Dog attack article in Herald, 10th June.

adser53

Ozziej wrote: »

Some interesting points with some patronising jibes which I'd expect from people who have an interest in pets and feel threatened.
Dogs may have primitive emotions like fear and respect but I stand by comment that pet owners project their own feelings onto them. No evidence of anything else as they can't let you know what level of consiousness they have.Much of issues of pets on those TV programs seem to be based on people treating dogs like humans instead of treating them like animals.

I am disappointed by the inference earlier in the thread that council estate children deserved their dog bites though. I will stand by my point that if any dog bites a child it should be destroyed. I have a 2 year old and I have to pick her up when the neighbour's Pom is outside as it has snapped at children on the road without any provocation (I have seen it personally). The owner laughs and says "Teddy" hates children and its a Pom trait. If that animal ever harms my daughter I would act accordingly.

Well the Akita reference is from Wikipedia and I assumed it was on the record. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akita_Inu Elks are common in America and there are Japanese and American Akita.

But I digress.The fact is certain breeds or dog do more damage when they attack children and statistically attack and maim children more than other dog breeds. I agree there is tabloid hysteria but as I've said if you are a parent of a small child and it is scarred for life from someone's pet pitbull you may reconsider your opinion. I don't believe society should be pandering to whines of people who whinge that Rover must have been provoked and their Rotweiller sleeps with their baby.

Maybe I'll get a baby panther as they look so cute and I've heard they are very intelligent;)

First off, no one feels threatened by your remarks, the jibes, as you put it, come from the exhaustion that we RESPONSIBLE dog owners feel from constantly defending the breeds from ignorant people. It really is quite tiring to have someone with no experience of a breed tell you whats right or wrong cos they read a newspaper article and looked up wikipedia. Have you any experience with any RB dogs or are you just sensationalising and following the media hype?
Just cause you've watched a bit of Caeser on telly and seen the idiots that treat the animals like humans doesnt mean we all do it. My dogs are part of my family but they're treated like dogs, trained and socialised and are very well behaved and balanced. That doesnt mean i'm gonna leave a child alone with them though cos ANY dog can injure a child.

And no one said cos it was in a council estate that the kid deserved a bite.

Also wikipedia isn't gospel so I'd do a bit more research before making claims. Yes there are Elks in America but the first akitas only came to the US after world war 2 (apart from helen kellers) and I can't see them being used for much elk hunting in those days, what with civilisation n' all.

If you look at some dog attacks stats you'll likely see collies and dalmations in the top 10 breeds who've bitten/attacked. They're not on the RB list so they're innocent and can be left with a child in your eyes? You said yourself a pom in your area is snappy, this proves that any dog regardless of breed can attack and injure. There have been 1 or 2 cases (not here in ireland) of child fatalities from a pom and jrt. Again further proof.

Seamus has made perfect posts in answer to your questions and how you can argue based on your extensive wikipedia research and watching "it's me or the dog", defies logic.
If this was any breed not on the RB it most likely wouldnt even be in the paper.

Ozziej

adser53 wrote: »

First off, no one feels threatened by your remarks, the jibes, as you put it, come from the exhaustion that we RESPONSIBLE dog owners feel from constantly defending the breeds from ignorant people. It really is quite tiring to have someone with no experience of a breed tell you whats right or wrong cos they read a newspaper article and looked up wikipedia. Have you any experience with any RB dogs or are you just sensationalising and following the media hype?
Just cause you've watched a bit of Caeser on telly and seen the idiots that treat the animals like humans doesnt mean we all do it. My dogs are part of my family but they're treated like dogs, trained and socialised and are very well behaved and balanced. That doesnt mean i'm gonna leave a child alone with them though cos ANY dog can injure a child.

And no one said cos it was in a council estate that the kid deserved a bite.

Also wikipedia isn't gospel so I'd do a bit more research before making claims. Yes there are Elks in America but the first akitas only came to the US after world war 2 (apart from helen kellers) and I can't see them being used for much elk hunting in those days, what with civilisation n' all.

