Ayen Chen - Dog Owner Fined

[ncarter]

It doesn't exclude them.

Unpapered amstaffs are in as much danger as any other pit type dog. Same goes for unpapered staffys and any other bull breed type dog without certain parentage... There is a checklist and if the dog meets a certain score based on the checklist, they can be deemed pit bull type..

There is more to it but that is the crux of it..

Papered dogs are safe...

ok but what im getting at is this. Do they seriously think a pedigree on a piece of paper includes a dog from being aggressive? Just dont understand the reasoning if they think all bully dogs are inherently aggressive why not papered amstaffs as well?

[Staffyluv]

It doesn't exclude them.

Unpapered amstaffs are in as much danger as any other pit type dog. Same goes for unpapered staffys and any other bull breed type dog without certain parentage... There is a checklist and if the dog meets a certain score based on the checklist, they can be deemed pit bull type..

There is more to it but that is the crux of it..

Papered dogs are safe...

ok but what im getting at is this. Do they seriously think a pedigree on a piece of paper includes a dog from being aggressive? Just dont understand the reasoning if they think all bully dogs are inherently aggressive why not papered amstaffs as well?

I agree with you.

[sandgrubber]

Poor breeding producing crap dogs results in dog's that go beyond the management capabilities of the average pet owner is one of the major problems with too many bullshit excuses and reasons why a dog exhibits unneccessay aggression without genetics being appropriately taken into account. Like the sire of my old fella, withdrawn from showing because he was DA...........but some dog snapped at him once and made him aggressive yet he passes the same trait onto his son??.

Whoa! This place is full of genetics deniers. (I'm responding, not to m-sass, above, but those who have flamed m-sass)

No question that the problem of dog attacks has genetic component. I don't mean breed-specific . . . I mean pedigree specific. Breeders of any sort who don't put temperament high on their list of priorities, or who deliberately breed for low bite threshold and high drive, produce dogs that are more likely to do harm. These days it's almost harder to find a goldie who is a natural retriever (and I don't mean tennis balls) than it is to find one who has deep problems with resource guarding. I've met more than a few dogs from 'herding' breeds who would be clueless faced with a flock or herd, but have loads of drive and are inclined to nip. You don't have to look too hard to find a conformation show breeder who will overlook unstable temperament in a dog with good show prospects.

I know a show breeder who pts'd an imported show dog (titled, to boot) because the dog maimed a puppy. How many breeders would do this? I doubt it's more than one in five.

It's unfortunate we can't know more about the dog who killed Ayen Chol. Who bred him? What were his lines? What happened to his littermates? I'm not saying that heredity caused this attack, just that the possibility should be considered. If some idiot breeder is placing mean, powerful dogs with owners who are not in a position to manage them, said idiot at least deserves to be named and shamed.

The other side of the coin is that the management capabilities of the average pet owner have declined. Yards have gotten smaller. The number of homes with an adult at home during the day has gone down. Walking the dog has ceased to be a normal kids chore.

Edited August 1, 2012 by sandgrubber

[m-sass]

what about the amstaff? a dog that is very similar genetically and in phenotype to APBT (correct me if im wrong).

I find it very odd that the recent crackdown on Pit Bulls and X's in Victoria, excludes amstaffs. Not that i agree with it but going by their logic that appearance predicts behaviour, why didnt they go after Amstaffs?

Because the Amstaff is an ANKC recognised breed with a recognised and established breed standard, hence heavily protected and is the perfect precident to the counter the "your breed will be next" hysteria from the anit-BSL crusaders.

FYI m-sass not all registered breeders are ethical

That is sadly true and they need their prefixes pulled along with the BYB's who breed crap and use unethical standards.

I seriously question a world in which a child's life is worth $4000 and this was not an "Accident" The dog attacked at least 4 people - killing one of them - this is not a dog that should have been kept as a family pet.

Correct..........so who bred this thing, where did it come from??. I am sure if a car's brakes failed and killed someone turning out to be a genetic factor, the manufacturer's would be getting a please explain, but in the case of the dog, the dog gets euthanised, the owner cops a fine and legally it's all good..........what about the brothers and sisters of that litter in the next street with the same traits or the other litters the same breeder has bred which needs investigating IMHO, the cause needs to be addressed.

