Quickasyoucan

Unfortunately news.com.au have now pulled out their archive photos of a snarling rottie. They say investigations are underway to establish breed. It is irrelevant whether it is a rottweiler since they are not restricted. The only thing that is relevant here since it is not suspected of being a restricted breed (and as RSG says easily ascertainable) is whether it has a previous dangerous dog order on it. That is when the tougher penalties kick in.

A DOG that attacked two children in Sydney's west has been seized by council rangers and could be destroyed. Its owner could also be jailed if the dog is found to be a dangerous breed. The 11-year-old boy and 13-year-old girl were walking along Tanderagee St in Constitution Hill about 5.10pm (AEST) yesterday when the dog escaped from a nearby property. It ran at the children and bit the boy twice on his left arm, police said. The girl kicked out at the dog but it grabbed hold of the boy on the right side of his chest before letting go. A neighbour came out and restrained the dog before returning it to its yard. Paramedics were called and the injured boy was taken to Westmead Childrens Hospital, where he was treated for bite wounds to his left arm, his left leg and the right side of his chest. ..The local council has seized the dog, which has been unofficially identified as a rottweiler. Checks were being carried out to confirm its breed and whether it is deemed a dangerous dog. Under the Companion Animals Regulation 1999, a restricted or dangerous dog which attacks or bites a person because it is not properly controlled can be destroyed immediately. The owner could face a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment and a fine of up to $55.000. Police say their investigations are continuing. A spokeswoman for Westmead Childrens Hospital said the boy was in a stable condition this morning. .. Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/owner-faces-jail-over-sydney-dog-attack/story-e6frfku0-1226126236685#ixzz1WYgSzJFl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Unfortunately news.com.au cannot differentiate between dangerous dog and restricted breed. Don't they get told to check their facts before they publish they are referring to a "dangerous breed".

Steve at K9 Pro www.k9pro.com.au I am not sure where you are in NSW though. He is located in the Hawksbury area at the foot of the blue mountains. Well worth contacting him.

Maybe post in the rescue forum they would have more experience with fosters. I understand Pharoahs are a relatively rare breed. Maybe also see if you can find a breeder who might give you a few tips. Not sure if there is a breed club too? Or a breed rescue.

It does say over 20kg though, thats big for a PB SBT? ETA big not bit.

IMO people or animals who just "snap" simply because they are wired wrong would be a true minority. There are also sometimes neurological issues that can come into play in both humans and animals Howver, in the vast majority of cases both human and animal I'd say there were warning signs and or environmental factors at play. . I'd love to see this literature the OP posted where there were 'heaps of cases of PB's just snapping'. Our receptionist had a friend with a red (or is it ruby) pedigree cocker spaniel. Lovely dog, friendly and great with the kids. Then it suddenly started biting everyone. They consulted trainers, tried behaviour modification to no avail, they even had some kind friends take the dog on who had no kids and a calm environment. Dog bit them. The dog basically did a behavioural 180 in a very short space of time. They finally discovered it had some sort of brain tumour/neurological issue. That dog in essence did "just snap" but there was a very good reason for it.

www.gtglabs.com/bitsa/faq.php I have a vague recollection that someone used a BITSA test in one of the court cases in QLD. But I could be wrong.

100% agree with RSG. There is a process to be followed. And under the current NSW there is NO requirement for purebred restricted breeds to be euthanised (although there are obviously specific muzzling, containment rules). As for crossbreeds, under current NSW law if a NOI is issued and the dog passes the temp test my understanding it is free from the restrictions. A couple of rescues have done this with impounded RB crossbreeds who passed with flying colours and found new homes. Missed out an impportant NO.

I think that is a good point. I was pretty lucky with my boy re the toilet training, but there is no guarantee. If I were looking for a rescue in future I would definitely go with one that had been in foster care and had been there long enough for people to know what behaviours positive and negative they might have. You definitely get a better idea of what a dog might be like in a home environment if the dog is already in one rather than in a kennel environment.

I got my dog as a rescue at around 10 mths to a year (age and origin unknown). He was already toilet trained, was pretty much past the chewing stage (already had adult teeth) and I would definitely do it again. Nearly 8 years later he has been one of the best things in my life. As I work full time (though I do have a friend that walks my boy during the day and I walk him morning and evening) an adult dog is a better fit for me and I think for them too. I am not really a puppy person, I prefer to see what I am getting if that makes sense. Sure pups are cute (other people's) but I would rather have an adult dog. And he is very bonded to me so no probs there. Oh and we didn't know what his name was but he seems pretty happy with the name change and cottoned on very quickly. :D

Ruth has a lot to answer for I ordered one too I got fetch junkie for Jake.

