Pitbulls Bite Off Teenagers Ear In Savage Attack

[Rebanne]

I suppose that's fair enough with the cats, a lot of dogs wouldn't be cat safe. As long as they are on leash which all dogs should be in public anyway I don't see the issue with passing non-catsafe greys. I'm glad the testing exists now for some greys to get a chance. Off track for a second. Do show greys fall under the same legislation and need to wear muzzles as well? I may have asked this before but can't remember.

yes show greys have to be muzzled too. GAP greys have to be desexed, except for NSW, where they will make an exception for a greyhound being show.

It's another reason mine aren't walked around the streets. Bit unfair for them to be muzzled and unable to defend themselves while other dogs are free to cause trouble.

[Jed]

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.

No, I am not saying the dogs were trained to jump the fence. I am asking whether you have any scientific proof of your assertions?

[mixeduppup]

I suppose that's fair enough with the cats, a lot of dogs wouldn't be cat safe. As long as they are on leash which all dogs should be in public anyway I don't see the issue with passing non-catsafe greys. I'm glad the testing exists now for some greys to get a chance. Off track for a second. Do show greys fall under the same legislation and need to wear muzzles as well? I may have asked this before but can't remember.

yes show greys have to be muzzled too. GAP greys have to be desexed, except for NSW, where they will make an exception for a greyhound being show.

It's another reason mine aren't walked around the streets. Bit unfair for them to be muzzled and unable to defend themselves while other dogs are free to cause trouble.

Yes that seems very unfair. And if they were found to be unmuzzled even if it was the other dog's fault you/your dog would probably be blamed.

[Cosmolo]

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.

[Jed]

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.

[Jed]

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.

Neither I, nor any other reputable breeder would sell a boxer to a first time dog owner. I would not sell a cocker spaniel either, so I agree with you.

Most of these problems are due to unleased dogs in public and dogs not contained by fences.

If councils spent time rectifying these problems, there would be no need for BSL, and attacks would reduce significantly. And owners of boofy looking brown short haired dogs would not live in fear of the council seizing the dog and killing it

[Zhou Xuanyao]

That's easily dismissed by labelling the UKC not credible. On what grounds I'm not sure, but on the basis of experience I anticipate such a response

[felix]

I have to agree on the bitches on heat being shown. It is fairly common.

In Europe it is considered very bad manners to show a bitch in heat. Or, at least, it was some 20 years ago when I was in dog showing.

[Luke GSP]

how ridiculous.

The only thing ridiculous is your utter blindness to reality and refusal to accept that the dog that you defend so blindly is potentially more dangerous than a large amount of other breeds.

I haven't met any registered APBT's in Australia but, when I was in the UK I met and experienced both registered and non, pet and fighting lines and have witnessed first hand with my own eyes what the aftermath looks like when one decides to demonstrate "gameness" and I tell you now that it was not something that I would want to see again. It amazes me how many people say that APBT's can't be HA, as any dog that bites its handler is culled, hence stopping that trait being passed on. Yet I have met several dogs that have later suffered that fate and know full well that they had already been bred from. What do you reckon happens then, the breeder puts out a recall for its offspring and then culls them as well? yeah right!

Never ever underestimate an APBT they are beautiful when they are good (which is the majority of the time IME) but they have the ability to become very ugly, very quickly

[Sheridan]

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.

[Luke GSP]

This breeder really is honest as to the possiblities in any pup.

Always Faithful Amstaffs are dual-registered with the American Kennel Club and the United Kennel Club. The AKC refers to this breed as the American Staffordshire Terrier (Amstaff) while the UKC still recognizes the original name of American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT). Before you seriously consider adding an Amstaff / APBT to your life, take time - a lot of time - to understand what this breed is and what it is not. The following excerpts are taken from Joe Stahlkuppe's The American Pit Bull Terrier Handbook which refers to this breed entirely as the APBT. In understanding the complete APBT, a potential owner should take into account all facets of sharing one's life with a pet of complexity.

Know The APBT

Understanding the APBT requires acceptance of the total package. The strength and power cannot be seen clearly without acknowledging the personality and charm. The toughness of the breed cannot be fully reckoned with without assessing the gentleness of the breed. The APBT's harshly real background should not be a focal point without considering the funny, clownish antics of the dog. Unless you know what owning an APBT truly involves, you are setting yourself (and an innocent dog) up for what could be a failure of monumental proportions. Owning an APBT can be a wonderful experience, but never be deluded that this is just another dog.

Are APBTs and Amstaffs the Same Breed?

The AKC allowed APBTs to be registered as Amstaffs for a number of years until the studbook was closed. This meant that from the closing of the studbook on, the AKC would register only dogs whose parents were registered as American Staffordshire Terriers. Since that time, the Amstaff has gradually changed from what it had been as a renamed American Pit Bull Terrier. It is correct to state, in general terms, that the AKC Amstaff and the APBT of the UKC and ADBA is now not the same breed. They look quite similar, but there have been changes in the Amstaff after 65 years of breeding purely for conformation.

