Child Killed By Dog

[SnoPaws]

Matthew are you aware of the difference between the American Pit Bull Terrier and the generic pitbull/staffy x that is being bred by bybers and is favoured by bogans. You do realise that the dog responsible for this attack and all of the attacks quoted is the latter and not the former??

Just quoting for Mattew_B incase he has me on his blocked list ;)

[Sticky]

Article from 2003 animal management conference.

http://www.aiam.com.au/resources/files/.../PUB_Pro03_67_74_Watson.pdf

Does breed specific legislation reduce dog aggression on humans and other animals? A review paper

S

[ravenau1]

Anyone who thinks that BSL won't eventually affect them and their dog, regardless of breed, is kidding themselves.

[poodlefan]

Anyone who thinks that BSL won't eventually affect them and their dog, regardless of breed, is kidding themselves.

I'm reasonably confident it will be a while before they come for smaller poodles but that ain't the point.

BSL doesn't work. It doesn't make communities safer and it won't stop some dog owners from putting the lives of children at risk.

[ravenau1]

But what happens when it doesn't work? Do they rescind the bans on specific breeds, or do they start adding more breeds to the list?

[poodlefan]

But what happens when it doesn't work? Do they rescind the bans on specific breeds, or do they start adding more breeds to the list?

We're living your scenario right now. Victoria has had BSL for years.. and another child is dead in horrific circumstances

What it will mean is more pain for those restricted breed owners who did the right thing and no impact whatsoever on the kinds of owners who created the problem in the first place.

A good place to clamp down would be on desexing and breeding.. no license, no ANKC membership.. no breeding.

Edited August 19, 2011 by poodlefan

[Sticky]

The authors of the following two papers first observed the testing of over 400 Category 1 and 2 dogs by

trained professionals. Dogs were subjected to a variety of everyday situations, such as approach by (and

contact from) strangers, exposure to other strange dogs, loud noises and threatening gestures from

strangers. Each dog was given a score ranging from 1 (non-aggressive) to 7 (very aggressive) for each

situation, and the scores were averaged for each breed. The researchers found that only 5% of the dogs

tested displayed excessive aggressive displays or aggressive behaviour in inappropriate situations. These

displays were associated with unusual movements from the human testers and the dogs’ apparent anxiety.

Moreover, high levels of aggression were not detected in any particular breed; in fact, bull terriers were the

breed most likely to display no aggressive behaviour at all (63% of individuals attained a score of 1,

compared to an overall proportion of 38% across all breeds).

In a follow-up study, the researchers subjected 70 golden retrievers to the same temperament test, and

obtained a very similar result: only 1.5% displayed aggressive behaviour in inappropriate situations. 58.57%

of the dogs did not show aggressive behaviour (a score of 1). The authors concluded that there was no

scientific basis for breed-specific legislation – this has led to a change in legislation, and the breed lists have

been withdrawn.

Schalke et al., (2008) Is breed-specific legislation justified? Study of the results of the temperament test of Lower Saxony, Journal of

Veterinary Behavior, 3:97-103.

Ott et al., (2008) Is there a difference? Comparison of golden retrievers and dogs affected by breed-specific legislation regarding

aggressive behaviour, Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 3:134-140.

www.rspca.org.au/assets/files/Science/Updates/ScienceUpdate21.pdf

S

[ravenau1]

My understanding is that at the moment the breed is 'restricted' rather than 'banned', I presume that a ban would entail the seizure and euthanising of any dog deemed to be a 'pitbull' (or just a pitbull type perhaps. Once all the 'pitbulls' are eradicated and dog attacks still occur, what then? Then another breed is demonised then banned? Then another?

ETA: I know this dog wasn't a pitbull, but the media and general public don't seem to care!

Edited August 19, 2011 by ravenau1

[black_dog]

I'm a real evidence-base person, and I can't believe how little there is. Surely there must be an Australian equivalent of that US/Canada report?

It is completely unacceptable dogs killing children, and the community demands action. (By 'community', I mean the 80% out there that will never be dog experts.) It is not the time to roll out 'deed not breed' or 'any dog can be dangerous' mantras, because the community is demanding action not reasons for no action.

