wordinista

I KNOW! I have a pair of pants that have a tooth-hole in them courtesy of Darwin -- he did exactly what this puppy had done: he was jumping up and around me and playing, and his mouth was open and caught the fabric.

The thing that breaks my heart about this story is that the dog is Darwin's age, and I look at my little boy and think about how I'd feel if that had happened to him.

And did you see the PICTURES on the thread? There are shots of the dog with the owner's BABY. Dangerous dogs? DON'T ROLL ON THEIR BACK AND SHOW THEIR BELLY TO A BABY.

Someone needs to call Caesar Milan. :(

From:

Some contacts to forward on to the owner...

Keeping in mind that there may be serious liability issues for anyone who takes on the dog (He's still just a puppy though! What do people expect from puppies?), depending on how Canadian law works, the only thing to do is call in the cavalry and network as many people as possible and ask if they or someone they know could take him.

Aussie Breed Rescues
http://www.aussierescuecanada.com/
http://www.staar.org/ (US & Canada)
http://www.aussierescue.org/ (may only be US; I'm not sure)

AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD DOG CLUB OF ONTARIO
10801 OLD SIMCOE ROAD
PORT PERRY, ON L9L 1B3
Phone Number (905) 982-0607

AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD CLUB OF ALBERTA
BOX 7 SITE 402 RR 4
SHERWOOD PARK, AB T8A 3K4
Phone Number (780) 464-0516

Perhaps some Aussie breeders in the northern states might be wiling to help
http://www.asca.org/Finding+an+Aussie/Breeders+Directory

Then there are also all breed rescue groups and humane societies in Canada.
http://www.petfinder.com/

And perhaps the owner should also talk to the obediance instructors. They might have contacts elsewhere in the country.

From:

Thank you so much for these -- I forwarded them to the owner, and he's going to do what he can to appeal, since it's so blatantly obvious the dog is NOT "dangerous."

Rrrrr. Some people in this world really piss me off. >:(

From:

No problem. I'm out to save whatever pieces of the world I can, and I really do enjoy hunting down rescue groups.

From:

cyperian.livejournal.com

How LAME!! I mean I understand that they have to cover their asses and be extra vigilant, but there are ways to TEST if a dog is violent! They show it all the time on Animal Planet... Cops seize a dog that has been abused and they give them a medical exam and then send them off to test if they are too aggressive and traumatized for adoption. They use dolls and a manequin hand to 'annoy' the dog and take its food away. They test obedience and for 'alpha' behavior. Honestly, ANY dog thought to be vicious or dangerous should undergo one of these screenings before slapping a label on them.

These people should demand that the dog be given an examination since the eye witness testimony is so solid AND even the girl in question says it was an accident. I don't know if the laws are even remotely the same in Canada as they are in the US, but I'm sure the ASPCA would be happy to send the mounties a pamphlet. ^_~

From:

No kidding! I hate that these people are being bullied around like this. And the people making the complaint sound like neighborhood pains. I feel so bad for these people, and if they lived closer, or if I did, I'd be all about at least taking Spot off their hands while they figured out a course of action. I mean, LOOK AT THAT FACE.

And did you see the pics of the dog with the baby? Shyeah. Okay. Dangerous my foot.

From:

haro.livejournal.com

Oh my god. That pisses me off so much. I just.... WOW.

From:

I know!!! You're talking about putting down a dog. Ending its life. Over something that two people -- whose "evidence" include a ripped shirt and a complete and utter lack of physical proof. Even the girl whose shirt the dog ripped says the dog's not dangerous.

These poor folks are getting hosed, and it's really pissin' me off.

From:

hecallaghan.livejournal.com

I find it absolutely amazing that you can have your dog labelled dangerous without it displaying dangerous behavior and doing no-one any physical harm. A dangerous dog would not be satisfied with just ripping a shirt.

And it's a *puppy*.

It sounds to me like these people who own the dog are being badly advised. The state has to prove that it is dangerous before it is labelled dangerous. And I don't see how it can.

From:

I have no idea how Canadian law works, but this just smacks of "not-right." I mean, aside from the fact that I don't quite understand how the city can be "liable" if the dog is deemed "not dangerous" and then bites someone again. But considering that he didn't actually bite anyone -- he tore a shirt -- it's pretty ridiculous.

From:

The city is 'liable' because a previous incident was reported. Even if they could claim to have investigated and deemed the dog 'not dangerous', any lawyer could pounce on that and say that the city didn't investigate properly, or failed to take proper action, or what have you. What it comes down to is that a previous incident was reported, and afterwards the dog goes unrestricted and is able to attack/bite/whatever again.

People get away with suing for almost everything. Even if someone got bit and sued but didn't win, it would still cost the city a lot of money to go to court and defend.

