Pet dog kills 3 day old in California

K-9

MadDog76 wrote: »

What exactly are those 20 breeds?

Those percentages are useless without knowing exactly which breeds are being discussed ............ Labradors are responsible for 3 human deaths in the US, whilst PitBulls (as in the typical PitBull breed including, but not limited to, the American Pit Bull Terrier) are responsible for 295 human deaths in the US ............ I'll let you work out the percentage there and what that means statistically.

Lab Retrievers are by far the most popular dog in the US as well, the disparity in the figures is massive.

rhabarbarum

For goddsakes. Any size and breed of a dog can be fatal to a 3-day-old. Who drops their newborn next to an animal, no matter how tame? Babies are fragile. At the very least, for the first half a year you gotta watch them like a hawk. Jesus. This is so damnedly terrible.

MadDog76

K-9 wrote: »

Lab Retrievers are by far the most popular dog in the US as well, the disparity in the figures is massive.

It's a very worrying, and telling, statistic ........ 34 US dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2015.
PitBulls contributed to 28 (82%) of these deaths. PitBulls only make up about 6.6% of the total US dog population.
Together, PitBulls and Rottweilers, the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 31 (91%) of the total recorded deaths in 2015. This same combination also accounted for 76% of all fatal attacks during the 10-year period of 2005 to 2015.
PitBulls killed 232 Americans, about one person every 17 days, versus Rottweilers, which killed 41, about one person every 98 days from 2005 to 2015.
In 2015 alone, the combination of PitBulls (28 human deaths), their close cousins, American BullDogs (2 human deaths) and Rottweilers (3 human deaths) contributed to 97% of all dog bite-related fatalities.

Provoke a Bassett Hound and he may bite you ......... provoke a PitBull and he may kill you.

Discodog

MadDog76 wrote: »

It's a very worrying, and telling, statistic ........ 34 US dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2015.
PitBulls contributed to 28 (82%) of these deaths. PitBulls only make up about 6.6% of the total US dog population.
Together, PitBulls and Rottweilers, the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 31 (91%) of the total recorded deaths in 2015. This same combination also accounted for 76% of all fatal attacks during the 10-year period of 2005 to 2015.
PitBulls killed 232 Americans, about one person every 17 days, versus Rottweilers, which killed 41, about one person every 98 days from 2005 to 2015.
In 2015 alone, the combination of PitBulls (28 human deaths), their close cousins, American BullDogs (2 human deaths) and Rottweilers (3 human deaths) contributed to 97% of all dog bite-related fatalities.

Provoke a Bassett Hound and he may bite you ......... provoke a PitBull and he may kill you.

Just goes to show that, no matter how well you do the research, someone will totally misinterpret the result & go against the conclusions of the report. They clearly state that the Pit Bull figures are influenced in the USA by it being a very popular breed. EDIT: I suspect that you got the figures from dogsbite.org rather than the peer reviewed scientific study that I & others are referring to.

Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma,35 however controlled studies have not
identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous.

A different report by the same authors that gathered data from all over the World stated:

The authors pored over a body of literature covering 40 years.
These published reports came from all across the United States,
as well as from Canada, the United Kingdom, Denmark, South
Africa, New Zealand, and the Netherlands. These varying reports
also confirmed the ineffectiveness of breed-specific regulation.
According to the AVMA experts, “(. . .) it has not been demonstrated
that breed-specific bans affect the rate or severity of
bite injuries occurring in the community.”

MadDog76

Discodog wrote: »

Just goes to show that, no matter how well you do the research, someone will totally misinterpret the result & go against the conclusions of the report. They clearly state that the Pit Bull figures are influenced in the USA by it being a very popular breed.

Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma,35 however controlled studies have not
identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous.

