Dog Attack Limerick

The King of Moo

armitage_skanks wrote: »

I think there needs to be much stricter laws both in terms of who can own a dog, and what type of dogs can be privately owned.

Licencing needs to be much stricter, with an actual competence test. And large/aggressive breeds need to be banned altogether. There's simply no need for them. If you own a dog for recreational purposes (company, walks etc) then a small dog will do just as well as a large/powerful one.

That would be pointless. There's no such thing as an "aggressive breed," only dogs with greater potential for aggression.
But killing off those breeds would be pointless, as idiots would just start buying the next most potentially-aggressive breed en masse.

We're only talking about degrees of aggression anyway: any dog can become vicious due to a combination of their individual personality and, most importantly, their treatment by their owners.

So you'd basically just end up killing lots of innocent dogs for no reason.

I also don't see how size has anything to do with: a two-year old won't stand much of a chance against a vicious, aggressive terrier. And pitbulls are pretty small anyway, what with them being pitbull terriers, to give them their full name.
And I'd hate to see labradors, St. Bernards, Irish wolfhounds, red setters etc banned.

I agree with promoting and enforcing more responsible dog ownership, but banning (killing) certain breeds would be a pointless waste of life.

Precious flower

I think it's unfair that some breeds of dog have been put on a restricted list. A dog's temperament has to do with it's owner and surroundings. If an owner treats its dog badly then the dog is likely to become aggressive and unsociable around humans. Similarly, if a big dog in need of lots of excerise is confined to a very small garden, stuck in a house all day or not walked a lot then the dog is bound to become high strung and may take its frustrations out on an unsuspecting person. It's sad that this dog had to be put down possibly as a result of not being taken care of properly.

PrincessLola

Why do people always blame the owners? Maybe some dogs are just assholes :cool:

Humans can be born complete d*cks, I bet dogs can too.

The King of Moo

PrincessLola wrote: »

Why do people always blame the owners? Maybe some dogs are just assholes :cool:

Humans can be born complete d*cks, I bet dogs can too.

That's true, but like with humans, it's only a small minority, and how they're trained is more important.

Anyway, if a dog is an untrainable psychopath, then a responsible owner should deal with that straight away and have the dog put down if there's no hope for training them.

If a person continues to own a d*ck of a dog, then they're both to blame if something bad happens.

Born to Die

Andy!! wrote: »

Kid looks demonic, not surprised the dog went for him.

Funny man

blatantrereg

Dogs can be jealous of other dogs and young children in a household.

A dog that seems like the most gentle creature in the world might be the one that kills in a fit of jealous rage.

I worked in an animal shelter where there was a dog that had done this very thing. He was a bulldog. Came across as the soppiest most gentle animal I have encountered, without exageration. Nonetheless, he had killed and partially consumed a rival pet greyhound after being adopted by a family (who then returned him).

People can be dismissive of this sort of thing when it comes to their own pets in particular. They pooh-pooh the idea of keeping a dog well away from babies; Dismiss the suggestion as dramatic and silly. It's incredibly foolish tbh.

Incidentally, I guess I'm one of the "animal rights nuts", seeing as I worked in an animal shelter and am vegetarian etc.

surime

Why do you often say in English that dog is going to be "destroyed". I find it horrible. Animals are not things to be destroyed - they can be killed -or "put to sleep". Using word "destroyed" is making it "less" evil, because it's like its not alive?
(or maybe it's just my english)

armitage_skanks

The King of Moo wrote: »

That would be pointless. There's no such thing as an "aggressive breed," only dogs with greater potential for aggression.
But killing off those breeds would be pointless, as idiots would just start buying the next most potentially-aggressive breed en masse.

We're only talking about degrees of aggression anyway: any dog can become vicious due to a combination of their individual personality and, most importantly, their treatment by their owners.

So you'd basically just end up killing lots of innocent dogs for no reason.

I also don't see how size has anything to do with: a two-year old won't stand much of a chance against a vicious, aggressive terrier. And pitbulls are pretty small anyway, what with them being pitbull terriers, to give them their full name.
And I'd hate to see labradors, St. Bernards, Irish wolfhounds, red setters etc banned.

