Why do people keep rottweiler and pitbulls?

Freddie59

lrushe wrote: »

Did you have a look at the link I posted, how can the stats and media coverage be trusted when they can't even get a v.fundamental piece of information ie. breed correct.
Nobody is belittling the killing of a human being, what people are trying to get to get across is that any dog can bite or kill, no breeds track record is clear on that score. Also where a breed is named in the media the media quiet often gets the breed wrong whether through ignorance or a blatant attempt to sell newspapers.

But you are STILL trying to - in some insane manner - practically defend these attacks, describing them as some kind of media myth. Yes, ANY dog can bite - but the sheer overwhelming and destructive potential of these breeds is the issue.

And there is still the small man syndrome, which seems to plague ownership of these breeds.

adser53

Freddie59 wrote: »

But you are STILL trying to - in some insane manner - practically defend these attacks, describing them as some kind of media myth. Yes, ANY dog can bite - but the sheer overwhelming and destructive potential of these breeds is the issue.

And there is still the small man syndrome, which seems to plague ownership of these breeds.

Ah here come on. Noone is defending these attacks. We're (constantly) defending our favoured breeds from nonces that, in my humble opinion, don't know their arse from their elbow. How often have we all said on here any dog is capable of attacking? How often have we also said that the media isn't interested in the story unless it's a dog on the restricted breed list becuase they can sell it as hard hitting news with the vicious breed as the enemy. Nobody wants to read about a loveable family breed attacking its owners because it's not gritty enough.

Yes, ANY dog can bite - but the sheer overwhelming and destructive potential of these breeds is the issue.

They are NO different than any of the DOZENS of other large breeds and to believe otherwise is pure ignorance.

And there is still the small man syndrome, which seems to plague ownership of these breeds.

No it doesn't "plague" ownership of these breeds. Although I would say ignorance about them seems to plague the general public. A small minority, I reckon 3-5% of these breed owners are:
scangers that want to look tough
or scangers that want a dog as a weapon and therefore train/mistreat the dog to be just that (mainly a problem in the UK)

These tools are the ones whos dogs maim and attack people, not ours. So why don't you give over tarring the 97% of us that actually look after and train our dogs, with the same brush. And while you're at it, stop trying to find arguements were there are none and saying stuff like we're trivialising dog attacks.

EGAR

Since my posts re a media bias don't seem to be believed by some users, perhaps from the horse's mouth will suffice?

http://blogs.dogtime.com/kc-dog-blog/2010/07/denver-columnist-confirms-media-bias-in-over-reporting-stories-about-pit-bulls

lrushe

Freddie59 wrote: »

But you are STILL trying to - in some insane manner - practically defend these attacks, describing them as some kind of media myth. Yes, ANY dog can bite - but the sheer overwhelming and destructive potential of these breeds is the issue.

And there is still the small man syndrome, which seems to plague ownership of these breeds.

I'm not defending the attacks, I am defending the breeds.
Can a Great Dane / St. Bernard do the same damage as a Rottweiler, certainly.
Can a Lab / Husky do as much damage as a Pit Bull, certainly.
Have all of these breeds attacked and killed people, yes.
Did they all get the same media attention as a Pit or Rottie attack, no.
Why? because people always need a villian and unfortunately Pits and Rotties have been given that hat to wear.
I can't defend the certain types of people who own these breeds but that's hardly the dogs fault, take these breeds away and the idiots out there will just find another breed to run into the ground, its a vicious, never ending circle.

johnmcdnl

these bull dog type breeds are often trained to be fighting dogs and therefore the media portrayal of these dogs is very negative.. this overlays into real life and it results in people who want to look "hard" buying one of these "fighting" dogs while the ordinary person tries to avoid them like the plague out of fear...

antomagoo

Freddie59 wrote: »

But you are STILL trying to - in some insane manner - practically defend these attacks, describing them as some kind of media myth. Yes, ANY dog can bite - but the sheer overwhelming and destructive potential of these breeds is the issue.

And there is still the small man syndrome, which seems to plague ownership of these breeds.

None of us RB owners on here are defending or conding these attacks in any way shape or form so drop that line please.

