melzawelza

I can't speak for Victoria as I don't know the legislation like I do NSW, but here we can't just euth a dog, no matter how bad the attack was. The owner has to either surrender it or you have to go to court and seek a destruction order. I'd assume it'd be similar there. ETA: There are exceptions to that if the dog is already declared dangerous or restricted in certain circumstances. But a dog with no history the above applies.

How dreadful, but I don't see what BSL has to do with this? Poor lady, and RIP little doggy It has everything to do with it. BSL is supposed to protect the community from dog attacks. Victoria has the strongest and most draconian BSL in the country, with hundreds of dogs being seized and killed because of their appearance within the state. Yet horrible, horrible attacks continue to occur. This is a perfect example of how BSL targets dogs that may never be an issue, and misses dogs that are.

How utterly awful The poor owners and their dog. More evidence as to the failure of BSL to protect the community.

Tralee you just speak in circles, it's very frustrating.

That is FREAKY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have to say I thought it sounded like a man 'growling' at the dogs, like to try and get them to shut up.

Yes, if going to the dog park is really important to you, and you'd be really, really unhappy if you couldn't then none of the bull breeds are for you. Many turn out to be fine at dog parks but many also don't, so you'd have to be prepared to assess your dog as it grows and give up the dog parks if he or she becomes unsuitable. Are you sure? That sounds enormous. I think my girl is around the 14-16 kgs mark Im sure they vary between sexes but 25 kgs sounds way over. I could be wrong, 25kg is the kind of weight I'd expect from an Amstaff... but people are breeding BOTH breeds way oversize. If you went a well bred, pedigree Amstaff it's likely to be about that weight.

A great blog post from Shel at Saving Pets regarding the reporting of this attack compared to other similar incidents recently. http://www.savingpets.com.au/2012/10/pit-bull-hype-still-rules-aussie-media/

It's pretty obvious that dogs then were more socialised, because they were allowed to wander willy-nilly. There were still dog fights, people being bitten & many who got hit by cars. It's the media & the introduction of social-media, which highlights the bad things that dogs do now. Also, are you talking ALL Bull Breeds? If so, then you are talking about many breeds, would you prefer none of them existed in Australia? Bingo. Dogs were very, very well socialised back then because they were allowed to roam willy-nilly with other dogs from a very young age. They learnt how to behave and how not to behave around other dogs through extensive socialisation. In NSW it became law for all dogs in public to be leased in 1981. Just around the time the 'bull' breeds (APBT, AmStaff, SBT) were arriving in the country. Less attacks has nothing to do with the fact that there weren't bull breeds around, it's just that since the bull breeds have around they have to be contained and leashed in public (which is a good thing of course) and often are not being given the socialisation needed to become well adjusted around other dogs. All breeds suffer from this, look at how many DA small fluffies, GSD, Rotties, and Labs there are about. Plus, you didn't have social media and the internet like you do now. We hear about attacks that happen all around the country now - back then you would only hear about the ones practically in your own back yard. So it seems like there's a lot more now, when I'd hazard that there aren't. You're correct, Boxers are technically a bull breed although they don't fit what most people consider to be a bull breed in colloquial use.

Or, the Amstaff clubs could recognize that they always have and always will be next on the list while BSL is around and rather than trying to stick their fingers in their ears and distance themselves from the dogs that created their dogs they should instead focus their energies into promoting the ineffectiveness of BSL in protecting the community and the proven solutions that do not use it.

It goes without saying that part of the solution is policing the by laws. The Calgary animal control is self-financed. Not a cent of general ratepayer money goes into it (all comes from registration itself). Our legislation is *OK* but even if rigorously enforced would not necesarily acheive what Calgary has. I say bring in the Calgary Model... ALL OF IT (which includes the fact that it is policed effectively and therefore self-funded). So is part of the plan to introduce licences and still keep dog registrations or to abolish dog registrations and bring in owner licences? There is no ownership licensing in Calgary. Just dog licensing (another word for registrations), same as what we currently have here. It's very strongly policed though, which we don't do here (and therefore don't have the funds to do). O.K. So if licensing equals registration of dogs Im good with that but Im not holding my breath to see them enforcing anything here soon. Nope, not until there's a big overhaul and the state governments all agree to adopt something like the Calgary model and commit to it properly. ACO's currently are overworked and expected to look after way more than they can, therefore they can't be proactive, only reactive. The Calgary Model fixes all those issues though, so if governments on a state level committed to it and it was followed properly all those issues would not be issues anymore, and we'd see similar massive reductions in dog bites.

It goes without saying that part of the solution is policing the by laws. The Calgary animal control is self-financed. Not a cent of general ratepayer money goes into it (all comes from registration itself). Our legislation is *OK* but even if rigorously enforced would not necesarily acheive what Calgary has. I say bring in the Calgary Model... ALL OF IT (which includes the fact that it is policed effectively and therefore self-funded). So is part of the plan to introduce licences and still keep dog registrations or to abolish dog registrations and bring in owner licences? There is no ownership licensing in Calgary. Just dog licensing (another word for registrations), same as what we currently have here. It's very strongly policed though, which we don't do here (and therefore don't have the funds to do).

It goes without saying that part of the solution is policing the by laws. The Calgary animal control is self-financed. Not a cent of general ratepayer money goes into it (all comes from registration itself). Our legislation is *OK* but even if rigorously enforced would not necesarily acheive what Calgary has. I say bring in the Calgary Model... ALL OF IT (which includes the fact that it is policed effectively and therefore self-funded).

We already know what the proven solution is to drastically reducing dog bite incidents - it's the Calgary Model and it doesn't involve BSL. The key points of the Calgary Model are contained in these links: http://www.defendingdog.com/id38.html http://www.defendingdog.com/id40.html http://www.endbslmanitoba.com/calgary-model-works/calgary-model/ These links contain the stats of how successful it is: http://www.stopcanineprofiling.com/calgary.keys.php http://supporthersheysbill.com/calgary-model/

The only thing ridiculous is your utter blindness to reality and refusal to accept that the dog that you defend so blindly is potentially more dangerous than a large amount of other breeds. I haven't met any registered APBT's in Australia but, when I was in the UK I met and experienced both registered and non, pet and fighting lines and have witnessed first hand with my own eyes what the aftermath looks like when one decides to demonstrate "gameness" and I tell you now that it was not something that I would want to see again. It amazes me how many people say that APBT's can't be HA, as any dog that bites its handler is culled, hence stopping that trait being passed on. Yet I have met several dogs that have later suffered that fate and know full well that they had already been bred from. What do you reckon happens then, the breeder puts out a recall for its offspring and then culls them as well? yeah right! Never ever underestimate an APBT they are beautiful when they are good (which is the majority of the time IME) but they have the ability to become very ugly, very quickly No reference for your 50kg claim then? No retraction? Still saying that APBT owners don't recognize their power and potential compared to other breeds? I reference you to all my other posts which agreed that they have much more power than dogs smaller than them and given identical situatons will do more damage. All your 'comparison' breeds and beagles and dachshunds so of course I agree with that. I dispute that if they attack they are soooooo much more dangerous, and have soooooooo much more potential than breeds larger than them if they attacked in the same situation (Rottweilers, GSD, Mastiffs, LGD... List goes on) as you wish to keep insisting on claiming despite no evidence other than your opinion (the same opinion that claimed that APBT were 50kg). ALL large breed dogs have potential for serious, devastating injury and must be owned and managed responsibly by their owners. There is just as much onus on a Rottweiler owner as there is an APBT owner, and to suggest otherwise is absolutely ridiculous. APBT are not some sort of mythical beast that is unlike every single other breed of dog. They are a dog with some genetic tendencies and strength that means they require responsible, careful owners. Many other large breeds of dog have different tendencies that can be just as dangerous, and they also require responsible, careful owners If you were spouting the same argument but it was 'large dogs vs small dogs' I wouldn't have an issue. My issue is your insistence that the APBT is vastly more 'dangerous' than every other breed of dog on the planet, including large guarding breeds. How about you go back through my posts and I think you will find that I frequently mention APBT, amStaff and bull or bull type breeds, it is you who is focusing on APBT's in particular! maybe you should identify exactly what the argument is before you go spouting yourself! I am including all bull breeds. An APBT, AmStaff, SBT etc all require a responsible owner. Just like Rottweilers, livestock guardian dogs, German shepherds, malinois, mastiffs, cane corso and so on and so on and so on. The bigger the dog, the more likely to do damage. An APBT is a medium size dog and can be tenacious, which requires a certain level of management and knowledge for successful ownership, but being that they are only medium sized there are plenty of much larger dogs that pose just as much of a risk (if not more) if each attacked in identical situations. I tell you what, my pit type dog didn't stand a chance against the dog that attacked her last week (which was much largwr than her).If a passerby had not quickly grabbed its lead before things got really ugly it would have been horrific.

The only thing ridiculous is your utter blindness to reality and refusal to accept that the dog that you defend so blindly is potentially more dangerous than a large amount of other breeds. I haven't met any registered APBT's in Australia but, when I was in the UK I met and experienced both registered and non, pet and fighting lines and have witnessed first hand with my own eyes what the aftermath looks like when one decides to demonstrate "gameness" and I tell you now that it was not something that I would want to see again. It amazes me how many people say that APBT's can't be HA, as any dog that bites its handler is culled, hence stopping that trait being passed on. Yet I have met several dogs that have later suffered that fate and know full well that they had already been bred from. What do you reckon happens then, the breeder puts out a recall for its offspring and then culls them as well? yeah right! Never ever underestimate an APBT they are beautiful when they are good (which is the majority of the time IME) but they have the ability to become very ugly, very quickly No reference for your 50kg claim then? No retraction? Still saying that APBT owners don't recognize their power and potential compared to other breeds? I reference you to all my other posts which agreed that they have much more power than dogs smaller than them and given identical situatons will do more damage. All your 'comparison' breeds and beagles and dachshunds so of course I agree with that. I dispute that if they attack they are soooooo much more dangerous, and have soooooooo much more potential than breeds larger than them if they attacked in the same situation (Rottweilers, GSD, Mastiffs, LGD... List goes on) as you wish to keep insisting on claiming despite no evidence other than your opinion (the same opinion that claimed that APBT were 50kg). ALL large breed dogs have potential for serious, devastating injury and must be owned and managed responsibly by their owners. There is just as much onus on a Rottweiler owner as there is an APBT owner, and to suggest otherwise is absolutely ridiculous. APBT are not some sort of mythical beast that is unlike every single other breed of dog. They are a dog with some genetic tendencies and strength that means they require responsible, careful owners. Many other large breeds of dog have different tendencies that can be just as dangerous, and they also require responsible, careful owners If you were spouting the same argument but it was 'large dogs vs small dogs' I wouldn't have an issue. My issue is your insistence that the APBT is vastly more 'dangerous' than every other breed of dog on the planet, including large guarding breeds.

Where is your reference thanks? What registry has stated this? ETA: Wherever it's from, it's wrong. United Kennel Club standard link here: UKB APBT standard UKC dogs are typically bigger, more muscular and have more weight on them than ADBA registered dogs, so they are actually on the BIGGER end of the APBT scale. You have clearly never met an APBT in your life. 50kg... how ridiculous.

yes they are. Lots of them. I've shown my bitch in season and I'm not the lone ranger. My bad. I have had a few people tell me now it is bad form to bring a bitch in heat to a show but maybe that was their specific breed or they were mistaken. It would be the same weight as a Rhodesian Ridgeback Don't shoot the messenger, the standard says 25-35kg, I've never seen an obese show dog hence if as a standard it can weigh 35kg are you honestly saying that it couldn't waeigh 40-50 if allowed to become overweight much like the majority of pet dogs (sadly) or are we saying that these irresponsible, bogan nair do well owners may not train or manage their dogs in any other way but their weight! :-) Sorry but where are you getting this information from!? Every single APBT I've seen states: "Desirable weight for a mature male in good condition is between 35 and 60 pounds. Desirable weight for a mature female in good condition is between 30 and 50 pounds." So that's males 15-27kg, females 13-22. Have you ever met an APBT? Your GSP would be larger than 99% of them. Source I have to totally disagree with this statement. Entire male dogs are shown week in week out, all around the country, along side each other and bitches in season and there is very rarely any problem with aggression despite large numbers of dogs being confined to a small area. If what you said was true, every dogshow would be one big dogfight. If all of those dogs were off leash and left to their own devices with a bitch on heat present, you don't believe those dogs would begin to fight amongst each other? What do you believe the reaction would be? Peaceful interaction? Are the handlers not managing any potential aggression by handling their dog appropriately? ETA: I have personally been to dog shows where fights have broken out between entires when they were too close to each other and owners had to separate their dogs. Are you saying this never happens and is quite out of the ordinary? There are always lots of in season bitches at shows and most dogs, while interested in the bitches, ignore the the other dogs. Dog fights have happened at shows but they are extremely rare and one of the main offending breeds is Amstaffs, especially when they were first introduced. Since then the breeders do seem to have done a lot of work in regard to breeding for better temperament. Many of the smaller terrier breeds would also fight but among the other breeds the only one that comes to mind as having multiple fights over the years are Akitas. There are several breeds that might threaten or even occasionally grab another dog that gets too close at times but if the other dog submits, there is no fight or damage which is normal canine behaviour. BTW, I was in no way comparing Greyhounds and Pitbulls, just the scheme that exists to allow Greys to go without muzzles. Surely a similar scheme for Pitbulls and crosses would be better than the Victorian solution of just requiring them all to be pts? I make no apologies for my dislike of Pitbulls and their crosses, as my several interactions with them have all been negative and despite seeing many breeds over many years they are the only breed I have have never encountered a friendly and non dog aggressive one. You have not acknowledged that all dogs at shows are LEASHED and under control of their owners, something which these dogs were not. You can't compare the two situations.

I have to totally disagree with this statement. Entire male dogs are shown week in week out, all around the country, along side each other and bitches in season and there is very rarely any problem with aggression despite large numbers of dogs being confined to a small area. If what you said was true, every dogshow would be one big dogfight. If all of those dogs were off leash and left to their own devices with a bitch on heat present, you don't believe those dogs would begin to fight amongst each other? What do you believe the reaction would be? Peaceful interaction? Are the handlers not managing any potential aggression by handling their dog appropriately? ETA: I have personally been to dog shows where fights have broken out between entires when they were too close to each other and owners had to separate their dogs. Are you saying this never happens and is quite out of the ordinary? Bingo. Plus, bitches in heat usually aren't present at shows anyway. Dancinbcs you have obviously missed all the evidence that shows that BSL is ineffective in preventing dog attacks, is extremely costly to the taxpayer and wastes enormous amounts of resources that could be spent actually dealing with problem dogs?

Thanks Aussie, she is fine and -shock horror- didn't fight back. I thought all APBT fight back and are game and attack and are large and muscular and powerful and are MONSTERS :laugh:

Luke GSP I will reply to your questions as best I can. Gameness and dog aggression are two completely seperate things, which is why I stated that you have a real lack of understanding of the APBT. Aggressive dogs can have no gameness at all and non aggressive dogs can be very game. The below link explains it well. http://stason.org/TULARC/animals/dogs/american-pit-bull-terriers-breed/12-What-exactly-is-gameness.html The crux of it: "Gameness in APBT's is a canine virtue that is most akin to the human virtue of unflagging courage. It is a determination to master any situation and never back down out of fear. It was developed in pit bulls by many generations of selective breeding. It is what allows a pit bull to keep fighting non-stop for two or more hours, in spite of broken bones, torn muscles, blood loss, dehydration, and exhaustion. But it is also valued by APBT owners who would never think of fighting their dogs. It is manifested in the can-do attitude of pit bulls toward any type of challenge, whether agility competitions, climbing up trees, or protecting their family against an armed attacker, etc. Generally speaking, a game dog is an emotionally stable, easy-going dog, especially good with kids. Gameness should not be confused with aggressiveness. There are plenty of aggressive dogs that are not game, and there are game pit bulls who are not aggressive toward other types of dogs. Aggressiveness will propell a dog into a fight but will only sustain him for the first few minutes. Gameness, on the other hand, will not necessarily make a dog fight-happy; but if the dog has no other choice but to fight, a game dog will fight until it wins or dies trying, and will keep going as long as necessary." A game dog when FORCED (i.e attacked) will fight back, and fight back hard. That doesn't mean the game dog will start the fight. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. See above. Because typically they aren't game, so if forced to fight for their lives they will give up from exhaustion or pain. Again I re-iterate that gameness does not mean the dog will start fights, and not all APBT show high levels of gameness or even being game at all. See above. Again, complete and utter lack of understanding of even the basics of the APBT. 50 kilos? Are you serious? Most APBT weigh in the low 20-kilo range. They are a medium sized dog. They are also not heavy-set at all. They are lean dogs that are athletic and agile. Think of Jackie Chan as opposed The Rock. Of course an APBT is going to do more damage than a 10kg dog in similar circumstances. No one is denying that. The bigger the dog, the more damage it is going to do. Similarly, there are a myriad of breeds that are much, much larger that APBT and would do much more damage in that situation. The APBT also does not have the strongest bite strength of all dogs. Rottweilers, German Shepherds and Mastiffs have much stronger bites. Again I re-iterate, no APBT or bull breed owner would deny that their dogs have much more potential for damage than dogs of smaller or even similar size. But to single them out as if they cause injuries unlike ALL other dogs is insanity. Any dog larger than them (of which there are an enormous amount of breeds considering they are actually small-medium dogs) can do just as much and worse damage. If you want proof, check out these links. Warning the second link has some pretty horrific dog attack injury photos: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/do-certain-types-of-dogs-inflict-injuries-unlike-other-types-of-dogs/ http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/photographic-illustration-of-dog-bites Your snarky comment here looks pretty silly now, doesn't it? I agree 100% in the laws of physics and I also agree that smaller and less muscular dogs are not going to cause as much damage in identical situations (that's not to say in different situations they can't cause huge damage. You only have to look at the fatality list to see small dogs killing babies). You seem to have no idea that the APBT is a small - medium dog that generally weighs 25kg and under, and a vast amount of breeds are much bigger/stronger, and therefore laws of physics means they are able to do just as much if not more damage. So we're in agreeance then. APBT can do lots of damage if they attack. Owners must be aware of this and contain and manage their dogs appropriately. Similarly, all the breeds that are bigger than them can also do lots (if not more) damage when they attack, and their owners must contain and manage their dogs appropriately. Small dog owners shouldn't underestimate their dogs ability to cause injury in the right circumstances either.