If you look at some dog attacks stats you'll likely see collies and dalmations in the top 10 breeds who've bitten/attacked. They're not on the RB list so they're innocent and can be left with a child in your eyes? You said yourself a pom in your area is snappy, this proves that any dog regardless of breed can attack and injure. There have been 1 or 2 cases (not here in ireland) of child fatalities from a pom and jrt. Again further proof.

Seamus has made perfect posts in answer to your questions and how you can argue based on your extensive wikipedia research and watching "it's me or the dog", defies logic.
If this was any breed not on the RB it most likely wouldnt even be in the paper.

First off I only pick up my daughter when that particular dog runs out at her. She makes it plain she wants me to too. There are other dogs on the road Tilly who she pets and loves to see. I've also got her to pet this particular dog and tell her he is fine when the owner has him under control. But thanks for your reasoned and well thought out contribution.

Seamus your argument although in parts valid and interesting is hilarious in its racist logic. Black people do more crime in USA so thats a trait is it? Hitler did love his dogs more than people I suppose;) Someone in a coma might have emotions so a dog might. Thats some funny logic.

What I mean by respect is a sense of subserviant belonging that a dog wants from his owner. To feel one of the family but knowing his place in the pack. Not being made to feel he is the alpha wolf and getting freaked out by the responsibility.

But I know some people like to raise animal welfare up to same level as human. I personally feel that there is plenty of human suffering in the world. Solve that and maybe I would donate my charity to animal welfare. I am not familar with Caeser. I presume he is another one of those tv nannys for dogs which is what I was referring to. I do have experience of friends who treat dogs like "one of the family" with disasterous results when they decided to have an actual new member of the family i.e. a baby. So my life experience with dogs isn't all on my TV.

So Wikipedia is lying about Akita so must be in the tabloid conspiracy too. Wow it runs deeper than you've thought!

Thanks for information on different breeds. Its interesting. Don't know how many St Bernards maim children though even if they have the weight advantage. But fair point. All dogs can be dangerous unless under control. I suppose the skinhead ruffians walking around with RB dogs and dog fighting have given some breeds a bad name perhaps unfairly.

I'll take the research remarks on the chin. But I haven't seen any of you experts linking statistics that disprove my assertions.Seems like you like to research on the net for articles that support what you've decided anyway. Me, I'm always up for changing my mind.

DBCyc

Ozziej wrote: »

But fair point. All dogs can be dangerous unless under control. I suppose the skinhead ruffians walking around with RB dogs and dog fighting have given some breeds a bad name perhaps unfairly.

They certainly don't give people a good impression of those breeds.

Ozziej wrote: »

I'll take the research remarks on the chin. But I haven't seen any of you experts linking statistics that disprove my assertions.Seems like you like to research on the net for articles that support what you've decided anyway. Me, I'm always up for changing my mind.

I think that this has been posted on this forum before:

“The majority of the dogs involved in the attacks were male dogs between 2-6 years old, over 10kg in body weight and were among the popular breeds of Collies, Cocker/Springer Spaniels, Terrier breeds, Jack Russell Terriers, German Shepherds, and Golden Retrievers,” said O’Sullivan. “And the biting incidents were equally likely to occur in rural and urban/suburban areas.”


From here: https://www.ucd.ie/news/0710_october/081007_dog_bite.html

I am not linking the above as evidence to suggest that a particular breed can be more likely to bite than another. I think the important point is that the study found that the popular breeds of dog were involved in the most attacks. From this, I would conclude that there is not a particular breed that is more likely to attack than another.

adser53

Ozziej wrote: »

I am not familar with Caeser. I presume he is another one of those tv nannys for dogs which is what I was referring to. I do have experience of friends who treat dogs like "one of the family" with disasterous results when they decided to have an actual new member of the family i.e. a baby. So my life experience with dogs isn't all on my TV.

So Wikipedia is lying about Akita so must be in the tabloid conspiracy too. Wow it runs deeper than you've thought!

Thanks for information on different breeds. Its interesting. Don't know how many St Bernards maim children though even if they have the weight advantage. But fair point. All dogs can be dangerous unless under control. I suppose the skinhead ruffians walking around with RB dogs and dog fighting have given some breeds a bad name perhaps unfairly.