The differences between the Amstaff and the APBT would be even greater if there had not been dual registration. Some of the APBT breeders who opted for their dogs' inclusion in the American Kennel Club as American Staffordshire Terriers, kept their dogs registered in the United Kennel Club as APBTs. There are still some dual-registered dogs today. Several years ago, the top APBT of the United Kennel Club was also the top American Staffordshire Terrier of the American Kennel Club! All claims and dramatic protestations to the contrary, in some cases, the Amstaff and the APBT are the same breed.

Aggressiveness Toward Other Dogs

Many breeds of dogs are animal-aggressive to one degree or another. The popular Jack Russell Terrier, often animal-aggressive, as other members of the terrier group usually are, was originally bred to do battle with rats, badgers, foxes, and other animals. Jack Russells were bred to help deplete the huge number of rats in the days before other reliable extermination processes. To expect the average JRT not to go after a stray cat or trespassing dog is to be unrealistic, but that is not to say that dogs can't be trained and socialized to ignore other animals. This is possible with the Jack Russell and it is possible with the APBT. Dogs that grow up with other animals generally reach an accommodation of their own.

It is important to recognize that APBTs, as a fighting breed, don't respond to challenges in the same way that nonfighting breeds do. 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.

When game-bred dogs confront each other, neither of them will submit to the other. Gameness requires that they never give up. When a fight begins between two game dogs, whether either has never been in a pit before or not, the fight will not stop unless death or human beings stop it. Gameness brings a whole new dimension to a dogfight. No bristling and dominance displays here. There is very little time for a human to intervene after the aggressiveness starts. This is no contest to see who will be top dog, leader of the pack. This fight is more serious with life or death hanging in the balance.

Some game-bred dog breeders have dogs that are perfectly safe around other dogs when out and away from the yard. One breeder, the owner of ten dogs, stated, "I have one dog that I can walk on the streets or in parks and he won't be aggressive unless another dog acts in a threatening manner." This same breeder has nine other dogs that he doesn't feel comfortable in taking out to places where they may encounter other dogs.

Surely these can't be the same APBT's that people are talking about here? I await the defenders assesment of this with anticipation. Saying that, as it does not serve the purpose I assume it will be ignored.

total respect to this breeder though for being upfront and stating clearly the potential!

Edited November 1, 2012 by Luke GSP

[mixeduppup]

it is true that APBT and similar breeds are endowed with more power than other breeds and this gives them more potential to inflict greater damage when/if they do decide to attack either human or canine. I believe BSL is utter shite but I think there needs to be control in place because of the potential these dogs have if put in the wrong hands.

Edited November 1, 2012 by mixeduppup

[melzawelza]

how ridiculous.

The only thing ridiculous is your utter blindness to reality and refusal to accept that the dog that you defend so blindly is potentially more dangerous than a large amount of other breeds.

I haven't met any registered APBT's in Australia but, when I was in the UK I met and experienced both registered and non, pet and fighting lines and have witnessed first hand with my own eyes what the aftermath looks like when one decides to demonstrate "gameness" and I tell you now that it was not something that I would want to see again. It amazes me how many people say that APBT's can't be HA, as any dog that bites its handler is culled, hence stopping that trait being passed on. Yet I have met several dogs that have later suffered that fate and know full well that they had already been bred from. What do you reckon happens then, the breeder puts out a recall for its offspring and then culls them as well? yeah right!

Never ever underestimate an APBT they are beautiful when they are good (which is the majority of the time IME) but they have the ability to become very ugly, very quickly

No reference for your 50kg claim then? No retraction?

Still saying that APBT owners don't recognize their power and potential compared to other breeds? I reference you to all my other posts which agreed that they have much more power than dogs smaller than them and given identical situatons will do more damage. All your 'comparison' breeds and beagles and dachshunds so of course I agree with that.

I dispute that if they attack they are soooooo much more dangerous, and have soooooooo much more potential than breeds larger than them if they attacked in the same situation (Rottweilers, GSD, Mastiffs, LGD... List goes on) as you wish to keep insisting on claiming despite no evidence other than your opinion (the same opinion that claimed that APBT were 50kg).

ALL large breed dogs have potential for serious, devastating injury and must be owned and managed responsibly by their owners. There is just as much onus on a Rottweiler owner as there is an APBT owner, and to suggest otherwise is absolutely ridiculous.

