Child Killed By Dog

[Wobbly]

This is terrible.

My heart breaks when I read stories like this, for the poor little girl, for her family, and also for all the people who own good dogs - friendly, gentle APBT looking dogs who will be even further demonised as a result of this incident. The tragedies in cases like this ripple out in ever expanding waves, from the initial horror of the little girl having her life stolen in such a terrible way to community backlash causing innocent dogs who would never harm anyone being seized & PTS.

Understand dogs are individuals, and that aggression is independent of breed. It's a result of both nature & nurture, some dog are gregarious & friendly, some are fearful & aggressive, the breed is irrelevant.

You can't blame the breed. The owner is to blame: 100% absolutely. The particulars in this case speak of an avalanche of owner stupidity & negligence. Obviously since they own the dog, they must've known he had a propensity for aggression toward humans, yet they persisted in keeping him in a suburban neighbourhood. WTF? Why is this dog in suburbia to start with? Noone has any business keeping an aggressive dog of any large powerful breed in a suburban neighbourhood. The dog was obviously not kept adequately contained (even the best natured dogs should be kept well contained). Keeping a dog contained is incredibly simple, I don't understand how you could mess that up. Yet this fool owner did. The whole scenario was a tragedy waiting to happen. The owner should be jailed for negligent manslaughter.

The fact remains though - something needs to be done, and fast, children dying like this is absolutely unnacceptable. It simply shouldn't happen.

But blanket breed specific bans are ineffective, and manifestly unfair to good owners with good dogs. Each dog must be assessed on it's individual merits or lack thereof.

Personally, as the owner of a dog that could easily be fairly classified as "Pitbull Type" I would not be averse to her being temperament tested by a genuine expert (I mean a real expert - like Steve K9 Force or someone with a similar breadth & depth of experience & qualifications, not some council appointed clueless bozo). I know if my dog were to escape somehow, the first person who expressed interest in her on the street would be treated to a grinning, waggling, effusively friendly lick fest. She'd happily go with anyone who was friendly to her, which is great because it means she'd end up being taken to a vets & scanned for a microchip & thence returned to me quickly, no problems would ensue. Given the undeserved bad reputation my girl & dogs like her are unfairly saddled with, it would be nice to have an official piece of paper to prove her of sound temperament and no danger to anyone.

In that case the dogs need not be banned, people would be happy to register their dog as what it is - A Pit Bull or a cross thereof. IMO it would be far safer to have ALL large powerful breeds registered with council, so that their whereabouts, temperament and containment conditions are known. Current legislation means that owners use subterfuge & either don't register their dog, or register it falsely, and use every trick they can to evade council guidelines on responsible dog ownership & containment, which can and & does lead to tragedy. If legislation were such that owners would reigster their APBTs & crosses, then the dogs could be temperament tested & the good gentle, friendly ones could live like any other pet dog in the community, and those with a poor or suspect temperament could be dealt with (adequate containment, regitered as Restricted/Dangerous & all appropriate restrictions applied & policed by council. Tragedies like this wouldn't occur.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Wobbly

[poodlefan]

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.

Seems to me that I'm the only person so far to be called "stupid" in this thread.

Someone disagreeing with you is not "bullying". Where's the personal attack I'm alleged to have made on you.

The dog wasnt' a pitbull. Where does that leave your argument?

I wonder if this was a part time pigging dog??????

Edited August 18, 2011 by poodlefan

[Bindo]

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!!!!

I'd hardly call this the responsibility of the Beagle:

Beagle: The fatality was a strangulation caused by tugging on a leash which was around a child's neck.

and the retrievers:

Golden retriever: One dog responsible for an attack was rabid. Another accidentally strangled Kaitlyn Hassard, 6, of Manorville, Long Island, on 1/24/06, by tugging at her scarf.

Might be a good idea for everyone to read the fine print.

[Atanquin]

I don't think thy should put the dog down till after he has been look at and assessed if it was out of character for him and we don't know that it wasn't it needs to be looked into even if he was aggressive still needs to be looked into as it can help us find out more about why these attacks happen

[poodlefan]

I'd hardly call this the responsibility of the Beagle:

Beagle: The fatality was a strangulation caused by tugging on a leash which was around a child's neck.

and the retrievers:

Golden retriever: One dog responsible for an attack was rabid. Another accidentally strangled Kaitlyn Hassard, 6, of Manorville, Long Island, on 1/24/06, by tugging at her scarf.

Might be a good idea for everyone to read the fine print.

Why, no one's bothering on the breed attribution issue. ;)

[brightonrock]

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!!!!

I'd hardly call this the responsibility of the Beagle:

Beagle: The fatality was a strangulation caused by tugging on a leash which was around a child's neck.

and the retrievers:

Golden retriever: One dog responsible for an attack was rabid. Another accidentally strangled Kaitlyn Hassard, 6, of Manorville, Long Island, on 1/24/06, by tugging at her scarf.

Might be a good idea for everyone to read the fine print.

Great Reply. Beagles and Golden Retrievers are NOT the same as Pit Bulls

Edited August 18, 2011 by turkishdelight

[Angelina]

So you susggest we just ignore the high amount in the statistics???

just asking ...

can people really say, they are not more prone to attacking

[RottnBullies]

Ok, so the dog is not a pitbull.

Where does that leave us?

