"pit Bull" Attacks Maltese In Canberra

[geo]

Well, the two dogs that were taken to DAS for the ID parade were not picked out by the victim as the offending dogs.

So, either the carer/owner of the dogs was very mistaken about their potential or the victim really didn't get a good enough look, wasn't sure enough, has embellished their memory about what the dogs look like, or, quite possibly, there actually are two other dogs in the general vicinity that fit the description he provided but nobody else has seen them or is going to own up that they have them.

Hmmmm.

I know which scenario makes the most sense to me.

Can you fricken blelive it! See Moselle people can be mistaken, mislead, whatever they are.. blaming pitbulls for everything and you were only to happy to belive it!

It seems that everyone who responded to this thread was on the side of Mr Linke and he has clearly been vindicated, all this slandering and sensationalism for media sake, to sell papers. How about a little truth, like,"2 dogs attacked", "or i don't know what breed they were".

[Moselle]

Well, the two dogs that were taken to DAS for the ID parade were not picked out by the victim as the offending dogs.

So, either the carer/owner of the dogs was very mistaken about their potential or the victim really didn't get a good enough look, wasn't sure enough, has embellished their memory about what the dogs look like, or, quite possibly, there actually are two other dogs in the general vicinity that fit the description he provided but nobody else has seen them or is going to own up that they have them.

Hmmmm.

I know which scenario makes the most sense to me.

Can you fricken blelive it! See Moselle people can be mistaken, mislead, whatever they are.. blaming pitbulls for everything and you were only to happy to belive it!

It seems that everyone who responded to this thread was on the side of Mr Linke and he has clearly been vindicated, all this slandering and sensationalism for media sake, to sell papers. How about a little truth, like,"2 dogs attacked", "or i don't know what breed they were".

Honestly, some of you have got to be either stupid or nasty! Some of you are such insidious individuals who take great delight in twisting and turning everything around to suit yourselves. I have never agreed with people blindly pointing the finger and blaming the pitbull for dog attacks and my posts clearly indicate such. How f***ing dare you say that I agree with people assuming that dog attacks are indeed carried out by pitbulls? At the end of the day, you cannot educate mugs and no matter how much I try to explain my views in detail there always has to be one or two individuals raising their ugly heads and be completely spiteful with whoever does not agree with their point of you, which is what you are trying to achieve with your quote above.

[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!

Moselle, calm down.

Above is your first post, you believed it was pits that attacked the dog. Everyone just wants the truth and I (as will everyone else it seems) will stick up for any breed until it's proven guilty.

The fact that it happens more with pitbulls than any other breed would've led Mr Linke to make such comments, and comments that most educated dog owners would've made.

I know you're against BSL, I get the feeling you don't like pitbulls, but hey that's your choice, you just have to understand that people will give you a serve when you have a rant like you did in the post above.

[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!

Moselle, calm down.

Above is your first post, you believed it was pits that attacked the dog. Everyone just wants the truth and I (as will everyone else it seems) will stick up for any breed until it's proven guilty.

The fact that it happens more with pitbulls than any other breed would've led Mr Linke to make such comments, and comments that most educated dog owners would've made.

I know you're against BSL, I get the feeling you don't like pitbulls, but hey that's your choice, you just have to understand that people will give you a serve when you have a rant like you did in the post above.

I was stating the obvious after having read Mr. Linke's statement as I read it to be very hypocritical and simply trying to defend his breed of choice. When is it okay to imply that the attack on poor Harry COULD have been carried out by a staffie or a mastiff or crossbreeds and yet not okay to imply a pitbull? Yes, I too, am in fairness for all breed of dogs and NOT just the pitbull!

[geo]

I was stating the obvious after having read Mr. Linke's statement as I read it to be very hypocritical and simply trying to defend his breed of choice. When is it okay to imply that the attack on poor Harry COULD have been carried out by a staffie or a mastiff or crossbreeds and yet not okay to imply a pitbull? Yes, I too, am in fairness for all breed of dogs and NOT just the pitbull!

You didn't even mention him in your first post, you were just outraged that people could believe it wasn't a pitbull.

I know where you're coming from it happens all the time on here, like you said people jumping to defend them, but history has proven them right time and again.

No, it's not right to imply innocent dogs, but when is it right to imply any dog attack as a pitbull, which more often than not is exactly what happens.

I feel you took Mr Linkes comments out of context, and that is your perspective, whereas I feel he was merely explaining what happens at nearly every dog attack where a pitbull has been implicated.

He didn't say it couldn't have been a pitty, just that people are mistaken when it comes to breed ID. It's the same with SWF's I couldn't pick one of them or their crosses, they're all SWF's to me, i'd be glad to have someone like Mr Linke point out what it could've been.

[Oliversmum]

I was stating the obvious after having read Mr. Linke's statement as I read it to be very hypocritical and simply trying to defend his breed of choice. When is it okay to imply that the attack on poor Harry COULD have been carried out by a staffie or a mastiff or crossbreeds and yet not okay to imply a pitbull? Yes, I too, am in fairness for all breed of dogs and NOT just the pitbull!

You didn't even mention him in your first post, you were just outraged that people could believe it wasn't a pitbull.

I know where you're coming from it happens all the time on here, like you said people jumping to defend them, but history has proven them right time and again.

No, it's not right to imply innocent dogs, but when is it right to imply any dog attack as a pitbull, which more often than not is exactly what happens.

I feel you took Mr Linkes comments out of context, and that is your perspective, whereas I feel he was merely explaining what happens at nearly every dog attack where a pitbull has been implicated.

He didn't say it couldn't have been a pitty, just that people are mistaken when it comes to breed ID. It's the same with SWF's I couldn't pick one of them or their crosses, they're all SWF's to me, i'd be glad to have someone like Mr Linke point out what it could've been.

Well put Geo, I agree with you whole heartedly.

Moselle, as I said, I also understand where your coming from, I respect your right to an opinion, I just happen to disagree and that's OK. I guess we all interpret things differently hey. Just curiously, you asked me previously what breed I owned and referred to the dog in my avatar. Was there any reason for this or where you just clarifying?

[WillowGirl]

It is frustrating when the word 'pitbull' has become synonymous with 'scary/nasty' ......the media have a lot to answer for.

[Moselle]

I was stating the obvious after having read Mr. Linke's statement as I read it to be very hypocritical and simply trying to defend his breed of choice. When is it okay to imply that the attack on poor Harry COULD have been carried out by a staffie or a mastiff or crossbreeds and yet not okay to imply a pitbull? Yes, I too, am in fairness for all breed of dogs and NOT just the pitbull!

You didn't even mention him in your first post, you were just outraged that people could believe it wasn't a pitbull.

I know where you're coming from it happens all the time on here, like you said people jumping to defend them, but history has proven them right time and again.

No, it's not right to imply innocent dogs, but when is it right to imply any dog attack as a pitbull, which more often than not is exactly what happens.

I feel you took Mr Linkes comments out of context, and that is your perspective, whereas I feel he was merely explaining what happens at nearly every dog attack where a pitbull has been implicated.

He didn't say it couldn't have been a pitty, just that people are mistaken when it comes to breed ID. It's the same with SWF's I couldn't pick one of them or their crosses, they're all SWF's to me, i'd be glad to have someone like Mr Linke point out what it could've been.

Well put Geo, I agree with you whole heartedly.

Moselle, as I said, I also understand where your coming from, I respect your right to an opinion, I just happen to disagree and that's OK. I guess we all interpret things differently hey. Just curiously, you asked me previously what breed I owned and referred to the dog in my avatar. Was there any reason for this or where you just clarifying?

Yes, I was only trying to clarify. I haven't been here on this forum for all that long, that is all. From memory, you mentioned that people often confuse your dog for a pitbull (apologies if I am mistaken) and the picture on your avatar looks nothing like a pitbull. I do respect the fact that you have chosen to disagree, I dont hold grudges simply because people interpret things differently. Cheers.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Moselle

[Oliversmum]

I was stating the obvious after having read Mr. Linke's statement as I read it to be very hypocritical and simply trying to defend his breed of choice. When is it okay to imply that the attack on poor Harry COULD have been carried out by a staffie or a mastiff or crossbreeds and yet not okay to imply a pitbull? Yes, I too, am in fairness for all breed of dogs and NOT just the pitbull!

You didn't even mention him in your first post, you were just outraged that people could believe it wasn't a pitbull.

I know where you're coming from it happens all the time on here, like you said people jumping to defend them, but history has proven them right time and again.

No, it's not right to imply innocent dogs, but when is it right to imply any dog attack as a pitbull, which more often than not is exactly what happens.

I feel you took Mr Linkes comments out of context, and that is your perspective, whereas I feel he was merely explaining what happens at nearly every dog attack where a pitbull has been implicated.

He didn't say it couldn't have been a pitty, just that people are mistaken when it comes to breed ID. It's the same with SWF's I couldn't pick one of them or their crosses, they're all SWF's to me, i'd be glad to have someone like Mr Linke point out what it could've been.

Well put Geo, I agree with you whole heartedly.

Moselle, as I said, I also understand where your coming from, I respect your right to an opinion, I just happen to disagree and that's OK. I guess we all interpret things differently hey. Just curiously, you asked me previously what breed I owned and referred to the dog in my avatar. Was there any reason for this or where you just clarifying?

Yes, I was only trying to clarify. I haven't been here on this forum for all that long, that is all. From memory, you mentioned that people often confuse your dog for a pitbull (apologies if I am mistaken) and the picture on your avatar looks nothing like a pitbull. I do respect the fact that you have chosen to disagree, I dont hold grudges simply because people interpret things differently. Cheers.

Precisely. He is a South African Boerboel or South African Mastiff as some call them, and yes, my smaller bitch has been called a Pittbull before. This is why I understand why Mr Linke made the statement. Not to attack the mastiff, but to point out that many mistakes can be made regarding ID IMO. Anyway, I fully support and applaud anyone willing to take a stand against the constant and unfair wrap the the Pittbull gets from both media and public.