Garda receives 100 stitches after pitbull attack..

jenjo23

andreac wrote: »

Just wanted to add, im no drug dealer or scumbag, im a 28 year old girl who has a love for rotties, i work hard and enjoy my dog so much, we do so much together, showing, flyball, training classes, so please, dont tar all bull breed owners with the one brush. If you came to any dog show you would see that none of any of the owners of those breeds are anywhere near scumbags, or want to look hard.

Well said Andrea......Your dog is an absolute beauty.

michelleans

andreac wrote: »

....
When i walk my fella its other dogs who bark and growl at him and he just wonders why he cant be friends with them.

Your boy is a beauty! What a healthy shine on his coat too!

Jake (my German Shepherd) is the same way! He wants to be friends with everything and everyone. Such big softies

LegacyUser

strawberryfield wrote: »

Dogs which are not treated as pets and kept by owners in areas where is a higher occurence of violence, assault, domestic abuse, drug use, etc. will hardly turn out to be big softies. Unfortunately the same point can be made for some children from these backgrounds.

:eek:Jesus Christ! How bad is that comment. So have we degraded so far to say that the working class don't treat their pets properly. Shocking!

Dave Joyce

For the benefit of that twit Moosejam and his ignorance on "fighting dogs" I just thought I would post the following after coming back from a couple of days martial arts training. While at the summer camp in Florida we were treated to a demonstration from a guy who trains dogs, mainly Shepards (his personal preference) for Sheriffs depts, the military, prison staff AND individuals who wanted a pet that could also protect the family home. Really interesting guy and I spoke to him for a few minutes afterwards (would have loved to have spent longer but there was a huge Florida thunder/lightening storm just starting). Anyway he demoed with 3 different dogs and emphasised how it was perfectly natural for a dog to be EXTREMELY aggressive towards a (perceived) threat and STILL be a socialable family PET. In fact, he put one of his lads in a full protective suit, while he held the dog on a lead and the other guy acted REALLY aggressive, shouting and lunging and cracking a small whip to make noise. He let the dog off, whereby he bit the arm cuff and held on until told to release. He then had the guy run off for about 30 yards and again got the dog to give chase and bite the cuff again and once again he released when ordered. He then immediatley brought the same dog over to one of the kids watching the demo and let him pet the same dog with no problems whatsoever. Anyway, his website is www.edreyesk9.com if you're interested in having a look, fantastic guy and all 3 dogs were under 18 months.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Someone said its not the dog's fault....well I think that goes without saying. However I still think it should be put down. If there was a man made machine that could do that to intruders the licence would be a lot stricter thanone for a dog.

peasant

Dave Joyce wrote: »

Anyway he demoed with 3 different dogs and emphasised how it was perfectly natural for a dog to be EXTREMELY aggressive towards a (perceived) threat and STILL be a socialable family PET.

Yeah ..that's what all these "Schutzhund" freaks want you to believe.

Nothing "natural" about it. Dogs have been bred for thousands of generations NOT to be people aggressive and these idiots are turning them into schizos.

You will also find, that most of those trained dogs will not know what to do with an attacker outside of the training grounds ...and those that DO, you definetly don't want them near your children.

strawberryfield

bubby wrote: »

:eek:Jesus Christ! How bad is that comment. So have we degraded so far to say that the working class don't treat their pets properly. Shocking!

God, why bother even posting something like that if its an absolute spin on what I've written.

Read the first line of my paragraph and stop being so melodramatic. A minority of owners of generically vicious dogs such as alsations, pitbulls and bulldogs seem to be from disadvantaged areas.

My point being that a small amount, ie a minority, of owners in disadvantaged areas (not working class) have dogs for all the wrong reasons. In areas where is a higher occurence of violence, assault, domestic abuse, drug use, etc. there is higher rates of animal abuse. If some people lean towards a more violent and reckless lifestyle themselves, how do you think they treat their animals? I've seen horrific animal abuse cases first hand, particularly in these areas.

I've worked as an animal rights officer and in an veterinarian surgery for 2 years now. I know what I'm talking about.
So how does that shock you now?

LegacyUser

strawberryfield wrote: »

God, why bother even posting something like that if its an absolute spin on what I've written.

Not at all, My comment is not a spin off on what you wrote! It was a comment on how ignorant your post was. So what was it you were trying to say about the working class. So, what was it you were saying, these dogs are mainly owned by poor people and that poor people have more vicous family backgrounds, and that is why their dogs are like that. {laughing} I would welcome comments on this thread from any vets or other animal workers - and I know a fair few myself - who wouldn't back you up on that

Dyr

peasant wrote: »

Dogs have been bred for thousands of generations NOT to be people aggressive and these idiots are turning them into schizos.

Dogs have been used for their aggression for as long as we've had em. Familiar with where cu chulann got that name? Roman war dogs? Greek ones? Egyptian ones? How far back to you want to go?

kerrysgold

andrea, you're rottie is a beauty! I saw a gorgeous big rottie today, his owners were walking him and 2 yorkies, rottie was bouncing all over the place trying to play with his owner as they were walking along, would love to have videoed that and sent it to the papers instead of the usual snarling pics they print!

peasant

Bambi wrote: »

Dogs have been used for their aggression for as long as we've had em. Familiar with where cu chulann got that name? Roman war dogs? Greek ones? Egyptian ones? How far back to you want to go?

"War dogs" were hardly family pets, now were they?

All the dogs that man has allowed close to his family, be they toy dogs or working hunters or shepherds have always been bred for non-aggression. Even guard dogs can't be overly aggressive or whatever they're guarding would be totally inaccessible to anyone. There is a massive difference between being protective and being aggressive.

Training a dog to be man aggressive creates a monster that is very difficult to control. Through centuries of breeding and selection, dogs have developed a high aggression threshold against humans. In "Schutzhund" training you have to forcibly push them over this threshold ...but once its lowered all sorts of things can go wrong. Dogs that perform well on "Schutzhund" trials can not be trusted in a normal environement.

Let me tell you a little story:

The army base where I did my basic training was also a US airforce base. The airport and hangars were guarded by a private security service with dogs and handlers. These dogs were extremely well trained and would perform commands at the mere blink of an eye and attack on command. One night, one handler called in sick and a substitute took his dog out on patrol. During the patrol he fell, twisted his ankle and wriggled on the ground in pain. The guard dog didn't know what to do with this behaviour, so it a attacked. The handler died the same night in hospital from his injuries.

kerrysgold

That's awful (about the substitute handler)
personally I don't see what the fun is in training a dog to attack on command or whatever, why not doing something innocent like agility if you want you're dog to have a sport? ridiculous I think. I wouldn't even want my dogs to be trained to attack an intruder, because what if they attacked somebody that just came in without knocking or something? you never know, I'm sure they can tell the difference between some non-threatening or threatening but if people can make mistakes I'm sure dogs can. sorry that's a bit of a ramble but anyway lol. My dogs just bark and that's enough.

Dave Joyce

Nothing "natural" about it. Dogs have been bred for thousands of generations NOT to be people aggressive and these idiots are turning them into schizos.

Hmm, I post something about "even" dogs who have a supposed aggressive tendancy and CAN be VERY WELL trained in defence to the idiots who are giving out about "certain" breeds and what do I get but "supposed" (or should that be certain) dog lovers having a go.

I never said there was anything "natural" about it, I would not agree that dogs have been bred NOT to be aggressive (quite a lot of people do the complete opposite in fact, not saying that I agree with it btw) and I can tell YOU FOR A FACT, that this man was FAR from been an "idiot". This demo was carried out where we were training on open ground with over 100 people standing around watching, and AFAIK, the man had never been before. We were watching in very close proximity, (within 2M), in groups all around, and the dogs were totally out of their usual envirnoment and had no problems doing their job. Within 10 secs of doing his job, the guy brought the exact same dog over to one of the kids and let the child pet the dog and he behaved like a regular family pet. Did the exact same with another one of the dogs where he was playing the bad guy and when they finished he got down on the ground and played with the dog immediately afterwards and the dog lapped up the affection. He did stress that NO DOG should be put down as they could all play a role BUT that not all dogs were sociable and therefore DEPENDING on what way the dog was trained would determine where they were best suited ie LEO, military, home protection or just a normal family pet.

peasant

Dave Joyce wrote: »

Did the exact same with another one of the dogs where he was playing the bad guy and when they finished he got down on the ground and played with the dog immediately afterwards and the dog lapped up the affection. .

