Dog Attack Ashcroft Today

[inez]

In the heat of the moment, many people couldn't differentiate between a Nissan Patrol or a Toyota Land cruiser in a hit and run. Funnily enough if people can't identify them the media doesn't report that all 4WDs are Land cruisers, just because it's a large vehicle fitting that description and that's why I hate the term pitbull being applied to a particular appearance. Not all people that drive 4WDs own Land cruisers, not all people that own bull breeds have a 'pitbull'. Not all people that own one of both of these things are irresponsible.

Large cars like that do more damage in an accident, even though the road laws are the same owning a big car comes with added responsibility.

Owning a big dog, especially a bull breed comes with added responsibility.

True fighting pitulls aren't really a dog with one definite look about them, they range in size, conformation, colour. Unless you know the dog's origins even someone from the dog community would have difficulty positively identifying one.

I worry when people start calling them nanny dogs and getting all defensive about how their pitbull is gentle, reliable and great with kids. Because not every individual one will be great with kids and it's not necessarily how all about how you raise them. You may raise them spot on to be a family pet, but they still may not be great around kids. It's about knowing your dog and knowing it's limitations and only putting it in situations where it will never be a risk. Some people that defend pitbulls are doing them no favors by making inaccurate generalizations.

I have a staffordshire bull terrier that is not dog park material, she gets on fine with our other dogs, cats and small animals is even doing off lead exercises at training. But the dog park excites her way too much to keep her under effective control. You put any random breed in a situation that excites or frightens it you are setting yourself up for failure.

Who do you think you are, being so sensible and clear minded! :laugh:

In a pack... all bets are off. Even a really great sheepdog, who has spent it's life working sheep, if it goes off in a pack of other dogs, can and will kill sheep if that's what the pack is doing. This was a pack of dogs, not really surprising they went on a rampage, not much else for them to do if they're at large in suburbia really, the only target they have when they're in a pack and on the warpath is people. Given inadequate socialisation, people can look like a pretty attractive target to a pack of big dogs, especially running people.

I own this kind of dog. Every time I hear of an attack featuring very serious injuries, my heart sinks because I just know a bully breed is going to be held responsible. It pretty much always is, simply because they're the most common (in Australia) of the breeds that are powerful enough to inflict this kind of damage. Other breeds attack with the same frequency, but can't do near the same amount of damage, so no hospitalisations or media frenzies with them. Bullys aren't more inclined to attack than other dogs, but they can do a hell of a lot more damage if they do. It is a lot more responsibility to own one.

I have changed my mind recently on this issue - breed is absolutely relevant to dog attacks IMO - it determines how powerful the dog is and how much damage it can do.

We do need better laws. BSL as it stands is daft, it makes even the most responsible owners of lie to avoid the regulations. My dog's microchip is a lie, it makes me sad it has to be so. It should say, in all honesty "x breed, pit bull type".

Doing away with BSL and making all owners of dogs larger than 25kg attend a management seminar (with their dogs) as part of registration might help as a first step. Encourage owners of powerful breeds to comply with management standards through carrot (education), not stick (breed bans). Make the required seminar something that would appeal to people, it's easy to make education appealing, even the most bogan of bogans will attend a defensive driving course of their own volition, people like to gain more proficiency in their fascinations, so even official govt. channels education courses can appeal if correctly structured and marketed. The responsible owners will attend the required seminar, and in attending, won't be penalised for their breed type. They can also be informed about adequate socialisation, management and containment, and learn to identify the behaviours that indicate potential aggressive behaviour, and the different types of aggression.

The really irresponsible owners who won't attend a day's registration seminar with their dogs, won't have their dogs registered, that lack of registration can give some indication to rangers and councils the dogs and owners who really do bear watching. Massive fines for those avoiding registration. Perhaps mandatory temperament assessment of dogs found to be unregistered (why have they avoided registration? can they not manage their dogs in a seminar environment?) before the owner can go through the registration process and reclaim their dog.

Expensive for councils? Yes. But less expensive than the current crop of BSL court cases.

