Pet Dogs To Be Put Down After Killing

[SueM]

I saw the segment, the owner of the attacking dogs was an irresponsible tool, I have lost 1 chihuahua to a dog attack in my own yard, again not the staffies fault another negligent owner that never socialized his dogs or ever walked them. The poor owner of the Chi's losing so many. Those dogs did get to live with a dangerous dogs order attached to them, I did not want them destroyed. As this owner looks beyond educating, he even said his dogs were great with dogs what the, they can NOT return them to him. He also showed 0 remorse for his dog's killing, a bit like my case all I got was abuse.I ended up having to move.

Edited April 30, 2010 by varicool

[Dame Aussie]

I saw the segment, the owner of the attacking dogs was an irresponsible tool, I have lost 1 chihuahua to a dog attack in my own yard, again not the staffies fault another negligent owner that never socialized his dogs or ever walked them. The poor owner of the Chi's losing so many. Those dogs did get to live with a dangerous dogs order attached to them, I did not want them destroyed. As this owner looks beyond educating, he even said his dogs were great with dogs what the, they can NOT return them to him. He also showed 0 remorse for his dog's killing, a bit like my case all I got was abuse.I ended up having to move.

That's horrible varicool, as if it was your fault and you hadn't suffered enough already

[Abigail]

I saw the segment, the owner of the attacking dogs was an irresponsible tool, I have lost 1 chihuahua to a dog attack in my own yard, again not the staffies fault another negligent owner that never socialized his dogs or ever walked them. The poor owner of the Chi's losing so many. Those dogs did get to live with a dangerous dogs order attached to them, I did not want them destroyed. As this owner looks beyond educating, he even said his dogs were great with dogs what the, they can NOT return them to him. He also showed 0 remorse for his dog's killing, a bit like my case all I got was abuse.I ended up having to move.

So so sorry varicool for what you have had to endure. SO sorry for the loss of your chihuahua, how horribly heartwrenching.

[Abigail]

Re wildlife and birds, Erny. I think it is because wildlife and birlds are not owned and our perceptions are different.

That doesn't make the principal point any different to what it is. A cat took one of the birds who frequented my parents' property. We were fond of that bird. Going by the consensus of opinion on how to deal with these issues of an animal encroaching on another's property and killing something that someone is fond of/attached to, that cat should die. It seems.

I'm not saying that the dog-owner in this situation should not be heavily penalised. Although I guess it goes to follow then that cat-owners whose cats offend other people likewise should also be heavily penalised (and fair enough, if it makes them keep their cat and the other of my preferred animals safe). I'm not even saying that these dogs should be returned to their owner if the owner is moronic enough to not be responsible and do the right thing. And I agree ..... the dogs wouldn't stand much chance of rehoming so their outcome would likely be a sad one even if they were given that chance.

But I am saying that the views that are being expressed here have such general blanket statements behind them and in that respect I very strongly disagree and sometimes think they are no better than the sensationalism that is often created by the newspaper reports that so many criticise them for (myself included). Not to mention the assumption that is also being generalised to support those general blanket statements being that the dogs were DA. They might not have been - it might have been prey drive no different to that of cats.

Whilst we are talking about cats killing wildlife, the carnage of wildlife on the roads would equal, or exceed those killed by cats.

Motor vehicle injury and fatalities exceeds that which is caused by dogs.

I don't understand or see your point or relevancy on this, Jed.

Probably wasn't one, Erny!! I have a thing about people blithely driving over native animals on the road, when simply slowing down would have avoided a death, and people driving into birds, when the same action would have meant they flew away. How hard is it? I was reminded when the local koala group published stats on injured koalas - more injuries and deaths by cars than anything else. *sigh*

Sorry about your wild bird, it's enver nice.

I could not agree with you more, Ernie. How true....so many animals dying on the road need not have if not for a little more compassion from the driver. Some people simply do not give a flying sh&t!

[WreckitWhippet]

I know if stray dogs entered by yard and injured of killed on of mine, I would not stop hounding council until the dogs were at a very minimum declared dangerous and kept under the restricted conditions, my preference would be for them to be destroyed.

There are no second chances as far as I'm concerned , that would extend to my own, if the escaped and injured/killed another dog.

