Two Dogs Attack A 10-year-old Boy In Bellambi

[Salukifan]

I understand. I think I'd be mortified if my dog was to ever do something like that. I just don't agree with emotion ruling when logic would make a fairer assessment. If my dog attacked anyone while in my presence without provocation I would have a hard time justifying keeping him. A stranger enters without invitation? Different story.

I suppose the key question then is "is a 10 year old child entering a property without invitation, 'sufficient provocation' to justify what these dogs were able to do".

For many people in the community, the answer is a flat "no". No amount of justifying this as "normal canine" behaviour (which in my opinion is a questionable statement) or suggesting that children shouldn't do things like this will justify to the wider community the extent of the injuries this boy received. And dog owners need to grasp that nettle and make damn sure that their dogs are not in a position to do this.

I can only thank God that the dogs' owner was home and managed to intervene to stop the attack. The outcome could have been far worse.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Haredown Whippets

[Sabbath]

I understand. I think I'd be mortified if my dog was to ever do something like that. I just don't agree with emotion ruling when logic would make a fairer assessment. If my dog attacked anyone while in my presence without provocation I would have a hard time justifying keeping him. A stranger enters without invitation? Different story.

I suppose the key question then is "is a 10 year old child entering a property without invitation, 'sufficient provocation' to justify what these dogs were able to do".

For many people in the community, the answer is "no".

Well in my current thought process (which may change with time and experience) I guess I'm not within that part of the community.

[Salukifan]

I understand. I think I'd be mortified if my dog was to ever do something like that. I just don't agree with emotion ruling when logic would make a fairer assessment. If my dog attacked anyone while in my presence without provocation I would have a hard time justifying keeping him. A stranger enters without invitation? Different story.

I suppose the key question then is "is a 10 year old child entering a property without invitation, 'sufficient provocation' to justify what these dogs were able to do".

For many people in the community, the answer is "no".

Well in my current thought process (which may change with time and experience) I guess I'm not within that part of the community.

You, and other dog owners who think that a dog inflicting serious injuries in the mere defence of property (as opposed to the safety of its owner) is acceptable. All I can say is for anyone who wishes to have a dog like this, do the dog and the wider public a favour and keep it behind padlocked gates.

Tragedies like this happen because people fail to socialise, train and/or contain their dogs. It will be the dogs that pay, each and every time something like this happens.

You owe it to your dog to protect it. if you care for your dog, it's actually far more important that you do that for your dog than that your dog protect you. If you want your house protected, buy a security system. Don't allow dogs of questionable stability to maim members of the community who do no more than exercise poor judgment.

[Sabbath]

I understand. I think I'd be mortified if my dog was to ever do something like that. I just don't agree with emotion ruling when logic would make a fairer assessment. If my dog attacked anyone while in my presence without provocation I would have a hard time justifying keeping him. A stranger enters without invitation? Different story.

I suppose the key question then is "is a 10 year old child entering a property without invitation, 'sufficient provocation' to justify what these dogs were able to do".

For many people in the community, the answer is "no".

Well in my current thought process (which may change with time and experience) I guess I'm not within that part of the community.

You, and other dog owners who think that a dog inflicting serious injuries in the mere defence of property (as opposed to the safety of its owner) is acceptable. All I can say is for anyone who wishes to have a dog like this, do the dog and the wider public a favour and keep it behind padlocked gates.

Tragedies like this happen because people fail to socialise, train and/or contain their dogs. It will be the dogs that pay, each and every time something like this happens.

You owe it to your dog to protect it. if you care for your dog, it's actually far more important that you do that for your dog than that your dog protect you. If you want your house protected, buy a security system. Don't allow dogs of questionable stability to maim members of the community who do no more than exercise poor judgment.

And this is where you misunderstand me. I do not wish to own a dog like that. I do not own a dog like that. I just wish that dogs don't suffer the idiocy of the owner or a trespasser. We are not at odds on this issue.

I do however think that whatever I have in my yard is not the business of others. Stay out. If I can keep the dog in the yard, you can keep out.

[Salukifan]

And this is where you misunderstand me. I do not wish to own a dog like that. I do not own a dog like that. I just wish that dogs don't suffer the idiocy of the owner or a trespasser. We are not at odds on this issue.

I do however think that whatever I have in my yard is not the business of others. Stay out. If I can keep the dog in the yard, you can keep out.

Yep, in furious agreement with that. But a padlock is a better response to the 'keep out' issue than a sign. I do not own dogs like that either but a padlock stands between them and anyone who wishes to enter my back yard.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Haredown Whippets

[Sabbath]

I worry all day while I'm at work that someone will steal my dog as he is so friendly with everyone he meets. He is no guard dog. I don't want a HA dog at all. I have a 6ft plus colourbond fence with a locked gate. If someone gets in, they're determined. I can only consider an attempt to get in has bad intentions. So where am I responsible for the actions of others? Why would my dog be at fault? The law may state I have to allow safe passage but I want no passage.

[Salukifan]

I worry all day while I'm at work that someone will steal my dog as he is so friendly with everyone he meets. He is no guard dog. I don't want a HA dog at all. I have a 6ft plus colourbond fence with a locked gate. If someone gets in, they're determined. I can only consider an attempt to get in has bad intentions. So where am I responsible for the actions of others? Why would my dog be at fault? The law may state I have to allow safe passage but I want no passage.

My personal view is that your dog should be neither visible, nor accessible from the front of the house. Solves the 'safe passage' issue neatly. We have no choice here in the ACT. We cannot have front fences.

[Sabbath]

I worry all day while I'm at work that someone will steal my dog as he is so friendly with everyone he meets. He is no guard dog. I don't want a HA dog at all. I have a 6ft plus colourbond fence with a locked gate. If someone gets in, they're determined. I can only consider an attempt to get in has bad intentions. So where am I responsible for the actions of others? Why would my dog be at fault? The law may state I have to allow safe passage but I want no passage.

My personal view is that your dog should be neither visible, nor accessible from the front of the house. Solves the 'safe passage' issue neatly. We have no choice here in the ACT. We cannot have front fences.

Fair enough. I am not looking for an argument. I wasn't aware that in the ACT you didn't have front fences.

[Salukifan]

I worry all day while I'm at work that someone will steal my dog as he is so friendly with everyone he meets. He is no guard dog. I don't want a HA dog at all. I have a 6ft plus colourbond fence with a locked gate. If someone gets in, they're determined. I can only consider an attempt to get in has bad intentions. So where am I responsible for the actions of others? Why would my dog be at fault? The law may state I have to allow safe passage but I want no passage.

My personal view is that your dog should be neither visible, nor accessible from the front of the house. Solves the 'safe passage' issue neatly. We have no choice here in the ACT. We cannot have front fences.

Fair enough. I am not looking for an argument. I wasn't aware that in the ACT you didn't have front fences.

Royal pain in the butt in many ways but even if we did have front fences, I'd still confine the dogs to the rear of the property. I want the dogs separated from the driveway at all times.

And I'd be able to have a decent front garden

[Amax-1]

Amax:

Cosmolo, on 10 July 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

I agree 100% with HW's last post. Children make mistakes- they shouldn't have to suffer consequences like this for such an error of judgement.

What do you propose a motorist should face when a child suffers a judgement error and steps out in front of a car?....just saying

Can't say I think this is a good analogy but I'll run with it.

If you want to own a high performance vehicle, well and good. Make damn sure its serviced regularly, that its brakes work and that you don't allow people with minimal driving skills behind the wheel.

Don't leave it parked with the keys in the ignition so some young joy rider can steal it and write themselves off.

And if you drive to the speed limit and the road conditions and a child steps in front of your car? You'll never forgive yourself if you harm that child but you can put your hand on your heart and say "I did everything possible to make my car safe".

I think the owners were reasonably responsible as they had warning signs displayed, the dogs weren't on the street threatening the community and they probably didn't think anyone was silly enough in the circumstances to waltz in? Did you buy the $1600 Kevlar brake pads that may have pulled the car up a millimetre shorter in distance than the $80 ones......where does responsibility for others mistakes end?

[Salukifan]

I think the owners were reasonably responsible as they had warning signs displayed, the dogs weren't on the street threatening the community and they probably didn't think anyone was silly enough in the circumstances to waltz in? Did you buy the $1600 Kevlar brake pads that may have pulled the car up a millimetre shorter in distance than the $80 ones......where does responsibility for others mistakes end?

In this case, in the maiming of a child and the death of two dogs. Not sure about you but I'd do a fair bit to prevent that result if I could.

Prevention sure beats the hell out of cure and a padlock sure beats a sign. Don't give people the option of opening the gate and entering. Put your dogs behind locked gates.

[cavNrott]

Front fence or no front fence, a dog should always be confined to the back yard behind a padlocked gate.

I don't see a front fence as being the issue. People have the right to enter your front yard on their path to your front door. No matter how high and sturdy the front fence may be, the dog should still be locked in the back yard.

[Amax-1]

I'm not at all heartless but I can't feel so bad for the child that the dogs, while in their own yard, being dogs, should be destroyed. It's just not right. It's reactionary and pointless. Keep out of people's yards. Easy. I don't care if it's a child. You can't argue the death of a dog over the injury of a child. If the dogs were at large or almost in any other circumstance I could understand.

I know a few of you like to get all aggressive and then indignant when called on it, but this wouldn't have happened if the kid didn't enter the yard. Not the fault of either dog. It's really quite simple. Unfortunate, even sad but avoidable.

Rather than laws being in place to favour intruders and trespassers, I'd like to see it favour personal responsibility and common sense. Yes even for a 10 year old.

It is a statutory defence in most jurisdictions if a dog attacks from provocation of intruders entering it's yard and was a case that could have been well argued to defend the dog's actions. Dogs are dogs, they don't relate to reasonable force and what's acceptable and in territorial drive, someone is on their turf who doesn't belong and their perceived job is to immobilise the target.

I suppose the key question then is "is a 10 year old child entering a property without invitation, 'sufficient provocation' to justify what these dogs were able to do".

For many people in the community, the answer is a flat "no". No amount of justifying this as "normal canine" behaviour (which in my opinion is a questionable statement) or suggesting that children shouldn't do things like this will justify to the wider community the extent of the injuries this boy received. And dog owners need to grasp that nettle and make damn sure that their dogs are not in a position to do this.

Territorial drive trigger is entry of the unfamiliar and it doesn't matter to the dog who that is as they will react in the same manner as dogs don't justify and weigh up the pros an cons and the behaviour is completely normal for dogs high in territorial defence drive to stop the intruder in it's tracks. We have to extend passed the emotional side of a dog attacking a child in this instance as the dogs weren't serial child maulers, they were merely defending their territory.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Amax-1

[Salukifan]

It is a statutory defence in most jurisdictions if a dog attacks from provocation of intruders entering it's yard and was a case that could have been well argued to defend the dog's actions. Dogs are dogs, they don't relate to reasonable force and what's acceptable and in territorial drive, someone is on their turf who doesn't belong and their perceived job is to immobilise the target.

Make that "some dogs" please. Some dogs are socialised to understand that strangers and children are not "targets". Others have been bred with lower levels of territorial drive, with higher triggers to aggress and high levels of bite inhibition. And others, including one of the 'breeds' supposedly involved in this attack have been selectively bred for generations to show no aggression to humans whatsoever.

So, what went wrong here? You know the answer as well as I do and it comes down to humans, not dogs. The usual factors, questionable breeding, of failure to socialise, train and contain will no doubt be at work.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Haredown Whippets

[Amax-1]

Owners may not be held responsible

The owners of the two dogs might not be held legally responsible for the attack if the police investigation finds they had taken every safety precaution required by law.

Under the Companion Animals Act of New South Wales a dog owner is liable for damages if their animal wounds or attacks another person.

But the owners are not liable if the attack takes place on the property where the dog is normally kept and the person attacked was there unlawfully and if the dog is not declared as dangerous, menacing or restricted at the time.

Here is the latest on the attack. The dogs were surrendered by the owner for euthanasia. They were not seized and PTS.

As I mentioned previously in most jurisdictions, dogs can legally attack people who have entered the dogs property unlawfully as a statutory defence. Unlawfully meaning they were not invited to enter the premises.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Amax-1

[Sash]

Destroying these dogs is idiotic.

You own dogs that have committed a sustained attack on a child who did nothing more than walk in the front gate of your property.

You had to beat them off. It took time to do it. The child has sustained over 20 punctures to chest, arms, legs and buttocks. He had to be evacuated to hospital in Sydney for surgery and is in a serious condition.

This child belongs to one of your neighbours.

And you think that putting dogs to sleep that you struggled to get off this child was "idiotic"?

What sort of a future would these dogs have? And what sort of life would you have wondering when the next child might be attacked?

And I do mean "when" because for these dogs, it wasn't speculation that they could and would maim a child. They'd done it.

I adore my dogs. But if they'd done this, they'd not see another day.

Couldn't agree more with this post, HW.

I love dogs dearly but human safety comes first and I don't think I'd be able to relax knowing I had a dog capable of that level of aggression.

[Kajirin]

In this instance what happened to the kid was horrible, the dogs being euthed was horrible [though can understand why the owner did so].

In the suburbs I had chained and padlocked gates with alsynite to cover the bars, well away from the road - the front door was totally accessible. Still didn't stop kids jumping the padlocked fence and getting in with the huskies They [the dogs] never did anything, but it used to make me angry and I felt like my privacy was violated. If you've taken all the steps you can and kids still jump the fence what can you do??!!

[megan_]

In response to amax:

Nope it doesvt. It is no unlawful to enter someone's front yard if the gate is unlocked. If they ask you to leave you have to. If the gate is locked and you jump over the fence it is unlawful. Are you honestly suggesting that if you pop over to your neighbours house to say hi , enter through an unlocked gate then it is okay for them to " release the hounds" on you without even asking uou to leave? That is not now the law works.

The reason the police are saying the owner might not be accountable is because some reports say the gate was locked and the kid jumped the fence.

Edited July 10, 2014 by megan_

[Amax-1]

In response to amax:

Nope it doesvt. It is no unlawful to enter someone's front yard if the gate is unlocked. If they ask you to leave you have to. If the gate is locked and you jump over the fence it is unlawful. Are you honestly suggesting that if you pop over to your neighbours house to say hi , enter through an unlocked gate then it is okay for them to " release the hounds" on you without even asking uou to leave? That is not now the law works.

The reason the police are saying the owner might not be accountable is because some reports say the gate was locked and the kid jumped the fence.

There will be a definition for locked at law which will be something like providing a disengagement mechanism is activated to open the gate, it will be considered locked by definition and unlocking the gate for entry without permission will be unlawful entry or something to that effect.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Amax-1

[megan_]

Show me that definition please.... You are legally required to provide safe passage to your front door. That is the law.