Womans Arm Severed By Dog

[ILK]

'poodlefan' date='23rd Mar 2010 - 09:30 PM' post='4412831']

Regardless of breed, dogs that maim and kill are made, not born. All the studies show that.

The are plenty of dogs of various breeds that have the genetic instincts to maim and kill, the studies are wrong, nonesense infact. The difference is in the raising and training dogs of this nature that makes them safe.

Did I just read that right ? There are breeds out there that are geneticallyt predisposed to maim and kill , is that right ?

The studies that Poodlefan mentions are not nonsense, they highlight some very important factors that are often present, when it comes to how many dogs that are involved in attacks are raised and treated. Statistically, they are also more likely to be male, young and entire.

It's complete nonesense SBT123 totally. Dogs know how to attack and bite and are born with that skill. If it surfaces or not largely depends on how the dog is raised and trained.

Unfortunatlely it is not complete nonsense. Certain breeds need to have the biting instinct bred out of them. Some dogs bite, but to rip an arm off its owner or even a neighbour, that is bazaar behaviour and has to be involved with training or upbringing.

edit for spelling mistake

Are we saying that the dog in this incident was attack trained???. I bet it's never had a day of formal training in it's life and acted out of pure instinct.

Not saying or even suggesting that the dog in this incident was attack trained. Just saying it must have something to do with upbringing or possibly lack of it. We don't know the dogs breeding background either of course, but I'm sure most of us would have to agree that it is bazaar that a family pet would go into such a vicious attack mode.

[Staranais]

BSL is making this breed worse. And wheather you like it or not its pretty obvious in a good type or a bad type they are not going anywhere, wouldnt it be better to have the good type?

Yes. :D

If there must be breed specific laws regulating pitbull ownership or breeding, then I'd rather see something designed to weed out bad dogs and bad breeders - perhaps making it compulsory to get a CGC or obedience title on any pitbull that is to be bred - rather than just ban breeding pitbulls altogether and drive it underground.

Mind you, with any law, the problem is enforcing it. They don't generally bother enforcing the current BSL laws around here, so the only people breeding pitbulls are the people who don't care they're breaking the law. What a way to ruin a breed.

[Lally]

The bottom line is that these type of dogs terrify many people, as do some of the owners of these dogs. Evidence that this well-liked dog 'turned' without warning or provocation, if confirmed, will simpy add to this fear.

Dogs "turning" is largely a myth. The fact that the victim cannot identify the trigger for the attack doesn't mean there wasn't one. :D

Which, to me, is fairly alarming.

If someone's lived with a dog for 3 years, and, apparently, they know each other reasonably well, why can't they identify the trigger? Is it due, then, to the very nature of the dog?

I have no answers; I'm just wondering.

[Guest Tess32]

The bottom line is that these type of dogs terrify many people, as do some of the owners of these dogs. Evidence that this well-liked dog 'turned' without warning or provocation, if confirmed, will simpy add to this fear.

Dogs "turning" is largely a myth. The fact that the victim cannot identify the trigger for the attack doesn't mean there wasn't one. :D

Which, to me, is fairly alarming.

If someone's lived with a dog for 3 years, and, apparently, they know each other reasonably well, why can't they identify the trigger? Is it due, then, to the very nature of the dog?

I have no answers; I'm just wondering.

It's not always obvious. I still don't know 'why' my boy did it. I can only guess.

[poodlefan]

The bottom line is that these type of dogs terrify many people, as do some of the owners of these dogs. Evidence that this well-liked dog 'turned' without warning or provocation, if confirmed, will simpy add to this fear.

Dogs "turning" is largely a myth. The fact that the victim cannot identify the trigger for the attack doesn't mean there wasn't one. :D

Which, to me, is fairly alarming.

If someone's lived with a dog for 3 years, and, apparently, they know each other reasonably well, why can't they identify the trigger? Is it due, then, to the very nature of the dog?

I have no answers; I'm just wondering.

Lally the number of folk who cannot read dog body language is legion. I can recall Jan Fennell talking of being called in by a couple to assess their dog.. she thought the only reason the dog hadn't bitten either of them was they'd never denied it anything it wanted.

What we do know is that there was an entry to the house and the attack occured in a corridor. I really do wish someone knowledgeable about dog behaviour speaks to the lady and gets more information about what happened.

I wonder how much time this lady has spent alone with the dog, whether it was normally kept inside, whether it had a bone or treat when she came in, whether she attempted to make it go out.. lots of questions.