Your experience with your friends and their dogs makes you tar all us dog owners with the same brush. As does the opinion that restricted breeds are dangerous cos some people fight them or whatever. In the hands of a bad owner, any dog is dangerous and that's what my point is and i'm glad to see you can understand that. Scangers like certain breeds and use them badly to look hard. That doesn't mean every rottie, pitbull, akita etc is dangerous.

I don't get your point about wikipedia...are you trying to be funny or do just blindly believe that wikipedia knows all and sees all? It's a great tool for quickly checking something you know nothing about but it s not definitive and errors are common. But don't believe me, I've just researched Akita's extensively with actual books and stuff.

God I wish I had wikipedia when they did my leaving cert, it wouldve saved a lot of time i wasted studying real books written by experts when I couldve just looked up what some random lad put up on the internet.

seamus

Ozziej wrote: »

Seamus your argument although in parts valid and interesting is hilarious in its racist logic. Black people do more crime in USA so thats a trait is it?

No, it's a fact. And that's precisely my point. More black people commit crime in the USA than white people. Yet we know that black are *not* predisposed to committing crime. So you need to look deeper than the bare statistics - it's generally reported that there are more injuries from "pit-bull type" dogs than any others, but that doesn't mean "pit-bull types" are more dangerous any more than it means that all black people are potential criminals.

Someone in a coma might have emotions so a dog might. Thats some funny logic.

My point being that just because something doesn't exist through your own observation, that's not proof that it doesn't exist. You claim that dogs have no emotions (or only very primitive ones). My experience and that of hundreds of millions of others, says different.

But I haven't seen any of you experts linking statistics that disprove my assertions

Quality or comprehensive research either way doesn't exist, for a number of reasons:
1. Attacks are often under-reported, especially where the nature of the attack is embarrassing
2. Dogs are often misclassified (hence the "pit-bull type" nonsense)
3. Much of the research is done solely on the basis of media reports
4. No figures exist for the numbers of each breed in existence, without which any report is useless, because the "danger level" is about relative scale, not actual scale - e.g. if pit-bulls account for 50% of attacks but 75% of dogs, then they're statistically safer than other breeds.

All dogs can be dangerous unless under control. I suppose the skinhead ruffians walking around with RB dogs and dog fighting have given some breeds a bad name perhaps unfairly.

I'm glad to see that you can be inspired to think about the topic. Just remember that a skinhead walking around with a healthy-looking RB, is probably actually a very placid, spoiled and docile dog. It's the gougers with ill-looking dogs that you need to keep an eye on

Sittingpretty

Ozziej wrote: »

First off I only pick up my daughter when that particular dog runs out at her. She makes it plain she wants me to too. There are other dogs on the road Tilly who she pets and loves to see. I've also got her to pet this particular dog and tell her he is fine when the owner has him under control. But thanks for your reasoned and well thought out contribution.

Seamus your argument although in parts valid and interesting is hilarious in its racist logic. Black people do more crime in USA so thats a trait is it? Hitler did love his dogs more than people I suppose;) Someone in a coma might have emotions so a dog might. Thats some funny logic.

What I mean by respect is a sense of subserviant belonging that a dog wants from his owner. To feel one of the family but knowing his place in the pack. Not being made to feel he is the alpha wolf and getting freaked out by the responsibility.

But I know some people like to raise animal welfare up to same level as human. I personally feel that there is plenty of human suffering in the world. Solve that and maybe I would donate my charity to animal welfare. I am not familar with Caeser. I presume he is another one of those tv nannys for dogs which is what I was referring to. I do have experience of friends who treat dogs like "one of the family" with disasterous results when they decided to have an actual new member of the family i.e. a baby. So my life experience with dogs isn't all on my TV.

So Wikipedia is lying about Akita so must be in the tabloid conspiracy too. Wow it runs deeper than you've thought!

Thanks for information on different breeds. Its interesting. Don't know how many St Bernards maim children though even if they have the weight advantage. But fair point. All dogs can be dangerous unless under control. I suppose the skinhead ruffians walking around with RB dogs and dog fighting have given some breeds a bad name perhaps unfairly.

