Dog Attack In Canberra

[Cody]

Having an entire male does not make somebody totally irresponsible. Allowing your dogs to roam and kill others does.

Exactly.

[JulesP]

Having an entire male does not make somebody totally irresponsible. Allowing your dogs to roam and kill others does.

They weren't 'allowed' to roam either. The little shits escaped. Considering the owner contacted the council when he saw it on the news I don't think he is irresponsible. Maybe that is why he was given the dangerous dog order.

Sometimes bad things happen and no one is particularly to blame.

[alpha bet]

We are getting more and more places that are now banning dogs from their areas because of reports like these. Either dogs hurt or killed by roaming dogs and even people hurt or killed by roaming dogs.

As a kid we had dogs wandering around... never remember there being any major issues, but then most of the dogs around were kelpies, labs, borders and mixes of these... The worst you usually had to deal with were the odd ACD that would have a grab at your ankle if you were riding your bike.

I know I will be 'hounded' by many here, but generally the cases we have problems with are of the bully breeds and their crosses.... Problems based around these breeds - from 25 years experience running training groups for family dogs and dealing with behaviour issues.

* often people who are attracted to these breed are not aware nor equipped on how to deal with the bully breeds.

* these are breeds who are not generally good at mixing with unknown dogs.

* when these breeds bite they bite hard and generally go for the face

* often huge strong dogs with hard bodies that are hard to pull off when they do attack

* many of these breeds have a low tolerance to any perceived sign of aggression from other dogs....

* many of these breeds are difficult to house in normal fencing... they climb/scramble easily and will burrow and pull panels down.

The issues seem to be getting worse, but I have to question if this is due to the increase in the number of these breeds / cross breeds in the average family home.

I run a small boarding kennel and now find I don't take these breeds over the xmas or easter holidays unless I know and understand the dog in question. They are often just too hard to deal with.

I was told once that we only regret things that have changed in the last 30 years. Unfortunately I worry that it is likely in 30 years from now (when I am dead and gone).... this will be a world where there will be no dogs.

[Dame Aussie]

A dog near us bit a kid, put her in hospital and was declared dangerous. The other day it got out as we were walking past. It came straight at us and tried to to attack one of my dogs but he fought back and my husband kicked it so it decided it wasn't worth the hassle and retreated. Perfect example of why being declared dangerous means nothing unless the owners follow the restrictions. Any dog that puts a kid in hospital should be PTS IMO.

This isn't a cross breed or a bull breed either.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Dame Aussie

[melzawelza]

We are getting more and more places that are now banning dogs from their areas because of reports like these. Either dogs hurt or killed by roaming dogs and even people hurt or killed by roaming dogs.

As a kid we had dogs wandering around... never remember there being any major issues, but then most of the dogs around were kelpies, labs, borders and mixes of these... The worst you usually had to deal with were the odd ACD that would have a grab at your ankle if you were riding your bike.

I know I will be 'hounded' by many here, but generally the cases we have problems with are of the bully breeds and their crosses.... Problems based around these breeds - from 25 years experience running training groups for family dogs and dealing with behaviour issues.

* often people who are attracted to these breed are not aware nor equipped on how to deal with the bully breeds.

* these are breeds who are not generally good at mixing with unknown dogs.

* when these breeds bite they bite hard and generally go for the face

* often huge strong dogs with hard bodies that are hard to pull off when they do attack

* many of these breeds have a low tolerance to any perceived sign of aggression from other dogs....

* many of these breeds are difficult to house in normal fencing... they climb/scramble easily and will burrow and pull panels down.

The issues seem to be getting worse, but I have to question if this is due to the increase in the number of these breeds / cross breeds in the average family home.

I run a small boarding kennel and now find I don't take these breeds over the xmas or easter holidays unless I know and understand the dog in question. They are often just too hard to deal with.

I was told once that we only regret things that have changed in the last 30 years. Unfortunately I worry that it is likely in 30 years from now (when I am dead and gone).... this will be a world where there will be no dogs.

It's not getting worse, you're just hearing about it more. Your profile pic says you're in Victoria - would you have heard about a dog attack that happened in the ACT 30 years ago, before the internet? No, you would have only heard about your locals or maybe a fatality on a person elsewhere in the country. But now you're reading about this one.

