Yet another Dog Attack story - and little help from ACT Call Centre

Onceler said :

trevar said :

I don’t mean to diminish your very reasonable complaint about Canberra Connect’s services, but I am curious as to why a human being would allow a Staffordshire Terrier to circle him. I have no great love of the breed; they’re cowardly little beggars, but as such there is no reason why any human should ever permit an aggressive dog to complete a circle before taking action. That simply shows that the person doesn’t know how to handle a dog properly. It’s not just dog owners who need to take action (though the owners you describe are certainly remiss in their duty and I agree they should have taken action immediately); anyone who wants to walk the streets should know how to handle a dog. Otherwise they should just stay locked up in their safe little bubble-world. Though I might not like negligent dog owners, I have no tolerance whatsoever for dog haters.

Trevar, you should definitely do something to allow the broader community benefit from your dog-controlling skills. My family never had a dog when I was growing up, and I’ve never been interested in keeping one myself. Come to think of it, some Canberra residents may have come from cultures where dog ownership is not at all common. So a lot of people, including me, could benefit from some kind of education in methods of controlling vicious dogs. For example, what is the significance of circling behaviour? Once a menacing dog has completed a circle around its intended victim, is it all over bar the mauling? I feel I would be a pretty easy encircling target, especially in an open area like a park or sports oval.

Perhaps you’d like to teach a night course at one of the continuing education centres. Or maybe visit schools to raise awareness among children. But I wonder what age groups should be included… Considering that pre-school age children seem to be over-represented in dog attacks, perhaps the younger the better. Bring along a few half-starved Staffies for some hands-on experience. It’s pretty much like road safety education, or water safety I suppose: something to be drilled into kids from an early age.

If you do decide to share your knowledge and experience in some way, be sure to let us know here on the RiotAct. Cheers.

+1 – how does one handle a “circling” dog? Perhaps one is supposed to run like hell – although I had always thought that gave the dog the wrong impression too? Perhaps we are supposed to drop to the ground and play possum? I would need a lot of training to be able to walk towards a snarling and snapping dog such as a bullie, doberman or rottie.

We own a dog and we know how to handle it when we go out walking. But I never had a clue how to handle savage dogs on the two occasions I and my dog were attacked without warning.

Watson said :

Maybe the caller did not manage to get across the urgency or maybe the officer taking the call misunderstood.

It should be noted that when you call 000 and ask for police, you don’t speak to a police officer. You speak to a trained civilian operator who then (if necessary) dispatches a police patrol to attend.

The Frots said :

Yes……………let’s get this straight. So, you wait until your are bitten or attacked and then you ring? Sort of a ‘first blood’ thing is it?

You sound like my neighbour, who complained about my dog ‘and what would happen if the fence wasnt there, would he bite me?’ He too thought it was best to put in a complaint before the dog magically transported itself over the 10′ colorbond.. looks like your complaint got about as far as his did.

Do you call 000 when someone comes to your front door.. you know, just incase they might attack you?

The Frots said :

Now, if instead of saying on this post they were nearly attacked – what if I said “they waited until they were attacked”.

Generally, thats how the law works. The law generally doesnt allow you to call the police and make an allegation unless something has actually happened, other than you yelling and the dog growling. Do you also call the police if you ‘nearly’ have an accident?

CBomb said :

Tooks said :

I think you misunderstood my ‘fact’.. I was saying that if your friend didn’t effectively communicate that they were in an actual life threatening situation, then it won’t be treated as such. If they had of, police or any emergency service contacted will assist. Simple.

And you got your information from where?
Eiether (sic) 1: A possibly unreliable source.
Or 2, You were there yourself, and you just breached the privacy policy.
How about you go read your operations manual again, and the privacy policy while you’re at it.

Cheers.

It’s a bit rich to insert a (sic) into someone’s typo when you incorrectly used the word ‘of’ a couple of lines earlier.

The Frots said :

I am absolutely confused with you insinuating that you know a fact when, in fact, you have nothing to do with the event. And if you think you did have something to do with the event, then your wrong in your facts anyway

Um… same goes.. aren’t you just a commentator of the event rather than an actual eye witness?

Why do you persist in trying to make this out to be an inaccurate depiction of what happened here?

I’m not exactly.. just pointing out that there are 2 sides to every story.. even at the risk of defending the evil canberra connect switch, they may have a good reason for dealing with it the way they did too.. (mm i doubt it.. other than the fact that they are not equipped for emergency calls i would guess.) Anyway, stop pretending you were there, and call them for comment… you’re a respected journalist, i’m sure they’d be more than happy to chat to you.

By the way i do hope your friend/s are ok. Dog attacks are bad news, no matter what the situation..

