Man kills Pit-bull to save child....opinions?

Bill2673

This thread becoming an idenditkit of other threads on pitbulls/ rottweilers....

what we can agree on....


Pit Bulls have been known to attack people
If they do so, then they can inflict a lot of damage
This is usually the owners fault, not the dogs

Therefore, in an ideal world the ownership of this breed could be more closely monitored so they are in the hands of genuine responsible dog lovers, and not people who will neglect the animal and act irresponsibly with them....

And thats where the conversation ends as....well thats not going to happen in Ireland as our legislators have more/ other things to be bothered with.

thebullkf

lrushe wrote: »

Of these 74%:


From what I have read from this link the information is far too vauge to draw too many conclusions from it. No doubt the above mentioned dogs shouldn't be owned by just anybody but that is no reason to black list a particular breed of dog. People are always the problem, it's only once in a blue moon that it is the dog and of those cases it could be any breed of dog and is usually due to some neurolgical reasons.

there is.

none of them were Labs.
none were collies
none were great danes
none irish wolfhounds
none were yorkshire terriers..

see where i'm going with this ?

the report also states those dogs "or their breeds" ...pretty conclusive imo.

it ain't PB bashing.

* Where the breeds identified correctly?
* How were these dogs bred?
* How old were they when they left their mother?
* How were they socialised?
* How were they treated ie. lack of food, teased, abused etc.?
* What type of people owned the dogs, people would integrated them into their families or people who used them as a status symbol or merely for guarding purposes?
* Of the children involved in the incidents, were they alone with the dogs or supervised?

really ....come on .


same could be said for criminals....

lrushe

Bill2673 wrote: »

This thread becoming an idenditkit of other threads on pitbulls/ rottweilers....

what we can agree on....


Pit Bulls Most breeds have been known to attack people
If they most breeds do so, then they can inflict a lot of damage
This is usually the owners fault, not the dogs

Therefore, in an ideal world the ownership of this most breeds could be more closely monitored so they are in the hands of genuine responsible dog lovers, and not people who will neglect the animal and act irresponsibly with them....

And thats where the conversation ends as....well thats not going to happen in Ireland as our legislators have more/ other things to be bothered with.

Can I just fix your post a little, not being funny but I believe this is a more acurate picture.

thebullkf

lrushe wrote: »

Can I just fix your post a little, not being funny but I believe this is a more acurate picture.

i disagree. so do clinical,scientific, trials and reports incl A&E,medical reports.

lrushe

thebullkf wrote: »

there is.

none of them were Labs.
none were collies
none were great danes
none irish wolfhounds
none were yorkshire terriers..

see where i'm going with this ?

the report also states those dogs "or their breeds" ...pretty conclusive imo.

it ain't PB bashing.




really ....come on .


same could be said for criminals....

How many of these dogs are actully the breeds they were reported as being?

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/dog-bites-and-the-media/breed-identification/

See where I'm coming from?

Criminals are not dogs, apples and oranges and all that.

lrushe

thebullkf wrote: »

i disagree. so do clinical,scientific, trials and reports incl A&E,medical reports.

See my last post.

thebullkf

lrushe wrote: »

See my last post.

thanks for giving me 60 secs to reply;)

thebullkf

lrushe wrote: »

How many of these dogs are actully the breeds they were reported as being?

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/dog-bites-and-the-media/breed-identification/

See where I'm coming from?

Criminals are not dogs, apples and oranges and all that.

true,they're human. much more important species.


from the report. which i've already posted (and you possibly haven't read?)

The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.
According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios
and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question

is that clear enough? iunderstand dogs can bite,i understand dogs will attack... the circumsttnaces of a dogs upbringing is of no consolation to the victim.
and unfortunately PB's and a select few mentioned are responsible for three quarters of all attacks.

black and white my friend.

lrushe

thebullkf wrote: »

true,they're human. much more important species.

Where did I say otherwise???

thebullkf wrote: »

from the report. which i've already posted (and you possibly haven't read?)

is that clear enough? iunderstand dogs can bite,i understand dogs will attack... the circumsttnaces of a dogs upbringing is of no consolation to the victim.

I read the 'report' and replied to it???

Half the dogs in the link I posted were quite clearly not the breed of dogs they were identified as, therefore making most stats inaccurate due to human error.
The circumstances of the dogs upbringing might be of no consolation to victims or even to those who like to stir up breed related hysteria but they are to those responsible owners who's dogs are being bashed and restricted

thebullkf wrote: »

and unfortunately PB's and a select few mentioned are responsible for three quarters of all attacks.

black and white my friend.

Unfortunately it is not black and white. Were all the dogs reported actually PB's? Who identified them and how was it proven???

smokie2008

Bit of a no brainer and pointless thread in MOP, you really expect someone to come on here and say "na he should of let the dog maul the child". Even hardcore Dog lovers wouldn't rather a child's face ripped off then a Dog unfortunately having to Die.

spartan1

There is no Question in the world IMO this man is a hero.