I'll take the research remarks on the chin. But I haven't seen any of you experts linking statistics that disprove my assertions.Seems like you like to research on the net for articles that support what you've decided anyway. Me, I'm always up for changing my mind.

You haven't answered my question? Where do you get your facts from, that which you quoted as fact?
I have a GSD, am I a skinhead ruffian?

Your post is loaded with sarcasm and I can see now there is little point in tryin to dissuade you from your chosen opinion.

Oh and for what it is worth human and animal welfare are not mutually exclusive. You can have an interest in one or other or both. Becuase one cares for animals does not mean they don't care for humans.

No-one here was arguing with you or being anywhere near as sarcastic as you have been. You are on an animal and pets forum many people here, myself included are dog owners both RBs and non RBs and I find your tarring all RBs with the one brush attitude appalling and I can only hope that you don't pass such an attitude onto the children you have. You can't expect to come on here and post such vitriol as that above and not meet with some level of dissaproval surely?

You are the kind of person that would cross the road with your daughter if you saw me coming wth my dog. I meet your ilk on my walks everyday.

Try opening your mind a small bit, come meet me and my dog or anyone else that owns a well adjust RB dog I'm sure would be more than happy to give you that experience.

ISDW

Ozziej wrote: »

First off I only pick up my daughter when that particular dog runs out at her. She makes it plain she wants me to too. There are other dogs on the road Tilly who she pets and loves to see. I've also got her to pet this particular dog and tell her he is fine when the owner has him under control. But thanks for your reasoned and well thought out contribution.

Seamus your argument although in parts valid and interesting is hilarious in its racist logic. Black people do more crime in USA so thats a trait is it? Hitler did love his dogs more than people I suppose;) Someone in a coma might have emotions so a dog might. Thats some funny logic.

What I mean by respect is a sense of subserviant belonging that a dog wants from his owner. To feel one of the family but knowing his place in the pack. Not being made to feel he is the alpha wolf and getting freaked out by the responsibility.

But I know some people like to raise animal welfare up to same level as human. I personally feel that there is plenty of human suffering in the world. Solve that and maybe I would donate my charity to animal welfare. I am not familar with Caeser. I presume he is another one of those tv nannys for dogs which is what I was referring to. I do have experience of friends who treat dogs like "one of the family" with disasterous results when they decided to have an actual new member of the family i.e. a baby. So my life experience with dogs isn't all on my TV.

So Wikipedia is lying about Akita so must be in the tabloid conspiracy too. Wow it runs deeper than you've thought!

Thanks for information on different breeds. Its interesting. Don't know how many St Bernards maim children though even if they have the weight advantage. But fair point. All dogs can be dangerous unless under control. I suppose the skinhead ruffians walking around with RB dogs and dog fighting have given some breeds a bad name perhaps unfairly.

I'll take the research remarks on the chin. But I haven't seen any of you experts linking statistics that disprove my assertions.Seems like you like to research on the net for articles that support what you've decided anyway. Me, I'm always up for changing my mind.

You see, I think thats where some of us replying to this topic are going wrong. I thought that we were discussing domestic dogs, but you're talking about a wild animal, namely a wolf. The whole alpha thing has been left far behind by most animal behaviourists. As you so rightly say, dogs are dogs, they are not humans, so why on earth would you think that a dog would view a human as the same species as him? Dogs aren't stupid, they know that we are different.

Anyway, I'm off to go and get my hair shaved off now, so that I can walk my GSD cross down the road, before I go and burgle a neighbour's house.:rolleyes:

pwd

The Herald is not a reliable source of news. Their agenda is to present things as dramatically as possible, and not to give an accurate impression of the subject.

adser53

As is the Sun, the Star and all those other sensationalist newspapers that commonly report dog attacks by restricted breeds which are always accompanied by a stock photo of a ferocious, snarling rottweiler or the like and attention grabbing words like maimed, savaged, mauled, rag-doll etc. Then the usual question of "should they be banned" blah blah

No one wants to read about the cutesy labrador, it has to be the oh-so-dangerous "fighting" or "hunting" dog to get peoples attedntion

tallus

Some interesting stats Here

Not taking sides here because I don't have a dog, and I never have had one, but given the choice after looking at the stats on that site, I'd rather be bitten by a jack russell than a rottweiler or pit bull.

morganafay

tallus wrote: »

Some interesting stats Here

Not taking sides here because I don't have a dog, and I never have had one, but given the choice after looking at the stats on that site, I'd rather be bitten by a jack russell than a rottweiler or pit bull.

