# Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round



## SevenFX (23 November 2007)

Being a dog owner, and owning one which get it's fair share of publicity, make me dissapointed and sad at the same time for all that this story has affected... yes including the lady that thought it was safe to climb int a strangers backyard with 3 big dogs there... couragous I'd say.

Goes without saying the dogs had to be put down for the attack, but they have and will continue to what dogs do, protect thier pack, and the tertitory they live in.

However common sense is not so common anymore, and it's a shame the lady didn't just call the ranger or police to deal with it, as they are the trained professionals..

I normally think most dogs behaviour are a reflection of their owners, but cant comment as these dogs could have acted out of instinctive behaviour.

SevenFX


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=328083

A woman has been mauled by two large dogs which had to be shot, one five times, when Taser guns failed to subdue the animals during the frenzied attack south of Perth. 

The 29-year-old woman was critically injured when set upon by two Bull Mastiff dogs after jumping a fence at her mother's house at Mandurah yesterday afternoon to help a puppy in distress, police said. 

Health authorities have told police the the woman was lucky to survive the attack and would have died had the helicopter arrived two minutes later. 

RELATED LINKS
Frenzied dogs can be impervious to Tasers

"I saw the poor girl laying there with all the dogs around her and her mum was just yelling, 'They're eating her'," neighbour Barbara Mitchell told a Perth newspaper. 




The dogs continued to attack even after several shots were fired, one policeman said. 

"Both dogs received several gunshot wounds, one dog took five shots before it would drop," he said 

Police spokesman Ian Hasleby said the woman had climbed the fence and was then attacked by two big Bull Mastiff dogs. 

"As she tried to get back over the fence the dogs took hold and dragged her back into the yard and began a frenzied attack," he said. 

"The woman's mother took a garden hose and sprayed the dogs in an attempt to keep them at bay as three police officers arrived." 

Police used Taser guns to little effect and were forced to shoot and kill one of the dogs with their firearms. The second dog was shot by council rangers. 

A third large dog was secured and removed from the yard by rangers. 

Mr Hasleby said the woman was transferred from the Peel Health Campus by helicopter to the Royal Perth Hospital for emergency treatment to serious wounds to her face, legs and body. 

Her condition today is critical but stable. 

A police officer was bitten on the leg during the attack and attended hospital for a tetanus shot. 

The dog's owners have yet to be contacted. They were not at home at the time of the attack, The West Australian reported.


----------



## Julia (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*

So awful.  Yes, in retrospect I'm sure the poor woman would agree that she should have called for help, but I can just imagine how she would have felt seeing the puppy in trouble.

The owners should not have left a puppy with two adult dogs.
I wonder what happened to the pup?


----------



## SevenFX (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



Julia said:


> I wonder what happened to the pup?




*The puppy is receiving councelling, beleiving he was the cause of all this.*

Julia, I can't see myself ever entering someone else backyard knowing 3 large dogs live there and may only get fed at night.

Wonder if the "Common Sense Courses" would be popular... (sorry bite lady).

Anyway the dog(s) has been put down, all because he couldn't speak, so he did the next best thing in his tertitory.

Why can I see this happening again and again.... even though dogs (mans & woman's best friend)....????


----------



## kitehigh (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*

Wow I am amazed that the Police must have actually shown up in quick time.

The woman is damn lucky to survive, what was she thinking entering someone's back yard with 1 dog let alone 3!!


----------



## chops_a_must (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



SevenFX said:


> *The puppy is receiving councelling, beleiving he was the cause of all this.*
> 
> Julia, I can't see myself ever entering someone else backyard knowing 3 large dogs live there and may only get fed at night.
> 
> ...




How about the common sense of not owning dogs that have instincts to kill?


----------



## Happy (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



chops_a_must said:


> How about the common sense of not owning dogs that have instincts to kill?




Looks like reasonable question.

But if we cannot have firearms, until somebody uses one, they are quite good line of defence


----------



## Prospector (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*

Well, I think she was very brave to try to rescue the puppy.  She will probably get sued by the owners though.


----------



## SevenFX (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



chops_a_must said:


> How about the common sense of not owning dogs that have instincts to kill?




Chops there must literally hunderds of thousands of dogs that fit your discription, but instincts to Kill, is a survival and/or tertitorial instinct.

Generally survival instints are removed by feeding them, and tertitorial instincts are removed by putting a fence around them. Guessing again these were met... in this case...????

These dogs along with some humans are also influenced by social & enviromental shaping, hence why they are so accepted in society.

Guessing some humans resort to that if pushed and put into that state, or we would be putting them down along with alot of dogs, not to mention a few humans...

Lets hope not... or we would have to cull a few lions, tigers and few other creatures...

SevenFX


----------



## chops_a_must (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



SevenFX said:


> Chops there must literally hunderds of thousands of dogs that fit your discription, but instincts to Kill, is a survival and/or tertitorial instinct.



Perhaps, the ability to kill might be a fairer statement.


----------



## SevenFX (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



chops_a_must said:


> Perhaps, the ability to kill might be a fairer statement.




Perhaps the Inclination and/or are breed to kill people/dogs maybe fairer, as any dog with decent teeth have the ability, unless they cant' reach... LOL.

Anyway there is no silver bullet, but there needs to be solutions working more towards that.


----------



## Whiskers (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*

At first one can't help feeling sorry for the woman who jumped the fence and got bitten by the dogs. I almost wrote... feeling sorry for the woman who got attacked by the dogs... but that paints the wrong picture of context for what happened.

I just heard on Ten news that the dogs had been left for three days without food or water. Whether that is completely true has yet to be established because the owners have not yet been contacted. It is probably more factual at this stage to say there is no food or water with the dogs.

Anyway, there may be some good reason why the owners have not been home for three days. In any event three days is not an extraudinary period to leave pets unattended. I've done it and many people I know have left a good supply of feed and water for their pets to go away for two days.

I have been bitten on the footpath by a cattle dog, in true cattle dog style, sneaking up behind without a noise and nipping me in the calf muscle and pestered by a few smaller foxies and the like, so I might be first to condem the dogs, but this is different. The dogs seem to be only doing what they were bred and presumably bought for, to protect the property while the owners were not there.

From what I could see the property had a high metal fence around and good shade, just what you would expect for a dog owner to have to properly house their dogs. I know people who have had their premises burgled frequently and the only thing that stopped the burgleries was guard dogs. 

Presumably it was the mother who told the police the owners were away for three days and the dogs hadn't been fed or watered... what on earth were they thinking going over the fence in those circumstances. 

Anyone who knows anything about training guard dogs knows that is exactly the sort of behaviour the dogs are trained or bred to attack to. I hope the woman recovers OK, then someone should give her a good lecture about the stupidity of her actions.

I'm with prospecter. If I was the owners I would be considering sueing.


----------



## Rapture (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*

I feel sorry for the woman and wish her a speedy recovery , but would I be fair in saying that she _was _trespassing on private property ?


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*

RSPCA had already been there and left a note the day b4 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/23/2098678.htm



> The RSPCA says it visited the property the day before the 29-year-old woman was attacked.
> 
> Robin Moore from the RSPCA says an inspector visited the property on Wednesday and noted the dogs were in poor condition.
> 
> He says the inspectors probably would have seized the dogs today if they had not heard from the owners.


----------



## Rapture (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



2020hindsight said:


> RSPCA had already been there and left a note the day b4
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/23/2098678.htm




Well there you go ... 

I can't understand why people have pets when they are clearly incapable of looking after them ( if this is the case ) ...


----------



## Whiskers (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



2020hindsight said:


> RSPCA had already been there and left a note the day b4
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/23/2098678.htm




Regardless of the reason why the owners were away so long and whatever the reason may unfold to be, this highlights the stupidity of the woman getting over the fence, when the RSPCA would no doubt have come immediately if they were phoned and informed a pup was in distress.

Again, I hope she recovers from her injuries, but it's looking more and more like a case of stupid behaviour inviting trouble. 

Call me cynical, but one has to wonder sometimes whether the woman clambering over the fence was doing so in the best interest of the pup or something else. I mean seriously, in all the circumstances, is she really that stupid or is it a conveinent excuse for being caught tresspassing for something else.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



Rapture said:


> I can't understand why people have pets when they are clearly incapable of looking after them ( if this is the case ) .



rapture, yep - trouble with most difficult dogs is their (history of) owners.   Sounds like someone could well be sued for sure. 

But I would personally never get one of the dogbreeds trained to kill for instance.  I know Bull Terrier owners swear by them - not sure the difference between them and Pitbull - by I personally wouldn't go near either of them.

Changing subject - We had a puppy from animal rescue once - a Heinz including some cattledog and some kelpie  - some of the litter had cigarette burns.   

He was one screwed up little dog - only really happy when hiding undera sideboard.    In the end he died of natural causes at about 4 years - I was just happy I didn't take two of the litter (as I planned to do at one stage).



Whiskers said:


> Regardless of the reason why the owners were away so long and whatever the reason may unfold to be, this highlights the stupidity of the woman getting over the fence, when the RSPCA would no doubt have come immediately if the were phoned and informed a pup was in distress.



Whiskers , 
I'm not gonna comment on the "excuse theory" - 
but a couple of lessons 
1. maybe the RSPCA could have left a message to say they were "on the case"  
2. I'm sure the lady is older and wiser, (as we all are - at her expense) - and "ringing the RSPCA" is what she will (and we should) do next time as well.

