Cork woman severely injured after attack by Pitbull Mastiff

MayoAreMagic

DBB, I believe we could make a serious dent with that ethos though. That is what annoys me. We have people who are knowledgeable on dogs, and keep them throughout their lives, who will still go out and get a 'little girlfriend/boyfriend' for a dog who they tiptoe around and blame themselves for when he becomes aggressive over something he shouldnt. If everyone who considered themselves a good owner made that effort to improve the breed, it would improve - fast.
If we have a problem with that, then we should remember that this is how we got dogs into our society in the first place.

PucaMama

I see there was some confusion in the way I wrote my post. I wasn't doing anything new with my dog when she went for me. I like routine and I like to keep my dogs in a routine. I'm also not a breeder and had no intention of breeding any of my dogs so that trait will end with her. I made the decision to rehome for her own good. She's an excellent beautiful dog when she's not with my other dog. She loved our 3rd dog tho. She's a lovely dog with children. So I didn't see a real reason to put her down. Don't we all snap sometimes? She was such a good dog she deserved the 2nd chance. I love her and I miss her so much.

DBB

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

DBB, I believe we could make a serious dent with that ethos though. That is what annoys me. We have people who are knowledgeable on dogs, and keep them throughout their lives, who will still go out and get a 'little girlfriend/boyfriend' for a dog who they tiptoe around and blame themselves for when he becomes aggressive over something he shouldnt. If everyone who considered themselves a good owner made that effort to improve the breed, it would improve - fast.
If we have a problem with that, then we should remember that this is how we got dogs into our society in the first place.

I think the problem is even bigger and more insidious, though it's without doubt what you say is also throwing its hat into the ring.
Irresponsible, fast-track puppy production plays a huge role too... Puppies being born to any old parents regardless of health or temperament. These puppies, already genetically "stunted", then reared in oul sheds with no interaction with the world they're expected to live in, during the most critical period of behavioural development (3-12weeks of age)... These dogs make up a HUGE proportion of the puppy market... I would guess as much as 80% of it (I suspect I'm underestimating), yet the chances of them being steady, easy, safe pets are hugely diminished before their new owner even sets eyes on them.
And this practice, by puppy farmers and back-yard breeders has been bloody well legalised by legislation introduced in 2010. It beggars belief, but reflects exactly how our leaders view dog production here... "Feck the animals, feck their owners, feck those who get injured by these substandard dogs... How can we tax the breeders?"
That's all the new legislation does.

muddypaws

topmanamillion wrote: »

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!

However, it must also be considered that the majority of the general public don't know what a pit bull actually looks like. They will use that term for any dog that they think looks like one, such as a Staffie, so it appears from statistics that pit bulls have a high bite incidence, when in fact they do not. Its the same as people saying husky, when the dog they are referring to could be an Akita, a Malamute, a Samoyed and a few other different breeds.

seamus wrote: »

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.

In Ireland, cows kill more people than dogs

DamagedTrax wrote: »

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.

Agree that when breeding, temperament should be just as important, if not more so, than conformation. I know I have mentioned this on here previously, but there was a line of malamutes with epilepsy, a friend had to have her mal pts due to it, as unfortunately it manifested itself as aggression. I met someone with a dog from the same lines and gave him a friendly warning, thinking he would want to know about it, he wasn't interested, there were champions in the dog's pedigree, so he wanted to get money out of breeding, I know that he has bred quite a few litters from that dog, passing the issue on.

I was at the vets this morning, and a woman was there with a cat, she was talking to the receptionist about how worried she now is about her own dog at home, as, according to the media after this incident, all dogs are dangerous. Hopefully the receptionist and I managed to allay her fears, as her dog sounded lovely, and is a much loved house dog.

Evac101

topmanamillion wrote: »

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!

There's a huge examination of dog bites, dog care and dog behaviour in a number of threads in the history of this board, the one that stands out to me being "Husky mauls child" about 3 years ago. At the time, husky's/northern breeds/hairy dogs were demonised (and poorly identified) in the press and by the Limerick dog warden as being dangerous and that they should be banned. A number of the ''usual suspects' contributed to the thread which is worth a read if you're genuinely interested in seeing this thread's future, in the past (OoOoOo time travel!). Specifically however I made a post referencing Skeptoid.com, a website/podcast run by a rigorous mathematician/statistician, whose passion is debunked commonly held truths (think a more heavily researched Snopes). One of the main points from the podcast he did on bite statistics in the States is that these reports frequently have a heavy bull breed bias due to legislation in individual states. If I remember correctly the most frequent biter is actually Labrador/Lab crosses once the reporting bias is eliminated but feel free to peruse the site yourself if you're interested.

