Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pit bull attack

Options
1356

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭aare


    Just as a codicil while peasant is still carefully crafting and answer to my question about why a responsible owner would need to have a pit bull in preference to a safer breed I looked up some statistics:

    Dog bites (USA):

    http://www.dogexpert.com/HomePage/DogBiteStatistics.html
    Mixed breeds and not pure bred dogs are the type of dog most often involved in inflicting bites to people. The pure-bred dogs most often involved are German shepherds and Chow chows.

    Fatal Dog Bites (USA):

    http://www.fataldogattacks.com/statistics.html
    Breeds Involved
    Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%),
    Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%),
    Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%),
    St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%),
    other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).

    These statistics clearly indicate that while the Pit Bull is not the dog most likely to bite, if he does, he is the dog most likely to cause serious injury or death.

    Yorkshire Terriers do not seem to feature at all. I have, however heard it claimed that, in packs of strays in South America, the dog responsible for the most fatalities is actually the Chihuahua, but I cannot find any statistics for this at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    *flexes his stats fingers*

    Lets look at this in detail:

    The most interesting block of the fatal bite stats are:
    Victim Profile
    79% of all fatal attacks were on children under the age of 12
    12% of the victims were the elderly, aged 65 - 94
    9% of the victims were 13 - 64 years old

    The age group with the highest number of fatalities were children under the age of 1 year old; accounting for 19% of the deaths due to dog attack. Over 95% of these fatalities occurred when an infant was left unsupervised with a dog(s).

    The age group with the second-highest number of fatalities were 2-year-olds; accounting for 11% of the fatalities due to dog attack. Over 87% of these fatalities occurred when the 2-year-old child was left unsupervised with a dog(s) or the child wandered off to the location of the dog(s).

    Ok, firstly, look at the numbers for unattended dogs left with 1 and 2 year olds.

    You cannot blame anyone else for these attacks but the owners. I am sorry but anyone who is stupid and irresponsible enough to let any child that age unattended with any dog, no matter how well behaved, is playing with fire. You cannot trust dogs unsupervised with very young children. How many people here would disagree with this?

    Then, we see that 79% of attacks are on children below the age of 12.

    Ok, now compare that to the spread of breeds involved:
    Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%),
    Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%),
    Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%),
    St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%),
    other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).

    Ignoring mixed breeds, since we cannot know exactly what kind of mixed breed (size, strenght etc) is involved, look at the breeds involved. Quite a few of them, as adult dogs, are heavier and stronger than a child aged below 12, almost all in my experience would be stronger. If the same dogs attack an adult, they are not likely to cause fatal damage. But with a young child, the dog will.

    The stats don't condemn any breed as dangerous. They just highlight the areas where the dangers are. Any of the above breeds could rip a child apart. We all know this. In fact, most dogs could if aggravated enough and the child small enough.

    Children under 12 and big or strong dogs are not a good mix. Even the best natured dog can snap at a person if provoked enough. The problem is that a snap that could be brushed off by an adult is potentially fatal for a child.


    The most sobering statistic is this: In 2001-2002 there were 41 fatal dog attacks. In the entire US. The number for 2005 is 21 so far apparently. Considering the huge number of dogs in the US the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is a tiny percentage of dogs that kill people. Tiny.

    You need to keep this in perspective. A tiny number of pit bulls and other "dangerous breeds" are involved in fatal attacks. As stated on the site quoted above, the breeds involved change according to what breeds are most popular that year.
    40% of American dog owners acquired pets primarily for protection-including German shepherds, Rottweilers, mastiffs and Doberman pinschers.

    Ok, that's not a good start. Obviously dogs "kept for protection" aren't likely to be well trained into not attacking people.
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention document that a chained dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than an unchained dog.

    Again, this is common sense. Chaining up a dog indicates no effort has been made to train them, or if they are trained then they are highly aggressive. I'm sorry, but I have serious objections to chained dogs. Also, leaving kids alone with a dog that needs to be chained....


    When you read the "bad attack stories" you will constantly hear about:

    "I came back and poor little 3 year old Johnny was being mauled".

    iow they left a 3 year old alone with a dog. From stats, generally a chained dog, kept for protection and of a "dangerous breed". I'm sorry, but you can't blame the dog in this instance. Leaving any child under 5 alone with a dog is just asking for trouble.


    *shrugs*

    Personally, I find the stats to follow what I was taught about dogs since I was a small kid. Never leave a dog alone with a young child. etc. Most of the statistics also would incline me to believe that it is mistreatment or irresponsibility that is leading to dog attacks not breed.

    That certain dogs are more likely to do more damage from a bite is unquestionable. The point is that these bites shouldn't happen in the first place if the owner has any idea of what they should be doing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    nesf

    Thanks for all the hard work splitting and commenting the statistics.

    *where's the thumbsup-smiley*


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭aare


    Why words like "blame" and "punish"?

    They are oxymorons.

    The dogs aren't to "blame" for the characteristics and instincts bred into them, and letting the breeds die out isn't a "punishment", any more than human contraception is.

    Fact remains, a far higher proportion of Pit Bulls kill than bite, (only 11% of the victims are between 1 and 2 years old), because they can.

    You also have to allow for the reality that the majority of pit bulls are kept in far more restrictive circumstances than most other breeds, not so much as a matter of responsibility but of self preservation!

    Mind you, I would agree with this:
    Personally, I find the stats to follow what I was taught about dogs since I was a small kid. Never leave a dog alone with a young child. etc.

    That certain dogs are more likely to do more damage from a bite is unquestionable. The point is that these bites shouldn't happen in the first place if the owner has any idea of what they should be doing.

    Trouble is that you have more chance of legislating to ban a breed than of legislating to create responsible owners.

    I still don't see peasant attempt to actually answer my original question:

    "Why does a responsible owner need to have a pit bull in preference to a safer breed?"

    Perhaps you would like to have a shot at it nesf?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    aare wrote:
    It is much simpler and safer to ensure that the more dangerous breeds are never born at all. Because in real terms every other option leads to large numbers of those breeds being exterminated or living miserable lives, as well as the risk they represent to others.

    Compelling arguments, but i still disagree.

    Lets talk about something that seems to have gone out of fashion:

    RESPONSIBILITY

    We as humans have created / bred animals according to our whims. Let's be responsible and treat them with the dignity they deserve. As you've seen in my earlier posts, i'm concerned about all dogs and everything that is going wrong at the moment.
    The "dangerous dog" discussion is only one tiny aspect of this, our responsiblity. We breed sick animals, we breed degenerated animals and we breed dangerous animals. And if we don't breed them, we don't control them and let them multiply as mixes way over and above capacity.

    All our fault ...as individuals as well as as a society.

    We really need to change our way of thinking and look at animals (and dogs in this case) as beings with needs and rights and not just playthings. We created them, we need to take responsiblity for them. And that goes for a pitbull as well as for fluffy "Benji".

    By advocating a ban of the more problematic dogs, one shifts responsibility away from oneself and society and onto the dog. It is the easy way out.
    The dog cannot change what it is ...but we can change what we make of it.
    Furthermore, by not accepting the responsibility but banning breeds instead, we will slowly wander down the scale until finally all dogs are banned.

    I, for one, couldn't imagine life without them.

    I do conceed to a certain degree, that if only responsible owners, who are fully aware of the potential problems, had pitbulls, that there probably would be less pitbulls than there are now ...but this still doesn't justify a ban.

    On the same note, if every dog owner in todays society where most dogs have to live in cramped conditions, alone most of the time, exiled in gardens the size of handkerchiefs and excercised in cramped conditions full poeple with equally bored and underexcercised dogs PUT THE RIGHTS AND NEEDS OF THE DOG above their own perceived right of dog ownership...

    then

    ...well then we probably wouldn't have a problem at all. Because most of them wouldn't have a dog in the first place.

    one more thing
    How is it anything but cruel to go on breeding a dog that will love children but can never be trusted to play with them? What would you be breeding such a dog for anyway?

    Having read the above statistics, you do realise that that applies to ALL dogs ?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭aare


    Peasant, have you ever met a pit bull?

    Because if you had I don't think you would make, ill advised statements like this:
    How is it anything but cruel to go on breeding a dog that will love children but can never be trusted to play with them? What would you be breeding such a dog for anyway?

    Having read the above statistics, you do realise that that applies to ALL dogs ?

    Anyone who has ever owned a pit bull knows that they have to be treated, and kept, far more securely than other dogs, if only out of primitive self preservation.

    The saddest part is that they are, quite genuinely, FONDER of playing with people and children than most dogs, but that does not override their instincts enough to make them safe.
    Let's be responsible and treat them with the dignity they deserve.

    Just how do you propose to legislate to enforce THAT???

    Realistically?

    NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. To many people remain unable to treat each other with the dignity they deserve.
    It is the easy way out.

    Yes, in the sense that it is the only way out that will actually work! :D

    "Why does a responsible owner need to have a pit bull in preference to a safer breed?"

    What legitimate purpose does the breed serve that could not be served as easily by another breed?


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    aare wrote:
    "Why does a responsible owner need to have a pit bull in preference to a safer breed?"

    Perhaps you would like to have a shot at it nesf?

    *shrugs*

    Pit Bulls when well treated, are actually very friendly dogs. Temperment wise they are as nice as any of the "non-house breeds" in my experience. They are not naturally aggressive towards humans. They can be quite territorial towards other dogs, but this is shared by the majority of the terrier family in my experience. (Edit) But other terriers lack their bite, so this territorial nature is more problematic in pit bull breeds.

    Breeding springs to mind, iirc they can be used to cross breed some interesting animals.

    Also, some people like the idea of a strong powerful dog. Overcompensating for something ;) Not all of these people mistreat their dogs, some take very good care of them.

    Plus people choose a breed for the oddest reasons sometimes. It's not a very predictable thing.


    But, by the danger rational. Why have an Alsation? Or a mastiff? They are as dangerous or more so than pit bulls. They are stronger dogs, if not in bite pressure, and can if they attack do far more damage to an adult.

    Also, you have to bear in mind that in the above statistics, it's the victim's report that identifies the breed of dog.Unless the victim or the victim's family are well up on dogs, they can identify a huge number of dogs as pit bulls, even though in fact they could be boxers etc.

    I'm going to generalise horribly here, but I think I've a valid point:

    With a large dog, you have a dog that can if it wants, knock down a lighter adult to the floor, seriously hurt a young child by accident or if it gets aggressive become very dangerous. Anyone who's had to deal with two large dogs fighting can tell you how easy it is to recieve a bad bite if you aren't careful. The converse of this is the heightened sense of "percieved danger" in large dogs. Because of their size, more care is kept about them and children. These dogs aren't that dangerous because people tend to be more careful around them and treat them better. A mistreated large dog is hard to forget or lock up. 50kg of aggression on a chain is not something that many people want or think they can handle.

    With a smaller dog, you sometimes get a more aggressive package. Mongrel terriers can be vicious little things. Of no danger to an adult but potentially fatal to a very young child. The main problem with small dogs is that people can forget they are dangerous. Because of how small they are, people don't think of them as being something to worry about. But a small dog can do a lot of damage to a young child. Because of their size, people don't take as much care around them and tend to be more lax. Thus making the dogs more dangerous.


    (Pet anecdote time...)
    I'm sure we've all seen normally well tempered dogs for some reason attack another dog. The best memory of mine regarding this is between my family's Golden Retriever and my old neighbour's Great Dane. Both very nice safe breeds, and both dogs were well trained and of very good temperament. But there was one of the bitches was in her first day of heat and we hadn't noticed it until this incident.

    But one day my father, myself and my neighbour watched the Great Dane attack the Golden Retriever. Seperating them was very difficult. By the time we could seperate them, the Golden Retriever had the Great Dane by the neck on the ground. Now seperating them was very difficult because of the dog's weights. The Golden Retriver topped 40 kilos and the Great Dane 50. This was unusual behaviour for both dogs, but it can happen, regardless of what breeds are involved. Especially in male dogs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Oh and I forgot to mention that purebred pit bulls can actually look quite nice:

    From the wiki article on them:

    250px-American_Pit_Bull_Terrier_-_Seated.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭aare


    Nesf, am I seriously supposed to regard "experimental cross-breeding" (which is how we got Ban Dogs) and "unpredictable oddness" as reasons why a responsible owner needs to have a pit bull in preference to a safer breed?

    As for:
    Also, some people like the idea of a strong powerful dog. Overcompensating for something

    If God had meant them to use pit bulls for this purpose she would not have created halogen spots and "go faster" stripes. :D
    Not all of these people mistreat their dogs, some take very good care of them.

    Which is NOT exactly the same thing as being responsible owners, now is it?

    Pit bulls can look quite nice, they are nice dogs, but because they were bred soley for the purpose of fighting and killing in the ring they are also like a loaded gun with a faulty firing mechanism.

    Which is why I would like to see all the existing pit bulls live out their days in comfort and joy...

    ...after being sterilised.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    aare

    1) not all pitbulls were bred for fighting, some breeders actually try to breed "peaceful" PB's.

    2) a lot of other breeds were bred for guarding and attacking too

    3) any breed of dog, when bred irresponsibly in mass production can become disturbed and agressive ..more aggressive than any pitbull could ever be


    Giving into the pitbull hysteria is just the top of the iceberg.
    Other breeds will be next.

    In countries that do have bans, most of them started of with pitbulls, which quickly became all bull breeds (including boxers, staffies), moving on to alsatians, rottweilers, mastiffs, herd guardian dogs, etc

    And still, nobody dealt with the problems of dog ownership, so the "bad" owners keep moving down the ladder of perceived "dangerous" dogs, spoiling the reputation of all the breeds they get their hands on in the process.

    The latest craze in pitbull free regions is the fighting Jack Russell. And instead of one PB, you "carry" about 5 JR's and watch gleefully as they rip other dogs and people to shreds.

    Banning Pitbulls means shifting the blame and the problem in the direction of the dogs. This is wrong. It is our problem.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    aare wrote:
    Pit bulls can look quite nice, they are nice dogs, but because they were bred soley for the purpose of fighting and killing in the ring they are also like a loaded gun with a faulty firing mechanism.

    There are quite a few breeds that were specifically bred for dog fighting. This breed is far scarier apparently: Tosa. 200lbs+ of unstable aggression? Far scarier imho.


    Also came across this: Article on Fatal Dog Bites and misidentification of Breed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭MorningStar


    Pesant
    You failed to answer my questions yet again and then preceeded to shout your opinion again. Obviously you don't understand polite behaviour or how to debate a point. You are not giving a different view you are just shouting all others down. I am not trying to change your mind I want to know why you think what you think so maybe I can see your point.
    Just answer one question what makes you an expert?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    Pesant
    You failed to answer my questions yet again and then preceeded to shout your opinion again. Obviously you don't understand polite behaviour or how to debate a point. You are not giving a different view you are just shouting all others down. I am not trying to change your mind I want to know why you think what you think so maybe I can see your point.
    Just answer one question what makes you an expert?

    shouting?
    you ask me a question, which I quote and fill in my answer either in bold or a different colour to distinguish it from your question. The first one i did in red but also in capitals. Ok ...capitals may be read as shouting, for that I apologize, but I was in a hurry and couldn't re-write everything again.
    Anyway, I didn't mean to "shout"

    I am not giving a different view?
    Aahmm ...have you been reading my posts? I believe that I quite clearly stated my view of things several times.

    Why do I think what I think?
    Lets say I've been around for a while, have kept my eyes and ears apen and have formed an opinion. In this case an opinion about dogs and their owners.
    I am sorry about you having to experience your dog being attacked by a pitbull. but as i have stated ad nauseam, given the description of that dogs owner, it probably would have happened as well, had he had any other kind of dog.
    That (and all the other reasons posted throughout this thread) makes me think that banning one particular breed of dog is not the solution.

    expert?
    Where or when did i profess to be an expert? As I've said, I've been around for a while and have formed an opinion, to which I believe I'm as entitled to having as you are yours.

    polite?
    Have another good hard look at the posts that you directed to me ...and then come again ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    Here's an excerpt from nesf's last link that is well worth quoting

    Another concern is that a ban on a specific breed
    might cause people who want a dangerous dog to simply
    turn to another breed for the same qualities they
    sought in the original dog (eg, large size, aggression
    easily fostered). Breed-specific legislation does not
    address the fact that a dog of any breed can become
    dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive. From
    a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal
    evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites.

    An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to regulate
    individual dogs and owners on the basis of their
    behavior. Although, it is not systematically reported, our
    reading of the fatal bite reports indicates that problem
    behaviors (of dogs and owners) have preceded attacks in
    a great many cases and should be sufficient evidence for
    preemptive action. Approaches to decreasing dangerous
    dog and owner behaviors are numerous. The potential
    importance of strong animal control programs is illustrated
    by our data; from 1979 through 1998, 24% of
    human DBRF were caused by owned dogs (typically
    more than 1) that were roaming off the owners’ property.
    Some deaths might have been averted through more
    stringent animal control laws and enforcement (eg, leash
    laws, fencing requirements). Although the bite prevention
    effectiveness of such animal control ordinances and
    programs has not been systematically evaluated, freeroaming
    dogs and dogs with menacing behavior are
    problems that need to be addressed even if they do not
    bite (eg, causing bicycle or car crashes).
    Generic non–breed-specific, dangerous dog laws
    can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a
    dog’s behavior on the owner, regardless of the dog’s
    breed. In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible
    dog owners may be effective. If dog owners are
    required to assume legal liability for the behavior and
    actions of their pets, they may be encouraged to seek
    professional help in training and socializing their pets.
    Other options include enforcing leash laws and laws
    against dog fighting. We noticed in the fatal cases, that
    less than one half of 1% of DBRF were caused by
    leashed animals off the owners’ property. Subdivisions
    and municipalities that outlaw fences or limit fences to
    heights insufficient for controlling large dogs may be
    increasing the probability of children interacting with
    unsupervised dogs. Scientific evaluations of the effects
    of such regulations are important.
    Education of dog owners can address several issues:
    (1) understanding breed profiles may assist owners in
    selecting the appropriate dog for their lifestyle and training
    abilities, (2) convincing owners to seriously consider
    the sex and reproductive status of their dogs is important
    because male and sexually intact dogs are more likely
    to bite than are female and neutered dogs, and (3)
    teaching owners about the importance of socialization
    and training may decrease their likelihood of owning a
    dog that will eventually bite.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭MorningStar


    peasant wrote:
    shouting?
    Bold and capitals continously are shouting if you don't know that for certain you are ignorant. Colour especially red is also generally seen in the same light but is not as defined. So learn the basics and read the charter

    To just say things like rubbish to anothers view is rude anywhere so learn to discuss or somebody will most likely ban you.
    peasant wrote:
    I am not giving a different view?
    I didn't say you were giving a differnt view to your own view but mine. You have failed to see where we agree on facts too.

    peasant wrote:
    Why do I think what I think?
    Lets say I've been around for a while, have kept my eyes and ears apen and have formed an opinion. In this case an opinion about dogs and their owners.
    I am sorry about you having to experience your dog being attacked by a pitbull. but as i have stated ad nauseam, given the description of that dogs owner, it probably would have happened as well, had he had any other kind of dog.
    That (and all the other reasons posted throughout this thread) makes me think that banning one particular breed of dog is not the solution.
    That just makes you somebody with an opinion and you have failed to answer direct questions. Your opinion might have more weight if you could justify any of your points with logic other than opinion. People can disagree on points but at least respect the reasoning. You seem to fail to understand this.
    peasant wrote:
    expert?
    Where or when did i profess to be an expert? As I've said, I've been around for a while and have formed an opinion, to which I believe I'm as entitled to having as you are yours.
    You didn't but you claimed to know better than a reporter and anybody who writes a book you don't agree with. You are entitled to your view but you don't have to shout it and insult every view opposed to your own. You are not respecting any other view but your own. I have not dismissed your views off hand or ignored any view.
    peasant wrote:
    polite?
    Have another good hard look at the posts that you directed to me ...and then come again ...
    You shouted and ridiculed are you surprised? At most I was curt not rude like you.

    Learn to talk politely and answer questions is my advise and you are less likely to be dismissed.
    Me " If you don't think a yorkshire terrier and a pit bull or a staffie with the same aggressive temperment are just as dangeous as each other explain how? "
    You "Explain that to the mother who just had to rush her baby to hospital because the family yorkie/shi-tzu/whatever attacked it in its cot.
    All dogs need to be controlled"
    You never answered the question and keep doing this. Look back a read your answers and see this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    Jeeez, MoningStar ...do you actually read this thread or have you just got it in for me and pluck out the bits that don't suit you?

    I have agreed with you on several points and also said so...what more do you want me to do?

    Your all important question
    If you don't think a yorkshire terrier and a pit bull or a staffie with the same aggressive temperment are just as dangeous as each other explain how?
    has been answered several times, also quite eloquently by nesf in his statistical analysis.

    But let me spell it out for you again:
    Of course, size does matter. To me (6ft1, 16 stone) an attack by a yorkshire terrier would not be much of a problem, a pitbull might injure or even kill me, a 10-15 stone colossus of a dog most likely would kill me.
    But let the victim be a baby or a toddler and even a Yorkie could kill. (why do you think Dachshunds, terrier mixes and Westhighland Terriers appear in the "death by dog" statistics?)
    Hence all dogs are dangerous ..we're not all tall and overweight.

    Singling out one breed of dog just makes no sense.

    Now, please stop lecturing me about my style of writing. If it upsets you so much, complain to a moderator and let them sort it out, ok?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭aare


    peasant wrote:
    aare

    1) not all pitbulls were bred for fighting, some breeders actually try to breed "peaceful" PB's.