PS I think you'll find it was all three dogs in distress - but it's early days as you say.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*

btw, would anyone here march up to this lady in hospital and accuse her of being stupid to jump the fence - 

BEFORE asking her of her version of events ? - sheesh.


----------



## Whiskers (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



2020hindsight said:


> rapture, yep - trouble with most difficult dogs is their (history of) owners.   Sounds like someone could well be sued for sure.




Yeah 2020, I'm a bit loath to pass judjement on the dogs or owners yet, until I hear from the owners other than to say from my experience of guard dogs I think they tend to keep them more on the lean side than the fat so they don't become lazy and slow.



> But I would personally never get one of the dogbreeds trained to kill for instance.  I know Bull Terrier owners swear by them - not sure the difference between them and Pitbull - by I personally wouldn't go near either of them.
> 
> Changing subject - We had a puppy from animal rescue once - a Heinz including some cattledog and some kelpie  - some of the litter had cigarette burns.
> 
> He was one screwed up little dog - only really happy when hiding undera sideboard.    In the end he died of natural causes at about 4 years - I was just happy I didn't take two of the litter (as I planned to do at one stage).




Your right there is no excuse for this sort of cruelty.



> Whiskers ,
> I'm not gonna comment on the "excuse theory" -
> but a couple of lessons
> 1. maybe the RSPCA could have left a message to say they were "on the case"
> ...




Yes, early days yet. Interesting to see how it unfolds. 

Just as a point of interest, I spent some of my younger years in the surveying business and jumped into a few backyards and front yards. I found most dogs will tolerate someone coming in the front gate to the front door providing they don't make rash moves or threatening guestures. 

I got the impression that this mother was the one that contacted the RSPCA in the first place and if they had gone to the front gate to enquire first they would have seen the RSPCA note anyway. The fact that they jumped the boundary fence prima facie suggests to me that they knew nobody was home. That's why I wondered about the real reason for going in there.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



Whiskers said:


> 1. no excuse for this sort of cruelty.
> 
> 2. Just as a point of interest, I spent some of my younger years in the surveying business and jumped into a few backyards and front yards. I found most dogs will tolerate someone coming in the front gate to the front door providing they don't make rash moves or threatening guestures.
> 
> 3. I got the impression that this mother was the one that contacted the RSPCA in the first place and if they had gone to the front gate to enquire first they would have seen the RSPCA note anyway. The fact that they jumped the boundary fence prima facie suggests to me that they knew nobody was home. That's why I wondered about the real reason for going in there.



whiskers
1. yep - perhaps true, praps just anecdotal  - back in the old days, expats in PNG (and probably India and elsewhere) used to make watchdogs "racially prejudiced" - put the dogs in a bag, beat them, and tell the houseboy to let them out  

2. wow - surveyors must get this all the time  - spot on .
speaking of anecdotes, lol - used to deliver phonebooks with the kids when they were cubs.  We were asked to deliver right to the front door in those days lol.  Sheesh - no way would i let the kids go into most of those yards ...  like, you see a sign with a salivating dog saying "make my day!!! - come through the gate !!"

or maybe a picture of some bloke with a shotgun saying "don't worry about the dog !! - beware of the owner!!" 

Several phonebooks were hoiked 100 metres from the footpath, lol - landing "perfectly" on the porch  - by perfect I mean within 20 metres lol.

3. yep interesting points there - the dog's (dogs' ?) distress could well have been in evidence for a day or three :2 twocents    some people !?

Used to have a factory in Bankstown - a factory down the road had a watchdog in the yard - never even taken for a walk etc - truly cruelly treated !!


----------



## Whiskers (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



2020hindsight said:


> 2. wow - surveyors must get this all the time  - spot on .
> speaking of anecdotes, lol - used to deliver phonebooks with the kids when they were cubs.  We were asked to deliver right to the front door in those days lol.  Sheesh - no way would i let the kids go into most of those yards ...  like, you see a sign with a salivating dog saying "make my day!!! - come through the gate !!"




Yeah it was an interesting time. I used the Crocodile Dundee caper to pretty good effect most times. Just stand there with the hand out a bit and stare them down. Sometimes they capitulated into a grovelling little puppy. But for when it didn't, it gave me a minute or two to plan my fastest exit. 

Sometimes in the bush it would be a mob of inquisitive steers thundering up to check us out. I'll never forget one day we were working on the Goonyella railway line resumption survey and fair dinkim, I was late teens and been around cattle a bit, but this mob just kept galloping on. I thought they were never going to stop. :22_yikes: It was like playing chicken and I chickened out first for the nearest tree. :hide:


----------



## Julia (23 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



Rapture said:


> Well there you go ...
> 
> I can't understand why people have pets when they are clearly incapable of looking after them ( if this is the case ) ...




Because, Rapture, to the total disgust of normal people, a lot of dog owners have their dogs just to guard their property.  They regard the dogs not as loyal and loving creatures to be cared for, but just as something similar to an inanimate burglar alarm.

All I know about this horrible event is what I've read on this thread.  I assumed the puppy was probably being attacked by the older dogs, but realise now there was no real basis for that assumption.  So my picture of the woman - in a flurry of concern for the puppy - going into the yard to try to save the pup was probably wrong.

However, although I have to agree that she was foolish to go into the fenced yard, I understand and empathise with her feelings.

And I wouldn't under any circumstances leave my dogs alone for three days, even with food and water.  Just take the water in this warm weather - it should be changed twice a day.  And what about exercise?  Clearly not a consideration for this owner.

Dogs offer us so much love, protection and complete loyalty.  We have a responsibility to treat them with love and respect in return.

And just on the cliched notion that particular breeds are killers:  rubbish.
Any dog if ill treated and encouraged to violence will do damage.
It's the responsibility of the owner to train the dog to behave appropriately.
If anyone attacked me, my dog would have no hesitation in doing whatever she had to in order to protect me.  But in the absence of any threat, she would do no more than warn people to stay outside the gate.


----------



## Prospector (24 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



Whiskers said:


> I'm with prospecter. If I was the owners I would be considering sueing.




Whoa there, I didnt say she should get sued, but think she might be!

Now, my cat has inflicted some pretty nasty injuries on me, including needing some very heavy duty antibiotics. And she is the tiniest thing. And I was also bitten badly on the nose and mouth by a dog when I was 10, because I my cousins and I were teasing it, and as they were the owners, he bit me instead.  But there is no way I would have thought of having it destroyed.  Still dont like dachsunds to this day though!


----------



## hangseng (24 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



Whiskers said:


> At first one can't help feeling sorry for the woman who jumped the fence and got bitten by the dogs. I almost wrote... feeling sorry for the woman who got attacked by the dogs... but that paints the wrong picture of context for what happened.
> 
> I just heard on Ten news that the dogs had been left for three days without food or water. Whether that is completely true has yet to be established because the owners have not yet been contacted. It is probably more factual at this stage to say there is no food or water with the dogs.
> 
> ...




Despite the report these dogs were not purebred Bullmastiffs.

Dog owner laws need to be changed and soon. The dogs are always blamed and yet the owners are the ones that control.

I own two German Shepards that are loyal loving animals that wouldn't harm a fly and yet we understand they are capable of turning to protect what they love most, being us. Far from them being guard dogs (lick you to death more likely) it is us who mostly protect them by doing what needs to be done. 

Taking responsibility and having always had our dogs trained (more like us being trained) to assimilate with other dogs and people, be obedient and to respond on command. Our dogs won't even eat unless we give a simple command "OK", other than that they won't touch food. They 'come', 'sit', lie 'down' and 'stay' when we tell them to regardless of situation. Again, despite our ultimate control, we remain wary and ensure control in all situations, why? Because we love them as our own and treat them with respect.

Dog owners are responsible for their dogs actions and should be held accountable accordingly.

Owners are responsible, not the dogs.


----------



## Julia (24 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



Prospector said:


> Still dont like dachsunds to this day though!



Ah, Prospector, such discerning taste!  Perhaps we could despatch your cat to deal with the dachsund population?  (Substitute any other breed of small, yapping dog whose owners think it's terribly cute when they snap at the heels of large dogs.)


----------



## Whiskers (25 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



Prospector said:


> Whoa there, I didnt say she should get sued, but think she might be!




Point taken prospector. I got a bit laxed with my words there. 

But I didn't say they 'should be', I said 'consider'... ie assuming there was a reasonable reason behind their absence, and having the dogs. Nothing illegal like a drug factory as sometimes is the case.


----------



## Whiskers (25 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



Rapture said:


> Well there you go ...
> 
> I can't understand why people have pets when they are clearly incapable of looking after them ( if this is the case ) ...






hangseng said:


> Despite the report these dogs were not purebred Bullmastiffs.
> 
> Dog owner laws need to be changed and soon. The dogs are always blamed and yet the owners are the ones that control.
> 
> ...




The reality is though that many animals are kept for a number of reasons other than for pets. Greyhounds for racing, working dogs on cattle and sheep properties and of course guard dogs. 

Without knowing the full story in this case I am loathe to condem the dog owners just yet, because having a guard dog is a ligitimate thing to do just as there are thousands of working cattle and sheep dogs and racing dogs. 

Knowing a lot of country people who have working dogs I understand the need to treat working dogs differently to pets. Of course being working or guard dogs doesn't mean they can be abused, but to be effective they have to be lean, fit and trained with a certain amount of controlled agression as opposed to, for want of a better phrase 'dumbing down with affection' for good pets.

As I said earlier, presuming the owners had a legitimate reason for having guard dogs, the dogs should not be put down or condemed for doing their job because of the stupidity of someone trespassing no matter how noble their intentions might have been.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 November 2007)

*Re: Another Dog Attack - Sad Story All Round.*



Whiskers said:


> But I didn't say they 'should be', I said 'consider'... ie assuming there was a reasonable reason behind their absence, and having the dogs. Nothing illegal like a drug factory as sometimes is the case.



hi whiskers, an anecdote - we had a neighbour who moved in next door (suburban Sydney), put up a massive high fence, then these two massive german shepherds appeared (well could be heard) over the fence- and a lot of equipment for copying videos was moved in.  

I've no idea if it was legal or not ... (as long as he wasn't making blue movies without telling me lol) ... and ... 
I'll keep it anonymous - like I won't say if it was the neighbours on the left or right lol - but ... had I concluded it was illegal I think it would have been a not  unreasonable conclusion.

Anyway, one summer day they got out, and one of my kids (about 2 or 3 yr old) was sitting out in the yard and eating an icecream - this massive dog starts bearing down on him in a loping run.

The kid isn't frightened at all.  No response. - just keeps licking the icecream !

UNTIL, the dog walks straight up and pinches the icecream from his hand lol.
All hell breaks loose as he starts crying (but purely over the theft or rather the termination of his icecream licking, nothing to do with fear lol).  

It was really funny at the time, but granted , I guess you had to be there


----------



## Mrs Mackie (25 November 2007)

Actually, with my limited knowledge of the law I would hazard a guess that it would be the dog owners who should be worried about being sued.  Despite the stupidity of the poor woman going into the yard with 3 hungry dogs, everyone has the legal responsibility to ensure that no injury or damage can be caused to their neighbour (meaning anyone they may come into contact with).  So by allowing their dogs to attack a person even if in their own yard, they can still be sued for damages although the damages will probably be reduced due to the woman's own actions of entering the yard.  

If there was no sign proclaiming that the dogs were dangerous, as required to be displayed by council bylaws, the owners could be guilty of negligence.

In most states, even if a person enters your yard with the intention of committing a crime and somehow gets injured in the process, they can then sue for damages and payouts aren't minor either.

You may think your yard is your own personal property, but it really isn't - you still have a duty of care to ensure that other people don't get injured when entering your yard whether it is with your permission or not.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 November 2007)

Mrs Mackie said:


> If there was no sign proclaiming that the dogs were dangerous, as required to be displayed by council bylaws, the owners could be guilty of negligence.
> 
> In most states, even if a person enters your yard with the intention of committing a crime and somehow gets injured in the process, they can then sue for damages and payouts aren't minor either.
> 
> You may think your yard is your own personal property, but it really isn't - you still have a duty of care to ensure that other people don't get injured when entering your yard whether it is with your permission or not.




interesting points Mrs Mac

and chances are she was bringing them food or water you'd think - 

if the good samaritan gets sued (again) it would be a travestry of justice (again) 

but the law can be an ass as you say (intention of crime example above).

(PS I might be all for "innocent until proven guilty" etc - but gee whiz, there's no way that robbers should be legally "protected" from dogbite in someone else's yard.  - even if they're taking a shortcut to a third party's yard   - IMO )


----------



## Rapture (25 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> (PS I might be all for "innocent until proven guilty" etc - but gee whiz, there's no way that robbers should be legally "protected" from dogbite in someone else's yard.  - even if they're taking a shortcut to a third party's yard   - IMO )




OK ... So ... guard dogs are there doing their jobs .. Guarding their owners property and acting as a deteraint for those to enter . But if some idiot _still _decides to enter , if they are biten they are still protected ?.. _and_ the dogs would still be put down _and_ the owners sued ?


----------



## hangseng (25 November 2007)

Rapture said:


> OK ... So ... guard dogs are there doing their jobs .. Guarding their owners property and acting as a deteraint for those to enter . But if some idiot _still _decides to enter , if they are biten they are still protected ?.. _and_ the dogs would still be put down _and_ the owners sued ?




Yes. the law is an ASS!


----------



## Julia (25 November 2007)

Mrs Mackie said:


> Actually, with my limited knowledge of the law I would hazard a guess that it would be the dog owners who should be worried about being sued.  Despite the stupidity of the poor woman going into the yard with 3 hungry dogs, everyone has the legal responsibility to ensure that no injury or damage can be caused to their neighbour (meaning anyone they may come into contact with).  So by allowing their dogs to attack a person even if in their own yard, they can still be sued for damages although the damages will probably be reduced due to the woman's own actions of entering the yard.
> 
> If there was no sign proclaiming that the dogs were dangerous, as required to be displayed by council bylaws, the owners could be guilty of negligence.
> 
> ...



That's an interesting view.  Do you think that applies to the whole yard or just the fenced area containing the dogs?  e.g. the front of my property has no gate and any visitor is freely able to walk up to the front door without any contact with the dog.  Given that that should be all any one I don't know needs to do, I can't see any reason for them to then go through the gates to the back of the property which is the dog's territory.


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 November 2007)

Rapture said:


> OK ... So ... guard dogs are there doing their jobs .. Guarding their owners property and acting as a deteraint for those to enter . But if some idiot _still _decides to enter , if they are biten they are still protected ?.. _and_ the dogs would still be put down _and_ the owners sued ?



sounds like you're agreeing with me rapture 

I said if a robber is bitten, he should not have legal rights to sue the owner.  

- Completely different to this case, where the RSPCA had been the day before, left a note,  and planned to return to sort it out - if only they had done so before this lady decided she had the courage to intervene to help the dogs ( only to be bitten / mauled / in critical condition etc.   Very fortunate to be alive.  

Feel free to clarify your comment, but I think we are reading from the same page yes?


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 November 2007)

Just a comment on the legals here...
I'd be interested in a lawyer's opinion ..

Scenario 1:-
robber breaks in, 
dog attacks him
can he sue ?(perhaps because a sign wasn't up or some technicality - not that you read signs in the dark ) 

My own guess is (Were I the judge - lol )
a) YOU - guilty of robbery - 12 months !
b) YOU - guilty of being owner of a dog who attacked someone - put up an iridescent sign - !!! - and don't do it again. 

What am I trying ot say here?
Sometimes I think we get carried away with these inconsistencies in the law.  The media obviously play them up as well.   Hopefully Judges ( Aussie judges anyway - not so sure about the litigious US ones) have more sense.

I mean - 
Scenario 2:-
person A goes through a red light
hits 
person B who went through a green light 

I think I'm correct in saying that BOTH are partly to blame. 
just that the split is like 98% - 2% ( if you get my drift).
Obviously the Judge is likely to ignore the one as a misdemeanour - while the other he won’t - 
but BOTH are potentially guilty (albeit with mitigating circumstances in one case) .


----------



## Whiskers (25 November 2007)

Mrs Mackie said:


> Actually, with my limited knowledge of the law I would hazard a guess that it would be the dog owners who should be worried about being sued.  Despite the stupidity of the poor woman going into the yard with 3 hungry dogs, everyone has the legal responsibility to ensure that no injury or damage can be caused to their neighbour (meaning anyone they may come into contact with).  So by allowing their dogs to attack a person even if in their own yard, they can still be sued for damages although the damages will probably be reduced due to the woman's own actions of entering the yard.




I believe you are generally (loosely) right, Mrs Mackie.

*But there are a few qualifications*. As I understand the law, anyone has a right to enter your property to meet the owner/occupier, however this is expected to be by the normal front entrance as far as the front door. Where the front gate is locked, that is as far as they are permitted to go. If there is nobody home or they are not welcome and asked to leave they must leave by the same way. An exception is meter readers who must have free access to the meters. 

People do not have an unabated right to enter your property without your permission. 



> If there was no sign proclaiming that the dogs were dangerous, as required to be displayed by council bylaws, the owners could be guilty of negligence.




The dangerous dog warning is a local government law which I think still various a bit around the country. As I understand it is an advisory sign for where people may come in contact with your dog while entering your property. If the dogs are secured in a yard by a high fence that is locked, and you trespassed into the back yard by climbing over that fence, it would be nigh on impossible to sue for negligence on the premis that there was no dangerous dog sign. 

The law of negligence is a two way street. One has a duty to be responsible for your own actions too... to mitigate any loss, damage or injury. 



> In most states, even if a person enters your yard with the intention of committing a crime and somehow gets injured in the process, they can then sue for damages and payouts aren't minor either.




There has been some cases where burglers have entered a house and been beaten up by the owner and got compensation. But that was for using 'undue' force to protect his property. In other words it was held that the startled owner should not have beaten the intruder so badly. 

I also believe this law is or has been ammended to reflect the notion that your home is your sanctuary and you have the right to protect it as well as yourself. An important aspect of the changes is that a person committing a crime has no recourse against another party protecting themselves or their property.

