5 police officers injured by dog in Albert Square, East London

gurramok

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17475293

Any idea on what's behind this? An extra out of MoanEnders?

Return of one of the Mitchell's or was it Rickkyyyyyyyyyy the pitbull ?

Mr.Crinklewood

Nothing to do with Eastenders, it was Corrie's fault... It was The Rovers return...

AboutTwoFiddy

Poor dog.

Hande hoche!

Don't mess with pit-bulls.

starbelgrade

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Nothing to do with Eastenders, it was Corrie's fault... It was The Rovers return...

That joke was woof.

EGAR

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Don't mess with pit-bulls.

Nothing wrong with Pit Bulls, the problem is on the other end of the leash.

admiralofthefleet

was the dog called bianca?

MsQuinn

Was it Roly?

Super-Rush

I thought Heather was killed

meoklmrk91

Yet another round of media reporting will go around about pitbulls, staffs etc. being killers and bad to the bone. Pity they wouldn't spend a bit more time reporting on how the dogs idiot owner turned him from a sweet, adorable puppy into a crazed attacker. Its not the bully breeds that are the issue, it's the assholes who own them to look hard.

Also hope the officers are okay, sounds like the dog did some serious damage.

earpiece

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

was the dog called bianca?

No, it's name was Vic.
wasthisateightoclock?
See how i pressed the space bar there, 'cause I give a fúck!

General General

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Yet another round of media reporting will go around about pitbulls, staffs etc. being killers and bad to the bone. Pity they wouldn't spend a bit more time reporting on how the dogs idiot owner turned him from a sweet, adorable puppy into a crazed attacker. Its not the bully breeds that are the issue, it's the assholes who own them to look hard.

Also hope the officers are okay, sounds like the dog did some serious damage.

Yo. No one ever turned a King Charles Spaniel into a killing machine.

hardCopy

Stay away from that dog, he's Well'ard

castletownman

Dog 4 Police 1

MagicSean

General General wrote: »

Yo. No one ever turned a King Charles Spaniel into a killing machine.

Why would they? They aren't powerful. It doesn't change what the poster said. The breed might be powerful but it's the owner that makes it a killer.

Run_to_da_hills

What a waste of a good dog, why didn't the cops try to save it and train it to attack future rioters,

domkk

hardCopy wrote: »

Stay away from that dog, he's Well'ard

I was gonna say that ...
....that dog must be well 'ard!
said it anyway

meoklmrk91

General General wrote: »

Yo. No one ever turned a King Charles Spaniel into a killing machine.

No, because they are too small to do any real damage, that is literally the only difference, bullies were bred for strength, KCS were bred to be small cute and cuddly. As someone who grooms dogs on a weekly basis and is training to be a vet nurse, I can tell you that it is the smaller dogs who are far more likely to turn around and snap at you or bite you.

I think it's unfair to categorize a breed as dangerous, all dogs have the ability and will use it if they feel it is necessary, rightly or wrongly. Labs for instance are consistently touted as the perfect family dog, and usually they are. But the papers didn't call labs, killers or attack dogs when a woman in France had to have the worlds first face transplant after her pet lab mauled her face while she slept after taking sleeping tablets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabelle_Dinoire

Is there a reason for caution with bullies, of course they have immense power and strength that can kill. But I honestly don't believe that they deserve the rap that they get, the general public are terrified of them, my Boxer looked like a Pitbull as a pup because of his colouring, people would literally cross the road, drag their kids away from us, and tell me that he was dangerous and that I would be better off getting rid of him. It's hysteria and imho it is completely unwarranted.

Bullies will only be dangerous until the next dangerous breed comes along and takes over the headlines, GSD's, Dobermans and Rotties all got the same treatment and now for the most part you hear nothing about these breeds. It is usually the next breed that becomes popular with young lads who want to look hard. My guess for the next one will be Akitas or Presa Canarios, just give it time.

MagicSean

MagicSean wrote: »

Why would they? They aren't powerful. It doesn't change what the poster said. The breed might be powerful but it's the owner that makes it a killer.

