Woman Mauled

[sandra64]

I live in a street where there are mostly 5 acre lots. Every yard i go passed has either one or more aggressive dogs in those yards. I wouldnt want one of them to get out. Some are left with gates open, and its hit and miss as you kreep passed the yards with your dogs. Not one of them is a pit or amstaff. One actually is the most aggressive lab i have ever seen. It is the wankers who own these dogs that make them like this not the breed. Not one of these dogs to my knowledge is walked and they never get a ball thrown for them. The only dogs my 2 will go to the fence and have a talk to are the beautiful greyhounds up the road(with the owners concent)

[Clyde]

I'm sorry but I am starting to wonder WTF is wrong with Pitbulls. Why does this breed over and over again turn on people. I used to be on the other side and believe it was all a matter of the breed attracting loser owners - but you don't see Spaniels and Retrievers turning on people with regularity the way Pitties appear to be doing, no matter who their owner. I even had a 'deed not breed' sticker on my car - but my resolve is starting to crumble.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Clyde

[Zhou Xuanyao]

People get brainwashed over time its all part of a frequently occuring pattern in our society. Its sad to see but its typical. If people get told the same thing over and over enough, they start losing perspective, and soon they start believing it.

[sandgrubber]

Poor woman. What bothers me most in this story is not breed, but numbers. Large, not-friendly dogs should not be permitted to roam in packs. I'm no expert on dog behaviour, but as I understand it, dogs with drive are much more likely to take on large game (including people and cattle) if they are in a pack situation. That this was permitted shows a serious break down of government.

[justin19801]

I'm sorry but I am starting to wonder WTF is wrong with Pitbulls. Why does this breed over and over again turn on people. I used to be on the other side and believe it was all a matter of the breed attracting loser owners - but you don't see Spaniels and Retrievers turning on people with regularity the way Pitties appear to be doing, no matter who their owner. I even had a 'deed not breed' sticker on my car - but my resolve is starting to crumble.

APBTs are not turning on anyone. Dogs are being labelled as APBTs when they are simply short-haired muscular animals. Councils rarely release breed details they are media reports to sell papers. Labelling a breed as dangerous sends out are clear message that other breeds are safe.

[justin19801]

Am I correct in thinking that the American Staffy is the same breed as the APBT? Some say they are not the same, and some say they are one and the same. All I can say is that they look to my untrained eye the same breed. Is this a way to have them legalised? It's interesting to note that at my local park, all of a sudden, there were three separate owners, without any connections, coming to the park with young puppies. We were told they were American Staffies. On one particular day, one of the pups tried to play with the visiting different breed 'teenage' pups, and every single 'teenager' growled and refused to play with this pup. I know a lot has to do with the way the pup is brought up by the owner, but I get very nervous if they are not properly trained and educated. Several years ago, a house behind where we live was being rented out to tenants with two of these dogs. We had a Great Dane at that time, and those two behind us were literally throwing themselves at and charging the fence to get at the Dane. It was really frightening. My boy was really a gentle giant.

The APBT, AST and SBT are one and the same. Historically, legally and visually. The world recognises this except for countries where the lobbyists have successfully convinced governments otherwise, like Australia and NZ.

[Baz+Rome]

Am I correct in thinking that the American Staffy is the same breed as the APBT? Some say they are not the same, and some say they are one and the same. All I can say is that they look to my untrained eye the same breed. Is this a way to have them legalised? It's interesting to note that at my local park, all of a sudden, there were three separate owners, without any connections, coming to the park with young puppies. We were told they were American Staffies. On one particular day, one of the pups tried to play with the visiting different breed 'teenage' pups, and every single 'teenager' growled and refused to play with this pup. I know a lot has to do with the way the pup is brought up by the owner, but I get very nervous if they are not properly trained and educated. Several years ago, a house behind where we live was being rented out to tenants with two of these dogs. We had a Great Dane at that time, and those two behind us were literally throwing themselves at and charging the fence to get at the Dane. It was really frightening. My boy was really a gentle giant.

