Maddy

Size has very little to do with anything. MOST dogs who are declared dangerous or menacing are small dogs, that are yappy and untrained. ANY animal control officer can confirm this. The info in the attached link displays declared dogs according to the Victorian Declared Dog Registry as of 2011. Only a very small proportion of declared dogs listed here are actually small dogs. link What an brilliantly researched article. Who knew there were actually two types of pit bulls? I'll definitely be trusting that news site for information. It is not purporting to be a research article, rather it is simply highlighting data obtained from the Victorian Declared Dog Registry about declared dangerous and menacing dogs. Regarding the breed, that is what the dogs have been registered as when declared and is not something dreamt up by the author of the article, however inaccurate that breed description may be! Assuming the breed inaccuracies don't include too many 4kg dogs being mistaken for 40kg dogs, I think it's safe to say this data provides ample evidence to refute the baseless assertion that most dogs who are declared menacing or dangerous are small dogs. Hence the reason why the link was posted. Does that not suggest to you though that the data is not accurate and therefore not of any use? If people do not know what breed of dog they own (i.e the dog is very likely to be incorrectly registered) or if they mistakenly call it something else, your data will be totally unreliable. Take for example this.. Malt x Shih (an incredibly common breed mix) are represented twice. The Kerry Blue Terrier (a small breed with only 12 breeders listed for Dol) are represented four times. It seems very likely the more malt x shihs should be represented but what are they registered as? Who the hell knows. The data itself in terms of number of dogs declared dangerous, location etc is accurate. What is not entirely accurate is the breed description of certain dogs. The fact that there are breed inaccuracies does not make the data useless; it simply means we can't rely entirely on the breed description. I don't dispute the example you provide may be correct in relation to breed, but the assertion made by Brookestar that I responded to was about the size of declared dogs, not breed. Even assuming the unlikely event has occurred, that a small breed dog has been incorrectly registered as a large breed dog when it has been declared, the data still provides ample evidence that most dogs declared menacing and dangerous are NOT small dogs. As someone else has commented, sure it may be the case that attacks by small dogs are not reported as often. But obviously we have no evidence for dogs that have attacked and have not been reported. But if someone makes unfounded assertions about the size of dogs that have been declared, then we need to examine the evidence, and the evidence tells us the majority are not small dogs. Inaccurate evidence is not evidence to base judgements on. When small dog bites are not being reported, the obvious outcome is that the results will be incorrectly skewed in the direction of larger dogs.

Size has very little to do with anything. MOST dogs who are declared dangerous or menacing are small dogs, that are yappy and untrained. ANY animal control officer can confirm this. The info in the attached link displays declared dogs according to the Victorian Declared Dog Registry as of 2011. Only a very small proportion of declared dogs listed here are actually small dogs. link What an brilliantly researched article. Who knew there were actually two types of pit bulls? I'll definitely be trusting that news site for information. It is not purporting to be a research article, rather it is simply highlighting data obtained from the Victorian Declared Dog Registry about declared dangerous and menacing dogs. Regarding the breed, that is what the dogs have been registered as when declared and is not something dreamt up by the author of the article, however inaccurate that breed description may be! Assuming the breed inaccuracies don't include too many 4kg dogs being mistaken for 40kg dogs, I think it's safe to say this data provides ample evidence to refute the baseless assertion that most dogs who are declared menacing or dangerous are small dogs. Hence the reason why the link was posted. Does that not suggest to you though that the data is not accurate and therefore not of any use? If people do not know what breed of dog they own (i.e the dog is very likely to be incorrectly registered) or if they mistakenly call it something else, your data will be totally unreliable. Take for example this.. Malt x Shih (an incredibly common breed mix) are represented twice. The Kerry Blue Terrier (a small breed with only 12 breeders listed for Dol) are represented four times. It seems very likely the more malt x shihs should be represented but what are they registered as? Who the hell knows.

Size has very little to do with anything. MOST dogs who are declared dangerous or menacing are small dogs, that are yappy and untrained. ANY animal control officer can confirm this. The info in the attached link displays declared dogs according to the Victorian Declared Dog Registry as of 2011. Only a very small proportion of declared dogs listed here are actually small dogs. link What an brilliantly researched article. Who knew there were actually two types of pit bulls? I'll definitely be trusting that news site for information.

