Amax-1

We tend to get overly consumed in a reactive dog alerting on another dog and rightfully so because dog reactivity is what we are primarily trying address and rehabilitate. But what the dog is actually doing here is ignoring an obedience command in a distractive environment, so what needs to be worked at is strengthening obedience for the dog to obey handler command through all distractions. The actual distraction is irrelevant and the thing of relevance is the fact the dog was called and he/she disobeyed the command to come to or follow the handler. Ideally you want handler focus from the dog and the dog to ignore distractions and training of that must be uniform across the board and very regimented that when the leash goes on the dog MUST comply with the handler at all times. Often the general handling of a reactive dog allows the dog to do his/her own thing and blow off commands like darting off on leash to sniff. If the handler allows the dog to sniff because the dog digs it's heels in on a good scent and won't budge, the dog learns that disobeying command is ok if the distraction is worthy of disobedience. When the dog alerts on another dog, the same rule applies to the dog that disobedience is permitted in face of a good distraction and that happens because the handler has trained the dog in general to be excused from maintaining obedience in high distraction. What has to happen is working on handler focus when the leash is on, so no sniffing, no leash pulling and rewarding the dog for handler focus and good obedience when complying with command and offing the right behaviour. The dog is conditioned to behave in a way that when the leash goes it's all about dog and handler working as a team, like it's you and me buddy, were are going for a nice walk together and nothing else matters. When the dog learns that mindset and complies with commands at all times, the reactivity towards other dogs ends Too much emphasis is often placed on the fact that dog is reactive to other dogs and the only reason it's an issue is that the dog is disobedient to command in face of that distraction. When the dog complies with obedience commands, that is when the dog alerts on another dog and the handler calls the dog off the alert and the dog obeys, the reactivity problem is solved :)

If a reactive dog is a bit insecure, you are better off stepping up for your dog and getting rid of the approaching dog as the pack leader and "piss off" yelled loudly with a strong arm movement to shoo the dog away is very effective to get rid of the dog and reassuring to your dog that you have got things under control and your dog doesn't need to deal with it. Sure you will exhibit some rudeness, but who cares really when the object is training your dog and a reactive dog blowing over threshold is destructive to your progress. If people don't have respect for your requests, then they don't deserve politeness. The other thing is to "try" and remain calm as the dog senses handler stress and makes it worse.....seeing an unleashed dog approach and you are thinking "hell I don't need this" in an anxious way, your dog sensing your anxiety is more likely to exceed threshold and react. I know this sounds a bit out there, but maintaining a good confident strut with your dog and bit of arrogance and tell an approaching off leash dog to piss off if necessary, does wonders for your dog's insecurity. A different handler attitude can have a dramatic difference to a reactive dog's thresholds in a rehabilitation process. :) You totally right on that Snook.....why do people take offence at rejecting their dog plays with yours and feel you are obliged to provide an explanation? They are worse stopping their kids rushing over to pat your dog which you stop the interaction for their kids safety just as a precaution even if the dog isn't human aggressive, safe is better than sorry, but they don't get it

You don't need to loose Hank to the bridge either if he did bite them for doing something stupid whilst in your "fenced" yard.

The ACD was the classic ute protector and guardian of the tradie's tools :laugh: That happened to me years ago......the police pulled me over for a licence check and then wanted to check under the bonnet for oil leaks on my ute. The young cop went to lean in and open the bonnet and I told him not to otherwise my dog will bite him more than likely and he didn't listen. The dog tore the sleeve of his jacket open and just grazed his arm. The young cop starts complaining and the old sergeant who was with him said "he told you not to stick your arm in the window you dickhead, now get back in the (police) car". That was in 1978 and the rules then were stick you hand in where a dog was contained and you get bitten, bad luck :D A lot of car yards had guard dogs back then at night, GSD's and Dobes were common and if someone jumped the fence and got bitten tough....there were no arguments or litigation about it, shouldn't have jumped the fence was the resolution! I have a had a woman go as far telling me that saying to her child who I stopped trying to pat my dog that he might bite was emotionally damaging placing fear of dogs into her child's mind? Mum told us from as long as I can recall that other people's dogs can bite so don't touch them. Mum taught us from a young age to stand still if bailed up by a dog, don't stare at it and don't run....we had good dog education as most kids did back then as there were plenty of loose dogs around in the day.