PS Sup DamagedTrax - hows Dolly?

DamagedTrax

Evac101 wrote: »

PS Sup DamagedTrax - hows Dolly?

Hey :cool:

She's doing really well, thanks! We're about to start getting her ready for the athletics & show season. She needs 5 more event wins for her 'Champion of Champions' title.

Here we are in a field trying to look cool

DBB

DamagedTrax wrote: »

Here we are in a field trying to look cool

One of the two doesn't have to try to look cool... She already is

peasant

DBB wrote: »

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.

I would agree with the basic sentiment, but I would put much more of the emphasis on the raising rather than the breeding part.

Yes, there is something that can (and should be) done during the breeding process such as:
- do not breed from highly insecure or aggressive parents
- do no breed from "breeding machines" i.e. puppy farming, but only from well socialised, well adjusted, proven family dogs
- ensure that all puppies are properly socialised with their siblings, parents (both!), humans, other animals and other environmental factors for the proper length of time before they are given to their new owners

But ...I still think that the major part of future behaviour is influenced by the raising, socialising and general living conditions of the pup and young dog.

In our society dogs can be put under such stresses that would turn the most carefully "designed" dog into a nervous wreck.

A few examples:
- hour long separation from the group on a daily basis (everyone goes to work/school and the dog is left behind)
- limited interaction with its owners. Even when people finally get home there is still so much to be done where the dog is just in the way and the dog gets commanded about more than interacted with
- poor quality exercise. Dragging the dog around the block on the always same path, most of it on a lead and in a hurry does not make the dog happy
- poor quality interaction with other dogs. While on the "walk" described above, the dog gets to "meet" other dogs in similar circumstances, on the lead, under pressure ...a recipe for less than ideal encounters with lots of potential for things to go wrong between the dogs (and/or the owners )

This is the daily routine for lots of dogs on weekdays, puppies and young dogs are "trained" to fit into these unsuitable patterns and more and more dogs can not be compensated for this by a few hours of quality time over the weekend and become "problem dogs" regardless of how well they have been bred.

Roselm

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?

Could you post a link to the stats? Do the guards publish them each year or would it be the HSE?

Cherry Blossom

Roselm wrote: »

Could you post a link to the stats? Do the guards publish them each year or would it be the HSE?

As far as I know the health service does not record the breed that caused injury to a patient, just that it was a dog bite.

DBB

peasant wrote: »

But ...I still think that the major part of future behaviour is influenced by the raising, socialising and general living conditions of the pup and young dog.

I think it is pretty much accepted that genetics/breeding plays a far more important role than you might believe.
It's as simple as this... If you start off with a pup that's "born nervous" (because fear is the most highly genetically heritable behavioural trait), then you can socialise it til you're blue in the face... It's hugely likely that you're still going to have problems relating to nervousness, fear, anxiety, aggression.
Similarly, pups born to temperamentally sound parents can and do get by with surprisingly minimal socialising.
This has been shown in the earliest and seminal studies in America from the 1960s by Scott and Fuller, and backed up since by extensive research and experience of people who apply the science.

Nekarsulm

5 pages in, and nobody has decried the destruction of the dog yet. Is this a record?

oppenheimer1

DBB wrote: »

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

Surely though part of the problem is that aggressive behaviour or a tendency for guarding is a desired trait among many (if not all) of the restricted breeds. The bandog is bred specifically for this purpose without regard to its appearance, the doberman was also historically bred to provide personal protection.

These working dogs are generally out of place in urban environments, their natural tendency for aggressive behaviour makes them unsuited. I don't see why anyone would have them when there are far more suitable dog breeds as pets, and to be honest I don't think it should be allowed.

Cherry Blossom

My Sheltie is not happy with strangers approaching him unless they are kids. He will happily go and sniff them and take treats from them once he is in their company for 10 minutes and they have been ignoring him. His mum was the same. It just takes him a little while to warm up to new people. I sometimes wonder should I have left my other dog at home in the early days of socialising him. She (the other dog) absolutely adores meeting new people, especially men and when a stranger showed an interest she would rush forward to greet them while the pup hung back and stuck close to me. As a result the older dog got all the attention. I still don't know if this was a good or bad thing. Did he feel more secure with the other dog taking the heat or did it just give him the excuse he wanted to not bother interacting with them, it's hard to tell.

peasant

DBB wrote: »

It's as simple as this... If you start off with a pup that's "born nervous" (because fear is the most highly genetically heritable behavioural trait), then you can socialise it til you're blue in the face... It's hugely likely that you're still going to have problems relating to nervousness, fear, anxiety, aggression.

