Man Charged Over Death Of Pomeranian

[Steph M]

Looks like a deadset snugglepuss to me!

[Holmesy]

Not to derail this thread, but you're wrong too Blackjaq, which goes to show just how hard it is to define the breed unless you're fairly knowledgable.

The picture at the top is actually just a Mastiff (or English Mastiff depending on where you are). The picture in the article is most definitely a bullmastiff, but i've never ever come across a grey and white bullmastiff. Mine is fawn, and there is no way you could possibly interpret that colour as white or grey. I think that one of the first replies to this thread said it best when they said that the dog in question was probably a crossbreed (possibly a bullmastiff crossbreed).

This thread does highlight the number of judgmental people that use this forum. It is sad that the poor little dog died, and the owner is understandably devastated (as any of us would be if we lost our beloved dog)

We don't know all of the circumstances, other than the allegations made by the victim's owner. Shouldn't matter about the type of neighbourhood, or the wealth, or how the victim's owner looks, a small dog was attacked and killed by an out of control dog owned by somebody else. Sometimes reading this forum is like watching a soap opera on television.

Of course, with yet another "bullmastiff" dog attack story in the news again, my poor poor Tin Tin will be assumed to be vicious because the press says so.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Holmesy

[BlackJaq]

I will replace the image will an AKC image if that pleases you :) ...

ETA: The dog in the article is only a stock image, not the actual dog.

Edited September 30, 2013 by BlackJaq

[Holmesy]

Much better :). If bullmastiffs grew to the size of that one in the picture, the press would have a field day :)

[BlackJaq]

I may also replace the pit with a UKC example to make it fair. No AKC recognition for the breed, hence different registry

ETA: The difference in size is still gianormous

pit UKC weight: between 35 and 60 pounds

bm AKC weight: between 110 to 130 pounds

Edited September 30, 2013 by BlackJaq

[melzawelza]

ADBA pits (arguably the 'true' American Pit Bull Terrier) are even smaller than UKC Pits.

[Alison03]

Bull Mastiff:

from http://www.akc.org/breeds/bullmastiff/index.cfm

Pitbull:

from http://thebullybreeds.com/2013/01/10/pit-bull-conformation-ukc-standard/

I think a simple google image search will make the difference abundantly clear....

The size alone is like a molehill and a mountain

ETA: I have decided to no longer include "bull" in any of my dogs' breed. This is my dog of the breed "snugglepuss"

Thanks for posting the photos BlackJaq, at least I know what a bull mastiff type looks like. It's a pity these handsome dogs are being misused by people, like the terrible person in Calamvale. Creatures like that man are the ones who are casting a black shadow over all bull breeds, no one else, definitely not the victims.

In defense of the people who attend a dog attack, the police, paramedics and members of the press, it is traumatic for them also, particularly if someone has died or is badly injured, they are bound to have an aversion to the type of dog involved in doing the attacking. Instead of putting photos of the type of dog in an article, they should put photos of the type of maggot that owns the dog. Anyone who uses a dog as a weapon or allows their dog to be off leash knowing or suspecting its capabilities is irresponsible in some cases and criminal in others. Any type of dog can be used as a weapon, perhaps the people with evil intentions prefer to use the bull breeds or perhaps the press zero's in on those attacks only, whatever the reason it's the owners of those dogs who are at fault. As usual it's the few screwing it up for the many.

I don't know what the solution is, banning the breed won't work, the wicked will just swap to an unbanned breed. As always human beings prove themselves to be the worst predators of all.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Alison03

[BlackJaq]

I guess I have bit of beef with the way "bull breed" incidences are perceived to me so much worse than other breed incidents. I am not talking about this case in particular so much, but not that long ago for example a Kelpie savaged a young girl's face pretty badly when they were left unattended and basically everyone shrugged it off and said "well, he was a working sheep dog, not a pet and nobody was there so we don't know why he did it".

The dog was admittedly very valuable as he was a champion trial dog, but nothing at all happened to him, not even a DD declaration.

Now compare this to the case where the young boy was killed by the relative's pig dog, or any other case that involves a "bull breed" or a "scary" mastiff or whatever.

Surely attending a child that was savaged by a Kelpie would be just as traumatizing as attending a child savaged by a bully, JRT or even a cat?

Why is it that certain (alleged) breed involvement turns everyone into a hysterical mob? Are not all bites, maulings and deaths equally distressing regardless of the appearance of the dog who was the culprit?

It is almost like people's lives are too boring now and they need to invent new horrors to help spice up their daily routine. Dog attacks are still a numerically minor occurrence, compared to road deaths, incidents involving alcohol or whatever, but Man ever needs something to demonize and be afraid of.

I really hope that most dog people have more sense than to jump on the bandwagon that tries to convince the public that "death by dog" could be just around the corner for anyone and hopefully the public will eventually wise up enough to stop gobbling up horror stories and demand that media start placing blame where it belongs, rather than supporting ever more crazy dog laws, which could only possibly be written by people who greatly dislike dogs, as far as I can see.

Hysteria never helped anybody prevent these kind of things, only logical analyzation of the facts can allow measures to be taken to actually help prevent or at least reduce incidents with dogs.

Edited October 1, 2013 by BlackJaq

[Alyosha]

Not to derail this thread, but you're wrong too Blackjaq, which goes to show just how hard it is to define the breed unless you're fairly knowledgable.

The picture at the top is actually just a Mastiff (or English Mastiff depending on where you are). The picture in the article is most definitely a bullmastiff, but i've never ever come across a grey and white bullmastiff. Mine is fawn, and there is no way you could possibly interpret that colour as white or grey. I think that one of the first replies to this thread said it best when they said that the dog in question was probably a crossbreed (possibly a bullmastiff crossbreed).

This thread does highlight the number of judgmental people that use this forum. It is sad that the poor little dog died, and the owner is understandably devastated (as any of us would be if we lost our beloved dog)

We don't know all of the circumstances, other than the allegations made by the victim's owner. Shouldn't matter about the type of neighbourhood, or the wealth, or how the victim's owner looks, a small dog was attacked and killed by an out of control dog owned by somebody else. Sometimes reading this forum is like watching a soap opera on television.

Of course, with yet another "bullmastiff" dog attack story in the news again, my poor poor Tin Tin will be assumed to be vicious because the press says so.

It's not a Mastiff ("English Mastiff" is as much a misnomer as "English Staffy" btw). It looks most likely to indeed be a Bullmastiff, or could even be a Boerboel.

Both Bullmastiff and Mastiff standards are here:

http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=164 http://www.ankc.org.au/Breed_Details.aspx?bid=169

Many mis-identifications are made by self proclaimed breed experts who are far from it. And consequently can do more harm than good. Little different to people who label anything, from shin high to waist high that is tan with a black mask a "mastiff x".

Sorry. OT...

Don't forget too that brindle, depending on it's shade, can easily be confused for grey by many people... Going off scant and unproven details provided by the press and forming opinions about what the dog isn't is just as bad as people using the same dodgy info to say what the dog is. Speculation doesn't help.

edit - fix links...

Edited October 1, 2013 by Alyosha

[Diva]

Not to derail this thread, but you're wrong too Blackjaq, which goes to show just how hard it is to define the breed unless you're fairly knowledgable.

The picture at the top is actually just a Mastiff (or English Mastiff depending on where you are). The picture in the article is most definitely a bullmastiff, but i've never ever come across a grey and white bullmastiff. Mine is fawn, and there is no way you could possibly interpret that colour as white or grey. I think that one of the first replies to this thread said it best when they said that the dog in question was probably a crossbreed (possibly a bullmastiff crossbreed).

It's not a Mastiff ("English Mastiff" is as much a misnomer as "English Staffy" btw). It looks most likely to indeed be a Bullmastiff, or could even be a Boerboel.

I think the photo was changed Alyosha. Blackjaq replaced whatever was there originally and put up an AKC Bullmastiff photo in its place.

[Alyosha]

Makes more sense now! :D

[Alison03]

I guess I have bit of beef with the way "bull breed" incidences are perceived to me so much worse than other breed incidents. I am not talking about this case in particular so much, but not that long ago for example a Kelpie savaged a young girl's face pretty badly when they were left unattended and basically everyone shrugged it off and said "well, he was a working sheep dog, not a pet and nobody was there so we don't know why he did it".

The dog was admittedly very valuable as he was a champion trial dog, but nothing at all happened to him, not even a DD declaration.

Now compare this to the case where the young boy was killed by the relative's pig dog, or any other case that involves a "bull breed" or a "scary" mastiff or whatever.

Surely attending a child that was savaged by a Kelpie would be just as traumatizing as attending a child savaged by a bully, JRT or even a cat?

Why is it that certain (alleged) breed involvement turns everyone into a hysterical mob? Are not all bites, maulings and deaths equally distressing regardless of the appearance of the dog who was the culprit?

It is almost like people's lives are too boring now and they need to invent new horrors to help spice up their daily routine. Dog attacks are still a numerically minor occurrence, compared to road deaths, incidents involving alcohol or whatever, but Man ever needs something to demonize and be afraid of.

I really hope that most dog people have more sense than to jump on the bandwagon that tries to convince the public that "death by dog" could be just around the corner for anyone and hopefully the public will eventually wise up enough to stop gobbling up horror stories and demand that media start placing blame where it belongs, rather than supporting ever more crazy dog laws, which could only possibly be written by people who greatly dislike dogs, as far as I can see.

Hysteria never helped anybody prevent these kind of things, only logical analyzation of the facts can allow measures to be taken to actually help prevent or at least reduce incidents with dogs.

I've noticed you hardly ever hear of any other type of dog attack, it does lead the general public to believe its only certain breeds of dogs that attack, which we know just isn't true. I can think of many dog attacks I know of personally that didn't involve bull breeds, cattle dogs seem to rate highly in the biting stakes for instance, I found a list on the Internet somewhere compiled by various councils of dogs most likely to bite, cattle dogs and Labradors (which surprised me) were right at the top, along with JRT's. I think the press don't turn up for those types of incidents.

[tdierikx]

I guess I have bit of beef with the way "bull breed" incidences are perceived to me so much worse than other breed incidents. I am not talking about this case in particular so much, but not that long ago for example a Kelpie savaged a young girl's face pretty badly when they were left unattended and basically everyone shrugged it off and said "well, he was a working sheep dog, not a pet and nobody was there so we don't know why he did it".

The dog was admittedly very valuable as he was a champion trial dog, but nothing at all happened to him, not even a DD declaration.

Now compare this to the case where the young boy was killed by the relative's pig dog, or any other case that involves a "bull breed" or a "scary" mastiff or whatever.

Surely attending a child that was savaged by a Kelpie would be just as traumatizing as attending a child savaged by a bully, JRT or even a cat?

Why is it that certain (alleged) breed involvement turns everyone into a hysterical mob? Are not all bites, maulings and deaths equally distressing regardless of the appearance of the dog who was the culprit?

It is almost like people's lives are too boring now and they need to invent new horrors to help spice up their daily routine. Dog attacks are still a numerically minor occurrence, compared to road deaths, incidents involving alcohol or whatever, but Man ever needs something to demonize and be afraid of.

I really hope that most dog people have more sense than to jump on the bandwagon that tries to convince the public that "death by dog" could be just around the corner for anyone and hopefully the public will eventually wise up enough to stop gobbling up horror stories and demand that media start placing blame where it belongs, rather than supporting ever more crazy dog laws, which could only possibly be written by people who greatly dislike dogs, as far as I can see.

Hysteria never helped anybody prevent these kind of things, only logical analyzation of the facts can allow measures to be taken to actually help prevent or at least reduce incidents with dogs.

I've noticed you hardly ever hear of any other type of dog attack, it does lead the general public to believe its only certain breeds of dogs that attack, which we know just isn't true. I can think of many dog attacks I know of personally that didn't involve bull breeds, cattle dogs seem to rate highly in the biting stakes for instance, I found a list on the Internet somewhere compiled by various councils of dogs most likely to bite, cattle dogs and Labradors (which surprised me) were right at the top, along with JRT's. I think the press don't turn up for those types of incidents.

You are correct Alison03 - the media don't want to know unless it can be called a "pitbull"... sad, but true...

Then there is also the fact that the same media are telling people that Labs, Cattle Dogs, and JRT's are great family pets... which may not be the case with every individual dog of any of those breeds/mixes.

T.

[Alison03]

I guess I have bit of beef with the way "bull breed" incidences are perceived to me so much worse than other breed incidents. I am not talking about this case in particular so much, but not that long ago for example a Kelpie savaged a young girl's face pretty badly when they were left unattended and basically everyone shrugged it off and said "well, he was a working sheep dog, not a pet and nobody was there so we don't know why he did it".

The dog was admittedly very valuable as he was a champion trial dog, but nothing at all happened to him, not even a DD declaration.

Now compare this to the case where the young boy was killed by the relative's pig dog, or any other case that involves a "bull breed" or a "scary" mastiff or whatever.

Surely attending a child that was savaged by a Kelpie would be just as traumatizing as attending a child savaged by a bully, JRT or even a cat?

Why is it that certain (alleged) breed involvement turns everyone into a hysterical mob? Are not all bites, maulings and deaths equally distressing regardless of the appearance of the dog who was the culprit?

It is almost like people's lives are too boring now and they need to invent new horrors to help spice up their daily routine. Dog attacks are still a numerically minor occurrence, compared to road deaths, incidents involving alcohol or whatever, but Man ever needs something to demonize and be afraid of.

I really hope that most dog people have more sense than to jump on the bandwagon that tries to convince the public that "death by dog" could be just around the corner for anyone and hopefully the public will eventually wise up enough to stop gobbling up horror stories and demand that media start placing blame where it belongs, rather than supporting ever more crazy dog laws, which could only possibly be written by people who greatly dislike dogs, as far as I can see.

Hysteria never helped anybody prevent these kind of things, only logical analyzation of the facts can allow measures to be taken to actually help prevent or at least reduce incidents with dogs.

I've noticed you hardly ever hear of any other type of dog attack, it does lead the general public to believe its only certain breeds of dogs that attack, which we know just isn't true. I can think of many dog attacks I know of personally that didn't involve bull breeds, cattle dogs seem to rate highly in the biting stakes for instance, I found a list on the Internet somewhere compiled by various councils of dogs most likely to bite, cattle dogs and Labradors (which surprised me) were right at the top, along with JRT's. I think the press don't turn up for those types of incidents.

You are correct Alison03 - the media don't want to know unless it can be called a "pitbull"... sad, but true...

Then there is also the fact that the same media are telling people that Labs, Cattle Dogs, and JRT's are great family pets... which may not be the case with every individual dog of any of those breeds/mixes.

T.

Yes I've noticed how the breed of dog always seems to be the same in dog attacks, but if you check out dog attack lists they aren't actually at the top of the list, the good family dogs are right up there. Cattle/kelpie dogs are an issue where I live. There are bull mastiff type dogs but I've never heard of an issue with them.

A friend of mine has a JRT that is slowly destroying her garden and is a very snappy fellow, has to be locked up when the grand kids visit, as it's had a go at biting them.

[Steph M]

I'm pretty over the media and it's so obvious 'flavour of the week' where they dredge and dramatise any story related to their chosen topid. Anyone in Melb knows it's bikies this week, next might be dog attacks again.

I expect more from my media than Today Tonight and am continually saddened. Sigh.

[Alison03]

I stopped watching Today Tonight and Current Affair years ago, some of their stories are very weak and not well researched. Unfortunately a lot of people do watch them and believe it all.

: (

Edited October 1, 2013 by Alison03

[Steph M]

What I meant was even the (real) news and papers are heading the same way. I certainly have never watched that drivel. Yuck!

[Lasareina]

Cattle dogs are the ones that scare me actually - the only dog that's had a go of me is the "loving family pet" cattle dog next door that runs up and down the fence line and tries to bit you through the fence. Got me on the face once as I was leaning down to secure the gate pin.

I have also met some lovely cattle dogs but I guess I am a little scarred from my ongoing experience with the ones next door.

Goes to show how easily prejudices can form - I am normally squarely in the 'blame the deed not the breed' camp!

[Steph M]

I'd have to agree. Only dog I've ever been bitten by and met some shockers, also loved my boyfriends mothers cattle x dingo dearly.

I watched a 12 week old cattle pup race over and stand over Gus who lay down to play and promptly rolled over when pup got growly and got chased off by the pup while the young female owner giggled and said 'your dog is so soft!' the other day and I really shuddered. She's in for some real trouble I suspect.

I try not to be too prejudice but I certainly don't go out of my way to correct my assumptions, which I probably should work on. There's good and bad, logically I know this. Haha.

[Alison03]

What I meant was even the (real) news and papers are heading the same way. I certainly have never watched that drivel. Yuck!

They are all competing with each other for the biggest shock value, sells more papers and getting higher ratings.