Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pie

Family Pet Mauled To Death

220 posts in this topic

I've had my large dogs aggressively rushed by small dogs many times... but it's still MY responsibility to make sure that MY dogs don't react to the "threat" in a negative manner...

Everyone is responsible for their OWN dogs' behaviour in public... and no-one should expect to be rushed or attacked by ANY dog. BUT, if you own a dog that could do lethal damage and is likely to react badly in public, then please either keep the dog at home, get a qualified behaviourist/trainer, and only ever take the dog to places where it won't be stimulated to react badly.

It is NOT your "right" to exercise a reactive dog in a public space where it could do something unexpected and either injure or kill another dog - provoked or otherwise.

You are not responsible for your dog's actions if rushed at by an off leash dog and yours in on leash in a public place. The person at fault is the one who allowed their dog to be at large and do the rushing and the consequences are irrelevent. You don't have to muzzle reactive dogs or keep reactive dogs away from public places where there may be dogs at large rushing at leashed dogs. It's up to the owners of all dogs to keep them on leash in a public place and not allow them to rush at other dogs and respect the personal space of others.

In NSW, this is correct to a degree, as there is a defense of provocation. However a dog can be declared dangerous for 'displaying unreasonable aggression'. That is of course subjective but if a dog rushes your leashed dog and your dog then absolutely tears them to pieces, killing them, it's conceivable that depending on the attitude of the Council investigating your dog could still be declared dangerous because the level of response was unreasonable. Something to bear in mind in NSW.

Is there a degree of reasonable force written into the NSW legislation, or are we talking ACO's making up their own rules?

Lots of things in the Act aren't expressly defined, the level of barking for a nuisance dog is just described as 'continuous and persistent' which is subjective, and ACO's just have to make a judgement call on these things. All I'm saying is that it isn't as black and white as you make out in NSW.

If your dog is rushed but then kills the other dog, depending on the individual ACO your dog could be declared dangerous based on unreasonable aggression. You could, of course, appeal that in court, and it'd then be up to the judge as to whether your dog's reaction was unreasonable or not.

Edited by melzawelza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest donatella   
Guest donatella
I've had my large dogs aggressively rushed by small dogs many times... but it's still MY responsibility to make sure that MY dogs don't react to the "threat" in a negative manner...

Everyone is responsible for their OWN dogs' behaviour in public... and no-one should expect to be rushed or attacked by ANY dog. BUT, if you own a dog that could do lethal damage and is likely to react badly in public, then please either keep the dog at home, get a qualified behaviourist/trainer, and only ever take the dog to places where it won't be stimulated to react badly.

It is NOT your "right" to exercise a reactive dog in a public space where it could do something unexpected and either injure or kill another dog - provoked or otherwise.

You are not responsible for your dog's actions if rushed at by an off leash dog and yours in on leash in a public place. The person at fault is the one who allowed their dog to be at large and do the rushing and the consequences are irrelevent. You don't have to muzzle reactive dogs or keep reactive dogs away from public places where there may be dogs at large rushing at leashed dogs. It's up to the owners of all dogs to keep them on leash in a public place and not allow them to rush at other dogs and respect the personal space of others.

In NSW, this is correct to a degree, as there is a defense of provocation. However a dog can be declared dangerous for 'displaying unreasonable aggression'. That is of course subjective but if a dog rushes your leashed dog and your dog then absolutely tears them to pieces, killing them, it's conceivable that depending on the attitude of the Council investigating your dog could still be declared dangerous because the level of response was unreasonable. Something to bear in mind in NSW.

Is there a degree of reasonable force written into the NSW legislation, or are we talking ACO's making up their own rules?

Noone with reactive dogs should be taking them out without muzzles. That is highly irresponsible

Wouldn't the law require that to complement responsible ownership/managment, but the law doesn't require that and also provides at statutory defence of provocation in the event of a reaction towards a rushing dog.

What about these instances:

* leashes that break

* collars that slip

Irresponsible choice of equipment, or using worn out or damaged equipment, incorrect fitment. I don't think equipment failure is a defence for a dog not being under effective control?

