zeebie Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Oh and BTW the dog that attacked my dog 2 yrs ago was a small terrier xbreed who just came flying out of a unfenced yard and more recently the 2nd attack was just a large Xbreed which looked like a BC X lab type male not desexed, and I have seen the owner of this dog abusing it, so no wonder it wants to pick on every other dog around and the council & RSPCA are powerless unless i can supply footage of the abuse or of the dog attacking me or other dog etc, so how ridiculous is this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Everytime I read a heading in here about a dog attack, I always find it disappointing and find myself shaking my head at so many ludicrous comments What a tragic series of events two very innocent dogs pay the price for HUMAN stupidity !!!! Pit Bulls and Bull x breeds need to be wiped out, sorry to say I used to argue till I was blue in the face with people about "blame the deed not the breed" but there comes a time when you throw your hands up in the air and admit defeat I 100% agree that these breeds can be loyal and loving companions in the right responsible home, but in the wrong hands, a very head strong and high drive breed can be devastating .....society today is just not equipped nor educated enough to deal with these breeds anymore the irresponsible unfortunately outweigh the responsible ... RIP Sweet Maggie, a sad end to your truly amazing and selfless life Fingers crossed for Bosley xxxxxxxxxxxx So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes - because thats pretty well how our society works. Laws are made to cater for the lowest common denominator and the rest of us have to wear the results. RIP Matilda -a horrid way to go. But you can see that comments like "they should be wiped out" aren't useful, don't impart any knowledge and don't constructively help anyone. ANY head strong dog (all breeds) with a high prey drive can be an issue in the wrong hands, regardless of size. FYI twice this week I've had an off lead GR run at me and my dogs, sure i wasn't worried but they came over to my dogs (on lead) to ponce around them and posture... Oblivious owner couldn't care that my 2 though not DA do not like other dogs putting their heads over them.. SO here's why nothing occurred: I have years of knowing my dogs, other breeds, triggers etc.. and this is what it takes to be an owner of any breed. Education for me started with my parents teaching me dogs behaviors, training classes etc.. which i'm now teaching my daughters. Could something have occurred..?? you bet and without training my dogs, myself and knowing a little about dogs in general helps. BSL doesn't. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719 How do you educate morons like this? How do you stop morons like him owning strong powerful breeds? Some people don't wish to be educated. You can never stop it, but you can drastically reduce it. The AVA draft legislative framework sets out clearly how to do it and is based on models that are proven to work. Calgary, Canada used to have BSL. They got rid of it and implemented policy that the above is based on. There are a hell of a lot more bull breeds around than ever before, the population has doubled yet he bites have halved. Severity of those bites left is also generally much less. So essentially bites are a quarter of what they would have been, even with a hell of a lot of bull breeds in the area. Incidents like this make us despair, and we should despair that the legislative framework in Vic is so draconian and costs so much money yet it is doing nothing to reduce the likelihood of these attacks. But instead of despairing we should be supporting papers like this and the other evidence that shows that the outcome we all want is achievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 (edited) WHY was the 'guide dog' being walked with another dog in the first place this is highly irregular . the reason for this walk was apparently as follows: Allan Close, 25, was walking the family's cocker spaniel Bosley, 8, and his brother Andrew's black labrador guide dog Matilda, 4, on Plunkett St, Bellfield at 8.40pm yesterday.Mr Close was planning to surprise his 23-year-old vision-impaired brother who was taking a class at Hall's Taekwondo on Bell St and walk home with him and the dogs afterwards. Edited August 11, 2012 by persephone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppoochi Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Everytime I read a heading in here about a dog attack, I always find it disappointing and find myself shaking my head at so many ludicrous comments What a tragic series of events two very innocent dogs pay the price for HUMAN stupidity !!!! Pit Bulls and Bull x breeds need to be wiped out, sorry to say I used to argue till I was blue in the face with people about "blame the deed not the breed" but there comes a time when you throw your hands up in the air and admit defeat I 100% agree that these breeds can be loyal and loving companions in the right responsible home, but in the wrong hands, a very head strong and high drive breed can be devastating .....society today is just not equipped nor educated enough to deal with these breeds anymore the irresponsible unfortunately outweigh the responsible ... RIP Sweet Maggie, a sad end to your truly amazing and selfless life Fingers crossed for Bosley xxxxxxxxxxxx So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes - because thats pretty well how our society works. Laws are made to cater for the lowest common denominator and the rest of us have to wear the results. RIP Matilda -a horrid way to go. But you can see that comments like "they should be wiped out" aren't useful, don't impart any knowledge and don't constructively help anyone. ANY head strong dog (all breeds) with a high prey drive can be an issue in the wrong hands, regardless of size. FYI twice this week I've had an off lead GR run at me and my dogs, sure i wasn't worried but they came over to my dogs (on lead) to ponce around them and posture... Oblivious owner couldn't care that my 2 though not DA do not like other dogs putting their heads over them.. SO here's why nothing occurred: I have years of knowing my dogs, other breeds, triggers etc.. and this is what it takes to be an owner of any breed. Education for me started with my parents teaching me dogs behaviors, training classes etc.. which i'm now teaching my daughters. Could something have occurred..?? you bet and without training my dogs, myself and knowing a little about dogs in general helps. BSL doesn't. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719 How do you educate morons like this? How do you stop morons like him owning strong powerful breeds? Some people don't wish to be educated. You can never stop it, but you can drastically reduce it. The AVA draft legislative framework sets out clearly how to do it and is based on models that are proven to work. Calgary, Canada used to have BSL. They got rid of it and implemented policy that the above is based on. There are a hell of a lot more bull breeds around than ever before, the population has doubled yet he bites have halved. Severity of those bites left is also generally much less. So essentially bites are a quarter of what they would have been, even with a hell of a lot of bull breeds in the area. Incidents like this make us despair, and we should despair that the legislative framework in Vic is so draconian and costs so much money yet it is doing nothing to reduce the likelihood of these attacks. But instead of despairing we should be supporting papers like this and the other evidence that shows that the outcome we all want is achievable. Ok, I've read the whole thing and I find a lot of holes in it. The biggest hole being......A dog has to have done something first, only thereafter will it be considered as being dangerous. Too bad if someone dies in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussielover Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 I don't know where you got the impression that the guide dog having a leisurely walk was unusual? I know plenty of guide dogs who get walks and taken to the dog park when not in harness. Many of them would require some off lead or relaxing exercise- we are talking about young, active gun dogs or other working breeds here. My dog plays with several working guide dogs and they don't seem to lack energy or be " too tired" from their normal work. Sometimes volunteers or friends will take the dog out as well. When my dog was in the guide dog program I was assured that most working guides do receive off leash exercise and extra walks every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbi Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 My heart goes out to Andrew and his brother Allan, an awful, tragedy that will haunt them for a long time to come. My thoughts and prayers are with Bosley, that he recovers fully and isn't in pain while he heals. Rest in peace Matilda a well loved and brave guide dog and friend to a very special young man. This whole situation is heart wrenching to all dog owners but for the pro bsl supporters to use this to call for total annihalition of a type/breed of dog is just as much of a tragedy, the ratbag owners need to be held responsible for these attacks, mandatory jail sentences, large fines and a ban on dog owning. Ban the Bull Breeds and other breeds will follow, this is not what any body would want surely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dxenion Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Just moving away from the devastating 'accident' that occurred, WHY was the 'guide dog' being walked with another dog in the first place this is highly irregular and yes had the owner of the dog been with it he also may have been more seriously injured etc). But the fact remains that when Guide dogs are 'off duty' with their owner they are usually free to move around the owners property but usually stay within close contact at all times. I may be wrong but I know in my own service dogs case NO one can just take him for a walk as such let alone with another pet dog. Most guide dogs do so much 'walking' in course of their work they don't need to go out for 'walkies'. Matilda was being walked to the gym where her owner was so he could walk home with her. It was supposed to be a surprise. Because of one idiot owner was so cowardly he took off as soon as he rounded up the dogs, a very valuable guide dog was killed and a young man lost his best friend, partner and his partner's eyes. What I'd like to see happen to that idiot is too impolite to say in a public forum. Not all service/ assistsnce dogs owners are as mobile as others. Sometimes having some else take the dog out for an off duty walk is very rewarding and relaxing for the dog as they can just be a dog and do dog things like sniffing etc, things they shouldn't do on duty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 (edited) Everytime I read a heading in here about a dog attack, I always find it disappointing and find myself shaking my head at so many ludicrous comments What a tragic series of events two very innocent dogs pay the price for HUMAN stupidity !!!! Pit Bulls and Bull x breeds need to be wiped out, sorry to say I used to argue till I was blue in the face with people about "blame the deed not the breed" but there comes a time when you throw your hands up in the air and admit defeat I 100% agree that these breeds can be loyal and loving companions in the right responsible home, but in the wrong hands, a very head strong and high drive breed can be devastating .....society today is just not equipped nor educated enough to deal with these breeds anymore the irresponsible unfortunately outweigh the responsible ... RIP Sweet Maggie, a sad end to your truly amazing and selfless life Fingers crossed for Bosley xxxxxxxxxxxx So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes - because thats pretty well how our society works. Laws are made to cater for the lowest common denominator and the rest of us have to wear the results. RIP Matilda -a horrid way to go. But you can see that comments like "they should be wiped out" aren't useful, don't impart any knowledge and don't constructively help anyone. ANY head strong dog (all breeds) with a high prey drive can be an issue in the wrong hands, regardless of size. FYI twice this week I've had an off lead GR run at me and my dogs, sure i wasn't worried but they came over to my dogs (on lead) to ponce around them and posture... Oblivious owner couldn't care that my 2 though not DA do not like other dogs putting their heads over them.. SO here's why nothing occurred: I have years of knowing my dogs, other breeds, triggers etc.. and this is what it takes to be an owner of any breed. Education for me started with my parents teaching me dogs behaviors, training classes etc.. which i'm now teaching my daughters. Could something have occurred..?? you bet and without training my dogs, myself and knowing a little about dogs in general helps. BSL doesn't. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719 How do you educate morons like this? How do you stop morons like him owning strong powerful breeds? Some people don't wish to be educated. You can never stop it, but you can drastically reduce it. The AVA draft legislative framework sets out clearly how to do it and is based on models that are proven to work. Calgary, Canada used to have BSL. They got rid of it and implemented policy that the above is based on. There are a hell of a lot more bull breeds around than ever before, the population has doubled yet he bites have halved. Severity of those bites left is also generally much less. So essentially bites are a quarter of what they would have been, even with a hell of a lot of bull breeds in the area. Incidents like this make us despair, and we should despair that the legislative framework in Vic is so draconian and costs so much money yet it is doing nothing to reduce the likelihood of these attacks. But instead of despairing we should be supporting papers like this and the other evidence that shows that the outcome we all want is achievable. Ok, I've read the whole thing and I find a lot of holes in it. The biggest hole being......A dog has to have done something first, only thereafter will it be considered as being dangerous. Too bad if someone dies in the process. There is an entire section on the classification of a 'potentially dangerous dog', for dogs that may not have actually physically attacked someone badly, but has shown aggressive behaviour. This kind of preventative action for even more minor events is widely considered as being instrumental in reducing dog attacks. The dog must have behavioural retraining and after three years can be considered for review after proven progress and a favourable temperament assessment. If your complaint is that the dog has to have done even something minor before any action, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Punishing dogs that have done nothing wrong based on appearance? (the current model which is failing miserably). You would have also read that this kind of enforcement action on it's own is not enough, there is an entire education plan to go along with this which will actually reduce the dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. Edited August 11, 2012 by melzawelza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppoochi Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Everytime I read a heading in here about a dog attack, I always find it disappointing and find myself shaking my head at so many ludicrous comments What a tragic series of events two very innocent dogs pay the price for HUMAN stupidity !!!! Pit Bulls and Bull x breeds need to be wiped out, sorry to say I used to argue till I was blue in the face with people about "blame the deed not the breed" but there comes a time when you throw your hands up in the air and admit defeat I 100% agree that these breeds can be loyal and loving companions in the right responsible home, but in the wrong hands, a very head strong and high drive breed can be devastating .....society today is just not equipped nor educated enough to deal with these breeds anymore the irresponsible unfortunately outweigh the responsible ... RIP Sweet Maggie, a sad end to your truly amazing and selfless life Fingers crossed for Bosley xxxxxxxxxxxx So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes - because thats pretty well how our society works. Laws are made to cater for the lowest common denominator and the rest of us have to wear the results. RIP Matilda -a horrid way to go. But you can see that comments like "they should be wiped out" aren't useful, don't impart any knowledge and don't constructively help anyone. ANY head strong dog (all breeds) with a high prey drive can be an issue in the wrong hands, regardless of size. FYI twice this week I've had an off lead GR run at me and my dogs, sure i wasn't worried but they came over to my dogs (on lead) to ponce around them and posture... Oblivious owner couldn't care that my 2 though not DA do not like other dogs putting their heads over them.. SO here's why nothing occurred: I have years of knowing my dogs, other breeds, triggers etc.. and this is what it takes to be an owner of any breed. Education for me started with my parents teaching me dogs behaviors, training classes etc.. which i'm now teaching my daughters. Could something have occurred..?? you bet and without training my dogs, myself and knowing a little about dogs in general helps. BSL doesn't. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719 How do you educate morons like this? How do you stop morons like him owning strong powerful breeds? Some people don't wish to be educated. You can never stop it, but you can drastically reduce it. The AVA draft legislative framework sets out clearly how to do it and is based on models that are proven to work. Calgary, Canada used to have BSL. They got rid of it and implemented policy that the above is based on. There are a hell of a lot more bull breeds around than ever before, the population has doubled yet he bites have halved. Severity of those bites left is also generally much less. So essentially bites are a quarter of what they would have been, even with a hell of a lot of bull breeds in the area. Incidents like this make us despair, and we should despair that the legislative framework in Vic is so draconian and costs so much money yet it is doing nothing to reduce the likelihood of these attacks. But instead of despairing we should be supporting papers like this and the other evidence that shows that the outcome we all want is achievable. Ok, I've read the whole thing and I find a lot of holes in it. The biggest hole being......A dog has to have done something first, only thereafter will it be considered as being dangerous. Too bad if someone dies in the process. There is an entire section on the classification of a 'potentially dangerous dog', for dogs that may not have actually physically attacked someone badly, but has shown aggressive behaviour. This kind of preventative action for even more minor events is widely considered as being instrumental in reducing dog attacks. The dog must have behavioural retraining and after three years can be considered for review after proven progress and a favourable temperament assessment. If your complaint is that the dog has to have done even something minor before any action, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Punishing dogs that have done nothing wrong based on appearance? (the current model which is failing miserably). You would have also read that this kind of enforcement action on it's own is not enough, there is an entire education plan to go along with this which will actually reduce the dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. I'm not complaining, I am merely pointing out the biggest hole. There are plenty of other holes in it as well. Sorry but for me, it's not complete and does not prevent the wrong people from owning dangerous dogs. And it does not prevent moron breeders selling dangerous dogs to undesirables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Everytime I read a heading in here about a dog attack, I always find it disappointing and find myself shaking my head at so many ludicrous comments What a tragic series of events two very innocent dogs pay the price for HUMAN stupidity !!!! Pit Bulls and Bull x breeds need to be wiped out, sorry to say I used to argue till I was blue in the face with people about "blame the deed not the breed" but there comes a time when you throw your hands up in the air and admit defeat I 100% agree that these breeds can be loyal and loving companions in the right responsible home, but in the wrong hands, a very head strong and high drive breed can be devastating .....society today is just not equipped nor educated enough to deal with these breeds anymore the irresponsible unfortunately outweigh the responsible ... RIP Sweet Maggie, a sad end to your truly amazing and selfless life Fingers crossed for Bosley xxxxxxxxxxxx So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes - because thats pretty well how our society works. Laws are made to cater for the lowest common denominator and the rest of us have to wear the results. RIP Matilda -a horrid way to go. But you can see that comments like "they should be wiped out" aren't useful, don't impart any knowledge and don't constructively help anyone. ANY head strong dog (all breeds) with a high prey drive can be an issue in the wrong hands, regardless of size. FYI twice this week I've had an off lead GR run at me and my dogs, sure i wasn't worried but they came over to my dogs (on lead) to ponce around them and posture... Oblivious owner couldn't care that my 2 though not DA do not like other dogs putting their heads over them.. SO here's why nothing occurred: I have years of knowing my dogs, other breeds, triggers etc.. and this is what it takes to be an owner of any breed. Education for me started with my parents teaching me dogs behaviors, training classes etc.. which i'm now teaching my daughters. Could something have occurred..?? you bet and without training my dogs, myself and knowing a little about dogs in general helps. BSL doesn't. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719 How do you educate morons like this? How do you stop morons like him owning strong powerful breeds? Some people don't wish to be educated. You can never stop it, but you can drastically reduce it. The AVA draft legislative framework sets out clearly how to do it and is based on models that are proven to work. Calgary, Canada used to have BSL. They got rid of it and implemented policy that the above is based on. There are a hell of a lot more bull breeds around than ever before, the population has doubled yet he bites have halved. Severity of those bites left is also generally much less. So essentially bites are a quarter of what they would have been, even with a hell of a lot of bull breeds in the area. Incidents like this make us despair, and we should despair that the legislative framework in Vic is so draconian and costs so much money yet it is doing nothing to reduce the likelihood of these attacks. But instead of despairing we should be supporting papers like this and the other evidence that shows that the outcome we all want is achievable. Ok, I've read the whole thing and I find a lot of holes in it. The biggest hole being......A dog has to have done something first, only thereafter will it be considered as being dangerous. Too bad if someone dies in the process. There is an entire section on the classification of a 'potentially dangerous dog', for dogs that may not have actually physically attacked someone badly, but has shown aggressive behaviour. This kind of preventative action for even more minor events is widely considered as being instrumental in reducing dog attacks. The dog must have behavioural retraining and after three years can be considered for review after proven progress and a favourable temperament assessment. If your complaint is that the dog has to have done even something minor before any action, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Punishing dogs that have done nothing wrong based on appearance? (the current model which is failing miserably). You would have also read that this kind of enforcement action on it's own is not enough, there is an entire education plan to go along with this which will actually reduce the dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. I'm not complaining, I am merely pointing out the biggest hole. There are plenty of other holes in it as well. Sorry but for me, it's not complete and does not prevent the wrong people from owning dangerous dogs. And it does not prevent moron breeders selling dangerous dogs to undesirables. What is the hole? Potentially dangerous dogs are defined and able to be regulated. You know this is based off models that have been proven to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geo Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 I'm not complaining, I am merely pointing out the biggest hole. There are plenty of other holes in it as well. Sorry but for me, it's not complete and does not prevent the wrong people from owning dangerous dogs. And it does not prevent moron breeders selling dangerous dogs to undesirables. So you would rather Victoria carry on as is, instead of using this proven method that has reduced bite stats.... so over the next few years whilst they still continue to happen you'll be happy that you prefer laws that aren't working.. Let me put it this way, would you spend your hard earned money to buy a busted up old car that wont start knowing that it will never work, or chose a car that will start and drive you around quite effectively. The only reason you don't like it is because you don't like pitbulls, and this law doesn't ban them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppoochi Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 (edited) Everytime I read a heading in here about a dog attack, I always find it disappointing and find myself shaking my head at so many ludicrous comments What a tragic series of events two very innocent dogs pay the price for HUMAN stupidity !!!! Pit Bulls and Bull x breeds need to be wiped out, sorry to say I used to argue till I was blue in the face with people about "blame the deed not the breed" but there comes a time when you throw your hands up in the air and admit defeat I 100% agree that these breeds can be loyal and loving companions in the right responsible home, but in the wrong hands, a very head strong and high drive breed can be devastating .....society today is just not equipped nor educated enough to deal with these breeds anymore the irresponsible unfortunately outweigh the responsible ... RIP Sweet Maggie, a sad end to your truly amazing and selfless life Fingers crossed for Bosley xxxxxxxxxxxx So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes - because thats pretty well how our society works. Laws are made to cater for the lowest common denominator and the rest of us have to wear the results. RIP Matilda -a horrid way to go. But you can see that comments like "they should be wiped out" aren't useful, don't impart any knowledge and don't constructively help anyone. ANY head strong dog (all breeds) with a high prey drive can be an issue in the wrong hands, regardless of size. FYI twice this week I've had an off lead GR run at me and my dogs, sure i wasn't worried but they came over to my dogs (on lead) to ponce around them and posture... Oblivious owner couldn't care that my 2 though not DA do not like other dogs putting their heads over them.. SO here's why nothing occurred: I have years of knowing my dogs, other breeds, triggers etc.. and this is what it takes to be an owner of any breed. Education for me started with my parents teaching me dogs behaviors, training classes etc.. which i'm now teaching my daughters. Could something have occurred..?? you bet and without training my dogs, myself and knowing a little about dogs in general helps. BSL doesn't. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719 How do you educate morons like this? How do you stop morons like him owning strong powerful breeds? Some people don't wish to be educated. You can never stop it, but you can drastically reduce it. The AVA draft legislative framework sets out clearly how to do it and is based on models that are proven to work. Calgary, Canada used to have BSL. They got rid of it and implemented policy that the above is based on. There are a hell of a lot more bull breeds around than ever before, the population has doubled yet he bites have halved. Severity of those bites left is also generally much less. So essentially bites are a quarter of what they would have been, even with a hell of a lot of bull breeds in the area. Incidents like this make us despair, and we should despair that the legislative framework in Vic is so draconian and costs so much money yet it is doing nothing to reduce the likelihood of these attacks. But instead of despairing we should be supporting papers like this and the other evidence that shows that the outcome we all want is achievable. Ok, I've read the whole thing and I find a lot of holes in it. The biggest hole being......A dog has to have done something first, only thereafter will it be considered as being dangerous. Too bad if someone dies in the process. There is an entire section on the classification of a 'potentially dangerous dog', for dogs that may not have actually physically attacked someone badly, but has shown aggressive behaviour. This kind of preventative action for even more minor events is widely considered as being instrumental in reducing dog attacks. The dog must have behavioural retraining and after three years can be considered for review after proven progress and a favourable temperament assessment. If your complaint is that the dog has to have done even something minor before any action, then I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Punishing dogs that have done nothing wrong based on appearance? (the current model which is failing miserably). You would have also read that this kind of enforcement action on it's own is not enough, there is an entire education plan to go along with this which will actually reduce the dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. I'm not complaining, I am merely pointing out the biggest hole. There are plenty of other holes in it as well. Sorry but for me, it's not complete and does not prevent the wrong people from owning dangerous dogs. And it does not prevent moron breeders selling dangerous dogs to undesirables. What is the hole? Potentially dangerous dogs are defined and able to be regulated. You know this is based off models that have been proven to work? I have just pointed