The problem is the toe rag irresponsible owners who give these amazing dogs a bad name are not going to care what any of us think or say and as a result blanket rules and regulations are imposed on owning these breeds and as usual the wrong people are unjustly punished and discriminated against

kylith

lrushe wrote: »

I can't defend the certain types of people who own these breeds but that's hardly the dogs fault, take these breeds away and the idiots out there will just find another breed to run into the ground, its a vicious, never ending circle.

Very true. If all pitbulls were PTS these scumbags would just move on to different breeds, and people would then be calling for those to be banned until eventually 'hard men' were going around with Westies or something.

sligopark

johnmcdnl wrote: »

these bull dog type breeds are often trained to be fighting dogs

sorry John this is sh1te - a few are and are never taken in public - no one condones dog fighting - antomagoo is right

antomagoo wrote: »

The problem is the toe rag irresponsible owners who give these amazing dogs a bad name are not going to care what any of us think or say and as a result blanket rules and regulations are imposed on owning these breeds and as usual the wrong people are unjustly punished and discriminated against

except its not the people that get punished ultimately - its the dogs - and its to our shame

we need to establish a way to remove the pressure off the dogs without the greens taking over the hole thing and making a heames of it



personally I would like to take on a staff but I feel I am not wholly dog experienced nor have I the time and space to have one in my life that any staff or bull breed would get the life it deserves

johnmcdnl

sligopark wrote: »

sorry John this is sh1te - a few are and are never taken in public - no one condones dog fighting - antomagoo is right

I'm not saying every dog is taken for fighting - I'm saying the few that are tend to be from these breeds - therefore the title fighting dog sticks - I'm talking from my own perspective - when I see any form of pitbull or bulldog or rottweiler I tend to be very cautious because that's the general view I've grown up with these dogs - they can be dangerous so stay away from them

Also from my own experience the only people who own these dogs are people who own them because they're intimidating dogs and that makes them really cool dogs in their eyes... I've yet to meet someone who owns one of these dogs who owns them just because there loyal and obedient and friendly etc etc - from my experience as I keep saying these dogs are owned by people who want to send out a message of strength or superiority or intimidation...

I'm not saying that these dogs are inherently dangerous or anything - I'm just speaking from what I've observed myself about the type of people who own these dogs and their motivations for doing so

Whispered

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Also from my own experience the only people who own these dogs are people who own them because they're intimidating dogs and that makes them really cool dogs in their eyes... I've yet to meet someone who owns one of these dogs who owns them just because there loyal and obedient and friendly etc etc - from my experience as I keep saying these dogs are owned by people who want to send out a message of strength or superiority or intimidation...

Really? Thats your experience? Can I ask how many people you know who own RB dogs?

I'm sure you're delighted to have found this thread then, so you can see just how unlucky you were in having such experiences.

TBH I find it hard to understand how you believe that the only people who own these dogs are

people who own them because they're intimidating dogs

even after reading the thread. The only people who think my dog is intimidating are people who don't know him.

johnmcdnl

Whispered wrote: »

The only people who think my dog is intimidating are people who don't know him.

Exactly - and if you left your dog in the front garden I'd never attempt to try to get to your front door for fear of being bitten..

at the end of the day a dog is still only a trained animal but it's natural instincts will remain there and will pose a threat if they are not trained properly...
biggest problem with pitbulls and the likes is that if there not trained correctly there going to do some serious damage...

That's the main reason why I have a problem with these breeds of dogs - if you train your dog and have them completely passive and will never pose a threat to anyone in any circumstance then that's grand - but if your dog ever once decides to be vicious it could kill a child just like that - as we've seen happen before...
these dogs genetic build makes them dangerous unless they are completely 100% under control - and not every owner is as responsible as you no doubt and that's what I have a problem with...

the pitbulls and rothweillers I've seen have usually been used as guard dogs which is grand - but all it takes is one weak link on a chain or a weak piece of cement in the wall or some other small flaw and a potentially lethal dog is on the loose...

it's these type of dogs I have the problem with - not your quiet well trained controlled dog

lrushe

johnmcdnl wrote: »

at the end of the day a dog is still only a trained animal but it's natural instincts will remain there and will pose a threat if they are not trained properly...
biggest problem with pitbulls and the likes is that if there not trained correctly there going to do some serious damage...