A different report by the same authors that gathered data from all over the World stated:

The authors pored over a body of literature covering 40 years.
These published reports came from all across the United States,
as well as from Canada, the United Kingdom, Denmark, South
Africa, New Zealand, and the Netherlands. These varying reports
also confirmed the ineffectiveness of breed-specific regulation.
According to the AVMA experts, “(. . .) it has not been demonstrated
that breed-specific bans affect the rate or severity of
bite injuries occurring in the community.”

At the end of the day, people have been killed by dogs and those dogs have not been Chihuahua's ......... you can place the blame for those deaths on human error, if you wish, but you can't deny the fact that it's PitBull type breeds (and mixes) that are doing the killing in an astoundingly high percentage of cases despite these breeds only representing less than 7% of the total dog population in the US.

Discodog

K-9 wrote: »

Lab Retrievers are by far the most popular dog in the US as well, the disparity in the figures is massive.

Because they are taken from a sensationalist dog bite website & not from the reports published by the American Veterinary Association.

Discodog

MadDog76 wrote: »

At the end of the day, people have been killed by dogs and those dogs have not been Chihuahua's ......... you can place the blame for those deaths on human error, if you wish, but you can't deny the fact that it's PitBull type breeds (and mixes) that are doing the killing in an astoundingly high percentage of cases despite these breeds only representing less than 7% of the total dog population in the US.

At the end of the day you are totally misrepresenting the scientific data produced from around the World.

As for Chihuahuas:

Chihuahuas are most likely to bite veterinarians, Lhaso Apsos deliver one of the most severe bites, and about 40 percent of all dog bites are delivered by mixed breeds.

http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/study-chihuahuas-bite-vets-most-lhaso-apsos-inflict-worst-injuries

twill

rhabarbarum wrote: »

For goddsakes. Any size and breed of a dog can be fatal to a 3-day-old. Who drops their newborn next to an animal, no matter how tame? Babies are fragile. At the very least, for the first half a year you gotta watch them like a hawk. Jesus. This is so damnedly terrible.

If all those "cute" videos of cats and dogs curled up beside babies on YouTube are any evidence, quite a lot of people. :-\

It drives me insane. For God's sake, a cat can do a lot of damage to a baby without meaning any harm, let alone a dog.

MadDog76

Discodog wrote: »

At the end of the day you are totally misrepresenting the scientific data produced from around the World.

As for Chihuahuas:

Chihuahuas are most likely to bite veterinarians, Lhaso Apsos deliver one of the most severe bites, and about 40 percent of all dog bites are delivered by mixed breeds.

http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/study-chihuahuas-bite-vets-most-lhaso-apsos-inflict-worst-injuries

Facts are facts and no amount of "scientific" statistics can mask the fact that PitBull type breeds and mixes of PitBull type breeds are responsible for the majority of human deaths relating to dog bites.

All dogs, including Chihuahua's, bite but PitBulls kill ........... I'm sure Veterinarians will take a hundred nips from Chihuahua's over a full-scale attack from a PitBull.

MadDog76

Discodog wrote: »

Because they are taken from a sensationalist dog bite website & not from the reports published by the American Veterinary Association.

Ok, answer this then ........... how many people have died from Labrador attacks?

And compare that to the number of people who have died from PitBull attacks ........... I'm sure you can find these important figures from the American Veterinary Association reports.

Discodog

MadDog76 wrote: »

Facts are facts and no amount of "scientific" statistics can mask the fact that PitBull type breeds and mixes of PitBull type breeds are responsible for the majority of human deaths relating to dog bites.

All dogs, including Chihuahua's, bite but PitBulls kill ........... I'm sure Veterinarians will take a hundred nips from Chihuahua's over a full-scale attack from a PitBull.

But you ignore the facts.

The authors report that the breed of the dog or dogs could not be reliably identified in more than 80% of cases. News accounts disagreed with each other and/or with animal control reports in a significant number of incidents, casting doubt on the reliability of breed attributions and more generally for using media reports as a primary source of data for scientific studies. In only 45 (18%) of the cases in this study could these researchers make a valid determination that the animal was a member of a distinct, recognized breed. Twenty different breeds, along with two known mixes, were identified in connection with those 45 incidents. - See more at: http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/#sthash.nYjonKgI.dpuf

MadDog76

Discodog wrote: »

But you ignore the facts.

The authors report that the breed of the dog or dogs could not be reliably identified in more than 80% of cases. News accounts disagreed with each other and/or with animal control reports in a significant number of incidents, casting doubt on the reliability of breed attributions and more generally for using media reports as a primary source of data for scientific studies. In only 45 (18%) of the cases in this study could these researchers make a valid determination that the animal was a member of a distinct, recognized breed. Twenty different breeds, along with two known mixes, were identified in connection with those 45 incidents. - See more at: http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/#sthash.nYjonKgI.dpuf

"Many contributors to the discussion rightly pointed out the lack of reliable data surrounding this issue"

You conveniently left this part out of that report for some reason .......... ?

Discodog

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ok, answer this then ........... how many people have died from Labrador attacks?

And compare that to the number of people who have died from PitBull attacks ........... I'm sure you can find these important figures from the American Veterinary Association reports.

So we only allow Labradors ?

A little perspective:

You are twice as likely to die by a hornet, bee or wasp sting than a dog.

You are more likely to die from eating a Hot Dog than by a real dog.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steffen-baldwin/the-lies-damn-lies-and-st_b_8112394.html

Very good article.

MadDog76

Discodog wrote: »

So we only allow Labradors ?

A little perspective:

You are twice as likely to die by a hornet, bee or wasp sting than a dog.

You are more likely to die from eating a Hot Dog than by a real dog.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steffen-baldwin/the-lies-damn-lies-and-st_b_8112394.html

Very good article.

Why did you avoid answering the question?

Is that because you don't know the answer or because you don't like the answer??

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

But you ignore the facts.

The authors report that the breed of the dog or dogs could not be reliably identified in more than 80% of cases. News accounts disagreed with each other and/or with animal control reports in a significant number of incidents, casting doubt on the reliability of breed attributions and more generally for using media reports as a primary source of data for scientific studies. In only 45 (18%) of the cases in this study could these researchers make a valid determination that the animal was a member of a distinct, recognized breed. Twenty different breeds, along with two known mixes, were identified in connection with those 45 incidents. - See more at: http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/#sthash.nYjonKgI.dpuf

And you appear to be misreading the presented 'data'.

The study appears not to have been able to identify 'breed' due to this data not always been recorded or available and not assumed ie that the breed could 'not be identified'.

'Breed was not one of the factors identified' in relation to DBRF only because there was not sufficient data to do so.

Certainly there is no precise detail on data collection and the recording of breeds in relation to dog bite-related fatalities.

Your conclusions appears to arise from false deduction of the methodology. In the study it would appear that many instances no breed detail was actually reported or recorded. The fact that this data was not recorded / not reported or even misreported fails to prove whether or not the animal the animal was a member of a distinct breed, a mixed breed or other in the majority of cases (82.4%).

gctest50

Discodog wrote: »

But you ignore the facts.

The authors report that the breed of the dog or dogs could not be reliably identified in more than 80% of cases. News accounts disagreed with each other and/or with animal control reports in a significant number of incidents, casting doubt on the reliability of breed attributions and more generally for using media reports as a primary source of data for scientific studies. In only 45 (18%) of the cases in this study could these researchers make a valid determination that the animal was a member of a distinct, recognized breed. Twenty different breeds, along with two known mixes, were identified in connection with those 45 incidents. - See more at: [url]h**p://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com[/url]/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/#sthash.nYjonKgI.dpuf

any more sources ?

they don't make it very clear about their other interests like - may or may not matter as long as you know

whois :

Domain Name: NATIONALCANINERESEARCHCOUNCIL.COM

Registrant Email: gmeyer@animalfarmfoundation.org

animalfarmfoundation.org

"Securing equal treatment and opportunity for "pit bull" dogs "

gctest50

No need to throw the baby out with the bath water but i'm sure you'd have shadows of the likes of this one :

http://www.10news.com/news/less-than-heroic-

"She claimed she had adult lupus and metastic stage five cancer," Kimberly Kelly said.

Crawford told Kelly she had one month and two days to live.

The Rathes contacted Kelly to warn her about Crawford. That's when Crawford refused to talk to a doctor about her medical history.

"Everything was a total fabrication," Kelly said.

Crawford told Kelly her father died in the Sept. 11 terror attacks and her husband died in a car wreck in Colorado

.

gozunda

gctest50 wrote: »

No need to throw the baby out with the bath water but i'm sure you'd have shadows of the likes of this one :
.

The bizarre thing is that like all issues there are those whose support for their position remains inexplicable. I believe this person has already been referenced in this thread.

See:
http://www.egar.org/bsl.htm

This is the same person.
http://www.thejournal.ie/animal-cruelty-galway-rescue-centre-1565936-Jul2014/

Truely sad.

Samaris

Not sure if I've missed something, but I don't quite see what the last two posts have to do with the thread?

gozunda

Samaris wrote: »

Not sure if I've missed something, but I don't quite see what the last two posts have to do with the thread?

My post referred the promotion of 'bull breeds' by some individuals and their stance on how these breeds are apparently 'misunderstood' and therefore often abused by others.

In the Galway case a well known advocate or removing / against breed specific legislation and a 'rescuer' of bull breeds who ran a campaign in support of these breeds was actually found to have uncared for and dead dogs in her care.

It may be one case but imo it exemplifies the extreme polarity of the views often seen in support of these breeds.

The statement below taken from the bull breed rescue site ([url] http://www.egar.org/bsl.htm[/url]) was particularly ironic giving the nature of the second link posted above

AN APOLOGY TO BREED BAN ENTHUSIASTS

I'm sorry you are frightened of my dogs and are trying to have them killed
because they are pit bulls.

I'm sorry you lack the understanding of this breed's true history,
gentleness with people, wonderful temperament, intelligence and behavioral
conformation. I'm sorry you won't read the ATTS stats regarding our breed's
true temperament, putting it in the top four for temperament, scoring better
than breeds like Golden Retrievers, and cocker spaniels.

I'm sorry that you side with and protect animal abusers by marking the breed
of dog, and not the irresponsibility of the owner. I'm sorry that by your
logic I could steal a car, run some people over with it and then you can
blame the make of car for the accident, as I walk free

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

gozunda wrote: »

My post referred the promotion of 'bull breeds' by some individuals and their stance on how these breeds are apparently 'misunderstood'.

In the Galway case a well known advocate for removing breed specific legislation and a 'rescuer' of bull breeds who ran a campaign in support of these breeds was actually found to have uncared for and dead dogs in her care.

It may be one case but it exemplifies the extreme polarity of the views often seen in support of these breeds.

Do you have any experience with these breeds

gozunda

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Do you have any experience with these breeds

Why? An more importantly what has that to do with the above reference?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

gozunda wrote: »

Why? An more importantly what has that to do with the above reference?

It's a simple enough question. Do you have any experience with those breeds? Yes or no?

ThinkProgress

@Discodog - I think you are fighting a losing battle in the way you have chosen to approach this discussion...

Trying to convince people that pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other breed... Is just not logical - regardless of how you choose to interpret statistics.

I don't think pit bulls are inherently evil dogs. But they are dangerous. It's our fault for creating them that way... I put no blame on the dogs. We bred characteristics in to them, not badness... Just traits.

It would be the same if someone decided to take a wolf pup and make it their pet dog... That wolf is not inherently evil or bad natured. But it has traits that make it more likely to hurt and kill people...

