sumosmum

I am trying a thunder shirt that I have borrowed from a friend, on my Stafford tonight for the first time. So far, there have been fireworks, and he is a lot better. Slept through some, which amazed me. Fingers crossed for midnight. My little dogs are all scared of them except for one. I don't have thunder shirts for them, but will buy one to try, as they are all scared of thunder storms as well. Good luck to every one. I just hope the fireworks are over quickly, and don't drag on for hours like last year.

Totally ridiculous. They even say crosses of the breed are banned. How would they ever know! I agree, boycott them and use another airline. Most of their staff wouldn't be able to identify breeds anyway. And if they were all doing their job correctly in the first place, and only accepted animals in the prescribed/suitable containers, there wouldn't be problems.

The amnesty was meant to go for 2 years from September 2010 to September 2012, however, when the Ayon Chol incident happened, the amnesty was ceased within a few weeks of that incident. That meant it was cut short at 1 year.

This is my take on it - from newspaper and coroner's report. The dog may or may not have been socialised, and he may or may not have regularly lived at the address where he currently was. However, it does appear he was not out of the backyard very often So he would have been excited. He ran up to the Chols and their family who were loading their car. They chased him off and he ran across the road, and it was thought he was playing with the people there. Now it is possible that he was annoyed about being chased off, and according to reports, he was playing with other people. The Chol family were Somali or Sudanese, I think? Neither race likes dogs much, and they smell different from Australians. additionally, they were probably jumping up and down and flapping their arms .... when the dog went for the first child, they were probably screaming again and the dog's level of excitement increased. When they all ran inside, the dog followed them ... I would think his drive was in overdrive by then, and he attacked. I knew a lovely registered labrador, a big one. He was a marvellous dog, if you went into the yard, he would go "woof" a couple of times, and go back to sleep. Unless ... you were aboriginal. And then he would go ballistic. If they walked on the footpath outside his house he would go mad trying to get them through or over the fence. He would run along,biting and snapping at them. Mostly they walked on the other side of the road, and he would not allow one into his yard. I was told by a "dog man" that different races smell differently. Don't think I am absolving the dog, or his owners. I really don't think the owners thought he would do that, but whatever, he should not have been able to exit the yard. And I don't think those attacked thought he would attack them so savagely ... and they were frightened from the beginning. But - I think Mrs Rusty Bucket has it - if the people had basically ignored the dog, the outcome might have been better. I do wish, and have always wished, that the authorities would allow these dogs to live long enough to find out exactly why they attacked. The whole situation is just so terribly sad --- if the dog had been securely contained, none of this would have happened. Moral is to keep your dog in, and make sure he is socialised with as many people and in as many situations as possible. Once again, the government has made THE BREED the scapegoat, so they can introduce more severe laws, instead of laying the blame where it belongs, with THE DEED and the INDIVIDUAL DOG. Agree Jed. Re the dog being at large, this was due to a faulty garage door from what I could make of the whole thing at the inquest. The owner had the door tested by experts, and it was found that the garage door had too wider frequency and to higher aerial. This meant the door could have been activated by someone else, who knows how far away. The door had been not working correctly for ages, and over a long time, the owner had the company out many times to correct whatever the owner said was wrong with it. It was a problem with the remotes. Not that it had ever opened without anyone in the house opening it before, but the remotes the owner had, were not working correctly and he had been given a lot of different ones over months. The father also stated that he had walked the dog each day, and had good relations with his neighbors. He said the dog was well behaved, and would sit when out walking when he spoke with or passed someone in the street. There was no evidence presented to say this was not the truth. He also said the dog had socialized with adults and children at family get togethers. I don't understand why an autopsy was not performed on the dog after he was destroyed. Well, I think I know why, but if they had done an autopsy, at least that part of the inquiry would have been more thorough.

The dogs are from a shelter so they are probably already desexed.If not, do it. Build a secure run & shelter in the backyard. Not only to keep the dogs in but to keep any naughty people out. If it means walking the dogs wearing muzzles & restricted collars?...do it. when ever she is off her property, lock the dogs in the run. She would know her neighbours so she would know how to keep them onside. Do as the pure breed owners who value their dogs do. Keep them safe. It aint rocket science. It is actually an offense to use a restricted breed collar on a dog that is not registered as a restricted breed dog, so why would Cosmolo do that!

In 3 recent hearings in VCAT, where the fate of dogs declared Restricted Breeds is decided, the Barristers for the councils have tried to bring into the cross examinations the fact that APBT and Amstaffs are one and the same dog. So don't go getting too comfy. It will be interesting to see how this plays out if they persist in bringing in comments like this. There are now 5 dogs appealing to the Supreme Court to have their declarations which were affirmed by Vcat, overturned. The sire of the dog that attacked Ayen Chol isn't as far as we know declared a restricted breed. It doesn't fit the Victorian Standard. The dog that did the attack, well who knows if it would have been declared a restricted breed according to the standard. It's weight doesn't fit the standard. No photos will be released. You see, these dogs had to be CALLED pitbulls in the report, so that everyone can think that BSL will fix everything, and make us all safer.

RIP little Cal. So sorry for your loss.

I don't think the person who bred the dog did anything legally wrong at the time. The dog was born prior to the new laws. At the time the dog was born, only purebred APBT were restricted breed, and the sire of the dog involved in the attack weighs in at 45kg. I thought it was illegal, at time of dog being born that RB's could be entire? At the time the dog was born, the law only applied to purebred American Pit Bull Terriers. So, with the Sire weighing in at 45kg, he would not have been a restricted breed dog because he is not a purebred APBT. Probably isn't restricted breed now either. I don't know any other way to explain that to you.

I don't think the person who bred the dog did anything legally wrong at the time. The dog was born prior to the new laws. At the time the dog was born, only purebred APBT were restricted breed, and the sire of the dog involved in the attack weighs in at 45kg.

I don't know where that information is coming from. All the information I have seen and read and heard is that the dog had never been walked and was never outside of its yard. I know people who lived in the street and none of them had EVER seen the dog. Socialisation was non existent. A well socialised dog would not have done what that dog did. The family of the girl that was killed was playing in the front yard. They saw a dog coming out and run, they were scared of dogs, all dogs totally. They run inside and the dog followed. This is normal dog behaviour. The NUMBER ONE rule when being confronted by an aggressive or unknown dog is to stand still and not move. Movement is what makes a dog act unpredictably. In ALL pet Education programs in schools children are taught to stand still and not move. I personally know of children who have responded like that and the parents told them to do the opposite. The children stood like a tree, as they were taught to do, while hte parent freaked at the front door, too scared to move. The dog which was growling went up to the child, sniffed them for a while and moved on. There is NO excuse at all for what this dog did. BUT one wonders if things would be different if there was more education in the community about how to respond appropriately to strange and aggressive dogs. The vast majority of these attacks occur on people from other cultures, who are the least educated in how to interact with dogs. Perhaps if we started having the pet education programs that are a standard part of the preschool and primary school curriculum in ESL (English as a Second Language) classes we could start to get some of this information out to those communities. There are also a number of schools and preschools in the surrounding area where this took place that refuse to have the state government pet education program come into their schools, as they believe it will cause children to not fear dogs and to try and interact with them. The number one predictor of a dog bite is fear. I am not for one second saying this family is to blame. There is never any excuse for a dog bite. Problem is one wonders how different the situation would have been if they had responded as we know we should when confronted with strage dogs. NO dog bites for no reason. They bite when they do not understand anything else that is going on. While I'm not totally in favour of BSL, primarily as I believe it is the training and above all socialisation of the dog, the handler on the other end of the leash (a dog is only as good as the person controlling the dog) and that you cannot reliably determine which dog is a restricted breed. the fact is APBT do have a lock jaw bite and once they take hold they do not let go. This is a biological response for them, bred into them. It is what allows them to be used as fighting dogs, and they do continue to be used in that way. Other breeds have had voilence in them in the past, but they have specifically had it bred out of them. No such evidence exists of any such specialised breeding taking place for ABPT. This is the argument of the RSPCA. German Shepherds are the classic example. The ones that were in existent came from aggressive and questionable stock. That stock was eventually wiped out, not just here, but world wide and new non aggressive stock came in its place. As for wanting to prove a particular dog is non aggressive, something along the lines of the American Temperament Test Society, test would be the way to go, but we have no such tests in place here. In the US it is very true that those APBT that sit the test do incredibly well, but they have lower numbers sitting the test in comparison to other breeds of dogs, and that is as a percentage of the breed in the community. The vast majority of APBT never sit the test. There are a higher percentage of other breeds sitting the test. Hence to say they pass has no impact, as so few sit the test. It would say something about the particular dog, not about the breed in general. One could however say the same in relation to other breeds. As for photo's of the dog, I don't know that any were necessarily taken. The owners consented to the dog being removed and euthanised immediately. They said it was a bit pull cross. They pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and were mortified at what had happened. They also agreed that they had not trained or socialised the dog. No one involved in the case has questioned the dogs breed, ever. The dog was registered with the local council as a labrador and they admitted the dog had no labrador in it and they had deliberately lied when registering the dog. I don't know where you get your info from, but a lot of it is not correct. Very incorrect in fact. I was at the inquest, that is where I got my info from.

