TV3 lawless Ireland.. pit bulls..

SillyMangoX · 02-04-2012 10:56pm #1

Disguising 'pit bull terriers are viscous and will attack anything if they break out of captivity'... and talking about someone who got mauled by a 'pit bull type', knowing most journalists, it was probably a Labrador they were talking about. How biased. Nothing about all the attacks by Chihuahuas or Yorkshire terriers that are waaaay more likely to bite (in my opinion and experience) all about how blood thirsty pit bulls are... This is basically racism against dogs. Makes me so sad to see this kind of biased report on national television.

Dodd · 02-04-2012 11:22pm

I think they were going for the shock value rather than facts.
I had a pit bull many years ago and it was breed for fighting.
I got it about 6/7 weeks old and it turned out to be a lovely dog,never hurt anyone or other animals.

I have a JRT pup now that has snapped at me twice because of food and sometimes growls when I move her.The pit bull never did that.

johnners2981 · 02-04-2012 11:34pm

How can you defend them when statistics show them to be the most dangerous, seems you are the biased one.

Out of 31 fatal attacks in the US in 2011, 22 where caused by pit bulls despite only being 5% of the population

This is pretty condemning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

Can you show me some statistics to show that chihuahuas are more dangerous than pit bulls?

SillyMangoX · 03-04-2012 12:12am

I didn't say that Chi's were more dangerous, I said they are more likely to bite. Sure if a Pit got his teeth on you he would do a lot more damage than a chi, but that doesn't stop the fact that they are more likely to bite. Not bite fatally, but still bite. There aren't many accurate dog bite statistics online as most are posted by people scaremongering about the restricted breeds. A lot of people wouldn't end up in hospital after a bite from a small dog so many bites aren't recorded. That doesn't mean they aren't as likely to bite as a Pit. If Chihuahua's were the same size as a Pit or staffie, I am almost positive that they would be number one on the restricted breed list (not that that list means much :rolleyes: )

I wouldn't consider myself biased, I like all breeds of dogs (except English bulldogs for some reason:pac: ) I am just going by personal experience, I have NEVER been bitten, growled at or even looked at funny by any restricted breed. However nearly every Maltese I see wants to kill me, I've been bitten by 2 Jack Russels and had scratches worse than what you'd get from a cat from a Chihuahua who the owners reassured me was 'only playing' despite teeth being bared and growls galore!:rolleyes:

Plus, here is some statistics for you

http://indigorescue.org/?page_id=83

johnners2981 · 03-04-2012 12:34am

Maybe they don't bite as much but with 128 deaths caused by pit bulls out of 213 in the last 7 years in the US they are by far the most dangerous and imo they've earned their blood thirsty reputation.

I've nothing against them and I didn't see the show but even if it was biased maybe it'll make people more careful with them and could prevent a tragedy

WolfgangWeisen · 03-04-2012 12:35am

johnners2981 wrote: »

How can you defend them when statistics show them to be the most dangerous, seems you are the biased one.

Out of 31 fatal attacks in the US in 2011, 22 where caused by pit bulls despite only being 5% of the population

This is pretty condemning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

Can you show me some statistics to show that chihuahuas are more dangerous than pit bulls?

Hi johnners2981,

I don't think you'll find anyone claiming that chihuahuas are more dangerous than a pitbull, however they most certainly bite with more frequency than pitbulls do.

Pitbulls are capable of causing significantly more damage and even death in unfortunate cases and thus require special attention by dedicated and experienced dog owners. The problem is, they were traditionally a fighting breed and are now being bought by inexperienced and irresponsible "tough men" to try to "toughen" up their image or compensate for their tiny penises and egos.

The number one issue surrounding "dangerous" dogs is that you have uneducated hard men buying them because they are perceived as dangerous and then going out of their way to make the dog behave to that stereotype by making them aggressive or unsociable. Unfortunately some of these terribly trained animals escape and the inevitable happens.

Again, nobody claims that chihuahuas are more dangerous than a pitbull, however I would most certainly expect to be bitten by a chihuahua more than I would by a pitbull. Similarly, I would expect to be able to brush off a bite from a chihuahua whereas I would most likely have flesh wounds/tearing if a pitbull got its teeth into my arm.

I hate the reputations these dogs and the rest on the "restricted breed" list have gotten. I just hope that measures are put in place to prevent the ones causing the problems - the irresponsible and inexperienced owners - from accessing these dogs rather than the opposite, and more likely outcome, of the breed being banned entirely.

WolfgangWeisen · 03-04-2012 12:45am

johnners2981 wrote: »

Maybe they don't bite as much but with 128 deaths caused by pit bulls out of 213 in the last 7 years in the US they are by far the most dangerous and imo they've earned their blood thirsty reputation.

I've nothing against them and I didn't see the show but even if it was biased maybe it'll make people more careful with them and could prevent a tragedy

Johnners2981,
Regarding the 128 deaths at the hands (or paws) of pitbulls, what do you know of the circumstances surrounding them? Were they in the homes of experienced owners who had brought the dog up since it was a pup, socialising it, bringing it to classes and the other necessary actions to ensure it was brought up in a stable and productive environment? Or was it in the homes of "hard men" and "gangsters" who probably used physical violence on the dog to "teach" it, didn't socialise it with other dogs/humans/kids/etc, most likely didn't even have it secured properly in its area?

I would imagine the majority would fall into the latter. In fact, pitbulls are very highly recommended family pets. They just require responsible ownership.

Therefore, the problem isn't the dog or the breed, it's the people buying them. That is without even breaching the subject of careless, back-yard breeding and the effects it has on the lineage. No dogs are "blood thirsty" either. You've breeds who were originally bred for fighting, who have since had the aggression bred out of them, and working dogs such as dobermen, rottweilers, GSDs and similar.

None were bred for blood/taking down wild animals and especially not the blood of humans. Quite the opposite in fact, even breeds bred to fight were bred to be extremely human kind to ensure they could be handled after a fight.

You should always be cautious when approaching a strange dog, that applies to small dogs and big dogs. Discriminating by breed will get you bitten by snappy little dogs and prevent you from enjoying experiences with big breeds or "restricted' breeds.

Judging by the "post your pets" thread here, there are quite a few responsible pit-bull owners who've done a great job of bringing up their dogs. Perhaps you would consider meeting them to experience the breed first hand, brought up by proper owners, so you could change your biased view of a breed simply due to something you've read in the media?

johnners2981 · 03-04-2012 1:50am

WolfgangWeisen wrote: »

Johnners2981,
Regarding the 128 deaths at the hands (or paws) of pitbulls, what do you know of the circumstances surrounding them? Were they in the homes of experienced owners who had brought the dog up since it was a pup, socialising it, bringing it to classes and the other necessary actions to ensure it was brought up in a stable and productive environment? Or was it in the homes of "hard men" and "gangsters" who probably used physical violence on the dog to "teach" it, didn't socialise it with other dogs/humans/kids/etc, most likely didn't even have it secured properly in its area?

I would imagine the majority would fall into the latter. In fact, pitbulls are very highly recommended family pets. They just require responsible ownership.

Therefore, the problem isn't the dog or the breed, it's the people buying them. That is without even breaching the subject of careless, back-yard breeding and the effects it has on the lineage. No dogs are "blood thirsty" either. You've breeds who were originally bred for fighting, who have since had the aggression bred out of them, and working dogs such as dobermen, rottweilers, GSDs and similar.

None were bred for blood/taking down wild animals and especially not the blood of humans. Quite the opposite in fact, even breeds bred to fight were bred to be extremely human kind to ensure they could be handled after a fight.

You should always be cautious when approaching a strange dog, that applies to small dogs and big dogs. Discriminating by breed will get you bitten by snappy little dogs and prevent you from enjoying experiences with big breeds or "restricted' breeds.

Judging by the "post your pets" thread here, there are quite a few responsible pit-bull owners who've done a great job of bringing up their dogs. Perhaps you would consider meeting them to experience the breed first hand, brought up by proper owners, so you could change your biased view of a breed simply due to something you've read in the media?

I wouldn't say my view is biased, I'd say it's a fair view that's based on evidence. Here's a link with info about the deaths last year.
http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2011.php.