Bizarrely that site also has an online shop selling dog products? Is there more to this "pensioner" than meets the eye?

She had some sort of congenital heart problem, can't remember the name,some sort of blockage/artery issue meaning the heart was working over time, happened to catch it as I was on my way out the door. The op was $5000 and the lady is a pensioner who didn't have any savings. ETA found it on the site it is, Patent Ductus Arteriosus.

What I don't get is why Australian legislators are pushing for a model that doesn't work. It is my understanding (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) that there are moves in the UK to repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act on the basis that it is flawed legislation. Calgary is a great example of what actually does work. There are enough people in Australia who actually know about these things for example statement of Kersti Seksel on behalf of AVA, RSPCA current position plus a lot of research. Why is this the only part of the law where a living being can be guilty by reason of what it is and not what it does? There are enough examples of it not working, why is Australia so behind the eight ball. Political expediency I suppose ETA spelling

but I am voting we get rid of our current numpty pollies and vote in Poodlefan who as ever is the voice of reason. You don't need any other policies, common sense would go a long way.

Lagotto romagnolo? They don't shed at all (but do need clipping periodically). They are medium sized. What about an airedale? Are they too terrier?

I'd like to see ANKC or WDR papers sighted, before any dog is registered as a particular breed. Take your ANKC papers, with corrspeonding chip to the council office and your dog is registered with it's pedigree name ( which only exists once ) , call name and breed. The rest are registered as " black cross bred " brown cross bred etc. I'd not have a problem with that with the proviso you would probably have to qualify it with small, medium or large crossbreed.

Just as an anecdote when my boss wanted to register his lab with Mosman Council they needed to sight the dog before they would register it. Presumably that is to get around people not registering dogs as what they really are.

Huh? The dog's described are not fighting dogs, have an inate desire to please and ARE NOT IN THIS COUNTRY. The author makes the point that its humans that determine whether or not a relationship with a dog will be a success. That's hardly in agreeance with your :kill all the fighting dogs: proposition Matthew. Besides seems a random dog to pick for an example, can't remember hearing any stats about fatalities from maulings by mountain curs. The US has all kinds of varieties like this that are not present in Australia . Again if you want to harp on about the purpose that dogs were bred for as people have stated time and time again APBT's and staffordshire bull terriers in England for that matter were culled if they showed aggression towards HUMANS. They were not bred to be HUMAN aggressive that is why as sandgrubber states so many people have "loving investments in them". ETA: not everyone who owns a bull breed is a redneck or an irresponsible dog owner, a lot of people choose to own them because they are great loving, tolerant, playful dogs not just as some bogan status symbol. Extra edit because I looked up Mountain Cur and they are a UKC breed.

She looks a lot like my dog in my avatar, though he has one rose and one half prick ear rather than the flying nun look. :D I had him bitsa tested came back secondary staffordshire bull terrier and border collie. We had thought stafford x kelpie as he does the herding dog stalk and has other similar behavioural traits. A lot of people don't rate the BITSA though, but I kind of got what I expected. I would hazard if your dog was in the pound it would be labelled a staffy x, though it's hard to see size. My boy is about 17 kg but more leggy than a stafford and definitely has the longer muzzle that your dog has. You could either DNA as RSG has suggested or BITSA, that would at least give you something to show that you had her genetically tested.

I'd hazard a guess many of us have had experiences with breeds that have coloured our views of them somewhat. I was bitten badly and with intent by a silky terrier. Now Matthew B would probably laugh and say no comparison at that but it came within millimetres of permanently paralysing a finger and given that I use my hands for work I would have been pretty stuffed financially for the rest of my life. I am not calling for a ban on silkies nor do I think all small dogs are bad. I think we need to look beyond one experience and not generalise on the basis of that one experience. ETA for the record I'm not that keen on people either ;)

