Matthew_B

I suppose the key question then is "is a 10 year old child entering a property without invitation, 'sufficient provocation' to justify what these dogs were able to do". For many people in the community, the answer is "no". Well in my current thought process (which may change with time and experience) I guess I'm not within that part of the community. You, and other dog owners who think that a dog inflicting serious injuries in the mere defence of property (as opposed to the safety of its owner) is acceptable. All I can say is for anyone who wishes to have a dog like this, do the dog and the wider public a favour and keep it behind padlocked gates. Tragedies like this happen because people fail to socialise, train and/or contain their dogs. It will be the dogs that pay, each and every time something like this happens. You owe it to your dog to protect it. if you care for your dog, it's actually far more important that you do that for your dog than that your dog protect you. If you want your house protected, buy a security system. Don't allow dogs of questionable stability to maim members of the community who do no more than exercise poor judgment. And this is where you misunderstand me. I do not wish to own a dog like that. I do not own a dog like that. I just wish that dogs don't suffer the idiocy of the owner or a trespasser. We are not at odds on this issue. I do however think that whatever I have in my yard is not the business of others. Stay out. If I can keep the dog in the yard, you can keep out. Keeping the dog inside your yard is only HALF of your responsibility as its owner. Keeping other people out is the other half and that's where the owners of these two dogs failed.

The child entered the territory for which the dogs were defending.....the dogs were not targeting attacks on children. Yes, that's normal behaviour for dogs defending territory in unison to stop entry of an unfamiliar person. Mum and dad could have educated the child not to enter the neighbours yard especially given that the yard was signed. I doubt the neighbours didn't know the dogs were there? The dog's weren't targeting attacks on children, they were defending territory which is what dogs of territorial drive do. Perhaps the dog owners have been victims of serious assaults or home invasions and territorial driven dogs help them sleep at night. Territorial drive doesn't reserve it's self for only children. The dogs may have been quite social away from their territory and be fundamentally good stable dogs. Parents need to educate children that dogs can defend territory and not to enter enclosures containing dogs without the dog owner's presence. There is truth in saying the child is at fault here. But so are the owners of the dogs. Yes, the attack occurred in the dogs' own yard. However, a secure yard isn't defined by how well it keeps the dogs inside but also how well it keeps people out. In this case, the owners failed miserably on the latter. To place the blame for this incident solely at the feet of the child and his parents is not only unfair, it is quite simply wrong.

No, there's no laws for that breed, but in my opinion it should be common sense to make your yard secure enough that your dog cannot get out AND that it's not easy for someone to just walk in either. In the news articles I've read from various sources and from on TV, witnesses stated it "took ages for the owner to beat the dogs off the boy".

Some people say the kid shouldn't have been in the yard. That's true. But then, how secure was the yard if a ten year-old could get in? If you own certain breeds of dog, there are rules as to how high a fence must be, what it is constructed of, how difficult it is to access the dogs' yard (either legitimately or not), etc. That a ten year-old was able to gain access tells me the yard probably wasn't secure quite enough. So in this case, yeah - the kid is at fault for going into the yard but the dogs' owners are also at fault for making it possible for that kid to get in there. Thankfully, no one was killed.

Wouldn't having a sign on the front gate saying Beware Of the Dog mean the owners admit these dogs would attack, even on their own property, and it would seem that the dogs were able to use the front area. How then would anybody be able to come to the front door? it's what could be argued, but people without dogs put up these signs as security/safety measures / deterrents too. The kid was looking for his brother - I doubt he was stopping to smell the roses or read the signs everywhere...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I have never seen a fighting dog used in a role with Police or security guards. They aren't as controllable/trainable as dogs such as the German Shepherd. My brother was in the Army in QLD and good mates with an MP on the dog squad of the Army base guards. He said the level of self-control those dogs have is amazing. He saw a training scenario one day - in a bite suit one of the MP's ran from a dog that was sent to detain him. Just before the dog reached the guard in the bite suit, the dogs' handler issued an order to stop the chase and to return to his side. It did so immediately, without hesitation. Bet a pitbull wouldn't have that kind of restraint. Why do you think they aren't used in this role?

So what are you saying Matthew? That labs, beagles etc can't bite people? That only certain types of dogs have the potential to be aggressive? If a lab or beagle bit someone, what would your reaction be? OMG! How many times do I have to say it? Yes, any dog can bite - I've said this numerous times. That isn't the point. The point is that pitbulls have been bred as fighting dogs. That makes them an inherently dangerous breed to have around. Labradors, Beagles, Golden Retrievers aren't now, nor have they ever been bred as fighting dogs. They are renowned as 'family' dogs. Honestly, I feel like I am talking to a brick wall sometimes... What part of human aggression vs animal aggression dont you understand.They were bred to fight other dogs not gladiators at the colloseum. The fact they were bred for fighting clearly means they have a predisposition to aggressive behaviour. Whether the focus of their aggression in the past was other dogs or humans is irrelevant. They are a naturally aggressive dog.

Finally - a sane voice of reason!

Aren't you fighting fire with fire here? Ie, looking for the part of the post with which you have a quarrel (exaggerating the alpha dog stuff) and ignoring the more substantive part (tough dog bred for big game, courageous, not recommended as a pet). Your moniker suggests that sympathetic rather than argumentative listening would be better. The author started off talking about one sort of dog then generalised to all dogs. Having worked with a lot of types of dogs, it isn't true and perpetuates the myth that dogs are inherently violent and need to be kept subdued in order to be safe. The reality is that dogs do everything they can to avoid a fight. We really have to push them over the edge to get that behaviour from them, intentionally or otherwise. If an undercurrent of thugs are still breeding game-bred dogs then we should be policing this activity, certainly. My moniker is a figure of speech, I really don't think we need to argue about it. OMG, and you call me uneducated?!?!?!

That's interesting, especially considering I've never submitted a proposal to the AVA, RSPCA or any canine researchers...

So what are you saying Matthew? That labs, beagles etc can't bite people? That only certain types of dogs have the potential to be aggressive? If a lab or beagle bit someone, what would your reaction be? OMG! How many times do I have to say it? Yes, any dog can bite - I've said this numerous times. That isn't the point. The point is that pitbulls have been bred as fighting dogs. That makes them an inherently dangerous breed to have around. Labradors, Beagles, Golden Retrievers aren't now, nor have they ever been bred as fighting dogs. They are renowned as 'family' dogs. Honestly, I feel like I am talking to a brick wall sometimes...

No Matthew, the point is that pitbulls have been banned and eradicated in various jurisdictions over the last 20 years or more. As best as we can determine, not a single bite has been prevented using this strategy. What do you say to that? The breed needs to be eradicated until it ceases to exist. Simple. It can't attack/kill you if it's extinct. Then what do we do with every other breed or cross that attacks someone ? Continue to blame the breed or cross untill there are none left ? No - Labradors, Beagles, etc aren't bred as fighting dogs. Is that such a hard concept for the people in this forum to grasp?

No Matthew, the point is that pitbulls have been banned and eradicated in various jurisdictions over the last 20 years or more. As best as we can determine, not a single bite has been prevented using this strategy. What do you say to that? The breed needs to be eradicated until it ceases to exist. Simple. It can't attack/kill you if it's extinct.

Wow, I'm speechless. That's the most apologetic post I've read yet in defence of this breed. It's never the dog, it's always the owner or the victim's fault or something else. Unbelievable!!!

Are you under the age of 6? Are you trying to argue that only a pitbull would attack a child under the age of 6, and not a person or another breed of dog? Or that even a Beagle or JRT wouldn't be able to seriously injure a child that young? I can see why your parents let their 5 year old child play cricket in a public area without supervision, you must have been one tough little dude to break a cricket bat over a dog's head, then threaten the owner with it and drive off. I was being sarcastic, in response to the childishness of your comment regarding banning people because you've been attacked by a person or persons. Please come back when you are an adult.

Different story altogether. I don't want Collies banned either because they are not a dangerous breed. Please try to keep it sensible! I didn't say I want a ban on all dogs, just dangerous ones like the pitbull.

I was going to ask earlier on whether you'd had a bad experience with one as you really seem to have a grudge against them big time. I guess the above post answers that question. The owner of the dog was obviously a bogan - to be laughing at you as his dog bailed you up like that. This is what we are trying to say. In most cases it is the hands they end up in. The bogans, the wanna-be macho's. It's really sad that you had to experience that and I imagine it would of been very scary. But think, if that twit of an owner had of kept that dog at home, like a responsible owner would - and not let him out to roam to the park - you wouldn't of been bailed up to begin with. And if the dog had of been socialised properly, chances are he would of came running at you with a wagging tail - not snarling teeth. Also whose to say the dogs owner hadn't abused it before? let's face it - he sounds like an absolute bogan who obviously didn't care for the wellbeing and safety of a fellow human being, laughing like that - and he couldn't of cared too much about his dog, letting him out to roam. Maybe the dog felt threatened in some way, seeing you there with a cricket bat??? I was in the nets of the cricket field across the road from the "bogans" house, with the nets being atleast 150m from even the road. I fail to see how the dog could have felt threatened nearly 200m from its "territory" - AFTER wandering over to us. We'd been there for nearly 2 hours before the dog came out of its yard.

Are you under the age of 6?

I didn't have to identify the dog, even though I knew what breed it was. The reason I didn't have to identify it - the dog was registered with the council and the owner registered it in plain black and white that it was a pitbull...

Know why I don't like the pitbull breed? I was attacked by one. While at a cricket field in the nets doing some batting practice with a mate I was cornered by one of these animals. I tried to walk slowly around it without making any sudden moves, but it blocked my exit from the nets. My mate was lucky enough to climb a fence when he saw the dog coming. I couldn't get out in time. It was barking, snarling, showing its teeth and pinned its ears back - obvious signs of aggression. When it finally made its charge at me, I belted it so hard with my cricket bat that the handle cracked. Luckily for me, the dog limped off very slowly in the opposite direction, bleeding, having decided it was a bad idea to try to attack me after all. The owner was across the street on his verandah watching and laughing until I defended myself. He had the audacity, the arrogance to come and berate me for "assaulting" his dog, saying he was going to "mess me up real good". My mate and I said that if he didn't back off, our first phone call would be to the Police after he met the same side of both our cricket bats as his dog did. He reluctantly backed off, swearing all the way, and once we were safely in the car, we noted the guy's address and reported it to the Police and the local Council. He ended up copping a fairly expensive fine for not having his dangerous dog properly contained in his yard. He also copped a hefty bill from the vet. My mate and I did nothing to provoke that dog - we were just doing cricket practice. These dogs are a menace and have no place in society.

No need for gundogs either Matthew.... shooting game is banned in most states. And as they bite kiddies, best we be rid of them. OMG, another nasty Labrador attack - read the excuses made for the dog And another!! Holy cow Labs are dangerous Its clear this breed attacks kids with no good reason. Best we kill them all now. The fact you're searching the net for stories of dog attacks by Labradors to defend pitbulls demonstrates a level of desperation...

The dog that killed this little girl wasn't a pitbull Matthew and you know it. The overwhelming majority of individuals of breeds used for police and security work fail the grade for a range of reasons. BTW, dog bites are pretty common in dog handlers. Which part of "because some pitbulls might be dangerous doesn't mean ALL of them are" can't you grasp. Some Labradors are dangerous Matthew. Seriously scarey dogs. Doesnt mean all of them are and you're in a better position than most to know it. But take a poorly bred Labrador, fail to socialise it to recognise children as somethign other than prey, fail to teach it bite inhibition, fail to keep it in a manner that sees it form good social bonds with people, fail to train it to come back when its called and fail to exercise it regularly and you've got a recipe for a dangerous dog. The breed matters only as far as size and power go. It matter as far as bite thresholds and bite inhibitions go. It also matter as far as drives go. Crossbreed it with other large and powerful dogs and your capacity to know what its drives and inhibitions are decreases exponentially. But none of those qualities is restriced to particular breeds, nor shared by all individuals within a breed. Assuming so is the path to disaster and that's the path that BSL takes. Labradors weren't bred for fighting. Pitbulls were and are. The pitbull debate will continue I am sure, but seriously Matthew_B don't you have any other ideas. Surely you don't think banning APBT's is just going to stop dog attacks from happening. I only ever seem to see you post in topics regarding pitbulls. Isn't it ironic that almost every death from a dog attack in the last decade or so has involved a dog that is a member of the pitbull breed, whether purebred or a cross? Yes, I do think that banning all breeds of pitbulls will prevent a considerable number of deaths and maimings because I honestly don't remember the last time I saw a news report of a person dying from an attack of a Beagle or a Dalmatian or a Labrador. Some of you members here are so blinkered with your love of this breed of dog that nothing anyone says or does will change your mind and that is a shame for both past and future victims of these hideous dogs. blah blah blah blah blah blah You just dont get it nor do you listen. blah blah blah blah blah blah no need for fighting dogs, period.

How about maiming instead then? Get your blinkers off and read this and this and this Yeah, wow. Rare day when either of those incidents happens. Same can't be said of fighting dogs...

The dog that killed this little girl wasn't a pitbull Matthew and you know it. The overwhelming majority of individuals of breeds used for police and security work fail the grade for a range of reasons. BTW, dog bites are pretty common in dog handlers. Which part of "because some pitbulls might be dangerous doesn't mean ALL of them are" can't you grasp. Some Labradors are dangerous Matthew. Seriously scarey dogs. Doesnt mean all of them are and you're in a better position than most to know it. But take a poorly bred Labrador, fail to socialise it to recognise children as somethign other than prey, fail to teach it bite inhibition, fail to keep it in a manner that sees it form good social bonds with people, fail to train it to come back when its called and fail to exercise it regularly and you've got a recipe for a dangerous dog. The breed matters only as far as size and power go. It matter as far as bite thresholds and bite inhibitions go. It also matter as far as drives go. Crossbreed it with other large and powerful dogs and your capacity to know what its drives and inhibitions are decreases exponentially. But none of those qualities is restriced to particular breeds, nor shared by all individuals within a breed. Assuming so is the path to disaster and that's the path that BSL takes. Labradors weren't bred for fighting. Pitbulls were and are. The pitbull debate will continue I am sure, but seriously Matthew_B don't you have any other ideas. Surely you don't think banning APBT's is just going to stop dog attacks from happening. I only ever seem to see you post in topics regarding pitbulls. Isn't it ironic that almost every death from a dog attack in the last decade or so has involved a dog that is a member of the pitbull breed, whether purebred or a cross? Yes, I do think that banning all breeds of pitbulls will prevent a considerable number of deaths and maimings because I honestly don't remember the last time I saw a news report of a person dying from an attack of a Beagle or a Dalmatian or a Labrador. Some of you members here are so blinkered with your love of this breed of dog that nothing anyone says or does will change your mind and that is a shame for both past and future victims of these hideous dogs.