Golden Retriever Attacks 4 People

[Baby Dragon]

That's the best news Thank you for helping him!!

[hortfurball]

I have read some of this thread and please, please correct me if I am wrong... but it seems that everyone is extremely supportive of Buster (myself included) and I think that is great. However, when I read a lot of other threads when this sort of thing happens - such as a bully breed or huskies attacking - it seems to much less supportive...... I have NEVER (and I haven't been a member for very long so this is only in my experience) but I have never seen a thread where people are talking about getting help for the dog... a lot of it is based around putting the dog down and everyone on that particular thread agrees with putting the dog down...

yet on this thread I think the majority of us want Buster to at least get an assessment to see if he is an 'aggressive dog'.

I dont know.. I just think that a lot of the time dogs don't get the kind of support that Buster is getting and I would love to see that change.

I am a bit funny... and I think very different to a lot of the dog lovers on here because whenever I hear about a dog being put down because of an attack I disagree with it (that is me and I see where people come from when they DO want to dog to be put down)... but I just hate to think that a dog is being put down for something that MIGHT not be its fault... I'm strictly a 'no kill policy' kinda person... and I do respect that others have different opinions to me and that is perfectly ok... But I would much rather see a dog at least have a second chance at life instead of everyone (not people on this forum) being like 'oh, its attacked someone for the first time in its life with no previous signs of aggression, it needs to be put down immediately.' I do realsie that some attacks aren't provoked etc....

This thread just seems different that's all - and to be perfectly honest I think it DOES have something to do with Buster being a GR. If this sort of thing happened with a bully breed I am sure that most people would be like 'definitely put it down'... which is sad because I think every dog deserves a second chance - not just 'generally good natured' dogs.

In the good ole days we'd have ripsnortingly intense 4 way arguments - BSL supporters vs anti-BSL, and pro kill vs no kill. The threads got extremely heated and were usually closed within a day or two, if they lasted more than a few hours. I am adamantly 'no kill without first investigating all circumstances' and was horrified by the cries of "PTS, PTS". I don't and will never understand the stance of people who think that 'human aggression in dogs is unacceptable in any circumstances' and had many long, emotional and ultimately pointless arguments on that issue. (Lo Pan and a few others might remember as we stood side by side arguing our case for a fair go for the dogs) One issue I have is that according to the 'pro kill' argument, the 'hero GR' in the link Aidan posted should also be PTS for aggression. Try telling the owner he saved that and see what reaction you get. But the pro kill brigade doesn't discriminate as to circumstances.

These days I simply don't visit these threads, as I see no point in getting into the same arguments with the same people over and over. The only reason I came into this one was to see what inspired OdinGenie's other thread. So it's not that we no kill people are not here, just that we are not in every 'dog attack' thread yelling our heads off. Doesn't mean we condone the attitudes, just tired, and can't be bothered with 'cut and paste' from one thread to another. I'm sorry to hear that you think you are outnumbered and it doesn't seem to be an even split any more though, can't let the pro kill brigade get the upper hand!

poochiemama, for me, supporting Buster because he is, at least allegedly, a Golden Retriever, is a problem because I'd consider that a reinforcement of breed bias which is what BSL is predicated on. This is quite different to supporting Buster on grounds which are not motivated by breed. I personally do not support routine euthanasia of dogs which have been involved in attacks, a position which I have been criticized for more than once on this forum, so my support for Buster is not at the expense of other breeds, and in fact promotes breed equality.

Whereas, for example, if you look at the general tone of the comments in response to articles covering this story on at least one of the news sites (I only looked at one) you will probably see the type of support which I condemn in the strongest terms. They are promoting breed prejudice and furthering ignorance, that kind of help is the sort I think we can do without.

I completely agree with you. And it is nice to (FINALLY) see that someone doesn't agree with the killing of a dog because it has attacked. I have never met anyone else who agrees with me and I am sure you do get criticised as well because a lot of people on this forum do think it is ok - and everyone of course is entitled to their own opinions! Including you and i!

And I agree with everything else you said as well - you pretty much said exactly what I did in my previous post except in a simpler, non-rambling way.

I think that everyone's reaction to this is because of the breed which is not a good thing unless we all start supporting the assessment of other breeds that attack as well.

Now you've met two.

ETA: Just saw K9's post, great news!

Edited March 30, 2011 by hortfurball

[Staranais]

Good work Steve!