'Bull breeds' (a massive umbrella term for numerous pure-breds and mixes) are pretty much the most popular dogs in this country. There are hundreds of thousands of them in existence, and almost all of them will never be involved in anything. The vast majority are owned by loving owners no different to any other loving dog owner. Given just how many they are, it is to be expected that more of them would be represented in dog bite incidents (labradors are also very high in the bite stats - very popular breed). It would be odd if they weren't.

On top of that, remember that any attack involving a blockhead is picked up much more widely and numerously by the media when it happens vs other types of dog.

Also the point you made about dogs being able to roam is salient - back then dogs were socialised to meeting other dogs out in the street and how to deal with that because they were doing it practically from when they were born. These days dogs are cooped up in backyards and many are undersocialised, meaning when they manage to get out all hell breaks loose (the vast majority of dogs of all breeds cause no issues at all when they get out). I'm not saying we should go back to having dogs roaming but it does absolutely impact on how social the general dog population is.

If you think that serious attacks are limited to 'bull breeds', you need to work as a council officer for a few years investigating dog attacks.

[cannibalgoldfish]

As a kid we had dogs wandering around... never remember there being any major issues, but then most of the dogs around were kelpies, labs, borders and mixes of these... The worst you usually had to deal with were the odd ACD that would have a grab at your ankle if you were riding your bike.

I know I will be 'hounded' by many here, but generally the cases we have problems with are of the bully breeds and their crosses....

I got nabbed by a Cattle dog in the 80s. I was walking home from school and it jumped the "fence" and bit my leg. I had bleeding punctures on my calf. My mum didn't care, just told me to wash it and chuck some mercurochrome on it. It was just a hazard of growing up. Not saying it was a good thing, but back then, that's what people did. I think people report things more because social media lets them have "their moment"

[Dame Aussie]

As a kid we had dogs wandering around... never remember there being any major issues, but then most of the dogs around were kelpies, labs, borders and mixes of these... The worst you usually had to deal with were the odd ACD that would have a grab at your ankle if you were riding your bike.

I know I will be 'hounded' by many here, but generally the cases we have problems with are of the bully breeds and their crosses....

I got nabbed by a Cattle dog in the 80s. I was walking home from school and it jumped the "fence" and bit my leg. I had bleeding punctures on my calf. My mum didn't care, just told me to wash it and chuck some mercurochrome on it. It was just a hazard of growing up. Not saying it was a good thing, but back then, that's what people did. I think people report things more because social media lets them have "their moment"

I agree with this. I was bitten on the face by a little scruffer that was wandering in the school yards when was little. Went to the dr and had it checked, got a tetanus shot but was hardly going to call A Current Affair lol

Everything's made into such a drama these days.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Dame Aussie

[BarbedWire]

Quite frankly I would hate to return to the days when we had dogs wandering around and yes it did happen. I was bitten (nipped) by a GSD which was then called an Alsatian and there were special laws about their confinement although I forget what they were. I don't remember people being killed or kids having their noses bitten off and dogs entering people's lounge rooms and killing their pet dogs. There are also more cars now than there used to be. When I look at a lost dogs facebook page I fume when I read people saying that their dog just took itself off for one of its walks and hasn't come back, or their dog has been missing for a few days and they are wondering where it might be, or dogs that go missing twice in the one day. People should know where their dogs are and be responsible for them. Dogs should not be allowed to wander. The good old days (were they really so good?) have gone. Dogs need to be confined and many today believe that cats should also be confined.

[Dame Aussie]

I agree, any pet one owns should be contained to their property.

[Cody]

I'm actually horrified that anyone would have such a lax attitude to dogs getting out and biting people! In the last 6 months I have lost 3 farm pets to domestic dogs and yes every time I called the council. Not because I want My moment on social media, but because people need to be responsible for their pets! I have no trouble containing my pets, why is it so hard for others?

[cannibalgoldfish]

I don't think it's a lax attitude, no one here wants dogs roaming and biting at will. I was just commenting that it is more likely that more attacks are reported now days rather than there being a rise in attacks.

[Dame Aussie]

I don't think it's a lax attitude, no one here wants dogs roaming and biting at will. I was just commenting that it is more likely that more attacks are reported now days rather than there being a rise in attacks.

Yep that's all I meant too

[BarbedWire]

I don't think it's a lax attitude, no one here wants dogs roaming and biting at will. I was just commenting that it is more likely that more attacks are reported now days rather than there being a rise in attacks.