Me too. When my dogs were attacked by a staffie, I was surprised at how strong it was. I was hitting it as hard as I could and it didn't even seem to notice, and trying to pry its mouth off of my dogs, and it wasn't a big dog. If they got attacked by a big dog they would have had no chance.

tallus

morganafay wrote: »

Me too. When my dogs were attacked by a staffie, I was surprised at how strong it was. I was hitting it as hard as I could and it didn't even seem to notice, and trying to pry its mouth off of my dogs, and it wasn't a big dog. If they got attacked by a big dog they would have had no chance.

One of my sisters has a lovely Staffie who's literally afraid of her own shadow, but is a fantastic guard dog. The fist sign of anyone coming near the house and she barks. If you said boo to her, she would run a mile. Beautiful dog too.

adser53

tallus wrote: »

Some interesting stats Here

Not taking sides here because I don't have a dog, and I never have had one, but given the choice after looking at the stats on that site, I'd rather be bitten by a jack russell than a rottweiler or pit bull.

In defence of pitbulls, they are the most reported dog but also the most often mis-identified. You'l find that reading alot of stats will throw up the term "Pitbull type" or such and even watching shows like "When animals attack" will often mis label a dog as a pit bull. This is especially true in the USA.

For a laugh, and just out of curiousity, how many people can pick the american pitbull terrier out of this line-up of the 25 dogs most often mistaken for a pit?



The answer is :

no.16

Taken from http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

morganafay

tallus wrote: »

One of my sisters has a lovely Staffie who's literally afraid of her own shadow, but is a fantastic guard dog. The fist sign of anyone coming near the house and she barks. If you said boo to her, she would run a mile. Beautiful dog too.

I know there are lovely Staffies too. This one was not nice and attacked my dogs unprovoked and also bit me, though not seriously. I blame the owners though because he was out on the road, and they obviously hadn't socialised him with other dogs or something.

morganafay

adser53 wrote: »

For a laugh, and just out of curiousity, how many people can pick the american pitbull terrier out of this line-up of the 25 dogs most often mistaken for a pit?

The answer is :

no.16

Taken from http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

I would have said number 15 maybe . . . but it's hard to tell with small photos and you can't tell how big the dogs are. Is number 16 a puppy or a full grown dog? Also all the pitbulls I've seen are mostly on american TV and are fighting pitbulls that have weights around their necks and are really muscly!

tallus

adser53 wrote: »

In defence of pitbulls, they are the most reported dog but also the most often mis-identified. You'l find that reading alot of stats will throw up the term "Pitbull type" or such and even watching shows like "When animals attack" will often mis label a dog as a pit bull. This is especially true in the USA.

For a laugh, and just out of curiousity, how many people can pick the american pitbull terrier out of this line-up of the 25 dogs most often mistaken for a pit?



The answer is :

no.16

Taken from http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

Like I said, I'm not a dog owner, but the second dog in the photos looks like a pit bull.
Pit bulls and rottweillers accounted for 66% of the attacks listed on the site I linked to.
It's impossible for me to know, or anyone else for that matter if they actually know what breed of dog they were listing, but rightly or wrongly, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

adser53

morganafay wrote: »

I would have said number 15 maybe . . . but it's hard to tell with small photos and you can't tell how big the dogs are. Is number 16 a puppy or a full grown dog? Also all the pitbulls I've seen are mostly on american TV and are fighting pitbulls that have weights around their necks and are really muscly!

If you highlight the txt with your mouse after were it says "spoiler" in my post, you'll see the answer. Also if you follow that link you can click on the images for a larger picture and they have the name of the breed under it.

