Portland [VIC, Aus] dog attack victim may lose arm

Portland [VIC, Aus] dog attack victim may lose arm

Portland dog attack victim may lose arm

A VICIOUS dog which almost ripped a woman's arm off in a savage attack this morning has been destroyed.

A 67-year-old woman suffered major muscle and skin damage to her right arm during the two minute attack in her Piles Court flat in Portland, in Victoria's far southwest.

A Pit Bull Staffordshire Cross which she had been minding was destroyed at the scene by police following a request from a council officer.

Police today hailed the actions of the woman's brave neighbour who fought off the dog as it nearly ripped the woman's arm off in this morning's attack.

Police said the man smashed his way through a glass panel on the front door of the woman's home after seeing the attack.

I am willing to admit that this is a bit of a stretch but the Conspiracy Theorist in me got thinking. Are TPTB trying to take away man's best friend from us? The number of incidents involving dog attacks has always been a problem in Australia, but over the last several years it seems to have increased dramatically. Almost every week in the news you hear about how "vicious dog attacks" have harmed kids or the elderly. Of course, proper explanations are never given. People just assume that any pet is capable of snapping and mauling a kid for no reason, or turning on their owner by random chance. I admit this is possible, but for this to happen so many times just seems more than coincidence to me. It is well known that Australians have already had their guns taken away (Port Arthur), maybe this is the next step? Most people are calling for these animals to be removed.

In this specific case the animal was destroyed before an investigation could be launched. The owners did not have a say or the victim. No decent explanation. No putting the events into context. No questioning the Council worker who had the authority to order this dog's death.

[edit on 23/3/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Portland [VIC, Aus] dog attack victim may lose arm

Portland dog attack victim may lose arm

A VICIOUS dog which almost ripped a woman's arm off in a savage attack this morning has been destroyed.

A 67-year-old woman suffered major muscle and skin damage to her right arm during the two minute attack in her Piles Court flat in Portland, in Victoria's far southwest.

A Pit Bull Staffordshire Cross which she had been minding was destroyed at the scene by police following a request from a council officer.

Police today hailed the actions of the woman's brave neighbour who fought off the dog as it nearly ripped the woman's arm off in this morning's attack.

Police said the man smashed his way through a glass panel on the front door of the woman's home after seeing the attack.

I am willing to admit that this is a bit of a stretch but the Conspiracy Theorist in me got thinking. Are TPTB trying to take away man's best friend from us? The number of incidents involving dog attacks has always been a problem in Australia, but over the last several years it seems to have increased dramatically. Almost every week in the news you hear about how "vicious dog attacks" have harmed kids or the elderly. Of course, proper explanations are never given.

I don't think it's a conspiracy at all. I've been on the receiving end of two of these attacks in less than six months and, yesterday, some prick could barely control his dog that was going berserk whilst I tried exiting my own gate. In the previous instances, both times I was literally walking down the street, on my own, minding my own business. I know people that have been mugged with the mugger using or threatening to use a dog, rather than a knife, gun, cosh or his fists. Am I a front for the conspiracy? Is the poor old woman a 'sacrifice' of some kind for the conspiracy?

In all too many of these cases, it's not 'man's best friend' but rather 'man's status animal', 'man's not-owning-a-restricted-weapon-workaround' or 'man's small penis insecurity blanket'.

You know, 'man's best friend' isn't just limited to the likes of Staffs, pitbulls and so on. And yet, I never see the scrotes in my neighbourhood with anything other than this kind of dog. Why is that? I'd hedge my bets and say it's because they don't really give a # about dogs or animals generally, all they care about is how macho it, supposedly, makes them look.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


Sorry to hear about your experiences. Like I said it does happen. I am just referring to how often it is shown in the media and the type of language used. There is never a report done, it is always along the lines that the Dog or the Dog's owner is guilty.

Do you believe the Council Worker had the authority to order this dog be destroyed without an investigation first?

No conspiracy here just Bloody irresponsible owners who think they know how to train a dog

I had to give up a dog i owned years ago because i thought i knew how to train her.....A friend nearly lost his face due to my stupidity.

Owners of any dog classed as dangerous should have to take the dog to training classes as a requirement of ownership.

