Youngster Mauled In Dog Attack

[MolassesLass]

Some are just more dangerous than others. Do you think the press deliberately excludes attacks out of the news by what is regarded as non dangerous breed? I don't think so.

I have yet to see in the news Toy Poodle kills young child.

Why do suppose that is?

I'm sick of people defending dangerous breeds.

Because Poodles are considered sissy dogs for sissy people and so not owned by the type who like to breed/raise thug dogs.

Secondly, because the most often owned Poodles would be miniatures or toys so if a child gets bitten, the wound is small and not enough to require hospital attention. Certainly not enough to create a "newsworthy" picture of a face full of stitches.

That's right, I agree.

Excellent! So, no more rants about breeds then, just rants about owners.

[poodlefan]

Some are just more dangerous than others. Do you think the press deliberately excludes attacks out of the news by what is regarded as non dangerous breed? I don't think so.

I have yet to see in the news Toy Poodle kills young child.

Why do suppose that is?

I'm sick of people defending dangerous breeds.

Because Poodles are considered sissy dogs for sissy people and so not owned by the type who like to breed/raise thug dogs.

Secondly, because the most often owned Poodles would be miniatures or toys so if a child gets bitten, the wound is small and not enough to require hospital attention. Certainly not enough to create a "newsworthy" picture of a face full of stitches.

That's right, I agree.

Ah, I miss the days of People Against Poodles (a very funny website IMO)

They collected headlines like "Poodle kills two in Buenos Aires" In that case a poodle falling from a high rise apartment landed on someone killing them. A passer by got distracted by the incident and hit by a car as a result. From memory the poodle lived.

The moment anti BSL folk start comparing banned breeds with any other in terms of the danger dogs present you know they really don't understand what they're arguing against. The moment they try to suggest that any dog is as capable of maiming a child as any other you know they're not thinking the issue through. Size matters.

It is not breeds that are dangerous but the people that own them. Based on the sort of folk attracted to large breeds like Filas and Presas it doesn't break my heart that they are banned from import. But Australian BSL is ineffective, distracts from the real issue and has done untold damage to a breed that simply doesn't deserve the reputation.

An enforced lifetime ban on dog ownership for any owner of any dog that attacks would probably do more good than banning the breed.

[Puppoochi]

Some are just more dangerous than others. Do you think the press deliberately excludes attacks out of the news by what is regarded as non dangerous breed? I don't think so.

I have yet to see in the news Toy Poodle kills young child.

Why do suppose that is?

I'm sick of people defending dangerous breeds.

Because Poodles are considered sissy dogs for sissy people and so not owned by the type who like to breed/raise thug dogs.

Secondly, because the most often owned Poodles would be miniatures or toys so if a child gets bitten, the wound is small and not enough to require hospital attention. Certainly not enough to create a "newsworthy" picture of a face full of stitches.

That's right, I agree.

Excellent! So, no more rants about breeds then, just rants about owners.

Dangerous breeds have the ability to inflict fatal injuries.There's no denying it. Constant news reports make that apparent.

[poodlefan]

Poodiful:

Dangerous breeds have the ability to inflict fatal injuries

There's no such thing as a "dangerous breed". By that definition, any breed larger than about 15kg would be "dangerous".

My friend's 10kg Miniature Poodle put 20 stitches in her arm. If he'd hit a vein or artery that attack might well have been fatal.

Edited September 15, 2010 by poodlefan

[aussielover]

Some are just more dangerous than others. Do you think the press deliberately excludes attacks out of the news by what is regarded as non dangerous breed? I don't think so.

I have yet to see in the news Toy Poodle kills young child.

Why do suppose that is?

I'm sick of people defending dangerous breeds.

Because Poodles are considered sissy dogs for sissy people and so not owned by the type who like to breed/raise thug dogs.

Secondly, because the most often owned Poodles would be miniatures or toys so if a child gets bitten, the wound is small and not enough to require hospital attention. Certainly not enough to create a "newsworthy" picture of a face full of stitches.