It is a lot more responsibility to own a powerful breed, and owners of bully breeds, and any other similarly high drive, powerful breeds should be required to demonstrate they can adhere to the level of responsibility required for basic safety before they are extended the privilege of ownership of these dogs. Requiring attendence at a seminar for registration demonstrates some capacity for responsibility. We don't let just anyone drive a road train, prospective drivers must undergo education about safety and management before they are licensed. This approach works, people who want to drive a road train can, provided they complete the educational (licensing) requirements. Same approach would work for people who want to own large powerful dogs, allow it on proviso that they have demonstrate basic competence and responsibility.

I applaud your so common sense approach.

I wonder why no one thought of this in the first place?

These types dogs were not around until for me anyway fairly recently and their impact has been terrible. your idea surely would have to be a great improvement instead of the mess now evident.

[nawnim]

Pet liability insurance is just shutting the door after the horse has bolted, and it just gives insurance companies another source of income. Lower income people will no longer be able to afford a dog and will miss out on the wonderful companionship dogs provide. Also innocent people will still get mauled and even killed.

I agree with you in cases such as this one. But unforeseen events do occur .... which is why we have insurance :).

I am sorry but I don't understand how whether or not an owner has pet insurance will prevent dog attacks ever.

[nawnim]

In the heat of the moment, many people couldn't differentiate between a Nissan Patrol or a Toyota Land cruiser in a hit and run. Funnily enough if people can't identify them the media doesn't report that all 4WDs are Land cruisers, just because it's a large vehicle fitting that description and that's why I hate the term pitbull being applied to a particular appearance. Not all people that drive 4WDs own Land cruisers, not all people that own bull breeds have a 'pitbull'. Not all people that own one of both of these things are irresponsible.

Large cars like that do more damage in an accident, even though the road laws are the same owning a big car comes with added responsibility.

Owning a big dog, especially a bull breed comes with added responsibility.

True fighting pitulls aren't really a dog with one definite look about them, they range in size, conformation, colour. Unless you know the dog's origins even someone from the dog community would have difficulty positively identifying one.

I worry when people start calling them nanny dogs and getting all defensive about how their pitbull is gentle, reliable and great with kids. Because not every individual one will be great with kids and it's not necessarily how all about how you raise them. You may raise them spot on to be a family pet, but they still may not be great around kids. It's about knowing your dog and knowing it's limitations and only putting it in situations where it will never be a risk. Some people that defend pitbulls are doing them no favors by making inaccurate generalizations.

I have a staffordshire bull terrier that is not dog park material, she gets on fine with our other dogs, cats and small animals is even doing off lead exercises at training. But the dog park excites her way too much to keep her under effective control. You put any random breed in a situation that excites or frightens it you are setting yourself up for failure.

Who do you think you are, being so sensible and clear minded! :laugh:

In a pack... all bets are off. Even a really great sheepdog, who has spent it's life working sheep, if it goes off in a pack of other dogs, can and will kill sheep if that's what the pack is doing. This was a pack of dogs, not really surprising they went on a rampage, not much else for them to do if they're at large in suburbia really, the only target they have when they're in a pack and on the warpath is people. Given inadequate socialisation, people can look like a pretty attractive target to a pack of big dogs, especially running people.

I own this kind of dog. Every time I hear of an attack featuring very serious injuries, my heart sinks because I just know a bully breed is going to be held responsible. It pretty much always is, simply because they're the most common (in Australia) of the breeds that are powerful enough to inflict this kind of damage. Other breeds attack with the same frequency, but can't do near the same amount of damage, so no hospitalisations or media frenzies with them. Bullys aren't more inclined to attack than other dogs, but they can do a hell of a lot more damage if they do. It is a lot more responsibility to own one.

I have changed my mind recently on this issue - breed is absolutely relevant to dog attacks IMO - it determines how powerful the dog is and how much damage it can do.

We do need better laws. BSL as it stands is daft, it makes even the most responsible owners of lie to avoid the regulations. My dog's microchip is a lie, it makes me sad it has to be so. It should say, in all honesty "x breed, pit bull type".

Doing away with BSL and making all owners of dogs larger than 25kg attend a management seminar (with their dogs) as part of registration might help as a first step. Encourage owners of powerful breeds to comply with management standards through carrot (education), not stick (breed bans). Make the required seminar something that would appeal to people, it's easy to make education appealing, even the most bogan of bogans will attend a defensive driving course of their own volition, people like to gain more proficiency in their fascinations, so even official govt. channels education courses can appeal if correctly structured and marketed. The responsible owners will attend the required seminar, and in attending, won't be penalised for their breed type. They can also be informed about adequate socialisation, management and containment, and learn to identify the behaviours that indicate potential aggressive behaviour, and the different types of aggression.

The really irresponsible owners who won't attend a day's registration seminar with their dogs, won't have their dogs registered, that lack of registration can give some indication to rangers and councils the dogs and owners who really do bear watching. Massive fines for those avoiding registration. Perhaps mandatory temperament assessment of dogs found to be unregistered (why have they avoided registration? can they not manage their dogs in a seminar environment?) before the owner can go through the registration process and reclaim their dog.

Expensive for councils? Yes. But less expensive than the current crop of BSL court cases.

It is a lot more responsibility to own a powerful breed, and owners of bully breeds, and any other similarly high drive, powerful breeds should be required to demonstrate they can adhere to the level of responsibility required for basic safety before they are extended the privilege of ownership of these dogs. Requiring attendence at a seminar for registration demonstrates some capacity for responsibility. We don't let just anyone drive a road train, prospective drivers must undergo education about safety and management before they are licensed. This approach works, people who want to drive a road train can, provided they complete the educational (licensing) requirements. Same approach would work for people who want to own large powerful dogs, allow it on proviso that they have demonstrate basic competence and responsibility.

I also like your approach. :) I don't believe that the owners of large dogs understand what their dogs are capable of, and I agree that all dogs over a certain weight (regardless of breed) should be subject to special registration provisions. I don't believe that everyone will attend an education seminar but registration should be dependant on the owners proving that their fencing is adequate, a bit like the yard inspections rescue groups conduct before they rehome a dog.

I have owned large dogs and with that ownership comes an extra responsibility. I loved my dogs and I wanted them safe. I know how I was always so careful because I knew if there was a problem my dogs would be the ones blamed.

[GeckoTree]

Having liability insurance on dogs wont stop dog attacks, no one said it would, it's liability in the event a dog damages someone you wont loose your house, either the owner of the dog or the victim. This poor guy here who was chewed up probably wont be able to earn any income for a very long time and will no doubt have ongoing medical costs. I hope he was insured personally.

Insurance is not a cash grab in any sense, its a product for life protection.

[Diva]

I have owned large and very large dogs, sighthounds, for decades. They have never harmed another person or dog. I get really annoyed at the idea I might be further regulated or restricted in their ownership because of twits that can't control their bull breeds. I know what my large dogs are capable of - and it's not savage aggression towards humans. Even back when I owned shepherds and I knew they could exhibit terriorial aggression towards trespassers, they weren't capable of anything like this mauling.

Not all dogs are equally likely to bite, no matter how some people would like to believe it. And for most dogs, if they do bite someone, they don't maul and they don't seek to attack random people on the street. That takes a particlaur temperament that used not to be common, but increasingly seems to be, just like the dogs that attack other dogs on sight in the street. Where the hell do dogs that behave like that come from, because we don't need them in society.

That poor man, my heart goes out to him. Horrific.

[nawnim]

I have owned large and very large dogs, sighthounds, for decades. They have never harmed another person or dog. I get really annoyed at the idea I might be further regulated or restricted in their ownership because of twits that can't control their bull breeds. I know what my large dogs are capable of - and it's not savage aggression towards humans. Even back when I owned shepherds and I knew they could exhibit terriorial aggression towards trespassers, they weren't capable of anything like this mauling.

Not all dogs are equally likely to bite, no matter how some people would like to believe it. And for most dogs, if they do bite someone, they don't maul and they don't seek to attack random people on the street. That takes a particlaur temperament that used not to be common, but increasingly seems to be, just like the dogs that attack other dogs on sight in the street. Where the hell do dogs that behave like that come from, because we don't need them in society.

That poor man, my heart goes out to him. Horrific.

If your dogs are so well behaved then you would have no problem complying with further regulations. :)

BTW French bulldogs and Boston terriers are bull breeds.

Edited May 28, 2013 by nawnim

[staffydave]

On that note it would be a good time to close this thread . Hope that poor fella recovers okay the people who helped were very brave.

[Diva]

If your dogs are so well behaved then you would have no problem complying with further regulations. :)

BTW French bulldogs and Boston terriers are bull breeds.

Yes I know what bullbreeds are, thanks for that. But saying that complying with new restrictions would be no problem is ridiculous, do you know what they would be, or how I live my life? Of course not.

And BTW I didn't say mine were well behaved, although they are. I simply said they have never hurt a dog or human, and were not capable of savage aggression towards people - if that is the new standard for 'so well behaved', then God help us.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Diva

[nawnim]

If your dogs are so well behaved then you would have no problem complying with further regulations. :)

BTW French bulldogs and Boston terriers are bull breeds.

Yes I know what bullbreeds are, thanks for that. But saying that complying with new restrictions would be no problem is ridiculous, do you know what they would be, or how I live my life? Of course not.

And BTW I didn't say mine were well behaved, although they are. I simply said they have never hurt a dog or human, and were not capable of savage aggression towards people - if that is the new standard for 'so well behaved', then God help us.

I am sorrry if I have upset you. I did not mean to>

[Pailin]

Honestly the recent suggestions in regards to regulations etc on owning large breed dogs is simplistic, idealistic and would be nearly impossible to roll out given the very large number of dogs owned in Australia. The cost alone would be astronomical given the number of classes that would be needed ALL over the country... Finding, or training, the necessary number of experienced people to run such classes in rural, outback, suburban areas etc. Paying their wages, hiring facilities, running enough classes for the numbers of dogs and owners that would need it...

Added to that, are we really saying that a 24kg dog would do less damage than one with an extra kilo? Or even a 20kg dog not being as high of a risk as a 25kg dog? Many people blame Staffords, Staffy X's and Am Staffs but a decent number of those dogs would be under the 25kg mark... One of the worst attacks I have seen was inflicted by a a neighbours small working bred Kelpie, she couldn't have been more that 15-18kgs and the damage done was horrible.

[tdierikx]

If there were to be any legislation introduced regarding responsible pet ownership, it would have to be all inclusive. Sure, the larger dogs can do more damage, but lets not forget the few who think it's funny to allow their small breed dog to get away with aggressive behaviours in public also.

I've seen with my own eyes what damage can be done by a small breed dog when it's latched onto a human face - and seen what a toy poodle did to my friend's daughter's face also. Both have lasting external scars.

Singling out specific breeds or breed mixes for strict legislation hasn't worked to date - so the logical next step should be to find an all encompassing solution to any/all dog to human aggression, yes?

T.

[ruthless]

We have enough laws. They're not enforced. Plain and simple. Councils need more money to hire more ACOs to enforce the laws that already exist.

I can't walk my dogs in the morning without having to cross the road at least once to avoid an off lead dog. Usually yappy ankle biters with little dog syndrome. I regularly report off lead dogs and council does nothing about it. Two working dogs up the road are constantly out and seriously injured my neighbour's cat, but council did nothing about it and they still walk their dogs off lead. How was that not a wake-up call for them?? They're not bogans. They're intelligent middle class homeowners with kids and their own business.

A couple of weeks ago I rang to report two offlead Lab crosses in the park on our street. One had attacked our onlead AST before and I'd heard from lots of other people that they'd had trouble with it too. It was a weekend so I had to ring a switchboard and wait for a ranger to call me back. It was 2hrs later when they called me back and because I didn't know the exact address where they lived they couldn't do anything. The dogs were long gone.

