Matthew_B
-
Posts
81 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Matthew_B
-
-
Wow, sheer lunacy!
If we believed you, every Police Dog Squad member and security guard dog unit would be suffering numerous injuries caused by their dogs. The fact that they don't is because the breeds selected are those which can be trained to restrain their aggressiveness and to attack only when commanded. The pitbull that killed the little girl that is the subject of this topic could not be stopped no matter what.
The dog that killed this little girl wasn't a pitbull Matthew and you know it.
The overwhelming majority of individuals of breeds used for police and security work fail the grade for a range of reasons. BTW, dog bites are pretty common in dog handlers.
Which part of "because some pitbulls might be dangerous doesn't mean ALL of them are" can't you grasp.
Some Labradors are dangerous Matthew. Seriously scarey dogs. Doesnt mean all of them are and you're in a better position than most to know it.
But take a poorly bred Labrador, fail to socialise it to recognise children as somethign other than prey, fail to teach it bite inhibition, fail to keep it in a manner that sees it form good social bonds with people, fail to train it to come back when its called and fail to exercise it regularly and you've got a recipe for a dangerous dog. The breed matters only as far as size and power go. It matter as far as bite thresholds and bite inhibitions go. It also matter as far as drives go. Crossbreed it with other large and powerful dogs and your capacity to know what its drives and inhibitions are decreases exponentially.
But none of those qualities is restriced to particular breeds, nor shared by all individuals within a breed. Assuming so is the path to disaster and that's the path that BSL takes.
Labradors weren't bred for fighting. Pitbulls were and are.
-
I am astonished that so many of you continue to defend such a vicious, dangerous breed of dog. This is a breed that has been bred for one purpose only - to fight. There is no need for a fighting dog in modern society. Yes, other dogs can snap, but the statistics are stark. Even though pitbull breeds are vastly outnumbered in comparison to other dog breeds in our homes (more people have GR's or Lab's than a pitbull breed as family pet), they are by far the most prolific breed involved in deaths and maimings. It's got absolutely nothing at all to do with how the dog is raised or how it is treated. It's the dogs' primitive instinct to fight. Sure, some may be placid and never snap. But in my opinion, it's a risk that is not worth taking. That little girl died a terrifying, truly horrific and painful death right in front of her mother because someone wanted to have a fighting dog as their pet. There can be no excuses for the owner. This tragedy was completely preventable - if the owner of that dog had a non-fighting breed of dog, the chances are very slim to nil that this attack would have occurred. As far as I am concerned, in the eyes of the law a person who owns a fighting dog that kills or maims should be treated in the same category as owning a gun. It's time for tough penalties for owners of these dogs. A strong deterrent is required to stop people from breeding or buying these horrible dogs. The sooner they are extinct, the better off we'll all be.
Where do you get your info Matthew?Obviously the nightly news and the internet.Where do you come to the conclusion that pitbulls are involved in more deaths than any other breed?Like I said before no Purebred American Pitbull Terrier has been involved in a fatality in this country to date so dont worry what happens in the US.
Your ignorance is astounding and the fact that you still think how a dog is raised has nothing to do with it shows you do not understand dogs or the basics of ownership and therefore I dont think you should own a dog at all.You keep saying fighting dog,the dog was a crossbreed it was not an American pitbull Terrier you and the media conveniently keep overlooking that fact.
I agree with the dogs being restricted.I agree with tougher penalties for owners whose dogs attack but I have had that opinion for a long time and have written submissions to the DLG stating such.The problem is they took the easiest and least effective and cheapest way out.Like I have said before a million times they will not eradicate pitbulls from the Australian landscape.We are a decade on from BSL and what has changed?If you cant stop it then control it and remove the breed specific part and make owners responsible.For a start councils should inspect premises where dogs are to be kept and if they will be properly contained if not no licence issued and you have 28 days to provide containment and comply or you forfeit dogs or move from that area.
I'll refer you to a previous post...
Pitbull (all types) attacks: 1,392
Pitbull (all types) deaths: 137
Pitbull (all types) maimings: 734
Maybe you need to read what is written.Those statistics are from the US and Canada over a 26 year period and have no bearing on this country.No Ameeican Pitbull Terrier has been responsible for a single fatality in this country to date in about a 30 year period over the same time period.Why do you think this is genius? What part of that dont you understand.
