melzawelza

Please note that I haven't quoted Melza's full post :) . Whether attack numbers are on the decline or not, we have to force those responsible for managing dogs in the community to do their jobs. How many times on these forums have we heard posters say that they were unable to get a ranger or that the rangers wouldn't come out on weekends. (Yes, I know there are wonderful wonderful rangers out there - but they are in a minority.) There may not be a dog bit epidemic "as the media would have us believe", but I think if you look at stats from hospitals you would be aghast at the numbers. Those that are reported in the newspapers are only the horrific ones and just a small percentage of the actual bites and attacks. Anyone who has been involved in dog rescue and pounds and who out in the streets everyday with their dogs as I am, would be able to fill a book with stories the incredible lack of knowledge within the general public about what is on the end of the leash. Agree totally on all your points, I just wanted to point out that if we're comparable to the USA (which we are in pretty much all other Animal Management stats) then it's not worse now that it was some years ago :)

Agree totally that everything else should be examined too - I just meant in relation to the euthanasia that the dog should be evaluated first. Dog attacks all around the world are actually hugely on the decline - I don't have Aussie stats at hand but there is a study on reported dog attacks in the USA from the 70s until now and the decline is HUGE, coinciding with laws regarding dogs being contained and kept on leash in public etc. It would be the same in Australia. It seemsso much worse because these days we hear about things that happen on the other side of the country. In the 70s you'd only hear about what was happening in your own little town, but now you and I in NSW are discussing a dog attack that happened in WA. Doesn't mean we discount them and stop trying to make that rate even lower, but there isn't a dog bite epidemic as the media would have us believe.

Agreed and I'll add to that, any organisation that has powers such as the RSPCA should be answerable to someone. The RSPCA in Australia can do what it likes to whom it likes and there's stuff all you can do about it. I'm yet to get an answer on just who you complain to when you have a grievance. Agree totally. Corruption can exist everywhere but especially when people have positions of power.

Absolutely awful, that poor poor woman! I really want to hear more background on this one. I saw a picture of the dog being carried to the van, so it was obviously able to be handled by the ACO. Agreed absolutely, but I just wish they would do a full behavioural evaluation of the dog prior. How will we ever learn from such a tragedy otherwise?

In the USA Animal Control Officers deal with cruelty investigations as well as all the things that ACO's deal with here - so it's looked after by a Government department. Seems like a much better system to me.

All dogs are potentially dangerous. You took the words out of my mouth. And mine. No successful animal management strategy in the world has ever succeeded by focusing on breeding.

Great update, great work!

Very sad state of affairs there, for dogs and humans alike.

Council officers. There won't be any extra work in it - Council officers have to investigate incidents now, and minor incidents with no injury are reported all the time. It will just give the Officer more options at their disposal come the time that the investigation closes and they have to decide what action to take. It will always be the Council officer's opinion or decision as to whether the dog is menacing rather than dangerous or neither. Hopefully the legislation is written in such a way that it is clear and easy to define.

Under the current definition of an attack a dog that does all of those things in NSW can already and often is declared Dangerous by the Council - with all that that entails (including building a child proof enclosure with a concrete floor and a roof). I'm hopeful that the introduction of a menacing category will allow for a more realistic and able to be complied-with restrictions being placed on the dog rather than the whole dangerous dog requirements. Will depend on how it's written.

Council officers have been asking for a lesser category of Dangerous Dog without the enclosure for at least the last three years, and this recommendation was made in Feb. Deeon hasn't prompted this, but it's made the Minister stop ignoring it. You're absolutely right that it wouldn't prevent what happened to Deoon. It won't prevent most attacks, because it's still only focusing on punitive measures rather than education and incentives for responsible pet ownership. But if it's implemented properly it will offer a better outcome for a lot of dogs that have been involved in an incident while still keeping the community safe.

IF this is implemented properly it could be a really good thing. Currently the only option we have following an attack that puts ANY restriction whatsoever on how the dog is managed is a Dangerous Dog declaration. This entails the full enclosure, with a concrete floor, walls and a roof, which costs at least 3k to build and can't be complied with by people in apartments or townhouses. This is absolute overkill for most dog attacks, which are fairly minor in nature and with some education and management would never happen again, especially if the backyard is already secure and the incident didn't happen as a result of an escape, and what you have is Council officers either going overkill with a dangerous dog declaration (which could result in the dog being destroyed if the owner can't comply) or under-kill and simply issuing a fine but placing no restriction on the dog or the owner. Having the ability to get a dog muzzled and on-leash in public with a secure backyard but WITHOUT the incredibly onerous enclosure could be a huge win for the dogs in some cases (where they would have been declared dangerous and had to live a terrible life or be euthanased) or for the community in others (when really the dog needs some restrictions but the Council can't do so without the whole hog and therefore doesn't). I remain sceptical at this point as to whether this will actually be written and implemented in a workable way, seeing as no one actually on the ground enforcing these laws has been consulted. But I live in hope. ETA that most Councils go the overkill route since the Tyra Kehune case. It's better to take too much action than not enough and something else happen. So if it's implemented properly this could be really good for dog owners and save a hell of a lot of dead dogs or dogs living their lives in a cage that don't need to.

I just saw… I didn't realise Ruth put a pic up Looks like the general consensus is burgundy… that's what I was leaning toward too…my girl is quite a rich red and I wasn't sure if it would clash though. I like the brass too… hmm but what about bling.. pink… amber… she has amber coloured eyes. Decisions decisions... Cocoa's colouring is almost identical to your girl and her collar is Burgundy. I also wasn't 100% sure if it would clash initially, and I initially also said no pink gemstones because I was SURE they would clash. Ruth said I was wrong... and she was right!! LOL. I brought Cocoa over and tried her dog Angel's collar on her, which was Burgundy leather with pink stones and it looked GREAT! So I admitted defeat and I'm so glad I did!

Just read through the thread, I'm so sorry for your loss

Def email - they are great at helping with custom orders!

Ruthless Leather. Seriously. Ruth and Dave helped me custom make one for my girl which I got a few weeks ago. I also wanted something feminine and girly and they delivered! It's the latest design on the website. They also custom made me an awesome three-way lead. The quality is really, REALLY good. Plus it's all handmade. It's SO sparkly in the sunlight, very hard to capture in a photo, but I've had so many comments!

Oh god, so sorry to hear. I know of a lot of dogs with MCT that have had it removed and gone on to live long, happy lives, so I am hoping for that with Bruno too. I would be absolutely FURIOUS and would certainly make a complaint to the vet board. That is just unacceptable.

Yet again we have legislators continuing with failed BSL, and simply adding more punitive measures which on it's own will NEVER decrease dog attacks in a significant way. Why do they continue to ignore the failed models that have worked around the world? Enforcement is incredibly important but only after extensive education campaigns, and an animal control model that sets people up to succeed (i.e rewards good behaviour heavily). You give people every opportunity to be responsible pet owners and most will be. The heavy enforcement is saved for that minority who continue to do the wrong thing despite being given every opportunity to be responsible. None of this is useful without a well-funded animal control department either, which AC departments never are, unless you're talking about the proven models of success that sees the department funded entirely by pet licencing, not the taxpayer.

Do I need to say again that: Missing dogs does not necessarily mean stolen. Confirmed Stolen dogs does not necessarily mean dog fighting. Yes, dogs are stolen. Yes, dogfighting happens. But to make the leap that most people do with no evidence on such a large scale(from 'missing' to 'dog fighting') is unfair to the dog owners, the community and the dogs themselves.

Yeah, there's never any swimmers and family there, it's not patrolled. It's always been a 'dog beach'. And in my (limited) experiences people there are pretty good with their dogs. As Sam said, the expanse of beach at Cronulla is HUGE... there is an incredibly long length where dogs are prohibited where families with kids can go.

Yep and it's great that the articles are making the papers trying to dispel the myth. Unfortunately, as we've seen on this very forum, people seem to want to cling very strongly to these hoaxes, despite no evidence that it is actually occurring. It's a shame because it not only hurts the owners of missing dogs but it hurts the dogs themselves.

Given that a Chessie is not a common breed and most wouldn't know what a Chessie is to nominate that breed does sound a bit strange Too easy at the stroke of a pen........dog breeding is illegal without a licence, parents of crossbreeds must be temperament tested by a recognised entity. That will eliminate most of the shit breeding's to begin with. Aside from the Bull X breeds, these little fluffy crossbreeds out of the puppy farms, the one's that run on their sides on the retractor leash pent up with massive dog aggression need a tune up too as a lot of the breeding's on those a no good either. Remember Melz, the genetic predisposition must be in the dog in the first place for the environment to trigger it.........it's not the other way around. Good luck finding the funding and man power to enforce it. Good luck dealing with the public outcry after euthanasia stats in the pounds skyrocket when we have to strt seizing dogs for non-compliace. Good luck trying to deal with all the illegal 'underground' backyard breeders breeding even worse quality dogs than before. Good luck dealing with a general public completely resenting and rebelling against uniform coming into their houses and taking their dogs. You show a distinct lack of understanding of the enforcement side of things. And yet we have a totally do-able model that funds itself that is proven to reduce dog attacks by astounding numbers, and you continue to ignore it and insist on focusing on breeds.

Thanks, korbin. Just the one. I hope it's not a one-off ... we need this kind of information being repeated, again & again, to the public. There's some more things that could be added on.... like further spot-on US research & also info from medical sources. Hope this is the beginning of information with a lot more substance.... than chasing dog breeds or sizes. Yeah, we all know that responsible management of those types of dogs will reduce attacks, but what they are missing is that you can't make pig hunters out of any dog, you can't make protection dogs out of any dog, a dog must have the genetic capabilities to either be trained to attack and fight or attack and fight instinctively and the point is, the same owners with dogs that don't have the genetic capabilities for unprovoked attacks, these horrific incidents wouldn't happen You could have saved yourself risking concussion if you'd read both the SMH article (with link provided by korbin) & what I said in telling about it. The article sets out the interacting factors which shape a dog's behaviour....provided by the AVA. And that includes genes. To reinforce that point, I wrote about the person who makes the decision about selection for breeding: They (i.e.the SMH) have an excellent article pointing out owners (& the first owner who does the breeding) largely shape how dogs turn out. I read Korbin's link that I responded to? Sure Melz, so when you get a Labrador working in front line defence at the police K9 unit, then we will continue the discussion on genetic predisposition :D And when you manage to reduce dog attacks by regulating dog breeds and breeding, we can continue the discussion on animal management.

Thanks, korbin. Just the one. I hope it's not a one-off ... we need this kind of information being repeated, again & again, to the public. There's some more things that could be added on.... like further spot-on US research & also info from medical sources. Hope this is the beginning of information with a lot more substance.... than chasing dog breeds or sizes. Yeah, we all know that responsible management of those types of dogs will reduce attacks, but what they are missing is that you can't make pig hunters out of any dog, you can't make protection dogs out of any dog, a dog must have the genetic capabilities to either be trained to attack and fight or attack and fight instinctively and the point is, the same owners with dogs that don't have the genetic capabilities for unprovoked attacks, these horrific incidents wouldn't happen You know, just because you repeat something over and over again doesn't make it true.

It actually doesn't. The areas that have seen wonderful success with reducing dog attacks have never focused on this aspect of animal management. Improvement in breeding practices is often a nice by-product of models such as the Calgary Model, but it's never needed to be focused on. A lot of these dogs are purposely bred for aggression and are purchased for that reason.........the owners are not interested in effective animal management, they want a dog at the minimum will intimidate or bite people, protect their property etc. And yet focusing on education, having sensible legislation, giving owners every opportunity to comply and then heavily penalising the few that don't drastically reduces dog bites to an almost non existent level in the community - all without focusing on breed or breeding. Fancy that.