Cork woman severely injured after attack by Pitbull Mastiff

oppenheimer1

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/pitbull-mastiff-put-down-after-attacking-woman-in-cork-1.2511010

Just after reading this story of an horrific attack by a pitbull mastiff on a young woman on Cork. Stories like this would make me think that the restricted breeds list ought to become a banned list.

At the very minimum keepers of these breeds should have to justify the need for them to keep them to the authorities.

Thoughts?

the_syco

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Thoughts?

We'll never know what the woman did.

jacknife

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/pitbull-mastiff-put-down-after-attacking-woman-in-cork-1.2511010

Just after reading this story of an horrific attack by a pitbull mastiff on a young woman on Cork. Stories like this would make me think that the restricted breeds list ought to become a banned list.

At the very minimum keepers of these breeds should have to justify the need for them to keep them to the authorities.

Thoughts?

What is a pitbull mastiff

oppenheimer1

the_syco wrote: »

We'll never know what the woman did.

Other sources have said she was restraining him from chasing a cat.
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/dog-viciously-mauled-young-woman-7252491

kupus

looks like The boyfriend brought it from outside the country. poor girl i hope she keeps her hand, she has only been living in ireland for a few months

Pitbull Mastiffs are a crossbreed between pitbulls and mastiff and can vary in size depending on the type of pitbulls and mastiff which are bred. They are usually used a guard dogs.
Popular with the drug dealer type on the continent.

Flippyfloppy

Do journalists not have to have a basic level of grammar?? That Irish times article is dire!

Nelson Muntz

kupus wrote: »

Pitbull Mastiffs are a crossbreed between pitbulls and mastiff and can vary in size depending on the type of pitbulls and mastiff which are bred. They are usually used a guard dogs.
Popular with the drug dealer type on the continent.

What type of Mastiff are they supposed to be bred with? I've never heard of a pitbull mastiff, only a bullmastiff which is a proper breed.

Axwell

kupus wrote: »

looks like The boyfriend brought it from outside the country. poor girl i hope she keeps her hand, she has only been living in ireland for a few months

The dog belonged to her and her boyfriend when they lived in Croatia previous to this, it arrived in Ireland last Friday. She is here since Christmas and the boyfriend arrived last summer.

PucaMama

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

What type of Mastiff are they supposed to be bred with? I've never heard of a pitbull mastiff, only a bullmastiff which is a proper breed.

It's likely they have no idea what type of dog it was and went with what some local guard said it was. What pitbull/mastiff mix is used as a guard dog??? Could they be talking about the bully kutta.

kupus

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

What type of Mastiff are they supposed to be bred with? I've never heard of a pitbull mastiff, only a bullmastiff which is a proper breed.

My neighbors brother has one, he not a drug dealer:pac: and i remember him saying that it was a pitbull mastif mix. Hes not allowed bring it round so i only ever saw photos of his one. But Ive seen others on travels around. they are more squatter and broader than this guy....



its a doga and is also popular in balkan region

Nelson Muntz

PucaMama wrote: »

It's likely they have no idea what type of dog it was and went with what some local guard said it was. What pitbull/mastiff mix is used as a guard dog??? Could they be talking about the bully kutta.

I'd say you're right. The Fila Brasileiro can be owned by scumbags at times but unlikely.

More likely it was the usual - looked a bit like a staffy but bigger so must be pitbull mastiff

NIMAN

I think its time for authorities to begin planning for the eradication of certain dangerous dogs. There has been too many stories like this.

Not putting them down immediately, but stop all breeding and letting nature phase them out.

NIMAN

I think its time for authorities to begin planning for the eradication of certain dangerous dogs. There has been too many stories like this.

Not putting them down immediately, but stop all breeding and letting nature phase them out.

topmanamillion

kupus wrote: »

Pitbull Mastiffs are a crossbreed between pitbulls and mastiff and can vary in size depending on the type of pitbulls and mastiff which are bred. They are usually used a guard dogs.
Popular with the drug dealer type on the continent.

Sounds a bit like breeding Petrol with Fire and being surprised when your house burns down.

I used to be afraid of pits, my post history will even show that, but then I got to know Buju, a Pitbull with a Pitbull temperament. The only thing that kept Buju sweet and nice was his owner's very good control over the dog. I will always say that a Pitbull is a lovely dog in the right hands.

Unfortunately we all know, without stereotyping, that most of this bull terrier types, are in the wrong hands.

I used to be afraid of pits, my post history will even show that, but then I got to know Buju, a Pitbull with a Pitbull temperament. The only thing that kept Buju sweet and nice was his owner's very good control over the dog. I will always say that a Pitbull is a lovely dog in the right hands.

Unfortunately we all know, without stereotyping, that most of this bull terrier types, are in the wrong hands.

Nody

NIMAN wrote: »

I think its time for authorities to begin planning for the eradication of certain dangerous dogs. There has been too many stories like this.

Not putting them down immediately, but stop all breeding and letting nature phase them out.

There are no dangerous dogs breed as much as there are incompetent and ignorant owners who does not socialize or train their dogs (and it does not matter if that's a Mastiff or a cute "toy" breed...). Fix the owners and you fix the problem; remove certain breeds and all they move is to the next one down the list and the problem still persist. It's like suggesting we should ban BMWs from the road because they cause a lot of accidents with boy racers and think that's somehow would fix the problem of boy racers...

topmanamillion

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I used to be afraid of pits, my post history will even show that, but then I got to know Buju, a Pitbull with a Pitbull temperament. The only thing that kept Buju sweet and nice was his owner's very good control over the dog. I will always say that a Pitbull is a lovely dog in the right hands.

Unfortunately we all know, without stereotyping, that most of this bull terrier types, are in the wrong hands.

The same can be said about guns but the big difference between a gun and a dog is a dog is mobile and relies on instinct to function. The breeding history of dogs on the restricted list is they have been bred for centuries as attack/fighting/guard dogs. While all dogs have the propensity to attack these classes of dogs have an extra insentive to do so.
The problem with "the right hands" is its rarely them who are attacked as its usually some innocent bystander or relative that happpened to be on the wrong side of the dogs nature as happened in this case. Even "the right hands" are liable to lapses in judgememt and with these particular dogs any lapse in judgement can have catastrophic consequences,

Nody

topmanamillion wrote: »

The same can be said about guns but the big difference between a gun and a dog is a dog is mobile and relies on instinct to function. The breeding history of dogs on the restricted list is they have been bred for centuries as attack/fighting/guard dogs. While all dogs have the propensity to attack these classes of dogs have an extra insentive to do so.
The problem with "the right hands" is its rarely them who are attacked as its usually some innocent bystander or relative that happpened to be on the wrong side of the dogs nature as happened in this case. Even "the right hands" are liable to lapses in judgememt and with these particular dogs any lapse in judgement can have catastrophic consequences,

Do you know the most common breeds that cause bites in Ireland? Collies and terriers and neither is on the RB list; Papillons and Pekingese are also in the top 10 list of biters who are small cute dogs while the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is among the least likely to bite as per actual statistics; so how about we stick to the actual facts and the simple reality that the RB list is meaningless?

TG1

Nody wrote: »

It's like suggesting we should ban BMWs from the road because they cause a lot of accidents with boy racers and think that's somehow would fix the problem of boy racers...

I love this analogy, it's spot on. The problem with the breeds on the rb list is that they are some of the more powerful breeds around. If you got between my border collie and a cat I wouldn't guarantee he wouldn't bite, and likewise if you got between my friends yorkies and a cat I wouldnt say you'd be safe, but collies and yorkies are not likely to do as much damage as something crossed with a mastiff.

Dogs are dogs, and have the potential do to damage, but so do cars. If you suggested stopping production on anything over a 1.2l engine to stop the potential for loss of life there would be uproar. And that's over a car not over a live animal.

These stories always make the news and then days later the story suddenly mentions an incidental moment where the owner put themselves in harm's way. It's sad but the reporting of these cases should concentrate on teaching people how to interact safely with their animals rather than stirring up emotions and causing the calls for banning breeds.

Nody

TG1 wrote: »

These stories always make the news and then days later the story suddenly mentions an incidental moment where the owner put themselves in harm's way. It's sad but the reporting of these cases should concentrate on teaching people how to interact safely with their animals rather than stirring up emotions and causing the calls for banning breeds.