Um, I never said it was an APBT. I said pitbulls as a breed. How many dog-related deaths over the past decade in Australia haven't involved a breed of pitbull? Very, very few. They are fighting dogs and have no use for anything other than to fight or to make some moron feel big and tough when he's walking the stupid thing.
-
PitBulls have a very bad reputation in society. Just imagine trying to sell your house and telling the prospective buyers that your next door neighbour has one or two Pitbulls. They are one of the most feared type of dog in modern society. Now a pitbull type has slaughtered a small child, someone's baby. What good is a having a dog that has to be confined for fear of it attacking an animal or human ? My opinion is this type of dog has no place in society. Do the dogs suffer because they have bad owners that don't know what to do ? Yes. Do we need these dogs ? No.
TD, the fact the society fears something doesn't mean that fear has any basis in fact. I wish folk could see that their belief is being manipulated by politicians and the media for their own agendas and for the most part with no real reason for that fear.
I get that people are worried about large powerful dogs and their potential to kill. I share that concern.
I wish folk would read past the headlines and hysteria and actually educate themselves about what makes a killer dog. The research is out there, the books are out there and the fact that most people with real knowledge of dogs and dog aggression don't support BSL should be telling you that something's smelly about the BSL solution.
Which part of "banning dogs breeds doesn't stop dog attacks" are people failing to grasp???
People like Mathew and others who dont have a fundamental understanding of dogs dont realise how easy it is to make a maneater.They can remove all pitbulls tomorrow and using dogs that are already here and legal you can breed another type of dog in a very short space of time.One that is more human aggressive ,larger and more dangerous.It is not that hard and not that hard to turn them nasty.Armed with that knowledge which end of the leash should you target?
If a meth head can make a batch of meth under his kitchen sink with limited knowledge and basic ingredients it proves you dont need to be a chemist.Dog breeding is the same its not rocket science.
Wow, sheer lunacy!
If we believed you, every Police Dog Squad member and security guard dog unit would be suffering numerous injuries caused by their dogs. The fact that they don't is because the breeds selected are those which can be trained to restrain their aggressiveness and to attack only when commanded. The pitbull that killed the little girl that is the subject of this topic could not be stopped no matter what. -
I am astonished that so many of you continue to defend such a vicious, dangerous breed of dog. This is a breed that has been bred for one purpose only - to fight. There is no need for a fighting dog in modern society. Yes, other dogs can snap, but the statistics are stark. Even though pitbull breeds are vastly outnumbered in comparison to other dog breeds in our homes (more people have GR's or Lab's than a pitbull breed as family pet), they are by far the most prolific breed involved in deaths and maimings. It's got absolutely nothing at all to do with how the dog is raised or how it is treated. It's the dogs' primitive instinct to fight. Sure, some may be placid and never snap. But in my opinion, it's a risk that is not worth taking. That little girl died a terrifying, truly horrific and painful death right in front of her mother because someone wanted to have a fighting dog as their pet. There can be no excuses for the owner. This tragedy was completely preventable - if the owner of that dog had a non-fighting breed of dog, the chances are very slim to nil that this attack would have occurred. As far as I am concerned, in the eyes of the law a person who owns a fighting dog that kills or maims should be treated in the same category as owning a gun. It's time for tough penalties for owners of these dogs. A strong deterrent is required to stop people from breeding or buying these horrible dogs. The sooner they are extinct, the better off we'll all be.
Where do you get your info Matthew?Obviously the nightly news and the internet.Where do you come to the conclusion that pitbulls are involved in more deaths than any other breed?Like I said before no Purebred American Pitbull Terrier has been involved in a fatality in this country to date so dont worry what happens in the US.
Your ignorance is astounding and the fact that you still think how a dog is raised has nothing to do with it shows you do not understand dogs or the basics of ownership and therefore I dont think you should own a dog at all.You keep saying fighting dog,the dog was a crossbreed it was not an American pitbull Terrier you and the media conveniently keep overlooking that fact.
I agree with the dogs being restricted.I agree with tougher penalties for owners whose dogs attack but I have had that opinion for a long time and have written submissions to the DLG stating such.The problem is they took the easiest and least effective and cheapest way out.Like I have said before a million times they will not eradicate pitbulls from the Australian landscape.We are a decade on from BSL and what has changed?If you cant stop it then control it and remove the breed specific part and make owners responsible.For a start councils should inspect premises where dogs are to be kept and if they will be properly contained if not no licence issued and you have 28 days to provide containment and comply or you forfeit dogs or move from that area.
