Thread: Children mauled by dogs.

Originally Posted by Siska

I believe this situation is an absolute tragedy, and something that could have been easily avoided.

I own one of the 'dangerous' breeds that have been mentioned in the last 5 pages. I believe that way to many people here have brought in the media hype and sensationalism. They will do anything to make a sale. I really expected more from the Land Rover fraternity.

.

Agreed, some dangerous breeds make excellent family pets, but for your family only. Would you be happy to take your dog to a crowded beach, the next AULRO barbecue, and let it mingle unsupervised with the friendly Land Rover Fraternity, their pets and their kids ?. If you would, congratulations.

The Land Rover fraternity might want to go camping with the family dog and share the campsite with another family and their dog without having to worry about what would happen, so if the bush-bashing Land Rover Fraternity chooses a dog that can be completely trusted in that environment, I'd say good choice

The last pit bull/ mastiff /cross ( to clarify, slash means slash, either or, not a cross of a pit bull and a mastiff , to nearly kill a dog was up your way last weekend, lovely family pet, jumped the fence and removed part of the thoracic wall of a medium sized dog. The attacking dog was a great family pet that had never put a foot wrong, the attack happened in front of the owner's daughter who is now traumatized at seeing her own dogs heart beat, literally. Dog recovered $6000 later. I can give you stats for Perth and for northern Perth in particular, but you won't like them. A few breeds are over-represented in the category of dogs that go for a kill: pit bulls, mastiffs and malamutes and their crosses (ie not pure bred).
The rest of dogs that have a fight bite and inflict bite injuries.
There are exceptions and exceptional animals I agree, but you cannot deny that these breeds have a reputation not out of hype but out of facts, and this accidents are happening while in the hands of good families (not in the hands of your average drug dealer). The dog that ripped my dog apart was a fantastic family pet owned by lovely people just like you.

As I said, if you own a dangerous breed that you can completely trust not to kill congratulations.

Originally Posted by Dmmos

In fairness to the previous poster, isn't this like not having a RR because it's unreliable? (Sorry!) Or children because they're loud, dirty & expensive? While it would not suit some - obviously not everybody has a dog - others take on the cons because they benefit from the pros...

mate I don't disagree with the sentiment, but he did say "easily avoided" - what could possibly be easier than not buying a "dangerous dog" (whatever that is) in the first place? There are many many breeds of dogs not classified as "dangerous" which can deliver the many known positives of dog ownership with reduced (perceived?) risk. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti dog - I've got an ex-RSPCA JRT myself and would probably never be without at least one dog. I accept that's my choice and others make other choices, but 4x 70-80kg dogs locked in a reo-mesh run are not what I'd define as members of my family - more likely to be guard dogs or backyard breeders.

Originally Posted by Santana

Agreed, some dangerous breeds make excellent family pets, but for your family only. Would you be happy to take your dog to a crowded beach, the next AULRO barbecue, and let it mingle unsupervised with the friendly Land Rover Fraternity, their pets and their kids ?. If you would, congratulations.

The Land Rover fraternity might want to go camping with the family dog and share the campsite with another family and their dog without having to worry about what would happen, so if the bush-bashing Land Rover Fraternity chooses a dog that can be completely trusted in that environment, I'd say good choice

The last pit bull/ mastiff /cross ( to clarify, slash means slash, either or, not a cross of a pit bull and a mastiff , to nearly kill a dog was up your way last weekend, lovely family pet, jumped the fence and removed part of the thoracic wall of a medium sized dog. The attacking dog was a great family pet that had never put a foot wrong, the attack happened in front of the owner's daughter who is now traumatized at seeing her own dogs heart beat, literally. Dog recovered $6000 later. I can give you stats for Perth and for northern Perth in particular, but you won't like them. A few breeds are over-represented in the category of dogs that go for a kill: pit bulls, mastiffs and malamutes and their crosses (ie not pure bred).
The rest of dogs that have a fight bite and inflict bite injuries.
There are exceptions and exceptional animals I agree, but you cannot deny that these breeds have a reputation not out of hype but out of facts, and this accidents are happening while in the hands of good families (not in the hands of your average drug dealer).

The dog that ripped my dog apart was a fantastic family pet owned by lovely people just like you.

As I said, if you own a dangerous breed that you can completely trust not to kill congratulations.

I'm sorry to hear that this happened, but just because it was a fantastic family pet one can not assume the dog had all the socialisation it required as a growing dog.
If a dog is raised well and socialised when it should be (I mean at the important life stages of a dog when experiences matter) do we still think it would of jumped a fence to attack a dog....I couldn't say for sure but I would have my doubts...

Dangerous breed dogs are only marked as dangerous because a number of that breed have attack or caused injury. We can't be sure how all these attacks happened and when you think of the thousand of that breed of dog out their I would guess it was a minority but the government has to be seen to do something that makes people safe in these circumstances..they do so by listing the breed dangerous.....it does not mean that ever dog born to that breed is dangerous!!!

I agree with that - but I guess it depends on the definition people give 'dangerous'. I definitely agree with the point below...

Originally Posted by EchiDna

...but 4x 70-80kg dogs locked in a reo-mesh run are not what I'd define as members of my family - more likely to be guard dogs or backyard breeders.

This all seemed quite odd...

Originally Posted by Chenz

The problem these days, and it can be seen every night while watching the pet ads on TV is that people have apportioned human characteristics to dogs. "He is one of the family", "He sleeps with us in our bed", "Only the pedigree balanced nutritional brand food for my dog".

In my line of work as a park manager, I have to provide leash free parks where the dog owners now have a go at other park users as they see it is their right to let Poopsie do what ever it likes even if that means having a go at kids in the park. They think that is OK and it is the little terrier and foxy owners who are the worst and ill behaved - just like their owners.

A group of aggressive big dogs like cross bred pig dogs have no place being around small children - especially ones that are not familiar to them.

1. Dogs are part of the family. It is important that a dog owner understand this as they are pack animals and your family is their pack.
You must be the pack leader and the dog should know they are at the bottom.
Others have mentioned how important it is to get others to tell your dog what to do.

2. You sound like you resent the provision of off leash parks? However I agree with you about some owners. I avoid my local leash free park and go to anther one where the owners are friendly and the dogs well socialised.

3. Agree about pig-dog type breads:
He has been attacked once by a similar dog to the ones we are talking about. Had my dog by the ear and mine was howling like banshee. It didn’t let go until some of the regulars started to kick it. The owner had no control whatsoever and even complained about others kicking his dog! (he was a not a regular and have not seen him around) I found later he also had puncture a wound in the neck.
Pig dogs are not pets. I went pig hunting on a property out west. The owners had a house dog but the pig dogs were kept in double fenced cages about 2km from the house. They are a weapon used for hunting and we have bread them for that.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

DB A good security dog needs to be intelligent and needs to obey commands immediately. There are breeds, usually hunting breeds, that are appropriate to security work and Alsatians and Rottys come to mind.

Breeding is usually from the animals that have demonstrated their intelligence and obedience. It helps that the animal looks and acts the part (intimidation of the would be thief etc). They should attack on command without mauling the offender and stop on command and that is the hard part. Once the animal is let go at an offender it's instincts may take over, if it wont stop and hold or heel on command then the animal is no good as a security dog.

So agression is a part of the breeding and training, but intelligence and obedience to the handler is more important.

1. Security dogs are usually rotties or shepherds, neither of which is a hunting dog. Rotties are cattle dogs, shepperds are herding dogs. They are used for their intelligence and trainability. In Europe Rotties are used as seeing eye dogs for the same reason that labs are used. Unfortunately people get rotties because they want an attack dog and because they are easily trained they will. (threatening to set ones lab on someone does not look so convincing)
2. I don’t think aggression is part of the breeding as much as they are trained to act aggressively. As you said trainability is more important.

Originally Posted by solmanic

One of the first things we teach kids (and adults) unfamiliar with dogs who come to our house is to demonstrate dominance over our dog so he never, not for an instant, contemplates taking them down to assert his position. He is our only dog, so I just imagine what a pack might do (regardless of breed) if they get the idea that the newcomer should be bottom of the pecking order.

Originally Posted by lardy

Good on ya common sense prevails you are spot on, for example when visitors are allowed on our property my dog is always excited to greet them and sometimes forgets herself and props her front paws on them for support in order to get a fuss, that is a perfect opportunity for me to instruct the person to make her sit and take control of her which calms her done and indicate that she is less in the order of things[/QUOTE

A very good policy. I have always done the same. Dog is always bottom of the heap and happy there.
However fortunately mine is trained not jump on anyone!

No he's jumping for a stick. (rolling eyes etoticon )

QUOTE=DiscoTDI;886350]
Never confuse mongrels bred for hunting with Bull Mastiff's, I have a bull Mastiff x Boxer and even though I will not leave my kids alone with it, I trust it more than I would most other dogs.
[/QUOTE]


All owners should know what the breed they own was bread for and what its characteristics are.
eg. cattle dogs are one of the most reported dogs for attacks as they tend to nip little kids, sometimes in the face. That’s what they do to cattle’s heals.
Most herding dogs tend to be nippy.

Great Danes were breed as hunting dogs. They were owned by eastern European nobility. They were breed to chase and bring down the quarry, but never to kill it. In fact a dog that killed would have been killed. The kill belonged to the Noble!
They make lousy pig dogs.

Originally Posted by dullbird

I ....it does not mean that ever dog born to that breed is dangerous!!!

Correct but every dog born to that breed is POTENTIALLY dangerous.

You cannot work out that you are safe unless they have character assessments, as you do in the shelters prior to rehoming where dog's are pushed to a limit , they are annoyed and bossed and irritated on purpose as you know. This cannot recreate their hunting to kill instincts, unless they were allowed to be irritated by a little JRT or a little running crying child, not going to happen (sorry if it is insensitive)

Responsible owners will always lock the gates and will always have their dog on the leash and will always be in control an will never make mistakes.... it just doesn't happen like that and accidents will continue to happen . There are exceptions we all agree, but who certifies those exceptions?, the owners who are blinded by love?, exposure to multiple dogs and children without any incidents?

Originally Posted by EchiDna

mate I don't disagree with the sentiment, but he did say "easily avoided" - what could possibly be easier than not buying a "dangerous dog" (whatever that is) in the first place? There are many many breeds of dogs not classified as "dangerous" which can deliver the many known positives of dog ownership with reduced (perceived?) risk. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti dog - I've got an ex-RSPCA JRT myself and would probably never be without at least one dog. I accept that's my choice and others make other choices, but X 70-80kg dogs locked in a roe-mesh run are not what I'd define as members of my family - more likely to be guard dogs or backyard breeders.

I agree with what you say echidna.....

it's just horses for course, I put down far more little dogs for aggression than I do big ones the main offenders being JRTx and Maltese x
these ones mainly go because of aggression to people biting staff etc! the larger dogs generally go for dog aggression.

I can tell you now people think that little dogs don't do as much damage your wrong one of the worst bites I got was from a JRTxFoxie
that was on par with (and I know this is going to sound contradictory from what I said earlier) pitball both left puncture wounds in the top of my leg, the same leg. Admittedly the pitballs bite left a big hole but the other dog got me twice it was so fast and on the second bite he kept hold of my leg even when I stood up and would not let go. out of the 2 i preferred the pitballs bite

some people think big dogs are dangerous and little dogs are good family pets, that is the same mentality of the people that buy Shetland pony's for their kids because they are small...they are generally the worst pony you can buy a small child.

Originally Posted by Santana

Correct but every dog born to that breed is POTENTIALLY dangerous.

You cannot work out that you are safe unless they have character assessments, as you do in the shelters prior to rehoming where dog's are pushed to a limit , they are annoyed and bossed and irritated on purpose as you know. This cannot recreate their hunting to kill instincts, unless they were allowed to be irritated by a little JRT or a little running crying child, not going to happen (sorry if it is insensitive)

Responsible owners will always lock the gates and will always have their dog on the leash and will always be in control an will never make mistakes.... it just doesn't happen like that and accidents will continue to happen . There are exceptions we all agree, but who certifies those exceptions?, the owners who are blinded by love?, exposure to multiple dogs and children without any incidents?

But you are missing the fact that EVERY dog has the potential to be dangerous just because a kelpie or a lab is not on the dangerous dog list doesn't mean it can't be! So while everyone is shying of the DANGEROUS dog behaving well walking down the street tutting at the owner for having such a dog and frowning upon them being blinded by love your child is still just in as much danger by another breed of dog walking down the same street.....if your going to treat every POTENTIAL dangerous dog on that list the same you should extend your cautiousness to them all

just because its potential doesn't mean it will.....of course I appreicate doesn't me it won't