Guide Dog Killed

[JaneH]

Any breed/cross breed of dog will attack - given the right circumstances and situations !!!!! Councils throughout Australia need to be told and learn that they already have all the rules and legislations that they need to rectify these situations that the news peeps seem to love to report ! But do they do the checking that is required ? I can absolutely guarantee that there would be no council in Australia that knows exactly how many pets - and I am not talking only about dogs here - are at any given address !!!!!! So - what do they do - crisis management at its best - only deal with a problem when it arises - and - don't forget - very essential - always take the easiest way out - more legislation and rules !!!!!!

As far as the 'tough guys' - they will just move on to other breeds !!!!!!!!!!

Edited August 11, 2012 by JaneH

[korbin13]

Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with.

There are already restricted breed laws, and have been for some time.

The link that melzawelza posted to the report from the AVA actually states that history shows that the popularity of breeds of dogs changes and as the popularity rises the incidences of that breed in dog bites increases with it. You take out one 'tough' breed and the next one takes it's place.

I think that most sensible people just want to see sensible laws that allow people to enjoy their dogs. Shouldn't be based on breed. And they won't be 100% effective, just like drink driving laws aren't 100% effective.

[nawnim]

1344672417[/url]' post='5926199']

Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with.

This is beginning to sound personal.

Personal? Yeah I guess I am prejudice against people like this http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/dog-breaks-collar-attacks-woman/story-e6frea83-1226422663719

This incident has already been discussed on this forum "Dog mauled and pts and owner bitten". It is the first time I have seen a photo of the dog though. It looks very skinny to me.

[melzawelza]

Thankyou for your answer. I have just read this report and my concerns have not been fully addressed.

A playful nip is reportable if it breaks the skin. I am okay with this but I do have concern about the classification of a dog as potentially dangerous, and I would like to know who the authorised person is making the judgements. Some people will interpret a friendly lick from a dog as an attempt to bite. The behaviour of friendly boisterous dogs can also be misinterpreted.

My concern about the temperament testing still stands. The report says there is still no standardised reliable test available.

Quote

Temperament testing

Temperament testing is a tool to assign risk categories to dogs (and their owners) and to

reduce community risk by enforcing controls or rehabilitation. This tool could also reduce risk

within the household and family by making owners more aware of their dog’s potential to bite.

Temperament testing could be useful if:

• Encouraged by a reduction in registration fees for dogs which pass the test

• Mandated by animal control authorities, or

• Required by owners’ public liability insurance.

Temperament and behaviour tests have been used since the 1980s by those responsible for

selecting working and assistance dogs, by pounds and shelters to assess suitability for

rehoming, and by animal management authorities to determine potentially dangerous dogs.

There are a number of tests available and in use in Australia, but there remains a critical

need for a standardised and reliable test that can be applied on-site at shelters, pet shops,

veterinary practices and training venues.

There is currently no formal approval or accreditation in place for either the tests or the

testers, and this is a significant gap in the ability to respond effectively to dog bites.

P 24

The decisions as to whether to declare dogs dangerous is already happening and being made by authorised officers in local councils, some who know a hell of a lot about dogs and others who know nothing. However here in NSW (and I think other states too) we don't have the option of 'potentially dangerous dog', only dangerous, therefore a lot of dogs are being declared dangerous while something like potentially dangerous would be much more appropriate. Officers use their discretion currently and are obligated to investigate the incident and the history of the dog before taking action. You would hope that those who know dogs would uncover that the dog was not being aggressive and therefore not declare the dog to be potentially dangerous.

Re: the temp tests I do understand what you're saying. A standardised test could/should be made by using some of the top behaviourists in the country.

1344609094[/url]' post='5925781']

Everytime I read a heading in here about a dog attack, I always find it disappointing and find myself shaking my head at so many ludicrous comments

What a tragic series of events two very innocent dogs pay the price for HUMAN stupidity !!!!

Pit Bulls and Bull x breeds need to be wiped out, sorry to say I used to argue till I was blue in the face with people about "blame the deed not the breed" but there comes a time when you throw your hands up in the air and admit defeat

I 100% agree that these breeds can be loyal and loving companions in the right responsible home, but in the wrong hands, a very head strong and high drive breed can be devastating .....society today is just not equipped nor educated enough to deal with these breeds anymore the irresponsible unfortunately outweigh the responsible ...

