A Dog Killed

[RiverStar-Aura]

I'm wondering how, if the poodle didn't put his nose through the fence, the Amstaff managed to fit his boof head through the fence in order to do that sort of damage. Must be a bloody big gap in the fence.

It's such a horrible thing to have happened.

[Cosmolo]

The gap in the fence looked like it was between fence and gate and was pretty big. (saw footage on the news)

[Maddy]

Here's the SMH version of the story...

http://www.theage.co...0415-2hv8e.html

T.

This report says the little poodle did not put his nose through the fence but that there was a hole.

That's interesting. This is why I just think fences should have no holes, whether someone sticks something through in stupidity (which we know they do) or whether your dog sticks its head out and bites someone on the footpath, why risk it?

The owner claimed her dog was just sniffing the grass. I imagine there would be considerable difference legally between a dog (or a part of a dog) leaving its property to attack another dog and a dog that is defending its own property against a dog (or a part of a dog) that is intruding.

The cynic in me can't help but think the woman let her dog stick its head through the gap in the fence and when the dog was attacked, claimed it was unprovoked* and that her dog was outside out the offending dog's yard.

*In my opinion, allowing your dog to wander onto the property of another dog is provoking an attack.

[redangel]

Im with the posters. The poodle & her owner shouldnt hold blame. So traumatic for the owner and tragic for the poodle. What if it had been a child? No matter what such a dog should not have been allowed to roam behind a gapped fence. Under the law it is illegal in Vic to not have access to the front door of a property due to an animal roaming. People should be allowed to walk on footpaths without fear of a dog lunging through a gapped fence. Just down the road from me there is a little snappy terrier that rushes people who walk past. If complaints were made to council I understand action would be possible to force the owner to contain her dog (esp the bitey end)

[Salukifan]

Always harder for me when it's old dogs that are attacked and poodles harder again.

What a tragedy for dog and owner. I hate to imagine the images that will haunt that little dog's owner now.

[Rosetta]

Please can't we just have some compassion for this poor little dog who suffered so much and its owner who will be affected by this forever I should imagine.

[RiverStar-Aura]

Here's the SMH version of the story...

http://www.theage.co...0415-2hv8e.html

T.

This report says the little poodle did not put his nose through the fence but that there was a hole.

That's interesting. This is why I just think fences should have no holes, whether someone sticks something through in stupidity (which we know they do) or whether your dog sticks its head out and bites someone on the footpath, why risk it?

The owner claimed her dog was just sniffing the grass. I imagine there would be considerable difference legally between a dog (or a part of a dog) leaving its property to attack another dog and a dog that is defending its own property against a dog (or a part of a dog) that is intruding.

The cynic in me can't help but think the woman let her dog stick its head through the gap in the fence and when the dog was attacked, claimed it was unprovoked* and that her dog was outside out the offending dog's yard.

*In my opinion, allowing your dog to wander onto the property of another dog is provoking an attack.

And therein lies the problem. There's always two sides to every story and it's always easier to blame someone else for your own mistakes. That's human nature. If (and I stress *if*) the poodle's owner was at fault, I seriously doubt she'd own up to letting her dog poke its head through the hole.

On the other hand, I'm wondering how the council can claim it happened on private property. If she's walking on the COUNCIL STRIP doesn't that imply it's not privately own land?

[Maddy]

Given there are a number of vets closer than Werribee, including one actually in Deer Park, I wonder if they took the dog to the specialists at Werribee to see if what was ripped off could be reattached. Hopefully, poor little Jacques was sedated long before he was pts.

that's what I was hoping too

From the article..

She said Jacques' face had been ripped off from about 2.5 centimetres below his eyes. She said she was forced to wait three hours before the dog could be put down at the Werribee animal hospital. The dog remained conscious until then.

[Maddy]

Here's the SMH version of the story...

http://www.theage.co...0415-2hv8e.html

T.

This report says the little poodle did not put his nose through the fence but that there was a hole.

That's interesting. This is why I just think fences should have no holes, whether someone sticks something through in stupidity (which we know they do) or whether your dog sticks its head out and bites someone on the footpath, why risk it?

The owner claimed her dog was just sniffing the grass. I imagine there would be considerable difference legally between a dog (or a part of a dog) leaving its property to attack another dog and a dog that is defending its own property against a dog (or a part of a dog) that is intruding.

The cynic in me can't help but think the woman let her dog stick its head through the gap in the fence and when the dog was attacked, claimed it was unprovoked* and that her dog was outside out the offending dog's yard.

*In my opinion, allowing your dog to wander onto the property of another dog is provoking an attack.

And therein lies the problem. There's always two sides to every story and it's always easier to blame someone else for your own mistakes. That's human nature. If (and I stress *if*) the poodle's owner was at fault, I seriously doubt she'd own up to letting her dog poke its head through the hole.

On the other hand, I'm wondering how the council can claim it happened on private property. If she's walking on the COUNCIL STRIP doesn't that imply it's not privately own land?

I'd definitely agree with that. The fact that she said she had to run over to the fence suggests to me that perhaps the poodle was not actually on lead.

Either way, it's certainly very unfortunate. I'd be interested to know why the vet could/would not sedate the poodle or if the injuries were as severe as they sound, PTS immediately- it certainly sounds as if it warranted emergency care.

[Salukifan]

Please can't we just have some compassion for this poor little dog who suffered so much and its owner who will be affected by this forever I should imagine.

It seems sympathy for old poodles who meet traumatic ends is limited

[RiverStar-Aura]

I have sympathy for the little poodle boy and his owner. I just try not to take everything the media says at face value. Even reading between the lines doesn't get you to the truth.

[Diva]

Please can't we just have some compassion for this poor little dog who suffered so much and its owner who will be affected by this forever I should imagine.

It seems sympathy for old poodles who meet traumatic ends is limited

:cry:

I don't know who put their head through the fence, but I feel very sad for the poodle, and especially for the owner. I would be physically ill if a dog of mine sustained such an injury.

[melzawelza]

Horrible, horrible situation. A terrible end for the poor little poodle and awful for the owner to witness that.

I don't envy the Council on this one. When you have cases like this it can be so hard to ascertain fault. In NSW, the poodle putting it's head through the gate would pretty much clear the dog as the Act states that an animal trespassing on property is a defence for an attack. But of course if the poodle was just plodding along and the dog stuck it's head through and grabbed it that is completely unacceptable. A minor detail that can be next to impossible to ascertain without doubt, but which changes the entire outcome.

Poor little dog, poor owner. I feel sorry for the attacking dog too if it ends up being PTS or caged because its idiot owner didn't ensure the fence was secure and the dog couldn't get it's head through. A lot of dogs are very territorial about their fenceline but perfectly fine away from their property.

[Dame Aussie]

Just horrible I'd be a mess if I were the owner

[Maddy]

Please can't we just have some compassion for this poor little dog who suffered so much and its owner who will be affected by this forever I should imagine.

It seems sympathy for old poodles who meet traumatic ends is limited

Questions about what role the owner's actions might have played in the attack does not have a thing to do with sympathy for the poodle.

Comments like the ones above are counter-productive to any conversation that isn't "how sad, terrible bull breed and poor poodle" and to be blunt, trollish.

[megan_]

I have sympathy for the little poodle boy and his owner. I just try not to take everything the media says at face value. Even reading between the lines doesn't get you to the truth.

We don't need to just make up stories though either eg dog ran over = no lead. My dogs can run on a lead.

[Salukifan]

Please can't we just have some compassion for this poor little dog who suffered so much and its owner who will be affected by this forever I should imagine.

It seems sympathy for old poodles who meet traumatic ends is limited

Questions about what role the owner's actions might have played in the attack does not have a thing to do with sympathy for the poodle.

Comments like the ones above are counter-productive to any conversation that isn't "how sad, terrible bull breed and poor poodle" and to be blunt, trollish.

Because I have SUCH a record for trolling behaviour.

I"m sorry but describing such an incident as "very unfortunate" is one hell of an understatement from where I sit. And I never said a damn thing about the other dog or its breed.

God forbid any of us have to go through something like that as owners.... let alone our dogs. 18 years old is a very senior dog. Limited vision, probably limited hearing.... wouldn't have known what hit it poor thing.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[aussielover]

Here's the SMH version of the story...

http://www.theage.co...0415-2hv8e.html

T.

This report says the little poodle did not put his nose through the fence but that there was a hole.

That's interesting. This is why I just think fences should have no holes, whether someone sticks something through in stupidity (which we know they do) or whether your dog sticks its head out and bites someone on the footpath, why risk it?

The owner claimed her dog was just sniffing the grass. I imagine there would be considerable difference legally between a dog (or a part of a dog) leaving its property to attack another dog and a dog that is defending its own property against a dog (or a part of a dog) that is intruding.

The cynic in me can't help but think the woman let her dog stick its head through the gap in the fence and when the dog was attacked, claimed it was unprovoked* and that her dog was outside out the offending dog's yard.

*In my opinion, allowing your dog to wander onto the property of another dog is provoking an attack.

And therein lies the problem. There's always two sides to every story and it's always easier to blame someone else for your own mistakes. That's human nature. If (and I stress *if*) the poodle's owner was at fault, I seriously doubt she'd own up to letting her dog poke its head through the hole.

On the other hand, I'm wondering how the council can claim it happened on private property. If she's walking on the COUNCIL STRIP doesn't that imply it's not privately own land?

I'd definitely agree with that. The fact that she said she had to run over to the fence suggests to me that perhaps the poodle was not actually on lead.

Either way, it's certainly very unfortunate. I'd be interested to know why the vet could/would not sedate the poodle or if the injuries were as severe as they sound, PTS immediately- it certainly sounds as if it warranted emergency care.

A sedated dog can still be conscious. In fact that is the difference between sedation and general anaesthesia... sedated animals remain conscious.

I am sure that pain relief and sedation would have been given whilst the injuries were being assessed.

Anaesthetising and animal with such traumatic facial injuries can be difficult to do safely.

Of course it is absolutely horrific for both the dog and the owner and a very traumatic way to end the poor little dogs life.

There are 2 sides of the story and we have only heard one so perhaps it is better to reserve judgement for now.

Perhaps it did occur on private property (the fence could have been set back from the actual property boundary), goes to show how careful we should be when walking our dogs.

[Sheridan]

I have sympathy for the little poodle boy and his owner. I just try not to take everything the media says at face value. Even reading between the lines doesn't get you to the truth.

Dog face ripped off by other dog and has to be pts. What else is there?

My sympathy is with the Jacques and his owner. I have some sympathy for the dog that attacked Jacques because he is a victim, too.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Sheridan

[Maddy]

Please can't we just have some compassion for this poor little dog who suffered so much and its owner who will be affected by this forever I should imagine.

It seems sympathy for old poodles who meet traumatic ends is limited

Questions about what role the owner's actions might have played in the attack does not have a thing to do with sympathy for the poodle.

Comments like the ones above are counter-productive to any conversation that isn't "how sad, terrible bull breed and poor poodle" and to be blunt, trollish.

Because I have SUCH a record for trolling behaviour.

I"m sorry but describing such an incident as "very unfortunate" is one hell of an understatement from where I sit. And I never said a damn thing about the other dog or its breed.

God forbid any of us have to go through something like that as owners.... let alone our dogs. 18 years old is a very senior dog. Limited vision, probably limited hearing.... wouldn't have known what hit it poor thing.

Thank you so much for policing my opinion for me. Clearly, "very unfortunate" did not sufficiently convey how unfortunate I thought the incident. How does "extremely unfortunate" work for you?