Greytmate

I don't think that brown dog is playing in a particularly friendly or gentle way. Your pup doesn't seem to enjoy it at all when that dog goes right over the top of her. Telida, not everyone here is part of Team Pitbull. :)

She was playing and was bolled over and the Pit Bull went over to make sure she was okay, another dog was growling at her and another pit bull stepped in front of Bella... those kind of things. I probably wouldn't interpret any of those behaviours with the other dogs being protective of Bella. And if she was bowled over then it doesn't sound all that gentle either. That's great that these dogs were so friendly, but I wouldn't allow a small breed puppy to play with a group of strange large-breed dogs. There are risks involved with the difference of size. A 30 kg dog can really do some damage to a five kilo dog, just by accident. Besides that these 3 dogs already had an established pack structure. One-on-one playing sessions with new dogs are always going to be safer and easier to control. Three dogs running in a pack can easily get overexcited to the point where a small dog isn't treated as gently as it could be.

Dogs can feel more secure in enclosed spaces. Maybe he felt anxious outside? He sounds like he is a bit of a nervy dog. I agree with Perseph, the danger is that if he is kept outside he may now really try to get into the house and hurt himself. Some dogs are used to living in a kennel or under a patio or something, and your yard may feel really exposed in comparison. If you can provide a sense of enclosure outside it may be enough to satisfy the dog. I would also advise with getting help from a professional trainer if you are worried.

I think Telida has a valid point and worth bringing up here. Bellacks has described the encounters in very anthropomorphic terms, and I still don't know what she means by 'protective'. It is quite a risk to allow a small 4 month old pup to play with three strange large dogs in a dog park, whatever the breed. I find it a little scary. But the encounter at the vets sounds delightful.

So if a dog isn't on a lead its fair game? I think you will have to take many of the comments here with a grain of salt. The person you are responding to is talking about a thread where they tried to justify their dog's aggressive behaviour. I hope the other dog owner doesn't take that attitude with you. Your dog was off lead, and that attracts a certain fine. The other dog attacked and that attracts a larger fine and a dangerous dog declaration. Nobody here can know exactly what view council will take, but they tend to look at the consequences of what each dog has done, rather than at why they might have done it. They do not have the skills or resources to investigate the dog's temperament or history. The priority is to be seen to be taking action on any safety concerns to prevent re-occurrence. Unless your dog is reported by somebody else as the instigator of the attack, it is likely that they will see it as an attack and not just a dog fight. I'm glad to hear your dog is recovering. It will take a lot of time and special care before she is fully healed, and she may always have scars and muscle damage. I hope she is on anti-inflammatories to reduce the pain and on a good diet to aid skin and coat recovery.

In what way were the pitbulls protective of your puppy?

It is not like saying every dog should be muzzled. Why would your dog need to be muzzled? Every owner should have a clue of their dog's tolerance towards other dogs. If their dog has a low tolerance it should be muzzled in public. It isn't hard to work out. This dog has a low tolerance and so needs to be muzzled. Even if the owners didn't know before, they certainly do now, and council has a responsibility to enforce restrictions on it. she would not, but after 5 minutes of an annoying off lead dog she might lose her cool and bite... does this mean she will need to be muzzled the rest of her life when in public? I think the history of the on lead dog would need to be taken into consideration before any decision was made. Council will not take history into account. They will only look at this incident. Look, it's up to you, but if you cannot stop your dog attacking other dogs, I really hope council does declare it dangerous. But it sounds like you can, and so your analogies are irrelevant. This is about a dog that caused a massive injury, not a hypothetical situation.

It is not like saying every dog should be muzzled. Why would your dog need to be muzzled? Every owner should have a clue of their dog's tolerance towards other dogs. If their dog has a low tolerance it should be muzzled in public. It isn't hard to work out. This dog has a low tolerance and so needs to be muzzled. Even if the owners didn't know before, they certainly do now, and council has a responsibility to enforce restrictions on it.

