Womans Arm Severed By Dog

[Crisovar]

Being dog aggressive doesn't make them people aggressive?

ah yeah o.k....... and how many people get frenzied on when trying to break dog fights up? It wasn't to long ago when a Bull breed dog turned on a man that was trying to pull it away from his little JRT. Probably just before christmas or thereabouts. Same thing happened with a man with his 2 maltese (I think, but they were a small breed). He got mauled trying to get the bull breed off his pets.

Facts that people need to also keep in mind is that "under the radar" APBT breeders register their dogs as crosses so the true value of crossbred bull attacks cannot be accurately measured.

BTW Mantis if you are a P.R for pit bull breeds then you are doing a really bad job. Ranting and carrying on with personal attacks on posters who dont' agree with you is usually not a good thing...

Being stupid enough to get in between any animals fighting will get you injured, getting between two humans beating each other will too.

I have been bitten because I stupidly pulled 2 whippet bitches apart, who seem to hate the colour of each others hair on the odd day. Does this mean they are dangerous to humans???? 12 years of living with my family tells me they are not.

[brightonrock]

It doesnt matter if there is conflict in the pecking order,or they still have balls,or they view the kids as lower down the order,whatever- human aggression is not ok in any circumstance.I do not tolerate it and it is not always someone not picking up signals.I dont care if a bitch is in season,or a new dog has been added that has caused a shift in the balance,it is not excused or condoned in this house.

The only exception i would make is a dog that has been abused,or is being hurt.

Yes, completely agree.

[Staffyluv]

No not crap. I'm not sure how many more bull breed/s attacks there has to be on people/other animals but maybe some people will get a clue eventually and some will keep their heads firmly implanted in the sand.

For example, the APBT site specifically inform that they were initially bred for fighting and it's a fact that can't be denied or ignored. They also mention that potential owners should be aware of the potential inherited characteristics of this breed.

I would akin them to owning a loaded gun. In the right hands they can be safe (with proper training) and not many "average Joe" people would even fit that bill. In the wrong hands.....well we've seen what happens time and time again.

I use to dislike APBT's immensely but now I actually fill sorry for them. With the fighting lines that got imported in the 1980's (way to many Jeep descendents), then into the hands of idiots, then other people who breed them illegally under the radar.....the breed actually stood no chance in this country. It's a real pity there wern't more importations from the "non fighting" lines then we could have seen custom dogs, safer family pets, obedience, agility and therapy dogs (which the non fighting lines are used for in the USA).

Total crap. You don't know anything about them. Dogs were bred to fight, but bred to be people safe. Fighting other dogs doesn't equate to attacks on people, never has, never will.

No medium to large sized dog should be owned by idiots.

There has never been a fatal attack by a pitbull in Aust. What does that tell you?

Pitbulls are way down the attack list stats, even when they are numerically adjusted.

Be frightened of cattle dogs, german shepherds, labradors, they are way ahead of pitbulls.

Do you research before posting your feelings disguised as fact, and fact shaped by skewed media propaganda.

:D

Great reply Jed...

It always amazes me that people can't see that dogs originally bred for fighting, were also bred NOT to be dangerous to people.. People had to get the dogs out of the fight... They just see the media report and carry on with what the usual dribble that they are being force fed by the media (sheep and all that)...

The media are on the war path again and sadly I think the Stafford will come off second best if another round of BSL hits us...

I hope the the medical staff can save her arm and she heals quickly...

[quoll]

Did anyone see the interview on Sunrise with the RSPCA ( American lady ) rep, she was terrific. Wish more RSPCA were like her, a very balanced and informed reply, well done. :D

[persephone]

Being dog aggressive doesn't make them people aggressive?

ah yeah o.k....... and how many people get frenzied on when trying to break dog fights up?

A dog biting a person who is attempting to break up a serious fight is NOT seen by me to be human-aggressive!

A dog in a fight is running on adrenaline and instinct- you put yourself in the way- and you will be bitten.

Edited March 23, 2010 by persephone

[~Anne~]

These arguments always frustrate me. On one hand we push the fact that if you choose a purebred dog you KNOW what its temperament will be like. You KNOW what its characteristics will be like. It is a genetic line we follow, we breed for temperament yadda, yadda and now suddenly we say "Hell no, a dog isn't born aggressive, it is the upbringing that makes it aggressive!"

This. Is. Total. CRAP!

A Pug is NOT aggressive. It is born that way. It is genetics. It has NOTHING to do with the upbringing. If I can say that a dog is born without aggression, why then can't it be said that some dogs are born with aggression?

Sure, the Pitbull may be maligned, but the argument that a dog is created and not born, is dumb.

Edited March 23, 2010 by ~Anne~

[Kirislin]

I think the person who saved her was incredibly brave from the account given.

I wonder how the poor woman is today.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Kirislin

[WoofnHoof]

These arguments always frustrate me. On one hand we push the fact that if you choose a purebred dog you KNOW what its temperament will be like. You KNOW what its characteristics will be like. It is a genetic line we follow, we breed for temperament yadda, yadda and now suddenly we say "Hell no, a dog isn't born aggressive, it is the upbringing that makes it aggressive!"

This. Is. Total. CRAP!

A Pug is NOT aggressive. It is born that way. It is genetics. It has NOTHING to do with the upbringing. If I can say that a dog is born without aggression, why then can't it be said that some dogs are born with aggression?

Sure, the Pitbull may be maligned, but the argument that a dog is created and not born, is dumb.

Totally agree, even when the dogs aren't bred by registered breeders they still remain amazingly true to type, my husky is a textbook husky with textbook husky behaviours and he was bred by a byb.

[~Anne~]

Media reports this morning said that the sog attacked her as she entered through the back door. Perhaps it thought she was an intruder?? I guess we will never really find out what happened. The end result though is a dog seriously injured her in what appears to be a prolonged attack. The dog obviously was a ticking timebomb and this may or may not have been picked up.

I know that I will never own a dog that is a strong or powerful breed, unless it is a docile breed. Like it or lump it, the Pittbull, and many other breeds, are far from being a docile breed.

[Staranais]

double post sorry

Edited March 23, 2010 by Staranais

[Staranais]

These arguments always frustrate me. On one hand we push the fact that if you choose a purebred dog you KNOW what its temperament will be like. You KNOW what its characteristics will be like. It is a genetic line we follow, we breed for temperament yadda, yadda and now suddenly we say "Hell no, a dog isn't born aggressive, it is the upbringing that makes it aggressive!"

This. Is. Total. CRAP!

A Pug is NOT aggressive. It is born that way. It is genetics. It has NOTHING to do with the upbringing. If I can say that a dog is born without aggression, why then can't it be said that some dogs are born with aggression?

Sure, the Pitbull may be maligned, but the argument that a dog is created and not born, is dumb.

On one hand I agree with you. I have a working line malinois. Some might say she was bred to be "aggressive" - actually, it's a whole lot more complicated than that. She's a sweetie who has huge prey drive, is possessive and dominant, and needs a strong leader. She was physically defending her bones from me, and trying to hump other dogs, at the tender age of 4 months old! So yes, she could be an absolute nightmare in the wrong hands, just due to her innate temperament.

A very different temperament from a pug. But on the other hand, probably a lot better working dog. Different strokes for different folks.

On the other hand, the pitbulls I've met (and staffy I've owned), even the very dog aggressive ones, tend to have no human aggression whatsoever. Traditionally, they're bred to have rock solid nerves and be strictly inhibited from biting humans, even though many can be rather feisty around other dogs. I've pulled my stafford out of dog fights before in the complete confidence I wasn't going to be bitten. I couldn't do that with my malinois!

My only worry is that now there are so many scum BYB of pitbulls breeding for human aggression. I don't think I've met a single pitbull breeder who works their dogs or temperament tests their dogs, so many people now seem to breed them for "head size" and human aggression - how long before the breed loses the traditional tolerance of humans?

:D

[~Anne~]

I have not had a lot to do with Pitbulls, but I have met many Staffies and I have only ever met one staffy that displayed human aggression. In fact they have all been quite the opposite except for Gypsy! Gyspy didn't like the neighbour and I am sure she would have bitten him had she have been given the chance.

[poodlefan]

Like or not, breed alone can not and does not explain how such attacks happen.

I've posted it all before but please read carefully what the research tells us and ponder the questions below.

1. Was this a "family" dog or a "resident" dog?

Quote from the USAs National Canine Research Council:

Dogs that have not been afforded the opportunity to socialize, interact and learn appropriate behaviors because they have been acquired for negative functions (guarding, fighting, breeding for financial gain) or maintained in semi-isolated conditions (chained, kenneled, basement/yard dogs) cannot be defined as "family dogs". These animals are "resident" dogs. Family dogs and resident dogs cannot be expected to exhibit similar behaviors under similar conditions.

2. How many factors of this attack fit those identified by Karen Delise in her book Fatal Dog Attacks?

Today's media is filled with sensational headlines of dog attacks. Routinely quoted in these newspaper accounts are dated statistics from the Centers for Disease Control. The last CDC study released documented which breeds of dogs caused the most human fatalities from 1979 through 1998. While the CDC did an admirable job of studying fatal dog attacks, and went to great lengths to point out that irresponsible owners were the cause of most of these incidents, the media and lawmakers continue to use CDC statistics to substantiate claims that certain breeds of dogs are inherently more "vicious" than other breeds.

After reviewing over 431 cases of fatal dog attacks it is apparent there is no single factor that translates in a lethal encounter between a person and a dog(s). A fatal dog attack is always the culmination of past and present events that include: inherited and learned behaviors, genetics, breeding, socialization, function of the dog, physical condition and size of the dog, reproductive status of dog, popularity of breed, individual temperament, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim behavior, victim size and physical condition, timing and misfortune. While many circumstances may contribute to a fatal dog attack, the following three factors appear to play a critical role in the display of canine aggression towards humans;

Function of the dog - (Includes: dogs acquired for fighting, guarding/protection or image enhancement)

Owner responsibility - (Includes: dogs allowed to roam loose, chained dogs, dogs and/or children left unsupervised, dogs permitted or encouraged to behave aggressively, animal neglect and/or abuse)

Reproductive status of dog - (Includes: unaltered males dogs, bitches with puppies, children coming between male dog and female dog in estrus)

It is necessary to emphasize that a fatal dog attack is an exceptionally rare event, yet many communities and cities believe that the solution to prevent severe and fatal dog attacks is to label, restrict or ban certain breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous. If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20-25 human fatalities per year. Since only an infinitesimal number of any breed is implicated in a human fatality, it is not only unreasonable to characterize this as a specific breed behavior by which judge an entire population of dogs, it also does little to prevent fatal or severe dog attacks as the real causes and events that contribute to a fatal attack are masked by the issue of breed and not seriously addressed.

From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide). We are increasingly becoming a society that has less and less tolerance and understanding of natural canine behaviors. Breed specific behaviors that have been respected and selected for over the centuries are now often viewed as unnatural or dangerous. Dogs have throughout the centuries served as protectors and guardians of our property, possessions and families. Dogs have also been used for thousands of years to track, chase and hunt both large and small animals. These natural and selected-for canine behaviors seem to now eliciting fear, shock and a sense of distrust among many people.

There seems to be an ever growing expectation of a "behaviorally homogenized" dog - "Benji" in the shape of a Rottweiler. Breeds of dogs with greater protection instincts or an elevated prey-drive are often unfairly viewed as "aggressive or dangerous". No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. [The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep.

Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows it to be.

Incidents like this don't come out of nowhere. Anyone who has even a basic knowledge of dog attack research would be thinking this dog had a bite history.

Look to the other end of the leash before you write this off as an attack by a "bad' dog.

Edited March 23, 2010 by poodlefan

[Cosmolo]

Some breeds are more prone to certain types of aggression than others- i don't know how anyone can argue they are not? The issue lays with identifying dogs that are going to attack and at a conference last year, i listened to a very interesting speaker who said all the BSL and DD legislation is unlikely to weed out the dogs that will attack because the very serious reported dog attacks are rare. So rare that it is impossible to identify them ahead of time.

I am one who thinks that dog aggression IS a problem- i have had 2 dogs try to kill one of mine and we stepped in to save my dog- according to some people here that makes me an idiot for getting between 2 fighting dogs (we went from cutting off the airway to wheelbarrowing and waiting) Should i have just waited till they killed her? The owners of these dogs, purchased from a registered breeder as littermates- wanted social, dog tolerant dogs- surely breeders who have a breed more prone to ANY kind of aggression have the responsibility to tell people what the deal is and what kind of training/ socialisation is required.

Redirected aggression doesn't make a dog 'human aggressive' but that does NOT mean its not a problem!!!

ETA I agree with PF too. Factors influencing dog attacks should be publicised- but they're not. : ( BUT we also need to get real about the differences between different dogs- or no one will take you seriously

Edited March 23, 2010 by Cosmolo

[Crisovar]

Some breeds are more prone to certain types of aggression than others- i don't know how anyone can argue they are not? The issue lays with identifying dogs that are going to attack and at a conference last year, i listened to a very interesting speaker who said all the BSL and DD legislation is unlikely to weed out the dogs that will attack because the very serious reported dog attacks are rare. So rare that it is impossible to identify them ahead of time.

I am one who thinks that dog aggression IS a problem- i have had 2 dogs try to kill one of mine and we stepped in to save my dog- according to some people here that makes me an idiot for getting between 2 fighting dogs (we went from cutting off the airway to wheelbarrowing and waiting) Should i have just waited till they killed her? The owners of these dogs, purchased from a registered breeder as littermates- wanted social, dog tolerant dogs- surely breeders who have a breed more prone to ANY kind of aggression have the responsibility to tell people what the deal is and what kind of training/ socialisation is required.

Redirected aggression doesn't make a dog 'human aggressive' but that does NOT mean its not a problem!!!

ETA I agree with PF too. Factors influencing dog attacks should be publicised- but they're not. : (

It is a problem I agree, but it is not human agression, that is the point I was trying to make.

Every time there is a report of a dog attack on another animal we continually hear the "it will be a kiddie next" cries.

IMO that is simply not the case.

I would rather my old girls lived together in perfect harmony, but they don't, but never has there been any sign of agression towards humans. If I get bitten it is the risk I take seperating them, same as you, we don't just stand back and let it go on.

But it doesn't mean any injuries inflicted are caused by human agression.

[Cosmolo]

I agree with you- the cries of 'it will be a child next' are ignorant- but ignorance comes from the lack of constructive information provided to people.

[~Anne~]

PF - while I understand that environment plays a part, I will once again use the Pug as an example. You can chain up a Pug, lock it in a cage, beat it with sticks, never let it socialise and allow it to experience every horror there is and only probably 1 in 1000 will display aggression (except maybe food aggression). A guess I know.

Do the same to a Pitbull and what would happen? I won't even try to guess but we all know the results would be far different to what would happen with a more docile breed. You CAN NOT deny that breeding and genetics play a large role in the temperament of a dog.

Edited March 23, 2010 by ~Anne~

[Staranais]

Do the same to a Pitbull and what would happen? I won't even try to guess but we all know the results would be far different to what would happen with a more docile breed. You CAN NOT deny that breeding and genetics play a large role in the temperament of a dog.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/07/vick.dogs.rehab/index.html

:D

[Silvawilow]

I don't really care what breed of dog it was, it was a horific attack and I really hope the lady recovers both physically and mentally.

[WreckitWhippet]

PF - while I understand that environment plays a part, I will once again use the Pug as an example. You can chain up a Pug, lock it in a cage, beat it with sticks, never let it socialise and allow it to experience every horror there is and only probably 1 in 1000 will display aggression (except maybe food aggression). A guess I know.

Do the same to a Pitbull and what would happen? I won't even try to guess but we all know the results would be far different to what would happen with a more docile breed. You CAN NOT deny that breeding and genetics play a large role in the temperament of a dog.

So one could argue that BSL does indeed have it's place and restrictions should apply for certain "breeds" ?

Breed or cross aside, I would still like to know how many of the boxes that particular dog ticked.