It's not just the physical strength/size of the dog that comes into play. Certain types of dogs have been selectively bred, for hundreds of generations, to show aggressive traits. This behaviour was useful in hunting and fighting dogs.

"Game or Gameness is a quality of fighting dogs or working terriers that are selectively bred and conditioned from a very early age to develop traits of eagerness despite the threat of substantive injury. Dogs displaying this trait can also be described as persevering, ready and willing, full of fight, spirited, or plucky."

This is why we so rarely hear of labradors, collies, english sheep dogs or any one of the other myriad breeds of dogs that are big enough to substantially injure a human in this kind of report, even though they are present in far greater numbers than the "dangerous" breeds.

People often rush to the defence of these dogs in this kind of case and blame it all on the owner, and that is correct to a certain extent.

But to deny that these breeds have a greater latent capacity for violence than others is to deny basic genetic reality.

This video of foxes bred for either timidness or agression shows just how pronounced the effects of genetics and breeding on behaviour are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbcwDXhugjw

discus

Why didn't one of them run into a house and grab a knife? As a resident, I'd have grabbed the handiest knife to hand, straight out and straight into the things chest. One of those officers could have lost fingers, hand, calf, testicles or penis ffs!

guitarzero

Always wary of folks walking there pets are around, those pit bulls and the like, first thing I do is spot the nearest, climbable tree.

MagicSean

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not just the physical strength/size of the dog that comes into play. Certain types of dogs have been selectively bred, for hundreds of generations, to show aggressive traits. This behaviour was useful in hunting and fighting dogs.

"Game or Gameness is a quality of fighting dogs or working terriers that are selectively bred and conditioned from a very early age to develop traits of eagerness despite the threat of substantive injury. Dogs displaying this trait can also be described as persevering, ready and willing, full of fight, spirited, or plucky."

This is why we so rarely hear of labradors, collies, english sheep dogs or any one of the other myriad breeds of dogs that are big enough to substantially injure a human in this kind of report, even though they are present in far greater numbers than the "dangerous" breeds.

People often rush to the defence of these dogs in this kind of case and blame it all on the owner, and that is correct to a certain extent.

But to deny that these breeds have a greater latent capacity for violence than others is to deny basic genetic reality.

This video of foxes bred for either timidness or agression shows just how pronounced the effects of genetics and breeding on behaviour are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbcwDXhugjw

And some people just assume because the Sun doesn't have a story on it that sheepdogs don't bite people.

MagicSean

MagicSean wrote: »

And some people just assume because the Sun doesn't have a story on it that sheepdogs don't bite people.

I didn't say that other breeds never attack people. It's just that they are less likely to, and when they do, it is less likely to result in serious injury or death. It's easy to find anecdotes of various breeds attacking people. I could probably find a case of a corgi attacking someone if I looked for it. But that wouldn't prove anything, because it would be an anecdote, and anecdotal evidence is the weakest kind of evidence.

Strong evidence is that based on gathering large amounts of data from a large sample size. Here is some strong evidence, relating to fatal dog attacks in the U.S. from 1979 to 1998.

Pit bull: 118
Rottweiler: 67
Mixed breed (No dominant breed specified): 47
German shepherd: 41
Husky: 21
Chow Chow: 21
Malamute: 16
Wolf-dog hybrid:15
Doberman: 13
Great dane: 13
Saint bernard: 8
Labrador retriever: 8

Notice how under represented labradors are, considering that they are a very popular breed. Pit bulls and rotweillers make up a much smaller percentage of the canine population yet top the lethality stats by a country mile.

RichieC

They used to call pittbulls Nursery dogs because they were so good with children. They've been maligned by irresponsible owners and a hysterical media.

RichieC

Written prior to the media hate campaign against them.

“The Pit Bull is goofily friendly towards people–family, friends, and strangers alike. Known for its sound character, strong nerve, and great intelligence, the breed makes an ideal companion for households with children, while remaining strong and vigilant enough to protect its loved ones if need be. It is never necessary to embark on guard or attack training with this breed, as they are naturally attuned to their environment and intuitive about real threats. Although never aggressive towards people without real need, the Pit Bull may show dog-directed aggression, but sensitivity to other dogs will vary from dog to dog. The properly socialized and trained Pit Bull should not be an instigator, yet it is unlikely for the breed to shy away from a challenge. The breed is known for its high prey drive, and so due caution should be exercised when cats, rabbits, domestic fowl, and other such animals are present. Dog-sensitivity and high prey drive should not be viewed as a fault, although excessive, uncontrollable aggression is neither desired nor correct. Aggression towards humans should be viewed as a serious fault.”

RichieC

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't say that other breeds never attack people. It's just that they are less likely to, and when they do, it is less likely to result in serious injury or death. It's easy to find anecdotes of various breeds attacking people. I could probably find a case of a corgi attacking someone if I looked for it. But that wouldn't prove anything, because it would be an anecdote, and anecdotal evidence is the weakest kind of evidence.

Strong evidence is that based on gathering large amounts of data from a large sample size. Here is some strong evidence, relating to fatal dog attacks in the U.S. from 1979 to 1998.

Pit bull: 118
Rottweiler: 67
Mixed breed (No dominant breed specified): 47
German shepherd: 41
Husky: 21
Chow Chow: 21
Malamute: 16
Wolf-dog hybrid:15
Doberman: 13
Great dane: 13
Saint bernard: 8
Labrador retriever: 8

Notice how under represented labradors are, considering that they are a very popular breed. Pit bulls and rotweillers make up a much smaller percentage of the canine population yet top the lethality stats by a country mile.

What you're not taking into account here is the type of people attracted to Pittbulls these days. Hard boys and morons. Ill treated animals become aggressive and feral. A pittbull owned by a straight up dog loving owner will not be aggressive.

RichieC

RichieC wrote: »

Written prior to the media hate campaign against them.

Funny that they've been topping the lethal attack statistics for decades before this "media hate campaign" began.

RichieC

RichieC wrote: »

What you're not taking into account here is the type of people attracted to Pittbulls these days. Hard boys and morons. Ill treated animals become aggressive and feral. A pittbull owned by a straight up dog loving owner will not be aggressive.

You're not taking into account that these dogs have been killing people in greater numbers than any other dog for decades.

With dogs, as with ourselves, some people are unaware, or unwilling to accept, how much personality and behaviour is determined by genetics.

General General

MagicSean wrote: »

Why would they? They aren't powerful. It doesn't change what the poster said. The breed might be powerful but it's the owner that makes it a killer.

Are you arguing that a person COULD make a King Charles Spaniel a killer?

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

No, because they are too small to do any real damage, that is literally the only difference, bullies were bred for strength, KCS were bred to be small cute and cuddly. As someone who grooms dogs on a weekly basis and is training to be a vet nurse, I can tell you that it is the smaller dogs who are far more likely to turn around and snap at you or bite you.

I think it's unfair to categorize a breed as dangerous, all dogs have the ability and will use it if they feel it is necessary, rightly or wrongly. Labs for instance are consistently touted as the perfect family dog, and usually they are. But the papers didn't call labs, killers or attack dogs when a woman in France had to have the worlds first face transplant after her pet lab mauled her face while she slept after taking sleeping tablets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabelle_Dinoire

Is there a reason for caution with bullies, of course they have immense power and strength that can kill. But I honestly don't believe that they deserve the rap that they get, the general public are terrified of them, my Boxer looked like a Pitbull as a pup because of his colouring, people would literally cross the road, drag their kids away from us, and tell me that he was dangerous and that I would be better off getting rid of him. It's hysteria and imho it is completely unwarranted.

Bullies will only be dangerous until the next dangerous breed comes along and takes over the headlines, GSD's, Dobermans and Rotties all got the same treatment and now for the most part you hear nothing about these breeds. It is usually the next breed that becomes popular with young lads who want to look hard. My guess for the next one will be Akitas or Presa Canarios, just give it time.

I think the ability to cause any real damage is a major part of the debate.

You can get hit by a bus or by a kid on a trike... you can even say the bus hit was an accident while the kid intended it. Which would you prefer?

No major regulation over ownership or control of a kid's trike, for this very reason.

Nice touch calling them 'bullies'. Sweet.