I care. Labelling these dogs as "monsters" suggests that somehow they are extraordinary. Until I hear evidence to the contrary, I'll consider them highly dog aggressive dogs. No more, no less. Hyperbolic language is what I expect of the press, not people discussing these incidents on a dog forum. Exactly, thank you. MUP wasn't the original person using hyperbolic, over the top emotional language though, Dogmad was (although I've seen a consistent pattern of this through her posts on this forum whenever she refers to bull breeds so it was to be expected). Have we met? I don't think so Melzalwela but please enlighten me as you are part of a small group on here that chooses to select anything I say and just run with it, being quite over the top. I don't get the fascination - you don't know much about me and what I do, it's obvious. Why can't you focus on the topic at hand? I find a consistent pattern in your threads too, and that's not a compliment. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to form that opinion based on experiences. You don't know what my experiences are. Perhaps you are one of those that likes to criticise as I'm one of the small dog rescuers and small dogs don't count, they are so easy aren't they? Primarily I am but again, you have no idea what I do if you think that is all I do. Rather than focus on the terrible incident that has taken place, you have chosen to go on and on about a comment. What if I'd said "nasty dogs" instead? You would have acted exactly the same. It's like being at school, perhaps you and Plan B are not long out of it? What if it had been you and your dog being attacked? Would you have trauma and nightmares after, I suspect you would. Might it fill your mind with fear every time you contemplated stepping out your own front door. Probably. If anyone is faced with two powerful animals ripping their flesh and trying to kill their own dog, I think they might use the term monster - bull breeds or not. I was recently faced with 2 German Shorthaired Pointers making a nuisance of themselves with a medium sized dog I had - it wasn't nice, I could not get them off. Luckily they didn't attack him but they did attack a dog the next day so I was lucky. I would have used the same terminology for them, they were huge, they were powerful. My issue has nothing to do with you rescuing and dealing with small dogs, that is an assumption on your part. My issue is simply to do with the hyperbolic, sensationalist way you always seem to discuss bull breeds, which was displayed in this thread. I was far from the only one to pick you up on it. As I've stated a few times, no one is excusing these dogs and their actions. I have actually strongly condemned them in this thread numerous times. As for how I would feel if my dog was attacked? Actually, my pit bull type dog was attacked by a larger and more powerful dog last week that came free from it's owner and crossed a busy street to attack mine. Was I scared? Yes. Was I furious? Yes. Was I on edge the next few times I walked her? Yes. Was the dog a monster? No. It was a highly DA dog that was owned by an idiot that hadn't trained it and couldn't control it even though he had it on the lead in a public place. Did I blame it's breed? No, even though it was of another breed that often gets a 'bad rap'. The issue here was the owner's inability to control the dog. Not it's breed. Did I report it to Council? Yes. As sad as it is for the dog that action may be taken against it, it is owned by someone that cannot control it and it will go on to do much further damage in the future if left unchecked. The point of my above story is to show you that none of us are excusing the dogs for their behaviour. We aren't 'attacking' you and ignoring the incident. We just value that people, ESPECIALLY people on a dog forum who work extensively with dogs should have the common sense to avoid hyperbole and hysteria in these sorts of incidents.

http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/teen-has-ear-bitten-off-by-dogs-20121031-28ife.html Is that not a direct contradiction? How does this make sense? Or does this person just not have a clue at all? Higgins has no idea. He was quoted on TV when Ayen Chol was killed saying that 'fighting breeds are not domesticated', and then went on to say he doesn't support BSL. I think he means well but he comes across as a fruit loop.

Luke GSP you show a real lack of understanding of the APBT.

I care. Labelling these dogs as "monsters" suggests that somehow they are extraordinary. Until I hear evidence to the contrary, I'll consider them highly dog aggressive dogs. No more, no less. Hyperbolic language is what I expect of the press, not people discussing these incidents on a dog forum. Exactly, thank you. MUP wasn't the original person using hyperbolic, over the top emotional language though, Dogmad was (although I've seen a consistent pattern of this through her posts on this forum whenever she refers to bull breeds so it was to be expected).

Great article, thanks for posting. Also heard this interview today as well: http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/10/31/3622393.htm Which was also sensible and reasonable. I have felt a shift in the media in the last couple of years and this is only restoring my faith more.