And sorry but 15 is wrong

tallus wrote: »

Like I said, I'm not a dog owner, but the second dog in the photos looks like a pit bull.Pit bulls and rottweillers accounted for 66% of the attacks listed on the site I linked to.
It's impossible for me to know, or anyone else for that matter if they actually know what breed of dog they were listing, but rightly or wrongly, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

As is no.2 which is a Dogue De Bordeaux.

My point here is that "pitbull" is a very,very generic term which generally covers the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier and English Bull Terrier and they are hard to distinguish by even the keenest dog lover so IMO it's unfair on the breeds to not only be condemned for being Restricted Breeds but also being held accountable for other breeds attacks.

I personally can't count how many times people have thought my Akitas are huskies

morganafay

tallus wrote: »

Pit bulls and rottweillers accounted for 66% of the attacks listed on the site I linked to.

You have to think though that even if a lot of attacks are by pit bulls and rotties, that's probably partly because a lot of people (not everyone of course) get them as guard dogs, fighting dogs, etc. so they train them to be aggressive. Whereas when people get some other types of dogs they don't want them to be aggressive, and if they are they might get them put down before they actually attack someone.

tallus

morganafay wrote: »

You have to think though that even if a lot of attacks are by pit bulls and rotties, that's probably partly because a lot of people (not everyone of course) get them as guard dogs, fighting dogs, etc. so they train them to be aggressive. Whereas when people get some other types of dogs they don't want them to be aggressive, and if they are they might get them put down before they actually attack someone.

Yeah good point.
Absolutely no argument from me on that.

morganafay

adser53 wrote: »

If you highlight the txt with your mouse after were it says "spoiler" in my post, you'll see the answer. Also if you follow that link you can click on the images for a larger picture and they have the name of the breed under it.

And sorry but 15 is wrong

I got a lot of those wrong! I think the ones I thought might be a pit bull (or a staffie) were still bull breeds though, so I wasn't too wrong . . .

At least I didn't think the Jack Russell was a pit bull!

i-digress

I know that bad owners do create a lot of problems. I don't believe that there is such a thing as 'dangerous' dogs. I do believe, however, that some dogs need stronger and more forceful leadership than others. In my opinion most of the dogs on the rb list need more forceful leadership, though there are a lot of dogs off it who qualify too.

My problem when someone says 'it's not the breed, it's the owner' is that if people believe owning a rb is the same as owning a lab, the wrong people are encouraged to buy them. People who are more interested in the look of the dog, than in training it to be a happy well-adjusted dog. This does genuine owners and the breed in question no favours.

I think certain breeds require more work than others.

In saying that though, many rb dogs are impeccably behaved because they have to be. Responsible owners know their dogs reputation, and train them so well that not only is the dog happy and knows their place, but other people who see their staffie/rottie see a well behaved dog that bucks the stereotype.

I am training my lab pup hard, because I have found that people who have 'soft' breeds, such as labs and GR's, often think that because they have a rep as a friendly breed they don't need to train their dog at all. So these dogs often behave worse than the average RB.

I honestly think owning any dog should be illegal unless you attend a couple of classes on dog behaviour, training, and establishing yourself as head of the pack. I did a huge amount of research on my breed before I got my Roxie, because I want what all responsible owners want, a happy well adjusted companion that doesn't bother anyone else.

morganafay

i-digress wrote: »

I know that bad owners do create a lot of problems. I don't believe that there is such a thing as 'dangerous' dogs. I do believe, however, that some dogs need stronger and more forceful leadership than others. In my opinion most of the dogs on the rb list need more forceful leadership, though there are a lot of dogs off it who qualify too.

Thanks, this is what I've been trying to say but can never put it into the right words.


I know I wouldn't be a good enough leader to a RB dog (or other dog that needs better leadership) so I wouldn't get one. I'd just get an "easy" dog. But even with my Cavaliers I have to try to be the leader or they'd be very bold.

I know a woman with a dog she calls a pit bull, it's like the size of a Rottie, really muscly, with a bull terrier type nose. It's a rescue dog but she has it trained very very well (she has raised guide dog puppies). Even so she says she'd never completely trust him (he was aggressive when she got him but isn't anymore). I know you should never trust any dog unsupervised around young children . . .
but what I like about my dogs is that I can trust them to let kids come over and play with them in the park, I can trust them around newborn kittens unsupervised, and supervised I can let them say hello to my rabbits and g-pigs and they give them kisses. With some breeds of dogs I wouldn't trust them to do that . . .

morganafay

I sometimes think though, maybe all dogs should be required to wear muzzles in public . . . I know that's a bit crazy, but all dogs could be dangerous (even small dogs are dangerous to other small dogs or could give you a bad bite). A lot of dogs are really powerful and since they can seriously hurt people, maybe it'd be better that way.

And a lot of people have a fear of dogs, and I'm pretty sick of dogs being aggressive to mine. Some dogs might never be aggressive, but how can they decide which ones should wear muzzles and which shouldn't?

At least it'd be more fair than just picking some breeds to be restricted because they have a bad reputation.

Whispered

morganafay wrote: »

but what I like about my dogs is that I can trust them to let kids come over and play with them in the park, I can trust them around newborn kittens unsupervised, and supervised I can let them say hello to my rabbits and g-pigs and they give them kisses. With some breeds of dogs I wouldn't trust them to do that . . .

It really does depend on the individual dog though and very little to do with the breed. In fairness, we could never allow Harley play with strange kids simply because he could knock them over and if he did hurt them of course it would likely be put down to his breed. So in that way definately the cavs are easier. Harley does love to play with my younger sister and cousins though and really gets into the game in the way a smaller dog can't. They wrestle, he fetches, they play hide and seek and he has pulled the mattress off the bed to find them. He jostles them and leaps up onto the trampoline after them. It's really rough play, but they love it. So in a way, he can play with them in a different way than a smaller dog can too, so there are pluses to both. (obviously young kids couldn't play with him like that though!)

I had kittens here a few times and Harley is fine with them. I wouldn't leave them unsupervised but it's so cute to see him utterly confused at all of those little "things" climbing on him. The expression on his face is great!

morganafay wrote: »

I sometimes think though, maybe all dogs should be required to wear muzzles in public . . . .

But if that happens you'd just have a bunch of undersocialised dogs going around. I see how you could think it would work but I really think it would be better to put that energy into educating people about proper dog ownership. I'm sure there are things all of us could learn. Actually, I'm of the opinion that many RB dogs that are more agressive than usual are that way because of muzzles. You can't properly socialise a dog when he's on a short lead and muzzled. They never learn other dogs signals or how to interact properly.

A RB dog is just that, a dog, which people who don't really know what they are talking about, decided to put on an ill thought out list.

On the skinhead bit, My hair is very long. Really though, my OH was cutting his hair here at home a few days ago and asked me to do "the back" so I took the razor and did a nice big strip up the back of his head. He had meant the back of his neck and I had just given him a "0" so I had to scalp the rest. So at the moment Harley has a skinhead owner.

morganafay

Whispered wrote: »

But if that happens you'd just have a bunch of undersocialised dogs going around. I see how you could think it would work but I really think it would be better to put that energy into educating people about proper dog ownership. I'm sure there are things all of us could learn. Actually, I'm of the opinion that many RB dogs that are more agressive than usual are that way because of muzzles. You can't properly socialise a dog when he's on a short lead and muzzled. They never learn other dogs signals or how to interact properly.

Yeah I guess so. I guess they should just enforce the dog control laws better. If everyone had their dogs in secure gardens or on the lead and controlled properly, it wouldn't really be a problem anyway. And if people stopped leaving their dogs unsupervised with young kids, and made sure the dogs were trained and socialised better . . .


My dogs are socialised but still can't read another dog's fear or aggression signals. I think that's maybe part of their breed . . .

morganafay

Whispered wrote: »

It really does depend on the individual dog though and very little to do with the breed.

Oh yeah, I think it depends on the individual dog, but with some dogs it's easier to trust them you know? I usually don't trust strange dogs at all, but some breeds I would trust most of the time . . . not many breeds though . . .

seamus

tallus wrote: »

Like I said, I'm not a dog owner, but the second dog in the photos looks like a pit bull.
Pit bulls and rottweillers accounted for 66% of the attacks listed on the site I linked to.

There's a very good section on that same page about the problem with statistics:
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm#statistics

It doesn't mention the misclassification issue, but I think that's a given. The misclassification issue is a big one and probably the primary reason why bull breeds appear to be so skewed in any presented stats.

Speak to any dog warden or rescue worker and they will be able to tell you hundreds of stories where someone rang up saying that there was a pitbull loose on the street or that they had a vicious pitbull which needed to be taken away, only to arrive at the person's door and you have a dog which looks absolutely nothing like a pitbull. Some people say it because they think the warden/rescue will react quicker (they won't), but many people simply haven't got a clue what a pit bull is or looks like. Many (perhaps even most) couldn't pick out a bull breed from a non-bull breed.

From the same page above, there's an interesting piece on a court ruling about a challenge to the constitutionality (in the States) of breed-specific legislation:

The trial court noted that all the animal behaviorists from both parties testified that a pit bull, trained and properly socialized like other dogs, would not exhibit any more dangerous characteristics than any other breed of dog. After considering all the evidence before it, the trial court agreed, finding that pit bulls, as a breed, are not more dangerous than other breeds."
The court then stated that, "Our review of the record reveals no current statistics since 1996 were presented to support the notion that pit bulls have continued to be involved in a "disproportionate number" of attacks or fatalities. In our view, despite its own factual finding to the contrary, the trial court improperly relied on an outdated, irrelevant, and inadmissible source of factual information to revive the "vicious" pit bull sentiment and justify the finding that the statutes and ordinance are constitutional."

Oh yeah, I think it depends on the individual dog, but with some dogs it's easier to trust them you know? I usually don't trust strange dogs at all, but some breeds I would trust most of the time . . . not many breeds though

I used to think like that, having grown up with a JRT, but having a staffie now I've actually gone the other way; I don't implicitly trust any dog of any breed until I've had a couple of minutes to see what they're like.

cjf

If someone put their hand under my garden door or climbed over the wall to retrieve a ball my dog would most likely attack. He is a dog!! How are they to supposed to know the difference between someone coming over the wall to get a ball or someone coming over the wall to harm his family. A dog is not a mind reader he is a dog. A hand through a fence is a hand through a fence they can’t reason it’s a childs! People have a problem respecting boundaries, I would never ever climb over a neighbours wall or put my hand through their fence!

I agree that there are so many irresponsible dog owners out there. Dogs should not be running free outside of peoples properties and the attacks that happen because of dogs running free are 100% the owners fault no question. But if someone hopped over my wall and my dog bit them they would have a hard time getting him from me. I have never trained him to bite or guard in fact the opposite he goes out and about with me all over and is a great example of his breed but hop over my wall or stick you hand under the door and I couldnt guarantee he wouldn’t bite.

Could any dog owner????

pH

cjf wrote: »

If someone put their hand under my garden door or climbed over the wall to retrieve a ball my dog would most likely attack. He is a dog!!

Well it shouldn't, no one should own or keep a dog that's capable of a sustained savage attack on a child. Your excuse that it's understandable in this instance is awful, and leads to inevitable attacks on guests or children who are in the house and accidentally get left alone in the dog's territory.

The desire to own aggressive macho dogs appalls me, fine have a dog that can bark and warn humans of an intruder's presence, but except in *very* few circumstances (very well trained police dogs for example) no one should own a dog that attacks/bites a child (or any human for that matter) - it just isn't necessary, and to be fair to the dog, it's not a lawyer and cannot be expected to determine which humans are "legitimate" targets.

This isn't an attack on dangerous breeds, it's an attack on the notion that anyone feels it's appropriate to own a dog that would do more than bark when confronted by an intruder - such a dog, no matter how well secured is a potential disaster waiting to happen.

morganafay

cjf wrote: »

I couldnt guarantee he wouldn’t bite. [/COLOR]

Could any dog owner????

I very much doubt my dogs would bite an intruder, but they would bark to guard their territory.

But most dogs could bite an intruder, they're dogs, that's their nature.