Agree 100%

But it's also undeniable that we as a society manage to f*** up potentially sound dogs with great success

(The "let's just breed them better" approach is laudable and a step in the right direction but in my humble still a bit too consumer orientated and too easy for unsuitable owners to excuse themselves from their responsibilities and just blame the dog / the breeder for a defective product)

DBB

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Surely though part of the problem is that aggressive behaviour or a tendency for guarding is a desired trait among many (if not all) of the restricted breeds. The bandog is bred specifically for this purpose without regard to its appearance, the doberman was also historically bred to provide personal protection.

With the exception of the toy breeds, all breeds had a job once. But there has been plenty of time to tone down working instinct in the more popular guarding breeds, and to breed towards a softer temperament suitable for the pet market... This is evidenced by the plethora of RB individuals who are utterly bombproof: ask the Guards, Customs, Search & Rescue... They don't use the German Shepherd as a breed of choice because they're aggressive.. Au contraire, their steadiness and calmness make them brilliant sniffer and rescue dogs.
You'll always get bad ones due to bad breeding and/or raising, but this is by no means restricted to RBs. Indeed, the Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors in the UK produced a report last year which detailed the breeds of dogs most commonly seen for aggression issues. The same report compared frequency of breed seen vs kennel club registrations of breeds in the same time frame... There was no correlation found. In their list of Top 10 breeds most commonly seen for aggression, there are 2 of our RBs. Two. The Doberman did not feature at all. In both cases, most dogs seen were displaying aggression towards other dogs, as opposed to humans.

These working dogs are generally out of place in urban environments, their natural tendency for aggressive behaviour makes them unsuited. I don't see why anyone would have them when there are far more suitable dog breeds as pets, and to be honest I don't think it should be allowed.

Their "natural tendency for aggression"? Hmm... You haven't just pulled yet another fact out of the air here, have you? Who says they have a "natural tendency for aggression"? You?
As I posted above, the report based on case studies of people who specialise in dealing with aggression in dogs says you're wrong, that in fact the RBs are pretty unlikely to feature when it comes to aggression. Sorry... But the facts just don't support your hyperbole

DamagedTrax

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Surely though part of the problem is that aggressive behaviour or a tendency for guarding is a desired trait among many (if not all) of the restricted breeds.

It is 100% not desirable in Staffords and APBT of either the show or working types. Both of their breed standards clearly outline this and dogs that show any sign of aggression will result in disqualification from the ring. Gameness however, is desired in the working types and athletics.

I don't see why anyone would have them when there are far more suitable dog breeds as pets, and to be honest I don't think it should be allowed.

I would take a Stafford (or pit) under my supervision over any other breed. When properly bred and reared, they are up with the most trustworthy breed to be around humans.


I suspect your view of them has been formed by bad owners and the media bias? Those of us that keep them responsibly have every right to keep them and suggesting their extinction on the actions of idiots, is a dangerous stance to take.

I would personally be in favour of a special license to own a restricted breed. Maybe a short handling course for new owners. I dont thin anybody thats serious about them would have an issue with that either.

I wont comment on the restricted guarding breeds as i know little about them. Although i suspect their owners feel the same way i do.

seamus

DBB wrote: »

Similarly, pups born to temperamentally sound parents can and do get by with surprisingly minimal socialising.
This has been shown in the earliest and seminal studies in America from the 1960s by Scott and Fuller, and backed up since by extensive research and experience of people who apply the science.

Slightly off-topic, but terrifyingly it logically follows then that the same principle applies to people and predispositions to nervousness and violence are inheritable.

murph226

God forbid one of us ever comes across an incident like this, what is the best way to approach it?

JustShon

murph226 wrote: »

God forbid one of us ever comes across an incident like this, what is the best way to approach it?

Never ever ever get in between an aggressive dog and another person or dog. You will get attacked yourself.

Call the emergency services, stay back from the dog. Help the person when the attack is over. Provide first aid if you're qualified.

seamus

murph226 wrote: »

God forbid one of us ever comes across an incident like this, what is the best way to approach it?

It's actually kind of difficult to give very useful general advice, since each scenario would vary and what you can do with a smaller dog may not work for a much larger dog. For example, you could sit on a collie to pin it down and immobilise it, but try that with a St. Bernard and they'll just shrug you off like a horse throwing a jockey unless you weigh 20 stone. Unless you're very experienced with dogs, trying to wrestle it to the ground (as often advised in articles) is a terrible idea - dogs are incredible wrigglers. You'll pin it, it'll wriggle free and now you're lying on the ground with the dog standing above you.

The most basic rules are to hit the dog with a stick or a pole in the soft areas - stomach or back legs, never the head and never get your fingers or face near the dog's mouth. If you can avoid being in front of the dog at all, that's best.

Dog attacks are rarely slashing and fast attacking affairs. The dog bites and holds, and then relies on the thrashing movement of the bitten animal and the dog shaking its head to cause damage to the skin and allow the teeth to sink in further.

So your aim should always be to have the dog release the bite, then the person who's been bitten (and you) retreat safely. Pulling on the dog or trying to pull the bitten body part out of the dog's mouth will make it worse.

Using a stick to pry open the dog's mouth can work in this regard - you won't actually have the strength to do it, but the action should cause the dog to release momentarily and give you a chance to pull away.

Knine

JustShon wrote: »

Never ever ever get in between an aggressive dog and another person or dog. You will get attacked yourself.

Call the emergency services, stay back from the dog. Help the person when the attack is over. Provide first aid if you're qualified.

Sorry but no way am I going to stand there if my child or dog is being savaged. Not a hope in hell. While I am waiting an hour on the emergency services to arrive my child or dog will be dead. Some dogs won't actually stop an attack until the victim is dead!

BTW I have broken up many dog flights including several from actual fighting trained dogs. I grew up in a rough area. Hitting or kicking them like the poster mentions below will not help. You need to actually force the dog to let go by using a breaking stick or similar.

JustShon

Knine wrote: »

Sorry but no way am I going to stand there if my child or dog is being savaged. Not a hope in hell. While I am waiting an hour on the emergency services to arrive my child or dog will be dead. Some dogs won't actually stop an attack until the victim is dead!

BTW I have broken up many dog flights including several from actual fighting trained dogs. I grew up in a rough area. Hitting or kicking them like the poster mentions below will not help. You need to actually force the dog to let go by using a breaking stick or similar.

Your dog or your child sure, absolutely. I'd dive in too. If it was anyone I knew I'd get in the way and protect them. But the initial question was what to do if you come across this, as in you're walking in the park and see some stranger being mauled. Would you jump in then?

Don't know how I'd react if it were a stranger. All I know is I've been advise to not get in the way by many people. Might depend on the size / strength of the dog in question and the presence / absence of something that could be used as a weapon instead of going in with my bare hands.

Knine

I would still help a stranger! No way would I stand & watch.

JustShon

Knine wrote: »

I would still help a stranger! No way would I stand & watch.

You're braver than me so. Fair play.

Knine

JustShon wrote: »

You're braver than me so. Fair play.

Not really at all. I would hate if a family member or pet belonging to me was attacked & nobody helped.

My cat was killed in a dog attack & a very kind guy tried his best to help.

JustShon

Knine wrote: »

Not really at all. I would hate if a family member or pet belonging to me was attacked & nobody helped.

My cat was killed in a dog attack & a very kind guy tried his best to help.

I can totally see that, and your attitude is commendable but my primary concern is my family getting a call saying "JustShon is in hospital, he's been mauled by a dog and he's in critical condition."

I think my parents would rather a living son than a dead hero.

I don't know, maybe I would jump in if the situation presented itself, maybe some instinct would make me help.

murph226

I am no hero either but I could not stand idly by in a situation such as the one in the OP.

kupus

any word on how the girl is getting on?

sillysmiles

I thought one of the things to do in a dog fight/attack situation is to cover the dogs head/face with a jacket or something. Is that an old wives tale?

juniord

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfMVH4wY5Pg only way to safely break apbt off, all apbt owners should be able to use them , kicking or beating them to stop will just drive them on

the_syco

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.

Pretty much any dog can e trained to be a savage. It pretty much always comes down to what the human was training it for.

muddypaws wrote: »

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

What clue in the name? Are you saying that the GSD can't be trained to be brutes?

PucaMama wrote: »

It's what started the fight in the first place she was defending me.

The fight started because your dog attacked another dog that came close?

DBB wrote: »

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.

As it stands, he'll probably get a replacement dog of the same training, or lack thereof.

the_syco

sillysmiles wrote: »

I thought one of the things to do in a dog fight/attack situation is to cover the dogs head/face with a jacket or something. Is that an old wives tale?

Covering the head with a jacket will confuse the dog, and let they will most often let go of what they have hold of.

ElKavo

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

To continue with the gun analogy,

The Gun analogy is a fallacy, guns are designed by man to kill. Dogs are sentient beings that have their own set of emotions and thought processes. To say a dog and a gun are similar is ridiculous at best.

Satori Rae

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?

Very sad for the lady who got hurt, but no such thing as a pitbull mastiff. The dog was a Bull Mastiff and not crossed with anything else. So for the press to try stick in the label pitbull is ridiculous.

Knine

Satori Rae wrote: »

Very sad for the lady who got hurt, but no such thing as a pitbull mastiff. The dog was a Bull Mastiff and not crossed with anything else. So for the press to try stick in the label pitbull is ridiculous.

Eh how do you know it was a Bullmastiff? They are not black & white. I seen a photo of the dog & it could well have been a cross of the two. I could only see it's head but it was certainly not a pure Bullmastiff.

Satori Rae

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.

Let us ban all the things!!!!Not bad owners or educate people about dog behavior!!!! Makes sense to me

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/apr/09/baby-died-bitten-jack-russell

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3419053/Girl-3-attacked-Jack-Russell-terrier-Sydney.html

http://wtvr.com/2012/05/03/jack-russell-terrier-killed-after-infant-attack/

or how about this coward owner who not only let their dog loose in a playground of all things but ran off when their JRT bit a child in the face.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3038465/Two-year-old-girl-savaged-Jack-Russell-played-children-s-park-tunnel-father-owner-ran-away.html

So now what is a dangerous breed per say? It is all down to the owners responsibility. Breed discrimination is an easy way out. And like any other breed of dog restricted breeds are the most sweetest and gentlest dogs. IN the UK alone the most reports of dog attacks come from Labradors. With now the JRT being labeled the most aggressive dog. Any dog can attack if left in a situation that is uncomfortable for them (and they always give signs) or left roam unsupervised.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2515028/Boy-9-half-ear-chewed-mauled-teachers-Labrador-school-trip.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003849/Boy-3-left-horrific-facial-injuries-Labrador-savages-Poole-Harbour.html

Satori Rae

Knine wrote: »

Eh how do you know it was a Bullmastiff? They are not black & white. I seen a photo of the dog & it could well have been a cross of the two. I could only see it's head but it was certainly not a pure Bullmastiff.

Did you see the actual photo of the dog? or the one in the paper (which isn't a mastiff but seems to be a picture of a staffy they are using which is another breed of dog entirely).

All initial reports say bull mastiff except Rte news and one one article online, both which I read as misinformed tatt tbh. By going on the 3 different ways they are trying to describe one dog. Not even realizing Pitbull is not even a breed of dog in their articles, but a term used to describe a set of physical traits that are common to a certain group of dogs.

I don't have an issue with Mastiffs but the way it is coming across from reading the articles it's coming across they are just throwing in the term Pitbull. Rather then say it was a cross with something else entirely. That in it's self is not a breed of dog. Be like saying a pure breed German Shep is Pitbull German Shepard.

Cherry Blossom

There are photos of the woman with the dog in one of the links taken before the incident happened.

muddypaws

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_syco wrote: »

What clue in the name? Are you saying that the GSD can't be trained to be brutes?

clue in the name that GSDs haven't been bred for centuries as attack/fighting/guard dogs.

A GSD can probably be trained to be a brute yes. Can every GSD? No I don't believe so.

Shermanator

muddypaws wrote: »

clue in the name that GSDs haven't been bred for centuries as attack/fighting/guard dogs.

A GSD can probably be trained to be a brute yes. Can every GSD? No I don't believe so.

I have a 2 yr old GSD who follows my wife around the house all day. He cries if she leaves him for more than 5 minutes. He goes in the car on all the school runs, goes shopping and goes on most trips out of the house with us. He is a fearsome looking dog but has been very well socialised with other dogs, children and adults.
When out walking he is always on the lead and wears a halti. We walk him on a public walkway where there are lots of other dogs and kids and he has never caused a problem. It always seems to be the small yappy dogs that start barking and snapping at him when passing. He usually looks at them with disdain and keeps walking.