According to latest reports, she may lose her arm.

Edited March 23, 2010 by poodlefan

[Sandra777]

The bottom line is that these type of dogs terrify many people, as do some of the owners of these dogs. Evidence that this well-liked dog 'turned' without warning or provocation, if confirmed, will simpy add to this fear.

Dogs "turning" is largely a myth. The fact that the victim cannot identify the trigger for the attack doesn't mean there wasn't one. :D

Which, to me, is fairly alarming.

If someone's lived with a dog for 3 years, and, apparently, they know each other reasonably well, why can't they identify the trigger? Is it due, then, to the very nature of the dog?

I have no answers; I'm just wondering.

I would suggest it is because most people actually have no idea about the subtle signs dogs send.

I have lost count of the number of "cute" videos shown on TV of "cute" dogs snarling and biting at people - all accompanied by laughter. And these are not subtle signals! If these people had half a brain cell between them they would understand that the dog is not being "cute" and a dog snarling and snapping isn't funny regardless of the size of the dog. I would assume that if the dogs concerned weren't fluffy, under 10kg and allegedly "harmless breeds" these videos would be on the news instead of on the entertainment shows.

The number of photos you see on random sites of kids/adults "cuddling" dogs which are obviously saying "get me outta here!" is horrific.

Generally speaking I think most people are scarily ignorant of dog "language" and do miss the signals their dog is desperately giving out.

[Kanati Whippets]

Just listened to a report on Jon Faine's ABC Melbourne program and his interview with one of the two men who broke in and saved the woman. He said that the scene was horrific and saturated with blood.

The neighbour was summoned by the woman's grand daughter who was hysterical. He and his brother tore over and smashed their way in and confronted the dog with a green wheely bin and finally forced it into another room and closed the door.

The dog had been living with the victim for 3 years and its actual owner, her grandson, had visited but just returned to Melbourne. As she walked in her back door, the dog lunged at her, he said, without apparent rhyme or reason. The rescuer knew the dog well for years, liked the dog, said that it had never been a problem before, it seemed a happy and likeable dog....it aparently just snapped and attacked. Of course there is now a talk-back debate ensuing.

The bottom line is that these type of dogs terrify many people, as do some of the owners of these dogs. Evidence that this well-liked dog 'turned' without warning or provocation, if confirmed, will simpy add to this fear.

This is something i would wonder about..... :D

I hope this poor woman ends up Ok, it would've been horrifying to go through.

[Janba]

The fact that the victim couldn't identify a trigger doesn't mean there wasn't one or warning signs before the attack. The warning sign can happen in seconds and if you don't know how to recognise them (which most dog owners don't) they can escalate. Triggers can be things you don't even think might be a problem - something as simple as wearing a hat.

It is unlikely that we will ever know what caused this attack or why the dog reacted with the level of aggression it did.

[poodlefan]

The fact that the victim couldn't identify a trigger doesn't mean there wasn't one or warning signs before the attack. The warning sign can happen in seconds and if you don't know how to recognise them (which most dog owners don't) they can escalate. Triggers can be things you don't even think might be a problem - something as simple as wearing a hat.

It is unlikely that we will ever know what caused this attack or why the dog reacted with the level of aggression it did.

And now that the dog is dead, any chance to evaluate it has gone.

[BJean]

The bottom line is that these type of dogs terrify many people, as do some of the owners of these dogs. Evidence that this well-liked dog 'turned' without warning or provocation, if confirmed, will simpy add to this fear.

Dogs "turning" is largely a myth. The fact that the victim cannot identify the trigger for the attack doesn't mean there wasn't one. :D

Which, to me, is fairly alarming.

If someone's lived with a dog for 3 years, and, apparently, they know each other reasonably well, why can't they identify the trigger? Is it due, then, to the very nature of the dog?

I have no answers; I'm just wondering.

No some people are just thick (NOT speaking of the case at hand but another example)

and have no idea about how their behaviour is perceived by a dog, and in turn, how to interpret behaviour exhibited by a dog.

A member of my family is thick when it comes to dogs (of course he cannot see this and thinks they all get along well.)

He makes sudden movements in front of their faces, and with one particular dog, pushes him in the chest and stares him in the face at close range.

I say, "dont do that you will get bitten" and go into xyz reason why.

Thick ignores what I say because he cant see how uncomfortable the dog is and the signals the dog is giving him.

Then one day the dog snarls and lunges at him.

I say "see that was a warning, do it again and you will get bitten."