Yep, un papered amstaff dogs are safe if a Vet will write a certificate stating the dog is an amstaff, but most vets will not do that. Some will, but very hard to find.

Bloody vets, they have the cheek to blame the govermnent and express how disgraceful the BSL laws are with the destruction of innocent pets and they are in the box seat to put life back into that innocent pet and most lack the spine to put pen to paper..........if they are so concerned beyond lip service certificate them all as Amstaff's who cares, they are only dealing with box tickers anyway who wouldn't know what they are looking at in terms of whether a dog was is an Amstaff or not. It's ok for them to misdiagnose a health issue, what's wrong with mis-identifying the breed of what is essentially a good dog??. Instead of blaming the laws, how about blaming the vets who won't sign your dog off to keep it alive and safe??

I don't understand why the actual owner was not fined as well. Was he? The person who was charged was the father of the owner I believe, but I would have expected that they both would have been fined. I know the laws on this have changed since this horrible event, but does anyone know if the owner was also in trouble?

Because the owner wasn't in control of the dog or the premises that the dog was kept, the owner (the guy's son) didn't commit an offence.

ok but what im getting at is this. Do they seriously think a pedigree on a piece of paper includes a dog from being aggressive? Just dont understand the reasoning if they think all bully dogs are inherently aggressive why not papered amstaffs as well?

No, it's not about the potential for aggression, it's about dogs that fit the restricted breed standard and can't be proven otherwise to the satisfaction of the legislation don't comply with the laws. They have rightly or wrongly already established that Pitbull's pose a threat to community safety and scooping up Pitbull look a likes is enforcing that law. Scooping up good dogs that look like Pitbull's and whether Pitbull's should be a restricted breed are two different topics.

Edited August 1, 2012 by m-sass

[m-sass]

Poor breeding producing crap dogs results in dog's that go beyond the management capabilities of the average pet owner is one of the major problems with too many bullshit excuses and reasons why a dog exhibits unneccessay aggression without genetics being appropriately taken into account. Like the sire of my old fella, withdrawn from showing because he was DA...........but some dog snapped at him once and made him aggressive yet he passes the same trait onto his son??.

Whoa! This place is full of genetics deniers. (I'm responding, not to m-sass, above, but those who have flamed m-sass)

No question that the problem of dog attacks has genetic component. I don't mean breed-specific . . . I mean pedigree specific. Breeders of any sort who don't put temperament high on their list of priorities, or who deliberately breed for low bite threshold and high drive, produce dogs that are more likely to do harm. These days it's almost harder to find a goldie who is a natural retriever (and I don't mean tennis balls) than it is to find one who has deep problems with resource guarding. I've met more than a few dogs from 'herding' breeds who would be clueless faced with a flock or herd, but have loads of drive and are inclined to nip. You don't have to look too hard to find a conformation show breeder who will overlook unstable temperament in a dog with good show prospects.

I know a show breeder who pts'd an imported show dog (titled, to boot) because the dog maimed a puppy. How many breeders would do this? I doubt it's more than one in five.

It's unfortunate we can't know more about the dog who killed Ayen Chol. Who bred him? What were his lines? What happened to his littermates? I'm not saying that heredity caused this attack, just that the possibility should be considered. If some idiot breeder is placing mean, powerful dogs with owners who are not in a position to manage them, said idiot at least deserves to be named and shamed.

The other side of the coin is that the management capabilities of the average pet owner have declined. Yards have gotten smaller. The number of homes with an adult at home during the day has gone down. Walking the dog has ceased to be a normal kids chore.

Excellent post, my sentiments exactly, thank you :)

Another factor I see often having a trip down memory lane of past dogs, as the training systems improve with evolution and the behaviour of poor quality dogs are improved with dedicated training places more blame upon the owners of poor quality dogs who didn't follow the strict training and socialisation routines that other owners of poor quality dogs have. I remember an old school trainer I attended classes with in the mid 70's used to tell us if a dog shut down to a hard leash correction the dog had no nerve and was essentially a problem dog in the making? If a dog spooked at something scary and didn't recover within 15 minutes to face it's demons, a dog like that was no good either and were definitely not breeding quality? Same with aggression I recall a few Dobermann's at the time and a couple of GSD's with active aggression said to be protection dogs, this trainer could have those dogs cowering in 5 minutes and they would run away, he termed them fear biters that had no heart, again poor examples of the breed?