The above is the truth and is once again backed up by actual studies:

Third, the study found a strong relationship between encroaching on a dog's territory and bite incidents. In nearly every case, the person bitten was doing something active, such as entering the dog's property, playing with the dog or trying to catch the dog. In only 2.2% of cases, the victim was not doing anything connected with the dog. This stresses the point that human actions are almost always significant in dog bite incidents: if humans can be taught to behave differently, many dog bites can be prevented.

Which once again goes back to my original point; the issue is not the breed but the owner...

jacknife

Today's irish independent said the dog was a Staffordshire Bull Terrier then it described it as a cross breed

It's badly researched articles like this that tarnish dogs with a bad reputation

borderlinemeath

I hate stereotyping, I really do.
But, a hell of a lot of eastern europeans are fond of using prong collars and choke chains rather than pain free options such as harnesses. I meet all sorts of people with their dogs, I've pleaded with an Eastern European on the local beach to stop hitting his dog with a chain lead because it wouldn't come back. I've had dogs arrive here with prong collars and choke chains that I've immediately told the owners I wouldn't use. They don't see anything wrong with using them and probably use them as an easy way out of lead training. I've never seen a prong collar for sale here, but they're probably ready available in Eastern Europe.

Even if this dog was treated like the family pet (which seems to be the case judging by the photos in the paper), if the owners used a painful method of restraint, it is fairly conceivable to imagine that the dog was possibly in pain or was at the end of their patience with getting pinched.

There's also so many different versions of the same story in the papers, yesterday the dog was a bullmastiff (he's clearly wasn't) and some papers are today saying it's a staffie. He's a guard dog in one paper, the next line says he's a family pet...Nobody will know exactly what happened, who knows whether the dog was in pain, whether he was unsettled in a new home, whether the woman did something to startle him. She may have done something completely unaware that triggered something with the dog.

seamus

jacknife wrote: »

Today's irish independent said the dog was a Staffordshire Bull Terrier then it described it as a cross breed

Right, so the times thinks it's a "pitbull mastiff" (whatever the fnck that is) and the Indo thinks it's a Staffie.

I would put good money on a bet that this is actually a labrador and between the Gardai and the journalists they're all just complete idiots.

Anyway, whatever kind of dog it's pretty clear that the owners are at fault. The dog has moved country in the last four days and likely spent a good 12-18 hours highly stressed while travelling, then got put somewhere completely unfamiliar except for the people it was with.

Lots of people make the mistake of forgetting to take account of a dog's emotional state. It was likely highly stressed and agitated after the move, but the owners were carrying on like it was business as usual. Any breed could act the same in the same circumstances.

muddypaws

NIMAN wrote: »

I think its time for authorities to begin planning for the eradication of certain dangerous dogs. There has been too many stories like this.

Not putting them down immediately, but stop all breeding and letting nature phase them out.

Thats what they have been doing with pit bulls in the UK for the last 10+ years. Hasn't worked at all, there are now probably more pits in the UK than there were before the legislation.

topmanamillion wrote: »

The same can be said about guns but the big difference between a gun and a dog is a dog is mobile and relies on instinct to function. The breeding history of dogs on the restricted list is they have been bred for centuries as attack/fighting/guard dogs. While all dogs have the propensity to attack these classes of dogs have an extra insentive to do so.
The problem with "the right hands" is its rarely them who are attacked as its usually some innocent bystander or relative that happpened to be on the wrong side of the dogs nature as happened in this case. Even "the right hands" are liable to lapses in judgememt and with these particular dogs any lapse in judgement can have catastrophic consequences,

Not quite true. German Shepherd Dogs - clue in the name. Rottweilers were originally drover dogs.

MayoAreMagic

Nody wrote: »

Do you know the most common breeds that cause bites in Ireland? Collies and terriers and neither is on the RB list; Papillons and Pekingese are also in the top 10 list of biters who are small cute dogs while the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is among the least likely to bite as per actual statistics; so how about we stick to the actual facts and the simple reality that the RB list is meaningless?