From:

I'm in Ontario >.>

It really does suck, but I can understand the city's point of view. They are at an extreme risk if that dog ever just bit another person, because a previous incident was reported. It sucks, but that's what the world's like nowadays -- everyone will sue over every little thing if they think they can get money out of it, from the woman who spilled McDonald's coffee on herself while driving to the little prick that sued my old workplace because he was a shitty worker and the manager gave him a bad reference (which is why I can't give that place as a reference. It's really fun when I'm asked about references, seriously)

So it's safest to slap a dangerous dog lable on the puppy. And we've had several fatal dog attacks in the past few years that got a lot of press coverage, which doesn't help.

I'd pin the blame for this one on the stupid parents that phoned animal control. Over a hole in the shirt? Especially if the daughter explained that the dog wasn't trying to bite, like it sounds like she did? They sound like bleeding moronic assholes. They had to know what reporting that as a 'dog attack' would mean. >(

From:

Now, see -- I'm all about keeping a tight rein on the "dangerous dog" situation. There was a dog banned from the dog park I frequent for being overly aggressive. There's another dog that's probably going to be banned shortly. And the owners are just plain stupid. They either raise their dogs to be vicious, or they don't "raise" them at all.

This situation, however, is unfortunate and really saddens me, because it's talking about a puppy who did NOT bite anyone. I mean, if the shirt wants to sue, I think that's probably the only party in the situation whose got legal cause.

They had to know what reporting that as a 'dog attack' would mean. >(

If they knew, I doubt they cared. Evidently the mother has been screaming about having the dog put down. *headshake* I ask you -- if the dog was dangerous, there's no way it'd be lying on its back in that picture with the baby.

*sigh* I really hope it works out for them. The little guy is Darwin's age, so I'm kind of reacting viscerally to this whole thing.

From:

I'm not saying that anyone in this situation has justice on their side or whatever. I'm saying that, if, down the road, the dog ended up biting someone, that someone would be able to extort a helluva lot of money from the city simply because a previous incident was reported. It doesn't mean that they deserve that money, or that the city failed in its judgement of the situation and deserves to get slammed with a hefty law suit -- it's just there's a very, very good chance that a lawsuit would occur. One of those 'a few bad apples' things.

So, from the city's point of view, they could either lable the dog 'dangerous', which to them simply means muzzle and leashing it, or they could dismiss it but risk thousands of dollars should another incident ever occur. It sucks, yes, but what can you do?

From:

So, from the city's point of view, they could either lable the dog 'dangerous', which to them simply means muzzle and leashing it,

Ohhhnonononono -- no, they're talking about having the dog put down.

For a hole in the shirt.

Incidentally, someone on the forum just pulled up the laws as regards the situation, and it looks like if the "authoritahs" follow the laws as they're on the books, the pup stands a good chance of being "let off."

However, given a human being's propensity for idiocy, generally speaking, I'm not gonna hold my breath.

From:

According to the original post, the city doesn't want to put the dog down.

Spot has now been deemed a dangerous dog in the province of Ontario and is required to be leashed at all times and wear a muzzle. He can longer be a therapy dog, go to obedience, do any kind of trials or anything like that.

The problem is that they rent a house and can't keep the dog. What they're saying is that if they can't find him a home, they have to give him up to a shelter, and shelters supposedly don't keep dogs labelled dangerous.

No animal shelter will adopt out a dangerous dog, they would immedietly put him down.

And even if they followed all the laws to let the dog off, if it ever bit anyone later, do you really think that person would just go "Oh, okay, they followed all the guidelines, so I guess it's okay"? No, they wouldn't. They'd try to take the city for all the money they could. We're talking about a culture here full of people that successfully sue homeowners because they fell through the skylight while trying to rob the place, or plant severed fingers in fast food to try to extort money.

From the city's point of view, it's just not worth the risk. An entire municipality isn't going to risk thousands of dollars for one puppy.

It really, really does suck. It's sad. I would be so upset if that happened with Dante. But there's not that much than can be done.

From:

It's the mother of the girl who's pushing to have the dog put down. And, you know, I totally agree with you on this whole thing, because dangerous and aggressive dogs ARE a problem. And so are stupid people with stupid lawsuits. But there's one very important thing here:

The dog didn't do anything. There was no attack.

It didn't hurt anyone, it wasn't behaving aggressively, nothing. It jumped up and tore a girl's shirt. Okay, fine. Jumping up is bad, yes. Trying to break Darwin of it, because at 40'ish lbs, that's not particularly fun. But it doesn't make for an aggressive or dangerous dog. These people are, essentially, making a false claim, and no one's questioning them. THAT is where I get pissed off. I mean, we could go round and round for days: "IF the dog bites someone else..." But it didn't bite anyone THIS TIME, so it almost feels like a moot point to say, "But what if it happens again?"

Essentially, these neighbors are doing nothing but fucking over their neighbor. The guy's already said he'll move if necessary, depending on whether the by-law is province wide or just city-wide.