APBT are not some sort of mythical beast that is unlike every single other breed of dog. They are a dog with some genetic tendencies and strength that means they require responsible, careful owners. Many other large breeds of dog have different tendencies that can be just as dangerous, and they also require responsible, careful owners

If you were spouting the same argument but it was 'large dogs vs small dogs' I wouldn't have an issue. My issue is your insistence that the APBT is vastly more 'dangerous' than every other breed of dog on the planet, including large guarding breeds.

Edited November 1, 2012 by melzawelza

[Luke GSP]

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.

But Cosmolo, that would require people to admit that perhaps such dogs required to be treated differently to others which apparently they are not as they are all the same and all as dangerous as each other. I however agree 100% with what you have written.

[Luke GSP]

how ridiculous.

The only thing ridiculous is your utter blindness to reality and refusal to accept that the dog that you defend so blindly is potentially more dangerous than a large amount of other breeds.

I haven't met any registered APBT's in Australia but, when I was in the UK I met and experienced both registered and non, pet and fighting lines and have witnessed first hand with my own eyes what the aftermath looks like when one decides to demonstrate "gameness" and I tell you now that it was not something that I would want to see again. It amazes me how many people say that APBT's can't be HA, as any dog that bites its handler is culled, hence stopping that trait being passed on. Yet I have met several dogs that have later suffered that fate and know full well that they had already been bred from. What do you reckon happens then, the breeder puts out a recall for its offspring and then culls them as well? yeah right!

Never ever underestimate an APBT they are beautiful when they are good (which is the majority of the time IME) but they have the ability to become very ugly, very quickly

No reference for your 50kg claim then? No retraction?

Still saying that APBT owners don't recognize their power and potential compared to other breeds? I reference you to all my other posts which agreed that they have much more power than dogs smaller than them and given identical situatons will do more damage. All your 'comparison' breeds and beagles and dachshunds so of course I agree with that.

I dispute that if they attack they are soooooo much more dangerous, and have soooooooo much more potential than breeds larger than them if they attacked in the same situation (Rottweilers, GSD, Mastiffs, LGD... List goes on) as you wish to keep insisting on claiming despite no evidence other than your opinion (the same opinion that claimed that APBT were 50kg).

ALL large breed dogs have potential for serious, devastating injury and must be owned and managed responsibly by their owners. There is just as much onus on a Rottweiler owner as there is an APBT owner, and to suggest otherwise is absolutely ridiculous.

APBT are not some sort of mythical beast that is unlike every single other breed of dog. They are a dog with some genetic tendencies and strength that means they require responsible, careful owners. Many other large breeds of dog have different tendencies that can be just as dangerous, and they also require responsible, careful owners

If you were spouting the same argument but it was 'large dogs vs small dogs' I wouldn't have an issue. My issue is your insistence that the APBT is vastly more 'dangerous' than every other breed of dog on the planet, including large guarding breeds.

How about you go back through my posts and I think you will find that I frequently mention APBT, amStaff and bull or bull type breeds, it is you who is focusing on APBT's in particular! maybe you should identify exactly what the argument is before you go spouting yourself!

[melzawelza]

how ridiculous.

The only thing ridiculous is your utter blindness to reality and refusal to accept that the dog that you defend so blindly is potentially more dangerous than a large amount of other breeds.

I haven't met any registered APBT's in Australia but, when I was in the UK I met and experienced both registered and non, pet and fighting lines and have witnessed first hand with my own eyes what the aftermath looks like when one decides to demonstrate "gameness" and I tell you now that it was not something that I would want to see again. It amazes me how many people say that APBT's can't be HA, as any dog that bites its handler is culled, hence stopping that trait being passed on. Yet I have met several dogs that have later suffered that fate and know full well that they had already been bred from. What do you reckon happens then, the breeder puts out a recall for its offspring and then culls them as well? yeah right!

Never ever underestimate an APBT they are beautiful when they are good (which is the majority of the time IME) but they have the ability to become very ugly, very quickly

No reference for your 50kg claim then? No retraction?

Still saying that APBT owners don't recognize their power and potential compared to other breeds? I reference you to all my other posts which agreed that they have much more power than dogs smaller than them and given identical situatons will do more damage. All your 'comparison' breeds and beagles and dachshunds so of course I agree with that.

I dispute that if they attack they are soooooo much more dangerous, and have soooooooo much more potential than breeds larger than them if they attacked in the same situation (Rottweilers, GSD, Mastiffs, LGD... List goes on) as you wish to keep insisting on claiming despite no evidence other than your opinion (the same opinion that claimed that APBT were 50kg).

ALL large breed dogs have potential for serious, devastating injury and must be owned and managed responsibly by their owners. There is just as much onus on a Rottweiler owner as there is an APBT owner, and to suggest otherwise is absolutely ridiculous.