Unfortunately I think the damage has been done now, people are not going to care about It being a cross breed

But maybe Mathew B would kindly like to answer this one

[aussielover]

I don't think thy should put the dog down till after he has been look at and assessed if it was out of character for him and we don't know that it wasn't it needs to be looked into even if he was aggressive still needs to be looked into as it can help us find out more about why these attacks happen

Agree, I also want to know why the dog did it. It seems unusual for a dog to chase down a woman and barge into her house and then maul everyone in sight.

[poodlefan]

Great Reply. Beagles and Golen Retrievers are NOT the same as Pit Bulls

No, they're not. I'm guessing that was a big consolation to the parents of this child.

3-Year-Old Savaged by Labrador

Lucy Warren-Hill, aged 3, was playing in a neighbor's yard when the neighbor's brown labrador suddenly attacked her. According to one witness Lucy was playing with a toy which the dog tried to grab, becoming agitated the dog then attacked Lucy.

Lucy's grandmother, Jeanette White, said when they brought Lucy in from the garden: "I noticed that her face was covered in blood and her nose and forehead were cut up. Part of her nose looked like it was just coming away from her face."

Resource guarding.. very common in retrievers.. but not a universal attribute by any means.

Its generalising individual dog behaviours to breeds that leads to tragedy.. for dogs or people. Either way, its inaccurate and unsafe.

Edited August 18, 2011 by poodlefan

[aussielover]

So you susggest we just ignore the high amount in the statistics???

just asking ...

can people really say, they are not more prone to attacking

Perhaps its the people that choose to own them???

If you want a vicious dog looking dog that attacks people or a "guard dog" or a "pigging dog" you're not exactly going to get a SWF or even a beagle or golden retriever are you?

ETA= absolutely no offence meant to responsible people who love pitties, and I know there are many out there.

Unfortunately the "look" of the dog also seems to draw some undesirable owner is what I was trying to say

Edited August 18, 2011 by aussielover

[Bindo]

I'd hardly call this the responsibility of the Beagle:

Beagle: The fatality was a strangulation caused by tugging on a leash which was around a child's neck.

and the retrievers:

Golden retriever: One dog responsible for an attack was rabid. Another accidentally strangled Kaitlyn Hassard, 6, of Manorville, Long Island, on 1/24/06, by tugging at her scarf.

Might be a good idea for everyone to read the fine print.

Why, no one's bothering on the breed attribution issue. ;)

I did, this is what it said:

There is a persistent allegation by pit bull terrier advocates that pit bulls are over-represented because of misidentifications or because "pit bull" is, according to them, a generic term covering several similar types of dog. However, the frequency of pit bull attacks among these worst-in-10,000 cases is so disproportionate that even if half of the attacks in the pit bull category were misattributed, or even if the pit bull category was split three ways, attacks by pit bulls and their closest relatives would still outnumber attacks by any other breed.

[poodlefan]

can people really say, they are not more prone to attacking

No, I'm not.

Dogs bred for certain functions, bought for certain functions and possessing certain behaviours DO feature more prominently in serious dog attacks. But you can't generalise that out to individual dogs.

[aussielover]

can people really say, they are not more prone to attacking

No, I'm not.

Dogs bred for certain functions, bought for certain functions and possessing certain behaviours DO feature more prominently in serious dog attacks. But you can't generalise that out to individual dogs.

I don't think I said that

[Spudd]

I decided to remove my comment..

All i have to say is that Pitbulls can be awesome pets if trained and socialised well with kids and other dogs, just like any other breed.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Spudd

[APBT]

The media is just as much to blame for the rubbish i read on the web about "pitbulls". ive said it many times, 99% wouldent know a APBT for the life of them and these Zombies that are brainwashed by the media is just sad, it will never stop, but aslo i will never stop loving and owning APBT's

[trinabean]

This was a horrific, preventable tragedy. I'm heartbroken for the little girl, her family and all the people who have been traumatized by her death.

I hope the dogs owner is held fully accountable for her death.

I'm wary however of politicians spouting 'ban the breed' rhetoric. The idea may appeal to many of the voting public but a quick-fix solution is not the answer. As others have expressed more eloquently than me, the problem is complex and many crossbred mixes skew the statistics by being falsely identified as 'Pit bulls.'

I would consider the DOL community to be more breed-aware than the general public but many of us may not immediately identify a pit bull. Try this test:

My link

It took me 3 tries to pick the correct one...and I own a bull breed.

[poodlefan]

I wish people could grasp that BSL logic is fundamentally flawed.

Its the same as saying that "red cars are statisically more involved in high speed collisions so lets ban red cars".

It doesn't take into account the fact that its drivers that cause collisions.

The idea that a dog born dangerous by virtue of its genetics just simply isn't borne out in reality. Yes, some breeds of dogs ARE more likely to be involved in serious dog attacks. But that simply doesn't translate into:

* A dog is Breed X therefore it is dangerous, OR

* A dog is Breed Y therefore it is 'safe'.

Grasp that and we start to get somewhere.

[Aidan3]

Let's be careful with any sort of blanket statement. A great owner can have a high-risk dog, and a high-risk owner can have a great dog.

I would actually like to have an unemotive discussion on the factors that contribute to risk, but the timing is not right.

[poodlefan]

Let's be careful with any sort of blanket statement. A great owner can have a high-risk dog, and a high-risk owner can have a great dog.

I would actually like to have an unemotive discussion on the factors that contribute to risk, but the timing is not right.

True Aidan but its also fair to say that many "high risk" dogs never harm anyone due to careful management.

And I don't think its fair to say that breed alone makes ANY dog "high risk".

Edited August 18, 2011 by poodlefan