Dangerous Dogs in Victoria

[BFZF8]

Originally Posted by Streets

That explains everything
]

[351p6replica]

l remeber that 1 big time an as for lock jaw my dog when playing tug awar with something he will lock his jaw not to let go an l find if l put my hand over his nose for s second he will release it no probs any dog if it apparently locks its jaw put ya hand over its nose it will let go or at the rear of its bottom jaw push into the socket an it will let go as for lock jaw on a person from being bitten by a dog was bs big time just like the story about saint bernards were a vicious dog after cujo what a load of horse pucky , l even had a couple of dingos an they were the most loyal canine ever out an l would give my right arm to have another 1 an they were on the vermin vicious list an l was having 1 trained as a seeing eye dog due to me being 3/4 blind in 1 eye an 1/2 in the other. a dog will be how ever it is raised an treated. and how many people actually know that a dog with blunt teeth will do more damage than a sharp toothed dog. lve been bitten by both an the blunt took a nice chunk outa me than the sharp mutt thats sliced the skin. l just dont think its right to judge a dog for its breed an myths . whats next as a dangerou dog a chihuahua or a poodle lmao

[BFZF8]

It's not actually a locking jaw though. They just have very strong cheek muscles (that's why some of their heads look the way they do). It's pretty easy to teach your dog to release something in their mouths without having to stuff around putting your hands over their noses or anywhere else. If I'm playing tug of war with mine I can tell them "drop" and they let go.

[351p6replica]

wish mine did that once you start playing tug of war with him he will wana go for a hor or so , he mad as hell with tuga war he loves the game like a bloody kid if you stop he get that solum look in his eyes an a sulk type look as well, he is an old pooch but when he gets going he like my kids wont stop ever until he tires out . too bad if yiu are an wana stop he will sit there with it in his mouth till u start again

[BFZF8]

Originally Posted by 351p6replica

wish mine did that once you start playing tug of war with him he will wana go for a hor or so , he mad as hell with tuga war he loves the game like a bloody kid if you stop he get that solum look in his eyes an a sulk type look as well, he is an old pooch but when he gets going he like my kids wont stop ever until he tires out . too bad if yiu are an wana stop he will sit there with it in his mouth till u start again

Haha yeh stubborn old buggers. My male's dad was a bit like that. If you get onto the training when they're pups it's not a drama when they get older. Mine are 7 1/2 and 7 years old now.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

no, the car is operated by a human

the dog has a mind of it's own

This I dont agree with totally.
Many humans have received lesser sentences due to their 'upbringing', why should a dog's mental health be the responsibility of the dog?

I dont see that this will do anything to help 'the problem', in a similar to fashion to how well the the gun laws have done to remove dangerous gus from society.

[kinksta]

The locking of the jaw is just like the whole pythons dislocate their jaw myth.

As said the simply have muscles in their cheeks for holding, no locking mechanism. Where as a German Shepherd has a stronger bite, it does not have the jaw muscles to hold as long as a APBT.

I'm just glad we don't live in Russia or Turkey where dogs like Anatolian Shepherds and other livestock guardians who are pretty much aggressive at anything are used to protect flocks of sheep and roam the countryside haha. They are raised to be super protective and are massive! Beautiful dogs though!!! Few here in Adelaide, but they are bought up properly...that's the difference.

[351p6replica]

1 thing l do remember thou acouple years back there was a spat of dog thefts going on for these type of dog so scumbags cold fight them an ppl were always wanting to buy mine an tried stealing him when he was a pup an kids got a hold of him an tormented him an kicked him but with trainning he came good again an he loves my 2 girls , when younger we took him to a oval an if the youngest strayed from mom to far he would gently heard her back towards mom just by using his weight to push her inthe right direction. its all about who owns an how they train an treat a dog.mine is happy as hell loves little dogs he gets down low an plays but hates bigger dogs dont know why but he will bark his head off at them an ppl say he is a vicious dog. he aint he is train right n a very good protector of the family an a good therapy dog for me since my stroke . l just had the councel say he may come under the vicious breed. Wtf there is a difference bettween a apbt an a bullarib greatdane an if they wana take him ld love too see them try as there has never been a single complaint except when he was a pup an yapped all night for a week after l got him an he is now 35 in human years what in dog cant remember. what l dont get is ok they do that here in vic but what about nsw when a kid was mauled a few years back by a dog they didnt do that law untill who knows when

[BA GT-HO]

Don't agree with banning any breed, ban reckless owners.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by mik

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/...ler-in-sydney/

I'm sure kinksta will be able to quantify this one (and correct me if I'm wrong)- but I don't see any 'rottweiler' in the dog on that video...it looks like a mongrel crossbreed.

