Dog Attack Caught On Camera

[mita]

Brookestar you just need a big small dog hug by the sounds of it.

I'll send over my peaceful tibbies to do the hugging. They're like the Dalai Lama in fur.

[HazyWal]

Brookestar I feel sick that you have dragged up my post from a few days ago just to have a go at me. You have not even read it properly. Go away.

Mantis I am not a moron dog owner thankyou. I may currently own small dogs. Is that a crime?

BTW small dogs yap because they are small and they are not physically capable of barking like a big dog.

Please provide the EVIDENCE that small dogs can't bark. ALL dogs, bar one breed (which is an incredibly rare breed) are capable of barking, and well behaved dogs don't bark. Dogs that have been debarked are not capable of yapping, so you can't even defend it on that basis.

If your dogs were as well behaved as you claim you would not defend small dogs yappying at every dog they see. They yap as they have been incredibly poorly socialised and trained.

And for the record I have owned and lived with both small, median and large size dogs. I have not had giant breeds, and currently have labradors.

I am yet to see how a small breed dog NEEDS to bark and yap at a guide dog in harness, but you seem to think it is necessary. I am yet to see where the EVIDENCE is that a fully trained guide dog is a much higher risk to the general public than an out of control small dog??

I have NEVER allowed any of my dogs to bark, yap or do anything else when walking past other dogs on lead. And I don't let them off lead if I am not able to know that I will full and total control of them.

Wow what a rude response. Where did nawnim say that small dogs CAN'T bark. You know nothing about her dogs nor do you know what breed of dogs she has had. You've made a lot of assumptions here. I have large dogs, greyhounds, muzzled by law and any dog is a threat to mine because they can't defend themselves and beleive me I have seen a few nasty labradors but unlike you I don't tar them all with the same brush

[Rainers]

How utterly awful The poor owners and their dog.

More evidence as to the failure of BSL to protect the community.

How dreadful, but I don't see what BSL has to do with this?

Poor lady, and RIP little doggy

It has everything to do with it. BSL is supposed to protect the community from dog attacks. Victoria has the strongest and most draconian BSL in the country, with hundreds of dogs being seized and killed because of their appearance within the state. Yet horrible, horrible attacks continue to occur. This is a perfect example of how BSL targets dogs that may never be an issue, and misses dogs that are.

I've seen this logic before on DOL and it doesn't make any sense. Do you think we should abolish laws regarding murder and rape because it doesn't stop them occuring? Laws only exist to reduce crimes/violence, they don't prevent it altogether. Whether the laws have reduced dog attacks is another matter, but the fact that dog attacks still occur is not a perfect example of the uselessness of BSL.

[Maddy]

As someone who is elderly and who owns two smaller dogs (10-12 kgs) I cannot watch that video. I know I would be too terrified to ever walk my dogs again. I once owned big dogs (30 kgs) and I love big dogs but I acknowledge that I am now too old to be able to manage one if a difficult situation arose, so like many other small dog owners I made a responsible decision. Big dog owners need to accept that they have an extra responsibility to keep people and smaller dogs safe because their dogs can do more damage. I want to be able to walk my dogs and feel safe. Is that too much to ask?

My dogs are trained and walked on a leash.

Size has very little to do with anything. MOST dogs who are declared dangerous or menacing are small dogs, that are yappy and untrained. ANY animal control officer can confirm this.

The info in the attached link displays declared dogs according to the Victorian Declared Dog Registry as of 2011. Only a very small proportion of declared dogs listed here are actually small dogs.

link

What an brilliantly researched article. Who knew there were actually two types of pit bulls?

I'll definitely be trusting that news site for information.

[kayla1]

As someone who is elderly and who owns two smaller dogs (10-12 kgs) I cannot watch that video. I know I would be too terrified to ever walk my dogs again. I once owned big dogs (30 kgs) and I love big dogs but I acknowledge that I am now too old to be able to manage one if a difficult situation arose, so like many other small dog owners I made a responsible decision. Big dog owners need to accept that they have an extra responsibility to keep people and smaller dogs safe because their dogs can do more damage. I want to be able to walk my dogs and feel safe. Is that too much to ask?

My dogs are trained and walked on a leash.

Size has very little to do with anything. MOST dogs who are declared dangerous or menacing are small dogs, that are yappy and untrained. ANY animal control officer can confirm this.

