Thousands Of Dog Attacks Reported In Melbourne

[samoyedman]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/dog-attacks-most-common-in-melbournes-northern-suburbs-20150118-12st18.html

Thousands of dog attacks have been reported in Melbourne's residential streets and parks in recent years, with the northern suburbs topping the list for aggressive dogs.

A survey of inner city councils shows there were more than 3500 dog attacks on people and animals between 2011-12 and 2013-14.

Most cases involved dogs fighting with each other and incidents where an aggressive dog "rushes" or lunges at a person and does not bite. But in some cases people were hospitalised after suffering serious injuries.

Under the Domestic Animals Act serious injuries include lacerations, broken bones, loss of sensation or function of a body part, and injuries requiring cosmetic surgery. Non-serious attacks are those resulting in abrasions, contusions and single puncture wounds.

Darebin had the most complaints about dog attacks in the past three years, with 830 reports, but recorded a 20 per cent drop in the past 12 months. The neighbouring municipalities of Moreland and Banyule each had more than 300 reports of dog attacks since 2011.

The biggest jump in reported attacks last year was in the City of Maribyrnong, up 34 per cent to 63.

In Melbourne's south-east, Glen Eira and Bayside councils both recorded an increase in attacks on people. The neighbouring beachside municipality of Port Phillip recorded the largest drop in dog attacks and of the 12 people who were attacked only one was deemed serious. In the City of Melbourne, half of the 152 attacks in recent years were on people.

Canine specialist Bradley Griggs said all dogs had the potential to be aggressive. "It is never possible to completely prevent dog bites or encounters with aggressive dogs."

Mr Griggs said dog attack rates across Melbourne varied due to the demographic of each area, availability of meeting points for dogs and different councils' focus on educating owners. "We do know that dog bite prevention is a social issue relating to education," he said. "But any time a dog attacks another person there is a problem with the stewardship of that dog."

Dog attacks have made headlines in recent years after strict laws were introduced in 2011 following the tragic death of four-year-old Ayen Chol, who was mauled to death in St Albans by two pit bulls.

Dangerous-dog laws require restricted breeds to be placed on a register, microchipped, desexed and muzzled in public, with councils given the power to seize and destroy dogs whose owners fail to comply.

Municipal Association of Victoria president Cr Bill McArthur said local councils were focused on educating pet owners and ensuring compliance. "Responsible dog ownership starts with registration," he said.

[YOLO]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/dog-attacks-most-common-in-melbournes-northern-suburbs-20150118-12st18.html

Canine specialist Bradley Griggs said all dogs had the potential to be aggressive

So tired of this pluralistic BS.

If a person commits an assault, we don't just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, all people have the potential to be aggressive."

ALL dogs most definitely do NOT have the potential to be aggressive.

What we perceive as "aggression" (anthropomorphism) is a function of breeding, upbringing, and training.

Dogs that have been bred for security work, some forms of hunting, (and yes fighting) often have "aggressive" traits bred in.

Unfortunately dogs bred "wildly" or carelessly bred without regard to "temperament" may also have these traits.

It's like responding to a fatal white-pointer attack by saying "all fish have the potential to be aggressive."

[Christina]

Its the stupid government & council rules that cause this to become more commonplace.

If dogs were allowed in more public places, on lead of course, they would be far more social & less likely to attack.

English & European countries don't get the problems we have here to this extent because dogs are welcome on transport, in taxis, in cafes, in hotels & pubs, in some shops & markets & they are not cooped up in the yard & house not mixing & meeting people like they are here.

Australia is so dog intolerant & unfriendly it shocks me

Poor dogs aren't allowed anywhere except unsafe off leash dog parks & a few beaches.

[melzawelza]

The strictest BSL in the country is working well then.

Edited January 18, 2015 by melzawelza

[LisaCC]

http://www.smh.com.a...118-12st18.html

Canine specialist Bradley Griggs said all dogs had the potential to be aggressive

So tired of this pluralistic BS.

If a person commits an assault, we don't just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, all people have the potential to be aggressive."

ALL dogs most definitely do NOT have the potential to be aggressive.

What we perceive as "aggression" (anthropomorphism) is a function of breeding, upbringing, and training.

Dogs that have been bred for security work, some forms of hunting, (and yes fighting) often have "aggressive" traits bred in.

Unfortunately dogs bred "wildly" or carelessly bred without regard to "temperament" may also have these traits.

It's like responding to a fatal white-pointer attack by saying "all fish have the potential to be aggressive."