Would you not agree, that as it works this way round (dog treats previous aggressor as best friend) it could also "work" the other way round?
That the dog, during normal play with someone just interprets an action / movement the wrong way and takes this as its cue to switch into attack mode?

It has happend in plenty of cases.
I maintain that is is a stupid idea to train a family dog to attack humans.

The above demonstration is a perfect example for that stupidity. One minute it is ok to try and tear the guy to pieces, the next minute the guy is just a playful friend.

How is the dog supposed NOT to get confused?

This practice is not good training. It is sending conflicting signals to the dog.
It is also not a good example for good training nor is it a suitable defense argument in the "dangerous" dog discussion

strawberryfield

bubby wrote: »

Not at all, My comment is not a spin off on what you wrote! It was a comment on how ignorant your post was. So what was it you were trying to say about the working class. So, what was it you were saying, these dogs are mainly owned by poor people and that poor people have more vicous family backgrounds, and that is why their dogs are like that. {laughing} I would welcome comments on this thread from any vets or other animal workers - and I know a fair few myself - who wouldn't back you up on that

This is actually ridiculous. I've repeatedly said now that my point is not concerned with WORKING CLASS but rather DISADVANTAGED AREAS. And yet another spin I have to address,I never said poor. I myself, with both parents out of work for years (due to terminal illnesses before you try and spin that too) could be considered poor...but i'm in not living in a disadvantaged area. I could afford to continue my education to become a veterinarian.

There's a rather huge difference between working class and disadvantaged areas. I will thank you not to lump them in together for the third time. Whatsmore, the phrase disadvantaged area is not an euphamism for working class area. It is not my problem if your utterly incapable of seeing that.

All that aside, I do however see you're point. You think I'm saying that poor people treat their animals badly and so have bad animals that are more prone to violent attack. I'd be pretty p***ed off too. THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT. I'm talking about disadvantaged areas of which there are perhaps 1-4 per city. There is a huge turn away from educational attainment. This leads to higher drop out rates, higher levels of unemployment and in turn higher levels of crime. Not all of course but higher than the average.

As numerous social and political impediments take control of their lives many people are left with little alternatives to earn cash and a sense of worth. With this crime, which is intrinsically linked with violence, increases. Now some of these people treat their animals well, some of these people do treat their animals quite poorly and some treat their animals in a particularly horrendous way. I will not apologise for noticing that after treating numerous cases where dogs have had metal chains lodged in their throats for being recklessly tied up for weeks or cats have actually shown symptoms of torture. A number of people in these areas seem to have a higher threshold for inflicting pain on other living things be it each other or their animals. These cases, along with those from rural Ireland (particularly amongst single older men who can not provide, physically or financially, for their animals) make up the majority of animal cruelty cases in Ireland.

I sincerely hope I have not offended you. If I have, I suppose I am entittled to my own opinion and I envy yours. It seems so untouched by the harsh realities of this country.

fenris

A little bit of a down on Schutzhund?
Despite the fact that it is a system that takes into account the dogs character and capability, not just looks?
In Germany you are not supposed to breed a GSD that has not passed its Schutzhund level one as Schutzhund is designed to train a steady dog of good character, reveal weaknesses of temperament and remove those dogs from the breeding stock.

The first part of the schutzhund programme is the BH test - obedience and sureness in stressful everyday situations, how many dogs do you know that would pass a test that included being approached by strangers with dogs, on bicycles, crowds, off lead heelwork, obedience, long down stays in the presence of other dogs working etc. When a dog has passed this stage they will they go on to more advanced obedience, tracking, and protection.
Many people do not do the protection part in the UK and Ireland, but on continental europe it is seen as essential in order to train a dog to react to potential threats in a predictable way. The idea is to train in the ability to control the dogs escalation and interupt the behaviour as necessary.
e.g. person aproaches in a threatening manner - the dog gives a series of single barks getting more rapid as the threat gets closer, then decreases as the threat pulls back, or stops barking and sits at heal if the owner decides that the threat is not real. - try training that behaviour on the spur of the moment without someone getting bitten and the dog killed afterwards.

The point that I am making is that socialisation and training is key, in Ireland socialisation and training mostly happen accidentally, there are methods of protecting a dog from fatal over reaction in our increasingly dog fearing hysterical country, schutzhund is one method that works very well elsewhere in europe, we do not have to take it all on in its entirety (no matter what Sarkozy says) but that doesn't mean that we cannot learn and take the parts that are useful to us and that might help protect your dog from the next round of hysterical headlines.

peasant

fenris wrote: »

The idea is to train in the ability to control the dogs escalation and interupt the behaviour as necessary.

And therein exactly lies the whole irony of the "protection" part of that training.

People always tell you proudly how they can call off their dog when it's hanging of the (protected) arm of an "agressor".

They tend to omit the fact though that they had to force (often with rather unsavoury methods) the dog into attacking in the first place.

The keenness of some Schutzhund-people to keep winning ever more competitions has created a demand for naturally agressive dogs (those that don't have to be forced into attacking), there are now strands of GSD and Malinois out there being bred for aggression and the resulting dogs are so highly strung, you couldn't trust them anywhere without their handler (and even with the handler present they are dangerous)

The whole "traing" / "sport" is a travesty and wholy unsuitable as an argument against "dangerous dog" legislations

fenris

Agression does not win competitions nor is it the goal of schutzhund!

The dog is not forced to attack, in fact the whole idea of the core schutzhund disciplines (obedience, tracking and protection) is is for a task to be carried out without agression a dog should be calm and focused, part of the protection task is to give the apearence of agression to back down the threat not for the dog to actually get agressive and lose control.

As for the unsavoury methods you hint at, the only way that I have seen a dog trained if for them to be allowed to effectively fetch the arm guard in pretty much the same way that most people train their dogs to fetch a tennis ball that is by allowing the dog to chase the arm guard and praising and rewarding the dog when he gets it while increasing the difficulty of the task progressively.

I suggest you visit one of the schutzhund clubs and have a look.

The reason that this is relevant to dangerous dog legislation is that a training/ breeding scheme that takes into account the whole dog not just its looks, but includes the dogs character and performance in the real world is a very useful starting point. As a bonus the dog gets a level of basic obedience far beyond anything normaly seen outside of competition in Ireland. The current trend in holy hysterical Ireland is to eventually ban all dogs bigger than a handbag.

Instead of bitching about the legislation (enacted by the governments that we voted for) we need to propose an alternative. In my mind we could do worse that learning from the people who seem to be doing things right. My suggestion would be that Schutzhund BH level training would be a good starting point for all dogs, basic obedience, traffic sense, socialisation all increase a dogs chance of survival in our world.

Much of the hysteria in Ireland about schutzhund stems from an attempt by vested interests in the IKC to prevent the German Shephard Association in Ireland holding its own dog show (threatening to excomunicate anybody attending or entering the show, smear campaign), the GSA successfully challenged this behaviour in court. If you want to really find out about schutzhund go an visit a schutzhund club, you will probably find a much mellower bunch of dogs and people that you will find at your average dog show!

Dyr

fenris, your ideas intrigrue me and i wish to subscribe to your newletter.

peasant

fenris wrote: »

I suggest you visit one of the schutzhund clubs and have a look.

No need for that. I grew up next to one and I've seen more than I ever wanted to see, thanks.


I do agree with you that there is need for improvement in dog training (and owner training !) in Ireland but to follow the lead of the German Schaeferhund Verein (SV) in any of its international guises would be the wrong way to go about it.

The SV still follows breeding and training guidelines largely as they were set up in 1899. The proven ability (in trials) to attack a human is still a pre-requisite for the breeding qualification. I don't think Ireland needs dogs that are bred from proven attack dogs.

But even the more harmless first stage (Begleithundepruefung BH) for GSD's would be far to rigid and regimental (and quite useless) for my liking.

Who really cares, if your dog walks to heel on the left or on the right, if it's head postion is correct while doing so, if it performs the "SIT" while the "T" is still lingering in the air or half a second later?

Freiherr von Stephanitz (the founder of the SV) was a military man and he used military training methods to train his dogs. Military precision to this day is still what the examiners want to see during the tests.

What for?

Trainers and owners focus on precision and exact fulfilment of their commands instead of on their dogs. All dogs are individuals and need an individual approach to training, but the SV wants to achieve uniformity.

To this end the use and promote antiquated training methods that include shouting, hard pulling at the lead and physical force.

To this day it has escaped the SV that dogs learn by association and routine. The GSD that performs like a Swiss watch on the familiar excercise ground but is at a total loss on unfamiliar territory isn't exactly unheard of

Dog training isn't rocket science, all it takes is a commited owner and some basic understanding of how dogs learn.

Dog training also isn't a universal science ...there is no "one size fits all" approach that works for everyone. Training has to be done as a team. Both owner(s) and dog(s) have to work as a team, learn from each other and within the framework of their individual abilities, needs and limitations.

That is another reason why I wouldn't like to see one single organisation set up the universal guidelines/tests for dogs & owners in Ireland to which they would assess all dogs regardless of their individuality.

I certainly wouldn't like to see an organisation involved in setting up these guidelines that has a commercial interest in promoting one breed of dog ...and definetely not the antiquated GSD/Schutzhund crowd.

fenris

Training and the relationship between man and dog has moved on since 1899 - mostly in the last 10 years!

The methods you describe were the accepted methods used in every form of dog (and other animal) training prior to Karen Prior's
"Don't Shoot the Dog!" which introduced the concept of positive reinforcement and clicker training to the world in general.

How many of us remember adults shoving puppie noses in their dirt? it was the norm. Obedience training that involved ear pinches, choke collars, sticks, kicks, standing on dogs toes etc. basically we are in a time of change regarding dog training, schutzhund, guide do training, gun dog training, competition obedience, show dogs, farm and working were all subjected to what we would now consider to be almost criminal cruelty on a routine basis.
Our laws reflect that same attitude to dogs, most of our generation are training dogs in a completely different manner to our parents, most of us still get that guilty feeling that maybe a little bit of "old school" is needed to get through to a dog now and again because that is what we saw our parents generation do, we have probably even been told that we are too soft. The next generation will hopefully never have seen a dog abused by a respected parent and so will view such behavious as alien.

I am not saying that any one system fits all, or even tht there should be a single governing body, rather we should look at what we define as acceptable behaviour in a general sense, i.e. a dog should know its name and be capable of sitting, basic recall, emergency down stay, not jumping on or humping every human or dog that you meet on the street etc. in other words the basics that allow you to walk your dog without putting in on anybody, if this became the norm then it would take away a lot of the hysteria that currently abounds.
Training people is also important, primary schools should teach the basics of interacting with a dog, the same way we teach kids how to interact with traffic. There are kids that grow up without ever getting close to a dog, all they know are the headlines - "dog eats owners head", "disgruntled collie masterminds 911" etc. Where is the good press?, even if the papers don't print it, it is up to dog owners to protect their dogs by actively showing that dogs are good citizens.

These changes do not happen over night, you cannot force them, we need to get our house in order then when the old folk move on we can then change the legislation to match the real world.

peasant

Fenris

I agree with your underlying sentiments ...but in all fairness now, Karen Pryor didn't exacly discover positive reinforcement. It is a long established learning theory ...she's just the one who cashed in on it by making it snappy and sellable.

FWIW, I don't agree that positive reinforcement ala Pryor is the only and the correct way to train dogs either. Clicker training is pure conditioning, nothing else. It may provide quick results but it doesn't further the understanding between dog and owner, if anything it increases the gap with the constant need for a reward ritual.

fenris

True!

She just made it accessible to the rest of the world!

Positive reinforcement is operant conditioning rather that classical conditioning as embodied by Pavlov's dogs, while clicker training it may not be perfect, it is a method that allows almost any person to work with their dog without beating, choking or inflicting physical pain.

As a first little step that is accessible to the people who do not read forums such as this, clicker training does the job, it paves the way for owners that have dogs that can live their entire lives and have never been walloped across the nose with a newspaper and genuinely don't know to flinch when they see a raised hand. It sounds small but that is the kind of basis we need to move forward legislation that more reflective of 2008 than 1808.

LegacyUser

Mairt ....

It doesn't matter who it was! Cop, Child, criminal .... it doesn't matter.
My point is that a dog should not attack like that - regardless of who is in their space - unless they are trained to do so .. which is not acceptable.

Do you think it is acceptable for postmen to get their hands chewed off for instance? I don't. Its up to us to train our pets to behave in an acceptable manner.


B

Mairt wrote: »

Bubby,

The argument being made re. the dog in Galway is that the dog didn't know that was a guard carrying out his duty to the community. As far as the dog was concerned there was an intruder on his territory, and he reacted on instinct. And I honestly don't know a dog which wouldn't do like wise.

If this was a dog who'd protected his owner's (you or me, and not criminals) from personal danger by attacking an intruder I feel you'd join us all in celebrating the dogs bravery.

But your opinion is tainted by the fact that these weren't up standing member's of the community protected by their pet - but were in fact criminals and the injuried party was a cop doing his duty.

You and I can work that one out, but a dogs comprehension levels aren't comparible with ours.

getz

i have had staffies for over 30years even had a top show dog i believe the staffie is the most loving dog around .i now have a british bulldog who is very soft but stubborn.one interesting point about animals hurting people is the fact that the horse hurts more people than dogs. do .but nobody bans them {and we all know why}

EGAR

I have received a similar number in stitches after a dog attack (which also netted me several days in hospital) - although it never made the news since the attacking dog wasn't a Bull Breed but the adult version of the Andrex puppy, so beloved by the whole nation... And that without me storming the flat of the owner .

In the aftermath of the attack on the Gard in Galway I twice requested to be allowed to do a breed ID on the dog, my requests were denied. I have, however seen a picture of this dog and IMHO it was no APBT but looked like a badly bred Staffie x.

I have been interviewed by a lady called June, charged with writing an article on Pit Bull attacks for the Garda Review. In the interview she admitted that she has no idea about dogs and is terrified of them, regardless of the breed. Nice one but nothing new.

I recently had Henry McDonald here at my Rescue, the Irish correspondent of the UK papers Guardian and Observer. He arrived in an expensive looking suit and kept his distance from all dogs until I let out my own APBT Bogey. He had to admit that he would NOT HAVE RECOGNISED the Bogster as a Pit Bull. Now, these are the peeps who *educate* the public! And the subsequent article published in the Observer was full of misquotes and misinformation although the article itself was halfway decent in re the breed.

As regard of Schutzhund. I was once young and stupid enough to participate in this (bear in mind, that was over 20 years ago, no alternative like Agility etc was found). So I know first hand what this *sport* does to the dogs and by now there are several studies in Germany in regards of Schutzhund vs dog bites and lo and behold: Schutzhund trained dogs are more likely to bite *out of context* than non-Schutzhund trained dogs. Schutzhund training has in recent years been re-named to VPG e.g. Versatility Test, now, I wonder why that is - maybe the reputation suffered and one thought that a new name might bring a new image .

Oh, and on a minor note: maybe German GSD breeders would be better off with more rigorous health testing and genetic screening as well as outcrossing and banning the dubious practise of line breeding then to insist on a Schutzhund test prior to breeding. The breed of GSD is riddled with health problems and the founder of the breed would not recognise his beloved GSD anymore with sloping backs etc.

pitbull_fanatic

At ten months old (approx).

[/quote]



thats sum staff!! can ya post1 up of him on all 4's?

looserock

andreac wrote: »

Have you not got a clue about anything? The rottweiler is not a fighting dog, it was actually bred as a herding dog for Cattle!!!
I own a rottie who i show too, and he is the most placid, friendly dog out there, is brilliant with other dogs, people and children, they are actually known to be good with kids, if read up on the breed standard of them it will tell you so.
My fella wags his tail when people come to the house and is yet to bark at anyone near the house. So before you making stupid statements like that, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!
When i walk my fella its other dogs who bark and growl at him and he just wonders why he cant be friends with them.

I used to have rotties myself, and you've just described exactly how mine behaved, except for one of mine when attacked by a smaller dog, he used to sit on them.

arybvtcw0eolkf

pitbull_fanatic wrote: »

thats sum staff!! can ya post1 up of him on all 4's?

Thanks, here's the guys now.



Jericho's ears stick up like that when he's alert, tbh I think he'd hear the grass grow a hundred miles away!.

pitbull_fanatic

jesus dey lethal looking!! i'm impressed! i'm trying to get a pitbull pup or else a pit x staff in ur puppies colour for months n i cant find any!!