There have been stories here of good equipment breaking unintentionally scaring the owner. It was neither damaged or worn and it was a reputable brand. Not everyone walks their dog with defective ill fitting walking gear, in fact its generally the first priority when taking a dog out in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Santo66   
Lots of things in the Act aren't expressly defined, the level of barking for a nuisance dog is just described as 'continuous and persistent' which is subjective, and ACO's just have to make a judgement call on these things. All I'm saying is that it isn't as black and white as you make out in NSW.

If your dog is rushed but then kills the other dog, depending on the individual ACO your dog could be declared dangerous based on unreasonable aggression. You could, of course, appeal that in court, and it'd then be up to the judge as to whether your dog's reaction was unreasonable or not.

Sorry, that's crap when applied to a statutory defence and unless the act defines reasonable/unreasonable force in the case of a dog, the result of a DD order on a dog who reacted due to the provocation of an unleashed dog who's broken how many laws to provoke........dog at large, dog not under effective control, rushing attacking another animal or person, the satutory defence will overide all of this not withstanding that it's unreasonable to expect a mere dog to understand the limitations of force.........as I said previously, ACO's making up their own rules. I could however imagine an ACO trying to place a DD order on a dog defending it's self and owner from a dog at large attack, some ACO's are pretty stupid and often don't know the rules themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lots of things in the Act aren't expressly defined, the level of barking for a nuisance dog is just described as 'continuous and persistent' which is subjective, and ACO's just have to make a judgement call on these things. All I'm saying is that it isn't as black and white as you make out in NSW.

If your dog is rushed but then kills the other dog, depending on the individual ACO your dog could be declared dangerous based on unreasonable aggression. You could, of course, appeal that in court, and it'd then be up to the judge as to whether your dog's reaction was unreasonable or not.

Sorry, that's crap when applied to a statutory defence and unless the act defines reasonable/unreasonable force in the case of a dog, the result of a DD order on a dog who reacted due to the provocation of an unleashed dog who's broken how many laws to provoke........dog at large, dog not under effective control, rushing attacking another animal or person, the satutory defence will overide all of this not withstanding that it's unreasonable to expect a mere dog to understand the limitations of force.........as I said previously, ACO's making up their own rules. I could however imagine an ACO trying to place a DD order on a dog defending it's self and owner from a dog at large attack, some ACO's are pretty stupid and often don't know the rules themselves.

If you have a dog that exhibits prey drive when it attacks, then you cannot say that the dog is defending itself.

This thread is about a dog that attacked a dog that was excited and facing its owners. The dog that attacked it was not defending itself. It was attacking.

I don't care what the ACO will do, I never want to be in that situation of being investigated. I don't want my dog harming other dogs, even dogs that rush and yap and have a go. So I muzzle my dog. It's more about me not wanting to see other dogs being killed than about me 'being in the right.'

ACOs are not stupid either, and know the difference between how a well-socialised and normal dog will fend off an attack, and how an aggressive dog will respond to a challenge from another dog or the presence of another dog. Most dog fights are little scraps, they are not like this at all.

Basically your attitude is horrible and detrimental to the dog-owning community. Our society rejects the idea of large nasty dogs killing smaller ones. Large dogs that show this amount of aggression must be strictly controlled. To a much higher degree than dogs that don't act like this. Don't you get that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's this for a radical idea:

If you own a dog of any size that can't deal with other dogs' behaviour without aggression, DON'T HAVE IT IN A PUBLIC, OFFLEAD DOG AREA.

There, that wasn't that hard was it?

Go to a public dog area, expect clueless owners and dogs not under full control. If that's an issue for you or your dog, simply don't have your dog there. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest donatella   
Guest donatella

How's this for a radical idea:

If you own a dog of any size that can't deal with other dogs' behaviour without aggression, DON'T HAVE IT IN A PUBLIC, OFFLEAD DOG AREA.

There, that wasn't that hard was it?

Go to a public dog area, expect clueless owners and dogs not under full control. If that's an issue for you or your dog, simply don't have your dog there. :shrug:

:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rosetta   

For anyone who has not read the whole thread - just a friendly reminder that the original story did not say anything about the dog who was killed being in any way aggressive - including barking - towards the dog who attacked it. The dog who was killed was facing his family in a playful stance.

RIP poor Elfie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big D   
The dog's owner was in his late 20s, about 170cm tall and had brown to blond spiked hair. He wore a navy blue singlet and large sunglasses.
Gees, I hate to generalise, but doesn’t this just sound like the stereotypical yobbo dangerous dog owner? :eek:

Dangerous dogs are a product of their breeding and their owners, but there’s no excuse for dogs like this. I don’t care if you think you can “control” your dog, if it is likely to this when not controlled, it just shouldn’t be.

People who feel the need to own such dangerous weapons should really invest in some psychological treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mantis   

How's this for a radical idea:

If you own a dog of any size that can't deal with other dogs' behaviour without aggression, DON'T HAVE IT IN A PUBLIC, OFFLEAD DOG AREA.

There, that wasn't that hard was it?

Go to a public dog area, expect clueless owners and dogs not under full control. If that's an issue for you or your dog, simply don't have your dog there. :shrug:

Except some posters think they shouldn't be in on lead only areas as well, in case some moron walks their dog off lead & let's them rush on lead dogs. :banghead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mantis   
The dog's owner was in his late 20s, about 170cm tall and had brown to blond spiked hair. He wore a navy blue singlet and large sunglasses.
Gees, I hate to generalise, but doesn’t this just sound like the stereotypical yobbo dangerous dog owner? :eek:

Dangerous dogs are a product of their breeding and their owners, but there’s no excuse for dogs like this. I don’t care if you think you can “control” your dog, if it is likely to this when not controlled, it just shouldn’t be.

People who feel the need to own such dangerous weapons should really invest in some psychological treatment.

Hey Hugh Wirthless, you forgot to mention "land sharks". :swear:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mantis   

Dont bite Mantis not worth it just gonna have to hide my blue singlet ha ha

I know I shouldn't but I can't control myself, maybe it's because I'm a "dangerous weapon" like my dogs. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sheridan   

Dont bite Mantis not worth it just gonna have to hide my blue singlet ha ha

I know I shouldn't but I can't control myself, maybe it's because I'm a "dangerous weapon" like my dogs. :rofl:

Mantis, is your current dog DA? We're familiar with Kenny's story but I wasn't aware your current dog had any issue other than you being too scared to go for a walk in case something happened because of your neighbour's dog being off lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kayla1   

Dont bite Mantis not worth it just gonna have to hide my blue singlet ha ha

I know I shouldn't but I can't control myself, maybe it's because I'm a "dangerous weapon" like my dogs. :rofl:

I'm at a loss at how you think any of this is even remotely funny.

RIP poor little Elfie. :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont find the tragic events remotely funny obviously. ive posted my feelings on this early on, one post a few posts ago was a bit over the top and silly this whole thread has gone way out there .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sheridan   

Yes, staffydave, thanks to people who have made it about them and who have tried to derail it into a size issue. This thread is not about size nor is it about you or Mantis or anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go back and read my posts, its got nothing to do with size its a story about a family pet killed due to someone not controling there dog. why does everyone have to go after each other on here . read my posts properly before you comment next time. I know everyone is passionate about dogs on here doesnt mean you have to be a keyboard warrior.

Edited by staffydave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big D   

How's this for a radical idea:

If you own a dog of any size that can't deal with other dogs' behaviour without aggression, DON'T HAVE IT IN A PUBLIC, OFFLEAD DOG AREA.

There, that wasn't that hard was it?

Go to a public dog area, expect clueless owners and dogs not under full control. If that's an issue for you or your dog, simply don't have your dog there. :shrug:

Except some posters think they shouldn't be in on lead only areas as well,

and what exactly is your point?

We're not talking about "big" dogs, or "scary" dogs, nor dogs of particular breeds. We're talking about dogs that for whatever reason are now capable and willing to attack and kill other dogs. I just don't see the need for SUCH dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OSoSwift   

Oh for gods sakes get over yourselves. A dog died, it shouldn't have. Some idiot had their dog agressive dog off lead where they shouldn't have, then bolted.

This is about a family who witnessed something they should never had to have seen - ever.

Now stop the stupid bickering!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×