Ya but to be fair collies are by a long way, the most common breed, and terriers are very common also. Also, you need to take into account the kind of damage that can be done if a particular dog turns on someone. A terrier can be aggressive, but generally you might get a nip on the heel. What is a pitbull, or any mix thereof going to do? It is the same logic that allows people to buy an air-rifle but not a rocket launcher.

I appreciate that with the right owner, a dog will be ok, but then with the right owner, a rocket launcher would also, wouldn't it? The reality is you cant guarantee that, so it isn't a reasonable resolution.

DBB

muddypaws wrote: »

Thats what they have been doing with pit bulls in the UK for the last 10+ years. Hasn't worked at all, there are now probably more pits in the UK than there were before the legislation.

This is the crux of the problem... Banning breeds has not worked in any country where it has been introduced.
On the contrary, banning breeds makes them more desirable to scumbags, the kudos of having a "Trophy Dog" is a major motivator to owning one.
Banning breeds drives their production underground, thus further reducing any chance of socialisation or half-decent training that they might otherwise have got. Therefore, banned breeds become more dangerous.

If it's true that the owner was trying to restrain the dog from chasing a cat, then the bites she got weren't aimed at her, as such, rather they resulted from the frustration of not being able to follow through with the cat. They're called redirected bites. Unfortunately, despite these redirected bites not being anything personal, they do tend to be severe and damaging. I hope the lady makes a full recovery.

PucaMama

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Ya but to be fair collies are by a long way, the most common breed, and terriers are very common also. Also, you need to take into account the kind of damage that can be done if a particular dog turns on someone. A terrier can be aggressive, but generally you might get a nip on the heel. What is a pitbull, or any mix thereof going to do? It is the same logic that allows people to buy an air-rifle but not a rocket launcher.

I appreciate that with the right owner, a dog will be ok, but then with the right owner, a rocket launcher would also, wouldn't it? The reality is you cant guarantee that, so it isn't a reasonable resolution.

A nip on the heel? I still have a painful lump under a bite from a small terrier before Christmas. She didn't even mean to bite me I was seperating a fight.

MayoAreMagic

DBB wrote: »

If it's true that the owner was trying to restrain the dog from chasing a cat, then the bites she got weren't aimed at her, as such, rather they resulted from the frustration of not being able to follow through with the cat. They're called redirected bites. Unfortunately, despite these redirected bites not being anything personal, they do tend to be severe and damaging. I hope the lady makes a full recovery.

Fair enough.

Is that acceptable in society though? I would say it isn't. It is fanciful in the extreme to suggest that every person on the street will understand concepts like redirect bites when the times comes that they encounter them. To continue with the gun analogy, the above is basically like having a weapon that can potentially go off on it's own accord, and your reasoning is that the people around it simply need to understand that and be able to deal with it. Remove the emotion connected to dogs for a second and it begins to sound quite different.

MayoAreMagic

PucaMama wrote: »

A nip on the heel? I still have a painful lump under a bite from a small terrier before Christmas. She didn't even mean to bite me I was seperating a fight.

I am sure there are instances where a terrier has done more damage, that is why I said generally.

May I ask what kind of state do you think you would be in if it had been a bullmastiff?

PucaMama

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I am sure there are instances where a terrier has done more damage, that is why I said generally.

May I ask what kind of state do you think you would be in if it had been a bullmastiff?

The kind of state I was seconds from when the dog that attacked my small terrier tried to get me by the face. It's what started the fight in the first place she was defending me. Don't assume I havnt been in the situation.

Nody

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Ya but to be fair collies are by a long way, the most common breed, and terriers are very common also. Also, you need to take into account the kind of damage that can be done if a particular dog turns on someone. A terrier can be aggressive, but generally you might get a nip on the heel. What is a pitbull, or any mix thereof going to do? It is the same logic that allows people to buy an air-rifle but not a rocket launcher.

I appreciate that with the right owner, a dog will be ok, but then with the right owner, a rocket launcher would also, wouldn't it? The reality is you cant guarantee that, so it isn't a reasonable resolution.

Oh I don't know how about Collie biting leg of baby? Or being shaken like a teddy bear to a 3 year old? Biting 5 year old in the face? Tiny Terrier killing 3 month old baby? I can go on but you get the point; claiming they can't do damage is BS; any breed can easily do quite a bit of damage and if you look at statistic in general you'll find Collies tend to be in the top in terms of attacks as a percentage of overall dog population (i.e. Collies are among the most likely breed to cause damage to humans in terms of attacks / 100 dogs).

And in general what all cases have in common is clueless owners; they could have had any breed and the chances are they would have the same thing would have happened.

seamus

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Is that acceptable in society though? I would say it isn't. It is fanciful in the extreme to suggest that every person on the street will understand concepts like redirect bites when the times comes that they encounter them. To continue with the gun analogy, the above is basically like having a weapon that can potentially go off on it's own accord, and your reasoning is that the people around it simply need to understand that and be able to deal with it. Remove the emotion connected to dogs for a second and it begins to sound quite different.

It's worth remembering not to get too hysterical about it. For the number of dogs we have in this country the number of injuries are extremely low. Even in Ireland, guns kill more people than dogs do.

I don't think it's fanciful to expect your average person to know how to interact with dogs appropriately.
It's kind of crazy that someone who went for a walk in the countryside would know not to approach a bull or a horse lest you get trampled or kicked. But when it comes to dogs that we interact with daily, people seem to think that they're fluffy little cuddly toys and if the dog reacts badly, it's a bad dog.

I never once remember being told in school, or in any kind of educational settings, or even from home - do not approach any dog without the owner's permission. That's the most basic rule, one of a handful of simple rules that everyone should be following with dogs.

MayoAreMagic

PucaMama wrote: »

The kind of state I was seconds from when the dog that attacked my small terrier tried to get me by the face. It's what started the fight in the first place she was defending me. Don't assume I havnt been in the situation.

So a bullmastiff tried to bite you in the face out of the blue?
Surely that only proves that these animals are in fact dangerous?

DBB

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Fair enough.

Is that acceptable in society though? I would say it isn't. It is fanciful in the extreme to suggest that every person on the street will understand concepts like redirect bites when the times comes that they encounter them. To continue with the gun analogy, the above is basically like having a weapon that can potentially go off on it's own accord, and your reasoning is that the people around it simply need to understand that and be able to deal with it. Remove the emotion connected to dogs for a second and it begins to sound quite different.

Ehhh.. What reasoning? You're making a big (and wrong) assumption, as there is nothing in my post to suggest that I'm trying to reason for or against the motivation behind a bite, I merely explained it, without emotion, without opining. I have no clue how you could therefore assume anything about what I consider to be acceptable in society.
But in case you'd like to know how I do feel when a dog bites someone so hard that they are hospitalised, in the immediate case it matters not one whit why the dog did it... The reality is that he did, and he is therefore a demonstrably unsafe dog, particularly in certain circumstances.
Whilst I have little issue with the dog being ultimately euthanased, this unfortunately tends to be done without any attempt to have the dog properly assessed by a behavioural expert, so that we might understand better the whys, whos and hows, which might help reduce the incidence of such events on a larger scale, such as education, regulated breeding, effectively regulated ownership etc. But that's for a different thread.
The lack of a coherent response is pretty clear in this and many dog bite cases, as is evidenced by the jumble of mixed stories in each different newspaper. As it stands, without any good information, we're none the wiser from this attack.

DBB

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

So a bullmastiff tried to bite you in the face out of the blue?
Surely that only proves that these animals are in fact dangerous?

What's with the hysteria? How can a bite to a human that happened whilst the human was trying to separate two fighting dogs, possibly be deemed "out of the blue"?
On the contrary, this is one of the most common situations where one can reliably predict there's a strong chance the human's going to get bitten.
And lest you assume that I'm making the case for why it was acceptable for the Bull Mastiff to have a go at Puca Mama, I'm not. I'm merely explaining.

PucaMama

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

So a bullmastiff tried to bite you in the face out of the blue?
Surely that only proves that these animals are in fact dangerous?