I think this is where people who are responsible and own these dogs get a little irritated. The media represents them as something they aren't (if it is a rotty, I can't see it).

GSD's were banned under BSL, but it was lifted in '74 (because they thought they'd breed with dingoes and produce 'super killers'...although, in some parts of Qld, they're still deemed dangerous dogs and have to be muzzled in public...

Another interesting thing up here...(someone has gone mad surely)...

In other areas of Queensland, such as in Mount Morgan Shire Council, they have classed any dog as dangerous that is 60 or more kilos in weight – A height of more than 1100mm ((44 inches) it does not state where measurement to be taken from) – Any dog used for hunting of wild game (such those that are used to hunt down wild boars) are owned, also under restrictions, as per their council by-laws.

I can understand the wild boar bit, but over 60kg's is pushing it. I understand that dogs this size are powerful and could 'probably' overcome people, but surely some intelligent thought has to go into what is 'dangerous'...is a slobbering 70kg st bernard dangerous? Possibly, but so is a 5kg chihuahua if you really want to draw straws...

All dogs should be registered, and trained...end of story...even the 'rat' dogs, for the small animal syndrome can be just as potent and dangerous as the 'my owner can't control me'...

[kinksta]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I'm sure kinksta will be able to quantify this one (and correct me if I'm wrong)- but I don't see any 'rottweiler' in the dog on that video...it looks like a mongrel crossbreed.

I think this is where people who are responsible and own these dogs get a little irritated. The media represents them as something they aren't (if it is a rotty, I can't see it).

It is definitely is a cross breed. It could have Rott in it, but it could be GSD, or, hell anything. Sometimes the DNA test won't give the answer we want. We have seen 10+ breeds in some cross breeds.

[blueprint babe]

It was a very sad thing that happened when that little girl was killed by that dog in Victoria. But the knee jerk reaction the government and the media is having is somewhat ridiculous. It has been provan time and time again all over the world that BSL does not work. Italy has the best stats. They ended up with something like 97 breeds of dog on the BSL list. In the 10 odd years that the legislastion was in place dog bites/attacks did not decrease. The ban was then lifted as it was proven that it didnt work.
I own a crossbreed and a purebred rhodesian ridgeback, i have no interest in owning an APBT or a cross there of yet I do not support BSL nor will I ever. If APBT or supposed crosses are banned how long before your beloved breed is put on the list? APBT and crosses first, guard dog breeds next (german shephards, dobermans, rottweillers) anything over 15kg after that.
Education is the key, not senseless bans.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by blueprint babe

I own a crossbreed and a purebred rhodesian ridgeback,.

I think we can take it as a given that people that own dogs that have the ability to rip humans apart dont think the new regs are a good idea.

some interesting reading at :http://blog.dogsbite.org/2008/08/com...-spaniels.html

Originally Posted by blueprint babe

If APBT or supposed crosses are banned how long before your beloved breed is put on the list? .

Perhaps just a little while for this one: http://www.breederretriever.com/phot...41/eng_toy.jpg

[atec77]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I appreciate your point, but the responsibility is still the owner of the dog.

Owners dont get a get out of jail free card just because their dog got nervous and decided to take a piece out of a kid that got too close to their dog, pulled a face at it, whatever, in a PUBLIC area. A responsible owner should have such a dog( that gets nervous and is capable of pulling a human to shreds) muzzled when in PUBLIC, even if on a lead.

