Tempus Fugit

As an aside, did any of you watch that TV show the other night - Martin Clunes - A man and his dog - where Shaun Ellis sticks his head between a pair of timber wolves having an altercation over food and emerges with not only his head but both ears intact? And later on there is the terrier man with his rat-killing JRTs saying that through initial selective breeding, terriers were originally far more aggressive than wolves.

In an ideal world no dogs would ever be allowed to escape from their owners' premises but dogs have simple minds of their own, their nature is to roam over large territories which they aggressively defend, and this is coupled with owners that make errors of judgement or fail to realise the capabilities and lengths their dogs will go to assert territory and dominance. Human misjudgment is also the major cause of injury and deaths in traffic and industrial accidents so standards of culpability for dog bite injuries should perhaps be the same as for the latter.

If you are worried that Rex was inhumanly kept on a chain on concrete (which has never been proven), consider that by law the enclosure for a 'dangerous' and 'restricted breed' dogs only has to be 10 sq metres and has to have a concrete floor. Compare that with a dog tied to a swivel tether (such as sled dogs and fighting pit bulls) on a 2 metre long chain giving it 12.5 sq mtrs to roam. There appears to be nothing in the regulations requiring a dangerous/ restricted breed dog to be taken out of its enclosure for any form of exercise.

On a lighter note I read that a canadian chihuahua recently copped a 'dangerous dog' declaration after biting a postman.

The fact that the dog apparently hadn't got out before and had ulcerated pressure sores suggest that it was tethered doesn't it? I've had 68 kilo dogs who didn't ever have pressure sores of any kind, but of course, they didn't spend their lives sleeping on concrete either.

Maybe the circumstances in which dogs are kept should also be subject to evaluation. In the Ayen Chol case there was direct access from the backyard into the garage and no door. The only thing between the backyard and the street was the garage door so unless the dog was kept chained it had access to the street each time the garage door opened and a vehicle entered or left. Not ideal in my opinion and neither is chaining a dog permanently....

Yea, that is what I was getting at but the coroner did not mention that the dog was kept chained (either because they did not think it was important, or because they didn't notice any evidence thereof or because they did not want to mention anything that might undermine their reasoning of the breed being the one and only reason that this dog did what it did) so I refrained from drawing this conclusion publicly.

Either way the ulcerations of the dog were completely ignored and dismissed and so were the circumstances the dog was kept in. Disgusting.

The Coroner's findings are now accessible from the website I listed in my previous post.

Maybe we should wait until the Coroner's findings are published.

Ok, Arcane is correct. It was a dingo pup.

When I first saw it I thought it was lost or abandoned so I stopped my car and was going to go to it but I suddenly noticed two adult dingos, which I presumed were the pup's mom & dad standing in the grass on the left looking at my car. I was going to take a photo of them but before I could wind my car window down they took off. The pup eventually ran off into the grass also. Given that we get upset when they take our babies, I left it to reunite with its parents. I hope it stayed ok as there was a grass fire in the area.

I was driving up a dirt road a few weeks ago and came across this little puppy:

So what about people who make these claims (taken from this site:

There is a breed standard apparently recognised by the FCI.

I worry about an adverse reaction if the media refers to them as "wolfdogs" and deliberately tries to compare them to the North American Timber Wolf/ Dog hybrids, which have had adverse publicity and, in some US juridictions are banned from ownership.

It wasn't that long ago that German Shepherds were banned in some Australian States, and more recently there was a mild panic when someone wanted to import tame foxes from the Russian Siberian Fox experiment (the Russians were selling some of their stock to raise money to continue their research).

The problem isn't Scooby Doo, it's the absence of more realistic models. It's the fact that kids get 20 hours of Scooby Doo for every hour of realistic training they get about dogs. It's the puppy pajamas they are given before they can walk or talk. It's all the media hype about puppies, that gets kids to nag parents to get a puppy, even if their family setup isn't right for a puppy.

Sometimes the problem isn't kids treating dogs like humans, it's kids being mean to dogs and using them to take out all their emotions.

Then you have the attack trained police dog allowed to roam the streets of Vienna by himself and even Lassie never seemed to have a problem with leash laws and "no dogs allowed" areas.

On a different angle there are the "Road Runner vs Coyote" and similar cartoons, which portray cruelty and sadism as humour.

I love the way one species (dogs) is singled out. If a dog kills a cat the dog is dangerous, but if a cat kills a mouse or someone's pet canary or an endangered quoll there is bugger all ramifications for the cat. Maybe its because few people see a cat in the act of killing - out of sight out of mind. Again, I recall once walking past a pet store and this huge black cat rushed out and clawed its way up my bare leg. If a dog had caused me similar pain I could have had it declared.

As a victim of an assault, why can't we have humans classified dangerous or menacing and made to wear identifying labels so we know who they are? School bullies should be declared 'menacing', bikies and men who bash their spouses dangerous etc. They could be subjected to curfews and other restrictions and if we see them out on the streets during curfew hours we could report them to the police. But wait - humans have rights and vote. Dogs don't. It is far easier for governments to scapegoat dogs than deal with the total issue of keeping us safe from violence.

I don't understand why the actual owner was not fined as well. Was he? The person who was charged was the father of the owner I believe, but I would have expected that they both would have been fined. I know the laws on this have changed since this horrible event, but does anyone know if the owner was also in trouble?

M-sass, said, Because the owner wasn't in control of the dog or the premises that the dog was kept, the owner (the guy's son) didn't commit an offence.

See above post. The owner is liable.

So if a farmer agists his bull in someone's paddock and the bull escapes and gores a passer-by is the farmer liable as owner?

If a horse-owner lends their horse to someone and the horse kicks a child in the head is the horse-owner liable?

If a father lends his car to his p-plater son and the son loses control of the car and kills someone should the father be liable as the owner of the car?

When I bought my small campervan it came with a standard transverse middle passenger bench seat that moves forward and the back then folds down for sleeping. So what I did to carry my GSD was to put the seat down into the bed position and hook a "back seat buddy" doggy seat protector (that I previously used in my car) over the folded seat headrests. This protected the seat and allowed the dog to lay down away from the edge of the seat so he wouldn't fall off when braking plus he could look out the window. I also fastened the dog's harness to the seat belt like you do in a normal car. The downside is that with the seat folded down I can't open the kitchenette drawer where the coffee mugs are kept.

Of course if you have longitudinal seats it wouldn't work.

I wouldn't carry a dog in the front passenger seat because of the danger from the air bag.

I remember years ago walking down a suburban street in Melbourne and seeing a blind man give his guide dog a firm whack on the backside with his leash after the dog pulled him across a road to meet another dog that was barking at them from behind a front fence.

I think one must remember that guide dogs, seeing-eye dogs or whatever you want to call them, are still dogs, not some programmed machine or sub-human and sometimes get distracted and exhibit the normal responses of a dog. Think how easily humans get distracted and have accidents.

A blind assistance dog handler would be in a worse position than sighted assistance dog handlers, not being able to see a potential distraction of their dog.

I notice dogs used to tether autistic children are often pictured wearing electronic collars in training because of the risk to the child if the dog misbehaved.

In this case the dogs are scapegoats for the government's inability to deal with attacks on racial minorities by humans.

The state government has probably threatened councils with a reduction in funding unless they demonstrate progress in eliminating devil-dogs from their shires/ municipalities.

One can get signs saying simply "Dog on Premises". They are often sold in rural supplies shops. After all, not all farm dogs are friendly to strangers.

simone - i'm not sure if you are referring to greys left with vets to donate blood but basically they die, having "donated" all their blood at the same time.

I know this is probably a necessary evil - but it makes me sick all the same, poor dogs. :cry:

Not according to this and similar articles. I think if you Google on the subject you will find, at least in the US and UK, canine blood donors are well looked after.

If you are concerned about animal testing, you may wish to consider supporting HRA or MAWA.

Does anyone have any comment/ experience with Suprelorin implants?

For starters, one can easily buy a guide dog harness with rigid handle on eBay.

Identification and certification of service/ assistance dogs is a bit of a "dog's breakfast". The other day I observed a woman walking her dog through an indoor shopping mall. The dog was wearing a vest labelled "Companion Dog" - which it probably was. But that doesn't mean the handler has the same rights as the handler of a Service/ Assistance dog.

I'm quite sure that guide dogs have a pass or identification of sorts. Not sure how a person who isn't blind can get away with such a thing?

Could some biting cases be the result of a dog confusing a nightmare with reality?

Sorry, I added some more to my post if no one saw and added some more thoughts on the matter. She *could* be in a bit of a sticky situation. I really, really don't think it'd hold up in court at all but that doesn't stop them placing the order anyway, as they can essentially do whatever they like - your only recourse is appealing in court which is obviously costly and stressful. Best bet is to prevent that order being placed in the first place through whatever means you can (paying the vet bills (WITH letter stating it is goodwill only!), reading up on the Act and being prepared to show the Council that you know what you're talking about and won't back down).

Clyde send me a PM if it gets to that point and I'll send you my number to pass on to them to help them out.

From what you've said though the cat owners haven't complained or anything yet, she just rang up to check. Fingers crossed her paying the bill will mean that they don't contact the Council and she won't have to deal with any of this hypothetical.

I think Melzawelza is essentially correct although I think the appeal would hinge more on the phrase 'without provocation'. 'Provocation' does not appear to be defined in the Act and if there are no independent witnesses to the attack then there is no proof that the cat did not provoke the dog. Cats, like dogs, are predatory carnivores and are well known to attack and kill other animals such as mice, bilbys, birds etc.

I raised the Herald - Sun item about the 'rabid' dogs in order to infer that the the Herald - Sun piece on the pitbull attack may have been sensationalised and that both items may contain untruths and are an example of poor journalism.

I don't think headlines alleging dogs are rabid is a trivial matter. The threat of rabies getting into Australia is very real. Papua-New Guinea is officially rabies endemic, two dogs in Queensland were not so long ago destroyed because of possible exposure to the rabies-like Hendra virus (apparently there is a real risk that the virus can jump to dogs) and then in Victoria there is a risk of a bio-security breach at the Geelong Animal Health Laboratory.

For more information read the relevant AUSVETPLAN

Now the Herald Sun is inferring wild dogs in Gippsland have rabies:

Berserk dog attack