"pit Bull" Attacks Maltese In Canberra

[j]

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local...an/1888776.aspx

Pit bull attack prompts call for ban

The owner of a Maltese cross that was mauled by two dogs, believed to be pit bulls, says they are as dangerous as guns in a suburban street and should be banned.

It was only last week that anaesthetist Paul Crowhurst helped treat a toddler who had been savaged by a pit bull in Queensland.

Then on Saturday, the day before he was due back in Canberra, his own son was bitten while trying to rescue the family pet.

Dr Crowhurst said two pit bulls forced their way into his Hawker backyard and set upon their three-year-old dog, Harry.

''In my view these dogs are just as lethal as a gun in a suburban area,'' he said.

''They are savage dogs and they have no place in or anywhere near a residential community.''

His 23-year-old son, James Crowhurst, said he heard Harry whimpering and went to investigate. ''There were two black American pit bulls quite literally ripping him apart,'' he said.

''I then bent down and picked up Harry to get him away from them, and when I was standing back up one of them lunged at my face and bit me under the jaw.''

He rushed the dog to his car and drove to the Animal Emergency Centre in Fyshwick before going to hospital to be treated himself.

Almost two days after Harry nearly became a dog's dinner, his assailants are still on the loose.

Rangers searched the street and nearby Pinnacle Nature Reserve at the weekend but did not find the dogs.

For more on this story, see the print edition of today's Canberra Times.

I hate this sort of reporting. Fortunately, DAS and RSPCA are totally against BSL and as far as I know, there is no support in Government either

Edited July 19, 2010 by j

[j]

There is actually quite a bit more in the hard copy article

"RSPCA ACT Chief executive, Michael Linke, who owns an american pit bull terrier, said it was a much maligned breed and that the dogs which attacked Harry could have been mastiffs, staffordshire bull terriers or cross breeds. He said ACT Legislation requiring people to hold a licence in order to keep a dog that had been declared dangerous by the DAS registrar was better than a blanket ban on any particular breed.

Any dog is capable of any act, irrespective of its breed and that type of legislation (as exists in the ACT) doesn't single out any one breed as being more dangerous than any other, he said.

We are 100 per cent opposed to vicious dogs in our community...

Pit bulls are subject to ownership restrictions in NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria"

[Brennan's Mum]

That poor Maltese...

However it does still imo fall under the good ole' ''Punish the deed not the breed''.

[Moselle]

It seems inevitable that whenever there are dog attacks by dogs perceived as "pitbulls" ...people start jumping up and down. It is well about time that lovers of this breed start acknowledging the fact that pitbulls are indeed DA. It really annoys me to no end when all kinds of excuses are entered into. The typical and most popular excuse ? Ah....it cannot possibly be a purebred pitbull, it just has to be a crossbreed. WTF. It is all too easy to say that all dogs involved in killing or maiming people or animals are not purebred pitbulls but a cross. Well, you tell me...if it is a cross then which part of that cross should be deemed DA or HA? Lest we forget....let us not name the pitbull part of the equation or else!

Edited July 19, 2010 by Moselle

[Moselle]

There is actually quite a bit more in the hard copy article

"RSPCA ACT Chief executive, Michael Linke, who owns an american pit bull terrier, said it was a much maligned breed and that the dogs which attacked Harry could have been mastiffs, staffordshire bull terriers or cross breeds. He said ACT Legislation requiring people to hold a licence in order to keep a dog that had been declared dangerous by the DAS registrar was better than a blanket ban on any particular breed.

Any dog is capable of any act, irrespective of its breed and that type of legislation (as exists in the ACT) doesn't single out any one breed as being more dangerous than any other, he said.

We are 100 per cent opposed to vicious dogs in our community...

Pit bulls are subject to ownership restrictions in NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria"

How wonderful of Mr. Michael Linke - to put it mildly, he is full of shit. So it is okay for him to state that the pitbull is a much maligned breed yet he has the gaul to point the finger at mastiffs, staffordshire terriers or crossbreeds. He really should take a long hard look at himself before sprouting such unadulterated rubbish.

[geo]

It seems inevitable that whenever there are dog attacks by dogs perceived as "pitbulls" ...people start jumping up and down. It is well about time that lovers of this breed start acknowledging the fact that pitbulls are indeed DA. It really annoys me to no end when all kinds of excuses are entered into. The typical and most popular excuse ? Ah....it cannot possibly be a purebred pitbull, it just has to be a crossbreed. WTF. It is all too easy to say that all dogs involved in killing or maiming people or animals are not purebred pitbulls but a cross. Well, you tell me...if it is a cross then which part of that cross should be deemed DA or HA? Lest we forget....let us not name the pitbull part of the equation or else!

Well if rangers, media and the general public hadn't got it wrong so many times when it comes to identifying any dogs, people wouldn't question it constantly.

If your dog had been put down because it was deemed it looked like a pitbull, maybe you'd ask the questions too.

People want and demand clarity when it comes to these issues because there is so much at stake, not because they have rose tinted glasses on, and think that all pitbulls are angels, i don't care what breed done what as long as you know for sure what happened.

Edited July 19, 2010 by geo

[Curlybert]

There are people much better qualified than me to defend pitbulls but really Moselle, you should get a grip. I interpreted Michael Linke's comment as meanng it could have been any breed of dog that attacked the Malt - ie don't single out pitbulls when the actual breed is far from certain. He wasn't necessarily or particularly pointing the finger at those other breeds. All dogs types irrespective of breed have the potential to be dog aggressive. Two years ago I inherited my sister's cute, fluffy, white pet shop dog - with unfamiliar dogs it's the stroppiest, most agressive mongrel I've ever encountered.

Oh and I have met at least 30 pit bulls during my time as a volunteer at Canberra Dog Pound. With two exceptions they were delightful and certainly no worse or better than any other breed of dog in terms of aggression to other dogs they encountered there.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Moselle, he is not blaming those particular breeds, he is saying that those are amongst the breeds, including cross breeds, that could have been involved in the attack and are frequently falsely reported as American Pitbulls.

[poodlefan]

There is actually quite a bit more in the hard copy article

"RSPCA ACT Chief executive, Michael Linke, who owns an american pit bull terrier, said it was a much maligned breed and that the dogs which attacked Harry could have been mastiffs, staffordshire bull terriers or cross breeds. He said ACT Legislation requiring people to hold a licence in order to keep a dog that had been declared dangerous by the DAS registrar was better than a blanket ban on any particular breed.

Any dog is capable of any act, irrespective of its breed and that type of legislation (as exists in the ACT) doesn't single out any one breed as being more dangerous than any other, he said.

We are 100 per cent opposed to vicious dogs in our community...

Pit bulls are subject to ownership restrictions in NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria"

How wonderful of Mr. Michael Linke - to put it mildly, he is full of shit. So it is okay for him to state that the pitbull is a much maligned breed yet he has the gaul to point the finger at mastiffs, staffordshire terriers or crossbreeds. He really should take a long hard look at himself before sprouting such unadulterated rubbish.

Exactly which part of the APBT being "much maligned" did you think was full of shit Moselle?

Mr Linke is one of the reasons we don't have BSL here in the ACT. His point is valid - it could have been any one of a number of breeds or crossbreeds. I'm guessing the attackers were dogs though.

[j]

Dr Crowhurst wasn't even in the ACT when the attack occurred and didn't witness the event. His son did.

Yet he is reported as saying "two pit bulls forced their way into his Hawker backyard and set upon their three-year-old dog, Harry"

And the remark that two days later the dogs are still on the loose. Apart from saying that the rangers didn't find the dogs when they first attended, there is no indication that they are still roaming and causing problems? The Crowhursts don't say that they have seen the dogs again. Nobody else has reported that the dogs are roaming.

Hawker is a pretty affluent suburb, with long term residents. It doesn't have an itinerant population and I'd be willing to bet that if the dogs were local, the neighbours will all know who owns them.

[poodlefan]

You have to ponder the irony of Dr Crowhurst assisting with surgery on a child allegedly attacked by a "pitbull" and then calling for a ban.

The surgery was performed in Queensland - who have the longest enacted, most draconian BSL of the lot. Just goes to show how effective it hasn't been if the child was injured by a dog banned in that state for how many years now????

[Robbi]

It seems inevitable that whenever there are dog attacks by dogs perceived as "pitbulls" ...people start jumping up and down. It is well about time that lovers of this breed start acknowledging the fact that pitbulls are indeed DA. It really annoys me to no end when all kinds of excuses are entered into. The typical and most popular excuse ? Ah....it cannot possibly be a purebred pitbull, it just has to be a crossbreed. WTF. It is all too easy to say that all dogs involved in killing or maiming people or animals are not purebred pitbulls but a cross. Well, you tell me...if it is a cross then which part of that cross should be deemed DA or HA? Lest we forget....let us not name the pitbull part of the equation or else!

