Pitbulls Bite Off Teenagers Ear In Savage Attack

[persephone]

As an aside, did any of you watch that TV show the other night - Martin Clunes - A man and his dog - where Shaun Ellis sticks his head between a pair of timber wolves having an altercation over food and emerges with not only his head but both ears intact? And later on there is the terrier man with his rat-killing JRTs saying that through initial selective breeding, terriers were originally far more aggressive than wolves.

yes :) I did watch that ..the wolf man intervened on a few occasions ! I guess when you are a bit crazy (in a good way) , fluent in the language , eat with them, smell like them, and respect their manners ..well, it obviously works!

Do NOT try this at home !!!

[Jed]

as I have said before in this thread, why do a large amount of the people who buy these breeds buy them?

Is it because they want to offer a loving a nurturing home for the betterment of the breed? be honest

is it because they just wanted a dog?

do you honestly think that they understand what "managing" the breed is?

the amount of people that I have seen and heard defending APBT with statements like

"a pure breed APBT with HA, never"

"pure breed APBT's are bred not to be HA"

"They are the Nanny dog"

Is it any wonder that unsuspecting people buy in to these kind of statements and make the mistake that these animals that have the physical ability to severely injure and even kill are "safe"?

IMO bull breed owners need to stop being quite so defensive and face the fact that their animals are better equipped than an awful lot of other breeds to inflict severe damage, and have largely been bred for some form of aggressive trait, which whether originally designed to be directed at humans or not, can be redirected upon, or catch a human in the crossfire with very tragic consequences.

This is not about bite propensity people, lets face it which would you prefer

shot with an air rifle or a sniper rifle?

hit your thumb with a hammer or sledge hammer?

get bitten by a beagle or a pit bull?

it is about the outcome when/if someone fails to "manage" the animal!

I wonder how many Bull breed owners are up front enough to face up to the reality, stop talking around the subject and admit that the breeds that they own represent some of the greatest potential of horrific injury or death of any of the dog breeds should the potential owner "get it wrong"

lets face it if you were a novice herper and you went to buy a snake, you would expect the person selling it to you to let you know which of the snakes had the ability to bite versus the ones that had the ability to bite and kill you! That is the responsibility of the breeder, seller and other more knowledgable/experienced herpers to be honest enough to give you the facts, not hide behind language like "gameness" or statements like "this death adder will be fine in your family home, its just a matter of managing it, statistics show that it has no greater propensity to bite than a python"

Luke, this is how I understand it. There are purebred APBT, and "near" purebred APBT - some of them are DA, some a not, Very few are HA.

Unfortunately, there is a class of person who buys a badly bred, apbt, and does not train or socialise it - and in some cases, encourages HA and DA.

APBT does not figure largely in the bite stats and never did. Unfortunately, every dog in Aus which attacks is supposed to be a pit bull. Some are, some are not. Most are x breds well away from apbt some have no apbt blood at all they are simply dogs which have been encouraged to behave badly.

Some people actually want a savage dog. The young man which owned the labrador x (mislabelled as a pitbull in the media) which attacked and killed Mrs. Stringer in Toowoomba, on acquiring the dog from the pound, said he would turn him into a "killer dog". And he did.

Many breeds/dogs have the potential to do as badly, or worse - with the kind of upbringing and "training" some of these dogs have. As a boxer breeder of some 40 years, I could easily raise a boxer which would, on every occasion, do more damage than a pitbull, because they are larger, and they are just as tenacious. But - boxers are not bred by the 100 by cross bred breeders, they are mostly bred by careful breeders who ensure the dog will be properly raised and socialised. And people tend not to keep 2 or 3 of them when they are not contained.

Karen Delise's research shows that most breeds, on forming a pack, can and do kill. Including St. Bernards and surprising breeds. It isn't about the breed, it should be about the deed. I have already listed a few of the dogs involved in deaths. Pit bulls form a very small proportion.

Councils don't want the work checking on savage dogs in their areas - witness that it is difficult to get the ACOs to attend when a dog is attacked. Council have negated the public's ability to sue them by banning pitbulls. "See, we did something to protect the public, we banned pitbulls"

Dobermanns, GSD, Akitas, huskies, malmutes, rottweilers, ACD - and wait - there are more - are capable of things as bad or worse but they tend to belong to people in higher socio economic groups who can afford adequate fencing and training, and who want their dogs to be nice kissy pets.