The APBT, AST and SBT are one and the same. Historically, legally and visually. The world recognises this except for countries where the lobbyists have successfully convinced governments otherwise, like Australia and NZ.

The argument that they are all the same breed has been done to death on this forum. If the owners of the APBT

believe this then why the hell aren't they purchasing papered Amstaffs which you are allowed to own and isn't at risk of an ACO seeking to destroy your APBT!!

[Longcoat]

I'm sorry but I am starting to wonder WTF is wrong with Pitbulls. Why does this breed over and over again turn on people. I used to be on the other side and believe it was all a matter of the breed attracting loser owners - but you don't see Spaniels and Retrievers turning on people with regularity the way Pitties appear to be doing, no matter who their owner. I even had a 'deed not breed' sticker on my car - but my resolve is starting to crumble.

Many "serious" attacks are Pitbull types on a regular basis unfortunately. I would wonder if the same severity in attack would have occurred had these owners had GSD's, Rottweilers or Silky Terriers instead???. I doubt that a pair of Silky Terriers could inflict wounds to an adult person equal in damage as an APBT could inflict???.

[justin19801]

Am I correct in thinking that the American Staffy is the same breed as the APBT? Some say they are not the same, and some say they are one and the same. All I can say is that they look to my untrained eye the same breed. Is this a way to have them legalised? It's interesting to note that at my local park, all of a sudden, there were three separate owners, without any connections, coming to the park with young puppies. We were told they were American Staffies. On one particular day, one of the pups tried to play with the visiting different breed 'teenage' pups, and every single 'teenager' growled and refused to play with this pup. I know a lot has to do with the way the pup is brought up by the owner, but I get very nervous if they are not properly trained and educated. Several years ago, a house behind where we live was being rented out to tenants with two of these dogs. We had a Great Dane at that time, and those two behind us were literally throwing themselves at and charging the fence to get at the Dane. It was really frightening. My boy was really a gentle giant.

The APBT, AST and SBT are one and the same. Historically, legally and visually. The world recognises this except for countries where the lobbyists have successfully convinced governments otherwise, like Australia and NZ.

The argument that they are all the same breed has been done to death on this forum. If the owners of the APBT

believe this then why the hell aren't they purchasing papered Amstaffs which you are allowed to own and isn't at risk of an ACO seeking to destroy your APBT!!

Because the breed stds and judging in different dog clubs results in the same breed having different looks. BTW not the only breed affected by this. Why ACOs take pleasure in seizing and killing harmless pets should be directed to them.

[justin19801]

Am I correct in thinking that the American Staffy is the same breed as the APBT? Some say they are not the same, and some say they are one and the same. All I can say is that they look to my untrained eye the same breed. Is this a way to have them legalised? It's interesting to note that at my local park, all of a sudden, there were three separate owners, without any connections, coming to the park with young puppies. We were told they were American Staffies. On one particular day, one of the pups tried to play with the visiting different breed 'teenage' pups, and every single 'teenager' growled and refused to play with this pup. I know a lot has to do with the way the pup is brought up by the owner, but I get very nervous if they are not properly trained and educated. Several years ago, a house behind where we live was being rented out to tenants with two of these dogs. We had a Great Dane at that time, and those two behind us were literally throwing themselves at and charging the fence to get at the Dane. It was really frightening. My boy was really a gentle giant.

The APBT, AST and SBT are one and the same. Historically, legally and visually. The world recognises this except for countries where the lobbyists have successfully convinced governments otherwise, like Australia and NZ.

The argument that they are all the same breed has been done to death on this forum. If the owners of the APBT

believe this then why the hell aren't they purchasing papered Amstaffs which you are allowed to own and isn't at risk of an ACO seeking to destroy your APBT!!

Because the breed stds and judging in different dog clubs results in the same breed having different looks. BTW not the only breed affected by this. Why ACOs take pleasure in seizing and killing harmless pets should be directed to them.

