Another week another Pit Bull attack

Sofiztikated

dark crystal wrote: »

They seem pretty solid to me:

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf



It's a little bit of a cop out to blame the owners every time, though. The OP mentioned his neighbour was a very responsible dog owner and her dog still attacked.

Blaming the owners (with no evidence of any actual mistreatment or negelct) seems like a bit of an easy excuse to me. I'm not advocating putting down these animals, but I do think much tighter restrictions and regulations need to be brought in where it comes to the breeding and ownership of this particular breed.

Did you skip the bit where the pitbull was a rescue? And was it a pitbull? Sure it wasn't a Staffie? They look fairly similar. Or just a Bull Terrier?

Blaming the owner might seem like an easy excuse, but it's usually the right one. Looks like a duck and all that. Look how many photos are online of dogs with human pups draped all over them. How many of the owners think nothing of leaving the child alone with them, at any time. It. Is. An. Animal.

I'm not a bull breed owner. In fact, I'm not a dog owner at the moment. But a lot of bull breed owners have them for the one simple fact, they look musclular and scary.

Last year it was Huskies that were in the firing line. Remember they were jumping fences and attacking people, left, right, and centre? Couple of years before that, German Shepards, Rotties, Dobermans and Boxers at one stage. Hell, even Chihuahua's have been in the news for attacks. (Out of all the dogs going, I can easily say I hate only these vicious, yappy little bastárds)
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10652469/

http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2013/02/25/chihuahua-pack-attacks-6-year-old-girl/

The difference? Size.

All it takes is for an animal to be having a bad day, we all have them, and get a jab of a child in the ribs and it might snap.

Now, would I have a bull breed myself? No. They don't appeal to me.

Slutmonkey57b

youtube! wrote: »

Of course I know the difference between a chihuahua and a pitbull. Sorry if it is not clear but the brave little chihuahua bit at the legs and barked to try to distract the pitbull. And my neighbour has always had dogs and is a very good owner but has a dead Labrador now , what's worse is she rescued the pitbull a few months back and gave it a chance. She never subscribed to any breed having an inherently vicious streak but she does now.

Two key pieces of information here:

1) Nobody was home with the dogs at the time so the cause cannot be known, only the outcome.

2) This was a rescue dog so your neighbor did not raise it and could not have known all its history. The dog could have been seriously mistreated by a previous owner. Therefore, her experience of previous dogs does not mean that the same assumption could be made.

It does not follow that all animals of this breed behave the same, or even that the pit bull started the fight.

starlings

KamiKazi wrote: »

You can't use evidence and reasoning to stop the Joe Duffy brigade.

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Unfortunately this is what Boards is slowly turning into

evidence: dead children

problem: how can we stop this?

In the midst of this, people letting off steam because they are more moved by the story of dead children than the minutiae of dog breeds and pet anecdotes does not amount to a Joe Duffy brigade.

woodoo

Odysseus wrote: »

There is certainly something dangerous out there, I'm just not sure if it is the pit bull.

What else would you recommend if a pit bull had its teeth around one of your children's necks?

PogMoThoin

starlings wrote: »

evidence: dead children

problem: how can we stop this?

In the midst of this, people letting off steam because they are more moved by the story of dead children than the minutiae of dog breeds and pet anecdotes does not amount to a Joe Duffy brigade.

Yes it does. Calling for the ban on anything without dissecting the evidence or discussing other options is exactly what happens on Joe Duffy

woodoo

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Jack Russels are every bit as vicious, my son has a scar on his lip after being bit by my parents family pet when he was young. Why not ban them too? Same logic, no?

If you were enter a garden and get attacked by a jack russell or a pit bull which would scare you the most. There is a massive difference between a bite from a jack russell and a bite from a pitt

PogMoThoin

woodoo wrote: »

If you were enter a garden and get attacked by a jack russell or a pit bull which would scare you the most. There is a massive difference between a bite from a jack russell and a bite from a pitt

Either should be under the control of their owner

starlings

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Yes it does. Calling for the ban on anything without dissecting the evidence or discussing other options is exactly what happens on Joe Duffy

then quote the Joe Duffy posts and respond to them directly, instead of smearing everyone on boards.

Cupcake_Crisis

woodoo wrote: »

What else would you recommend if a pit bull had its teeth around one of your children's necks?

I'd want that particular pitbull put down. Not the entire breed.

Bipolar Joe

Listen, let's all think rationally, here. If we ban people, there's no people to be attacked. Problem solved.

BillyMitchel

dark crystal wrote: »

How about the evidence that proves pitbulls are the most dangerous breed of dog in terms of human fatalities?

Call people whingers all you want, but serious questions need to be asked about this particular breed of dog and what can be done to prevent any more attacks like the recent ones on two separate children.

Sorry but if you're talking about the girl in England last week, none were pit bulls.

So what about all the huskey and malamute attacks in previous years? Should they be banned too? People will say no because they look cute or whatever reason they have them. Reality is huskeys and malamutes are serious working dogs and if them dogs aren't given a job to do they will get frustrated and then we've seen what can happen.

Is that the dogs fault? Course it's not, it's the owners for getting a working breed of dog and leaving it to its own devices.

honeybadger

lots of dogs are mistaken for pitbulls anyway,,whos to say it was a pitbull without pics

BillyMitchel

honeybadger wrote: »

lots of dogs are mistaken for pitbulls anyway,,whos to say it was a pitbull without pics

Then there's even the test that's gone around for years 'spot the pit bull' from around 12 different dogs and about 2% get it right.

Sofiztikated

starlings wrote: »

evidence: dead children

problem: how can we stop this?

In the midst of this, people letting off steam because they are more moved by the story of dead children than the minutiae of dog breeds and pet anecdotes does not amount to a Joe Duffy brigade.

Evidence: Dead children.

Problem: How to solve this?

Solution: Stop being shít owners, and leaving kids alone with animals.

starlings

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Evidence: Dead children.

Problem: How to solve this?

Solution: Stop being shít owners, and leaving kids alone with animals.

I agree, but I would like to see this enforced, which would mean strict controls on who can own different types of dogs, based on how much training, work and space they are able to give them.

dark crystal

BillyMitchel wrote: »

Sorry but if you're talking about the girl in England last week, none were pit bulls.

So what about all the huskey and malamute attacks in previous years? Should they be banned too? People will say no because they look cute or whatever reason they have them. Reality is huskeys and malamutes are serious working dogs and if them dogs aren't given a job to do they will get frustrated and then we've seen what can happen.

Is that the dogs fault? Course it's not, it's the owners for getting a working breed of dog and leaving it to its own devices.

I didn't call for a ban, I said there should be much tighter restrictions on breeding and ownership.

I'm not sold on it being entirely the owners fault and nothing to do with the animal itself. Plenty of dogs have irresponsible owners and don't attack and kill people; certainly not on the same scale.
Take a look at the statistics I posted earlier. Not one death by Labrador, but 66 deaths by Pitbulls. Every one of those deaths should be attributed to the owner and not the dog itself?

I get that certain people are attracted to owning certain breeds, but surely restricting and regulating the number of people who breed and own these dogs should be at least looked at? Like it or not, they are potentially extremely dangerous animals and much more stringent laws need to be put into place to tackle the danger they pose to others.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Cut the head off it, gut it, beat it to death...what they'd use, where they keep it....seems to be a lot of detail for putting an animal down out of nessecity.

Sofiztikated

dark crystal wrote: »

I didn't call for a ban, I said there should be much tighter restrictions on breeding and ownership.

I'm not sold on it being entirely the owners fault and nothing to do with the animal itself. Plenty of dogs have irresponsible owners and don't attack and kill people; certainly not on the same scale.
Take a look at the statistics I posted earlier. Not one death by Labrador, but 66 deaths by Pitbulls. Every one of those deaths should be attributed to the owner and not the dog itself?

I get that certain people are attracted to owning certain breeds, but surely restricting and regulating the number of people who breed and own these dogs should be at least looked at? Like it or not, they are potentially extremely dangerous animals and much more stringent laws need to be put into place to tackle the danger they pose to others.

The dogs are a strong dog. Of course they can kill. How many people "own" tigers, and how many recorded deaths are there by tiger maulings?

FYI, there is one recorded death by Lab, but that's not the point. Actually, 8 deaths.

The point is, some people should not be pet owners. I say link it to the dog licence. You need a licence as it is, it should state on that what type of dog you can have, as long as you meet the requirements. Obviously, some people will not get a licence, but there's always that element anyway.

EDIT: And yes, every one should be attributed to the owner. Bit of responsibility wouldn't go astray. They made the choice to own said dogs, they can be responsible for it should it happen to attack someone.

RDM_83 again

dark crystal wrote: »

Take a look at the statistics I posted earlier. Not one death by Labrador, but 66 deaths by Pitbulls. Every one of those deaths should be attributed to the owner and not the dog itself?

I get that certain people are attracted to owning certain breeds, but surely restricting and regulating the number of people who breed and own these dogs should be at least looked at? Like it or not, they are potentially extremely dangerous animals and much more stringent laws need to be put into place to tackle the danger they pose to others.

What I don't get is the idea that the breed has nothing to do with it all, I think that most people that own or have been around dogs a lot recognize that different breeds tend to have different personalities, this is not a controversial opinion, nobody gets worked up when people say that Jack Russels are surprisingly aggressive/brave dogs however as soon as Staffs or Pit Bulls are mentioned it becomes controversial.

