Youngster Mauled In Dog Attack

[Adnil444]

If you want to look at the BSL thread, there is a good discussion about BSL issues etc which you may find interesting. There is no blaming or flaming people, just a good discussion of people's thoughts, views etc. The thread is "To Unban Certain Breeds from BSL".

[malsrock]

malsrock

and as much as some hate to acknowledge the situation, the maullings are consistantly at a high ratio of Bull type breedings. They are not Golden Retrievers or Labrador based breeds that regularly feature nor are they GSD's or Rottweilers, most are Bull something cross breeds for the most part and where do they come from???..........

Sorry, malsrock, I am afraid you are incorrect. The bite statistics in this country, both before and after BSL featured the same breeds - Cattle Dogs, Labradors, German Shepherds, etc --- "pit bull terriers" were far down the list.

Unfortunately, like most of "the public", you believe what is presented to you by the media, which is that "bull breed" dogs perpetrate the most attacks.

Certainly, the dogs which head the list are the most popular, but pitbulls are under represented by numbers.

And when you consider that 10,000 "pitbulls" have been euthanased in Qld, and there has been no change to the bite stats, or the breeds which head the lists, you have to wonder exactly what good have the bans done?

Except make a lot of people believe the pitbull is some kind of implacable land shark.

The attacks serious enough to make headlines have been mostly Bull cross breeds over past couple of years. The next one the media publishes will be a Bull breed, wait and see :D

Fiona

Edited September 16, 2010 by malsrock

[Staranais]

The attacks serious enough to make headlines have been mostly Bull cross breeds over past couple of years. The next one the media publishes will be a Bull breed, wait and see :D

Fiona

I don't know if I'd want to believe that what was reported in the papers always reflected reality.

Case in point, this was just posted on DOL:

"According to numbers that I obtained through an FOI request a couple of years ago, in the time period of July 1, 2004 - August 15, 2007, 'pit bulls' accounted for 17.7% of all of the dog bites recorded by San Francisco animal control. So while bites by 'pit bulls' accounted for 17.7% of all bites, they accounted for 65% of all dog bite stories - -and 100% of the stories where the breed type was mentioned in the headlines."

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=205117

I read a similar article a few years back, although I've sadly lost it now, but it reported how pitbull attacks were often over reported, whereas attacks by non-pitbull dogs were ignored or only reported in the local papers.

I would be interested in seeing what proportion of council registered, responsibly owned, bull breed dogs were involved in attacks, compared with the proportion of other breeds. But to my knowledge, that research has never been done. I had a bash getting info from my local animal control 5 or 6 years ago to do a study like that, but the info just wasn't recorded appropriately for it to be analysed.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Staranais

[TessiesTracey]

The attacks serious enough to make headlines have been mostly Bull cross breeds over past couple of years. The next one the media publishes will be a Bull breed, wait and see :D

Fiona

I don't know if I'd want to believe that what was reported in the papers always reflected reality.

Case in point, this was just posted on DOL:

"According to numbers that I obtained through an FOI request a couple of years ago, in the time period of July 1, 2004 - August 15, 2007, 'pit bulls' accounted for 17.7% of all of the dog bites recorded by San Francisco animal control. So while bites by 'pit bulls' accounted for 17.7% of all bites, they accounted for 65% of all dog bite stories - -and 100% of the stories where the breed type was mentioned in the headlines."

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=205117

I read a similar article a few years back, although I've sadly lost it now, but it reported how pitbull attacks were often over reported, whereas attacks by non-pitbull dogs were ignored or only reported in the local papers.

I would be interested in seeing what proportion of council registered, responsibly owned, bull breed dogs were involved in attacks, compared with the proportion of other breeds. But to my knowledge, that research has never been done. I had a bash getting info from my local animal control 5 or 6 years ago to do a study like that, but the info just wasn't recorded appropriately for it to be analysed.

Exactly! I'm a member of another dog forum, mostly UK based, and it has amazed me how a forum full of people who normally fling themselves wholeheartedly on the 'oh another bull breed' band wagon have failed to see the two most recent dog / child related incidents :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...mauls-baby.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...mid-collie.html

[Quickasyoucan]

That's a very broad answer - what type of regulation?

Yes sorry, I haven't had the time to respond properly.

1. No crossbreeding should ever be allowed at all, and sales should be outlawed

2. One must obtain a permit/license to own certain breeds, before purchase is permitted, renewed annually

3. Owners must undertake a training course to own certain breeds

4. Owners must take dogs to obedience training at least once a month.

5. Owners must be members of breed clubs and must participate in all club activities.

6. Residences to be inspected by an animal control officer pre purchase.

I don't know, that's all I can think of atm

Basically, it should be difficult and expensive to own certain breeds. Please don't ask me which breeds I'm talking about because I don't really know the true statistics of offending dogs.