Satori Rae

TG1 wrote: »

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.

My mother was nearly mauled to death by a collie as she walked to the shops on a public road when she was 36 she is now 60 and is heavily scared still, on her face, neck (where he tried to rip her throat out), arms legs and chest. The owner ignored countless prior complaints of the dog coming out on the road and herding people, this herding turned into biting peoples ankles and calf's as they walked or biked by, all the while the owner still ignored complaints being made, the owners excuse after the attack was he had not given the dog it's breakfast yet. So collies can be vicious, incredibly vicious. And while I do not blame the breed but more so its f**ing owner it is a hard thing to get past after you see you mother in that state.

peasant

muddypaws wrote: »

clue in the name that GSDs haven't been bred for centuries as attack/fighting/guard dogs.

Emmm ...the exact opposite is true.

The German Shepherd as we know it was developed from local shepherd dogs in Germany, that much is true, but to be eligible for breeding according to the breed standards every dog must have passed a series of tests to prove its ability to "work".
Schutzhund tests (attacking and guarding) are an explicit requirement (among others) but sheep herding does not figure in those tests.

Every German Shepherd that conforms to the standards of the Verein für Deutsche Schäferhunde (SV) (the original and according to them only breed club for GS) has a long line of proven attack/guard dogs in its ancestry.

Dyr

peasant wrote: »

Emmm ...the exact opposite is true.

The German Shepherd as we know it was developed from local shepherd dogs in Germany, that much is true, but to be eligible for breeding according to the breed standards every dog must have passed a series of tests to prove its ability to "work".
Schutzhund tests (attacking and guarding) are an explicit requirement (among others) but sheep herding does not figure in those tests.

Every German Shepherd that conforms to the standards of the Verein für Deutsche Schäferhunde (SV) (the original and according to them only breed club for GS) has a long line of proven attack/guard dogs in its ancestry.

Shepherd's dogs were'nt always used for herding sheep though

Choc Chip

Satori Rae wrote: »

My mother was nearly mauled to death by a collie as she walked to the shops on a public road when she was 36 she is now 60 and is heavily scared still, on her face, neck (where he tried to rip her throat out), arms legs and chest.

I'm sorry this happened to your mother.

I live in a rural area and I'm surrounded by people that let their dog run free around their homes. Labradors, Springers, Beagles, Golden Retrievers, Border Collies, Jack Russels, some small Spitz mixes... the list is endless. Every single one of these will run out onto the road growling and barking at me when I pass, whether or not I'm walking my dog.

I think that the problem is irresponsible dog ownership and not specifically restricted breeds. To keep the conversation on-topic, the newspaper said that the lady in Cork was in her own home with her own dog, but (in my opinon) a healthy, properly bred, socialised and trained dog of any breed should not have had that reaction to an owners' intervention in almost any situation.

I don't think we'll see a reduction in these incidences until people start to choose puppies from responsible breeders and educate themselves on socialisation, training and behaviour. I don't mean to be self-rightous, or to blame the victim, or to suggest that I'm any kind of dog expert. I also don't mean to suggest that people need to be a dog expert to have a dog. However, I think people should be aware of how important these four things (genetics, socialisation, training and an understanding of dog behaviour) are to owning a dog. I'm just not sure how you would even begin to communicate that message to the general dog-owning public.

Satori Rae

Choc Chip wrote: »

I'm sorry this happened to your mother.

I live in a rural area and I'm surrounded by people that let their dog run free around their homes. Labradors, Springers, Beagles, Golden Retrievers, Border Collies, Jack Russels, some small Spitz mixes... the list is endless. Every single one of these will run out onto the road growling and barking at me when I pass, whether or not I'm walking my dog.

I think that the problem is irresponsible dog ownership and not specifically restricted breeds. To keep the conversation on-topic, the newspaper said that the lady in Cork was in her own home with her own dog, but (in my opinon) a healthy, properly bred, socialised and trained dog of any breed should not have had that reaction to an owners' intervention in almost any situation.

