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

3DataModem

medicman2009 wrote: »

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.

Most posters seem to be in agreement; owner bad, walker bad, dog very unfortunate, man did right thing, child was lucky.

What is a very important part of the debate is whether proper dog owners should be punished for the actions of the irresponsible dog owners.

I think it comes down to simple numbers: the truth is that the public perceive that there are a lot more irresponsible dangerous owners than responsible dangerous dog owners. If this is really the case than the solution is much stricter licencing (proper merit-based licencing, with inspections etc). This will push the cost of dog-licences WAY up. If we restrict the cost to the legitimate owners, then these "premium" dog licences will be very very expensive. The alternative is prohibition.

The same arguments are being had in the motors forum about souped-up cars (Scoobys) and bikes, or in the hunting forum about gun ownership, or the Airsoft forum about >1 Joule AEG device ownership.

It boils down to; the public perceive that MOST owners of these items are irresponsible, so prohibition (or effective prohibition e.g. expensive insurance or unattainable licencing requirements) are the only solution.

It is in the interests of the legitimate pitbull (or Scooby, or Rifle, or AEG, or Python) owners to stamp out the bad 'uns, or everybody suffers.





(PS I am not a dog lover at all, or a Scooby driver, or a hunter or air-rifle enthusiast.)

thebullkf

lrushe wrote: »

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

why have study in inverted comma's????


you doubt a 20 year study... i feel you'll change tact again were i to produce figures..

lrushe wrote: »

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.

christ the studies results have been made public,from a well respected site,
there is nothing to suggest the findings are inaccurate.
i've already highlighted the breeds and their mixes that they believeto be responsible.

i believe them,as would most reasonable people.
i think you're love of dogs,PB's is distorting your view.

enoughof the circling:D

DBCyc

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 can tell you loads of happy stories about our bully! She was out in the snow with me today chasing the snowballs that I was throwing and eating them - it was hilarious! Now she's snuggled up by the fire asleep. Unfortunately the papers or the general public wouldn't be too interested in these stories

I think that you make a very good point about the licence fee. They just take the money and don't bother their hole doing anything to encourage responsible dog ownership

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

liah wrote: »

It isn't nearly as clear as you think. The majority will be scared of a pitbull no matter how good an owner they know you to be. It's actually only a minority who realize it's the fault of the owner.

Lots of ignorant people think it's bred into the dog to attack humans-- it clearly isn't, hell, in the States it was the most popular family dog for years-- and not just dogs. I've heard many people say it in real life, far more than I've heard anyone argue that it's the owner's fault.

Also, the lockjaw myth doesn't help the case.

You think it's mainly because of stories that people are afraid of pitbuls? I'd say it's the look of them and the teeth, same for many dogs.

My friends great dane scares the hell out of me. When you see that massive dopey looking thing running at you...

I don't like the idea of ANY dog being around children, but moreso those dogs who tend to be more viscious than others.

DBCyc

Omar Purple Saddlebag wrote: »

You think it's mainly because of stories that people are afraid of pitbuls? I'd say it's the look of them and the teeth, same for many dogs.

I doesn't help when the photos in the media mean people think that a pit-bull looks like this...



When the reality is that this is what a pit-bull looks like...

lrushe

thebullkf wrote: »

why have study in inverted comma's????


you doubt a 20 year study... i feel you'll change tact again were i to produce figures..





christ the studies results have been made public,from a well respected site,
there is nothing to suggest the findings are inaccurate.
i've already highlighted the breeds and their mixes that they believeto be responsible.

i believe them,as would most reasonable people.
i think you're love of dogs,PB's is distorting your view.

enoughof the circling:D

What you're not getting is:
How many of the 74% of dogs were identified by a canine expert and not by a 'Joe Saop' man on the street?
THAT is where my problem lies.
If you can show me how these dogs were identified and if the source (of the identification not the study itself ) was reliable I would hold the study in more high regard, but until then it is a study going on the testimony of people who mightn't know a lab from a PB.

Zapperzy

Omar Purple Saddlebag wrote: »

You think it's mainly because of stories that people are afraid of pitbuls? I'd say it's the look of them and the teeth, same for many dogs.

