Malamum Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I agree Malamum- dogs can't possibly understand morals etc- thats why dogs have owners to (in theory) be responsible for them. Yes classic anthropomorphism of animals Dogs don't have morals, ethics, ability to feel any intent etc...... Sadly these dogs are at the mercy of their owners who - having had the council around their place doing work - failed to check to see if their property was still safe for their dogs to run around in without fear of escape. Result = 1 traumatised pet owner and 1 poor JRT who never stood a chance!! I have had siberians for 17 years......anyone who has ever been to any of my properties, as a worker or doing work near by, has had to deal with me being in their face about making sure nothing is done to make it possible for my dogs to escape and if anything is - that they let me know so I can temporarily fix it until they can permanently fix it. It is MY responsibility to check my property to ensure my dogs are securely contained BEFORE I let them out to play! I think there are lots of assumptions being made about how responsible the owners are. What if their normally secure yard was as it has been every day for the past xx years when they left for work that morning. Sometime after they left the council turns up to do some work outside their property and one of the workers accidently backs a piece of heavy machinery through the fence. This enables the normally secure dogs to escape and the owners arrive home from work that afternoon to realise their worst nightmare has happened. We just don't know enough of the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotwyr Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 point taken we don't - but huskies loose in a yard when no ones home isn't a great idea either.... unless they are in 6 foot, hotwired, fully enclosed runs - maybe then.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malamum Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I think it turns out that the dogs were Malamutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudd Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) Pretty scary! Edited January 9, 2011 by Spudd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mum to Emma Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 The attack occurred on 2 January - a Sunday. How likely is it that Council workers (or subcontractors) were at work on 1 January, or indeed at any time prior to Christmas? That's in excess of a week that the Malamute's owners had to detect a weakness in the fence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoofnHoof Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Sometimes councils do urgent works on weekends and public holidays, we've had heaps around with the floodwater damage sometimes storm water works get damage and require urgent repairs. It's a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danielle Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 How long the fence was damaged and who is to blame has no bearing on what should be done. These dogs KILLED another dog on leash and attacked the owner of said dog. They need to be destroyed, case closed. Then ppl can play the blame game. These dogs are not fit to live in society, they have proven it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staranais Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Stick your hand into the middle of a dog fight between any two dogs & you'll most likely get bitten. I wouldn't necessarily call that an "attack" on the owner, even if the newspaper does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 What exactly does killing the dogs achieve/ resolve? Does it make people feel safer? If so, its a false economy because there is NOTHING being done to prevent another attack from occurring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staranais Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 What exactly does killing the dogs achieve/ resolve? Does it make people feel safer? If so, its a false economy because there is NOTHING being done to prevent another attack from occurring. Merely killing the dog achieves nothing - the owner will likely just go get another DA or predatory dog, and not necessarily contain it properly either. It's not like there aren't thousands of DA and predatory dogs out there for them to adopt - the majority of dogs would kill other pets if you let them roam. Even dogs that won't fight other dogs will kill cats or pet bunnies or chickens or chase sheep if allowed to do so. From what I can work out, the call to PTS come from people that think that their dogs would never do such a thing to any other animal, and so that any owner of a predatory or DA dog deserves whatever they get merely for owning such an animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mutt lover Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) This brings a tear to my eye and gives me cold shivers every time I see this keep happening as 10 years ago I had exact same thing happen while I was walking my little dog who was on a lead and the dog that killed mine was a Malamute also. They are big strong dogs and need big strong fences or a proper dog run to keep them in not lattice type stuff held together with bits of wire like dog owners for Mal that killed mine had, and I also didn't see the dog coming it came from across road where it lived and behind me and knocked me over and grabbed my little girl in his jaws and you never ever get over hearing you're beloved pet screaming in pain and of course any animal lover would go to any lengths to try and help their beloved pet. I was also bitten