APBT are not some sort of mythical beast that is unlike every single other breed of dog. They are a dog with some genetic tendencies and strength that means they require responsible, careful owners. Many other large breeds of dog have different tendencies that can be just as dangerous, and they also require responsible, careful owners

If you were spouting the same argument but it was 'large dogs vs small dogs' I wouldn't have an issue. My issue is your insistence that the APBT is vastly more 'dangerous' than every other breed of dog on the planet, including large guarding breeds.

How about you go back through my posts and I think you will find that I frequently mention APBT, amStaff and bull or bull type breeds, it is you who is focusing on APBT's in particular! maybe you should identify exactly what the argument is before you go spouting yourself!

I am including all bull breeds. An APBT, AmStaff, SBT etc all require a responsible owner. Just like Rottweilers, livestock guardian dogs, German shepherds, malinois, mastiffs, cane corso and so on and so on and so on.

The bigger the dog, the more likely to do damage. An APBT is a medium size dog and can be tenacious, which requires a certain level of management and knowledge for successful ownership, but being that they are only medium sized there are plenty of much larger dogs that pose just as much of a risk (if not more) if each attacked in identical situations.

I tell you what, my pit type dog didn't stand a chance against the dog that attacked her last week (which was much largwr than her).If a passerby had not quickly grabbed its lead before things got really ugly it would have been horrific.

[Luke GSP]

The bigger the dog, the more likely to do damage.

I think you mean greater potential damage, if it were more "likely" it would mean that a bigger dog has a greater propensity to do damage. It is not the frequency or desire to cause damage that I have an issue with it is the positive PR being given to certain breeds of dog whilst trying to flatly refuse to acknowledge that they have the ability to inflict greater potential damage. I am not talking purely about you, but about the bull and large breed defenders in general.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Some documentary makers, I don't remember who for certain but I suspect it was Nat Geo, conducted a bit force experiment in which they measured the bite force of an APBT, a Rottweiler, and a Mastiff. The results indicated what one might expect, a correlation between head size and bite force. I think Myth Busters may have run a similar experiment, with similar results.

Also it's not necessarily true that APBT's have exceptional game or drive qualities, this is a long way from the reality of today's pet bred dogs in my experience. I think that's often a concession that APBT apologists make to their belligerents in an effort to pacify them a little bit by demonstrating some 'give and take', but it's simply not the case. Great variety exists within the breed, both in terms of form and function. I believe I recall that the weight standard has a 20kg threshold, in that fact alone we can appreciate that there's a big difference between a dog of 14kg and one of 34kg!

Edited November 1, 2012 by Lo Pan

[BlackJaq]

Anyways, I need to go do some chores but I hope the BSL defenders and bully haters read some of the links and information supplied in this thread (once again.. there are plenty of educational threads on DOL) and I don't think that any true dog lover could support BSL in good conscience. Almost everybody will meet a dog/dogs of a certain look or breed at some stage and find them less than friendly or even outright dangerous. That doesn't mean that all dogs that look similar should be killed or even targeted.

As I said, I would welcome it if all dogs and owners were managed/monitored, rather than just certain individuals.

Just a question: Would you support the "softening of laws" so that certain dogs could only be owned by people who had passed some sort of assessment and the dog had a (reliable) temp test? similar to what happens in NSW with regards to the temp test.

The reason I ask is that I can't see BSL being overturned any time soon, especially in Vic (where I live). I would prefer a system that didn't kill all dogs of a certain look. It would be better if dogs of a certain power/weight were temp tested and owners would need to prove that they had the resources to care for them. Something similar to the greyhound scheme would suffice. I would like to see a "responsible owner" system apply for all dogs, but I can't see it flying because of the cost/political backlash.

At least this way, dogs and owners have an out.

FWIW, I don't support BSL in its current form, but I'm glad that some breeds are banned from importation (which is different to killing dogs that are already here that haven't committed any offences). If all laws regarding breed were suddenly lifted and anyone could breed and sell any dog they wanted I don't see an improvement happening. When we talk about BSL the focus is always on pitbulls, but it applies to greyhounds and Argentinian fighting dogs etc too.

It would depend what the criteria is for passing. I think we have all heard of the RSPCA test that sees dogs gather a huge number of points for things liek chasing cats. There are many, many registered breeds that will react to a small animal running past them. I definitely think that an appropriate temp test (such as is being used in the US for good canine citizen certification or whatever it is called) has its place. So does responsible breeding. Those dogs are already here now and exterminating any dog of a certain look will not reduce dog bite deaths. Yes I am glad some other "macho" breeds are not allowed to be imported as I believe many people would be attracted to them for the wrong reasons, just like what has happened to many bull breeds.

As I said before, I think owners should be licensed as dogs are potentially dangerous. More so if their owners are uneducated/ignorant/stupid. At least this approach would target everybody equally, rather than a certain look of dog for looks alone. Its not like dogs were seized, subjected to a temp test and destroyed because they were dangerous. They are being destroyed because of their looks alone.

[megan_]

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.