MagicSean

General General wrote: »

Are you arguing that a person COULD make a King Charles Spaniel a killer?

You could make them viscious

General General wrote: »

I think the ability to cause any real damage is a major part of the debate.

You can get hit by a bus or by a kid on a trike... you can even say the bus hit was an accident while the kid intended it. Which would you prefer?

No major regulation over ownership or control of a kid's trike, for this very reason.

Nice touch calling them 'bullies'. Sweet.

By your reasoning people who are naturally strong should be treated differently to the weak.

MagicSean

MagicSean wrote: »

By your reasoning people who are naturally strong should be treated differently to the weak.

Should strong people be treated differently to weak people? No.

But what if you had a group of strong people that were selectively bred for hundreds of years to be aggressive, and who had been demonstrated by large scale statistical record keeping to kill an amount of people that was out of all proportion to their numbers?

You might treat them differently then.

meoklmrk91

General General wrote: »

Are you arguing that a person COULD make a King Charles Spaniel a killer?




I think the ability to cause any real damage is a major part of the debate.

You can get hit by a bus or by a kid on a trike... you can even say the bus hit was an accident while the kid intended it. Which would you prefer?

No major regulation over ownership or control of a kid's trike, for this very reason.

Nice touch calling them 'bullies'. Sweet.

If the restricted breeds law was better and maybe if they enforced it, it would make some sort of a dent in these attacks. And by make it better make the owner more accountable.

No-one under the age of 25 should be allowed to own a restricted breed, full stop, I am sick to teeth of seeing young lads, out walking around with these dogs, thinking they look hard, they have no idea how to handle such a dog, they think it's cool when their dog growls or barks at strangers.

Licensing and Micro chipping: Ensure that the dog can be tied to its owner in the case of an incident, that way they can be charged with manslaughter/murder or assault.

All restricted breeds must be insured: That way the victims get some compensation if they are attacked by someone's dog.

Now personally I think the second two should apply to all breeds, not just restricted. But even if it just started with the restricted then it could be expanded later down the line. Lets make these owners accountable for their actions in a big way. The cost alone would weed out the undesirable owners and I bet it would lower incidents dramatically.

General General

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

If the restricted breeds law was better and maybe if they enforced it, it would make some sort of a dent in these attacks. And by make it better make the owner more accountable.

No-one under the age of 25 should be allowed to own a restricted breed, full stop, I am sick to teeth of seeing young lads, out walking around with these dogs, thinking they look hard, they have no idea how to handle such a dog, they think it's cool when their dog growls or barks at strangers.

Licensing and Micro chipping: Ensure that the dog can be tied to its owner in the case of an incident, that way they can be charged with manslaughter/murder or assault.

All restricted breeds must be insured: That way the victims get some compensation if they are attacked by someone's dog.

Now personally I think the second two should apply to all breeds, not just restricted. But even if it just started with the restricted then it could be expanded later down the line. Lets make these owners accountable for their actions in a big way. The cost alone would weed out the undesirable owners and I bet it would lower incidents dramatically.

I am in complete agreement with you on the above.

meoklmrk91

General General wrote: »

I am in complete agreement with you on the above.

I am and always will be on the side of the victims, and that includes the dogs. They do not have malice or intent, I completely blame the owners. I believe that the above not only protects the public but also the dogs from irresponsible, neglectful owners.

MagicSean

Deleted User wrote: »

Should strong people be treated differently to weak people? No.

But what if you had a group of strong people that were selectively bred for hundreds of years to be aggressive, and who had been demonstrated by large scale statistical record keeping to kill an amount of people that was out of all proportion to their numbers?

You might treat them differently then.

You might, but that'd also make you racist.

MagicSean

MagicSean wrote: »

You might, but that'd also make you racist.

Really? THAT is what your argument has been reduced to?

Note in my previous post that it was a hypothetical group of people I was talking about.

Perhaps you could call me a "breedist".

K-9

RichieC wrote: »

What you're not taking into account here is the type of people attracted to Pittbulls these days. Hard boys and morons. Ill treated animals become aggressive and feral. A pittbull owned by a straight up dog loving owner will not be aggressive.

