mixeduppup Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Who knows, perhaps the dogs were bred to be aggressive and then not managed properly, maybe they were genetically predisposed. Either way what they have done has made them monsters in the dog world. And still would have had no choice or say in the matter. That doesn't make them monsters, to me. That makes them victims of monsters. I guess we'll never see eye to eye on this particular matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilli_star Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/teen-has-ear-bitten-off-by-pit-bulls-20121031-28ife.html Interesting. How can Tibetan Mastiffs and Chesapeake Bay Rerievers be so high on the list of bite statistics? Maybe it's by percentage of those registered ? Poor bloke. There's still no mention of his own dog in this article. Excellent description of East Hills, Tralee. The way the information is presented in the table on page 13 of this report is quite misleading. It puts the Tibetan as number one on the list of breeds involved in attacks, however, there are only 43 registered, and out of those there have been 2 attacks, so it takes the rate of attack per 100 dogs on the Register to 4.3! The SMH has since revised their stats ;) In 2010-11, there were 252 reported attacks from American Staffordshire terriers in NSW, and 16,503 of the dogs were registered with councils, according to local council data.The five breeds that were responsible for the highest number of attacks in that period were the bull terrier (Staffordshire), Australian cattle dog, German shepherd, American Staffordshire terrier and rottweiler. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/teen-has-ear-bitten-off-by-dogs-20121031-28ife.html#ixzz2Api14XFD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mantis Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Bankstown Pound is Renbury, isn't it? Maybe someone there will have a better idea of breed ID. It doesn't matter what breed they are, it was a horrible attack by two badly trained dogs, with an irresponsible owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke GSP Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 purebred, crossbred, APBT, AMSTAFF, bite propensity, redirected aggression, dogs being dogs, monsters BLAH, BLAH, BLAH! FACT! a dog of the size, strength etc that we are talking about, can (and have) caused massive physical injury, and death. Trying to explain it from an animal behaviour perspective and then trying to ridicule people that find what they have done as vile, is as ridiculous as calling the dog a monster. human beings kill and harm each other everyday, psychologists can explain to you in intricate detail as to why they do what they do. Do we accept that as "people just being people?" because we can explain the reasoning? look at most of the recent fatalities/serious attacks and every one of them end up being Large breed bull/or similar powerful breed dog now, i totally agree with not blaming the "breed" but we can scope it down to a type and usually, it would appear to be the type of dog that appeals as being a penis extension to idiots. Now as far them (the idiot) being insecure and the behaviour that they have displayed (buying a penis extension) and not taking sufficient care or management of that extension, that is a case of "people being people" which unfortunately you have about as much chance of changing as stopping dogs having the predisposition to be a dog. So as I see it It is not a single breed and hence banning a breed cannot stop this happening in the future we cannot stop people being people we cannot stop dogs being dogs what will probably happen is that the government will ban all dogs of the "type" that idiots would want to own. which sadly will be all large bull, bull or if we are really unlucky any large dog governed by weight or height. And it will be a very sad day indeed! As a side note, personally, I am getting tired of hearing people trying to argue that aggression has nothing to do with breed or type, only then to try and explain that a dog is aggressive because it is not a pure breed? it cannot go both ways! but by arguing with such moving goalposts you will not help sort the issue out, only assist in making any legislation more general. Very very sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Good post, Luke :) I do like the analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbi Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 purebred, crossbred, APBT, AMSTAFF, bite propensity, redirected aggression, dogs being dogs, monsters BLAH, BLAH, BLAH! FACT! a dog of the size, strength etc that we are talking about, can (and have) caused massive physical injury, and death. Trying to explain it from an animal behaviour perspective and then trying to ridicule people that find what they have done as vile, is as ridiculous as calling the dog a monster. human beings kill and harm each other everyday, psychologists can explain to you in intricate detail as to why they do what they do. Do we accept that as "people just being people?" because we can explain the reasoning? look at most of the recent fatalities/serious attacks and every one of them end up being Large breed bull/or similar powerful breed dog now, i totally agree with not blaming the "breed" but we can scope it down to a type and usually, it would appear to be the type of dog that appeals as being a penis extension to idiots. Now as far them (the idiot) being insecure and the behaviour that they have displayed (buying a penis extension) and not taking sufficient care or management of that extension, that is a case of "people being people" which unfortunately you have about as much chance of changing as stopping dogs having the predisposition to be a dog. So as I see it It is not a single breed and hence banning a breed cannot stop this happening in the future we cannot stop people being people we cannot stop dogs being dogs what will probably happen is that the government will ban all dogs of the "type" that idiots would want to own. which sadly will be all large bull, bull or if we are really unlucky any large dog governed by weight or height. And it will be a very sad day indeed! As a side note, personally, I am getting tired of hearing people trying to argue that aggression has nothing to do with breed or type, only then to try and explain that a dog is aggressive because it is not a pure breed? it cannot go both ways! but by arguing with such moving goalposts you will not help sort the issue out, only assist in making any legislation more general. Very very sad Compassionate, sensible post Luke. As a Bull Breed owner it is sometimes hard to remain calm and logical when this type of dog is vilified and abused, called monstrous and has people baying for all its kind to be eradicated. Bad owners=bad dogs, not monsters but dogs who haven't been given the skills to be the best they could be with a sensible owner who knows the needs/requirements of any dog.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katdogs Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Bankstown Pound is Renbury, isn't it? Maybe someone there will have a better idea of breed ID. It doesn't matter what breed they are, it was a horrible attack by two badly trained dogs, with an irresponsible owner. I agree. I was only interested because of the inconsistency of breed description in the various media reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katdogs Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/teen-has-ear-bitten-off-by-pit-bulls-20121031-28ife.html Interesting. How can Tibetan Mastiffs and Chesapeake Bay Rerievers be so high on the list of bite statistics? Maybe it's by percentage of those registered ? Poor bloke. There's still no mention of his own dog in this article. Excellent description of East Hills, Tralee. The way the information is presented in the table on page 13 of this report is quite misleading. It puts the Tibetan as number one on the list of breeds involved in attacks, however, there are only 43 registered, and out of those there have been 2 attacks, so it takes the rate of attack per 100 dogs on the Register to 4.3! The SMH has since revised their stats ;) In 2010-11, there were 252 reported attacks from American Staffordshire terriers in NSW, and 16,503 of the dogs were registered with councils, according to local council data.The five breeds that were responsible for the highest number of attacks in that period were the bull terrier (Staffordshire), Australian cattle dog, German shepherd, American Staffordshire terrier and rottweiler. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/teen-has-ear-bitten-off-by-dogs-20121031-28ife.html#ixzz2Api14XFD Phew! There are still some checkers and editors left at the Herald, even if the first edition was wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Holy crap Batman! Some sensible reasonable discussion of the issue in a newspaper is here I await the usual suspects posts to tell me that these folk have no idea what they're talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbi Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Holy crap Batman! Some sensible reasonable discussion of the issue in a newspaper is here I await the usual suspects posts to tell me that these folk have no idea what they're talking about What a balanced piece of writing, one of the least breed biased articles on dog attacks I have read in a long time, the onus has to be on the owner to keep their dogs contained and controlled regardless of breed or type.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Holy crap Batman! Some sensible reasonable discussion of the issue in a newspaper is here I await the usual suspects posts to tell me that these folk have no idea what they're talking about Great article, thanks for posting. Also heard this interview today as well: http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/10/31/3622393.htm Which was also sensible and reasonable. I have felt a shift in the media in the last couple of years and this is only restoring my faith more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I could compare them to trees, it doesn't matter. The point I'm making is, once something starts displaying behaviour that is rare/uncommon in its lineage/species/breed whatever, it no longer represents the familiar and becomes the trash of its animal group. It becomes so changed from how it was bred/meant to be that it's no longer reflecting of its breed and is therefore not "just acting like a dog". I consider dogs of any breed that brutally attack or kill a person to be the trash/monsters of the dog world. I may not be politically correct but here's too many good dogs out there not getting a chance to represent their breeds whilst these dogs ruin the name. I hope the owner gets the book thrown at him majorly. I don't think it has anything to do with being politically correct. I think it has everything to do with accurately assessing a situation/behaviour, without using sensational terms that only serve to create more hysteria. 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. Doing the breed no favours? Given it's up in the air what breed they are (media reporting notwithstanding), I think they are doing dog owners no favours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mixeduppup Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I could compare them to trees, it doesn't matter. The point I'm making is, once something starts displaying behaviour that is rare/uncommon in its lineage/species/breed whatever, it no longer represents the familiar and becomes the trash of its animal group. It becomes so changed from how it was bred/meant to be that it's no longer reflecting of its breed and is therefore not "just acting like a dog". I consider dogs of any breed that brutally attack or kill a person to be the trash/monsters of the dog world. I may not be politically correct but here's too many good dogs out there not getting a chance to represent their breeds whilst these dogs ruin the name. I hope the owner gets the book thrown at him majorly. I don't think it has anything to do with being politically correct. I think it has everything to do with accurately assessing a situation/behaviour, without using sensational terms that only serve to create more hysteria. 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. Doing the breed no favours? Given it's up in the air what breed they are (media reporting notwithstanding), I think they are doing dog owners no favours. The breeds have been identified as pitbulls or pitbulls mixes, video has been shown of the dogs and they are identifiable as this breed (whether they have another breed in them or not, people will see them as pitbulls) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbi Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 There has been no formal breed identification announced by the media(only the usual profiling) but if you read the latest articles they have been called American Staffordshire Terriers by Bankstown City Council spokesman Paul Scott. The owner has had them since puppyhood and he is the one that should be punished..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) There has been no formal breed identification announced by the media(only the usual profiling) but if you read the latest articles they have been called American Staffordshire Terriers by Bankstown City Council spokesman Paul Scott. The owner has had them since puppyhood and he is the one that should be punished..... And you'd think being their owner, he'd know what breed they were. Most responsible bull breed owners are under no illusion that dog aggression can be an issue for such breeds. It's those who stick their heads in the sand and who think that their dogs are just misunderstood cuddle muffins that are probably the most dangerous owners of all. What a dog has done, and what a dog is capable of doing are not one and the same. People with dogs with high prey drive should also manage their dogs accordingly. Edited October 31, 2012 by Haredown Whippets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salukifan Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) Oops - wrong thread Edited October 31, 2012 by Haredown Whippets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizT Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Bankstown Pound is Renbury, isn't it? Maybe someone there will have a better idea of breed ID. It doesn't matter what breed they are, it was a horrible attack by two badly trained dogs, with an irresponsible owner. Yep. Two sweet innocent litle puppies...once...now grown up and so poorly managed that they have been labelled by society as "vile Monsters" and will be "made to pay" for their anti-social behaviour. Hopefully, so will their owner. But really, if their owner had a better understanding of what can happen when dogs are allowed to grow up without the training and supervision needed to make them acceptable members of the community or at least to restrict their free roaming so as to make sure they don't harrass dog or person, then there would never have been a problem ( or with any dog for that matter). It doesn't matter what breed of dog they are, they have been allowed to become what they have, have inflicted a terrible injury on a person due to a lack of responsibility and now will pay the ultimate price. Does anyone learn anything from these incidents...I truly hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Bankstown Pound is Renbury, isn't it? Maybe someone there will have a better idea of breed ID. It doesn't matter what breed they are, it was a horrible attack by two badly trained dogs, with an irresponsible owner. Yep. Two sweet innocent litle puppies...once...now grown up and so poorly managed that they have been labelled by society as "vile Monsters" and will be "made to pay" for their anti-social behaviour. Hopefully, so will their owner. But really, if their owner had a better understanding of what can happen when dogs are allowed to grow up without the training and supervision needed to make them acceptable members of the community or at least to restrict their free roaming so as to make sure they don't harrass dog or person, then there would never have been a problem ( or with any dog for that matter). It doesn't matter what breed of dog they are, they have been allowed to become what they have, have inflicted a terrible injury on a person due to a lack of responsibility and now will pay the ultimate price. Does anyone learn anything from these incidents...I truly hope so. It doesn't seem like it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frufru Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Actually it does matter what breed they are - a breed predisposition to dog aggression and a large and powerful build is going to be much more of a problem if not managed correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WExtremeG Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Dog looked friendly enough in the video Lilli? posted- throwing ideas around...who's to say that they weren't well socialized blah, blah, blah? Some breeds are more predisposed to certain types of behaviour- They had apparently never demonstrated aggression of that type before (well that's what I got out of it)- how was the owner to know his fence wasn't high enough to contain them? the dogs who attacked my then pup hadn't ever attacked before either- well that is what I was told by their owners (apart from one who kept a stray) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now