Also I would like to ad that from what you say about bite stats Jed, Cattle Dogs, Labradors, German Shepherds,are common and popular. So therefore it would be expected that these breeds with them being more prevelant, the bite rate would be higher.

Personally

Um staffordshire bull terriers are last time I looked in the top ten of popular breeds in this country, maybe even the top five. Sorry that blows your last assertion right out of the water Poodiful1, if you say popularity increases bite stats (which it probably does statistically by sheer numbers) then the same can be said for a "staffy" (inverted commas as I am talking about the generic "staffy" rather than proven purebred stafford) as can be said for a lab.

ETA: while we are on stats, it is pretty clear from the gold coast that focusing on breed is not doing a damn thing to alter bite statistics. The facts are there why keep flogging the same old rules and regs when they are obviously not working. Note that the UK (one of main proponents of BSL) is moving towards reversing the regs because they DO NOT WORK.

Instead of bickering about whether one breed is more dangerous than another, we should be listening to people who make sense like Karen Delise and doing something about the multiplicity of factors that come together to create the perfect conditions for an attack.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Quickasyoucan

[MolassesLass]

1. No crossbreeding should ever be allowed at all, and sales should be outlawed

2. One must obtain a permit/license to own certain breeds, before purchase is permitted, renewed annually

3. Owners must undertake a training course to own certain breeds

4. Owners must take dogs to obedience training at least once a month.

5. Owners must be members of breed clubs and must participate in all club activities.

6. Residences to be inspected by an animal control officer pre purchase.

I don't know, that's all I can think of atm

Sounds very expensive and unworkable. Given that councils can't even enforce having every dog registered with them, they'd never manage anything else. They can't even enforce no Pitbulls - I was driving behind a car yesterday with a great big sign "Pig Dog Pups - Pitbull x Arab x American Bulldog" the owners are ignorant to the law or don't care - either way, it isn't working.

Re #4 - Not everyone has access to an obedience club - have you ever lived rurally? - nor access to a club who's methods they can agree with. I agree that manners training (not obedience club stuff) is important but it simply isn't workable to insist every dog owner goes at all, let alone monthly. Do you really think that obedience training would prevent bites though? I'm certain dogs with obedience training have bitten before (and will in the future).

Re #5 - Again, not every breed has a breed club at all, let alone one in every state or one accessible for every owner. But why do you think paying money to a breed club and being forced to interact with these people would stop dog bites?

Basically, it should be difficult and expensive to own certain breeds. Please don't ask me which breeds I'm talking about because I don't really know the true statistics of offending dogs.

You seemed pretty sure earlier in this thread that the breeds were any that could be considered a bull breed - I'm really glad to see you're listening to the discussion and are retracting based on your lack of factual information.

How would you see the determination of breeds to go on this list? By your earlier criteria of dogs that could cause fatal injuries, that would be just about every breed. And then, why do we not care about severe injuries and mental scarring. Even a 2kg Chi. can rip the bottom lip from a child's face leaving permanent disfigurement - this should matter too. Which would lead to making ALL breeds come under these very strict, time-consuming and expensive regulations you've suggested. Which leads (assuming pigs fly and they are enforced 100%) to a reduction in dog ownership and dogs IMO - not something I'll ever be asking for!

Also I would like to ad that from what you say about bite stats Jed, Cattle Dogs, Labradors, German Shepherds,are common and popular. So therefore it would be expected that these breeds with them being more prevelant, the bite rate would be higher.

No that's incorrect. Bite rate is the number of bites per number of dogs, this accounts for popular breeds.

i.e.

If there are 100 Toy Poodles in Australia and 99 attacks by Toy Poodles then the bite rate is 99%.

If there are 10 Pitbulls in Australia and 1 attack by Pitbulls then the bite rate is 10%

If there are 1000 Bullmastiffs in Australia and 10 attacks by Bullmastiffs then the bite rate is 10%

When talking simply of number of bites, then breed numbers can bias the stats.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

The attacks serious enough to make headlines have been mostly Bull cross breeds over past couple of years. The next one the media publishes will be a Bull breed, wait and see

Fiona

More than likely.

And that will be evidence in support of our argument, not yours

[poodlefan]

Malsrock:

The next one the media publishes will be a Bull breed, wait and see

I think you left some words out:

The next one the media publishes will be reported as a Bull breed, wait and see.

As we all know, if its smooth coated, taller than a Toy Poodle and particularly if red or brindle ITS A PITBULL

Most journalists wouldn't know a bull breed if they fell over one and frankly neither would most of the general public.

From now on I think we should refer to Bullmastiffs as "Standard Pugs" and Mastiffs as "Giant Pugs". Believe me, at Deshonko we will.

[MolassesLass]

From now on I think we should refer to Bullmastiffs as "Standard Pugs" and Mastiffs as "Giant Pugs". Believe me, at Deshonko we will.

ETA:

And I'm way ahead of ya, here's the first meeting for our first cross of the Toy Pug and Standard Pug.

Edited September 17, 2010 by molasseslass

[poodlefan]

From now on I think we should refer to Bullmastiffs as "Standard Pugs" and Mastiffs as "Giant Pugs". Believe me, at Deshonko we will.

ETA:

And I'm way ahead of ya, here's the first meeting for our first cross of the Toy Pug and Standard Pug.

Have your people call my people.. I'll take the whole litter off your hands.

I love the smell of hybrid vinegar in the morning

Edited September 17, 2010 by poodlefan

[Puppoochi]

1. No crossbreeding should ever be allowed at all, and sales should be outlawed

2. One must obtain a permit/license to own certain breeds, before purchase is permitted, renewed annually

3. Owners must undertake a training course to own certain breeds

4. Owners must take dogs to obedience training at least once a month.

5. Owners must be members of breed clubs and must participate in all club activities.

6. Residences to be inspected by an animal control officer pre purchase.

I don't know, that's all I can think of atm

Sounds very expensive and unworkable. Given that councils can't even enforce having every dog registered with them, they'd never manage anything else. They can't even enforce no Pitbulls - I was driving behind a car yesterday with a great big sign "Pig Dog Pups - Pitbull x Arab x American Bulldog" the owners are ignorant to the law or don't care - either way, it isn't working.

Re #4 - Not everyone has access to an obedience club - have you ever lived rurally? - nor access to a club who's methods they can agree with. I agree that manners training (not obedience club stuff) is important but it simply isn't workable to insist every dog owner goes at all, let alone monthly. Do you really think that obedience training would prevent bites though? I'm certain dogs with obedience training have bitten before (and will in the future).

Re #5 - Again, not every breed has a breed club at all, let alone one in every state or one accessible for every owner. But why do you think paying money to a breed club and being forced to interact with these people would stop dog bites?

Basically, it should be difficult and expensive to own certain breeds. Please don't ask me which breeds I'm talking about because I don't really know the true statistics of offending dogs.

You seemed pretty sure earlier in this thread that the breeds were any that could be considered a bull breed - I'm really glad to see you're listening to the discussion and are retracting based on your lack of factual information.

How would you see the determination of breeds to go on this list? By your earlier criteria of dogs that could cause fatal injuries, that would be just about every breed. And then, why do we not care about severe injuries and mental scarring. Even a 2kg Chi. can rip the bottom lip from a child's face leaving permanent disfigurement - this should matter too. Which would lead to making ALL breeds come under these very strict, time-consuming and expensive regulations you've suggested. Which leads (assuming pigs fly and they are enforced 100%) to a reduction in dog ownership and dogs IMO - not something I'll ever be asking for!

Also I would like to ad that from what you say about bite stats Jed, Cattle Dogs, Labradors, German Shepherds,are common and popular. So therefore it would be expected that these breeds with them being more prevelant, the bite rate would be higher.

No that's incorrect. Bite rate is the number of bites per number of dogs, this accounts for popular breeds.

i.e.

If there are 100 Toy Poodles in Australia and 99 attacks by Toy Poodles then the bite rate is 99%.

If there are 10 Pitbulls in Australia and 1 attack by Pitbulls then the bite rate is 10%

If there are 1000 Bullmastiffs in Australia and 10 attacks by Bullmastiffs then the bite rate is 10%

When talking simply of number of bites, then breed numbers can bias the stats.

Oh for dog's sake, I'm not the fn prime minister, did you just bait me to rip me to sheds? ffs you wanted me to think about it and I did!!! You catch more bee with "molasses" than you do with vinegar.

I don't think it would matter what I said because you obviously have an agenda and that it is to EDUCATE ME. You should review your methods, they're very offputting

Edited September 17, 2010 by poodiful1

[MolassesLass]

Oh for dog's sake, I'm not the fn prime minister, did you just bait me to rip me to sheds? ffs you wanted me to think about it and I did!!! You catch more bee with "molasses" than you do with vinegar.

I don't think it would matter what I said because you obviously have an agenda and that it is to EDUCATE ME. You should review your methods, they're very offputting

I asked for your solutions because I was interested in what you had to say. You were posting like someone who felt they had the magic bullet and if you did have it, I wanted to know.

I didn't "rip you to shreds", I disagreed with your ideas. That's what people do in discussions - ask questions, share ideas, agree and disagree.

[SnoPaws]

People own large breed dogs for alot of reasons. For many of the joe public out there they are a status symbol for them. No ifs, no buts.

