Miss Danni Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Banning, or making anything illegal, never works. Prohibition anyone? And isn't heroin banned and illegal? German Shepherds were a banned breed in this country for 50 years because farmers (a powerful lobby group at the time) promulgated the view that they were super killers that would kill sheep and people. This was despite the actual facts that of course, GSDs are a HERDING breed. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. "Pit bulls" are not the problem. Overseas research and experience cited by PF proves this to be the case. Instead of knee-jerk reactions, politicians need to sit down and look at why dogs bite, and what has been proven to prevent this (or mitigate it at least). BSL has been proven NOT to work. Fines for speeding do NOT work. New laws will not make unworkable senseless laws suddenly work. Banning "Pit bulls" will adversely affect the hundreds of families with loving, trained, reliable "pit bull" members. The morons with unsocialised, mean, aggressive "pit bulls" will just dump them and move onto another breed, or keep them even more underground since having something illegal will give them even greater "social status" amongst their peers. This poor family has suffered a tragic loss and I feel for them, but banning Pit Bulls will not bring back their daughter and it wont prevent future tragedies unfortunately. If only it were that simple. I am very surprised to hear Steve Austin take this point of view, I thought that he had more sense! RIP little girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew_B Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 (edited) If you check out the following website, you'll see something quite remarkable. Who would have thought that pitbulls would be BY FAR the most prolific attacking dog!!! Golden Retriever (all types) attacks: 10 Golden Retriever deaths (all types): 3 (incl. one from a rabid dog) Golden Retriever maimings (all types): 6 Pitbull (all types) attacks: 1,392 Pitbull (all types) deaths: 137 Pitbull (all types) maimings: 734 http://www.scribd.com/doc/11249213/Dog-Attack-Deaths-Maimings-US-Canada-September-1982-to-January-2008 Post edited... Edited August 18, 2011 by Matthew_B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 (edited) If you check out the following website, you'll see something quite remarkable. Who would have thought that pitbulls would be BY FAR the most prolific attacking dog!!! Golden Retriever (all types) attacks: 10 Golden Retriever deaths (all types): 3 (incl. one from a rabid dog) Pitbull (all types) attacks: 1,392 Pitbull (all types) deaths: 137 http://www.scribd.com/doc/11249213/Dog-Attack-Deaths-Maimings-US-Canada-September-1982-to-January-2008 Wow, you've discovered statistics. for you. Now go to the Centre for Disease Control and note what the people who research this stuff for a living say about the accuracy of breed attribution. Then go and have a look at the popularity of breeds in those countries. I'm mot saying for one minute that Pitbulls can't be dangerous. But that's a hell of a long way from "ALL pitbulls MUST be dangerous". Edited August 18, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew_B Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 No use arguing with you. You're obviously a pitbull fanboy and will not see anyone else's side of the story no matter how futile your argument is. I'm off for lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightonrock Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 May be that in Canada there were alot of bites from Retrievers, but how many were fatal? Zero - none! How many fatal pitbull attacks have we seen in the last few years? Far too many! Mathew, it would be nice if you actually checked the facts before making such assertions. Here, let me help. OMG - a Beagle was responsible for a fatal attack.. and retriever mixes.. ban them!!!! OMG look at the stats for the Pit Bulls Pit bull TYPES... and lets face it, if its over 20kg, not readily identifiable as another breed, and powerfully built, its a pitbull. All dog attack researchers are very wary of breed attribution and all note that it isn't helpful in understanding what makes a dangerous dog. Its a message few anti pitbull crusaders seem capable of grasping. 131 deaths attributed to the Pit Bull Terrier and 6 deaths attributed to the Pit Bull mixes or possibly types. 131 is by far the majority of fatalities. I think with those statistics and Cesar Milan's popularity the Pit Bull is probably more easily identifiable in USA and Canada than many other breeds. My focus in this forum topic is the Pitbull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 131 deaths attributed to the Pit Bull Terrier and 6 deaths attributed to the Pit Bull mixes or possibly types. 131 is by far the majority of fatalities. I think with those statistics and Cesar Milan's popularity the Pit Bull is probably more easily identifiable in USA and Canada than many other breeds. My focus in this forum topic is the Pitbull. Clearly. It's a pity that your focus can't be on what makes a dangerous dog because the answer than that is a hell of a lot more complex than "breed". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelina Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 If you check out the following website, you'll see something quite remarkable. Who would have thought that pitbulls would be BY FAR the most prolific attacking dog!!! Golden Retriever (all types) attacks: 10 Golden Retriever deaths (all types): 3 (incl. one from a rabid dog) Golden Retriever maimings (all types): 6 Pitbull (all types) attacks: 1,392 Pitbull (all types) deaths: 137 Pitbull (all types) maimings: 734 http://www.scribd.com/doc/11249213/Dog-Attack-Deaths-Maimings-US-Canada-September-1982-to-January-2008 Post edited... That was very interesting .