Huskies Maul Dog Owner's Jack Russell To Death In Savage Attack

[Danielle]

The dogs didn't 'get away' with anything. They are dogs. There is a marked difference between killing a dog that poses an imminent threat ( i would have no issue if the woman with the JRT had somehow managed to kill one of the dogs to halt the attack) and killing a dog after the fact just 'because'.

Whether these dogs are killed or not isn't the point to me. My point is that if they are killed and that is the only action taken- nothing is achieved and it does not make another attack any less likely, it just means it will be from the other dogs, not these ones.

Yes but even in rural areas, if a dog has killed a neighbors calf or lambs for instance then goes home, the rangers will in most cases still destroy that dog due to what it has done. This happened here a couple of months ago, a ewe was mauled by a neighboring dog, farmer saw and recognized the dog, called the ranger who attended the property of the dog. They found the dog with blood on it's face, took it and destroyed it. So really what is the difference? Why does a ewes life hold greater significance than this jrt?

[Cosmolo]

It doesn't Danielle. But i think you're missing the point. Apart from "those dogs won't get to kill anything else" what are the benefits of killing the 2 dogs?

Why is enforced containment not an option? Because what if they got out etc etc- what about when the dogs down the street get out, or in the next suburb? When the focus stays on killing dogs, the opportunity to educate is completely missed. When/ if those dogs die people will breathe a sigh of relief because their dogs and their neighbours dogs could never do such a thing. Ignorance is not bliss.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

What happens in the country is not something we should necessarily accept as being the best method, nor does the situation draw as many parallels as it may at first seem to.

Their primary motivation is economic, and residents are few and far between. Farmers shoot dogs which come onto their properties and attack their stock, this is different to voluntarily taking your pet onto a public street where it encounters other dogs lose on that public street.

Country laws and traditions are subject to their own scrutiny. I am not making any call on whether or not I agree with country practices, I am just saying it is not some kind of infallible paradigm that we must compare everything else against to see if we are doing it right

[huski]

It doesn't Danielle. But i think you're missing the point. Apart from "those dogs won't get to kill anything else" what are the benefits of killing the 2 dogs?

Why is enforced containment not an option? Because what if they got out etc etc- what about when the dogs down the street get out, or in the next suburb? When the focus stays on killing dogs, the opportunity to educate is completely missed. When/ if those dogs die people will breathe a sigh of relief because their dogs and their neighbours dogs could never do such a thing. Ignorance is not bliss.

Exactly. Though people with Danielle's mentality would be happy to any dog that shows the slightest natural instinct be PTS immediately, rather than educate people to create more awareness and understanding of the animals we have in our backyards.

Euthanasia is not a solution to this problem. These kinds of attacks will keep happening until we take a different approach and put our energies into educating people rather than burying our heads in the sand.

[Golden Rules]

Whether these dogs are killed or not isn't the point to me. My point is that if they are killed and that is the only action taken- nothing is achieved and it does not make another attack any less likely, it just means it will be from the other dogs, not these ones.

Actually, I think you are discounting the probability that the owner of the two dogs in question would think more seriously about containing his dogs in future. That does make a difference and it would make another attack less likely (from the owner's dogs).

I do get what you are saying, and I agree killing the dogs is not going to solve everything else, but in this instance it would stop those dogs from having the opportunity of escaping and killing again. That is Danielle's point I believe.

[Cosmolo]

Exactly GR- these dogs (assuming the owners are reasonable) are LESS likely to be the next involved in a serious dog attack than many other dogs.

I get Danielle's point, i do- but given the above- i don't see the point of killing these dogs.

[geo]

No, not all DA dogs need euthanizing, just the ones who are proven killers. Hope that answers your question.

You're missing the point, these 2 dogs may not be DA, but together they saw a prey item (i know this is matter of debate, but when you see dogs behavior vary depending on pack or alone situations you can better judge their reactions)

Hence the point I was making is that there are plenty of DA dogs about, some that will/wont attack small animals, some that will only go for bigger dogs, some that will ignore until threatened, and some that are just plain aggro.. These aren't proven killers but in the wrong hands are just as likely to kill another animal as these 2 dogs are to do it again, so why not just PTS just incase because the crux of your argument is to prevent these dogs doing it again, why not prevent all dogs from doing it?....

[WoofnHoof]

While I don't know what my dog would do with a small dog if he was out and unrestrained I do know categorically without a shadow of a doubt that if he were out and saw a cat he would absolutely try to kill it and quite probably succeed. Now cats have every right to be out and about (whether you agree or not) but even if it were on a lead it would not stop him one little bit. This is his instinct he was around cats as a pup and one day one ran in front of him and triggered the prey drive and now it's fully 'activated' so to speak. Now I am aware of this and my dog is contained as best I can so the risk of him killing someones pet is minimal. If the huskies were let out by council and the owners were unaware of this then they posed precicley the same level of risk as my dog does. If someone were to run into the fence and my dog got out and killed someones pet he would likely be in the same situation, the difference is that most people recognise the dog v cat thing whereas they don't realize that the same issues can present within the species because we have altered their behaviour and appearance to such an extent that they don't always recognize 'dog'.

Part of my study involved learning about autism and it was interesting to read Temple Grandin's books and read how she describes how she didn't know the difference between dogs and cats as a child and had to use a specific 'marker' to tell them apart, in her case she used the different types of nose to differentiate dog or cat, this might seem completely unreal to a person who can clearly see the multiple differences between dogs and cats but is a good illustration of how perceptions can vary immensely across an intelligent species like humans. Grandin has found remarkable similarities between the way an animals mind works and the way the autistic mind works, so it's not really much of a stretch to then see how the way we see things may be vastly different to the way animals see things.

[Montage]

Interesting discussion. I must admit, I don't really know much about prey drive so it's been very informative.

I'm agree with those who say the dogs should be PTS. In the past I've had several issues with the owner of a couple of large dogs who have escaped from their yard and have attacked my elderly staffy while I've had her on a lead. The first time I had to quickly lift her up on someone's parked car to get her away from them, the second time my mother was walking her and the dogs had my staffy by the throat (lucky for mum someone was able to assist her). It's only a matter of time before someone or their dog gets hurt. If my dog was killed in this horrific manner I couldn't give a rats about the killer dogs prey drive, I'd want those dogs euthanised because their behaviour should not be my or anyone elses problem.

And can you imagine what it would be like afterwards for the owner of the mauled JRT to see these dogs walking around in public like nothing had happened?

For those of you who are against these dogs being PTS what would be your solution to prevent this sort of behaviour?

Edited January 16, 2011 by Montage

[huski]

Interesting discussion. I must admit, I don't really know much about prey drive so it's been very informative.

I'm agree with those who say the dogs should be PTS. In the past I've had several issues with the owner of a couple of large dogs who have escaped from their yard and have attacked my elderly staffy while I've had her on a lead. The first time I had to quickly lift her up on someone's parked car to get her away from them, the second time my mother was walking her and the dogs had my staffy by the throat (lucky for mum someone was able to assist her). It's only a matter of time before someone or their dog gets hurt. If my dog was killed in this horrific manner I couldn't give a rats about the killer dogs prey drive, I'd want those dogs euthanised because their behaviour should not be my or anyone elses problem.

And can you imagine what it would be like afterwards for the owner of the mauled JRT to see these dogs walking around in public like nothing had happened?

For those of you who are against these dogs being PTS what would be your solution to prevent this sort of behaviour?

It's important to remember there is a big difference between prey drive and aggression. No-one here is suggesting that all dogs that attack or kill other dogs are acting out of prey drive.

We also don't know for sure that the two dogs in this case were acting out of prey drive, considering none of us have met them or done any temperament testing on them. The point that I think most of us are trying to make is that killing these two dogs will never solve this kind of problem. The only way these kinds of incidents will ever be reduced is if we had more wide-spread education about canine behaviour like prey drive, what it means, how to control it, how to select a dog that is suitable for your lifestyle and abilities.

Euthanising these two dogs will not stop these kinds of attacks from happening. If the only action ever taken after these kinds of incidents are that the offending dogs are PTS, nothing will ever change and these things will keep happening.

[Cosmolo]

I have had 2 dogs try to kill one of mine. If BOTH my OH and me had not been there, our dog would have died. As it was, it took months for her to recover and she was very very lucky to live. Did i want those dogs to die? No. Why? Because it wouldn't achieve anything, it would not make me feel safer as there are 20 other dogs that may do the same thing, killing these 2 would not change that. Instead, muzzles at ALL times when the attacking dogs are walked and a very secure yard satisfied me.

What if the owners make a mistake one day? What if another owner makes a mistake one day? Killing dogs is not a solution because once an attack happens we have already failed as a society- failed to educate, failed to train and socialise and failed to safely contain. I'd prefer to address these failings rather than the simplistic approach of killing offending dogs. If the owners cannot comply with the necesary measures to prevent an incident from re-occurring, then the dogs should without question be PTS.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Cosmolo

[Katie P]

I admit I haven't read all of the comments past page 5 but what was the outcome for the attackers? Were they pts?

[Katie P]

Double post.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Katie P

[Linda K]

UPDATE FROM THE HUME LEADER

update from our local paper (I am in the council area, so get the local paper) - the Malamutes will not be destroyed. They have however been declared dangerous dogs, and will now need to have the owners make the appropriate modifications to their property - such as the large marked cage in the backyard on concrete, before the dogs (which were seized by council), will be released back to their owners. Council have also advised that the dogs will be monitored, and must be desexed, muzzled and on a lead in public. Reasoning given for the decision was that it was complicated by the fact that the dogs escaped through a fence damaged by a council contractor, and that they took into account a range of factors, including the owners remorse, their responsible approach to the dogs (registered for 8 years with the council with no prior incidents)

[Cosmolo]

I think that is a sensible outcome.

[Katie P]

I am glad they took all factors into consideration.