melzawelza

I agree :) I think we're on the same page with this one. I do think that saying 'just dogs' actually trivializes what happened and should be avoided. But I understand that that wasn't the intent of the person saying it, and I understand why they said it.

Where has anyone said that they shouldn't be destroyed I 'punished'? Where has anyone said they're excusing the behaviour? You've missed the point completely. And no, they didn't turn into 'monsters', for all the reasons already mentioned as to why that word is inappropriate. They turned into adult unsocialised dog-aggressive dogs that were not trained and effectively managed by their owner so as to not pose a threat to society.

I think it's just people interpreting phrases differently. To me - if we accept that dogs can be aggressive, that this sort of thing can happen for x reason (x reason being to do with dog behaviour) then a comment like 'this is what dogs do' makes sense. I understand that it trivializes and normalizes the behaviour which I don't think is the intent. But if we can all agree that this is not unexplainable 'monster'-like behaviour and in fact is easily explained if you understand dog behaviour, we can logically say that this is what (some) dogs do. If more people recognized that and trained and contained their dogs adequately, these things wouldn't be happening.

I think we're seeing things slightly differently. I don't think the behaviour is normal but I am not surprised that dogs are capable of it. Combine high levels of dog aggression (probably temperament combined with lack of socialisation), pack behaviour, with a propensity to redirect (which a huge amount of dogs do) and you can explain the reasons for it from a dog behaviour perspective. Saying words like 'vile monsters' takes away all of that knowledge, common sense and perspective and evokes the feelings of them being the kind of thing you fear because of its horrific, supernatural abilities and it might be hiding under the bed waiting for you. It's not helpful and it's ridiculous coming from someone who supposedly understands dogs. As for why they're now attacking humans, I would Doubt very very much that these dogs are proven pure bred APBT. Mix some guarding breeds in (which would explain the size of these so called APBT we keep hearing about) and bingo - human aggression and the propensity to redirect. I'd bet my life savings that if these dogs were actually pure bred APBT bred to standard the owner would not be injured. The dog - maybe.

I don't think anyone is saying it's ok or acceptable behaviour.I know I'm not, and the breed makes it even more unacceptable for me. The dogs should be euthanased after a thorough investigation INCLUDING temperament and physical condition. I think people are just responding to the over-the-top hyperbole of calling them 'vile monsters'. They are dogs. They are dog aggressive, and attacked another dog and redirected on its owner. While it may not be 'normal' dog behaviour in the way we'd like to imagine, it's not uncommon and happens quite often from all breeds. Dogs are capable of these sorts of things and we should never forget it. Methinks Dogmad should write for the Herald with that kind of sensationalism.

No arguments here. What does that have to do with the dogs breed?

Double post.

Scenes like this were happening long before breed banning. I'm talking about the fact that there are no breed enthusiasts breeding anymore. This kind of scene is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE for even a game bred pit fighter. It is possibly the most important part of an APBT temperament that they do not redirect onto humans. If you demonise and then ban breeds then all the enthusiasts and custodians of the breed stop breeding (because they are law abiding citizens), and all you have left is the dregs of society breeding them because of their reputation. There has been a retraction in the media as to breed this morning. It is now being stated that they were AmStaffs.

Sorry but you are generalising entire breeds and that is just silly. Are you suggesting that some breeds have never, ever had any individuals within their type attack another dog while loose?? Because that's what your wording means. Plenty of individuals from other breeds actively seek out dogs to attack while loose, and plenty of APBT's do not attack other dogs while loose. This is an individual dog issue. Yes bull breeds can be more prone to dog aggression generally, but to suggest that It is widespread and a 'norm' for them to severely attack other animals unprovoked is completely wrong. Likewise, to suggest that other breeds don't do so is also wrong.

Such an awful occurrence and just completely unacceptable. I hope the owner absolutely has the book thrown at him. From breed enthusiasts this behaviour is also completely unacceptable and uncharacteristic for the breed. An APBT should NEVER redirect onto a human, not even for a tiny nip let alone severing an ear. This is what happens when you ban breeds. Only idiots with no idea breed them and create dogs with serious temperament flaws.

Only banned in VIC. If in doubt read your state's Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

He was a magnificent dog, far too young

You might not be aware that King passed away suddenly about a month or so ago

There comes all the exact same m-sass arguments all over again. What is wrong with people that they constantly have to make new profiles over and over again to argue the same tired old points easily refuted by science. Please don't feed the troll guys. You will never, ever get anywhere. It's pointless.

It's done via a visual inspection but there are absolutely no guidelines for what constitutes a restricted breed visually in NSW. The assessors are dogs NSW judges. The whole premise is ridiculous but it does mean that we can definitively ensure dogs are not the targets of restricted breed legislation after rehoming. The assessment costs $50. Yes the dog receives a piece of paper stating that it is NOT restricted and it's valid for the rest of its life. The assessment process and outcome is also marked on the dogs microchip so it is immediately accessable by Council officers even if they lose their paperwork. If its declared a pit x by the assessor and goes on to pass a temp test it also gets a piece of paper clearing it. It is expressly stated in the legislation that a breed assessor's decision is final. It's not valid in VIC because each state has its own legislation. These dogs are only safe in NSW. ETA: and can we all please please ignore M-sass? I'm sick of him derailing all the threads. If we don't feed him, he won't keep posting.

Very true for VIC. Here in NSW we can have our rescue dogs breed assessed by an official breed assessor and cleared as not being restricted breed before rehoming. This is an official process and the assessors decision is final. Of course, they can be assessed as restricted but it doesn't happen too often. They may come back as a cross if a restricted breed and it they pass a temp test they are therefore safe.

And rescue dogs? What of people who have acquired them?

I'm getting in early placing bets that steamboat is m-sass reincarnated.

Sorry to hear

Aphra, thank you for putting into words so eloquently all that I felt while reading the report. I read it before bed last night and couldn't sleep I was so upset and angry. I hopes for so much more. I hoped we would actually learn something from this poor little girl's death and would be able to finally put some evidence-based measures into place. Ayen Chol deserved so much more and I'm disgusted. Political document is right. The dog was 40 kilos! For them to just accept unequivocally from the start that the dog was an APBT is mind boggling. To then decide that the sole reason for the attack was the dogs supposed breed... UGH!!!!

Actually, yes I can, although my evidence is anecdotal, based on our rescue group and the other groups we know and work with. We take dogs from pounds, we rarely get to meet them before we take them, the pounds themselves don't do anything other than the most basic of temperament assessments (i.e. does it show obvious human aggression/serious dog aggression), but 90% of the dogs we get are nice, well tempered, normal dogs. The most usual behavioural issues they exhibit are those which the general population of dogs exhibit, such as jumping up, pulling on the lead and a general lack of manners. But visit any park and you'll see non-rescue dogs showing pretty much the same behaviours. Dogs end up in pounds for lots of reasons which don't always have anything to do with the dogs themselves. Marriage break-downs, housing issues, other kinds of changes in circumstance, country dogs chasing stock, people having children, farmers and hunters breeding litters and then not being able to rehome all the puppies, backyard breeders dumping unwanted puppies or breeding stock, and yes, some dogs with behaviours which owners can't, or more often, won't be bothered fixing. One reason why dogs stay in pounds is the inability of their owners to pay the pound fines to recover their dogs. We know that a percentage of the dogs we take had homes who would have taken them back, but couldn't come up with several hundred dollars to pay a find and spring their dog. You might characterise them as irresponsible for the dog ending up in the pound, but quite a number of dogs did have homes who wanted them back, but didn't have the resources to do so. I'm not convinced that killing a dog because the owner wasn't as good as they might have been is a useful outcome. We've had a handful of challenging dogs, we've euthed a handful of dogs for health or temperament, but on the whole the 300 plus dogs we've rehomed in the last couple of years have all been nice, sane, healthy dogs who have gone on to make good companions. Our experience is not because we're really good at picking dogs or because we get to cherry pick a wide range of dogs, it's just because the general pound population are basically nice dogs. All kinds of dogs get unlucky and end up in the pound. Hear hear!

Looking at the temp test I can believe it! No terrier would pass. And this is the test they're still using so I wouldn't be confident that anything has changed.

NSW Megan. And coincidentally (not) NSW have the worst euthanasia rates (while making the most profits).

From what I've been told by rescue groups (usually breed specific) that have begged to take dogs on - they just simply won't release a dog that has failed the above linked (bullshit) temperament test to ANYONE, not just the general public. So even though a dog can fail for some very basic training issues (or even non training issues - the dog can gain 40 points just by having a few high toy drive!) that could be worked on in a foster care environment, it is not given that opportunity. Look up the Facebook group 'Justice4Max'. He was adog that had originally come from a rescue group and was a fantastic dog. Ended up in RSPCA Rutherford. Owner asked for a few extra days to get the money together to release him, and Dog Rescue Newcastle also explicitly told them they would take him once his time was up. They killed him. Even breeders here of sight hounds and terriers would be denied access to their own dogs if they ended up in the shelter as the prey drive would see them fail the test and therefore not released to anyone.

Yes. I have uploaded the test for those wishing to defend it to read. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/41634046/New%20Behaviour%20assessment%20-%20Feb%2008%20-%20Final%20Draft%202.xls Dog wants to eat a guinea pig? INSTANT fail regardless of everything else. Dog is boisterous? Nervous? They can score up to 20 points for each instance where they are either, and there are a lot of categories. My own personal dog would be immediately failed for the pocket pets, but put that aside and she would get 167, which is still a euthanasia rate. She is a lovely dog who is complimented by absolutely everyone we meet (including some of Australia's very well respected dog behaviourists). She hasn't an aggressive bone in her body and is a threat to nothing but small prey animals.; Yep, it's called fear aggression Anne and a bite from a terrified dog will hurt just as much as any other bite. Seriously, people need to get real about dogs going out into society. Adoptive families have a right to be given a dog that won't harm them under normal circumstances and temperament testing is the best a shelter can do to approximate what a dog might come up against. Lets hear a sensible alternative proposed rather than the usual "you're doing it wrong" approach. Just a question here.. In your opinion, would you say that roughly 50% of dogs are not safe pets? I have no idea. But if you're asking me if resource guarders, dogs that display fear aggression and dog aggressive dogs are not "safe pets" for your average adoptive family then the answer is probably yes. I suppose the key questions for me are "short of a temperament test, how can you evaluate dogs for adoption and do you have the right to take chances with the safety of adopting families in order to save a dog's life"? Not an easy answer. There was a study in the states released recently (don't have a link at the moment but if you google I'm sure you'll find it) that found that of dogs that showed resource guarding while in the pound/shelter environment, almost none showed it when in a home situation. No one is expecting the RSPCA to release dogs that need work straight into the community. But they literally have rescue groups begging to take dogs and put them in foster care where they can be trained and housed until adoption. They overwhelmingly refuse.