Dog Facing Death After Defending His Owner

[mixeduppup]

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.

Bit of a generalisation there don't cha think?

[Tralee]

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.

Bit of a generalisation there don't cha think?

Nope!

Generally, dogs are PTS for convenience and cost.

Sad but true.

[mixeduppup]

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.

Bit of a generalisation there don't cha think?

Nope!

Generally, dogs are PTS for convenience and cost.

Sad but true.

OK so genetic aggression and medical reasons don't exist. What if the dog killed that guy? Should it still live because it can be trained out, supposedly? Some dogs are just bad.

[Tralee]

Generally, dogs are PTS for convenience and cost.

Sad but true.

OK so genetic aggression and medical reasons don't exist. What if the dog killed that guy? Should it still live because it can be trained out, supposedly? Some dogs are just bad.

And that's why we pray: "God grant me the wisdom to know the difference."

We advocate for dogs.

We also advocate for responsible dog ownership.

In a lesser known regard, we advocate for calmer heads in regulation and enforcement.

Which is why we can conclude; one false positive is too many, and the cost is too high.

That is the point I am making.

Of course, some dogs are irredeemable, that is the tragedy.

[mixeduppup]

Generally, dogs are PTS for convenience and cost.

Sad but true.

OK so genetic aggression and medical reasons don't exist. What if the dog killed that guy? Should it still live because it can be trained out, supposedly? Some dogs are just bad.

And that's why we pray: "God grant me the wisdom to know the difference."

We advocate for dogs.

We also advocate for responsible dog ownership.

In a lesser known regard, we advocate for calmer heads in regulation and enforcement.

Which is why we can conclude; one false positive is too many, and the cost is too high.

That is the point I am making.

Of course, some dogs are irredeemable, that is the tragedy.

I don't pray.

I understand, I am all for responsible ownership and dog's getting a fair trial, however I am talking about this particular case and not aggressive dogs in general. If this were my dog I would have it pts, it is already labelled as a dangerous dog and then jumps through a window at a guy who was angry and attacked him viciously. His owner sounds like a jerk that ignored the warnings and rules and jeopardised not only this dog's life but every person this dog came close to. I feel this was the right decision.

[Tralee]

We advocate for dogs.

We also advocate for responsible dog ownership.

In a lesser known regard, we advocate for calmer heads in regulation and enforcement.

Which is why we can conclude; one false positive is too many, and the cost is too high.

That is the point I am making.

Of course, some dogs are irredeemable, that is the tragedy.

I don't pray.

I understand, I am all for responsible ownership and dog's getting a fair trial, however I am talking about this particular case and not aggressive dogs in general.

If this were my dog I would have it pts, it is already labelled as a dangerous dog and then jumps through a window at a guy who was angry and attacked him viciously.

His owner sounds like a jerk that ignored the warnings and rules and jeopardised not only this dog's life but every person this dog came close to. I feel this was the right decision.

Well, long story short, the dog should have been constrained, compliant with the requirements for a dangerous dog.

But the discussion twists and turns and my comments are missing the mark.

My point is that too many people accept the fidelity of their dogs as temporary and disposable.

I was pointing to the issue of dog ownership in perpetuity.

Therefore, PTS is always the last option.

When a criminal offence has been committed; entirely a different story.

[mixeduppup]

We advocate for dogs.

We also advocate for responsible dog ownership.

In a lesser known regard, we advocate for calmer heads in regulation and enforcement.

Which is why we can conclude; one false positive is too many, and the cost is too high.

That is the point I am making.

Of course, some dogs are irredeemable, that is the tragedy.

I don't pray.

I understand, I am all for responsible ownership and dog's getting a fair trial, however I am talking about this particular case and not aggressive dogs in general.

If this were my dog I would have it pts, it is already labelled as a dangerous dog and then jumps through a window at a guy who was angry and attacked him viciously.

His owner sounds like a jerk that ignored the warnings and rules and jeopardised not only this dog's life but every person this dog came close to. I feel this was the right decision.

Well, long story short, the dog should have been constrained, compliant with the requirements for a dangerous dog.

But the discussion twists and turns and my comments are missing the mark.

My point is that too many people accept the fidelity of their dogs as temporary and disposable.

I was pointing to the issue of dog ownership in perpetuity.

Therefore, PTS is always the last option.

When a criminal offence has been committed; entirely a different story.

Fair enough, but in most areas if a dog even bites a person it's in a hell of a lot of trouble and if it attacks then it's pretty much done for due to law. PTS should always be carefully considered but if the dog is dangerous and professionals have been sort and agree that the dog is dangerous then of course it should be pts. Also a lot of people cannot afford the expense of a good behaviourist or are not near one, so pts is probably the safest option in a case of a dog being outwardly and continuously aggressive.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

I think aggressive guard dogs have their place, but certainly not unrestrained in public. A dog doesn't understand legal definitions of reasonable force.

[Steve]

I think aggressive guard dogs have their place, but certainly not unrestrained in public. A dog doesn't understand legal definitions of reasonable force.

Yep me too.

[mixeduppup]

I think the term guard dog is used way too often next to the word aggression, outright aggression and natural protective/guardian instincts are very different.

[Steve]

I think the term guard dog is used way too often next to the word aggression, outright aggression and natural protective/guardian instincts are very different.

Look the argument is way too intoolectual for me. All I know is I want to be able to walk in the street and stop and speak to someone without fear of being attacked because a dog thought I was attacking its owner- if that what it was thinking -and how could anyone know what it was thinking anyway? The dog should have been restrained especially if the owner already knew that's what it was capable of. The poor dog got a raw deal when he got stuck with such a schmuck for an owner.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Steve

[mixeduppup]

It's probably the all-to-common story of, arrogant hothead gets tough looking dog and raises it to have the same level of self control that he does, ie nil.

Edited October 27, 2012 by mixeduppup

[Tralee]

Fair enough, but in most areas if a dog even bites a person it's in a hell of a lot of trouble and if it attacks then it's pretty much done for due to law.

With all due respect: Are you an undercover dog nazi?

I mean that type of tripe is just anti-dog.

The law clearly states that people have as many obligations and responsibilities around dogs as dogs do around people.

Let me reiterate here.

(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.

If you don't give my dog the respect it gives you then bad luck if it barks and lunges at you.

If you enter my property and my dog pushes you off by nipping your thigh, bad luck.

If you run towards me, while I'm walking with the dog or you put yourself between me and the dog and then move towards me, and the dog runs up and knocks you over, bad luck.

Of course, I would need a witness.

However, if you come back to me with "The dog needs to be destroyed if its bitten someone" I will just evoke the banghead emoticon.

[mixeduppup]

Fair enough, but in most areas if a dog even bites a person it's in a hell of a lot of trouble and if it attacks then it's pretty much done for due to law.

With all due respect: Are you an undercover dog nazi?

I mean that type of tripe is just anti-dog.

The law clearly states that people have as many obligations and responsibilities around dogs as dogs do around people.

Let me reiterate here.

(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.

If you don't give my dog the respect it gives you then bad luck if it barks and lunges at you.

If you enter my property and my dog pushes you off by nipping your thigh, bad luck.

If you run towards me, while I'm walking with the dog or you put yourself between me and the dog and then move towards me, and the dog runs up and knocks you over, bad luck.

Of course, I would need a witness.

However, if you come back to me with "The dog needs to be destroyed if its bitten someone" I will just evoke the banghead emoticon.

I'm taking the laws into consideration and also the fact that a HEAP of these "attacks" don't fall into those five points above so the dog gets into trouble, I was stating what happens, not what I want to happen.

[Tralee]

I'm taking the laws into consideration and also the fact that a HEAP of these "attacks" don't fall into those five points above so the dog gets into trouble, I was stating what happens, not what I want to happen.

Point taken.

But consider this: I wonder if the dog would see it that way.

What I cannot emphasise strongly enough, particularly to Maremma owners, is that the dogs, individually and collectively, have to be thoroughly known and understood.

I have a dog who I could leave unattended in a nursery with infants.

I wouldn't, but you get my point.

I have another dog who is fine, and will allow a short, gentle pat and nothing more.

Is not bothered by other dogs.

He is supremely aloof

The puppy boy will actively test people, a pat will be followed by a muzzle punch or a lunge to see if they are a threat.

This is the result of a bad neighbour.

He does a stomp in front of dogs but its the same thing, a test.

This dog just doesn't gamble on other people or other dogs.

The puppy girl had so much prey drive that out walking neither dogs or people could approach.

Nevertheless, in a staionary placement anybody could pat and make a fuss of her.

Dogs are allowed to be dogs.

Notwithstanding, a dog declared dangerous does not have much of a life.

What is not understood is the frequency with which this is done or how easily it is can be imposed.

In NSW from 1 April 2012 to 30 June 2012 there were 81 Dangerous dog declarations made and 200 dogs destroyed.

Unlike the idiot in the car, we need to protect our dogs.

That's my point

[mixeduppup]

Point taken.

[m-sass]

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 .

Of course not, there is no defence in this case, owner is totally at fault in the circumstances.

Fair enough, but in most areas if a dog even bites a person it's in a hell of a lot of trouble and if it attacks then it's pretty much done for due to law

Not necessarily are dogs in trouble biting someone, they can in certain circumstances, but the problem in most cases is that people don't know how to defend their case properly unfortunately.

Edited October 27, 2012 by m-sass

[Steve]

Based on history in Queensland Id be surprised if this dog didn't face death.

[Tralee]

Based on history in Queensland Id be surprised if this dog didn't face death.

Should be something in there for the owner of the dog as well.

[skelp2]

There seems to be a hell of a lot of conjecture in this thread, based on a small article which basically states that it is the owner and his mate's word against the attack victim's word.

What's the point in arguing about it. The only people who know the truth were those who witnessed the attack.

The dog could be deemed 'dangerous' because of his breed or perceived breed - restricted because he is a dog that looks rather like a pitbull? Many Qld Councils have pitbulls on their dangerous or restricted dog lists I understand. I looked up the story, which shows a photo of the dog. It looks like a mixed breed/pitbull cross perhaps.

If there was a road rage incident and the dog attack victim was moving towards and/or acting aggressively towards the dog's owner, then the dog was defending his owner. If not, then perhaps the dog is aggressive? Who knows? I don't see the point in all the argument when no-one here actually knows the truth?