Jump to content


Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About attaboysmum

  • Rank
    Forum Member

Extra Info

  • Location
  1. A dog has killed a woman in Canberra ....

    Just don't read the comments.
  2. She became afraid of dogs after the bite. This is the exact wording of the section under "Nature of Injury" "However, the child’s cheek is scarred and may require further surgery as she grows. She also suffers emotionally both from a fear of dogs and self-consciousness about her scar." There is no suggestion in any of the court records that the child hurt him, even accidentally, but this is the wording in the court papers relating to the ear infection: "Hank was being treated for an ear infection at the time of the incident, which may have impacted on his behaviour." The first public mention of the ear infection that I've seen was after he was released. I wouldn't have seen everything Team Dog put out though so it's possible it was mentioned before but I just haven't found it.
  3. Sorry, I misunderstood. I've just seen so many nasty accusations about the mother that have been repeated over and over again as fact and I presumed that's what you were talking about. I'm not sure how much tolerance a community should have around dog bites, but IMO it seems reasonable to have declared Hank dangerous and either have him put down or kept under strict conditions, the latter of which wouldn't fit with my interpretation of a zero tolerance policy. I look at my big guy and the thought of having him put down if he bit someone is heartbreaking, thankfully he truly is a big gentle giant.
  4. In what way In what way? They ran a very public campaign telling a story that downplayed the injury, often depicting it as a bump, a nudge or a collision incurred while the dog and child played, they even said that the Council was misleading the public by saying the child had horrific injuries. In many ways what they put to the public wasn't what they agreed to in court. Nobody disputes that the dog caused the injury to the child but they contended that it was an accident and not a vicious attack. It clearly wasn't a mauling, that much we can all see. But it looks like a bite to me and I think it would take some creative thinking to believe otherwise. Anyway the dog was declared dangerous and they were meant to comply with certain conditions, one of which was to desex the dog within 90 days. They didn't and the dog was seized and a destruction order taken out because of concern about any future non compliance. It turned out the Council officer who had investigated the bite had given them a verbal extension to the legislatively based 90 day time frame 8 days before the it expired, although, the owner's partner gave a different date which would have been after the 90 day time. From my reading of things he didn't have the authority to override the legislation by granting an extension but I'm no expert on that. It was something like another 74 days from the initial 90 days before the dog was seized. I think there was also something about concern that the owner was allowing other people to be put in a position of risk, and it turned out she was allowing kids within her extended family, and her step children, to play with the dog. This is all in the court papers but very few people have bothered to look at them and check if what Team Dog was saying was true or not, and they painted the mother of the child in a very bad light. I don't believe it was made public until after the dog was home but it is in the court record that the dog had an ear infection at the time. There is also some interesting wording around the dog never showing aggression before when in his usual environment which made me wonder why you'd include the words 'usual environment', does that mean there were displays of aggression outside of that? A spokesperson for the facility he stayed in is on the record for saying something about possible signs of aggression and his behaviour limiting options for exercise. They went through 3 court hearings before the dog was allowed back home but there was a very public campaign where the child victim would have been subject to images of the dog around her community with 'Save Hank' across them (posters and stickers were sold to raise funds and public awareness)
  5. If they're complying this time then there should be no one at risk except the owner and her partner. Hopefully this time they're keeping the dog away from the children in the extended family, who they had been happy to have play with the dog after it was declared dangerous and before he was seized (the owner admitted this in court and showed photos of the dog with the children). I don't know if you saw the photo of the injury but that was no nudge with a tooth getting caught.
  6. I'm sorry but what page isn't there any more? If it's the page about the child then it's still there, the link worked when I clicked on it. From what I heard MBRC have decided on no further action, though they reportedly now have a no tolerance approach to dog bites in the region. I totally get why it's divided the community, if things were as the dog's side had put it I'd be up in arms against the mother too. I'd think think she was just a vindictive evil cow out to get revenge for a minor bump but that's not how it was at all. Team Dog put their side forward early on and kept pushing it so now a whole lot of people are convinced their story is the right one but a little fact checking shows different, but once people are set on their opinions it's hard to change them. I don't believe there's anything anyone can do now but in the interests of the child, who has not only been put through hell thanks to the dog but also the ongoing campaign to save him, the owner should either move location entirely or move the dog to her parent's home. I believe it was they who, during the court process offered to house him at their place. What bad behaviour has the mother displayed that can be substantiated? Quite a bit of poor behaviour from Team Dog can be proven. ETA: if the bad behaviour is that she changed her story from it being an accident to it being a bite, that's something the mother denies and the fact that the 000 transcript identifies the injury as being from a bite, and the mother reporting it to Council promptly as a bite does make it look like she didn't believe it was an accident. If the bad behaviour from the mother is that she allowed her daughter to visit the dog after the bite, she denies this. She does say that she and her daughter continued to visit the house where the dog now lives but he didn't live there at the time, and that she did once visit the house where he now lives at a time when the owner and the dog weren't there. The fact that the court record shows in amongst the uncontested facts a mention of the child being afraid of dogs also calls into question the credibility of the claim that the child visited the dog. If the child did then why would her fear of dogs not be contested, instead of it being accepted in court?
  7. DNA testing for mixed breed dogs