No mention of Terriers! I suppose they are just too small to inflict damage, though often very aggressive.

Anyway Labrador Retrievers rock!

MagicSean

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? THAT is what your argument has been reduced to?

Note in my previous post that it was a hypothetical group of people I was talking about.

Perhaps you could call me a "breedist".

You just justified the different treatment of people in society based on their breeding. How is that anything but racist? At the very least it is prejudice. Maybe if you explore it a bit you will see how. Look at the situation in America. The majority of black people are descended from slaves who were selectively bred to be physically strong and fit so that they would make better workers. Does that mean all black people should be given a handicap in sports because of their ancestors breeding? Of course not. Australians were originally bred from criminals. Does that mean they should be under restricted freedoms when they visit another country because of their genetics?

Dogs develop their personalities as pups. If they are brought up right their genetics don't play a big part in their behaviour. I have a Jack Russel that thinks its a cat and a rottweiller that is afraid of a hoover. Where's the genetics there? I suppose it comes down to a nature vs nurture argument and we are on different sides.

SEPT 23 1989

Bet it was Roly Watts

Gevie Stee

Nice the way the policemans colleague stayed on the wall instead of helping him :eek:

MagicSean

Gevie Stee wrote: »

Nice the way the policemans colleague stayed on the wall instead of helping him :eek:

Whereas you would have done what exactly?

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't say that other breeds never attack people. It's just that they are less likely to, and when they do, it is less likely to result in serious injury or death. It's easy to find anecdotes of various breeds attacking people. I could probably find a case of a corgi attacking someone if I looked for it. But that wouldn't prove anything, because it would be an anecdote, and anecdotal evidence is the weakest kind of evidence.

Strong evidence is that based on gathering large amounts of data from a large sample size. Here is some strong evidence, relating to fatal dog attacks in the U.S. from 1979 to 1998.

Pit bull: 118
Rottweiler: 67
Mixed breed (No dominant breed specified): 47
German shepherd: 41
Husky: 21
Chow Chow: 21
Malamute: 16
Wolf-dog hybrid:15
Doberman: 13
Great dane: 13
Saint bernard: 8
Labrador retriever: 8

Notice how under represented labradors are, considering that they are a very popular breed. Pit bulls and rotweillers make up a much smaller percentage of the canine population yet top the lethality stats by a country mile.

However, according to Applied Animal Behaviour Science the breeds of dog most likely to bite are dachshunds, followed by JRTs. Granted they're too small to do much damage (though I know a groomer with permanent nerve damage that was caused by a Westie), but according to their research (synopsis here. The study itself seems to be behind a paywall) 20% of Daxies have bitten or tried to bite strangers. Rotties, Pits and Rhodesians scored average or below average in agression tests.

There are plenty of things more likely to kill you than an RB dog. Toasters kill nearly 800 people annually, chairs nearly 600. You're much more likely to be sent to an early grave by your slippers than by any dog.

MagicSean

MagicSean wrote: »

You just justified the different treatment of people in society based on their breeding. How is that anything but racist? At the very least it is prejudice. Maybe if you explore it a bit you will see how. Look at the situation in America. The majority of black people are descended from slaves who were selectively bred to be physically strong and fit so that they would make better workers. Does that mean all black people should be given a handicap in sports because of their ancestors breeding? Of course not. Australians were originally bred from criminals. Does that mean they should be under restricted freedoms when they visit another country because of their genetics?

Dogs develop their personalities as pups. If they are brought up right their genetics don't play a big part in their behaviour. I have a Jack Russel that thinks its a cat and a rottweiller that is afraid of a hoover. Where's the genetics there? I suppose it comes down to a nature vs nurture argument and we are on different sides.

Dogs=/= people.

As regards nature vs nurture, how would that explain the massive dominance of pitbulls and rotweillers in the fatal attack stats? Is it really that they are 50 times more likely to have bad owners than labradors? (I keep using labs as an example because they are common, and large enough to kill, if they were so inclined).

Just look at the silver fox experiment I posted to see a stunning example of how important genetics are to behaviour. Even when they implanted an embryo from the vicious arm of the experiment in to a tame mother, had her give birth to and raise it, with the same amount of human contact as the other tame foxes, it still turned out to be vicious.

