Pitbulls Bite Off Teenagers Ear In Savage Attack

[Luke GSP]

Sorry Megan, to clarify, did you mean onleash park? Not trying to be a smart alec, just want to make sure I'm reading it right. :)

[asal]

A dog does have to have a predisposition toward aggression in the first place though. Yes, I agree that it's the people's fault, but the dogs are the monsters of their breed because they have been mismanaged/bred and/or raised by people to be just that. However, the dog has to naturally have a propensity toward aggressive behaviour when left to its own devices, many breeds would not do this if raised in the same or similar circumstances. I believe it's the lines of dogs of this particular group being bred now, temperament is being replaced by looks and I blame this solely on proper APBT breeders (who know the breed and what they're doing) being banned. BSL is only helping to create unstable dogs being bred underground and sold to people who have no idea how to raise a badly bred bull breed. This could all be avoided if BSL were abolished and proper breeders brought back in.

Don't know how you figure this will solve the issue.

"Proper" APBT breeders bred dog aggressive dogs - indeed, they didn't see it as an issue and said as much in their BSL submissions.

I see a lot of assumptions about these dogs being mistreated, poorly managed or raised to be aggressive. I don't see a shred of evidence that would support any of those assumptions.

The only thing we know for sure is that these dogs escaped their yard and attacked another dog, maiming its owner in the process.

There is far more involved than simply "its all the owners fault" as well.

There are families in dogs just as in people where agression is very near the surface.

I looked after some dogs many years ago while the family was on holiday. Some months before they had found one of their dogs dead in the yard and thought it had been bitten by a snake. Foamy mouth etc, a week into them being away, I find one of the now 3 semi consious foaming at the mouth, but? ears wet? neck wet?

Wrapped her up and the vet treated her for shock and all seemed fine. But the cause? No idea.

Almost a week later hear growling and sneaked up to discover the eldest attacking the one that had been in shock,, neck all wet, ears too and yes going into shock, another vet trip later and she was ok.

Told the owners, the old dog had another go some weeks later. Ultimately she had to be kept seperated from the other two.

What breed? Chihuahua.

She was a sneak, would only attack if she thought no one was around, hardly any teeth so no actual bite marks but the distress of the attack was enough to almost kill the victum anyway.

Years later I bought a very nice pup who when grown would suddenly take a dislike to another and the attack was just as savage as the old girl I had seen. Even more telling discovered my new pup was a grandaughter of a sister to that dog. Family trait?

Never saw it emerge in any from the first Kennel my original 3 came from, from what I observed at times they ran 10 to 20 together hooning round the gardens without a cross word.

[asal]

for goodness sake, children, children, children how about we all grow up and get past who called the dogs what.

Fact: they were big powerful animals

Fact: they escaped and attacked of their own accord

Fact: there are breeds that are DA but sadly some label it as "gameness" and see it as a minor issue that can be "managed"

Well guess what, nuclear war heads, pedophiles, murderers, rapists and loaded guns can all be "managed" as well but I still wouldn't want them in my neighbours back yard, most of the conditions aforementioned can be explained by science and psychology but in a lot of peoples minds people that carry out these despicable acts would be classed as "monsters" and a lot worse than that.

Who cares what people want to call these dogs, they have caused immense harm to a human and should be dealt with accordingly as should their owner!

I care. Labelling these dogs as "monsters" suggests that somehow they are extraordinary. Until I hear evidence to the contrary, I'll consider them highly dog aggressive dogs. No more, no less.

Hyperbolic language is what I expect of the press, not people discussing these incidents on a dog forum.

All this discussion, reminds me of something. Decades ago , decades before the first pit bull ever put paw in this country.

Few people in the city actually kept their dogs at home, it was not uncommon if a bitch was in season to see the apalling sight of up to 20 and more males in an imense pack fighting to drive off the other males. My parent would usher us all inside and mum would hop into the car and drive into the pack until she had the bitch beside the drivers door and if she could, haul her into the car and whisk her away. It could be a dangerous exercise, invariably they had been dumped some in apalling condition. Mum would take them to the vet the worst caseones put down. some mum kept and turned out great pets. Anyone who owned (an undesexed) bitch had to have dog proof fences to keep the hoards OUT.

In those days almost no one kept a bitch. 50's and 60's, n just about no one desexed their dogs.

Believe it or not the worlds a nicer place for our dogs now in many ways. Common sense with dogs and cats, rabbits, all pets perhaps needs to be taught at school, so few parents even know so how can they teach?