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 The problem thought Matthew is that the breed info is flawed, so the dogs that are attributed to pitbull or type could actually be any short haired large cross. I would like to see breed reporting scrapped in academic papers until those writing them have more dog experience and understand the huge mistakes being made in breed ID. I've done a study on the cause of dog attacks and PF is spot on. What I wanted to do but couldn't was do extensive investigations into a few serious attacks to delve into the reasons for the attack and focus on background of the dog/owner combo. Until this is investigated and the gov admit that it is a human driven problem then attacks will continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RottnBullies Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I feel sick for what has happened and I feel sick thinking of what Is going to happen next My heart goes out to the little girls family.... may she R.I.P Thank you to PF for being the voice of reason as always, as each hate like comment I read, Is like a dagger in my heart A dog Is not born a killer, It Is made one by humans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Danni Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Mate you are a joke, you wont be killing anydog, and no dog will be going BERSERK due to car backfire, pathetic Sorry, but you are wrong there. Many years ago, I owned a dog that would attack something if your sandshoes made a high pitched squeek on the vinyl floor or closing a sticky window made a high pitched sound. This dog did not live with children and was MANAGED responsibly her whole life. Not a pleasant way to live for us, but she was happy! If children had been introduced into the family, she would have had to have been PTS. I'd have done it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lally Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I have just heard an eye-witness on the ABC. The dog, which was described by police as part pit-bull, part mastiff, escaped, crossed the street and went for a woman in the front yard. She ran into the house and the dog followed, forcing its way in, and attacked the two small children watching television. The surviving child is currently in surgery as the back of her head is severely damaged. The dog was finally dragged off by its owner, who, it is said, is seriously distressed. There is no news as to how the dog escaped. The police are not automatically charging him as, at this time, there's no evidence that he did anything wrong. The ABC also interviewed the Victorian president of the pit-bull association(?) who staunchly defended the breed, but to little avail. The eye-witness said that they're used to being surrounded by lions and other ferocious animals but they've never been subjected to an attack like this anywhere before. This poor, poor family was staying with their cousins, temporarily, as their house had recently burnt down. Whether this house had a front fence isn't the issue - many houses around my neck of the woods don't have front fences. I do, only because I have dogs. Fences or not, toddlers should be safe from marauding dogs in their own home. This is a nightmare scenario - the Herald Sun is now reporting that the little girl clung to her mother's leg as she was mauled to death - Jesus wept! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andisa Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 If that was one of my dogs it would be dead. No way in hell would I get it assessed - it would be getting the needle. I feel the same Raz - what sort of dog attacks and kills the moment it escapes it's yard? What ever excuse the owner has about the dog it will never undo the damage done. A small child has been killed, another seriously injured as well as an adult - if that was one of my dogs I would kill the bastard myself and would expect to be well and truly in the shit for failing the dog so bad that it was such a danger to society. That dog would have shown signs of being dangerous and should have been house accordingly - in a secure fully enclosed dangerous dog enclosure not regular house/yard fencing and managed in a safe and responsible way. The dog was let down by it's owner and an innocent family has paid the highest price possible, my heart goes out to them. So much for migrating to a safer place . Tougher laws will only make it harder for good genuine owners to own some breeds but it will not stop those who should never have them - get them.. Please be careful what you wish for - supporting the banning of one breed will open the flood gates to ban many - many more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 No use arguing with you. You're obviously a pitbull fanboy and will not see anyone else's side of the story no matter how futile your argument is. I'm off for lunch. Actually I'm a poodle and whippet owning female who's never owned and will never own an APBT and I live in one of the only places in Australia where it is still legal to own one. Matthew, you show me ONE place anywhere in the world where banning breeds has lead to a decrease in dog fatalities. I can tell you now that you won't find one. How is that a "futile" argument? Breed bans don't work. There are no simple solutions to the questions of what makes dangerous dogs. Until we as humans accept our responsiblity for creating such animals, children will continue to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelina Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Look, I think the pitbull is a beautiful dog, with the right owner, but can we really ignore, statistics totally like that ..... even the review of deaths in the SMH article, showing the amount of people involved in attacks in Australia in the last couple of years is disturbing.. Recent attacks by Pitbulls MAY 2011 Darwin Accounting manager Peter Chilman, 53, had his left thigh savaged when a pitbull attacked him. The father-of-two was protecting his silky terrier and two school girls at a bus stop. MARCH 2010 A 67-year-old woman had her arm nearly torn off by a pitbull cross she was looking after for her family in Victoria's far southwest. The woman suffered severe injuries to both arms, the right was almost severed, and needed surgery. The Staffordshire pitbull cross was put down by police. MARCH 2010 Kathy Bonic's arm was nearly severed after she was attacked by a pit bull-staffordshire cross in her regional Victorian flat. FEBRUARY 2010 Sunshine Coast woman Maud Isaak, 84, was still recovering from her injuries almost a month after a terrifying mauling by two illegal pitbull dogs. One dog was shot by police at the scene, the second was put down after its owner signed it over to the local council. Ms Isaak had her leg partly chewed off and damage caused to one of her eyes. OCTOBER 2009 Pitbull attack leaves a man in hospital and two dogs dead. In an unprovoked attack the animal killed one of the small dogs before setting on the other. When the owner attempted to his help his pets, the pitbull bit and latched on to his arm. Police and ambulance officers were unable to release the man from the dog's grasp for at least 20 minutes.The man suffered serious injuries to his hand and arm. APRIL 2008 A seven-year-old Sydney girl was left in a serious but stable condition in hospital after being mauled by a pitbull cross-breed in her Blacktown backyard Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/child-killed-in-dog-attack-at-st-albans/story-e6frfkvr-1226117002241#ixzz1VLD2qZJE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanquin Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I can see both sides of your arguments YES pit-bulls are a fighting breed and yes they are responsible for more attacks BUT it is still how they are trained it comes down to that and people that own fighting breeds should be training them like a responsible owner should but they don't because some of them like them to be mean dogs, so the poor dog suffers because he doesn't know any better because no one has shown him how to behave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnoPaws Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 May be that in Canada there were alot of bites from Retrievers, but how many were fatal? Zero - none! How many fatal pitbull attacks have we seen in the last few years? Far too many! Mathew, it would be nice if you actually checked the facts before making such assertions. Here, let me help. OMG - a Beagle was responsible for a fatal attack.. and retriever mixes.. ban them!!!! OMG look at the stats for the Pit Bulls Pit bull TYPES... and lets face it, if its over 20kg, not readily identifiable as another breed, and powerfully built, its a pitbull. All dog attack researchers are very wary of breed attribution and all note that it isn't helpful in understanding what makes a dangerous dog. Its a message few anti pitbull crusaders seem capable of grasping. PF it states at the top of that report that only dogs that were able to be accurately identified as a particular breed were included, any that weren't were omitted from the statistics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Danni Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I think we need to be careful here to distinguish between what the pitbull actually does and what BSL actually does. In the US, the pitbull and Rott account for disproportionately more dog bite related fatalities than would be expected, given their distribution. There are not enough pitbulls and Rotts to account for the number of fatalities they cause if they were just as likely to attack someone as any other breed (Sacks et al., 2000). What seems clear is that BSL doesn't stop this from happening (I'm not entirely clued up on the data that exists in support of this claim). It seems like an attractive proposition (hence it's support in the general public and media), but it doesn't actually solve the problem. It also ignores the fact that there are literally thousands of examples of really lovely pitbulls and Rotts out there who would be difficult to even purposefully provoke into this sort of incident. If BSL doesn't reduce harm, then there are other causal factors that need to be considered more urgently to reduce the incidence of this sort of thing happening in the future. Exactly right! Delving deeper into the stats MAY reveal that these types of dogs are disproportionately owned by people that have a propensity to violence themselves. Or are financially and educationally disadvantaged. Or it MAY reveal that the average witness (including rangers and police) have NO CLUE about breed identification - if it's black and tan it's a Rottweiler, if it's tall and muscular and white and tan, it's a pit bull. Or whatever. The point is, that these "stats" are not helpful in isolation and more needs to be done to find out the underlying causes of why these dogs (whatever breed) have attacked humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightonrock Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I have just heard an eye-witness on the ABC. The dog, which was described by police as part pit-bull, part mastiff, escaped, crossed the street and went for a woman in the front yard. She ran into the house and the dog followed, forcing its way in, and attacked the two small children watching television. The surviving child is currently in surgery as the back of her head is severely damaged. The dog was finally dragged off by its owner, who, it is said, is seriously distressed. There is no news as to how the dog escaped. The police are not automatically charging him as, at this time, there's no evidence that he did anything wrong. The ABC also interviewed the Victorian president of the pit-bull association(?) who staunchly defended the breed, but to little avail. The eye-witness said that they're used to being surrounded by lions and other ferocious animals but they've never been subjected to an attack like this anywhere before. This poor, poor family was staying with their cousins, temporarily, as their house had recently burnt down. Whether this house had a front fence isn't the issue - many houses around my neck of the woods don't have front fences. I do, only because I have dogs. Fences or not, toddlers should be safe from marauding dogs in their own home. This is a nightmare scenario - the Herald Sun is now reporting that the little girl clung to her mother's leg as she was mauled to death - Jesus wept! OMG How horrible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brightonrock Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 131 deaths attributed to the Pit Bull Terrier and 6 deaths attributed to the Pit Bull mixes or possibly types. 131 is by far the majority of fatalities. I think with those statistics and Cesar Milan's popularity the Pit Bull is probably more easily identifiable in USA and Canada than many other breeds. My focus in this forum topic is the Pitbull. Clearly. It's a pity that your focus can't be on what makes a dangerous dog because the answer than that is a hell of a lot more complex than "breed". Hey, avoid the personal attacks and bullying please. I've given my opinion and time, have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Ok, so the dog is not a pitbull. Where does that leave us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now