But the thing is most people don't know what a pit bull even looks like unless they see a pic in the paper like the above pic. All dogs have the same teeth. To be honest I was scared of the shih tzu x king charles that went for me 2 weeks ago, breed didn't even come into the equation for me, he had teeth and he was well able to use them.

Omar Purple Saddlebag wrote: »

My friends great dane scares the hell out of me. When you see that massive dopey looking thing running at you...

I don't like the idea of ANY dog being around children, but moreso those dogs who tend to be more viscious than others.

Id differ there in that I would love to see all children having at least some responsible contact with dogs, children who are taught how to behave around dogs from a young age (taught not to touch a dog with food, what growling means, don't go near a strange dog, just how to generally behave around dogs and to be gentle with them) are in my opinion less likely to be bitten than a child who has never been exposed to dogs or taught basic rules around dogs.

What do you mean by "those dogs who tend to be more viscious than others."? If you mean individual dogs then I agree with you, dogs who display aggressive tendencies around people/children should not be allowed anywhere near children until a cause for the aggression has been found out (medical/behaviourial) and the behaviour has been sorted out.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Zapperzy wrote: »

But the thing is most people don't know what a pit bull even looks like unless they see a pic in the paper like the above pic. All dogs have the same teeth. To be honest I was scared of the shih tzu x king charles that went for me 2 weeks ago, breed didn't even come into the equation for me, he had teeth and he was well able to use them.

Surely dogs have different teeth?

Id differ there in that I would love to see all children having at least some responsible contact with dogs, children who are taught how to behave around dogs from a young age (taught not to touch a dog with food, what growling means, don't go near a strange dog, just how to generally behave around dogs and to be gentle with them) are in my opinion less likely to be bitten than a child who has never been exposed to dogs or taught basic rules around dogs.

I meant leaving the kids alone with any dog.

What do you mean by "those dogs who tend to be more viscious than others."? If you mean individual dogs then I agree with you, dogs who display aggressive tendencies around people/children should not be allowed anywhere near children until a cause for the aggression has been found out (medical/behaviourial) and the behaviour has been sorted out.

Some breeds tend to be more aggressive than others by nature.

Zapperzy

Omar Purple Saddlebag wrote: »

Surely dogs have different teeth?

All dogs have the same basic dental formula (42 teeth) obviously there are size differences between dogs of different sizes so I can't see how a pit bull's teeth would be more frightening than a dog of a larger size who would have bigger teeth?

Omar Purple Saddlebag wrote: »

I meant leaving the kids alone with any dog.

I agree 110% as would everyone else here, no matter what the breed kids should never ever be left alone with dogs.

Omar Purple Saddlebag wrote: »

Some breeds tend to be more aggressive than others by nature.

This has been discussed to death in a number of threads already including this one.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056098654&highlight=bull
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056050827&highlight=bull
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055969502&highlight=bull
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055936804&highlight=bull
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055907162&highlight=bull
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055901461&highlight=bull
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055775242&highlight=bull

mbiking123

I have heard gun dogs have a 'softer' mouth so when they retrieve game it will not be damaged with teeth marks

I saw on tv a test, they got different gun dogs and the had to retrieve eggs. Being gun dogs they were expected not to break the eggs, some did

These dogs dont have the same bite force of say a PB

thebullkf

lrushe wrote: »

What you're not getting is:
How many of the 74% of dogs were identified by a canine expert and not by a 'Joe Saop' man on the street?
THAT is where my problem lies.
If you can show me how these dogs were identified and if the source (of the identification not the study itself ) was reliable I would hold the study in more high regard, but until then it is a study going on the testimony of people who mightn't know a lab from a PB.

Joe Soap.... :rolleyes:.....Lab from a PB..:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Merritt Clifton has teamed with Kim Bartlett to provide information service to the humane community since 1986. His duties for ANIMAL PEOPLE include researching and writing more than 200 articles and filling more than 2,000 information requests per year. A reporter, editor, columnist, and foreign correspondent since 1968, specializing in animal and habitat-related coverage since 1978, Clifton was a founding member of the Society of Environmental Journalists, and is a four-time winner of national awards for investigative reporting.

i don't think he's a joe soap. you obviously do.He's an animal lover,who's visited animal welfare centres as far away as Nairobi-as well as taking the time to conduct a near 20 year study, even more reason not to doubt his intentions.even if you were to allow him a 25% breed misdiagnosis failure rate
{a huge %} that still leaves 3 breeds and their mixes responsible for 50% of all attacks..how many breeds and mixes are there in the USA??



i agree breed identification is difficult,but i've already,numerous times pointed out the word mixes in relation to breeds in his report-i put more faith in a published,national award winner contributor than an anonymous keyboard warrior who refuses to see the light.

Enough of this malarkey. lets agree to differ;)

lrushe

thebullkf wrote: »

Enough of this malarkey. lets agree to differ;)

I think we'll have to cause you're just not getting that I am not questioning the study but the source of it's information.:rolleyes:

adser53

thebullkf wrote: »

i don't think he's a joe soap. you obviously do.He's an animal lover,who's visited animal welfare centres as far away as Nairobi-as well as taking the time to conduct a near 20 year study, even more reason not to doubt his intentions.even if you were to allow him a 25% breed misdiagnosis failure rate {a huge %} that still leaves 3 breeds and their mixes responsible for 50% of all attacks..how many breeds and mixes are there in the USA??

i agree breed identification is difficult,but i've already,numerous times pointed out the word mixes in relation to breeds in his report-i put more faith in a published,national award winner contributor than an anonymous keyboard warrior who refuses to see the light.

Enough of this malarkey. lets agree to differ;)

But he doesn't do the identifying. The list is compiled from press reports. It does say "this table covers only attacks by dogs of clearly identified
breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others
with evident expertise, who have been kept as pets." How many times have we seen on TV alone these "experts" misdiagnose a breed or just call a dog a pitbull? Allowing 25% misdiagnosis isn't a huge margin in this case. No ones saying that someone will mistake a Yorkshire Terrier for a Pitbull but the common examples of misdiagnoses are:
Akitas/Malamutes/Huskys/German Sheperds/Belgian Shepherds/Chow Chows

Boxers/Dogue De Bordeaux/Bulldogs/

Bull Terrier/American pit bull terrier/ American Staffordshire Terrier/Staffordshire bull terrier

Etc

Now look at the Pitbull stats you posted....Considering that there is no actual "Pitbull" breed, in which that report attributes in the region of 1500 incidents, you'd have to split that figure down into an average figure per breed covered in the "Pitbull Umbrella" and still have to allow for misdiagnosis and media bias (after all, the media love a good pitbull story and thats what this report is based on)

So I agree with Irushe. Clifton has spent 20 years dilligently reading "The Sun" newspaper and this is in no way, shape, or form, a solid basis for any study that's expected to be taken seriously.

A conclusive, scientific study is impossible to achieve. If it's based on A&E reports, you miss the minor bites by all breeds, which are likely never reported. You use the media and you only get a disproportionate amount of devil dog stories etc and that's before we even bring in the breed misdiagnosis factor.

I'd like to see an in depth study of 100 randomly picked dog attacks that thoroughly investigates the whole incident (dog, owner and situation) so that we have all the facts (i.e dog chained up/in own garden/roaming, trained or not, left alone with children unsupervised or not etc) Having all these facts would, I'm sure, paint a pretty clear picture that the human factors led to the attacks in the first place and would be the same factors for all breeds concerned

lrushe

adser53 wrote: »

But he doesn't do the identifying. The list is compiled from press reports. It does say "this table covers only attacks by dogs of clearly identified
breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others
with evident expertise, who have been kept as pets." How many times have we seen on TV alone these "experts" misdiagnose a breed or just call a dog a pitbull? Allowing 25% misdiagnosis isn't a huge margin in this case. No ones saying that someone will mistake a Yorkshire Terrier for a Pitbull but the common examples of misdiagnoses are:
Akitas/Malamutes/Huskys/German Sheperds/Belgian Shepherds/Chow Chows

Boxers/Dogue De Bordeaux/Bulldogs/

Bull Terrier/American pit bull terrier/ American Staffordshire Terrier/Staffordshire bull terrier

Etc

Now look at the Pitbull stats you posted....Considering that there is no actual "Pitbull" breed, in which that report attributes in the region of 1500 incidents, you'd have to split that figure down into an average figure per breed covered in the "Pitbull Umbrella" and still have to allow for misdiagnosis and media bias (after all, the media love a good pitbull story and thats what this report is based on)

So I agree with Irushe. Clifton has spent 20 years dilligently reading "The Sun" newspaper and this is in no way, shape, or form, a solid basis for any study that's expected to be taken seriously.

A conclusive, scientific study is impossible to achieve. If it's based on A&E reports, you miss the minor bites by all breeds, which are likely never reported. You use the media and you only get a disproportionate amount of devil dog stories etc and that's before we even bring in the breed misdiagnosis factor.

I'd like to see an in depth study of 100 randomly picked dog attacks that thoroughly investigates the whole incident (dog, owner and situation) so that we have all the facts (i.e dog chained up/in own garden/roaming, trained or not, left alone with children unsupervised or not etc) Having all these facts would, I'm sure, paint a pretty clear picture that the human factors led to the attacks in the first place and would be the same factors for all breeds concerned

Thank you Adser, you've explained my point exactly, hadn't the patience to explain that all over again for the umpteenth time in yet another Pit Bull, Rottie etc. V the world thread.

adser53

lrushe wrote: »

Thank you Adser, you've explained my point exactly, hadn't the patience to explain that all over again for the umpteenth time in yet another Pit Bull, Rottie etc. V the world thread.

Hmmmm, I might make that post my sig to save time in the future :D

thebullkf

adser53 wrote: »

But he doesn't do the identifying. The list is compiled from press reports. It does say "this table covers only attacks by dogs of clearly identified
breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others
with evident expertise, who have been kept as pets." How many times have we seen on TV alone these "experts" misdiagnose a breed or just call a dog a pitbull? Allowing 25% misdiagnosis isn't a huge margin in this case. No ones saying that someone will mistake a Yorkshire Terrier for a Pitbull but the common examples of misdiagnoses are:
Akitas/Malamutes/Huskys/German Sheperds/Belgian Shepherds/Chow Chows

Boxers/Dogue De Bordeaux/Bulldogs/

Bull Terrier/American pit bull terrier/ American Staffordshire Terrier/Staffordshire bull terrier

Etc

Now look at the Pitbull stats you posted....Considering that there is no actual "Pitbull" breed, in which that report attributes in the region of 1500 incidents, you'd have to split that figure down into an average figure per breed covered in the "Pitbull Umbrella" and still have to allow for misdiagnosis and media bias (after all, the media love a good pitbull story and thats what this report is based on)

So I agree with Irushe. Clifton has spent 20 years dilligently reading "The Sun" newspaper and this is in no way, shape, or form, a solid basis for any study that's expected to be taken seriously.

A conclusive, scientific study is impossible to achieve. If it's based on A&E reports, you miss the minor bites by all breeds, which are likely never reported. You use the media and you only get a disproportionate amount of devil dog stories etc and that's before we even bring in the breed misdiagnosis factor.

I'd like to see an in depth study of 100 randomly picked dog attacks that thoroughly investigates the whole incident (dog, owner and situation) so that we have all the facts (i.e dog chained up/in own garden/roaming, trained or not, left alone with children unsupervised or not etc) Having all these facts would, I'm sure, paint a pretty clear picture that the human factors led to the attacks in the first place and would be the same factors for all breeds concerned

some excellent points,bar the bit in bold,which is presumptious,and downright ridiculous.

good post though.:)

thebullkf

lrushe wrote: »

Thank you Adser, you've explained my point exactly, hadn't the patience to explain that all over again for the umpteenth time in yet another Pit Bull, Rottie etc. V the world thread.

its not a PB/rottievs the world thread, i've already nailed my colours to the mast,i've nothing against PB's/Rotties.

ye can thank each others posts and disagree if ye like-i've no issue with that either, i disagree with dismissing the study outta hand which is what you did and presume its a PB bashing study-when it clearly isn't.

to dismiss 20 yrs work saying its a result of reading a rag is also disingenous ,

as i said earlier-if i had canine expert opinion as you put it,no doubt you'd pick holes in their methods and/or some other excuse.
You're defence is admirable:D

i loves a good debate

my two babies are snoring here beside me-time for the leaba

g'night folks;)

adser53

thebullkf wrote: »

some excellent points,bar the bit in bold,which is presumptious,and downright ridiculous.

good post though.:)

Ok it was a tad sarcastic

BUT not ridiculous or presumptious for 2 reasons.