That's right, I agree.

Excellent! So, no more rants about breeds then, just rants about owners.

Dangerous breeds have the ability to inflict fatal injuries.There's no denying it. Constant news reports make that apparent.

What do you mean by dangerous breeds?

Do you consider GSDs, lab, border collies etc dangerous because they are big to inflict fatal injuries?

[poodlefan]

I've posted this before but here's the science on what makes dogs dangerous:

Some questions to ponder.

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.

[Jed]

Podiful

Do you think the press deliberately excludes attacks out of the news by what is regarded as non dangerous breed? I don't think so.

As a matter of fact, they do. They have always done so, ever since govs began trying to introduce legislation to ban pitbulls.

If there is an attack on a person by a lab or a GSD or a poodle, it receives much less air time than an attack by a pitbull on a cat does. I had proof, but unfortunately, it has gone. Every dog which attacks is labelled "pitbull" by the media, who have scant regard for the truth.

But I do have some US informatiion - in Kentucky in 2005, there was a fatality by a pitbull, and another by 2 mixed breed dogs - reported as pitbulls. As soon as the second attack was ascertained not to be by pitbulls, the story was dropped. Stories such as "Pit Bull Attack" where 2 pitbulls were supposed to have attacked an elderly man and his small dog. Neither were injured. So, where is the attack? I never see anything about other breeds attacking like this, although it does happen.

Don't be led by the nose by the media!! I've posted in the past in the BSL forum about which breeds have caused fatal attacks. You might be surprised.

A Fox Terrier killed a child in Australia - at about the same time, another child was attacked by a bulldog, and suffered only bruising.

It is not the breed or the size of the dog which is important, it is the level of bite inhibition, and that is determined by many factors.

[Crisovar]

Shock horror, what a surprise. NOT!!!

yet another bull something or rather being responsible for another attack.

It's the deed not the breed Blah Blah Blah, so sick of hearing it.

Sorry but the d!ckheads that own these sorts breeds have much to answer for.

Who cares what sort of bull it was, some breeds are just dangerous, start and end of story.

If you chose to breed a dangerous breed, you may be responsible for selling them to irresponsible d!ckheads.

FFS here we go again.

I almost lost my face to a poodle I was grooming, would you classify Poodles as a dangerous breed??

ALMOST is the critical word here, now isn't it.

Why?? If I was a child I would have lost my face, the dog was deadly serious, it was dangerous.

Any breed can inflict terrible injuries you would certainly have your head in a dark warm place not to understand that.

What child grooms poodles for a living? Some dogs are easier to groom than others, some dogs hate it and find the groomer to be threatening, they cannot flee, so they fight.

If you think that a toy poodle can inflict the same injury as a bull something or other it is you that's got your head in a dark warm place not me???

I didn't say it was a toy poodle if I recall.

Any dog that is happy to launch itself at the face of a person is dangerous regardless of breed or size.

I required plastic surgery as a child to repair damage done by a small dog, way under 10kg, no bull breed in it all.

Did it make the news? no, dog bites didn't back then, today it seems to be very newsworthy and we shoot the dog before we even know why or what happened.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Do you think the press deliberately excludes attacks out of the news by what is regarded as non dangerous breed? I don't think so.

On what grounds do you not think so ?

Have a look at local and state statistics pertaining to the volume of reported dog attacks.

Like I say, alot of people seem to think that the only time a dog attack occurs is when it is reported in the media. If these were infact the total sum of attacks people should be throwing a party not complaining.

eta

If there is an attack on a person by a lab or a GSD or a poodle, it receives much less air time than an attack by a pitbull on a cat does. I had proof, but unfortunately, it has gone.

Evidence abounds.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Lo Pan

[Puppoochi]

Some are just more dangerous than others. Do you think the press deliberately excludes attacks out of the news by what is regarded as non dangerous breed? I don't think so.