I don't think we'll see a reduction in these incidences until people start to choose puppies from responsible breeders and educate themselves on socialisation, training and behaviour. I don't mean to be self-rightous, or to blame the victim, or to suggest that I'm any kind of dog expert. I also don't mean to suggest that people need to be a dog expert to have a dog. However, I think people should be aware of how important these four things (genetics, socialisation, training and an understanding of dog behaviour) are to owning a dog. I'm just not sure how you would even begin to communicate that message to the general dog-owning public.

Thank you. It is the same here collies, huskies,red setters boxers, springers and terriers run free!! Some of which have been hit with cars but their owners just don't care

I definitely do not blame the owner in this case, as all she tried to do was separate her dog from a cat. An unfortunate thing to happen altogether to her, but I think most of us would have done the same if it happened on our property. My heart honestly goes out to the lady as not only is she badly hurt but also she faces the loss of a much loved pet.

The only thing that irks me is people slamming a breed of dog for being vicious and calling for a ban. Or saying people who own dogs like that are obviously asking for it or mistreat them.

Any dog can snap in hunting or fight mode especially if you wedge yourself between them, they wouldn't mean to bite you but they can get confused.

I had to separate a dog fight before as a neighbors dog came in on my property and attacked my dog when I went out to let him pee (another collie) I did not want either dog to get hurt so I used a sweeping brush and my hands to separate them, vet said I was lucky I was not bitten by either of them, and said sometimes all you can do is try give commands or make noise to defuse it, but otherwise make sure your safe. But you don't think of that at the time.

I just think so many people are focused on the restricted breeds they are loosing focus on the non restricted breeds!!

TG1

Satori Rae wrote: »

I definitely do not blame the owner in this case, as all she tried to do was separate her dog from a cat. An unfortunate thing to happen altogether to her, but I think most of us would have done the same if it happened on our property. My heart honestly goes out to the lady as not only is she badly hurt but also she faces the loss of a much loved pet.

My heart absoloutly goes out to her and I don't think anyone should forget her life is probably never going to be the same again but there is no way I would put my hand anywhere near my dog of he was in a highly reactive state. There is just too much of a risk, it would be like standing in front of a herd of spooking horses or getting between a predatory animal and it's prey. You just don't do it.

I have had one experience of separating him from a dog on my brothers property. The neighbours dog came out of nowhere and they went for each other. I stepped backwards away from them, got a hosepipe and a 2x4 and seperated them by soaking them in the face while prying them apart. The plank of wood and huge marks on it by the time the neighbours dog left.

That was two 20kg collies, I can only imagine the state of it if one or both dogs had 30+ kgs of muscle mass behind it.... That was a bit of wood, an arm being used has tragic consequences. It is just not worth it. That's what these stories should be highlighting, not the breed type.

Wibbs

muddypaws wrote: »

clue in the name that GSDs haven't been bred for centuries as attack/fighting/guard dogs.

Well for a start they haven't been bred for "centuries". They're a late 19th century breed, where a German chap sought to make the perfect working dog as well as family dog. He did long term studies on breeds of dog and wild dogs and included many lines from working shepherd dogs and others(including adding wolf to the mix early on). He tried to make the "Swiss army knife" of dogs. Damn near did it too, at least in the early days. The breed were police dogs, rescue dogs, security dogs, herding dogs, as well as guide dogs for the blind and disabled. Sadly the excessive inbreeding by "breeders" driven by shows and standards and of course the buying public has largely screwed the breed. The slope backed mutants with near endemic hip and heart problems are a far cry from what the original breed was supposed to be.

deandean

Interesting comments about collies.
Twice I have been attacked by dogs while on my bike. Both times they were collies.

TG1

deandean wrote: »

Interesting comments about collies.
Twice I have been attacked by dogs while on my bike. Both times they were collies.

Collies are the same as restricted breeds though. You can't just say collies are vicious. The majority of collies in Ireland are from working stock, and a lot have been bred in sheds, had little or no interaction with people during the first few formative weeks, and then go on to be working dogs (fine ), much loved pets (fine but doesn't happen often) given to a shelter or dogs chained up outside the house and let off to run every so often and those are the ones that survive.

My own lad was in a shelter since he was born as the minute the unspayed mother was known to be in pup the plan was to dispose of the pups once they were born. Someone thankfully reported the neglect as she wasn't being fed and she was taken off the owner. That's sadly still the prevailing attitude to them in Ireland.

It's not the breed its how people manage the breed. Collies are a huge problem in Ireland, but not because they are vicious, because they are over bred and badly managed. It's like the staffie problem in the UK, it's all down to the people dealing with the dogs.