Cork woman severely injured after attack by Pitbull Mastiff

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.