5 police officers injured by dog in Albert Square, East London

meoklmrk91

General General wrote: »

Are you arguing that a person COULD make a King Charles Spaniel a killer?




I think the ability to cause any real damage is a major part of the debate.

You can get hit by a bus or by a kid on a trike... you can even say the bus hit was an accident while the kid intended it. Which would you prefer?

No major regulation over ownership or control of a kid's trike, for this very reason.

Nice touch calling them 'bullies'. Sweet.

If the restricted breeds law was better and maybe if they enforced it, it would make some sort of a dent in these attacks. And by make it better make the owner more accountable.

No-one under the age of 25 should be allowed to own a restricted breed, full stop, I am sick to teeth of seeing young lads, out walking around with these dogs, thinking they look hard, they have no idea how to handle such a dog, they think it's cool when their dog growls or barks at strangers.

Licensing and Micro chipping: Ensure that the dog can be tied to its owner in the case of an incident, that way they can be charged with manslaughter/murder or assault.

All restricted breeds must be insured: That way the victims get some compensation if they are attacked by someone's dog.

Now personally I think the second two should apply to all breeds, not just restricted. But even if it just started with the restricted then it could be expanded later down the line. Lets make these owners accountable for their actions in a big way. The cost alone would weed out the undesirable owners and I bet it would lower incidents dramatically.

General General

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

If the restricted breeds law was better and maybe if they enforced it, it would make some sort of a dent in these attacks. And by make it better make the owner more accountable.

No-one under the age of 25 should be allowed to own a restricted breed, full stop, I am sick to teeth of seeing young lads, out walking around with these dogs, thinking they look hard, they have no idea how to handle such a dog, they think it's cool when their dog growls or barks at strangers.

Licensing and Micro chipping: Ensure that the dog can be tied to its owner in the case of an incident, that way they can be charged with manslaughter/murder or assault.

All restricted breeds must be insured: That way the victims get some compensation if they are attacked by someone's dog.

Now personally I think the second two should apply to all breeds, not just restricted. But even if it just started with the restricted then it could be expanded later down the line. Lets make these owners accountable for their actions in a big way. The cost alone would weed out the undesirable owners and I bet it would lower incidents dramatically.

I am in complete agreement with you on the above.

meoklmrk91

General General wrote: »

I am in complete agreement with you on the above.

I am and always will be on the side of the victims, and that includes the dogs. They do not have malice or intent, I completely blame the owners. I believe that the above not only protects the public but also the dogs from irresponsible, neglectful owners.

MagicSean

Deleted User wrote: »

Should strong people be treated differently to weak people? No.

But what if you had a group of strong people that were selectively bred for hundreds of years to be aggressive, and who had been demonstrated by large scale statistical record keeping to kill an amount of people that was out of all proportion to their numbers?

You might treat them differently then.

You might, but that'd also make you racist.

MagicSean

MagicSean wrote: »

You might, but that'd also make you racist.

Really? THAT is what your argument has been reduced to?

Note in my previous post that it was a hypothetical group of people I was talking about.

Perhaps you could call me a "breedist".

K-9

RichieC wrote: »

What you're not taking into account here is the type of people attracted to Pittbulls these days. Hard boys and morons. Ill treated animals become aggressive and feral. A pittbull owned by a straight up dog loving owner will not be aggressive.

No mention of Terriers! I suppose they are just too small to inflict damage, though often very aggressive.

Anyway Labrador Retrievers rock!

MagicSean

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? THAT is what your argument has been reduced to?

Note in my previous post that it was a hypothetical group of people I was talking about.

Perhaps you could call me a "breedist".

You just justified the different treatment of people in society based on their breeding. How is that anything but racist? At the very least it is prejudice. Maybe if you explore it a bit you will see how. Look at the situation in America. The majority of black people are descended from slaves who were selectively bred to be physically strong and fit so that they would make better workers. Does that mean all black people should be given a handicap in sports because of their ancestors breeding? Of course not. Australians were originally bred from criminals. Does that mean they should be under restricted freedoms when they visit another country because of their genetics?

Dogs develop their personalities as pups. If they are brought up right their genetics don't play a big part in their behaviour. I have a Jack Russel that thinks its a cat and a rottweiller that is afraid of a hoover. Where's the genetics there? I suppose it comes down to a nature vs nurture argument and we are on different sides.