1. The study is based on media reports
2. Highbrow newspapers don't publish dog attack stories for shock value like tabloids do. I can't remember ever seeing one in a broadsheet paper compared to the almost weekly stories (at one stage) that appeared in the tabs.

thebulkf wrote:

its not a PB/rottievs the world thread, i've already nailed my colours to the mast,i've nothing against PB's/Rotties.

ye can thank each others posts and disagree if ye like-i've no issue with that either, i disagree with dismissing the study outta hand which is what you did and presume its a PB bashing study-when it clearly isn't.

to dismiss 20 yrs work saying its a result of reading a rag is also disingenous ,

as i said earlier-if i had canine expert opinion as you put it,no doubt you'd pick holes in their methods and/or some other excuse.
You're defence is admirable

i loves a good debate

Why would you have an issue with it? I personally thank a post if I agree with the content, not for a display of "Who's side I'm on"?

As for being disingenuous, I dismiss that study because it's not based on any solid facts whatsoever. It's based on newspaper articles alone which is like basing a car accident study purely on the ones featured in the papers. Going by that logic, every car accident is fatal, because they're the stories that shock and sell papers. Old Mary down the road hitting a tree and writing off her car doesn't make the headlines, neither does Spot the golden lab that took a chunk out his owners leg. Dya see where I'm coming from?
I agree the report makes for good discussion but I don't accept it as fact. I personally believe 1% of all dog attacks are the fault of an unusually vicious dog (regardless of breed). The other 99% are caused by illness in the dog or, in the majority of cases, bad owners and/or mistreatment.
As has been mentioned, it's just bad luck (for good owners) that certain elements of society are attracted to certain breeds. Now it's "pitbulls", for a while it was GSDs and before that it was Rotties, who knows what'll be next?
Like I said already, it would be nigh impossible to conduct any form of accurate study and until that is possible, I would be highly scepticle of any report published thats based purely on news reports. To believe a report like that to be accurate and "the final word" in this ongoing debate is naive. Or even a study based on A&E records because neither is mutually exclusive or conclusive and won't reflect the actual number of attacks that go unreported and neither include accurate breed identification. Short of a team of lads going around investigating every report and rumour it'll never happen.
What will happen though, is another newspaper will report a highly sensationalised story, there'll be public outcry, politicians will jump on the bandwagon and there'll attempts to get certain breeds banned (a lá the UK about 15 years ago). It's not fair to tar them (or us owners) all with the one brush because of the actions of a few.
We're all against negative stereotyping these days when it comes to peoples ethnicity, religion or nationality but if you own a restricted breed you're automatically a knacker and your dogs a killer. That's where our "admirable defence" stems from

AND I love a good debate too

thebullkf

adser53 wrote: »

Ok it was a tad sarcastic

BUT not ridiculous or presumptious for 2 reasons.

1. The study is based on media reports
2. Highbrow newspapers don't publish dog attack stories for shock value like tabloids do. I can't remember ever seeing one in a broadsheet paper compared to the almost weekly stories (at one stage) that appeared in the tabs.



Why would you have an issue with it? I personally thank a post if I agree with the content, not for a display of "Who's side I'm on"?