That's the main reason why I have a problem with these breeds of dogs - if you train your dog and have them completely passive and will never pose a threat to anyone in any circumstance then that's grand - but if your dog ever once decides to be vicious it could kill a child just like that - as we've seen happen before...
these dogs genetic build makes them dangerous unless they are completely 100% under control - and not every owner is as responsible as you no doubt and that's what I have a problem with...

I feel like I'm just repeating myself now but your above statement could apply to any medium to large breed dog out there, Labs, Great Danes, Collies, St. Bernard, Newfoundland, Golden Retriever, Husky, Irish Wolfhound, Red Setter...........................the list goes on and on.
Tell me how the genetic build of a Pit is more dangerous than a Lab?
Or the genetic build of a Rottweiler is more dangerous than say a Bernese Mountain Dog?
Any animal (not just a dog) that is abused or not under effective control is dangerous, I just don't get how you can think that there is one set of rules for Pits and Rotties that other breeds are immune to???

ISDW

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Exactly - and if you left your dog in the front garden I'd never attempt to try to get to your front door for fear of being bitten..

at the end of the day a dog is still only a trained animal but it's natural instincts will remain there and will pose a threat if they are not trained properly...
biggest problem with pitbulls and the likes is that if there not trained correctly there going to do some serious damage...

That's the main reason why I have a problem with these breeds of dogs - if you train your dog and have them completely passive and will never pose a threat to anyone in any circumstance then that's grand - but if your dog ever once decides to be vicious it could kill a child just like that - as we've seen happen before...
these dogs genetic build makes them dangerous unless they are completely 100% under control - and not every owner is as responsible as you no doubt and that's what I have a problem with...

the pitbulls and rothweillers I've seen have usually been used as guard dogs which is grand - but all it takes is one weak link on a chain or a weak piece of cement in the wall or some other small flaw and a potentially lethal dog is on the loose...

it's these type of dogs I have the problem with - not your quiet well trained controlled dog

Do you know what rottweilers were originally used for? Go and look it up.

The bull breeds yes, they were developed for fighting, bulls, other dogs, NEVER humans. So they were actually bred to NOT bite humans, because if you are handling a dog in a dog fight, the last thing you want is for the dog to turn on you. So, they are not great guard dogs against people. They may not like another dog coming into the garden maybe, and that is a maybe.

There are many breeds of dogs that if I saw in a garden I wouldn't want to go into it, but actually, a Staff or a pit bull wouldn't be one of them. I would be wary of a collie though, or a Westie.

I spent 4 days in hospital after being bitten (accidentally) by a husky earlier this year. Now partly my fault, allergic to penicillin, but the Doctors said I was very lucky not to lose my finger, possibly my arm, and if I hadn't gone back to A & E immediately it went red and swollen (4 days after the bite and initial treatment) possibly my life. But a nice cuddly, fluffy husky, trust me, the story in the press would have been very different if I had died, than if the dog had been a bull breed. I can see it now, 'Tragic death of woman in dog bite accident'. Bull breed 'Woman savaged to death by devil dog'!

andreac

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Exactly - and if you left your dog in the front garden I'd never attempt to try to get to your front door for fear of being bitten..

at the end of the day a dog is still only a trained animal but it's natural instincts will remain there and will pose a threat if they are not trained properly...
biggest problem with pitbulls and the likes is that if there not trained correctly there going to do some serious damage...

That's the main reason why I have a problem with these breeds of dogs - if you train your dog and have them completely passive and will never pose a threat to anyone in any circumstance then that's grand - but if your dog ever once decides to be vicious it could kill a child just like that - as we've seen happen before...
these dogs genetic build makes them dangerous unless they are completely 100% under control - and not every owner is as responsible as you no doubt and that's what I have a problem with...

the pitbulls and rothweillers I've seen have usually been used as guard dogs which is grand - but all it takes is one weak link on a chain or a weak piece of cement in the wall or some other small flaw and a potentially lethal dog is on the loose...

it's these type of dogs I have the problem with - not your quiet well trained controlled dog

You cant generalise 2 breeds like that. ANy big dog, and there are plenty more than just 2 breeds, have the potential to do damage if not trained properly, so by saying pitbulls and rotties are dangerous is just so ignorant and narrow minded.
My rottie is about 50kg at the mo but i know several other breeds like great danes, saint bernards, mastiffs etc that are hitting 70-80 kg and if they were un trained they could the same if not more damage so how can you single out rotties and pitbulls??
As ISDW said, go and look up what rottweilers were originally bred for and you will be very surprised.
Its only people that given these wonderful breeds the bad reputation, not the poor innocent dogs.

kylith

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Exactly - and if you left your dog in the front garden I'd never attempt to try to get to your front door for fear of being bitten.

I'd never enter a garden that had any dog who was unknown to me, not just a garden with a bull breed, simply because any dog can be territorial and attack. I'd be more worried of a terrier than of a bully.

adser53

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Exactly - and if you left your dog in the front garden I'd never attempt to try to get to your front door for fear of being bitten..

at the end of the day a dog is still only a trained animal but it's natural instincts will remain there and will pose a threat if they are not trained properly...
biggest problem with pitbulls and the likes is that if there not trained correctly there going to do some serious damage...

That's the main reason why I have a problem with these breeds of dogs - if you train your dog and have them completely passive and will never pose a threat to anyone in any circumstance then that's grand - but if your dog ever once decides to be vicious it could kill a child just like that - as we've seen happen before...
these dogs genetic build makes them dangerous unless they are completely 100% under control - and not every owner is as responsible as you no doubt and that's what I have a problem with...

the pitbulls and rothweillers I've seen have usually been used as guard dogs which is grand - but all it takes is one weak link on a chain or a weak piece of cement in the wall or some other small flaw and a potentially lethal dog is on the loose...

it's these type of dogs I have the problem with - not your quiet well trained controlled dog

Look John, I'm not having a go at you but have you bothered reading this whole thread? every single thing you've said has come up before and all were doing now is repeating ourselves

adser53

kylith wrote: »

I'd never enter a garden that had any dog who was unknown to me, not just a garden with a bull breed, simply because any dog can be territorial and attack. I'd be more worried of a terrier than of a bully.

exactly!!!
this is what we've been saying all along. every dog is the same and should be treated as such. to believe otherwise is a recipe for disaster and parents need to realise this for themselves and then teach their kids to respect dogs, not fear them or approach them foolishly

LucyBliss

My old music teacher used to own a Jack Russell who would instantly rush for my ankles the minute I walked in the door. Sadly for him, I always wore boots so no joy. Once he realised I wasn't reacting, he'd go away.
I also saw a St. Bernard on a lead one day drag its owner a few yards down the road where it grabbed the jacket of a woman walking in front of them, pulling her back and ripping her jacket. There was no provocation, whether the dog thought it was a game, I don't know, but the woman accepted the owner's apologies and kept going.
That was a cute St. Bernard so nobody was shrieking at the owner about him walking his 'Devil Dog' and putting the nation at risk!

I regard RB dogs the same I do all dogs. If they are pups and the owner is amenable, I will rub them. If they are older, I will admire profusely, but stay hands off until the dog gives me the a-okay. Why would I go harrassing some poor dog minding his own business and expect it to be okay with that? (I'd nearly bite you myself for less.)

I don't believe any dog is genetically primed to be vicious or to bite. Yes, there's temperament and conditioning but if they were all vicious, why would we have such ticking time bombs in our houses, meeting our friends, or let our kids have one?

johnmcdnl

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/breed-specific-legislation/45144-fatal-dog-attack-statistics-u-s.html


that post there shows the stats for dog attacks in America - top 3 in the list of breeds of dogs that caused a fatality
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%),
Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%),

these dogs cause more damage than any other breed of dog if they get the chance to do so - that's what I'm just trying to say...
It might be a very rare occurrence but when these dogs get a chance they do the most damage...

DBCyc

johnmcdnl wrote: »

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/breed-specific-legislation/45144-fatal-dog-attack-statistics-u-s.html


that post there shows the stats for dog attacks in America - top 3 in the list of breeds of dogs that caused a fatality
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%),
Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%),

these dogs cause more damage than any other breed of dog if they get the chance to do so - that's what I'm just trying to say...
It might be a very rare occurrence but when these dogs get a chance they do the most damage...

adser53 wrote: »

Look John, I'm not having a go at you but have you bothered reading this whole thread? every single thing you've said has come up before and all were doing now is repeating ourselves

As asder53 has suggested, please read the whole thread. It has been put on numerous occasions to various posters that these studies are not a sound basis to classify certain breeds as being more likely to attack than the other.

You also seem to be ignoring the point that other dogs breeds of similar size or larger can do just as much damage as a pit bull or rottweiler. This has also been pointed out plenty of times on this thread.

antomagoo

johnmcdnl wrote: »

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/breed-specific-legislation/45144-fatal-dog-attack-statistics-u-s.html


that post there shows the stats for dog attacks in America - top 3 in the list of breeds of dogs that caused a fatality
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%),
Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%),

these dogs cause more damage than any other breed of dog if they get the chance to do so - that's what I'm just trying to say...
It might be a very rare occurrence but when these dogs get a chance they do the most damage...

What do you mean get a chance? You think they are sitting around waiting for someones guard to go down just so they can attack, oh the sneaky rottweiler, like a highly trained ninja assasin waiting for the right moment to attack.

Can we get away from this crap please, original post was "Why these breeds are kept" no one on boards keeps these breeds for maming, fighting killing etc lets put it behind us

And as previously stated all the statistics in the world dont take into account what the circumstances were at the time an attack took place, and they prob vary from one incident to the next

Not all Rotties are dangerous just like not everyone from Jamica smokes weed just like not everyone from Ireland is called Pat O'Brien & eats cabbage with pints of Guinness etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

lrushe

johnmcdnl wrote: »

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/breed-specific-legislation/45144-fatal-dog-attack-statistics-u-s.html


that post there shows the stats for dog attacks in America - top 3 in the list of breeds of dogs that caused a fatality
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%),
Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%),

these dogs cause more damage than any other breed of dog if they get the chance to do so - that's what I'm just trying to say...
It might be a very rare occurrence but when these dogs get a chance they do the most damage...

Have you even read your own link? Even if these stats were correct and I'd bet my right arm they aren't (pit bull type, what the hell is that???) the Pit Bulls and Rotties involved in the attacks were involved as a result of "gross human negligence or criminal intent" where the dogs we're beaten, starved, teased or agression was encouraged. Take out those mistreated dogs and that just leaves the humble mixed breed at the top of the list, quick someone add mixed breeds to the list of dangerous dogs :rolleyes:

johnmcdnl

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

Dog Bite-related Fatalities in the United States
Year Total # Most fatal attacks by # Second-most fatal attacks by
2005 28 Pit bull-type (17) Rottweiler (5)
2006 29 Pit bull-type (15) Rottweiler (8)
2007 34 Pit bull-type (18) Rottweiler (4)
2008 23 Pit bull-type (15) Husky (3)
2009 30 Pit bull-type (14) Rottweiler (4)

And for those that said what's a "pitbull type"

Most jurisdictions that restrict pit bulls, including Ontario, Canada,[1] and Denver, Colorado,[2] use the term "pit bull" to refer to the modern American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. However, a few jurisdictions, such as Singapore[3] and Franklin County, Ohio,[4] also classify the modern American Bulldog as a "pit bull-type dog"

seamus

johnmcdnl wrote: »

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

The list is compiled based on media reports. The media generally only reports on dog attacks if they can say "Pit bull" or "Rottweiler" in the article. Fatal and serious attacks by other breeds are generally ignored and will never receive many column inches.

Any study or count based on media reports is inherently flawed because the media is heavily biased. If you look at the headlines on media reports, you will see, "Man attacked by ferocious pitbull" more often than "Man attacked by dog".

Selling newspapers is all about making people believe there is a "hidden danger" in their midst, which will strike them down at any point. The media choose to use pit bulls as their scapegoat in this and get people to believe that their neighbours pit bull is an unstoppable beast, just waiting for the chance to run over and eat their children.