I remember how they eradicted hydatid, they taught the kids at school how it was passed on and how to keep your dog from giving it to you.

they did it then? they dont now.

the results of getting it is just as horrific as it ever was.

dog attacks too. Dad would say. two good dogs at home, running loose together becomes a pack, a pack will do what a single wouldnt even think of, add more and the danger, and drive to kill grows expeditionally.

Dad, would shut and lock the gates.

although in those days we didnt have 'breeds' bred for fighting each other. them arriving added a new dimension, to the pack equation .

Dogs will be dogs, the humans need to realise any fido and have a bad hair day.

regardless of breed.

Trouble is few believe it or plan to prevent it. Or in the case of the two who got out, the fence wasnt as adequate as the owner believed.

I think we have all seen heaps of different breeds decide they dont like some other dog and its on for young and old.

Although that Pit/amstaff breeder explained the difference we now see. Dogs that don't understand the "I surrender" body language.

The reason I won't ever use an off leash park.

To me "It" is an "accident" waiting to happen.

Edited November 1, 2012 by asal

[Tempus Fugit]

Few people in the city actually kept their dogs at home, it was not uncommon if a bitch was in season to see the apalling sight of up to 20 and more males in an imense pack fighting to drive off the other males. My parent would usher us all inside and mum would hop into the car and drive into the pack until she had the bitch beside the drivers door and if she could, haul her into the car and whisk her away. It could be a dangerous exercise, invariably they had been dumped some in apalling condition. Mum would take them to the vet the worst caseones put down. some mum kept and turned out great pets. Anyone who owned (an undesexed) bitch had to have dog proof fences to keep the hoards OUT.

I recalla similar thing in Melbourne when I was a kid. One morning my mother and I were terrorised by a pack of dogs surrounding our house. Apparently the previous owner had a bitch and all the neighbourhood dogs knew exactly when she was due to come into season.

Most dogs are merely trying to establish dominance over their opponent. When that opponent gives in and strikes classical submission positions, cowering or rolling over onto its back, most dominant dogs are satisfied and the fight stops.

I have experienced this myself. Unfortunately a lot of attacks on small dogs are where the large dog(s) is off-lead whereas the small dog is on-lead and therefore unable or unwilling to adopt a submissive position. Even with 'green' pit-bulls in a schooling role if the bait dog gives in the fight often stops. To prolong the fight the 'trainer' wiggles the bait dog - similar to what happens when a distraught owner tries to rescue his small dog from the jaws of the big one.

It is not unusual for big canids to kill smaller ones. Coyotes kill foxes and wolves kill both coyotes and foxes. (Where wolves were reintroduced into US national parks the coyote population dropped significantly). Just as small fish are eaten by bigger fish and these in turn are eaten by even larger fish.

[BlackJaq]

I would have absolutely no issue with owners who wish to own powerful or large breeds of dog having to meet certain criteria- fencing checks, mandatory training, reasonable behaviour assessment of the dogs and regulated breeding of such dogs. First time dog owners SHOULD start with 'easier' dogs. The reality is that most people just shouldn't have powerful dogs.

I agree with this as well. I actually think some people should start off with something in a cage, small and relatively harmless, like maybe a rabbit. Some people should never progress to dogs at all. Sea monkeys might be a viable alternative for them :p

[mixeduppup]

I would have absolutely no issue with owners who wish to own powerful or large breeds of dog having to meet certain criteria- fencing checks, mandatory training, reasonable behaviour assessment of the dogs and regulated breeding of such dogs. First time dog owners SHOULD start with 'easier' dogs. The reality is that most people just shouldn't have powerful dogs.

I agree with this as well. I actually think some people should start off with something in a cage, small and relatively harmless, like maybe a rabbit. Some people should never progress to dogs at all. Sea monkeys might be a viable alternative for them :p

you haven't seen my rabbit on a bad day :laugh:

[BlackJaq]

Thanks for responding. However, not allowing some dogs to be imported IS BSL - legislation aimed at specific breeds?

I'd like to see a temp test that wasn't pass/fail, but rather, based on behaviour the owner would have to commit to certain restrictions and they would be enforced. Got a DA dog? ou are never, ever allowed to visit an off leash public park. Got an escape artist? You need a secure run or lock the dog in the house when you're out etc etc.

I have a fear aggressive dog that doesn't like dogs in her face. She would fail a normal temp test but I would happily agree to comply with restrictions (which I already do anyway).