As for being disingenuous, I dismiss that study because it's not based on any solid facts whatsoever. It's based on newspaper articles alone which is like basing a car accident study purely on the ones featured in the papers. Going by that logic, every car accident is fatal, because they're the stories that shock and sell papers. Old Mary down the road hitting a tree and writing off her car doesn't make the headlines, neither does Spot the golden lab that took a chunk out his owners leg. Dya see where I'm coming from?
I agree the report makes for good discussion but I don't accept it as fact. I personally believe 1% of all dog attacks are the fault of an unusually vicious dog (regardless of breed). The other 99% are caused by illness in the dog or, in the majority of cases, bad owners and/or mistreatment.
As has been mentioned, it's just bad luck (for good owners) that certain elements of society are attracted to certain breeds. Now it's "pitbulls", for a while it was GSDs and before that it was Rotties, who knows what'll be next?
Like I said already, it would be nigh impossible to conduct any form of accurate study and until that is possible, I would be highly scepticle of any report published thats based purely on news reports. To believe a report like that to be accurate and "the final word" in this ongoing debate is naive. Or even a study based on A&E records because neither is mutually exclusive or conclusive and won't reflect the actual number of attacks that go unreported and neither include accurate breed identification. Short of a team of lads going around investigating every report and rumour it'll never happen.
What will happen though, is another newspaper will report a highly sensationalised story, there'll be public outcry, politicians will jump on the bandwagon and there'll attempts to get certain breeds banned (a lá the UK about 15 years ago). It's not fair to tar them (or us owners) all with the one brush because of the actions of a few.
We're all against negative stereotyping these days when it comes to peoples ethnicity, religion or nationality but if you own a restricted breed you're automatically a knacker and your dogs a killer. That's where our "admirable defence" stems from

AND I love a good debate too

and i thought i was a night owl :P


i agree again with nearly all you're saying-i just don't think the report is the final word,but i would say its reliable enough.As regards certain breeds having bad reps i agree completely, esp. for the reasons you stated above-the negative stereotyping is unfortuante but whats the answer?
Regulation? Enforced Training?,alas existing laws are not enforced so i can't really see new ones being enforced either.
Its a shame really:(

Zapperzy

mbiking123 wrote: »

I have heard gun dogs have a 'softer' mouth so when they retrieve game it will not be damaged with teeth marks

I saw on tv a test, they got different gun dogs and the had to retrieve eggs. Being gun dogs they were expected not to break the eggs, some did

These dogs dont have the same bite force of say a PB

Maybe Im wrong but I always presumed they were trained to have a soft mouth.
If what your saying is true then anybody who was ever bitten by a spaniel or lab wouldn't have teeth marks to prove it because the dogs would have a soft bite, obviously anybody who has ever been bitten by a gundog type will disagree with this!

lrushe

thebullkf wrote: »

ye can thank each others posts and disagree if ye like-i've no issue with that either, i disagree with dismissing the study outta hand which is what you did and presume its a PB bashing study-when it clearly isn't.

I only 'thank' the posts that I genuinely agree with or has made a point I hadn't thought of.

I ddin't disagree the study out of hand, I read it and didn't find the source of the information very reliable so asked a few questions regarding that to try and understand it better and open up a discussion about it. I didn't get any answers to my questions just basically told, it's a 20 years study by an expert don't question it. I can't take things at face value if I see a flaw in something.

thebullkf

lrushe wrote: »

I only 'thank' the posts that I genuinely agree with or has made a point I hadn't thought of.

I ddin't disagree the study out of hand, I read it and didn't find the source of the information very reliable so asked a few questions regarding that to try and understand it better and open up a discussion about it. I didn't get any answers to my questions just basically told, it's a 20 years study by an expert don't question it. I can't take things at face value if I see a flaw in something.

nobody said "don't question it"

you were looking for very specific facts,that you knew weren't in the report.
its like betting on a race after the fact.You mustn't take many things @ face value then-lot of things flawed out there.

lrushe

thebullkf wrote: »

you were looking for very specific facts,that you knew weren't in the report.

But those are the questions that need to be asked in order to get accurate facts in which to move forward with actions that might actully work.
The statements made in the link you posted are exactly the kind of half truths that resulted in current Breed Restrictions which not only don't work but also only punish good dog owners.

thebullkf

lrushe wrote: »

But those are the questions that need to be asked in order to get accurate facts in which to move forward with actions that might actully work.
The statements made in the link you posted are exactly the kind of half truths that resulted in current Breed Restrictions which not only don't work but also only punish good dog owners.

selective quoting by yourself,again-you're quite good at it.

i wouldn't cal them half truth's at all-your main concern seems to be breed identification or rather a lack of.

