Pitbulls Bite Off Teenagers Ear In Savage Attack

[mixeduppup]

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.

I was asking out of interest as someone on the previous page stated they were pitties masquerading as amstaffs so council didn't seize them.

[melzawelza]

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.

My issue has nothing to do with you rescuing and dealing with small dogs, that is an assumption on your part. My issue is simply to do with the hyperbolic, sensationalist way you always seem to discuss bull breeds, which was displayed in this thread. I was far from the only one to pick you up on it.

As I've stated a few times, no one is excusing these dogs and their actions. I have actually strongly condemned them in this thread numerous times.

As for how I would feel if my dog was attacked? Actually, my pit bull type dog was attacked by a larger and more powerful dog last week that came free from it's owner and crossed a busy street to attack mine.

Was I scared? Yes. Was I furious? Yes. Was I on edge the next few times I walked her? Yes.

Was the dog a monster? No. It was a highly DA dog that was owned by an idiot that hadn't trained it and couldn't control it even though he had it on the lead in a public place.

Did I blame it's breed? No, even though it was of another breed that often gets a 'bad rap'. The issue here was the owner's inability to control the dog. Not it's breed.

Did I report it to Council? Yes. As sad as it is for the dog that action may be taken against it, it is owned by someone that cannot control it and it will go on to do much further damage in the future if left unchecked.

The point of my above story is to show you that none of us are excusing the dogs for their behaviour. We aren't 'attacking' you and ignoring the incident. We just value that people, ESPECIALLY people on a dog forum who work extensively with dogs should have the common sense to avoid hyperbole and hysteria in these sorts of incidents.

[Dame Aussie]

Melzawelza, hope your dog is ok. Edited October 31, 2012 by Aussie3

[mantis]

Excellent post Melz.

[BlackJaq]

I would think anybody who saw the footage might have noticed the same thing as Steve, there was a clear view of the bitch's hind end and her personal area seems to have some swelling, indicating an imminent or very recent heat.

So this would surely make any further discussion of breed specific aggression obsolete since the most likely reason for the aggression was 2 x entire dogs (the two red dogs) on the loose. As soon as this young man walked his dog past it was ON and would have been on no matter the breed. Of course there might not have been as much damage if they were Maltese instead of large bully bred dogs but my point is, they might not otherwise have shown ANY AGGRESSION at all.

It also occurs to me that their owner was most likely a BYB himself, why else would you keep two entires that look this similar in a backyard without secure kennels/runs/whatever? I think the owner needs to have the book thrown at him and I don't think he should be allowed to own any more entires.

Many bite stats that do not focus on breed seem to indicate that entire males are the number one offender, regardless of breed and size. Maybe this is, indeed where legislation should be aimed, rather than breeds? Can anybody imagine what the outcome would have been if these were 2 entire LGDs instead of comparatively small bull breds? And yet we see no attempts made to introduce BSL covering breeds other than bullies?

The whole name calling scenario is less than helpful and detracts from the actual issue, which is two entires loose without any kind of supervision. This was a disaster in the making as soon as those dogs were left unattended in anything less than a fully enclosed run.

ETA: If this was, indeed a sexually induced incident then this is in fact EXACTLY what dogs do. I don't know why people argue that this is not typical of dogs. It is. A bitch on heat can and will induce aggression in almost any dog, even dogs of the same sex! If that makes them monsters then 99% of entire dogs are monsters. It is up to their humans to manage this part of their nature!

Edited October 31, 2012 by BlackJaq

[melzawelza]

Luke GSP I will reply to your questions as best I can.

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

Gameness and dog aggression are two completely seperate things, which is why I stated that you have a real lack of understanding of the APBT. Aggressive dogs can have no gameness at all and non aggressive dogs can be very game. The below link explains it well.

http://stason.org/TULARC/animals/dogs/american-pit-bull-terriers-breed/12-What-exactly-is-gameness.html

The crux of it:

"Gameness in APBT's is a canine virtue that is most akin to the human

virtue of unflagging courage. It is a determination to master any

situation and never back down out of fear. It was developed in

pit bulls by many generations of selective breeding. It is what

allows a pit bull to keep fighting non-stop for two or more hours,

in spite of broken bones, torn muscles, blood loss, dehydration,

and exhaustion. But it is also valued by APBT owners who would never

think of fighting their dogs. It is manifested in the can-do attitude

of pit bulls toward any type of challenge, whether agility competitions,

climbing up trees, or protecting their family against an armed attacker,

etc.