    The breed was CREATED exclusively for fighting and killing, over a couple of hundred years, it would take that long just KNOW whether you had you had bred the aggression out for sure or not.

    How would you legally enforce that kind of breeding?

    Do you realise what happens to the "failures" when a dog is bred to enhance certain traits exclusively?

    The failures have to be culled. Which tend to involve death and disposal. Wouldn't those pups suffer less if they were never conceived and born at all?
    2) a lot of other breeds were bred for guarding and attacking too

    But pit bulls were not created to "guard and attack", which is sometimes a useful to vital purpose, they were created to fight and kill so people could satisfy their own bloodlust while betting money on them.
    3) any breed of dog, when bred irresponsibly in mass production can become disturbed and agressive ..more aggressive than any pitbull could ever be

    That's just a rather meaningless generalisation, any other breed CAN become disturbed and aggressive (though hardly simply through "massed production"), pit bulls were created specifically to BE violent and aggressive as standard.
    Giving into the pitbull hysteria is just the top of the iceberg.
    Other breeds will be next.

    Why is it "hysteria" to let a breed of potentially lethal pets die out? I'd call it common sense. There certainly are other, lethal breeds in existance but to the best of my knowledge they are all working dogs too rare to be a cause for general concern.
    And still, nobody dealt with the problems of dog ownership.

    Welcome to the real world, that is because there IS no way to deal with that effectively enough to be safe. Personally I would feel that seeking to own a potentially lethal dog at all, in preference to all others, indicated bad, irresponsible ownnership
    Banning Pitbulls means shifting the blame and the problem in the direction of the dogs. This is wrong. It is our problem.

    It is not about "blame", the dogs are NOT to blame for the instincts and traits bred into them, they should not be punished for that, but we still have to deal with it.

    Neuter/spaying to let a bred die out is NOT a punishment. All pet dogs should probably be neutered or spayed by law anyway. To prevent the masses of unwanted strays that are killed in pounds every week.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭aare


    nesf wrote:
    There are quite a few breeds that were specifically bred for dog fighting. This breed is far scarier apparently: Tosa. 200lbs+ of unstable aggression? Far scarier imho.

    That is a point, but then again we are not exactly overrun by Japanese Tosa are we? In fact I THINK they are a banned breed here, or at any rate in the uk? If not they probably should be, along with a couple of other rare breeds, mostly in the name of prevention of "bright ideas" among the irresponsible who find halogen spots and "go faster" stripe do not adequately meet their need for deeply personal compensation.

    My problem with that is mostly that I cannot open pdfs when exiled to laptop dial in by a power cut. But I do know there is a victim misidentification factor, however, that is only among surviving victims, who tend to ID GSDs and Chows, according to statistics. When there is a death there is an autopsy and inquest, and the results ID a pit bull in over 20% of cases.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    aare

    just for arguments sake let's assume all dog behaviour was breed related (which it isn't) :

    bull type breeds were bred to fight dogs not humans. in fact they were bred to be especially friendly to humans, otherwise they would not have been able to handle them during a dog fight.

    guard dogs were bred to fight human intruders and on the other hand to get along with farm animals. therefore they would be inherently more dangerous than bull breeds

    flock guardians were bred to attack anything (on their own initiative) that came to close to their flock, be that wolf or human other than the owner. therefore they should be the most dangerous dogs of them all.

    Sorry ...but the dangerous pitbull argument just doesn't stick and i keep repeating myself ...all dogs are dangerous when handled wrongly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    aare

    as you cant open the link, here's another quote for you:
    To decrease the risk of dog bites, several communities
    have enacted breed-specific restrictions or bans. In
    general, these have focused on pit bull-type dogs and
    Rottweilers. However, breeds responsible for human
    DBRF have varied over time. Pinckney and Kennedy
    studied human DBRF from May 1975 through April
    1980 and listed the following breeds as responsible for
    the indicated number of deaths: German Shepherd Dog
    (16); Husky-type dog (9); Saint Bernard (8); Bull
    Terrier (6); Great Dane (6); Malamute (5); Golden
    Retriever (3)
    ; Boxer (2); Dachshund (2); Doberman
    Pinscher (2); Collie (2); Rottweiler (1); Basenji (1);
    Chow Chow (1); Labrador Retriever (1); Yorkshire
    Terrier (1);
    and mixed and unknown breed (15). As
    ascertained from our data, between 1979 and 1980,
    Great Danes caused the most reported human DBRF;
    between 1997 and 1998, Rottweilers and pit bull-type
    dogs were responsible for about 60% of human DBRF.
    Indeed, since 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30
    breeds have been responsible for fatal attacks on people,
    including Dachshunds, a Yorkshire Terrier, and a
    Labrador Retriever.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭MorningStar


    peasant wrote:
    aare

    Sorry ...but the dangerous pitbull argument just doesn't stick and i keep repeating myself ...all dogs are dangerous when handled wrongly.

    I believe pit bulls have a stronger jaw than other breeds as do many experts. That makes them more dangerous due to the damage they can do. AS I said greyhounds don't have the neck muscles or jaw to bite like them. Due to this they are a more dangerous breed. Why do you ignore this as a possibility? I have never seen any other dog latch on like a pit bull and I have a lot of experience. They simply don't let go.

    The article you quote even acknowledges dog bred profiles. there are breds that are more likely to cause problems. As somebody involved in breeding I am full aware of individual dogs and breed nature. Dashunds are not a good family dog with small children. We have refused to sell people dogs due to their situations and knowledge. People can't be restricted but the breeds who are most dangerous should be due mostly to the people they attract.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    Morning Star

    First allow me to commend you for not selling puppies willy-nilly to anyone who waves money around, but instead vetting potential owners and even refusing to give a dog to certain people.

    That's the kind of responsible breeder that's needed.


    But by the same token, a responsible bullbreed breeder wouldn't just hand out dogs willy-nilly either.

    Yes, pitbulls haver stronger jaws than other dogs of their size and a tendency to fight other dogs. But a responsible owner should be able to control that, so that the bite actually never happens.

    We have one dog at home who likes to chase sheep ...given the opportunity he would probably kill them as well. So we don't let him. He also likes to chase cats (even though the rescue where we got him from said he was cat friendly). We have three cats at home, so we trained him not to chase cats.

    Thats what responsible owners do, simple as that.

    As to your fixation with the strength of bite and general power of pitbulls:
    There are a multitude of breeds and mixes that are much more powerful than pitbulls.Equally all these other dogs also have very strong jaws. The actual exact strength is academic, as all of them can crush bone in one go.

    So i really, really can't understand wht you keep singling out the pitbull.

    It is people and not dogs that need to be restricted, as people carry the responsibility.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,031 ✭✭✭MorningStar


    peasant wrote:

    So i really, really can't understand wht you keep singling out the pitbull.

    It is people and not dogs that need to be restricted, as people carry the responsibility.
    Because it is the only dog I have ever seen latch on to someting and refuse to let go no matter what the owner did. I believe other breeds also should be banned or only allowed to those with a security licence not a special dog licence.
    As you can't restrict people it is easier, safer, cheaper and quicker to control the dog. I have seen various differnt breeding controls through greyhound regulations. They pay for themselves through the racing money. Where do you think the money is going to come for regulating dangerous breeds? The problem is people aren't responsible and can't be controled but the dog can. I am using the same logic as gun control. Here is the the same question you refused to answer at least 3 times. Why allow the breed? Don't confuse it with any other point. This is not an answer
    peasant wrote:
    "There is every need. Because ...once again ...its not the dogs fault, its the owners. Or do you want to ban all newfoundlands, st.bernhards, pyreneean mountain dogs, etc as well ...they are much stronger than pitbulls."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 648 ✭✭✭landser


    peasant wrote:


    It is people and not dogs that need to be restricted, as people carry the responsibility.

    sounds like some awful bastardisation of the NRA's..."Guns don't kill people, people kill people" slogan.

    Pit Bulls, are for the most part, kept by knackers and scangers who want to look tough. They train what is already a, shall we say, tempremental (a trait it has in common with many other breeds) dog, to be more tempremental. This is not the fault of the dogs, obviously, who don't go to "Human shops" when they want to be bought as a pet. Nevertheless... we can neither euthanise, mussel, or neuter the human owner (more's the pity most of the time) so we do it to the dogs.

    your point about other breeds may well be true, but until the scanger drug dealers start walking around the town with Dachshunds and yorkies, the pit bull will keep it's stigma.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    Well, here's my solution ...the dog control act as drafted by peasant.

    The owner or handler at the time carries the responsiblity for the proper control of his/her dog.

    proper control is deemed to be the prevention of bites or attacks on other people or animals and to be carried out as follows:

    1) on the owners premises: a fence or wall that prevents the dog from leaving the premises

    2) outside the owners premises:
    a) in large public areas such as parks, woods, beaches unless otherwise restricted.
    - a working recall of the dog
    - failing working recall the dog needs to be on a leash
    b) in confined public spaces
    - the dog needs to be on a short leash at all times
    - the dog needs to be trained and/ or restrained such as not to attack without severe provocation

    Failing to comply with the above will result in the following:

    a) dog found wandering in large open public space or failing to display working recall ...fine 50 Euro
    b) dog found wandering in confined public space or not leashed ... fine 100 Euro
    c) dog has attacked other animal or person, but not caused injury that required medical assistance beyond assessment and minor wound care ... fine 500 Euro
    d) dog causes injury to animal or person that requires intensive medical attention ...fine 25 % of the owner's annual net income for injuries to persons
    2500 euro for injuries to animals
    e) dog causes the death of another animal or person ... fine for death of person 33% of owners annual net income payable for the next five years, for death of animal 5000 euro

    F) c, d, and e do not apply to the owners premises unless the injured person had the express permission of the owner to enter the premises and / or the injured animal was not a wild or stray animal but there with the knowledge of the owner

    (sporting activities, dog races, hunts or working police dogs are regulated seperately)


    that's it ...waddaya think ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭aare


    While I might have used slightly different terminology at times...
    landser wrote:
    sounds like some awful bastardisation of the NRA's..."Guns don't kill people, people kill people" slogan.

    Pit Bulls, are for the most part, kept by knackers and scangers who want to look tough. They train what is already a, shall we say, tempremental (a trait it has in common with many other breeds) dog, to be more tempremental. This is not the fault of the dogs, obviously, who don't go to "Human shops" when they want to be bought as a pet. Nevertheless... we can neither euthanise, mussel, or neuter the human owner (more's the pity most of the time) so we do it to the dogs.

    your point about other breeds may well be true, but until the scanger drug dealers start walking around the town with Dachshunds and yorkies, the pit bull will keep it's stigma.

    ...I am inclined to agree with every word...

    Apart from which, aside of those people who take in unwanted "bullies" from the pounds and abusive situations to give them the lives they deserve, just exactly WHAT kind of person DOES buy or breed fighting dogs?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 648 ✭✭✭landser


    peasant wrote:
    Well, here's my solution ...the dog control act as drafted by peasant.