A lot of the dogs involved don't seem to be owned by 'hard men' but it's impossible to tell their upbringing.

And if all pit bull owners were responsible it'd be great but we both know that's not going to happen so I think it's only rational to be more wary of pit pulls than any other breed

Delancey · 03-04-2012 2:01am

Bah ! Who gives a fiddlers what TV3 says - pure cheap rubbish that station pumps out day in day out.
Can't see any intelligent or thinking person paying any attention.

GalwayKiefer · 03-04-2012 8:23am

Lazy shock value journalism, I don't bother watching shows like that any more because they make me too angry. The problem is at the other end of the leash, always has been.

Dyr · 03-04-2012 8:51am

Most violent crimes in the united states of amerikey are committed by them black lads. Obviously they are a very violent breed of people :P

lorebringer · 03-04-2012 9:13am

Can anyone point me in the right direction to watch this show - had a look on TV3 player but the last show in the series is "Teenage kicks". Is it not up yet?

DamagedTrax · 03-04-2012 11:37am

johnners2981 wrote: »

I wouldn't say my view is biased, I'd say it's a fair view that's based on evidence. Here's a link with info about the deaths last year.
http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2011.php.

A lot of the dogs involved don't seem to be owned by 'hard men' but it's impossible to tell their upbringing.

And if all pit bull owners were responsible it'd be great but we both know that's not going to happen so I think it's only rational to be more wary of pit pulls than any other breed

firstly "pitbull" can cover a lot of different dogs, th american pitbull terrier is a breed, the term pitbull covers a range of breeds. hell anything bigger than a jrt with a snarl gets called a pitbull these days.

secondly, you mention pitbull population of 5%. considering the vast amounts of breeds and size of america, 5% is a HUGE number. so saying 'only 5%' is playing down the amount of dogs that actually is.

thirdly, america has a huge stray pitbull problem. thanks to numerous tornados and floods there are packs of stray pits roaming around many cities in he US.

and lastly, the breeding of pitbulls for profit has sky rocketed in the last few years as the more uncommon colours (blues and reds) started fetching premium prices. breeders start matching colours with no regard for temperment.

pitbulls (when properly bred) are the safest dog with humans, regularly coming top of the american canine temperment tests. thats a fact.

03-04-2012 11:37am

This is the same show were ........

Anita bought a louis vuitton bag from a stall in Henry street. She paid 8 euro for this bag. 6 months later while Anita was on a night out the strap snapped !!!

All of this is dubbed with haunting music !! and a guy saying "this type of thing happens in ireland all the time" !! :rolleyes:

The Sweeper · 03-04-2012 12:02pm

johnners2981 wrote: »

I wouldn't say my view is biased, I'd say it's a fair view that's based on evidence. Here's a link with info about the deaths last year.
http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2011.php.

johnners2981, dogsbite.org is a website founded by Colleen Lynn, an individual who was attacked by a pit bull herself and who has been widely discredited for her sourcing and packaging of information.

If you want accurate dog bite statistics, you need to be aware of a few things.

The first is where dog identification comes from. Hospitals in most of the western world use a system of clinical coding linked to the International Classification of Diseases as per the World Health Organisation to identify the ailments and treatments that come through their doors. Based on the ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision) there are two codes around dog bites - one for a bite and one for being struck by a dog.

Nowhere in the ICD is there, or has there ever been, a field for a code for dog breed. Subsequently, breed of dog is not recorded in hospital records. The identification of a breed of dog involved in an attack is most commonly down to what the victim or witnesses think the dog was. Accurate identification of a dog breed is something best left to judges in the show ring.

So the ICD is used to record the number of dog bites, but what about the count for those who don't seek medical attention? Yes, dogs of a certain size and weight range have the capacity to inflict more serious bites than smaller dogs. Does that mean we ban all dogs above a certain size and weight range?

'Pitbull type' is not a dog breed. It's simply a dog that looks a certain way. Cross a boxer and a labrador and you'll get a dog that looks that way. Cross any short haired dog with a medium muzzle in the weight range of 15-30kgs with any other short haired dog with a medium muzzle in that weight range and the finished product will probably carry some of the appearance standards that would make it 'of pitbull type'.