while trying to get it to let go of mine as unfortunately having runners on and kicking the living crap out of it did nothing and as I was not bitten badly enough to require stitches and according to my then local council ranger "THAT WAS MY FAULT FOR TRYING TO RESCUE MY DOG!" WHAT THE? are you supposed to stand there and let it get ripped apart n say oh well it might bite me if i try and do something to help, this poor lady is going to have nightmares for a long time. I agree that pts does not guarantee it will not happen again and I feel the laws should be made tougher and when dogs are registered with local council they should send someone out to property and inspect where dog is going to be to see if fences etc are appropriate but like anything the honest do the right thing while the dishonest find a way round it like it isn't my dog, or reg at another address, I really don't know what the solution is as I guess there's unfortunately always going to be Morons is a pity we couldn't pts the owners instead of the offending dogs as well probably would be a better outcome! Edited January 8, 2011 by mutt lover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huski Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 What exactly does killing the dogs achieve/ resolve? Does it make people feel safer? If so, its a false economy because there is NOTHING being done to prevent another attack from occurring. Merely killing the dog achieves nothing - the owner will likely just go get another DA or predatory dog, and not necessarily contain it properly either. It's not like there aren't thousands of DA and predatory dogs out there for them to adopt - the majority of dogs would kill other pets if you let them roam. Even dogs that won't fight other dogs will kill cats or pet bunnies or chickens or chase sheep if allowed to do so. From what I can work out, the call to PTS come from people that think that their dogs would never do such a thing to any other animal, and so that any owner of a predatory or DA dog deserves whatever they get merely for owning such an animal. Exactly. And where is the line drawn? I know plenty of dogs that will kill smaller animals, are they all "unfit to live in society"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mum to Emma Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) What exactly does killing the dogs achieve/ resolve? Does it make people feel safer? If so, its a false economy because there is NOTHING being done to prevent another attack from occurring. Merely killing the dog achieves nothing - the owner will likely just go get another DA or predatory dog, and not necessarily contain it properly either. It's not like there aren't thousands of DA and predatory dogs out there for them to adopt - the majority of dogs would kill other pets if you let them roam. Even dogs that won't fight other dogs will kill cats or pet bunnies or chickens or chase sheep if allowed to do so. From what I can work out, the call to PTS come from people that think that their dogs would never do such a thing to any other animal, and so that any owner of a predatory or DA dog deserves whatever they get merely for owning such an animal. ;) Exactly. And where is the line drawn? I know plenty of dogs that will kill smaller animals, are they all "unfit to live in society"? But do they kill small animals that are attached to a leash and accompanied by a dog walker??? That indicates an extremely high prey drive and makes these particular dogs so dangerous. It's a totally different scenario than going after a wandering cat/dog/chook that has crossed their path, when many dogs will chase for 'fun' and no know what to do with the animal when they catch it. My brother had a GSD that caught a rabbit once and brought it back to the house with it still wriggling in its mouth! It the dropped the rabbit which raced off. Clearly the GSD liked the chase and catch, but wasn't interested in mutilating it. Edited January 9, 2011 by Mum to Emma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huski Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) But do they kill small animals that are attached to a leash and accompanied by a dog walker??? That indicates an extremely high prey drive and makes these particular dogs so dangerous. It's a totally different scenario than going after a wandering cat/dog/chook that has crossed their path, when many dogs will chase for 'fun' and no know what to do with the animal when they catch it. My brother had a GSD that caught a rabbit once and brought it back to the house with it still wriggling in its mouth! It the dropped the rabbit which raced off. Clearly the GSD liked the chase and catch, but wasn't interested in mutilating it. My cousin has two Tenterfield Terriers - one weighs less than 4kg. I've seen her kill rats almost half her size, in less than two seconds flat. No mutiliating. A quick, clean chase and kill. My dog has never "mutilated" anything he's killed either. He's never even eaten anything he's killed - prey drive is about chasing and grabbing a moving item, the dog has no human moral or ethics to tell them the difference between grabbing something and killing it. And seconds after catching whatever he's killed, he brings it over to me and drops it at my feet like it's the best squeaky toy ever and he waits for me to throw it for him so he can chase it again. A prey driven dog doesn't discriminate between prey items. If it catches their prey eye, triggers them into prey drive, they don't then stop to think 'oh wait - this isn't a rabbit/chook/mouse that I can chase for fun, I better not grab it too hard'. A prey item is a prey item, and unless you have put