Vacuna Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) Girl hospitalised after dog attack Goya Dmytryshchak April 21, 2012 - 6:01PM A FIVE-year-old girl is in hospital after being attacked by a dog at Hadfield in Melbourne's north just before 4pm. Ambulance Victoria spokesman Ray Rowe said paramedics attending the Bond Street home found the girl with lacerations to her upper body, apparently inflicted as the dog tried to pull her to the ground. She was taken to the Royal Children's Hospital in a stable condition. Police have seized the dog, believed to be a pit bull mastiff cross Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/girl-hospitalised-after-dog-attack-20120421-1xdrw.html#ixzz1sfKghZni Edited April 21, 2012 by Vacuna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacuna Posted April 21, 2012 Author Share Posted April 21, 2012 HAVE YOUR SAY: Doncaster dog bite victim out of hospital Crime 18 Apr 12 @ 05:00am by Shaun Turton THE son of former AFL player and Doncaster resident Nathan Thompson has been released from hospital after he was attacked by an unrestrained american staffordshire terrier. The attack, which happened about 4.50pm on April 11 at Doncaster Reserve, left Louis Thompson, 8, in Box Hill Hospital with deep bites to one leg while his little brother Benjamin, 6, was traumatised. >> Have you been the victim of a dog attack? Tell us below. The former North Melbourne forward said he was only a couple of metres from his sons when the dog, which was with a male owner and off its leash, attacked. “I turned to check but by then it was too late,” Mr Thompson said. “Unprovoked, it attacked my son.” He was able to pry the dog’s jaws from his son’s leg. Mr Thompson said doctors had told his family that Louis, who was released from the hospital yesterday, should be able to continue playing with the Doncaster Junior Football Club’s under-9 team again in a month. He said he was extremely upset and would “explore his options”. Manningham Council is holding the dog at its pound while police investigate the incident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redangel Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 When will people learn that dog ownership is a responsibility that requires them to adequately control, socialise and train their dogs to be well adjusted companion animals. Personally I would like to see people who refuse to acknowledge this and have had an animal who have attacked unprovoked be restricted from ownership/purchase of dogs unless stringent requirements are met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxiewolf Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I'm so glad that those new breed legislation laws are working down there. Cos punishing the irresponsible people and enforcing preventative laws was such a stupid idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Of course these incidents are primarily the dog owners fault, but when these owners drop the ball you can't condemn the government for applying breed restrictions when 9 times out of 10, it's same style of dog involved in the most serious of attacks. They may not be Pitbulls, but they are not Rottie's, GSD's, Lab's or Standard Poodles who regularly feature, like clockwork, they will be some Bull/Mastiff/Amstaff cross breed types. Irresponsible people own all types of dogs and drop the ball everyday, but it does seem a patten when they drop the ball with these Bully style of dogs, they end up attacking someone??. I don't agree with breed restrictions per se, but gee whizz, if these Bully things keep attacking people as they seem to in a consistant pattern, legislation against these breed styles will get tougher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Of course these incidents are primarily the dog owners fault, but when these owners drop the ball you can't condemn the government for applying breed restrictions when 9 times out of 10, it's same style of dog involved in the most serious of attacks. They may not be Pitbulls, but they are not Rottie's, GSD's, Lab's or Standard Poodles who regularly feature, like clockwork, they will be some Bull/Mastiff/Amstaff cross breed types. Irresponsible people own all types of dogs and drop the ball everyday, but it does seem a patten when they drop the ball with these Bully style of dogs, they end up attacking someone??. I don't agree with breed restrictions per se, but gee whizz, if these Bully things keep attacking people as they seem to in a consistant pattern, legislation against these breed styles will get tougher. You've got it backwards. The crappy owners who drop the ball are more likely to go for tough looking dogs - hence the result you describe. If you're a crappy owner who wants to be cool you're not really likely to go for a poodle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korbin13 Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Of course these incidents are primarily the dog owners fault, but when these owners drop the ball you can't condemn the government for applying breed restrictions when 9 times out of 10, it's same style of dog involved in the most serious of attacks. They may not be Pitbulls, but they are not Rottie's, GSD's, Lab's or Standard Poodles who regularly feature, like clockwork, they will be some Bull/Mastiff/Amstaff cross breed types. Irresponsible people own all types of dogs and drop the ball everyday, but it does seem a patten when they drop the ball with these Bully style of dogs, they end up attacking someone??. I don't agree with breed restrictions per se, but gee whizz, if these Bully things keep attacking people as they seem to in a consistant pattern, legislation against these breed styles will get tougher. If you worked off of statistics and worked out how many bull breeds and their crosses there are in the community they are going to represent a lot of the issues that are out