[Katdogs]

I can't get FB, can someone please paste the content or paraphrase an update here please please?

[hortfurball]

I can't get FB, can someone please paste the content or paraphrase an update here please please?

http://www.k9pro.com.au/news/20/Pet-dog-su...auls-four?.html

(direct link to Buster's story on K9pro site - the family has enlisted Steve's aid in assessment and possible rehabilitation of Buster)

Edited March 30, 2011 by hortfurball

[Crisovar]

I think that everyone's reaction to this is because of the breed which is not a good thing unless we all start supporting the assessment of other breeds that attack as well.

Nope not everyone if you read all the posts.

[Katdogs]

I can't get FB, can someone please paste the content or paraphrase an update here please please?

http://www.k9pro.com.au/news/20/Pet-dog-su...auls-four?.html

(direct link to Buster's story on K9pro site - the family has enlisted Steve's aid in assessment and possible rehabilitation of Buster)

Thanks very much for that. It seems there may have been a bit of a media beat-up? What a surprise

I've had dog-related dealings with the mayor, general manager and companion animal officer at Canterbury and have found them quite reasonable, given the constraints and priorities they have to work with. The staff at the pound are lovely.

Good luck to Busta, Steve and the family.

[SeeGee]

[Greytmate]

In the good ole days we'd have ripsnortingly intense 4 way arguments - BSL supporters vs anti-BSL, and pro kill vs no kill. The threads got extremely heated and were usually closed within a day or two, if they lasted more than a few hours. I am adamantly 'no kill without first investigating all circumstances' and was horrified by the cries of "PTS, PTS". I don't and will never understand the stance of people who think that 'human aggression in dogs is unacceptable in any circumstances' and had many long, emotional and ultimately pointless arguments on that issue. (Lo Pan and a few others might remember as we stood side by side arguing our case for a fair go for the dogs) One issue I have is that according to the 'pro kill' argument, the 'hero GR' in the link Aidan posted should also be PTS for aggression. Try telling the owner he saved that and see what reaction you get. But the pro kill brigade doesn't discriminate as to circumstances.

These days I simply don't visit these threads, as I see no point in getting into the same arguments with the same people over and over. The only reason I came into this one was to see what inspired OdinGenie's other thread. So it's not that we no kill people are not here, just that we are not in every 'dog attack' thread yelling our heads off. Doesn't mean we condone the attitudes, just tired, and can't be bothered with 'cut and paste' from one thread to another. I'm sorry to hear that you think you are outnumbered and it doesn't seem to be an even split any more though, can't let the pro kill brigade get the upper hand!

You call yourself strictly 'no kill' but you accuse the 'prokill brigade' as being undiscriminatating? Forget the good ole days, by you applying inaccurate and nasty labels to people posting here instead of talking about the topic at hand, we can have a pointless argument right here, right now.

Why can't you just post your opinion? Who is the 'pro kill brigade' exactly, and on what basis do you say that they do not discriminate?

If people feel strongly enough, and have a good argument or point to make, they are free to post here. Don't pretend you are talking about a silent majority, you seem to be on your own with your opinion and your labelling of of other people 'pro-kill.'

So who is pro-kill? Somebody specific, or just a label you apply to anyone that doesn't agree with you?

[MelodysMum]

K9: Latest information on Busta HERE

That's wonderful news Steve! Thanks for taking Busta on. I am sure he will do really well.

[poochmad]

What great news.

One of the things that Steve said in his facebook post, struck me as odd too, that they didn't use any method to restrain the dog, either using the lead as a muzzle or using one of those poles, especially after it was reported that it took them a while to get the dog out of the yard...and then the ranger leant down and patted the dog? Man, that would be the last thing that I would be doing to a dog, especially if it was showing signs of agitation (and leaning over the dog could be seen as confrontational).

[hortfurball]

You call yourself strictly 'no kill' but you accuse the 'prokill brigade' as being undiscriminatating?

Actually I called myself 'no kill without first investigating all circumstances' which is quite different to 'no kill regardless of circumstances'. I have a reasonable and balanced approach and like to know all the facts before I suggest whether I think a dog should be PTS, and given that we are discussing these cases on an internet forum, based on media reports, I will therefore never have adequate information to make that call, and nor, in my opinion, does anyone else, which is pretty much my entire argument.

Forget the good ole days, by you applying inaccurate and nasty labels to people posting here instead of talking about the topic at hand, we can have a pointless argument right here, right now.

Greytmate, firstly, let me say that I mostly find myself agreeing with or liking your posts around DOL, I'm not quite sure why you've singled this out as needing your attention, but please take my post in the context it was meant, in answer to this:

"a lot of it is based around putting the dog down and everyone on that particular thread agrees with putting the dog down...

yet on this thread I think the majority of us want Buster to at least get an assessment to see if he is an 'aggressive dog'."

This is from a relative newbie who believed until recently that she was the only person on this forum that did not advocate the immediate PTS of a dog that has been involved in an 'attack', except for in Buster's case where it seems to have a different slant.

My reference to 'the good ole days' was VERY tongue in cheek.

Sorry you think 'pro kill brigade' is a nasty label, I am long-winded enough in my posts without having to spell out 'those who advocate PTS without knowing all the facts first'. I was merely trying to be concise, and given the length of my post, failing as usual.

Why can't you just post your opinion?

I think it is clear given my stance that I am in favour of having Buster assessed for temperament so would suggest that was inherent in my reply and didn't need stating.

Who is the 'pro kill brigade' exactly, and on what basis do you say that they do not discriminate?

I only remember one name and have no idea whether that person is even still a member of DOL. I do vaguely remember a few choice comments but have no recollection of who said them as I don't hold grudges, so the best way to answer your question is to say that the people I refer to as the 'pro kill brigade' is anyone who states that a dog should be PTS without question as soon as they read the media coverage.

Unless they witnessed the incident and have a fairly good knowledge of dog behaviour, then to call for the death of a dog they've never met for a crime that may or may not have been misrepresented and/or sensationalised IMO is simply baying for blood, an example of human pack mentality.

If you discriminate, or wish to know all the facts before imposing a death sentence, then you have no reason to be offended by my post or the label/shorthand.

If people feel strongly enough, and have a good argument or point to make, they are free to post here. Don't pretend you are talking about a silent majority, you seem to be on your own with your opinion and your labelling of of other people 'pro-kill.'

I'm not pretending to any silent majority, nor ever said I was, but I do know that I am not the only person on this forum who does not claim to know whether or not a dog should be PTS within 5 minutes of reading a news story.

So who is pro-kill? Somebody specific, or just a label you apply to anyone that doesn't agree with you?

See above, you already asked, I already answered...in depth (as usual :D )

And now we have wasted enough of everyone's time (those who bothered to read), back to Buster...

[Tim'sMum]

It would be interesting to know the true circumstances as to why this dog attacked it's owners and a neighbour?

Perhaps it could have prevented 13 pages of a lot of seemingly pointless argument.

[Leelaa17]

You call yourself strictly 'no kill' but you accuse the 'prokill brigade' as being undiscriminatating?

Actually I called myself 'no kill without first investigating all circumstances' which is quite different to 'no kill regardless of circumstances'. I have a reasonable and balanced approach and like to know all the facts before I suggest whether I think a dog should be PTS, and given that we are discussing these cases on an internet forum, based on media reports, I will therefore never have adequate information to make that call, and nor, in my opinion, does anyone else, which is pretty much my entire argument.

Forget the good ole days, by you applying inaccurate and nasty labels to people posting here instead of talking about the topic at hand, we can have a pointless argument right here, right now.

Greytmate, firstly, let me say that I mostly find myself agreeing with or liking your posts around DOL, I'm not quite sure why you've singled this out as needing your attention, but please take my post in the context it was meant, in answer to this:

"a lot of it is based around putting the dog down and everyone on that particular thread agrees with putting the dog down...

yet on this thread I think the majority of us want Buster to at least get an assessment to see if he is an 'aggressive dog'."

This is from a relative newbie who believed until recently that she was the only person on this forum that did not advocate the immediate PTS of a dog that has been involved in an 'attack', except for in Buster's case where it seems to have a different slant.

My reference to 'the good ole days' was VERY tongue in cheek.

Sorry you think 'pro kill brigade' is a nasty label, I am long-winded enough in my posts without having to spell out 'those who advocate PTS without knowing all the facts first'. I was merely trying to be concise, and given the length of my post, failing as usual.

Why can't you just post your opinion?

I think it is clear given my stance that I am in favour of having Buster assessed for temperament so would suggest that was inherent in my reply and didn't need stating.

Who is the 'pro kill brigade' exactly, and on what basis do you say that they do not discriminate?

I only remember one name and have no idea whether that person is even still a member of DOL. I do vaguely remember a few choice comments but have no recollection of who said them as I don't hold grudges, so the best way to answer your question is to say that the people I refer to as the 'pro kill brigade' is anyone who states that a dog should be PTS without question as soon as they read the media coverage.

Unless they witnessed the incident and have a fairly good knowledge of dog behaviour, then to call for the death of a dog they've never met for a crime that may or may not have been misrepresented and/or sensationalised IMO is simply baying for blood, an example of human pack mentality.

If you discriminate, or wish to know all the facts before imposing a death sentence, then you have no reason to be offended by my post or the label/shorthand.

If people feel strongly enough, and have a good argument or point to make, they are free to post here. Don't pretend you are talking about a silent majority, you seem to be on your own with your opinion and your labelling of of other people 'pro-kill.'

I'm not pretending to any silent majority, nor ever said I was, but I do know that I am not the only person on this forum who does not claim to know whether or not a dog should be PTS within 5 minutes of reading a news story.

So who is pro-kill? Somebody specific, or just a label you apply to anyone that doesn't agree with you?

See above, you already asked, I already answered...in depth (as usual )

And now we have wasted enough of everyone's time (those who bothered to read), back to Buster...

Thank you hotfurball for making me a feel a little better about my views and now I understand that there are a lot more people out there like me!!

I'm sorry to both you and Greytmate for possibly causing this post!! I see where everyone is coming from and I do understand that not most people (but some that I have seen) aren't advocating for PTS immediately after reading the news.

I am a journalist and I pride myself on NOT being a sensationalist - I hate it and disagree with it completely and when I write a story I make sure I talk to everyone involved and get all the facts before that story is published. So I do understand that the news can sensationalise and not give all the facts which annoys me as much as it does everyone else on here... Don't really know what my point was but thought I should let you know!

[Leelaa17]

PS: Great news for Busta!!!! Love the great photos of him!

Hopefully this will start becoming the norm for dogs that attack - hopefully they will all go through some sort of assessment process and hopefully we can save some more lives!!

Edited March 30, 2011 by Leelaa17

[Erny]

Response to my email from Director of City Planning, Canterbury Council, NSW :

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your enquiry regarding the dog attack that occurred last Friday at Belfield.

The incident occurred on private property and Council staff attended the scene at the request of the Police. Please be advised that the dog was impounded temporarily and was expected to be released to the owner yesterday.

Thank you for your interest in this matter.

[huski]

I just saw that K9 Pro have updated their FB page with pics of Busta who is now out of the pound, for those interested in following his story

http://www.facebook.com/#!/album.php?f...2&aid=65466

[LizT]

It's lovely that this dog is being given a second chance. I believe that really what happens to Buster is the decision of the family who own him and who are working on his rehabilitation with K9Pro, since what occurred happened in their own backyard and within the confines of the family.

I believe however, that it certainly would be a different scenario had Buster attacked a stranger in the street.

Can't help but wonder also, what the situation would be if a child member of the family had been bitten instead of adults.

I doubt Buster would get a second look under those circumstances.

[Steve K9Pro]

LT: I believe however, that it certainly would be a different scenario had Buster attacked a stranger in the street.

Can't help but wonder also, what the situation would be if a child member of the family had been bitten instead of adults.

I doubt Buster would get a second look under those circumstances.

K9: Well I am not sure what you mean but I work with dogs that have attacked people, other dogs and other animals all the time, help people with Dangerous Dog Declarations and the breed really has no importance to me.

I wouldn't say that everyone shares my feelings though.

[Boxerheart]

The frenzy attack to bite 4 people dog is very much stressed into defense drive fearing his life to do this if not from a medical complaint is possible too, but would be intersting to learn of the trigger bringing this to unfold I am thinking, yes?.

Yes, I'd love to know the backstory on this one. Just what was happening before the dog started fighting, or does he have a medical problem.

Not because of the breed, but because a pet animal attacking several resident adults known to it without an apparent trigger sounds very unusual.

Edited: was posting this when the report of the family fight was reported. I guess that's the trigger somehow. Poor dog.

It did have a trigger. Dogs are pack animals. Very likely it saw the fighting of the men as an opportunity to join in the fight and gain rank. If humans in the house do not manage to hold the respected position of pack leader, a dog will very well try to be pack leader whatever it takes.