I'll refer you to a previous post...
Pitbull (all types) attacks: 1,392
Pitbull (all types) deaths: 137
Pitbull (all types) maimings: 734
-
I am astonished that so many of you continue to defend such a vicious, dangerous breed of dog. This is a breed that has been bred for one purpose only - to fight. There is no need for a fighting dog in modern society. Yes, other dogs can snap, but the statistics are stark. Even though pitbull breeds are vastly outnumbered in comparison to other dog breeds in our homes (more people have GR's or Lab's than a pitbull breed as family pet), they are by far the most prolific breed involved in deaths and maimings. It's got absolutely nothing at all to do with how the dog is raised or how it is treated. It's the dogs' primitive instinct to fight. Sure, some may be placid and never snap. But in my opinion, it's a risk that is not worth taking. That little girl died a terrifying, truly horrific and painful death right in front of her mother because someone wanted to have a fighting dog as their pet. There can be no excuses for the owner. This tragedy was completely preventable - if the owner of that dog had a non-fighting breed of dog, the chances are very slim to nil that this attack would have occurred. As far as I am concerned, in the eyes of the law a person who owns a fighting dog that kills or maims should be treated in the same category as owning a gun. It's time for tough penalties for owners of these dogs. A strong deterrent is required to stop people from breeding or buying these horrible dogs. The sooner they are extinct, the better off we'll all be.
FFS Mathew stop your harping and non sense dribble! The dog was a crossbreed, you can not compare and keep blaming the APBT. I've said It before dogs are not born killers they are made by humans, you're targeting the wrong end. This Is not a breed related problem, but a human one
How many times does it have to be said they have never been bred for human aggression! NEVER
Cross two breeds of unknown origin/history and you get what??? Nothing but a lucky dip
I am not blaming the APBT - I am blaming ALL breeds of pitbull. There's just no need, no use, no justification for having one of these fighting dogs. They are trouble just waiting to happen. BIG trouble.
-
I am astonished that so many of you continue to defend such a vicious, dangerous breed of dog. This is a breed that has been bred for one purpose only - to fight. There is no need for a fighting dog in modern society. Yes, other dogs can snap, but the statistics are stark. Even though pitbull breeds are vastly outnumbered in comparison to other dog breeds in our homes (more people have GR's or Lab's than a pitbull breed as family pet), they are by far the most prolific breed involved in deaths and maimings. It's got absolutely nothing at all to do with how the dog is raised or how it is treated. It's the dogs' primitive instinct to fight. Sure, some may be placid and never snap. But in my opinion, it's a risk that is not worth taking. That little girl died a terrifying, truly horrific and painful death right in front of her mother because someone wanted to have a fighting dog as their pet. There can be no excuses for the owner. This tragedy was completely preventable - if the owner of that dog had a non-fighting breed of dog, the chances are very slim to nil that this attack would have occurred. As far as I am concerned, in the eyes of the law a person who owns a fighting dog that kills or maims should be treated in the same category as owning a gun. It's time for tough penalties for owners of these dogs. A strong deterrent is required to stop people from breeding or buying these horrible dogs. The sooner they are extinct, the better off we'll all be.
-
-
For the record, I don't agree with banning a breed either as the dickhead owners (who are the fault) will just move onto another breed. However, if the responsible owners here are to save their breed, they need to recognise there is a problem with ownership, get better spokespeople in the media and work with authorities to find a solution, not get on the defensive every time there is an attack.
I think you'll find the Pit folks have been quite reasonably In this debate, however much can be said for the other party Including throwing Insults.
Mathew B could you please answer the previous question asked
Sure, which question? Must have missed it...
The dog is now being reported as a crossbreed.
What do you say to that?
I believe is the question PF asked you a few pages back.
ETA here it is
Ok, so the dog is not a pitbull.
Where does that leave us?
I don't claim to be an expert on visually identifying all dog breeds (I know a German Shepherd from a Beagle, put it that way), so I'll leave it up to the experts. My argument is regarding pitbulls in general...
-
A 'dob in a dangerous dog' hotline will also be established to enable to public to alert council if there is a suspect dog in their neighbourhood.
This Is what I am fearing, how many Innocent dogs are going to get caught up In this
Mathew B you have yet to answer the question
Yes, and I asked what the question was because I missed it and couldn't find it...
-
The thing that gets me is that a dog like a Golden Retriever is far more common in the average household than the pitbull, yet we see far more attacks and deaths from pitbulls than Golden Retrievers. I wonder why??? Could it be because it IS in fact a dangerous breed? I think so!
-
For the record, I don't agree with banning a breed either as the dickhead owners (who are the fault) will just move onto another breed. However, if the responsible owners here are to save their breed, they need to recognise there is a problem with ownership, get better spokespeople in the media and work with authorities to find a solution, not get on the defensive every time there is an attack.
I think you'll find the Pit folks have been quite reasonably In this debate, however much can be said for the other party Including throwing Insults.
Mathew B could you please answer the previous question asked
Sure, which question? Must have missed it...
-
It's quite simple, even you should be able to understand it. Ban the breed and it ceases to be around to kill or maim people.
Just curious - what breed do you own?
A two year old Labrador Retriever (yellow/golden) purebred.
-
No use arguing with you. You're obviously a pitbull fanboy and will not see anyone else's side of the story no matter how futile your argument is. I'm off for lunch.
Actually I'm a poodle and whippet owning female who's never owned and will never own an APBT and I live in one of the only places in Australia where it is still legal to own one.
Matthew, you show me ONE place anywhere in the world where banning breeds has lead to a decrease in dog fatalities. I can tell you now that you won't find one. How is that a "futile" argument?
Breed bans don't work. There are no simple solutions to the questions of what makes dangerous dogs. Until we as humans accept our responsiblity for creating such animals, children will continue to die.
It's quite simple, even you should be able to understand it. Ban the breed and it ceases to be around to kill or maim people. Yes, the dog was bred to fight other dogs, but in the absence of another dog, it'll attack anything that moves if it's in the frame of mind to do some damage. Your argument is as dumb as that regarding guns. "Guns don't kill people, people do". Take the gun out of the equation and there'd be a massive drop in the homicide rate. Same thing applies to this vicious breed. Take it out and there won't be any pitbulls to attack people.
Matthew, drugs are banned but people still take them? Police actively try to track down the people producing these drugs and still people die from Overdoses and side effects. Banning something does not mean it stops, it means the deceptions and black markets start forming. These things become more glamorous to have for people who like to flaunt the law, they are getting it for an accessory, just like people got small purse dogs for accessories ala Paris Hilton when it was the trend. Only the consequence is that these fad owners don't get the dog for a dog and don't know how to raise the dog correctly and the consequences are awful. It's like giving an unltrained driver a V8 and them showing off on the road in it... potential for disaster.
True on illegal drugs. But consider this. You get attacked by a dog which has been banned. Chances are that the owner will face much harsher punishment for owning a banned dog that attacked you than if the dog was not banned. Having the breed banned would hopefully make people think twice about "underground breeding" of these dogs in case the mentioned scenario eventuated. People would hopefully not think it is worthwhile to risk such a harsh penalty just for the sake of a dog.
-
No use arguing with you. You're obviously a pitbull fanboy and will not see anyone else's side of the story no matter how futile your argument is. I'm off for lunch.
Actually I'm a poodle and whippet owning female who's never owned and will never own an APBT and I live in one of the only places in Australia where it is still legal to own one.
Matthew, you show me ONE place anywhere in the world where banning breeds has lead to a decrease in dog fatalities. I can tell you now that you won't find one. How is that a "futile" argument?
Breed bans don't work. There are no simple solutions to the questions of what makes dangerous dogs. Until we as humans accept our responsiblity for creating such animals, children will continue to die.
It's quite simple, even you should be able to understand it. Ban the breed and it ceases to be around to kill or maim people. Yes, the dog was bred to fight other dogs, but in the absence of another dog, it'll attack anything that moves if it's in the frame of mind to do some damage. Your argument is as dumb as that regarding guns. "Guns don't kill people, people do". Take the gun out of the equation and there'd be a massive drop in the homicide rate. Same thing applies to this vicious breed. Take it out and there won't be any pitbulls to attack people.
Post edited to correct typo...
-
No use arguing with you. You're obviously a pitbull fanboy and will not see anyone else's side of the story no matter how futile your argument is. I'm off for lunch.
-
If you check out the following website, you'll see something quite remarkable. Who would have thought that pitbulls would be BY FAR the most prolific attacking dog!!!
Golden Retriever (all types) attacks: 10
Golden Retriever deaths (all types): 3 (incl. one from a rabid dog)
Golden Retriever maimings (all types): 6
Pitbull (all types) attacks: 1,392
Pitbull (all types) deaths: 137
Pitbull (all types) maimings: 734
Post edited...
-
A dog that attacks a person is vicious, full stop. I have groomed tiny dogs that are wholly vicious and I believe allowed to get away with it because they are small and cute looking. To focus on the news item and give respect to the death of a child is the point here. Pit Bull Terriers are large powerful dogs that have no place living in a crowded ( read suburban ) area.
And based on that logic Labradors are large powerful dogs that should be similary restricted. riggggght.
Labradors weren't bred to fight. Pitbulls were (and in many cases, still are). The stupidity of your argument is breathtaking.
-
My neighbour has one of these dogs. I have a 12 month-old son. This dog has so far behaved very timidly, almost fearful of people other than its owners. I do nothing to encourage the dog to come to me for a pat, nor do I try to scare the dog away - I simply keep my eyes on it until I am inside my house. Unfortunately, the owner is incapable of keeping it in its yard and despite their efforts in sealing their yard (including with my help), it constantly escapes. It also does not have a collar. I dread the day I am walking up my driveway with my son in my arms and that dog is nearby when a car backfires, sending the dog berserk and it starts to attack me or my wife if she was holding my son. God help the dog if that ever happens because I will not hesitate to kill it myself.
-
further update in the news - the amnesty on registering pit bulls will be rescinded as soon as it can be arranged, which means any unregistered ones are therefore deemed illegal and will be able to be seized and destroyed without any recourse available
Good - don't need this breed of dog. It's certaiinly not what one would class a "family" dog. It's a fighting dog.
-
May be that in Canada there were alot of bites from Retrievers, but how many were fatal? Zero - none! How many fatal pitbull attacks have we seen in the last few years? Far too many!
-
Almost every dog is capable of snapping, but is it a coincidence that pitbulls are the dogs most commonly associated with human deaths or horrendous injuries suffered by those lucky enough to live? I think not.
Pitbulls are NOT the dogs most commonly associated with human deaths.
Do your homework.
Let me check the statistics to see how many people died from an attack by a Beagle last year...
-
Almost every dog is capable of snapping, but is it a coincidence that pitbulls are the dogs most commonly associated with human deaths or horrendous injuries suffered by those lucky enough to live? I think not.
-
Anyone else watching?
"Pittys should be destroyed", "pits are as dangerous as a lion", "get rid of them all"
"Ban them, they are awful things"
Here we go again
I know what happened to that little girl was a shocking horrible thing (thats why i started a new thread) , but when are people going to start looking at the owners and not the breeds?
Unfortunately, it IS the breed. They have been bred to fight over many, many years. It is imprinted into their genetics in the same way Retrievers were bred to fetch their masters' ducks, etc when hunting. No one, and I don't care how much of an expert they claim to be, but no one can control these dogs and stop them from attacking when they want to.
-
This breed of dogs (pitbull) needs to be banned, period. They have been bred over many, many years to be fighting dogs. That is their pedigree, it is what they were bred to do. They weren't bred to be cuddly playthings for the kids to poke and prod. They fight, maim and kill and once they have experienced the taste of human blood they will more often than not be involved in repeat attacks. It is as simple as that and arguing otherwise is just plain stupid and irresponsible. There is no need for these kinds of vicious dogs to be kept as pets by anyone. I don't care how much of an expert on this breed someone claims to be, you cannot make this breed of dogs a safe breed. It is imprinted into their brains to fight and takes just one moment, one thing for them to be set off and then there's virtually no stopping them except a Police Officer and his gun. Jailing or fining owners is not the answer, as it will not save victims of these aggressive, powerfully built dogs. We need to be more proactive, rather than reacting only after someone has been maimed or killed. The only responsible course of action is for the breed to be banned and for breeding these dogs to also be banned until they cease to exist.
Child Killed By Dog
in In The News
Posted
So whenever we see a pitbull (or any fighting dog for that matter) in the news that has maimed or killed someone, it's the owner's fault, not the dogs' fault? That's absolute rubbish, and you know it!