I think that dog attacks today can be much more serious than they used to be. When I was growing up people did not get killed, or have their noses bitten off. Dogs did not enter people's lounge rooms and tear dogs out of their owner's arms and kill them. Actually dog fighting was not a big issue. If 2 dogs had a spat someone would turn a hose on them or chuck a bucket of water over them and that would be the end of it.

[cannibalgoldfish]

Dog fighting used to be a very big issue, that's why some breeds were created in the first place. However, that was many years ago and nothing to do with this thread.

[BarbedWire]

Dog fighting used to be a very big issue, that's why some breeds were created in the first place. However, that was many years ago and nothing to do with this thread.

Sorry to disagree but when I was growing up in the 1950s dog fighting was not a big issue in Melbourne where I lived.

Re bolded part I started this thread. It is my thread. :)

Edited to add the emoticon which I forgot when I posted earlier.

Edited March 5, 2016 by sarspididious

[BarbedWire]

I think it's very difficult to compare a time like the 1950s with now when it comes to something like the prevalence or severity of dog attacks and whether there was dog fighting going on. If there was a minor attack it probably never even made the local papers or was never even reported and severe attacks like noses bitten off wouldn't have been broadcast on television and in newspapers across the country and around the world. They probably only made the local news, if at all. Because of the Internet and social media, along with the inclination people have to turn every little thing in to a major drama, news about the most minor of attacks gets around very quickly and major ones get a lot of attention. I also would be inclined to think that there was dog fighting but it wasn't reported on like it is now.

How do you know Snook? We did have television. I have no difficulty comparing then with now. I would suggest you read the OP again. This thread had nothing to do with social media and people getting their moment of glory. What happened in the OP was horrible and afaik it was only reported in the Canberra news and it did happen in Canberra. The owners of the dog that was killed did not seek media attention. Then later the thread was updated because the dogs were released back to their owner and the thread was about dangerous dog laws and how they don't really work.

ETA This thread was about two dogs breaking into someone's lounge room and killing their dog. ie dogs attacking.

Edited March 5, 2016 by sarspididious

[Diva]

I don't know about the 50s, but dogfighting was big in the 80s in the rural area I lived in then. Big enough for police to go door to door talking to the residents about it.

[BarbedWire]

I don't think it's a lax attitude, no one here wants dogs roaming and biting at will. I was just commenting that it is more likely that more attacks are reported now days rather than there being a rise in attacks.

I think that dog attacks today can be much more serious than they used to be. When I was growing up people did not get killed, or have their noses bitten off. Dogs did not enter people's lounge rooms and tear dogs out of their owner's arms and kill them. Actually dog fighting was not a big issue. If 2 dogs had a spat someone would turn a hose on them or chuck a bucket of water over them and that would be the end of it.

I probably need to clarify this. By dog fighting I mean two dogs having a rumble about something, not organised dog fighting.

Diva I think organised dog fighting probably started up in Australia in the 1970s.

[BarbedWire]

Snook I find your post offensive and I will not be responding.

This thread has gone seriously off topic and this post is an attempt to bring it back on track.

We are getting more and more places that are now banning dogs from their areas because of reports like these. Either dogs hurt or killed by roaming dogs and even people hurt or killed by roaming dogs.

As a kid we had dogs wandering around... never remember there being any major issues, but then most of the dogs around were kelpies, labs, borders and mixes of these... The worst you usually had to deal with were the odd ACD that would have a grab at your ankle if you were riding your bike.

I know I will be 'hounded' by many here, but generally the cases we have problems with are of the bully breeds and their crosses.... Problems based around these breeds - from 25 years experience running training groups for family dogs and dealing with behaviour issues.

* often people who are attracted to these breed are not aware nor equipped on how to deal with the bully breeds.

* these are breeds who are not generally good at mixing with unknown dogs.

* when these breeds bite they bite hard and generally go for the face

* often huge strong dogs with hard bodies that are hard to pull off when they do attack

* many of these breeds have a low tolerance to any perceived sign of aggression from other dogs....

* many of these breeds are difficult to house in normal fencing... they climb/scramble easily and will burrow and pull panels down.

The issues seem to be getting worse, but I have to question if this is due to the increase in the number of these breeds / cross breeds in the average family home.