out some of the holes and I don't understand why you have skirted past what I have written??? And IMO what works in one country, may not necessarily work in other countries. Edited August 11, 2012 by Puppoochi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppoochi Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 I'm not complaining, I am merely pointing out the biggest hole. There are plenty of other holes in it as well. Sorry but for me, it's not complete and does not prevent the wrong people from owning dangerous dogs. And it does not prevent moron breeders selling dangerous dogs to undesirables. So you would rather Victoria carry on as is, instead of using this proven method that has reduced bite stats.... so over the next few years whilst they still continue to happen you'll be happy that you prefer laws that aren't working.. Let me put it this way, would you spend your hard earned money to buy a busted up old car that wont start knowing that it will never work, or chose a car that will start and drive you around quite effectively. The only reason you don't like it is because you don't like pitbulls, and this law doesn't ban them. Talk about putting words in my mouth. I wish you would take what I say literally instead of twisting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 1344609094[/url]' post='5925781']Everytime I read a heading in here about a dog attack, I always find it disappointing and find myself shaking my head at so many ludicrous comments What a tragic series of events two very innocent dogs pay the price for HUMAN stupidity !!!! Pit Bulls and Bull x breeds need to be wiped out, sorry to say I used to argue till I was blue in the face with people about "blame the deed not the breed" but there comes a time when you throw your hands up in the air and admit defeat I 100% agree that these breeds can be loyal and loving companions in the right responsible home, but in the wrong hands, a very head strong and high drive breed can be devastating .....society today is just not equipped nor educated enough to deal with these breeds anymore the irresponsible unfortunately outweigh the responsible ... RIP Sweet Maggie, a sad end to your truly amazing and selfless life Fingers crossed for Bosley xxxxxxxxxxxx Well, that was helpful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nawnim Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 There will never be a solution no matter which way the cookie crumbles You can't just say this. For the sake of the vulnerable in our society a solution must be found. I agree, and also will stress that is has been found. Our Governments just ignore it as it won't be popular and will take work to implement. An absolute crime. I have just read the article you recommended and I have problems with some of it Quote Effective identification and registration of all dogs A national reporting system to track dog bite incidents consistently with mandatory reporting of dog bite incidents to the national database Temperament testing encouraged by reduced registration costs, and able to be mandated by animal control authorities Education of the whole community including pet owners, breeders, parents and children Adequate enforcement and resourcing to ensure compliance. Number 2 - Is a playful nip a reportable incident Number 3 - Temperament testing is still in its developmental stage and I would hate to see a dog's life hanging on the outcome I'm assuming you just read the briefing? If you can take the time to read the actual report (it's 47 pages, I know) then it elaborates hugely on this and your concerns are addressed. Thankyou for your answer. I have just read this report and my concerns have not been fully addressed. A playful nip is reportable if it breaks the skin. I am okay with this but I do have concern about the classification of a dog as potentially dangerous, and I would like to know who the authorised person is making the judgements. Some people will interpret a friendly lick from a dog as an attempt to bite. The behaviour of friendly boisterous dogs can also be misinterpreted. My concern about the temperament testing still stands. The report says there is still no standardised reliable test available. Quote Temperament testing Temperament testing is a tool to assign risk categories to dogs (and their owners) and to reduce community risk by enforcing controls or rehabilitation. This tool could also reduce risk within the household and family by making owners more aware of their dog’s potential to bite. Temperament testing could be useful if: • Encouraged by a reduction in registration fees for dogs which pass the test • Mandated by animal control authorities, or • Required by owners’ public liability insurance. Temperament and behaviour tests have been used since the 1980s by those responsible for selecting working and assistance dogs, by pounds and shelters to assess suitability for rehoming, and by animal management authorities to determine potentially dangerous dogs. There are a number of tests available and in use in Australia, but there remains a critical need for a standardised and reliable test that can be applied on-site at shelters, pet shops, veterinary practices and training venues. There is currently no formal approval or accreditation in place for either the tests or the testers, and this is a significant gap in the ability to respond effectively to dog bites. P 24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adnil444 Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 1344609094[/url]' post='5925781']Everytime I read a heading in here about a dog attack, I always find it disappointing and find myself shaking my head at so many ludicrous comments What a tragic series of events two very innocent dogs pay the price for HUMAN stupidity !!!! Pit Bulls and Bull x breeds need to be wiped out, sorry to say I used to argue till I was blue in the face with people about "blame the deed not the breed" but there comes a time when you throw your hands up in the air and admit defeat I 100% agree that these breeds can be loyal and loving companions in the right responsible home, but in the wrong hands, a very head strong and high drive breed can be devastating .....society today is just not equipped nor educated enough to deal with these breeds anymore the irresponsible unfortunately outweigh the responsible ... RIP Sweet Maggie, a sad end to your truly amazing and selfless life Fingers crossed for Bosley xxxxxxxxxxxx Well, that was helpful I tend to agree with Pockets - I too would always say blame the deed not the breed, but in nearly every case of a dog attack it is a bully type dog - the general public does not care on iota if it is a pure bred or not, as far as they are concerned, the dog(s) involved are bully breeds or crosses of such. I also agree, in the right home and environment, they make wonderful pets. It is time to make the fines so hard on these morons that have these dogs. In this case, the minimum punishment should be that these dogs are PTS and the owner made to pay for the training and replacement guide dog for that young man. That would certainly teach him and his idiot friends a lesson. No one should have to go through what this poor man and dogs had to. At my mum's local dog park this week, another dog attack - two am staffs, that should never have been in a dog park, chased and attacked a small dog, totally unprovoked. The police and rangers are deciding what to do with these dogs - IMHO they should be PTS. The owner knew his dogs were not trustworthy, but still took them to a public space and let them offlead. Morons!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korbin13 Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 I'm not complaining, I am merely pointing out the biggest hole. There are plenty of other holes in it as well. Sorry but for me, it's not complete and does not prevent the wrong people from owning dangerous dogs. And it does not prevent moron breeders selling dangerous dogs to undesirables. Just to clarify, dangerous dogs and restricted breeds are two entirely different things. You can't stop people owning dangerous dogs unless you ban every dog. And to put it into a bit of perspective, Australia has approximately 4 million dogs (majority of those would be cross bred mutts). Most of them live without ever harming a single person or thing. If the current laws we have were monitored and obeyed, the chances of anything like this happening would be slim. I am all for stronger penalties for people who do the wrong thing and leave the people who do the right thing alone. RIP Matilda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppoochi Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 (edited) I'm not complaining, I am merely pointing out the biggest hole. There are plenty of other holes in it as well. Sorry but for me, it's not complete and does not prevent the wrong people from owning dangerous dogs. And it does not prevent moron breeders selling dangerous dogs to undesirables. Just to clarify, dangerous dogs and restricted breeds are two entirely different things. You can't stop people owning dangerous dogs unless you ban every dog. And to put it into a bit of perspective, Australia has approximately 4 million dogs (majority of those would be cross bred mutts). Most of them live without ever harming a single person or thing. If the current laws we have were monitored and obeyed, the chances of anything like this happening would be slim. I am all for stronger penalties for people who do the wrong thing and leave the people who do the right thing alone. RIP Matilda Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with. Edited August 11, 2012 by Puppoochi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 1344672417[/url]' post='5926199']Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with. This is beginning to sound personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppoochi Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 (edited) 1344672417[/url]' post='5926199']Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with. This is beginning to sound personal. Personal? Yeah I guess I am prejudice against people like this http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719 Edited August 11, 2012 by Puppoochi 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