I don't know what the quick fix solution is, but enforcing leash laws and jacking up fines for dogs at large would be a bloody good start in my opinion.

[inez]

I have owned large and very large dogs, sighthounds, for decades. They have never harmed another person or dog. I get really annoyed at the idea I might be further regulated or restricted in their ownership because of twits that can't control their bull breeds. I know what my large dogs are capable of - and it's not savage aggression towards humans. Even back when I owned shepherds and I knew they could exhibit terriorial aggression towards trespassers, they weren't capable of anything like this mauling.

Not all dogs are equally likely to bite, no matter how some people would like to believe it. And for most dogs, if they do bite someone, they don't maul and they don't seek to attack random people on the street. That takes a particlaur temperament that used not to be common, but increasingly seems to be, just like the dogs that attack other dogs on sight in the street. Where the hell do dogs that behave like that come from, because we don't need them in society.

That poor man, my heart goes out to him. Horrific.

I remember watching horrified as an american dog catcher was attacked on the news no one game to come to her aid. Their reputation for making entry to rough areas downright dangerous without even worrying about the street gangs.

it began when the bull breeds began to be popular in american cities, it began here when some (far as I am concerned, )idiot in quarantine allowed the first imported pit bulls to arrive in this country.

they were never needed they were advertised for years for 3,000 to 5,000 on the main solely for the bogan lethal weapon market.

What we are seeing is sadly the norm in america before they were allowed here.

like it or not there are nore bogans than responsible people owning these dogs.

they used to hve cattle dogs so savage they bit anyone who came on or near their land, the the fashion became german shepherds and Dobermans and then Rotti's. Now one of the most effiecient fighting dogs arrived they flocked to acquire their status symbol.

Who cares about the freedom of those like that tragic jogger.

Australia never needed the pit bull, neopolotan mastif logotto whatever .... german sheperds were banned for decades, this crap about peoples freedom to have whatever they like is why these killer breeds are here. Grief the neo's and logotto's were used by the mafia to kill their victums what one earth makes them relevant to today anyway?

Ive seen how dangerous an unsupervised neo can be and he hadnt even made it to 12 months old. every one around his owners heaved a sigh of relief when he died.

Dont tell me the lethal weapon mentally isnt in many of the dogs owners, that guy with his pitti pup was strutting with pride of what his pup could do when it grew up. Thats how I learned how he lost his previous two.

People like him scare the daylights out me, that pup wasnt going to be raised to be a good canine citizen even if it was going to be registered as goodness knows what.

Edited May 28, 2013 by inez

[Diva]

I don't know what the quick fix solution is, but enforcing leash laws and jacking up fines for dogs at large would be a bloody good start in my opinion.

Absolutely. Make the fines large and impactful, and up the enforcement resources significantly. Enforce the registration and leash laws that exist rigourously and treat reports of loose dogs, unsound fencing and attacks as serious. It isn't the whole answer, but it is a start that requires no new legislation, just enforcing what is there.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Diva

[Rebanne]

I have owned large and very large dogs, sighthounds, for decades. They have never harmed another person or dog. I get really annoyed at the idea I might be further regulated or restricted in their ownership because of twits that can't control their bull breeds.

agree

[Wobbly]

If legally, you were allowed to buy a car, and get straight on the road, with no driving lessons or practice, how would it go do you think? Probably not very well.

If you already know how to drive, you still need to demonstrate that proficiency and take a driving test to get your license. Do kids learning to drive resent the hell out of the 100 hours they need to clock up before they can get P plates? Hell yes I'd say they do. But they do it. And it's a good thing they do, it saves lives.

Will some people resent having to attend a day's course to get registration for their dogs? Probably they will. Never know though, Diva, the subject matter being dog behaviour, you might find it really interesting and actually enjoy it, might learn something new.