I agree with promoting and enforcing more responsible dog ownership, but banning (killing) certain breeds would be a pointless waste of life.

If you're walking with your children and a tiny chihuaha attacks, you can fend it off with a swift boot. If a 40KG german shephard attacks, you won't be able to fight it off without a weapon.

Therefore a size and breed restriction should be in place so the only dogs allowed in a city are tiny in size and very timid in temperment. Obviously farmers and blind people would be exempt.

There is literally no argument against this, other than 'I like owning a big dog'. For most people dogs don't serve a function, they're just a recreational item. So a small dog is just as good as a large one. It will also be cheaper and result in less dog **** about the place.

If people don't want a small dog because it looks 'gay' or not macho enough, then imo they are not the type of person who should be allowed own dogs anyway.

The King of Moo

Born to Die wrote: »

There are some major assholes posting in this forum.
Automatically they defend the dog by attacking the owner.
Dogs attack people, I know I have scars from dog bites from "the family pet".


I like dogs, some dogs are cool but they are animals, they can attack for what can appear no particular reason, I was attacked by a dog we had for years, a seemingly placid animal who spent his time with the kids.
The reason he attacked me, I walked past him. The vet discovered a while later he had a tumour on the brain and his behaviour became more erratic so had to be put to sleep.

I loved that mutt and until that moment he was a friendly dog. It is not always the owners fault.

I really hope that kid is okay and doesn't have long term physical or emotional problems due to this.

Describing the child as demonic is real classy.

I'm sorry to hear about your story, but don't you think that was an isolated case due to your dog's illness? He wasn't a vicious dog, he was just suffering from a condition he couldn't control.

By and large, dogs don't attack out of the blue. Some individual dogs do have nasty personalities, just like people, and this is usually quite evident from a young age. If an owner fails to deal with this and continues to keep such an aggressive dog around children, it's their fault if something happens.

originally posted by blatantrereg
Dogs can be jealous of other dogs and young children in a household.

A dog that seems like the most gentle creature in the world might be the one that kills in a fit of jealous rage.

I worked in an animal shelter where there was a dog that had done this very thing. He was a bulldog. Came across as the soppiest most gentle animal I have encountered, without exageration. Nonetheless, he had killed and partially consumed a rival pet greyhound after being adopted by a family (who then returned him).

People can be dismissive of this sort of thing when it comes to their own pets in particular. They pooh-pooh the idea of keeping a dog well away from babies; Dismiss the suggestion as dramatic and silly. It's incredibly foolish tbh.

Incidentally, I guess I'm one of the "animal rights nuts", seeing as I worked in an animal shelter and am vegetarian etc.

And this is why, as already mentioned a few times, all young children should be supervised around any dog.
I hate to hear about children attacked by dogs, but I always think that if an adult was supervising the situation, the attack would never have happened.

originally posted by armitage skanks
If you're walking with your children and a tiny chihuaha attacks, you can fend it off with a swift boot. If a 40KG german shephard attacks, you won't be able to fight it off without a weapon.

Therefore a size and breed restriction should be in place so the only dogs allowed in a city are tiny in size and very timid in temperment. Obviously farmers and blind people would be exempt.

There is literally no argument against this, other than 'I like owning a big dog'. For most people dogs don't serve a function, they're just a recreational item. So a small dog is just as good as a large one. It will also be cheaper and result in less dog **** about the place.

I see your point, but I think that would be unfairly restricting the choices of potential dog owners. Different dog breeds have generally different personalities. It's very different playing around with a big soppy labrador than a more manic terrier. The physical differences add to that too.

Most dogs are fairly large anyway, so it seems like such a policy would be hard to implement without killing a lot of dogs.

And again, I think such a policy would be taking the easy way out and avoiding encouraging and enforcing responsible dog ownership. If people were required to look after their dogs properly, you'd have very few attacks, regardless of breed or size.