Not as funny as the Asia beat up. I would post photos of greyhounds in Asia but as this is a public forum I won't. It's easy to see though, just google greyhounds in Asia and see how funny it is. Why would you need to post pics of greyhounds - "every week hundreds of DOGS and CATS are exported worldwide from Australia " Hundreds? No need to bold your statement lilli...amazingly I understand. You are in a thread about GREYHOUNDS...if you have nothing of value to say about greyhounds why don't you toddle off and attack someone else. http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/243399-pack-hierarchy/page__view__findpost__p__6016475 *cough* Anywho.. maybe back on topic and away from defending something that is proven to be a risk.

A dog can dominate in a particular situation without being dominant though. In my own experience (we usually have at least four dogs here, sometimes more), none of them were "dominant", some were just more likely to take risks by challenging other dogs for resources. Even then, it depended very much on the resource and how the individual valued that resource. One dog might value a better bed (and take considerable risks to obtain it) while not being at all interested in defending its food if challenged by a dog that valued the food more highly.

Well.. no. It's been public knowledge for a very long time. Stories like this come up once or twice every year, people get upset and then they get on with their lives. What does irk me though is people exaggerating figures. If you have to estimate anything, it's always best to be very conservative- that way, if correct figures are actually released, you don't end up looking dishonest and in the process, discrediting those of us who research carefully and don't engage in hyperbole for the sake of a more dramatic story >.>

If I got to pick the way I went out, my first choice would be Lethabarb, second would be carbon monoxide poisoning. It's certainly more humane than the way we kill many other animals. As for the rest.. blah blah blah emotive language blah. If you're not going to argue with facts, you're just clubbing other people with your opinion. You can't be surprised if some people do not enjoy debate of that sort (because it's not actually debate).

Sadly, yeah, that was my first impression. Pest species management doesn't automatically mean cruelty and in this case, they've worked out an incredibly humane method of dealing with a horrible problem. God forbid anyone kills a fox but picking up peoples' pets in their little death van and destroying those animals.. oh hey, apparently that one is not just okay, it's ethically superior to rehoming. PETA and similar groups are disgusting examples of the worst kind of hypocrisy. Animal welfare would be vastly improved if someone "saved" Ingrid Newkirk from her suffering.

I know better than to leave a naughty teenage puppy alone in the house. Except for today- had to go out to pick up weekly meat, puppy is asleep in bedroom. Oh, he'll be fine there, no need to put him in his crate while I go out for three hours.. came home and he'd herded the old dog out of his area (who was found curled up in the bedroom, looking a little bewildered), plundered my desk for goodies, got into a bag of poly filling I'd set aside for refilling beds and shredded some paper up and down the hallway. Yeah, it'd be pretty stupid to leave a nine month hellhound loose in your house..

Not for us. We get the odd enquiry through our own website but as I advertise elsewhere, I'd expect this. Since re-launch, still not a single enquiry through PR. The fact that enquiries have dropped means there is something wrong and rather than just defend the new site, I think PR need to focus on what made it so popular to start with- clean, user friendly, easy to find dogs in your own area.

My comment was in response to Luke GSP saying.. Which I think is an irresponsible and very short-sighted way of looking at the issue (because the issue isn't big dogs attacking, it's dogs attacking). And Luke.. couching your argument in the "but this is what the public thinks" defense doesn't really cut it when you yourself said.. Small dogs kill and injury both people and other dogs. To believe otherwise is being willfully ignorant. Show me one study that shows that small dogs represent the same % of dog attack related deaths as they represent of dog ownership! If you can't then I would say that your statement is the only thing here that is willfully ignorant. The reason I say about all large breed dog owners is that the further you pull away from breed the more chance you have of the legislation being written around a different criteria, now what do the majority of dogs that are involved in attacks causing death have in common? my guess would be that it isn't that they are small, white and fluffy and weighing less than 4KG. Show me a study that proves your point and then we'll talk. Bearing in mind, of course, bites and other injuries caused by small dogs are much less likely to be reported.