It's territorial pack drive kicking in again where the dogs see no boundaries and own the world before them. The owner would be aware of their dog's demeanour making extra vigilance required to ensure they are kept it.

The dog owners are at fault in this incident 100%

Even a 10 year old? I think again we fall back to education - parents should be responsible for teaching their children NOT to approach unknown dogs and don't go into a yard with a dog in there. Don't pull animals tails, ears, stick things in the ears, eyes and bums.. At 10 years old, surely a child knows not to enter a yard with dogs in it - or am I expecting too much from a 10 year old these days. I know my boys at that age would not have entered someones yard uninvited, let alone one with loose dogs. It is a very sad situation for all involved. It reminds me of the report a few years ago where a dog on the vets table to be euthanized for biting a child in the face causing severe injury had a coloured pencil jammed into it's ear canal......the child shoved a pencil into the dog's ear and got bitten? Years ago I taught a child to play ball with a dog of mine who was bullet proof with kids, a dog of extreme nerve strength. I taught the child to throw the ball and when the dog returned it, tell him "out" and he will drop the ball in your lap and you throw it again for him. That was great for 3 retrieves of the ball and on the 4 retrieve the child decided instead of the "out" command, he would smack the dog on the nose with a steel ruler he grabbed from the desk to release the ball. The dog growled and bared teeth frightening the child who's mother threw a fit at me for exposing her child to my dog exhibiting signs of a child killer. This dog did not spook and bite out of line, he was a super dog in stability so what did this child do to cause a reaction in the dog to warn the child to knock it off......the steel ruler was laying on the floor? The child admitted in the end he whacked the dog across the nose with the ruler so he wouldn't drop the saliva soaked ball on his lap. I have never let a child play with my dogs from that day forward which was 20 years ago. Kids can do some stupid stuff with dogs and few dogs are really child killers but many have been sadly PTS on that assumption.

Correct, especially entering through a gate with "beware of dog enter at own risk" sign on it. If the child wasn't street wise enough to adhere to that warning, perhaps the child wasn't mature or educated enough to be wandering the street without parental supervision?

No, everything reasonably had NOT been done by the owners of the dogs to ensure public safety. The dogs should have been securely gated in the back yard. Has it been established if the brother of the 10yo boy was even likely to have been on dog owners property? The Companion Animal Act would need to reflect that in order for a breach of law to be established and subsequent charges raised. Prosecutors can only raise charges against breaches of relevant laws.

Focus on this part of the law: Did the child have an excuse? I think he was going to knock on the front door and ask if his brother was there. No suggestion he was going to break in and knock off the Play Station. "Lawful excuse" means to perform a duty, a meter reader, postman delivering a parcel etc, an official purpose for trespass to conduct a role. In the event that police encounter a yard where dogs are likely to attack on entry, police can't shoot the dogs to gain safe entry even with an arrest or search warrant. They have to call Animal Control and have the ranger attend to remove the dogs in a proper manner and maintain the dogs safety also. There is no law whatsoever that allows a person to test dog reactivity or place themselves at risk by entering premises containing dogs regardless of the duty in which they are bound to perform. The gate being signed warning of dogs present removes the lure factor of perceived safety when the advice is "enter at own risk" at the gate where access to the property is made. Everything reasonably had been done by the owners of these dogs to unsure public safety. If any front door access laws do exist, the dog owners may have breached that law, but in breach of such a law doesn't excuse anyone for disregarding variables that may impact upon their own safety by making entry.

There will be a definition for locked at law which will be something like providing a disengagement mechanism is activated to open the gate, it will be considered locked by definition and unlocking the gate for entry without permission will be unlawful entry or something to that effect.