Small dogs, especially terriers, tend to be more aggressive anyway, so getting rid of larger dogs without making a serious effort to make people look after their dogs probably wouldn't make a big difference in attack numbers. A scumbag can make a Jack Russell vicious if they're banned from owning pitbulls, and someone might not always be there to kick the dog away.

suicide_circus

The same as always, dog lovers in denial about certain breeds being more likely to be involved in serious attacks, completely ignoring evidence, statistical and anecdotal. The "dangerous" breeds did not earn this reputation for nothing, they were bred for strength and aggression. And while bad owners are certainly frequently to blame and the meejah have sensationalised the issue, the fact remains that certain breeds are factually more dangerous than others.
These dogs did not become dangerous because scumbags started owning them, scumbags started owning the because they were dangerous.

Indubitable

Gringo180 wrote: »

Really? So you would be more worried about a mungrel than a Japanese Akita thats bred for hunting lions? Or a Pitbull with a lock jaw???

Just to clarify as I don't think anyone else has, A pitbull does not have a "lock jaw".

Please educate yourself on the anatomy and behaviour of dogs or any other animals before spreading myths.:)

Downlinz

Thought I recognised the "hero" from this by that tattoo. He was on a documentary a few years ago.

9:40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYLMqKC3NqY&feature=related

Fair play to him anyway, would take some balls to take on a feral dog.

Melted

Gringo180 wrote: »

Really? So you would be more worried about a mungrel than a Japanese Akita thats bred for hunting lions? Or a Pitbull with a lock jaw???

also im no expert but i dont think japanese akitas were used to hunt lions!!:eek: i would be worried about any dog showing an agressive demeanor towards me and bearing its teeth regardless of what breed it is.

DarkJager

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FARzAF9XBWo

Bullseye1

The parents where negligent. It's no different in driving around with your child in the car without a seatbelt and proper seat.

Poor child. If this type of incident was criminalised maybe some parents would cop on.

The King of Moo

suicide_circus wrote: »

The same as always, dog lovers in denial about certain breeds being more likely to be involved in serious attacks, completely ignoring evidence, statistical and anecdotal. The "dangerous" breeds did not earn this reputation for nothing, they were bred for strength and aggression. And while bad owners are certainly frequently to blame and the meejah have sensationalised the issue, the fact remains that certain breeds are factually more dangerous than others.
These dogs did not become dangerous because scumbags started owning them, scumbags started owning the because they were dangerous.

Why don't scumbags generally own small terriers bred to catch pests then, which are the most potentially aggressive dogs, instead of the big ones that look aggressive?

tonyangelino

cocoshovel wrote: »

Huskies are horrible dogs, and I say this as an animal lover. They have a terrible attitude and I think people only buy them because "they look cool".

Idiotic comment. Research the breed. Scumbags go for pit bulls and their like. Do you know a siberian husky from an alaskan malamute or an akita??

Having owned dogs all my like my siberian husky is without a doubt the most placid and gentle of the lot. Of course any dog can turn on somebody-they are animals after all.But a husky is a medium sized dog -like a lab or a collie.

here's the kennel club piece on Siberian Husky

The Siberian Husky has a delightful temperament, affectionate but not fawning. This gentle and friendly disposition may be a heritage from the past, since the Chukchi people held their dogs in great esteem, housed them in the family shelters, and encouraged their children to play with them. Today, it is charming to observe the special appeal that Siberian Huskies and children have for each other. The Siberian Husky is alert, eager to please, and adaptable. His intelligence has been proven, but his independent spirit may at times challenge your ingenuity. His versatility makes him an agreeable companion to people of all ages and varying interests.


Ps if I want something cool , ill walk a shetland pony.

celticcrash

Andy!! wrote: »

Kid looks demonic, not surprised the dog went for him.

But its good to see the owner stepped up and saved the day. Didnt expect to read that when I saw the thread title.

Andy try read it properly, take your time when reading.

buzzing147

I wouldnt trust a huskey for a second. Give me a staffy any day, best dogs ever, none come anywhere close. anywhere close i say, ya hear me? thanks

saneshane365

cocoshovel wrote: »

Huskies are horrible dogs, and I say this as an animal lover. They have a terrible attitude and I think people only buy them because "they look cool".