Pointing out staffy / cross / appearance difficulties is not going to change their mind as it is quite obvious to a lay person that a 'pit bull' looking dog with a snarl is aggressive and dangerous.

The inadequacies of DNA testing or the responsibilities of owners are not satisfying the need for something to be done.

Matthew_B is representative of the community view, at least the people I meet and obviously most of the radio and print media. You aren't convincing him, so I would say you aren't changing anyone else's opinion.

The only thing that will change opinion (in my opinion) is evidence. What breeds injure and kill. How does home status affect outcomes. poodlefan, you demand evidence that BSL works. However, the responsibility seems to be the other way around, because as I said to lay people it's obvious.

Note: I'm not advocating BSL here, just trying to point out how these arguments with M_B look, and pushing my usual good-evidence barrow.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Matthew, I'm not talking from the perspective of a pitbull lover, I have never owned one and never will. I'm speaking from my experience as a researcher on dog aggression and the reason for dog attacks. The sad thing is you are ignorant and refuse to learn something new. You don't know what you are talking about on even the basics, there are no pit bull breeds! My one hope is that by debating you any journos that happen along will be able to read some facts and just maybe this made up nonsense will cease.

[poodlefan]

The only thing that will change opinion (in my opinion) is evidence. What breeds injure and kill. How does home status affect outcomes. poodlefan, you demand evidence that BSL works. However, the responsibility seems to be the other way around, because as I said to lay people it's obvious.

Note: I'm not advocating BSL here, just trying to point out how these arguments with M_B look, and pushing my usual good-evidence barrow.

You've missed the point.. its not about breeds. If the dog is big enough, it can kill. The fact that every argument Matthew B has raised has been shot down won't convince him because he's not thinking about the issue - he's feeling about it. He's formed a view from which no amount of evidence will dissuade him and he's hanging on tight.

I've cited repeatedly an example where a non-BSL approach to the issue of dangerous dogs IS WORKING. What more can you do to disprove an idea (breed bans work) than demonstrate a better approach. Sticky's provided the rest.

I live in a non-BSL state where pitbulls are allowed. Where are all the maimings and fatalities that MatthewB says are an inevitable outcome of such dogs in the community????

Meanwhile down in BSL central... what's happened?

Reverend Jo researches this stuff for a living.. and even she's making no headway with folk who will not listen because they are convinced (based on zero knowledge of the issue) that they are right.

Edited August 19, 2011 by poodlefan

[LizT]

An interesting thing happened to me yesterday morning when I went out to feed my horses.

As I was walking along and thinking about the ramifications and horror of this recent dog attack that had resulted in the death of a young child, suddenly out of nowhere a dog came rushing at me, on my own property, I can genuinely say I was startled out of my reflective mood with a shock. As the animal jumped up at me, leaving very muddy marks on my pants I saw that it was a solid but small dog, with a wide head and big white teeth (the dog was grinning but to the uninitiated one would only focus on the teeth, which were white and large!) The dog was dark and brindled in colour. The dog was clearly an entire.

It was our neighbours 8 months old Staffordshire Bull Terrier, "Buddy", who had gone through the fence, spotted me and decided to say "Good Morning". "You're a Buddy nuisence" I said to the pup who had dirtied my pants, which I would now have to go in and change as I had an appointment after I dropped my daughter off to school. Buddy looked very pleased with himself and followed me up the laneway back to the direction of his home where his young owner was calling him.

I thought about how on edge I had been and then began to think of how frightening this harmless little dog may be to someoneone who didn't know him or who wasn't comforable around dogs might be. Particulary after the recent event.

Also today at work I overheard some men saying that they expected to hear the sound of gunshots this weekend in the area (semi rural)they lived in as some of the "local boguns" (their words) did away with a few of their dogs???

Regardless of what people think is the root cause or what is to blame or what would best serve this situation...I believe their will be some ramifications of the most unsort kind.

Edited August 19, 2011 by LizT

[suziwong66]

The dog that killed this little girl wasn't a pitbull Matthew and you know it.

Hi Poodlefan,

can you please find me a link that refers to the dog's breed? i can't find anything in any of the media outlets i've searched. Ps. i'm not entering into the current debate, i'm just looking to find accurate media reports on the gawd awful tragic incident.

taa

[poodlefan]

The dog that killed this little girl wasn't a pitbull Matthew and you know it.

Hi Poodlefan,

can you please find me a link that refers to the dog's breed? i can't find anything in any of the media outlets i've searched. Ps. i'm not entering into the current debate, i'm just looking to find accurate media reports on the gawd awful tragic incident.

taa

I'll cite the ABC as probably the most likely to be accurate. The dog has been cited variously as a pitbull or amstaff cross Mastiff. My guess is that its a lot of things, including a bull breed.

Linky

[black_dog]

You've missed the point.. its not about breeds. If the dog is big enough, it can kill. The fact that every argument Matthew B has raised has been shot down won't convince him because he's not thinking about the issue - he's feeling about it. He's formed a view from which no amount of evidence will dissuade him and he's hanging on tight.

Yes it is about breeds - read the papers. And to be honest I have some sympathy, because some just look downright more scary. I am more afraid of some dogs than others, and everyone else is too.

If it is nothing to do with breeds then I'd love to see the research stats. I convince myself to fly on that basis, but with dogs I can't access the info. Even that US/Ca report missed the denominator ie how many of each type.

[k9angel]

I am astonished that so many of you continue to defend such a vicious, dangerous breed of dog. This is a breed that has been bred for one purpose only - to fight. There is no need for a fighting dog in modern society. Yes, other dogs can snap, but the statistics are stark. Even though pitbull breeds are vastly outnumbered in comparison to other dog breeds in our homes (more people have GR's or Lab's than a pitbull breed as family pet), they are by far the most prolific breed involved in deaths and maimings. It's got absolutely nothing at all to do with how the dog is raised or how it is treated. It's the dogs' primitive instinct to fight. Sure, some may be placid and never snap. But in my opinion, it's a risk that is not worth taking. That little girl died a terrifying, truly horrific and painful death right in front of her mother because someone wanted to have a fighting dog as their pet. There can be no excuses for the owner. This tragedy was completely preventable - if the owner of that dog had a non-fighting breed of dog, the chances are very slim to nil that this attack would have occurred. As far as I am concerned, in the eyes of the law a person who owns a fighting dog that kills or maims should be treated in the same category as owning a gun. It's time for tough penalties for owners of these dogs. A strong deterrent is required to stop people from breeding or buying these horrible dogs. The sooner they are extinct, the better off we'll all be.

Their upbringing can make a huge difference to the way they turn out.

Some dogs are loved and included as part of the family, as they should be, while others are left to fend for themselves, or left chained up in a backyard with no socialisation, and no interaction. Some are spurred on to be aggressive, other's are mere trophies - to be paraded by Macho wanna be's who haven't a clue about dogs.

I have mentioned this before on DOL, that my vet runs a doggy daycare where ppl drop off their dogs before they go to work and pick them up afterwards. Others are just dropped off 1-2 days a week for a play date.

All of those dogs, bar ONE - are small fluffies. Can you guess what the other is? Yep you got it, a pit bull terrier. She is the most sweetest, softest natured dog.

Watching her running around playing ever so gently with the littlies is adorable.

And no, she is not a pup, she is a mature dog.

Her owners took her to puppy pre-school and started her socialising young.

My vet cannot speak highly enough of her.

I have also owned a pitbull, saved from the fighting ring.

Although Buster had been to hell and back, he was the sweetest boy and just wanted to be loved. He lived in harmony with my 4 huskies, dingo/greyhound blend and my horse, Angel. He not once, lifted a lip, growled or showed any signs of aggression. Oh and he had the best recall, you'd only have to whisper his name and he'd come running. And he was such a character, full of personality.

He was a gem and everyone who met him, loved him.

Have you ever met a pitbull Matthew B?, even seen one in real life? I am guessing you haven't and that you are just going by what you see on the news and read in the papers?

[poodlefan]

You've missed the point.. its not about breeds. If the dog is big enough, it can kill. The fact that every argument Matthew B has raised has been shot down won't convince him because he's not thinking about the issue - he's feeling about it. He's formed a view from which no amount of evidence will dissuade him and he's hanging on tight.

