Tralee

Hi Dogs have personalities so there is going to be differences depending on breeding and rearing. Irrespective of the dogs 'duties' all Maremmas should be able to leave their charges and venture into other less officious occasions. The Maremma should be alert but not aggressive. You may have seen this but it points out that the onus is on the visitor, not the owner of the dog. The caution with Maremma, and other breeds I would imagine, is not to allow or encourage prey drive. The other factor is not to pen puppies with older dogs, if you are raising multiple dogs, in order to prevent competitive guarding. Lastly, working temperament can be deceptive. Even the friendliest Maremma can still get the job done, they don't need to be the feral, hell hounds of rural myth. In fact, if they are then questions need to be asked. Regards

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. Exactly! I think it should also have been marked with a clearly visible red and yellow collar. What the owner of the dog has failed to realise is that the dog needed to be protected, particularly since the dog was clearly under restricted ownership criteria. Some people must think 'mother nature' can do it all herself. Maybe once upon a time, but not since Adam bit the apple.

13 yo is amazing for any dog. Good on you! Commiserations on your recent loss Dxenion. In peace, Java.

Should be something in there for the owner of the dog as well.

Point taken. But consider this: I wonder if the dog would see it that way. What I cannot emphasise strongly enough, particularly to Maremma owners, is that the dogs, individually and collectively, have to be thoroughly known and understood. I have a dog who I could leave unattended in a nursery with infants. I wouldn't, but you get my point. I have another dog who is fine, and will allow a short, gentle pat and nothing more. Is not bothered by other dogs. He is supremely aloof The puppy boy will actively test people, a pat will be followed by a muzzle punch or a lunge to see if they are a threat. This is the result of a bad neighbour. He does a stomp in front of dogs but its the same thing, a test. This dog just doesn't gamble on other people or other dogs. The puppy girl had so much prey drive that out walking neither dogs or people could approach. Nevertheless, in a staionary placement anybody could pat and make a fuss of her. Dogs are allowed to be dogs. Notwithstanding, a dog declared dangerous does not have much of a life. What is not understood is the frequency with which this is done or how easily it is can be imposed. In NSW from 1 April 2012 to 30 June 2012 there were 81 Dangerous dog declarations made and 200 dogs destroyed. Unlike the idiot in the car, we need to protect our dogs. That's my point

With all due respect: Are you an undercover dog nazi? I mean that type of tripe is just anti-dog. The law clearly states that people have as many obligations and responsibilities around dogs as dogs do around people. Let me reiterate here. If you don't give my dog the respect it gives you then bad luck if it barks and lunges at you. If you enter my property and my dog pushes you off by nipping your thigh, bad luck. If you run towards me, while I'm walking with the dog or you put yourself between me and the dog and then move towards me, and the dog runs up and knocks you over, bad luck. Of course, I would need a witness. However, if you come back to me with "The dog needs to be destroyed if its bitten someone" I will just evoke the banghead emoticon.

I don't pray. I understand, I am all for responsible ownership and dog's getting a fair trial, however I am talking about this particular case and not aggressive dogs in general. If this were my dog I would have it pts, it is already labelled as a dangerous dog and then jumps through a window at a guy who was angry and attacked him viciously. His owner sounds like a jerk that ignored the warnings and rules and jeopardised not only this dog's life but every person this dog came close to. I feel this was the right decision. Well, long story short, the dog should have been constrained, compliant with the requirements for a dangerous dog. But the discussion twists and turns and my comments are missing the mark. My point is that too many people accept the fidelity of their dogs as temporary and disposable. I was pointing to the issue of dog ownership in perpetuity. Therefore, PTS is always the last option. When a criminal offence has been committed; entirely a different story.

OK so genetic aggression and medical reasons don't exist. What if the dog killed that guy? Should it still live because it can be trained out, supposedly? Some dogs are just bad. And that's why we pray: "God grant me the wisdom to know the difference." We advocate for dogs. We also advocate for responsible dog ownership. In a lesser known regard, we advocate for calmer heads in regulation and enforcement. Which is why we can conclude; one false positive is too many, and the cost is too high. That is the point I am making. Of course, some dogs are irredeemable, that is the tragedy.

Bit of a generalisation there don't cha think? Nope! Generally, dogs are PTS for convenience and cost. Sad but true.

Definately a 'shmackos' moment. :D

Best you don't raise your voice in anger to someonme with a Maremma in tow. I have seen it often enough, heard similar stories from others, and appraise all potential puppy owners of the fact. If my maremma was already on paper as a dangerous dog and then he jumped through the window and viciously attacked someone because they were annoyed with me, he'd be pts. He's protected me on a number of occasions but not once has he gotten physical. Also I did say viciously attack which is what the dog did, I don't consider a bite or two a vicious attack but the dog mauled this person by the sound of it. Its overreaction is scary and the dog should be put down. Firstly you shouldn't put Maremma and dangerous dog in the same sentence. Secondly, Maremma's will react in the manner I have described. I've seen it first hand, several times, after hearing told of it. I have been the recipient of other Maremma staring me down in the same fashion. Lastly, you should be aware that Maremma will use their own discretion when it comes to their innate sense of guarding. Maremmas do not cope with having their role as guardian usurped. The best you can do is make allowances for their active guarding behaviour and never become complacent. And sadly, it would be an over-reaction to PTS. Just as a friendly dog can be taught to attack, an unfriendly dog can be taught not to attack.

PTS is a last resort, whatever the circumstances. I've made that mistake once and I won't be doing it again. Best you don't raise your voice in anger to someonme with a Maremma in tow. I have seen it often enough, heard similar stories from others, and appraise all potential puppy owners of the fact. As I said, its best to have a witness

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 You missed a very important word: Do you think leaping through a car window, causing enough damage to require surgery and having to be dragged off the attack victim was "reasonable". The question I'd like to know is what behaviour saw this dog classified as dangerous previously??? 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. I don't prescibe to this view at all. On this planet, dogs are afforded some rights. In NSW, ... In my reading of the act, an offence would not have been committed if the dog had not been previously cited as a dangerous dog. My dogs will, and have reared up on their hind legs to stare down aggressive people who have moved too close and raised their voice in a threatening manner. The fact in these cases is not whether someone deems the incident to be 'reasonable' but whether you have any witnesses. Regards

It is quite clear to me from the article: that the owner had a number of obligations and responsibilities. Many people go to hospitial after a dog bite. In this instance the owner has failed the dog and that is the tragedy.

Everyone who has a dog should know all of the consequences of having a dog declared dangerous. In NSW the dog should have been muzzled because it was off property and should have been clearly marked with red and yellow banding appropriate for the dogs size. The dog should also be restrained by a leash and be under the control of the owner or other relevant person. The fact that there was an alleged road rage incident and the nonce guy approached the car where the dog was is irrelevant.

OK! Now here is the Left Front Arthrodesis of the Antebrachiocarpal Joint at 10 weeks post. op. Puppy should be ready to return to his owner in two weeks.

How much will people be willing to pay for a house and land just to have the rights of others to own a dog curtailed. And, it does not follow that dogs will kill Koalas. Wouldn't the dingos have eradicated them centuries ago? Of course cutting down all the river red gums wouldn't be the major cause. But it would stop dogs peeing on the bottom of the Koalas' tree.

Well, you are not allowed to say No Dogs. It breachers the discrimination laws. It would be the same as having a sign saying No Women. You can say Men Only. That's the difference. How are they going to sign their neighbourhood? People Only? Someone will need to tell the birds and vermin.

NO CATS and NO DOGS ALLOWED at the Channon. This is a forward, free thinking community of intentional lifestylers. No dogs, but drug dealers are welcome. I bet their no dogs society will come back to bite them on their arse. It already has at the Channon

Beggar's belief really. What it shows is that John McAteer doesn't understand the nature of things and thinks an alternative reality can be set up that separates police power from everything else. "Tell him he's dreamin' "

Huummmpppff! You need to have a dog club first. A Maremma Dog Club.

I think from Physiology 1A and 1B in second year Biology I seem to recall that vitamin C helps with the uptake of calcium that is needed for muscle contraction. Caffeine also stimulates the muscles but is contra-indicated if taking Vit C because it inhibits its uptake. However, this is just off the top of my head, and may be a little bit skewed.

Don't ask me. They are part of a Kennel that was for sale not that long ago down the South of New South Wales. I just saved the pictures for my future plans. This one is real though.

Could be fixed with something as simple as giving calcium between whelping each pup and then for a couple of days after. Is this true? Does calcium prevent the bitch from cannibalising newly whelped pups? Do we know the causes, or indeed its mode of action?