Some of the rediculious precidents that I think you are referring to are similar to the case of the drunk going for a swim, diving into shallow water and injuring his spine.  He won an enormous compensation under common law of negligence but lost it on appeal and I believe there are now statuatory laws to prevent this type of claim.



> You may think your yard is your own personal property, but it really isn't - you still have a duty of care to ensure that other people don't get injured when entering your yard whether it is with your permission or not.




In this case, because this womans mother was a neighbour, and I believe the report said the dogs were in the back yard and this woman was in fact trespassing, I think it would be a very difficult to argue ignorance about the dogs demeanour let alone claim any damages for negligence. As I suggested initially, the woman who entered the yard was well aware of the circumstances of the dogs, but chose to do it anyway. 

Akin to the drunk diving into shallow water and trying to sue the surf club and the robber claiming unreasonable force to stop him. These loopholes in common law that smart criminal lawyers have used, have or are being closed by statute.


----------



## Rapture (25 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> sounds like you're agreeing with me rapture
> 
> I said if a robber is bitten, he should not have legal rights to sue the owner.
> 
> ...




Yes , I do agree I don't see why a robber should have any rights when breaking and entering .. They do so at their own risk , so I don't see why there should be any leniancy ... 


As to the RSPCA ..... Whether it was knowledge to the woman or not of their visit , I don't know about you , but it seems to me that the dogs were in no mood to play fetch ... Jumping over a fence was not the wises things to do in this situation .. I don't know what I would have done in this instance , I can't say , but jumping the fence wouldn't have been high on the priority ..


----------



## Rapture (25 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Just a comment on the legals here...
> I'd be interested in a lawyer's opinion ..
> 
> I mean -
> ...





Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying here , but how can they BOTH be blamed when one clearly has the signal to go and the other to stop? 

Once again ..I might have not understood your example correctly .. for which I apologise


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 November 2007)

Rapture said:


> Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying here , but how can they BOTH be blamed when one clearly has the signal to go and the other to stop?
> 
> Once again ..I might have not understood your example correctly .. for which I apologise



rapture,
no need for apology lol
just that I was told once that it's illegal to avoid a prang "irrespective"
red light , green light whatever.
Maybe it was BS 

obviously a sensible judge would not fine the person who went through the red


----------



## Flying Fish (25 November 2007)

If you own a dog like that YOU have something to hide.

No excuse for it. You want a dog like that go outback.


----------



## Rapture (26 November 2007)

Whiskers said:


> I believe you are generally (loosely) right, Mrs Mackie.
> 
> *But there are a few qualifications*. As I understand the law, anyone has a right to enter your property to meet the owner/occupier, however this is expected to be by the normal front entrance as far as the front door. Where the front gate is locked, that is as far as they are permitted to go. If there is nobody home or they are not welcome and asked to leave they must leave by the same way. An exception is meter readers who must have free access to the meters.
> 
> ...




Thanks Whiskers ... 


From what I remember  ... Some time ago now since I needed to know any of this ... this was pretty much my understanding as well.. 

Thanks for the research ...


----------



## Rapture (26 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> rapture,
> no need for apology lol
> just that I was told once that it's illegal to avoid a prang "irrespective"
> red light , green light whatever.
> ...




Sorry I thought you knew something I didn't  

All good


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 November 2007)

Rapture said:


> Sorry I thought you knew something I didn't
> 
> All good



Also lol 
 I screwed up in that off-thread and confusing post about red and green lights. 

*Obviously* if you go through a green light and you are hit by someone running a red, then you are blameless sheesh.

What I meant was if you went through green and *then HIT *someone who went through red, then you are "less blameless". - as I said 98-2,  or maybe 99.5: 0.5  whatever. 

I mean, I suspect some fineprint in the road rules would say that you should always be able to stop in time to avoid things in front of you etc.

.........................
Back to this thread -  -  If you have a dog that bites a burglar, then you are possibly guilty of something.  But SURELY a sensible judge would ignore what the press says, and the robber would get a more severe sentence, - and maybe the dogowner would get a warning or charges quashed etc.

If you are guilty of cruelty to animals, and a good samaritan attempts to come over the fence to sort it out, then a sensible judge would surely come down harder on the homeowner (yes?)

..............................
PS We could talk about what happens if an intruding robber is shot I guess -  and where does the homeowner stand there - but that's getting a bit more tricky   For another thread etc.

Then again - had this lady lost her life due to those dogs ( and she'll obviously have massive medical bills ) ... ..... watch this space as they say.


----------



## Rapture (26 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Also lol
> I screwed up in that off-thread and confusing post about red and green lights.
> 
> *Obviously* if you go through a green light and you are hit by someone running a red, then you are blameless sheesh.
> ...




Don't sweat over it ... Iit's fine ... I picked up what you meant .. All good


----------



## Rapture (26 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Also lol
> .........................
> Back to this thread -  -  If you have a dog that bites a burglar, then you are possibly guilty of something.  But SURELY a sensible judge would ignore what the press says, and the robber would get a more severe sentence, - and maybe the dogowner would get a warning or charges quashed etc.
> 
> ...




One would like to think so .... Like you said , we'll need to wait and see .. 

You're right ,.. If she had lost her life it would have been a different story , but surely you must agree that there was fair warning to indicate that it wasn't the smartest things to do ??? .. 

Have the owners not been located as yet.. I am dying to hear what they have to say .. Just to stop the speculation and put another side to this story .. I'd hate to see it was really a case of dog neglect ..


----------



## SevenFX (26 November 2007)

There a Good chance the mods may rename this thread to "_*Intersections & Traffic Lights - Red & Green*_." LOL

Some interesting POV of Dog Attacks & Common Sense as well.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 November 2007)

When I hear intruders in the yard at night - I tell the dog to do her famous "shadow on the curtain" trick  - plus she barks into a loud speaker.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 November 2007)

hey whiskers - here's a couple of stories- call em "how to' and "how not to" challenge a burglar 

the right way - dog starts barking at night, I look out the window and some young bloke is making his way towards the house - I pull the blind back and say " mate, I can let the dog out if you like - but in any case, I've already rung the police" - he took off 

the wrong way - dog starts barking - I wake and hear the billycarts beside the house being stolen ( I'd made em for a cubs event) - in fact three young blokes are heading for the front gate with them in tow....   I charge to the door with a lump of 4X2, dog barking like crazy by now lol - he was a Great Dane  and he's skidding out on all the corners lol  - kids take off down the street leaving the go carts - into an HR Holden and woom - off in a cloud of dust.  

So I get in the car wearing my pyjama pants - which look remarkably like a pair of Y fronts lol - and the dog , and charge after them, - get to the corner, the HR is gone, but there's a police car.  So I pass that and pull them over with a handsignal.  I run back and ask them "have you seen an HR go past with 3 teenagers?" - they listen... heads tilted lol " because they tried to steal my go carts"  ... 

At this stage the first cop says to me "ok o k- look , um - just blow in this straw for us will you"   - so sure I give up on the chase for a bit and blow -  result is Im stone cold sober - 

Cops look amazed .. " bullsh1t" says the first cop - gives me another straw - "Do it again!!"  - lol - again I pass.

He drives away saying "ok if I see an HR I'll let you know ..."  vrrmmm
I call out to their dust " but, but,  you don't even know where I liv...."


----------



## Whiskers (26 November 2007)

Yeah, yeah... I believe ya, 2020. 

As I read that I remembered a clip of a late move last night. I think it was called the highway patrolman. :topic

Anyway the bit that popped into my mind when you mentioned those cops is where this patrolman stopped on the side of the road, he looks over and sees a mother breast feeding a baby. The next shot is over the womans shoulder looking down, with the baby crying in the background and this cop latched on for a drink.  Then he drives off with milk all over his top lip.

I don't know why I remembered it just then,   maybe it had something to do with cops and robers... or keystone cops


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 November 2007)

Whiskers said:


> ......a clip of a late movie last night. I think it was called the highway patrolman. ......... then he drives off with milk all over his top lip.



:topic
well I'd say that's one highway patrolman who's unlikely to make it to deputy commissioner - :eek3:

Sure your movie wasn't a Monty Python?

Anyway. lol - back on topic - I've had three occasions where the dog(s) have prevented a burglary  

(and strangly enough, breast feeding didn't spring to my mind on any of those occasions lol)

PS whiskers - sure makes a change from discussing red and green lights.
(funny dude lol)


----------



## Rapture (27 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> :topic
> 
> PS whiskers - sure makes a change from discussing red and green lights.
> (funny dude lol)




You know you now have me thinking twice before I go through green lights now???  You have scarred me


----------



## Rapture (27 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> hey whiskers - here's a couple of stories- call em "how to' and "how not to" challenge a burglar
> 
> the right way - dog starts barking at night, I look out the window and some young bloke is making his way towards the house - I pull the blind back and say " mate, I can let the dog out if you like - but in any case, I've already rung the police" - he took off
> 
> ...





You see ... Now if the dogs had bitten them ......   ????? .......??????

LOL.... PJs probably scared them off ..... :


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 November 2007)

Rapture said:


> You see ... Now if the dogs had bitten them ......   ????? .......??????   PJs probably scared them off .....



yep I'd probably have been in trouble I suggest  - not sure what I was thinking about that night lol.  

(hence the other story of how I tackled the situation when it reoccurred.  I'm more of a pacifist rather than a pac-a-fist. )

Speaking of which, not many know that the Yfront is designed around a peace sign - (or was it the other way round ?) - from the Vietnam war days - "be sure to wear some flowers in your hair" etc


----------



## Happy (28 November 2007)

> 28 November 2007 - 7:49AM
> Source: Central Western Daily, NSW
> 
> 
> ...





I only pray, that lap dog baby family member doesn’t turn on the kids.
If it does, we will probably hear about it.


----------



## Rapture (28 November 2007)

OK .. This dog has attacked another dog and a person ...  What makes her think she has any other choice appart from the 2 offered ? Even then , why would you play Russian Roulette with your family ... ... It only needs to do it once .... 

Personally, I wouldn't take the risk ...  I'd say put it down .. I hate Pit Bulls ( sorry if anyone has one ...) and all those breeds used for fighting ... Looking at the breed, its history and its temperament, I can't see how she'll have much Public Support on this one ......IMO...


----------



## Julia (28 November 2007)

Agree with Rapture.  This breed is more unpredictable than any other in my experience.  I was walking through a park once with my dog on a lead walking beside me.  A family came towards us, a pit bull also on a lead.
All looked OK,  Pitbull wasn't straining at the leash or looking aggressive.
But just as the two dogs were side by side, the Pitbull just lunged at my dog aiming for her throat.  Fortunately the owner quickly jerked it away before it actually made contact but it was a frightening experience.

Fines don't mean much to people like this woman.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 November 2007)

Julia said:


> Agree with Rapture.  This breed is more unpredictable than any other in my experience.  I was walking through a park once with my dog on a lead walking beside me.  A family came towards us, a pit bull also on a lead.
> All looked OK,  Pitbull wasn't straining at the leash or looking aggressive.
> But just as the two dogs were side by side, the Pitbull just lunged at my dog aiming for her throat.  Fortunately the owner quickly jerked it away before it actually made contact but it was a frightening experience.
> 
> Fines don't mean much to people like this woman.




Those fines sure should make people think.  I guess rich people ignore the quantum of fines 

I agree Rapture and Julia, Pitbulls shouldn't be family pets.  

USA sure know how to slug you with fines - As Qantas is fnding out .   They have "triple damages" whereby when you screw people, you pay back thrice.  

Heaps of examples on Google:-
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=triple+damages&meta=


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 November 2007)

PS Julia, lol - always exceptions to "the rules"

The other day my dog (say 35kg bitch) was chasing a ball I had thrown down at an off-lead park , and just as she was slowing down to gather the bouncing ball in her mouth, a giant of a german shepherd charged down at her from behind and bowled her over - most aggressive on his part, and the most upset I've seen my dog for a while as well.  She was limping hurt for a while, but nothing permanent.  To be fair, the Shepherd immediately took off - to chase down another victim lol.

On another day, a big Great Dane cross (unusual for these to be aggressive)decided to pick a fight with a very placid Boxer.  - both male - no provocation, he just went for the other dog.  But it was the way he went about it - the Boxer was kocked over on his back - the Dane Cross Grabbed its foreleg and gave it the rag doll treatment - massive cut , you'd have thought broken or dislocated as well.     The owner of the Dane started to head off, but the boyfriend of the girl who owned the Boxer brought him back to get his details , and make him witness and acknowledge the damage - and he agreed to pay the vet's bills


----------



## Happy (28 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> On another day, a big Great Dane cross (unusual for these to be aggressive)decided to pick a fight with a very placid Boxer.  - both male - no provocation, he just went for the other dog.  But it was the way he went about it - the Boxer was kocked over on his back - the Dane Cross Grabbed its foreleg and gave it the rag doll treatment - massive cut , you'd have thought broken or dislocated as well.     The owner of the Dane started to head off, but the boyfriend of the girl who owned the Boxer brought him back to get his details , and make him witness and acknowledge the damage - and he agreed to pay the vet's bills





I just hate the pay the bill, say sorry, or that my dog never did anything like that ever before, some say there must be something wrong with you or your dog.

I am more for it not happening in a first place.

What about trauma? What about changes in skeletal or muscle structure, what about some germs that just affect your body long time after it happened and you never link it with the incident?

I’d rather kill all dangerous breeds of dogs than have one child killed, innocent or not.


----------



## Rapture (28 November 2007)

I'm just curious , do people actually research their breeds before adding them to a family home ? 

I know when we were in the market for a dog , we looked at the breed that would agree with our family , temperament was the first on our list  ....


----------



## Julia (28 November 2007)

2020, yes, you're quite right.  Recently I was passing a house where they had put down new turf.  It was beautiful and I was interested to know where they'd sourced it.  About to open the gate and go and knock on the front door when a Labrador came bounding up to the gate, teeth barred, growling and barking very aggressively.  No way I'd be going through the gate.
Now there's a breed usually known for its gentle nature.  

I think, too, a breeder can produce puppies with good temperament but if the owners mistreat them or encourage aggression, then we have that whole nature/nurture debate.

This morning I was on the beach tossing a stick into the water for my dog
(German Shepherd) when suddenly there appeared four German Shepherds and a small terrier.  Two blokes with them.  None on a lead.  They came rushing up to us as a pack.  No harm done - they were boisterous but not aggressive in any way.  Still, I'm not really comfortable with four big dogs rushing at us like that.

Re your described two encounters.  Neither of those is acceptable.  The owners of those dogs should keep them on a lead if they are any risk at all to any other dog or person.  As Happy says, it's also the trauma of being attacked, for both dog and owner.  Again it comes down to the same old thing:  irresponsible owners.

Rapture:  I suspect many prospective dog owners never consider researching breeds.  They see a cute little puppy and that's that.  No thought about how much exercise or company the dog is going to need.  I often even see a puppy as young as about 8 weeks out on the beach, before they've had their 12 week vaccination.


----------



## SevenFX (28 November 2007)

Rapture said:


> do people actually research their breeds before adding them to a family home ?
> 
> temperament was the first on our list  ....




Many breeds would dominate the occupants in a SOFT household, given half a chance.

No means No, doesn't it...???? :

SevenFX


----------



## Rapture (28 November 2007)

SevenFX said:


> Many breeds would dominate the occupants in a SOFT household, given half a chance.
> 
> No means No, doesn't it...???? :
> 
> SevenFX




Dominate.... YES ... if you let them , it also depends on how they are trained and treated .. But some breeds are bred to have an aggressive nature - your fighting dogs, such as Pit Bulls - and others are toy, lap dogs or working dogs . Wouldn't you say that if it is their nature/breed to be agreesive you would avoid them altogether ?


----------



## SevenFX (28 November 2007)

Rapture's question prompts me to tell my story from walk last night.

I had my obedienced trained, balanced, friendly & yes playful (seriously) rotty (yes big teeth, but big hearted 2) on walk last night when we came across this couple, with a medium sized bitzer intensily lunging & barking on the end of the lead.

Because I'm (& my rotty) is so used to "Little dog Syndrome" I didn't say anything, but as she (handler) and partner got bit to close with their dog, not seeming to care what their dog was doing...??? I said to her "It may be a good idea if you discourage your dog from being aggressive towards other dogs" hoping to avoid a incident....

Hmmmm though that would/may do the trick...? NOT

She replies, as the dog continues at the end of the lead, I can't do anything, he's been like that for 11 years, and he wont change...????

However I'm not sure if she was hoping to wake one morning, to find the dog a new dog... and observing their behaviour moreso than the dogs, and think they were happy with their dog showing what she may have thought as being a domiment top dog..

It wqas like watchin someone fly a kite.... and couldn't see the partner do anything other than smile through it all...????

p.s Mine didn't even bark once, and his tail was wagging though it all... 
SevenFX


----------



## Rapture (28 November 2007)

SevenFX said:


> Rapture's question prompts me to tell my story from walk last night.
> 
> I had my obedienced trained, balanced, friendly & yes playful (seriously) rotty (yes big teeth, but big hearted 2) on walk last night when we came across this couple, with a medium sized bitzer intensily lunging & barking on the end of the lead.
> 
> ...




Seems like the dogs above are a reflection of their owners .  . I agree with your comment to the owners ..  Dogs, like children, need to know what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour.. 

I'm not a fan of yappy little dogs either ( I do love dogs .. honestly ) .. Alot of them are over pampered, and due to their "cuteness" are at times oevr looked when it comes to training and obedience .. IMO

Now in case anyone gets upset or defensive .. I did say most not all ...


----------



## SevenFX (28 November 2007)

Rapture said:


> * Dogs, like children*, need to know what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour..




I used to describe teaching (not training) children as being very similar to teaching dogs, esp puppies, but not anymore as parents never seem to assimulate the two together...???? 

But Yes have to agree with both you and dog understanding what acceptable behaviour means.

Dogs understand through repetitive patterns, and thats the one thing some people aren't good at.

SevenFX


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 November 2007)

Tek - howdy
I think you said you have a rotty.?
My dog is part rotty at least  (her mum got around a bit though). - actually she was part of an abandoned litter, and I picked her up at the RSPCA. 

I've always thought that the use of rotties in the movie "the omen" - where they take the devil's side (forget the details) -  just before the lightning bolt brings down the metal spike that skewers the bloke diagonally at the end - was unfair on rotties' reputation.

Rottie owners should file a class action for "defamation of character" (IMO)


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 November 2007)

SevenFX said:


> I used to describe teaching (not training) children as being very similar to teaching dogs, esp puppies, but not anymore as parents never seem to assimulate the two together...????
> 
> Dogs understand through repetitive patterns, and thats the one thing some people aren't good at.  SevenFX




I recall the dog trainer telling me "you keep trying, and finally, eventually, if you're patient, perhaps, after a while, .. the dog will do something right !! ... 

and the praise em to the sky !!! 

And I thought - "WOW! - just like teaching kids baseball!! "


----------



## nioka (28 November 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Tek - howdy
> I think you said you have a rotty.?
> My dog is part rotty at least  (her mum got around a bit though). - actually she was part of an abandoned litter, and I picked her up at the RSPCA.
> 
> ...



 Isn't it doberman that is used that way in the movies and not a rottie. We have a rottie staffie cross at the moment. She has a fearsome bark and is aloof but is more likely to lick someone to death than attack. Her predecessor was a pure rottie with the same temperament. They really are gentle giants. However it would be easy to make that type of dog dangerous if they were treated or trained that way, simply because of their size and strong jaws.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 November 2007)

nioka 
i have friends with 2 staffies - So weird - they love people but hate other dogs. 
I mean they have already killed a visitor's dog!  

I know someone who owns a farm who had the same problem - visitors arrived with some fancy poodle or labradoodle or something  , and the pack of cattle dogs on the farm killed it 

not a good look if you want visitors to come back for a return visit , lol

PSA speaking of doberman's - how's this story ..... 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=218228&highlight=doberman#post218228


----------



## Happy (3 December 2007)

> From Yahoo7, 3 Dec. 07
> ATTACK DOG SPRUNG FROM POUND'S DEATH ROW
> 
> 
> ...




Law means less and less, scary stuff.


----------



## Happy (20 January 2008)

> From ABC, 20 Jan. 08
> 
> 
> ESCAPED PIT BULLS KILL HORSE
> ...





Laws, rules, regulations, they are all only as good as paper on which they are written.

Until next attack, laws, rules and regulations will give us false sense of security.


----------



## Julia (20 January 2008)

Happy, your second to last post:  I'm a bit surprised at the combination of a Great Dane/St Bernard being aggressive.  Both these breeds are usually very peaceful and gentle.  Sometimes I wonder about the breeding classifications given to dogs, e.g. over the years I've come across hundreds of people who say "I love German Shepherds", and indicate their dog.  The creature they are referring to might have a bit of G. Shepherd somewhere but it is by no means a purebred dog.  

So when media reports appear naming a breed of dog involved in an attack I always take it with a grain of salt.

Also,I just don't think it's possible to classify a breed as entirely one type of personality.  I've had a number of Shepherds over the years and they have ranged from complete wusses who never even barked when someone approached our property, to the very territorial, protective one at present who won't let anyone near without my OK.

Just one other thing as a note to owners of little dogs.  Please train your small dogs to be sensible around bigger breeds.  So many owners of little dogs think it's oh so cute when their little yapper rushes up aggressively to a large dog.  They stand there and say stuff like "Oh look at Bozo: he thinks he's a Rottweiler, he's got such a strong personality".  Most large dogs if properly trained will ignore this provocative behaviour but if it persists and the big dog continues to have his heels snapped at, then some sort of retaliation is going to occur.


----------



## Happy (22 January 2008)

Julia,
I am not expert on breeds and dogs behaviour, but I know that dogs can behave quite differently with or without their owners presence and with or without presence of other dogs.

All I would like to be able to do, is go for a walk and not wander if dog is going just to walk past me or only jump on me or attack me, when law of the land says that dog should be on a leash in full control of the owner.


----------



## Julia (22 January 2008)

Happy said:


> Julia,
> I am not expert on breeds and dogs behaviour, but I know that dogs can behave quite differently with or without their owners presence and with or without presence of other dogs.
> 
> All I would like to be able to do, is go for a walk and not wander if dog is going just to walk past me or only jump on me or attack me, when law of the land says that dog should be on a leash in full control of the owner.



I completely agree, Happy.
I'd suggest that, if you have any problems with dogs, you make a complaint to your local council.  I guess they vary in their diligence about following up complaints, but where I live they take any complaint very seriously.

Beaches can be an area of difficulty in that there are several which are designated off leash areas for dogs within certain hours.  Probably best for non dog owners to avoid these areas at those times.


----------



## Happy (4 August 2009)

> From Nine MSN,    07:46 AEST Tue Aug 4 2009
> 
> NZ WOMAN MAULED BY EIGHT HUNTING DOGS
> 
> ...




I only hope that one day it is not me!


----------



## Surfer35 (4 August 2009)

These dogs should all have been given a Schmako for their efforts toward reducing our numbers.


----------



## dutchie (18 August 2011)

Another toddler killed by vicious dog.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...-dog-burned-down/story-e6frf7jx-1226117129682

How many more children need to be killed (injured) before something is done?

Disgraceful - owners should be jailed - no excuses!


----------



## Knobby22 (18 August 2011)

I agree dutchie.

There is a famous experiment where the Russians tamed foxes. 
They chose for temeprament and juvenile traits and sure enough they got tamed foxes.
They also took a seperate batch and picked the most viscious animals to breed, they got foxew that will attack hmans with no fear.

It is obvious to me that these pitbulls are being chosen for bad traits of visciousness at birth and are really being "untamed". The people breeding these creatures should not be allowed to continue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox


----------



## pixel (18 August 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> It is obvious to me that these pitbulls are being chosen for bad traits of visciousness at birth and are really being "untamed". The people breeding these creatures should not be allowed to continue.



 The people that hold these creatures should be institutionalised or at least referred to a shrink.
Seems their self esteem is so puny that they can only put on a macho facade by being seen to "control" a pitbull - or similar dangerous beast. I have no sympathy for them, but every sympathy for the innocent victims and their bereft families.


----------



## Happy (18 August 2011)

Terrible news and unnecessary death.
What makes this one worse is that dog escaped somebody else’s yard.

Suppose the only one worse than this case was information on how girl was eaten alive by brown bear and all she could do is call her stepmother on a phone.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8286927/mother-hears-bear-cubs-eat-daughter


----------



## pixel (18 August 2011)

Happy said:


> Suppose the only one worse than this case was information on how girl was eaten alive by brown bear and all she could do is call her stepmother on a phone.



 I beg to differ:
The Russian girl and her stepfather went into the bear's habitat, knowing well - or should have been well aware - of the danger. In that case, while not wishing a death like hers on any  human being, I see it as a natural event: Bears eat prey to survive. If people venture into their space, they offer themselves as potential prey.

Pitbulls, in contrast, don't fulfill any natural purpose; they have been bred solely to compensate for some macho moron's lack of self-esteem. And before anyone defends their use as a watchdog: There are breeds serving as watchdogs that are more intelligent and can distinguish between a harmless child and an intruder that's up to no good. Plus: guard dogs must be trained and handled responsibly; they know how to stop someone that strays into their property, but they do not leave their "territory" to maul and kill a child.


----------



## Julia (18 August 2011)

pixel said:


> I beg to differ:
> The Russian girl and her stepfather went into the bear's habitat, knowing well - or should have been well aware - of the danger. In that case, while not wishing a death like hers on any  human being, I see it as a natural event: Bears eat prey to survive. If people venture into their space, they offer themselves as potential prey.
> 
> Pitbulls, in contrast, don't fulfill any natural purpose; they have been bred solely to compensate for some macho moron's lack of self-esteem. And before anyone defends their use as a watchdog: There are breeds serving as watchdogs that are more intelligent and can distinguish between a harmless child and an intruder that's up to no good. Plus: guard dogs must be trained and handled responsibly; they know how to stop someone that strays into their property, but they do not leave their "territory" to maul and kill a child.




I totally agree.  I don't think pitbulls are even particularly good watchdogs.
Huge difference between a highly intelligent, well trained dog and a ball of muscle whose inbred instinct is that of destruction.

I've known some very soft natured Staffordshire terriers, but even these, I'd never completely trust.


----------



## Macquack (18 August 2011)

Another dog attack and this time a 4 year old girl dead. No suprise to anyone that the dog is a  *pit bull terrior*.

The police come out with this statement:-



> It's yet to be fully investigated to see whether or not there's been any offence committed," Superintendent Graham Kent said. "Our focus at this stage is to find out what happened and in the process of doing that we will find out whether or not there's been any offence."




Was there an offence? Was the dog provoked and acted in self defence.
Wake up, the offence is owning these death traps.

Ban pit bull terriors NOW.


----------



## pixel (19 August 2011)

Macquack said:


> Another dog attack and this time a 4 year old girl dead. No suprise to anyone that the dog is a  *pit bull terrior*.
> [...]
> Was there an offence? Was the dog provoked and acted in self defence.
> Wake up, the offence is owning these death traps.
> ...



 Not only that: In tonight's 7PM Project, it was argued that a ban would only drive the breeders and holders "underground". They also pointed out that in Victoria, *the maximum fine a pitbull owner faces if his weapon maims or kills someone is $4,500.*

In other States, fines are somewhat harsher, but still totally inadequate. Let's see: Why not hold the owner responsible and get retribution in kind. For every puncture wound their beast inflicts, have one of the owner's tattoos removed. ... with a flensing knife! ... sans anesthetics!