the work into teaching the dog you are best way to attain drive satisfaction, you don't have much chance if any of having any control over a highly prey driven dog once it goes into drive. Edited January 9, 2011 by huski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Its not totally different Mum to Emma- to the dog. Remember these dogs were out unsupervised- dogs will behave differently under these circumstances, even yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geo Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Obviously a few people on this thread have no idea about the animals they own. Stop putting human emotions and expectations onto dogs. These dogs were just doing what all dogs can do, they are not "murderers, mutilators, killerse etc.." they are dogs. I mean what is the point of joining a forum if you can't read and learn something from the posts. A very sad situation but these things will continue to happen and PTS these 2 dogs will solve nothing. Yes the owner should be made to compensate the lady and have some restrictions on his dogs in public and definately a more secure yard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abed Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Given that other dogs roaming and escaping yards etc is beyond a dog walkers control and these nasty incidents will continue to occur from time to time, perhaps it's an idea to choose a breed less vulnerable to a fatal attack. Prey driven dogs triggered by small dogs, don't react like that to dogs of similar size minimising the potential of loosing a pet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staranais Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) In some ways I see your point that small dogs are far more fragile than large dogs. I'd certainly be more cautious about putting a small dog in any situation in which it could be injured. I hate seeing my dog in a fight, but at least she's unlikely to get killed with one bite if she does get attacked for any reason. However, your comment does sound a little like you're saying that the owners were "asking for it" by owning such a small dog and walking it down the street, and IMO that's not fair at all. It's not like they did something risky like throwing the tiny dog into an offleash dog park with big strange dogs - they were merely walking it down the street, on a leash, completely legally. It's not their fault that the other dogs were roaming offleash. I don't think the owner of the small dog or the dog walker should bear any blame for this incident at all. I mean, if it's fair to tell small dog owners that they shouldn't own such small, fragile dogs - is it fair to tell me not to own a small malinois bitch when there are huge pig dogs out there that could easily give her a fatal hiding? Or to put it another way, how big must my dog be before it's no longer my fault if she's fatally attacked? Edited January 9, 2011 by Staranais Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abed Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 In some ways I see your point that small dogs are far more fragile than large dogs. I'd certainly be more cautious about putting a small dog in any situation in which it could be injured. I hate seeing my dog in a fight, but at least she's unlikely to get killed with one bite if she does get attacked for any reason. However, your comment does sound a little like you're saying that the owners were "asking for it" by owning such a small dog and walking it down the street, and IMO that's not fair at all. It's not like they did something risky like throwing the tiny dog into an offleash dog park with big strange dogs - they were merely walking it down the street, on a leash, completely legally. It's not their fault that the other dogs were roaming offleash. I don't think the owner of the small dog or the dog walker should bear any blame for this incident at all. I mean, if it's fair to tell small dog owners that they shouldn't own such small, fragile dogs - is it fair to tell me not to own a small malinois bitch when there are huge pig dogs out there that could easily give her a fatal hiding? Or to put it another way, how big must my dog be before it's no longer my fault if she's fatally attacked? No, I am not saying the owners asked for it and it isn't their fault having absolutely no control of the situation but regardless of that, they have lost their pet from an act which it had no defense and sadly these things happen. In these instances we cannot control or see these incidents of attack eliminated any time soon if ever at all, small dogs have the greatest potential as prey consideration and fatality than a larger dog that has more potential to avoid the risk. What I am saying ultimately is, small dogs are more vulnerable in these situations and reducing the risk of loosing a pet in this way is mananged better with a larger dog being worthy of consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malamum Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Given that other dogs roaming and escaping yards etc is beyond a dog walkers control and these nasty incidents will continue to occur from time to time, perhaps it's an idea to choose a breed less vulnerable to a fatal attack. Prey driven dogs triggered by small dogs, don't react like that to dogs of similar size minimising the potential of loosing a pet. This is not a sensible suggestion at all. This type of thinking creates an us and them mentality between owners of large and small dogs. It's as bad as someone suggesting that eveyone own small dogs as they are unable to cause as much damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now