Owners may not be held responsible The owners of the two dogs might not be held legally responsible for the attack if the police investigation finds they had taken every safety precaution required by law. Under the Companion Animals Act of New South Wales a dog owner is liable for damages if their animal wounds or attacks another person. But the owners are not liable if the attack takes place on the property where the dog is normally kept and the person attacked was there unlawfully and if the dog is not declared as dangerous, menacing or restricted at the time. Here is the latest on the attack. The dogs were surrendered by the owner for euthanasia. They were not seized and PTS. As I mentioned previously in most jurisdictions, dogs can legally attack people who have entered the dogs property unlawfully as a statutory defence. Unlawfully meaning they were not invited to enter the premises.

It is a statutory defence in most jurisdictions if a dog attacks from provocation of intruders entering it's yard and was a case that could have been well argued to defend the dog's actions. Dogs are dogs, they don't relate to reasonable force and what's acceptable and in territorial drive, someone is on their turf who doesn't belong and their perceived job is to immobilise the target. Territorial drive trigger is entry of the unfamiliar and it doesn't matter to the dog who that is as they will react in the same manner as dogs don't justify and weigh up the pros an cons and the behaviour is completely normal for dogs high in territorial defence drive to stop the intruder in it's tracks. We have to extend passed the emotional side of a dog attacking a child in this instance as the dogs weren't serial child maulers, they were merely defending their territory.

Can't say I think this is a good analogy but I'll run with it. If you want to own a high performance vehicle, well and good. Make damn sure its serviced regularly, that its brakes work and that you don't allow people with minimal driving skills behind the wheel. Don't leave it parked with the keys in the ignition so some young joy rider can steal it and write themselves off. And if you drive to the speed limit and the road conditions and a child steps in front of your car? You'll never forgive yourself if you harm that child but you can put your hand on your heart and say "I did everything possible to make my car safe". I think the owners were reasonably responsible as they had warning signs displayed, the dogs weren't on the street threatening the community and they probably didn't think anyone was silly enough in the circumstances to waltz in? Did you buy the $1600 Kevlar brake pads that may have pulled the car up a millimetre shorter in distance than the $80 ones......where does responsibility for others mistakes end?

What do you propose a motorist should face when a child suffers a judgement error and steps out in front of a car?....just saying If the dogs did the job properly given that they were in the front yard, they should have been at the gate stopping the child from entering......he must have got in before they alerted on him and attacked? The sad thing with some consultation with dog people, they only needed one good GSD trained to work the fence line where most GSD's advertised for re-homing would be capable with a minimum of training and cost effectiveness but would otherwise be stable pets too. They don't need massive territorial drive to fend off cowards, barking and a bit of attitude in the dog of a known protection breed is all it takes as a strong deterrent to entry. It's a shame the child had to suffer as he did from the wrong choice of dogs.

I would take such a letter to the police station. They are not winding the dog up making him bark to cause you grief as it's unusual for a 7 year old GSD to become unsettled?

Kovacs Kennels in Victoria are about the only active working line GSD breeder who titles dogs in Schutzhund. The majority of dogs trialled these days are Malinois. I doubt any WA breeders have titled dogs and I don't think the sport is active much in Perth yet.

Territorial drive isn't triggered by threat level, it's triggered by unfamiliarity on entry so generally speaking such a dog will attack any unfamiliar person or animal entering their territory by default. Two dogs will generally heighten pack drive when working in defence in unison and increase severity of attack, so yes it is a potentially volatile situation that an unfamiliar intruder faces. Ideally the dogs should be well fenced and locked in the back yard, but the incident IMHO can't be treated as if the dogs escaped the yard attacking an innocent child on the street. The child did make the choice to enter an area containing dogs that were otherwise restrained from causing community danger. Because we can't place logical assumptions on general dog behaviour in all case increases the necessity for parental education with dog interaction. I bet the child didn't defy the rules of dog education, my bet is that child never had any constructive dog education in the first place and mindlessly walked into the yard?

A good protection trained dog is not a dangerous dog towards non threats, but the problem is people won't pay for the right type of dog or the training required to have a safe protector so they opt for these cross breed dogs of high territorial and defence drive, plonk them in the yard and they will attack anyone unfamiliar to them untrained. When incidents like this happen or such a dog escapes the yard is when serious injuries occur from dog attacks. Being right or wrong doesn't ease the pain and trauma of injury which I believe a parent has the obligation to protected their children from pain and trauma by providing proper education. It's not ok to enter a yard containing dogs because the gates are not locked so we assume because of that, the dogs must be good with kids? It's the same as assuming because someone is walking a dog in a public place that the dog must be good with kids so it's ok to rush over and give the dog a cuddle? I remember as a kid kicking the footy over the neighbours fence and I jumped the fence to retrieve it and patted their Beagle in the process. Mum went off her rocker.....we were dog people but I remember arguing with her about next door's dog being ok and didn't bite me. Mum's argument and education to us kids was, you don't know what a dog may do when invading it's territory and that was the rule. Same applied with not touching other people's dogs unless you ask to pat them because some dogs aren't used to kids and may bite. Good dog education with kids can prevent most of these incidents IMHO

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.

What people don't understand is the dog who attacked the pup is no good for a family pet as it's drives are in the wrong place and I would bet my life on the fact that the parents of this dog were exactly the same with active dog aggression so some idiot breeds on such dogs selling them as stable pets which they are not. A dog who is dangerous to other dogs in a pet environment needs either the green dream or extra vigilant management. We know what the dog owner should have done preventing such an attack, but dog owners drop the ball and are not always the perfection of sound management so when they do drop the ball, their dogs need to be of the genetic stability who don't by default engage in a killing rampage if they do jump out the window or slip out the gate. Dogs with genetic active aggression as pets are a PITA and the owners of such dogs need to do the right thing in the interests of community safety and for their own enjoyment potential of their pet IMHO

Sorry to hear about your pup and the other who's had hip replacements. You need to be careful with the breeding on working line GSD's as there are some Australian lines notorious for ED and HD yet some breeders are still line breeding on the main culprits although the parents are ok, the grandparents of the parents are not ok and when line bred on, ED and HD is surfacing in third generation progeny too often. There were 4 main culprits imported and two of them were bred producing some good working dogs in the one's not effected with ED/HD and in the time with limited gene pools these imports were bred over and over.....now they are getting line bred on and severe ED/HD is resurfacing from later breeding's with these dogs in the background unfortunately. The OP's pup and the other mentioned may be victims of dreaded nature, but there are some working line breeding's to steer well clear of for this reason as a cautionary note. I would also question the breed experience of any GSD breeder who recommended desexing at 6 months and any working line GSD breeder who recommended desexing at all IMHO is cause for concern. Having said all of that, I wouldn't trust an ED and HD diagnosis in a 6 month old pup as often Panosteitis is the cause of lameness in puppy hood and some vets although x-rays have been done are fast on the ED/HD trigger without really knowing what they are look at if ED and HD can be determined in a growing pup at all?

Were the behaviour problems caused by the dog being entire? Could the problems not be fixed with training? ETA: I am being a bit smart with my comments as I don't believe that desexing is the answer to fixing behaviour problems. I agree with Sandra777. A dog with behavioural problems is often desexed and trained simultaneously, then they say "wasn't the desexing wonderful" when in actual fact the training is what corrected the behaviour.

We need to be concerned about BSL for survival of the BYB cross breed industry and the illegal breeding of APBT's for what reason? The people breeding these dogs that are not APBT related but fit the looks criteria need to take more responsibility for what they are breeding and selling IMHO. No one needs to breed Amstaff X Labradors selling them to naïve people who become attached to their pets for the council to seize them is gross irresponsibility on the breeders part.

I walk dogs 10km's most days and rarely do I not encounter off leash dogs somewhere with owners who can't control them....I had two today run at us, one with a bit of aggression. As far as off leash dogs attacking guide dogs working for a blind handler is inexcusable, but sadly is a hazard with today's irresponsible dog owners.