Yep. The numbers were exposed a long time ago (they're publically available anyway, if you know where to look) and public interest was pretty minimal. There was a bit of armchair activism but for the most part, that achieves nothing but warm, fuzzy feelings of having helped (as opposed to actually helping by fostering, adopting, etc). What was actually needed was legal reform but given the government can't even control the average backyard breeder and their maltipooshitoodles, they have no hope of controlling the breeding of greyhounds. In Australia, it would probably take the banning of the sport to see a real difference in greyhound welfare (both during and after their racing careers). I absolutely agree with you that it will take the banning of the sport in Australia to see any real difference. But surely it would be easier for the govt to control the breeding of Greyhounds, because Greyhounds must be registered to race. If they can't be raced, there's no (or LESS) impetus to breed.. it would be much easier for the govt to control that that BYB oodles. There's just no political will there. The sad reality is, there are plenty of possible solutions to the problem and many of them could actually raise revenue. To give you an exmaple- extending grades so that greyhounds that grade out of higher classes can continue to run. Grade all the way down to the dogs that practically walk around the track. A race is still a race, even if the dogs aren't capable of running as fast. This means a slow dog is no longer a dead dog, just a dog in a lower grade. Run races on straight tracks with fewer dogs- straight tracks are safer, even more so if grass is used instead of sand. For many greyhound tracks (with only one set of stands), this just makes better sense, seeing as the back half of the track of an oval track is hard to see anyway. Limit breeding and in particular, for popular studs, limit the amount of litters they may sire (this is better for the long-term genetic health of the breed). And so on and so forth. The solutions are there, the industry just isn't interested in addressing the problem* or regulating their own behaviour and ultimately, that will be their downfall. *Beyond addressing the bad publicity that comes from a considerable wastage problem. Some excellent ideas there HA. I doubt I'm the only person to have considered such measures, either. That's the sad thing- the solutions are all pretty obvious but the industry just doesn't want to change. It'd have to be dragged into the 21st century, kicking and screaming.

My comment was in response to Luke GSP saying.. Which I think is an irresponsible and very short-sighted way of looking at the issue (because the issue isn't big dogs attacking, it's dogs attacking). And Luke.. couching your argument in the "but this is what the public thinks" defense doesn't really cut it when you yourself said.. Small dogs kill and injury both people and other dogs. To believe otherwise is being willfully ignorant.

This, With so many of these sorts of situations popping up, most rescues will want to know that he's at least adoptable before committing resources to a dog when there are so many others waiting for placement.

Every owner of a smaller breed dog needs to think about the same thing. Our dogs have been attacked several times by smaller dogs (ironically, JRT crosses, mostly) and one of my dogs is now quite reactive to smaller dogs as a result of being nipped at, jumped on, mounted and barked at by aggressive small dogs that are always offleash (the dog in question is always kept on leash, as is the law). We see plenty of examples of other larger dogs becoming reactive to small dogs because the owners of small dogs seem to be under the impression that because their dog is small, it can't cause harm- failing to realise that harm is much more than just physical damage. Having a go at larger dogs generally is as thoughtless and ignorant as BSL- body size is no different from body shape; it does not determine how likely a dog is to attack another dog. Of course more physical damage could be done but that's only one side of the story and certainly not a reason to go on the attack and sling blame around. If you want to play the blame game, here's a good likely suspect- the owners of the two attacking dogs. They did the wrong thing. That does not mean all owners of large dogs do the wrong thing though and it certainly doesn't mean that irresponsible owners are more likely to be attracted to larger dogs. I've met plenty of idiot owners who have had small, fluffy dogs.

I get that too :D "Yeah, my brother's ex-wife's stepfather's half uncle's neighbour's mother's friend's son used to race greyhounds, his name was Blahdelblargh, I bet you know him!" As for numbers, a very good point. At the current rate of breeding, it would quickly become very literally impossible to rehome dogs. We already have a hard time down here because of our tiny population- our current foster has been with us a year- only enquiries were all cat owners :/

The problem is, awareness doesn't necessarily equate to action. Take race horses, for example- most people are aware of what happens to thoroughbreds if they don't make the grade (in my admittedly not very scientific research, the answer is usually "the glue factory", "the knackery" or "dog food") but look at the huge amount of public support the spring racing carnival in Victoria gets. The public sees, firsthand, the injuries and harm it causes the horses but people still attend and support the event. We get lots of comments when we walk our greys about how terrible the greyhound racing industry is but are they interested in adopting, donating or even just refraining from supporting the industry? If it means they miss out on a bit of fun.. not really.

