Dog Facing Death After Defending His Owner

[Salukifan]

Defending? Seriously?

On what planet is it acceptable behaviour for a dog to put a person in hospital after harsh words are exchanged with another person in a public place?

And on what planet is a dog that has to be dragged off the person by its owner anything less than dangerous?

I dont give a toss what breed or breeds the dog is - this is simply unacceptable.

It's actually a statutory defence in many council areas around Australia that a dog may attack in defence of it's owner being subject to threatening behaviour, providing the dog is not already declared dangerous or is formally protection trained is the general criteria. You can't deploy a dog to attack, but if someone acting out with threatening behaviour against a dog owner within leash range of the dog and gets bitten, bad luck :D

You missed a very important word:

It's actually a statutory defence in many council areas around Australia that a dog may attack in reasonable defence of it's owner being subject to threatening behaviour,

Do you think leaping through a car window, causing enough damage to require surgery and having to be dragged off the attack victim was "reasonable".

The question I'd like to know is what behaviour saw this dog classified as dangerous previously???

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

i think the dog is in trouble and it's the owner's fault.

Cars are special places for dogs. I've lived with one dog - I've had to tie him up inside the car so he couldn't get out and eat the policeman who was trying to give me a speeding ticket. I don't allow dogs to hang their heads out the windows - I've been hit by too many christmas beetles cycling to know how bad that feels. And I wasn't going to open a window while that dog was doing the full on growl bark power display.

I've had another dog stay so quiet on the back seat the policeman trying to tell me off for something I didn't do wrong (having discused the incident with another policeman later) anyway that policeman didn't notice I had a dog in the car. Not sure what she would have done if he tried to get into the car. Eat him or lick him to death. Pick one.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Mrs Rusty Bucket

[Tralee]

Everyone who has a dog should know all of the consequences of having a dog declared dangerous.

In NSW the dog should have been muzzled because it was off property and should have been clearly marked with red and yellow banding appropriate for the dogs size.

The dog should also be restrained by a leash and be under the control of the owner or other relevant person.

The fact that there was an alleged road rage incident and the nonce guy approached the car where the dog was is irrelevant.

[mantis]

But we still don't know if the dog was declared dangerous, before or after the incident. The owner said it was out of character for the dog, so I have my doubts it was before the incident.

[Tralee]

But we still don't know if the dog was declared dangerous, before or after the incident.

It is quite clear to me from the article:

Max, who is classed as a dangerous dog by the council,

that the owner had a number of obligations and responsibilities.

Many people go to hospitial after a dog bite.

In this instance the owner has failed the dog and that is the tragedy.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Tralee

[Steve]

But we still don't know if the dog was declared dangerous, before or after the incident.

It is quite clear to me from the article:

Max, who is classed as a dangerous dog by the council,

that the owner had a number of obligations and responsibilities.

Many people go to hospitial after a dog bite.

In this instance the owner has failed the dog and that is the tragedy.

Agreed - Sorry I cant see how the dog is defending its owner when its owner isn't under attack - fact is the dog could have jumped out the window and attacked anyone who had a conversation with the owner if this is the case. No way is this O.K. in our society and I would say the same regardless of breed or size.

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

The way people drive around here I find the road rage part of the story very feasible. The descriptions of the attack, is what raises the question. Either the man was threatening the owner or he wasn't, it was probably not a bright idea to approach somebody you had just honked at over a red light for a conversation. However, if declared dangerous, the dog ought to have been retrained, and muzzled, and the situation would have been avioded. I don't like to see dogs unrestrained in any car

Somebody asked earlier if Bullmastiffs of Bull terriers were resuscitated in Qld, no they aren't. APBT are.

[m-sass]

Do you think leaping through a car window, causing enough damage to require surgery and having to be dragged off the attack victim was "reasonable".

Dogs don't need to provide the capacity to reason or act with an acceptable level of force, they are dogs, not human.

[Salukifan]

Do you think leaping through a car window, causing enough damage to require surgery and having to be dragged off the attack victim was "reasonable".

Dogs don't need to provide the capacity to reason or act with an acceptable level of force, they are dogs, not human.

Thank you for that statement of the blindingly obvious but you fail to grasp the point.The defence is qualified.

It's not dogs who will determine what is "reasonable" under the law but it IS dogs that pay with their lives when their owners fail to control them accordingly.

Anyone who allows their dog to determine when their owner is under threat is a damn fool.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[m-sass]

Do you think leaping through a car window, causing enough damage to require surgery and having to be dragged off the attack victim was "reasonable".

Dogs don't need to provide the capacity to reason or act with an acceptable level of force, they are dogs, not human.

Thank you for that statement of the blindingly obvious but you fail to grasp the point.The defence is qualified.

It's not dogs who will determine what is "reasonable" under the law but it IS dogs that pay with their lives when their owners fail to control them accordingly.

Anyone who allows their dog to determine when their owner is under threat is a damn fool.

The bottom line is this: Providing that the dog owner is handling the dog in compliance with the laws and someone acts in a manner inwhich the dog perceives as threatening and bites the person in defence of the owner, the dog/owner has a statutory defence in most cases. The dog in this case was at large and unrestrained and if it was previously declared, wasn't muzzled in a public place, the owner has a problem now of course.

[Salukifan]

The bottom line is this: Providing that the dog owner is handling the dog in compliance with the laws and someone acts in a manner inwhich the dog perceives as threatening and bites the person in defence of the owner, the dog/owner has a statutory defence in most cases. The dog in this case was at large and unrestrained and if it was previously declared, wasn't muzzled in a public place, the owner has a problem now of course.

Nope, not correct at all.

It's not what the dog perceives as a threat that's important. It's what the LAW considers reasonable. And that is a decision made by humans after the event.

If I yell at you for your shite driving and your dog takes me out then no one is going to consider that was reasonable. Advancing on you with a weapon or assaulting you is a whole different ball game.

Raised voices is NOT a reasonable reason to end up in hospital after a dog decides you're a threat and has to be dragged off by its owner.

[m-sass]

The bottom line is this: Providing that the dog owner is handling the dog in compliance with the laws and someone acts in a manner inwhich the dog perceives as threatening and bites the person in defence of the owner, the dog/owner has a statutory defence in most cases. The dog in this case was at large and unrestrained and if it was previously declared, wasn't muzzled in a public place, the owner has a problem now of course.

Nope, not correct at all.

It's not what the dog perceives as a threat that's important. It's what the LAW considers reasonable. And that is a decision made by humans after the event.

If I yell at you for your shite driving and your dog takes me out then no one is going to consider that was reasonable. Advancing on you with a weapon or assaulting you is a whole different ball game.

Raised voices is NOT a reasonable reason to end up in hospital after a dog decides you're a threat and has to be dragged off by its owner.

The defence is provocation which is an instinctive reaction from the perception that the dog's owner is in physical danger. If the dog attacks on the perception of the owner, it's then a commanded attack or deployment as a weapon which is not provocation. It's "reasonable" for a dog to mount an attack on a person confronting the dog's owner in a threatening manner........it's "reasonable" for a dog to attack to prevent the altercation escalating in a volotile atmosphere especially if the dog is picking up on the owner's fear and distress. It is "reasonable" in the circumstances with a person screaming and yelling and waving their arms around at the dog's owner threatening to cave their head in that the dog can be provoked by the situation to mount an attack in it's owner's defence. It is "reasonable" that the dog perceived in the circumstances that it's owner was in physical danger. A dog is not required to be able to discriminate as person can to apply reasonable force to resolve the situation which can't be expected from just a dog sensing danger.

Edited October 26, 2012 by m-sass

[Steve]

This wasn't on the owners property - you cant justify having a dog capable of that off leash and able to make a decision [ crap] on what IT feels is a threat or provacation to its owner. The owner should have had it restrained and is responsible now for the dog being punished because of his lack of responsibility. We cant all just walk around the street with unrestrained dogs allowing them to decide if we are under threat or not .

Edited October 26, 2012 by Steve

[Tralee]

Defending?

Seriously?

On what planet is it acceptable behaviour for a dog to put a person in hospital after harsh words are exchanged with another person in a public place?

And on what planet is a dog that has to be dragged off the person by its owner anything less than dangerous?

I don't give a toss what breed or breeds the dog is - this is simply unacceptable.

It's actually a statutory defence in many council areas around Australia that a dog may attack in defence of it's owner being subject to threatening behaviour, providing the dog is not already declared dangerous or is formally protection trained is the general criteria.

You can't deploy a dog to attack, but if someone acting out with threatening behaviour against a dog owner within leash range of the dog and gets bitten, bad luck :D

You missed a very important word:

It's actually a statutory defence in many council areas around Australia that a dog may attack in reasonable defence of it's owner being subject to threatening behaviour,

Do you think leaping through a car window, causing enough damage to require surgery and having to be dragged off the attack victim was "reasonable".

The question I'd like to know is what behaviour saw this dog classified as dangerous previously???

The bottom line is this: Providing that the dog owner is handling the dog in compliance with the laws and someone acts in a manner in which the dog perceives as threatening and bites the person in defence of the owner, the dog/owner has a statutory defence in most cases.

The dog in this case was at large and unrestrained and if it was previously declared, wasn't muzzled in a public place, the owner has a problem now of course.

Nope, not correct at all.

It's not what the dog perceives as a threat that's important.

It's what the LAW considers reasonable.

And that is a decision made by humans after the event.

If I yell at you for your shite driving and your dog takes me out then no one is going to consider that was reasonable.

Advancing on you with a weapon or assaulting you is a whole different ball game.

Raised voices is NOT a reasonable reason to end up in hospital after a dog decides you're a threat and has to be dragged off by its owner.

I don't prescibe to this view at all.

On this planet, dogs are afforded some rights.

In NSW, ...

16 Offences where dog attacks person or animal

(1) If a dog rushes at, attacks, bites, harasses or chases any person or animal (other than vermin), whether or not any injury is caused to the person or animal:

(a) the owner of the dog, or

(b) if the owner is not present at the time of the offence and another person who is of or above the age of 16 years is in charge of the dog at that time--that other person,

is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty:

(a) 50 penalty units except in the case of a dangerous or restricted dog, or

(b) 300 penalty units in the case of a dangerous or restricted dog.

(1A) The owner of a dangerous dog or a restricted dog is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the dog attacks or bites any person (whether or not any injury is caused to the person), and

(b) the incident occurs as a result of the owner's failure to comply with any one or more of the requirements of section 51 or 56 (as the case requires) in relation to the dog.

Maximum penalty: 500 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both. Conviction for an offence under this subsection results in permanent disqualification from owning a dog or from being in charge of a dog in a public place.

(2) It is not an offence under this section if the incident occurred:

(a) as a result of the dog being teased, mistreated, attacked or otherwise provoked, or

(b) as a result of the person or animal trespassing on the property on which the dog was being kept, or

© as a result of the dog acting in reasonable defence of a person or property, or

(d) in the course of lawful hunting, or

(e) in the course of the working of stock by the dog or the training of the dog in the working of stock.

(3) This section does not apply to a police dog or a corrective services dog.

In my reading of the act, an offence would not have been committed if the dog had not been previously cited as a dangerous dog.

My dogs will, and have reared up on their hind legs to stare down aggressive people who have moved too close and raised their voice in a threatening manner.

The fact in these cases is not whether someone deems the incident to be 'reasonable' but whether you have any witnesses.

Regards

[mixeduppup]

I would put my own dog down if it viciously attacked someone that hadn't laid a violent hand on me. People should be able to have heated conversations and be angry without a dog jumping through a car window to attack them. This dog should have been under way more control and is paying for its owner's foolishness.

Edited October 27, 2012 by mixeduppup

[Tralee]

I would put my own dog down if it viciously attacked someone that hadn't laid a violent hand on me.

People should be able to have heated conversations and be angry without a dog jumping through a car window to attack them.

This dog should have been under way more control and is paying for its owner's foolishness.

PTS is a last resort, whatever the circumstances.

I've made that mistake once and I won't be doing it again.

Best you don't raise your voice in anger to someonme with a Maremma in tow.

I have seen it often enough, heard similar stories from others, and appraise all potential puppy owners of the fact.

As I said, its best to have a witness

[BlackJaq]

I would not automatically put my dog down if it attacked somebody because they were acting aggressively. I might, if the dog killed that person or if the person was a child, but not just because my dog attempts to protect me, even if not a finger was actually laid on me. I agree with Tralee.

Edited October 27, 2012 by BlackJaq

[mixeduppup]

I would put my own dog down if it viciously attacked someone that hadn't laid a violent hand on me.

People should be able to have heated conversations and be angry without a dog jumping through a car window to attack them.

This dog should have been under way more control and is paying for its owner's foolishness.

PTS is a last resort, whatever the circumstances.

I've made that mistake once and I won't be doing it again.

Best you don't raise your voice in anger to someonme with a Maremma in tow.

I have seen it often enough, heard similar stories from others, and appraise all potential puppy owners of the fact.

As I said, its best to have a witness

If my maremma was already on paper as a dangerous dog and then he jumped through the window and viciously attacked someone because they were annoyed with me, he'd be pts. He's protected me on a number of occasions but not once has he gotten physical. Also I did say viciously attack which is what the dog did, I don't consider a bite or two a vicious attack but the dog mauled this person by the sound of it. Its overreaction is scary and the dog should be put down.

Edited October 27, 2012 by mixeduppup

[Tralee]

People should be able to have heated conversations and be angry

Best you don't raise your voice in anger to someonme with a Maremma in tow.

I have seen it often enough, heard similar stories from others, and appraise all potential puppy owners of the fact.

If my maremma was already on paper as a dangerous dog and then he jumped through the window and viciously attacked someone because they were annoyed with me, he'd be pts.

He's protected me on a number of occasions but not once has he gotten physical.

Also I did say viciously attack which is what the dog did, I don't consider a bite or two a vicious attack but the dog mauled this person by the sound of it. Its overreaction is scary and the dog should be put down.

Firstly you shouldn't put Maremma and dangerous dog in the same sentence.

Secondly, Maremma's will react in the manner I have described.

I've seen it first hand, several times, after hearing told of it.

My dogs will, and have reared up on their hind legs to stare down aggressive people who have moved too close and raised their voice in a threatening manner.

I have been the recipient of other Maremma staring me down in the same fashion.

Lastly, you should be aware that Maremma will use their own discretion when it comes to their innate sense of guarding.

Maremmas do not cope with having their role as guardian usurped.

The best you can do is make allowances for their active guarding behaviour and never become complacent.

And sadly, it would be an over-reaction to PTS.

Just as a friendly dog can be taught to attack, an unfriendly dog can be taught not to attack.

[BlackJaq]

An easy solution would be to have windows up high enough that whatever dog is in the car cannot jump out. And to restrain dogs inside cars.

If the dog had been unrestrained in the car and jumped out of the window while it was driving it would have been just as tragic for the dog.

It is a little difficult to tell how badly the man was "savaged" from the article as well. I don't fault the dog for its reaction, only the person for not protecting their dog. The article said the dog is fine with children and animals and seems to be a family pet so it is obviously not viciously savaging anything in front of its nose....

Edited October 27, 2012 by BlackJaq