[justin19801]

Am I correct in thinking that the American Staffy is the same breed as the APBT? Some say they are not the same, and some say they are one and the same. All I can say is that they look to my untrained eye the same breed. Is this a way to have them legalised? It's interesting to note that at my local park, all of a sudden, there were three separate owners, without any connections, coming to the park with young puppies. We were told they were American Staffies. On one particular day, one of the pups tried to play with the visiting different breed 'teenage' pups, and every single 'teenager' growled and refused to play with this pup. I know a lot has to do with the way the pup is brought up by the owner, but I get very nervous if they are not properly trained and educated. Several years ago, a house behind where we live was being rented out to tenants with two of these dogs. We had a Great Dane at that time, and those two behind us were literally throwing themselves at and charging the fence to get at the Dane. It was really frightening. My boy was really a gentle giant.

The APBT, AST and SBT are one and the same. Historically, legally and visually. The world recognises this except for countries where the lobbyists have successfully convinced governments otherwise, like Australia and NZ.

The argument that they are all the same breed has been done to death on this forum. If the owners of the APBT

believe this then why the hell aren't they purchasing papered Amstaffs which you are allowed to own and isn't at risk of an ACO seeking to destroy your APBT!!

Because the breed stds and judging in different dog clubs results in the same breed having different looks. BTW not the only breed affected by this. Why ACOs take pleasure in seizing and killing harmless pets should be directed to them.

[Lhok]

I'm sorry but I am starting to wonder WTF is wrong with Pitbulls. Why does this breed over and over again turn on people. I used to be on the other side and believe it was all a matter of the breed attracting loser owners - but you don't see Spaniels and Retrievers turning on people with regularity the way Pitties appear to be doing, no matter who their owner. I even had a 'deed not breed' sticker on my car - but my resolve is starting to crumble.

Many "serious" attacks are Pitbull types on a regular basis unfortunately. I would wonder if the same severity in attack would have occurred had these owners had GSD's, Rottweilers or Silky Terriers instead???. I doubt that a pair of Silky Terriers could inflict wounds to an adult person equal in damage as an APBT could inflict???.

It doesn't matter how serious the injuries were or that if it had of been silky terriers attacking the damage would have been less severe. That a dog attack happened at all is terrible, the poor lady and her family and I also am upset at the fact that the dogs were in a situation that this sort of thing could happen at all (i.e owners who failed them).

And so what if they were pitbulls or amstaff? breed doesn't mean a damn thing! and as sad as this may sound it I feel that this can be used for the whole BSL wagon to bann amstaffs if more and more amstaff or so called amstaffs appear to be attacking people..

/sigh

--Lhok

Edited March 6, 2010 by Lhok

[Longcoat]

I'm sorry but I am starting to wonder WTF is wrong with Pitbulls. Why does this breed over and over again turn on people. I used to be on the other side and believe it was all a matter of the breed attracting loser owners - but you don't see Spaniels and Retrievers turning on people with regularity the way Pitties appear to be doing, no matter who their owner. I even had a 'deed not breed' sticker on my car - but my resolve is starting to crumble.

Many "serious" attacks are Pitbull types on a regular basis unfortunately. I would wonder if the same severity in attack would have occurred had these owners had GSD's, Rottweilers or Silky Terriers instead???. I doubt that a pair of Silky Terriers could inflict wounds to an adult person equal in damage as an APBT could inflict???.

It doesn't matter how serious the injuries were or that if it had of been silky terriers attacking the damage would have been less severe. That a dog attack happened at all is terrible, the poor lady and her family and I also am upset at the fact that the dogs were in a situation that this sort of thing could happen at all (i.e owners who failed them).

And so what if they were pitbulls or amstaff? breed doesn't mean a damn thing! and as sad as this may sound it I feel that this can be used for the whole BSL wagon to bann amstaffs if more and more amstaff or so called amstaffs appear to be attacking people..

/sigh

--Lhok

Injury severity does matter because lesser injuries from dog attacks doesn't make the news or place people in hospital reducing the media sensationalism of dog attacks in general. Irresponsible owners who don't contain their dogs properly would be safer prospects with Silky Terriers than owning Pitbulls.