I have 2 huskies and i have to say from all the dogs i have dealt with over the past couple of years,there are by far the nicest dog aound such good temperment,i love to know where this terrible attitude is coming from,my 2 are good dogs never had a problem with them around kids or other dogs,animal lover maybe but dont think you have ****ing clue what your talking about when it comes to huskies

tonyangelino

buzzing147 wrote: »

I wouldnt trust a huskey for a second. Give me a staffy any day, best dogs ever, none come anywhere close. anywhere close i say, ya hear me? thanks

id trust a HUSKY though!

saneshane365

Gringo180 wrote: »

Jaysus relax I'm getting jumped on here, my post was badly worded. I dont own a big dog or would I ever want to. Huskys are bred for pulling sleds and are a working dog, I honestly dont no why some people have these dogs or dogs like Japanese Ekitta's, Pitbulls Etc.

Your getting jumped on cause your statment is ridiculos,yes huskies are bred to be sled dogs/workings but everydog is bred for a reason so basically we should not have dogs at all,your just one of these people who dont like big dogs and put them down any chance you get,just another person who doesnt have a clue what your talking about

clarbar

jesus like wtf??? its a poor child that got attacked like and all i see is very disturbing comments about the child and the family. Seriously just because the family is based in bad part of limerick you seem to think you have the right to deem it acceptable that the child got attacked and that it was the families fault? cop on people if this happened in a middle-class area comments would be different . I for one hope the child and the family are ok

stupidusername

clarbar wrote: »

jesus like wtf??? its a poor child that got attacked like and all i see is very disturbing comments about the child and the family. Seriously just because the family is based in bad part of limerick you seem to think you have the right to deem it acceptable that the child got attacked and that it was the families fault? cop on people if this happened in a middle-class area comments would be different . I for one hope the child and the family are ok

who mentioned anything about their opinions on limerick or that area of limerick?

ziggy23

buzzing147 wrote: »

I wouldnt trust a huskey for a second. Give me a staffy any day, best dogs ever, none come anywhere close. anywhere close i say, ya hear me? thanks

:pac::pac::pac: buzzzzinnnn

clarbar wrote: »

jesus like wtf??? its a poor child that got attacked like and all i see is very disturbing comments about the child and the family. Seriously just because the family is based in bad part of limerick you seem to think you have the right to deem it acceptable that the child got attacked and that it was the families fault? cop on people if this happened in a middle-class area comments would be different . I for one hope the child and the family are ok

Who mentioned Limerick? Of course people wish the child well
Is there a full moon tonight?

Bullseye1

If its not the parents fault who's fault is it? They left the child unsupervised with a dog?

clarbar wrote: »

jesus like wtf??? its a poor child that got attacked like and all i see is very disturbing comments about the child and the family. Seriously just because the family is based in bad part of limerick you seem to think you have the right to deem it acceptable that the child got attacked and that it was the families fault? cop on people if this happened in a middle-class area comments would be different . I for one hope the child and the family are ok

Smidge

Anybody know what breed of husky the dog was?

dark crystal

Bullseye1 wrote: »

If its not the parents fault who's fault is it? They left the child unsupervised with a dog?

Is this not a common thing though...

I know plenty of families with young children who have dogs and don't spend every second watching over the dog in case it attacks the child. It would be impossible to do so, I would have thought. Plenty of families keep dogs in the home around children of all ages. That's why the dogs are considered to be family pets.

I wouldn't necessarily be blaming the parents here - seems to me like the dog just snapped for whatever reason and the poor child bore the brunt of it. Thank goodness he's still alive and someone was there to save him. Could have been a lot worse.

Bullseye1

Ah come on now. The dog is an animal. The parents should never have left a child of that age out of their sight in the surroundings which contained the dog. It's not like they haven't read or heard of similar instances of unsupervised children and dogs. We are too easy on this type of negligence yet we would be horrified if a child was injured in a car crash and it was shown the parents had not used a seat and seat belt. The parents are to blame for putting the child through this experiance.

