KatrinaM

My worry is so much focus is on punishing the owners lack of responsibility when one of the single greatest factors in the reduction of dog attacks is the education of children. Just like stranger danger, pool safety and road safety kids can learn skills to keep themselves and their peers safe. Personally I would rather see a method used that has been proven to work rather than flog the same old tired horse. Maybe it wouldn't have helped this time but maybe it would.

By the Comment "Very Timid" he looks to be refering to Border Collies being the oposite of aggressive. Not timid in the way dog people use the word. I could be wrong but I seriously doubt the kids were asking if they could hug a strange dog with the owner 10 meters away. The kids arent at fault (although I would have been flogged as a child for being so "stupid", we were always told it was an unwritten rule to never touch another persons dog) but it would be nice to give them a few skills to help keep them safe around dogs, just like we do with other hazards in everyday life.

Not trying to take on ounce of blame away from the owner, but doesnt anybody think, particularly for their own safety that children should be taught its not OK to approach/pat/hug strange dogs without permission? This incedent could also have been prevented if the kids knew how to act appropriatly around unfamiliar dogs. I am not saying the kids are responsible at all, just that their behaviour contributed significantly to the outcome.

I agree Megan, but the owners mistake could have had a different ending if the kids had been taught how to behave around strange dogs too!

I don't think there is anything else left to say - this attack could have potentially been avoided through education for children and parents, education of dog owners and enforcement of leash laws. The problem with the policemans comment about timid dogs is that they tend to bite when threatened or scared, sounds like this was the case here.

Besides the increased penalties the biggest difference I can see is that police will be the ones dealing with dog attacks now rather than local council. I don't think police will be as easily pushed around as local dog catchers.

http://www.news.com.au/new-queensland-laws-include-prison-penalty-for-negligent-dog-owners/story-e6freoof-1226167504458 New Queensland laws include prison penalty for negligent dog owners by: Renee Viellaris From: The Sunday Mail (Qld) October 16, 2011 1:00AM DOG owners will be sent to their own cage - with up to 10 years in jail - if their pet attacks or kills another person. Tough new state laws have been drafted that for the first time include a prison penalty for negligent dog owners. Owners that fail to have a fence or an appropriate fence - or the guard dog they have is inappropriate - will face jail time if their dog attacks. Attorney-General Paul Lucas said Queensland's proposed laws were sparked after this year's horrific death of Ayen Choi, a four-year-old Victorian girl mauled by a pit bull terrier. The Sunday Mail revealed in July that more than 2500 dog attacks were being reported in Queensland each year - about 50 a week. Most of the victims are under five years. Current laws allow authorities to fine dog owners up to $30,000 if their animal goes rogue. FOLLOWING Melbourne's pit bull tragedy it has been revealed over a third of Queensland councils have banned or will no longer register the breed. But while there were provisions that may allow for convictions for manslaughter under the criminal code, Mr Lucas said he wanted a specific provision for irresponsible owners. "This kind of thing is similar to what occurred many years ago when a specific provision for dangerous driving was provided so courts did not need to rely on manslaughter," Mr Lucas said. "If they're (owners) not properly controlling their pet and it maims or kills a child or an adult, then they could be criminally liable for their action." The draft legislation, cited by The Sunday Mail, sets out that owners will have to manage their dogs and have regard to circumstances such as the past conduct of their dog, its training and its temperament; whether the restraint of the dog, if any, was appropriate in the circumstances, and whether the type of dog used to protect people or premises was appropriate. Mr Lucas said that responsible dog owners would not be captured under the laws. "The amendment is not intended to cover situations where owners have taken all steps to ensure a dog is secure and safely managed," he said. "But where a dog is left to roam the streets, and an owner has taken no steps to control the animal or ensure it is appropriately enclosed, then under this amendment the owner could be criminally liable if the dog attacks or kills someone and face up to 10 years in jail." Consultation will be held with councils and the RSPCA. The amendments do not apply to law enforcement.

Exactly Sandgrubber. Till we know all the facts we can't judge and the media are sometimes very careless with the truth.

Are you trying to say people shouldn't have their childen around dogs, even while supervised?

I bought a Trek trailer a few years ago. It was a lemon too, fell apart on the trip home, the lady who owns the company was rude, difficult and a liar. She didn't care less that it rattled apart, the doors fell off and the hinges and latches failed, told me it wasn't designed to travel on bitumen roads outside urban areas so it was my fault. I repaired it myself and use it every week would never get or recommend the company to anybody.

I'm no rocket scientist but why would you want to do that when it clearly hasn't worked for the last 20 years?

The APBT would not have been eligible for ANKC recognition. I thought this debate had long ago transcended the "our breed would never bite, it's those xxxxxx breed that you have to watch" and protect your own bottom at the expense of somebody else. It should be about keeping people safe from all dog attacks and all dogs safe from senseless discrimination.

Why isn't every dog owner terrified of people like Debra - she obviously doesn't like dogs much at all. Imagine if anybody was told to pick two of there children to keep, the rest will be handed to the authorities to do as they see fit or somebody will break into your house and steal them....... Dogs are pseudo family for so many people, how devastating would that idea be? The current laws aren't enforced, how could the introduction of new ones like this not be a hit and miss implementation??

But remember, if your doing the right thing youve got nothing to worry about.

I think registered breeders need to advertise there and everywhere else puppy farmers do. Commercial breeders advertise there because that's were the average Person goes to look for a pup, if they don't see the alternitives how are theygoing to know that there are better breeders to get dogs from or how to get in contact with them

Sometimes talking about crossbreds ends in wars and name calling. Im sure Troy has better things to do than referee stuff like that. I won't be offended to be deleated, I read the rules. Some crosses do have registers, some are in the twilight stage in between a breed and a cross and have a breed register and some are just well known by those who use them, just the same as some pure bred people don't need a copy of a pedigree to "know" generations of breeding and the relationship between dogs. Thanks Sandgrubber, it's a shame the solution isn't so easy. I am off to try and think of more ideas. I figure eventually somebody will come up with a brilliant idea if we all keep trying.

Sorry can't edit my posts as am on my phone but just wanted to say I don't breed terminal crosses like poodle x another breed crosses so I need to know where the recessives are so I don't double up on them in coming generations. I think health testing where it is simply one pure breed cross another pure breed would be much easier!

Thanks Steve, you summed it up very well. I was talking about the licence idea above, I was too slow posting and you beat me too it!

I never thought of it like that Steve, it makes sense, will put the think cap back on. Thank you for that, that's why people need to throw ideas off rack other rather than hand grenades. I think you are confusing unknown pedigree with crossbred. Crossbred working dogs most often have know pedigrees, although they aren't always recorded the same way. There are heaps of ways to test health, a lot depends on diseases already identified in component breeds for things like pra and arvc DNA tests work on crossbreds, thyroid tests, I own a holter monitor I make use off, hip, elbow and spine X-rays, rather than focus on breed scores the focus is on evidence of deformity or abnormalities. Not perfect but it's a work in progress. Sorry to talk about my crossbred dogs on dol, I try very hard to avoid it. Can answer anything else by pm if that's cool toydogs.

Spot the dog, I think as well as an amended Calgary model there needs to be some very careful attention paid to breeding, breeders and the keeping of entire animals. Behaviors associated or intensified by reproductive hormones are a leading factor in dog bites. I am not pro mandatory desex, but I think there needs to be some huge incentives for people to get their pets desexed. Cheap and readily available, registration incentives increased, etc. I think breeders should be licensed, much like gun owners and if you own an entire dog you will have completed a basic course in dog breeding. The inclusion of a licence number could be policed by those who accept the adds. Just as what defines a puppy farmer was hashed out what defines an acceptable breeder needs to be done the same. Them we need to arm them with the resources to become better breeeders.

Why do those who don't support puppy farmed pups in petshops due to impulse buying, unsuitable environments for animals and untrained staff support the sale of rescue dogs under the same circumstance? How does that work? I live on a property and keep a large number of dogs. They also travel with me, come to work with me and get to live here for the rest of their life as desexed pets unless a a home I deem is suitable comes along. My dogs are working dogs, health screened and temperament tested. I take back anything I breed for any reason ever, guarantee health and temperament, breed cross bred and pures and the most prolific brood bitches are two grey muzzled bitches with two litters each to their name. Am I good breeder because I test my dogs and stand behind them or bad because I keep a lot of dogs and have cross breds? Should I keep less females and breed them more often? Should I euth all my retired dogs? Have all litters sired by a single dog? Would I be more ethical if I only bred pure breds but didn't health test ??? One mans dodgy breeder is another persons ethical ideal. I am frightened that people pushing for these laws know little about actually breeding and are basing their views on animal rights not animal welfare.

Of course it was a pit - it had short/medium/long/wirey hair, was a family pet that suddely "turned", and fitted the size range - it was between really tint and gigantic, plus it bit a kid, gee wizz, what more proof of breed do you want!

http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8290735/dog-crazy

Hi Poodlefan, thanks for that, but any dogs that havnt been socialised will react in this way, hunting dog or not. The whole pack thing is instinctual. Were these dogs family pets or where they dogs that just happened to be confined to the same property that a family lived? Were they dogs that somebody sooled onto a small pig in a cage or were they trained hunting dogs? Were they kept chained? Were they kept as guard dogs? Was one of them on heat? Were they desexed? Had children previously been tormenting them? Did their parents have questionable temperaments? Was there an underlying medical problem? So many questions that could help solve the dog bite puzzle that are never asked or answered.

Hi Poodlefan, just wondering why you would choose hunting as a like to know above many other important factors, ie reproductive status, level of socialization and training? Especially since if these dogs are Staffs they are by the vast majority considered unsuitable for hunting. It's kind of like wondering if a German Shepherd had been used as a fighting dog. Although, sadly, hunting dogs are becoming increasingly popular with the WRONG owners and I fear we will see more of them problematic until a new type finds favor. Nothing to do with the dogs, just the owners and not saying for a second that this does or doesn't apply in the case above.