Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Husky mauls child
Options
Comments
-
-
-
ducksmalone wrote: »Im well aware where im posting,i know its he animal and pets section,why did you feel the need to say this? Should i thread carefully here? your the second person on here to say such a thing to me,in between a menacing PM i received:rolleyes:
I have never commented on the limerick attack,as i dont know all the facts and didnt hear the radio interview. i will only comment on the clare issue,but if you could be bothered reading through my posts,you would have seen this.
"Dogs, like children... are a result of their upbringing, feeding and exercising"
this is your statement,what kind of mentality does a person have to compare children and animals? if your mother saw that statement she'd be ashamed of you.as a parent and dog owner i would never,ever put those 2 words in the same sentence,ive already said this earlier
My dog is exactly that............. a dog,she is not my child,she is part of the family,but she is the dog
why are you trying to hold me responsible for giving you information on the Husky who attacked in clare? go do your own research! do you think i have nothing better to do than do a research for you? a good place to start would be in this thread.plenty links and details of the damage done to the wee girl in clare.
theres far more to individual behavior, a dog attacking or 'mauling' a child than a simple case of "a crazed Husky turningis your final statement,what makes you an Husky expert to make this statement? tell us your history studying this breed. you see like some people on here,you feel its better to agree with the masses rather than stand up and question everything,even if your a loan voice and makes you unpopular,be true to yourself.
Did you see in a post above all the people who thanked him yet never questioned where these statements were taken from?:rolleyes:
So you don't agree that children are a result of their upbringing, just like dogs are?
What qualifies you as a husky expert yourself to say "ye are fooling no one in thinking this breed of dog is safe with humans,especially children", so what qualification and history studying the breed do you have yourself to say that each and every husky is no longer safe with humans?
In your first post you said that you hoped lessons could be learned from this, how exactly do you expect that to happen when you think we are being insensitive discussing the attacks, so what do we do sweep the whole thing under the carpet and just concentrate on giving the children and their families sympathy and ignore everything else. How do we learn from that?0 -
-
ducksmalone wrote: »where on Earth are you getting these statistics and claims to support your post? some fine reading there,but i may as well be reading little red riding hood unless you have some credible source to back up this post.
The first half of point 1 is from Sketoid.com - a website run by a gentleman called Brian Dunning whose mission in life, it seems, is to examine commonly held truths and urban myths using rigorous scientific methods and only using evidence/data which has been gathered using that same standard. He supplies lesson plans regarding the scientific method of research and on specific subjects to school across America and s widely regarded as an expert in how to examine anything with an un-biased and critical eye. I heartily recommend his podcast though his occasional attempts at humour do come off as rather weak, imo. The particular episode which sparked the debate on the Sketoid forums and resulted in the details I was posting was relating to the 'fact' that pit bulls are dangerous and unpredicatable dogs.
The second half of point one seems fairly obvious if you compare the relative weights and bite pressures of a large dog compared to a small dog - large dogs are (generally) more capable of inflicting serious injury then small dogs whether through a straight bite or through a tearing injury.
Sorry to the genuine lovers of the various breeds covered in the description "northern breeds" for the blanket statement I'm about to make.
Point 2 stems from the fact that northern breeds are the flavour of the month dog at the moment. Every person who posts in the forum who's involved in dog welfare and specifically posters like ISDW who specialises in those breeds agree that the number of dogs of that description has shot through the roof in the last 5 years. I can't give a reason for it but it seems that having a dog that looks faintly like a wolf is something that has caught public imagination recently. If someone is buying a dog (or phone or camera or etc) because it's "cool" and not from a genuine understanding of the purchase what are the odds that they will understand how to care for the purchase? That's annoying when it comes to objects (every time I see someone mistreat a good camera it annoys me) but it's potentially fatal when it comes to a large and powerful animal. So yes, when it seems that many of these dogs are impulse buys I have doubts as to the preparedness of the new owners.