The info in the attached link displays declared dogs according to the Victorian Declared Dog Registry as of 2011. Only a very small proportion of declared dogs listed here are actually small dogs.

link

What an brilliantly researched article. Who knew there were actually two types of pit bulls?

I'll definitely be trusting that news site for information.

It is not purporting to be a research article, rather it is simply highlighting data obtained from the Victorian Declared Dog Registry about declared dangerous and menacing dogs. Regarding the breed, that is what the dogs have been registered as when declared and is not something dreamt up by the author of the article, however inaccurate that breed description may be!

Assuming the breed inaccuracies don't include too many 4kg dogs being mistaken for 40kg dogs, I think it's safe to say this data provides ample evidence to refute the baseless assertion that most dogs who are declared menacing or dangerous are small dogs. Hence the reason why the link was posted.

[melzawelza]

How utterly awful The poor owners and their dog.

More evidence as to the failure of BSL to protect the community.

How dreadful, but I don't see what BSL has to do with this?

Poor lady, and RIP little doggy

It has everything to do with it. BSL is supposed to protect the community from dog attacks. Victoria has the strongest and most draconian BSL in the country, with hundreds of dogs being seized and killed because of their appearance within the state. Yet horrible, horrible attacks continue to occur. This is a perfect example of how BSL targets dogs that may never be an issue, and misses dogs that are.

I've seen this logic before on DOL and it doesn't make any sense. Do you think we should abolish laws regarding murder and rape because it doesn't stop them occuring? Laws only exist to reduce crimes/violence, they don't prevent it altogether. Whether the laws have reduced dog attacks is another matter, but the fact that dog attacks still occur is not a perfect example of the uselessness of BSL.

BSL is proven to not reduce the rate of dog attacks. Attacks still occur at the same (sometimes higher) frequency despite harsh BSL laws. This attack is an example of many.

[Maddy]

As someone who is elderly and who owns two smaller dogs (10-12 kgs) I cannot watch that video. I know I would be too terrified to ever walk my dogs again. I once owned big dogs (30 kgs) and I love big dogs but I acknowledge that I am now too old to be able to manage one if a difficult situation arose, so like many other small dog owners I made a responsible decision. Big dog owners need to accept that they have an extra responsibility to keep people and smaller dogs safe because their dogs can do more damage. I want to be able to walk my dogs and feel safe. Is that too much to ask?

My dogs are trained and walked on a leash.

Size has very little to do with anything. MOST dogs who are declared dangerous or menacing are small dogs, that are yappy and untrained. ANY animal control officer can confirm this.

The info in the attached link displays declared dogs according to the Victorian Declared Dog Registry as of 2011. Only a very small proportion of declared dogs listed here are actually small dogs.

link

What an brilliantly researched article. Who knew there were actually two types of pit bulls?

I'll definitely be trusting that news site for information.

It is not purporting to be a research article, rather it is simply highlighting data obtained from the Victorian Declared Dog Registry about declared dangerous and menacing dogs. Regarding the breed, that is what the dogs have been registered as when declared and is not something dreamt up by the author of the article, however inaccurate that breed description may be!

Assuming the breed inaccuracies don't include too many 4kg dogs being mistaken for 40kg dogs, I think it's safe to say this data provides ample evidence to refute the baseless assertion that most dogs who are declared menacing or dangerous are small dogs. Hence the reason why the link was posted.

Does that not suggest to you though that the data is not accurate and therefore not of any use?

If people do not know what breed of dog they own (i.e the dog is very likely to be incorrectly registered) or if they mistakenly call it something else, your data will be totally unreliable. Take for example this..

Malt x Shih (an incredibly common breed mix) are represented twice. The Kerry Blue Terrier (a small breed with only 12 breeders listed for Dol) are represented four times. It seems very likely the more malt x shihs should be represented but what are they registered as? Who the hell knows.

[Quickasyoucan]

As someone who is elderly and who owns two smaller dogs (10-12 kgs) I cannot watch that video. I know I would be too terrified to ever walk my dogs again. I once owned big dogs (30 kgs) and I love big dogs but I acknowledge that I am now too old to be able to manage one if a difficult situation arose, so like many other small dog owners I made a responsible decision. Big dog owners need to accept that they have an extra responsibility to keep people and smaller dogs safe because their dogs can do more damage. I want to be able to walk my dogs and feel safe. Is that too much to ask?

My dogs are trained and walked on a leash.

Size has very little to do with anything. MOST dogs who are declared dangerous or menacing are small dogs, that are yappy and untrained. ANY animal control officer can confirm this.

The info in the attached link displays declared dogs according to the Victorian Declared Dog Registry as of 2011. Only a very small proportion of declared dogs listed here are actually small dogs.

link

What an brilliantly researched article. Who knew there were actually two types of pit bulls?

I'll definitely be trusting that news site for information.

It is not purporting to be a research article, rather it is simply highlighting data obtained from the Victorian Declared Dog Registry about declared dangerous and menacing dogs. Regarding the breed, that is what the dogs have been registered as when declared and is not something dreamt up by the author of the article, however inaccurate that breed description may be!

Assuming the breed inaccuracies don't include too many 4kg dogs being mistaken for 40kg dogs, I think it's safe to say this data provides ample evidence to refute the baseless assertion that most dogs who are declared menacing or dangerous are small dogs. Hence the reason why the link was posted.

Does that not suggest to you though that the data is not accurate and therefore not of any use?

If people do not know what breed of dog they own (i.e the dog is very likely to be incorrectly registered) or if they mistakenly call it something else, your data will be totally unreliable. Take for example this..

Malt x Shih (an incredibly common breed mix) are represented twice. The Kerry Blue Terrier (a small breed with only 12 breeders listed for Dol) are represented four times. It seems very likely the more malt x shihs should be represented but what are they registered as? Who the hell knows.

Not to mention the fact that small dog attacks are less likely to be reported.

That said I am not into the big dog vs small dog argument just wish EVERYONE would see it is their responsibility to keep their dogs under control and allow other people to go about their business without fear of their own dogs being rushed or harassed.

[Aphra]

ALL dogs can pull on a lead hard enough to pull someone over. Size has little to do with it.

Are you serious? Maybe if someone was caught unawares, but if you're so frail or unsteady on your feet that a 8kilo dog can pull you over, you might need to reconsider walking a dog at all.

I'm a middle aged woman and I've owned dogs of all sizes, including giant breeds and the day a Jack Russell can pull me over is the day I give up dogs.

Dogs of all sizes can be badly behaved, aggressive, reactive and dangerous. But all being equal, if something is going to bite me, I'd prefer it was a small dog, having been badly bitten by a giant breed dog I'm reluctant to repeat the experience.

I am opposed to BSL on all sorts of grounds, including the evidence base which tells us that it doesn't work. But that doesn't mean that big dogs don't require more responsibility and more management by their owners.

If you own a very aggressive Chiahuahua, you can at least pick it up to prevent it causing trouble. If you have a high prey drive 30kg German Shepherd you should have some better management strategies in place, which would hopefully including training and socialization, but at worst should be secure containment.

I love large breed dogs and I see no reason why they should not be happy, peaceful members of the community, but because their size is a reality it is up to their owners to make sure that happens. This is not least because whatever happens, big dogs get the blame.

Which doesn't give nasty tempered little breeds a get-out clause at all, but size does make a difference.

[kayla1]

As someone who is elderly and who owns two smaller dogs (10-12 kgs) I cannot watch that video. I know I would be too terrified to ever walk my dogs again. I once owned big dogs (30 kgs) and I love big dogs but I acknowledge that I am now too old to be able to manage one if a difficult situation arose, so like many other small dog owners I made a responsible decision. Big dog owners need to accept that they have an extra responsibility to keep people and smaller dogs safe because their dogs can do more damage. I want to be able to walk my dogs and feel safe. Is that too much to ask?

My dogs are trained and walked on a leash.

Size has very little to do with anything. MOST dogs who are declared dangerous or menacing are small dogs, that are yappy and untrained. ANY animal control officer can confirm this.

The info in the attached link displays declared dogs according to the Victorian Declared Dog Registry as of 2011. Only a very small proportion of declared dogs listed here are actually small dogs.

link

What an brilliantly researched article. Who knew there were actually two types of pit bulls?

I'll definitely be trusting that news site for information.

It is not purporting to be a research article, rather it is simply highlighting data obtained from the Victorian Declared Dog Registry about declared dangerous and menacing dogs. Regarding the breed, that is what the dogs have been registered as when declared and is not something dreamt up by the author of the article, however inaccurate that breed description may be!

Assuming the breed inaccuracies don't include too many 4kg dogs being mistaken for 40kg dogs, I think it's safe to say this data provides ample evidence to refute the baseless assertion that most dogs who are declared menacing or dangerous are small dogs. Hence the reason why the link was posted.

Does that not suggest to you though that the data is not accurate and therefore not of any use?

If people do not know what breed of dog they own (i.e the dog is very likely to be incorrectly registered) or if they mistakenly call it something else, your data will be totally unreliable. Take for example this..

Malt x Shih (an incredibly common breed mix) are represented twice. The Kerry Blue Terrier (a small breed with only 12 breeders listed for Dol) are represented four times. It seems very likely the more malt x shihs should be represented but what are they registered as? Who the hell knows.

The data itself in terms of number of dogs declared dangerous, location etc is accurate. What is not entirely accurate is the breed description of certain dogs. The fact that there are breed inaccuracies does not make the data useless; it simply means we can't rely entirely on the breed description.

I don't dispute the example you provide may be correct in relation to breed, but the assertion made by Brookestar that I responded to was about the size of declared dogs, not breed. Even assuming the unlikely event has occurred, that a small breed dog has been incorrectly registered as a large breed dog when it has been declared, the data still provides ample evidence that most dogs declared menacing and dangerous are NOT small dogs.

As someone else has commented, sure it may be the case that attacks by small dogs are not reported as often. But obviously we have no evidence for dogs that have attacked and have not been reported.

But if someone makes unfounded assertions about the size of dogs that have been declared, then we need to examine the evidence, and the evidence tells us the majority are not small dogs.

[Maddy]

As someone who is elderly and who owns two smaller dogs (10-12 kgs) I cannot watch that video. I know I would be too terrified to ever walk my dogs again. I once owned big dogs (30 kgs) and I love big dogs but I acknowledge that I am now too old to be able to manage one if a difficult situation arose, so like many other small dog owners I made a responsible decision. Big dog owners need to accept that they have an extra responsibility to keep people and smaller dogs safe because their dogs can do more damage. I want to be able to walk my dogs and feel safe. Is that too much to ask?

My dogs are trained and walked on a leash.

Size has very little to do with anything. MOST dogs who are declared dangerous or menacing are small dogs, that are yappy and untrained. ANY animal control officer can confirm this.

The info in the attached link displays declared dogs according to the Victorian Declared Dog Registry as of 2011. Only a very small proportion of declared dogs listed here are actually small dogs.

link

What an brilliantly researched article. Who knew there were actually two types of pit bulls?

I'll definitely be trusting that news site for information.

It is not purporting to be a research article, rather it is simply highlighting data obtained from the Victorian Declared Dog Registry about declared dangerous and menacing dogs. Regarding the breed, that is what the dogs have been registered as when declared and is not something dreamt up by the author of the article, however inaccurate that breed description may be!

Assuming the breed inaccuracies don't include too many 4kg dogs being mistaken for 40kg dogs, I think it's safe to say this data provides ample evidence to refute the baseless assertion that most dogs who are declared menacing or dangerous are small dogs. Hence the reason why the link was posted.

Does that not suggest to you though that the data is not accurate and therefore not of any use?

If people do not know what breed of dog they own (i.e the dog is very likely to be incorrectly registered) or if they mistakenly call it something else, your data will be totally unreliable. Take for example this..

Malt x Shih (an incredibly common breed mix) are represented twice. The Kerry Blue Terrier (a small breed with only 12 breeders listed for Dol) are represented four times. It seems very likely the more malt x shihs should be represented but what are they registered as? Who the hell knows.

The data itself in terms of number of dogs declared dangerous, location etc is accurate. What is not entirely accurate is the breed description of certain dogs. The fact that there are breed inaccuracies does not make the data useless; it simply means we can't rely entirely on the breed description.

I don't dispute the example you provide may be correct in relation to breed, but the assertion made by Brookestar that I responded to was about the size of declared dogs, not breed. Even assuming the unlikely event has occurred, that a small breed dog has been incorrectly registered as a large breed dog when it has been declared, the data still provides ample evidence that most dogs declared menacing and dangerous are NOT small dogs.

As someone else has commented, sure it may be the case that attacks by small dogs are not reported as often. But obviously we have no evidence for dogs that have attacked and have not been reported.

But if someone makes unfounded assertions about the size of dogs that have been declared, then we need to examine the evidence, and the evidence tells us the majority are not small dogs.

Inaccurate evidence is not evidence to base judgements on. When small dog bites are not being reported, the obvious outcome is that the results will be incorrectly skewed in the direction of larger dogs.

[kayla1]

Do you honestly believe that the data provided by the Victorian Declared Dog Registry is so inaccurate in ALL respects that no conclusions whatsoever can be drawn? We know there are inaccuracies in respect to breed, that does NOT render the data entirely unreliable if conclusions are based on that data which IS accurate. If you truly believe this data is so misleading as to be entirely unusable, perhaps take it up with the DPI.

Brookestar made an unfounded assertion that most declared dogs are small dogs. Through evidence this has been proved to be incorrect.

Regarding your second point, if we had evidence to show that attacks by small dogs go unreported, then your conclusion would be correct. But we do not have that evidence.

To the OP, sorry for going OT.

[Rainers]

How utterly awful The poor owners and their dog.

More evidence as to the failure of BSL to protect the community.

How dreadful, but I don't see what BSL has to do with this?

Poor lady, and RIP little doggy

It has everything to do with it. BSL is supposed to protect the community from dog attacks. Victoria has the strongest and most draconian BSL in the country, with hundreds of dogs being seized and killed because of their appearance within the state. Yet horrible, horrible attacks continue to occur. This is a perfect example of how BSL targets dogs that may never be an issue, and misses dogs that are.

I've seen this logic before on DOL and it doesn't make any sense. Do you think we should abolish laws regarding murder and rape because it doesn't stop them occuring? Laws only exist to reduce crimes/violence, they don't prevent it altogether. Whether the laws have reduced dog attacks is another matter, but the fact that dog attacks still occur is not a perfect example of the uselessness of BSL.

BSL is proven to not reduce the rate of dog attacks. Attacks still occur at the same (sometimes higher) frequency despite harsh BSL laws. This attack is an example of many.

Way to miss the point..

[melzawelza]

How utterly awful The poor owners and their dog.

More evidence as to the failure of BSL to protect the community.

How dreadful, but I don't see what BSL has to do with this?

Poor lady, and RIP little doggy

It has everything to do with it. BSL is supposed to protect the community from dog attacks. Victoria has the strongest and most draconian BSL in the country, with hundreds of dogs being seized and killed because of their appearance within the state. Yet horrible, horrible attacks continue to occur. This is a perfect example of how BSL targets dogs that may never be an issue, and misses dogs that are.

I've seen this logic before on DOL and it doesn't make any sense. Do you think we should abolish laws regarding murder and rape because it doesn't stop them occuring? Laws only exist to reduce crimes/violence, they don't prevent it altogether. Whether the laws have reduced dog attacks is another matter, but the fact that dog attacks still occur is not a perfect example of the uselessness of BSL.

BSL is proven to not reduce the rate of dog attacks. Attacks still occur at the same (sometimes higher) frequency despite harsh BSL laws. This attack is an example of many.

Way to miss the point..

It's not missing the point at all. You stated that laws are there to reduce attacks not eliminate them altogether. BSL has been proven all over the world to not reduce attacks. If aggressively enforced it may reduce attacks BY THAT PARTICULAR BREED but the overall attack rate does not go down (i.e, other breeds just start attacking more often as the same shitty owners go and get them instead). This attack is just an example of that happening.

[mantis]

How utterly awful The poor owners and their dog.

More evidence as to the failure of BSL to protect the community.

How dreadful, but I don't see what BSL has to do with this?

Poor lady, and RIP little doggy

It has everything to do with it. BSL is supposed to protect the community from dog attacks. Victoria has the strongest and most draconian BSL in the country, with hundreds of dogs being seized and killed because of their appearance within the state. Yet horrible, horrible attacks continue to occur. This is a perfect example of how BSL targets dogs that may never be an issue, and misses dogs that are.

