Matthew_B

I understand. I think I'd be mortified if my dog was to ever do something like that. I just don't agree with emotion ruling when logic would make a fairer assessment. If my dog attacked anyone while in my presence without provocation I would have a hard time justifying keeping him. A stranger enters without invitation? Different story.

I suppose the key question then is "is a 10 year old child entering a property without invitation, 'sufficient provocation' to justify what these dogs were able to do".

For many people in the community, the answer is "no".

Well in my current thought process (which may change with time and experience) I guess I'm not within that part of the community.

You, and other dog owners who think that a dog inflicting serious injuries in the mere defence of property (as opposed to the safety of its owner) is acceptable. All I can say is for anyone who wishes to have a dog like this, do the dog and the wider public a favour and keep it behind padlocked gates.

Tragedies like this happen because people fail to socialise, train and/or contain their dogs. It will be the dogs that pay, each and every time something like this happens.

You owe it to your dog to protect it. if you care for your dog, it's actually far more important that you do that for your dog than that your dog protect you. If you want your house protected, buy a security system. Don't allow dogs of questionable stability to maim members of the community who do no more than exercise poor judgment.

And this is where you misunderstand me. I do not wish to own a dog like that. I do not own a dog like that. I just wish that dogs don't suffer the idiocy of the owner or a trespasser. We are not at odds on this issue.

I do however think that whatever I have in my yard is not the business of others. Stay out. If I can keep the dog in the yard, you can keep out.

Keeping the dog inside your yard is only HALF of your responsibility as its owner. Keeping other people out is the other half and that's where the owners of these two dogs failed.

You own dogs that have committed a sustained attack on a child who did nothing more than walk in the front gate of your property.

The child entered the territory for which the dogs were defending.....the dogs were not targeting attacks on children.

You had to beat them off. It took time to do it. The child has sustained over 20 punctures to chest, arms, legs and buttocks. He had to be evacuated to hospital in Sydney for surgery and is in a serious condition.

Yes, that's normal behaviour for dogs defending territory in unison to stop entry of an unfamiliar person.

This child belongs to one of your neighbours.

Mum and dad could have educated the child not to enter the neighbours yard especially given that the yard was signed. I doubt the neighbours didn't know the dogs were there?

And you think that putting dogs to sleep that you struggled to get off this child was "idiotic"?

The dog's weren't targeting attacks on children, they were defending territory which is what dogs of territorial drive do.

What sort of a future would these dogs have? And what sort of life would you have wondering when the next child might be attacked?

Perhaps the dog owners have been victims of serious assaults or home invasions and territorial driven dogs help them sleep at night.

And I do mean "when" because for these dogs, it wasn't speculation that they could and would maim a child. They'd done it.

Territorial drive doesn't reserve it's self for only children. The dogs may have been quite social away from their territory and be fundamentally good stable dogs.

I adore my dogs. But if they'd done this, they'd not see another day.

Parents need to educate children that dogs can defend territory and not to enter enclosures containing dogs without the dog owner's presence.

There is truth in saying the child is at fault here. But so are the owners of the dogs. Yes, the attack occurred in the dogs' own yard. However, a secure yard isn't defined by how well it keeps the dogs inside but also how well it keeps people out. In this case, the owners failed miserably on the latter. To place the blame for this incident solely at the feet of the child and his parents is not only unfair, it is quite simply wrong.

There are conflicting reports all over the place. Was the brother actually in the house or anywhere at all on the property?

Did the 10yo boy climb the fence and was it the front fence or the back yard fencing that he climbed? Or did he walk through the front gate?

Matthew B: These dogs had not been declared dangerous nor are they are restricted breeds so there would have been no fencing laws in place.

Has it been established that the dog owners had to beat the dogs off the boy?

I am very sorry the little boy is so badly injured. I'm also sorry these dogs are going to lose their lives.

I don't understand how or why these dog owners did not have their dogs safely confined.

I'm fairly safe here as it's close impossible for a kid to get onto my property plus my dogs would welcome a strange kid coming into their yard.

No, there's no laws for that breed, but in my opinion it should be common sense to make your yard secure enough that your dog cannot get out AND that it's not easy for someone to just walk in either. In the news articles I've read from various sources and from on TV, witnesses stated it "took ages for the owner to beat the dogs off the boy".

Some people say the kid shouldn't have been in the yard. That's true. But then, how secure was the yard if a ten year-old could get in? If you own certain breeds of dog, there are rules as to how high a fence must be, what it is constructed of, how difficult it is to access the dogs' yard (either legitimately or not), etc. That a ten year-old was able to gain access tells me the yard probably wasn't secure quite enough. So in this case, yeah - the kid is at fault for going into the yard but the dogs' owners are also at fault for making it possible for that kid to get in there. Thankfully, no one was killed.

Would the dogs HAVE to be put down if the owner didn't want to surrender? They were in their own yard with signage and the gates were shut.

Wouldn't having a sign on the front gate saying Beware Of the Dog mean the owners admit these dogs would attack, even on their own property, and it would seem that the dogs were able to use the front area. How then would anybody be able to come to the front door?

it's what could be argued, but people without dogs put up these signs as security/safety measures / deterrents too.

The kid was looking for his brother - I doubt he was stopping to smell the roses or read the signs everywhere...

MattB you are wrong re police and army. The reason these dogs are not used is that they are to friendly towards people. When trained they tend to focus way to much on the equipment rather then a person. The rather bite the sleeve then an arm. Plus most are not big enough

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You didn't answer my question about the guarding breeds - there are a lot of breeds that have been and are used for guarding/security/protection/police and others that have historically been used for dogfighting. APBT do not have the monopoly on being used for some activity that used aggression.

I have never seen a fighting dog used in a role with Police or security guards. They aren't as controllable/trainable as dogs such as the German Shepherd. My brother was in the Army in QLD and good mates with an MP on the dog squad of the Army base guards. He said the level of self-control those dogs have is amazing. He saw a training scenario one day - in a bite suit one of the MP's ran from a dog that was sent to detain him. Just before the dog reached the guard in the bite suit, the dogs' handler issued an order to stop the chase and to return to his side. It did so immediately, without hesitation. Bet a pitbull wouldn't have that kind of restraint. Why do you think they aren't used in this role?

No - Labradors, Beagles, etc aren't bred as fighting dogs. Is that such a hard concept for the people in this forum to grasp?

So what are you saying Matthew? That labs, beagles etc can't bite people? That only certain types of dogs have the potential to be aggressive? If a lab or beagle bit someone, what would your reaction be?

OMG! How many times do I have to say it? Yes, any dog can bite - I've said this numerous times. That isn't the point. The point is that pitbulls have been bred as fighting dogs. That makes them an inherently dangerous breed to have around. Labradors, Beagles, Golden Retrievers aren't now, nor have they ever been bred as fighting dogs. They are renowned as 'family' dogs. Honestly, I feel like I am talking to a brick wall sometimes...

What part of human aggression vs animal aggression dont you understand.They were bred to fight other dogs not gladiators at the colloseum.

The fact they were bred for fighting clearly means they have a predisposition to aggressive behaviour. Whether the focus of their aggression in the past was other dogs or humans is irrelevant. They are a naturally aggressive dog.

I can see Matthew's point to a degree. While all breeds can bite, some are bred for temperaments that are likely to become a hazard. Take the bull breeds out of the picture because many people have loving investments in t hem. Let's look at the temperament description for the Mountain Cur, a US landrace that, so far as I know, isn't found in Australia. I don't think this breed should be welcomed to suburban or urban environments. 'Cat' here is likely to mean mountain lion; a 'razor back' is a wild boar. Underlining and colour changes in original.

This is not a submissive, easygoing dog. With the toughness and courage to confront a very angry, very large cat, these curs have learned to be decisive and dauntless. Usually silent on the trail, they make consistent guard dogs but certainly are not ideal for suburbia, where there is no call to work. Trailing ability varies with strains, but they have enough nose to follow game and many carry treeing ability. Some lines are bred for tree dogs and others for baying. This very tough large game, raccoon, and squirrel hunter is willing to face a squealing razor back or an angry wild cat when it is cornered. They have a strong desire to please their master. Very protective of the property and family; and without an owner who is more dominant than themselves they can become over-protective. The Mountain Cur is noted for his courage. This hunting dog will catch a mad bull head- on in the nose and will hold his ground even against a bear when threatened. The objective in training this dog is to achieve a pack leader status. It is a natural instinct for a dog to have an order in their pack. When we humans live with dogs, we become their pack. The entire pack cooperates under a single leader. Lines are clearly defined and rules are set. Because a dog communicates his displeasure with growling and eventually biting, all other humans MUST be higher up in the order than the dog. The humans must be the ones making the decisions, not the dogs. That is the only way your relationship with your dog can be a complete success.

Finally - a sane voice of reason!

Well if you believe (as the author of this piece seems to) that dogs go around fighting and biting to establish dominance at any opportunity they get, then a ban on any dog seems like a very good idea.

Aren't you fighting fire with fire here? Ie, looking for the part of the post with which you have a quarrel (exaggerating the alpha dog stuff) and ignoring the more substantive part (tough dog bred for big game, courageous, not recommended as a pet). Your moniker suggests that sympathetic rather than argumentative listening would be better.

The author started off talking about one sort of dog then generalised to all dogs. Having worked with a lot of types of dogs, it isn't true and perpetuates the myth that dogs are inherently violent and need to be kept subdued in order to be safe.

The reality is that dogs do everything they can to avoid a fight. We really have to push them over the edge to get that behaviour from them, intentionally or otherwise. If an undercurrent of thugs are still breeding game-bred dogs then we should be policing this activity, certainly.

My moniker is a figure of speech, I really don't think we need to argue about it.

OMG, and you call me uneducated?!?!?!

I've given up attempting to convince MatthewB that his proposal to end serious dog attacks wont't work.

The AVA, the RSPCA, all the canine researchers.. they don't agree with MatthewB's proposal. The projects that have proven that you can reduce attacks without banning breeds.. pffft. MatthewB knows better.

Save your energy folks.. you are flagellating a deceased equine here. No amount of logic or reason is going to change his opinion.

That's interesting, especially considering I've never submitted a proposal to the AVA, RSPCA or any canine researchers...

No - Labradors, Beagles, etc aren't bred as fighting dogs. Is that such a hard concept for the people in this forum to grasp?

So what are you saying Matthew? That labs, beagles etc can't bite people? That only certain types of dogs have the potential to be aggressive? If a lab or beagle bit someone, what would your reaction be?

OMG! How many times do I have to say it? Yes, any dog can bite - I've said this numerous times. That isn't the point. The point is that pitbulls have been bred as fighting dogs. That makes them an inherently dangerous breed to have around. Labradors, Beagles, Golden Retrievers aren't now, nor have they ever been bred as fighting dogs. They are renowned as 'family' dogs. Honestly, I feel like I am talking to a brick wall sometimes...

It's never the dog, it's always the owner or the victim's fault or something else. Unbelievable!!!

No Matthew, the point is that pitbulls have been banned and eradicated in various jurisdictions over the last 20 years or more. As best as we can determine, not a single bite has been prevented using this strategy. What do you say to that?

The breed needs to be eradicated until it ceases to exist. Simple. It can't attack/kill you if it's extinct.

Then what do we do with every other breed or cross that attacks someone ? Continue to blame the breed or cross untill there are none left ?

No - Labradors, Beagles, etc aren't bred as fighting dogs. Is that such a hard concept for the people in this forum to grasp?

It's never the dog, it's always the owner or the victim's fault or something else. Unbelievable!!!

No Matthew, the point is that pitbulls have been banned and eradicated in various jurisdictions over the last 20 years or more. As best as we can determine, not a single bite has been prevented using this strategy. What do you say to that?

The breed needs to be eradicated until it ceases to exist. Simple. It can't attack/kill you if it's extinct.

I think Matthew B meant that the person making the comment that because they have been attacked by people that all people should be banned was making a juvenile comment (not that I want to defend any of the rest of what he was saying, as he clearly did not get the point being made about it did not matter how far away the cricket nets were, nor how long they had been there before the dog spotted them, the point being made of if the dog considered that as its territory and had only just noticed them there (perhaps as the owner had only just noticed them and had maybe let the dog out knowing what would happen) then it would then have reacted and defended its territory, I also think the point could have been valid about them having bats - if the dog had been attacked with bats before, then it was reacting to that. Would not have liked to be attacked, but sounds like this was a bad owner case, not a bad dog, more a dog that never stood a chance with a tool for an owner

Wow, I'm speechless. That's the most apologetic post I've read yet in defence of this breed. It's never the dog, it's always the owner or the victim's fault or something else. Unbelievable!!!

I've been attacked by people before. People are a menace and should be banned.

Are you under the age of 6?

Are you trying to argue that only a pitbull would attack a child under the age of 6, and not a person or another breed of dog? Or that even a Beagle or JRT wouldn't be able to seriously injure a child that young?

I can see why your parents let their 5 year old child play cricket in a public area without supervision, you must have been one tough little dude to break a cricket bat over a dog's head, then threaten the owner with it and drive off.

I was being sarcastic, in response to the childishness of your comment regarding banning people because you've been attacked by a person or persons. Please come back when you are an adult.

Good post Melza,

I'd hazard a guess that MatthewB wouldn't be able to identify an APBT, or that the story has been somewhat fabricated to justify his view, but i'll take it at face value.

I'd also bet that he didn't plan on having his own argument turned against him.

MatthewB, i do hope now you have managed to learn a little? I was attacked by a collie whislt playing football, it ran onto the park and latched onto my leg good and proper, (i was 10) I do not however want all collies or farm dogs for that matter removed from society.

Different story altogether. I don't want Collies banned either because they are not a dangerous breed. Please try to keep it sensible! I didn't say I want a ban on all dogs, just dangerous ones like the pitbull.

Know why I don't like the pitbull breed? I was attacked by one. While at a cricket field in the nets doing some batting practice with a mate I was cornered by one of these animals. I tried to walk slowly around it without making any sudden moves, but it blocked my exit from the nets. My mate was lucky enough to climb a fence when he saw the dog coming. I couldn't get out in time. It was barking, snarling, showing its teeth and pinned its ears back - obvious signs of aggression. When it finally made its charge at me, I belted it so hard with my cricket bat that the handle cracked. Luckily for me, the dog limped off very slowly in the opposite direction, bleeding, having decided it was a bad idea to try to attack me after all. The owner was across the street on his verandah watching and laughing until I defended myself. He had the audacity, the arrogance to come and berate me for "assaulting" his dog, saying he was going to "mess me up real good". My mate and I said that if he didn't back off, our first phone call would be to the Police after he met the same side of both our cricket bats as his dog did. He reluctantly backed off, swearing all the way, and once we were safely in the car, we noted the guy's address and reported it to the Police and the local Council. He ended up copping a fairly expensive fine for not having his dangerous dog properly contained in his yard. He also copped a hefty bill from the vet. My mate and I did nothing to provoke that dog - we were just doing cricket practice. These dogs are a menace and have no place in society.

I was going to ask earlier on whether you'd had a bad experience with one as you really seem to have a grudge against them big time.

I guess the above post answers that question.

The owner of the dog was obviously a bogan - to be laughing at you as his dog bailed you up like that.

This is what we are trying to say. In most cases it is the hands they end up in.

The bogans, the wanna-be macho's.

It's really sad that you had to experience that and I imagine it would of been very scary. But think, if that twit of an owner had of kept that dog at home, like a responsible owner would - and not let him out to roam to the park - you wouldn't of been bailed up to begin with. And if the dog had of been socialised properly, chances are he would of came running at you with a wagging tail - not snarling teeth.

Also whose to say the dogs owner hadn't abused it before? let's face it - he sounds like an absolute bogan who obviously didn't care for the wellbeing and safety of a fellow human being, laughing like that - and he couldn't of cared too much about his dog, letting him out to roam. Maybe the dog felt threatened in some way, seeing you there with a cricket bat???