CBomb said :

Constant police bashing and blaming really annoys me.

If you call this police bashing, you are obviously fairly new to RA. I didn’t even read it as criticism on the police. It was merely mentioned that they told the caller to call Canberra Connect. Maybe the caller did not manage to get across the urgency or maybe the officer taking the call misunderstood. It’s all a bit trivial.

There’s plenty of “constant police bashin”g going on in other posts, but I believe you picked the wrong one.

CBomb said :

The Frots said :

So, where do you get your information which, albeit inncorrect….

Is it?? again i’m not trying to start a fight.. (i realise it seems like it though, and i do apologise for that..)
Better education on the triple 000 functionality may be needed too perhaps..
Anyhow… i guess it all comes down to how the situation was described. “I’m in fear for my life or someone near to me”, is different to “…there is an aggressive dog on the loose…”

I am absolutely confused with you insinuating that you know a fact when, in fact, you have nothing to do with the event. And if you think you did have something to do with the event, then your wrong in your facts anyway.

Why do you persist in trying to make this out to be an inaccurate depiction of what happened here?

trevar said :

I don’t mean to diminish your very reasonable complaint about Canberra Connect’s services, but I am curious as to why a human being would allow a Staffordshire Terrier to circle him. I have no great love of the breed; they’re cowardly little beggars, but as such there is no reason why any human should ever permit an aggressive dog to complete a circle before taking action. That simply shows that the person doesn’t know how to handle a dog properly. It’s not just dog owners who need to take action (though the owners you describe are certainly remiss in their duty and I agree they should have taken action immediately); anyone who wants to walk the streets should know how to handle a dog. Otherwise they should just stay locked up in their safe little bubble-world. Though I might not like negligent dog owners, I have no tolerance whatsoever for dog haters.

Trevar, you should definitely do something to allow the broader community benefit from your dog-controlling skills. My family never had a dog when I was growing up, and I’ve never been interested in keeping one myself. Come to think of it, some Canberra residents may have come from cultures where dog ownership is not at all common. So a lot of people, including me, could benefit from some kind of education in methods of controlling vicious dogs. For example, what is the significance of circling behaviour? Once a menacing dog has completed a circle around its intended victim, is it all over bar the mauling? I feel I would be a pretty easy encircling target, especially in an open area like a park or sports oval.

Perhaps you’d like to teach a night course at one of the continuing education centres. Or maybe visit schools to raise awareness among children. But I wonder what age groups should be included… Considering that pre-school age children seem to be over-represented in dog attacks, perhaps the younger the better. Bring along a few half-starved Staffies for some hands-on experience. It’s pretty much like road safety education, or water safety I suppose: something to be drilled into kids from an early age.

If you do decide to share your knowledge and experience in some way, be sure to let us know here on the RiotAct. Cheers.

The Frots said :

So, where do you get your information which, albeit inncorrect….

Is it?? again i’m not trying to start a fight.. (i realise it seems like it though, and i do apologise for that..)
Better education on the triple 000 functionality may be needed too perhaps..
Anyhow… i guess it all comes down to how the situation was described. “I’m in fear for my life or someone near to me”, is different to “…there is an aggressive dog on the loose…”

Tooks said :

I’ve got no reason not to believe the OP. I can think of two incidents in recent years though, where police have turned up to dog complaints and shot the dogs (one northside, one south). In the south side incident a dog was attacking another dog – the dog (a pitbull IIRC) was shot and killed.

The response of the operator would probably depend on how the caller came across. If he wasn’t in serious and immediate danger – or didn’t get that across in the phone call, then that might be a reason for the response (or lack thereof)

Sorry but this is exactly the point I was trying to get across. Constant police bashing and blaming really annoys me. Whilst I’m sure you believe your friend, you weren’t there either, and while I also think that your friends recollection is 100% correct, it is hard accurately recall an event that’s occurred whilst under duress.
I think you misunderstood my ‘fact’.. I was saying that if your friend didn’t effectively communicate that they were in an actual life threatening situation, then it won’t be treated as such. If they had of, police or any emergency service contacted will assist. Simple.

And you got your information from where?
Eiether (sic) 1: A possibly unreliable source.
Or 2, You were there yourself, and you just breached the privacy policy.
How about you go read your operations manual again, and the privacy policy while you’re at it.

1: how do you know my source is unreliable?
2: You appear to be more ignorant than first presumed.. have you got a copy of said operations manual/privacy policy? Thought not..

Again maybe my post was a little ambiguous, but that doesn’t mean you can now start attacking me…
Just suggesting that things aren’t always as simple as they appear, and it’s always easier to blame someone else.

Cheers.