Yeah nearly everyone here has been in that position. The difference is that your dog didn't cause a massive injury. And if you think your dog ever will, I hope you are responsible to muzzle it and keep it on a proper lead. Otherwise you can expect to have your dog reported and declared dangerous.

Petermoore admitted some fault and didn't try to excuse himself at all. The council where this attack happened hasn't admitted anything. And they won't admit anything unless it is reported and acted on. Nobody is saying that petermoore shouldn't accept the consequences of having the dog off-lead. There are legal consequences for that. The owner of the other dog has no right to be annoyed because their dog wasn't harmed at all. They deserve a fine for failing to control their dog , and the dog needs restricting from being able to attack like this again.

.. dogs are on lead for a reason. Off lead dogs should respect that The dog that attacked wasn't confined by a lead.

A dog that breaks its lead and attacks like this because it was startled is a very dangerous dog and should be declared dangerous. No matter how it behaves when it isn't in the mood to attack. This is the sort of dog that we don't need out in our community at all. I'm surprised that anyone would try to excuse such horrifically destructive behaviour. There is no excuse for that.

The OP made a mistake. His dog did not rip another dog apart. His dog harmed nobody. The dog that broke its lead is very dangerous, and should be declared dangerous. I would not be happy that somebody was walking such a nasty, strong and viscous dog in a public area. A dog like this should be at home, or muzzled. Petermoore, please do not be put off by advice from people interstate. While you should accept any legal consequences for your own dog not being under control, this other dog needs to be brought to council's attention urgently. A QLD council is likely to act, as this other dog has shown itself to be very dangerous.

Yeah, council never analyse dog behaviour at all. They look at the consequences and declare dogs dangerous based on that. And in this case the consequences were horrific.

From a council point of view, only one of those dogs caused harm. And if the other dog broke the leash, it certainly wasn't under control. For the safety of everyone else, that dog should be reported, even if it means that the OP has to accept a small fine.

Terrible. Report it for sure. Your dog may not have been under control (small fine for you), but that other dog sounds extremely dangerous. They should pay your vet bill, and that dog should be declared dangerous. I really hope your dog is ok. Greyhounds are fragile, and shouldn't be off lead at all unless in an enclosed space.

Yes, a good trainer will really be able to help. When a new baby arrives there will be times when it will not be appropriate for the dog to demand attention. A good trainer will help you work out the best way to do this so that dog and family are both satisfied. Get on to it now, so you both know exactly what to do when the baby is here.

Exactly, if this was a breeder advert on gumtree ect ppl here would be up in arms about byb and their dodgy practices. But as this is a registered breeder and the dog is winning shows it is ok? I am not going to speak for anyone else here but personally i would never even consider mating a blind and deaf dog, they would be desexed as soon as they were of age. As for mating merle to merle OP i don't believe in the whole popular stud thing either, surely one dog cannot be a suitable match for over half the females in that breed or more in the show ring, although it happens everywhere. Except in registries where there is a limit on how many services a stud dog is allowed. They do it in greyhounds to prevent popular sire syndrome, to prevent stud dog abuse, and to keep the gene pool a bit deeper than it would be otherwise.

This behaviour can be trained out, but probably not in four days. By giving up and letting this dog sleep inside when it is noisy, you have actually reinforced that behaviour. You have trained your dog to be noisy, by rewarding it for its behaviour by letting it inside. I wouldn't pay too much attention to links between pregnancy and attachment behaviour, this is just normal dog stuff. Most people have pregnancies where the dog doesn't develop problems, unless they decide to give the dog much less attention and interaction than it was used to getting before. Its going to be easier for you at this stage to allow the dog to sleep inside at night. But to actually solve the problem, I think you should work with a dog trainer to establish a plan that suits your family and new baby. It may take longer than four days, but it sounds like something that is very solvable from what you have written here. Good luck. :)

It's possible that the two pups were taken from that spot near the gate and the mother dog was not taken at all. That might explain why she keeps going there to look for them. Whether it was a prey animal or a thief that took them, adult dogs are not going to be as vulnerable as little puppies.

