Qld Police Shoot Dead Two Violent Dogs

[Chezy]

I wonder if they thought to have a autopsy done

[Boronia]

I wonder if they thought to have a autopsy done

I was thinking that very thing Chezy & Chopper, it seemed odd that the dog would attack, from behind, and have a "glazed look".

Poor man and his family and poor police officer having to shoot the dogs, how awful for her.

RIP doggies.

[dancinbcs]

I wonder if they thought to have a autopsy done

Having been attacked by one of my own dogs who had brain damage from a previous unknown bout of Meningitis, I know that sudden reaction and glazed look in the eyes. I was just so thankful my dog wasn't bigger than he was and I was strong enough to hold his jaws, so he only got two bites in, unfortunately on my face. It was as if my dog had gone into a trance and when he came out of it, thankfully after a few minutes, seemed puzzled about why I was bleeding everywhere. He was very quiet and subdued after the attack. In hindsight he had been displaying some weird behaviour for some time but it never added up to enough to ring alarm bells.

I had him pts a couple of days later because I was convinced he was in pain and made sure I got a full autopsy done to confirm the cause of this disaster. Ther fluid pressure inside his head was enormous and it was compressing his brain out towards his skull so he must have been in a lot of pain but showed only subtle signs that we missed. I also know of 2 dogs who at different times (about 6 months apart) suddenly went into a frenzied attacks on other dogs they lived with. Both had brain damage from fungus they had inhaled from somewhere on the property they were living on at the time. The owner had autopsies done on both and the result was the same. She moved from there and luckily none of her others were affected.

Dogs can suffer all manner of brain problems including tumours, just like humans, but dogs can't tell you they have splitting headaches or are confused. Yet so few owners bother with an autopsy to see what happened. I have no idea how they get over it without an answer to why it happened.

[melzawelza]

I worked with a woman who thought all pit bulls and American staffies should be shot because one of her dogs had been a beautiful, exemplary dog for 7 years and then her behaviour slowly started deteriorating and she then severely attacked her other dog.

I asked her if she had an autopsy done after she put her to sleep, she looked at me like I was insane and said she hadn't. She'd instead blamed her very odd behaviour (that is almost identical to what is described by many owners with dogs that develop brain damage/tumours) on the dogs breed and didn't bother. She'd then spent the next ten years hating all bull breeds and disregarding the beautiful 7 years she'd had with the dog prior.

It really upset me and still does that this dogs breed was blamed for her behaviour which is very likely to have been a physical problem. No one will ever know as she didn't bother with an autopsy - breed explained the problem in her mind.

I find a similar approach by society when dogs (particularly bull breeds) attack like this. It gets chalked up to 'bad dog' or 'bad breed' and the whole situation is never studied in a way that would give us an understanding of WHY, which in turn could help us prevent it happening again.

[cannibalgoldfish]

It's just me but the whole " treating like his best mate, sitting between his legs at dinner ect" makes me think the dogs was spoilt and possibley had no boundries put down. We have all seen what happens when someone babies their little swfs, treating a dog like a kid can lead to problems.

[dancinbcs]

It's just me but the whole " treating like his best mate, sitting between his legs at dinner ect" makes me think the dogs was spoilt and possibley had no boundries put down. We have all seen what happens when someone babies their little swfs, treating a dog like a kid can lead to problems.

Yes, it may also have had no boundaries and no respect for the owner but they couldn't see it. Whatever happened though, a dog with really strong jaws is always going to do a lot more damage than other breeds when things go wrong. The owner was lucky he wasn't killed.

[JulesP]

It's just me but the whole " treating like his best mate, sitting between his legs at dinner ect" makes me think the dogs was spoilt and possibley had no boundries put down. We have all seen what happens when someone babies their little swfs, treating a dog like a kid can lead to problems.

I don't think that would make a dog attack from behind though with a glazed expression. That sort of treatment is more likely to result in a bite when the owner asks the dog to get off the couch/bed etc.

[Salukifan]

I recall some years back seeing a dog training show on TV about a very dominant, very powerful dog that was living in family home. Trainer was called when the owners became a bit worried about its reaction to visitors.

Trainer spent time with the dog and concluded that the only reason it hadn't attacked a family member was that they'd never denied it anything.

Who knows what happened but ruling out a medical issue, there would have been a reason and a trigger for the behaviour, even if the the owner had no idea why.

Very sad for him - not only has he lost his dogs but he's left with the scars and the questioning as to what went wrong.

[frufru]

I can see now why the man asked police not to shoot the dogs but it was obviously necessary. An autopsy may have given the couple an explanation and some closure or could be similar to the case HW described - but very sad

[mixeduppup]

I feel for all involved, the man, his wife, the police officer and the dogs. It was a horrible situation all round and will take everyone quite a while to recover. Makes me so sad. If my dogs attacked me (knowing what lovely dogs they are) I would beg the police not to shoot as well, I can't imagine the emotions!