It is unwise to underestimate the power of the genome.

Gevie Stee

MagicSean wrote: »

Whereas you would have done what exactly?

They have batons, tazers etc, he should have started bashing the dog, not letting it swing out of his colleagues arm while he watches from the wall. Real brave!

biko

EGAR wrote: »

Nothing wrong with Pit Bulls, the problem is on the other end of the leash.

Is this similar to "guns don't kill people, people kill people"?

kylith

kylith wrote: »

However, according to Applied Animal Behaviour Science the breeds of dog most likely to bite are dachshunds, followed by JRTs. Granted they're too small to do much damage (though I know a groomer with permanent nerve damage that was caused by a Westie), but according to their research (synopsis here. The study itself seems to be behind a paywall) 20% of Daxies have bitten or tried to bite strangers. Rotties, Pits and Rhodesians scored average or below average in agression tests.

I think a lot of it has to do with the manner in which pitbulls and rotweillers attack. Other dogs might snap at and bite you, but then they back off. In fact my sister was once bitten by a cranky labrador, who then ran off.

However, when a pitbull attacks, it doesn't give up until it is dead, or the thing it is attacking is. See the OP for such an example.

See this site for loads more stats and examples. I know some will likely dismiss that site as biased but from what I can make out their research is well sourced, and I've found dozens of other sets of statistics (mostly from the US) that show a massive, overwhelming, and undeniable dominance of pitbulls in the fatal attack stats.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

anecdotal evidence is the weakest kind of evidence.

Strong evidence is that based on gathering large amounts of data from a large sample size. Here is some strong evidence, relating to fatal dog attacks in the U.S. from 1979 to 1998.

Unfortunately James I think you'll find your "strong" evidence from the U.S. is in fact nothing but anecdotal evidence.

The only attempt at a comprehensive study of dog bites in the United States involved going through newspaper reports between 1979 and 1998 to compiling a list of the breed involved therein. The main reasons why this study is inadmissible as evidence are:

1. Newspapers selectively report dog attacks, choosing to report on attacks by specific breeds and ignoring others. Somestimes incidents are reported as attacks, despite later being shown to not be so, but without any retraction from the newspaper.
2. Journalists will often identify dogs as "pit bulls" or "pit bull types" without any photographic or expert backup. This is done both intentionally (to make it a better story) and through sheer ignorance. Many dogs look like "pit bull types" to an ignorant or hysterical observer.
3. Many attacks go completely unreported for many reasons. It's suspected that attacks by small dogs in particular are not reported out of embarrassment, or the type of dog is altered by the victim out of embarrassment.

The fact of the matter is that no country in the world maintains a comprehensive database of dogs in their jurisdiction, and very few have any kind of mandatory reporting law for dog bites, so any statistics on dog bites are exceptionally unreliable.

There was a small UCD study done a few years back which found smaller dogs tended to rank higher (Jack Russells in particular), and although the methods used were more likely to give more accurate data, the sample size was small (234 bites) and the bites were self-reported, so still not a good measure for the actual breeds involved in the incidents.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

I think a lot of it has to do with the manner in which pitbulls and rotweillers attack. Other dogs might snap at and bite you, but then they back off. In fact my sister was once bitten by a cranky labrador, who then ran off.

However, when a pitbull attacks, it doesn't give up until it is dead, or the thing it is attacking is. See the OP for such an example.

See this site for loads more stats and examples. I know some will likely dismiss that site as biased but from what I can make out their research is well sourced, and I've found dozens of other sets of statistics (mostly from the US) that show a massive, overwhelming, and undeniable dominance of pitbulls in the fatal attack stats.

In my experience biting and not letting go is a trait found in most terrier breeds; I used to have a JRTx that you could lift over your head, she had such a tight grip on a tennis ball. It's definitely not a characteristic that's only found in RBs.

"31 U.S. fatal dog attacks occurred in 2011. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 650 U.S. cities, pit bulls led these attacks accounting for 71% (22). Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population."