I have yet to see in the news Toy Poodle kills young child.

Why do suppose that is?

I'm sick of people defending dangerous breeds.

Because Poodles are considered sissy dogs for sissy people and so not owned by the type who like to breed/raise thug dogs.

Secondly, because the most often owned Poodles would be miniatures or toys so if a child gets bitten, the wound is small and not enough to require hospital attention. Certainly not enough to create a "newsworthy" picture of a face full of stitches.

That's right, I agree.

Excellent! So, no more rants about breeds then, just rants about owners.

Dangerous breeds have the ability to inflict fatal injuries.There's no denying it. Constant news reports make that apparent.

What do you mean by dangerous breeds?

Do you consider GSDs, lab, border collies etc dangerous because they are big to inflict fatal injuries?

I'm talking about dogs that were bred for guarding, protecting and fighting. The ones that are always in the NEWS.

[Puppoochi]

Poodiful:

Dangerous breeds have the ability to inflict fatal injuries

There's no such thing as a "dangerous breed". By that definition, any breed larger than about 15kg would be "dangerous".

My friend's 10kg Miniature Poodle put 20 stitches in her arm. If he'd hit a vein or artery that attack might well have been fatal.

You're comment is a speculation

[poodlefan]

Poodiful:

Dangerous breeds have the ability to inflict fatal injuries

There's no such thing as a "dangerous breed". By that definition, any breed larger than about 15kg would be "dangerous".

My friend's 10kg Miniature Poodle put 20 stitches in her arm. If he'd hit a vein or artery that attack might well have been fatal.

You're comment is a speculation

Yes, it is.

Your comment about breeds that "have the ability" to inflict fatal injury is speculative catergorisation also. You're labelling dogs based on potential, not bite history. How speculative is that? You'd have dogs labelled dangerous based on no attack history whatsoever. It may interest you to know that the number one dog for bites in Canada is a gundog. Shall we add Golden Retrievers to the "dangerous dogs" list now?

You're categorising dogs based not on what they HAVE done but what they MIGHT be capable of. That Miniature Poodle could have killed my friend. He sure made a mess of her arm. Unlike so many dogs you'd like to see labelled dangerous, that dog had actually inflicted harm.

A fierce resource guarder with very little bite inhibition can do that when a person impulsively tries to take a stolen bone. His breed had bugger all to do with it.

Edited September 15, 2010 by poodlefan

[Moselle]

Shock horror, what a surprise. NOT!!!

yet another bull something or rather being responsible for another attack.

It's the deed not the breed Blah Blah Blah, so sick of hearing it.

Sorry but the d!ckheads that own these sorts breeds have much to answer for.

Who cares what sort of bull it was, some breeds are just dangerous, start and end of story.

If you chose to breed a dangerous breed, you may be responsible for selling them to irresponsible d!ckheads.

True to a degree but how can any breeder ever be 100% sure that the people purchasing a dog

will prove to be responsible owners and not irresponsible dickheads? Short of psychoanalyzing people one can never be too sure unfortunately.

[Puppoochi]

Poodiful:

Dangerous breeds have the ability to inflict fatal injuries

There's no such thing as a "dangerous breed". By that definition, any breed larger than about 15kg would be "dangerous".

My friend's 10kg Miniature Poodle put 20 stitches in her arm. If he'd hit a vein or artery that attack might well have been fatal.

You're comment is a speculation

Yes, it is.

Your comment about breeds that "have the ability" to inflict fatal injury is speculative catergorisation also. You're labelling dogs based on potential, not bite history. How speculative is that? You'd have dogs labelled dangerous based on no attack history whatsoever. It may interest you to know that the number one dog for bites in Canada is a gundog. Shall we add Golden Retrievers to the "dangerous dogs" list now?

You're categorising dogs based not on what they HAVE done but what they MIGHT be capable of. That Miniature Poodle could have killed my friend. He sure made a mess of her arm. Unlike so many dogs you'd like to see labelled dangerous, that dog had actually inflicted harm.

A fierce resource guarder with very little bite inhibition can do that when a person impulsively tries to take a stolen bone. His breed had bugger all to do with it.

I suggest you look up the definition of speculation.

[Puppoochi]

Shock horror, what a surprise. NOT!!!

yet another bull something or rather being responsible for another attack.

It's the deed not the breed Blah Blah Blah, so sick of hearing it.

Sorry but the d!ckheads that own these sorts breeds have much to answer for.

Who cares what sort of bull it was, some breeds are just dangerous, start and end of story.

If you chose to breed a dangerous breed, you may be responsible for selling them to irresponsible d!ckheads.

True to a degree but how can any breeder ever be 100% sure that the people purchasing a dog

will prove to be responsible owners and not irresponsible dickheads? Short of psychoanalyzing people one can never be too sure unfortunately.

Correctamundo, a breeder cannot, so yes they are responsible to an extent.

[poodlefan]

I suggest you look up the definition of speculation.

Thanks but I know what it means:

speculation - a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence);

or, "a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence"

Where is your hard evidence for this categorisation of "dangerous breeds"

I'm talking about dogs that were bred for guarding, protecting and fighting. The ones that are always in the NEWS.

You've lumped a whole bunch of dogs into the categorisation of "dangerous" without a shred of hard evidence that they deserve the label. That, my dear, is case book speculation.

The number one breed for bites in THIS country (based on victim reports) is a HERDING BREED.

I suggest you worry less about my vocabulary and more about finding some actual basis in fact for your comments. Please don't seriously suggest that any breed identification in newspaper report of an attack is likely to have any basis in fact.

I wish you could understand that breed is no reliable indicator of danger and equally no indicator of safety when it comes to human aggression.

Edited September 15, 2010 by poodlefan

[Puppoochi]

Look at all the bullies ganging up on me, with their rhetoric or should I say bullsh!it, I'm sick of the bullies defending the bullies, but that's what bully owners are generally like and you are all not going to convince me or the general public that certain breeds are not more dangerous than others.

Edited September 15, 2010 by poodiful1

[Souff]

Short of psychoanalyzing people one can never be too sure unfortunately.

Ya mean ya don't psychoanalyse your puppy buyers?

Never occurred to Souff NOT to do it .......... and if they don't return after their 4th session with Souff :D they've got theirs & Buckleys of ever getting a pup!

[Bullbreedlover]

I wish people would stop declaring breeds as dangerous.

Each individual dog is capable of being dangerous.

And yes I defend the bullbreeds because I own them.

[poodlefan]

Look at all the bullies ganging up on me, with their rhetoric or should I say bullsh!it, I'm sick of the bullies defending the bullies, but that's what bully owners are generally like and you are all not going to convince me or the general public that certain breeds are not more dangerous than others.

For pity's sake.. please explain how me disagreeing with your statements is now "bullying". How tiresome that accusation is becoming on this forum when people seek to distance themselves from their failing arguments.

I would remind you I'm not the one who suggested that another poster's vocabulary was lacking. Personal attack anyone?

I can only recommend that you read the studies, read the bite stats and do your own homework. There isn't a case on record of breed specific legislation reducing the incidence of dog attacks in a community. I commend to you the study on the impact of owner education in reducing attacks in Calgary in Canada. There is plenty of hard evidence about that on the net. None of this is rhetoric. The evidence is there for all to see.

If you want an Oz example, ponder how the the incidence of the dog attacks in the closest NSW shire to me has RISEN (no, that's not a typo folks) since the introduction of BSL in that state.

Perception is NOT reality when it comes to breeds and the danger they represent. I'm sorry but there is simply no evidence I can find to support the efficacy of breed bans. If you can come up with some, please post it.

Edited September 15, 2010 by poodlefan