SEPT 23 1989

Bet it was Roly Watts

Gevie Stee

Nice the way the policemans colleague stayed on the wall instead of helping him :eek:

MagicSean

Gevie Stee wrote: »

Nice the way the policemans colleague stayed on the wall instead of helping him :eek:

Whereas you would have done what exactly?

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't say that other breeds never attack people. It's just that they are less likely to, and when they do, it is less likely to result in serious injury or death. It's easy to find anecdotes of various breeds attacking people. I could probably find a case of a corgi attacking someone if I looked for it. But that wouldn't prove anything, because it would be an anecdote, and anecdotal evidence is the weakest kind of evidence.

Strong evidence is that based on gathering large amounts of data from a large sample size. Here is some strong evidence, relating to fatal dog attacks in the U.S. from 1979 to 1998.

Pit bull: 118
Rottweiler: 67
Mixed breed (No dominant breed specified): 47
German shepherd: 41
Husky: 21
Chow Chow: 21
Malamute: 16
Wolf-dog hybrid:15
Doberman: 13
Great dane: 13
Saint bernard: 8
Labrador retriever: 8

Notice how under represented labradors are, considering that they are a very popular breed. Pit bulls and rotweillers make up a much smaller percentage of the canine population yet top the lethality stats by a country mile.

However, according to Applied Animal Behaviour Science the breeds of dog most likely to bite are dachshunds, followed by JRTs. Granted they're too small to do much damage (though I know a groomer with permanent nerve damage that was caused by a Westie), but according to their research (synopsis here. The study itself seems to be behind a paywall) 20% of Daxies have bitten or tried to bite strangers. Rotties, Pits and Rhodesians scored average or below average in agression tests.

There are plenty of things more likely to kill you than an RB dog. Toasters kill nearly 800 people annually, chairs nearly 600. You're much more likely to be sent to an early grave by your slippers than by any dog.

MagicSean

MagicSean wrote: »

You just justified the different treatment of people in society based on their breeding. How is that anything but racist? At the very least it is prejudice. Maybe if you explore it a bit you will see how. Look at the situation in America. The majority of black people are descended from slaves who were selectively bred to be physically strong and fit so that they would make better workers. Does that mean all black people should be given a handicap in sports because of their ancestors breeding? Of course not. Australians were originally bred from criminals. Does that mean they should be under restricted freedoms when they visit another country because of their genetics?

Dogs develop their personalities as pups. If they are brought up right their genetics don't play a big part in their behaviour. I have a Jack Russel that thinks its a cat and a rottweiller that is afraid of a hoover. Where's the genetics there? I suppose it comes down to a nature vs nurture argument and we are on different sides.

Dogs=/= people.

As regards nature vs nurture, how would that explain the massive dominance of pitbulls and rotweillers in the fatal attack stats? Is it really that they are 50 times more likely to have bad owners than labradors? (I keep using labs as an example because they are common, and large enough to kill, if they were so inclined).

Just look at the silver fox experiment I posted to see a stunning example of how important genetics are to behaviour. Even when they implanted an embryo from the vicious arm of the experiment in to a tame mother, had her give birth to and raise it, with the same amount of human contact as the other tame foxes, it still turned out to be vicious.

It is unwise to underestimate the power of the genome.

Gevie Stee

MagicSean wrote: »

Whereas you would have done what exactly?

They have batons, tazers etc, he should have started bashing the dog, not letting it swing out of his colleagues arm while he watches from the wall. Real brave!

biko

EGAR wrote: »

Nothing wrong with Pit Bulls, the problem is on the other end of the leash.

Is this similar to "guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

kylith

kylith wrote: »

However, according to Applied Animal Behaviour Science the breeds of dog most likely to bite are dachshunds, followed by JRTs. Granted they're too small to do much damage (though I know a groomer with permanent nerve damage that was caused by a Westie), but according to their research (synopsis here. The study itself seems to be behind a paywall) 20% of Daxies have bitten or tried to bite strangers. Rotties, Pits and Rhodesians scored average or below average in agression tests.

I think a lot of it has to do with the manner in which pitbulls and rotweillers attack. Other dogs might snap at and bite you, but then they back off. In fact my sister was once bitten by a cranky labrador, who then ran off.

However, when a pitbull attacks, it doesn't give up until it is dead, or the thing it is attacking is. See the OP for such an example.

See this site for loads more stats and examples. I know some will likely dismiss that site as biased but from what I can make out their research is well sourced, and I've found dozens of other sets of statistics (mostly from the US) that show a massive, overwhelming, and undeniable dominance of pitbulls in the fatal attack stats.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

anecdotal evidence is the weakest kind of evidence.

Strong evidence is that based on gathering large amounts of data from a large sample size. Here is some strong evidence, relating to fatal dog attacks in the U.S. from 1979 to 1998.

Unfortunately James I think you'll find your "strong" evidence from the U.S. is in fact nothing but anecdotal evidence.

The only attempt at a comprehensive study of dog bites in the United States involved going through newspaper reports between 1979 and 1998 to compiling a list of the breed involved therein. The main reasons why this study is inadmissible as evidence are:

1. Newspapers selectively report dog attacks, choosing to report on attacks by specific breeds and ignoring others. Somestimes incidents are reported as attacks, despite later being shown to not be so, but without any retraction from the newspaper.
2. Journalists will often identify dogs as "pit bulls" or "pit bull types" without any photographic or expert backup. This is done both intentionally (to make it a better story) and through sheer ignorance. Many dogs look like "pit bull types" to an ignorant or hysterical observer.
3. Many attacks go completely unreported for many reasons. It's suspected that attacks by small dogs in particular are not reported out of embarrassment, or the type of dog is altered by the victim out of embarrassment.

The fact of the matter is that no country in the world maintains a comprehensive database of dogs in their jurisdiction, and very few have any kind of mandatory reporting law for dog bites, so any statistics on dog bites are exceptionally unreliable.

There was a small UCD study done a few years back which found smaller dogs tended to rank higher (Jack Russells in particular), and although the methods used were more likely to give more accurate data, the sample size was small (234 bites) and the bites were self-reported, so still not a good measure for the actual breeds involved in the incidents.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

I think a lot of it has to do with the manner in which pitbulls and rotweillers attack. Other dogs might snap at and bite you, but then they back off. In fact my sister was once bitten by a cranky labrador, who then ran off.

However, when a pitbull attacks, it doesn't give up until it is dead, or the thing it is attacking is. See the OP for such an example.

See this site for loads more stats and examples. I know some will likely dismiss that site as biased but from what I can make out their research is well sourced, and I've found dozens of other sets of statistics (mostly from the US) that show a massive, overwhelming, and undeniable dominance of pitbulls in the fatal attack stats.

In my experience biting and not letting go is a trait found in most terrier breeds; I used to have a JRTx that you could lift over your head, she had such a tight grip on a tennis ball. It's definitely not a characteristic that's only found in RBs.

"31 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2011. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 650 U.S. cities, pit bulls led these attacks accounting for 71% (22). Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population."

The research I've been looking at relates specifically to fatal attacks only, which are always reported.

Here is another study from a US government source (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention) that shoes similar results. (Although in their conclusions they do not advocate breed based laws, due to practical considerations) How you could call this anecdotal is beyond me.

Dealing only with fatal attacks eliminates selection bias.

As for mis-identification of breeds, people would have to be mis-idendtifying dogs as pitbulls at a fairly astonishing rate to make them as hugely dominant in the stats as they are.

AboutTwoFiddy

Deleted User wrote: »

Dogs=/= people.

As regards nature vs nurture, how would that explain the massive dominance of pitbulls and rotweillers in the fatal attack stats? Is it really that they are 50 times more likely to have bad owners than labradors? (I keep using labs as an example because they are common, and large enough to kill, if they were so inclined).

You hardly think scumbags who abuse dogs and train their dogs to attack are going to train and keep poodles? Of course they'll keep the bigger breeds that look menacing such as Rotties and Pitbulls.

Gevie Stee wrote: »

They have batons, tazers etc, he should have started bashing the dog, not letting it swing out of his colleagues arm while he watches from the wall. Real brave!

Sounds good in theory, but in reality it would be hard enough to break a big dogs grip, you could possible end up doing more harm than good as the dog would bite down deeper.

MagicSean

Deleted User wrote: »

As regards nature vs nurture, how would that explain the massive dominance of pitbulls and rotweillers in the fatal attack stats? Is it really that they are 50 times more likely to have bad owners than labradors?

That is exactly the reason. Bad owners choose these breed because they are physically superior and suit the purpose they want them to.

Gevie Stee wrote: »

They have batons, tazers etc, he should have started bashing the dog, not letting it swing out of his colleagues arm while he watches from the wall. Real brave!

Ignorance is bliss. i take it you've never been attacked and have no knowledge at all of the ineffectiveness of batons, pepper spray and tasers on wild animals?

Deleted User wrote: »

I think a lot of it has to do with the manner in which pitbulls and rotweillers attack. Other dogs might snap at and bite you, but then they back off. In fact my sister was once bitten by a cranky labrador, who then ran off.

However, when a pitbull attacks, it doesn't give up until it is dead, or the thing it is attacking is. See the OP for such an example.

See this site for loads more stats and examples. I know some will likely dismiss that site as biased but from what I can make out their research is well sourced, and I've found dozens of other sets of statistics (mostly from the US) that show a massive, overwhelming, and undeniable dominance of pitbulls in the fatal attack stats.

i don't see any stats relating to the owners. How many of these killer dogs were owned by people with criminal convictions? How many were completely negligent in raising them and training them?

seamus wrote: »

Unfortunately James I think you'll find your "strong" evidence from the U.S. is in fact nothing but anecdotal evidence.

The only attempt at a comprehensive study of dog bites in the United States involved going through newspaper reports between 1979 and 1998 to compiling a list of the breed involved therein. The main reasons why this study is inadmissible as evidence are:

1. Newspapers selectively report dog attacks, choosing to report on attacks by specific breeds and ignoring others. Somestimes incidents are reported as attacks, despite later being shown to not be so, but without any retraction from the newspaper.
2. Journalists will often identify dogs as "pit bulls" or "pit bull types" without any photographic or expert backup. This is done both intentionally (to make it a better story) and through sheer ignorance. Many dogs look like "pit bull types" to an ignorant or hysterical observer.
3. Many attacks go completely unreported for many reasons. It's suspected that attacks by small dogs in particular are not reported out of embarrassment, or the type of dog is altered by the victim out of embarrassment.

The fact of the matter is that no country in the world maintains a comprehensive database of dogs in their jurisdiction, and very few have any kind of mandatory reporting law for dog bites, so any statistics on dog bites are exceptionally unreliable.

There was a small UCD study done a few years back which found smaller dogs tended to rank higher (Jack Russells in particular), and although the methods used were more likely to give more accurate data, the sample size was small (234 bites) and the bites were self-reported, so still not a good measure for the actual breeds involved in the incidents.

You can guarantee that if a pitbull labrador cross attacked someone it would only be a pitbull in the paper.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

As for mis-identification of breeds, people would have to be mis-idendtifying dogs as pitbulls at a fairly astonishing rate to make them as hugely dominant in the stats as they are.

You'd be amazed. Even 'experts' used by the DDA in the UK often mistake Labrador or Boxer crosses as 'pit bull type'. Unfortunately over there a dog can be seized if they just think it looks like the type, many harmless family pets have been seized and destroyed for no other reason than an 'expert' can't tell they're a Lab x Boxer and not a bull breed

AboutTwoFiddy wrote: »

You hardly think scumbags who abuse dogs and train their dogs to attack are going to train and keep poodles? Of course they'll keep the bigger breeds such as Rotties and Pitbulls.

If they can't get Rotties and Pitbulls then they'll move onto some other breed. Ban that breed, and they'll get something else. Ban all the big dogs and they'll use small ones. Scumbags are scumbags.

Sounds good in theory, but in reality it would be hard enough to break a big dogs grip, you could possible end up doing more harm than good as the dog would bite down deeper.

I agree there; hitting the dog would probably just piss it off. I'd have gone with the tazer.

seamus

Here is another study from a US government source (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention) that comes to similar conclusions.

Did you actually read the conclusions of that study?

Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-typedogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and therefore should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.

That conclusion pretty much sums up my entire opinion on the matter. I don't deny that it's possible that pit bulls are over-represented in the fatality stats in the same way that black people are over-represented in the prison population.
But there is no data to properly confirm this, and no data to indicate that it's a breed-specific problem rather than a socio-economic problem.

In any case, breed-specific legislation has never had a positive effect on animal attack statistics in any jurisidiction and therefore logically holds no merit.
Dog attacks in general pose such a low risk to general public safety that legislation only needs to look at very general controls around dog ownership and enforcement rather than developing detailed legislation for something which isn't that big a problem in the first place.

listermint

I think Dog Lovers in general have quite a skewed view when this comes up. Suffice to say certain animals are more aggressve than others and it has nothing to do with their background. Its animal instinct and has been so since the dawn of time.

treating them like humans or another species does not override their core instincts.



To deny this is pure stupidity.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Did you actually read the conclusions of that study?

I did, I edited my post. The results table still makes for compelling reading.

66 fatal attacks by purebred (no mistaken identification) pitbulls from 79 to 98.

1 fatal attack by a labrador, despite them being present in substantially greater numbers in the population.

I think that study came down against breed specific legislation because it is difficult to implement practically, which I would agree with.

Batsy

Stratford, in the London Borough of Newham. It's the area where the Olympics are being held.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

66 fatal attacks by purebred (no mistaken identification) pitbulls from 79 to 98.

"Pit bull-type" actually is the wording used. Which pretty much is an oxymoron when used with "purebred". It's a word which could realistically cover 20 to 30 "bull terrier" breeds, or at least 5 of the major and physically very distinct bull breeds.

So please forgive me if I have no confidence in the declaration that there's "no mistaken identity". The animals are identified by sight and by people at the scene (not by anyone doing the study), therefore the scope for mistaken identity is huge.

The simple fact, again, is that the data was scoured from newspaper reports. However much you swing it, it's anecdotal evidence in relation to the breed and completely useless. The report concedes exactly that.

Caliden

Where's that thread on how AH's jokes are getting worse?
This thread is rife with them

MagicSean

listermint wrote: »

I think Dog Lovers in general have quite a skewed view when this comes up. Suffice to say certain animals are more aggressve than others and it has nothing to do with their background. Its animal instinct and has been so since the dawn of time.

treating them like humans or another species does not override their core instincts.



To deny this is pure stupidity.

Actually treating them like humans is what is likely to make them unpredictable and prone to biting. Treating them like an animal is what makes them placid as they know their place.

Certain breeds are not more aggressive but they are capable of being more violent and people nurture their aggressive side because of this.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

"Pit bull-type" actually is the wording used. Which pretty much is an oxymoron when used with "purebred". It's a word which could realistically cover 20 to 30 "bull terrier" breeds, or at least 5 of the major and physically very distinct bull breeds.

So please forgive me if I have no confidence in the declaration that there's "no mistaken identity". The animals are identified by sight and by people at the scene (not by anyone doing the study), therefore the scope for mistaken identity is huge.

The simple fact, again, is that the data was scoured from newspaper reports. However much you swing it, it's anecdotal evidence in relation to the breed and completely useless. The report concedes exactly that.

Perhaps if were arguing over a few percentage points one way or another in the results these confounding factors could be labeled as the principle source of the dominance of one breed or another in the stats.

But the lead these dogs hold in the stats is unassailable, despite them making up a small percentage of the canine population. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this research is very accurate but it is the best available.

There is no denying that pitbulls, and other similar breeds, have been selectively bred for hundreds of years specifically to be aggressive.

With good training it is undoubtedly possible to suppress their killer instinct but it is always there, and can show itself at any time.

Read some of the case reports, it's amazing how many of these dogs were described as previously being docile loving pets and then went on to kill their owners or family members.

seamus

MagicSean wrote: »

Certain breeds are not more aggressive but they are capable of being more violent and people nurture their aggressive side because of this.

"Being more violent" is probably not the way I'd put it. "Better suited to violence" is probably what I'd say, meaning that some breeds are better at fighting than others. Bull breeds for example are typically quite tenacious when a challenge is put up to them. Whereas other dogs may shy away from confrontation, bull breeds (along with a number of other breeds) will tend to stand their ground and protect their space.

This is a by-product not only of their use in dog fighting, but also in home protection.

However as with all animals, the psychology is never that simple and nature and nurture play equally strong roles. Like humans, any dog properly raised and socialised will develop into a calm and social dog. Any dog improperly raised and poorly socialised will turn into a jerk. Just like humans.