Thunderbird2

Love pitbulls they're so gentle
Jack Russell's are nippy

Big Bottom

No child should be left alone with a dog, no matter what breed it is.

Its the parnt fault when this happens not the dogs or the child.

BillyMitchel

dark crystal wrote: »

I didn't call for a ban, I said there should be much tighter restrictions on breeding and ownership.

I'm not sold on it being entirely the owners fault and nothing to do with the animal itself. Plenty of dogs have irresponsible owners and don't attack and kill people; certainly not on the same scale.
Take a look at the statistics I posted earlier. Not one death by Labrador, but 66 deaths by Pitbulls. Every one of those deaths should be attributed to the owner and not the dog itself?

I get that certain people are attracted to owning certain breeds, but surely restricting and regulating the number of people who breed and own these dogs should be at least looked at? Like it or not, they are potentially extremely dangerous animals and much more stringent laws need to be put into place to tackle the danger they pose to others.

Sorry the rest of that post wasn't directed at you.

Anyway! As I've said previously I've been around bull breeds 20 years and I 100% agree that there should be new laws on having certain breeds. Special licence, IKC could do a test of some sort to make sure folk are responsible and capable of looking after certain breeds, fail and you don't get to keep the dog. Simple. Problems come trying to enforce this and being able to 100% identify the breed.

As for breeding, especially with pit bulls, there is no registry for the breed so people are backyard breeding and selling to anyone (A massive problem) so at the moment I can't see how to contain that problem.

I'd honestly say more than 50% of pit bull owners are complete morons who aren't fit to put a collar on a pit bulls neck, never mind keeping one. Bad ownership is a massive problem but yeah of course there is a chance a dog can be bad but I'd say that about any breed.

Totally agree with your other point about having the capability to cause serious harm too. I'm not some deluded owner who paints the breed as some docile dog that will sit by the fire and want to play with the cat and your next door neighbours westie (although many will).

I've seen a complete eejit walk around with pit bulls as a mickey extension and their dog attacks and they completely crap themselves because they don't have a breeze how to break it up. Bad owners once again!

Rant over!

arybvtcw0eolkf

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What in the name of sweet f*ck is a ''mongrel version'' of a Pitbull?.

I'd safely say 99 percent of people in this thread wouldn't know a pitbull from a SBT or an EBT.

Most people see a small/medium sized dog with short hair, large head and muscular frame and call it a Pitbull out of sheer ignorance.

Big Bottom

Lisa Broad Door wrote: »

What in the name of sweet f*ck is a ''mongrel version'' of a Pitbull?.

I'd safely say 99 percent of people in this thread wouldn't know a pitbull from a SBT or an EBT.

Most people see a small/medium sized dog with short hair, large head and muscular frame and call it a Pitbull out of sheer ignorance.

All of those breeds were created for fighting so it makes sense that they are dangerous by nature.
The problem is certain types of people think its 'cool' to have one.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Big Bottom wrote: »

All of those breeds were created for fighting so it makes sense that they are dangerous by nature.
The problem is certain types of people think its 'cool' to have one.

So were whitten terriers, Cairn terriers, Patterdales, Westies, Glen of Imal's, Kerry Blues and just about every other terrier breed.

Ban all these too or ;

The problem is certain types of people think its 'cool' to have one

Enforce legisation in regards to dog ownership?..

Btw, do you know what a Pitbull looks like?.

Sofiztikated

RDM_83 again wrote: »

What I don't get is the idea that the breed has nothing to do with it all, I think that most people that own or have been around dogs a lot recognize that different breeds tend to have different personalities, this is not a controversial opinion, nobody gets worked up when people say that Jack Russels are surprisingly aggressive/brave dogs however as soon as Staffs or Pit Bulls are mentioned it becomes controversial.

The way I look at it is like this.

Of course different breeds have different traits.

Boxers are dumb as pig shít.
Jack Russels have small dog syndrome.
Pit Bulls are strong dogs, that may have a short temper.

This isn't news to me. But when shít happens, it should be the owner that is at fault. These traits are inherent in the breed. Why be suprised when cat likes milk? Why be suprised when a snake tags you when you are feeding it? Why be suprised when a child does something clumsy?

Make the owners actually responsible for their pets actions, and you might see less of this. But hey, it's not my fault, it's the dogs. Destroy it, and shure, I can get another.

Nodin

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Bit harsh on the childer, tbh.

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you're in the middle of the house and the owner trys getting in the back door, what'll ye do if you're engaged back there and you hear the dog picking the front door lock?

Sofiztikated

Nodin wrote: »

Bit harsh on the childer, tbh.





If you're in the middle of the house and the owner trys getting in the back door, what'll ye do if you're engaged back there and you hear the dog picking the front door lock?

Airstrike. Only way.

darced

This post has been deleted.