----------



## dutchie (19 August 2011)

pixel said:


> Not only that: In tonight's 7PM Project, it was argued that a ban would only drive the breeders and holders "underground". They also pointed out that in Victoria, *the maximum fine a pitbull owner faces if his weapon maims or kills someone is $4,500.*
> 
> In other States, fines are somewhat harsher, but still totally inadequate. Let's see: Why not hold the owner responsible and get retribution in kind. For every puncture wound their beast inflicts, have one of the owner's tattoos removed. ... with a flensing knife! ... sans anesthetics!




Agree pixel.

A fine of $4500 for life of child. How ridiculous is that!
Get rid of all aggressive breeds and make owners responsible for their dogs action.
In this case manslaughter.


----------



## Tink (19 August 2011)

> The dog that attacked Ayen was destroyed by council yesterday. Police believed the dog was a pit bull cross. The council said the dog was not registered, as all dogs are required to be, and had not had any complaints made about it. Mixed breeds are not restricted but it is a grey area of law, a state government spokesman said.
> 
> The owner, a 30-year-old St Albans man, was questioned by police, who said he was co-operative. Mr Foa said the council would investigate laying charges subject to the police investigation. Fines for the owner of dogs who attacked people doubled under the Brumby government last year to $4778. The maximum penalties for the owner of a declared dangerous dog who attacked someone remained at a $14,334 fine and six months' prison.
> 
> Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/d...ys-baillieu-20110818-1j08c.html#ixzz1VQ5uwD4W




Very sad to read - I feel for what this family must have gone through


----------



## Happy (19 August 2011)

I am not too happy to say that, as it might look controversial, but to get around Pit Bull breeding ban dogs are crossed.

 In Australia it is accepted that certain human race is accepted as that race with as little as 1/8 or is it 1/16-th of the concerned race. 

Smart Pit Bull breeders could be stopped in their tracks just by using the same illogical logic.


----------



## Calliope (19 August 2011)

pixel said:


> In other States, fines are somewhat harsher, but still totally inadequate. Let's see: Why not hold the owner responsible and get retribution in kind. For every puncture wound their beast inflicts, have one of the owner's tattoos removed. ... with a flensing knife! ... sans anesthetics!




I think a charge of manslaughter against the dog's owner would be appropriate. I don't think there should be any distinction between whether the person or his agent carries out the killing.


----------



## Logique (19 August 2011)

As far as I'm concerned, these aggressive breeds and many of the crossbreds are loaded guns. Governments need to show some bottle.

I had a neighbour once that kept mastiffs in the yard, never seen with a collar or lead, never taken out, never socialized. Aggressive, borderline psychotic dogs. 

Tremendous sense of relief when they finally moved out.


----------



## Julia (19 August 2011)

Logique said:


> As far as I'm concerned, these aggressive breeds and many of the crossbreds are loaded guns. Governments need to show some bottle.
> 
> I had a neighbour once that kept mastiffs in the yard, never seen with a collar or lead, never taken out, never socialized. Aggressive, borderline psychotic dogs.
> 
> Tremendous sense of relief when they finally moved out.



I quite understand your unhappiness at such dogs next door.
However, can I just ask that we remember that the aggression in these dogs would probably only be partially due to their genes, and significantly more to the inappropriate conditions in which they were kept.  I feel for these dogs.

I would like to shoot the owners.


----------



## pixel (20 August 2011)

Julia said:


> I quite understand your unhappiness at such dogs next door.
> However, can I just ask that we remember that the aggression in these dogs would probably only be partially due to their genes, and significantly more to the inappropriate conditions in which they were kept.  I feel for these dogs.
> 
> *I would like to shoot the owners.*



 LOL Julia, 

somehow I thought you might harbour such thoughts. I do too.

And when I mentioned dogs that were more intelligent, so they could distinguish between protecting their territory and outside environs, I definitely had your avatar in mind along with some other breeds. However, the crucial element is education of the owner and training of the dog by the owner. Owners should demonstrate much less aggressiveness and a little more intelligence than their dog, so they can be Top Dog in their relationship with their canines. Sadly, this is often not the case.


----------



## Julia (20 August 2011)

Thanks, pixel.  We are clearly of the same mind about the responsibilities of canine ownership.
A good dog, well trained, is a joy.  A good dog, owned by the wrong person and treated wrongly, is a menace.


----------



## joea (20 August 2011)

Julia said:


> Thanks, pixel.  We are clearly of the same mind about the responsibilities of canine ownership.
> A good dog, well trained, is a joy.  A good dog, owned by the wrong person and treated wrongly, is a menace.




Yes I agree. I have had dogs all my life.
People do not understand the real responsibilities of owning a dog and the time it requires.
When walking the dogs I have owned, I have solved most of my problems in my life.
I am lucky to be walking the dogs around cane paddocks, along creeks with no lead.
My dogs are diciplined when they are very young and will perform on verbyl command or hand signal.
I have seen the mistreatment, misappreciation of dogs, or bad owners all my life. Its a shame.
joea


----------



## Logique (21 August 2011)

It's about the owners for sure, and most owners are pretty good, however I just don't trust the aggressive dog breeds and never will. Where it can get really ropey is out in rural or semi-rural subdivisions, you've got to watch yourself out there. In more built up areas, people know that the council ranger or police are never far away. 

The fashion where I live is more about the smaller sized or 'toy' dogs, which are fine, and everybody gets along on the paths and beaches. An occasional sheep dog that wants to round you up, but no malice in them.


----------



## Julia (21 August 2011)

Hmm, some of the toy dogs are real pests.  The owners think it's really cute for their small fluffy thing to rush up behind a big dog and repeatedly bark and snap at its tail.

It takes some control on the part of both the owner and the big dog itself for the big dog not to turn round and sort the small thing out.

And guess which dog would get the blame if this actually happened and diddums was actually nipped?  Not the dog that started it, that's for sure.


----------



## Tink (23 August 2011)

I have to agree with you there Logique, I am abit the same with the aggressive dogs, but good owners make it alot easier for all.

Not long ago, we had an elderly man walking his little maltese dogs, he had 2, and a staffy came out of nowhere and bit one of the dogs. Poor man was devestated. He ended up losing him.

I get annoyed with people that dont have their dogs on leads, I dont care how good the dog is. ThankGod that hasnt been often of late.

Julia, I cant understand why someone with a small dog would do that, no way I would.


----------



## awg (23 August 2011)

pixel said:


> Not only that: In tonight's 7PM Project, it was argued that a ban would only drive the breeders and holders "underground". They also pointed out that in Victoria, *the maximum fine a pitbull owner faces if his weapon maims or kills someone is $4,500.*
> 
> In other States, fines are somewhat harsher, but still totally inadequate. Let's see: Why not hold the owner responsible and get retribution in kind. For every puncture wound their beast inflicts, have one of the owner's tattoos removed. ... with a flensing knife! ... sans anesthetics!




I would be surprised if you had much protection against civil action if your animal causes damages?

Except being broke, which the owner probably is.

I find it difficult to contain my actions with respect to irresponsible dog owners on occassions, but I almost never say anything as it rarely is recieved well.

I have twice been the victim of dog attacks, and on each occasion demanded compensation, on threat of legal complaint. 

They both paid up, I was so enraged by the second situation, that I almost completely lost my cool, leaving the owners with such a look of terror on their faces, I will never forget.

I like Staffies, and a very friendly one runs about our neighborhood, but no dog should be roaming the streets ( unfortunately for the dogs)


----------



## Julia (23 August 2011)

Tink said:


> I have to agree with you there Logique, I am abit the same with the aggressive dogs, but good owners make it alot easier for all.
> 
> Not long ago, we had an elderly man walking his little maltese dogs, he had 2, and a staffy came out of nowhere and bit one of the dogs. Poor man was devestated. He ended up losing him.



I'm so sorry to hear that.  Must have been so distressing for the owner.   I'd be as furious as awg has described himself if either I or my dog were hurt.

I think that once any dog has caused physical damage to either another dog or a person, there should be no second chances.  It should be the end for that dog.
I don't know about other areas, but here the law is way too soft in this regard.
All that happens is that the dog is officially labeled a "Dangerous Dog" and a sign has to be placed on the front fence of its property.
There was an incident recently where one such dog, a huge mixed breed, jumped the fence and almost killed a poodle being walked nearby.  The owner of the poodle was also injured as she tried to get the attacker off her dog.
Poodle had much veterinary attention and took about six months to be able to walk again.  Was even then spooked and afraid to go out.  The owners of the big dog paid the vet expenses but no compensation.  They were apparently renters and unemployed so no money.



> I get annoyed with people that dont have their dogs on leads, I dont care how good the dog is.



Tink, you may be unreasonably regarding the lead as insurance against wayward dogs.
Example:  my dog is much stronger than I am and if I simply depended on controlling her via a lead, she could do what she liked!
Conversely, if you properly train a dog to walk calmly at heel, ignoring all other dogs and other provocation, that dog being off a lead is entirely safe.



> Julia, I cant understand why someone with a small dog would do that, no way I would.



No, of course you wouldn't.  But you are a responsible person.  Sadly the same cannot be said for many dog owners.