    As an ex rescue it's impossible to know for certain what was in him but he was listed as a Great Dane cross and he definitely appeared to be a cross with one and when I started to read up about the breed he shared a lot of personality characteristics with one. I just find it hard to believe there isn't some in there. Kind of like when a person has a black and a white twin without knowing that there was a long lost relative who was white/black. Yesterday I ordered the Embark test. I probably won't get that until early next year now that Christmas is so close, and then the weeks waiting for results. I'm attaching a pic of him in his prime, very soon after he was adopted. He's very clearly not a 'real' Dane but he just has to have some in there. From certain angles and with certain facial expressions he is strikingly like a Dane. Other angles and expressions, not so much though.
  8. DNA testing for mixed breed dogs

    I made a typo alright but not with the 13. We adopted him on 17 Feb 2007, so he's been with us just short of 11 years. He was a fully grown adult when we adopted him time. I know very large breeds don't tend to live very long but he's not huge, roughly 3/4 the size of a proper Dane I feel very blessed to have had him so long and part of my wondering what else was in him was finding the explanation for him living so long, that there had to be a much longer living breed in the mix. He is very grey these days, and can only do short walks, but he still has that special something that made me fall in love with him the moment I saw him. He has the most gentle, loving, happy nature but not terribly bright. For some reason I find that very endearing.
  9. I recently had my dog DNA tested through the Orivet kit. I was only sure of one breed in his mix and had no clue what the others could be. Turned out that one breed I was sure of wasn't identified but almost 40% came back as mixed breed unidentified. I was absolutely certain he was a Great Dane cross and it's thanks to him that I've fallen in love with the breed, but apparently he doesn't even have that as part of his mix. Instead he has Mastiff, Bull Terrier, Boxer and Irish Wolfhound, but the majority of his breed mix is unknown. Are there other tests that are more reliable than this one? I don't need any genetic testing to uncover possible health problems because he's already at least 13yo, probably more (we got him Feb 2017 and he was already an adult, estimated to be 2yo).
  10. I only spotted this today and wanted to say that there is a lot about this story that was not as it was presented by the owner and supporters. The dog was seized because the owner had failed to comply with all of the required conditions and more non-compliance came to light during the court proceedings. This dog is not the innocent victim he was painted as and the RSPCA identified possible signs of aggression in this dog. If you've seen photos of the injury it wasn't anything like a bump where a tooth got caught. It was awful. I started looking into this particular situation when the photos of the injury were published and I read extensively about it, including court documents and I can tell you I came to the conclusion that there was a heck of a lot of deception involved in the campaign to save the dog. The dog would never have been seized when it was if the owner had simply complied with requirements. There is so much more to this story than what you have seen. I was very glad to finally see the mother of the child speaking out and to hear her side of things. If you're interested in finding out more then visit here https://www.facebook.com/pg/Lizzie-the-child-bitten-by-Hank-the-Neo-Mastiff-1238293666309697/about/?ref=page_internal It's a very new page with loads more info still to come.