Point 3 is directly from the second and third paragraphs of the article posted on Irishdogs.ie which states (and I'm paraphrasing to avoid the libel things): "According to an American law firm who specialise in personal injury lawsuits resulting form dog bites, research which they've read (but which will never be referenced in this article) shows that huskys are dangerous and prone to biting". Feel free to read the second and third paragraphs on Irishdogs.ie yourself and then tell me that what I've just stated isn't a very accurate approximation. Far be it from me to be cynical about the motivations of a legal firms PR department when it comes to sacrificing accuracy for the purpose of exposure and business but isn't there a chance some overzealous intern might have 'hyped' things up just a little to make their press release a little 'sexier'?
I hope this clarifies my sources and that it helps to explain my response to the article over on that other website.
Thanks to AJ by the way for the well spotted "first sentence of the post identifying sources" reference
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 9994
-
I'll just make a wild guess here and say there must be some procedure put in place by the Ispca when dealing with dogs of this natureKeeping it for "a few days to see if it showed signs of aggression" is NOT an assessment.
What Discodog means is an assessment by a qualified behaviourist and or vet and not the Warden who in my opinion isnt qualified to assess the dog.
Unless it can be proved otherwise,the benefit of doubt should be with the warden and his team.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 9994
ducksmalone wrote: »I'll just make a wild guess here and say there must be some procedure put in place by the Ispca when dealing with dogs of this nature
Unless it can be proved otherwise,the benefit of doubt should be with the warden and his team.
Regardless of if it even exists a so called "procedure"--theyre still not qualified to assess the dog.
And no--I wouldnt place any trust in this warden.So why should he get the benefit of the doubt.As Discodog says he cant even get the breed right :rolleyes:0 -
Er no it doesn't. Frankie says that he kept the dog for a few days & it showed aggression toward him - hardly surprising. He can't assess any dog & he couldn't even identify the breed. He made a series of ridiculous remarks during a Clare FM radio interview & he also posted Pound figures that show that he took in 202 Greyhounds in 2010 & didn't manage to rehome one of them. He took in 1160 other dogs & killed 547 so nearly 50% which is very poor even compared to local authority Pounds.
Pound keepers & wardens make decisions that they are totally unqualified to make. I have copies of their job descriptions & there is no mention of animal behaviour. They should at least have a reasonable knowledge because it would make their jobs easier & safer.
Yes the dog would of been seen by the Vet as he was destroying it. But there are no indications that the Vet carried out a thorough examination - why would he as the dog was about to be killed & the ISPCA wouldn't pay for it ? The dog should of been assessed by a qualified behaviourist.
No one commands respect - it has to be earned. Frankie represents the ISPCA. Any dog should feel safe in his care when in reality they would stand a better chance in another Pound.Regardless of if it even exists a so called "procedure"--theyre still not qualified to assess the dog.
And no--I wouldnt place any trust in this warden.So why should he get the benefit of the doubt.As Discodog says he cant even get the breed right :rolleyes:
I did hear the parent of the injured child in clare call the dog a husky,i have heard Frankie coote call the dog in clare a husky......... so i can only presume ye are talking about the Limerick attack of which i know even less of,just what has been posted here.
"No one commands respect - it has to be earned" nice cliche.....0 -
ducksmalone wrote: »I'll just make a wild guess here and say there must be some procedure put in place by the Ispca when dealing with dogs of this nature
Unless it can be proved otherwise,the benefit of doubt should be with the warden and his team.
The stated policy is that if the dog has injured a child it is destroyed. Their argument is that there is no point in assessing it, as it's going to be killed. By the way I am not aware of a behaviourist even being employed by the ISPCA. I have also discussed these matters at the highest level with the ISPCA.
The ISPCA run several Pounds in Ireland & they all have kill rates of around 50%. Their CEO also recently referred to "worthless mongrels" during his "explanation" of why they killed so many dogs. Frankie mentioned in the first "Husky" Clare FM interview that he had enjoyed a night at the dogs - maybe that has something to do with the Greyhound figures.
The obvious question is why the ISPCA are running Pounds, killing Greyhounds & employing Wardens when they should be preventing cruelty ?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement