mymatejack

Given that we are all interpreting your posts the same way, perhaps the issue is in the delivery rather than the interpretation. "did their little fluffball yap and carry on toward the larger dog first or was it as portrayed, a completely unprovoked attack? Unfortunately we're never likely to know!" I've been accused of all sorts of things in this thread. I've been accused of suggesting that a small dog yapping at a larger dog somehow justified the small dog getting ripped to shreds. I look forward to someone showing me where I said that - not some ridiculous extrapolation of what i've said, what i actually said!

blah ... why bother when people can't take what is written without trying to add some interpretation?

And now you make me see RED, here you go suggesting the small dog was to blame. Read the article again. The black dog was offleash. It was a much bigger dog. This was an unprovoked attack - it sounds like it was so sudden that noone had time to do much, they didn't see it coming! It RIPPED THE INNARDS out of the smaller dog. What does it take to make you and people like you realise that this is abnormal? It is completely unacceptable and this owner should go to jail and pay an enormous fine, his dog should be euthanased. The owner did nothing at all to prevent this attack and I'd like to know how many other dogs and animals have been killed already by this large dog - you can put money on it that it's done it before. wow, so many posters suggesting i'm excusing an unprovoked attack. Read what i actually said and try again. I did not place blame on either dog, I simply stated I'd really like to know the full story, not just what the media has told us. Did this occur in an offleash dog area? Did the larger dog approach the smaller dog and the larger dog ended up reacting to the smaller dog acting aggressively? Was the small dog really on leash? Lots of questions which we probably will never know the answer to. What does it take to make people like me reaslie that this is abnormal? What does it take to make morons who own little yappy fluffballs to realise that it's not ok for their dog to aggressively approach other dogs? I didn't intend for my comment to suggest that a dog getting barked at was reason enough for the other dog to react in such a manner, however anyone who lives in the real world will see stupid owners of all sized dogs allow their uncontrolled dogs to act dominant or aggressively toward other dogs, the majority of those are little fluffy yap yaps. It doesn't take much for a large dog to rip a small dog apart! BTW, I'm absolutely sick of stupid owners(mostly owning little fluffball yap yaps) who allow their dogs to charge and carry on toward my dog. It may well be the case that this little dog was completely innocent and the larger dog(well it's owner at least) was completely at fault but I'd like to know the full story, not just what we're told by the media! what a jerk you are mymatejack That's incredibly rude when mymatejack hasn't been rude to anyone here. I suggest you go and read the forum rules. I wouldn't worry about it, I have a pretty thick skin. Apparently some people(several more on this thread than just this poster) failed reading comprehension at school. Sheridan's accusations toward me are particularly humourous

And now you make me see RED, here you go suggesting the small dog was to blame. Read the article again. The black dog was offleash. It was a much bigger dog. This was an unprovoked attack - it sounds like it was so sudden that noone had time to do much, they didn't see it coming! It RIPPED THE INNARDS out of the smaller dog. What does it take to make you and people like you realise that this is abnormal? It is completely unacceptable and this owner should go to jail and pay an enormous fine, his dog should be euthanased. The owner did nothing at all to prevent this attack and I'd like to know how many other dogs and animals have been killed already by this large dog - you can put money on it that it's done it before. wow, so many posters suggesting i'm excusing an unprovoked attack. Read what i actually said and try again. I did not place blame on either dog, I simply stated I'd really like to know the full story, not just what the media has told us. Did this occur in an offleash dog area? Did the larger dog approach the smaller dog and the larger dog ended up reacting to the smaller dog acting aggressively? Was the small dog really on leash? Lots of questions which we probably will never know the answer to. What does it take to make people like me reaslie that this is abnormal? What does it take to make morons who own little yappy fluffballs to realise that it's not ok for their dog to aggressively approach other dogs? I didn't intend for my comment to suggest that a dog getting barked at was reason enough for the other dog to react in such a manner, however anyone who lives in the real world will see stupid owners of all sized dogs allow their uncontrolled dogs to act dominant or aggressively toward other dogs, the majority of those are little fluffy yap yaps. It doesn't take much for a large dog to rip a small dog apart! BTW, I'm absolutely sick of stupid owners(mostly owning little fluffball yap yaps) who allow their dogs to charge and carry on toward my dog. It may well be the case that this little dog was completely innocent and the larger dog(well it's owner at least) was completely at fault but I'd like to know the full story, not just what we're told by the media!

and yet another case of stupidity by the media reporting that the dog was "believed" to be a certain breed. As for the bloke punching the dog in the head, mate, stick ya boots into it's ribs with all the force you can muster, hitting a dog in the head will only hurt you. I do feel very sorry for the family, but i'd like to know the full story, did their little fluffball yap and carry on toward the larger dog first or was it as portrayed, a completely unprovoked attack? Unfortunately we're never likely to know!

Personally i think too many people put their pets through medical procedures for their own benifit rather than their pets. Is it better to enjoy the time you have and end their sufferring sooner rather than put them through endless procedures and who knows what pain to give you a few extra days/weeks/months?

Thats what i heard ... not sure how that fits with the legislation though?