[skelp2]

As they described their dogs as 'their children/best friends' I would suspect that these dogs placed themselves as pack leaders.

Dopey people.

[mantis]

As they described their dogs as 'their children/best friends' I would suspect that these dogs placed themselves as pack leaders.

Dopey people.

Comments like this amaze me. The majority of Dolers refer to their dogs as their kids &/or best mates, as long as they are well trained, I can't see how people can make such statements.

Do you think the dogs know the meaning of the words?

[skelp2]

As they described their dogs as 'their children/best friends' I would suspect that these dogs placed themselves as pack leaders.

Dopey people.

Comments like this amaze me. The majority of Dolers refer to their dogs as their kids &/or best mates, as long as they are well trained, I can't see how people can make such statements.

Do you think the dogs know the meaning of the words?

Sorry, but I have very little patience with people who are so 'gushy' over their dogs that they 'humanise' them to the point where the poor bloody dogs end up with no idea where they come in the 'pack' order, and situations like this (as we are discussing) occur.

Are you actually suggesting that dogs should have dominance over their owners??? Or perhaps people should not realise/accept that dogs have fur, not skin, have 4 legs, not two, and don't have the intellectual ability of a human child? Sure dogs are certainly clever and intelligent animals, but they are not human, and never will be - they are still animals and tend to do what is programmed by nature into them, as animals do.

People may refer to their dogs as 'their kids' but treating them as such, ie: humanising them, is a recipe for disaster, as this idiot owner has discovered.

[sandgrubber]

As they described their dogs as 'their children/best friends' I would suspect that these dogs placed themselves as pack leaders.

Dopey people.

Comments like this amaze me. The majority of Dolers refer to their dogs as their kids &/or best mates, as long as they are well trained, I can't see how people can make such statements.

Do you think the dogs know the meaning of the words?

Sorry, but I have very little patience with people who are so 'gushy' over their dogs that they 'humanise' them to the point where the poor bloody dogs end up with no idea where they come in the 'pack' order, and situations like this (as we are discussing) occur.

Are you actually suggesting that dogs should have dominance over their owners??? Or perhaps people should not realise/accept that dogs have fur, not skin, have 4 legs, not two, and don't have the intellectual ability of a human child? Sure dogs are certainly clever and intelligent animals, but they are not human, and never will be - they are still animals and tend to do what is programmed by nature into them, as animals do.

People may refer to their dogs as 'their kids' but treating them as such, ie: humanising them, is a recipe for disaster, as this idiot owner has discovered.

Dominance theory, as advertized on TV, has been broadly discredited in animal behavioural science (ethology). I'd be willing to bet that more dogs have turned violent as a result of abuse than as a result of being babied. Of course dogs are of a different specie and not endowed with human intelligence. No one who talks of their 'fur kids' really thinks they are kids. And yes, I'm sure dogs are sometimes confused by misdirected loving attention. But there is no question that loving relationships between dogs and people, by-in-large, benefit both the dog and the owners.

[skelp2]

As they described their dogs as 'their children/best friends' I would suspect that these dogs placed themselves as pack leaders.

Dopey people.

Comments like this amaze me. The majority of Dolers refer to their dogs as their kids &/or best mates, as long as they are well trained, I can't see how people can make such statements.

Do you think the dogs know the meaning of the words?

Sorry, but I have very little patience with people who are so 'gushy' over their dogs that they 'humanise' them to the point where the poor bloody dogs end up with no idea where they come in the 'pack' order, and situations like this (as we are discussing) occur.

Are you actually suggesting that dogs should have dominance over their owners??? Or perhaps people should not realise/accept that dogs have fur, not skin, have 4 legs, not two, and don't have the intellectual ability of a human child? Sure dogs are certainly clever and intelligent animals, but they are not human, and never will be - they are still animals and tend to do what is programmed by nature into them, as animals do.

People may refer to their dogs as 'their kids' but treating them as such, ie: humanising them, is a recipe for disaster, as this idiot owner has discovered.

Dominance theory, as advertized on TV, has been broadly discredited in animal behavioural science (ethology). I'd be willing to bet that more dogs have turned violent as a result of abuse than as a result of being babied. Of course dogs are of a different specie and not endowed with human intelligence. No one who talks of their 'fur kids' really thinks they are kids. And yes, I'm sure dogs are sometimes confused by misdirected loving attention. But there is no question that loving relationships between dogs and people, by-in-large, benefit both the dog and the owners.

Where did I say that people don't or shouldn't love their dogs? I have met a few people who seem to think their 'fur-kids' (stupid expression that it is) are substitute children. It's not healthy for the poor dogs. The expression is somewhat cringeworthy.

As for 'dominance theory as advertised on TV', it depends on the breed and the owner. I presume you are referring to Cesar Milan. He is certainly not unknowledgeable in dog behaviour.

Fact - dogs are pack animals.

Fact - there is always a leader or dominant dog in a pack and members of the pack work out the hierachy. Dogs,kept in family homes see humans as part of their pack.

Fact - certain breeds tend to be more dominant and require an owner who understands the intrinsic character of that particular breed.

Fact - some people should never own certain breeds of dog. eg: Would you suggest a Presa Canario as a suitable pet for just anyone looking for a dog? I don't think so.It cannot be denied that they are a dominant breed of dog. When was the last time you heard of someone being attacked and hospitalised by their Cavaliers?

[mixeduppup]

I don't agree with the assertion that there are dominant "breeds". I'm pretty sure dominance is determined by individuality and environment. There are powerful breeds but many a powerful dog is not in charge.

[skelp2]

I don't agree with the assertion that there are dominant "breeds". I'm pretty sure dominance is determined by individuality and environment. There are powerful breeds but many a powerful dog is not in charge.

The breed of dog used more commonly as guard dogs are an example of the more dominant breeds. All breeds have intrinsic characteristics, and yes, training, environment and an individual dog's nature needs to be taken into account. All breeds have been bred over the centuries to have particular characteristics for use in particular areas, such as herding, ratting or guarding and dominance is one characteristic that has been a desirable trait in certain breeds. Dogs used by Police and Security forces have to have a degree of dominance, + confidence and training, otherwise they would cower in a confrontation and are selected for that characteristic. It's the old argument about nature v nurture. Both are vitally important, but by nature some breeds are more inclined to have a dominant nature and 'nurturing' either reinforces it or not, dependant on the use required of the dog.

[mixeduppup]

Dominance isn't something that can be bred into a dog. Rather it is the the character or disposition of something to control or assert authority over another. That isn't genetic, a larger body type, a balanced mind, guarding instincts, protection instincts and intelligence can be bred, dominance is individual to the dog, not the breed.

Edited August 29, 2012 by mixeduppup

[Odin-Genie]

Sorry, but I have very little patience with people who are so 'gushy' over their dogs that they 'humanise' them to the point where the poor bloody dogs end up with no idea where they come in the 'pack' order, and situations like this (as we are discussing) occur.

There is a logical flaw in your reasoning. Those who 'gush' over their dogs (and I proudly say that I do) don't necessarily humanise them. It is possible to really love dogs as dogs!!! And they can be a person's best mate 'as a dog'.

[hortfurball]

Skelp2, I don't think there was enough detail in the news coverage of this story to assume that these people babied their dogs and that's why the attack happened.

1. Title "Pampered best mate" is merely journalistic license and no proof they were 'pampered'.

2. "The couple treated the dogs as part of their family." Says who? No direct quote from the couple, nor from a 'source' so journalistic interpretation again. Even if they did 'treat them as part of their family', what exactly does this mean? Did they put bibs on them and let them sit on chairs at the dining table? I think not. Perhaps it just means they were allowed to sleep inside and were loved and respected instead of chucked out the back and forgotten about. To what degree were they treated as family? No evidence to prove a theory here.

3."The dogs had their own room fitted out with a king-size bed and filled with toys." This suggests to me that there were some rules in place and the dogs were not allowed to sleep in/on the couple's bed.

4."no amount of treatment can repair the damage caused when his "best mate" attacked him" 'Man's best friend'/'best mate' is a common phrase when referring to our dog. Should we assume he meant it literally or allow for the use of it as a common term (presuming it was a direct quote)?

5. "Now Ms Field says the couple have lost their children and best friends." Affectionate terms don't mean that people think their dogs are human. They are just looking for a way to describe how much their animal meant to them in terms that the average person would understand. Doesn't mean that they were spoiled, babied, or that the owners did anything wrong.

I could go on, but it's late. Suffice to say I give the owners the benefit of the doubt and from what I read about glazed eyes etc I'd lean towards there being something medically wrong with the dog.

It's just a shame Rosie had to give her life in this incident when she wasn't involved.

Mixeduppup, some breeds ARE more inherently dominant than others. They are the ones who were bred to be fearless. The protectors. It even states in the breed standard of some dogs that some level of aggression is to be expected. The fila brasiliero breed standard, if I'm not mistaken, does not penalise the dog for showing aggression towards a judge, and does NOT require the judge to handle the dog. Not a dog I'd recommend to a mild mannered first time dog owner.