----------



## pixel (23 August 2011)

That's the problem with *civil action*:
All too often, the owners of the menace are not only irresponsible as dog owners, but also "unfortunate victims of circumstances" in the material stakes. The term "renters" has been mentioned...
So, even if you win compensation in a civil lawsuit, you'll remain out of pocket for your own legal fees because there's nothing of value to compensate you with.

The other aspect, probably most applicable in the case at the core of this discussion where the child of a (Somali?) migrant family has been killed: Can we even begin to comprehend the heartache and confusion a civil lawsuit would inflict on the extended family? One child dead, another one critically injured, and a young adult also severely traumatised. They'd be completely out of their depth, were they required to follow due process according to Australian Officialdom's Red Tape.
I've been involved in a rather clear-cut civil claim, and even that dragged on for four years; looking back on all the aggravation and time wasted, I sometimes wonder if the money I eventually got out of it was worth the effort...


----------



## Tink (24 August 2011)

Thanks Julia, I do understand what you are saying regarding the lead. It is all in the training.

We have a couple close by with 3 German Shepherds, and they must be the most well behaved dogs I have ever met, but it still gets people and their dogs on edge watching the 3 wandering around the couple, especially if they dont know them.


----------



## Julia (24 August 2011)

Well that's odd, isn't it, Tink?  You say these three Shepherds are extremely well behaved.  Why, then, are people 'on edge', do you think?


----------



## overhang (24 August 2011)

Another dog attack this time by two German Shepards, funnily enough the thumbnail to the article actually used a picture of a pit bull which is clearly a scare campaign by the media now.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/woman-77-in-latest-dog-attack-20110823-1j824.html
  Whilst I despise the dog I'm not sure banning the breed would solve the problem, they can just be crossbred with staffies etc.  A mandatory license for dangerous dogs may work where you would be required to have a childproof yard similar to a pool but considering most welfare pit bull owners probably don't even have their dog registered would make it difficult to enforce.  As far as the dog owner being legally liable to manslaughter etc sounds great but considering what a disgrace the legal system is atm I cannot see this being a deterrent. 
  I have no doubt a pit bull can make a great dog if well trained, socialized etc but I can't comprehend why anyone would want one for anything other than hunting in which case there are more intelligent dogs with greater stamina to choose from.
  Dog attacks in the USA and Canada between 1982-2006 doesn't paint a pretty picture for pit bulls.
http://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/Dog_Attacks_1982-2006_Clifton.pdf


----------



## Happy (24 August 2011)

Ever since I was attacked few times I took up airport approach, actually I started using airport approach well before they did..
Airport treats every passenger as potential trouble, I too treat every dog as potential threat.
Then by elimination I analyse actual threat.

Dog lovers would probably call me names, but this is when I tell them about “airport approach”.
Prevention is much much better than later on hospital visit and or painful vaccinations.

I just cannot justify any other way, I better be safe than sorry.

Started thinking about carrying small bag of hot chilli, never got to do it, but if dog smell senses are 40 to 10,000 times more sensitive to certain odours, I think this would give me some time to escape to safety.

Did anybody try to have some personal safety devices against potential dog threats, or I am too paranoid?


----------



## Tink (24 August 2011)

Julia said:


> Well that's odd, isn't it, Tink?  You say these three Shepherds are extremely well behaved.  Why, then, are people 'on edge', do you think?




I think there has been quite a few dog attacks in the media, Julia which makes people a little apprehensive. No lead, no control is how people probably view it. 
Just my opinion.

Btw, the dogs I mentioned were Belgian Shepherds not German Shepherds, thought they looked abit different.


----------



## gouryella (24 August 2011)

I doubt we will ever completely stop dog attacks from happening whilst they live among us. I'm not sure what the solution could be or if in fact there is one. Ban Pit Bulls (although they are effectively banned in some states) and they will most likely end up being bred and registered as a 'Staffordshire Cross' or something similar.

Make the owners of dogs that injure or kill people do jail time? Criminals get off relatively lightly as it is. There have been suggestions of sentences of up to 20 years, yet recently a driver that killed three family members while recklessly overtaking and speeding was given a 10-and-a-half year sentence (minimum of 7).

Make dog owners compulsorily attend dog training classes or obtain some sort of permit/licence to own a dog? Maybe, yet anyone is able to have children, regardless of their parenting abilities or lack thereof.

I'm an owner of one of the often maligned, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. My dog has a stable temperament and was bred from parents that displayed these qualities, which was a priority of the breeder. He is friendly to everyone he meets and I can't fathom him showing aggression toward a human. Still, while walking him or at the park I will always keep him on the lead because I realise that some people don't like dogs and that not all dogs get along.

He has been bitten on the face by a Dachshund that lives up the street and was attacked by a female Staffy that was roaming the street when he was 8 months old. Despite these incidents and him being an entire male (which most people would assume would guarantee aggressive behavior), he still maintains his gentle, sociable nature.

There will always be irresponsible people in society, with that comes irresponsible dog owners. I'm not sure there is a way around the fact.

I'm interested in other people's views on what could possibly be done to prevent these attacks from occuring.


----------



## Julia (24 August 2011)

overhang said:


> Another dog attack this time by two German Shepards,



So awful for the 77 year old woman.  However, I'd like to actually see the dogs that have been described as German Shepherds.  My observations over three decades of various dogs described by their owners and bystanders as German Shepherds have often had as little as a quarter pure G/S genes some time back and are the result of indiscriminate backyard or accidental breeding.

A dog acquired from a reputable and registered G/S breeder will have come from lines which have been rigorously tested in terms of meeting the breed standard, not just in appearance but in temperament.

One of the great problems with these mixed breed dogs is the number of numbskull owners who want *A Guard Dog* so they get something big and hairy, have no idea about how to manage and train it, and often coop it up in a backyard or even chain it.  The dog, being denied its destiny of a proper pack structure, good training and regular vigorous exercise, will do anything it can to escape.  Then when it does (as I'd guess happen in this case, given the dogs were roaming by themselves), they are totally dangerous.



Happy said:


> Ever since I was attacked few times I took up airport approach, actually I started using airport approach well before they did..
> Airport treats every passenger as potential trouble, I too treat every dog as potential threat.
> Then by elimination I analyse actual threat.
> 
> ...



Happy, you are not at all being paranoid, but quite sensible.  Just one request, though, please don't ever throw chilli in a dog's eyes.  
I've found with aggressive dogs if you just stand still and yell in a commanding voice "GET AWAY!!!"  most dogs will be surprised enough to turn tail and retreat.  The worst thing you can do is turn your back and run away.  This immediately signals to the dog that the game is on and he will likely pursue.




Tink said:


> I think there has been quite a few dog attacks in the media, Julia which makes people a little apprehensive. No lead, no control is how people probably view it.



The irony is that the opposite is probably true.  Compare the frequent sight of an owner being essentially dragged along at the end of the lead, with the dog forging out ahead, totally in charge, with a dog off a lead that is calmly walking at heel close beside the owner.  Who do you really think has the control?


----------



## overhang (24 August 2011)

gouryella said:


> I doubt we will ever completely stop dog attacks from happening whilst they live among us. I'm not sure what the solution could be or if in fact there is one. Ban Pit Bulls (although they are effectively banned in some states) and they will most likely end up being bred and registered as a 'Staffordshire Cross' or something similar.
> 
> Make the owners of dogs that injure or kill people do jail time? Criminals get off relatively lightly as it is. There have been suggestions of sentences of up to 20 years, yet recently a driver that killed three family members while recklessly overtaking and speeding was given a 10-and-a-half year sentence (minimum of 7).
> 
> ...




You sound like a responsible owner and I've always found staffies have a placid temperament but do slobber a bit much. 
I just think many people don't realize how big of a commitment owning a dog really is, its potentially 15 years of your life.  They are happy to walk the dog over summer but come winter the poor dog spends chained up.  Sheep dogs are the prime example of friendly natured dogs that can attack out of boredom from insufficient training and zero exercise. they should never be a suburban dog.



Julia said:


> So awful for the 77 year old woman.  However, I'd like to actually see the dogs that have been described as German Shepherds.  My observations over three decades of various dogs described by their owners and bystanders as German Shepherds have often had as little as a quarter pure G/S genes some time back and are the result of indiscriminate backyard or accidental breeding.



 Your probably right and as bad as the attack is I feel the dogs weren't having a real go anyway as few people could fend of 2 large dogs with a head of adrenalin.


----------



## dutchie (5 August 2013)

Deeon Higgins, 2, mauled to death by mastiff cross in Deniliquin, NSW

Read more: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/br...sw/story-e6frfkp9-1226691337150#ixzz2b4t2FEuk


When will people learn. Children and certain types of dogs do not go together.

When children die there must be some accountability by parents and owners (it's not the first time a toddler has been injured or killed by a dog). There are plenty of warnings about dogs attacking toddlers.

I was a bit disappointed in the RSPCA's and other's response to this attack (not a dangerous dog - had not attacked before).

Who are the advocates of children when it comes to dogs?

Educate dog owners and make them pay (jail and fines) if their dogs do something wrong.

What a tragedy for little Deeon.


----------



## Julia (5 August 2013)

Totally agree.  It's ridiculous that local councils continue to give such dogs a second and third chance after the first attack.  It should be one attack on any person, child or other dog, and it's euthanasia.  Finish.


----------

