KatrinaM

When you read through there are a number of people who didnt want to formally complain because they didnt want to have problems with the dogs owners. One of the dogs that was later identified as attacking a lady was not even born at the time. So it seems there were issues with not being able to identify which dog would have been at fault in any given incedent to declare the individual dangerous and the lack of formal complaints. I spoke with a ranger recently about his frustration that people want to complain but dont wish to lodge formal complaints that he can act on because they dont want a neighbour problems.

I havent finished it yet either - but it seems council couldnt really do much, nobody wanted to officially complain because they didnt want trouble with the dogs owners. It seems some stories have changed along the way as well.

I would be more concerned if they DIDNT jump around.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/elderly-man-mauled-by-dog/story-e6frfku0-1226057032207 AN elderly man has lost a significant amount of blood after being attacked by a dog while walking near his home in Melbourne's east. Paramedic Leigh Branagan said blood was "trickling down" the footpath when he arrived at Griotte Street, Canterbury, just before 5.30pm (AEST) today after the dog mauled the 83-year-old from behind. Mr Branagan estimated the man had lost about half a litre of blood from the bite wound on his leg. "It was quite a significant amount of blood. It was trickling down the sidewalk when we got there," he said. "(The elderly man) was quite shaken and quite pale." A bystander had wrapped a towel around the wound to stem the flow of blood. The injured man was taken to St Vincent's Hospital in a stable condition. Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/elderly-man-mauled-by-dog/story-e6frfku0-1226057032207#ixzz1MVsGGkiR

It's the yeast that makes them that colour you know, and how they are special enough to be born by immaculate conception.

Funny how these things go missing, I wonder who had something to hide (or something to find). It was silly of me to assume there had been no problems in between without any proof. DOCS recieved a flogging about the case and their lack of action at the time, (her Dad was even on the phone to them trying to contact the case worker, as unkown to anybody Tyra lay dying) I doubt it has made the life of any child that comes the their attention any better but it did see a knee jerk reaction against dogs forced upon councils that has proven unfair and unworkable.

From what I can work out those notices were in 2004 and the owner was given a "final warning" in May 2004. Tyra was killed in July 2006. Its a big gap without any more issues so it sounds like tying them up in a fenced off area in the yard was what was done to prevent them getting out and being a problem. Realisticly the dogs cant have been too much of a concern if the kids were regularly let play with them.

Zug Zug, The yard was to keep dogs in, not keep people out. Most busy kids I know would climb two fences like that with ease, my nephew is two and it would a breeze for him.

I think tdierikx is saying that its a bit rich to try and sue the council because they didnt enforce a law that didnt exsist at that time. I became really interested in this case, not just because of how much damage it caused for hunting dog owners but also because Tyra was the same age as my little girls and it really hit home how horrible it would be to lose them. Its something I dont think any parent should ever have to go through.

Maybe these Mastives are a close relation to the sheep guarding Marinas that were advertised in the Rocky Bulletin last Saturday? If you got one of each maybe you could breed a place to tie up a really big boat. Waterfront property is expensive, they are sure to be worth a fortune.

Tobie, This case is the reason hunting dogs are now treated as if they were dangerous and required to be housed accordingly. Prior to this hunting dogs were treated just like every other dog. Cheers Katrina

I feel the bigger portion of blame needs to be afforded the mother. If you leave small children without adult supervision all day while you spend your time at an RSL then you cant be blaming other people for what happens, however tragic. Its funny how the story changed - the dogs owners and at least the mother of the child were friends - from the best I can recall dad lived away and they were no longer partners. I for one wouldnt be comfortable letting my kids play with a dog I had rung the council about because it chased my other children. Someting doesnt seem quite right and I bet it has a lot to do with cash. Sadly all the money in the world wont bring a little girl back. The dogs were known to Tyra, it is thought she went there to feed them a dead bird she found along the road (somebody had taken it off her earlier and taken her home) and play the "chasing the hose game" she played with the dogs on previous occassions.It is thought a dog got loose or was already loose and a fight broke out between two of the dogs either over the food or from playing. The dogs were chained up, inside a six foot high fence inside a closed yard. Not perfect but doesnt sound like they were kept irresponsibly, even if they may have been two years or more previously. Really though how much more accountability can councils and dog owners take? Parents need to keep their children responsibly or an already overworked DOCS needs to step in just like dog owners need to keep their dogs responsibly or have an already overworked council step in.

I think that this effort is wonderful. Thank you Jan!

Could I please have one as well thanks

With the amount of animals that are killed every year in shelters and pounds I would have thought there would be no end to the dogs and cats available for vet students. It seems that its alright to kill them and throw them in the dump because they are unable to be placed in new homes but not OK for them to be sedated, contribute to young vets learning and then euthed. To me neither are different to the next in regard to the animal suffering, the only differance being one wastes a valuable learning opportunity. I wonder if the former student Lisa realised that these dogs may have just been there because their fearful temperament made them impossible to rehome anyway.

Not only is there the issues of having your pups/dogs/belongings stolen at a later date, yourself being raped/murdered/robbed/assulted, the risk of litigation from or injury to the vistitor if they do something wrong, after all it is a bitch with pups they are wanting to see, injury to the pups and the big one for me, the spread of disease such as Parvo. I dont encourage strangers to visit my home for vague reasons nor do I encourage them to touch my pups. Few working dogs are pedigreed or bred by reistered breeders. I cannot think of a more legitimate reason for owning a dog. It's not hard to find information about working dogs. I do not support the RSPCA having more clout of pushing any laws period. Courts do not make the laws, they decide guilt and consequence. There are a lot more interest groups who need to be involved to make laws fair and workable. Mass desexing is not the answer either. Countries with the lowest dumpage rates tend to only desex for medical conditions. You didnt say anything about medium fluffies, you said little fluffy crossbreeds that turn into big dogs. These dogs are not finding there way into the bush to run in packs and cross breed with dingoes in any type of numbers. They end up dead in landfill for the most part. Often its peoples wandering dogs from small country towns that cause the problems. One of you links has Camp Dogs confused with Wild Dogs, they are a totally different problem. The other lacks credibility due to the motives and other information on the site it is from.

Yes, it would be nice to see a whole bunch of little fluffy puppies and have a pat, but if they really want to do that, why don't they visit a registered breeder, have a pat and get it out of their system, and if they want money, why don't they try putting their efforts in obtaining dogs into working, or doing a drophsip business or something that actually can't hurt living things. The thing that gets me is it is actually getting really bad in Aus, people are getting these little fluffy crossbreeds that turn into big dogs, then either get out or are dumped. They have then become feral, there is a whole class of feral dogs, especially in the more outback areas, and these are crossbreeding with dingos, so soon enough we may not even have many purebred wild dingos left, just feral crossbred dogs. Try a petting zoo, not a registered breeder. Most would baulk at having random strangers and their children over to "get it out of their system". I could not think of anything worse and the consequences are just far too big. There are a whole lot of legitimate reasons for crossbreeding and breeding unregistered dogs. Being a registsred breeder does not make one ethical, some are but some hide behind those that do the right thing, lumping themselves in with "I'm a registered breeder just like her." I could not think of ANYTHING more terrifying than animal rights groups and the RSPCA being responsible for legislation for animals in this country. Please tell me this is a joke? Dumped medium sized white fluffies finding their way into the outback and cross breeding with Dingoes on a large scale? And these MWF are a whole class of feral dogs? We have wild dogs and Dingoes a plenty and have had some huge problems with them this year, but if there are white fluffy anythings about I havent seen them or heard of them from anybody else.

The ANKC had a development registry in place for the ASTCD but they closed the books again a few years ago, which was a crying shame. Maybe they could model off that if they wanted to open studbooks, adding of course all relevent health testing.

I could be wrong, I hope a breeder could correct me, but dont responsible breeders tack a great number of baby pups eyes to prevent damage?

Curlybert, ready access is not something that springs to mind when I think of anything involving guns in Australia, our laws are very strict. I dont think that teens hold all the cards when it comes to being depressed or disturbed and I dont see shooting as a sport any different to any other sport. There are already plenty of juniors who compete without danger to themselves or society. But this is a debate for another place. I do not support hunting of any native wildlife in National Parks unless it was for welfare purposes. I couldnt imagine why somebody would want to shoot Corellas and Galahs unless they were a threat to crops (which shouldnt be growning in National Parks anyway!) To me that is just strange, why would somebody want to go to a National Park and shoot a parrot? Are they going to eat them? Pretty sure they will only do that once! I do support the hunting of feral species in National Parks though. I dont have a problem with game reserves as long as they are well managed. Though I still couldnt imagine why somebody would want to go and shoot any of those species on a game reserve either unless it was to eat.

Tempus Fugit, I agree about trying to eliminate the population of pest species but unless you know of a method where pigs, feral cats, goats, rabbits, foxes, cane toads, brumbies, donkeys, camels, buffalo, banteng, wild dogs or any other feral species I have forgotten could be erradicated then I think that trying to control numbers is the only option. If you are worried about flying bullets and arrows do you then think the use of bailing and holding dogs is a much safer alternitive to forest users, where animals are shot at very close range?

Curlybert, I dont mind what people outside hunting think of the Game Council. I am not involved in anything they do. I only know a small portion of what they do and only that which relates specificly to hunting with dogs. They have educated hunters on how to better care for, work and train their dogs and best practice to ensure humane dispatch. I commend them for this. I dont know what they do with their 3 million, maybe educate hunters, run the R Licence program and look at ways they can benifit not just hunters but the wider community? Maybe buy 1 million cream buns? The funding is small fry compared to what other groups recieve. Could you please supply reference to where they want to shoot native fauna such as parrots in National Parks? Unless it was to euth a sick or dying animal I doubt I would support them in this. I persoanally dont see a problem with having shooting as a school sport. It is not something that I would like to do at all but if Robert Borsak participated in a perfectly legal conservation hunt in another country I dont see the problem. Conservation hunting has helped save struggling African wildlife populations, locked up more land than National Parks as conservation areas and also provide bussiness for the local tribesmen. If he was poaching illegally he should be prosecuted. Aiden, This is where he mentioned bailing dogs on his web site, where it seems he does not approve of the use of bailing dogs This proposal is directly contrary to well established NSW government codes of practice for hunting feral pigs that prohibit the use of dogs to bail or hold pigs This is from one of the SOP's he quotes on his blog If dogs are used they should only bail the pig up and this Trained dogs are sometimes used to detect or flush out pigs prior to shooting Tell me why would he state it is a problem then provide two references where the DPI approve of the practice? I dont know the type of terrain in these parks to say if I think that recreational hunters are going to effectively control feral pig populations. It certainly has in other areas, Pig numbers have been dramaticly reduced in my part of the world in the last 30 years. I attribute it to the continued long term hunting pressure from the chiller trade. Most people who hunt for the chillers are recreational hunters. No one method is a magic bullet, a multi pronged approach has always proven to work best when trying to control numbers. What methods depend on pig numbers, the type of country, the season, food sources, water sources, other species which may be impacted. I think David has the wrong idea about hunting with dogs, he uses words like "bite", "maul", "bring down", "fight", "bloodsport" etc and this has prevented him from actually looking at what happens and comparing it to other methods. He has obviously never been hunting to understand how it is done and the role of the dog, or even when other methods such as ground shooting without a bailing dogs are limited and result in either the pig suffering unnessecarily or no animals being culled.

I dont for a second think he is an enthusiastic supporter of baiting. I said he seems to favour poisoning. If you know why he is targeting dogs being used by hunters in NSW state forests, a subject he knows nothing about and not campaigning against current 1080 baiting in NSW state forests and national parks if he doesnt find baiting a more favourable option for feral pest management then I would like to know. Here is a link to the current baiting advice - theland.farmonline.com.au/classifiedsimages/full/13467251.pdf The purpose of this GC organised hunt is to make an impact on pig numbers prior to wild dog control. How do you think the wild dogs will be controlled in Nundle, Hanging Rock and Tomalla once the pig hunters go home and the forest is closed? Ground shooting is only the most humane method according to the DPI under very specific conditions. Many of these variables can be remove through the use of a dog. It is only effective, another quaility David attaches to it, when used in conjunction with baiting. He refuses to learn about or gain any real insight into ethical hunting with dogs and comes up with statements like "the Game Council is proposing using dogs to fight with feral pigs, in the course of which both dogs and the pigs will face serious mauling". If this were true I would understand why he feels this way, however if he bothered to actually become educated on the subject and the alternitives I am sure he would feel rather differently.

Wow. How many facts did you have to twist to arrive at that conclusion? I lost count. No twisted facts. Read David's blog. Read the Code of Practice. Read the Standard Operating Procedures.

Curlybert, believe what you want and I will believe what I want. No I am not talking about foxes but Dingoes. I didnt see a comment on widescale baiting of pigs conducted by National Parks or other Govt entities either. Baiting doesnot rate a media mention as being unsuitable on the mainland, just using dogs. David incorrectly states in his media release that shooting is the most economically feasible and effective method of control, when infact the method that he is describing is poisoning. The method he states is most humane, shooting, is considered by the NSW DPI to only be effective when conducted in conjunction with other methods such as poisoning. As there has been no media statement released by the NSW Greens publicly condemming baiting so I still stand by my statement - The Greens, or more correctly the Greens MP David Shoebridge seems to favour poisoning - a terribly cruel form of death in anybodies language. David also states that "This proposal is directly contrary to well established NSW government codes of practice for hunting feral pigs that prohibit the use of dogs to bail or hold pigs". The proposal is not contrary to the Code of Practice at all, it is partly contray to the SOP. The COP that David referanced states "The most commonly used feral pig control technique is lethal baiting" and "Lethal baiting is considered the most viable and cost effective method of feral pig control in extensive rangeland areas; however poisons do not usually cause a humane death." It also talks about shooting and how wounded animals may take a while to die due to heart and lung shots, aerial shooting and incorrect projectile placement. The SOP associated with it states that "Shooting must be conducted in a manner that causes immediate insensibility and painless death" as archers aim for the heart/lungs and the code states this does not result in rendering an animal immediatly insensible and are likely to result in a higher incendence of wounding then bow hunting is outside the same SOP that condones hunting with holding dogs. The SOP/COP are the same well reasearched documents drafted with the imput of a cross section of interest groups that refer to how one might find a Cassowary in a pig trap in NSW. Maybe the people they asked had never been in the bush before or maybe they know little about the natural flora and fauna found in NSW.