Generally speaking, a game dog is an emotionally stable, easy-going dog,

especially good with kids. Gameness should not be confused with

aggressiveness. There are plenty of aggressive dogs that are not game,

and there are game pit bulls who are not aggressive toward other types

of dogs. Aggressiveness will propell a dog into a fight but will only

sustain him for the first few minutes. Gameness, on the other hand,

will not necessarily make a dog fight-happy; but if the dog has no

other choice but to fight, a game dog will fight until it wins or dies

trying, and will keep going as long as necessary."

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

A game dog when FORCED (i.e attacked) will fight back, and fight back hard. That doesn't mean the game dog will start the fight. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. See above.

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?

Because typically they aren't game, so if forced to fight for their lives they will give up from exhaustion or pain. Again I re-iterate that gameness does not mean the dog will start fights, and not all APBT show high levels of gameness or even being game at all. See above.

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

Again, complete and utter lack of understanding of even the basics of the APBT. 50 kilos? Are you serious? Most APBT weigh in the low 20-kilo range. They are a medium sized dog. They are also not heavy-set at all. They are lean dogs that are athletic and agile. Think of Jackie Chan as opposed The Rock.

Of course an APBT is going to do more damage than a 10kg dog in similar circumstances. No one is denying that. The bigger the dog, the more damage it is going to do. Similarly, there are a myriad of breeds that are much, much larger that APBT and would do much more damage in that situation. The APBT also does not have the strongest bite strength of all dogs. Rottweilers, German Shepherds and Mastiffs have much stronger bites.

Again I re-iterate, no APBT or bull breed owner would deny that their dogs have much more potential for damage than dogs of smaller or even similar size. But to single them out as if they cause injuries unlike ALL other dogs is insanity. Any dog larger than them (of which there are an enormous amount of breeds considering they are actually small-medium dogs) can do just as much and worse damage.

If you want proof, check out these links. Warning the second link has some pretty horrific dog attack injury photos:

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/do-certain-types-of-dogs-inflict-injuries-unlike-other-types-of-dogs/

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/photographic-illustration-of-dog-bites

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.

Your snarky comment here looks pretty silly now, doesn't it? I agree 100% in the laws of physics and I also agree that smaller and less muscular dogs are not going to cause as much damage in identical situations (that's not to say in different situations they can't cause huge damage. You only have to look at the fatality list to see small dogs killing babies). You seem to have no idea that the APBT is a small - medium dog that generally weighs 25kg and under, and a vast amount of breeds are much bigger/stronger, and therefore laws of physics means they are able to do just as much if not more damage.

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!

So we're in agreeance then. APBT can do lots of damage if they attack. Owners must be aware of this and contain and manage their dogs appropriately. Similarly, all the breeds that are bigger than them can also do lots (if not more) damage when they attack, and their owners must contain and manage their dogs appropriately. Small dog owners shouldn't underestimate their dogs ability to cause injury in the right circumstances either.

[Luke GSP]

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.

Surely though, the issues in this attack and its outcomes goes deeper than the "owner"

Lack of containment

Irresponsible breeding

Large muscular dogs

Whole undesexed animals

All of these have been raised in this thread, just throwing the book at people when this sort of thing happens is not going to prevent it happening in the future. ALL of the contributing factors would need to be addressed. Surely prevention is the aim?

[persephone]

It also occurs to me that their owner was most likely a BYB himself, why else would you keep two entires that look this similar in a backyard without secure kennels/runs/whatever?

That's a big assumption, isn't it?

Lots of people, myself included, love the look of those sort of dogs .. and being a male , he probably did what so many human males do .. left the dogs intact ... cos that's the 'man' thing! he certainly is not alone in keeping tough looking entire male dogs!! :)

AS to why he didn't have secure lockups, I cannot comment, as I didn't see inside his house/yard

[melzawelza]

Melzawelza, hope your dog is ok.

Thanks Aussie, she is fine and -shock horror- didn't fight back. I thought all APBT fight back and are game and attack and are large and muscular and powerful and are MONSTERS :laugh:

[Robbi]

I remember in a previous thread Haredown Whippets shared a link about the main triggers of dog attacks, it was time and again proven that the main triggers included - Entire dogs, lack of socialisation, lack of obedience training and poor dog ownership skills. I am paraphrasing as I cant find the link that was used but it was informative and showed no breed prejudice.

[BlackJaq]

It also occurs to me that their owner was most likely a BYB himself, why else would you keep two entires that look this similar in a backyard without secure kennels/runs/whatever?

That's a big assumption, isn't it?