there. Doesn't mean there aren't other breeds responsible but the 'staffy' type breeds would have to outnumber the labrador as Australia's most popular breed. You could then turn that around and talk about how many there are and the majority are good, law abiding dogs, even though their owners aren't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Of course these incidents are primarily the dog owners fault, but when these owners drop the ball you can't condemn the government for applying breed restrictions when 9 times out of 10, it's same style of dog involved in the most serious of attacks. They may not be Pitbulls, but they are not Rottie's, GSD's, Lab's or Standard Poodles who regularly feature, like clockwork, they will be some Bull/Mastiff/Amstaff cross breed types. Irresponsible people own all types of dogs and drop the ball everyday, but it does seem a patten when they drop the ball with these Bully style of dogs, they end up attacking someone??. I don't agree with breed restrictions per se, but gee whizz, if these Bully things keep attacking people as they seem to in a consistant pattern, legislation against these breed styles will get tougher. If you worked off of statistics and worked out how many bull breeds and their crosses there are in the community they are going to represent a lot of the issues that are out there. Doesn't mean there aren't other breeds responsible but the 'staffy' type breeds would have to outnumber the labrador as Australia's most popular breed. You could then turn that around and talk about how many there are and the majority are good, law abiding dogs, even though their owners aren't! I think they look at the probability if these irresponsible owners had another type of dog less likely to exhibt such a preditory behaviour, less attacks would result??. To me it's just a hard case to argue that dogs of this type are community safe when they keep featuring in attacks as often as they appear to??. Personally I would prefer to see legislation to control random dog breeding in general, and breeding dogs of potentially volitile traits by the people putting some of these Bully/Mastiff type breedings together are problems waiting to surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korbin13 Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I think they look at the probability if these irresponsible owners had another type of dog less likely to exhibt such a preditory behaviour, less attacks would result??. To me it's just a hard case to argue that dogs of this type are community safe when they keep featuring in attacks as often as they appear to??. Personally I would prefer to see legislation to control random dog breeding in general, and breeding dogs of potentially volitile traits by the people putting some of these Bully/Mastiff type breedings together are problems waiting to surface. I would love to see random dog breeding under control but that is pie in the sky stuff at the moment. As for the bully/mastiff breeding,as has been pointed out many times in this sort of arguement, these sort of 'people' will just move onto other breeds. And considering Victoria apparently has tough laws on these 'sort of dogs' it obviously isn't working. It is a difficult problem, the answer in my opinion is to make people responsible for the actions of their dogs, no matter what breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 I think they look at the probability if these irresponsible owners had another type of dog less likely to exhibt such a preditory behaviour, less attacks would result??. To me it's just a hard case to argue that dogs of this type are community safe when they keep featuring in attacks as often as they appear to??. Personally I would prefer to see legislation to control random dog breeding in general, and breeding dogs of potentially volitile traits by the people putting some of these Bully/Mastiff type breedings together are problems waiting to surface. I would love to see random dog breeding under control but that is pie in the sky stuff at the moment. As for the bully/mastiff breeding,as has been pointed out many times in this sort of arguement, these sort of 'people' will just move onto other breeds. And considering Victoria apparently has tough laws on these 'sort of dogs' it obviously isn't working. It is a difficult problem, the answer in my opinion is to make people responsible for the actions of their dogs, no matter what breed. I tend to be of the opinion that these sorts of people choose the Bully/Mastiff types of dog for a reason. I don't think they possess any training skills to extract aggression responses out of anything otherwise they would just own anything from a Labrador to a Great Dane and get the same aggression responses and attack results?. I think with the breed styles taken away from them to produce preditory behaviour from other breeds, they would struggle to achieve it?. I still think there is some merit in the madness of legislation, take the Bully/Mastiff's off theses people and give them a nice well bred Cocker Spaniel instead, the commumunity would be a safer place :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumabaar Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I think they look at the probability if these irresponsible owners had another type of dog less likely to exhibt such a preditory behaviour, less attacks would result??. To me it's just a hard case to argue that dogs of this type are community safe when they keep featuring in attacks as often as they appear to??. Personally I would prefer to see legislation to control random dog breeding in general, and breeding dogs of potentially volitile traits by the people putting some of these Bully/Mastiff type breedings together are problems waiting to surface. I would love to see random dog breeding under control but that is pie in the sky stuff at the moment. As for the bully/mastiff