In 40 years of dog ownership none of mine have biten anything unless instruced to do so , my rotties are papered grand champions , worth thousand of dollars with soft complient temprement and fully obedience trained being the result of a dozen generations of breeding ,.Very different from the image so many media outlets and politcally expedient persons promote in selfserving displays .There are a few bad owners and too many people fail to realise you take a risk and some times get hurt , patting / touching a strange animal without permission often will be a problem , very few dog problems happen without a tiggering cause and mixed breeds tend to be in the high incident area as frankly I see them running the streets all to often . The claims of "name a brand" what ever is being seen to be politically expedient when in truth a result is a second consideration and is mostly about self serving image . Personally I feel all owners and dogs should be involved and required to pass an obedience course and when in public required to use a suitable lead at all times , that would stop some incidences but the public needs to be very much more animal aware and be more hands off because the "puppy" is a stranger .

[kinksta]

Originally Posted by atec77

Personally I feel all owners and dogs should be involved and required to pass an obedience course and when in public required to use a suitable lead at all times , that would stop some incidences but the public needs to be very much more animal aware and be more hands off because the "puppy" is a stranger .

Spot on mate. Good post.

[blueprint babe]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I think we can take it as a given that people that own dogs that have the ability to rip humans apart dont think the new regs are a good idea.

some interesting reading at :http://blog.dogsbite.org/2008/08/com...-spaniels.html



Perhaps just a little while for this one: http://www.breederretriever.com/phot...41/eng_toy.jpg

Sorry but what was your point?

I own 2 dogs - 1 is an RSPCA rescue dog that is of unknown parentage and the other is a purebred Rhodesian Ridgeback registered with the ANKC. Neither were bred or trained to be human agresive nor are they.
I choose to own dogs that are bigger than 15kgs - I like the look and temperamnet of ridgebacks and one day hope to own a great dane as I love the look and temperament of them too. I am a responsible owner, both of my dogs are desexed, registered with the local council and well trained in basic doggy manners. I am also involved in the rescue of dogs that have been dumped, having been a foster carer for both Shar Pei's and Great Danes.

If you choose to own small fluffy dogs and beleive that children everywhere will be safer because of that, then that is your belief. But why should I, who I believe to be a responsible pet owner be restricted to only own small fluffy dogs?

If you remove pit bull and pit bull crosses from Victoria there will still be bite statistics. People that are not responsible pet owners do own other breeds of dogs - Labradores, Siberain Huskies, Australian Cattle Dogs etc. So what then?

[Jim Goose]

My malamute weighed in at 53kg.. and he was the most placid dog I have ever had. All my dogs have been medium sized and two were rescued from the RSPCA and one was a stray I kept.

Why would i want to be limited as to the size of a dog i can own simply because of the stupid notion that larger dogs are dangerous?

[Sox]

This..........

Originally Posted by Conundrum

I have been around dogs all my life, even before I was born, My dad & his previous family used competitively show & breed a number of dog breeds. He has been involved in dog showing since he was a teenager until about a decade ago. I too used to show & breed along with my dad when I was younger. The one thing he drummed into me & always said "There is no such thing as a bad dog. Just a bad owner, as Ive always said. Keep the dog, shoot the owner"

Coming from a man with over 50 years of dog showing & breeding experience, I think that statement is: Nail, Head, Hit. After rescuing a number of dogs, it is no wonder why some dogs act the way they do. No dog cannot be retrained.

That was underlined when my dads last protégé's, a couple called Matt & Tanya rescued a Keeshond (That is Kay-zund NOT Quiche-hound) later named Butch. This poor dog had been abused something shocking, it took alot of mental work to get that dog back to normality. He became the pride & joy of the family, until sadly Butch finally had to be put down last year due to old age. (Rest in peace old Friend).

I am 100% agreement with my dads statement. No bad dogs, Just bad owners.

Sorry, I forgot to add, My dad also Judged dogs up here in QLD for a number of years before retiring.

And this........

Originally Posted by XARATE

Laws about dangerous dogs are alway have been and always will be a bit of a hit and miss.
I believe banning certain breeds is wrong, its a bit like racism where all are tarred with the same brush due to the actions of a few.
All dogs are capable of doing damage to a human or another animal. Its part of their instict, yes proper training can ruduce the chance of it but it will never remove all risk. Its basic animal instinct to hunt, defend or protect themselfs.