Lots of people, myself included, love the look of those sort of dogs .. and being a male , he probably did what so many human males do .. left the dogs intact ... cos that's the 'man' thing! he certainly is not alone in keeping tough looking entire male dogs!! :)

AS to why he didn't have secure lockups, I cannot comment, as I didn't see inside his house/yard

One of the dogs was female, not male. Anybody knows that entire female + entire male = puppies. If he did not want puppies I presume he would have taken steps to avoid them?

Do you keep your entire males and females unsupervised in a backyard? :) If so, I find that situation a little dangerous.

[Salukifan]

I remember in a previous thread Haredown Whippets shared a link about the main triggers of dog attacks, it was time and again proven that the main triggers included - Entire dogs, lack of socialisation, lack of obedience training and poor dog ownership skills. I am paraphrasing as I cant find the link that was used but it was informative and showed no breed prejudice.

*zooms into thread and drops in the quote from Karen Delise's book:

Today's media is filled with sensational headlines of dog attacks. Routinely quoted in these newspaper accounts are dated statistics from the Centers for Disease Control. The last CDC study released documented which breeds of dogs caused the most human fatalities from 1979 through 1998. While the CDC did an admirable job of studying fatal dog attacks, and went to great lengths to point out that irresponsible owners were the cause of most of these incidents, the media and lawmakers continue to use CDC statistics to substantiate claims that certain breeds of dogs are inherently more "vicious" than other breeds.

After reviewing over 431 cases of fatal dog attacks it is apparent there is no single factor that translates in a lethal encounter between a person and a dog(s). A fatal dog attack is always the culmination of past and present events that include: inherited and learned behaviors, genetics, breeding, socialization, function of the dog, physical condition and size of the dog, reproductive status of dog, popularity of breed, individual temperament, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim behavior, victim size and physical condition, timing and misfortune.

While many circumstances may contribute to a fatal dog attack, the following three factors appear to play a critical role in the display of

canine aggression towards humans;

Function of the dog - (Includes: dogs acquired for fighting, guarding/protection or image enhancement)

Owner responsibility - (Includes: dogs allowed to roam loose, chained dogs, dogs and/or children left unsupervised, dogs permitted or encouraged to behave

aggressively, animal neglect and/or abuse)

Reproductive status of dog - (Includes: unaltered males dogs, bitches with puppies, children coming between male dog and female dog in estrus)

It is necessary to emphasize that a fatal dog attack is an exceptionally rare event, yet many communities and cities believe that the solution to prevent severe and fatal dog attacks is to label, restrict or ban certain breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous. If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20-25 human fatalities per year. Since only an infinitesimal number of any breed is implicated in a human fatality, it is not only unreasonable to characterize this as a specific breed behavior by which judge an entire population of dogs, it also does little to prevent fatal or severe dog attacks as the real causes and events that contribute to a fatal attack are masked by the issue of breed and not seriously addressed.

From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide). We are increasingly becoming a society that has less and less tolerance and understanding of natural canine behaviors. Breed specific behaviors that have been respected and selected for over the centuries are now often viewed as unnatural or dangerous. Dogs have throughout the centuries served as protectors and guardians of our property, possessions and families. Dogs have also been used for thousands of years to track, chase and hunt both large and small animals. These natural and selected-for canine behaviors seem to now eliciting fear, shock and a sense of distrust among many people.

There seems to be an ever growing expectation of a "behaviorally homogenized" dog - "Benji" in the shape of a Rottweiler. Breeds of dogs with greater protection instincts or an elevated prey-drive are often unfairly viewed as "aggressive or dangerous". No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. [The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep.

Any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as his/her owner allows it to be.

*zooms out again*

Edited October 31, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[dancinbcs]

ETA: If this was, indeed a sexually induced incident then this is in fact EXACTLY what dogs do. I don't know why people argue that this is not typical of dogs. It is. A bitch on heat can and will induce aggression in almost any dog, even dogs of the same sex! If that makes them monsters then 99% of entire dogs are monsters. It is up to their humans to manage this part of their nature!

I have to totally disagree with this statement. Entire male dogs are shown week in week out, all around the country, along side each other and bitches in season and there is very rarely any problem with aggression despite large numbers of dogs being confined to a small area. If what you said was true, every dogshow would be one big dogfight.