The research I've been looking at relates specifically to fatal attacks only, which are always reported.

Here is another study from a US government source (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention) that shoes similar results. (Although in their conclusions they do not advocate breed based laws, due to practical considerations) How you could call this anecdotal is beyond me.

Dealing only with fatal attacks eliminates selection bias.

As for mis-identification of breeds, people would have to be mis-idendtifying dogs as pitbulls at a fairly astonishing rate to make them as hugely dominant in the stats as they are.

AboutTwoFiddy

Deleted User wrote: »

Dogs=/= people.

As regards nature vs nurture, how would that explain the massive dominance of pitbulls and rotweillers in the fatal attack stats? Is it really that they are 50 times more likely to have bad owners than labradors? (I keep using labs as an example because they are common, and large enough to kill, if they were so inclined).

You hardly think scumbags who abuse dogs and train their dogs to attack are going to train and keep poodles? Of course they'll keep the bigger breeds that look menacing such as Rotties and Pitbulls.

Gevie Stee wrote: »

They have batons, tazers etc, he should have started bashing the dog, not letting it swing out of his colleagues arm while he watches from the wall. Real brave!

Sounds good in theory, but in reality it would be hard enough to break a big dogs grip, you could possible end up doing more harm than good as the dog would bite down deeper.

MagicSean

Deleted User wrote: »

As regards nature vs nurture, how would that explain the massive dominance of pitbulls and rotweillers in the fatal attack stats? Is it really that they are 50 times more likely to have bad owners than labradors?

That is exactly the reason. Bad owners choose these breed because they are physically superior and suit the purpose they want them to.

Gevie Stee wrote: »

They have batons, tazers etc, he should have started bashing the dog, not letting it swing out of his colleagues arm while he watches from the wall. Real brave!

Ignorance is bliss. i take it you've never been attacked and have no knowledge at all of the ineffectiveness of batons, pepper spray and tasers on wild animals?

Deleted User wrote: »

I think a lot of it has to do with the manner in which pitbulls and rotweillers attack. Other dogs might snap at and bite you, but then they back off. In fact my sister was once bitten by a cranky labrador, who then ran off.

However, when a pitbull attacks, it doesn't give up until it is dead, or the thing it is attacking is. See the OP for such an example.

See this site for loads more stats and examples. I know some will likely dismiss that site as biased but from what I can make out their research is well sourced, and I've found dozens of other sets of statistics (mostly from the US) that show a massive, overwhelming, and undeniable dominance of pitbulls in the fatal attack stats.

i don't see any stats relating to the owners. How many of these killer dogs were owned by people with criminal convictions? How many were completely negligent in raising them and training them?

seamus wrote: »

Unfortunately James I think you'll find your "strong" evidence from the U.S. is in fact nothing but anecdotal evidence.

The only attempt at a comprehensive study of dog bites in the United States involved going through newspaper reports between 1979 and 1998 to compiling a list of the breed involved therein. The main reasons why this study is inadmissible as evidence are:

1. Newspapers selectively report dog attacks, choosing to report on attacks by specific breeds and ignoring others. Somestimes incidents are reported as attacks, despite later being shown to not be so, but without any retraction from the newspaper.
2. Journalists will often identify dogs as "pit bulls" or "pit bull types" without any photographic or expert backup. This is done both intentionally (to make it a better story) and through sheer ignorance. Many dogs look like "pit bull types" to an ignorant or hysterical observer.
3. Many attacks go completely unreported for many reasons. It's suspected that attacks by small dogs in particular are not reported out of embarrassment, or the type of dog is altered by the victim out of embarrassment.

The fact of the matter is that no country in the world maintains a comprehensive database of dogs in their jurisdiction, and very few have any kind of mandatory reporting law for dog bites, so any statistics on dog bites are exceptionally unreliable.

There was a small UCD study done a few years back which found smaller dogs tended to rank higher (Jack Russells in particular), and although the methods used were more likely to give more accurate data, the sample size was small (234 bites) and the bites were self-reported, so still not a good measure for the actual breeds involved in the incidents.

You can guarantee that if a pitbull labrador cross attacked someone it would only be a pitbull in the paper.