[Erny]

so true Jed I agree 100% the fences were right for that dogs owners.

I hate to say it but unfortunately there is no option for these dogs except the green dream.

All because the owner did not see the signs of dog agression.

I am not defending the behaviour of the owner, nor anything else, for that matter.

But here it is again .... signs of WHAT aggression? How do you KNOW it was aggression, LouiseBrooks. No-one should be putting labels on these dogs nor of their behaviour if you don't know what behaviour it really was. Whether you like the behaviour or not, it is not something that should be subject to these assumptions. Think before you shed your opinion and express your opinion on what you KNOW, not on what you think something MIGHT be.

This particular circumstance aside, I see a lot of people who jump to conclusions. Isn't that what we tend to get critical of the media doing in various newsworthy items they report on?

[Erny]

I know if stray dogs entered by yard and injured of killed on of mine, I would not stop hounding council until the dogs were at a very minimum declared dangerous and kept under the restricted conditions,

I'd be inclined to agree with you here, SBT123. Definitely that something needs to be done, if only to coerce the owner into taking steps towards safety and security.

... my preference would be for them to be destroyed.

My emotions might possibly have me expressing the same thing. But I don't think I'd really know until the moment came and I knew all the circumstances.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Erny

[Abigail]

so true Jed I agree 100% the fences were right for that dogs owners.

I hate to say it but unfortunately there is no option for these dogs except the green dream.

All because the owner did not see the signs of dog agression.

I am not defending the behaviour of the owner, nor anything else, for that matter.

But here it is again .... signs of WHAT aggression? How do you KNOW it was aggression, LouiseBrooks. No-one should be putting labels on these dogs nor of their behaviour if you don't know what behaviour it really was. Whether you like the behaviour or not, it is not something that should be subject to these assumptions. Think before you shed your opinion and express your opinion on what you KNOW, not on what you think something MIGHT be.

This particular circumstance aside, I see a lot of people who jump to conclusions. Isn't that what we tend to get critical of the media doing in various newsworthy items they report on?

At the end of the day, Erny, staffies and staffy crosses, pitbull and pibull x are dog aggressive. NO two ways about this; the only way to resolve this is for shires to implement strict regulations and not allow just any tom, dick or f&&&&ng harry to be able to get hold of such breeds. I love these dogs but this is one breed of dog that requires a fort knox situation to make sure that noone has to lose their beloved pets at the jaws of such dogs.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Abigail

[WreckitWhippet]

so true Jed I agree 100% the fences were right for that dogs owners.

I hate to say it but unfortunately there is no option for these dogs except the green dream.

All because the owner did not see the signs of dog agression.

I am not defending the behaviour of the owner, nor anything else, for that matter.

But here it is again .... signs of WHAT aggression? How do you KNOW it was aggression, LouiseBrooks. No-one should be putting labels on these dogs nor of their behaviour if you don't know what behaviour it really was. Whether you like the behaviour or not, it is not something that should be subject to these assumptions. Think before you shed your opinion and express your opinion on what you KNOW, not on what you think something MIGHT be.

This particular circumstance aside, I see a lot of people who jump to conclusions. Isn't that what we tend to get critical of the media doing in various newsworthy items they report on?

At the end of the day, Erny, staffies and staffy crosses, pitbull and pibull x are dog aggressive. NO two ways about this; the only way to resolve this is for shires to implement strict regulations and not allow just any tom, dick or f&&&&ng harry to be able to get hold of such breeds. I love these dogs but they do need a fort knockes (spelling ?) to make sure that noone has to lose their beloved pets at the jaws of such dogs.

What ?

Speaking in regards to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the breed standard calls for the animal to be totally reliable and a gentleman unless set upon. There are some that are dog aggressive, as there are in most breeds, however there are many Staffords that do not go actively looking for a battle.

We have standard suburban fencing, not " fort knockes " as you put it. We make sure that our dogs remain in our yard and when they are out of it, it's on leash unless permitted other wise.

[Abigail]

so true Jed I agree 100% the fences were right for that dogs owners.

I hate to say it but unfortunately there is no option for these dogs except the green dream.

All because the owner did not see the signs of dog agression.