We have the option to stick with BSL, which is obviously working so well (<sarcasm there btw).

Or look at different approaches, including education, which in almost all facets of life is the most effective method of harm minimisation.

Make up your own mind.

[Diva]

If legally, you were allowed to buy a car, and get straight on the road, with no driving lessons or practice, how would it go do you think? Probably not very well.

If you already know how to drive, you still need to demonstrate that proficiency and take a driving test to get your license. Do kids learning to drive resent the hell out of the 100 hours they need to clock up before they can get P plates? Hell yes I'd say they do. But they do it. And it's a good thing they do, it saves lives.

Will some people resent having to attend a day's course to get registration for their dogs? Probably they will. Never know though, Diva, the subject matter being dog behaviour, you might find it really interesting and actually enjoy it, might learn something new.

Good grief, you think I haven't attended seminars on dog behaviour? And from the best in the business, the seminal thinkers, for over 30 years, here and overseas. I might learn something from an entry level seminar, but I doubt it. If a seminar is required for ALL dog owners, I'd go. But don't make any of the education requirements dog-size specific, or you just open up a slippery slope - and damage all of us who do no harm with our large dogs with a cheerfully naive 'oh you won't have any problem with our new restrictions.'

of course you could make the seminars compulsory for new owners of any size dog, or those who have breaches of dogs laws on their record, and do a door to door to catch all the currently unregistered dogs too - but just 'grandfather' in all of us who have had registered dogs for decades with absolutely no breaches of regs. In fact why not give me a discount off my registrations for a 'clean record', that makes sense. :)

Edited May 28, 2013 by Diva

[Rebanne]

Will some people resent having to attend a day's course to get registration for their dogs? Probably they will. Never know though, Diva, the subject matter being dog behaviour, you might find it really interesting and actually enjoy it, might learn something new.

I would resent it. Why should I have to prove I can be a responsible owner just cause my breed of choice weighs over 25 kilos. I've seen 2 kilo fluffballs chase kids out onto a street.

[nawnim]

If legally, you were allowed to buy a car, and get straight on the road, with no driving lessons or practice, how would it go do you think? Probably not very well.

If you already know how to drive, you still need to demonstrate that proficiency and take a driving test to get your license. Do kids learning to drive resent the hell out of the 100 hours they need to clock up before they can get P plates? Hell yes I'd say they do. But they do it. And it's a good thing they do, it saves lives.

Will some people resent having to attend a day's course to get registration for their dogs? Probably they will. Never know though, Diva, the subject matter being dog behaviour, you might find it really interesting and actually enjoy it, might learn something new.

Good grief, you think I haven't attended seminars on dog behaviour? And from the best in the business, the seminal thinkers, for over 30 years, here and overseas. I might learn something from an entry level seminar, but I doubt it. If a seminar is required for ALL dog owners, I'd go. But don't make any of the education requirements dog-size specific, or you just open up a slippery slope - and damage all of us who do no harm with our large dogs with a cheerfully naive 'or you won't have any problem with our new restrictions.'

I repeat Diva I'm sorry if I have upset you. I don't know who you are or what your knowledge of dogs is. What I meant was that people who are already responsible dog owners, as I assume all dolers are, will not have any problems with any new restrictions or regulations. It was meant to be a compliment. I did put in a smiley face.

I find Internet communication difficult and I don't enjoy unpleasantness so I will now bow out of this thread.

[Rebanne]

I repeat Diva I'm sorry if I have upset you. I don't know who you are or what your knowledge of dogs is. What I meant was that people who are already responsible dog owners, as I assume all dolers are, will not have any problems with any new restrictions or regulations. It was meant to be a compliment. I did put in a smiley face.

I find Internet communication difficult and I don't enjoy unpleasantness so I will now bow out of this thread.

That's the problem, the idiots who have these types of dogs don't bother to regisiter them in the first place so it's just more rules, more restictions on the good owners.

Start enforcing the laws already in place before adding in bloody more that still won't weed out the dickheads and only impact on people already doing the right thing!