You could treat it really well and it could behave very well... But you'll never stop it being a wolf. It will eventually do something bad if put in a certain situation!

I actually feel sorry for pit bulls, for what we've created them to be. Just like I feel sorry for the bulldog because he lives his short life struggling to breathe properly.

But sticking our head in the sand about the realities is NOT the answer. We need to breed these bad characteristics out of our pets... And unfortunately that means we need a ban on breeding certain dogs. (IMO)

gozunda

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's a simple enough question. Do you have any experience with those breeds? Yes or no?

So was my question! Why and how is it relevant to what I posted?

If you wish to attempt to derail the topic then fine. But don't expect others to engage in diversionary arguments. I see that this exact question has been asked on disagreeing with other posters on this thread. :rolleyes:

Are you saying the Journal report and website given above is not true? Seriously?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

gozunda wrote: »

So was my question! Why and how is it relevant to what I posted?

If you wish to attempt to derail the topic then fine. But don't expect others to engage in diversionary arguments. I see that this exact question has been asked on disagreeing with other posters on this thread. :rolleyes:

Are you saying the Journal report given above is not true? Seriously?

You're not on topic so don't start that nonsense. You're dodging the question. I'll take your answer as no, you don't have any experience. This thread is about a baby that was killed. Not about irrelevant links you're posting about something you know nothing about.

gozunda

LexieOnRale wrote: »

You're not on topic so don't start that nonsense. You're dodging the question. I'll take your answer as no, you don't have any experience. This thread is about a baby that was killed. Not about irrelevant links you're posting about something you know nothing about.

The link referred to an individual who ran a campaign against breed specific legislation and who posted about a similar attack to the 'baby that was killed" and denigrated two politicians attempts to legislate for greater control of these breeds and who ultimately was charged with animal cruelty.

http://www.egar.org/bsl.htm

As usual and I'm sure you are all aware of the draconian attitude to dogs in Ireland, we are years behind our neighbours across the water and Mr. Costello is now trying to inpliment a law which clearly has not worked elsewhere. Not only this, as you can see the list above is more extensive than the list in the UK and contains breeds which I'm sure most of us would agree make wonderful family pets, therapy dogs and constant companions to many and frankly should not be there. Again, only serving to prove how outdate Ireland's attitude towards dogs are.

Please email Mr. Costello ... and express your disappointment at his mis-guided and ill-informed statements. Please also email Mary ... who made the following press release on Tuesday Jan 2nd.

>> Press Release from: http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/116774140890584.html

Insufficient regulation and poorly-resourced enforcement of dog laws mean that a tragedy like the death of little Ellie Lawrenson in England could all too asily happen here, Labour's Mary Upton has said.

"That poor little girl was killed by a pit-bull terrier, and despite the known dangers associated with certain breeds of dog, there is no restriction on owning or breeding such animals here."We do have laws which require all dogs to be licensed and for particular breeds to be muzzled, but the enforcement of these laws leaves a lot to be desired. Most counties have only one dog warden who is responsible for enforcing these laws. It's completely unrealistic for anybody to expect these officers to be able to deal with all of these rules ad regulations with such a paltry level of support. If we believe that dog control is an important issue, then dog warden services must be resourced properly.

"Our dog laws need to be tightened up. In particular we should be looking to impose an outright ban on certain breeds.

"We have all seen instances where these dogs are allowed roam our streets without a lead, never mind a muzzle. Many are bred to as guard dogs or as fighting dogs, and by their very nature have an aggressive predisposition. There is a case to be made for setting up a national inspectorate to deal specifically with the most aggressive breeds.

"It's only a matter of time before tragedy strikes unless action is taken. <<

That campaign and what happened subsequently is relevant imo.

If you wish to engage in willy waving and who has more experience - then no I am not going to go off topic. :pac: Make your point and play the ball.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

How about mandatory classes for owners of these dogs? You need a certificate to say you've completed obedience training, socialising exercises etc. A licence to hold these "restricted breeds" if you will. Or any dog in fact as they're all dangerous in the wrong hands.

Good owners - good dogs.

MadDog76

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Do you have any experience with these breeds

I know you didn't ask me, but I happen to have a significant amount of experience with these breeds .............. do you have any experience with guns Lexie?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

MadDog76 wrote: »

I know you didn't ask me, but I happen to have a significant amount of experience with these breeds .............. do you have any experience with guns Lexie?

No I don't which is why I don't talk about them.

MadDog76

LexieOnRale wrote: »

No I don't which is why I don't talk about them.

I have some experience of shooting, my wife has none yet she maintains a stance that guns are inherently dangerous and dismisses claims of "they're safe in the hands of well-trained people" as utter nonsense .......... is she wrong?

Anyway, I do have experience of these breeds and I know that they are inherently dangerous even in the care of responsible owners .......... in the wrong hands they're lethal .......... much like guns in that respect.

gozunda

LexieOnRale wrote: »

No I don't which is why I don't talk about them.

As the OP already stated.

Board Fiend wrote:

...You dont need to own a pitbull to form informed and sensible opinions about them

Else no one would talk about anything and Boards and all other media would be out of business ...

Hotei

MadDog76 wrote: »

I know you didn't ask me, but I happen to have a significant amount of experience with these breeds .............. do you have any experience with guns Lexie?

Can you outline what your "significant amount of experience with these breeds" is/was?

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

My post referred the promotion of 'bull breeds' by some individuals and their stance on how these breeds are apparently 'misunderstood' and therefore often abused by others.

In the Galway case a well known advocate for removing breed specific legislation and a 'rescuer' of bull breeds who ran a campaign in support of these breeds was actually found to have uncared for and dead dogs in her care.

It may be one case but it exemplifies the extreme polarity of the views often seen in support of these breeds.

The statement below taken from the bull breed rescue site ([url] http://www.egar.org/bsl.htm[/url]) was particularly ironic giving the nature of the second link posted above

You really like to sink low. That person was a highly respected member on Boards for many years. She personally rehomed over 1200 dogs of which half were Bull Breeds & Restricted breeds.

The issues were clearly part of a health problem & in no way represent her or the work of similar people & rescues. Of course she opposed Breed Specific Legislation as does every piece of research, veterinary organisations & experts all over the World.

But you already know that.

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

You really like to sink low. That person was a highly respected member on Boards for many years. She personally rehomed over 1200 dogs of which half were Bull Breeds & Restricted breeds.

The issues were clearly part of a health problem & in no way represent her or the work of similar people & rescues.

I think I have inadvertently hit a nerve. My points are made only in relation to the two links posted. The person was charged and admitted to a number of charges of animal cruelty. That is fact. That the same individuals ran a campaign against cruelty and the use of breed specific legislation is also a fact and is detailed on their own website. Tbh a boards 'persona' has no basis in reality imo and 'respect' is a rathet qualitative judgement. As for the rest I would recommend a reading of the comments on the journal.ie link detailed above.

This is from the individuals website.
http://www.egar.org/

about us
East Galway Animal Rescue (EGAR) has devoted itself to the rescue and re-socialisation of the probably most misunderstood group of dogs; the bull breeds. Initially bred for bull/dog fighting and bear baiting these powerful dogs have always attracted the wrong attention, even to this day. As any dog, they can create havoc if trained for the wrong purpose. Dogfights are still an (illegal) pastime for shady characters and often these dogs are killed in the fight. One major trait in bull breeds is their willingness to fight if trained to do so. But even the dogs with a fighting history display no aggression towards humans; they may be dog aggressive but love their humans, even if they send them into a pit to fight until victory or death.

...

MadDog76

Hotei wrote: »

Can you outline what your "significant amount of experience with these breeds" is/was?

