Guide Dog Killed

[JulesP]

If, as suggested previously, these were declared dangerous dogs, shouldn't they have been on lead and muzzled in public? I think there's also a particular collar they have to wear. That is, if they were actually declared dangerous dogs.

Both restricted and dangerous dogs are supposed to be onlead and muzzled. A dangerous dog is supposed to have a yellow and red striped collar on.

[Jade~Harley~Bella]

This story really has very little to do with BSL.

Why does every dog attack story have to turn into a BSL discussion.

Pitbulls are just as capable and likely as any other breed or breed cross to be involved in a dog attack. You would think that some people here believe that pitbulls are incapable of being aggressive at all.

I do not see the point in defending or trivialising the actions of the dogs involved. Obviously they caused injury to the cocker and were serious enough to scare a highly trained assistance dog into fleeing onto a road. All dogs, especially DA ones have no business being offlead and roaming in a public street.

The whole incident could have been prevented if the owner had kept the dogs on lead and under control

I don't think anyone has this notion. I do believe APBT breed fanciers are fed up with the "wipe them out" comments, and I don't think any of the comments are defending the dogs in question. What bull breed owners want is the media to stop shouting PITBULL at every oppurtunity, the circumstances of the attack to reported accurately to stop the scourge of negativity surrounding their breeds. What I've taken from most of the posters who are anti BSL, is that these dogs could've been prevented from being in this situation and it is entirely the owners fault, especially if he knew his dogs were an issue.

I agree, and it would be nice to stop seeing comments like wiping the breed out. It achieves nothing more than fuelling emotion and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.

Even if the dog in question is actually a pitbull?

I don't think any breed of dog should be mentioned. If this were to happen we would not hear about attacks full stop unless there was a fatality or serious injury. The only reason we hear about attacks involving "pit bulls" now is because it sells newspapers. Pit Bull is to broad a term as so many breeds fall under that label and dog breed should be irrelevant as any dog is capable of attacking... as we should all know.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Jade~Harley~Bella

[JulesP]

Pit Bull is to broad a term as so many breeds fall under that label and dog breed should be irrelevant as any dog is capable of attacking... as we should all know.

Err no a pit bull is a pit bull. It is a breed not a description. Perhaps you are thinking about 'pig dogs'.

Edited August 12, 2012 by JulesP

[persephone]

Pit Bull is to broad a term as so many breeds fall under that label

A Pit Bull is just that , same as a kelpie is a kelpie.

There are bull breeds other than APBTs , is that what you meant?

[Jade~Harley~Bella]

Pit Bull is to broad a term as so many breeds fall under that label and dog breed should be irrelevant as any dog is capable of attacking... as we should all know.

Err no a pit bull is a pit bull. It is a breed not a description. Perhaps you are thinking about 'pig dogs'.

Err no, you have an American Pit Bull Terrier and than you have multiple dog breeds which fall under the "Pit Bull" label.

The term Pit Bull is used in reference to multiple breeds of dogs. Namely, the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, as well as any crosses between the three. However, in a few parts of the world the American Bulldog is also classified as 'Pit Bull' type dog, despite the fact that they have major genetic differences

The term Pit Bull can also include any cross bred dog that has features similar to the above, it is generally given by those that can't tell the difference.

Pit Bull is to broad a term as so many breeds fall under that label

A Pit Bull is just that , same as a kelpie is a kelpie.

There are bull breeds other than APBTs , is that what you meant?

See above comment :)

Edited August 12, 2012 by Jade~Harley~Bella

[persephone]

JHB where were these quotes from?

[LizT]

I'm sorry but breed type DOES have to come into question. It's just a simple fact that some breeds ARE going to be more LIKELY to attack another dog if walking down the street OFF LEAD in a pack of four. These dogs need to be treated differently BECAUSE they are different.

WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY!

[Pockets]

Agree with you there Liz..

I'm sorry but breed type DOES have to come into question. It's just a simple fact that some breeds ARE going to be more LIKELY to attack another dog if walking down the street OFF LEAD in a pack of four. These dogs need to be treated differently BECAUSE they are different.

WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY!

[sandgrubber]

Pit Bull is to broad a term as so many breeds fall under that label

A Pit Bull is just that , same as a kelpie is a kelpie.

There are bull breeds other than APBTs , is that what you meant?

The definition of pit bull varies geographically. In some California counties, a Staffie is legally classed as a pit bull. Where bull breeds are common and not commonly on any pedigree register, the distinctions get blurry. Where I live, all bull breeds are commonly referred to as 'pits'. Some 'pits' wouldn't meet the APBT or ASBT breed standard, others would. I don't hate bull breeds, but see both APBT;s or SBT's as part of a breed group that often have issues with other dogs, and if of the wrong bloodlines or in the wrong hands, can be dogs that require extremely good containment and a strong collar/leash/handler. It amazes me that SBT's are SO popular in Australia, while pit bulls are banned. Pitties, like Staffies, are, for the most part, sweet, funny, loyal, cheerfu, waggy dogs. Except when they aren't. Very few of them go bad. Those who do are a problem.

In this particular instance I see the BIG NO NO as a pack of dogs allowed to roam. Sorry. There's no excuse for that. Doesn't matter what breed. I don't care if your fence blew down in a cyclone. If you have multiple big dogs who will act as a pack, you MUST keep them contained. Full stop. If you're not prepared to create accident-proof containment, restrict yourself to dogs who are unlikely to do real damage to other animals or people. If your dogs get out and do damage, you deserve the full force of the law . . . if not worse.

[persephone]

In this particular instance I see the BIG NO NO as a pack of dogs allowed to roam. Sorry. There's no excuse for that. Doesn't matter what breed. I don't care if your fence blew down in a cyclone. If you have multiple big dogs who will act as a pack, you MUST keep them contained. Full stop.

[korbin13]

I'm sorry but breed type DOES have to come into question. It's just a simple fact that some breeds ARE going to be more LIKELY to attack another dog if walking down the street OFF LEAD in a pack of four. These dogs need to be treated differently BECAUSE they are different.

WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY!

Agree 100%. But it isn't just bull breeds that have a tendency do attack when in a pack. That is why I support an all breed based legislation.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

In this particular instance I see the BIG NO NO as a pack of dogs allowed to roam. Sorry. There's no excuse for that. Doesn't matter what breed. I don't care if your fence blew down in a cyclone. If you have multiple big dogs who will act as a pack, you MUST keep them contained. Full stop.

Agree, and layers of security and having dogs separated are a big part of this. Eg, unsupervised dogs housed in well built, roofed runs put into concrete, which are then behind a decent, strong, fence with locked gates. And dogs off the property walked on lead. And if you can't afford it or don't want to, you can't have multiple large hunting or fighting heritage breeds.

If it matters, we have 1 giant breed male, and 7 other large dogs who would hunt in a pack if released. I have always taken this seriously, because, apart from anything else, I love my dogs. And having lived next door to a frequently escaping DA dog, I know what a menace even a single roaming dog can be. Four doesn't bear thinking about.

[geo]

If it matters, we have 1 giant breed male, and 7 other large dogs who would hunt in a pack if released. I have always taken this seriously, because, apart from anything else, I love my dogs. And having lived next door to a frequently escaping DA dog, I know what a menace even a single roaming dog can be. Four doesn't bear thinking about.

Good on you, my 2 would possibly do the same. off topic but Today will be interesting as 2 large dogs have just moved in next door, we've already organised a walk together to get them used to seeing each other through the fence...

[BC Crazy]

the news article says they are 2 pit bulls and a bull terrier cross. the dogs have been found and seized woop! I hope the owners are not allowed to own another dog!!

I dont like pit bulls or pitbull types but that doesnt mean they shouldnt be legal, in the hands of owners who are responsible they are no threat at all i hate irresponsible owners

Well said DB, totally agree with you I am not a fan of these breeds either BUT I believe that 99% of the problem is not breed related but irresponsible dog ownership

[sumosmum]

Just on the breed thing, APBT and Pit bull, the Victorian legislation has been written to make the restriction on a type, and not a breed. The dogs are judged on their characteristics and not their breed. Even DNA testing is not accepted, as it is purely judged on the set of characteristics that are in the Government Standard.

So, really, referring to a pit bull in Victoria, is referring to a type. This is seen by looking at the dogs that have been found to be restricted breeds, being that they all look very different, but by our law are now all called Pit Bulls. Like saying, Sighthound, or Pointer.

The wording in the legislation means that if a dog fits the government standard, no matter what the breeding, the dog is taken as a pit bull. American Staffordshire Terriers, papered, or with a veterinary certificate stating breed, are the only dogs exempt.

[Jade~Harley~Bella]

I'm sorry but breed type DOES have to come into question. It's just a simple fact that some breeds ARE going to be more LIKELY to attack another dog if walking down the street OFF LEAD in a pack of four. These dogs need to be treated differently BECAUSE they are different.

WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY!

I think you will find most dogs operating in a pack structure are just as likely to attack as a pack of bull breed dogs. Again it has nothing to do with breed.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I'm sorry but breed type DOES have to come into question. It's just a simple fact that some breeds ARE going to be more LIKELY to attack another dog if walking down the street OFF LEAD in a pack of four. These dogs need to be treated differently BECAUSE they are different.

WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY!

I think you will find most dogs operating in a pack structure are just as likely to attack as a pack of bull breed dogs. Again it has nothing to do with breed.

I am not pro BSL, but I would rather encounter 4 off lead Beagles than 4 off lead Pit Bulls any day.

EFS

Edited August 12, 2012 by SkySoaringMagpie

[conztruct]

I'm sorry but breed type DOES have to come into question. It's just a simple fact that some breeds ARE going to be more LIKELY to attack another dog if walking down the street OFF LEAD in a pack of four. These dogs need to be treated differently BECAUSE they are different.

WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY!

I think you will find most dogs operating in a pack structure are just as likely to attack as a pack of bull breed dogs. Again it has nothing to do with breed.

To an extent yes - but looking at it from a risk perspective, the impact if say a bull terrier attacked as opposed to a chihuahua is significant. I agree that owning a bull breed (because I do) comes with a great deal of responsibility of being aware of the damage a strong, powerful dog is capable of doing - but it's a type of responsibility, not a level of responsibility.

I don't agree with the blanket statement above that great responsibility is a product of great power. Every dog owner should take great responsibility with their dogs, and any suggestion that the type of dog or the extent of damage it can cause (or lack thereof) absolves the owner from some or as much responsibility is the reason there are so many unruly dogs around owned by people who think their little precious couldn't cause a problem whether they were being a responsible owner or not.

I understand the responsibility I need to take with my dogs - I think most responsible owners understand their breed and their responsibilities but it's just a different type of responsibility - not a greater or lesser one.

[*Lolapalooza*]

I am so sick of irresponsible peoples dogs causing grief regardless of the breed, this is just heart breaking. That poor poor dog what is wrong with people??????

[mymatejack]

To an extent yes - but looking at it from a risk perspective, the impact if say a bull terrier attacked as opposed to a chihuahua is significant. I agree that owning a bull breed (because I do) comes with a great deal of responsibility of being aware of the damage a strong, powerful dog is capable of doing - but it's a type of responsibility, not a level of responsibility.

I don't agree with the blanket statement above that great responsibility is a product of great power. Every dog owner should take great responsibility with their dogs, and any suggestion that the type of dog or the extent of damage it can cause (or lack thereof) absolves the owner from some or as much responsibility is the reason there are so many unruly dogs around owned by people who think their little precious couldn't cause a problem whether they were being a responsible owner or not.

I understand the responsibility I need to take with my dogs - I think most responsible owners understand their breed and their responsibilities but it's just a different type of responsibility - not a greater or lesser one.

Very well said