I don't believe we need new laws, but I would like to see existing laws enforced. And I don't agree it is an area thing. I live in the next suburb to Mosman and there are plenty of people who walk their dogs off lead on the street, not in control, and if confronted (which I frequently do) tell me to shut up because "it is their right" to walk their dogs off lead on the street, even if they are DA (or in one case of a husky HA). People have an amazing sense of self-entitlement when it comes to what they perceive as minor laws... I cannot remember which council it was that was sued over the death of the little girl out west Tyra Kuehne (was it Dubbo?), was just wondering if there have been more resources allocated by that council to policing given that they copped a civil suit? The ACO's of some councils really do try to improve dog education and welfare. Warringah holds free responsible pet ownership and what pet is right for you evenings, and has guest speakers like Kersti Seksel. I remember one of the ACO's also telling me they were trying to increase the number of dog parks as they felt dogs in certain areas had no where to go off leash. Councils need more resources and support not more laws to enforce.

Hmm crossbreeds aren't they the one who are supposed to have hybrid vigour, not like those "deformed" purebreds. ;) No wait, its only certain types of crossbreeds... Geez this dog ownership thing is getting confusing. What we really need to do is ACTUALLY ENFORCE the EXISTING legislation that we have.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/vets-warning-on-banning-dangerous-dogs/story-e6frfku0-1226118317206 Vet's warning on banning dangerous dogs VETERINARIANS say banning breeds of dangerous dogs would not stop attacks, despite a Victorian government vow to crack down on vicious pets. Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu said today the government wanted to "be rid of these dogs as soon as possible" following the death of a four-year-old girl who was mauled by an unregistered American pit bull mastiff cross in Melbourne on Wednesday. The owner of the dog could face charges under the Domestic Animals Act and fines in excess of $19,000. The government has also foreshadowed measures that could include the owners of dangerous dogs facing 20 years' jail in a similar law that applies to culpable drivers. The amnesty for registering dangerous dogs will end, meaning councils can seize and destroy the animals, while a "dob in a dangerous dog" anonymous hotline will also be set up. But Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) spokeswoman Kersti Seksel says socialisation of dangerous dogs rather than banning them would be more effective. Over-regulation for dog owners has not improved the situation so far, Dr Seksel said. "It's understandable that people are now calling for the banning of some breeds, however all the good evidence available shows that this doesn't work," she said in a statement today. "Unfortunately, we believe the banning and over-regulation of dogs in our communities could be part of the problem as this leads to poor socialisation and increased risk of attacks." The AVA is instead calling for the government to increase funding for education and socialisation programs for dogs, their owners and young children. Its statistics show that the most likely victims of dog attacks are children aged under 10, usually by their own dogs at their homes. "We're never going to be able to prevent every incident, but a really good way to help prevent bites and attack is through socialisation of puppies with people and other dogs at a young age, and teaching our children how to be safe around animals," Dr Seksel said. Ayen Chol was killed when the dog escaped a neighbour's home and chased the four-year-old's cousin into her house in St Albans on Wednesday night. Ayen was watching television in the house when the dog attacked, lunging at her as she clung to her mother's legs. Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/vets-warning-on-banning-dangerous-dogs/story-e6frfku0-1226118317206#ixzz1VSRCFAXt

The dog that killed this little girl wasn't a pitbull Matthew and you know it. The overwhelming majority of individuals of breeds used for police and security work fail the grade for a range of reasons. BTW, dog bites are pretty common in dog handlers. Which part of "because some pitbulls might be dangerous doesn't mean ALL of them are" can't you grasp. Some Labradors are dangerous Matthew. Seriously scarey dogs. Doesnt mean all of them are and you're in a better position than most to know it. But take a poorly bred Labrador, fail to socialise it to recognise children as somethign other than prey, fail to teach it bite inhibition, fail to keep it in a manner that sees it form good social bonds with people, fail to train it to come back when its called and fail to exercise it regularly and you've got a recipe for a dangerous dog. The breed matters only as far as size and power go. It matter as far as bite thresholds and bite inhibitions go. It also matter as far as drives go. Crossbreed it with other large and powerful dogs and your capacity to know what its drives and inhibitions are decreases exponentially. But none of those qualities is restriced to particular breeds, nor shared by all individuals within a breed. Assuming so is the path to disaster and that's the path that BSL takes. I post this link from K9 pro's website, not to demonise labradors, but also to show the reasons why these type of things happen which I think is well and truly set out in the article: http://www.k9pro.com.au/pages/DJ-the-Black-Lab-vs.-Granny.html