What breed are they? Chihuahuas?

Yes, I used to be a bit like that too. But it isn't a healthy way to eat and by changing the way you use meat, you can reduce the amount consumed. I don't think I could give up meat either, but animal cruelty does upset me a lot. What makes meat so yummy are two things. The fat, and the maillard reaction. This flavour comes as a result of the cooking practice, it's not just about the ingredients. If you rapidly boiled up a piece of frozen beef and put that on your plate amongst a nice selection of freshly roasted Mediterranean vegetables in herbs and olive oil, guess which foods would taste better and be more satisfying? It is a little harder to prepare vegetables, cereals and dairy food than it is to prepare meat, but the results are well worth it. I also think that there is a huge societal pressure to accept over-sized and unbalanced servings, where meat and potatoes dominate the plate, and the green food is a garnish. That takes some effort to overcome. I do simple things to reduce the amount of meat I eat. For instance when I cook up a big pot of spag bol, it is only 1/4 mince, 1/4 celery, carrot, onion, garlic, and 1/2 tomato, tomato paste. That gives me a healthy proportion of meat to veges. But I put a lot of effort into browning the veges, so that I get the yummy maillard reaction going on. I also often eat nuts as a snack, and they can sometimes be a good substitute for meat. I am not a good cook by any means, but I made the changes and over a few weeks my body adjusted and stopped craving bad foods and started feeling normal hunger feelings. If you are interested in eating less meat, start trying recipes that combine meat and veges, and just gradually lower the amount of meat you put in it and replacing with yummy veges that you like.

Good luck. I've tried and can't. I feel so empty and hungry unless I eat some sort of animal flesh and I'm afraid subsitutes like tofu etc. just don't cut it. That just the eating habits you have slipped into. If you put as much effort into buying and preparing quality vegetables and other ingredients as you do meat, you would find them satisfying. Instead you eat a big lump of meat , and then garnish it with a small amount of boiled-up frozen veges. (that's what you describe here) If you ate a good vege dish, like a well-made vege lasagne, you wouldn't miss the meat as much. If you ate more vegetables and better vegetables, you would get used to that way of eating and wouldn't have to rely on meat so much.

Carlo it has been very clear all the way through the thread that you have done all you could do help Pearl. Vets are not perfect and there tends to be a huge variance in whether they tend to opt for minimal or maximum treatment. There are valid reasons for both approaches and I think that probably the two vets were at opposite ends of the spectrum in this regard. A third vet would possibly write a different report. There is also the possibility that the infections became worse in the short amount of time between her leaving you and getting to the new vet. She would have been a little stressed. I've been thinking about this and still don't know what the answer is, but possibly you should talk to the new vet, and ask why he felt it pertinent to put in writing that Pearl's condition was untreated and unmanaged. Maybe organise a meeting with Kelscats, the vet and yourself. The best outcome we can hope for now is that the old vet doesn't miss this type of thing in other dogs. Perhaps by hearing what the new vet has to say, you will be in a better position to know whether you should take it further. The main thing is that Pearl is getting looked after, and that is all because of you really.

I disagree, Seems to me that most of those asking for the 'justification' of the OP's decison would probably not agree with breeder's rehoming. I don't think so. Many people understand that a breeder can only run on a certain number of kennel dogs, and if not up to breeding it is better that the dog is rehomed as a pet. The decision is often made before the breeding is done. That is different from a person taking a pet into their home. How many breeders would be happy to sell a pet dog (of any age) to a family that was unprepared to keep it long term? What if that puppy buyer told the breeder that they had always wanted to work overseas and as soon as they were offered an opportunity to do so they would no longer be wanting the dog? The OP here is claiming that it is something they have always wanted to do. So why did they buy a dog? This is not comparable at all with breeders that have to rehome unsuitable dogs in order to improve the breed as a whole.