breeding,as has been pointed out many times in this sort of arguement, these sort of 'people' will just move onto other breeds. And considering Victoria apparently has tough laws on these 'sort of dogs' it obviously isn't working. It is a difficult problem, the answer in my opinion is to make people responsible for the actions of their dogs, no matter what breed. I tend to be of the opinion that these sorts of people choose the Bully/Mastiff types of dog for a reason. I don't think they possess any training skills to extract aggression responses out of anything otherwise they would just own anything from a Labrador to a Great Dane and get the same aggression responses and attack results?. I think with the breed styles taken away from them to produce preditory behaviour from other breeds, they would struggle to achieve it?. I still think there is some merit in the madness of legislation, take the Bully/Mastiff's off theses people and give them a nice well bred Cocker Spaniel instead, the commumunity would be a safer place :D Give one of these Numpties a Cocker Spaniel, add a little bit of neglect perhaps some aversives and a big scare during its fear period and you would probably still find them walking down the street with the dog off lead resulting in a dog attack. Currently the average Cocker owner is on average reasonably responsible ( because the real numpties have other tougher looking dogs) and will keep aggressive dogs out of situations where they can do damage. But if Cockers were the last and only breed available and these numpties ended up with them then I can assure you there would still be dog attacks and suddenly it would be cocker spaniels being banned.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris the Rebel Wolf Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I think they look at the probability if these irresponsible owners had another type of dog less likely to exhibt such a preditory behaviour, less attacks would result??. To me it's just a hard case to argue that dogs of this type are community safe when they keep featuring in attacks as often as they appear to??. Personally I would prefer to see legislation to control random dog breeding in general, and breeding dogs of potentially volitile traits by the people putting some of these Bully/Mastiff type breedings together are problems waiting to surface. I would love to see random dog breeding under control but that is pie in the sky stuff at the moment. As for the bully/mastiff breeding,as has been pointed out many times in this sort of arguement, these sort of 'people' will just move onto other breeds. And considering Victoria apparently has tough laws on these 'sort of dogs' it obviously isn't working. It is a difficult problem, the answer in my opinion is to make people responsible for the actions of their dogs, no matter what breed. I tend to be of the opinion that these sorts of people choose the Bully/Mastiff types of dog for a reason. I don't think they possess any training skills to extract aggression responses out of anything otherwise they would just own anything from a Labrador to a Great Dane and get the same aggression responses and attack results?. I think with the breed styles taken away from them to produce preditory behaviour from other breeds, they would struggle to achieve it?. I still think there is some merit in the madness of legislation, take the Bully/Mastiff's off theses people and give them a nice well bred Cocker Spaniel instead, the commumunity would be a safer place :D ETA: As bull breeds are the dog of the moment when it comes to crying out about dangerous dogs the media more often than not either don't report the breed of dog if it's not a bull breed that has attacked or they say it was a bull breed in the initial report, find out later that it wasn't and just stop mentioning the breed, so no one ever hears what breed it actually was. Strongly agree. I keep a close eye on the dog news here and locally and the amount of times a bull breed is blamed, even in several cases a photo thrown up, when it turns out that the dog involved was a completely unrelated breed. Yes, a certain type of irresponsible owner can be attracted to bull breeds, and yes, they are involved in some attacks, but the attitude that if you remove one or two or three or ten 'dangerous breeds' that everyone will be safe and there will be no more dog attacks, is just as dangerous to the public. The message that needs to be spread is that ALL dog breeds can be dangerous, and that ALL dogs need to be trained responsibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geo Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I think they look at the probability if these irresponsible owners had another type of dog less likely to exhibt such a preditory behaviour, less attacks would result??. To me it's just a hard case to argue that dogs of this type are community safe when they keep featuring in attacks as often as they appear to??. Personally I would prefer to see legislation to control random dog breeding in general, and breeding dogs of potentially volitile traits by the people putting some of these Bully/Mastiff type breedings together are problems waiting to surface. I would love to see random dog breeding under control but that is pie in the sky stuff at the moment. As for the bully/mastiff breeding,as has been pointed out many times in this sort of arguement, these sort of 'people' will just move onto other breeds. And considering Victoria apparently has tough laws on these 'sort of dogs' it obviously isn't working. It is a difficult problem, the answer in my opinion is to make people responsible for the actions of their dogs, no matter what breed. I tend to be of the opinion that these sorts of people choose the Bully/Mastiff types of dog for a reason. I don't think they possess any training skills to extract aggression responses out