I remember when good Labs and Retrievers were bullet proof especially with kids, they were renowned for great nerve and stability and were very hard to initiate an aggressive response from them virtually no matter what you did, at worse they would walk away unphased although HD was a problem health wise but the temperaments of most were awesome. Then the resource guarder in especially Goldies surfaced where a few Goldies bit kids ........we used to say the same thing as the Pitbull supporters do today........must be a crossbreed, Goldies don't bite kids, but they were Goldies with cronic resource garding traits and food aggression and of course some of great comformation in the show ring, they were bred with the trait of resource guarding increasing in the progeny and were actually temperament faulty.

Then there were moves to cover up the fault and blame the owners of these faulty dogs for not teaching their kids how to approach a dog when eating.........Lab's and Retrievers are soft mouthed dogs in their rightful working roles, how do you get a duck out of the mouth of a resource guarder?.......a gun dog owner would have shot a dog like that in the old days let alone breed it??.

Genetics does play a major part in all sorts of undesirable temperament traits, better dogs can be bred but firstly we have to accept the fact that crap dogs do exist and it's not all about the owner. Crap dogs only makes the owners job harder, no "good" stable dog should go out on a killing rampage in the owner's error of dropping the leash unless it's trained to hunt and kill, or it's bred with the traits as a default behaviour, the saying of mnodern times "there is no bad dogs just bad owners" is absolute bullshit and where bad dogs don't fit into community living is that they are so damn hard for the average dog owner to handle safely and one slip up on the owner's part can result in devistation, we don't need pet dogs like that and dogs like that shouldn't be bred for the pet market and the people who do need to be accountable for their products as far as I am concerned.

Edited August 1, 2012 by m-sass

[cowanbree]

As horrible and tragic as this is I am not that comfortable placing all blame on the owner. The articles I have read state the dog had never previously bitten and had no history. Who is to say the dog didn't have a brain tumour or similar which can cause incidences such as this. I would suspect not many people could honestly claim their own dog has always been on lead or in a fenced yard 100% of the time. I know myself I have had this exact thing happen, a dog got out under my incorrectly closed garage door. Fortunately a sheltie on the loose is viewed very differently from a bull breed.

It was a horrible and tragic accident.

[frufru]

I fail to see that "how the dog is viewed" has any bearing on what this dog did???? The dog got out - attacked 4 people - the last of which was a child resulting in death - it followed people into their house - it wasn't looking for a comfy bed or to snuggle up and watch tv. It was a human aggressive dog and it was not giving a warning bite - it killed someone

Edited August 1, 2012 by frufru

[Odin-Genie]

The other side of the coin is that the management capabilities of the average pet owner have declined. Yards have gotten smaller. The number of homes with an adult at home during the day has gone down. Walking the dog has ceased to be a normal kids chore.

I agree with you. I think part of the problem is also how dogs are socialised. We have so many restrictions on dogs these days that there isn't enough opportunity to give them a lot of exposure. Assuming that there is no serious genetic predisposition to aggression, a puppy that has grown up with lots of kids, animals will be less likely to react than a dog who has never been with a kid before.

Also, while I do agree that all dogs can bite, few dogs will show the kind of aggression that led to this girl's death. Most dogs will react if pushed, scared or startled. But that, at the most, would result in a quick nip, not a full on attack.

[nawnim]

The other side of the coin is that the management capabilities of the average pet owner have declined. Yards have gotten smaller. The number of homes with an adult at home during the day has gone down. Walking the dog has ceased to be a normal kids chore.

I agree with you. I think part of the problem is also how dogs are socialised. We have so many restrictions on dogs these days that there isn't enough opportunity to give them a lot of exposure. Assuming that there is no serious genetic predisposition to aggression, a puppy that has grown up with lots of kids, animals will be less likely to react than a dog who has never been with a kid before.

Also, while I do agree that all dogs can bite, few dogs will show the kind of aggression that led to this girl's death. Most dogs will react if pushed, scared or startled. But that, at the most, would result in a quick nip, not a full on attack.

Odin-Genie, I agree with you that today there are limited opportunities to socialise your dogs especially if you don't have resident children. It is illegal here to have dogs on school grounds or near playgrounds while children are playing. I remember taking my last boxer up to the local primary school around 3pm and just waiting out the front so that he could at least see some children.

I also think that while some people like to sneer at the swf, often their owners have chosen them responsibly because of their smaller backyards. Of course they often fail to realise that even a swf needs socialisation and training but that is another story.

I am also not so sure that all dogs will bite, or how people can even be so certain of this. Some would need a lot of pushing. If being ill-treated IMO some would cower and urinate and some others would try to run away.

[moosmum]

It doesn't exclude them.

Unpapered amstaffs are in as much danger as any other pit type dog. Same goes for unpapered staffys and any other bull breed type dog without certain parentage... There is a checklist and if the dog meets a certain score based on the checklist, they can be deemed pit bull type..

There is more to it but that is the crux of it..

Papered dogs are safe...

ok but what im getting at is this. Do they seriously think a pedigree on a piece of paper includes a dog from being aggressive? Just dont understand the reasoning if they think all bully dogs are inherently aggressive why not papered amstaffs as well?

Could be an argument worth exploring in the courts to defend some of the inocent cross breeds?

[moosmum]

Poor breeding producing crap dogs results in dog's that go beyond the management capabilities of the average pet owner is one of the major problems with too many bullshit excuses and reasons why a dog exhibits unneccessay aggression without genetics being appropriately taken into account. Like the sire of my old fella, withdrawn from showing because he was DA...........but some dog snapped at him once and made him aggressive yet he passes the same trait onto his son??.

Whoa! This place is full of genetics deniers. (I'm responding, not to m-sass, above, but those who have flamed m-sass)

No question that the problem of dog attacks has genetic component. I don't mean breed-specific . . . I mean pedigree specific. Breeders of any sort who don't put temperament high on their list of priorities, or who deliberately breed for low bite threshold and high drive, produce dogs that are more likely to do harm. These days it's almost harder to find a goldie who is a natural retriever (and I don't mean tennis balls) than it is to find one who has deep problems with resource guarding. I've met more than a few dogs from 'herding' breeds who would be clueless faced with a flock or herd, but have loads of drive and are inclined to nip. You don't have to look too hard to find a conformation show breeder who will overlook unstable temperament in a dog with good show prospects.

I know a show breeder who pts'd an imported show dog (titled, to boot) because the dog maimed a puppy. How many breeders would do this? I doubt it's more than one in five.

It's unfortunate we can't know more about the dog who killed Ayen Chol. Who bred him? What were his lines? What happened to his littermates? I'm not saying that heredity caused this attack, just that the possibility should be considered. If some idiot breeder is placing mean, powerful dogs with owners who are not in a position to manage them, said idiot at least deserves to be named and shamed.

The other side of the coin is that the management capabilities of the average pet owner have declined. Yards have gotten smaller. The number of homes with an adult at home during the day has gone down. Walking the dog has ceased to be a normal kids chore.

I don't believe M sass is being targeted for comments Re breeding practices being often to blame,but for the contention that if breeding is left to pedigree breeders the problems will disapear,and that non pedigree breeders should not exsist.

There are mistakes being made in breeding,full stop.Its not helpfull to foster the us Vs them attitude if change and imporovement in out comes are to made.

The same rules should apply across the board where "quality control" is concerned,without exemptions made for pedigree dogs or nothing is acomplished.

Management capabilities I think are a huge issue,with inapropriate choices being made by too many owners with little understanding of the types of dog they choose or their management.

[Cat]

M-sass - I am sick of you referring to non pedigree dogs as "crap dogs". Just because they are not papered does not make them violent killing machines. My Shar Pei is a rescue who was born in the pound after a BYB dumped the sick mother there. My "crap dog" is always being complimented on what a wonderful temperament she has and is a great example of her breed. You know why? Because she was heavily socialised growing up so she wouldn't be so wary of people as Shar Pei often have a problem with this. I would never trade her for another just because of papers.

I am not in support of BYB but I am certain that is not the issue. You keep wanting to put it back on them because that's what would happen if it was a car. But if you took your car and ran it into the ground and didn't look after it then there is no way they would be accountable.

I would bet anything that this owner did not socialise his dog. No one knows how it was brought up. You do not know if he was raised to attack. This is why the owner should be accountable and why more emphasis should be put on education rather than just how something looks

Edited August 2, 2012 by Cat

[geo]

Correct..........so who bred this thing, where did it come from??. I am sure if a car's brakes failed and killed someone turning out to be a genetic factor, the manufacturer's would be getting a please explain, but in the case of the dog, the dog gets euthanised, the owner cops a fine and legally it's all good..........what about the brothers and sisters of that litter in the next street with the same traits or the other litters the same breeder has bred which needs investigating IMHO, the cause needs to be addressed.

Yep, un papered amstaff dogs are safe if a Vet will write a certificate stating the dog is an amstaff, but most vets will not do that. Some will, but very hard to find.

Bloody vets, they have the cheek to blame the govermnent and express how disgraceful the BSL laws are with the destruction of innocent pets and they are in the box seat to put life back into that innocent pet and most lack the spine to put pen to paper..........if they are so concerned beyond lip service certificate them all as Amstaff's who cares, they are only dealing with box tickers anyway who wouldn't know what they are looking at in terms of whether a dog was is an Amstaff or not. It's ok for them to misdiagnose a health issue, what's wrong with mis-identifying the breed of what is essentially a good dog??. Instead of blaming the laws, how about blaming the vets who won't sign your dog off to keep it alive and safe??

Having witnessed dogs from many litters, I have seen traits carried in some and not in others. "pick of the litter" occurs at very young ages, how do you account for what makes a dog useful and or stable at that point in their development?? My current male had a brother PTS, the owner was less than desirable and didn't socialise him properly. The other brother is with a family with young children, living happily as is mine. This isn't to say that either of my dogs wouldn't bite anyone, because given the right ingredients they would.. e.g being tormented late at night by a group of drunks over the fence.

HA, is the real problem. I've only ever seen dogs behave aggressively towards people when protecting property or being over protective of their owner, not outright HA. The issue is proving a history of this in a dog, one off's like what happened are so hard to predict. The breeder of my dog, put down a an extremely loving pet because of her tendency to want to kill anything that wasn't human, a responsible long time breeder, but not AKNC affiliated.. uh oh..

Belonging to the AKNC does not stop this.

BYBers don't help, as most are one off breeders, and i agree M-sass some do not help the problem, but you cannot cast a net over all of them.

I know some hunting breeders, they've never had a HA dog, and would shoot any that were.

If the owner of the dog does not know it's limits, they cannot safely let other people look after their dog as was the case in thi situation. It's about knowing your dog.

I spend at least half an our with kennel staff talking through my dogs behavior before leaving them.

When cared for by others its by neighbours who know my dogs temperment, strength and triggers, who also have large powerful breeds.

I'm sure inexperience had a part to do with this incident, not just bad breeding, as for all we know the litter mates of this dog are well adjusted pets.

[megan_]

I don't understand why the actual owner was not fined as well. Was he? The person who was charged was the father of the owner I believe, but I would have expected that they both would have been fined. I know the laws on this have changed since this horrible event, but does anyone know if the owner was also in trouble?

IF a dog attacks when under the control of an adult, that adult is legally accountable, not the owner. If the dog is under the control of a child, then the legal guardian of the dog is held accountable, not the owner. So if a kid walks dogs for $10/hr, a dog runs off and causes an accident, their parents will be held responsible, not the owner of the dog.

[BlackJaq]

I am a little sad that certain traits which are necessary for some working dogs (not just sheep and cattle dogs, this includes lifestock guard dogs and hunting dogs of all descriptions) may cause these breeds to get a bad rep because clueless "owners" do not inform themselves of their needs and behaviour. Just because a dog is "pretty" does not make it a good pet. However, the same dog might be an excellent work dog in the right circumstances. I don't believe we should eradicate these traits to make these dogs "dummy friendly". Maybe people just need to accept that some breeds are just not good at being pets without very high maintenance requirements and people should simply stay away from them and get something more suitable if they do not have huge amounts of time and competence available to them.

Also, re: only purebreds are guaranteed not to bite, some breeds are selectively bred FOR traits that CAN cause biting in the wrong circumstances. A blue heeler may start to herd and nip people in some circumstances, hunting dogs like Pointers and Weis may chase and grab small children if they do not recognize them as people, Retrievers may start biting hands and LGD may attack "intruders" if managed badly. All these behaviours can be caused by traits that these breeds are bred for. So how are they any safer than mixed breed dogs of unknown heritage?

I honestly believe that no matter what the disposition of the dog is, whether it is a blood thirsty killing machine or super-smooching couch lizard, it should ALWAYS be up to the owner to manage the dog and the owner should be responsible for the dog in all circumstances. I agree that education and licensing may actually do something to reduce incidences like this and maybe facilities need to be inspected before a dog can be acquired as well. Not all fencing is dog fencing. Not all dogs are happy to live outside by themselves 24/7. Not all dogs are happy to suffer boredom in a tiny backyard all day. Not all dogs will refrain from tunneling out of their back yard if left alone. Not all dogs have no anxiety or fear issues. Not all dogs will not chase lifestock if given half a chance. In fact, in these kind of circumstances, most dogs can present a problem so I think owners must be held much more responsible. It should be a huge decision for ANYONE to get a dog, not just a matter of being bored with a spare $50 in your back pocket and calling up the dude from the poster at Woolies to grab one of them thar pups he's got advertised.

Dogs that injure or kill people should be classified as weapons and owners should be punished accordingly.

Edited August 2, 2012 by BlackJaq

[sumosmum]

I don't understand why the actual owner was not fined as well. Was he? The person who was charged was the father of the owner I believe, but I would have expected that they both would have been fined. I know the laws on this have changed since this horrible event, but does anyone know if the owner was also in trouble?

IF a dog attacks when under the control of an adult, that adult is legally accountable, not the owner. If the dog is under the control of a child, then the legal guardian of the dog is held accountable, not the owner. So if a kid walks dogs for $10/hr, a dog runs off and causes an accident, their parents will be held responsible, not the owner of the dog.

No, under Section 29, subsection 4, the owner is liable and can be fined. 40 Penalty points. Maybe they just didn't mention that in the article, or maybe he has just paid the fine.

(3) If a dog that is not a dangerous dog or a restricted breed dog, attacks or bites any person or animal and causes death or a serious injury to the person or animal, the person in apparent control of the dog at the time of the attack or biting, whether or not the owner of the dog, is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding 40 penalty units.

(4) If a dog that is not a dangerous dog or a restricted breed dog, attacks or bites any person or animal and causes death or a serious injury to the person or animal, the owner of the dog, if not liable for the offence under subsection (3), is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding 40 penalty units.

Edited August 2, 2012 by sumosmum

[sumosmum]

I don't understand why the actual owner was not fined as well. Was he? The person who was charged was the father of the owner I believe, but I would have expected that they both would have been fined. I know the laws on this have changed since this horrible event, but does anyone know if the owner was also in trouble?

M-sass, said, Because the owner wasn't in control of the dog or the premises that the dog was kept, the owner (the guy's son) didn't commit an offence.

See above post. The owner is liable.

[Tempus Fugit]

I don't understand why the actual owner was not fined as well. Was he? The person who was charged was the father of the owner I believe, but I would have expected that they both would have been fined. I know the laws on this have changed since this horrible event, but does anyone know if the owner was also in trouble?

M-sass, said, Because the owner wasn't in control of the dog or the premises that the dog was kept, the owner (the guy's son) didn't commit an offence.

See above post. The owner is liable.

So if a farmer agists his bull in someone's paddock and the bull escapes and gores a passer-by is the farmer liable as owner?

If a horse-owner lends their horse to someone and the horse kicks a child in the head is the horse-owner liable?

If a father lends his car to his p-plater son and the son loses control of the car and kills someone should the father be liable as the owner of the car?

[sumosmum]

I don't understand why the actual owner was not fined as well. Was he? The person who was charged was the father of the owner I believe, but I would have expected that they both would have been fined. I know the laws on this have changed since this horrible event, but does anyone know if the owner was also in trouble?

M-sass, said, Because the owner wasn't in control of the dog or the premises that the dog was kept, the owner (the guy's son) didn't commit an offence.

See above post. The owner is liable.

So if a farmer agists his bull in someone's paddock and the bull escapes and gores a passer-by is the farmer liable as owner?

If a horse-owner lends their horse to someone and the horse kicks a child in the head is the horse-owner liable?

If a father lends his car to his p-plater son and the son loses control of the car and kills someone should the father be liable as the owner of the car?

Don't know about all of those TF, but it appears by the laws in Victoria, the owner of a domestic dog is, even if he is not involved in the incident.

[m-sass]

I think part of the problem is also how dogs are socialised.

Do you know that good stable dogs don't need to be socialised at all, aggression in most cases is a reaction to insecurity, good dogs don't feel insecure with new sights and surroundings, they are comfortable in their own skin. Socialisation routines do help to desensitise crap dogs but the belief that a reactive dog behaves in that manner is not because of a lack of socialisation, what you see is the raw genetics of the dog's character unmasked by socialisation/training.

M-sass - I am sick of you referring to non pedigree dogs as "crap dogs". Just because they are not papered does not make them violent killing machines. My Shar Pei is a rescue who was born in the pound after a BYB dumped the sick mother there. My "crap dog" is always being complimented on what a wonderful temperament she has and is a great example of her breed. You know why? Because she was heavily socialised growing up so she wouldn't be so wary of people as Shar Pei often have a problem with this. I would never trade her for another just because of papers.

So how do you duplicate your dog from a breeding perspective when the temperament of the sire and the grandparents is unknown.......how do you choose a likely stud if you wanted to breed your dog in a BYB situation? In a "good" breeder's program, they would know the bloodlines and what different sires produced, if there was insecuirity in your dog masked by training and socialisation and the desire was to produce greater stability in the progeny, they would use a sire from a line that produced extreme stability in the progeny is the basis of how they alter particular traits in breeding. It's not the paperwork that makes the dog, it's the known history in papered bloodlines that enables breeder's of pure breeds to make better choices of where their lines are heading over the BYB who know's nothing of the history make up of a particular dog.

No, under Section 29, subsection 4, the owner is liable and can be fined. 40 Penalty points. Maybe they just didn't mention that in the article, or maybe he has just paid the fine.

(3) If a dog that is not a dangerous dog or a restricted breed dog, attacks or bites any person or animal and causes death or a serious injury to the person or animal, the person in apparent control of the dog at the time of the attack or biting, whether or not the owner of the dog, is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding 40 penalty units.

(4) If a dog that is not a dangerous dog or a restricted breed dog, attacks or bites any person or animal and causes death or a serious injury to the person or animal, the owner of the dog, if not liable for the offence under subsection (3), is guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding 40 penalty units.

It means if no one else is in apparant control of the dog the owner is liable, like if a dog digs under the fence and gets out whilst the owner isn't home. If someone else is in apparant control like the son left the dog in his father's control in his absence, the son as the owner isn't liable in that case as per subsection 3 of that law. Then there is usually a defence clause about third party responsibility, like a lawn mower man for example left the gate open and the dog gets out can reduce the owner's liability also.

I honestly believe that no matter what the disposition of the dog is, whether it is a blood thirsty killing machine or super-smooching couch lizard, it should ALWAYS be up to the owner to manage the dog and the owner should be responsible for the dog in all circumstances.

Yes I agree in a perfect world that should be the case, but on the other hand I can see why the type of dogs who fall victim to a lack of owner control and management posing a danger to the community become targets for irradication in the stance for saftey.

Edited August 4, 2012 by m-sass