I'm not upset with the laws, I'm upset with the people -- primarily the neighbors, but the animal-control folks aren't winning any points either.

I'll paste the dog legislation pointed out by another forum member here:
http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/dolaON.html --

Considerations
(6) Except as provided by subsections ( 8 ) and ( 9 ), in exercising its powers to make an order under subsection (3), the court may take into consideration the following circumstances:
1. The dog’s past and present temperament and behaviour.
2. The seriousness of the injuries caused by the biting or attack.
3. Unusual contributing circumstances tending to justify the dog’s action.
4. The improbability that a similar attack will be repeated.
5. The dog’s physical potential for inflicting harm.
6. Precautions taken by the owner to preclude similar attacks in the future.
7. Any other circumstances that the court considers to be relevant. 2000, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 6; 2005, c. 2, s. 1 (12).

That's what I mean when I say the human element is bothering me -- the laws are right there in black and white, and yet this guy is being told that none of it matters. There was no "attack" and there was no bite. How, then, is the dog dangerous?

From:

Oh no, I agree with you 100% there. I was just trying to say that people shouldn't be slamming the city for this, that's all. I completely agree that the problem is the people who reported it in the first place. It was a pretty shitty thing to do, considering the girl wasn't hurt or in any real risk. Well, shitty, or a little bit batshit overreacting. Or both. Iunno.

They sound like pricks to me, but now that all's said and done, I doubt there's really much that can be done about it. Hopefully the family can find someone to take the puppy, but it might be tough :(

From:

I ask you -- if the dog was dangerous, there's no way it'd be lying on its back in that picture with the baby.

You should know I'm all for supporting the puppy and think it displayed perfectly normal puppy behavior, but the above statement is not technically true. Some dogs are much more trustworthy with children than they are with adults. And a dog's level of safety within its own family does not necessarily extend to those outside its family.

As an example, our youngest dog Roxey (GSD/Chow) is excellent with babies we present to her and which she sees on a regular basis. She's a perfect Nana dog that watches over their sleep, alerts someone nearby when the baby awakes, will share her bones with them, uses her body to keep the little kiddles away from the road and any drop offs (including the edges of beds which is actually quite funny), and would protect them with her life.

All that said, however, she's much less tolerant with strange children, whether she meets them on the street or whether they come to the house with their parents. And strange adults have every reason to be wary of her. She is very territorial and suspicious. Actually she is one of the most aggressive dogs I have ever encountered, but my family suffers no delusions about her temperament and capabilities. We maintain her accordingly, which makes all the difference in the world. I feel fairly confident that she has never bitten anyone and never been deemed dangerous or vicious solely because we do everything possible to avoid putting her in a position where she would have the opportunity to respond aggressively. If she had stayed in her previous home and continued living on a chain, she would have seriously injured someone by now.

Roxey is strictly a housedog and if she goes outside for longer than it takes to potty someone goes out to supervise. If she barks someone goes out to see why and to bring her back in. When visitors come to the house she is put in another room. Depending on the visitor, she may stay there for the duration or she may be let out and properly introduced under close supervision. She is never left in a room alone with visitors. No one outside the family is allowed to take her out in public. Family members under the age of 18 are not allowed to walk her. Family members she does not respect are not allowed to walk her. When she does go out she is on lead (and that lead is in someone's hand) at all times. She can be taken into crowds, but strangers are not allowed to pet her. She is never allowed to interact with strange dogs.

All of our dogs have been trained in personal protection to some degree, and in Roxey's case it has made her a more stable dog because it provides a structured outlet for her aggressive impulses and gives us a measure of control that we would not have if she did not know commands for biting and for letting go. And she gets refresher courses in "drop it" (ie. spit it out NOW!) and "leave it" (ignore it) quite regularly. She's not the easiest dog to live with, but she is an excellent family dog. For us. 7 years, no bites. And we watch her like a hawk to make sure she stays that way.

From:

You should know I'm all for supporting the puppy and think it displayed perfectly normal puppy behavior, but the above statement is not technically true. Some dogs are much more trustworthy with children than they are with adults. And a dog's level of safety within its own family does not necessarily extend to those outside its family.

But don't you think, because it's a puppy, and still too young to make the more subtle differentiations, that if it were aggressive, it wouldn't be a circumstantial type of aggressive?

The funny thing about this is that Aussies aren't often said to be the most ideal pets for families with small children, because it does have such a strong herding instinct, and is very reserved, as per the breed standard. Darwin still gets strong lessons in "NO BITE," and he's six months old as well. I had him around my two young cousins, (ages five and eight), and had to watch him carefully -- not because he's aggressive, but because he's a great deal stronger than he looks and if he gets it into his head to jump up, he'd knock those little girls clean over. They have to be very well socialized around kids.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the puppy was aggressive, I think he'd be a lot more unpredictable and untrustworthy.

From: