poodlefan

Wow, you've discovered statistics. for you. Now go to the Centre for Disease Control and note what the people who research this stuff for a living say about the accuracy of breed attribution. Then go and have a look at the popularity of breeds in those countries. I'm mot saying for one minute that Pitbulls can't be dangerous. But that's a hell of a long way from "ALL pitbulls MUST be dangerous".

Actually, there does seem to be a growing problem of aggression in Goldies. No way should this lead to a breed ban. But I do think some strong peer pressure should be directed to the bloodlines of aggressive goldies. http://www.ygrr.org/surrender/surrender-aggressive.html http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/are-golden-retrievers-becoming-more-aggressive/ I don't trust government to make good decisions relating to dogs. But it does the dog world no good to deny that there is a genetic component to aggression (HA, DA, fear aggression, any or all of the above). Those of us who breed dogs need to take this genetic component seriously. And the reasons are known. Increasing popularity has led to poor breeding practices by those doing it for profit and selling them to families with the message that "these are safe family dogs". Complacency coupled with individuals whose bite inhibition is not what is should be.. and lots of resource guarding behaviours.. do the math. They actually did a study that saw that GRs bred to be "quieter" had less bite inhibtion than more high drive field types. You meddle with genetics at your peril. Put out the misinformation that some breeds are "safe" in the same way that some "breeds" are dangerous and this is the result.

Wrong. Nearly always, in the case of fatal dog attacks, the resident dog is responsible. Don't you folk actually read the research????

Charming. Resorting to insults... looks like your argument is slipping Matthew.. along with your manners. Rounded up all the Beagles yet.. you know, those dogs that NEVER kill...

Mathew, it would be nice if you actually checked the facts before making such assertions. Here, let me help. OMG - a Beagle was responsible for a fatal attack.. and retriever mixes.. ban them!!!! OMG look at the stats for the Pit Bulls Pit bull TYPES... and lets face it, if its over 20kg, not readily identifiable as another breed, and powerfully built, its a pitbull. All dog attack researchers are very wary of breed attribution and all note that it isn't helpful in understanding what makes a dangerous dog. Its a message few anti pitbull crusaders seem capable of grasping.

And based on that logic Labradors are large powerful dogs that should be similary restricted. riggggght.

Mathew, it would be nice if you actually checked the facts before making such assertions. Here, let me help. OMG - a Beagle was responsible for a fatal attack.. and retriever mixes.. ban them!!!!

It has been proven that most of the "pibulls" weren't. Where does that leave us? Lets ban crossbred dogs because seriously that's what most of the fatalities are caused by. Go and research how the issue was handled in Calgary. In that city, with no BSL, dog bites plummetted where in BSL cities they increased. The differences was that education, not prohibition was the strategy. Banning a breed does not make a community safer.

The other reason they're right up there is that they are very popular dogs. More of a breed generally equates to more bites. Almost any breed of dog is capable of inflicting serious damage on a child. Children aged 1-4 are the most frequent victims of fatal dog attacks.

Pitbulls are NOT the dogs most commonly associated with human deaths. Do your homework. Let me check the statistics to see how many people died from an attack by a Beagle last year... While you're at it, check what breeds top the bite stats. Seems to me that reference to statistics might shatter a few illusions for you. Note that most researchers are highly wary of breed attibution and suggest that its inaccurate in many cases. It might benefit a few folk to actually read the research on dog induced fatalities. What's missing from a some opinions being expressed here is any real understanding of what makes a truely dangerous dog. Breed is one factor but it sure as hell isn't the main one.

Raz, i am sure it will be destroyed, no argument, but at a guess the assessment could be to find why perhaps? Thats the only reason I can see. When you ascribe the behaviour to breed, all further assessment ceases - that is the danger of BSL.

Pitbulls are NOT the dogs most commonly associated with human deaths. Do your homework.

APBTs were bred to fight DOGS. A dog that could not be handled by humans in the figtting pit was culled. Retrievers top the bite statistics in Canada. Shall we now ban those too?

Congratulations for holding a fundamental misunderstanding of dog aggression and the nature of the APBT. Dog and people aggression are rarely found in the same animal and at no stage has the APBT been bred to be aggressive to people. How the hell do you think they managed to handle such dogs in fighting pits? The no 1 breed for dog bites in Canada is the Golden Retriever. Shall we ban those also?

Look accidents happen. Gates get left open. But the overwhelming majority of loose dogs do NOT go on to savage and kill. Lets focus on what process made that dog what it was and not how it happened to be in that place at that time. Its the only thing that can help prevent another one of these disasters.

No it's not. It's opinion and nothing more.

Ah the irony. If councils were adequately funded to enforce existing dangerous dog legislation, not a whit of this new "action" would be necessary. But hey, our pollies have to be seen to be doing something. :rolleyes:

Yes, my sarcasm. ;) Suggesting that a 3 year old somehow deliberately contributed to a series of circumstances that sees her dead in her front yard or home due to the actions of a dog that was outside its own yard doesn't wash with me. The only "blame" that can be layed here is on the owner of a dog that was prepared to savage three human beings when outside its yard. That kind of dog doesn't come out of nowhere. Yes, victims contribute to these situations. But your hypothesis attempted to shift the responsiblity for the attack away from where it needs to be.. on the dog and the person that owns it. It's that simple.

Go Magic! Congratulations Gail!

Research good genetics eg: just because someone owns a working breed dog doesnt mean it will work........ Look around the trialling scene for a dog you'd like to own and find out where it came from.

You've looked to the victim for the answer to how the dog accessed the house and why it became aggressive. The victim is a 3 or 4 year old child. As Clyde pointed out, even IF this were the case, it does not provide an explanation for why a child is dead and two people are injured. You can express any opinion you like. If, in my opinion, what you've said seeks to suggest that the victim is in some way a contributor to her death, I'll say so. I think its insensitive and unhelpful. Sue me.

Hungarian Vizsla [English] Pointer Curly Coated Retriever

I would beg to disagree. You don't "rescue" a dog if you're condemning its parents to misery. Calling a BYB or pet shop pup a "rescue" is a salve to the owners conscience and in no way a reflection of the reality of a commerical transaction. It also makes light of the efforts of "real" rescuers.

Krustie, blaming the victim will not assist the cause of this breed one iota. There's a dead 3 year old.. show some respect dude.

At the risk of being flamed, Brittanies can be hard work for agility.. IMO they can be hard to keep on task. Their athleticism doesn't translate into results for the most part. A working ESS would be a better prospect IMO. What size Skip? Small, medium or large. My bet that most agiiteers could name the top five or so breeds in each size for you to consider.