From my late early teens up until my early 30's I've owned a total of 4 Staffordshire Bull Terriers, 6 American Pit Bull Terriers, 2 American Staffordshire Terriers, 2 Rottweilers and 1 Bullmastiff.

I was involved with breeding them for a short time and also offered some unofficial training classes for a couple of years to new/potential owners of these breeds.

My username is a real-life nickname by the way ...........

Discodog

ThinkProgress wrote: »

@Discodog - I think you are fighting a losing battle in the way you have chosen to approach this discussion...

Trying to convince people that pit bulls are no more dangerous than any other breed... Is just not logical - regardless of how you choose to interpret statistics.

I don't think pit bulls are inherently evil dogs. But they are dangerous. It's our fault for creating them that way... I put no blame on the dogs. We bred characteristics in to them, not badness... Just traits.

It would be the same if someone decided to take a wolf pup and make it their pet dog... That wolf is not inherently evil or bad natured. But it has traits that make it more likely to hurt and kill people...

You could treat it really well and it could behave very well... But you'll never stop it being a wolf. It will eventually do something bad if put in a certain situation!

I actually feel sorry for pit bulls, for what we've created them to be. Just like I feel sorry for the bulldog because he lives his short life struggling to breathe properly.

But sticking our head in the sand about the realities is NOT the answer. We need to breed these bad characteristics out of our pets... And unfortunately that means we need a ban on breeding certain dogs. (IMO)

I am giving & showing the opinions of the people who have studied the facts not those that follow tabloid opinion. Ireland is like the UK was 30 years ago. A ban was introduced on certain breeds & it didn't work, just like it hasn't worked in Canada or anywhere else that it has been introduced. The UK ban is going to be replaced with legislation to make owner responsible & not the breed of dog.

Breeds don't have behavioural traits that can be bred out. Your Wolf pup would be one generation from the wild. Dogs have been bred for thousands of years. There is absolutely no comparison.

But there will always be people who ignore the research & expert opinion. You are entitled to have your view but thankfully legislators listen to experts.

MadDog76

Discodog wrote: »

Breeds don't have behavioural traits that can be bred out. Your Wolf pup would be one generation from the wild. Dogs have been bred for thousands of years. There is absolutely no comparison.

And what, traditionally, have PitBull type dogs been bred to do?

Discodog

MadDog76 wrote: »

From my late early teens up until my early 30's I've owned a total of 4 Staffordshire Bull Terriers, 6 American Pit Bull Terriers, 2 American Staffordshire Terriers, 2 Rottweilers and 1 Bullmastiff.

I was involved with breeding them for a short time and also offered some unofficial training classes for a couple of years to new/potential owners of these breeds.

My username is a real-life nickname by the way ...........

So you bred & trained dogs that you consider to be highly dangerous.

You said "Provoke a Bassett Hound and he may bite you ......... provoke a PitBull and he may kill you."

MadDog76

Discodog wrote: »

So you bred & trained dogs that you consider to be highly dangerous.

You said "Provoke a Bassett Hound and he may bite you ......... provoke a PitBull and he may kill you."

Yes, and it's because of my experience of handling them (as opposed to linking to dubious internet "scientific reports") that I can say they are extremely dangerous and potentially lethal.

gozunda

To the bit added after my reply

Discodog wrote:

.. of course she opposed Breed Specific Legislation as does every piece of research, veterinary organisations & experts all over the World.

But you already know that.

No we do 'not know' that. Hence this thread and the research posted which shows quite clearly that it does not in any way oppose breed specific legislation.

To my mind this reply again exemplifies the inexplixable polarisation of views that this topic engenders on the issue of bull breeds and those who will not acced to any evidence linking these breeds and dog bite related fatalities.

SAMTALK

We have the most docile Retriever who is as gentle and loving as you could get BUT one day he was asleep and a child accidently walked on his tail. Dog got fright and jumped up snarling.

He didnt actually go for child but gave everyone a fright at same time.