[sandgrubber]

Severity of injury doesn't matter?????

Are you saying an ankle bite that causes a flesh wound is as bad as getting killed or ending up in hospital with severe flesh trauma to arms, face, neck, etc.?

[Lhok]

Ok let's put this into perspective:

Say the dogs in question were silky terriers and they ran at the elderly lady and bit her, yeah maybe it would only be a "flesh wound" however what if she tried to run away and she fell? Being elderly she would more then likely be very hurt from the fall and the silky terriers would still be there and now she is lying prone to more "flesh wounds".

Either case doesn't make it less traumatic for the lady or her family, regardless of wound type she would still end up at the hospital and the bite recorded as a dog attack and in both cases the dogs are let down by irresponsible owners a dog bite is a dog bite and regardless of how much damage is done should be treated seriously.

As to what to do about irresponsible dog owners I sadly don't have any answers for that but I do know that allowing them to own a smaller breed won't make dog attacks any less terrible.

--Lhok

[sandgrubber]

Ok let's put this into perspective:

Say the dogs in question were silky terriers and they ran at the elderly lady and bit her, yeah maybe it would only be a "flesh wound" however what if she tried to run away and she fell? Being elderly she would more then likely be very hurt from the fall and the silky terriers would still be there and now she is lying prone to more "flesh wounds".

Either case doesn't make it less traumatic for the lady or her family, regardless of wound type she would still end up at the hospital and the bite recorded as a dog attack and in both cases the dogs are let down by irresponsible owners a dog bite is a dog bite and regardless of how much damage is done should be treated seriously.

As to what to do about irresponsible dog owners I sadly don't have any answers for that but I do know that allowing them to own a smaller breed won't make dog attacks any less terrible.

--Lhok

I'm getting old myself, though I've got awhile to run before turning frail. I would sure as hell rather be attacked by a couple feral silky terriers (I'd clobber them with my cane or kick the little buggers) than by a couple feral Rotti's, mastifs, GSD's, Akitas, cattle dogs, pig dogs or other 25+ kg dogs with strong guarding instincts and possibly strong prey drive. I agree that bad owners of a large dog are likely to be bad owners of a small dog. But the owners of feral large dogs tend to be of the 'size matters' school, and given a choice between a pet rock and a small dog, I think many of them would choose the rock. If you check any data on fatal attacks (Google away to your heart's content) you'll find that small dogs are rarely the culprits.

[justin19801]

Ok let's put this into perspective:

Say the dogs in question were silky terriers and they ran at the elderly lady and bit her, yeah maybe it would only be a "flesh wound" however what if she tried to run away and she fell? Being elderly she would more then likely be very hurt from the fall and the silky terriers would still be there and now she is lying prone to more "flesh wounds".

Either case doesn't make it less traumatic for the lady or her family, regardless of wound type she would still end up at the hospital and the bite recorded as a dog attack and in both cases the dogs are let down by irresponsible owners a dog bite is a dog bite and regardless of how much damage is done should be treated seriously.

As to what to do about irresponsible dog owners I sadly don't have any answers for that but I do know that allowing them to own a smaller breed won't make dog attacks any less terrible.

--Lhok

I'm getting old myself, though I've got awhile to run before turning frail. I would sure as hell rather be attacked by a couple feral silky terriers (I'd clobber them with my cane or kick the little buggers) than by a couple feral Rotti's, mastifs, GSD's, Akitas, cattle dogs, pig dogs or other 25+ kg dogs with strong guarding instincts and possibly strong prey drive. I agree that bad owners of a large dog are likely to be bad owners of a small dog. But the owners of feral large dogs tend to be of the 'size matters' school, and given a choice between a pet rock and a small dog, I think many of them would choose the rock. If you check any data on fatal attacks (Google away to your heart's content) you'll find that small dogs are rarely the culprits.