Your reaction is typical of the lynch mob mentality that the mass media thrives on, the Pit Bull is much maligned and often innocent of wrong doings so much so it has a name-Brown Dog Syndrome, the general public is so adament that every dog attack by a medium sized dog is a Pit Bull rampage

People are passionate about defending the Pit Bull and other Bullies against the horrible prejudices that are heaped on them by the (largely) ill informed public. Ignorance is a killer and too many people have had their beloved family pets killed due to looking like a Pit Bull.

It annoys me that if a Pit Bull is slandered and abused people are not meant to defend them but anybody should be allowed to defend their breed from nasty verbal attacks and if it comes accross as over defensive, well no wonder.

Lest we forget.....The 1000's of Pitbulls killed by people with the same thoughts as yours.

[poodlefan]

Missed this:

It is well about time that lovers of this breed start acknowledging the fact that pitbulls are indeed DA.

Not uniformly they aren't and not to the same degree. Furthermore, with the right socialisation, training and control, their DA tendencies can be managed.

Dangerous dogs are made, not born.

The fallacy that all APBTs are DA is not nearly as dangerous as folk believing that other breeds can't be.

[Oliversmum]

It seems inevitable that whenever there are dog attacks by dogs perceived as "pitbulls" ...people start jumping up and down. It is well about time that lovers of this breed start acknowledging the fact that pitbulls are indeed DA. It really annoys me to no end when all kinds of excuses are entered into. The typical and most popular excuse ? Ah....it cannot possibly be a purebred pitbull, it just has to be a crossbreed. WTF. It is all too easy to say that all dogs involved in killing or maiming people or animals are not purebred pitbulls but a cross. Well, you tell me...if it is a cross then which part of that cross should be deemed DA or HA? Lest we forget....let us not name the pitbull part of the equation or else!

Your reaction is typical of the lynch mob mentality that the mass media thrives on, the Pit Bull is much maligned and often innocent of wrong doings so much so it has a name-Brown Dog Syndrome, the general public is so adament that every dog attack by a medium sized dog is a Pit Bull rampage

People are passionate about defending the Pit Bull and other Bullies against the horrible prejudices that are heaped on them by the (largely) ill informed public. Ignorance is a killer and too many people have had their beloved family pets killed due to looking like a Pit Bull.

It annoys me that if a Pit Bull is slandered and abused people are not meant to defend them but anybody should be allowed to defend their breed from nasty verbal attacks and if it comes accross as over defensive, well no wonder.

Lest we forget.....The 1000's of Pitbulls killed by people with the same thoughts as yours.

Well said Robbi BSL scare the living daylights out of me, I really feel for all the owners who have lost their beloved pets to this ignorance and assumptions.

[Dame Aussie]

Missed this:

It is well about time that lovers of this breed start acknowledging the fact that pitbulls are indeed DA.

Not uniformly they aren't and not to the same degree. Furthermore, with the right socialisation, training and control, their DA tendencies can be managed.

Dangerous dogs are made, not born.

The fallacy that all APBTs are DA is not nearly as dangerous as folk believing that other breeds can't be.

Exactly PF.

Moselle....you state it is a "fact" that pitbulls are DA...how then do you explain the many that aren't?

[Marley'z Mum]

Your reaction is typical of the lynch mob mentality that the mass media thrives on, the Pit Bull is much maligned and often innocent of wrong doings so much so it has a name-Brown Dog Syndrome, the general public is so adament that every dog attack by a medium sized dog is a Pit Bull rampage

People are passionate about defending the Pit Bull and other Bullies against the horrible prejudices that are heaped on them by the (largely) ill informed public. Ignorance is a killer and too many people have had their beloved family pets killed due to looking like a Pit Bull.

It annoys me that if a Pit Bull is slandered and abused people are not meant to defend them but anybody should be allowed to defend their breed from nasty verbal attacks and if it comes accross as over defensive, well no wonder.

Lest we forget.....The 1000's of Pitbulls killed by people with the same thoughts as yours.

Here Here!!!

[Dame Aussie]

It seems inevitable that whenever there are dog attacks by dogs perceived as "pitbulls" ...people start jumping up and down. It is well about time that lovers of this breed start acknowledging the fact that pitbulls are indeed DA. It really annoys me to no end when all kinds of excuses are entered into. The typical and most popular excuse ? Ah....it cannot possibly be a purebred pitbull, it just has to be a crossbreed. WTF. It is all too easy to say that all dogs involved in killing or maiming people or animals are not purebred pitbulls but a cross. Well, you tell me...if it is a cross then which part of that cross should be deemed DA or HA? Lest we forget....let us not name the pitbull part of the equation or else!

Your reaction is typical of the lynch mob mentality that the mass media thrives on, the Pit Bull is much maligned and often innocent of wrong doings so much so it has a name-Brown Dog Syndrome, the general public is so adament that every dog attack by a medium sized dog is a Pit Bull rampage

People are passionate about defending the Pit Bull and other Bullies against the horrible prejudices that are heaped on them by the (largely) ill informed public. Ignorance is a killer and too many people have had their beloved family pets killed due to looking like a Pit Bull.

It annoys me that if a Pit Bull is slandered and abused people are not meant to defend them but anybody should be allowed to defend their breed from nasty verbal attacks and if it comes accross as over defensive, well no wonder.

Lest we forget.....The 1000's of Pitbulls killed by people with the same thoughts as yours.

So true, people always being asked why they would have that breed rather than another....well why would one get a maltese, a kelpie, a mastiff etc etc etc? Yet owners of any other breed don't get hassled.

Why should Pitbull owners have to justify their breed of choice?!

[Moselle]

There is actually quite a bit more in the hard copy article

"RSPCA ACT Chief executive, Michael Linke, who owns an american pit bull terrier, said it was a much maligned breed and that the dogs which attacked Harry could have been mastiffs, staffordshire bull terriers or cross breeds. He said ACT Legislation requiring people to hold a licence in order to keep a dog that had been declared dangerous by the DAS registrar was better than a blanket ban on any particular breed.

Any dog is capable of any act, irrespective of its breed and that type of legislation (as exists in the ACT) doesn't single out any one breed as being more dangerous than any other, he said.

We are 100 per cent opposed to vicious dogs in our community...

Pit bulls are subject to ownership restrictions in NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria"

How wonderful of Mr. Michael Linke - to put it mildly, he is full of shit. So it is okay for him to state that the pitbull is a much maligned breed yet he has the gaul to point the finger at mastiffs, staffordshire terriers or crossbreeds. He really should take a long hard look at himself before sprouting such unadulterated rubbish.

Exactly which part of the APBT being "much maligned" did you think was full of shit Moselle?

Mr Linke is one of the reasons we don't have BSL here in the ACT. His point is valid - it could have been any one of a number of breeds or crossbreeds. I'm guessing the attackers were dogs though.

Please, Mr. Linke is quick to imply that the dog responsible is not a pitbull yet is quick to say that it may have been a staffordshire bull terrier or mastiff! I would have thought that common sense should have been exercised and by rights Mr. Linke should not have mentioned any other purebred dog! He is a contradiction in terms.

[Moselle]

It seems inevitable that whenever there are dog attacks by dogs perceived as "pitbulls" ...people start jumping up and down. It is well about time that lovers of this breed start acknowledging the fact that pitbulls are indeed DA. It really annoys me to no end when all kinds of excuses are entered into. The typical and most popular excuse ? Ah....it cannot possibly be a purebred pitbull, it just has to be a crossbreed. WTF. It is all too easy to say that all dogs involved in killing or maiming people or animals are not purebred pitbulls but a cross. Well, you tell me...if it is a cross then which part of that cross should be deemed DA or HA? Lest we forget....let us not name the pitbull part of the equation or else!

Well if rangers, media and the general public hadn't got it wrong so many times when it comes to identifying any dogs, people wouldn't question it constantly.

If your dog had been put down because it was deemed it looked like a pitbull, maybe you'd ask the questions too.

People want and demand clarity when it comes to these issues because there is so much at stake, not because they have rose tinted glasses on, and think that all pitbulls are angels, i don't care what breed done what as long as you know for sure what happened.

I do not believe that rangers are the closest thing to psychics. They suck, in fact, when it comes to identifying breeds and should never be put in a position of making assumed and poor guesses! I also find it completely appaling that innocent dogs resembling pitbulls have been destroyed. Even purebred pitbulls have their place in society and should not be destroyed simply because of their breeding.

[casowner]

Mr Linke was more than likely making comments regarding those breeds as they are reasonably close in appearance to an APBT and also the crosses, it makes more sense to mention those breeds than say that they may have been Poodles, Chinese Cresteds or cross breeds (Sorry if anyone that owns one of these breeds is offended by that comment)

I think it is commendable that he was "sticking up for" rather than "sticking it to" the APBT