Luke GSP

And here is a perfect example of the problem, as soon as you try to come up with a solution, people that own certain dogs, think that all owners should have the extra work to do, and owners on the other side of the fence don't have dogs that they see as a problem, and hence they don't see why they should have the extra work. The only resolution would be first to define the problem. Are the general public concerned about 1, people being seriously mauled,hospitalised or killed by dogs 2, People being bitten at any level by a dog 3, People feeling threatened by a dog 4, Seeing dogs unleashed in the street I believe that it is number 1, people want to be protected from the chance of being seriously mauled,hospitalised or killed by dogs. They will then look for the common denominator and attempt to eliminate that. Now in reality there will be several common denominators Dogs off leash powerful built dog children victims etc, etc the list will go on They will then cross reference those denominators and see which is most common/and which they can control. What % of off leash dogs attack people causing serious mauling, hospitalization or death? What % of serious maulings, hospitalisations or death involved a powerful breed of dog? What % of children are mauled, hospitalised or killed by dogs? What type of dog (physically, not breed) Once they have analyised that they will then see what physical, legislative controls that can be put in place. With that in mind, where do you think they will be drilling the solution to the publics problem down to? People need to get past the "propensity to bite" argument, it simply carries no weight. In Australia, what do you reckon you have the greatest chance of being shot by? 1, A water pistol? 2, spud gun? 3, sniper rifle? Now, which one would you think the government should be having some level of control over? (I'm willing to bet it wasn't the spud gun or water pistol)

one from a while ago,

keep the vitamin K going in and your baby will be fine, your wallet will be much lighter as well :) vitamin K is not the cheapest.

Don't change or try and change any behaviour until you have spoken to the behaviourist, been assessed and recommendations made and put in to place. I would however be making sure that the bedroom was out of access (door shut) for the time being. Vet check as well, as previously recommended by others

But surely as the owner is responsible for keeping the dog contained, they should have identified that and already taken action, not sure what peoples definition of responsible is, but mine isn't sitting on my hands until men in suits turn up. Proactive/reactive one of them stops stuff happening! Of course but as we all know, a large number of people aren't responsible at all when it comes to dogs. Mine are behind solid high fences on every side, plus padlocks :laugh: I agree, but sadly you could give all of that to an irresponsible owner and their dog would still not be contained.

But surely as the owner is responsible for keeping the dog contained, they should have identified that and already taken action, not sure what peoples definition of responsible is, but mine isn't sitting on my hands until men in suits turn up. Proactive/reactive one of them stops stuff happening! But most of these people (at least the ones I know with poor fencing/poor dog keeping skills) can't even be responsible for themselves let alone adequate dog containment and unless men in suits turn up they probably couldn't give a crap. And do you honestly believe that men in suits turning up will suddenly change them? If they couldn't be bothered to identify suitable containment measures do you reckon they're going to make sure that all the measures are utilised effectively? It's fine having a gate, but people still need to close it. saying that, this is of course supposing that they wouldn't simply get rid of their dog and get another one, or refuse to have the fencing done and then should the dog be seized (again) just get another from their BYB mate. laws keep lawful people lawful, locks only keep honest people out, leopards dont change their spots.

<br /><br />AGREE 100%<br /> But some people would judge a dog aggressive on size alone. Ironic, no? Some would, if on the other hand you are referring to me, I would judge a dogs size and power in relation to the level of trauma that it can cause. As I am sure you are aware Agression is displayed in an action, biting for instance Trauma is the aftermath, losing confidence, losing a finger, losing a hand, losing a life So probably best to speak to the people that do believe that big dogs are more aggressive and put them straight.

But surely as the owner is responsible for keeping the dog contained, they should have identified that and already taken action, not sure what peoples definition of responsible is, but mine isn't sitting on my hands until men in suits turn up. Proactive/reactive one of them stops stuff happening!

Yes that is what happens when people do things because they think it is right, rather than identifying what is actually right. Its basing action/inaction on perception. emotion etc rather than in fact, which is rarely the responsible way to do things.

A perfect example of an inadequate fence for the dog in question.

*sigh* rebelsquest, how about you have a read of the name calling, misrepresenting, misquoting, mudslinging and attitude that have been directed at me in the last 48 hours and you might understand why with some people here I have a certain "attitude" Love the fact that when you present fact and define meanings in the face of hysteria, hyperbole and opinion rather than doffing your cap and apologising to the "pack" you are the one seen as having an attitude :laugh:

So Melzawelza, legislation makes things right then does it? So you'll be agreeing with BSL then in the future as after all, it is legislation! Bit of a comedy basic there me old mate, you seem to have tied your own shoelaces together and shot yourself in the foot all at the same time. :rofl: You should write a comedy, honestly! :rofl: ETA So, are you saying that as long as I comply with my local councils requirements of adequate fencing height, materials etc everything is roses? What if the dog still manages to scale/jump/extricate themselves from its confinement? can I hide behind "but you said that it would be adequate"? I would suspect not, most legislation has some form of caveat that states that you are still responsible for taking any additional measures that are required to meet the intent of the legislation. Or in other words........ Even if there is a local government requirement for a fence it is still the owners responsibility to ensure that the animal is adequately contained so that it cannot injure another dog or person should their requirement still prove inadequate at containing your dog for any reason. And I have been saying all along in all of these threads that it is the owners responsibility to ensure their dogs are never placed in a position where they are able to injure another dog or person. So please, show me exactly where my statement is at odds with any of that?

"By your standard, the dog needs to have gotten out in order for the fencing to be deemed inadequate" No, not by my "standard" but by the pure definition of adequately contained! The staffy scenario, now, lets think about that one, it had no gate, hence there was no form of containment, hence not contained, hence not adequately contained. See what I did there, its called thinking, give it a go, you will find that if you apply the definitions of adequate and contained to most of these types of scenarios, coming up with the answer is relatively simple. "too late for the poor person who bears the consequence of this" unfortunately yes, much the same as when any owner does not apply adequate due diligence and adequate care of the requirements of looking after an animal. Maybe we should treat all dogs as lethal killing machines and form a standard of containment cage and force owners to keep there dogs in them, and not take there dogs out. I know that it would be penalising all the responsible owners that would have taken adequate measures but it would stop the poor person bearing the consequenses of the minority of owners that don't. Oh hang on, that sounds a bit like something else?????? Are you suggesting we introduce a wider form of BSL? maybe Dog Specific Legislation? Deed not Breed, unfortunately means that there was a Deed, hence someone or something has bore the brunt of that deed. ETA Before everyone jumps on here and starts accusing me of supporting BSL and now suggesting that we introduce it for all dogs, Above is an example of how you are applying different standards to essentially similar scenarios.

Or on common sense and an understanding of the laws of physics. "Common sense" is not that common or else we would not need OHS and the multitude of other legislations that have been introduced to try and protect idiots from themselves. laws of physics, now there is a black and white measure. So based on the laws of physics if an object or entity cannot from one space to another because it is surrounded on all sides by a barrier that it is unable to pass through or around, is it contained within that barrier? Go on, answer it using the laws of physics

Why is it always the "pitbulls" or larger breed types that get such a bagging in these sort of threads? Seriously - if there were one or more swfs in an inadequately fenced yard threatening to get out and do me or my dogs harm, I'd be just as narked off as if the dogs were of a larger breed. Funnily enough, around our way, it's more likely that it will be the swfs that will have a go... not the larger breeds... ... and don't give me that malarkey about smaller dogs doing less damage so it's more acceptable for them to be nasty... it's not! T. I think Megan was saying that because Luke GSP has been on a rampage in quite a few threads recently about 'pitbulls' (50kg ones apparently) initially and then all large breed owners needing to take many more precautions than other dog owners because their dogs are more powerful (which I actually didn't disagree with at all, once he wasn't only singling out 'pit bulls' and was addressing ALL large dogs). I think Megan, like me, picked up that that seemed to be in direct contradiction to his posts in this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong Megan. Edited for clarity. Oh how very boring 1, I singled out APBT's in regard to "gameness" as explained to you repeatedly (yet you continue to chuck it at me as if I mentioned no other type in an attempt to discredit my opinion) 2, No contradiction at all mate as you said yourself, and I quote (because I love your use of emotional language to try and hype things up :laugh: ) i have been screaming constantly in multiple threads in the last few days that owners of large, powerful breeds must take extra safety precautions to ensure their dogs are never placed in a position where they are able to injure another dog or person. If a fence is able to adequately contain an animal how is it able to injure another dog or person? what you need to keep in mind is that no matter how many times you repeat an incorrect statement or accusation it still doesn't make it true. Sorry for putting facts in to your post, I know, they ruin a good story.

All those that feel that just because a fence holds back the viscous beast this time, means that it is adequately contained, I am afraid that you are wrong, you and I might not have the ability, but there are some on this forum that despite not being structural engineers or having any other link to the building, fencing or construction industry, can tell at a glance whilst hurrying past with their dog, that a fence/method of containment is "not adequate" Maybe if the councils weren't busy with all these "potential" dangerous dogs, based on no more evidence than someones "opinion" they could get on with dealing with actual problems? Maybe people should try and sort out their own insecurities and fears before appointing themselves judge and jury on the rest of society should they not conform to their views of what is adequate or acceptable? IF THE ANIMAL DID NOT GET OUT, THEN THE CONTAINMENT WAS ADEQUATE! Just because something frightens YOU does not make it unsafe or dangerous. If it did then every theme park the world over would be closed overnight. I find it both hilarious and perplexing that the person that has been screaming constantly in multiple threads in the last few days that owners of large, powerful breeds must take extra safety precautions to ensure their dogs are never placed in a position where they are able to injure another dog or person, is now making comments like these. In the two scenarios I have described, do you feel that the containment of the dog was adequate? Both situations are true scenarios: 1. Large 50+kg (actual 50+ this time, not mythical) powerful breed dog behind chicken wire that is actually bending the wire while it is lunging and going off it's tree. Dog is clearly physically trying to get through the fence as opposed to just barking at it (and btw same dog chased down mine and attacked completely unprovoked a few months later while no where near it's property). And before you say 'but it didn't get through), the dog's stimulus was my dog, so by me bolting as fast as I can I removed the stimulus and the dog stopped trying to get through. If I'd been there for a while there's every chance it would have. 2. Large ~35-40kg powerful breed kept in an unfenced yard. The yard is raised approx 1.5 metres off the ground - dog can easily jump down but hasn't yet (Still young, not reached social maturity yet). Goes bananas at anyone going past. It at or above head height for people walking past. I'll also link you to NSW Local Gov't Act Section 124 (7): source This can absolutely be used in the case of 2 (and I did use it, and they now have an adequate fence), and in the case of number 1, the individual Council would decide what constitutes 'adequate'. I would say the fence is not adequate and place the order if the owner did not modify it willingly (Not my case, but they did do so willingly). ETA: I'll also add that in states other than NSW where individual Councils can introduce bylaws, most will have bylaws clearly stating what is considered 'adequate' fencing for the size of dog it is containing and will take action if it does not meet that critera, regardless of whether the dog has escaped. Oh you do make me laugh Scenario 1, the fence bent, it did not fall over and hence the dog could not get through, which would mean.........wait for it.... it was contained. FACT! The reason you pre-empted that in your statement before is because it is the answer based on fact. If we based it on your thought that there was "Every chance" it could get through, that would be basing it on perception, fear, anxiety, hysteria and hyperbole. Scenario 2, There is no form of containment from what you are describing, hence how could it be deemed as adequate? link as many sites as you like, if a local government has a ruling as to what they require, then you have to comply regardless of what dog you have, (I would have thought that was obvious, but I see that I will have to take this slowly) If there is no ruling or bylaw, then it is still the owners responsibility to keep the dog contained. I would have thought that someone as opposed to trying to make one solution fit all BSL/APBT's would understand that different dogs would require different levels of fencing to "contain them" Here is some definitions for you Adequate 1. Sufficient to satisfy a requirement or meet a need. See Synonyms at sufficient. Contain 1. a. To have within; hold. b. To be capable of holding. 2. To have as component parts; include or comprise: The album contains many memorable songs. 3. a. To hold or keep within limits; restrain: I could hardly contain my curiosity. b. To halt the spread or development of; check: Science sought an effective method of containing the disease. 4. To check the expansion or influence of (a hostile power or ideology) by containment. 5. Mathematics To be exactly divisible by. So using that consider Scenario 1 and consider, did it "Meet the need" of keeping the dog "within its limits?" if it did, then it was adequately contained by pure definition, unless of course there is a regulatory requirement locally (as detailed above) As you said above, in previous threads I have screaming constantly in multiple threads in the last few days that owners of large, powerful breeds must take extra safety precautions to ensure their dogs are never placed in a position where they are able to injure another dog or person. So if the dog is adequately contained within a fence, how is it able to injure another dog or person? Does it have a projectile of some sort

Just like the dogs that bailes you up in the street while the owner in down the road carrying a leash;he tells you it's ok they are under effective voice control. Nope nothing like that, they did not get past the containment hence they were contained FACT

BINGO

If they couldn't get past the fence then it was obviously adequate! Adequately contained to me is that they were being obstructed from reaching someone. If they Rushed me but didn't/couldn't get past the fence they were adequately contained. To some people, the only adequate containment of a pack of pitbulls is to have they locked in pens in peoples gardens, is that all roses? See that is what happens when you try to pander to OPINION rather than facts. you see at the end of the day peoples definition of adequate when assessing a situation is directly linked to their level of fear or anxiety not whether the fence/containment is actually doing it's job, which lets face it, if all these raging monsters were behind inadequate fencing, they would have got past it and attacked wouldn't they? because if it was not adequate, then they would have been able to get to the person on the other side and attack, but that did not happen, so one of three things occurred 1, the containment was adequate 2, the dog didn't want to attack (or else it would have once past the inadequate fence) 3, the persons fear or anxiety is affecting their assesment

All those that feel that just because a fence holds back the viscous beast this time, means that it is adequately contained, I am afraid that you are wrong, you and I might not have the ability, but there are some on this forum that despite not being structural engineers or having any other link to the building, fencing or construction industry, can tell at a glance whilst hurrying past with their dog, that a fence/method of containment is "not adequate" Maybe if the councils weren't busy with all these "potential" dangerous dogs, based on no more evidence than someones "opinion" they could get on with dealing with actual problems? Maybe people should try and sort out their own insecurities and fears before appointing themselves judge and jury on the rest of society should they not conform to their views of what is adequate or acceptable? IF THE ANIMAL DID NOT GET OUT, THEN THE CONTAINMENT WAS ADEQUATE! Just because something frightens YOU does not make it unsafe or dangerous. If it did then every theme park the world over would be closed overnight.

Nobody is putting words in to your mouth, you said yourself that "if you are really concerned you guessed reporting the dog couldn't hurt" I would suggest that it could hurt, how would you feel if you arrived home only to find that some faceless stranger has deemed that your dog is dangerous and needed council intervention because it barks when they walked by the dogs fence everyday? If it bothered me, I would walk on the other side of the road, I have a choice in where I was walking, the dog did not have a choice were it is contained. I am not trying to turn this in to an argument, I just think that surely as dog owners, we of all people should be able to see this behaviour for what it is? A dog, doing what comes naturally from safely behind a fence. :-)

It can't be that easy as they haven't managed it yet! Once again trying to scale the fence, if it scaled it you would have been "got to" My goodness, talk about "deed not breed" apparently dogs that are now contained but displaying inappropriate behaviour are the targets (shakes head in utter disbelief) if the Government launched a policy that any dog barking at a fence when a stranger goes past should be taken out of the public domain and declared dangerous, you'd all be up in arms. Seriously, perspective!

I don't know why it deemed unfair. Many dogs are territorial creatures and they don't know how to read titles down at the council - for many dogs, if they got out and someone was 1m away from their fence line they would deem the person person to be in their territory. Yes and this has happened to me once at my last house and isn't an experience I would like to repeat. The dog only has to get out once for there to be a tragedy. In a lot of the bad attacks the owners have said that the dogs haven't done anything before. Being behind a fence and constantly having to defend their territory from people walking past must cause frustration in the dogs. I wouldn't want to put my dogs into a situation that caused them anxiety. How do you know they are defending their territory? I've heard plenty of dogs barking just to let other dogs know they are there. In certain suburbs I've lived in, you could actually hear the barks like a Mexican wave, one would bark and then the rest would take turns, probably until all were accounted for. The majority of dogs that I have seen losing it from behind any type of barrier have quickly changed their tune once the barrier was removed. I don't see why on earth people on this forum would want to report a dog that is safely contained but barking??????? They are dogs, dogs bark where is the link between barking at a fence line and attacking humans?????? For goodness sake people, stop trying to be the world police and passing judgement because someone's dog farts in a different way to yours. Focus on keeping your dog safe from others, and others safe from your dog, if everyone did that 100% of the time there would be no attacks!

AGREE 100%

Are you sure it had a definite desire to inflict injury? Are you sure it wasn't that it just had a definite desire for you to go away? IME dogs intent on inflicting injury have tended to be silent, no barking, just straight down to business. I know what you mean about the dogs in front yards though, it can do your head in a bit. :-)