These laws wont be overturned until the councils are spending lots of $$ defending court cases (as they were doing in Q) - and until someone who suffers a death in their family sues the council for not taking due care.

I don't have a pitbull. I have no interest in owning one. I too thought they were dangerous killing machines ..... until I did some proper research on the breed.

Bad laws will thrive unless good people stand against them.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Jed

[dancinbcs]

People should be mad, people should be livid. These dogs are dangerous and should be treated/acknowledged as such. People should be so angry that someone didn't take the time to properly raise and manage these dogs and in turn they viciously attacked a young man. These dogs are doing the breed no favours and that's what I'm furious about.

I agree about being furious with the owners. Being furious with the dogs and labelling them 'vile monsters' does nothing and only promotes the idea that these dogs allowed themselves to be this way when, in fact, the owner has allowed them to be this way.

The owners didn't have a high enough fence to contain their dogs, the dog's behaviour is genetic

And therein lies one of the main problems with Pittbulls and Amstaffs and their crosses. They are extremely strong and agile with greater jaw strength than most other breeds. Nothing short of a heavy duty weldmesh pen with solid roof and concrete floor, is guaranteed to contain them if they decide to get out. Like many agile breeds they are more than capable of jumping a 7' fence, like other strong breeds, they can barge through colourbond panels and like Bull Terriers they can easily chew through chainwire. All this combined into the one dog.

I think anyone with a Pittbull, Amstaff or cross of these is having themselves on if they believe their dog absolutely would not attack a passing dog if they got loose from their yard. The problem is that passing dogs are usually attached by a lead to an owner who can get caught in the crossfire so it doesn't matter if they are HA, they are still dangerous to anyone who walks a dog as well as being deadly to the dogs being walked. Sure they can be trained to behave when the owner is around and desexed ones are generally less likely to start a fight but most will finish a fight rather than give in or let the other dog submit as other breeds do. They may be no more likely to bite than other breeds but when they do bite they inflict horrendous damage due to their jaw strength and tenacity.

[m-sass]

People should be mad, people should be livid. These dogs are dangerous and should be treated/acknowledged as such. People should be so angry that someone didn't take the time to properly raise and manage these dogs and in turn they viciously attacked a young man. These dogs are doing the breed no favours and that's what I'm furious about.

I agree about being furious with the owners. Being furious with the dogs and labelling them 'vile monsters' does nothing and only promotes the idea that these dogs allowed themselves to be this way when, in fact, the owner has allowed them to be this way.

The owners didn't have a high enough fence to contain their dogs, the dog's behaviour is genetic

Hi m-sass can you produce proper scientific evidence to support your claim? Most of the evidence I have read is totally opposite but I like to be balanced

Jed, are you saying the dogs were trained to jump the fence and go after other dogs........I would say the weren't trained to do that and they did that from pure instinctive drive to do so which is genetic?

I wondor sometimes if many people here have actually owned a DA dog and understand what the management of such a dog entails??. Loosely, a DA dog is a pain in the butt managing an essentially useless trait. My number 5 Labrador out of the 7 Labs I have onwned was DA......yes a DA Lab and he was a bugger of a thing for the 15 years of his life wanting to chomp on other dogs and to make it worse because of his breed, people didn't fear him or expect him to be aggressive towards their dogs.........let puppy off leash to play with the nice Lab scenario's......ended up I had to muzzle him on walks to keep off leash dogs safe........but more to the point, I didn't mis-manage this dog, poke him with sticks etc etc to make him DA, he just was DA genetically which I found out years later that his father was retired from showing early for the same reason, dog aggression, yet the breeder of this litter obviously thought dad's DA traits needed to be reproduced He didn't chase after dogs, he was aggressive towards dogs who chased after him or got in his face, he wouldn't go after a dog and owner walking down the footpath and look for a fight, it's was purely if they approached him, a different type of aggression to the predatory type of dog aggression described here.