I am not defending the behaviour of the owner, nor anything else, for that matter.

But here it is again .... signs of WHAT aggression? How do you KNOW it was aggression, LouiseBrooks. No-one should be putting labels on these dogs nor of their behaviour if you don't know what behaviour it really was. Whether you like the behaviour or not, it is not something that should be subject to these assumptions. Think before you shed your opinion and express your opinion on what you KNOW, not on what you think something MIGHT be.

This particular circumstance aside, I see a lot of people who jump to conclusions. Isn't that what we tend to get critical of the media doing in various newsworthy items they report on?

At the end of the day, Erny, staffies and staffy crosses, pitbull and pibull x are dog aggressive. NO two ways about this; the only way to resolve this is for shires to implement strict regulations and not allow just any tom, dick or f&&&&ng harry to be able to get hold of such breeds. I love these dogs but they do need a fort knockes (spelling ?) to make sure that noone has to lose their beloved pets at the jaws of such dogs.

What ?

Speaking in regards to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the breed standard calls for the animal to be totally reliable and a gentleman unless set upon. There are some that are dog aggressive, as there are in most breeds, however there are many Staffords that do not go actively looking for a battle.

We have standard suburban fencing, not " fort knockes " as you put it. We make sure that our dogs remain in our yard and when they are out of it, it's on leash unless permitted other wise.

Well SBT123, some posters have stipulated that such dogs are escape artists and that they are able to scale high fences. All I meant to say was that shires should ensure that anyone wanting to adopt or purchase such breeds should have adequate fencing and prove to be responsible owners. I don't doubt that you are one of those responsible pet owners but unfortunately alot of others are not as in the case of this tosser! I also believe that not all staffies go actively looking for WW3 but aren't the ones that do not the exception rather than the rule? Staffies and the likes were bred to kill other dogs in the pit, is that not so? Gosh, owning a pack of staffies is an accident waiting to happen and only owners that can ensure that these dogs are not able to jump, dig, escape their way out should be allowed to own them....when at work they should have runs with a concrete floor where they should be able to place their staffies to ensure that nobody has to lose their much loved pets in such a tragic manner.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Abigail

[Erny]

At the end of the day, Erny, staffies and staffy crosses, pitbull and pibull x are dog aggressive. NO two ways about this.

??? What stats and educated information is your obviously strong and undoubting opinion based on? I'd be interested to know.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Erny

[Erny]

All I meant to say was that shires should ensure that anyone wanting to adopt or purchase such breeds should have adequate fencing and prove to be responsible owners.

That's not what you said (above) and I'm still interested to know where the basis of your opinion stems from in that respect. But in regards to the above, why are you so breed specific about adequate fencing and people needing to be responsible owners? IMO that should apply no matter what breed of dog you have.

[Abigail]

At the end of the day, Erny, staffies and staffy crosses, pitbull and pibull x are dog aggressive. NO two ways about this.

??? What stats and educated information is your obviously strong and undoubting opinion based on? I'd be interested to know.

Obviously I am unable to come up with a list of numbers but I have owned a staffy 10 yrs ago and have known a fair number of people who did and not all were tossers, I can assure you of that.

As I have said in the last post, is it not so that staffies were bred to fight dogs in the pit along with pitbulls?

Edited April 30, 2010 by Abigail

[Abigail]

All I meant to say was that shires should ensure that anyone wanting to adopt or purchase such breeds should have adequate fencing and prove to be responsible owners.

That's not what you said (above) and I'm still interested to know where the basis of your opinion stems from in that respect. But in regards to the above, why are you so breed specific about adequate fencing and people needing to be responsible owners? IMO that should apply no matter what breed of dog you have.

Actually that is exactly what I meant when I stipulated that shires should ensure that no Tom, Dick or Harry should be allowed to own certain breeds of dogs. Okay, the reason I choose to be breed specific is because Staffies tend to be more prone to displaying aggression towards other dogs than other breeds, they clamp their jaws and do not let go for dear life, literally. Yes, adequate fencing should apply to all dogs but even more so to people owning more than one staffy as that is an accident waiting to happen.

[WreckitWhippet]

so true Jed I agree 100% the fences were right for that dogs owners.

I hate to say it but unfortunately there is no option for these dogs except the green dream.