The King of Moo

dark crystal wrote: »

Is this not a common thing though...

I know plenty of families with young children who have dogs and don't spend every second watching over the dog in case it attacks the child. It would be impossible to do so, I would have thought. Plenty of families keep dogs in the home around children of all ages. That's why the dogs are considered to be family pets.

I wouldn't necessarily be blaming the parents here - seems to me like the dog just snapped for whatever reason and the poor child bore the brunt of it. Thank goodness he's still alive and someone was there to save him. Could have been a lot worse.

I think it depends on the age of the child. If they're over six, maybe, and if you know they've a bit of cop on and the dog's trustworthy, you should have no problems.
Most dogs are actually great with very young children: it's amazing to see the most hyper dog go from bouncing round the place to being incredibly gentle in an instant when they see a small child.

But as someone mentioned earlier, a child of two is likely to pull and grab at the dog, or cuddle it a bit too roughly, which could make the most patient dog snap if they kept at it or got too rough.

If they were that young and the dog was well-behaved I'd be happy to let them play together, but I'd still keep an eye on them.

iguana

clarbar wrote: »

Seriously just because the family is based in bad part of limerick you seem to think you have the right to deem it acceptable that the child got attacked and that it was the families fault?

People are blaming the family because in most of these cases the owner of the dog is at fault. This dog is being reported as a husky, though the warden specified it was a Malamute. Whichever it was both of those dogs need to have a very large garden to run in. Not the small patch that the houses in Carew Park have. Anyone who takes on one of these dogs needs to commit to a serious amount of daily exercise for the dog if they have the correct size gardens. If they have a tiny garden like that of the O'Leary's then they need to commit to even more. That's not a choice with one of these dogs, it's not something you can do haphazardly. It's something you have to commit to every single day no matter what else is going on in your life. If you do not give the dog it's necessary exercise the dog will suffer and most likely develop mental problems.

To be quite honest I doubt very much that this couple fulfilled the needs of a dog like this. In the last few years, and especially in the last year, dogs like this have become very popular with idiots who want a 'wolf' (or personal theory for the sudden surge in popularity; a direwolf). Getting a dog like this for Christmas (often the mark of an idiot dog owner in itself) when you have a small child and live in a small house, with a small yard nowhere near the type of area suitable to exercise it, is not the action of a responsible dog owner. Now maybe I'm wrong and one member of this couple took that dog out to Cratloe woods or somewhere along the Shannon for a couple of hours every single day but despite this, the dog had a brain tumour or a mental illness like Rage which led to an unprovoked attack. But which seems more likely? The dog had a very rare medical condition or was one of thousands not properly cared for. I'm going for the latter and it has nothing to do with the 'social class' of the family.

The odds are the attack is the fault of the parent's negligence in the exact same way it would be their fault if the child had been injured in a car accident because the parent drove drunk. It's sickening that people jump on the dog blaming bandwagon because as long as we do that, instead of laying the blame where it is due, these attacks are more and more likely to keep on happening.

everlast75

The dog was an Alaskan Malamute according to the dog warden, so anyone saying it was a husky is completely wrong.

I whole-heartedly agree with the kind remarks made regarding huskies. They are amazingly kind and gentle dog.

So, if you're going to slate an entire breed, make sure you get your facts straight, there's a good lad!

Smidge

everlast75 wrote: »

The dog was an Alaskan Malamute according to the dog warden, so anyone saying it was a husky is completely wrong.

I whole-heartedly agree with the kind remarks made regarding huskies. They are amazingly kind and gentle dog.

So, if you're going to slate an entire breed, make sure you get your facts straight, there's a good lad!

Cheers for letting us know the breed! Malmute as you say is SO not the same as a husky:eek:

iguana

everlast75 wrote: »

The dog was an Alaskan Malamute according to the dog warden, so anyone saying it was a husky is completely wrong.

The warden did say that but he also said that huskies shouldn't be pets, so I'd take what he says with a pinch of salt, tbh.

beco2010

mishkalucy wrote: »

Cheers for letting us know the breed! Malmute as you say is SO not the same as a husky:eek:

yes you are wright they are not the same

everlast75

iguana wrote: »

The warden did say that but he also said that huskies shouldn't be pets, so I'd take what he says with a pinch of salt, tbh.

The breed is a matter of fact.

The view that they shouldn't be pets is an opinion, therefore that's the bit that should be taken with a pinch of salt.

iguana

everlast75 wrote: »

The breed is a matter of fact.

The view that they shouldn't be pets is an opinion, therefore that's the bit that should be taken with a pinch of salt.

It's not a matter of fact. It's the word of a person who despite his job doesn't know too much about dogs.

everlast75

So by that logic, if I identify an elephant I could be wrong on that because I happen to think they make a good pet?

Right so...

iguana

everlast75 wrote: »

So by that logic, if I identify an elephant I could be wrong on that because I happen to think they make a good pet?

Right so...

No if you identified an elephant as specifically an African elephant based solely on how it looks and then follow up by saying something that makes it clear you don't really know elephants, I wouldn't consider your claim as a fact. Facts have to be verified beyond any doubt. One person's guess isn't a fact.

tonyangelino

iguana wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

The breed is a matter of fact.

The view that they shouldn't be pets is an opinion, therefore that's the bit that should be taken with a pinch of salt.

It's not a matter of fact. It's the word of a person who despite his job doesn't know too much about dogs.

its like saying the teenager working in the local shop has expert knowledge of retailing in Ireland.
This gob****e has given siberian huskies a bad name now. Really looking forward to the first person who gives me grief over walking my husky now...

iguana

tonyangelino wrote: »

its like saying the teenager working in the local shop has expert knowledge of retailing in Ireland.
This gob****e has given siberian huskies a bad name now. Really looking forward to the first person who gives me grief over walking my husky now...

That's the point. Why would he even bring up huskies other than to say this specific dog is not a husky. Instead he decided to give his groundless opinion as a matter of fact for no good reason. Almost any breed of dog will make a great pet with the right owner who understands the breed and commits to meeting it's needs.

I have springers, who aren't considered remotely dangerous. But I'd be extremely wary of a springer that didn't get the exercise it needs because not meeting a dogs needs is what makes it dangerous, not it's breed.

everlast75

I can't put it any clearer - the breed is an objective fact.

One's opinion on a breed is purely subjective.

Just because you don't agree (and neither do I) with him on his subjective opinion, it doesn't mean he is wrong on the objective.

(Incidentally - To describe the breed as Alaskan malamute rather than the rookie mistake of calling it a husky lends further credibility to his identification)

King of Kings

so a dog attacks a child and certain clowns here start pontificating that about a situation they don't even know the full story too
Does it say the child was alone ?
No.


I for one am just glad the child is ok. Idiots just love dishing out blame - ever think there is no blame. Things happen - the full story hasn't been told - it's not been in the media(or at least not that I've read) how the dog got the child so to speculat and lash out blame is a ****ing stupid thing to do.

Also this high moral tone from a whole of ****wits over what and what not to do with kids? **** off.

Dudess

cocoshovel wrote: »

Huskies are horrible dogs, and I say this as an animal lover. They have a terrible attitude and I think people only buy them because "they look cool".

As in, look like they're in Alaska?

But seriously: think it all you like. I just think they're beautiful dogs. I've only encountered one, but he was a sweetie.

iguana

everlast75 wrote: »

I can't put it any clearer - the breed is an objective fact.

Based on what, the word of one person? That's not what an objective fact is. Not even remotely. The dog may well be a malamute but Coote's word does not make it a fact.

everlast75

Furthermore, it's not like his subjective opinion was off the wall. If he said huskys generally live underground and walk backwards on Tuesdays, then fine - it goes to his credibility.

He didn't - he said they don't make great pets. As a warden I'd say he encounters dozens of breeds, alot that need plenty of exercise, like huskies, malamutes, Akitas, etc. generally speaking, they don't make great pets to dumbasses who buy them off done deal, gumtree etc and don't do the research.