Yeah reaaaaally grasping at straws for that one sorry mate

I've seen even the nicest lab almost take my grandmother's arm off, he was the nicest dog for a good 12 years, one day she got too close to his food and her forearm skin was hanging off and had to get ALOT of stitches :/

While i love dogs, people seem to give them too much credit - they are still an animal, Don't go near it while it's eating, walk it with a muzzle, TRAIN IT, keep it away from your (and any) small children, all the basic things that make sense! I've seen so many people go 'oh my dog would never bite someone' and then - bam, bitten. It happens.

I do think they are unfairly taking the blame on certain breeds though, like i said, i've seen a lab attack my grandmother when everyone swears how lovely they are, and my mums silky terrier bite a 2 year old. Every dog is capable if you ask me.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

Sorry to hear about your experiences. Like I said it does happen. I am just referring to how often it is shown in the media and the type of language used. There is never a report done, it is always along the lines that the Dog or the Dog's owner is guilty.

Do you believe the Council Worker had the authority to order this dog be destroyed without an investigation first?

Thanks. However, it's odd that you have concerns about "language" as by saying "it is always along the lines that the Dog or the Dog's owner is guilty" you appear to be framing this in a weird way. Looking at it from the other side, do you really think that babies, children, old people like the woman in this story and also people like myself are "guilty"?

I'm not sure how this could have played out any other way. It's genuinely sad that the dog was destroyed, but it's also genuinely sad that that a 67-year-old woman was savaged in this way too. It seems the dog was out of control as the neighbour had to fight the dog too; it's not as if the dog attacked the woman and then calmed down. Someone had to make a call at the actual scene and sadly the animal was destroyed. I'm not sure what would be the difference if anyone would have waited for the dog to calm down as it's pretty likely that the dog would have been destroyed anyway - just at a later date.

I'm actually an animal lover that's taken in and cared for a lot of 'rescued animals', often amputees. I'm one of those 'madmen' that is generally more concerned about the welfare of animals than people. However, I'm honest enough to admit that if a dog attacked my similarly aged mother, I'd have no qualms about killing the dog there and then myself.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Thanks. However, it's odd that you have concerns about "language" as by saying "it is always along the lines that the Dog or the Dog's owner is guilty" you appear to be framing this in a weird way. Looking at it from the other side, do you really think that babies, children, old people like the woman in this story and also people like myself are "guilty"?

I'm not sure how this could have played out any other way. It's genuinely sad that the dog was destroyed, but it's also genuinely sad that that a 67-year-old woman was savaged in this way too. It seems the dog was out of control as the neighbour had to fight the dog too; it's not as if the dog attacked the woman and then calmed down. Someone had to make a call at the actual scene and sadly the animal was destroyed. I'm not sure what would be the difference if anyone would have waited for the dog to calm down as it's pretty likely that the dog would have been destroyed anyway - just at a later date.

I'm actually an animal lover that's taken in and cared for a lot of 'rescued animals', often amputees. I'm one of those 'madmen' that is generally more concerned about the welfare of animals than people. However, I'm honest enough to admit that if a dog attacked my similarly aged mother, I'd have no qualms about killing the dog there and then myself.

No, I am not saying the victims are guilty or complicit. I am suggesting that people linked to government agencies are creating situations where dogs are provoked and agitated into harming people. I don't know by what means and how they are achieving this, but I see a pattern in the media that involves demonising large, protective dogs and the need to keep people safe from them. The media and government agencies are the ones that portray the Dog or Dog Owner as the aggressor and perpetrator, not the victims themselves!

In terms of not destroying the Dog straight away. I understand animals do not generally get "trials" and are not given the benefit of the doubt like humans do. It just seems like a suspiciously simplistic way to remove the "problem" (larger, protective dogs). Has killing the dogs stopped the number of attacks? It doesn't appear that way. It seems as more dogs are getting destroyed, the number of vicious attacks has increased. Rather strange? I admit other variables may be at play, but again it is apart of an ugly pattern I have recognised.

[edit on 23/3/2010 by Dark Ghost]

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
I'm not sure what would be the difference if anyone would have waited for the dog to calm down as it's pretty likely that the dog would have been destroyed anyway - just at a later date.

The difference would be that the woman would be dead instead of horribly disfigured!

IMHO, these dangerous breeds need tougher laws in order to protect society. Whenever someone is attacked and mauled by a dog, it's inevitably these breeds. In the same way we need gun licenses etc... there should be dangerous breed licenses. Owners should have to meet strict criteria. The residence in which they live should also meet stringent prerequisites/guidelines which include how the dog is secured.

Finally, the fines for not conforming to the laws should be hefty including the removal of the dog and the inability of the owner to hold a dangerous dog breed license in the future. If someone is killed by a dangerous dog due to negligence (whatever that may be in accordance to the guidelines) the owner should be charged with manslaughter.

I will not budge on this point of view.

IRM

reply to post by Merriman Weir


pitbuls are small. i have yet to see a purebred exceed 100 pounds.

perhaps poeple in your area like them because they are cheap moderately trainable working/guard dogs that are good with the kids. low maintence and easily obtainable.
if u want machismo get a mastiff or staff. if u want aggresive protection get a dobie. if u want intelligence and loyalty a sheperd. mean scary bark, rottie.
a little of everything but with a managable temperment? pitbull [terrior]

it just seems like theres more attacks from them because theres far more of them, and thats mainly due to the cost.

purebred dogs arent cheap... there should be a trial/investigation before putting it down for this reason alone.

Originally posted by LurkerMan
purebred dogs arent cheap... there should be a trial/investigation before putting it down for this reason alone.

And neither is human life!

If it attacks a human... then it's game over for the dog as far as I'm concerned. Of course, if someone were to break in the house and threaten the livelihood of the owners, and the dog protects them, then that's entirely acceptable.

IRM

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by LurkerMan
purebred dogs arent cheap... there should be a trial/investigation before putting it down for this reason alone.

And neither is human life!

If it attacks a human... then it's game over for the dog as far as I'm concerned. Of course, if someone were to break in the house and threaten the livelihood of the owners, and the dog protects them, then that's entirely acceptable.

IRM

ok so if i dont like you, i call the police and say i witnissed your $2000 labradoodle attack several passerbyes from your front yard injuring one of them. police come and take your dog. maybe you just bought him. now your out 2 grand.

im saying it shouldnt be based on heresay.

they put my dog in a kennel for 10 days for biting someone IN MY BACKYARD. the person entered uninvited when no-one was home[trespassing]. and because they went straight to the doctor, and told him it was their 'friends dog' the doctor 'had to by law report it to the police'.

i came home to 3 police officers at my house to take my dog and before i even knew what happened my dog was locked up and i got stuck with a 160 dollar kennel bill.they said it was manditory in my county in any aggresive event with a human.

all for the dog doing his job. plz explain that one to me. their arguement was the breed was considered aggresive in that county and i guess they have a list of banned breeds. my dogs fully trained and not aggressive. just territorial.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by LurkerMan]

Ownership of "vicious breeds" in Australia needs to be heavily restricted with a medium term aim of banning breeding and importation of certain breeds...And ultimately said ban will result in outright banning of ownership of these breeds in Australia

Lets face it, 90% of these dogs are merely trophies for flannel & moccasin wearing bogans anyway...

reply to post by LurkerMan


I've already stated that (non child) trespassers get what they deserve if they enter your property. I have no qualms with that. If what happened to you is true then I don't agree with it... but in saying that... we have to take you at your word... right?

IRM

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
I am willing to admit that this is a bit of a stretch but the Conspiracy Theorist in me got thinking. Are TPTB trying to take away man's best friend from us?

I do not think it is a conspiracy as I have been attacked by an American pit bull a number of years ago just for talking to the owner about having his dog off the leash right outside a primary school. The weird thing as these dogs are illegal in Scotland so obviously this dog has never been to the vet and has therefore never been inoculated.

Anyway I glanced at the dog; it looked back and then flew at my face without any warning.

My own dog (Aspen the Alaskan Malamute) who had been standing beside me actually caught the pit-bull in midair and pinned it to the ground by gripping it behind the head and straddling the body with her own. Had my dog not been there then either that pit-bull would have been hurt by me defending myself or I would have lost some flesh.

It is unfortunate that my dog inflicted a nasty head wound to the pit-bull but she was protecting me so I forgive her.

From this experience I would say this breed of dog is extremely unpredictable and dangerous – too dangerous to have off the leash.

Not a conspiracy in my opinion, just in general terms a dangerous dog with an unpredictable mind?


[edit on 23-3-2010 by SmokeJaguar67]

the reason that attacks are on the rise has more to do with it being reported more and also irrisponsible having dogs like Pit Bull Staffordshire Cross.

People will breed any 2 dogs together reguardless of temperement and end up with a frankenstien dog.
Some turn out to be loving family pets, but others are just dangerous.

people used to have cross breeds like labradors and retrievers which are more soft mouth, used to bring back the dead bird you just shot. now people are breeding the hunting dogs, those that don't let go.

reply to post by SmokeJaguar67


I can sympathize with you story mate.

I was attacked by a Rotty in my backyard 2 years ago. I have a very rough family (putting it lightly) that live over my back fence. We often heard them training their dog to be an offensive weapon... along with all the glass smashing, arguments and expletives shouted at the tops of their voices. Not nice people... but that's what you get when they put a commission house in a decent neighborhood... anyway I digress...

I woke one morning to hear loud barking near my window. It was their Rotty in my backyard. It had dug under a massive hole under the fence. When I looked through the window, it spotted me and jumped up against the window barking and frothing from the mouth. Very scary!

I had to go around to their house and tell them to get their dog and to do something about preventing it from getting through to my yard. This was obviously too much to ask of them as it kept happening over the ensuing weeks.

Then one morning I walked out into my courtyard to hang some washing and the rotty came from around the back of my house and headed straight for me. I had no idea it was there. I picked up a shovel that was against the wall (thank god) and cracked it over the head in self defense as there was no way I could have gotten indoors in time. I then rang the police and the council to come and get the dog.

They took it to the vet and impounded it. The owners then came around to my door and tried to physically threaten me to pay the bill. I told them to get off my property or suffer the same fate as their mutt. I then rang the police again and eventually put a restraining order on them.

A few weeks later, they got their dog back. Lo and behold, it jumped their front fence (3-3.5 ft tall) and attacked a women in their street. Needless to say they lost the dog and were sued. Some people just don't 'get it'!

According to them, we were the problem!

IRM

reply to post by InfaRedMan


That is a horrible thing to have to go through and I am glad you are over it.

I am talking more about the unsociable knuckle dragger family rather than the dog and I am glad that you managed to sort them out even if you had to use the only language that they would understand. Unsociable people who then think it is cool to train a dog to adopt their bad energy as a lifestyle is asking for trouble and yet they never seem to get it that is until someone has been hurt or worse – they have lost a child.

This next bit might seem a little overboard but I think that to own a dog the potential owner should be made to tick the boxes of specific testing procedures in much the same way you cannot just get behind the wheel of a car without training and testing. The same should therefore apply to dog ownership as at the end of the day a large dog is in possession of a muscle powered chainsaw in my opinion and a bad owner can cause a dog to suffer at some point in the future because of bad leadership.

It only takes one bite and that dog is gone and the owner just goes out and buys a new dog, rinse and repeat. For me that is the real tragedy as I admire all animals but I have a real love for dogs and to know some regressive people out there see them only as status symbols or as an extension of their weapons arsenal is disgusting.

Also to know that so many noble canines are passed around like the main ingredient of a pass the parcel game just has me shaking my head.

I appreciate the replies so far and am glad people at least considered the possibility. So far it seems the vast majority of posters disagree with my theory. Any posters that might agree with my theory, I encourage you to speak up and state your views. I might be overlooking arguments that better support my position.

Just to be clear: I am not denying that these things happen. I am questioning why we are being bombarded with so many stories about big/dangerous dogs shown on the news. Like others have said maybe it is just being reported more frequently. But then the conspiracy side of me says "wait a moment, dogs these days MUST be micro-chipped to be considered legal, whereas 15 years ago this was not the case."

Originally posted by bkaust
CUT...
While i love dogs, people seem to give them too much credit - they are still an animal, Don't go near it while it's eating, walk it with a muzzle, TRAIN IT, keep it away from your (and any) small children, all the basic things that make sense! I've seen so many people go 'oh my dog would never bite someone' and then - bam, bitten. It happens.
CUT...

Yeah, I ain't buyin' that shiznizzle.

My Dobes are trained from pups to submit to me, the kids, or anyone that I indicate to my dogs are "friends". In fact... I have had infants crawl over to my dogs and remove a bone from their mouth without a hint of aggression.

Strangers often come over to my 110 lbs. male Dobe and pet him. Often said "strangers" are attempting to provoke an incident with my dog hoping for a "lawsuit". "They" never win.

The "problem" is with the "owner".... not the dog.