Aidan - While I agree 100% with your sentiment, I don't think our society is anywhere near that yet. I used to think most owners were responsible until a got a FA/DA dog. Now I realise how clueless most people are - that, and selfish. I think we need something enforced. I don't want to live in a police state, but I'd like to be able to walk my dog at an unleash park without being told to "f*** off" if I politely ask someone to put their "he's friendly" on a leash. I agree that if current laws were enforced, many of the dramas we have today would be avoided.

Yes, it is breed specific legislation, but import restrictions and culling of dogs of a certain look are two pairs of shoes. It is not the restrictions I have so much of an issue with, but rather the fact that they provide an excuse to kill dogs that have done nothing wrong.

Not to mention the laws that are in place now are poorly enforced and obviously not making the public any safer. If I reported a dangerous dog in my area and the dog had long fur I can guarantee that dog will not be acted upon until it seriously injures somebody.

If I call up about a "pit bull" the ranger will be knocking on that door SO FAST you'd see his hair blowing in the wind, even if the complaint was about barking and not menacing people or animals.

[asal]

I would have absolutely no issue with owners who wish to own powerful or large breeds of dog having to meet certain criteria- fencing checks, mandatory training, reasonable behaviour assessment of the dogs and regulated breeding of such dogs. First time dog owners SHOULD start with 'easier' dogs. The reality is that most people just shouldn't have powerful dogs.

I agree with this as well. I actually think some people should start off with something in a cage, small and relatively harmless, like maybe a rabbit. Some people should never progress to dogs at all. Sea monkeys might be a viable alternative for them :p

you haven't seen my rabbit on a bad day :laugh:

I know what you mean, I dont have any scars from a dog bite,

My imported from England Netherland Dwarf buck?

He certainly should be registered as dangerous,,,and muzzled.

The only way I could make him let go my thumb. Knock him out with the feed scoop. Still have that scar.

I thought its the Polish that many Judges refuse to work with?

Edited November 1, 2012 by asal

[Tralee]

I would have absolutely no issue with owners who wish to own powerful or large breeds of dog having to meet certain criteria- fencing checks, mandatory training, reasonable behaviour assessment of the dogs and regulated breeding of such dogs.

First time dog owners SHOULD start with 'easier' dogs.

The reality is that most people just shouldn't have powerful dogs.

I think your argument has merit.

Many parents just simply wouldn't buy a dog that would put their young children at risk.

That doesn't mean temperament at all but weight and size differentials.

The criteria could be part of registration requirements: puppy school, obedience, temperament testing, etc.

However, I think equating dogs to something like 'motorbikes' and restricting learners to 250cc type dogs is certain to be problematic.

Civil liberties would be my first concern.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Tralee

[mixeduppup]

I would have absolutely no issue with owners who wish to own powerful or large breeds of dog having to meet certain criteria- fencing checks, mandatory training, reasonable behaviour assessment of the dogs and regulated breeding of such dogs. First time dog owners SHOULD start with 'easier' dogs. The reality is that most people just shouldn't have powerful dogs.

I agree with this as well. I actually think some people should start off with something in a cage, small and relatively harmless, like maybe a rabbit. Some people should never progress to dogs at all. Sea monkeys might be a viable alternative for them :p

you haven't seen my rabbit on a bad day :laugh:

I know what you mean, I dont have any scars from a dog bite,

My imported from England Netherland Dwarf buck?

He certainly should be registered as dangerous,,,and muzzled.

The only way I could make him let go my thumb. Knock him out with the feed scoop. Still have that scar.

I thought its the Polish that many Judges refuse to work with?

My mini lop buck can be a real arsehat lol

Edited November 1, 2012 by mixeduppup

[Salukifan]

However, I think equating dogs to something like 'motorbikes' and restricting learners to 250cc type dogs is certain to be problematic.

Civil liberties would be my first concern.

Why? Dog ownership is a privilege not a right. People have demonstrated time and again that they can't exercise responsibility for the dogs they own.

So if you have to demonstrate some knowledge and your licence is conditional on you exercising responsibility for your dog, what's the issue?

We already restrict the dogs people can own anyway.

[BlackJaq]

However, I think equating dogs to something like 'motorbikes' and restricting learners to 250cc type dogs is certain to be problematic.

Civil liberties would be my first concern.

Why? Dog ownership is a privilege not a right. People have demonstrated time and again that they can't exercise responsibility for the dogs they own.

So if you have to demonstrate some knowledge and your licence is conditional on you exercising responsibility for your dog, what's the issue?

We already restrict the dogs people can own anyway.

Where is the "like" button. Pets in general should be a privilege. They depend on us totally.

[Tralee]

However, I think equating dogs to something like 'motorbikes' and restricting learners to 250cc type dogs is certain to be problematic.

Civil liberties would be my first concern.

Why?

Dog ownership is a privilege not a right.

People have demonstrated time and again that they can't exercise responsibility for the dogs they own.

So if you have to demonstrate some knowledge and your licence is conditional on you exercising responsibility for your dog, what's the issue?

We already restrict the dogs people can own anyway.

Why?

Because I for one have fulfilled the criteria many times over.

In fact, I would make the assertion that my dogs have been raised above and beyond expectation.

All of this I have done voluntarily.

I don't need, and certainly don't want, some kind of nonce regulations that will infringe on my civil liberties just because there is a sub-population of nonces who are clueless about many aspects of life, not the least being all things dog.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Tralee

[dancinbcs]

dancingbc, the APBT does have it's own registry, which is actually older than the FCI and ANKC. Many purebred pitbulls in Aust are registered with it.

But it is not recognised by FCI, KC, AKC or ANKC or the governments and I seriously doubt that the majority of Pitbulls in Aust would be registered with them. I did also mention in my posts crossbred Pitbulls not just the supposed purebred ones. If these dogs are registered with the APBT registry in the US and they are so sure that none of those dogs were involved in any of the serious attacks over the years, why didn't they get together with the Amstaff people to get an exemption for their "registered" dogs from the BSL?

[Salukifan]

Why?

Because I for one have fulfilled the criteria many times over.

In fact, I would make the assertion that my dogs have been raised above and beyond expectation.

All of this I have done voluntarily.

I don't need, and certainly don't want, some kind of nonce regulations that will infringe on my civil liberties just because there is a sub-population of nonces who are clueless about many aspects of life, not the least being all things dog.

This isn't just about you.

Maybe you need to look beyond your own perspective and consider society in a wider sense.

"Nonce regulations" infringe on our "civil liberties" every damn day and most of us profit from them. Speed limits, gun ownership, limited usage of land, liquor licensing, brothel licensing, noise laws. These all restrict what people can do because given free rein, some people are selfish pr*cks that make the lives of others hell. Society needs to be protected from others.

Dog ownership is, quite frankly, no different. As far as pet ownership goes, some people shouldn't be permitted to own a goldfish.

And if you're an exemplary dog owner, where's the issue?

Edited November 1, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Jed]

It is truly difficult to read posts such as these from someone who attested she knew everything,and then, unable to manage a Gordon Setter, had him put down rather that let club rescue or some experienced person take and assess him.

It does seem that your kmowledge of bull breeds is about the same as your knowledge of GS - from your own words.

And yes, I do find it very hurtful to hear of a dog being denied his full chance in life because someone thought they knew everthing.

Dogs - whether rescues or from breeders are for life, not until they menace the chooks. If you don't have the experience, let someone else handle it

That isn't quite right, Jed. The rescue who ended up with him did the pts. But either way, there is a certain amount of glass houses irony.

My bad

[dancinbcs]

I would definitely support the idea of a licence for owners to have different categories of dogs in relation to size, breed, neutered, entire, breeding, etc. That way the irresponsible yobbos would never be able to get powerful breeds with the potential to do serious damage if they bite.

Common sense should be enough but clearly it isn't. If we compare dog ownership to horse ownership the horse owners come out on top for common sense. If you are buying a horse for your kid to learn to ride on you do not buy a green broken, 17hh Thoroughbred Stallion, you buy a size appropriate bombproof horse or pony. If you want own a stallion you get lots of experience with them and make sure you can keep one secured. Yet people go and buy totally unsuitable dogs for their situation and experience and wonder why things go wrong.

[BlackJaq]

Haha you seem to have not had much experience with the world of horses. People do stupid shit and buy horses WAY beyond their skill set ALL THE TIME. Most Horses are contained much easier than dogs though and they don't usually run around biting strangers. Generally it is the owners or their friends who get hurt.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

I don't think that licensing would work, I think it would just amount to more ineffectual bureaucracy, wasted money, and councils endlessly running around after 'unlicensed' dog owners in vain.

[Salukifan]

I don't think that licensing would work, I think it would just amount to more ineffectual bureaucracy, wasted money, and councils endlessly running around after 'unlicensed' dog owners in vain.

At least it would take the pressure off the dogs and onto the owners.

Licensing drivers works... mostly.