m-sass

The funny thing is, nothing in the GSD breed standards say that they shall be a show dog?. So how does a good show dog which is not required of the GSD by the breed standards be considered a good GSD when it doesn't have the instinctive traits to do what the breed standards require? A GSD breeder once told me that her dogs are not suitable for guarding but her lines had won multiple shows and were considered of type at the highest level?. I would have thought if they are not suitable for guarding when the breed standards says they shall they would then be duds, or am I missing something

Isn't the idea of BSL to restrict breeds so that people with control inabilities can't own them? In other words when a dog owner has a control inability moment and drops the leash, the breed on the end of it is a breed less likely to cause injury to the community.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there BlackJaq. My blood pressure is much better with m-sass on ignore. Geez,the anti BSL crusade isn't looking good if you can't debate with me........the dog hating community who support BSL will dish out far more than I have......need to get your campaigns a bit stronger to be taken seriously from a legilsative standpoint??. People have given many alternatives i.e the Calgary the solution and posted links to read about how to get around this issue like many countries are doing right now, problem is many BSL supporters and bull breed haters can't be bothered to read them. Nothing is going to change your point of view so why should people bother debating with you, solutions to BSL and safe dogs in the community are out there but polititions are using these incidences to gain votes and put in ineffective laws, and are not willing to listen. Geo..........sadly there are too many serious attacks involving the same type of dogs........in the news thread the latest is young guy's ear torn off by the same type of dogs AGAIN. I don't think the policing of the laws are working well which doesn't reflect the inability of the law's effectivness when the same types of dogs that the laws should be eliminating off the street remain the primary offenders.

I agree about being furious with the owners. Being furious with the dogs and labelling them 'vile monsters' does nothing and only promotes the idea that these dogs allowed themselves to be this way when, in fact, the owner has allowed them to be this way. The owners didn't have a high enough fence to contain their dogs, the dog's behaviour is genetic Hi m-sass can you produce proper scientific evidence to support your claim? Most of the evidence I have read is totally opposite but I like to be balanced Jed, are you saying the dogs were trained to jump the fence and go after other dogs........I would say the weren't trained to do that and they did that from pure instinctive drive to do so which is genetic? I wondor sometimes if many people here have actually owned a DA dog and understand what the management of such a dog entails??. Loosely, a DA dog is a pain in the butt managing an essentially useless trait. My number 5 Labrador out of the 7 Labs I have onwned was DA......yes a DA Lab and he was a bugger of a thing for the 15 years of his life wanting to chomp on other dogs and to make it worse because of his breed, people didn't fear him or expect him to be aggressive towards their dogs.........let puppy off leash to play with the nice Lab scenario's......ended up I had to muzzle him on walks to keep off leash dogs safe........but more to the point, I didn't mis-manage this dog, poke him with sticks etc etc to make him DA, he just was DA genetically which I found out years later that his father was retired from showing early for the same reason, dog aggression, yet the breeder of this litter obviously thought dad's DA traits needed to be reproduced He didn't chase after dogs, he was aggressive towards dogs who chased after him or got in his face, he wouldn't go after a dog and owner walking down the footpath and look for a fight, it's was purely if they approached him, a different type of aggression to the predatory type of dog aggression described here.

I agree about being furious with the owners. Being furious with the dogs and labelling them 'vile monsters' does nothing and only promotes the idea that these dogs allowed themselves to be this way when, in fact, the owner has allowed them to be this way. The owners didn't have a high enough fence to contain their dogs, the dog's behaviour is genetic

That's the idea of BSL, to get rid of the breed types who most commonly display that character

I bet they were non papered Amstaff's from a BYB

Dogs are a good deterrent and many offenders will take notice and retreat, the point I am making is that "if" the offender comes back at the dog, kicks the dog in the head for example, untrained dogs or dogs that lack serious active aggression will generally run away. Dogs who will protect with their lives on the line untrained from what I have ever seen are generally highly aggressive by nature, often the types of dogs selected for property guarding and will bite anyone who doesn't belong in their territory passive or threat.

Fancy that..........I would have expected a Labrador or Cocker Spaniel to have torn someone's ear off, but not a Pitbull, or was it perhaps a Standard Poodle and they just said Pitbull for media sensationalism?? Poor young guy........no one deserves a pleasant dog walk turning into an ordeal like that

I think you've hit the nail on the head there BlackJaq. My blood pressure is much better with m-sass on ignore. Geez,the anti BSL crusade isn't looking good if you can't debate with me........the dog hating community who support BSL will dish out far more than I have......need to get your campaigns a bit stronger to be taken seriously from a legilsative standpoint??.

Probably wouldn't have put the guy in hospital either. Our old GSD rushed to our defence more than once, and not a single person was ever hurt. Exactly Aidan, she'd be beside or in front of me growling and letting the other person know to back off, while looking to me for further guidance on what to do. If the dog attacked on it's own accord then what was the owner doing to encourage or discourage it? I experienced a home invasion of three men back in 2000 and my SBT's then (now passed) chased the men out of windows and the front door (which was left open) then immediately ran back to protect me and stayed by my side while I ran out the back to call the police. They hadn't been trained in any way and were fast asleep until they heard the untruders, but once they had them out of the house the dogs only concern was me. They did not feel the need to run after the intruders out the front door or hunt them down and attack them. And as far as I know with trained guard dogs (an ex BIL had 2 for his security business) their job is to find and restrain until their handler gets there to take over, but not to chomp and chew. There might be some bite marks during the restraining process (particularly if weapons are involved and the dogs are threatened themselves) but they aren't aiming to expose body organs or lose a person a limb. This sort of thing can happen and has happened with many people, but more than likely the offenders were scared of the dogs and ran off which is a good thing, dog's did their job, but seriously, I wouldn't rely on untrained dogs for protection if the offenders come back at the dog, that's when they are likely to fall off the plate. Dogs that will protect for real without training are usually stranger aggressive by nature with high levels of defence drive. A few years ago now we knew of a dog that protected it's owner from a home invasion and was hit with a baseball bat and the dog kept on and did some damage to the intruder who was consequenty arrested by police, but the dog was nasty with strangers in the house by nature and if we visited this lady, she always had to lock the dog away for the visitors safety. It was probably the most stranger aggressive dog I have seen which had it's own set of management issues as a pet with the substantial side effects of owning a dog that genuinely protected untrained.

It's okay for a dog to put someone in hospital because the owner is having a screaming match with someone? That sounds like a very unstable temperament. Good guard dogs don't attack at the slightest indication of a threat. They have solid nerves. This fool of an owner gives all of us a bad name... You reckon , most guard dogs of property I know of will bite everyone except their owners, patrol dogs working with a handler are a different story. No it's not, but the consequence is often PTS for a bite which makes us as owners obligated to provide safe management especially with a dog that can get a bit hostile and flex some muscle.

= Correct. From what I understand from most of the legislation, a declared dog cannot bite anyone full stop and at all costs the owners of such a dog must protect their declared dog from further incident. Ironically in many duristictions, a protection trained dog if the council are aware of it are declared dangerous also which renders them useless unless they are licenced guard dogs of generally commercial property.

Thanks for that...........now hands up who owns a Lab or Golden here believes if he/she got out in the street they would be concerned the dog would go on a unprovoked killing rampage and do exactly what Ayen's killer did in the same circumstances? Secondly, hands up those who believe that if the keepers of Ayen's killer had a Lab or Golden instead of the piece of crap they had, that Ayen would still be alive?

Probably wouldn't have put the guy in hospital either. Our old GSD rushed to our defence more than once, and not a single person was ever hurt. And the training on your dog was pretty good too I imagine :D

I don't see much hope in this owner and dog defending the charge successfully. A declared dangerous dog should be muzzled in a public place inhibiting a bite and if it jumped through a window onto the street, it was at large, not under effective control at the time of the attack. There are two regulation breaches on the owner's part to begin with before we get to the bite it's self. Ideally, a dog needs to be on leash in a public place or in it's own yard/vehicle to bite someone and get away with it in specific circumstances.

Of course not, there is no defence in this case, owner is totally at fault in the circumstances. Not necessarily are dogs in trouble biting someone, they can in certain circumstances, but the problem in most cases is that people don't know how to defend their case properly unfortunately.

Put a prong collar on the dog and let him/her learn the consequences of leash pulling to begin with then lavishly reward the correct behaviour for maintaining handler focus when encountering distractions or other dogs.

Nope, not correct at all. It's not what the dog perceives as a threat that's important. It's what the LAW considers reasonable. And that is a decision made by humans after the event. If I yell at you for your shite driving and your dog takes me out then no one is going to consider that was reasonable. Advancing on you with a weapon or assaulting you is a whole different ball game. Raised voices is NOT a reasonable reason to end up in hospital after a dog decides you're a threat and has to be dragged off by its owner. The defence is provocation which is an instinctive reaction from the perception that the dog's owner is in physical danger. If the dog attacks on the perception of the owner, it's then a commanded attack or deployment as a weapon which is not provocation. It's "reasonable" for a dog to mount an attack on a person confronting the dog's owner in a threatening manner........it's "reasonable" for a dog to attack to prevent the altercation escalating in a volotile atmosphere especially if the dog is picking up on the owner's fear and distress. It is "reasonable" in the circumstances with a person screaming and yelling and waving their arms around at the dog's owner threatening to cave their head in that the dog can be provoked by the situation to mount an attack in it's owner's defence. It is "reasonable" that the dog perceived in the circumstances that it's owner was in physical danger. A dog is not required to be able to discriminate as person can to apply reasonable force to resolve the situation which can't be expected from just a dog sensing danger.

Dogs don't need to provide the capacity to reason or act with an acceptable level of force, they are dogs, not human. Thank you for that statement of the blindingly obvious but you fail to grasp the point.The defence is qualified. It's not dogs who will determine what is "reasonable" under the law but it IS dogs that pay with their lives when their owners fail to control them accordingly. Anyone who allows their dog to determine when their owner is under threat is a damn fool. The bottom line is this: Providing that the dog owner is handling the dog in compliance with the laws and someone acts in a manner inwhich the dog perceives as threatening and bites the person in defence of the owner, the dog/owner has a statutory defence in most cases. The dog in this case was at large and unrestrained and if it was previously declared, wasn't muzzled in a public place, the owner has a problem now of course.

The general public question the situation for example if the people in control of the dog who killed Ayen Cohl was a Labrador and not the dog they had, would little Ayen still be alive......I would be confident to say yes she would be still alive and a Labrador would not have killed her in the same circumstances??. BSL doesn't work although had Ayen's killer been scooped up by BSL legislation prior to the attack and the dog replaced with a Labrador, BSL would have worked in this case to have saved Ayen's life more than likely.

Dogs don't need to provide the capacity to reason or act with an acceptable level of force, they are dogs, not human.

It's actually a statutory defence in many council areas around Australia that a dog may attack in defence of it's owner being subject to threatening behaviour, providing the dog is not already declared dangerous or is formally protection trained is the general criteria. You can't deploy a dog to attack, but if someone acting out with threatening behaviour against a dog owner within leash range of the dog and gets bitten, bad luck :D

Absolutely, BSL is here to stay for the foreseable future. So why not at least try and have some amendments put in place, especially in Victoria that allow suspect dogs to be temperament tested and at least give some of the "nice" family pets an option other than life in a cage or seizure and certain death. Asking for amendments to legislation, doesn't mean that you agree with it but there's more than one way to skin a cat . Yes, they need to give a bit to get a bit back. Instead of fighting all the way with the government, they could admit that "some" dogs that fit the standard do present a danger to the community and commend the government for taking a pro-active stance on that, THEN present that not "all" dogs fitting the standard are a risk to public safety and propose that suspect dogs be given the rights of passing a temperament test on the condition that if it doesn't pass it's euthanised without appeal and if it does pass the test, it's awarded a certificate of exemption to live life as a non-restricted breed.

What's new........another Bull crossbreed attack and we wonder why the public want the community rid of them If the dog wasn't already declared dangerous and was on leash, the owner would have a good defence, but given it was already declared, the owner has a few breaches to contend with ultimately the dog wasn't leashed and muzzled in a public place for starters.