I would always be cautious with children and dogs.
One is as unpredictable is the other

steddyeddy

From a logical point of view it makes no sense that one breed is of equal aggression to another and or is more likely to turn aggressive, has more loyalty to the owner than strangers, is more defensive, is more jumpy and more loyal to the family unit. All in all different breeds have different temperaments and I would guess they're different.

Discodog

gozunda wrote: »

To the bit added after my reply



No we do 'not know' that. Hence this thread and the research posted which shows quite clearly that it does not in any way oppose breed specific legislation.

To my mind this reply again exemplifies the inexplixable polarisation of views that this topic engenders on the issue of bull breeds and those who will not acced to any evidence linking these breeds and dog bite related fatalities.

Show me any reputable peer reviewed research that supports breed specific legislation?

JupiterKid

Absolutely tragic. But no way should an animal be around a new born baby. Even a cat can kill a newborn. What on Earth were the parents even thinking that it was Ok for a dog to be around such a tiny baby.

Animals and small children do not necessarily mix well in my opinion.

Samaris

MadDog76 wrote: »

Yes, and it's because of my experience of handling them (as opposed to linking to dubious internet "scientific reports") that I can say they are extremely dangerous and potentially lethal.

"My anecdotal evidence beats your Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the fourth largest veterinary journal in the world, going since 1915 and with a pretty good reputation."

gozunda

Discodog wrote: »

Show me any reputable peer reviewed research that supports breed specific legislation?

The point you evidently missed in that post was that the research findings presented (supposedly in opposition to breed specific legislation) failed to do so.

I believe the OP presented a number of studies related to breed and attacks. The second report presented by the OP calls for breed specific legislation and the other three certainly would support that idea.

Boardz Fiend wrote:

Time Magazine published data from Merritt Clifton who recorded Pitbull related attacks and deaths over a 32 year period. He found that even though pitbulls accounted for only 6% of the dog population, they were responsible for 68% of attacks and 52% of deaths.

- Another report published in the April 2011 issue of Annals of Surgery found that one person is killed by a pit bull every 14 days, two people are injured by a pit bull every day, and young children are especially at risk. The report concludes that “these breeds should be regulated in the same way in which other dangerous species, such as leopards, are regulated.” That report was shared with TIME by PETA, the world’s largest animal-rights organization.

- A five-year review of dog-bite injuries from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, published in 2009 in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, found that almost 51 percent of the attacks were from pit bulls, almost 9 percent were from Rottweilers and 6 percent were from mixes of those two breeds.

- 1982-2014 study by Merritt Clifton: Even if the pit bull category was "split four ways," attacks by pit bulls and their closest relatives would still outnumber attacks by any other dog breed.

Your assertion that "Every piece of research, veterinary organisations & experts all over the World opposes Breed Specific Legislation" is quite hilarious tbh. I'm sure you have already seen the OPS post above.

gozunda

Samaris wrote: »

"My anecdotal evidence beats your Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the fourth largest veterinary journal in the world, going since 1915 and with a pretty good reputation."

You do that journal articles are written by individual contributors and not actually by the AVMJ themselves? Such studies or research are not immune from criticism or critical appraisal.

Which article in the AVMJ are you referring to by the way?

Kotek Besar

Fate is fate.

Samaris

gozunda wrote: »

You do that journal articles are written by individual contributors and not actually by the AVMJ themselves? Such studies or research are not immune from criticism or critical appraisal.

Which article in the AVMJ are you referring to by the way?

Of course I do, but my point is that journals, while not absolutely IMMUNE to bad science getting through, have their systems of checking (peer-review) and a reputable journal is much LESS likely to have something dodgy getting in. It wasn't like it was just petmd saying it based on ..heh..anecdotal evidence, which is what MadDog was putting up against it.

And of course studies are not immune to criticism or critical appraisal, but when said critical appraisal is "I handle dogs which is much more relevant than some dodgy paper", it's not really worth much.