Do I believe dog bites are always the owners fault? No. They often are, but not always.

There are a number of factors that influence or cause dog bites, including:

1. Genetics. Dogs that have a predisposiotion to biting. I am NOT talking about so called aggressive breeds - but individual dogs. Breeders who breed from dogs with known behaviour problems, nervousness, aggression etc are at least partly responsible if their pups grow up to bite someone. There is also the issue of "rage" syndrome, which is still not well understood. In this case the owner NEEDS to know his/her dog and be able to keep the dog docile, otherwise the owner is not doing his job.

2. The owner. Of course, this includes proper socialisation and training. They are not the same thing. However, it also includes proper management and control. For example, no dog should be left alone with a small child - no matter how well trained or socialised. If the child gets bitten in this scenario the owner is still at fault for allowing it to occur.

3. The "handler" is somewhat at fault as well. Similar to the above. If someone other than the owner is looking after the dog at the time the bite occurs, then they are at least partly responsible for its behaviour.

4. The person who is bitten. All too often peoiple claim the dog was not provoked - but this is always from a very human perspective. Maybe he provoked the dog first? Maybe he was a prankster and knew what he was getting himself into?The dog may have felt threatened even if the person involved was not aware of it.

In this California case, however, I believe that the owner was 100% at fault!

I do not believe much of what the media says about dogs. they never give the whole story. Do you know if the pack of dogs had any medical conditions or behaviour problems? Had it showed any signs of unstable temperament, pain, fear? What happened immediately before the attack? Perhaps the child poked the dog in the eye with a pencil which was why the dog was shut away?

Finally, dogs bite. They are dogs, not humans, and do not have this concept of right and wrong. They do what they do, for their own reasons, whether or not we understand them. Ensuring the dog is healthy, well bred, well cared for, well socialised, well trained, and well managed by a responsible person, will make it highly unlikely that the dog will bite. Therefore, the owner must be able to restrain his dogs from harmful behavior, and the people being bitten must not act stupidly when they know that they are about to be bitten.

This is a rather complicated issue of liability vs. blame. In terms of liability think of the following alternate cases:

1. The attack was carried out by adult children of those neighbors.
2. The attack was carried out by minor children of those neighbors.
3. The attack was carried out by the same dogs, which had not been left in what the neighbors thought was a secure location.

In case 1, obviously, the blame and liability would both be placed on the attackers, not their parents. In case 2, while the blame would be the children's the liability would likely be with the parents, as minor children are not expected to be able to always tell the difference between right and wrong, and the parents should educate them, or being unable to do that, make sure they are under supervision. In case 3, both the blame and liability would again be on the neighbors, as they would have failed to leave the dogs secured, leading to the attack.

In the case you describe, I'd have said that I would not blame the owner of the dogs, but I would expect him/her to be held liable, as it was his/her choice to own dangerous dogs, to keep them in a residential area, and to trust the fence to keep them in rather than keep them secured and with supervision beyond a fence they were able to defeat. After all, who should be held liable? The dogs? The attacked family?

Bottom line - no blame, but yes to liability.

Liable for the medical bills of those poor children and whatever other costs arise over the result of this attack--definately yes.
Destruction of the dogs may see like blaming the dogs and unfair but I believe it should be done. Regardless of the breed, dogs that prove themselves to be killers need to be put down, dogs that will work as a pack to pull down prey are dangerous. They need to be in the proper environment,containment, and given the proper training of their skills, i.e. hunting dogs--not left in someones backyard, left on their own to devise their own entertainment.

yes i think its fair an owner should always be in control of there animals. keeping in control by making sure they
can't get out of the yard and attacked children or any body . animals are unpredictable they wanted 4 dogs they
have to take responsibility for the unpredictable animals.

In a way, yes. That is if the dog was not trained. I think we should blame the act, not the dog, not the breed, not the owner.

Definitely you cannot blame the dog since they are just dogs and they don't have the concept of right and wrong like us humans. It is a bit unfair to put the blame on the owners but who else is responsible? Of course we cannot blame the victims except if they were trespassing. It would be a bad experience for the owners but someone has to take the responsibility. Owning dogs as pets are helpful for us humans, they become our outlets, sometimes friends but in a few cases where dogs attack humans, these dogs are maybe left hungry, agitated or simply stressed out too and they need to let out their animal behavior.