In saying that I also know of hard core bikers who own very small breeds.

Many people have no idea in the fact that dogs are dogs. Just like children are children. Just like some adults and not adults :D They need supervision.

They need to learn and be taught.

My step dad is what could probably be described as a soft core biker, he used to be hard core, he still has the bike and the gang just isn't interested in the drugs and crime now that he has his own kids

He owns a Jack Russel and a Samoyed ;) out of his four best buddies, one has a kelpie, the other two oodles , another two labs and the other an assortment of cross breds from the pound. Not a "bull" breed to be seen but then they are quite 'odd'

[Puppoochi]

Oh for dog's sake, I'm not the fn prime minister, did you just bait me to rip me to sheds? ffs you wanted me to think about it and I did!!! You catch more bee with "molasses" than you do with vinegar.

I don't think it would matter what I said because you obviously have an agenda and that it is to EDUCATE ME. You should review your methods, they're very offputting

I asked for your solutions because I was interested in what you had to say. You were posting like someone who felt they had the magic bullet and if you did have it, I wanted to know.

I didn't "rip you to shreds", I disagreed with your ideas. That's what people do in discussions - ask questions, share ideas, agree and disagree.

I was? where pray tell do you get that idea?

Also, it is obvious that you are trying to patronize me by this comment.

You seemed pretty sure earlier in this thread that the breeds were any that could be considered a bull breed - I'm really glad to see you're listening to the discussion and are retracting based on your lack of factual information. thumbsup1.gif

I was asked earlier what breeds I regarded to be dangerous, I replied ones that were breed for fighting guarding and protecting,

Edited September 17, 2010 by poodiful1

[Puppoochi]

And I still maintain that I'm sick of hearing "it's the deed not the breed", it's like a bunch of bible bashers trying to force their belief system onto others.

Edited September 17, 2010 by poodiful1

[TessiesTracey]

To no one in particular, but please read the two links from UK newspapers I put up on this very same page?

Gosh.. I mean.. how have I managed to own two 'bull' breeds for over ten years without incident if they're ALL so dangerous? Ooooh perhaps I'm NOT one of those delightfully phrased 'd!ckheads' some refer so eloquently to.

Yanno. For the record, I don't particularly like the moniker 'deed not breed'. To me it implies that an incident or deed has to take place before judging that incident / deed. What I DO like is the 'not breed' part.

Again, see two newspaper articles.

Edited September 17, 2010 by TessiesTracey

[Puppoochi]

To no one in particular, but please read the two links from UK newspapers I put up on this very same page?

Gosh.. I mean.. how have I managed to own two 'bull' breeds for over ten years without incident if they're ALL so dangerous? Ooooh perhaps I'm NOT one of those delightfully phrased 'd!ckheads' some refer so eloquently to.

Yanno. For the record, I don't particularly like the moniker 'deed not breed'. To me it implies that an incident or deed has to take place before judging that incident / deed. What I DO like is the 'not breed' part.

Again, see two newspaper articles.

Omg, here we go again, if you bother to read the whole thread, you will know that I am referring to the idiots that should never own a dog, let alone a powerful one.

[Puppoochi]

.

Edited September 17, 2010 by poodiful1

[Staffygirl88]

.

Make up your mind Poodifu1. First you say it's Bull breeds, and you weren't specific about the owners you just said anyone who owned them was a d!ckhead. Stop dissing certain breeds of dog, they can all attack and if you can't control one you shouldn't have one at all it's as simple as that. But in saying that, a lot of kids tease dogs thinking it's funny then cry 'foul' when they get bit. Parents need to be more vigilant with supervision with ALL breeds of dogs, not just dogs ORIGINALLY bred for fighting, guarding and protecting. I want my dog to be protective of myself and my son, I hope that if anyone breaks into my home that my dog will attack and protect us if need be as I would do the same for her if she was in danger.

[Puppoochi]

.

Make up your mind Poodifu1. First you say it's Bull breeds, and you weren't specific about the owners you just said anyone who owned them was a d!ckhead. Stop dissing certain breeds of dog, they can all attack and if you can't control one you shouldn't have one at all it's as simple as that. But in saying that, a lot of kids tease dogs thinking it's funny then cry 'foul' when they get bit. Parents need to be more vigilant with supervision with ALL breeds of dogs, not just dogs ORIGINALLY bred for fighting, guarding and protecting. I want my dog to be protective of myself and my son, I hope that if anyone breaks into my home that my dog will attack and protect us if need be as I would do the same for her if she was in danger.

My original post

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.

I never dissed any particular breed, the subtitle of this thread is after all

Youngster Mauled In Dog Attack, So which breed is it????

Edited September 17, 2010 by poodiful1