Japanese Akita eats cats

gomer

MrsE wrote: »

I think if you have a large powerful (potentially dangerous) dog you need to KEEP IT UNDER CONTROL at all times.
Suspose those two times she "got out" she attacked a child or a child holding her new kitten.................

I think if you have a dog you should keep it within your fences or under your supervision outside them, if you were my neighbour I would be involving the police as you seem unable or unprepared to contain your own dog properly.

That is my concern too, there seems to be a pattern developing & as much as i don't want to sound critical of the OP because we don't know all the fact and were not there, for most people 1 incident would have been so horrific you would never want to have to witness anything like it again, but to then allow it to happen another 2 times is complete lunacy.

If you know that your dog can & has killed and presents a real risk of doing so again if it escapes then it's a no-brainer really - you NEVER give it an opportunity to do it again, this dog seems to have had too many opportunities for my liking & i certainly wouldn't want it living anywhere near me, and that's from the owner of a much bigger & much more powerful breed.

.

Amber_Sunshine

shoppaholic_returns wrote: »

Terrible new law,I have a 50kg teddy bear,shes fantastic with other animals,and humans and children alike,and my postie,who I will re-iterate from my last post says that of the dogs that attacked him and bit last yr, only 1 was a large dog!!

What a load of old rubbish,beurocracy gone mad,again!!Big dogs are easy targets though,arent they!

Not saying you are wrong about your dog's temperament, but 50kg is heavier than me, and that would make me nervous.

UKTigerlily

But not heavier than most adults, still a big dog tho!

Mrs_pbradley936

Size became an issue in the US because a few years ago a woman was attacked by 2 “mastiff type” dogs. She lived in a block of flats as did the owner of the dogs and they attacked her in a communal area and she could not escape – she died. The owner had the dogs on leads at the time but could not restrain them. There was a Court case and the owner thought is was OK because the woman died of shock (not dog bites) and she was also a lesbian! What that has to do with it I shall never know. Anyway from then on some places had the bye law and insurance companies put in the size thing. I suppose if they had been small dogs you could have expected the owner to be capable of restraining them.

Details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Whipple


http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/Whipple.html

gomer

Likewise if they had been properly trained as puppies, rather than paraded as trophies you could have expected the owner to be capable of restraining them.

No matter what angle you turn on the size issue it still comes down to the same outcome - it's the type of person who is buying these dogs, not the type of dogs they are buying. It isn't all black & white, it's no coincidence that the people who own dogs that are this badly behaved are the same sort of people who let thier kids play with matches & then wonder why the house burned down - the sort of people who shouldn't have dogs in the first place.

Holding the dog responsible based on it's breed, size or weight etc is just being blissfully ignorant of the real underlying issue. Irresponsible owners will be irresponsible owners regardless of what breed they own.

Loopy_Girl

I'm sorry if my answer is unpopular but that dog should be destroyed immediately. It has an irresponsible owner and clearly has the killer instinct - no wonder these powerful breeds, including this one, get such a bad name if this kind of behaviour is allowed to continue.

And for the people praising the OP for trying to sort it - it should have been sorted after the first incident...but oh no, the dog got out a further twice and killed again.

Do you know what made my stomach turn? The telling of being covered in blood and smelling of cat pee...that poor bloody cat. I wonder how the OP would feel if she went out and found her dog lying covered in blood and pee and dead - still call it 'animal instinct'?

These dogs shouldn't be pets. They are hunting dogs and aren't made for being cooped up in a garden all day. And I just cannot fathom why you would allow your children round this animal. I'm sure all the other pet owners whose dogs have turned on the kids thought you and yet you have a glaring example of his strength - 3 times.

It's a bloody accident waiting to happen in my opinion.

Mrs_pbradley936

gomer wrote: »

Likewise if they had been properly trained as puppies, rather than paraded as trophies you could have expected the owner to be capable of restraining them.

No matter what angle you turn on the size issue it still comes down to the same outcome - it's the type of person who is buying these dogs, not the type of dogs they are buying. It isn't all black & white, it's no coincidence that the people who own dogs that are this badly behaved are the same sort of people who let thier kids play with matches & then wonder why the house burned down - the sort of people who shouldn't have dogs in the first place.

Holding the dog responsible based on it's breed, size or weight etc is just being blissfully ignorant of the real underlying issue. Irresponsible owners will be irresponsible owners regardless of what breed they own.

That is where we differ. The irresponsible owner of a Yorkie does not greatly trouble me. The irresponsible owner of a large dog does. Earlier you said I had no knowledge of large dogs - I do I have owned several German Shepherds and took one of them up to TDex in Working Trials (that was more than 20 years ago). There are some breeds that you rarely need to worry about. You just feed them, take them for a walk and they are seldom a problem. Other breeds need far more attention. You and I know that to be the case but the average person does not therefore the average person ought not to be allowed to obtain certain dogs. I doubt you disagree with me but please say if you do. That being the case I think size is an easier restriction to impose than breed restriction. Plus it is unreasonable to expect an old lady who wants a Pomeranian for company to attend obedience classes with it. However it ought to be mandatory for anyone with a large dog to attend such classes to learn how to handle the dog and for it to be socialised with people and other dogs.

Little_Chicken

I've just re-read the op and am shocked that not only was this dog owner too selfish to do anything about her dog's behaviour after the first cat was killed, but that she admits that one poor victim of her dog had to 'sue her for vets fees'. Any normal person would surely just take responsibility and pay up.

Are we sure this poster isn't a troll. She's conveniently 'gone on holiday' we're here debating etc etc....

Loopy_Girl

All animal owners should be responsible be it a yappy Yorkie or a huge Newfoundland. It's not a decision to be taken lightly.

The people I bought my house from had a Newfoundland and they literally moved over the road so we see it every day and she is SO well trained. I mean, this dog is massive - I am 6' tall and she comes up to my waist easily but the time has been spent training and socialising her and I have no qualms at all with my 7 year old playing with her. In fact the other day I was taking Casper for a walk (my Cav King Charles) and he was growling a bit at her (he has a problem with other dogs when on the leash but not off it - I am taking him to training classes soon for this) and the Newfoundland thought this was a game and was jumping about trying to play! But one word from her owner and she was sitting at his feet quietly - that's the kind of responsible ownership for a huge dog.

Should my dog ever kill anything (no chance of that mind - more likely to lick you to death!!) I would immediately have it destroyed. Once that instinct is out, it will never go - and this case is a perfect example. If I lived in that neighbourhood I would be doing my damnest and getting environmental health involved to get such a dangerous dog removed.

dutch12

I am a fellow Akita owner and have small dog's and cat's living with my Akita. No problem. I am sorry to say but you as an Akita owner have to have your head checked for letting your Akita roam your garden if she has already got out once before. "Check your fencing" you think???? Japanese Akita Welfare won't rehome an Akita with you unless you have 6ft fencing for a reason. And if people have the opportunity to leave your gate open then you need a new gate or lock it when your Akita is loose in the garden. If a Cat enters your garden it is fair game... tough !!!!!! on him/ her that is the Akita's domain, it enters, well bad things will happen if the Akita is not used to cats. Akitas are made to hunt so to expect them to "just stop" is a naive thought. for you to allow your Akita to get off your property twice tells me you should really not have on at all