Personally i have seen more aggressive and dangerous jack russells than any other breed. I had one attack my two 9month old staffys at a dog park. Being young playfull jumpy dogs at the time i had them on leads (there were usually kids at the park i didnt want the dogs jumping on them to play)
Now when the unsecured jack russell attacked my staffys, mine secured and under my controll. For nearly 20 seconds (a long time in a fight) not once did my two bark or bite, that was untill the jack russell made a large cut on the neck of my larger pup . Basic natural instinct kicked in with both my dogs and in a few seconds the jack russell was pretty injured and was able to be removed from the fight. The whole time the owner was calling his dog and not actually taking any actions to restrain or remove it.
I recieved a court summons and vet bill days later
Because "my dogs attacked theirs"
If i lived in the city the media would of made me look like the worst person ever and i would no longer have my dogs. Luckily a local off duty police officer seen the whole the thing and cleared me of any wrong doing.

Its storys like mine that politicians and law makers dont hear, they only focus on the large "scary dogs" and as a result we have a few breed targeted for the wrong reason

If laws were made to punish owners of ALL breeds for the wrong doings of their animals it would be alot fairer. It would put pressure on people to prevent their animals getting into bad and dangerous situations, it would pressure people to train, restrain and fence their animals properly. Which would be the outcome that is needed

Right now the majority of dog owners are suffering from the irrisponsible actions of a few dog owners.

....Are on the money.

I've owned many dogs and been associated with many more over the years.
I've been involved with 2 different obedience schools and obedience trained many dogs.

All dogs can be dangerous in the wrong hands and in the wrong circumstances.
All dogs can cause serious damage to very young children, even very small dogs.
Dogs have the tools to rip flesh off bone, and then crunch the bone.

Domesticated dogs still have these tools and as such need to be in control.

Responsible owners have their dogs under control, irresponsible dog owners don't.

Who should be punished.......

The owner for those who haven't worked it out.
.

[WMD351]

I don't see the point in 'breeding out' the APBT.
The irresponsible idiot owners who raise the ones that cause trouble will just move on to another breed and again mistreat them until they become the next one on the list. Then another breed, and another...
Ban irresponsible people, not dogs.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

My malamute weighed in at 53kg.. and he was the most placid dog I have ever had. All my dogs have been medium sized and two were rescued from the RSPCA and one was a stray I kept.

Why would i want to be limited as to the size of a dog i can own simply because of the stupid notion that larger dogs are dangerous?

Your dog almost weighed more than me...

The rescue facilities that deal with Malamutes and Huskies are very strict up here about who they send the dogs to live with, the owners must be experienced and have history with the breed. I'm not a fan of malamutes (I've found quite a few that I've encountered to be overly dominant, one decided he wanted my staffy pup to be his dinner...), in saying that I know a few who are completely the opposite as they are with people who know how to handle them. They are well behaved and well disciplined.

My dog is 20 kilos, and still thinks he's a lap dog...the other 18kg's and is also a lap dog - he also doesn't understand the dogs barking aggressively at him when we go walking, he wants to play, and they want to rip his head off...most of them on our walks are small to medium sized dogs, and I have never seen one of these dogs being walked or exercised in any fashion...they are bored and border aggressive...and I really feel for them.

WMD351 is right though, they will just move to another dog as they have done up here...there are so many staffy's that are abandoned or sent to the pound it's just not funny. The sad part is, I don't have enough room for all of them... :(

People should have to get a licence to own an animal, just as some suggest they should need a licence to breed.

Perhaps if there was a facility like 'Dog Town' in Australia the average 'joe public' might understand that most animals can be rehabilitated if they happen to attack...

[zdcol71]

For nearly 20 seconds (a long time in a fight) not once did my two bark or bite, that was untill the jack russell made a large cut on the neck of my larger pup . Basic natural instinct kicked in with both my dogs and in a few seconds the jack russell was pretty injured and was able to be removed from the fight. The whole time the owner was calling his dog and not actually taking any actions to restrain or remove it.