Yes it is about breeds - read the papers. And to be honest I have some sympathy, because some just look downright more scary. I am more afraid of some dogs than others, and everyone else is too.

If it is nothing to do with breeds then I'd love to see the research stats. I convince myself to fly on that basis, but with dogs I can't access the info. Even that US/Ca report missed the denominator ie how many of each type.

It's not that its "nothing" to do with breeds. Breed plays a part.

But what you can't say is that a dog is dangerous (or potentially dangerous) or not based on breed alone.

Read this paper from the Centre for Disease Control and note ALL the issues it discusses.

It recommends generic dangerous dog legislation that places responsiblities on owners. This is the conclusion.

Because of difficultiesinherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty,enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises con-stitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks representa small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and,therefore, should not be the primary factor drivingpublic policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practi-cal alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist andhold promise for prevention of dog bites.

FYI that's the same conclusion reached by every researcher I've read on the subject. And I've read plenty.

MatthewB, based on God knows what research, tells us that's rubbish.

Edited August 19, 2011 by poodlefan

[k9angel]

PitBulls have a very bad reputation in society. Just imagine trying to sell your house and telling the prospective buyers that your next door neighbour has one or two Pitbulls. They are one of the most feared type of dog in modern society. Now a pitbull type has slaughtered a small child, someone's baby. What good is a having a dog that has to be confined for fear of it attacking an animal or human ? My opinion is this type of dog has no place in society. Do the dogs suffer because they have bad owners that don't know what to do ? Yes. Do we need these dogs ? No.

TD, the fact the society fears something doesn't mean that fear has any basis in fact. I wish folk could see that their belief is being manipulated by politicians and the media for their own agendas and for the most part with no real reason for that fear.

I get that people are worried about large powerful dogs and their potential to kill. I share that concern.

I wish folk would read past the headlines and hysteria and actually educate themselves about what makes a killer dog. The research is out there, the books are out there and the fact that most people with real knowledge of dogs and dog aggression don't support BSL should be telling you that something's smelly about the BSL solution.

Which part of "banning dogs breeds doesn't stop dog attacks" are people failing to grasp???

People like Mathew and others who dont have a fundamental understanding of dogs dont realise how easy it is to make a maneater.They can remove all pitbulls tomorrow and using dogs that are already here and legal you can breed another type of dog in a very short space of time.One that is more human aggressive ,larger and more dangerous.It is not that hard and not that hard to turn them nasty.Armed with that knowledge which end of the leash should you target?

If a meth head can make a batch of meth under his kitchen sink with limited knowledge and basic ingredients it proves you dont need to be a chemist.Dog breeding is the same its not rocket science.

Wow, sheer lunacy! If we believed you, every Police Dog Squad member and security guard dog unit would be suffering numerous injuries caused by their dogs. The fact that they don't is because the breeds selected are those which can be trained to restrain their aggressiveness and to attack only when commanded. The pitbull that killed the little girl that is the subject of this topic could not be stopped no matter what.

I was under the impression the dog in question was a dog of mixed breeding.

Matthew_B, you arn't per chance a HeraldSun journo, are you?

I was thinking the same thing, re. journo.

[suziwong66]

The dog that killed this little girl wasn't a pitbull Matthew and you know it.

Hi Poodlefan,

can you please find me a link that refers to the dog's breed? i can't find anything in any of the media outlets i've searched. Ps. i'm not entering into the current debate, i'm just looking to find accurate media reports on the gawd awful tragic incident.

taa

I'll cite the ABC as probably the most likely to be accurate. The dog has been cited variously as a pitbull or amstaff cross Mastiff. My guess is that its a lot of things, including a bull breed.

Linky

thank you

[poodlefan]

Matthew_B, you arn't per chance a HeraldSun journo, are you?

I was thinking the same thing, re. journo.

If he is and if he's here to stir up debate and attempt to get someone to defend the indefensible, then its not only unethical to do so without revealing his profession, its not working.

Not that he'll let either of those issues get in the way of his quest..