of anything otherwise they would just own anything from a Labrador to a Great Dane and get the same aggression responses and attack results?. I think with the breed styles taken away from them to produce preditory behaviour from other breeds, they would struggle to achieve it?. I still think there is some merit in the madness of legislation, take the Bully/Mastiff's off theses people and give them a nice well bred Cocker Spaniel instead, the commumunity would be a safer place :D There is no merit to the legislation. It still has not produced a workable solution to responsible pet ownership, And i couldn't disagree more with your opinion that these "types" of dogs are over represented in dog bite stats, (as per the last posts by Snook and Rebel wolf) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mantis Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I think they look at the probability if these irresponsible owners had another type of dog less likely to exhibt such a preditory behaviour, less attacks would result??. To me it's just a hard case to argue that dogs of this type are community safe when they keep featuring in attacks as often as they appear to??. Personally I would prefer to see legislation to control random dog breeding in general, and breeding dogs of potentially volitile traits by the people putting some of these Bully/Mastiff type breedings together are problems waiting to surface. I would love to see random dog breeding under control but that is pie in the sky stuff at the moment. As for the bully/mastiff breeding,as has been pointed out many times in this sort of arguement, these sort of 'people' will just move onto other breeds. And considering Victoria apparently has tough laws on these 'sort of dogs' it obviously isn't working. It is a difficult problem, the answer in my opinion is to make people responsible for the actions of their dogs, no matter what breed. I tend to be of the opinion that these sorts of people choose the Bully/Mastiff types of dog for a reason. I don't think they possess any training skills to extract aggression responses out of anything otherwise they would just own anything from a Labrador to a Great Dane and get the same aggression responses and attack results?. I think with the breed styles taken away from them to produce preditory behaviour from other breeds, they would struggle to achieve it?. I still think there is some merit in the madness of legislation, take the Bully/Mastiff's off theses people and give them a nice well bred Cocker Spaniel instead, the commumunity would be a safer place :D Staffys, pitbulls etc.. were originally bred to fight other dogs, not people. Any sign of aggression toward humans wasn't tolerated and the dog would be killed as they couldn't afford to have fighting dogs turn on them. You don't have to possess skills to turn a dog aggressive. All you have to do is either provide no leadership to a strong willed dog, treat it like crap and abuse it or reward it when it does show aggression. It's like the morons who put a video up on YouTube of their dog "guarding" their infant and growling at anyone who came near it. They thought it was awesome and rewarded the dog for doing so. It's only a matter of time before that dog ends up biting someone. Wankers are unfortunately drawn to bull breeds either because of their historical purpose, movies and media promoting them as the dogs criminals own to look tough and because they look awesome. Most bull breeds are the biggest sooks you'll ever meet when it comes to people. ETA: As bull breeds are the dog of the moment when it comes to crying out about dangerous dogs the media more often than not either don't report the breed of dog if it's not a bull breed that has attacked or they say it was a bull breed in the initial report, find out later that it wasn't and just stop mentioning the breed, so no one ever hears what breed it actually was. Well said, I am sick to death of Bull breeds always being portrayed as the only dogs who bite. Obviously BSL isn't working, so how about concentrating on responsible dog ownership, instead of the breed of dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m-sass Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I think they look at the probability if these irresponsible owners had another type of dog less likely to exhibt such a preditory behaviour, less attacks would result??. To me it's just a hard case to argue that dogs of this type are community safe when they keep featuring in attacks as often as they appear to??. Personally I would prefer to see legislation to control random dog breeding in general, and breeding dogs of potentially volitile traits by the people putting some of these Bully/Mastiff type breedings together are problems waiting to surface. I would love to see random dog breeding under control but that is pie in the sky stuff at the moment. As for the bully/mastiff breeding,as has been pointed out many times in this sort of arguement, these sort of 'people' will just move onto other breeds. And considering Victoria apparently has tough laws on these 'sort of dogs' it obviously isn't working. It is a difficult problem, the answer in my opinion is to make people responsible for the actions of their dogs, no matter what breed. I tend to be of the opinion that these sorts of people choose the Bully/Mastiff types of dog for a reason. I don't think they possess any training skills to extract aggression responses out of anything otherwise they would just own anything from a Labrador to a Great Dane and get the same aggression responses and attack results?. I think with the breed styles taken away from them to produce preditory behaviour from other breeds, they would struggle to achieve it?. I still think there is some merit in the madness of legislation, take the Bully/Mastiff's off theses people and give them a nice well bred Cocker Spaniel instead, the