Edited October 31, 2012 by m-sass

[Steve]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it but Im a breeder so probably see things stand out and you cant help but notice. To me clearly the bitch was either on heat or pretty close to it and this may have greatly impacted what happened. Dogs which have been non DA all their lives can change when hormones cut in and may have given the owner little idea that they were capable of escaping and attacking another dog. The guy got bitten/ mauled - call it what you like because he got in the middle of a dog fight and the fight was involving dogs which were powerful enough to do damage. Under the right circumstances I might get bitten and loose an ear from one of my beagles if I jump in the middle of a punch up over a bitch on heat.

So it seems everyone wants to put a label on it and find someone or something to blame.I think we should look at the possible causes and solutions.

For what its worth here's my tuppence worth.

I think we should focus on preventions. Identify the problem. Some dogs end up out of their yards and because all dogs are capable of pack or unexpected behaviour people and other animals get hurt - sometimes killed. There are a multitude of possible reasons and instincts [variables] which may impact and while we may be able to identify some we will never be able to identify and treat and eliminate or avoid them all. Sure because of size or weight etc one dog is more capable of doing more damage than another and this also needs to be given appropriate consideration.

Obviously education has its place but Ive met a hell of a lot of dog owners who think they know it all and either avoid education or argue the educators are idiots and they know better - so it may help some but it isn't going to stop it all. There is also an emotional component in the mix and its kind of like when a parent cant see their kids are anything but cute and perfect. Even I am capable of telling you I know my dog and it wouldn't do a certain thing. But Ive been around dogs long enough to know that I shouldnt be too cocky about that.

Not really much good talking about how dogs should be selected for temperament when some idiots deliberately select for a cranky dog and it would be impossible to monitor or police. AND even the cutest nicest dogs are still capable of slipping.

for me the answer lies in aggressively policing laws which currently stand and house to house checks to ensure dogs on the premises are registered and properly contained.If the fence in the back yard will cater for them but not the one in the front yard the owner needs to have a condition placed on them that their dogs cant go into the front yard off leash etc without the owner facing fines. Off leash laws need to be actively policed and fines issued regardless of the size/breed or whether the dog is aggressive.

Councils think they cant afford to do this but id like to see a pilot program to test that as I believe fines and prevention would save em a truckload and easily pay wages. even better where it becomes part of a neighbourhood watch type thing where potential risks were reported so the council could assess and give directions on what needs to be done to prevent a future problem.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

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.

Exactly, thank you. MUP wasn't the original person using hyperbolic, over the top emotional language though, Dogmad was (although I've seen a consistent pattern of this through her posts on this forum whenever she refers to bull breeds so it was to be expected).

Have we met? I don't think so Melzalwela but please enlighten me as you are part of a small group on here that chooses to select anything I say and just run with it, being quite over the top. I don't get the fascination - you don't know much about me and what I do, it's obvious. Why can't you focus on the topic at hand?

I find a consistent pattern in your threads too, and that's not a compliment. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to form that opinion based on experiences. You don't know what my experiences are. Perhaps you are one of those that likes to criticise as I'm one of the small dog rescuers and small dogs don't count, they are so easy aren't they? Primarily I am but again, you have no idea what I do if you think that is all I do.

Rather than focus on the terrible incident that has taken place, you have chosen to go on and on about a comment. What if I'd said "nasty dogs" instead? You would have acted exactly the same. It's like being at school, perhaps you and Plan B are not long out of it?

What if it had been you and your dog being attacked? Would you have trauma and nightmares after, I suspect you would. Might it fill your mind with fear every time you contemplated stepping out your own front door. Probably.

If anyone is faced with two powerful animals ripping their flesh and trying to kill their own dog, I think they might use the term monster - bull breeds or not.

I was recently faced with 2 German Shorthaired Pointers making a nuisance of themselves with a medium sized dog I had - it wasn't nice, I could not get them off. Luckily they didn't attack him but they did attack a dog the next day so I was lucky. I would have used the same terminology for them, they were huge, they were powerful.

Edited October 31, 2012 by dogmad

[WreckitWhippet]

They were Pitbulls registered as Amstaffs so as to avoid BSL.

They ticked all the boxes, if it looks like a duck , quacks like a duck

[Luke GSP]

as I have said before in this thread, why do a large amount of the people who buy these breeds buy them?

Is it because they want to offer a loving a nurturing home for the betterment of the breed? be honest

is it because they just wanted a dog?

do you honestly think that they understand what "managing" the breed is?

the amount of people that I have seen and heard defending APBT with statements like

"a pure breed APBT with HA, never"

"pure breed APBT's are bred not to be HA"

"They are the Nanny dog"

Is it any wonder that unsuspecting people buy in to these kind of statements and make the mistake that these animals that have the physical ability to severely injure and even kill are "safe"?

IMO bull breed owners need to stop being quite so defensive and face the fact that their animals are better equipped than an awful lot of other breeds to inflict severe damage, and have largely been bred for some form of aggressive trait, which whether originally designed to be directed at humans or not, can be redirected upon, or catch a human in the crossfire with very tragic consequences.

This is not about bite propensity people, lets face it which would you prefer

shot with an air rifle or a sniper rifle?

hit your thumb with a hammer or sledge hammer?

get bitten by a beagle or a pit bull?

it is about the outcome when/if someone fails to "manage" the animal!

I wonder how many Bull breed owners are up front enough to face up to the reality, stop talking around the subject and admit that the breeds that they own represent some of the greatest potential of horrific injury or death of any of the dog breeds should the potential owner "get it wrong"

lets face it if you were a novice herper and you went to buy a snake, you would expect the person selling it to you to let you know which of the snakes had the ability to bite versus the ones that had the ability to bite and kill you! That is the responsibility of the breeder, seller and other more knowledgable/experienced herpers to be honest enough to give you the facts, not hide behind language like "gameness" or statements like "this death adder will be fine in your family home, its just a matter of managing it, statistics show that it has no greater propensity to bite than a python"

Luke, this is how I understand it. There are purebred APBT, and "near" purebred APBT - some of them are DA, some a not, Very few are HA.

Unfortunately, there is a class of person who buys a badly bred, apbt, and does not train or socialise it - and in some cases, encourages HA and DA.

APBT does not figure largely in the bite stats and never did. Unfortunately, every dog in Aus which attacks is supposed to be a pit bull. Some are, some are not. Most are x breds well away from apbt some have no apbt blood at all they are simply dogs which have been encouraged to behave badly.

Some people actually want a savage dog. The young man which owned the labrador x (mislabelled as a pitbull in the media) which attacked and killed Mrs. Stringer in Toowoomba, on acquiring the dog from the pound, said he would turn him into a "killer dog". And he did.

Many breeds/dogs have the potential to do as badly, or worse - with the kind of upbringing and "training" some of these dogs have. As a boxer breeder of some 40 years, I could easily raise a boxer which would, on every occasion, do more damage than a pitbull, because they are larger, and they are just as tenacious. But - boxers are not bred by the 100 by cross bred breeders, they are mostly bred by careful breeders who ensure the dog will be properly raised and socialised. And people tend not to keep 2 or 3 of them when they are not contained.

Karen Delise's research shows that most breeds, on forming a pack, can and do kill. Including St. Bernards and surprising breeds. It isn't about the breed, it should be about the deed. I have already listed a few of the dogs involved in deaths. Pit bulls form a very small proportion.

Councils don't want the work checking on savage dogs in their areas - witness that it is difficult to get the ACOs to attend when a dog is attacked. Council have negated the public's ability to sue them by banning pitbulls. "See, we did something to protect the public, we banned pitbulls"

Dobermanns, GSD, Akitas, huskies, malmutes, rottweilers, ACD - and wait - there are more - are capable of things as bad or worse but they tend to belong to people in higher socio economic groups who can afford adequate fencing and training, and who want their dogs to be nice kissy pets.

These laws wont be overturned until the councils are spending lots of $$ defending court cases (as they were doing in Q) - and until someone who suffers a death in their family sues the council for not taking due care.

I don't have a pitbull. I have no interest in owning one. I too thought they were dangerous killing machines ..... until I did some proper research on the breed.

Bad laws will thrive unless good people stand against them.

Believe me, I don't think APBT's are "killing machines" any more than any animal. My problem is the complete inability of the owners and supporters of thus breed "type" to be honest enough to admit that a dog of that size and personality type, has a far greater ability to cause horrendous damages (should it decide to become violent) than others. Rather than misrepresenting the dog as a breed that is misunderstood as if bred correctly it won't be HA or for that matter DA. All dogs are capable of biting, for a million different reasons, my issue is that some breeds are far more capable/likely to cause severe trauma when they do.

FACT a loaded gun is incapable of injuring anyone just as a water pistol, but if I HAD to got shot by one or the other, personally I would choose the water pistol!

As an aside, I also saw the Martin clunes show and saw the footage, personally my take on that was in regard to the participants involved or from the same pack, not sure about other people's experiences but I have always found inter pack aggression tends to be a little less intense than full on aggression against an external animal or entity and hence a little easier to address the balance of? IMO

[Dame Aussie]

But it is what dogs do? Sure it's not a pleasant behaviour or a behaviour that is acceptable, or even a behaviour commonly seen, but some dogs are aggressive, that won't ever change.

That's the idea of BSL, to get rid of the breed types who most commonly display that character

Yeah. Does it seem to be working to you?

[Luke GSP]

for me the answer lies in aggressively policing laws which currently stand and house to house checks to ensure dogs on the premises are registered and properly contained.If the fence in the back yard will cater for them but not the one in the front yard the owner needs to have a condition placed on them that their dogs cant go into the front yard off leash etc without the owner facing fines. Off leash laws need to be actively policed and fines issued regardless of the size/breed or whether the dog is aggressive.

Agree 100%, I can guarantee that incidents of this type , as well as a large proportion of the problems facing dog owners today would vastly diminish if there was proper policing and laws introduced, imagine if,

To own an undesexed dog you had to be a registered breeder

To be a registered breeder you had to be licenced

If an injury occurred as a direct consequence of a dogs aggression, both the owner and the breeder received a heavy fine.

All dogs (that are not owned and in the possesion of a registered breeder) must be registered and desexed, if not registered or desexed the owner and breeder are fined and they have 7 days to have the dog registered/desexed or it is destroyed, if the owner will not disclose the breeder the dog is destroyed and the fine is quadrupled.

Add those kind of things to what you have already stated and I guarantee that in the long run, you will have less problem dogs, less BYB's, more responsible ownership and a much lower rate of euthanasia.

Once people are truly help responsible for their dogs (both ones they own and ones they have created, you watch the dog industry clean up its act then.

Please note, before shooting me down, I believe that a massive percentage of breeders try and do the right thing and I understand that the above would add to their responsibilities but this is not about whether or not "you" are actually a contributor to the current problems facing dogs, it is a matter of if you want to be a contributor to a better future for them!

[Steve]

for me the answer lies in aggressively policing laws which currently stand and house to house checks to ensure dogs on the premises are registered and properly contained.If the fence in the back yard will cater for them but not the one in the front yard the owner needs to have a condition placed on them that their dogs cant go into the front yard off leash etc without the owner facing fines. Off leash laws need to be actively policed and fines issued regardless of the size/breed or whether the dog is aggressive.

Agree 100%, I can guarantee that incidents of this type , as well as a large proportion of the problems facing dog owners today would vastly diminish if there was proper policing and laws introduced, imagine if,

To own an undesexed dog you had to be a registered breeder

To be a registered breeder you had to be licenced

If an injury occurred as a direct consequence of a dogs aggression, both the owner and the breeder received a heavy fine.

All dogs (that are not owned and in the possesion of a registered breeder) must be registered and desexed, if not registered or desexed the owner and breeder are fined and they have 7 days to have the dog registered/desexed or it is destroyed, if the owner will not disclose the breeder the dog is destroyed and the fine is quadrupled.

Add those kind of things to what you have already stated and I guarantee that in the long run, you will have less problem dogs, less BYB's, more responsible ownership and a much lower rate of euthanasia.

Once people are truly help responsible for their dogs (both ones they own and ones they have created, you watch the dog industry clean up its act then.

Please note, before shooting me down, I believe that a massive percentage of breeders try and do the right thing and I understand that the above would add to their responsibilities but this is not about whether or not "you" are actually a contributor to the current problems facing dogs, it is a matter of if you want to be a contributor to a better future for them!

I'm not so sure of that and I would fight against any more laws but I do think the best place to start is policing the laws we already have.

[toshman]

Luke GSP you show a real lack of understanding of the APBT.

Absolutely.

And here was little old me thinking that Luke GSP was talking real common sense Keep it up, man :)

[BC Crazy]

On last nights news they interviewed the young man & his mum. Seemed like a really nice young fella who seemed more concerned about the young kids from the primary school,

having witnessed such a blood bath than the fact that he had raced up the street with his ear in his hand & put it in the freezer trying to save it, to no avail. It was unable to be reattached.

Doc's are now going to make him a new ear out of his rib cartlidge. Just amazing. His dog was with him & he looked a picture of health, so he is one very lucky dog. Both of the dogs involved have been pts.

Edited November 1, 2012 by BC Crazy

[Steve]

There have been some pretty low shots at people who have given an opinion in this thread - All of us want the same thing.

To be able to move us, our families and our dogs around our neighbourhood without fear of being set upon in any way by dogs which are not contained and especially by dogs which can really hurt us.

[Luke GSP]

Luke GSP you show a real lack of understanding of the APBT.

Absolutely.

And here was little old me thinking that Luke GSP was talking real common sense Keep it up, man :)

Feel free to wade in with a point of view or answer any of the questions I have raised, alternatively, continue sniping and trying to belittle people, personally, I was trying to engage adults in adult debate/conversation.

Let me make this very simple for you

1, Define gameness

2, Do you feel that a "game" dog would be more or less likely to back out of an aggresive situation than a non "game" one

3,If these breeds are truly no more aggressive or likely to cause severe trauma and damage, whilst in an aggressive state than any other dog why don't you see dog fighters using beagles spaniels or dachshunds?

Now, I am sure that rather than engage in mature, adult debate and conversation, you will type a similar retort to before, avoiding any actual opinion or reasoning. And completely avoiding the very straightforward question above, much the same as you have avoided ten to this point.

As you understand the breed so well, please, enlighten us, I can't wait to read your comprehensive understanding/knowledge of how the simple laws of physics do not apply when applied to a 50kg heavy set dog tearing at someone's arm compared to one of (for instance) 10KG

If on the other hand you cannot explain how the laws of physics would not apply in such a scenario, maybe you would like to admit that such an animal has and does posses the ability to cause greater harm than a smaller lighter less muscular dog, oh no, of course, that would mean agreeing with me wouldn't it, so that won't happen.

Please be very clear on this:

I am not saying that any dog has more or less ability to become aggressive, what I am saying is that in the event of them becoming so, some types of dogs are (sadly) far more effective at it!

[Dame Aussie]

nm

Edited October 31, 2012 by Aussie3

[mixeduppup]

Didn't the news report say an expert had inspected the dogs and said they were amstaff crossbreds?

[Steve]

If we are going to argue that all dogs are the same, with the same basic instincts and that some are not potentially more likely to do one thing or another then we may as well all simply pack up and let people breed dogs and have a generic animal which all look alike until they really do all act alike. Its a silly argument and one that the public quickly see. If we cant keep this about dogs and not breeds there doesn't seem to much hope that those making laws will.

[Steve]

Didn't the news report say an expert had inspected the dogs and said they were amstaff crossbreds?

Yes that is what was said but that isnt really relevant - nor could an "expert" be sure anyway - would it have been any different if they had been or resembled a different breed? Several years ago 2 Show Rotties attacked and killed a couple of young girls walking in a park - its still horrible and any dog regardless of what breed it resembles needs to be contained and on leash. making laws for one breed type doesnt do anything to stop other breed types doing exactly the same thing.

[Dame Aussie]

Didn't the news report say an expert had inspected the dogs and said they were amstaff crossbreds?

Yes that is what was said but that isnt really relevant - nor could an "expert" be sure anyway - would it have been any different if they had been or resembled a different breed? Several years ago 2 Show Rotties attacked and killed a couple of young girls walking in a park - its still horrible and any dog regardless of what breed it resembles needs to be contained and on leash. making laws for one breed type doesnt do anything to stop other breed types doing exactly the same thing.

Exactly. As far as I'm concenred breed is irrelevant. We all know a bigger dog has the potential to do more damage, it doesn't mean anything unless the council enforce the laws they already have and look at targeting irresponsible owners more.