    The owner or handler at the time carries the responsiblity for the proper control of his/her dog.

    proper control is deemed to be the prevention of bites or attacks on other people or animals and to be carried out as follows:

    1) on the owners premises: a fence or wall that prevents the dog from leaving the premises

    2) outside the owners premises:
    a) in large public areas such as parks, woods, beaches unless otherwise restricted.
    - a working recall of the dog
    - failing working recall the dog needs to be on a leash
    b) in confined public spaces
    - the dog needs to be on a short leash at all times
    - the dog needs to be trained and/ or restrained such as not to attack without severe provocation

    Failing to comply with the above will result in the following:

    a) dog found wandering in large open public space or failing to display working recall ...fine 50 Euro
    b) dog found wandering in confined public space or not leashed ... fine 100 Euro
    c) dog has attacked other animal or person, but not caused injury that required medical assistance beyond assessment and minor wound care ... fine 500 Euro
    d) dog causes injury to animal or person that requires intensive medical attention ...fine 25 % of the owner's annual net income for injuries to persons
    2500 euro for injuries to animals
    e) dog causes the death of another animal or person ... fine for death of person 33% of owners annual net income payable for the next five years, for death of animal 5000 euro

    (sporting activities, dog races, hunts or working police dogs are regulated seperately)


    that's it ...waddaya think ?

    rofl.

    i note the dog always gets away it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    aare wrote:
    That is a point, but then again we are not exactly overrun by Japanese Tosa are we? In fact I THINK they are a banned breed here, or at any rate in the uk? If not they probably should be, along with a couple of other rare breeds, mostly in the name of prevention of "bright ideas" among the irresponsible who find halogen spots and "go faster" stripe do not adequately meet their need for deeply personal compensation.

    I'm not arguing that pit bulls are a safe breed or that they are harmless. I'm arguing that much of their bad reputation comes not from their breed but from they way they have been treated or the way that people handle them.

    I do however agree that it's far easier to legislate against dogs than it is against owners. But I would feel that dog licences need to be looked at again.

    Dog ownership should be a privilidge not a right. Far too many dog owners don't have even the basics of how to care for a dog in their head. With some dogs it means a miserable dog, with other breeds it means a dangerous one.

    I am not trying to argue that no action should be taken, I'm arguing that pit bulls are not the monsters that the media likes to portray them as. The media as usual are sensationalising matters.

    It also doesn't help that pit bulls are kept by people with the wrong mentality.


    I hope that Tosa's are banned here. Everything I've read about them indicates that they have an aggressive nature to begin with. Pit bulls at least, for the most part and if well cared for, are nice dogs and manageable. Tosa's aren't.

    Also the idea of an aggressive dog that weighs more than most people doesn't really strike me as a good idea for anyone but the most experienced and responsible owner.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    My problem with that is mostly that I cannot open pdfs when exiled to laptop dial in by a power cut. But I do know there is a victim misidentification factor, however, that is only among surviving victims, who tend to ID GSDs and Chows, according to statistics. When there is a death there is an autopsy and inquest, and the results ID a pit bull in over 20% of cases.

    The report generally outlined the problems with breed specific legislation and the problems surrounding breed identification. In particular it noted that some of "breed attacks" were actually crossbreds or mongrels who were described as being of a breed.

    It was intersting and well argued. It's main point was (for the US) that is was dog control and dog licencing that were the problems and not the breeds themselves. Breed restrictions apparently do little to reduce the number of fatal dog bites.

    I'm going to cut and paste most of the Discussion. I've left out the explanation of the statistics since we've seen them already.

    Interstingly and intuitively:
    The denominator of a dog breed-specific human
    DBRF rate requires reliable breed-specific population
    data. Unfortunately, such data are not currently available.
    Considering American Kennel Club registration
    data7 for Rottweilers in parallel with fatality data for
    that breed indicates that as the breed has soared in pop-
    ularity, so have Rottweiler-related deaths (24,195 registrations
    from 1979 through 1982 and 0 deaths; 272,273
    registrations from 1983 through 1990 and 6 deaths; and
    692,799 registrations from 1991 through 1998 and 33
    deaths). However, official registration or licensing data
    are likely to be biased, as owners of certain dog breeds
    may be less likely than those owning other breeds to
    register or license their dogs4 and, thus, should not be
    used to calculate these rates. Finally, it is imperative to
    keep in mind that even if breed-specific bite rates could
    be accurately calculated, they do not factor in ownerrelated
    issues. For example, less responsible owners or
    owners who want to foster aggression in their dogs may
    be drawn differentially to certain breeds.

    Also:
    In addition to issues surrounding which breeds to
    regulate, breed-specific ordinances raise several practical
    issues. For optimal enforcement, there would need
    to be an objective method of determining the breed of
    a particular dog. Pedigree analysis (a potentially timeconsuming
    and complicated effort) combined with
    DNA testing (also time-consuming and expensive) is
    the closest to an objective standard for conclusively
    identifying a dog’s breed. Owners of mixed-breed or
    unregistered (ie, by a kennel club) dogs have no way of
    knowing whether their dog is one of the types identified
    and whether they are required to comply with
    breed-specific ordinances. Thus, law enforcement personnel
    have few means for positively determining a
    dog’s breed and deciding whether owners are in compliance
    or violation of laws.
    Some municipalities have attempted to address
    this classification issue of unregistered and mixedbreed
    dogs by including within their ordinances a
    description of the breed at which the ordinance is
    directed. Unfortunately, such descriptions are usually
    vague, rely on subjective visual observation, and result
    in many more dogs than those of the specified breed
    being subject to the restrictions of the ordinance.
    When a specific breed of dog has been selected for
    stringent control, 2 constitutional questions concerning
    dog owners’ fourteenth amendment rights have been
    raised: first, because all types of dogs may inflict injury
    to people and property, ordinances addressing only 1
    breed of dog are argued to be underinclusive and, therefore,
    violate owners’ equal protection rights; and second,
    because identification of a dog’s breed with the certainty
    necessary to impose sanctions on the dog’s owner is prohibitively
    difficult, such ordinances have been argued as
    unconstitutionally vague, and, therefore, violate due
    process. Despite such concerns, a number of breed-specific
    ordinances have been upheld by the courts.14-16
    Another concern is that a ban on a specific breed
    might cause people who want a dangerous dog to simply
    turn to another breed for the same qualities they
    sought in the original dog (eg, large size, aggression
    easily fostered). Breed-specific legislation does not
    address the fact that a dog of any breed can become
    dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive. From
    a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal
    evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation
    in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites.
    An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to regulate
    individual dogs and owners on the basis of their
    behavior. Although, it is not systematically reported, our
    reading of the fatal bite reports indicates that problem
    behaviors (of dogs and owners) have preceded attacks in
    a great many cases and should be sufficient evidence for
    preemptive action. Approaches to decreasing dangerous
    dog and owner behaviors are numerous. The potential
    importance of strong animal control programs is illustrated
    by our data; from 1979 through 1998, 24% of
    human DBRF were caused by owned dogs (typically
    more than 1) that were roaming off the owners’ property.
    Some deaths might have been averted through more
    stringent animal control laws and enforcement (eg, leash
    laws, fencing requirements). Although the bite prevention
    effectiveness of such animal control ordinances and
    programs has not been systematically evaluated, freeroaming
    dogs and dogs with menacing behavior are
    problems that need to be addressed even if they do not
    bite (eg, causing bicycle or car crashes).

    and:
    Generic non–breed-specific, dangerous dog laws
    can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a
    dog’s behavior on the owner, regardless of the dog’s
    breed.17 In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible
    dog owners may be effective.18 If dog owners are
    required to assume legal liability for the behavior and
    actions of their pets, they may be encouraged to seek
    professional help in training and socializing their pets.
    Other options include enforcing leash laws and laws
    against dog fighting. We noticed in the fatal cases, that
    less than one half of 1% of DBRF were caused by
    leashed animals off the owners’ property. Subdivisions
    and municipalities that outlaw fences or limit fences to
    heights insufficient for controlling large dogs may be
    increasing the probability of children interacting with
    unsupervised dogs. Scientific evaluations of the effects
    of such regulations are important.
    Education of dog owners can address several issues:
    (1) understanding breed profiles19,20 may assist owners in
    selecting the appropriate dog for their lifestyle and training
    abilities, (2) convincing owners to seriously consider
    the sex and reproductive status of their dogs is important
    because male and sexually intact dogs are more likely
    to bite than are female and neutered dogs,12 and (3)
    teaching owners about the importance of socialization
    and training may decrease their likelihood of owning a
    dog that will eventually bite.
    Veterinarians play a key role in educating pet owners,
    but because many dogs that bite may not be seen
    by a veterinarian prior to the bite incident, programs
    that encourage responsible ownership must also be
    presented through other venues. Public education
    strategies should include school-based and adult educational
    programs addressing bite prevention and basic
    canine behavior, care, and management. Programs
    should strive to ensure that dogs receive proper socialization,
    exercise, and attention; that they are given adequate
    food, water, shelter, and veterinary care; that
    they are neutered if they are not maintained for legitimate
    and responsible breeding purposes; and that they
    are trained humanely and confined safely. However,
    like breed-specific legislation, all these approaches
    appear formally unevaluated for effectiveness.

    Targeting and evaluation of prevention efforts
    requires improved surveillance for fatal and nonfatal
    dog bites. Dog bites should be reported as required by
    local or state ordinances, and reports of such incidents
    should include information about the circumstances of
    the bite, ownership, breed, sex, reproductive status of
    the dog, history of prior aggression, and the nature of
    restraint prior to the bite incident. Collection of data
    on the entire dog population (eg, breed, age, sex)
    would help resolve comparative risk issues and may be
    accomplished by combining paperwork on mandatory
    rabies immunizations with registration of breed and
    sex. Only with numerator and denominator data and
    with formal evaluations of the impacts of strategies
    tried by various communities will we be able to make
    science-based recommendations for decreasing the
    number of dog bites. In the interim, adequate funding
    for animal control agencies, enforcement of existing
    animal control laws, and educational and policy strategies
    to reduce inappropriate dog and owner behaviors
    will likely result in benefits to communities and may
    well decrease the number of dog bites that occur.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭aare


    I think it's time to consult some real experts about Peasant's assertations concerning other breeds and often singling out Yorkies...

    So please put on any protective clothing you can find, make sure you are in a safe place and try not to be TOO scared?

    Ok?


    yorkies.jpg

    You lot know nothing.

    We know Yorkies are the most dangerous and deadly breed of dog alive, and if PEOPLE would do as they are told, and open the car door to let us at them when we tell them to, we would solve the Pit Bull problem FOR you...

    ...well, at any rate, the WHITE Pit Bull problem, can't see anything much wrong with the other colors...

    Yorkies conquer and destroy...Yorkies conquer and destroy...

    ex-ter-min-ate...EX-TER-MIN-ATE...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement