Jump to content

Two Dogs Attack A 10-year-old Boy In Bellambi


Panto
 Share

Recommended Posts

The attack was sustained, not one snap or bite.

I do think the owners irresponsible for keeping the dogs behind such a low fence and not having the gate locked. Yes the child shouldn't have enetered the yard, especially since there was a sign on there, however I do believe it law that your front door must be able to be accessed??? I may be wrong though.

A child should not pay this price for going through the gate into a front yard. Had the owner not beaten the dogs off - which took time - he may well have paid with his life.

If I had dogs capable of doing this they would be in the yard with the gate locked.

Dogs can defend and do every day without sustained attacks.

If they were mine I would be driving them for euthanasia myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There are conflicting reports. Witnesses say that the boy opened the gate . If you have an unlocked gate then you can't have your dogs loose in the front yard. That isn't adequate containment and you aren't providing safe passage as required by law.

Even without the law, you'd be pretty stupid to have two powerful dogs that anyone could let out.

If the boy jumped the fence and the fence was at least 6' then I don't believe the owners are to blame.

According to the ABC who report relatively responsibly the boy was going to the property to get his brother who was visiting the property. IF that is correct and the dogs attacked him as he walked in the front gate IMO they should be pts.

ABC article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Destroying these dogs is idiotic.

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

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

This child belongs to one of your neighbours.

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

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

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

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

Edited by Haredown Whippets
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care if the child was looking for his brother or selling cookies or seeking help - he suffered a sustained and vicious attack by approaching someones front door - dogs need to be destroyed and owners need to think about how they house their dogs :mad :mad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good guard dog does not just attack and continue attacking while their owner beats them. An out of control dog does that.

A good guard dog has nerves of steel. They are bred through generations and know how to warn, and know when they have no choice but to attack. Their aim is then - through proper training- to bring the assailant down and hold them. Their aim is not to maul. When their owner calls them off - just once - they release immediately.

Of course, you need to get the right dog and put in a lot of work to get a guard dog of this standard. If you don't want to do all of this, then you shouldn't be getting a dog with strong guarding instincts.

I shudder when people come on DOL asking for a guard dog to keep them safe. A watch dog is adequate for most people. A good guard dog is a wonderful thing I love watching videos of Steve & bec's dogs for example), but with them comes great responsibility - much more so that joe average and his average dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an interview with the owner he said that one of the dogs called straight off and that he had to prise open the other dog's jaw.

If I am correct aren't both dogs destined for euthanasia? Even the dog who called off on command?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow the message needs to get through to owners that they are responsible for the safety of their dog/s and this includes not putting them into situations that end in their being euthanised.

That said, even people who recognise that responsibility and think they have all bases covered can be visited by tragedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bit hard to mind map this for me, on one hand to keep the dogs save don't have them in the front, on the other hand the front was fenced gated and signed well, a do not enter sign denies entry and revokes permissions to all but emergency services and utilities people.

I would probably not have the dogs euthed due to an attack on a child or whomever, I would go through the declarations if a defense to an offence could not be established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

This child belongs to one of your neighbours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

This child belongs to one of your neighbours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good guard dog does not just attack and continue attacking while their owner beats them. An out of control dog does that.

A good guard dog has nerves of steel. They are bred through generations and know how to warn, and know when they have no choice but to attack. Their aim is then - through proper training- to bring the assailant down and hold them. Their aim is not to maul. When their owner calls them off - just once - they release immediately.

Of course, you need to get the right dog and put in a lot of work to get a guard dog of this standard. If you don't want to do all of this, then you shouldn't be getting a dog with strong guarding instincts.

I shudder when people come on DOL asking for a guard dog to keep them safe. A watch dog is adequate for most people. A good guard dog is a wonderful thing I love watching videos of Steve & bec's dogs for example), but with them comes great responsibility - much more so that joe average and his average dog.

A good protection trained dog is not a dangerous dog towards non threats, but the problem is people won't pay for the right type of dog or the training required to have a safe protector so they opt for these cross breed dogs of high territorial and defence drive, plonk them in the yard and they will attack anyone unfamiliar to them untrained. When incidents like this happen or such a dog escapes the yard is when serious injuries occur from dog attacks.

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

Being right or wrong doesn't ease the pain and trauma of injury which I believe a parent has the obligation to protected their children from pain and trauma by providing proper education. It's not ok to enter a yard containing dogs because the gates are not locked so we assume because of that, the dogs must be good with kids? It's the same as assuming because someone is walking a dog in a public place that the dog must be good with kids so it's ok to rush over and give the dog a cuddle?

I remember as a kid kicking the footy over the neighbours fence and I jumped the fence to retrieve it and patted their Beagle in the process. Mum went off her rocker.....we were dog people but I remember arguing with her about next door's dog being ok and didn't bite me. Mum's argument and education to us kids was, you don't know what a dog may do when invading it's territory and that was the rule. Same applied with not touching other people's dogs unless you ask to pat them because some dogs aren't used to kids and may bite. Good dog education with kids can prevent most of these incidents IMHO

Edited by Amax-1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

This child belongs to one of your neighbours.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have not socialised your dog not to see children as such a threat to property that they will be maimed and if you wish to own dogs whose drives and temperament will see them do this then you have a responsiblity to contain them in a manner that does not see them do this. The consequences for the dogs and their victims are dire.

As a community, we need to understand that kids are not adults, they don't think as adults and the consequences of behaviour may not be considered before action. Hands up everyone who as kids did everything their parents ever told them? Not many hands are there.

And I'm sorry but I do not consider the sort of dog that will commit this kind of attack as merely "defending territory". If you have a dog that sees a 10 year old child as such a serious threat, then lock it the hell away from your front door. Most dogs do not maim intruders as a first response. 20 puncture wounds is one hell of an opening "warning".

Edited by Haredown Whippets
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have not socialised your dog not to see children as such a threat to property that they will be maimed and if you wish to own dogs whose drives and temperament will see them do this then you have a responsiblity to contain them in a manner that does not see them do this. The consequences for the dogs and their victims are dire.

As a community, we need to understand that kids are not adults, they don't think as adults and the consequences of behaviour may not be considered before action. Hands up everyone who as kids did everything their parents ever told them? Not many hands are there.

And I'm sorry but I do not consider the sort of dog that will commit this kind of attack as merely "defending territory". If you have a dog that sees a 10 year old child as such a serious threat, then lock it the hell away from your front door. Most dogs do not maim intruders as a first response. 20 puncture wounds is one hell of an opening "warning".

Territorial drive isn't triggered by threat level, it's triggered by unfamiliarity on entry so generally speaking such a dog will attack any unfamiliar person or animal entering their territory by default. Two dogs will generally heighten pack drive when working in defence in unison and increase severity of attack, so yes it is a potentially volatile situation that an unfamiliar intruder faces.

Ideally the dogs should be well fenced and locked in the back yard, but the incident IMHO can't be treated as if the dogs escaped the yard attacking an innocent child on the street. The child did make the choice to enter an area containing dogs that were otherwise restrained from causing community danger. Because we can't place logical assumptions on general dog behaviour in all case increases the necessity for parental education with dog interaction. I bet the child didn't defy the rules of dog education, my bet is that child never had any constructive dog education in the first place and mindlessly walked into the yard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an interview with the owner he said that one of the dogs called straight off and that he had to prise open the other dog's jaw.

If I am correct aren't both dogs destined for euthanasia? Even the dog who called off on command?

Already been PTS. Owners volunteered it.

The dogs were purchased after a violent home invasion. That is probably why they were in the front yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...