Yep. The numbers were exposed a long time ago (they're publically available anyway, if you know where to look) and public interest was pretty minimal. There was a bit of armchair activism but for the most part, that achieves nothing but warm, fuzzy feelings of having helped (as opposed to actually helping by fostering, adopting, etc). What was actually needed was legal reform but given the government can't even control the average backyard breeder and their maltipooshitoodles, they have no hope of controlling the breeding of greyhounds. In Australia, it would probably take the banning of the sport to see a real difference in greyhound welfare (both during and after their racing careers). I absolutely agree with you that it will take the banning of the sport in Australia to see any real difference. But surely it would be easier for the govt to control the breeding of Greyhounds, because Greyhounds must be registered to race. If they can't be raced, there's no (or LESS) impetus to breed.. it would be much easier for the govt to control that that BYB oodles. There's just no political will there. The sad reality is, there are plenty of possible solutions to the problem and many of them could actually raise revenue. To give you an exmaple- extending grades so that greyhounds that grade out of higher classes can continue to run. Grade all the way down to the dogs that practically walk around the track. A race is still a race, even if the dogs aren't capable of running as fast. This means a slow dog is no longer a dead dog, just a dog in a lower grade. Run races on straight tracks with fewer dogs- straight tracks are safer, even more so if grass is used instead of sand. For many greyhound tracks (with only one set of stands), this just makes better sense, seeing as the back half of the track of an oval track is hard to see anyway. Limit breeding and in particular, for popular studs, limit the amount of litters they may sire (this is better for the long-term genetic health of the breed). And so on and so forth. The solutions are there, the industry just isn't interested in addressing the problem* or regulating their own behaviour and ultimately, that will be their downfall. *Beyond addressing the bad publicity that comes from a considerable wastage problem.

Yep. The numbers were exposed a long time ago (they're publically available anyway, if you know where to look) and public interest was pretty minimal. There was a bit of armchair activism but for the most part, that achieves nothing but warm, fuzzy feelings of having helped (as opposed to actually helping by fostering, adopting, etc). What was actually needed was legal reform but given the government can't even control the average backyard breeder and their maltipooshitoodles, they have no hope of controlling the breeding of greyhounds. In Australia, it would probably take the banning of the sport to see a real difference in greyhound welfare (both during and after their racing careers).

I've updated the first post to let everyone know the developments HA, it was a man. So creepy. The doggy door can't be blocked as I have special needs dogs here including blind ones. It's a bit of an art teaching a blind dog to use a doggy door and if it gets blocked or they can't get through it's very hard to retrain them to trust using it again. I noticed the post had been updated but I'm curious as to how this has been proven. From what I've read, there's really been no sound evidence that the sound is human and no logical reason why it might be. The reason it's been assumed the sound is from a person is because it seems to be the consensus of the majority of people who have listened to it, a friend's OH is a cop who said it definitely sounded like a man, the voice of the woman at the beginning of the clip does not appear to have come from the TV that was on quietly in the background because at no other point on the full length of the tape (not just the section put on YouTube) can any voice from the TV be made out, YG is certain she can hear whispering after the roaring sound and she was able to fairly reasonably replicate the sound by putting the dictaphone in the same spot and going outside and roaring through the dog door. It's always possible that the noise was caused by something else but there is less to suggest a random animal than a person at this stage and I cannot for the life of me imagine that any of Jo's tiny, squeaky dogs could have made that sound. That just leaves teleporting Tasmanian Devils and a zombie apocalypse. :laugh: Or native animal/s scavenging for food- which also happens to be logical. The opinions of others do not make fact; lots of people are of the opinion that Elvis is still getting around but we have some fairly solid evidence (extra solid, really, after all the crap he was eating) that Elvis did indeed leave the building. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence.

X2 Whoever wants to spoil the fun with the truth needs to take a dose of humour! :D This.. Not so lolzy.

I've updated the first post to let everyone know the developments HA, it was a man. So creepy. The doggy door can't be blocked as I have special needs dogs here including blind ones. It's a bit of an art teaching a blind dog to use a doggy door and if it gets blocked or they can't get through it's very hard to retrain them to trust using it again. I noticed the post had been updated but I'm curious as to how this has been proven. From what I've read, there's really been no sound evidence that the sound is human and no logical reason why it might be.

Sounds exactly like an angry brushtail possum to me I played it for the dogs and their reaction was prey drive- ears up, bodies tense, up and down the hallway trying to find the source of the tasty sounds and then back to bed as soon as the sounds stopped. Honestly, I wouldn't be worried over it although if I had a dog door, I'd be blocking it off because if it was a possum and it felt trapped in there, it could hurt your dogs- possums can do a lot of damage even to a larger dog if they feel threatened.

Yep. Kiff was tried on several different ABs with no real change. It took completely removing the infected area to get rid of it. From the outside, it was almost impossible to tell there was such a bad problem- slightly pink skin from licking at it and that was all.

Thanks for that, Google was being very unhelpful :p