You sound hysterically afraid of these dogs. It wasn't a bull mastiff that went for me it was big German shepherd mix that I owned myself at the time. Complicated situation because it still wasn't the dogs fault either. I tried to put her outside when she didn't want to and when my other dogs were staying in. She was jealous of the small terrier. She got frustrated and went for me. I only got bitten seperating the two. But if she had got me by the face it would have been worse for me. It was a serious fight that I ended up with a 900 euro vet bill and almost lost my little terrier. Dogs don't bite just because they feel like it.

MayoAreMagic

Nody wrote: »

Oh I don't know how about Collie biting leg of baby? Or being shaken like a teddy bear to a 3 year old? Biting 5 year old in the face? Tiny Terrier killing 3 month old baby? I can go on but you get the point; claiming they can't do damage is BS; any breed can easily do quite a bit of damage and if you look at statistic in general you'll find Collies tend to be in the top in terms of attacks as a percentage of overall dog population (i.e. Collies are among the most likely breed to cause damage to humans in terms of attacks / 100 dogs).

And in general what all cases have in common is clueless owners; they could have had any breed and the chances are they would have the same thing would have happened.

Yes but as was indicated earlier, terriers are far more common, so you will have more stories on them to quote. Im never said terriers wont bite you or do damage, my point was if a terrier and a bullmastiff attacked two people, chances are the bullmastiff would do a lot more damage, and I used the rocket launcher - air rifle comparison to show how this is handled in other walks of life. Can you understand that logic?

As for blaming clueless owners, I disagree. You can be a good owner and simply not be knowledgeable on something like redirect bites, and you could end up with a serious bite. I wouldn't say clueless owners, Id say non-expert owners. But the thing is, you cant guarantee all owners to be experts on dogs, so blaming the owners all the time is not a realistic resolution nor is it an acceptable conclusion going forward.

For the record, Im not against dogs in any way, I own a lovely collie myself. I just try to be as objective as I can on the topic, and blaming the owner across the board might be an acceptable solution for asserting blame, but it is not an acceptable solution for dogs in our society.

topmanamillion

Nody wrote: »

Do you know the most common breeds that cause bites in Ireland? Collies and terriers and neither is on the RB list; Papillons and Pekingese are also in the top 10 list of biters who are small cute dogs while the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is among the least likely to bite as per actual statistics; so how about we stick to the actual facts and the simple reality that the RB list is meaningless?

I'm all for facts but remember there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Here`s a piece that rips your assertion to shreds.

"Whether a pit bull bites more or less than another dog breed is not the point. The issue is the acute damage a pit bull inflicts when it does choose to bite. The pit bull's "hold and shake" bite style causes severe bone and muscle damage, often inflicting permanent and disfiguring injuries. Moreover, once a pit bull starts an attack, firearm intervention may be the only way to stop it.
When analyzing dog bite statistics, it is important to understand what constitutes a bite. A single bite -- recorded and used in dog bite statistics -- is a bite that "breaks the skin." One bite by a poodle that leaves two puncture wounds is recorded the same way as a pit bull mauling, which can constitute hundreds of puncture wounds and extensive soft tissue loss. Despite the "quagmire" of dog bite statistics, pit bulls are leading bite counts across U.S. cities and counties."

Give me a Collie or terrier bite anyday!

sillysmiles

I think the saddest thing about this (and all serious dog bite incidents) is the lack of rationality. The dog bit and is pts. There is no attempt to work out why. It increases fear in the general population (which seems to be the want of the media in general) and generally adds to confusion and borderline hysteria in relation to dogs.

I do think that in a serious biting incident there should be an investigation and if the it is found that the likelihood of the dog biting is because the owners are effectively bad owners then the owners should be restricted from owner a dog again.

PucaMama

sillysmiles wrote: »

I think the saddest thing about this (and all serious dog bite incidents) is the lack of rationality. The dog bit and is pts. There is no attempt to work out why. It increases fear in the general population (which seems to be the want of the media in general) and generally adds to confusion and borderline hysteria in relation to dogs.

I do think that in a serious biting incident there should be an investigation and if the it is found that the likelihood of the dog biting is because the owners are effectively bad owners then the owners should be restricted from owner a dog again.

A dog can bite without being at fault and at the same time without the owner being at fault.

I didn't put either of mine that were involved in the fight down. I knew the gsd mix would do very well as an only dog and I knew the terrier only bit me by mistake.

DamagedTrax

Moreover, once a pit bull starts an attack, firearm intervention may be the only way to stop it

I've broken up 2 seperate APBT fights (not my own as she needs to stay on a lead and i dont think she should be running about the place). I didnt need a fire-arm in either situation, i used a break stick. Just a common little piece of wood that anyone can carry in their pocket.

The fact is i would have no issue breaking up a fight involving APBT or Staffords. They are bred for human submission in those situations and they stay quite level headed and focused. The worst part about these breeds (bred for fighting) is actually their saving grace with humans.

On the other hand, I would never try break up a fight between any other breeds in the same way. I wouldnt trust them in a fight situation, the poor things can freak out very easily and start randomly biting.

sillysmiles

PucaMama wrote: »

A dog can bite without being at fault and at the same time without the owner being at fault.

True.
But in many cases it appears to be a blanket statement of it was a bad dog and it was destroy and now all is fine. There is no way to know if there was a bigger issue.

I would be an advocate anyway of owners being registered and licensed rather than a dog.

Dyr

Gonna be honest when I heard they were from croatia and had imported the dog it immediately triggered a stereotype I have of certain visitors to these shores who drive around in decade old beamers, have the hardest dog they can find and generally think the trappings of scarface and american rappers are what life in the free west is about.

MayoAreMagic

PucaMama wrote: »

You sound hysterically afraid of these dogs. It wasn't a bull mastiff that went for me it was big German shepherd mix that I owned myself at the time. Complicated situation because it still wasn't the dogs fault either. I tried to put her outside when she didn't want to and when my other dogs were staying in. She was jealous of the small terrier. She got frustrated and went for me. I only got bitten seperating the two. But if she had got me by the face it would have been worse for me. It was a serious fight that I ended up with a 900 euro vet bill and almost lost my little terrier. Dogs don't bite just because they feel like it.

Im not afraid of them at all. Im just going off what you said - a large dog tried to 'get you by the face'. I was trying to get more information on this point as it sounded like you thought a dog grabbing you by the face was backing up your point, somehow.

To be honest, I think your example only highlights part of the issue. No dog should go for you by the face in an instance like that - ever. If you wanted the dog outside, he should have gone outside. Im assuming you are a reasonably knowledgeable owner that isn't going to be acting in a manner that would enrage a dog here - like most dog owners would be. Objectively speaking, what has actually occurred there is that dog has shown a temperament issue and going forward, shouldn't be bred from.

That is the danger with this 'the owner is always at fault' attitude. We end up taking too much blame and inadvertently reintroducing these types of traits into the breed by overlooking these actions, when in fact we should be objectively viewing their behaviours to improve the breed of the animals in general. That is a responsibility that dog owners are flouting. If people actually want to improve this issue, point blank refuse to breed animals that show this sort of behaviour. Making excuses for them is only doing them more damage.

DamagedTrax

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

If people actually want to improve this issue, point blank refuse to breed animals that show this sort of behaviour. Making excuses for them is only doing them more damage.

Gotta agree with this, with the addition that breeding practices are a large chunk of the problem with some aggressive dogs, the breeds themselves are not.

A little less eyes on the $ and a little more on what you produce would go some way to helping the problem.

But then people would be up in arms at culling practices. Sometimes there is no winning solution.

MayoAreMagic

DBB wrote: »

What's with the hysteria? How can a bite to a human that happened whilst the human was trying to separate two fighting dogs, possibly be deemed "out of the blue"?
On the contrary, this is one of the most common situations where one can reliably predict there's a strong chance the human's going to get bitten.
And lest you assume that I'm making the case for why it was acceptable for the Bull Mastiff to have a go at Puca Mama, I'm not. I'm merely explaining.

The original post sounded like the dog tried to attack the owner from nowhere and the terrier stepped in to defend the owner, subsequently starting a fight which the owner subsequently tried to stop. That is why I tried to clarify if it was out of the blue.

Nody

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

As for blaming clueless owners, I disagree. You can be a good owner and simply not be knowledgeable on something like redirect bites, and you could end up with a serious bite. I wouldn't say clueless owners, Id say non-expert owners. But the thing is, you cant guarantee all owners to be experts on dogs, so blaming the owners all the time is not a realistic resolution nor is it an acceptable conclusion going forward.

98% of the bite incidents studied for a six year period involved the person interacting with the dog before they were bitten. That is a clueless owner problem if they can't recognize when their dog is fearful (bite being the last resort in general) and often involve clueless owner behaviour such as leaving children/babies alone with the dog (wtf?!) or locking them up in a yard and thinking things will work out ok.

A owner of a dog is RESPONSIBLE for the dog's behaviour; the dog is not responsible for being a dog and acting like a dog yet the most common solution is to simply kill the dog or ban the breed. Neither which fixes the problem which is clueless owners.

DBB

That is the danger with this 'the owner is always at fault' attitude. We end up taking too much blame and inadvertently reintroducing these types of traits into the breed by overlooking these actions, when in fact we should be objectively viewing their behaviours to improve the breed of the animals in general. That is a responsibility that dog owners are flouting. If people actually want to improve this issue, point blank refuse to breed animals that show this sort of behaviour. Making excuses for them is only doing them more damage.

I too feel a little icky at the owner always being blamed... Although I do think the vast bulk of the problem originates with human error at some point along the line, whether purposeful or not.
There is without any doubt a bigger picture here whereby in theory, it is entirely possible to just breed nice dogs. Not just breed them, but breed and raise nice dogs, that are 100% designed and produced to be excellent, safe pets.
For me, an owner should be able to make mistakes without being bitten, or at worst, without being bitten so badly that they need stitches, or worse. And by "at worst", I mean that as a bite that occurs in very challenging, threatening, distressing circumstances. We can and should produce dogs that limit the force of their bite even when the poop hits the fan.
To illustrate, my huge GSD has been accidentally stood on by a stranger, who had lost her balance and the dog was in the wrong place at the wrong time. All too often, you would think the lady would have got bitten. But no... The dog didn't even growl, nor show any signs of aggression. She just apologetically got up and went straight to the lady with wagging tail, licking her hand. I'd expect no less from this dog, I use this merely to illustrate that she was bred and raised to be bombproof. I know her lines, and I owned her aunt before her who was exactly the same.
My point is, it's entirely possible to "produce" dogs that just won't bite (unless under really, really serious threat). It's also possible to educate owners how to assess and choose such dogs, whether they're buying a pup, or going for an adult rescue dog. And I agree completely with you, the corollary of my point, that dogs with any hint of nervousness or aggression should not be bred from.
However, I know it's all a pipe dream! But it'd be a nicer world if we could fill it with dogs just like the lovely lady I described above

MayoAreMagic

Nody wrote: »

98% of the bite incidents studied for a six year period involved the person interacting with the dog before they were bitten. That is a clueless owner problem if they can't recognize when their dog is fearful (bite being the last resort in general) and often involve clueless owner behaviour such as leaving children/babies alone with the dog (wtf?!) or locking them up in a yard and thinking things will work out ok.

A owner of a dog is RESPONSIBLE for the dog's behaviour; the dog is not responsible for being a dog and acting like a dog yet the most common solution is to simply kill the dog or ban the breed. Neither which fixes the problem which is clueless owners.

Look it is a natural instinct for a person to try to break up a fight between their dog(s). You call that being clueless, I call it being human. This is what we need to understand, owners will always be people, owners will rarely be experts on dog behaviour. If we want to have these animals as part of our society, we need to suitably breed then to suit our society, like we were doing a few hundred years ago - what you are suggesting is that we adapt the theirs by all becoming dog experts to avoid being bitten, regardless of if you own one or not. It isn't realistic.
We need to stop overlooking these actions, and instead start breeding them out of the animals, like they do in farm animal husbandry. Otherwise it will just continue this way, but you cant blame 'clueless owners' for that, you blame anyone who has ever bred a dog.

DBB

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

The original post sounded like the dog tried to attack the owner from nowhere and the terrier stepped in to defend the owner, subsequently starting a fight which the owner subsequently tried to stop. That is why I tried to clarify if it was out of the blue.

Yep, re-reading that post now, I can see why you thought so. My apologies!