'Pitbull' is a word like 'spaniel', 'lurcher', 'terrier', 'pointer' - it's a type, not a breed. To insinuate that all dogs of a certain appearance have a propensity to behave a certain way is a stretch of credibility.

A pitbull type dog, if you assume that means a powerful head and neck, short coat, muscular build and weight circa 22kgs, has the same potential as any other dog of that size, shape and build to do damage to a human being.

The cult of personality around the 'pitbull terrier' is such that a pitbull type dog recently inflicted 'life changing' injuries (e.g. removing fingers) on five police officers in the UK. There's video footage of the attack. All I could think when I saw it was 'Why didn't they rush the dog together? Why couldn't five grown men overpower one 25-30kg dog??' The only reason I could think is that they were all so petrified that they froze. I wonder if they would have frozen if the attacking dog were a standard poodle (also able to reach 25-30kg in size)?

The upshot is that focusing on pitbull type dogs in trying to address dog bite incidence is a futile approach, and it wastes resources.

Zapperzy · 03-04-2012 2:40pm

Deleted User wrote: »

This is the same show were ........

Anita bought a louis vuitton bag from a stall in Henry street. She paid 8 euro for this bag. 6 months later while Anita was on a night out the strap snapped !!!

All of this is dubbed with haunting music !! and a guy saying "this type of thing happens in ireland all the time" !! :rolleyes:

I missed the show about the pit bulls but seen this one and have to say I was in stitches at parts of it with the over dramatic music!

John have a look at this http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html and see can you spot the pitbull! Most people cannot when they are sitting down calmly in front of a computer screen, how can people pumping with adrenaline being attacked by a dog be expected to competently identify the breed of dog attacking them? So therefore the majority of attacks that occur are probably by other breeds of dog.

Now I don't want to small breed bash but ask anyone involved in the dog business (vets, nurses, groomers, trainers, kennel owners etc.) what breeds they are most likely to be bitten or snapped at by. Personally I'd say labs, collies, terriers and small white furries. That's not to bash other breeds of dogs, just goes to show that any breed of dog is capable of biting.

SillyMangoX · 03-04-2012 3:21pm

Zapperzy wrote: »

Now I don't want to small breed bash but ask anyone involved in the dog business (vets, nurses, groomers, trainers, kennel owners etc.) what breeds they are most likely to be bitten or snapped at by. Personally I'd say labs, collies, terriers and small white furries. That's not to bash other breeds of dogs, just goes to show that any breed of dog is capable of biting.

I'm a student vet nurse, and as a posted earlier, I found Maltese, Jack Russels and Chihuahuas to be the worst offenders for snappiness. I would personally blame how some owners handle the animals ie treat them like babies. I

Zapperzy · 03-04-2012 6:22pm

SillyMangoX wrote: »

I'm a student vet nurse, and as a posted earlier, I found Maltese, Jack Russels and Chihuahuas to be the worst offenders for snappiness. I would personally blame how some owners handle the animals ie treat them like babies. I

Me too and I could add labradors and golden retrievers to that list as people buy them as 'easy' family dogs and forget that they too also need rules and boundaries and basic obedience.

houndsoflove · 03-04-2012 7:33pm

I got bitten by a papillion

Old lady owns him and he rules the roost :rolleyes:

My dad has a pitbull and he's a dote.

lrushe · 03-04-2012 10:19pm

Have to say I lose respect for anyone's opinion who comes out with statements like "Pit Bulls (or any other breed) don't bite 'x' breed is so much more vicious" :rolleyes:

No breed is more vicious, snappy, bad tempered etc. than another full stop.
I feel like banging my head of a brick wall sometimes when I'm either defending my Rottie to one section of people or my Chihuahua to another, neither dog have ever even so much as curled a lip in aggression.

The worst thing you can do is approach any dog or breed with any preconcieved ideas of how they will be.

JONJO THE MISER · 03-04-2012 10:55pm

Just watching, they should be banned:mad:

WolfgangWeisen · 03-04-2012 11:06pm

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Just watching, they should be banned:mad:

Who should be banned?

Irresponsible dog owners? I heartily agree.