I have two huskys.

The first I rescued from a couple of a*seholes who bought him from a puppy farm and decided to keep him in an apartment and allow their young son to bite his ears and torment him.

The second I got from another a*sehole who kept him tied up the back all the live long day.

Despite this, both are exceptionally gentle.

Now I have them, they are walked everyday, fed right and kept clean but I'd imagine I'm the exception rather than the rule.

They need alot of dedication and in that respect, on a very general basis, it can be said they are not 'great pets' in the sense of effort required coupled with the idiocy of the average member of public.

beco2010

as some one who owns 2 siberian husky, I would trust them with my life but they are a working dog they make great pets but as i have said they are a working bread of dog, this is the same for malamute if they are left idle like any dog thay can become unstable. but as the amount of ppl that own these typs of dogs increase it was only a matter of time that something like what has happend to that child would happen.

The King of Moo

King of Kings wrote: »

so a dog attacks a child and certain clowns here start pontificating that about a situation they don't even know the full story too
Does it say the child was alone ?
No.


I for one am just glad the child is ok. Idiots just love dishing out blame - ever think there is no blame. Things happen - the full story hasn't been told - it's not been in the media(or at least not that I've read) how the dog got the child so to speculat and lash out blame is a ****ing stupid thing to do.

Also this high moral tone from a whole of ****wits over what and what not to do with kids? **** off.

The fact is, if an adult is supervising a child and a pet dog properly, it's very unlikely an accident will happen, so unfortunately I find it highly unlikely that there's no human blame involved in this case, as in the case of most attacks by pet dogs.

Also, this thread has moved beyond the particular case, to discuss treatment of dogs in relation to children in general. There are still lots of misconceptions about dogs and particularly dog attacks, so pointing out that very often mistreatment by owners leads to canine aggression is for the purpose of clearing up these misconceptions, not blaming the people involved in this particular case.

iguana

everlast75 wrote: »

Furthermore, it's not like his subjective opinion was off the wall. If he said huskys generally live underground and walk backwards on Tuesdays, then fine - it goes to his credibility.

He didn't - he said they don't make great pets. As a warden I'd say he encounters dozens of breeds, alot that need plenty of exercise, like huskies, malamutes, Akitas, etc. generally speaking, they don't make great pets to dumbasses who buy them off done deal, gumtree etc and don't do the research.

I have two huskys.

The first I rescued from a couple of a*seholes who bought him from a puppy farm and decided to keep him in an apartment and allow their young son to bite his ears and torment him.

The second I got from another a*sehole who kept him tied up the back all the live long day.

Now I have them, they are walked everyday, fed right and kept clean but I'd imagine I'm the exception rather than the rule.

They need alot of dedication and in that respect, on a very general basis, it can be said they are not 'great pets' in the sense of effort required coupled with the idiocy of the average member of public.

That's true for all dogs. One of mine was never walked by his previous owners because they saw the long ears and thought they'd gotten a lapdog. When we got him he was about 8 kg overweight for his age, had the soft pink footpads of a young pup and wasn't able to run. As a result he lost one of his legs a couple of years ago as the bones of his joints never developed properly (it was aerated) and small accidents another dog would have shrugged off shattered the bone.

Almost any breed of dog is a fantastic or terrible pet depending on the owners. Good owners make good pets, bad owners make bad pets. Breed is irrelevant as long as the owner is prepared for the needs of that breed.

everlast75

iguana wrote: »

Based on what, the word of one person? That's not what an objective fact is. Not even remotely. The dog may well be a malamute but Coote's word does not make it a fact.

Jesus - its the word of a dog warden who deals with.. Yes you've guessed it - dogs everyday of his life.

Like I said. - it takes a more trained eye to notice the difference and I happen to think that this furthers his credibility.

The fact is you're position is that he doesn't know what breed is what because you disagree with whether they are good pets or not.

I disagree with his point, but clearly grasp that this does not alter his professional opinion on the breed.

I happen to think your linkage is highly illogical and we'll have to disagree on that.