Womans Arm Severed By Dog

[huski]

Val Bonney believes that one reason dog attacks have increased is because of the increase in the use of positive training.

I agree with this,the whole 'JUST IGNORE BAD BEHAVIOUR" and reward every time you look at them is NOT suitable for all dogs.My dogs run as a pack,and they will do as they are told,there is no excuse for bad behaviour.Aversion training and negative punishment do have their place.

I think it's important to remember that when using positive reinforcement (and we all use it, at least I hope we do!) positive should never mean permissive. A bad trainer is a bad trainer regardless of the method they use - you can get bad 'purely positive' trainers and bad correction based trainers. It should be about balance IMO

[Jed]

My last post now

I am on the same page as Jed for those who have misconstrued my comments and accused me of agreeing with banning large breeds. Quit saying "some pug people have said..blah blah blah..because other than Anne, I am the only one who has posted in this thread today who has a pug so it's a bit obvious that certain comments are directed at me.

So I'm an idiot yet you agree with me. My head is spinning.

And what is this obsession with making out "pit bulls" are LARGE powerful dogs. The real ones are generally around (or under) 20kg - which doesn't make them LARGE by any stretch of the imagination.

Naw, boxers are heaps bigger. Pitbulls are squidgy little things.

And if bigger = more damage, ban them. Zug Zug's been attacked by one. Of course, there are still Bullmastiffs etc. Bans make no sense at all.

Centitout

I agree with this,the whole 'JUST IGNORE BAD BEHAVIOUR" and reward every time you look at them is NOT suitable for all dogs.My dogs run as a pack,and they will do as they are told,there is no excuse for bad behaviour.Aversion training and negative punishment do have their place.

Me too. You see it all the time. People want adolescent dog to do something. He growls. They give him time out. Next time, they give him time out. He still doesn't understand, and finally he bites someone. Happens all the time

It's called "Training your dog to Bite", but owners don't understand.

SBT123 asked the question - how many boxes did this dog tick? I'll bet he ticked a lot of them. The idea is to stop the dog when he ticks the first box. Or before he ticks the first box

But people don't see the first box being ticked.

[Longcoat]

Val Bonney believes that one reason dog attacks have increased is because of the increase in the use of positive training.

I agree with this,the whole 'JUST IGNORE BAD BEHAVIOUR" and reward every time you look at them is NOT suitable for all dogs.My dogs run as a pack,and they will do as they are told,there is no excuse for bad behaviour.Aversion training and negative punishment do have their place.

There is no place for aggressive behaviour and the "old school" methods to deal with aggression IMO work best.

[Longcoat]

I have been reading this with great interest and every day this worries me.

I do work in the pet industry, and no we don't sell puppies and kittens, but on a daily basis we have people come in with their

entire males and puppies. Whether they are buying food or a collar we always have the same conversations. Most want to breed.

I would say 80% are mix breeds ranging from Maltese x, oodles etc... but there is a large percentage that have bull breeds and all of those are from

byb. Most of the time we talk people out of wanting to breed their little pup that was bought from a petshop or byb. But to have a discussion with someone who has a bull breed is near impossible.

So my question is what can I do? or can someone write me up a educational flyer that I can hand out. It doesn't have to be directed at any breed I

guess but if we can stop at least one person from irresponsible breeding it would be a very small start.

This is where some laws need to be in place........at the root of the problem, not trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted. It should be an offence to breed dogs for anyone other than a registered breeder. It should be an offence to breed cross breeds without being a registered breeder and applying for a permit to breed crosses for a valid reason with strict criteria. It should be an offence to sell unregistered breedings or advertise them for sale. It needs to be made difficult for the average yobbo to breed and aquire dogs in general.

Where did this crossbreed dog that severed the lady's arm come from???. Was it attained by screening potential owners by a registered breeder and offered for sale for $800/$900, or a giveaway to any yobbo that would take it??? Dog control and laws need to be in place where dog's begin in the breeding structures. Any one who wants a Pitbull or any other breed dangerous or not that researches the breed and pedigrees, finds an ethical breeder and pays $1000 for a puppy who the breeder believes is worthy of the purchase is likey to be a process attractive to irresponsible owners.

BSL, targeting breeds, mandatory desexing etc etc, are all bandaid measures to what essentially is too many poorly bred dogs attained by irresponsible owners too easily IMO

Edited March 25, 2010 by Longcoat

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Val Bonney believes that one reason dog attacks have increased is because of the increase in the use of positive training.

I agree with this,the whole 'JUST IGNORE BAD BEHAVIOUR" and reward every time you look at them is NOT suitable for all dogs.My dogs run as a pack,and they will do as they are told,there is no excuse for bad behaviour.Aversion training and negative punishment do have their place.

There is no place for aggressive behaviour and the "old school" methods to deal with aggression IMO work best.

What do you mean by old school methods? For example, what do you do if a dog attempts to guard a person, position or object?

[Souff]

Val Bonney believes that one reason dog attacks have increased is because of the increase in the use of positive training.

I agree with this,the whole 'JUST IGNORE BAD BEHAVIOUR" and reward every time you look at them is NOT suitable for all dogs.My dogs run as a pack,and they will do as they are told,there is no excuse for bad behaviour.Aversion training and negative punishment do have their place.

There is no place for aggressive behaviour and the "old school" methods to deal with aggression IMO work best.

There is NO PLACE for aggressive behaviour when dogs are living with humans. Positive reinforcement works well but there are also times when a dog needs to be told that something or other is NOT ON. Often, the change in your tone of voice can be enough for them to get the message!

Yet I see dogs that never receive that changed tone of voice - problems are avoided or excused. End result? Dogs that are basically untrustworthy.

In Australia, even if I have a gun licence, I CANNOT KEEP A LOADED GUN IN MY HOUSE.

Having a dog that cannot be trusted and is capable of dismembering a human, is worse than having a loaded gun in the house.

At least one person will know when the gun is going to go off - the shooter.

IT OFTEN CANNOT BE PREDICTED WHEN AN UNSTABLE, AGGRESSIVE DOG WILL GO OFF and the results can be as lethal as a gunshot.

Souff

[~Anne~]

I'll preface by saying - my use of the word 'certain breeds' has been taken in the wrong way. When I say 'certain breeds' I am not distingusihing between powerful , large, small or hairy. You have automatically taken it that I am referring to only large and powerful breeds.

What's wrong with Maremmas, are they too big for a townhouse?

There is nothing wrong with Maremmas lilli. However, my lifestyle and living conditions are not adequate for them, nor do I have any real knowledge of them or their requirements apart from my discussions with Julie. A dog, that is designed to keep watch over herds and largely live in open fields should never be kept within closed walls in a 6m x 6m backyard by an owner who does not know anything about the needs of the breed. The dog in this instance, living with me in a townhouse in western sydney with my lifestyle, would suffer.

That suffering leads to problems with behaviour and leads to ill health.

Do pugs fall under the category "certain breeds"?

Perhaps they should.

My use of the words 'certain' was incorrect in this context and I can see how you have mistaken what I was meaning as I said above. I was also thinking of Pugs. Pugs require a certain type of care, they are not the dog for everyone. If a person understands the care they need, and the environment they need to live in, things go well. When a Pug is not cared for, due to ignorance and a lack of what is needed, the dog suffers. In this case, the suffering can end in death.

I'd rather a dog which is physically sound and has its instincts

than a dog like the pug which has had all its instincts bred out, and all diseases and defects bred in, and getting near kicking the bucket when it nears 28C.

I dont know much about pugs, they just seem like close to the ground blobs that have difficulty breathing and cant move that well.

Not nice is it when prejudice is thrown around based on preference and ignorance?

Well this is what it is like for owners of big dogs or 'certain breeds' - when issues of breed based controls are bandied around based on the unknown and fear.

'tis not very productive is it?

I mean seriously. Instead of flying off half cocked, why not look at all of my posts and put them into context, instead of focussing on one. I accept your narkiness only for the fact that I can see I should have worded my post a little better . Yes, there are breeds that are so much easier to look after than a Pug. I don't believe just any dick or harry should be entitled to own a Pug or any dog. As I said lilli - controls and education. We have some controls in place, but they are not effective, not enforced and not enough. As it stands, ANYONE can own ANY DOG, and keep it in ANY SITUATION regardless.

Not directing this solely at you Anne, but to the other posters too who want big dogs controlled ( = big dogs banned in certain areas).

Hmm so if one is over 60yo say, what are the choices for dog ownerhsip: a brainless chihuhua with the nerve and brain of a pea, or a pug that cant breathe.

Aye what horrible generalistations and stereotypes, but this is what prejudice brings.

Not just big dogs - any dog. For the record, I have no predjudice against any breed any more than any other dog lover. I actually have owned Wemieraners, Labs and GSDs as well as Pugs. I like certain breeds, I dislike others. That's normal.

[~Anne~]

I've just finsihed reading the rest of the posts.

Mantis - if you are including me in your statement about 'Pug owners stating their should be controls on owning large breed dogs', you also have taken my comments completely out of context.

I am always amazed at the ability of some to take bits and pieces of posts and put them together to come up with a complete different thing. All I can say is, learn to look at the bigger picture. Most people make several posts putting their thoughts across, why is it that some are determined to only focus on a statement here or a statement there instead of looking at all of the statements made in context?

To help those who have done this, I have collated a heap of my statements made in this thread so that you can see many together and perhaps not just focus on one that you choose deliberately or accidently to take out of context;

*I do not agree that we should exstinguish any breed, nor do I believe that dogs who have never displayed aggression in any form should be seized, caged, removed from loving homes or euthanased.

*There should be restrictions placed on the ownership of some breeds. This not only should apply to large and powerful breeds but working breeds kept in suburbia and others who likewise are owned and handled by people in conditions that the breed is not suitable for.

*To be honest, I think the greater majority of people in this thread are on the same side. We just view the debate from different angles. I doubt there are many here that feel the APBT or other bull breeds should be banned and treated with the fear they currently do. The idea that innocent family and much loved pets are dragged from their homes, caged and then killed horrifies me as I am sure it does many, many, many others.

DOL and the debates I have been involved in and watched on the sidelines, has taught me that legislation IS NOT the answer. Blanket bans are useless, cruel and stupid.

Education and control in my views are the key.

*Controls on ownership, socialisation, training and knowledge. By the way, I beleive there is a difference in controls and 'restrictions'.

*Controls could mean anything from reinforcing some of the existing legislation such as microchipping and registered animals to control on what breeding means and implies.

While the focus of much of my disucssion has been on large or powerful breeds, this is simply because of the subject of this thread and the subsequent discussions.

[WoofnHoof]

I'd love to know where you got the impression that myself (or anyone else here) is agreeing with banning large dogs. I have a husky which could be called a large dog (although technically they are a medium breed) so I'd hardly be advocating the banning of large dogs would I?

My chihuahua is agressive, but most of the time nobody cares because if he's not in anyone's face he's not a danger to anyone, the only way he might succeed in severing my arm was if I had died already and he'd had a week or so to gnaw at it.

So what we have is a combination of powerful animals and humans who no longer use them for work and therefore have little understanding of the proper management of powerful animals, and the reasons for it. Therefore controls over ownership and breeding are a logical step to take IMO.

Control over ownership = control of who, where and when the breed can be owned = BANNING of the breed where it is decreed the breed cannnot be owned.

Not sure why you would equate controls with banning breeds? Going back to my driver's licence analogy, if you obtain an open license you can own and drive whatever car you want. There don't seem to be any moves to change that as far as I'm aware (unless you count people whining about 4x4s in the city) so why on earth would ensuring people have demonstrable knowledge of dog behaviour and breed-specific requirements become a ban on certain breeds? It's well established that a ban on specific breeds has no impact, however enforcement of education is likely to have a positive impact.

A driver's license doesn't restrict anyone from doing anything, it's merely a certification of competence, if you are deemed competent you get one if you aren't you go back to the books until you can prove you are. Hell it might even be useful for people to demonstrate a basic knowledge of chihuahuas before getting one too!

You may prefer the current status quo where you can get a pup without having to prove you know anything about dogs or the breed in question but it's fairly clear to me and others here that the status quo isn't working for humans or for dogs.

[HugUrPup]

A driver's license doesn't restrict anyone from doing anything, it's merely a certification of competence, if you are deemed competent you get one if you aren't you go back to the books until you can prove you are. Hell it might even be useful for people to demonstrate a basic knowledge of chihuahuas before getting one too!

[WreckitWhippet]

For those that suggest a licence to own a dog, we can't even get the basics enforced in NSW when it comes to chipping and registration. A licence would be yet another piece of red tape, that the responsible pay for and the rest continue on their merry way.

[HugUrPup]

Yeh it would be hard to implement but one can dream hey?

I recon we need a license to parent human's too

[Quickasyoucan]

My chihuahua is agressive, but most of the time nobody cares because if he's not in anyone's face he's not a danger to anyone, the only way he might succeed in severing my arm was if I had died already and he'd had a week or so to gnaw at it.

My 45kg Deerhound needed extensive surgery to reattach his thigh muscle after an aggressive 5kg Jack Russell grabbed hold of him. Four years later, he still has a 20cm scar down his leg, and some muscle weakness there.

I don't thinks that's very funny.

An aggressive dog is an aggressive dog. I don't care about it's size.

And for the record, my dog never even TOUCHED the JRT as it attacked him. He was running away from the little turd and it latched onto my boy's thigh.

I nearly lost a finger to a serious bite from a silky x. That would have ruined my livelihood and had serious consequences for the rest of my life. I think ALL aggressive dogs are a problem actually, particularly those whose owners think it is cute because they are a small dog and won't hurt anyone.

[justin19801]

For those that suggest a licence to own a dog, we can't even get the basics enforced in NSW when it comes to chipping and registration. A licence would be yet another piece of red tape, that the responsible pay for and the rest continue on their merry way.

Correct, just another way to end pet ownership. The link between ending pet ownership and animal rights/welfare groups was made in the US over a decade ago. We are still behind them on that one.

Use of positive reinforcement at least involves people training their dog and can't be all bad.

The greatest problem is isolation of dogs. In the 70s mums were at home as the kids grew up, now they're out working and kids are in kindy etc and the dog spend most of it's life alone, not good for a social companion animal. Council fines etc reinforce this problem. Education is the key and that's where we should be directing our resources IMHO.

[justin19801]

I'd love to know where you got the impression that myself (or anyone else here) is agreeing with banning large dogs. I have a husky which could be called a large dog (although technically they are a medium breed) so I'd hardly be advocating the banning of large dogs would I?

My chihuahua is agressive, but most of the time nobody cares because if he's not in anyone's face he's not a danger to anyone, the only way he might succeed in severing my arm was if I had died already and he'd had a week or so to gnaw at it.

So what we have is a combination of powerful animals and humans who no longer use them for work and therefore have little understanding of the proper management of powerful animals, and the reasons for it. Therefore controls over ownership and breeding are a logical step to take IMO.

Control over ownership = control of who, where and when the breed can be owned = BANNING of the breed where it is decreed the breed cannnot be owned.

Not sure why you would equate controls with banning breeds? Going back to my driver's licence analogy, if you obtain an open license you can own and drive whatever car you want. There don't seem to be any moves to change that as far as I'm aware (unless you count people whining about 4x4s in the city) so why on earth would ensuring people have demonstrable knowledge of dog behaviour and breed-specific requirements become a ban on certain breeds? It's well established that a ban on specific breeds has no impact, however enforcement of education is likely to have a positive impact.