I've seen this logic before on DOL and it doesn't make any sense. Do you think we should abolish laws regarding murder and rape because it doesn't stop them occuring? Laws only exist to reduce crimes/violence, they don't prevent it altogether. Whether the laws have reduced dog attacks is another matter, but the fact that dog attacks still occur is not a perfect example of the uselessness of BSL.

BSL is proven to not reduce the rate of dog attacks. Attacks still occur at the same (sometimes higher) frequency despite harsh BSL laws. This attack is an example of many.

Way to miss the point..

It's not missing the point at all. You stated that laws are there to reduce attacks not eliminate them altogether. BSL has been proven all over the world to not reduce attacks. If aggressively enforced it may reduce attacks BY THAT PARTICULAR BREED but the overall attack rate does not go down (i.e, other breeds just start attacking more often as the same shitty owners go and get them instead). This attack is just an example of that happening.

Exactly.

[OSoSwift]

Seems one shire has rampaging Whippets - interesting.

I know after having been bitten 10 times at least by a frenzied Chihuahua that the likelyhood of small dog bites being reported is much lower than larger ones. I ended up with multiple bruises and a few small puncture marks. If had of been say a dog Kelpie size or larger I would have ened up in Hospial with major wounds to my arms. It was dead set serious but small enough not to do a huge amount of harm.

I really do not hold much creedence to people naming of breeds of dogs I ahve to say so while the attacks did occur and while the once reported were obviously dogs that pretty much look like those breeds, I wouldn't believe they actually were necessarily.

I have a dog in my ayrd at the moment. Found roaming in farm land ona very hot day. The lady who found her told me she had a brown Kelpie with a boxier head.

Dog arrives it looks very much like a Staffy X Kelpie type with a black coat that is faded out and not in very good condition. Nothing like a brown Kelpie.

[tarope]

Very sad for all involved, I can't tell from that very blurred video what's happening let alone what breed it is.

The Media are quick to blame a breed, but it's the bloody Irresponsible owner who's always the problem. The other day I saw a person walking a young GSD past our house without a lead, I couldn't believe my eyes. It's illegal of cause but some people just don't give a stuff. :mad

[mantis]

Very sad for all involved, I can't tell from that very blurred video what's happening let alone what breed it is.

The Media are quick to blame a breed, but it's the bloody Irresponsible owner who's always the problem. The other day I saw a person walking a young GSD past our house without a lead, I couldn't believe my eyes. It's illegal of cause but some people just don't give a stuff. :mad

Agree. My boy was attacked by an of lead GSD, the owner just stood there screaming that my dog was killing her dog, because he knocked her dog down & held it, I was standing there making sure my dog didn't bite her dog, while I was asking her to put her dog on a lead, took her about 10 minutes to leash her dog, in the meantime, her dog tore into my leg, requiring me having to go to hospital & having over 20 stitches in my calf.

She blamed my dog for the incident, because I had one of those vicious breeds. If the media had have been told of the incident, they too would have blamed my dog.

When are people going to realise it's the owners, not the poor dogs.

Edited November 25, 2012 by mantis

[tarope]

Very sad for all involved, I can't tell from that very blurred video what's happening let alone what breed it is.

The Media are quick to blame a breed, but it's the bloody Irresponsible owner who's always the problem. The other day I saw a person walking a young GSD past our house without a lead, I couldn't believe my eyes. It's illegal of cause but some people just don't give a stuff. :mad

Agree. My boy was attacked by an of lead GSD, the owner just stood there screaming that my dog was killing her dog, because he knocked her dog down & held it, I was standing there making sure my dog didn't bite her dog, while I was asking her to put her dog on a lead, took her about 10 minutes to leash her dog, in the meantime, her dog tore into my leg, requiring me having to go to hospital & having over 20 stitches in my calf.

She blamed my dog for the incident, because I had one of those vicious breeds. If the media had have been told of the incident, they too would have blamed my dog.

When are people going to realise it's the owners, not the poor dogs.

I'm very sorry for you and your boy, some people should never be allowed to own a dog especially GSD's. My new rescue GSD girl Chloe is 8 mths old and has never been in a house - walked on a lead - brushed - given any love or training. We don't know her background, but the way she acts it is clear whats happened.

She's been kept in the yard, as some morons think GSD's are guard dogs. Then you get these stupid people who buy this wonderful breed, know nothing about them and when the dog grows too big and hard to handle because of no training they dump them as what happened to my new girl. :mad