I run a small boarding kennel and now find I don't take these breeds over the xmas or easter holidays unless I know and understand the dog in question. They are often just too hard to deal with.

I was told once that we only regret things that have changed in the last 30 years. Unfortunately I worry that it is likely in 30 years from now (when I am dead and gone).... this will be a world where there will be no dogs.

I think this post made some excellent points especially the bolded parts although I am not happy to blame only a certain breed. I think that most offending dogs today are mixes. In the past if a dog was threatening (ie hackles up and growling) it would back off when yelled at or if something was thrown at it. Today some dogs are not so easily subdued. They do not respect people.

I think that dog attacks today can be much more serious than they used to be. When I was growing up people did not get killed, or have their noses bitten off. Dogs did not enter people's lounge rooms and tear dogs out of their owner's arms and kill them. Actually dog fighting was not a big issue. If 2 dogs had a spat someone would turn a hose on them or chuck a bucket of water over them and that would be the end of it.

I would like to bring this post forward and point out that by dog fighting I meant dogs having a disagreement in the street, not two dogs out to kill each other. This thread is about public safety and the seriousness of dog attacks (surely no-one can ever forget Ayen Chol) not how often or where they are reported. And it is also about how once dogs have been declared dangerous they are released back into the community with no adequate supervision that the owners will abide by the dangerous dog provisions. I would not like to be the owners of the dog that was killed. I imagine they would justifiably feel very unsafe.

[Two Best Dogs!]

I think this post made some excellent points especially the bolded parts although I am not happy to blame only a certain breed. I think that most offending dogs today are mixes. In the past if a dog was threatening (ie hackles up and growling) it would back off when yelled at or if something was thrown at it. Today some dogs are not so easily subdued. They do not respect people.

I think that dog attacks today can be much more serious than they used to be. When I was growing up people did not get killed, or have their noses bitten off. Dogs did not enter people's lounge rooms and tear dogs out of their owner's arms and kill them. Actually dog fighting was not a big issue. If 2 dogs had a spat someone would turn a hose on them or chuck a bucket of water over them and that would be the end of it.

I would like to bring this post forward and point out that by dog fighting I meant dogs having a disagreement in the street, not two dogs out to kill each other. This thread is about public safety and the seriousness of dog attacks (surely no-one can ever forget Ayen Chol) not how often or where they are reported. And it is also about how once dogs have been declared dangerous they are released back into the community with no adequate supervision that the owners will abide by the dangerous dog provisions. I would not like to be the owners of the dog that was killed. I imagine they would justifiably feel very unsafe.

It is confusing to talk about dog fighting, then saying two dogs out to kill each other do not count as fighting, especially in a thread where some dogs have killed others?

Regarding your comments about the past - I disagree, these are making wide generalisations based on your own experience growing up. Your memories are directly based off your own and how often and where things are reported in the news, but it is inaccurate to claim things with certainty like "In the past if a dog was threatening (ie hackles up and growling) it would back off when yelled at or if something was thrown at it" just because you have not experienced otherwise?

Which is what I think Snook is saying, that just because you never heard of it or experienced it does not mean it was not happening. These days, everyone hears about it. There is more frequency no doubt, more people and more dogs with more interactions = more opportunity for disaster. But I doubt the severity is any worse, some people get a small bite and some get their face torn off and all manner in between.

It also makes records difficult because now, thanks to the internet, the frequency of dog attacks in an area are easier to calculate. Prior, we would have to go off local and regional newspapers. Which are likely to only be the most severe and unlikely to report on a dog-dog death unless it was exceptional circumstances. Which does not say it does not happen, just that word of it is unlikely to spread.

What I'm getting at is, dogs genetically or behaviourally predisposed to aggression and fights(and attacks) to the death are not a recent invention, they have always been there. Some have it channelled into breeding specific types for specific sports or jobs, some just happen to pass it on. Some are just outliers.

Because you mentioned what a dog would do in the past "In the past if a dog was threatening (ie hackles up and growling)", there is a list on wikipedia going all the way back to 1887 (for USA only and again, they can only go off old news articles so the further back the less records available), on dogs that did not "back off when yelled at or if something was thrown at it"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Media_reports_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

They're not in huge detail but they're still quite sad to read, but show how far back people have misinterpretted a dog or a dog has had severe issues.