Reporting a dangerous dog...

adser53

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055969502

Plenty of posts here that show the many flaws with these reports and the "facts" they claim to portray

are you serious

After reading that post by orange2 I went looking for statistics in Ireland for bite's attacks and god forbid killings... Not to my surprise I couldn't find one. I did however find this; http://www.dogsbite.org/bite-study-deaths-maimings.htm
Its a broader ranged study.

What I find funny is the dogs that are not mentioned in the summary... If you click the link into the full study you will see that Boxers, English bulldog, Great Dane, Labrador and Labrador mix.

Also if you read the whole study; http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dog-attack-deaths-maimings-2010.pdf you will see something funny, the word Rottweiler always begins with a captial R, and for the most pert is is preceeded by pit bull thus making the Rottweiler breed stand out more than others named in the study.
My observation of this study was though while scrolling down the chart, have a look at the far right column %of dog pupulation. Which is actually a minuscule amount.

Why are there no statistics on this subject in Ireland?

Here is my guessing why, we are tiny in comparison to the USA, our current population stands at approx 4.6million, the USA has 311.8million do the maths and you'l realise the vast difference.. Noticing this i went here; http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html this shows the number of dogs in the USA now

Anyway just thought i'd share these stats that I could find. I could not find any stats on dog numbers in Ireland, only the number who are pts each year in pounds.

Happy reading

Shanao

garkane wrote: »

After reading that post by orange2 I went looking for statistics in Ireland for bite's attacks and god forbid killings... Not to my surprise I couldn't find one. I did however find this; http://www.dogsbite.org/bite-study-deaths-maimings.htm
Its a broader ranged study.

What I find funny is the dogs that are not mentioned in the summary... If you click the link into the full study you will see that Boxers, English bulldog, Great Dane, Labrador and Labrador mix.

Also if you read the whole study; http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dog-attack-deaths-maimings-2010.pdf you will see something funny, the word Rottweiler always begins with a captial R, and for the most pert is is preceeded by pit bull thus making the Rottweiler breed stand out more than others named in the study.
My observation of this study was though while scrolling down the chart, have a look at the far right column %of dog pupulation. Which is actually a minuscule amount.

Why are there no statistics on this subject in Ireland?

Here is my guessing why, we are tiny in comparison to the USA, our current population stands at approx 4.6million, the USA has 311.8million do the maths and you'l realise the vast difference.. Noticing this i went here; http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/pet_ownership_statistics.html this shows the number of dogs in the USA now

Anyway just thought i'd share these stats that I could find. I could not find any stats on dog numbers in Ireland, only the number who are pts each year in pounds.

Happy reading

Just to let you know Garkane, Dogsbite.org is causing chaos amongst the pitbull community. It was set up by a woman who was bitten by a pit who now has a vendetta against them and wants all pits euthanised. A lot of the statistics in her website are based around the medias reporting so it isn't the best source really as few attacks other than 'dangerous breed' attacks make the news. On top of that, they list almost all crossbreed attacks as pitbulls as well.

Oranage2

http://www.ucd.ie/news/0710_october/081007_dog_bite.html

Heres some statistics for ireland -

"The data used was derived from dog bite incidents in Ireland provided by 100 owners of a dog (owner group) that had bitten a person and by 134 victims of bites by a dog not owned by the victim (non-owner group). The data was obtained by telephone interview of self-selected volunteer dog owners and bite victims between January 2004 and April 2005."

So not actual statistics, more a big survey

are you serious

Yet again Shanao more knowledge from you I had no idea!

Orange2 I did read that link before I posted my reply, but didnt bother posting the link because 100 owners is nowhere near enough for a survey, and it didnt include and specific breeds.

Cú Giobach

Oranage2 wrote: »

http://www.ucd.ie/news/0710_october/081007_dog_bite.html

Heres some statistics for ireland -

"The data used was derived from dog bite incidents in Ireland provided by 100 owners of a dog (owner group) that had bitten a person and by 134 victims of bites by a dog not owned by the victim (non-owner group). The data was obtained by telephone interview of self-selected volunteer dog owners and bite victims between January 2004 and April 2005."

So not actual statistics, more a big survey

An interesting statistic from that.

“And in 50% of the cases the owner/bite victim was unable to identify any signal of the dog’s intention to bite.”

50% is a large percentage of people unable to recognise a dogs signals before going to the last resort.... biting, which the vast majority of dogs will give.
I can imagine a lot of the victims saying......sure he sleeps on my bed, I always give him titbits and loads of hugs, he gets everything he wants, he's my little baby....why would he bite me?

Cherry Blossom

Of the last 10 posts in this thread, not 1 is relevant to the OP, need I say more?

are you serious

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Of the last 10 posts in this thread, not 1 is relevant to the OP, need I say more?

In fairness what thread which is trying to slate one of the RB's ends up staying on the topic of the op? None that I've read anyway since I've been on here

mosi

Ok, let's go back on topic;)

The bottom line is that the OP has no grounds to report a dangerous dog, as she did not encounter a dangerous dog by the sounds of things.

Sure, the owner was being irresponsible allowing his dog to approach her like that. I don't like off lead dogs approaching my guy - we've covered this in another thread - while the owner is setting his dog up to fall foul of the RB legislation where someone like the OP wants to report it as dangerous.

If the dog was dangerous, we would probably be having a very different sort of discussion on this thread right now. If the intentions were aggressive, it would have gone in for the kill, and not returned once the owner called it.
Actually on that note, the owner doesn't sound as bad as some who have met who are neither willing nor able to recall their dogs.


I remember once, an off lead staffie approached me and my dog. I could see from the body language that this was a typical staffie that just wanted to say hello and be friendly. My boy had other ideas though, and I was worried he would start a scene. The (tracksuited) owner did call the dog back, and everything was fine. I was a bit peeved at being approached because of my boy's issues. However, the dog was by no means dangerous...by the OPs criteria, I should have been reporting a dangerous dog :rolleyes:

I agree with what others have said, the "growling" seems more like a Rottie grunt. Many dogs have odd little noises that they make in different situations. My little girl "growls" and grunts when she is excited, and there is certainly no ill intent.

The OP made some hysterical comments that wouldn't be out of place in a Daily Mail headline about "devil dogs".
She said that by reporting she may save a dog's life. Maybe she should think about how her actions may compromise a dog's life, a non aggressive dog that will be tarred as dangerous.

Don't get me wrong, if a dog is genuinely a threat then it should be reported. It is wrong, though, to go reporting a dog as dangerous if it is not.

The general attitude about the guy's attire was uncalled for as well, particularly when compared with how a guy in a Merc would behave. I mean, WTF? (For the record, I neither wear tracksuits nor drive a Merc)

I wonder if the dog's owner had been wearing a suit, would the OP be so hysterical about this "dangerous" dog.

Cherry Blossom

Mod Post:

Right it's like this:

Of late virtually every thread has veered off course in battles of theory, statistics and so-called science.

Therefore I am compelled to remind everyone that this forum is a general forum on the wide subject area of animals and pets. Joe public is not the least bit interested in lengthy debates on a thread they have started to ask a simple question. If any thread on this forum compels anyone to make such posts where they are not relevant I suggest you start your own thread for the purpose. By all means post a link to it on the thread that compelled you to start it.

garkane wrote: »

In fairness what thread which is trying to slate one of the RB's ends up staying on the topic of the op? None that I've read anyway since I've been on here

I don't know what your point is, but this is the first one I've seen since the forum charter has been updated.

The off-topic posting ends now!

steddyeddy

Well op it doesnt sound like a dangerous dog but if your concerned aproach the owner being friendly and say nice dog ect, is he safe to pet ect. That could reassure you that the dog isnt dangerous. In my experience dogs that are reported are reported for actually biting.

Saying that the owner shouldnt let the dog randomly aproach people. Some people are nervous (rightly or wrongly) around certain breeds. A young girl down the road from me is afraid of my st.bernard and it is my responsibility to ensure it doesnt aproach her not her responsibility to avoid. That said a lot of rotweillers are not as agressive as they look.

steddyeddy

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Talk about generalisations. The OP exaggerates and the irresponsible owner gets a free pass.

I own a Rhodesian Ridgeback. I don't want further restrictions placed on me or my dog because of irresponsible owners.

Not once have I ever said this dog was dangerous. Let me put this scenario to you. The OP is walking their dog on a lead minding their own business when a Rottie approaches (in their mind in an aggressive manner, not everyone can read the situation). The Rottie trys to get to the OPs dog and the OP panics and try's to decent their dog by swinging and kicking at the dog (not everyone can read a dogs body language). The Rottie is turn tries to defend itself by fighting back. Say the Rottie is friendly and only wanted to sniff the OPs dog, we now have a scenario where a very friendly Rottie has gotten into trouble.

Thats the point its bad owners who make dangerous dogs and its is the dog breeds that pay the price for it.

steddyeddy

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Talk about generalisations. The OP exaggerates and the irresponsible owner gets a free pass.

I own a Rhodesian Ridgeback. I don't want further restrictions placed on me or my dog because of irresponsible owners.

Not once have I ever said this dog was dangerous. Let me put this scenario to you. The OP is walking their dog on a lead minding their own business when a Rottie approaches (in their mind in an aggressive manner, not everyone can read the situation). The Rottie trys to get to the OPs dog and the OP panics and try's to decent their dog by swinging and kicking at the dog (not everyone can read a dogs body language). The Rottie is turn tries to defend itself by fighting back. Say the Rottie is friendly and only wanted to sniff the OPs dog, we now have a scenario where a very friendly Rottie has gotten into trouble.

How is this not thanked more? This is too the letter of what couldhave happend. It doesnt take a dangerous dog to attack out of defence and as a result the dog gets put down.