All because the owner did not see the signs of dog agression.

I am not defending the behaviour of the owner, nor anything else, for that matter.

But here it is again .... signs of WHAT aggression? How do you KNOW it was aggression, LouiseBrooks. No-one should be putting labels on these dogs nor of their behaviour if you don't know what behaviour it really was. Whether you like the behaviour or not, it is not something that should be subject to these assumptions. Think before you shed your opinion and express your opinion on what you KNOW, not on what you think something MIGHT be.

This particular circumstance aside, I see a lot of people who jump to conclusions. Isn't that what we tend to get critical of the media doing in various newsworthy items they report on?

At the end of the day, Erny, staffies and staffy crosses, pitbull and pibull x are dog aggressive. NO two ways about this; the only way to resolve this is for shires to implement strict regulations and not allow just any tom, dick or f&&&&ng harry to be able to get hold of such breeds. I love these dogs but they do need a fort knockes (spelling ?) to make sure that noone has to lose their beloved pets at the jaws of such dogs.

What ?

Speaking in regards to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the breed standard calls for the animal to be totally reliable and a gentleman unless set upon. There are some that are dog aggressive, as there are in most breeds, however there are many Staffords that do not go actively looking for a battle.

We have standard suburban fencing, not " fort knockes " as you put it. We make sure that our dogs remain in our yard and when they are out of it, it's on leash unless permitted other wise.

Well SBT123, some posters have stipulated that such dogs are escape artists and that they are able to scale high fences. All I meant to say was that shires should ensure that anyone wanting to adopt or purchase such breeds should have adequate fencing and prove to be responsible owners. I don't doubt that you are one of those responsible pet owners but unfortunately alot of others are not as in the case of this tosser! I also believe that not all staffies go actively looking for WW3 but aren't the ones that do not the exception rather than the rule? Staffies and the likes were bred to kill other dogs in the pit, is that not so? Gosh, owning a pack of staffies is an accident waiting to happen and only owners that can ensure that these dogs are not able to jump, dig, escape their way out should be allowed to own them....when at work they should have runs with a concrete floor where they should be able to place their staffies to ensure that nobody has to lose their much loved pets in such a tragic manner.

Any buyer of any breed should make sure that they have adequate fencing to ensure their dogs stays in their own yard.

I've had plenty of SBT's over the years, including visiting dogs and dogs that have boarded with me, I'm yet to come across and escape artist. Dogs that lead rich and fullfilled lives, usually don't try to escape

I have three SBT's, none of my current dogs go looking for a battle and none of my past dogs have ever been dog aggressive. The vast majority of other SBT's that I know personally, are very much the same. Of course there are always exceptions and the owners of such dogs that I know, make sure that they contain and control their dogs and bitches.

Owning a pack of Staffords is not an accident waiting to happen. Owning any dog or mutliple dogs that are not trained or socialised is, regardless of the breed.

[grumpette]

Just heard on Channel 7 news that A magistrate ordered Hume City Council to return the dogs to the owner as it could not be proven which of the three dogs actually killed the chihuahuas.

Trying to find a link

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Oh my God. That is totally UNBELIEVABLE. How can that be right? They must be labelled dangerous dogs and their owner must be controlled or this is just going to keep happening. He's already gotten another staffy x so he'll have 4 of them getting out and killing other people's pets.

[Abigail]

Just heard on Channel 7 news that A magistrate ordered Hume City Council to return the dogs to the owner as it could not be proven which of the three dogs actually killed the chihuahuas.

Trying to find a link

Thank you for that grumpette, I have been on here and didn't hear about the outcome! I am totally disgusted with such a verdict. What kind of excuse is that to say that it could not be proven which of the three dogs actually killed the chihuahuas? That is just pathetic!!!! And to think that the owner of these dogs now owns 4 of them, what a fuc&&ing world, no sense of justice. I can just imagine what the owner of those poor chihuahuas must have to endure now!

Edited April 30, 2010 by Abigail

[Silverblue]

I am absolutely speechless, how the hell has this happened.

Now he has 4 dogs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[WreckitWhippet]

4 dogs, poor fences and hopefully a ranger camped around the corner, waiting to pick them up.