m-sass

A ranger has to have reasonable suspicion on the basis of evidence that your dog has committed a breach that justifies seizure and you have the right to dispute the evidence that the ranger puts forward to justify seizure, bearing in mind the ranger in most cases has formed a decison on the basis of someone's report of an incident which can be fact, fiction and anything in between, so the ranger is obligated to take into account both sides of the story and can't be seen to be taking sides, their decision to seize or not must be based on evidence and as a dog owner facing seizure, you need to break the evidence down that the ranger is using to justify their rights for seizure. :) Instead of arguing with the ranger the point of whether the dog was being aggressive or freindly, you are better off arguing the strength of the evidence supposedly proving that the dog involved in the incident was your dog, in many cases there is no evidence without the dog's owner confirming their dog was involved and consequently many hand their dog up on a plate for the slaughter with incriminating information, if they have a case against you and your dog no different than any other form of common law, making them prove it is the best defence IMHO.

A vet is a business like anything else and there are plenty of businesses who can't legally charge when the job is unsuccessful and have to absorb their losses, why is a vet exempt from the same rules of business is what people are referring to?

I can see what you're saying there but if the OP refused a transfer, what else did they refuse on the basis of not wanting to pay for it? We can't run diagnostics without the consent of the owner. This is not the whole story. This is a skewed version and if the OP still feels traumatised they need to seek some professional help IMO. I think there is a bit more to the story as well that we haven't been told about perhaps?

Good luck in fighting for you dog Pookie, it's a dreadful situation to face. Given that you weren't there at the time of this alledged incident and the fact that council didn't catch your dog at large and came around the next day they are working on a report given to them which could be a load of BS, why are you accepting such a story, you have the right to argue that it wasn't your dog involved in the incident and request they prove otherwise?.

My only complaint of some vets in the OP's situation is they are not on the ball enough for my liking and you have to prompt them as the dog's owner, the dog is ill, in what regard, then I would ask the vet what illness produces these symptoms, can we test and confirm/rule out certain things etc, I would never just have an ill dog on a drip for 3 days without some serious answers in relation to the cause of his illness, and if the vet couldn't provide that, I would take him elsewhere and wouldn't pay the bill either if the service was substandard. On the business end they can rip you off especially through incompetence and misdiagnosis, do you keep paying to have your car worked on and the problem not fixed?, same with animals at the vet I think?

I don't think in all cases it's the physical pulling away and restraint that escalates aggression and is more contributed to the attitude of the handler doing the pulling that ramps the dog up higher especially when the handler is nervous of the dog reacting the dog senses the handler nerves, the handler tightens the leash and the whole atmosphere of the situation makes things worse. I know of a couple of reactive dogs who are absolutely fine with one member of the family and with another, they are lunging all over the place, same dog, same pathway different handler, different attitude in the dog? Yes, me too lol!! Tiny dogs with loads of aggression and intent as a dog are just as bad as a big dog, breed comes into it in regard to what you can handle if things get nasty where people misconstrued this scenario for a breed thing which it isn't really. I think the highest levels of aggression I have seen are in small dogs that can fit on the end of your boot easily so people tend not to worry too much and breed label, but it takes only mild aggression in a big dog people can't handle to breed label as aggressive, how much damage can this dog do is really the basis of it IMHO

I think any medium to large dog off leash approaching in an unfriendly or aggressive manner is a cause for concern, but what I have always found is that Bully breeds are the breeds less likely to have owners who can control them and are also the owners who take the greatest risks exercising their dogs where good control is essential, perhaps there are too many Bully breeds and X breeds of them that the general irresponsible dog owners can access too easily? I have come across my fair share of intimidating looking GSD's and Rottweilers off leash who have sized me up too, and I definitely would not have wanted to meet them roaming loose without an owner present but there is no comparison how much more control owners of these breeds have over the owners of Bully breeds from a training perspective. Sadly Bully breeds are the worse breeds I have found where off leash with an owner present provides me with little confidence if the dog attempts to rush at us that the owner will have effective control of the dog.

If there are no witnesses, what happens if the dog owner denies any knowledge of the incident when it results in one saying the dog bit him and the other says it didn't, where does council take it from there?

If a dog is tethered or on leash with a handler is 99% defined as being under effective control. If a dog under effective control (leashed/tethered)is provoked into an aggressive reaction or the handler is assaulted where it's reasonable for a dog to assume that the handler is under threat, the dog is exempt from prosecution in the event of an attack under a statutory dangerous dog defence. People need to be educated enough to know that approaching other people's dogs on leash can result in the possibility of getting bitten and do so at their own risk. If they do get bitten in those circumstances which were completely avoidable, no one has to approach or interfere with someone elses dog, it's their choice to do so and if a bite occurs they need to cop it on the chin and accept they made the wrong call and hopefully learn something from the experience. However, if they run to council to have a sook about it and try to have your dog declared dangerous through their own misadventure, you need to get your story right about what happened in compliance with the legislation. You can't undo the bite, but you can save your dog from a DD order with the right account of events. ;)

How is hiding the problem ever going to improve anything? Racing Greyhounds are a tool of trade with too much revenue involved for anything to be done in reality IMHO. What I am pointing out is that it's a different side of the fence to the pet market and it should stay that way.

Then the dog is allowed by law to bite the kid to protect the handler from assault

Racing Greyhounds IMHO should be dealt with outside of the pet market and it makes things worse when some failed racing dogs get the opportunity to live their post racing life in a pet home and some don't. If what they do is euthanase perfectly good dogs that are not competitive enough for racing, do so where pet owner who love their dogs warts and all don't have to see this tragic waste of life. Vet's I think should do these jobs off site, the average pet owners don't need to see a healthy young dog in a vet waiting room facing death because it can't run fast enough, to the average pet owner, that's not s good enough reason for a dog to PTS and they shouldn't be exposed to the trauma of it. I blame the vet practice for this, the vet should do it off site or bring the poor dog in through the back door.

Desexing contracts IMHO are a waste of time, it only reinforces what honest people would do anyway. If someone really wanted to buy a pup for BYB breeding etc, they will get around a desexing contract easily, as an example the breeder would need to know where the person in default of the contract lives, so a solicitor sends a default letter that comes back "not at this address" then what?. Someone intent on buying a pup to do the wrong thing by a breeder and the pup breeding wise they could do a number of things to fool the breeder, false names, addresses etc, once they get hold of an entire pup, they can easily disappear into thin air. Desexing contracts are not going to stop someone buying a pup specifically for imoral breeding practices as a guaranteed safeguard and I think it's a bit naive to believe a desexing contract is the ultimate solution.

So if a dog isn't on a lead its fair game? I think you will have to take many of the comments here with a grain of salt. The person you are responding to is talking about a thread where they tried to justify their dog's aggressive behaviour. I hope the other dog owner doesn't take that attitude with you. Your dog was off lead, and that attracts a certain fine. The other dog attacked and that attracts a larger fine and a dangerous dog declaration. Nobody here can know exactly what view council will take, but they tend to look at the consequences of what each dog has done, rather than at why they might have done it. They do not have the skills or resources to investigate the dog's temperament or history. The priority is to be seen to be taking action on any safety concerns to prevent re-occurrence. Unless your dog is reported by somebody else as the instigator of the attack, it is likely that they will see it as an attack and not just a dog fight. I'm glad to hear your dog is recovering. It will take a lot of time and special care before she is fully healed, and she may always have scars and muscle damage. I hope she is on anti-inflammatories to reduce the pain and on a good diet to aid skin and coat recovery. Provocation is a statutory defence in all states of Australia, it has nothing to do with reasonable force in a dog's self defence. If for instance a small dog rushes out of someone's driveway into the street and nips a large dog with it's owner walking past on leash and the large dog retaliates injures or kills the small dog, the large dog is not at fault and shouldn't be declared dangerous. The owners of the small dog should have kept it off the street, it's no different than the small dog rushing onto the street and getting hit by a car and expecting compensation from the driver IMHO. The leash breaking in the situation is a problem I think because when the dog attacked the Grey it was also unrestrained and not under effective control, both dog's in effect were at large?.

I think you answered your own question IMHO, being off leash does expose a dog to danger whether that be attacked by another dog or hit by a car, if you allow a dog to run around in public off leash it's vulnerable to an array of bad experiences and to avoid that, keep the dog on leash in future is my recommendation. Having said that, the leash breaking on the attacking dog means the dog was at large and not under effective control when the injuries took place where I think the owner of the attacking dog would be seen as in the wrong in this case. But as I asked before, do you know who owns the other dog, if not put it down to experience and hope the other owner gets a decent leash?

Do you know who the owner is and where they live, otherwise pursuing the matter will be a waste of time?

An Ecollar is only the evolution of a check chain :D I disagree with that. They are used in different ways and work differently, and there are places where ecollars are banned, including all competitions. An Ecollar can be used in exactly the same fashion as a check chain amoungst other ways that exceeds a check chain's capability. It's no different than the old days washing board to todays latest front loading automatic washing machine, they both get the clothes clean as a check chain and Ecollar trains the dog, evolution/technology makes it easier to use with better results :)

Yes, such a simple thing. We have lost a lot of our common sense I think I was taught the same thing and would have gotten into serious trouble from my parents if anything arose from me interferring with a strange dog. My mum's favorite saying, "we have our own dogs to pat", leave other people's dogs alone. I don't allow strangers or kids to pat my dogs ever, not because they pose a threat, they don't but, I do not ever want a situation arising where something goes wrong and one of mine bites someone, I don't care if I come across unfriendly and un co-operative with strangers, they are nothing to me and they don't pay my mortgage, my dog's safety and well being is first and foremost to keep them away from potential problems and litigation the way things are these days. I stepped in between one of mine and a kid not long ago preventing the kid from patting my dog.......the kid asked if he bites and I told her yes he may do? The kid's mother then has a go at me saying that I shouldn't tell kids that dogs can bite which can psycologically scar them......I was told exactly that as a kid and the psycolological scarring I received was the need to own no less than two dogs throughout my life. I don't buy this crap, kids need to be taught reality strange dogs can bite like cars can hit you if you step out randomly on the road?

An Ecollar is only the evolution of a check chain :D

The idea IMHO to ask an owner before patting a strange dog is because the owner knows the dog better than you and knows if the dog is likely to be safe when patted by a stranger otherwise you pat a strange dog at your own risk and if the dog bites bad luck.

That's a terrible situation that happen to the poor girl, but the dogs were behind a fence and we don't know if it was a case of owner neglect or a feak accident that the fence came down?. If the fence was clearly faulty and fragile that's a bit different, but from an owners perspective, the fence may have appeared sound and wasn't until the two dogs charged at it hard enough that the fence failed to withstand the pressure?

I can't understand why the OP would get a Neo for protection reading his previous posts.......what, he knows better than the professionals who use GSD's, Rottweilers, Malinois Who uses Neo's enough here to be breeding the right traits, the dog to me sounds like a loose cannon, foggy headed with redirected aggression, I would PTS and get a proper protection dog personally, one actually bred from a history of producing the right traits?

No, you need to have dogs on the main register first, responsible breeders don't put their whole litter on the mains, only dogs that are suited to show, and that will be going to a show home, any dogs going to a pet home should be sold on the limit register, which means even if you join ANKC etc, that dog still can't be bred, or if you do, the pups can't be registered What I mean is other than having a dog on mains (plenty of breeders do sell on mains) you could become a registered breeder without having a clue about breeding or breed knowledge, bloodlines etc much the same as a BYB? I don't support or agree with BYB's, but a registration doesn't really mean the breeder has met a higher competence level than a BYB?

Excuse me!, my son was bitten on the arm by a unleashed dog pushing his bicycle past a dog walker on the footpath in a similar situation and afterwards became terrified of dogs. The way I got him over his fear was using the leash as an indicator that he had the choice to easily avoid the dog and that a leashed dog couldn't get him. The leashed dog was the first step in his fear rehabilitation to give him confidence that the dog being leashed did provide him with choices to feel safe around them. The basis of his early treatment was to ensure that a leashed dog posed no threat because they were restrained and he had the choice to pass them at a distance he felt safe knowing that the dog couldn't make physical contact with him. We could have given him the above advice I highlighted, but I doubt such advice although I agree should be the case in a perfect world, would have had much effect in his dog fear rehabilitation. Welcome to the forum m-sass. :D My comment was in response to the earlier post by mace mace on 20 January 2012 - 11:44 PM, said: The leash range of a strange dog to me is their personal space which I prefer to keep out of to prevent what happened in this case. So if you want to be a thrillseeker by entering a strange dog's personal space, the bottom line is, be aware that getting bitten may be the result........the choice is yours. However, I did not give any advice, or present advice in the sense in which you have framed it. My point of reference is the biting dog not the pedestrian. I refuted the point of view that a leashed dog is a calculated risk that provides choices. It doesn't and the law clearly says so. Congratulations on the successful efforts to desensitise your son. Px My son was 6 years old at the time walking along with my mum (nanna) and the approaching dog was walking at heel with it's owner, mum thought the dog was leashed. When they passed, the dog doubled back, chased my son biting him on the arm from behind, he was about 15 feet away from the dog's owner, suffice to say had the dog been leashed, it wouldn't have happened? I agree that people should have control and restraint over their dogs, but I took your post as meaning we should just assume that people will have control with no need to take precautionary measures just in case they don't? My apology if I took your post out of context, it was the way I read the thread and how the comments were unfolding?

How does filling out a form and paying a fee to become a registered breeder make a claim to breed knowledge and ethics when there is no criteria to become registered, anyone can become a registered breeder can't they?