Tooks said :

I’ve got no reason not to believe the OP. I can think of two incidents in recent years though, where police have turned up to dog complaints and shot the dogs (one northside, one south). In the south side incident a dog was attacking another dog – the dog (a pitbull IIRC) was shot and killed.

The response of the operator would probably depend on how the caller came across. If he wasn’t in serious and immediate danger – or didn’t get that across in the phone call, then that might be a reason for the response (or lack thereof). Would be interested to hear of any follow up, Frots.

I remember a stray Rottweiler following me on my bike on the way home from school once. I got off the bike and started walking it while avoiding eye contact. He started biting the rear tyre as I walked. Pretty scary stuff when you’re a young kid and the dog is bigger than you. But the only dog that’s ever attacked me is one of those yappy dogs. Little bastard!

Thanks Tooks – I’ll let you know when I hear more. I understand that Domestic Animal Services have now been in contact for them to make a formal statement about it so hopefully things will progress to the point where they can safely walk down the street without being attacked.

Not much to ask really. Thanks again Tooks – and indeed thanks to all the other posts, even those that I haven’t agreed with. It’s what makes Riot what it is.

I’ve got no reason not to believe the OP. I can think of two incidents in recent years though, where police have turned up to dog complaints and shot the dogs (one northside, one south). In the south side incident a dog was attacking another dog – the dog (a pitbull IIRC) was shot and killed.

The response of the operator would probably depend on how the caller came across. If he wasn’t in serious and immediate danger – or didn’t get that across in the phone call, then that might be a reason for the response (or lack thereof). Would be interested to hear of any follow up, Frots.

I remember a stray Rottweiler following me on my bike on the way home from school once. I got off the bike and started walking it while avoiding eye contact. He started biting the rear tyre as I walked. Pretty scary stuff when you’re a young kid and the dog is bigger than you. But the only dog that’s ever attacked me is one of those yappy dogs. Little bastard!

CBomb said :

The Frots said :

CBomb said :

Called 000 did they? this morning you say? you sure? did they speak to the police?

Sometimes call takers need information to deal with a situation effectively and in a timely manner. sometimes panicked people need to be told to calm down and stop swearing/yelling etc so information can be gathered.
Situations like this can be hard to deal with.. at the risk of suggesting decent journalism maybe you should get all the facts before slamming one operator and a whole system in such a general way.

In saying this, i do agree that dog owners need to take more responsibility. Too many dog attacks lately and it is not good.

But as already stated “Anyone under attack needs urgent assistance”… and should call 000 if it is a genuinly life threatening situation, and advise the operator of this..

Called 000 did they?…………..Yes.
This morning you say?………..Yes.
You sure?……………………………Yes.
Did they speak to the Police..Yes.

Next?

Here’s the thing then… sombody’s telling a fib..Either your friend didn’t say to police “help, i am getting attacked by a dog”, or they never actually spoke to ACT Police.

Fact- Nobody rang 000 reporting a dog attack or a life threatening situation involving a dog on the morning you stated..

If they just said “I want to report an aggressive dog..” then what do you expect police to do? its a matter for the rangers..

So.. back to you..Next?

Now, this particular post has my attention. You see (p[ardon the pun), the call was made to 000 – and the call was then put through to the police – and then, wait for it, the police stated to contact the 13 number because, are you ready, they don’t attend dog attacks.

So, it did happen – and if I had any doubt that it did, I would say so. It’s no skin off my nose – but they are a reliable, honest couple and frankly they have no reason to lie.

So, where do you get your information which, albeit inncorrect, you state with some authority of knowledge? If you are scanning the operational logs, look for a call between 1010 and 1015hrs on that morning. If you don’t have access to the logs, and are simply trying a wind up, then please find another thread that deals with the particular subject of crap that you may find interesting.

Otherwise, don’t waste our time.

CBomb said :

Here’s the thing then… sombody’s telling a fib..Either your friend didn’t say to police “help, i am getting attacked by a dog”, or they never actually spoke to ACT Police.

Fact- Nobody rang 000 reporting a dog attack or a life threatening situation involving a dog on the morning you stated..

If they just said “I want to report an aggressive dog..” then what do you expect police to do? its a matter for the rangers..

So.. back to you..Next?

And you got your information from where?
Eiether 1: A possibly unreliable source.
Or 2, You were there yourself, and you just breached the privacy policy.
How about you go read your operations manual again, and the privacy policy while you’re at it.

The Frots said :

CBomb said :

Called 000 did they? this morning you say? you sure? did they speak to the police?

Sometimes call takers need information to deal with a situation effectively and in a timely manner. sometimes panicked people need to be told to calm down and stop swearing/yelling etc so information can be gathered.
Situations like this can be hard to deal with.. at the risk of suggesting decent journalism maybe you should get all the facts before slamming one operator and a whole system in such a general way.

In saying this, i do agree that dog owners need to take more responsibility. Too many dog attacks lately and it is not good.

But as already stated “Anyone under attack needs urgent assistance”… and should call 000 if it is a genuinly life threatening situation, and advise the operator of this..

Called 000 did they?…………..Yes.
This morning you say?………..Yes.
You sure?……………………………Yes.
Did they speak to the Police..Yes.

Next?

Here’s the thing then… sombody’s telling a fib..Either your friend didn’t say to police “help, i am getting attacked by a dog”, or they never actually spoke to ACT Police.

Fact- Nobody rang 000 reporting a dog attack or a life threatening situation involving a dog on the morning you stated..

If they just said “I want to report an aggressive dog..” then what do you expect police to do? its a matter for the rangers..

So.. back to you..Next?

Watson said :

trevar said :

The Frots said :

In relation to these people, they are not aggressive nor are they ‘trained’ in handling aggressive dogs. Unless you are able to get your back to a wall or something similar, circling will always happen.

I don’t recall accusing any people of being aggressive. And it doesn’t take training to know that when confronted by an aggressive dog, you step towards it and continue to do so until the dog retreats. If you’re doing this, it’s impossible to be circled by the dog. And what sort of an idiot would move towards a wall when ‘attacked’ by a dog? I think you’re displaying the kind of ignorance that allows dog attacks to happen. Some of these ‘victims’ need to be better prepared for he world before they leave the safety of their homes. Sure, the worst of these incidents can only be avoided by better dog control, but most of these incidents are caused by the victims’ ignorance. I don’t see why taxpayers should pay for their ignorance.

For this reason I don’t agree with calls for police to attend in the incident of a dog attack. Short of positioning the constabulary across the city within 500 metres of each other all day every day, how on earth could a police officer get to the scene prior to the attack being finished? Before a police officer could be assigned to the duty and get to a car, the victim will have already repelled the dog or will have been mauled. In the former case TAMS would be the more appropriate contact, and in the latter an ambulance. The police can’t help and shouldn’t be expected to.

So the problem requires two prongs; first, more stringent enforcement of dog ownership laws; and second, better information on how to behave if you’re approached by an aggressive dog. Judging by this thread, it seems Rioters are happy to have more legislation, but we’re opposed to learning how to better protect ourselves in the event of an attack. Strange, then, that we don’t have the same attitude towards muggings.

Wow.

While I do agree that there should be more education to teach people on how to deal with dogs – because 50% of households in the ACT own a dog – I do not agree with this victim blaming.

I am fairly confident I can ward off an attack from a dog… now and when I’m on my own. But what if you’re holding a dog on a lead, a toddler by the hand and/or a baby in sling? What if the dog behaves that way towards a young child? Or towards a fragile 85yo?

This “you should all man up and take responsibility for protecting yourself” smacks of right-wing drivel.

What I would like to see is an education program in all ACT schools to teach kids on how to approach a strange dog and how to interpret it’s body language. Including how to deal with an aggressive dog could be part of that, but not in a “and if you get attacked it’ll be your own stupid bloody fault” way! And while they’re at it, they can teach them about responsbile dog ownership because at least half of the pupils will end up being responsible for a dog as adults.

And people should get a licence to own a dog.

Excellent post – and I certainly agree. There is an education issue, but in this case the two people are nearing retirement, they are well educated in other degrees and it may not have helped to have further ‘agressive dog training’. But as a general approach, absolutely beneficial to the community at large.

I am not a fan of the particular breed of dog. But i appreciate as well the owners cowardice in this was extreme and they really should be held to account – as well as the responsibility of securing their backyard so the dogs don’t escape.

trevar said :

The Frots said :

In relation to these people, they are not aggressive nor are they ‘trained’ in handling aggressive dogs. Unless you are able to get your back to a wall or something similar, circling will always happen.

I don’t recall accusing any people of being aggressive. And it doesn’t take training to know that when confronted by an aggressive dog, you step towards it and continue to do so until the dog retreats. If you’re doing this, it’s impossible to be circled by the dog. And what sort of an idiot would move towards a wall when ‘attacked’ by a dog? I think you’re displaying the kind of ignorance that allows dog attacks to happen. Some of these ‘victims’ need to be better prepared for he world before they leave the safety of their homes. Sure, the worst of these incidents can only be avoided by better dog control, but most of these incidents are caused by the victims’ ignorance. I don’t see why taxpayers should pay for their ignorance.

For this reason I don’t agree with calls for police to attend in the incident of a dog attack. Short of positioning the constabulary across the city within 500 metres of each other all day every day, how on earth could a police officer get to the scene prior to the attack being finished? Before a police officer could be assigned to the duty and get to a car, the victim will have already repelled the dog or will have been mauled. In the former case TAMS would be the more appropriate contact, and in the latter an ambulance. The police can’t help and shouldn’t be expected to.

So the problem requires two prongs; first, more stringent enforcement of dog ownership laws; and second, better information on how to behave if you’re approached by an aggressive dog. Judging by this thread, it seems Rioters are happy to have more legislation, but we’re opposed to learning how to better protect ourselves in the event of an attack. Strange, then, that we don’t have the same attitude towards muggings.

Wow.

While I do agree that there should be more education to teach people on how to deal with dogs – because 50% of households in the ACT own a dog – I do not agree with this victim blaming.

I am fairly confident I can ward off an attack from a dog… now and when I’m on my own. But what if you’re holding a dog on a lead, a toddler by the hand and/or a baby in sling? What if the dog behaves that way towards a young child? Or towards a fragile 85yo?

This “you should all man up and take responsibility for protecting yourself” smacks of right-wing drivel.

What I would like to see is an education program in all ACT schools to teach kids on how to approach a strange dog and how to interpret it’s body language. Including how to deal with an aggressive dog could be part of that, but not in a “and if you get attacked it’ll be your own stupid bloody fault” way! And while they’re at it, they can teach them about responsbile dog ownership because at least half of the pupils will end up being responsible for a dog as adults.

And people should get a licence to own a dog.

The Frots said :

In relation to these people, they are not aggressive nor are they ‘trained’ in handling aggressive dogs. Unless you are able to get your back to a wall or something similar, circling will always happen.

I don’t recall accusing any people of being aggressive. And it doesn’t take training to know that when confronted by an aggressive dog, you step towards it and continue to do so until the dog retreats. If you’re doing this, it’s impossible to be circled by the dog. And what sort of an idiot would move towards a wall when ‘attacked’ by a dog? I think you’re displaying the kind of ignorance that allows dog attacks to happen. Some of these ‘victims’ need to be better prepared for he world before they leave the safety of their homes. Sure, the worst of these incidents can only be avoided by better dog control, but most of these incidents are caused by the victims’ ignorance. I don’t see why taxpayers should pay for their ignorance.

For this reason I don’t agree with calls for police to attend in the incident of a dog attack. Short of positioning the constabulary across the city within 500 metres of each other all day every day, how on earth could a police officer get to the scene prior to the attack being finished? Before a police officer could be assigned to the duty and get to a car, the victim will have already repelled the dog or will have been mauled. In the former case TAMS would be the more appropriate contact, and in the latter an ambulance. The police can’t help and shouldn’t be expected to.

So the problem requires two prongs; first, more stringent enforcement of dog ownership laws; and second, better information on how to behave if you’re approached by an aggressive dog. Judging by this thread, it seems Rioters are happy to have more legislation, but we’re opposed to learning how to better protect ourselves in the event of an attack. Strange, then, that we don’t have the same attitude towards muggings.

While I agree that dog attacks/almost-dog attacks are very serious I doubt anything much will ever be done about it. People who let their dogs do this very rarely learn a lesson or care about the effect of their irresponsible behavior.

Domestic Animal Services do what they can but they don’t really have enough money to have round the clock staffing to deal with this kind of thing. It’s a bit disappointing that the police wouldn’t help your friend though. But I suppose their resources are limited too and as someone else said, theres not much they can do except shoot the dog or call DAS.

And punishing the owners never really works because more often than not the people who own these aggressive dogs don’t give a flying crap what it does. At worst (after repeated violent incidents) they’ll be issued a fine which they wont be forced to pay and the dog will be put to sleep. The people who let their dogs attack people/animals usually don’t care if it gets put to sleep. As Watson said, they’ll just buy another dog and let it happen again.

As unfair as it is the best solution is to know what to do in those situations. Walking with a sturdy stick, or knowing how to effectively aim a kick so they back off/are wounded.

A huskie attacked me while I was walking with my then baby and our dog and it was one of the most horrifying and scary incidents in my life, so I do understand your friends fear at that point. Had my husband not instructed me earlier on how to control an attacking dog it would have been a freaking blood bath.

The Frots said :

Stevian said :

The Frots said :

Now, if instead of saying on this post they were nearly attacked – what if I said “they waited until they were attacked”.

Seriously, is that what you bring to table……………?

Sounds like we need an official ruling from someone who has read the top of the box.

Does one call 000 before or after one has been fatally wounded

+1. LOL – by the sound of it, after!

Yep, After, thank you!

They wont know that your life is really in danger or that you may be over reacting, at least when you are mortally wounded, that’s conclusive, so now action can be taken to calm and contain the dog, and, if there is time, attend to your slow death.

If not, don’t worry, your death will give a stronger case, and the dog owners might even get a fine! Now that’s pretty darn harsh, so they should learn there lesson, and they may even miss out on a couple of coffee’s.

So you can rest in peace, knowing your death has helped prevent those bastards getting coffee this week!

Stevian said :

The Frots said :

Now, if instead of saying on this post they were nearly attacked – what if I said “they waited until they were attacked”.

Seriously, is that what you bring to table……………?

Sounds like we need an official ruling from someone who has read the top of the box.

Does one call 000 before or after one has been fatally wounded

+1. LOL – by the sound of it, after!

Of course the police ought to assist, it is ridiculous to suggest people wait until attacked. even if it is not their jurisdiction, surely they would help by contacting those who can help ?What if there were children involved ?
Sheesh, when did we become the sort of community that tells a victim to harden the #%*k up?
The disparaging comments should be saved for the cowardly owners

The Frots said :

Now, if instead of saying on this post they were nearly attacked – what if I said “they waited until they were attacked”.

Seriously, is that what you bring to table……………?

Sounds like we need an official ruling from someone who has read the top of the box.

Does one call 000 before or after one has been fatally wounded

Victorine said :

Let’s get this straight. The rogue dog had a go at someone’s dog. The rogue backed off (i.e. was ‘pushed away’) with no mention of damage to any of the humans. The most threatening thing that dog then did was to ‘circle’ one of the humans. Doesn’t really sound like a 000 situation to me. While it does sound like a stressful situation, it also seems one best dealt with by standing tall and using an authoritative voice to dominate the rogue dog. Getting on a phone and yelling for someone else to come and save you is likely to distract your attention from the situation and possibly give the aggressive dog an opportunity to have another go at your dog.

Yes……………let’s get this straight. So, you wait until your are bitten or attacked and then you ring? Sort of a ‘first blood’ thing is it?

Don’t you think that sounds fairly stupid? “Hi officer, I was going to ring but it was only threatening and well, sorry, but they hadn’t attacked yet?” If I received or attended a call that said “nothing has happened yet – but they are circling”, I’d be there (while thinking what absolute morons the people were!).

Now, if instead of saying on this post they were nearly attacked – what if I said “they waited until they were attacked”.

Seriously, is that what you bring to table……………?

Police would have given you the Canberra Connect number as they are able to call the on-call ranger to come and snavel the offending dog. DAS are the primary response capability in relation to domestic animals, it is their job and they are trained and have the equipment to deal with it.

What did your friend want with Police. Them to turn up whip out a bang stick (because they have no way to catch a dog) and bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. Job complete lets get a coffee.

Let’s get this straight. The rogue dog had a go at someone’s dog. The rogue backed off (i.e. was ‘pushed away’) with no mention of damage to any of the humans. The most threatening thing that dog then did was to ‘circle’ one of the humans. Doesn’t really sound like a 000 situation to me. While it does sound like a stressful situation, it also seems one best dealt with by standing tall and using an authoritative voice to dominate the rogue dog. Getting on a phone and yelling for someone else to come and save you is likely to distract your attention from the situation and possibly give the aggressive dog an opportunity to have another go at your dog.

Watson said :

Douche said :

Why are they surprised?It is not a secret that Canberra Connect on weekends and after hours is using Telstra to answer and respond to all calls.You leave details, they contact the rangers.They are located on the 6th floor of that Telstra building on Northbourne Av, near the Dickson registry.
They also answer O’Brien’s calls for windscreen and house window repairs. 🙂

Canberra Connect call centre opening hours: http://www.canberraconnect.act.gov.au/contact-us That means Canberra Connect staff man the phones (and not from the Telstra building). After hours some calls will be forwarded by an automated Telstra service.

Hey Watson – yep, in this case the call went rhough to Canberra Connect. They may have had a better response if they wanted an urgent ‘window repair’ though!

Douche said :

Why are they surprised?It is not a secret that Canberra Connect on weekends and after hours is using Telstra to answer and respond to all calls.You leave details, they contact the rangers.They are located on the 6th floor of that Telstra building on Northbourne Av, near the Dickson registry.
They also answer O’Brien’s calls for windscreen and house window repairs. 🙂

Canberra Connect call centre opening hours: http://www.canberraconnect.act.gov.au/contact-us That means Canberra Connect staff man the phones (and not from the Telstra building). After hours some calls will be forwarded by an automated Telstra service.

Captain RAAF said :

Well that was silly, when he contacted the plods on the 000, he should have made it quite clear the dog had ‘already’ attacked him, that he was injured and unable to retreat and to tell the coppers to let his wife know he loves her before releasing a garbled groan/arrghh/gasp/uuuugghh.

You have to make your emergency call stand out from all the other joe citizens that are also making the same mistake and not making it clear enough that they are about to be killed.

And, when the cops arrived, shoot the offending dog and and say “You said you were injured?” you can reply with “Yeah, I got better”.

I’m a great believer in the term ‘Happiness is a warm gun”. Sadly, they didn’t have the aggression that some of us might of had in this situation. But that said of course, why should they? They are entitled to walk down the street like anyone else.

SammyLivesHere said :

Are you saying the Police from 000 refused to attend to lend assistance? I would also recommend you talk to your local Neighbourhood Watch group and lodge a formal complaint.

The police, I am informed, refused to even attend. It was a quick handball to the Domestic Services.

lobster said :

What did you expect Canberra Connect to do about it?
Log a job and get someone from the council out there to look at it in 6-8 working days?

I supposed that when its the number your given to call by the police, well, let me think…………….oh yeah, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

Thats the answer most people would expect I think.

CBomb said :

Called 000 did they? this morning you say? you sure? did they speak to the police?

Sometimes call takers need information to deal with a situation effectively and in a timely manner. sometimes panicked people need to be told to calm down and stop swearing/yelling etc so information can be gathered.
Situations like this can be hard to deal with.. at the risk of suggesting decent journalism maybe you should get all the facts before slamming one operator and a whole system in such a general way.

In saying this, i do agree that dog owners need to take more responsibility. Too many dog attacks lately and it is not good.

But as already stated “Anyone under attack needs urgent assistance”… and should call 000 if it is a genuinly life threatening situation, and advise the operator of this..

Called 000 did they?…………..Yes.
This morning you say?………..Yes.
You sure?……………………………Yes.
Did they speak to the Police..Yes.

Next?

trevar said :

I don’t mean to diminish your very reasonable complaint about Canberra Connect’s services, but I am curious as to why a human being would allow a Staffordshire Terrier to circle him. I have no great love of the breed; they’re cowardly little beggars, but as such there is no reason why any human should ever permit an aggressive dog to complete a circle before taking action. That simply shows that the person doesn’t know how to handle a dog properly. It’s not just dog owners who need to take action (though the owners you describe are certainly remiss in their duty and I agree they should have taken action immediately); anyone who wants to walk the streets should know how to handle a dog. Otherwise they should just stay locked up in their safe little bubble-world. Though I might not like negligent dog owners, I have no tolerance whatsoever for dog haters.

In relation to these people, they are not aggressive nor are they ‘trained’ in handling aggressive dogs. Unless you are able to get your back to a wall or something similar, circling will always happen.

buzz819 said :

The Frots said :

molongloid said :

“Anyone under attck needs urgent assistance” <— There's the clue. Call 000 not Canberra Connect.

They did call 000 in the first instance and were them given the 132 281 number, which they again had to call.

No where does it say they called 000….

Well, it does now and they did. Told to ring the Domestic Services!

molongloid said :

The Frots said :

molongloid said :

“Anyone under attck needs urgent assistance” <— There's the clue. Call 000 not Canberra Connect.

They did call 000 in the first instance and were them given the 132 281 number, which they again had to call.

You mean when 000 said “police, fire, or ambulance” your friends picked police and then the police gave Canberra Connect instead of come straight away?

Absolutely what happened. And of course, in that situation, you don’t time to keep making phone calls!

The Frots said :

They did call 000 in the first instance and were them given the 132 281 number, which they again had to call.

Canberra Connect shouldve given them the number for DAS, which is 6207 2424. However, having said that, theyre a pretty toothless mob.

A friend of mine got bitten fairly badly, and DAS came out to visit while he was in hospital receiving treatment for his bites. DAS checked out the neighbours dog that bit him, then saw his dog that was still a bit excited after the fight earlier, and decided to take away his dog.

2 weeks later, the same dog that attacked him, attacked and killed one of his young dogs (~6 months).. again, DAS was called out, this time they again looked at the aggressive dog, then looked at my friends one remaining dog (who was about 13 and was still nursing from a litter) and decided that the dog looked a bit thin, so launched an investigation into them.

2 years later, my friends hand has recovered, the young dogs been given away, the old dogs died of natural causes, the kids arent allowed to play in the back yard, because the dog keeps trying to break its way through the fence, the German Sheppard is still there and apart from a lot of arguments, nothing was ever resolved.

What did you expect Canberra Connect to do about it?
Log a job and get someone from the council out there to look at it in 6-8 working days?

Why are they surprised?It is not a secret that Canberra Connect on weekends and after hours is using Telstra to answer and respond to all calls.You leave details, they contact the rangers.They are located on the 6th floor of that Telstra building on Northbourne Av, near the Dickson registry.
They also answer O’Brien’s calls for windscreen and house window repairs. 🙂

my hubby was bitten by a dog almost 6 years ago and the dog was taken away within the hour of the attack after ringing TAMS

mind you, he wasnt trying to ring DURING the attack (duh! dumb!) he rang after. however the dog was returned very quickly and left to roam again.

Dog control and noise complaint dept. DO NOT WORK ON WEEKENDS. The police told me this when I had to call them about some yobbos with chainsaws and an unleashed dog in my neighbourhood doing a Saturday and Sunday cleanup job for another yobbo. The Police refused to intervene also. One has to have tolereance to live in Canberra.

The Frots said :

molongloid said :

“Anyone under attck needs urgent assistance” <— There's the clue. Call 000 not Canberra Connect.

They did call 000 in the first instance and were them given the 132 281 number, which they again had to call.

No where does it say they called 000….

The Frots said :

molongloid said :

“Anyone under attck needs urgent assistance” <— There's the clue. Call 000 not Canberra Connect.

They did call 000 in the first instance and were them given the 132 281 number, which they again had to call.

Well that sucks the mop.

I regularly walk our little family around around my suburb, and I always carry a stout walking stick so that I can deal with dogs, of the two or four legged variety, if required.

I’m very surprised the police were not invited to attend in this situation. If i was there, i probably would have taken the law into my own hands.

Called 000 did they? this morning you say? you sure? did they speak to the police?

Sometimes call takers need information to deal with a situation effectively and in a timely manner. sometimes panicked people need to be told to calm down and stop swearing/yelling etc so information can be gathered.
Situations like this can be hard to deal with.. at the risk of suggesting decent journalism maybe you should get all the facts before slamming one operator and a whole system in such a general way.

In saying this, i do agree that dog owners need to take more responsibility. Too many dog attacks lately and it is not good.

But as already stated “Anyone under attack needs urgent assistance”… and should call 000 if it is a genuinly life threatening situation, and advise the operator of this..

Well that was silly, when he contacted the plods on the 000, he should have made it quite clear the dog had ‘already’ attacked him, that he was injured and unable to retreat and to tell the coppers to let his wife know he loves her before releasing a garbled groan/arrghh/gasp/uuuugghh.

You have to make your emergency call stand out from all the other joe citizens that are also making the same mistake and not making it clear enough that they are about to be killed.

And, when the cops arrived, shoot the offending dog and and say “You said you were injured?” you can reply with “Yeah, I got better”.

Are you saying the Police from 000 refused to attend to lend assistance? I would also recommend you talk to your local Neighbourhood Watch group and lodge a formal complaint.

I don’t mean to diminish your very reasonable complaint about Canberra Connect’s services, but I am curious as to why a human being would allow a Staffordshire Terrier to circle him. I have no great love of the breed; they’re cowardly little beggars, but as such there is no reason why any human should ever permit an aggressive dog to complete a circle before taking action. That simply shows that the person doesn’t know how to handle a dog properly. It’s not just dog owners who need to take action (though the owners you describe are certainly remiss in their duty and I agree they should have taken action immediately); anyone who wants to walk the streets should know how to handle a dog. Otherwise they should just stay locked up in their safe little bubble-world. Though I might not like negligent dog owners, I have no tolerance whatsoever for dog haters.

molongloid said :

“Anyone under attck needs urgent assistance” <— There's the clue. Call 000 not Canberra Connect.

I very much doubt the police will show up for a dog-related incident. But call centres are not equipped to deal with emergencies either. So there is indeed no one to deal with urgent issues like these.

Domestic Animal Services are required to investigate these issues though. But they just don’t have a ‘rapid response team’ of any kind.

It is very sad that the owners of the dog were so incredibly irresponsible. I do hope they have their dog taken away from them. But they’ll probably get another one straight away…

The Frots said :

molongloid said :

“Anyone under attck needs urgent assistance” <— There's the clue. Call 000 not Canberra Connect.

They did call 000 in the first instance and were them given the 132 281 number, which they again had to call.

You mean when 000 said “police, fire, or ambulance” your friends picked police and then the police gave Canberra Connect instead of come straight away?

Very scary. In that situation, I would call 000. That type of aggressive dog can inflict terrible injuries, and the cops have the power to shoot it on the spot.

molongloid said :

“Anyone under attck needs urgent assistance” <— There's the clue. Call 000 not Canberra Connect.

They did call 000 in the first instance and were them given the 132 281 number, which they again had to call.

“Anyone under attck needs urgent assistance” <— There's the clue. Call 000 not Canberra Connect.