RIP Sweet Maggie, a sad end to your truly amazing and selfless life

Fingers crossed for Bosley xxxxxxxxxxxx

Well, that was helpful

I tend to agree with Pockets - I too would always say blame the deed not the breed, but in nearly every case of a dog attack it is a bully type dog - the general public does not care on iota if it is a pure bred or not, as far as they are concerned, the dog(s) involved are bully breeds or crosses of such. I also agree, in the right home and environment, they make wonderful pets.

This is absolutely incorrect. Nearly every attack IN THE MEDIA is a bully type dog. I am a Companion Animal Officer for a local Sydney Council and I am telling you now, even if you combined ALL of the bull breeds together they still only make up maybe about 20% of the attacks I investigate. And no, all their attacks aren't severe, and all severe attacks are not by the bullies. The most recent one I had which resulted in a woman being in surgery for over an hour and almost needing a skin graft was by a small poodle X.

Just have a look at the NSW attack statistics and see how many attacks happen and how many are actually by bull breeds. You are completely incorrect that they are the only breeds attacking.

At the end of the day though, even if you were right, banning them still isn't the solution as it as been proven to be ineffective all over the world and in our own country.

I'm not complaining, I am merely pointing out the biggest hole. There are plenty of other holes in it as well. Sorry but for me, it's not complete and does not prevent the wrong people from owning dangerous dogs. And it does not prevent moron breeders selling dangerous dogs to undesirables.

Just to clarify, dangerous dogs and restricted breeds are two entirely different things. You can't stop people owning dangerous dogs unless you ban every dog.

And to put it into a bit of perspective, Australia has approximately 4 million dogs (majority of those would be cross bred mutts). Most of them live without ever harming a single person or thing.

If the current laws we have were monitored and obeyed, the chances of anything like this happening would be slim. I am all for stronger penalties for people who do the wrong thing and leave the people who do the right thing alone.

RIP Matilda

Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with.

It's not rephrasing, it's getting the terminology correct. Now I can understand your earlier comment that under the proposed framework I linked 'dangerous dogs have to attack before being declared dangerous' and this was a problem. In response to that, I'm assuming you are meaning that you believe all bull breeds should be automatically be declared dangerous, and you are ignoring all the data in that report that shows that this approach is useless.

[Sheridan]

1344673623[/url]' post='5926214']

1344673476[/url]' post='5926212']

1344672417[/url]' post='5926199']

Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with.

This is beginning to sound personal.

Personal? Yeah I guess I am prejudice against people like this http://www.adelaiden...3-1226422663719

Well, unless that was your dog, that isn't personal, is it.

[Staffyluv]

There is a difference between a restricted breed of dog and a dangerous dog...

Any breed of dog can be labelled dangerous, by the actions of the individual dog.. But there are only a few breeds of dog that are on the restricted list.

What breed will the morons of society move onto once our beloved breed has been eradicated?

Not all restricted breeds are dangerous!

There are many of these bull breeds (because according to a lot of breed bashers in this thread) that live in loving family homes. I have one, rescued from the pound. He has foster brothers and sisters from time to time...

You should have seen the scary bull breed crawling on his tummy to get closer to the 15 week old lab puppy at training today... No doubt you would have been terrified for the welfare of the puppy... Lucky for us, his owner had a fit of the giggles watching a 26kg muscle mutt crawling up to her puppy... The lick the puppy wore under its chin, lifted him off the ground...

For the record, I do take offense at people who know nothing about my dog stating that he and his entire type of breed should be eradicated...

Wouldn't you take offense if someone suggested that your breed of choice be PTS..

I doubt there are many that could sit there and state with 100% confidence that their breed of choice is totally harmless...

Back on topic again, has anyone heard any more about the other little dog involved and if he is alright?

[Puppoochi]

Thankyou for your answer. I have just read this report and my concerns have not been fully addressed.

A playful nip is reportable if it breaks the skin. I am okay with this but I do have concern about the classification of a dog as potentially dangerous, and I would like to know who the authorised person is making the judgements. Some people will interpret a friendly lick from a dog as an attempt to bite. The behaviour of friendly boisterous dogs can also be misinterpreted.

My concern about the temperament testing still stands. The report says there is still no standardised reliable test available.

Quote

Temperament testing

Temperament testing is a tool to assign risk categories to dogs (and their owners) and to

reduce community risk by enforcing controls or rehabilitation. This tool could also reduce risk

within the household and family by making owners more aware of their dog’s potential to bite.

Temperament testing could be useful if:

• Encouraged by a reduction in registration fees for dogs which pass the test

• Mandated by animal control authorities, or

• Required by owners’ public liability insurance.

Temperament and behaviour tests have been used since the 1980s by those responsible for

selecting working and assistance dogs, by pounds and shelters to assess suitability for

rehoming, and by animal management authorities to determine potentially dangerous dogs.

There are a number of tests available and in use in Australia, but there remains a critical

need for a standardised and reliable test that can be applied on-site at shelters, pet shops,

veterinary practices and training venues.

There is currently no formal approval or accreditation in place for either the tests or the

testers, and this is a significant gap in the ability to respond effectively to dog bites.

P 24

The decisions as to whether to declare dogs dangerous is already happening and being made by authorised officers in local councils, some who know a hell of a lot about dogs and others who know nothing. However here in NSW (and I think other states too) we don't have the option of 'potentially dangerous dog', only dangerous, therefore a lot of dogs are being declared dangerous while something like potentially dangerous would be much more appropriate. Officers use their discretion currently and are obligated to investigate the incident and the history of the dog before taking action. You would hope that those who know dogs would uncover that the dog was not being aggressive and therefore not declare the dog to be potentially dangerous.

Re: the temp tests I do understand what you're saying. A standardised test could/should be made by using some of the top behaviourists in the country.

1344609094[/url]' post='5925781']

Everytime I read a heading in here about a dog attack, I always find it disappointing and find myself shaking my head at so many ludicrous comments

What a tragic series of events two very innocent dogs pay the price for HUMAN stupidity !!!!

Pit Bulls and Bull x breeds need to be wiped out, sorry to say I used to argue till I was blue in the face with people about "blame the deed not the breed" but there comes a time when you throw your hands up in the air and admit defeat

I 100% agree that these breeds can be loyal and loving companions in the right responsible home, but in the wrong hands, a very head strong and high drive breed can be devastating .....society today is just not equipped nor educated enough to deal with these breeds anymore the irresponsible unfortunately outweigh the responsible ...

RIP Sweet Maggie, a sad end to your truly amazing and selfless life

Fingers crossed for Bosley xxxxxxxxxxxx

Well, that was helpful

I tend to agree with Pockets - I too would always say blame the deed not the breed, but in nearly every case of a dog attack it is a bully type dog - the general public does not care on iota if it is a pure bred or not, as far as they are concerned, the dog(s) involved are bully breeds or crosses of such. I also agree, in the right home and environment, they make wonderful pets.

This is absolutely incorrect. Nearly every attack IN THE MEDIA is a bully type dog. I am a Companion Animal Officer for a local Sydney Council and I am telling you now, even if you combined ALL of the bull breeds together they still only make up maybe about 20% of the attacks I investigate. And no, all their attacks aren't severe, and all severe attacks are not by the bullies. The most recent one I had which resulted in a woman being in surgery for over an hour and almost needing a skin graft was by a small poodle X.

Just have a look at the NSW attack statistics and see how many attacks happen and how many are actually by bull breeds. You are completely incorrect that they are the only breeds attacking.

At the end of the day though, even if you were right, banning them still isn't the solution as it as been proven to be ineffective all over the world and in our own country.

I'm not complaining, I am merely pointing out the biggest hole. There are plenty of other holes in it as well. Sorry but for me, it's not complete and does not prevent the wrong people from owning dangerous dogs. And it does not prevent moron breeders selling dangerous dogs to undesirables.

Just to clarify, dangerous dogs and restricted breeds are two entirely different things. You can't stop people owning dangerous dogs unless you ban every dog.

And to put it into a bit of perspective, Australia has approximately 4 million dogs (majority of those would be cross bred mutts). Most of them live without ever harming a single person or thing.

If the current laws we have were monitored and obeyed, the chances of anything like this happening would be slim. I am all for stronger penalties for people who do the wrong thing and leave the people who do the right thing alone.

RIP Matilda

Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with.

It's not rephrasing, it's getting the terminology correct. Now I can understand your earlier comment that under the proposed framework I linked 'dangerous dogs have to attack before being declared dangerous' and this was a problem. In response to that, I'm assuming you are meaning that you believe all bull breeds should be automatically be declared dangerous, and you are ignoring all the data in that report that shows that this approach is useless.

Not at all.

[Puppoochi]

1344673623[/url]' post='5926214']

1344673476[/url]' post='5926212']

1344672417[/url]' post='5926199']

Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with.

This is beginning to sound personal.

Personal? Yeah I guess I am prejudice against people like this http://www.adelaiden...3-1226422663719

Well, unless that was your dog, that isn't personal, is it.

I don't understand where you're coming from?

[melzawelza]

Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with.

It's not rephrasing, it's getting the terminology correct. Now I can understand your earlier comment that under the proposed framework I linked 'dangerous dogs have to attack before being declared dangerous' and this was a problem. In response to that, I'm assuming you are meaning that you believe all bull breeds should be automatically be declared dangerous, and you are ignoring all the data in that report that shows that this approach is useless.

Not at all.

Well, in that case I have NFI what you're talking about. You stated you don't like the scheme because dogs have to attack to be declared dangerous. Under the proposed scheme dogs do not have to severely attack someone to be declared dangerous. They can be declared 'potentially dangerous' based on threatening behaviour. I don't understand what more you want, other than dogs being declared dangerous because they look a particular way.

[Dame Aussie]

I am sorry that you think my post is silly how dare I have an opinion or differing thoughts

The problems when you get a debate/discussion happening like this is people like yourself take posts personally and therefore your resulting comments are just insults, for instance saying my comment is "silly"

Unfairly and Unfortunately the Government is under constant pressure to "implement change and get results" and the people making the decisions are uneducated and unknowledgable...they don't care about the good examples of the breed in caring and responsible homes

Everytime I read a heading in here about a dog attack, I always find it disappointing and find myself shaking my head at so many ludicrous comments

What a tragic series of events two very innocent dogs pay the price for HUMAN stupidity !!!!

Pit Bulls and Bull x breeds need to be wiped out, sorry to say I used to argue till I was blue in the face with people about "blame the deed not the breed" but there comes a time when you throw your hands up in the air and admit defeat

I 100% agree that these breeds can be loyal and loving companions in the right responsible home, but in the wrong hands, a very head strong and high drive breed can be devastating .....society today is just not equipped nor educated enough to deal with these breeds anymore the irresponsible unfortunately outweigh the responsible ...

RIP Sweet Maggie, a sad end to your truly amazing and selfless life

Fingers crossed for Bosley xxxxxxxxxxxx

So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course she's going to take it personally, you're saying her dogs should be wiped out???

[Sheridan]

1344675735[/url]' post='5926237']

1344675160[/url]' post='5926227']

Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with.

It's not rephrasing, it's getting the terminology correct. Now I can understand your earlier comment that under the proposed framework I linked 'dangerous dogs have to attack before being declared dangerous' and this was a problem. In response to that, I'm assuming you are meaning that you believe all bull breeds should be automatically be declared dangerous, and you are ignoring all the data in that report that shows that this approach is useless.

Not at all.

Well, in that case I have NFI what you're talking about. You stated you don't like the scheme because dogs have to attack to be declared dangerous. Under the proposed scheme dogs do not have to severely attack someone to be declared dangerous. They can be declared 'potentially dangerous' based on threatening behaviour. I don't understand what more you want, other than dogs being declared dangerous because they look a particular way.

Puppoochi wants to get rid of the dogs.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Sheridan

[nawnim]

1344600059[/url]' post='5925709']

I'd just like to say as a pit bull advocate and enthusiast that I am disgusted by the attitudes of those trivialising this incident.

There are those of us fighting against BSL and for effective animal control that do not feel this way and do not excuse this kind of incident.

It should NEVER have happened and is completely unacceptable. Poor Matilda. How devastating

All I'll say in regards to breed (whether they are or they aren't), is this is just further evidence of the complete fail of BSL. Melbourne has had BSL for ten years, yet all the worst supposed 'pit bull' attacks are coming out of there.

When will they protect the public and actually implement effective legislation that is PROVEN to work rather than sinking hundreds of thousands of dollars into what is proven NOT to work?!

Effective legislation may have prevented Matilda's death.

In what way?

The AVA have released their paper on Dangerous dog policy and legislative framework just this week based on intensive research on effective animal management. It is science-based and the outcomes proposed are proven to be effective.

You can read it here if you wish:

http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/dangerous-dogs-%E2%80%93-sensible-solution

We will never know of course, hence why I used the word 'may', but if legislation and education like this had been in place in VIC, maybe these dogs would have been adequately socialised, or adequately contained, or adequately trained. Maybe they wouldn't have become dangerous in the first place or maybe they would have but legislation would have picked it up early and prevented this from happening.

At the end of the day, legislation such as described in this paper DOES reduce dog attacks, whereas BSL doesn't. This case is a prime example of that.

Melzawelza I just want to thank you for drawing my attention to this article (link quoted in post above). It wasn't really the 48 pages you mentioned - more like 26 and it was fairly easy to read. I recommend it to others who are interested in this topic. The more I think about it the more sense it all makes.

Edited August 11, 2012 by padraic

[Pockets]

No I wasn't, a breed being wiped out, I meant by phasing out the breed (impossible I know) I didn't mean taking people dogs now and destroying them...

I love how posts get twisted

I am sorry that you think my post is silly how dare I have an opinion or differing thoughts

The problems when you get a debate/discussion happening like this is people like yourself take posts personally and therefore your resulting comments are just insults, for instance saying my comment is "silly"

Unfairly and Unfortunately the Government is under constant pressure to "implement change and get results" and the people making the decisions are uneducated and unknowledgable...they don't care about the good examples of the breed in caring and responsible homes

Everytime I read a heading in here about a dog attack, I always find it disappointing and find myself shaking my head at so many ludicrous comments

What a tragic series of events two very innocent dogs pay the price for HUMAN stupidity !!!!

Pit Bulls and Bull x breeds need to be wiped out, sorry to say I used to argue till I was blue in the face with people about "blame the deed not the breed" but there comes a time when you throw your hands up in the air and admit defeat

I 100% agree that these breeds can be loyal and loving companions in the right responsible home, but in the wrong hands, a very head strong and high drive breed can be devastating .....society today is just not equipped nor educated enough to deal with these breeds anymore the irresponsible unfortunately outweigh the responsible ...

RIP Sweet Maggie, a sad end to your truly amazing and selfless life

Fingers crossed for Bosley xxxxxxxxxxxx

So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course she's going to take it personally, you're saying her dogs should be wiped out???

[Puppoochi]

1344675735[/url]' post='5926237']

1344675160[/url]' post='5926227']

Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with.

It's not rephrasing, it's getting the terminology correct. Now I can understand your earlier comment that under the proposed framework I linked 'dangerous dogs have to attack before being declared dangerous' and this was a problem. In response to that, I'm assuming you are meaning that you believe all bull breeds should be automatically be declared dangerous, and you are ignoring all the data in that report that shows that this approach is useless.

Not at all.

Well, in that case I have NFI what you're talking about. You stated you don't like the scheme because dogs have to attack to be declared dangerous. Under the proposed scheme dogs do not have to severely attack someone to be declared dangerous. They can be declared 'potentially dangerous' based on threatening behaviour. I don't understand what more you want, other than dogs being declared dangerous because they look a particular way.

Puppoochi wants to get rid of the dogs.

Sheridan wants to kill Bambi

[Puppoochi]

1344600059[/url]' post='5925709']

I'd just like to say as a pit bull advocate and enthusiast that I am disgusted by the attitudes of those trivialising this incident.

There are those of us fighting against BSL and for effective animal control that do not feel this way and do not excuse this kind of incident.

It should NEVER have happened and is completely unacceptable. Poor Matilda. How devastating

All I'll say in regards to breed (whether they are or they aren't), is this is just further evidence of the complete fail of BSL. Melbourne has had BSL for ten years, yet all the worst supposed 'pit bull' attacks are coming out of there.

When will they protect the public and actually implement effective legislation that is PROVEN to work rather than sinking hundreds of thousands of dollars into what is proven NOT to work?!

Effective legislation may have prevented Matilda's death.

In what way?

The AVA have released their paper on Dangerous dog policy and legislative framework just this week based on intensive research on effective animal management. It is science-based and the outcomes proposed are proven to be effective.

You can read it here if you wish:

http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/dangerous-dogs-%E2%80%93-sensible-solution

We will never know of course, hence why I used the word 'may', but if legislation and education like this had been in place in VIC, maybe these dogs would have been adequately socialised, or adequately contained, or adequately trained. Maybe they wouldn't have become dangerous in the first place or maybe they would have but legislation would have picked it up early and prevented this from happening.

At the end of the day, legislation such as described in this paper DOES reduce dog attacks, whereas BSL doesn't. This case is a prime example of that.

Melzawelza I just want to thank you for drawing my attention to this article (link quoted in post above). It wasn't really the 48 pages you mentioned - more like 26 and it was fairly easy to read. I recommend it to others who are interested in this topic. The more I think about it the more sense it all makes.

I think it would make a good thread to discuss.

[Dame Aussie]

1344675735[/url]' post='5926237']

1344675160[/url]' post='5926227']

Ok, I'll rephrase it and say restricted breeds instead of dangerous dogs. I don't know how else to describe breeds that tough guys want to own and use to intimidate others with.

It's not rephrasing, it's getting the terminology correct. Now I can understand your earlier comment that under the proposed framework I linked 'dangerous dogs have to attack before being declared dangerous' and this was a problem. In response to that, I'm assuming you are meaning that you believe all bull breeds should be automatically be declared dangerous, and you are ignoring all the data in that report that shows that this approach is useless.

Not at all.

Well, in that case I have NFI what you're talking about. You stated you don't like the scheme because dogs have to attack to be declared dangerous. Under the proposed scheme dogs do not have to severely attack someone to be declared dangerous. They can be declared 'potentially dangerous' based on threatening behaviour. I don't understand what more you want, other than dogs being declared dangerous because they look a particular way.

Puppoochi wants to get rid of the dogs.

Yep.

Can't believe some think dogs should be declared dangerous BEFORE they do anything wrong?! Logic people!!

[Dame Aussie]

No I wasn't, a breed being wiped out, I meant by phasing out the breed (impossible I know) I didn't mean taking people dogs now and destroying them...

I love how posts get twisted

I am sorry that you think my post is silly how dare I have an opinion or differing thoughts

The problems when you get a debate/discussion happening like this is people like yourself take posts personally and therefore your resulting comments are just insults, for instance saying my comment is "silly"

Unfairly and Unfortunately the Government is under constant pressure to "implement change and get results" and the people making the decisions are uneducated and unknowledgable...they don't care about the good examples of the breed in caring and responsible homes

Everytime I read a heading in here about a dog attack, I always find it disappointing and find myself shaking my head at so many ludicrous comments

What a tragic series of events two very innocent dogs pay the price for HUMAN stupidity !!!!

Pit Bulls and Bull x breeds need to be wiped out, sorry to say I used to argue till I was blue in the face with people about "blame the deed not the breed" but there comes a time when you throw your hands up in the air and admit defeat

I 100% agree that these breeds can be loyal and loving companions in the right responsible home, but in the wrong hands, a very head strong and high drive breed can be devastating .....society today is just not equipped nor educated enough to deal with these breeds anymore the irresponsible unfortunately outweigh the responsible ...

RIP Sweet Maggie, a sad end to your truly amazing and selfless life

Fingers crossed for Bosley xxxxxxxxxxxx

So my dogs don't have a right to live in your eyes because some other idiots can't look after their animals properly? What a silly comment.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course she's going to take it personally, you're saying her dogs should be wiped out???

I don't need to twist anything.

If that is her breed of choice of course she doesn't want them banned. How would you feel if people were saying your dogs or their breed were dangerous creatures that should not exist?

[melzawelza]

1344600059[/url]' post='5925709']

I'd just like to say as a pit bull advocate and enthusiast that I am disgusted by the attitudes of those trivialising this incident.

There are those of us fighting against BSL and for effective animal control that do not feel this way and do not excuse this kind of incident.

It should NEVER have happened and is completely unacceptable. Poor Matilda. How devastating

All I'll say in regards to breed (whether they are or they aren't), is this is just further evidence of the complete fail of BSL. Melbourne has had BSL for ten years, yet all the worst supposed 'pit bull' attacks are coming out of there.

When will they protect the public and actually implement effective legislation that is PROVEN to work rather than sinking hundreds of thousands of dollars into what is proven NOT to work?!

Effective legislation may have prevented Matilda's death.

In what way?

The AVA have released their paper on Dangerous dog policy and legislative framework just this week based on intensive research on effective animal management. It is science-based and the outcomes proposed are proven to be effective.

You can read it here if you wish:

http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/dangerous-dogs-%E2%80%93-sensible-solution

We will never know of course, hence why I used the word 'may', but if legislation and education like this had been in place in VIC, maybe these dogs would have been adequately socialised, or adequately contained, or adequately trained. Maybe they wouldn't have become dangerous in the first place or maybe they would have but legislation would have picked it up early and prevented this from happening.

At the end of the day, legislation such as described in this paper DOES reduce dog attacks, whereas BSL doesn't. This case is a prime example of that.

Melzawelza I just want to thank you for drawing my attention to this article (link quoted in post above). It wasn't really the 48 pages you mentioned - more like 26 and it was fairly easy to read. I recommend it to others who are interested in this topic. The more I think about it the more sense it all makes.

1344600059[/url]' post='5925709']

I'd just like to say as a pit bull advocate and enthusiast that I am disgusted by the attitudes of those trivialising this incident.

There are those of us fighting against BSL and for effective animal control that do not feel this way and do not excuse this kind of incident.

It should NEVER have happened and is completely unacceptable. Poor Matilda. How devastating

All I'll say in regards to breed (whether they are or they aren't), is this is just further evidence of the complete fail of BSL. Melbourne has had BSL for ten years, yet all the worst supposed 'pit bull' attacks are coming out of there.

When will they protect the public and actually implement effective legislation that is PROVEN to work rather than sinking hundreds of thousands of dollars into what is proven NOT to work?!

Effective legislation may have prevented Matilda's death.

In what way?

The AVA have released their paper on Dangerous dog policy and legislative framework just this week based on intensive research on effective animal management. It is science-based and the outcomes proposed are proven to be effective.

You can read it here if you wish:

http://www.ava.com.au/newsarticle/dangerous-dogs-%E2%80%93-sensible-solution

We will never know of course, hence why I used the word 'may', but if legislation and education like this had been in place in VIC, maybe these dogs would have been adequately socialised, or adequately contained, or adequately trained. Maybe they wouldn't have become dangerous in the first place or maybe they would have but legislation would have picked it up early and prevented this from happening.

At the end of the day, legislation such as described in this paper DOES reduce dog attacks, whereas BSL doesn't. This case is a prime example of that.

Melzawelza I just want to thank you for drawing my attention to this article (link quoted in post above). It wasn't really the 48 pages you mentioned - more like 26 and it was fairly easy to read. I recommend it to others who are interested in this topic. The more I think about it the more sense it all makes.

I think it would make a good thread to discuss.

No problems guys, I might start a new thread in General so more people can discuss in detail.

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

My heart breaks for poor Matilda, Bosley, and their owners. Nobody should have to go through something like that with their beloved family pets.

I hope the owners are severely fined, and are never allowed to own dogs again (we can only hope).

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/video.aspx

Channel 9 news report that the council have confirmed that they were registered dangerous dogs(not restricted breed). Assuming this is correct, the owners should be facing massive penalties

This video must have moved as it's now a link to diary farmers protesting. If they were declared dangerous dogs that should indeed up the penalty.

I don't know how much it costs to train a guide dog in Victoria but according to the WA Guide Dogs website, it's around $30,000. That should be the minimum cost of the fine.

Great logic. Agreed.

[mymatejack]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/video.aspx

Channel 9 news report that the council have confirmed that they were registered dangerous dogs(not restricted breed). Assuming this is correct, the owners should be facing massive penalties

This video must have moved as it's now a link to diary farmers protesting. If they were declared dangerous dogs that should indeed up the penalty.

It's still there, just you need to scroll down and go to page 2 and then look for the story, currently its on the top row of stories on page 2, and will no doubt move further and further down the list as time goes on and new stories replace it