Thick keeps going, until the dog really has a go, knocks him backwards and the dog's teeth stop about 2mm from his face.

I say, "that's the last warning you're going to get. The next time he's going to bite your face off / maul your head

and it will be all your fault."

The penny drops and Thick no longer behaves like an idiot with that particular dog any more.

Edited March 24, 2010 by lilli

[chrisjc]

Poodlefan , we have never agreed on everything since ive been on here but i commend you for your point of veiw and way of getting it across.

if only i could stop my blood boiling and defensiveness, maybee i could make some better points!

[WoofnHoof]

The bottom line is that these type of dogs terrify many people, as do some of the owners of these dogs. Evidence that this well-liked dog 'turned' without warning or provocation, if confirmed, will simpy add to this fear.

Dogs "turning" is largely a myth. The fact that the victim cannot identify the trigger for the attack doesn't mean there wasn't one. :D

Which, to me, is fairly alarming.

If someone's lived with a dog for 3 years, and, apparently, they know each other reasonably well, why can't they identify the trigger? Is it due, then, to the very nature of the dog?

I have no answers; I'm just wondering.

No some people are just thick (NOT speaking of the case at hand but another example)

and have no idea about how their behaviour is perceived by a dog, and in turn, how to interpret behaviour exhibited by a dog.

A member of my family is thick when it comes to dogs (of course he cannot see this and thinks they all get along well.)

He makes sudden movements in front of their faces, and with one particular dog, pushes him in the chest and stares him in the face at close range.

I say, "dont do that you will get bitten" and go into xyz reason why.

Thick ignores what I say because he cant see how uncomfortable the dog is and the signals the dog is giving him.

Then one day the dog snarls and lunges at him.

I say "see that was a warning, do it again and you will get bitten."

Thick keeps going, until the dog really has a go, knocks him backwards and the dog's teeth stop about 2mm from his face.

I say, "that's the last warning you're going to get. The next time he's going to bite your face off / maul your head

and it will be all your fault."

The penny drops and Thick no longer behaves like an idiot with that particular dog any more.

Isn't that all the more reason to place certain conditions on dog ownership? Compulsory training for a start should be introduced to train both dogs and humans. I don't see pet ownership as a right I see it as a privellidge, like driving a car it comes with certain conditions and responsibilities that have to be learned and followed. The larger our population gets the more idiots there are going to be, it has to be regulated somehow. I also think that it shouldn't be tied up in endless discussions about rights, most people have the right to get a driver's license but some people don't because it impacts on the safety of others, it should be the same with dogs.

[Guest Tess32]

The bottom line is that these type of dogs terrify many people, as do some of the owners of these dogs. Evidence that this well-liked dog 'turned' without warning or provocation, if confirmed, will simpy add to this fear.

Dogs "turning" is largely a myth. The fact that the victim cannot identify the trigger for the attack doesn't mean there wasn't one. :D

Which, to me, is fairly alarming.

If someone's lived with a dog for 3 years, and, apparently, they know each other reasonably well, why can't they identify the trigger? Is it due, then, to the very nature of the dog?

I have no answers; I'm just wondering.

No some people are just thick (NOT speaking of the case at hand but another example)

and have no idea about how their behaviour is perceived by a dog, and in turn, how to interpret behaviour exhibited by a dog.

A member of my family is thick when it comes to dogs (of course he cannot see this and thinks they all get along well.)

He makes sudden movements in front of their faces, and with one particular dog, pushes him in the chest and stares him in the face at close range.

I say, "dont do that you will get bitten" and go into xyz reason why.

Thick ignores what I say because he cant see how uncomfortable the dog is and the signals the dog is giving him.

Then one day the dog snarls and lunges at him.

I say "see that was a warning, do it again and you will get bitten."

Thick keeps going, until the dog really has a go, knocks him backwards and the dog's teeth stop about 2mm from his face.

I say, "that's the last warning you're going to get. The next time he's going to bite your face off / maul your head

and it will be all your fault."

The penny drops and Thick no longer behaves like an idiot with that particular dog any more.

Isn't that all the more reason to place certain conditions on dog ownership? Compulsory training for a start should be introduced to train both dogs and humans. I don't see pet ownership as a right I see it as a privellidge, like driving a car it comes with certain conditions and responsibilities that have to be learned and followed. The larger our population gets the more idiots there are going to be, it has to be regulated somehow. I also think that it shouldn't be tied up in endless discussions about rights, most people have the right to get a driver's license but some people don't because it impacts on the safety of others, it should be the same with dogs.

Compulsory training would be very hard to implement.

[Staranais]

The bottom line is that these type of dogs terrify many people, as do some of the owners of these dogs. Evidence that this well-liked dog 'turned' without warning or provocation, if confirmed, will simpy add to this fear.

Dogs "turning" is largely a myth. The fact that the victim cannot identify the trigger for the attack doesn't mean there wasn't one. :D

Which, to me, is fairly alarming.

If someone's lived with a dog for 3 years, and, apparently, they know each other reasonably well, why can't they identify the trigger? Is it due, then, to the very nature of the dog?

I have no answers; I'm just wondering.

No some people are just thick (NOT speaking of the case at hand but another example)

and have no idea about how their behaviour is perceived by a dog, and in turn, how to interpret behaviour exhibited by a dog.

A member of my family is thick when it comes to dogs (of course he cannot see this and thinks they all get along well.)

He makes sudden movements in front of their faces, and with one particular dog, pushes him in the chest and stares him in the face at close range.

I say, "dont do that you will get bitten" and go into xyz reason why.

Thick ignores what I say because he cant see how uncomfortable the dog is and the signals the dog is giving him.

Then one day the dog snarls and lunges at him.

I say "see that was a warning, do it again and you will get bitten."

Thick keeps going, until the dog really has a go, knocks him backwards and the dog's teeth stop about 2mm from his face.

I say, "that's the last warning you're going to get. The next time he's going to bite your face off / maul your head

and it will be all your fault."

The penny drops and Thick no longer behaves like an idiot with that particular dog any more.

Isn't that all the more reason to place certain conditions on dog ownership? Compulsory training for a start should be introduced to train both dogs and humans. I don't see pet ownership as a right I see it as a privellidge, like driving a car it comes with certain conditions and responsibilities that have to be learned and followed. The larger our population gets the more idiots there are going to be, it has to be regulated somehow. I also think that it shouldn't be tied up in endless discussions about rights, most people have the right to get a driver's license but some people don't because it impacts on the safety of others, it should be the same with dogs.

In theory I agree with you, but who will administer the tests, or decide what criteria a person must fulfil to own a certain type of dog? I'm not sure I trust the RSPCA, or the local council, to do so.

And also, who will enforce the rules? At the moment, many problem dogs are unlicensed, and no one bothers to enforce the licensing laws. I suspect that a "dog license" scheme will be similar. So the scheme will just end up being an inconvenience to responsible owners, and will be ignored by irresponsible owners.

[WoofnHoof]

It would be no different to administrating and implementing vehicle licensing laws, somehow that manages to work *most* of the time.

[BJean]

Isn't that all the more reason to place certain conditions on dog ownership? Compulsory training for a start should be introduced to train both dogs and humans. I don't see pet ownership as a right I see it as a privellidge, like driving a car it comes with certain conditions and responsibilities that have to be learned and followed. The larger our population gets the more idiots there are going to be, it has to be regulated somehow. I also think that it shouldn't be tied up in endless discussions about rights, most people have the right to get a driver's license but some people don't because it impacts on the safety of others, it should be the same with dogs.

Conditions like what?

I own the dogs.

What makes you think that you can teach people common sense?

I've told him more about dog behaviour than any test could test him - but arrogance and hubris learn hard.

[persephone]

The fact that the victim couldn't identify a trigger doesn't mean there wasn't one or warning signs before the attack. The warning sign can happen in seconds and if you don't know how to recognise them (which most dog owners don't) they can escalate. Triggers can be things you don't even think might be a problem - something as simple as wearing a hat.

:D

smells,sounds,shapes..all picked up and acted upon in an instant- while the human has no inkling.

[quoll]

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.

I second this view.

[BJean]

It would be no different to administrating and implementing vehicle licensing laws, somehow that manages to work *most* of the time.

No you are being naive.

I get 100% on a driving test, doesn't stop me from collecting speeding fines.

Knowing what is law and following the law are not the same thing.

Impulse control, your own belief of what you can and cant do are not dictated by the letter

but your own perception of boundaries.

[WoofnHoof]

It would be no different to administrating and implementing vehicle licensing laws, somehow that manages to work *most* of the time.

No you are being naive.

I get 100% on a driving test, doesn't stop me from collecting speeding fines.

Knowing what is law and following the law are not the same thing.

Impulse control, your own belief of what you can and cant do are not dictated by the letter

but your own perception of boundaries.

Following your reasoning there would be no need to license people to drive then? Awesome.