commumunity would be a safer place :D Give one of these Numpties a Cocker Spaniel, add a little bit of neglect perhaps some aversives and a big scare during its fear period and you would probably still find them walking down the street with the dog off lead resulting in a dog attack. Currently the average Cocker owner is on average reasonably responsible ( because the real numpties have other tougher looking dogs) and will keep aggressive dogs out of situations where they can do damage. But if Cockers were the last and only breed available and these numpties ended up with them then I can assure you there would still be dog attacks and suddenly it would be cocker spaniels being banned.... There are plenty of numpties who own all different breeds and mixtures of now, I know plenty but fortunately the dogs they own are good natured dogs, but had the numpties I know owned dogs of genetic aggression, they would bite people for sure given the lack of responsible management these owners provide for their nice dogs. I have never yet seen aggression put into a dog, aggression, gameness and predatory behaviour is bred into a dog IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mantis Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 I'm sorry m_sass, but you have NFI. You sound like just another Bull breed hater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trinabean Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 (edited) I think they look at the probability if these irresponsible owners had another type of dog less likely to exhibt such a preditory behaviour, less attacks would result??. To me it's just a hard case to argue that dogs of this type are community safe when they keep featuring in attacks as often as they appear to??. Personally I would prefer to see legislation to control random dog breeding in general, and breeding dogs of potentially volitile traits by the people putting some of these Bully/Mastiff type breedings together are problems waiting to surface. I would love to see random dog breeding under control but that is pie in the sky stuff at the moment. As for the bully/mastiff breeding,as has been pointed out many times in this sort of arguement, these sort of 'people' will just move onto other breeds. And considering Victoria apparently has tough laws on these 'sort of dogs' it obviously isn't working. It is a difficult problem, the answer in my opinion is to make people responsible for the actions of their dogs, no matter what breed. I tend to be of the opinion that these sorts of people choose the Bully/Mastiff types of dog for a reason. I don't think they possess any training skills to extract aggression responses out of anything otherwise they would just own anything from a Labrador to a Great Dane and get the same aggression responses and attack results?. I think with the breed styles taken away from them to produce preditory behaviour from other breeds, they would struggle to achieve it?. I still think there is some merit in the madness of legislation, take the Bully/Mastiff's off theses people and give them a nice well bred Cocker Spaniel instead, the commumunity would be a safer place :D Give one of these Numpties a Cocker Spaniel, add a little bit of neglect perhaps some aversives and a big scare during its fear period and you would probably still find them walking down the street with the dog off lead resulting in a dog attack. Currently the average Cocker owner is on average reasonably responsible ( because the real numpties have other tougher looking dogs) and will keep aggressive dogs out of situations where they can do damage. But if Cockers were the last and only breed available and these numpties ended up with them then I can assure you there would still be dog attacks and suddenly it would be cocker spaniels being banned.... There are plenty of numpties who own all different breeds and mixtures of now, I know plenty but fortunately the dogs they own are good natured dogs, but had the numpties I know owned dogs of genetic aggression, they would bite people for sure given the lack of responsible management these owners provide for their nice dogs. I have never yet seen aggression put into a dog, aggression, gameness and predatory behaviour is bred into a dog IMHO. M-sass you seem to be simplistically dividing dogs into 2 categories. In your words "nice dogs" and then "dogs of genetic aggression" who are "bully/ mastiff" types. Such a simplistic equation is ludicrous IMHO. Of all the breeds of dog who have bitten me as a child, NONE were bull breeds. All were what you would consider "nice dogs" as far as breed is concerned (think of some of the most popular breeds in Australia). So in my humble opinion, any breed can become aggressive in the wrong hands. My children are at greater risk of being bitten by my sister's human-aggressive small breed dog, than by my gentle and well-socialized bull breed. Edited April 25, 2012 by trinabean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mantis Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Agree trinabean, I have only been bitten once by a dog that was totally unprovoked. I was 8 years old & walking with two of my friends, when a a Labrador ran out of it's yard & bit me on the bum, I have the scars to this day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trinabean Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Bingo Mantis. You guessed one of my "nice dog" breeds that bit me in my childhood. Ouch! I don't have a scar on my bum though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mantis Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Bingo Mantis. You guessed one of my "nice dog" breeds that bit me in my childhood. Ouch! I don't have a scar on my bum though. Lucky the media wasn't so sensationalist then, otherwise Labs would be declared dangerous dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now