Womans Arm Severed By Dog

[Souff]

*meh* Anne and I mention that all the time hence our preference for pugs ;)

And it is that attitude, whether you mean it humorously or semi-seriously or not, that will sink everyone.

I have Pugs so I don't care if they ban all those "big powerful nasty dogs that are born vicious"

Oh no, now the law makers have decided my "hideously deformed Pugs" need to be banned too.

What's that old saying about hanging together or we'll surely hang separately?

If Souff is going to be hanged then I would be prefer not to be hung with a bunch who chose to breed dangerous dogs.

String me up with the deranged if you will, but I cannot defend the breeding of dangerous dogs.

Souff

So, are you saying pitbulls are dangerous? Staffies are dangerous?

The Portland dog 'Rocky'

is increasingly being referred to as a "Staffordshire bull terrier cross".

If you support PBs as danergous

you support Staffies as dangerous -

in the eyes of the public they are the same; they cannot differentiate.

Lilli

I give you much the same answer. Many dogs have the potential to be dangerous and when large and powerful breeds are deliberately crossed with the intention of breeding dogs that can take a person's arms off, or are trained to be aggressive towards humans and other animals, then I don't want to be aligned with the people responsible. It is a perverse form of cruelty to animals and the people who are responsible are as guilty as the dog itself when an attack like this happens.

I am not going go brand any particular breed as dangerous.

But the deliberate crossbreeding of dogs carries with it an explosive recipe for disaster.

Good breeders of purebred dogs have been breeding for good temperament for years. They know the bloodlines and they select for the best features.

Somebody in some backyard puts together a dog and a bitch on the basis that they will make "rooly good fightin dogs" to protect their stash, or whatever.

Or they allow two dogs (probably already crossbred dogs) to mate just to produce a litter of puppies to sell, with no real knowledge of what is in the background of the parent dogs and no idea of what an explosive temperament they might be creating when the offspring reach maturity, particularly if they end up in the wrong household.

Sorry, not on!

The risk is too high.

Purebred dog breeders of dogs with good temperament do not deserve to be aligned with the above.

Souff

[WreckitWhippet]

So the picture from my perspective is that we need to work out who is breeding the more 'bombproof' dogs of the type in question, and who is not.

Yes.

Rather than "bomb proof" , I prefer to think of it along the lines of who is breeding dogs that are true to type and temperament. We all agree to some degree that genetics plays a part when it comes to the dogs and that the package is complete, when raised correctly and new owners are carefully selected.

Edited March 25, 2010 by SBT123

[~Anne~]

Education and control in my views are the key.

Control - how so?

Controls on ownership, socialisation, training and knowledge. By the way, I beleive there is a difference in controls and 'restrictions'.

[WreckitWhippet]

Controls for everyone ? or just controls for those who want/own certain breeds ?

[Quickasyoucan]

Trouble is there is only one "breed" that is truly dangerous in all of this and that is us ;)

Humans are responsible for this whether it be in deliberately breeding dogs with faulty temperaments or in deliberately mistreating dogs after they are born.

Even if we set up the most wonderful breeding program for any type of dog the hoons wouldn't buy it because it wouldn't be cool. There needs to be a way to make those who choose not to be ethical dog owners in any way pay - because money always talks.

I don't think we need more laws but I do think we need better enforcement of existing laws to weed out the criminal and irresponsible element.

Why dont the rangers scan dogs and fine people on the spot for those which are not microchipped and whose addresses are not up to date (in states where microchipping is compulsory). That's a basic premise and that would mean that contact details would have to be up to date people couldn't just deliver "a dog i found" (ie their own dog they didn't want any more) to the pound and avoid paying surrender fees, each surrender fee paid and or fine paid could go towards better pound facilities etc. there would be less dogs stated as "chipped but not registered" and people would pay for letting dogs wander needlessly. There would be less dogs killed on the roads and better accountability.

As SBT123 said, I believe and I think I got this from the Karen Delise book that there is a strong correlation between dog attacks and socio economic "wellbeing" in that I bet if you made a closer examination of the vast majority of serious and fatal dog attacks there would be multiple indicators of socio-economic "illness" surrounding the people and the dogs involved.

There is a whole element of dog "owners" out there who need to be reached and I don't think making more laws or banning certain breeds is going to help do that.

[Furkidsforever]

Controls for everyone ? or just controls for those who want/own certain breeds ?