I believe in one report the owner admitted to police that he had registered his Pitbulls as Amstaffs which should never be allowed without papers to prove it, so he has already broken many laws. Thankfully the dogs were pts so they can never attack anyone else or reproduce but the owner should have the book thrown at him. We have sufficient BSL laws but they need to be enforced more and expanded to cover crossbreeds of this type. I am very thankful for these laws because the number of Pitbulls in the streets around my area has dropped dramatically but there are still some here and I am yet to see one wearing a red/yellow collar or muzzled while being walked so people are flaunting the law. I would actually like to see all dogs of this type required to undergo a temperament test, including one for DA and if they pass maybe they could issued with say a green collar and be allowed to live as normal desexed pets, any that fail could then live by the current BSL regulations. It could work like the one for greyhounds who pass the test to be allowed in public without a muzzle and allow those that claim their Pitbull is no threat to anyone or any other animal to prove it.

[persephone]

Oh..Oops brain fart sorry .

[BlackJaq]

ETA: If this was, indeed a sexually induced incident then this is in fact EXACTLY what dogs do. I don't know why people argue that this is not typical of dogs. It is. A bitch on heat can and will induce aggression in almost any dog, even dogs of the same sex! If that makes them monsters then 99% of entire dogs are monsters. It is up to their humans to manage this part of their nature!

I have to totally disagree with this statement. Entire male dogs are shown week in week out, all around the country, along side each other and bitches in season and there is very rarely any problem with aggression despite large numbers of dogs being confined to a small area. If what you said was true, every dogshow would be one big dogfight.

If all of those dogs were off leash and left to their own devices with a bitch on heat present, you don't believe those dogs would begin to fight amongst each other? What do you believe the reaction would be? Peaceful interaction?

Are the handlers not managing any potential aggression by handling their dog appropriately?

ETA: I have personally been to dog shows where fights have broken out between entires when they were too close to each other and owners had to separate their dogs. Are you saying this never happens and is quite out of the ordinary?

Edited November 1, 2012 by BlackJaq

[Rebanne]

It could work like the one for greyhounds who pass the test to be allowed in public without a muzzle and allow those that claim their Pitbull is no threat to anyone or any other animal to prove it.

umm greyhounds are nothing like a bull breed and Australia is one of only 2 countries in the whole world that require greyhounds to be muzzled. Greyhounds who are not cat safe can pass.

[mixeduppup]

It could work like the one for greyhounds who pass the test to be allowed in public without a muzzle and allow those that claim their Pitbull is no threat to anyone or any other animal to prove it.

umm greyhounds are nothing like a bull breed and Australia is one of only 2 countries in the whole world that require greyhounds to be muzzled. Greyhounds who are not cat safe can pass.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there tests now for greys and green collared ones (I think it's green) can be walked without a muzzle?

[melzawelza]

ETA: If this was, indeed a sexually induced incident then this is in fact EXACTLY what dogs do. I don't know why people argue that this is not typical of dogs. It is. A bitch on heat can and will induce aggression in almost any dog, even dogs of the same sex! If that makes them monsters then 99% of entire dogs are monsters. It is up to their humans to manage this part of their nature!

I have to totally disagree with this statement. Entire male dogs are shown week in week out, all around the country, along side each other and bitches in season and there is very rarely any problem with aggression despite large numbers of dogs being confined to a small area. If what you said was true, every dogshow would be one big dogfight.

If all of those dogs were off leash and left to their own devices with a bitch on heat present, you don't believe those dogs would begin to fight amongst each other? What do you believe the reaction would be? Peaceful interaction?

Are the handlers not managing any potential aggression by handling their dog appropriately?

ETA: I have personally been to dog shows where fights have broken out between entires when they were too close to each other and owners had to separate their dogs. Are you saying this never happens and is quite out of the ordinary?

Bingo. Plus, bitches in heat usually aren't present at shows anyway.

Dancinbcs you have obviously missed all the evidence that shows that BSL is ineffective in preventing dog attacks, is extremely costly to the taxpayer and wastes enormous amounts of resources that could be spent actually dealing with problem dogs?

[Are You Serious Jo]

Until we get Bogan Specific Legislation we aren't going to get anywhere with this.

[BlackJaq]

It could work like the one for greyhounds who pass the test to be allowed in public without a muzzle and allow those that claim their Pitbull is no threat to anyone or any other animal to prove it.

umm greyhounds are nothing like a bull breed and Australia is one of only 2 countries in the whole world that require greyhounds to be muzzled. Greyhounds who are not cat safe can pass.

I think that entire post was pretty badly informed. Why should bull breeds have to pass a character test but not other breeds that are high (or higher) on the list of offenders like GSDs, Rotts, Labs and pretty much any other medium to large breed that can inflict serious damage on people and animals? There are bunches of breeds that have guarding tendencies or high prey drive, including Border Collies. Why should they be exempt?