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

[Cosmolo]

So why on earth are you having a go at Huski?

[twodoggies2001]

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.

If you are prepared to acknowledge that your little dog can be easily killed in these situations and accept the loss of a pet as a result then my suggestion may not be sensible I agree. However, if you prefer your dog not to be killed and have a fighting chance if faced with a situation like this, a bigger dog makes a lot of sence in risk management, in fact, a bigger dog will often prevent a like situation occurring in the first place as they don't present the prey trigger that a small dog does.

The flip side of your argument is that everyone should own little dogs so that the potential to kill another dog is not there.

I don't have a little dog, I have two very large dogs (so I'm not taking it as a personal affront), I just think it's a stupid suggestion. If peopole want little dogs they should be able to have them and not feel at risk.

The issue at hand is containment, not whether people should or shouldn't have certain types or sizes of dogs.

Of course people should be able to own and walk little dogs, but the question is, how do these little dog owners ensure big dogs dangerous theirs are kept contained and controlled effectively and the answer to that is: Good luck when the situation is completely beyond their control so it boils down to two alternatives. Get another small dog that could suffer the same fate, or get a bigger one that has a better chance of survival in the same situation..........can't see what is stupid about that idea???

Some people choose a smaller breed because they are easier to handle. I have, over the years come down in size from Great Danes to Miniature Schnauzers mainly because of my age. Does that mean that I should not have freedom to enjoy a walk in the park because there is a possibility of some irresponsible owner not making sure his/her dogs are properly contained when the said owner is away from the premises or when out exercising these large dogs, not having them under control. What it boils down to is the owner. Dogs can be a lethal weapon in the wrong hands, and quite frankly, some owners can't and don't see it.

[abed]

So why on earth are you having a go at Huski?

My reference to Huski's post was the assumption that "due to the raising of her dogs" she doesn't have predatory type behaviour or something to that effect. The point is, it's easy to raise dogs and get a false sense of achievement with a raising or training process applied to dogs that don't have predatory type genetic traits. It's a similar situation to people saying my GSD isn't human aggressive because I have raised him or her not to be that way. The dog in question may not be genetically wired to have social, civil and dominance traits it the first place, but use the same process in raising and training a dog that has, they may get a rude awakening that their raising/training process needs a major revision for a higher drive dog.

This is common with former owners of GSD who have had several, raised and trained them exceptionally well until they buy a working line dog from security bloodlines that possess entirely different traits and they call me............this dog wants to chase and bite everyone what do I do ;), my other GSD's never did that and I have raised them all the same

[WoofnHoof]

Maybe i need to be more detailed- 9.5 out of 10 of the problem dogs i see (that have moderate- high prey drive) know that humans are not prey. However, of those 10 problem dogs, 4 can't make the distinction with small dogs and 8 can't distinguish between small prey- cats, possums, rabbits- ie- if they hunt one, they hunt them all. So while that last group of dogs can distinguish with some things (because they aren't hunting people) they haven't had the necesary socialisation and training to make other distinctions beyond that.

Ultimately, dogs are capable of amazing distinguishing capabilities- but only if they are socialised and trained early and thats the point.

Whether these dogs in question are euthanased is a matter for council to decide. But the illusion that killing these dogs will somehow make society safer is just that- an illusion. It won't prevent the next attack or the one after that or the one after that. It stops these dogs from doing anything- but it does not stop the owners from getting more and potentially making the same mistakes- knowingly OR unknowingly. It does not help to educate other dog owners with similar dogs who could be risky. It does not emphasise the importance of containment- because those are nasty dogs, not like Bobby next door or my Fido. And it does not open people's minds to the capabilities of the dog- people simply breathe a sigh of relief because THOSE nasty dogs are dead. How very beneficial.

Quoted for emphasis, Cosmo is spot on.

It is also important for people to realize that humans are generalisers, to us 1 small dog = all small dogs, however animals do not think the same way we do, socialising must incorporate the fact that dogs have a narrower view of the world. My sibe is great friends with my chi (most of the time) because they were raised together and while he did get exposure to other dogs of various sizes as a pup I would never assume that he views all small dogs as dogs because animals do not categorize as easily as humans do.

[Diva]

My reference to Huski's post was the assumption that "due to the raising of her dogs" she doesn't have predatory type behaviour or something to that effect. The point is, it's easy to raise dogs and get a false sense of achievement with a raising or training process applied to dogs that don't have predatory type genetic traits.

So Abed, did you say this:

I say this respectfully Huski, but how about you gain some experience raising a dog with real prey drive like a working line GSD or Belgian Malinois before you become over confident in your drive containment process.

because you simply didn't know that Huskies are reknown as a breed for their high, genetic, prey drive? (I am assuming that neither of us know the drive of the specific dog). I agree with your point about a false sense of security, but am greatly amused if you think that only working-line GSDs and Malinois can have high drive to chase or catch (real) prey.

Edited January 10, 2011 by Diva

[Aidan3]

The sort of drive a GSD or Malinois presents is very different in appearance to the sort of drive a Bordie Collie, sighthound, or Sibe might present.

(I am assuming that neither of us know the drive of the specific dog)

A Sibe might be fairly difficult to play tug with, but a dog who has killed multiple species would have to be considered one with very high prey drive, and would present a challenge to a novice handler. I think it's fairly safe to say this specific dog has high prey drive.

edited to clarify

Edited January 10, 2011 by Aidan2

[geo]

Geo - Please dont assume to know me or my knowledge of dogs. I work with dogs for a living. Yes, I do own small dogs, but I also own two very large ones. Your statements are assumptive and incorrect. [b][/b] I'm assuming you shampoo dogs for a living?

My ACD bitch can and always has been able to distinguish between prey items and non prey items. My Afghan hound, Rottweilers, and mastiffs over the years have also been the same. Naturally, not through training.

So please answer me this. If these dogs were to get out again and kill another dog should they be pts then? How far is too far in your rationale?

I think most of my posts I'm just agreeing with Cosmolo on looking at the overall picture and what is/isn't going to prevent these sort of attacks happening again, PTS random dogs will not overall help the rest of society better understand their pets. Seperating the dogs would prevent this from possibly happening again however nothing in life is a certainty. I recognise the responsibilty of the council and owners to maybe PTS these dogs but it will serve little purpose, it wont bring back little JRT, it wont stop other dogs from doing it, it wont prevent other owners from going "oh my dog would never do that" etc etc..

Also, if you are saying dogs cannot naturally distinguish between prey and not, then why aren't all dogs DA? Why aren't all dogs HA? By your very own reasoning, every single dog is a threat to each other, kids and adults alike.

Please remind me where i wrote this? My dogs will kill small animals and probably bigger ones if they had the chance together but by themselves it's a different story, yet they have plenty of doggy friends but can't be trusted with strange dogs.. So clearly they can distinguish but i guess it depends what takes their fancy and whether I was there or not, as every situation would be totally different, I'm sure the owners of the Mals would paint a similar picture.

A client of mines dog was killed at nudgee beach two years ago by a dog that had killed before. I have witnessed this before and stand by my opinion that once a dog has killed it will kill again and should be pts. Housing is besides the point, there will always be a risk of that animal getting out again so we need not take risks with such dogs.

I agree some dogs are a serious threat, no matter what the circumstance and these need to be PTS. if they were deemed by means of temperment testing that they were a threat by themselves then PTS.

Edited January 10, 2011 by geo

[Danielle]

Cosmolo I don't think anyone is thinking these dogs are evil or nasty, they are what they are, dogs.

And in reply to your statement about putting these dogs down, yes, you are 100% right in saying that it won't prevent these owners from acquiring another DA dog. It also won't make society that much safer, but it will remove two deadly dogs from an urban area where they can do significant damage.

I thoroughly understand your point, but really, how many times does a dog have to kill before it is euth? This question is aimed at all posters on here who are opposed to putting these two down. It's a serious question that I would like a serious answer to. How far is too far? I'm genuinely curious.

[geo]

Whether these dogs in question are euthanased is a matter for council to decide. But the illusion that killing these dogs will somehow make society safer is just that- an illusion. It won't prevent the next attack or the one after that or the one after that. It stops these dogs from doing anything- but it does not stop the owners from getting more and potentially making the same mistakes- knowingly OR unknowingly. It does not help to educate other dog owners with similar dogs who could be risky. It does not emphasise the importance of containment- because those are nasty dogs, not like Bobby next door or my Fido. And it does not open people's minds to the capabilities of the dog- people simply breathe a sigh of relief because THOSE nasty dogs are dead. How very beneficial

Quoted for emphasis, Cosmo is spot on.

It is also important for people to realize that humans are generalisers, to us 1 small dog = all small dogs, however animals do not think the same way we do, socialising must incorporate the fact that dogs have a narrower view of the world. My sibe is great friends with my chi (most of the time) because they were raised together and while he did get exposure to other dogs of various sizes as a pup I would never assume that he views all small dogs as dogs because animals do not categorize as easily as humans do.

Exactly, unless they have constant exposure to many different types of animals you can never be certain of how they will behave in a given situation.

[Danielle]

Lol no I don't shampoo dogs for a living, do you? Once again pls don't assume.

No you aren't just agreeing with Cosmolo, you have made some huge statements which you still cannot seem to back up.

And how are these two dogs any different to the Xbred that killed my clients dog? Oh that's right, they haven't killed a second dog yet. Silly me.

Geo - Please dont assume to know me or my knowledge of dogs. I work with dogs for a living. Yes, I do own small dogs, but I also own two very large ones. Your statements are assumptive and incorrect. [b][/b] I'm assuming you shampoo dogs for a living?

My ACD bitch can and always has been able to distinguish between prey items and non prey items. My Afghan hound, Rottweilers, and mastiffs over the years have also been the same. Naturally, not through training.

So please answer me this. If these dogs were to get out again and kill another dog should they be pts then? How far is too far in your rationale?

I think most of my posts I'm just agreeing with Cosmolo on looking at the overall picture and what is/isn't going to prevent these sort of attacks happening again, PTS random dogs will not overall help the rest of society better understand their pets. Seperating the dogs would prevent this from possibly happening again however nothing in life is a certainty. I recognise the responsibilty of the council and owners to maybe PTS these dogs but it will serve little purpose, it wont bring back little JRT, it wont stop other dogs from doing it, it wont prevent other owners from going "oh my dog would never do that" etc etc..

Also, if you are saying dogs cannot naturally distinguish between prey and not, then why aren't all dogs DA? Why aren't all dogs HA? By your very own reasoning, every single dog is a threat to each other, kids and adults alike.

Please remind me where i wrote this? My dogs will kill small animals and probably bigger ones if they had the chance together but by themselves it's a different story, yet they have plenty of doggy friends but can't be trusted with strange dogs.. So clearly they can distinguish but i guess it depends what takes their fancy and whether I was there or not, as every situation would be totally different, I'm sure the owners of the Mals would paint a similar picture.

A client of mines dog was killed at nudgee beach two years ago by a dog that had killed before. I have witnessed this before and stand by my opinion that once a dog has killed it will kill again and should be pts. Housing is besides the point, there will always be a risk of that animal getting out again so we need not take risks with such dogs.

I agree some dogs are a serious threat, no matter what the circumstance and these need to be PTS. if they were deemed by means of temperment testing that they were a threat by themselves then PTS.

[geo]

Cosmolo I don't think anyone is thinking these dogs are evil or nasty, they are what they are, dogs.

And in reply to your statement about putting these dogs down, yes, you are 100% right in saying that it won't prevent these owners from acquiring another DA dog. It also won't make society that much safer, but it will remove two deadly dogs from an urban area where they can do significant damage.

I thoroughly understand your point, but really, how many times does a dog have to kill before it is euth? This question is aimed at all posters on here who are opposed to putting these two down. It's a serious question that I would like a serious answer to. How far is too far? I'm genuinely curious.

Well i guess you'd never know if it was a serial killer if you PTS straight away, or whether it was a one off.... seperate, rehome, re-evaluate before PTS in my opinion, again it depends on the situation.

A serious question for you Danielle, There are many many dogs that can possibly be DA everywhere yet they've never attacked so should we euth all of those just in case? because essentially they all pose a threat don't they?

[geo]

Lol no I don't shampoo dogs for a living, do you? Once again pls don't assume.

No you aren't just agreeing with Cosmolo, you have made some huge statements which you still cannot seem to back up.

And how are these two dogs any different to the Xbred that killed my clients dog? Oh that's right, they haven't killed a second dog yet. Silly me.

A Doggy Chiropracter? am i getting closer?

What huge statements? I'm only talking from experience. These 2 are exactly as you said, 2 dogs, not one dog acting alone, though without knowing the whole story of how your friends dog was attacked I'm not going to assume but i feel they're two totally different situations.

[huski]

I say this respectfully Huski, but how about you gain some experience raising a dog with real prey drive like a working line GSD or Belgian Malinois before you become over confident in your drive containment process.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here Nev. This isn't a competition about who has the dog with the highest prey drive. I have never implied that my dog has the same level of prey drive as a working line GSD or Mal. What do you class as a dog that has "real prey drive"? Are you saying that dog that has killed multiple small animals doesn't have real prey drive? My point was simply that you can have a dog who has prey drive (and has proven it has prey drive by killing small animals) who can live with small animals without seeing them as prey or having them trigger the dog into prey drive.

Edited January 10, 2011 by huski

[abed]

Cosmolo I don't think anyone is thinking these dogs are evil or nasty, they are what they are, dogs.

And in reply to your statement about putting these dogs down, yes, you are 100% right in saying that it won't prevent these owners from acquiring another DA dog. It also won't make society that much safer, but it will remove two deadly dogs from an urban area where they can do significant damage.

I thoroughly understand your point, but really, how many times does a dog have to kill before it is euth? This question is aimed at all posters on here who are opposed to putting these two down. It's a serious question that I would like a serious answer to. How far is too far? I'm genuinely curious.

Danielle,

There are no laws preventing anyone from owning dogs of predatory and aggressive traits except you are not supposed to allow them to roam and cause harm. The owners are at fault unless the council had damaged the fence and the dogs bolted out as a report suggested, but the dogs are dogs and the owners are the one's who need to pay for what happened IMHO. They need to pay for a replacement pup and trauma to the victim, the need to pay for adequate training for the attacking dogs and a properly secured yard to meet a particular criteria and most of all dog owners need to know that roaming dogs injuring and killing other peoples pets is going to cost them a lot of money. The laws are too soft on this stuff, a $250 fine and a dog euthansed is not harsh enough, they need it cost them 10 or 15K and loose possessions if they can't pay, bankrupt a few if necessary and then they may see the better option is responsible ownership and management.

[abed]

I say this respectfully Huski, but how about you gain some experience raising a dog with real prey drive like a working line GSD or Belgian Malinois before you become over confident in your drive containment process.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here Nev. This isn't a competition about who has the dog with the highest prey drive. I have never implied that my dog has the same level of prey drive as a working line GSD or Mal. What do you class as a dog that has "real prey drive"? Are you saying that dog that has killed multiple small animals doesn't have real prey drive? My point was simply that you can have a dog who has prey drive (and has proven it has prey drive by killing small animals) who can live with small animals without seeing them as prey or having them trigger the dog into prey drive.

I am lucky because of the way my dog has been raised he doesn't see cats as prey items

What I am getting at is your statement above Huski assuming your dog's upbringing is the reason why it doesn't see cats as prey. It might be because your dog doesn't have enough prey drive and predatory predisposition to chase and kill cats in the first place???. Anyone can raise a dog well that doesn't genetically display particular behaviours and believe it's the good upringing is the reason for their good behaviour, but rehabilitating a dog with poor behaviour and containing genetic unwanted drives provides the true indication of your management abilty.

Many people have genetically good dogs that fit into society well and commend themselves on their ability to raise good dogs. My point is, try raising a genetically bad dog by society image in the same fashion as see what happens........the result will be entirely different.

[huski]

Siberians are well known for their high prey drive so I am struggling to see your point Many people do not recommend rehoming adult Sibes to houses with cats, many breeders and rescue groups won't do it because in most instances, unless the dog is raised with cats from a young age, it is likely that it will see them as a prey item. I know quite a few Siberians who are cat killers, there is no way I would trust an adult Siberian with my cat, if I didn't know for a fact it was raised with them and didn't see them as a prey item. My dog has killed possums that are similar sizes to cats, why do you think he sees a difference between a possum in the yard and my cat in the yard if it isn't because he has grown up with the cat, and has been trained and socialised to not see cats as prey items?

Edited January 10, 2011 by huski

[Cosmolo]

Danielle one attack of this nature is 'too far' of course- my point is simply that killing these dogs changes nothing.

[WoofnHoof]

Cosmolo I don't think anyone is thinking these dogs are evil or nasty, they are what they are, dogs.

And in reply to your statement about putting these dogs down, yes, you are 100% right in saying that it won't prevent these owners from acquiring another DA dog. It also won't make society that much safer, but it will remove two deadly dogs from an urban area where they can do significant damage.

I thoroughly understand your point, but really, how many times does a dog have to kill before it is euth? This question is aimed at all posters on here who are opposed to putting these two down. It's a serious question that I would like a serious answer to. How far is too far? I'm genuinely curious.

It's not about numbers, and ultimately it's not about the individual dogs themselves since they were placed in a situation in which their instincts/upbringing/whatever caused them to behave in this manner. I know my dog will kill cats, so I don't set him up to fail by putting him in a situation where he can get access to a cat. I know my sibe has the capacity to kill my chi if they get into a fight because he doesn't have the capacity to understand the concept of a 'fair fight' size differences etc, so I don't set him up to fail and closely supervise his interactions with my chi and watch for misunderstandings.

My point is that there is always the potential for disaster and with careful management a repeat can be avoided, as others have mentioned, many dogs have the capacity to behave in unpredictable and sometimes dangerous ways when placed in an unfamiliar and highly unusual situation. Just because these dogs have killed a small dog in the past doesn't mean they will in the future and with proper management then the owners can reduce the risks to virtually zero.

[Danielle]

This is an incredibly intelligent response, your ideas would work wonders in a perfect world with a useful govt, but unfortunately our state govts are hopeless and I don't see it happening. The laws are way too soft I agree. Yes, hike up the fines, implement more restrictions and make an example of these ppl, it would work, but no govt official is going to implement such laws....remember, it's all politics.

What I'm really getting at is that to prevent these two from doing further damage they should be put down. I know training, rehoming etc "could" solve the problem, but who would be willing to take on two DA huskies that have such a history? Not many people I can assure you. In a perfect world we could save them all and I really do wish we could, but we need to face reality here. These two are in fact dangerous (not evil or nasty) and there is already an over burdened population of dogs in our society. There are so many dogs being pts in shelters across this country every day that are perfectly balanced animals. I know it seems cruel but why spend time and energy on those who are dangerous when there are so many others who would slot perfectly into society without having to be rehabilitated.

I know this comes off a little cold and I don't mean it to, just can't think of the right words.

But back to the real issue at hand, I must say that if these two were to get hold of one of my dogs and kill or injure it I'd be mighty peeved at council for allowing them a second chance to kill. There are plenty of dogs out there who won't kill smaller animals, these two have proven they are not only capable of doing this but they are inclined to. I believe it is an unnecessary risk to allow them to keep going.

Cosmolo I don't think anyone is thinking these dogs are evil or nasty, they are what they are, dogs.

And in reply to your statement about putting these dogs down, yes, you are 100% right in saying that it won't prevent these owners from acquiring another DA dog. It also won't make society that much safer, but it will remove two deadly dogs from an urban area where they can do significant damage.

I thoroughly understand your point, but really, how many times does a dog have to kill before it is euth? This question is aimed at all posters on here who are opposed to putting these two down. It's a serious question that I would like a serious answer to. How far is too far? I'm genuinely curious.

Danielle,

There are no laws preventing anyone from owning dogs of predatory and aggressive traits except you are not supposed to allow them to roam and cause harm. The owners are at fault unless the council had damaged the fence and the dogs bolted out as a report suggested, but the dogs are dogs and the owners are the one's who need to pay for what happened IMHO. They need to pay for a replacement pup and trauma to the victim, the need to pay for adequate training for the attacking dogs and a properly secured yard to meet a particular criteria and most of all dog owners need to know that roaming dogs injuring and killing other peoples pets is going to cost them a lot of money. The laws are too soft on this stuff, a $250 fine and a dog euthansed is not harsh enough, they need it cost them 10 or 15K and loose possessions if they can't pay, bankrupt a few if necessary and then they may see the better option is responsible ownership and management.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Its just a prey item, its fun to chase and kill, there is no more to it.

This is an extremely common behavior, it makes little difference whether it is a small dog or a rabbit. It's a risk we take when we walk our dogs. There is a pervasive mentality in Australia that risk should and can be eliminated. From ending dog attacks to eliminating the road toll, neither of which is going to happen while we own dogs and drive cars.

We are a dog owning society, and with that privilege comes risks. The idea is to manage our pets as best we can and always be alert. Killing these two might make the owner of the dog that was attacked feel better, but she best not believe she faces any less risk when out walking her next small dog or swf, because on her block alone there might be another half dozen dogs that would do the same thing if they were to escape their yard.