I agree mistakes are possible,and likely-

but as i said earlier, again,

one can't mistake a poodle,Bichon,most terriers,Lurchers,StBernard,Collie,Pug,Sharpei,Husky,Golden Labrador,Wolfhound,Setter,Beagle,Snauzer,Kerry blue

for a PB,Rottie ???

come now-those breeds are just off the top of my head here as i type...do you disagree? i would assume most reasonable people wouldn't.

these "half-truths" as you call them don't result in good dog owners being punished-
Bad dog owners result in Good dog owners being punished.Fact.

adser53

lrushe wrote: »

The statements made in the link you posted are exactly the kind of half truths that resulted in current Breed Restrictions which not only don't work but also only punish good dog owners.

An inaccurate study may be the cause of further restrictions that will only punish the responsible owners. The dogs responsible for most of these attacks are generally owned by people who aren't fit to look after a goldfish in the first place. These are the very same people who ignore the current laws and restrictions and get away with with. Further restrictions will continue to be ignored by these people, who will continue to mistreat their dogs and nothing will improve. Things will only get harder for those of us that actually take the time to care for and train our dogs and comply with the law. I honestly worry that soom goon out there will cause an attack that will result in one or more breeds being banned.

As for the answer? I honestly don't know. I disagree with breed specific legislation on every level as I firmly put the blame of all dog attacks at the feet of the dogs owners. More laws wont help. More enforcement of the current laws won't really help either as, from your link alone, most dog attacks take place on the owners property where the law doesn't apply and the knackers that cause the problem in the first place laugh at the wardens (I have seen this personally).

Any legislative additions based on breed wont help at all IMO. They need better laws and enforcement on animal welfare and dog ownership in the first place. I can't see "pre-dog ownership" classes being worth a fiddle here but if I see a lad goading his dog (any dog, not just RBs) and making it vicious and letting it roam free, for example, I should be able to report it and have it investigated properly and if the claims are true, the dog should be taken from them and they should be forbidden from owning another.

Bad dog owners here get away with murder. It's easier for the warden to hit the respectable looking person walkng a well trained and socialised rottie without a muzzle (against the law I know but humour me) because they won't get an arguement whereas if they see a scanger with a bad tempered Rottie and no muzzle, they leave it alone cos they know its not worth the hassle and in the end prob wont get a name, let alone an address, to issue a fine. Again, this has happened before :mad:

lrushe

thebullkf wrote: »

selective quoting by yourself,again-you're quite good at it.

i wouldn't cal them half truth's at all-your main concern seems to be breed identification or rather a lack of.

I agree mistakes are possible,and likely-

but as i said earlier, again,

one can't mistake a poodle,Bichon,most terriers,Lurchers,StBernard,Collie,Pug,Sharpei,Husky,Golden Labrador,Wolfhound,Setter,Beagle,Snauzer,Kerry blue

for a PB,Rottie ???

come now-those breeds are just off the top of my head here as i type...do you disagree? i would assume most reasonable people wouldn't.

these "half-truths" as you call them don't result in good dog owners being punished-
Bad dog owners result in Good dog owners being punished.Fact.

I'm not selectively quoting, I'm trying to pick up on the things that I think warrant discussing instead of splitting hairs over the things that don't, making a post easier to read and not lose your point in a wash of nonsense, but if it makes you feel better I'll quote you're whole post.

My main concerns were all the questions I originally posted but got no answers for, so I was trying one question at a time ie. how were dogs identified, still haven't got an answer on that one.

It's not that I think someone will necessarily mistake a toy breed for a PB or Rottie but a dog who looks more like them can be, for example a blocky headed Lab or their cross can be mistaken for a PB, any black and tan muscular dog can be named as being a Rottie by someone inexperienced. If the writer of the study took his facts from a place like the media this quite likely is going to be the case. You've seen the link I posted and how dogs can be misidentified. Plus if the source is from the media it will only catch the PB/Rottie cases because the media won't report Lab or Westie bite case, why, because they don't make good new, PBs and Rotties do. If this is the case it's not surprising that the figures came out at 74%, but in reality they are not accurate figures.