a well bred member of his breed.

I have owned Rotti's from virtually every breeding background over the years, and none of mine have ever shown any human aggression or dominance, or any other negative trait... in fact most have been quite the opposite, soft natured goofballs who just want love and cuddles, and to drape themselves over the furniture and snore like chainsaws... lol!

T.

Might be worth noting that this actually happens every year... snakes start to get out and about at this time of year, and the warmer weather will have them thirsty and looking for readily available water sources.

The advice to keep your yards tidy and grass short is good... and I'd go one step further by setting drinking stations (for wildlife) at the far reaches of yards to keep the snakes as far away from the house and inhabitants as possible. They don't really want to be near us, but they need to find water when the usual drinking holes may have dried up in the heat.

T.

The video that @Purdie posted makes some very good points about identifying dogs in order to impose restrictions on them. To date, this has been done here in Australia based on mostly physical characteristics - ie. pretty much any bull breed type dog with a red/pink nose will get identified as a "pitbull" or cross thereof. Not to mention that those doing the identifying are not always qualified sufficiently to do so.

The problem faced by politicians is that the only thing they can do is make legislation - often as a kneejerk reaction to increased media reporting of a "problem". The media have a lot to answer for in this regard, as most incidents of dog on human attack are actually pretty rare, and also there is usually some trigger that leads to same - unfortunately reporting what led up to an attack is rarely reported, and some victims aren't willing to admit they may have done something that led to the dog(s) reacting badly. "Brain snaps" are even more rare in any breed - yes, they do very occasionally happen, but nowhere near as often as some (esp the media) will have you believe.

Obviously banning and/or restricting certain breeds has not been an effective "solution" to the problem of dog-human attacks, as so many of the reports about such attacks invariably identify the attacking dog as being of some banned/restricted breed - bans and restrictions that have been in place for decades may I add...

My personal feeling about certain dogs (of any breed) being more prone to dog-human aggression lies squarely on those who breed for a certain "market" - those people who want a dog because it "looks tough", with little regard for making sure that the animals produced are of sound temperament and safe to be out in the community. It's very rare to find that a dog that has attacked a human as having been bred by a reputable registered breeder... a statistic that is being conveniently overlooked as the media looks for the next "shocking" story to report and cause public outrage.

There have been calls to ban Rottweilers more than once in the past, that hasn't eventuated yet, and the rate of Rotti attacks on humans over the years has statistically been very low (or non-existent). It also is interesting to note that Queensland are looking to ban a whole raft of dog breeds right now, and since the announcement of same, media reports of dog attacks nationwide has jumped dramatically. Coincidence? Maybe not.

Obviously the solution to the problem of dog-human aggression is not as simple as just banning dogs that look to be a certain type... it's going to take a a much more multi-faceted approach to addressing what is required from the dog-owning public, so that every pet owner understands their obligations to the rest of society and to their pet. There also needs to be some effective solution to curtailing the indiscriminate breeding (which is NOT something reputable registered breeders are doing) of dogs willy-nilly in order to satisfy the market demand for pets. Pet ownership should not be seen as a "right", but as a "priviledge", and the onus should be squarely on pet owners to take responsibility for sourcing and raising socially acceptable animal citizens.

T.

2 reports of Rottweiler attacks in less than a week... looks like there will be calls to ban them too soon... grrr!

T.

I figured something triggered the dog somehow...

T.

asal has a point... some sharpei's can be somewhat territorial and not overly friendly with visitors/strangers, and I'd always defer to the owner as to temperament regarding me wanting to approach one.

The breed mix reported in the OP dog is not one I'd choose to create... too many factors in both breeds if not carefully managed that can lead to outcomes like that described in the article. One does wonder that if the dog had never shown any hint of what was to happen over the 8 years they family had owned it, that there might have been some triggering factor to cause this incident - be that underlying health issues in the dog, or some human induced factor that particular evening. As the dog has now been destroyed, no-one will ever know, and that just gives grist to the mill for those hell bent on banning certain breeds. I'd go so far as to suggest that a good 99% of dog attacks of this nature are not necessarily just a "brain snap" by the dog in question, but there will be some other factor that led up to the incident. Yes, "brain snaps" do occur, but they are not the norm, and are actually quite rare.

The unsettling thing is that some in the media have been having a field day espousing their opinions about banning certain breeds - some, like Caleb Bond on Chris Kenny Tonight the other night calling for a whole list of breeds to be banned - incuding GSDs and Rottis - idiot!. Funnily enough, none seem to be calling for a ban on sharpeis, just the other breed in that dog's mix... and/or other breeds traditionally used for guard/protection work.

When I had 5 rottweilers, I used to put them away when visitors came over... not because they were prone to wanting to hurt anyone, but more that some people don't appreciate multiple fully grown rottweilers trying to sit on their lap and trying to give them slobbery kisses.

T.

8 hours ago, cannibalgoldfish said:

They had him for 8 years? Was there a history or aggression or was there a health issue they hadn't realised?  

 

I don't suppose we will ever know...

T.

1 hour ago, Little Gifts said:

I know this is an old topic but does anyone know how the calendula is with ring worm on dogs? Looks like a foster with it is coming our way. Thank you!

No idea about calendula, but have had great results with Canesten Once Daily cream from the chemist... and it renders the lesions non-contagious within 48 hours of application. F10 shampoo is also good at rendering the lesions non-contagious in the same sort of timeframe, but needs a contact time of at least 10 mins before rinsing off to be truly effective.

T.