Where would this leave a lot of sighthounds and other breeds with higher prey drive? All of my own greyhounds would kill a cat if they got the chance but they're certainly not dangerous dogs so far as public safety goes. Prey drive and aggression aren't the same thing so lumping them together is very unfair. This is an interesting point, however, as much as i'm no fan of cats, wouldn't the loss of a cat to a dog attack be as traumatising to a cat person as the loss of a dog to a dog attack would be to a dog person? I see the point of the proposal being that no matter what breed of dog you own, whether they may have potential drive to attack cats, dogs, humans or whatever, the responsibility lies with the owner to ensure that NO attacks happen? I've only read some of the AVA proposal so far but i'd like to see(if its not there already) an exclusion for any dog that attacks an intruder on the owners property, whether that be cat, dog or human

Very well said

Some people want to be educated, others don't. Some people will do want they want irrespective of what the law is. They're generally called criminal. The proposal does not address this. It's easy to sit back and be negative and criticize, what do you propose as the solution?

This video must have moved as it's now a link to diary farmers protesting. If they were declared dangerous dogs that should indeed up the penalty. It's still there, just you need to scroll down and go to page 2 and then look for the story, currently its on the top row of stories on page 2, and will no doubt move further and further down the list as time goes on and new stories replace it

Obviously you'll be advocating that golden retrievers should be wiped out also? http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8228648/pet-dog-mauls-four-in-sydney Monash university researcher has shown that out of 33 dog attack deaths since 1979, only 2 were attributed to american pitbulls or there crosses, including last years tragic event

Apparently they were pitbulls... but are not restricted.. how is this if they are registered in Victoria? especially if they were registered dangerous?... (not questioning your statement mymatejack) For all the pitbull haters out there, this fuels their fire. But in reality, irresponsible ownership not breed has lead to more heartache. Again for clarity, that is not my statement, that is what was reported on the news - well the news stated they were registered dangerous dogs, it said nothing about the council confirming they were restricted breed ETA : the link to the news report is in my post

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/video.aspx Channel 9 news report that the council have confirmed that they were registered dangerous dogs(not restricted breed). Assuming this is correct, the owners should be facing massive penalties

Everyone is saying mauled, cop says minor injuries... Because all cops are qualified vets ya know... Until you get a dog to the vet and shaved down how the hell would you know HOW injured it was. And here's the thing.. the OTHER dog is dead!! Seriously, if it wasn't for the name of the breed in the media headlines, would people be trying to play this thing down? 4 offlead out of control dogs pin one dog, and chase a guide dog worth $$$$ and the eyes for a person onto a road and people say "its not serious?". Owners grab dogs and do a runner and that's no biggie? I don't give a toss what breeds were involved. Some people are seriously out of line with this one. Have you people ever HAD a dog attacked? Minor injuries or not, its effing terrifying. 4 dogs going yours.... it is NOT a minor event for that person. I'm not sure whether you and others are having a crack at me, but to be clear, i was not trying to trivialise what happened, i was just providing the news as it was being reported. If you look at my first post i said something like "i hope the owner of the attacking dogs face serious consequences for what happened"

Everyone is saying mauled, cop says minor injuries... yup, obviously someone has it wrong. Did those links work for anyone else? i just tried to listen to the copper again and it didn't play. Anyway, here's a link to the 3AW story with links to the interviews

http://www.3aw.com.au/displayPopUpPlayerAction.action?&url=http://media.mytalk.com.au/3AW/AUDIO/100812_Policedogs.mp3 and an interview with a police representative and the mayor of the associated council. The cop said it was a bit hard to say the second dog was mauled due to the very minor injuries inflicted.

http://www.3aw.com.au/displayPopUpPlayerAction.action?&url=http://media.mytalk.com.au/3AW/AUDIO/100812_Dogattack.mp3 Neil Mitchell interviews the person walking the dogs that got attacked. His description of the "pitbulls" is interesting. The 4 dogs have been handed to the RSPCA. I hope the owner of the attacking dogs is dealt with severely

I think you touch on the real issue. My bet is that this dog was a backyard dog, probably very rarely(if ever) excercised, probably never socialised. This is where the politicians should be looking rather than focussing on breed. If every owner was forced to prove they had attended certified training/socialisation and be required to pass a dog ownership license test, these incidents would be massively reduced. Unfortunatley our politicians are populatist and not really interested in real solutions. Very sad for all concerned, especially those family pets that are well trained and socialised now getting PTS for no reason, other than the way they look.

Just as i suspected, you don't understand what the term gameness actually means but you go around spouting about how the gameness in certain breeds is causing attacks, which is a load of nonsense. A large dog attacking a small dog does not show any level of gameness imo. Gameness is the willingness to win no matter what the odds, and it doesn't just relate to fighting.

edit : i'll try that again later

Hey m-sass, according to a researcher at Monash university, there have been 33 deaths in Australia by dog attack since 1979. Of those only 2 have been caused by pitbulls or pitbull crosses(including Ayen Chol). How do you possibly justify your hatred? ETA : can you please explain what you believe is "gameness" as you clearly think this trait is a major problem

I agree with you about those people who are still knowlingly breeding APBT's in states where it is not allowed. Its silly and only going to lead to problems. However, I do not agree with you that ignorance in no excuse! The unfortunate fact is that the vast majority of people don't know about half the issues relating to dogs. If the majority of people understood the issues surrounding puppy farms, they would not exist. If you can't get the general population to understand the issues regarding puppy farms, how can you expect the average man in the street to identify a staffy cross compared to a pitbull, or even know what potential issues they may face down the track by buying/rescuing a certain dog? In fact how can you expect even those of us who do take a significant interest in the issues to really determine what is a staffy cross or what is a pitbull?

I keep reading m-sass talking about gameness, but i really don't believe that m-sass really understands what gameness actually means

The authorities (RSPCA and the local council) have known about this for some years without taking action. The RSPCA claim to be powerless. i really do not understand this. I thought the RSPCA was empowered to prosecute animal neglect, especially serious cases like this?