I was in the nets of the cricket field across the road from the "bogans" house, with the nets being atleast 150m from even the road. I fail to see how the dog could have felt threatened nearly 200m from its "territory" - AFTER wandering over to us. We'd been there for nearly 2 hours before the dog came out of its yard.

I've been attacked by people before. People are a menace and should be banned.

Are you under the age of 6?

Good post Melza,

I'd hazard a guess that MatthewB wouldn't be able to identify an APBT, or that the story has been somewhat fabricated to justify his view, but i'll take it at face value.

I'd also bet that he didn't plan on having his own argument turned against him.

MatthewB, i do hope now you have managed to learn a little? I was attacked by a collie whislt playing football, it ran onto the park and latched onto my leg good and proper, (i was 10) I do not however want all collies or farm dogs for that matter removed from society.

I didn't have to identify the dog, even though I knew what breed it was. The reason I didn't have to identify it - the dog was registered with the council and the owner registered it in plain black and white that it was a pitbull...

Know why I don't like the pitbull breed? I was attacked by one. While at a cricket field in the nets doing some batting practice with a mate I was cornered by one of these animals. I tried to walk slowly around it without making any sudden moves, but it blocked my exit from the nets. My mate was lucky enough to climb a fence when he saw the dog coming. I couldn't get out in time. It was barking, snarling, showing its teeth and pinned its ears back - obvious signs of aggression. When it finally made its charge at me, I belted it so hard with my cricket bat that the handle cracked. Luckily for me, the dog limped off very slowly in the opposite direction, bleeding, having decided it was a bad idea to try to attack me after all. The owner was across the street on his verandah watching and laughing until I defended myself. He had the audacity, the arrogance to come and berate me for "assaulting" his dog, saying he was going to "mess me up real good". My mate and I said that if he didn't back off, our first phone call would be to the Police after he met the same side of both our cricket bats as his dog did. He reluctantly backed off, swearing all the way, and once we were safely in the car, we noted the guy's address and reported it to the Police and the local Council. He ended up copping a fairly expensive fine for not having his dangerous dog properly contained in his yard. He also copped a hefty bill from the vet. My mate and I did nothing to provoke that dog - we were just doing cricket practice. These dogs are a menace and have no place in society.

blah blah blah blah blah blah no need for fighting dogs, period.

No need for gundogs either Matthew.... shooting game is banned in most states. And as they bite kiddies, best we be rid of them.

OMG, another nasty Labrador attack - read the excuses made for the dog

And another!! Holy cow Labs are dangerous

A 2 year old girl at home was feeding her

pet labrador biscuits and he turned and

snapped. She received bites across her

face, and through cheek also causing eye

damage. She was admitted for treatment.

Its clear this breed attacks kids with no good reason. Best we kill them all now.

The fact you're searching the net for stories of dog attacks by Labradors to defend pitbulls demonstrates a level of desperation...

Wow, sheer lunacy! If we believed you, every Police Dog Squad member and security guard dog unit would be suffering numerous injuries caused by their dogs. The fact that they don't is because the breeds selected are those which can be trained to restrain their aggressiveness and to attack only when commanded. The pitbull that killed the little girl that is the subject of this topic could not be stopped no matter what.

The dog that killed this little girl wasn't a pitbull Matthew and you know it.

The overwhelming majority of individuals of breeds used for police and security work fail the grade for a range of reasons. BTW, dog bites are pretty common in dog handlers.

Which part of "because some pitbulls might be dangerous doesn't mean ALL of them are" can't you grasp.

Some Labradors are dangerous Matthew. Seriously scarey dogs. Doesnt mean all of them are and you're in a better position than most to know it.

But take a poorly bred Labrador, fail to socialise it to recognise children as somethign other than prey, fail to teach it bite inhibition, fail to keep it in a manner that sees it form good social bonds with people, fail to train it to come back when its called and fail to exercise it regularly and you've got a recipe for a dangerous dog. The breed matters only as far as size and power go. It matter as far as bite thresholds and bite inhibitions go. It also matter as far as drives go. Crossbreed it with other large and powerful dogs and your capacity to know what its drives and inhibitions are decreases exponentially.

But none of those qualities is restriced to particular breeds, nor shared by all individuals within a breed. Assuming so is the path to disaster and that's the path that BSL takes.

Labradors weren't bred for fighting. Pitbulls were and are.

The pitbull debate will continue I am sure, but seriously Matthew_B don't you have any other ideas. Surely you don't think banning APBT's is just going to stop dog attacks from happening.

I only ever seem to see you post in topics regarding pitbulls.

Isn't it ironic that almost every death from a dog attack in the last decade or so has involved a dog that is a member of the pitbull breed, whether purebred or a cross? Yes, I do think that banning all breeds of pitbulls will prevent a considerable number of deaths and maimings because I honestly don't remember the last time I saw a news report of a person dying from an attack of a Beagle or a Dalmatian or a Labrador. Some of you members here are so blinkered with your love of this breed of dog that nothing anyone says or does will change your mind and that is a shame for both past and future victims of these hideous dogs.

blah blah blah blah blah blah You just dont get it nor do you listen.

blah blah blah blah blah blah no need for fighting dogs, period.

Isn't it ironic that almost every death from a dog attack in the last decade or so has involved a dog that is a member of the pitbull breed, whether purebred or a cross? Yes, I do think that banning all breeds of pitbulls will prevent a considerable number of deaths and maimings because I honestly don't remember the last time I saw a news report of a person dying from an attack of a Beagle or a Dalmatian or a Labrador. Some of you members here are so blinkered with your love of this breed of dog that nothing anyone says or does will change your mind and that is a shame for both past and future victims of these hideous dogs.

How about maiming instead then?

Get your blinkers off and read this

and this

and this

Yeah, wow. Rare day when either of those incidents happens. Same can't be said of fighting dogs...

Wow, sheer lunacy! If we believed you, every Police Dog Squad member and security guard dog unit would be suffering numerous injuries caused by their dogs. The fact that they don't is because the breeds selected are those which can be trained to restrain their aggressiveness and to attack only when commanded. The pitbull that killed the little girl that is the subject of this topic could not be stopped no matter what.

The dog that killed this little girl wasn't a pitbull Matthew and you know it.

The overwhelming majority of individuals of breeds used for police and security work fail the grade for a range of reasons. BTW, dog bites are pretty common in dog handlers.

Which part of "because some pitbulls might be dangerous doesn't mean ALL of them are" can't you grasp.

Some Labradors are dangerous Matthew. Seriously scarey dogs. Doesnt mean all of them are and you're in a better position than most to know it.

But take a poorly bred Labrador, fail to socialise it to recognise children as somethign other than prey, fail to teach it bite inhibition, fail to keep it in a manner that sees it form good social bonds with people, fail to train it to come back when its called and fail to exercise it regularly and you've got a recipe for a dangerous dog. The breed matters only as far as size and power go. It matter as far as bite thresholds and bite inhibitions go. It also matter as far as drives go. Crossbreed it with other large and powerful dogs and your capacity to know what its drives and inhibitions are decreases exponentially.

But none of those qualities is restriced to particular breeds, nor shared by all individuals within a breed. Assuming so is the path to disaster and that's the path that BSL takes.

Labradors weren't bred for fighting. Pitbulls were and are.

The pitbull debate will continue I am sure, but seriously Matthew_B don't you have any other ideas. Surely you don't think banning APBT's is just going to stop dog attacks from happening.

I only ever seem to see you post in topics regarding pitbulls.

Isn't it ironic that almost every death from a dog attack in the last decade or so has involved a dog that is a member of the pitbull breed, whether purebred or a cross? Yes, I do think that banning all breeds of pitbulls will prevent a considerable number of deaths and maimings because I honestly don't remember the last time I saw a news report of a person dying from an attack of a Beagle or a Dalmatian or a Labrador. Some of you members here are so blinkered with your love of this breed of dog that nothing anyone says or does will change your mind and that is a shame for both past and future victims of these hideous dogs.