I have a Stafford,(who was once 9 months old), and I don't think I would have waited "20 seconds (a long time in a "fight") to actually pick the Jack Russel up by the throat and send it on it's way long before it was joined in the fight by the Stafford! I watch Cesar as well and it all looks pretty wonderful what a percieved "killer" is able to be portrayed as, but I am a firm believer that an animal is always tuned in to what it was bred for.(Particularly domestic animals) Wether you like horse racing or not, a thourobred is tuned to run, watch a peregrine falcon do what it does best... hundreds of years of breeding,wether it is socially right or wrong now, will still sneak through (despite what anybody says about .."my pitty/rotty/staffy...would never do that") and manifest itself as a tragic news headline if we don't (as dog owners),accept that fact. I trust my Staffordshire with my grandchildrens life, but I would never leave them alone together unsupervised...sound like a contradiction in terms?? Damn right, but I'm not a dog that has generations of blood line and breeding behind it to do things that I have no control over.

[mad-xa]

ive owned my dogs for over 8 years both would be called pitbull types tho only one has american staff in him, my girl is 4 shes english staff =boxer which makes her look pitbull as shes red and lives inside and that makes her skin slightly lighter either way she isnt vicious has slept in the bed with my children but i wouldnt trust her with just anyone,but same with any dog,my male is the one with american staff in him hes half that and half english staff and the older of the 2 he has lived with poodles and a variety of other dogs and only twice have i ever seen a sign of stress from him and both times it was towards grown guys attempting to rough house with him both he didnt know and again i walk both dogs together on leads everyday i am trusting them as if i didnt they wouldnt live in my house but i know not to let little kids get in there faces or harrass them common sense really for any dog owners and yes there registered but not as pitbulls as there not they wouldnt sleep in a pit without a blanket ...so if i believe what there doing in victoria NO ..not that makes a difference as nothing australians have to say about what happens in this country does...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by blueprint babe

Sorry but what was your point?

put it together with what I said here:http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...72&postcount=7

We do seem to hear a lot from the "my putbill/staffy is such a fun loving family pet........" type here, criticisms of this attitude are much wider in the general community:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/...sh-dog-owners/
Aside from this heartless harpy, even the mainstream organisations which represent the wholly decent owners of peace-loving pitbulls are having a hard time making sense in this debate.
American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia president Colin Muir got into some weird relativities as he tried to defend the breed.
“Is a pitbull more dangerous than a Chihuahua?” he asked himself rhetorically. “I would say yes, but it’s all relative.”
Indeed. It’s not a world away from the Duke of Edinburgh’s criticisms of gun control after the Dunblane massacre, where he said that a chap could go mad with a cricket bat and kill people.
These reworked National Rifle Association-style claims about how dogs don’t kill, bad owners kill are an insult to the community’s collective intelligence. It’s a situation whereby an impertinent minority - in this case people who for some irrational reason have a lifelong commitment to a certain species of animal – will refuse to abide by the deep-seated mainstream conviction that these dogs should not be in the community at all.http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-do...ull-owners.htm

"Don't blame the dog" logic
Pit bull owners frequently blame the "environment" after a pit bull seriously injures a person. A participant in the Tufts study illustrates this clearly, "If you get some kid that has been beaten all his life, he's going to go out and be aggressive towards people."9 The intention is to assert that an aggressive pit bull must have been beaten or taught to attack by their owners instead of admitting to the genetic traits that define the breed (See: Why do people say that pit bulls "don't let go?)
Pit bull owners frequently direct blame onto victims after an attack too. While "blaming the victim" is a universal phenomenon, pit bull owners do so offensively. The instance involving Wendy Blevins, who DogsBite.org awarded 2008 Victims Advocate of the Year, is an excellent example

[Ford_The_Win]

I don't always agree with the things you say Sudzy, but I am definitely in agreeance with you on this one. They are genetically predisposed to aggression. End of story as far as I'm concerned. If people want to keep these dreadful things then that's fair enough, it's a free country. But when the fun-loving, gentle Cujo gets out of his yard and rips some toddler apart, the owners bloody well deserve the book thrown at them.

[mad-xa]

a question this is a big forum and theres been a lot of responses so question 1..how many people who responded have owned a pitbull type?question 2.how many of the many people responded have themselves been attacked by a pitbull type and i meen themselves not a mates mate or whatever????

[BFZF8]

Originally Posted by mad-xa

a question this is a big forum and theres been a lot of responses so question 1..how many people who responded have owned a pitbull type?question 2.how many of the many people responded have themselves been attacked by a pitbull type and i meen themselves not a mates mate or whatever????

Best post of the thread. There are literally tens of millions of pit bulls or closely related breeds in the world. It's by far the most overpopulated breed in the United States. So if they're as unstable as people seem to believe they are there should be an attack on a person every few minutes by one of these "ticking time bombs". I'm keen to see who responds.

[petermic]

Yeah right...there are millions of jack russells too..when was the last time you heard of one of them mauling someone....

[gtxb67]

i have seen a pit bull attack - and i have only seen 3 pit bulls (even though they are the most over populated breed in the history of the universe)
some of my friends have owned pit bulls and they are very placid (if not boisterous) dogs. however do i trust the dog . . . . no
most dogs seem to take a bite out of someone and then back off. a pit bull seems to be happy to take on many people at once, and keep biting the people - in general they are a time bomb, whether the owners like to admit it or not

it perplexes me that part of the rationale of not banning the breed is that other dogs attack too. what a cop out. in that case all dogs should be banned. why did it become socially acceptable that a person should be petrified to walk around their block or even work in their front garden for fear of being attacked. and by the way an attack by our local council is when a dog runs out baring it's teeth - not an actual bite. so how many of these recorded attacks put the people in danger as opposed to scaring the crap out of them. how many of these so called attacks that we have not heard through the media are on a par with the pit bull attacks we do hear about

i have been saying for years that the problem is the owners and not the dogs, but you cannot control the owners, so maybe controlling the dogs is a possible outcome. the problem of course is that the idiots will just choose the next "status" dog, because they can. however except for some breeders that have put time and money into their business, i do not see the major problem if they are bred out of existence. no one loves their dog because it is a pit bull. they love their dog because of it's character not breed


and for what it is worth. if anyone here owns a pit bull and a child puts their hand or face close to the fence and gets attacked, then it is the child's fault. blame the parents for not educating their child. i have no real problem with people owning pit bulls, but they must "never" get out and when being walked the owner must always be in control. therefore no kids should be walking them, just capable adults and young adults. they are a potential time bomb, and need a huge amount of responsibility from the owners

and if a pit bull - or any dog attacks someone, then the owner should be criminally liable for anything the dog does. be it manslaughter or grevious bodily harm


and although, slightly off topic, it makes me laugh when so many people are happy for cats to be bred out of existence and yet one dog breed - and the world is up in arms

[gtxb67]

to edit my second last paragraph from above: if a pit bull attacks someone, who is not an intruder or teased the dog at it's fence, then the owner should be criminally liable for anything do the does

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by mad-xa

a question this is a big forum and theres been a lot of responses so question 1..how many people who responded have owned a pitbull type?question 2.how many of the many people responded have themselves been attacked by a pitbull type and i meen themselves not a mates mate or whatever????

Originally Posted by BFZF8

Best post of the thread. There are literally tens of millions of pit bulls or closely related breeds in the world. It's by far the most overpopulated breed in the United States. So if they're as unstable as people seem to believe they are there should be an attack on a person every few minutes by one of these "ticking time bombs". I'm keen to see who responds.

why is at good question/post?

Why? do you think that the only people that should have a say in whether pitbulls are allowed in society are the people that own them or the people that have been attacked by them?

Let's draw a parallel, laws for automatic weapons? only those that own the weapons and those that have received a fatal gunshot should be listened to? Wonder how the vote would end up there of course the rest of us in society just have no idea.

For the record, Ive had two family dogs killed when they were attacked on lead by staffordshire terriers that tore out from their owner's properties, both times the person walking the dog was under 10 and understandingly was severely traumatised.