They did go into how the dog was kept. The dog had socialized with children and other people not from the immediate family. The dog was walked daily, and had not had any complaints made against him. It was said that he was very calm after the attack. I think the inquest was disappointing. No photo of the dog will be released. It was said that he was very calm after the attack. It was a bit like everyone wanted to say they were not to blame, and just blame the supposed breed. Also, this happened during the amnesty period, and prior to that, crossbreed dogs were not restricted. The dog escaped because of a faulty remote garage door it seems. A lot of what was said was not reported in the media, but it did not take the direction that I thought it was meant to take, in looking into the effectiveness of Victoria's dog laws.

Ingleburn Vet Antihistamine dosage chart.Link

Gecko, I totally agree. Total madness, and I think anyone associated with this should be ashamed of themselves. No true dog lover would take part in any of this. I am not even surprised about dogs victoria really. They helped write the Standard. Wonder what the pay off is this time?

Did he say the Dogs Victoria is going to supply a panel to help councils identify dogs to be declared?

No, I was commenting on what you wrote, I see the Banyule Council mayor has said they were 3 pit bulls. So those that attacked the media for incorrect reporting of it being a pitbull attack can apologise now, but it may also snow in hell. The Mayor said they were pitbulls. I didn't know they were registered as pitbulls!

Bullcrap. With ANY dog comes great responsibility. Every breed should be responsibly owned, regardless of power. Maybe then we won't be seeing so many unsocialised, untrained, yappy, aggressive, fearful dogs of all breeds. Can't agree. In fact I think it's a cop out for those that own or support the retention of dangerous dogs to say they have no more responsibility than anyone else. There's standard dog owner responsibility, and then there's a few extra and extremely important things you need to do if you own a powerful dogs. I see the Banyule Council mayor has said they were 3 pit bulls. So those that attacked the media for incorrect reporting of it being a pitbull attack can apologise now, but it may also snow in hell. Would depend if it is the council saying they are pitbulls, or whether they really are pitbulls. Councils say a lot of dogs are pitbulls, they aren't always right. And this has been the case with some in VCAT.

Just on the breed thing, APBT and Pit bull, the Victorian legislation has been written to make the restriction on a type, and not a breed. The dogs are judged on their characteristics and not their breed. Even DNA testing is not accepted, as it is purely judged on the set of characteristics that are in the Government Standard. So, really, referring to a pit bull in Victoria, is referring to a type. This is seen by looking at the dogs that have been found to be restricted breeds, being that they all look very different, but by our law are now all called Pit Bulls. Like saying, Sighthound, or Pointer. The wording in the legislation means that if a dog fits the government standard, no matter what the breeding, the dog is taken as a pit bull. American Staffordshire Terriers, papered, or with a veterinary certificate stating breed, are the only dogs exempt.

M-sass, said, Because the owner wasn't in control of the dog or the premises that the dog was kept, the owner (the guy's son) didn't commit an offence. See above post. The owner is liable. So if a farmer agists his bull in someone's paddock and the bull escapes and gores a passer-by is the farmer liable as owner? If a horse-owner lends their horse to someone and the horse kicks a child in the head is the horse-owner liable? If a father lends his car to his p-plater son and the son loses control of the car and kills someone should the father be liable as the owner of the car? Don't know about all of those TF, but it appears by the laws in Victoria, the owner of a domestic dog is, even if he is not involved in the incident.

M-sass, said, Because the owner wasn't in control of the dog or the premises that the dog was kept, the owner (the guy's son) didn't commit an offence. See above post. The owner is liable.

IF a dog attacks when under the control of an adult, that adult is legally accountable, not the owner. If the dog is under the control of a child, then the legal guardian of the dog is held accountable, not the owner. So if a kid walks dogs for $10/hr, a dog runs off and causes an accident, their parents will be held responsible, not the owner of the dog. No, under Section 29, subsection 4, the owner is liable and can be fined. 40 Penalty points. Maybe they just didn't mention that in the article, or maybe he has just paid the fine. (3) If a dog that is not a dangerous dog or a restricted breed dog, attacks or bites any person or animal and causes death or a serious injury to the person or animal, the person in apparent control of the dog at the time of the attack or biting, whether or not the owner of the dog, is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding 40 penalty units. (4) If a dog that is not a dangerous dog or a restricted breed dog, attacks or bites any person or animal and causes death or a serious injury to the person or animal, the owner of the dog, if not liable for the offence under subsection (3), is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding 40 penalty units.

I don't understand why the actual owner was not fined as well. Was he? The person who was charged was the father of the owner I believe, but I would have expected that they both would have been fined. I know the laws on this have changed since this horrible event, but does anyone know if the owner was also in trouble?

Yep, un papered amstaff dogs are safe if a Vet will write a certificate stating the dog is an amstaff, but most vets will not do that. Some will, but very hard to find. A vet certificate stating anything else will not make a dog safe though. It has to say American Staffordshire Terrier. Not a desex cert or microchip certificate, it must be a proper certificate written to state the breed AST by a Vet. A lot of the dogs that have been killed are not pitbulls, and don't even match the standard. One has been declared who only met half the standard. An awful lot of dogs will meet half the standard. And the temperament of these dogs has never been questioned, in fact, it has been said even by witnesses for councils that these are nice dogs. The inquest into the Ayen case will be very interesting. Finally we may even see a photo of the dog.

Akitas are banned in Singapore. And there are many many more purebred dogs banned in lots of other places too. Can't be bothered looking them up at the moment.

Lennox wasn't a dangerous dog when he was alive. Now that he has been killed, he is becoming a very dangerous dog for Belfast City council.

I think they are subject to FOI. I did see someone say they have applied, so will be interesting to see how much they actually find out. What I read said something about BCC hiding all info about Lennox under Section 14.1, but the person had applied for a section 1.1 to override it. I don't have much clue about the technical side of what they are saying though. I wouldn't go holding my breath, as even here, I have seen some that basically have no information on them, because so much is blacked out, it doesn't make much sense. I don't think this is going to go away in a hurry for the BCC. A lot of very upset people. The facebook page that was set up for him had I think about 110,000 supporters yesterday. It now has grown to over 118,000. and the petition has over 213,000 signatures. I feel very sorry for Lennox and his family, but the reaction to this is very interesting.