Woman Mauled

[Lhok]

Ok let's put this into perspective:

Say the dogs in question were silky terriers and they ran at the elderly lady and bit her, yeah maybe it would only be a "flesh wound" however what if she tried to run away and she fell? Being elderly she would more then likely be very hurt from the fall and the silky terriers would still be there and now she is lying prone to more "flesh wounds".

Either case doesn't make it less traumatic for the lady or her family, regardless of wound type she would still end up at the hospital and the bite recorded as a dog attack and in both cases the dogs are let down by irresponsible owners a dog bite is a dog bite and regardless of how much damage is done should be treated seriously.

As to what to do about irresponsible dog owners I sadly don't have any answers for that but I do know that allowing them to own a smaller breed won't make dog attacks any less terrible.

--Lhok

I agree Lhok, but larger more powerful breeds will cause greater damage in all aspects of the attack is the point. If you did have to suffer a dog attack and could choose the breed, I would choose a Silky Terrier over a Pitbull, Rotty or GSD without question like most would if self preservation was the motive. It's a really silly argument claiming that all breeds are equal in their ability to cause the same level of physical injury to a person.........don't you think???.

All I was trying to do is make the point that regardless of if the dog was a small one or a large one that a dog attack should be something that never happens. People seemed to get hung up on how much physical damage was done and don't seem to care that the fact remains that a lady was attacked by a dog. I can't believe as it appears to me that people wouldn't care as much if a small dog attacked someone. To me that doesn't sit quite right like I said before a dog bite is a dog bite and should be taken seriously.

--Lhok

[justin19801]

If what yoiu are saying is true then CDC which has studied dog attacks more intensely than anyone else would list breed or weight as a determinant of dangerousness. They don't. Most breeds have killed and injured. Lacking compassion for the victims of non-APBT types is a hallmark of the supporters of BSL.

The CDC site is down at the moment. Try this one instead:

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%20...6%20Clifton.pdf

number of dogs involved in killing or maiming a child or adult in Canada or the US 1982-2006:

Score 1100+ for APBTs, 400+ for Rottis, 2 for beagles (but one was a child who got strangled in a game of tug), 1 for pugs, 2 for JRT's .

Precisely my point. Relying on ambulance chasing lawyer sites and hate sites who themselves rely on information garnered from unscientific media reports such as the Clifton report achieves nothing. CDC are the epidemiological experts and are good enough for me. Remember too in the US AST, APBT and SBT are legally one and the same breed. Lack of compassion for the victims of small breeds continues to astound me. But those who believe in BSL, why not ban those breeds because they have killed in Australia or show up in attack stats here. For the same reason - they are unreliable. The UK introduced BSL and the RSPCA now admits dog attacks and APBTs are now more prevalent than ever. South Australia was the first state to introduce BSL and they've had to have an inquiry on the massive increase in dog attacks ( an indictment of the Dog and Cat Management Board and BSL). These results are replicated world wide. The science is well and truly in, BSL doesn't work. It is a way to control owners, not dogs, and it even fails to do that so will eventually encompass more breeds.

[sandgrubber]

If what yoiu are saying is true then CDC which has studied dog attacks more intensely than anyone else would list breed or weight as a determinant of dangerousness. They don't. Most breeds have killed and injured. Lacking compassion for the victims of non-APBT types is a hallmark of the supporters of BSL.

The CDC site is down at the moment. Try this one instead:

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%20...6%20Clifton.pdf

number of dogs involved in killing or maiming a child or adult in Canada or the US 1982-2006:

Score 1100+ for APBTs, 400+ for Rottis, 2 for beagles (but one was a child who got strangled in a game of tug), 1 for pugs, 2 for JRT's .

Precisely my point. Relying on ambulance chasing lawyer sites and hate sites who themselves rely on information garnered from unscientific media reports such as the Clifton report achieves nothing. CDC are the epidemiological experts and are good enough for me. Remember too in the US AST, APBT and SBT are legally one and the same breed. Lack of compassion for the victims of small breeds continues to astound me. But those who believe in BSL, why not ban those breeds because they have killed in Australia or show up in attack stats here. For the same reason - they are unreliable. The UK introduced BSL and the RSPCA now admits dog attacks and APBTs are now more prevalent than ever. South Australia was the first state to introduce BSL and they've had to have an inquiry on the massive increase in dog attacks ( an indictment of the Dog and Cat Management Board and BSL). These results are replicated world wide. The science is well and truly in, BSL doesn't work. It is a way to control owners, not dogs, and it even fails to do that so will eventually encompass more breeds.

The CDC's report, at the moment, is (I've been trying for two days).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website is temporarily unavailable.

Please try again in a few minutes.

Thank you for your patience.

I have tried to follow the chatter . . . which seems to say that the CDC report encountered serious methodological difficulties and draws weak conclusions. Having read the methods for the Clifton report, I agree, the media hype will result in over-representation of the APBT, but your characterisation as "ambulance chasing lawyer sites and hate sites" seems slanderous. No question, the Clifton report reflects media bias. But it is transparent . . . the methods are clear and the source of bias is obvious. As a scientist, myself, I know lots of sources are biased, and in the absence of better data, I will sometimes consider a biased source and try to correct for bias. Even if 10% of the reported APBT attacks are real, the Clifton statistics say something about the owners of the breed, if not the breed itself. Should be noted that the Clifton report is pretty hard on some non pitt-bull types. For example, Akitas, Chows, GSD's and wolf-hybrids come off pretty badly . . . even Labradors chalk up quite a few points. The only study I can find that was done in Australia (Adelaide) is pretty old, but does come up with breed trends -- which GSD owners wouldn't like. See:

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/aug4/t...n/thompson.html

A clear picture is difficult in an emotionally charged situation where data are poor. But physics calculates force as mass x velocity squared. A 5 kg dog will thus hit with 20% of the force of a 25 kg dog, if they achieve the same speed. In boarding kennels I sometimes have to manage dogs that will attack and bite. With the little guys, I put on welding gloves and put on a muzzle if required. For the big guys, it sometimes comes down to picking up a chunk of gridmesh to serve as a shield and herding them in and out of their kennel run . . . getting close enough to put on a muzzle can be scary or simply not worth the risk.

Edited March 8, 2010 by sandgrubber