He'd nearly be a hero if he did this to an evil person doing the same thing but im not going to geti into that debate

as for

* Where the breeds identified correctly?
* How were these dogs bred?
* How old were they when they left their mother?
* How were they socialised?
* How were they treated ie. lack of food, teased, abused etc.?
* What type of people owned the dogs, people would integrated them into their families or people who used them as a status symbol or merely for guarding purposes?
* Of the children involved in the incidents, were they alone with the dogs or supervised?

whats the difference, and funnily enough same can be said for any deviant or criminal, annnnnnnnnd, Im not generalizing, but if I was to comment on the last 10 monster dogs I have seen..........they're owners didnt look like they were out to return books to the library.

thebullkf

lrushe wrote: »

Where did I say otherwise???

apples and oranges

I read the 'report' and replied to it???

if you read it,why ask what breeds?? it clearly states in the report-i've posted it twice already.

Half the dogs in the link I posted were quite clearly not the breed of dogs they were identified as, therefore making most stats inaccurate due to human error.

in your link. not mine

The circumstances of the dogs upbringing might be of no consolation to victims or even to those who like to stir up breed related hysteria but they are to those responsible owners who's dogs are being bashed and restricted

fair point, so you believe there should be no restrictions then?

Unfortunately it is not black and white. Were all the dogs reported actually PB's? Who identified them and how was it proven???

i thought you read the report:rolleyes:

circles.around.going.in.

thebullkf

if you really wanted to 'fix' this post maybe this would be more balanced
]

Bill2673 wrote: »

This thread becoming an idenditkit of other threads on pitbulls/ rottweilers....

what we can agree on....


Pit Bulls{along with 2 other breeds and their mixes} have been known to {be responsible for the majority of}attack's on people
If they do so, then they can inflict a lot of damage
This is usually the owners fault, not the dogs

Therefore, in an ideal world the ownership of this breed could be more closely monitored so they are in the hands of genuine responsible dog lovers, and not people who will neglect the animal and act irresponsibly with them....

And thats where the conversation ends as....well thats not going to happen in Ireland as our legislators have more/ other things to be bothered with.

lrushe

thebullkf wrote: »

apples and oranges

Yes, comparing humans and dogs is like comparing apples and oranges, how is that saying humans are less imporant than dogs???

thebullkf wrote: »

if you read it,why ask what breeds?? it clearly states in the report-i've posted it twice already
.

I didn't ask what breed, I said how were the breeds identified

thebullkf wrote: »

in your link. not mine
.

Well there you go, doesn't that prove there are 2 sides if nothing else???

thebullkf wrote: »

fair point, so you believe there should be no restrictions then?
.

On dog breeds no, on people owning dogs yes

lrushe

thebullkf wrote: »

if you really wanted to 'fix' this post maybe this would be more balanced
]

No more balance would be not to put any breed name in the post at all.

lrushe

spartan1 wrote: »

whats the difference, and funnily enough same can be said for any deviant or criminal, annnnnnnnnd, Im not generalizing, but if I was to comment on the last 10 monster dogs I have seen..........they're owners didnt look like they were out to return books to the library.

I've answered all of this in my previous posts.

Iron Hide

The people i feel sorry for in this instance are dog owners in general, whether they own a Pitbull, a Labrador or a fcuckin Chihuahua. That woman has again raised the publics fear of "aggressive" dog breeds.
Aggression is natural, a dog will defend itself and its territory just like a human would, with aggression if needed. Some dogs (alsatians, rotties etc) of course can be bred as attack dogs, police dogs etc, only with the correct owner and handler, and only if properly trained and cared for.

Its just sad that this woman has given the pitbull haters out there yet more ammunition.

common sense brigade

The man is a hero without a doubt. He should feel zero guilt. It goes to show what a nice person he is for also taking the dogs feelings into consideration after the attack. I would save the child ten times over before any breed of dog that had attacked.
But the pitbulls owner is to blame. And should be sued for every penny
Pitbulls can be very loving family pet if treated with love and respect like all dogs should be.

runawaybishop

liah wrote: »

From wiki:

It is estimated that two percent of the US population, 4.7 million people, are bitten each year.[3] In the 1980s and 1990s the US averaged 17 fatalities per year, while in the 2000s this has increased to 26.[4] 77% of dog bites are from the pet of family or friends, and 50% of attacks occur on the dog owner's property.[4]

The bit I bolded is very interesting.. and quite telling.

Those are reported stats i assume, doubtful they went round to everyone and asked if they had ever been bitten. People are more likely to report an incident with a big dog, that potentially can do more harm and is "OMG scary", than a small dog that just nips your trousers and is "OMG look at the tenacious little fluffball!!". Its not surprising that people don't report their tiny dog nipping a finger.

Whats that saying about stats again?

common sense brigade

how come we never hear stories about the happy healthy pitbulls living in harmony with responsible owners, of which there must be thousands. Its always the horror stories we hear, and each story can be linked back to the dog having either a bad owner or having previously been abused in some way. They say you need a licence to own a dog. But there are no regualtions attached to these licences. No one checks how a dog is being treated in the home. But the government's eagerly take licence fees.

cyrusdvirus

common sense brigade wrote: »

how come we never hear stories about the happy healthy pitbulls living in harmony with responsible owners, of which there must be thousands. Its always the horror stories we hear, and each story can be linked back to the dog having either a bad owner or having previously been abused in some way. They say you need a licence to own a dog. But there are no regualtions attached to these licences. No one checks how a dog is being treated in the home. But the government's eagerly take licence fees.

Same reason we never hear of the thousands of happy motorists who drive each day without an accident and the thousands of flyers who fly each day.

most news is bad news

Rookster

I don't understand this thread. What do you want us to say. That you should have let the kid die. Do you want a medal? Ok well done! Now go away!

thebullkf

lrushe wrote: »

Yes, comparing humans and dogs is like comparing apples and oranges, how is that saying humans are less imporant than dogs???

i never said you said they were

I didn't ask what breed, I said how were the breeds identified

i dunno their exact methods, one would assume they know what they're about if conducting a near 20 year study. would you not agree?

Well there you go, doesn't that prove there are 2 sides if nothing else???

there are many sides,reports,quotes,facts,stats but i have to admit this seems to be the largest single piece of evidence regarding the breeds/mixed breeds that are responsible for the overwhelming majority of Dog Attacks/bites/Fatalities.

would you not concede that point also?

On dog breeds no, on people owning dogs yes

1/Pure breeds or mix breeds?

2/so whole other country's are wrong then

thebullkf

lrushe wrote: »

No more balance would be not to put any breed name in the post at all.

eh it wouldn't... not if proven that the overwhelming majority of attacks where by 3 vbreeds and their mixes...surely you can see that.

thebullkf

Rookster wrote: »

I don't understand this thread. What do you want us to say. That you should have let the kid die. Do you want a medal? Ok well done! Now go away!

is that directed @ me?? .. nobody's forcing you to post.

away yourself.:rolleyes:

thebullkf

runawaybishop wrote: »

Those are reported stats i assume, doubtful they went round to everyone and asked if they had ever been bitten. People are more likely to report an incident with a big dog, that potentially can do more harm and is "OMG scary", than a small dog that just nips your trousers and is "OMG look at the tenacious little fluffball!!". Its not surprising that people don't report their tiny dog nipping a finger.

Whats that saying about stats again?

you assume correctly.

The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed.

thebullkf

common sense brigade wrote: »

how come we never hear stories about the happy healthy pitbulls living in harmony with responsible owners, of which there must be thousands. Its always the horror stories we hear, and each story can be linked back to the dog having either a bad owner or having previously been abused in some way. They say you need a licence to own a dog. But there are no regualtions attached to these licences. No one checks how a dog is being treated in the home. But the government's eagerly take licence fees.

i guess because a hospital visit due to a dog attack is serious,and warrants reporting.

its how stats are compiled....

Dog attacks are rare enough but of those that do happen,culprit can be narrowed down to a few .

its down to owners no question-shame some of the owners can't be put to sleep with their 'pets' (i use the term loosely cos if it were a pet,they'd be trteated/trained accordingly:()

lrushe

thebullkf wrote: »

i never said you said they were





i dunno their exact methods, one would assume they know what they're about if conducting a near 20 year study. would you not agree?






there are many sides,reports,quotes,facts,stats but i have to admit this seems to be the largest single piece of evidence regarding the breeds/mixed breeds that are responsible for the overwhelming majority of Dog Attacks/bites/Fatalities.

would you not concede that point also?





1/Pure breeds or mix breeds?

2/so whole other country's are wrong then

Look, going round in circles.
To summarise my position, I am not willing to take as fact any 'study' unless they prove beyond a doubt that the breeds involved in dog attacks are definately the breeds being blamed, without this any figures they quote are meaningless. Your study doesn't do that, to quote you you are 'assuming the know what they are doing', I am not willing to base something that could have such a detrimental effect on certain breeds on assumptions

lrushe

thebullkf wrote: »

eh it wouldn't... not if proven that the overwhelming majority of attacks where by 3 vbreeds and their mixes...surely you can see that.

If being the operative word there.
I've yet to see evidence of that, not even in the link you posted for the reasons I've already stated.

Son Of A Vidic

As a dog lover it's terrible to see the dog die but that man had no option but to protect the child and himself. At the end of the day, the dog is a product of it's environment and it's Master/or lack of Master. The blame lies squarely at the feet of the dog owner. The woman who was walking the dog was clearly incapable of managing and controlling the dog. She should therefore not have brought the dog for a walk, if she lack the ability to control it in public. If she really wasn't the owner, then it is truly negligent for the owner to let the woman walk their dog. It's the usual result though, blame the dog or the breed, when in reality the issues are a bit more complex than that.