Great Dane In Adelaide Has Attacked 5 Dogs In Past Year

[Two Best Dogs!]

This is very sad - be warned! There are images of the injured maltese x and other dogs in the link. The injuries have been cleaned up though and the maltese survived.

I would be terrified to live in that area though, looks like the lady with the aggressive great dane hasn't been obeying her dangerous dog restrictions so it keeps on attacking other dogs (unless they've only given it that label on the 5th attack?) :/ Very irresponsible! I hope she attends the obedience classes but I don't think only 6 months would fix such an issue...

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/31418475/dangerous-great-dane-could-kill-shocking-pictures-of-dog-mauling/

There are grave fears that a dangerous dog that has attacked five times in just over a year will kill.

7 News has obtained shocking pictures of Sonja the great dane mauling a maltese shih tzu in a heartbreaking attack caught on camera.

Squealing and screaming pierced the air after little Oliver was randomly set upon by Sonja last year.

"He was pretty much just like a teddy bear to this dog," owner Donna told 7 News.

"So he just had tooth holes around his midriff and back rear legs."

Little Oliver had 'tooth holes around his midriff and back rear legs'. Photo: 7 News

Donna obtained freedom of information reports that revealed it was the great dane's fifth attack in just over a year.

Shockingly, three occurred within eight days of each other.

Donna obtained freedom of information reports that revealed it was the great dane's fifth attack in just over a year.

Matt Sauer's dog was one of those victims.

"She just latched on to the back of his neck and shook him around."

Matt Sauer's dog was also one of the great dane's five victims. Photo: 7 News

Donna made a report to the Port Adelaide Enfield Council and tracked down the owner who is slowly paying for the vet bills.

Other victims say the owner owes them thousands of dollars.

The great dane's owner told 7 News her dog only became aggressive towards other dogs after being attacked as a puppy and says she would never attack a human.

The council says the great dane has been slapped with a dangerous dog order, which means it is banned from all dog parks and must be muzzled and harnessed when out in public.

The owner was also fined and ordered to take Sonja to six months of obedience training. An animal behaviourist fears that won't work.

"The only way to fully guarantee that it would never do that again is through humane euthanasia... So to destroy the animal," vet Eleanor Parker told 7 News.

The only way to fully guarantee Sonja wouldn't attack again is through humane euthanasia, says an Adelaide vet.

Lawyers say if the dog attacks again the council could be held responsible.

"If it was shown that even if all of those requirements were followed, the dog was still able to attack and the council knew that or should have know that, then they might liable," said lawyer Paul Gordon.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Thistle the dog

[Two Best Dogs!]

How worrying the photos in the article, some of those injuries are pretty severe! Especially on the Labrador type dog. And 3 attacks over 8 days?

I had no idea there were such struggles with repeat offenders. I'm all for giving dogs second chances and training and obeying rules so I'm disturbed that the Great Dane owner isn't taking advantage of her many chances

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

I know people who live in the area and they avoid several dog parks in the Largs Bay area. The rumour I heard was this great dane had been killing not just mauling other dogs.

And no mention of only picking on little ones.

I find it odd that the council made that decision for your case Snook - you can't be sure that dog would only attack Staffies and since when is that ok anyway?

But my council - did declare a kelpie cross because it put a small hole in the pants leg of a man. And scared a couple of small dogs.

It's been declared dangerous. The owner puts a orange and yellow stripey collar on it (we're supposed to know telepathically what that means) and he still brings it to the local dog / footy oval unmuzzled and lets it off lead.

And while it doesn't tolerate small yappy dogs in its face, it hasn't hurt any.

Personally - I think that one should not have been declared dangerous but I also think the bloke who owns it is incredibly stupid. First for not turning round when a man with two small yappy dogs got on the bridge he was already on (that ended badly but nobody was seriously hurt), and second for flouting the dangerous dog declaration he already has.

But I don't know how you get a bad decision reversed in SA. I should find out.

There but for the grace of god go I. Or maybe when Frosty scares the crap out of some rude dog that gets in her face, I stop her and apologise. Even tho I think the other person is in the wrong for letting their dog jump on mine. I think this other bloke would probably reacted much the same way as his dog to the idiot man who didn't wait for them to get off the bridge before he put his SWF on it.

[*kirty*]

How god damn stupid is the woman who owns the Dane. STOP LETTING IT OFF THE LEAD!! Far out.

[Dame Aussie]

Erm what? Surely there is a case for seizure and euthanasia here??

[Loving my Oldies]

Sadly while we have owners like this one, we will continue to have to restrict areas where dogs are allowed :( :mad

[Loving my Oldies]

“The council could be held responsible.” Where is the goddamned f**k**g law. Just horrible that dogs and owners like these continue to get off scott free. Actually, there is a woman in my area who has been walking [read “dragged along by”] her Dalmatian for years. This dog has attacked several times, she just pays the bills and the Council does nothing. I have seen her on Pennant Hills Road with the dog literally dragging her along. Consider the mayhem and worse that could be caused if the dog slipped its lead and ran onto PHR - six lanes and a very busy major road.

People don’t consider the aftermath of these attacks, something I saw myself just the other day with astonished, horrified (and ultimately angry) eyes. I was gardening in my front yard when the woman who had one of her dogs attacked by this Dalmatian stopped to talk. We were on the footpath when another neighbour appeared (yet another who is dragged along by her dog) and my friend started to shake, terrified eyes darting all around as though looking for an escape route. I picked up one of her dogs and pulled her into my front yard. I was so disgusted that a totally innocent person is made to feel like this through the irresponsibility of others and lack of action by those who make and should follow through with laws.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Dame Danny's Darling

[Little Gifts]

The owner is the biggest problem here. If it was me, after the first one the dog would never be let off leash in public (only off leash in its own well fenced yard). After the second one that dog would be at a behaviourist and a trainer to ensure I could take it out in public safely (particularly given its size). If a muzzle was recommended it would be wearing one. After the third attack if a good behaviourist told me the issue could not be addressed the only time that dog would be leaving my property would be in a muzzle to vet or other necessary appointments. The fourth time and that dog attacked another it is going straight to the vet and getting a needle no matter how much I loved it. I'd be interested whether the owner of this dog has sought professional advice on how to address her dogs behaviours or just blamed everything on everyone else.

And it actually pisses me off that states like Vic brought BSL in to target certain breeds regardless of their behaviour and SA lets any dog of any breed repeatedly cause harm when they have already been identified as dangerous. Both are equally ridiculous approaches but SA's laws are going to lead to unnecessary injury or death. Stupid, stupid humans!

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

The owner is the biggest problem here. If it was me, after the first one the dog would never be let off leash in public (only off leash in its own well fenced yard). After the second one that dog would be at a behaviourist and a trainer to ensure I could take it out in public safely (particularly given its size). If a muzzle was recommended it would be wearing one. After the third attack if a good behaviourist told me the issue could not be addressed the only time that dog would be leaving my property would be in a muzzle to vet or other necessary appointments. The fourth time and that dog attacked another it is going straight to the vet and getting a needle no matter how much I loved it. I'd be interested whether the owner of this dog has sought professional advice on how to address her dogs behaviours or just blamed everything on everyone else.

And it actually pisses me off that states like Vic brought BSL in to target certain breeds regardless of their behaviour and SA lets any dog of any breed repeatedly cause harm when they have already been identified as dangerous. Both are equally ridiculous approaches but SA's laws are going to lead to unnecessary injury or death. Stupid, stupid humans!

The SA law actually allows for councils to make a destruction order (or somebody to apply to the magistrates court for a destruction order.

It's when the council does not make the destruction order that questions should be asked. And that might require all the dog owners to show up at their local council meeting and make deputations or ask questions.

What I wouldn't like is if the dog in question has been first attacked or harassed by the SWF - gets a destruction order for defending itself. However that does not apply to the Great Dane.

[Lhok]

The thing that gets me is in the video, she has a muzzle in her hands. What good is a muzzle at preventing bites if it isn't on the dog.

The whole thing is just awful.

--Lhok

[Simply Grand]

I hadn't watched the video before. The owner isn't paying attention to what's going on around her at all, and she just lets the lead go, doesn't even try to hang on to the dog. And as Lhok says, muzzle in hand

How dare she be so irresponsible with a dog that has already attacked!

And the dog has "only been aggressive since it was attacked as a puppy" - so basically she's been aggressive most of her life. Not an excuse! And yeah, she may "never attack a human" but a human walking their dog and getting in between an attack to protect their dog could well be hurt. Ridiculous that this was allowed to happen.

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

It's supposed to be a $2,500 fine for an dog that is declared dangerous to be unmuzzled and off lead and doing no harm in public.

If they're doing harm - they risk an upgrade (destruction order / death penalty).

[Papillon Kisses]

It's supposed to be a $2,500 fine for an dog that is declared dangerous to be unmuzzled and off lead and doing no harm in public.

If they're doing harm - they risk an upgrade (destruction order / death penalty).

I'm staggered that the City of Port Adelaide Enfield Council seemingly are not enforcing their own dangerous dog order. They are leaving themselves wide open to litigation. If a council is notified that a dangerous dog owner is not complying with the terms of an order, then council shares responsibility for later attacks IMO. They knew of the risk and did nothing. If my dog were attacked by this Great Dane, council would have their heads on the chopping block too.

As for the dog owner, I am holding back on my description of her... I'd be preaching to the chorus anyway.