A driver's license doesn't restrict anyone from doing anything, it's merely a certification of competence, if you are deemed competent you get one if you aren't you go back to the books until you can prove you are. Hell it might even be useful for people to demonstrate a basic knowledge of chihuahuas before getting one too!

You may prefer the current status quo where you can get a pup without having to prove you know anything about dogs or the breed in question but it's fairly clear to me and others here that the status quo isn't working for humans or for dogs.

1,500 people a year die from competent people with licences!

[raz]

So is there any news anywhere on how the woman is recuperating?

[WoofnHoof]

For those that suggest a licence to own a dog, we can't even get the basics enforced in NSW when it comes to chipping and registration. A licence would be yet another piece of red tape, that the responsible pay for and the rest continue on their merry way.

Correct, just another way to end pet ownership. The link between ending pet ownership and animal rights/welfare groups was made in the US over a decade ago. We are still behind them on that one.

Use of positive reinforcement at least involves people training their dog and can't be all bad.

The greatest problem is isolation of dogs. In the 70s mums were at home as the kids grew up, now they're out working and kids are in kindy etc and the dog spend most of it's life alone, not good for a social companion animal. Council fines etc reinforce this problem. Education is the key and that's where we should be directing our resources IMHO.

What do you do to get a license? You pass a test. What do you do to pass a test? You learn the material. Learning = education.

Most people who have obtained a license know the basic rules, they know when to give way, when to indicate (sometimes) and when to stop or go. They didn't learn this via osmosis they learned it by reading the rule book and practicing under supervision. Sure there are plenty of people who drive unlicensed and do the wrong thing but overall the system works - most of the cars on the road don't crash because most people are following the rules. At present most dog owners don't know the rules, they don't understand basic dog behaviour and the basic needs of their dog. They don't know the reasons their dog behaves as it does and they are currently under no obligation to learn this before getting a dog.

[WoofnHoof]

So is there any news anywhere on how the woman is recuperating?

Nothing on the news Raz, I can only find stuff from the 23rd. Hope they were able to reattatch everything, I can't imagine how painful that would be

[centitout]

The simple thing would be to remember,for ANY dog,is they should never be taken for granted,or indeed trusted.After a long association with dogs and horses/pigs etc,i DO NOT trust any of them ,especially at particular times-they are animals and will act like it.They should be respected for what they are -an animal capable of serious injury,regardless of species,size,breed,disposition.

Seen too many very serious injuries from 'BOMBPROOF" horses and ponies from people that 'TRUST' the horse and let toddlers lead sometimes 16hh horses around.Same with dogs.

[BJean]

Most people who have obtained a license know the basic rules, they know when to give way, when to indicate (sometimes) and when to stop or go. They didn't learn this via osmosis they learned it by reading the rule book and practicing under supervision. Sure there are plenty of people who drive unlicensed and do the wrong thing but overall the system works - most of the cars on the road don't crash because most people are following the rules. At present most dog owners don't know the rules, they don't understand basic dog behaviour and the basic needs of their dog. They don't know the reasons their dog behaves as it does and they are currently under no obligation to learn this before getting a dog.

Basic rules?

What are the rules for dog behaviour/training?

There is no consensus on dog behaviour/training, only theories.

moreover, the popular theory of the moment, which has issue with the word dominance

would not give much time to concepts of rank and being a 'leader'. (its not an appropriate concept for them)

When a dog goes to attack with intent and means what it does

more often than not, it does not regard the object it is attacking as having the same right to be or do what the dog is doing.

This type of mindset requires that the dog perceive a rank/teired/hierachial system in the world it interacts with.

I've never known a dog with the mindset to carry out a sustained attack to not have this kind of operating system.

Purely positive training is endorsed and recommended by the RSPCA.

A licensing 'education' system (sic) based on this would be a disaster.

To advocate licensing for dogs ownership is a failure to see the practicalities, contradictions and issues of dog ownership.

Edited March 25, 2010 by lilli