Controls for BREEDERS of these dogs would be more appropriate - those breeders who allow their pedigree AmStaffs or Staffies or whatever to be sold without desexing are not acting in a responsible manner. "Registered" Breeders of pedigree dogs should be more circumspect as to where their puppies go. If people who have these Bull breeds are so concerned about the bad name their breed might be receiving, then they should work together to make sure no-one outside their breeds receives an entire male or female.

I do have to mention that I am totally blown away by the number of AmStaff X puppies that are advertised for sale in the Adelaide Advertiser Pets - Dogs for sale column each Saturday. I think that shows there are too many undesexed pups being sold.

[Greytmate]

What possible good reason could there be for somebody crossing a staffy with a pitbull? None. We don't allow people to drive unlicenced or to pollute the environment, we have controls there, and controls should apply to people producing the badly-bred dogs.

[Souff]

Trouble is there is only one "breed" that is truly dangerous in all of this and that is us ;)

Humans are responsible for this whether it be in deliberately breeding dogs with faulty temperaments or in deliberately mistreating dogs after they are born.

Even if we set up the most wonderful breeding program for any type of dog the hoons wouldn't buy it because it wouldn't be cool. There needs to be a way to make those who choose not to be ethical dog owners in any way pay - because money always talks.

I don't think we need more laws but I do think we need better enforcement of existing laws to weed out the criminal and irresponsible element.

Why dont the rangers scan dogs and fine people on the spot for those which are not microchipped and whose addresses are not up to date (in states where microchipping is compulsory). That's a basic premise and that would mean that contact details would have to be up to date people couldn't just deliver "a dog i found" (ie their own dog they didn't want any more) to the pound and avoid paying surrender fees, each surrender fee paid and or fine paid could go towards better pound facilities etc. there would be less dogs stated as "chipped but not registered" and people would pay for letting dogs wander needlessly. There would be less dogs killed on the roads and better accountability.

As SBT123 said, I believe and I think I got this from the Karen Delise book that there is a strong correlation between dog attacks and socio economic "wellbeing" in that I bet if you made a closer examination of the vast majority of serious and fatal dog attacks there would be multiple indicators of socio-economic "illness" surrounding the people and the dogs involved.

There is a whole element of dog "owners" out there who need to be reached and I don't think making more laws or banning certain breeds is going to help do that.

Agreed.

They do need to be reached and the laws that are already in existence need to be enforced.

If we could educate some of these people to become registered breeders and breed purebred dogs of good temperament, and get the breeding of crossbred dogs banned, we would be going a long way to overcome the current problem which is bringing dog breeding as a whole into disrepute.

Souff

[Souff]

What possible good reason could there be for somebody crossing a staffy with a pitbull? None.

There is a reason.

Governments banned "Pitbulls" but they didnt ban "Staffy crosses", nor any other crosses as far as I know.

Naming a breed is not the answer, politicians.

Not the answer at all.

Souff

[Pom]

This event will be used for sensationalism and to grab easy votes. If I tell you every tall leggy blonde female is a crazed killer but if you vote for me I can save you, a large number of people will vote for me!

What needs to happen while this is in the spotlight, is for someone to use it as a tool to educate people of the dangers of poorly bred and poorly trained dogs. Promote responsible breeders and introduce tougher penalties for puppy farms and mistreatment of animals. Teach the general populous that for every dog that attacks a person there are thousands that don't, just as for every person who commits murder there are thousands that don't.

And for crying out loud, will people PLEASE learn that no matter how many outfits you've put on your dog, no matter how many times you've forced it to sit next to you and watch Dancing With The Stars, a dog is a dog and you should remain aware of this because it's not going to come up to you, tap you on the shoulder and say "Excuse me, sorry to interrupt, but you appear to be A)taking my stuff away, B)a stranger in my house, C)threatening me and it's making me a tad uneasy. If you wouldn't mind terribly, could you pop off so I don't need to get nasty!"

[RufDiamonz]

Controls for everyone ? or just controls for those who want/own certain breeds ?

Controls for BREEDERS of these dogs would be more appropriate - those breeders who allow their pedigree AmStaffs or Staffies or whatever to be sold without desexing are not acting in a responsible manner. "Registered" Breeders of pedigree dogs should be more circumspect as to where their puppies go. If people who have these Bull breeds are so concerned about the bad name their breed might be receiving, then they should work together to make sure no-one outside their breeds receives an entire male or female.

I do have to mention that I am totally blown away by the number of AmStaff X puppies that are advertised for sale in the Adelaide Advertiser Pets - Dogs for sale column each Saturday. I think that shows there are too many undesexed pups being sold.

I must say the majority of amstaff breeders i know are VERY choosey on where their pups go. Just because it says amstaff or amstaffx il bet 90% arnt even amstaffs. But there are always those out there chasing the money. We had amstaffs stolen up this way, alot do get stolen and i remember ringing around locally to all the ' amstaff' or x litters being born around the time that this bitch may of had pups if she had come on when thought by her owners.... well no one locally up here had amstaffs not one litter couldv even been called amstaffx once seen. This is what needs to be cracked down on, and every person i saw once i seen the pups got a lecture and told firmly they didnt have an amstaff, sad thing some really beleived they had an amstaff, even if they ended up saying oh actually its a pitbull, or x and were just advertising that to find homes.. ;) most that where called pitbulls by the owners looked nothing like one. And nearlly all had no idea of the implications of owning an amstaff without papers.

[RufDiamonz]

This event will be used for sensationalism and to grab easy votes. If I tell you every tall leggy blonde female is a crazed killer but if you vote for me I can save you, a large number of people will vote for me!

What needs to happen while this is in the spotlight, is for someone to use it as a tool to educate people of the dangers of poorly bred and poorly trained dogs. Promote responsible breeders and introduce tougher penalties for puppy farms and mistreatment of animals. Teach the general populous that for every dog that attacks a person there are thousands that don't, just as for every person who commits murder there are thousands that don't.

And for crying out loud, will people PLEASE learn that no matter how many outfits you've put on your dog, no matter how many times you've forced it to sit next to you and watch Dancing With The Stars, a dog is a dog and you should remain aware of this because it's not going to come up to you, tap you on the shoulder and say "Excuse me, sorry to interrupt, but you appear to be A)taking my stuff away, B)a stranger in my house, C)threatening me and it's making me a tad uneasy. If you wouldn't mind terribly, could you pop off so I don't need to get nasty!"

great post!

[Zug Zug]

I was attacked by a very large entire male boxer about 15 years ago. All my bite injuries were on my arms and hands - because I was using these to defend my face and neck which are what the dog was attacking and aiming at. He was dragged off me with chains but wasn't put down. He belonged to my aunt and would have loved to finish the job. Even years later when I helped her move some furniture he was chained up but was lunging and frothing at the mouth wanting to get at me. I ended up never visiting my aunt until after he died (of cancer). He had attacked several others over the years - mine was one of the worst but I wasn't the only one sent to hospital by that dog. He was very dominant by nature, raised very badly, and got even worse with age.

In the case of my attack he gave no warning whatsoever. The back door of my aunt's house was opened (by my aunt), he charged inside and went straight for my neck. My partner was next door and he said it sounded like 2 dogs fighting - but the other dog wasn't even involved. I had no way of defending myself.

In this case, I would be pretty sure that her arms were injured because she used her arms to protect her face and neck for as long as she could. The dog intended to kill her. It is very good that this dog was put down.

Yes there is a long list of breeds capable of killing and seriously injuring people. I really like boxers - most of them are lovely - and I can be quite relaxed around one these days (mind you, that took a few years' work on my part). But owning a big dog is a big responsibility and owning a big dog with a tendency to be aggressive is an awesome responsibility and beyond most people's abilities.

[~Anne~]

Controls for everyone ? or just controls for those who want/own certain breeds ?

Everyone who chooses to own an animal.

Controls could mean anything from reinforcing some of the existing legislation such as microchipping and registered animals to control on what breeding means and implies. I also believe that there should be controls on the ownership of certain breeds. For example, I live in a townhouse and have scant knowledge of, let's say, Maremmas. I should not be able to purchase and own one unless I can meet it's needs and demonstarte an understanding and knowledge of that breed.

Controls in their own will not suffice though. My statement was; controls AND education.

Edited March 25, 2010 by ~Anne~

[HugUrPup]

I'm not a risk taker.. I won't sky dive.. chances are I won't die doing it (most people don't), but I have a fear of heights..NO... I have a fear of landing from a great height, therefore I don't skydive, bunji jump, parachute or rock climb.

I also have a fear of the unknown. I don't know much about the circumstances of these attacks which have made the news. I know that many people fall in love with the smoochie temperament of their PB's, Amstaffs and other bull breeds and they trust them entirely. I wonder if this 67 year old woman trusted this dog? Was his temperament the typical loving affectionate type? What signs did he show before the attack?

I helped with the rescue of a Staffy cross yesterday. He was such a lovely boy, hugging my legs for a pat, wagging his tail, sniffing around. I didn't know his history. I didn't know if he had ever snapped before. Why was he needing to be rescued, where had he come from? While patting him, I thought, at any moment, if he decides he'd like a chomp, I'm fecked. How do I know if he is about to do that? Is there warning? What warning did this woman get? Surely if she knew this dog she would have seen something was off? What if his reaction was totally sudden.. what if she was just going about her daily routine and BANG????

I had an intense fear. It may not be valid to some of you, but to me it's a valid and justified fear, because these dogs are turning on their owners, on kids, on little old ladies, smaller dogs...

Fact is, I know my pug and I know my cavalier. I researched the breeds before getting them but I can never be 100% sure that they will never get a brain tumour, or a fright or an urge to attack, but I can guarantee that if they do, they aren't going to cause as much damage as a dog which is designed to do the damage a bull breed can do.

I'm not saying everyone should be encouraged to get a smaller breed because it's safer.. I am saying, some people don't mind the risks. Some people love the breed so much and believe they know the breeds so well, that they don't see them as a risk at all.

Let's face it though, fear of any animal, object or situation that could potentially cause you major damage or kill you isn't something to ignore. Just because one person isn't scared of swimming with sharks, doesn't mean that everyone else should jump in the ocean and suck it up.

If you want society to feel safer and lose this fear which is causing enough panic for the authorities to step in an put in legislation, work out a way to educate people.

This forum is a great start, but the DOL population is small.

Make a difference without damning people over their fears.. put their fears to rest with some compassion..there's always 3 opinions to a situation, your opinion, my opinion and the right one.

[mantis]

Cesar Millan is doing that via his TV shows, seminars, books & DVD's, but while the media continue with their lies & beat ups, it's hard to convince the media brainwashed hordes that he knows more than shows like ACA & TT..

[HugUrPup]

Cesar Milan is one person.

[mantis]

Cesar Milan is one person.

Yes, but he a highly visible person, with worldwide coverage.

When I lived in WA, there were a lot of people trying to get the media to meet well trained. loving APBT's & do a positive story on them, they weren't interested, they don't want feel good stories on their "bogey dog".

My Kenny has changed a lot of peoples perceptions on restricted breeds, when they first see him they are terrified, after spending a few minutes with him licking their hands & unfortunately faces sometimes & asking for belly rubs, they soon change their minds. But unfortunately you can't beat the media witch hunt.

[megan_]

Cesar Milan is one person.

And he says that they need to be managed very carefully. He wrote an article on his (not so) new pup a while back and some people here got upset because he said... shock horror..... they are powerful dogs that need very strong leadership and someone to manage their interactions with other dogs.

[HugUrPup]

Maybe you can turn your Kenny into a celebrity?

Just because Cesar is highly visible that doesn't make other people transparent. Anyone can take action and build up notoriety like Cesar if they are absolutely dedicated to a cause. His dedication is how he became famous.. he is single person who has already made a HUGE difference in people's views of dogs and Daddy (RIP) was just as famous and change people's views on well trained PB's with an owner who knows what he is doing.

Unfortunately that is still the message.. the only trustworthy PB is one trained by Cesar. If we multiplied Cesar and Daddy by 10 can you imagine the shift in societies views of bull breeds?

The RSPCA taught so many people in a 10 minute segment about puppy mills, which members here have spoken about for years but the word hasn't spread far enough to make a difference. Hopefully now that the foundations are set and people know what puppy mills are, some clever person can get on the TV and put the connection between puppy mills and pet shops for everyone to see.

Become the media if you want your messages to get across. Don't blame other people who are already in the Media for having their own perceptions and opinions for "brainwashing" society. They didn't lie about a dog attacking a woman 2 days ago. If they are capable of creating social panic, then what's stopping you from getting out there and giving YOUR opinions and perceptions?

Edited March 25, 2010 by puggerup