No that would be like pointing to a dog attack and saying "All mammals have potential to be aggressive".

[YOLO]

Its the stupid government & council rules that cause this to become more commonplace.

If dogs were allowed in more public places, on lead of course, they would be far more social & less likely to attack.

English & European countries don't get the problems we have here to this extent because dogs are welcome on transport, in taxis, in cafes, in hotels & pubs, in some shops & markets & they are not cooped up in the yard & house not mixing & meeting people like they are here.

Australia is so dog intolerant & unfriendly it shocks me

Poor dogs aren't allowed anywhere except unsafe off leash dog parks & a few beaches.

I think your conclusion is correct, but not for the reasons you think.

In a culture where dogs live in small apartments, are taken everywhere including cafes etc, and often carried on public transport. By necessity people have to buy small, heavily domesticated dogs who have been bred for placid temperaments.

Because Australia has a heavily rural modern history, even our urban dwellings have traditionally had huge back yards, and we tend tend toward s an "outdoor" lifestyle, we have tended towards different breeds. (Often working breeds not far removed from their working ancestry.) Not only do people not worry about lack of "social niceties" in their dogs but a tendency towards guarding property or people is often seen as a good thing.

[Steph M]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/dog-attacks-most-common-in-melbournes-northern-suburbs-20150118-12st18.html

Canine specialist Bradley Griggs said all dogs had the potential to be aggressive

So tired of this pluralistic BS.

If a person commits an assault, we don't just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, all people have the potential to be aggressive."

ALL dogs most definitely do NOT have the potential to be aggressive.

What we perceive as "aggression" (anthropomorphism) is a function of breeding, upbringing, and training.

Dogs that have been bred for security work, some forms of hunting, (and yes fighting) often have "aggressive" traits bred in.

Unfortunately dogs bred "wildly" or carelessly bred without regard to "temperament" may also have these traits.

It's like responding to a fatal white-pointer attack by saying "all fish have the potential to be aggressive."

I disagree. All dogs do have the potential to be aggressive.

The threshold varies, but if I beat, starve and torture my dog he would react with aggression at some point.

Dogs need to be treated more like dogs by the general public and given respect as such, of course they're a domestic animal but still an animal and not something we have bred into submission and can expect to tolerate everything humans, other dogs and co can throw at it.

[Simply Grand]

http://www.smh.com.au/national/dog-attacks-most-common-in-melbournes-northern-suburbs-20150118-12st18.html

Canine specialist Bradley Griggs said all dogs had the potential to be aggressive

So tired of this pluralistic BS.

If a person commits an assault, we don't just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, all people have the potential to be aggressive."

ALL dogs most definitely do NOT have the potential to be aggressive.

What we perceive as "aggression" (anthropomorphism) is a function of breeding, upbringing, and training.

Dogs that have been bred for security work, some forms of hunting, (and yes fighting) often have "aggressive" traits bred in.

Unfortunately dogs bred "wildly" or carelessly bred without regard to "temperament" may also have these traits.

It's like responding to a fatal white-pointer attack by saying "all fish have the potential to be aggressive."

I disagree. All dogs do have the potential to be aggressive.

The threshold varies, but if I beat, starve and torture my dog he would react with aggression at some point.

Dogs need to be treated more like dogs by the general public and given respect as such, of course they're a domestic animal but still an animal and not something we have bred into submission and can expect to tolerate everything humans, other dogs and co can throw at it.

Absolutely. All dogs have the potential to bite if the circumstances are right, including small, highly domesticated ones. Whether that makes them 'aggressive' is questionable but legally it certainly would.

[Rascalmyshadow]

Christina agree with you 110%, Big D that is a load of rubbish.

I was born and raised around GSD's, Dobes, Rotties and Pitbulls all of them were house pets and family members, some belonged to friends and family, a few were ours.

All of them were stable well socialised family pets, all of them went everywhere with their owners generally without leads. They were exposed to everything and would never bite/attack for no reason.

It amazes me that a dog rushing at someone with no contact can be classed as an attack. My silkyxshihtzu greets people by barking, grinning and jumping all at once, certainly far from aggressive but I guess he could be classed as dangerous if he approached the wrong person.

Our government has a lot to answer to, it's about time they take responsibility for the problems they've caused.

[Kirislin]

http://www.smh.com.a...118-12st18.html

Canine specialist Bradley Griggs said all dogs had the potential to be aggressive

So tired of this pluralistic BS.

If a person commits an assault, we don't just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, all people have the potential to be aggressive."

ALL dogs most definitely do NOT have the potential to be aggressive.

What we perceive as "aggression" (anthropomorphism) is a function of breeding, upbringing, and training.

Dogs that have been bred for security work, some forms of hunting, (and yes fighting) often have "aggressive" traits bred in.

Unfortunately dogs bred "wildly" or carelessly bred without regard to "temperament" may also have these traits.

It's like responding to a fatal white-pointer attack by saying "all fish have the potential to be aggressive."

No that would be like pointing to a dog attack and saying "All mammals have potential to be aggressive".

They do, whether or not a pigmy shrew would inflict severe injuries is another matter though. :laugh:

[Steve]

Its the stupid government & council rules that cause this to become more commonplace.

If dogs were allowed in more public places, on lead of course, they would be far more social & less likely to attack.

English & European countries don't get the problems we have here to this extent because dogs are welcome on transport, in taxis, in cafes, in hotels & pubs, in some shops & markets & they are not cooped up in the yard & house not mixing & meeting people like they are here.

Australia is so dog intolerant & unfriendly it shocks me

Poor dogs aren't allowed anywhere except unsafe off leash dog parks & a few beaches.

Except that the law says dogs must be on a leash unless in off leash areas and that isn't enforced. Owners, including special owners who visit this forum, think they should be exempt and walk their dogs off leash. English and European countries dont have THESE kind of problems because their dogs can go anywhere but have to be under control and there are heavy penalties if they dont ensure their dogs are contained and no annoyance for anyone else.

We have laws - just that some dont respect them and no one enforces them.

We shouldn't have to discuss "all dogs can be aggressive etc" we should be discussing some owners can be idiots.

[Rascalmyshadow]

There were no leash laws in Vic until 1994 (if I remember correctly) dogs only had to be under effective control even if it was by voice command.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

I think they published the exact same article - this time last year.

Must be hard to find real local news.

[Staffyluv]

The strictest BSL in the country is working well then.

[Maddy]

http://www.smh.com.a...118-12st18.html

Canine specialist Bradley Griggs said all dogs had the potential to be aggressive

So tired of this pluralistic BS.

If a person commits an assault, we don't just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, all people have the potential to be aggressive."

ALL dogs most definitely do NOT have the potential to be aggressive.

What we perceive as "aggression" (anthropomorphism) is a function of breeding, upbringing, and training.

Dogs that have been bred for security work, some forms of hunting, (and yes fighting) often have "aggressive" traits bred in.

Unfortunately dogs bred "wildly" or carelessly bred without regard to "temperament" may also have these traits.

It's like responding to a fatal white-pointer attack by saying "all fish have the potential to be aggressive."

No that would be like pointing to a dog attack and saying "All mammals have potential to be aggressive".

They do, whether or not a pigmy shrew would inflict severe injuries is another matter though. :laugh:

They absolutely do. Some of the nastiest injuries I've had from an animal have been from rabbits. They're cute but if they're in a mood, those claws (the same ones that can dig very nice burrows) are perfectly capable of excavating human flesh. The OH's rabbit goes one further and kills sparrows that come into her house.

[Steph M]

Maddy have you considered an exorcism? :laugh:

That sounds horrifying!

[Salukifan]

ALL dogs most definitely do NOT have the potential to be aggressive.

I can't think of a decent dog trainer or behaviourist who'd agree with that statement.

My view is that all dogs do not have the SAME potential to be aggressive but that is quite a different thing entirely.

A dog that bites in fear is still displaying aggression.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Haredown Whippets

[Lhok]

Its the stupid government & council rules that cause this to become more commonplace.

If dogs were allowed in more public places, on lead of course, they would be far more social & less likely to attack.

English & European countries don't get the problems we have here to this extent because dogs are welcome on transport, in taxis, in cafes, in hotels & pubs, in some shops & markets & they are not cooped up in the yard & house not mixing & meeting people like they are here.

Australia is so dog intolerant & unfriendly it shocks me

Poor dogs aren't allowed anywhere except unsafe off leash dog parks & a few beaches.

Europe doesn't have the same problems as us because they also have far more responsible dog owners and general public then we do here. It isn't just because the dogs are allowed in more areas then here but it is part of the package.

--Lhok

[samoyedman]

How do you measure something like 'far more responsible dog owners and general public' in Europe Lhok? What are they doing differently to us?

[cannibalgoldfish]

Maddy have you considered an exorcism? :laugh:

That sounds horrifying!

2 words... Watership Down :D