If what yoiu are saying is true then CDC which has studied dog attacks more intensely than anyone else would list breed or weight as a determinant of dangerousness. They don't. Most breeds have killed and injured. Lacking compassion for the victims of non-APBT types is a hallmark of the supporters of BSL.

[sandgrubber]

If what yoiu are saying is true then CDC which has studied dog attacks more intensely than anyone else would list breed or weight as a determinant of dangerousness. They don't. Most breeds have killed and injured. Lacking compassion for the victims of non-APBT types is a hallmark of the supporters of BSL.

The CDC site is down at the moment. Try this one instead:

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%20...6%20Clifton.pdf

number of dogs involved in killing or maiming a child or adult in Canada or the US 1982-2006:

Score 1100+ for APBTs, 400+ for Rottis, 2 for beagles (but one was a child who got strangled in a game of tug), 1 for pugs, 2 for JRT's .

Edited March 7, 2010 by sandgrubber

[Longcoat]

Ok let's put this into perspective:

Say the dogs in question were silky terriers and they ran at the elderly lady and bit her, yeah maybe it would only be a "flesh wound" however what if she tried to run away and she fell? Being elderly she would more then likely be very hurt from the fall and the silky terriers would still be there and now she is lying prone to more "flesh wounds".

Either case doesn't make it less traumatic for the lady or her family, regardless of wound type she would still end up at the hospital and the bite recorded as a dog attack and in both cases the dogs are let down by irresponsible owners a dog bite is a dog bite and regardless of how much damage is done should be treated seriously.

As to what to do about irresponsible dog owners I sadly don't have any answers for that but I do know that allowing them to own a smaller breed won't make dog attacks any less terrible.

--Lhok

I'm getting old myself, though I've got awhile to run before turning frail. I would sure as hell rather be attacked by a couple feral silky terriers (I'd clobber them with my cane or kick the little buggers) than by a couple feral Rotti's, mastifs, GSD's, Akitas, cattle dogs, pig dogs or other 25+ kg dogs with strong guarding instincts and possibly strong prey drive. I agree that bad owners of a large dog are likely to be bad owners of a small dog. But the owners of feral large dogs tend to be of the 'size matters' school, and given a choice between a pet rock and a small dog, I think many of them would choose the rock. If you check any data on fatal attacks (Google away to your heart's content) you'll find that small dogs are rarely the culprits.

I totally agree with your comments Sandgrubber and I have been attacked by an aggressive small crossbreed dog the size of a Silky Terrier which I swiftly launched off the end of my boot. I have also been attacked by a Miniture Daschhund who experienced the football exercise also. Having said that, after participating in decoy work protection training security dogs, a GSD and Rotty and experiencing the power and momentum of a large dog hitting at shoulder height from a flying leap, it packs one hell of an impact, far more than the average person would ever imagine. The is no comparison between an attack from an ankle biter and a large powerful dog..........none whatsoever

[Longcoat]

Ok let's put this into perspective:

Say the dogs in question were silky terriers and they ran at the elderly lady and bit her, yeah maybe it would only be a "flesh wound" however what if she tried to run away and she fell? Being elderly she would more then likely be very hurt from the fall and the silky terriers would still be there and now she is lying prone to more "flesh wounds".

Either case doesn't make it less traumatic for the lady or her family, regardless of wound type she would still end up at the hospital and the bite recorded as a dog attack and in both cases the dogs are let down by irresponsible owners a dog bite is a dog bite and regardless of how much damage is done should be treated seriously.

As to what to do about irresponsible dog owners I sadly don't have any answers for that but I do know that allowing them to own a smaller breed won't make dog attacks any less terrible.

--Lhok

I agree Lhok, but larger more powerful breeds will cause greater damage in all aspects of the attack is the point. If you did have to suffer a dog attack and could choose the breed, I would choose a Silky Terrier over a Pitbull, Rotty or GSD without question like most would if self preservation was the motive. It's a really silly argument claiming that all breeds are equal in their ability to cause the same level of physical injury to a person.........don't you think???.