That is why the vast majority of studies in relation to dog bites have no validity whatsoever. A bit like doing a study about men's sexual habits by taking a poll in the rape crisis centre.

And for those that said what's a "pitbull type"

But that's what particular States consider to be a pit bull, and is not related in any way to any article which refers to a "pit-bull type".

andreac

I wouldnt believe everything i read on wikipedia as most of it isnt true, and it certainly isnt fact.

Wiki stated a list of top ten breeds in Ireland, some of them are barely known around the world, let alone Ireland so i would take EVERYTHING wikipedia says with a pinch of salt.

adser53

John for the love of god, pleeeease read this entire thread before you post again! Every single thing youre posting has been covered more than once! I personally think you're refusing to see the bigger picture thats been explained here over and over becase of your own biase against these breeds. Have an open mind and stop taking wikipedia and the star newspaper as concrete facts.

Zapperzy

andreac wrote: »

I wouldnt believe everything i read on wikipedia as most of it isnt true, and it certainly isnt fact.

Wiki stated a list of top ten breeds in Ireland, some of them are barely known around the world, let alone Ireland so i would take EVERYTHING wikipedia says with a pinch of salt.

From what I remember the breeds they mentioned didn't even exist, they were some made up names in it.

John, did you see the link egar (I think it was egar) posted about what the media considers to be a pit bull or a rottweiler, often they report the wrong breed.

Also this I think is interesting, would you know a pit bull if it was stood in front of you? http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

EGAR

Yes , the case of the mistaken identity ....

I don't know how often I had to answer emails from other rescues to do a breed ID on a dog they class as a Staffie or a Pit Bull. Vets rarely have a clue, and dogwardens even less, I never forget the litter of APBT which arrived here from the pound all black and tan and pointy ears or the Pit Bull puppy which had adult teeth and was a fully grown Whippet cross. Or the vast number of Lab x classed as Bull Breeds just because they have broad heads.

And lets not forget the Boxer crosses, American Bulldogs and its crosses etc pp.

There are actually very few Pit Bulls in Ireland and what I have seen so far, alot of people have Staffie x and think they are APBTs.

Cherry Blossom

Restricted Breeds aren't common in my part of the country and the few that are around tend to be GSDs used as guard dogs. None of the 'guard dogs' that I know has ever bitten anyone. Someone I know has 2 that he got after being shot in his own yard. The property is securly fenced with 2 sets of gates at each end of the lane. The dogs live exclusively outdoors and other than being fed they are mostly left to their own devices. Most people won't get out of their car till someone puts the dogs in the shed. Neither would hurt a fly and are quite happy to see anyone who'll give them a pat :rolleyes: All they do is sit there and watch you, that's their job. I have no idea what it takes to make these dogs agressive but lack of training hasn't even come into it in this situation as they've had very little. The only command they have been taught is 'bed' and they immediatly comply when told to go to bed. They will give a warning bark if someone new comes into the yard or one of the kids heads off unaccompanied towards the gate and thats it.

Just to make it clear I don't condone their lack of training in anyway but it's just one example of why some people's attitude towards so-called restricted breeds puzzles me so much. I doubt very much that 2 labs would be anywhere near as content being kept in this way.

As for people using Wikipaedia as a source any idot with access to a computer to add and change entries on it.

ISDW

johnmcdnl wrote: »

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

Dog Bite-related Fatalities in the United States
Year Total # Most fatal attacks by # Second-most fatal attacks by
2005 28 Pit bull-type (17) Rottweiler (5)
2006 29 Pit bull-type (15) Rottweiler (8)
2007 34 Pit bull-type (18) Rottweiler (4)
2008 23 Pit bull-type (15) Husky (3)
2009 30 Pit bull-type (14) Rottweiler (4)

And for those that said what's a "pitbull type"

OK, so we have at least 4 or 5 breeds contained within that type, lets use your own 'statistics'. 2008, divide 15 by 5 (number of breeds) equals 3, the same as the Husky for that year, so please explain your reasoning again?