Evac101 · 05-04-2012 9:06am

This doesn't hit any outright conclusions but it's an interesting look at the actual evidence available in the States on dog bites (lethal and non-lethal) and whether there's a breed bias based on evidence or public perception:

Pitbull Attacks!

One of the things I found interesting is that pit bull is used as a group term in the states to describe anything up to 7 distinct breeds (and also mixed breed or indistinct breed dogs with 'pit bull qualities') which leads to an artificial skewing of statistics when describing the frequency of "Pit Bull" attacks over there.

chris139ryan · 10-04-2012 2:40pm

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Just watching, they should be banned:mad:

you should be banned for discrimmination against a certain type of dog just for what media says.

Media also says that teenagers have a bad name for violence, sex, drugs and drinking a lot. so i guess according to you, teenagers should be banned too then right

DamagedTrax · 10-04-2012 4:40pm

media reports black people in uk start riots - ban em from social media!
media reports muslims are terrorists - ban the burkha
media reports teeangers who wear hoods up are the devil - ban hoods

there's a pattern

here's a crazed pitbull from earlier today :eek::eek:

ban the media from reporting ANYTHING but facts is what i say.

Dannyboi3k · 10-04-2012 4:47pm

This argument and these type of mockumentaries piss me off!

Cousin has two pits, and I have a staffordshire. Mine is 5 and my cousins are from the same litter and are 4. Never have they attacked a human or animal. They are the friendliest breed of dogs and are delighted to see new people as they love attention.

On the other hand, I know a fella that breeds greyhounds. Now, I'm not slating greyhounds but they can be one vicious dog when they want to be, as can Jack russells and ANY dog that has been brought up that way.

Its how they are brought up, and a minority of pits and staffs and bull breeds are brought up by people who should have been put down at birth themselves.

This seriously pisses me off. The masses believe this tripe being fed to them. They are just as thick as the owners who mistreat these dogs and give them a bad name.

youtube! · 10-04-2012 5:11pm

I dont reckon PB are any more likely to attack than any other breed,infact it seems a lot less likely judging by the amount of people that testify to their docile nature,having said that because of their bite structure,they will do a serious amount of damage if they do decide to attack, their jaws always remind me of a bear trap:eek: the problem though is obviously with the idiot owners,rather than the specific breed.

DamagedTrax · 10-04-2012 5:26pm

Dannyboi3k wrote: »

and the majority of pits and staffs and bull breeds are brought up by people who should have been put down at birth themselves.

actually i would say its the minority of owners that are idiots. between club shows, meet-ups, agility and general day to day walking the vast majority of pit and staff owners that i meet are lovely people with great control over their dogs.

Dannyboi3k · 10-04-2012 6:07pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

actually i would say its the minority of owners that are idiots. between club shows, meet-ups, agility and general day to day walking the vast majority of pit and staff owners that i meet are lovely people with great control over their dogs.

Sorry, fixed. That's what I meant, was writing in a rage :pac:

planetX · 10-04-2012 7:15pm

Dannyboi3k wrote: »

This argument and these type of mockumentaries piss me off!

Cousin has two pits, and I have a staffordshire. Mine is 5 and my cousins are from the same litter and are 4. Never have they attacked a human or animal. They are the friendliest breed of dogs and are delighted to see new people as they love attention.

On the other hand, I know a fella that breeds greyhounds. Now, I'm not slating greyhounds but they can be one vicious dog when they want to be, as can Jack russells and ANY dog that has been brought up that way.

Its how they are brought up, and a minority of pits and staffs and bull breeds are brought up by people who should have been put down at birth themselves.

This seriously pisses me off. The masses believe this tripe being fed to them. They are just as thick as the owners who mistreat these dogs and give them a bad name.

I understand the point you're making, and agree.... but please don't use greyhounds - they have a bad enough time in this country already:(

Dannyboi3k · 10-04-2012 9:43pm

planetX wrote: »

I understand the point you're making, and agree.... but please don't use greyhounds - they have a bad enough time in this country already:(

Touché.

So do pitbulls and staffies. Without the need for stupid documentaries like this.

TV3 lawless Ireland.. pit bulls..

Comments