Pit bull attack

MorningStar

Myself and my wife were walking our two dogs in a park last night at about 8 when a pit bull latched on to my dogs throat. The owner was unable to to get the dog to let go. Luckily it didn't have a good grip. After about 5 minutes we managed to lossen it's hold and had to yank the dog off (it never released). My dog was only slightly hurt luckily. My dog was on a lead his wasn't. The owner stank of alcohol and had another pit bull with him but it was a pup. The park is full of kids and commonly used by dog owners. He was in his 40s incase anybody thinks he was a kid. He claimed the dog was pregnant so that's why it attacked! WTF!

I was very shook up as were my wife and dogs. I am going to contact the police but what will they actually do? Are these dogs meant to have a muzzle on when outside? Are they banned breeds in Ireland?

tallus

I dont know a huge amount about dogs, but I strongly feel that ownership of dogs of that breed should be regulated.

IANOC

well they should be muzzled!!!!!!

you would do right to report this ASAP mate
that could have been a small child`s neck it was tearing into. :mad:

MorningStar

Reported it to the dog warden and the Gardai.

These dogs are meant to have muzzles by law and the rest that he ignored.

http://www.irishdogs.ie/Information/Control%20of%20Dogs.htm

I am not agianst the breed for being aggressive just their strength and ability to lock their jaws. Idiots can get their hands on them and have no idea how to treat them or happy they are aggressive and scarey.

crazymonkey

you do the right thing mate, i am a dog owner also and understand that people must be responisable for there pets, Pit Bulls are dangerous dogs..

K!LL!@N

Speaking of Pitbulls, i was walking to work yesterday morning and there was one strolling around Gardiner Street.
No owner in sight.
Don't think it was a stray as it had a huge studded collar around it's neck.

Killian

kestrel

you did the right thing. owners who can't train their dogs properly should have them taken off them. it sickens me to see so many people, who obviously lack the knowledge required, owning a dog from one of the more demanding breeds. it's not fair on other dog owners, giving us all a bad name, and, more importantly, giving the dogs a bad name! it's fools like him that have people (myself included) nervous of encounters with pitbulls, particularily when im with my dog. i always try to judge by the owners reaction and appearance wether to put my girl back on her lead or not. i have had very friendly encounters with a couple of pitbulls.

Einstein

fair play.
I'm a real dog lover and have a purebred Weimaraner, and the thoughts of the likes of a vicious unrestrained pitbull attacking it makes me mad!!
I love dogs, but some breeds are just dangerous end of story.

D...

Sigma Force

Pit bulls are used for fightin it is becoming more commen in Ireland now, this dog could of been used for it and that's where they get their reputation from, sounds like the owner has the problem..never trained the dog right or has been using the dog for fighting.

peasant

Agree with informing the authorities and also the verdict on some owners ...but... it is nonsense to attribute a dog's bad behaviour to its breed.

Just because it says "Pitbull" it needn't be vicious same as just because it says "Golden Retriever" it isn't necessarily well behaved.

Upbringing, socialization and training (or lack thereof) maketh the dog ...

Breeding comes into it when bad breeders breed for the wrong characteristics (aggressiveness for example) or haven't got a clue what they're doing. But that can be done to any breed.

A Pitbull from a responsible breeder and with the right owner is no more dangerous than any other dog.

And no dog is 100% "safe" either...they all are predators after all.

Dyr

there was a massive thread on pitbulls and their inclination to attack other dogs to a while back...

squiiish

kestrel wrote:

you did the right thing. owners who can't train their dogs properly should have them taken off them. it sickens me to see so many people, who obviously lack the knowledge required, owning a dog from one of the more demanding breeds. it's not fair on other dog owners, giving us all a bad name, and, more importantly, giving the dogs a bad name! it's fools like him that have people (myself included) nervous of encounters with pitbulls, particularily when im with my dog. i always try to judge by the owners reaction and appearance wether to put my girl back on her lead or not. i have had very friendly encounters with a couple of pitbulls.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I've known a number of pitbulls who were absolute dotes but that was because they had responsible owners who knew what they were doing, did obedience training, made sure they learnt how to socialise properly etc.
I've encountered more of a vicious streak in inbred "pedigree" dalmations and the likes.
They are now trying to ban pitbulls in the states. :mad: It makes me really angry that a whole group of dogs ( for as far as I know "pitbull" isn't actually a specific breed, its just like the term Lurcher describes many kinds of whippet and greyhound crosses) are being given a bad name cos there's people who get them just for the street cred and to look "tuff!" etc.

FranknFurter

Its because of such owners that my own dog (JRT) has to have a short lead. Last time I had her on an extendable lead a bloody rothy went for her. (She is such a quiet dog, all she did was lay down and wait to be rescued).
Way I see it, If I can take time to train my dog, so can anyone, and if you cannot, then you shouldnt have *any* dog.

An untrained dog of any breed is potentially a dangerous dog imho.

MorningStar

Such dogs aren't strictly the problem but that doesn't mean they should be allowed. It may be a training issue but so is gun control. Guns don't kill it's people the same doesn't apply for dogs. If somebody doesn't train their dog the dog is a risk on it's own. A gun won't escape and go around looking to kill somebody. These dogs are particularly strong and have a jaw that can lock. There is no need for the breed and as their is such a risk they should be banned. I am not talking about them being destroyed just no longer allowed breed. Certain breeds are more dangerous than others because they require perfect training.

doctor evil

kestrel wrote:

i always try to judge by the owners reaction and appearance wether to put my girl back on her lead or not.

Dogs should be on leads full stop. Dogs are not robots, even if they have the best training things can still happen. It is not training by its self that makes the dog, you have to take into account the dog its self. Breeds have a reputation for a reason!.

kestrel

doctor evil wrote:

Dogs should be on leads full stop. Dogs are not robots, even if they have the best training things can still happen. It is not training by its self that makes the dog, you have to take into account the dog its self. Breeds have a reputation for a reason!.

normally i would agree, especially if it is an area that attracts alot of people and dogs to it, but it is different where i let my dog off. since you quoted me in your post, i feel obliged to justify my letting my dog off her lead...

i can assure you there is no danger from her- she is never let off the lead near houses or populated areas, it is just one particular large park beside a river. its basically a huge field where you can see exactly who is coming and what is going on. it took me six months of keeping her on the lead before i was comfortable letting her off, and then only because i began to know the place really well and began to meet the regulars. i have found that this particular park only attracts a certain type of dog owner, (responsible, loving-only these would bother walking their dog alllll the way out to the place!) except on very hot days, when you get the drinking groups by the river. there is never very many people; there has been days when i have met nobody in the 45mins it takes to circle it.

my dog herself is a cocker spaniel. she is absolutely fabulous off the lead, keeping to within a hundred metres of me, much less when around trees and heavy cover, and coming back when called. she is nervous enough of children, but would never attack, just run straight back to me and hide behind my legs, at which point i ask the children to move on. i've never had any sort of difficulty. with dogs, she will only play with other gundog breeds, and runs back to me when other breeds approach. if the dog persists, myself and the other dogs owner just move past each other, no problems.

i think it is absolutely cruel to keep some dogs on their lead constantly, especially if you have somewhere you can let them off. some working breeds in particular love the long grass, running around, swimming, and just letting their hair down. its part of their nature and in their genes. there is only the occasional bad owner that handles their dog badly and gives us all a bad name.

peasant

with dogs, she will only play with other gundog breeds, and runs back to me when other breeds approach.

Bruharrharr !!! ..priceless ...

Yes ...and in her lickle handbag she carries the FCI breed specifications, so that she can distingiuish the "good" gun dogs from all the other "bad" breeds.

Prey tell ...does she interview mongrels as to their parentage?

some working breeds in particular love the long grass, running around, swimming, and just letting their hair down

Just replace "some working breeds" with "all dogs" and you could be just about right

Get this breed-nonsense out of your head, quickly !!


When will people finally get it in their heads that a dog is a dog, is a dog. All dogs are the same and all dogs are different.

A "breed" only desribes size, shape and colour. No more, no less!
Any other traits (hunter, herder, sniffer, runner) only apply to certain sizes and/or shapes ..but that's it ...nothing more to be read into breed or type.

All the rest is individual dog and the results of its keeping/ socialization / training/ environment and THE OWNER.

Dyr

Get this breed-nonsense out of your head, quickly !!


When will people finally get it in their heads that a dog is a dog, is a dog.

If this was true do you really think people would have gone through the trouble to create such a plethora of different breeds for different jobs? Breed counts, its not the be all and end all of a dog but its the raw material you're going to work with.

Pitbulls were bred to fight other dogs, full stop. Its perfectly valid for people to be more concerned about that breed latching onto their dog than the average pooch. Anyone who thinks a pitbull has no less "viscious" potential than a dalmation has'nt been on the wrong end of a pit. You'd appreciate the difference if you had.

disillusioned

Pitbulls were bred to fight other dogs, full stop. Its perfectly valid for people to be more concerned about that breed latching onto their dog than the average pooch. Anyone who thinks a pitbull has no less "viscious" potential than a dalmation has'nt been on the wrong end of a pit. You'd appreciate the difference if you had.

I totally agree. Pitbulls aren't top of the dangerous dogs' list for nothing.

peasant

If this was true do you really think people would have gone through the trouble to create such a plethora of different breeds for different jobs? Breed counts, its not the be all and end all of a dog but its the raw material you're going to work with.

You are correct that man has bred dogs for centuries for their working ability. but only for that. The best at their jobs were bred ...regardless of their looks.
Breeds as we know them today in most cases are no older than a hundred years. They are no longer bred for ability but for size, colour, length of coat, shortness of muzzle, slope of back and all that other nonsense. This has actually led to the fact that some breeds cannot perform the tasks anymore that they were initially selected for.
All the bumpf that you read in most breed descriptions about lineage, history, character, ability etc is just marketing (and mostly wishful thinking).

As for fighting dogs ...
Any dog can be bred to fight. But breeding for aggressiveness is only half the game. Dogs as social animals need certain social skills in order to get along with each other, their siblings, their mother, in order to survive. So aggressiveness can't be too high, or they wouldn't get to be any older than just a few days. Instinctive non-aggressive behaviour and social skills can't be bred away, that is all mans doing in "training" the dog to be vicious as it grows up. In most cases it isn't actually "training" the dog to be strong and mean, but to make it so panicked and afraid that it has no other choice than to lash out at everything because it sees any other thing as a potential threat to its life.

The misfortune of the bull breeds is that they have the looks and the reputation of power and aggression. So they attract more than their fair share of nutters who get off on owning a "dangerous" dog.

Properly bred and raised they or no more or less dangerous than any other dog.

Dyr

peasant wrote:

You are correct that man has bred dogs for centuries for their working ability. but only for that. The best at their jobs were bred ...regardless of their looks.
Breeds as we know them today in most cases are no older than a hundred years.

yes true, but breeds have a long lineage beyond their current name. Pits come from a line that has been used to fight animals quite possibly since Roman times. I think its fair to say that, as a breed, they are naturally inclined to fight and do not have other dogs tendency to know when enough is enough, it makes them potentially very dangerous

peasant wrote:

They are no longer bred for ability but for size, colour, length of coat, shortness of muzzle, slope of back and all that other nonsense. This has actually led to the fact that some breeds cannot perform the tasks anymore that they were initially selected for.
All the bumpf that you read in most breed descriptions about lineage, history, character, ability etc is just marketing (and mostly wishful thinking).

I agree totally, "breeds" are bred to confrom to a standard now and not to fulfill a role but you're contradicting your argument somewhat, if you contend that humans have only being playing this game for a few hundred years and havent really made any significant changes to dogs behaviour then how could we have changed their ability to perform tasks in the last say, fifty years?

peasant wrote:

Properly bred and raised they or no more or less dangerous than any other dog.

i'd look at it differently, i'd say most pits, due to their history have a strong urge to fight with other dogs and it takes training and selective breeding to inhibit it

peasant

i'd look at it differently, i'd say most pits, due to their history have a strong urge to fight with other dogs and it takes training and selective breeding to inhibit it

I'd say the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, bull breeds, once out of control, can do more damage than most other dogs. To keep them in control requires a responsible breeder and a responsible owner. Unfortunately these bull breeds do not exactly attract these kind of breeders and owners. But that is NOT the dogs' fault.

I agree totally, "breeds" are bred to confrom to a standard now and not to fulfill a role but you're contradicting your argument somewhat, if you contend that humans have only being playing this game for a few hundred years and havent really made any significant changes to dogs behaviour then how could we have changed their ability to perform tasks in the last say, fifty years?

Take the most sorry example of them all ...the English bulldog: Once a strong, agile fighting dog, capable of fighting a bull.
These days they can hardly walk, they can't breathe properly, they have no endurance, their teeth are so crooked they have difficulty eating, their heads are so large that they have to be born by cesarian, their wrinkly skin is permanently inflamed and on top of it all they have a long list of inherited diseases.

The same, in varying degrees of perversion, has happened to almost every other breed. In some cases in as little as ten or twenty years ...especially when a breed becomes fashionable.

You could go as far as to say that most breeders are systematically destroying their breed in one way or another... and finally all dogs will be useless cripples.


Note: I don't own, breed or even particularly like bull breed type of dogs ...but someone has to come to their defence

Dyr

I actually quite like pitbulls/bull terriers/staffies and they can be really friendly hoors but i find it weird that people try attribute their agressive reputation solely to bad ownership. And yeah i know all about idiot pbt owners... my area is rife with 'em which is why ive been on the wrong end of the buggers a few times :eek:


You could go as far as to say that most breeders are systematically destroying their breed in one way or another... and finally all dogs will be useless cripples.


yep :mad:

MorningStar

I have dealt with dogs all my life. So to have my dog attacked by another didn't panic me. I held this pit bull by he neck so it didn't shake my dog to rip it's throat out.

We had greyhounds that we bred and dashunds too! I have had dogs attack each other as they are very like people where some just don't get on. At the same time there were aggressive dogs which we had to seperate and some had to be put down.

Greyhounds are specifically bred for stupidity from all the way back. The reason being it was about speed and not capturing the animal. THe more twists and turns the dog followed to try to catch the animal the more points it got, the dog that cut a corner to catch the animal lost points. Dog nature bred specifically

Dashunds dig it's their very nature. They will stick their heads in holes straight away without any fear a greyhound won't. They hunt down rabbits and have been around since the pyramids as have the grey hound a lot longer than 100 years

Different breed have differnt natures their are tons of books about it. Anybody who denies that is ill informed. Training is a key part

Pit Bulls (they are a breed contry to another posters belief) have a specific type of jaw that locks like an alligator. Their nature is to latch on and tear latch on and tear. A greyhound will run and bite repeatedly as they don't have the neck muscles to shake their slender necks. The key thing is a greyhound lets go and is easily intimidated. Three people held onto this pit bull and it didn't let go because it is it's nature beyond any lack of training. It could have been trained properly but the point is is the stregth and nature of this dog needs specialist training and the easiest option is an outright ban. There is no need for such a dog in this country and the breed will not die out if they are banned. AS domestic pets are being grabbed to bate such dogs a ban helps all

Dyr

Hardly, you might as well ban every other breed on the dangerous dogs act then, how many people need dogs to chase rabbits?? Should we ban lurchers, dashchunds and greyhounds??

MorningStar

Bambi wrote:

Hardly, you might as well ban every other breed on the dangerous dogs act then, how many people need dogs to chase rabbits?? Should we ban lurchers, dashchunds and greyhounds??

Because some breeds are more dangerous than others so you ban the dangerous ones. Obviously I didn't make myself clear so you could understand. Ban the dangerous breeds! Certain breeds should at least require specialts licence. Lots of people need dogs to chase rabbits. THe point I was making some breeds are too dangerous for the majority to own. Any breed strong enought to rip your hand off is too powerful to own. You need a special licence to drive a truck same idea.

peasant

Blanket bans by breed make no sense.

All dogs are predators and potentially dangerous. A Westhighland Terrier for example could seriously maul a small child (and quite a few of them have)..yet lots of people keep them as family dogs without thinking twice.

Most breed descriptions are just wishful thinking. There are border Collies that are afraid of sheep, Chihuhahuas that make fierce guardians, Dobermans that are shrinking violets and so on ad nauseam ....BECAUSE DOGS ARE INDIVIDUALS.

A "driving licence" might make sense (depending on the quality of the information and training that comes into it) ...but for EVERYBODY, not just owners of certain dogs.

MorningStar

peasant wrote:

Blanket bans by breed make no sense.

In your opinion! I understand dogs are individual more than most as I have sated already. The problem is certain breeds are simply too dangerous by their ability and normal nature. You may disagree all you like with that but many, many experts agree on this. Cetain breeds are harder to train than others. The reasons the breeds should be banned IMHO is peoples fault not the dogs.
Any dog can hurt but these dogs are too strong and do not have the nature to release quite the opposite.

peasant

How about banning certain people from keeping any dogs at all?

Would make much more sense in my opinion ...


Another thing wrong with blanket bans by breed is the reverse implication that all unbanned dogs are "safe" ..which is truly not the case.

How many people have been bitten by an allegedly friendly "pooch" ?
How many dogs have been attacked by the neighbours "doggy"?
How many kids and babies have been bitten by their own family dog?

These cases just never get the publicity, because the attackers weren't PB's or Rotties or some other dog with a bad reputation.

Information and education of the owners is the only real solution.

But as long as dogs are being treated as consumer goods (or weapons in the worst case scenario) and everybody assumes that they have an automatic right to dog ownership that aint gonna happen ...

kestrel

peasant wrote:

Bruharrharr !!! ..priceless ...

Yes ...and in her lickle handbag she carries the FCI breed specifications, so that she can distingiuish the "good" gun dogs from all the other "bad" breeds.

Prey tell ...does she interview mongrels as to their parentage?

think of it what you will, she's a strange dog. many people dont believe me. i think it has to do with her puppy playmates being a lab and a spaniel cross...so now all she gets on with is other gundogs, particularily floppy eared ones, or spaniels and spaniel crosses (incl king charles). she hates any type of terrier, boxers, dalmations, toy breeds (apart from charlies), collies etc etc.

Just replace "some working breeds" with "all dogs" and you could be just about right

i didnt make mayself clear, sorry, i have a habit of doing that. i added the word 'particularily' because i wanted to emphasis how long grass fields etc were the gundogs natural habitat, so to speak. moreso than most other groupings, they get a kick out of it. i did not mean to imply other dogs didn't.

but also, not 'all dogs' do. especially toy breeds. there are exceptions of course, but in general i have found they dont.

When will people finally get it in their heads that a dog is a dog, is a dog. All dogs are the same and all dogs are different.

A "breed" only desribes size, shape and colour. No more, no less!
Any other traits (hunter, herder, sniffer, runner) only apply to certain sizes and/or shapes ..but that's it ...nothing more to be read into breed or type.

All the rest is individual dog and the results of its keeping/ socialization / training/ environment and THE OWNER.

each dog breed has been bred for a specific duty. certain instincts and characteristics have been emphasised by selectively breeding to create the perfect dog for the perfect job. for example:

sheepdog breeds had their 'hunt' instincts built upon to create a dog that had a strong desire to work a co-ordinated manoever of a herd, but their actual 'kill' instinct was played down. thus, what we get is a dog that works well as part of a team (either with another dog or the master), has the ability to learn to herd (like a wolf pack picking their meal from a herd) but should not have the instinct to attack.

shepard dogs had their protective instincts built upon, so that (provided they are brought up with a herd, become part of it) they have a stong desire to protect what they see as their 'pack'.

gundogs were built to work well with their master, making them fabulous 'people' dogs, and to fetch or rise the target. they shouldn't really have the desire to kill as a primary instinct.

dogs bred for fighting have the kill instinct. it's highly unlikely they would have the patience to work together to single out one animalfrom a herd like wolves would, they tend to just run straight in, unco-ordinated, jaws snapping.

etc etc.

of course there are exceptions to every rule, especially these days. most of the jobs that would have existed for dogs years ago have dissappeared, most dogs are now just kept as pets. for this reason, you now get some strains of pitbulls and dobermanns, for example, that aren't vicious. the biggest example of what i'm talking about has to be the boxer- they were origionally fighting dogs, probably as vicious as pitbulls are percieved to be today. look at them now: loving family pets, hyperactive usually, but friendly all the same!

it's all down to selective breeding usually. you take a placid pitbull female from a good home, mate her with a dog of the same nature,the litter will be placid (provided good homes are found). there may be a pup with higher tendencies towards aggression, but keep up the pattern for a few generations, and you now have a strain of pitbull that is not agressive (emphasis on the good homes- any dog can be made a killer in the wrong home)

peasant

each dog breed has been bred for a specific duty. certain instincts and characteristics have been emphasised by selectively breeding to create the perfect dog for the perfect job.

You are partially right ...
The above was certainly true (and still is in the few true working lines that are left) for the pure purpose-bred working dog. Bred for ability and nothing else. With that ability came a certain "purpose-built" shape and form (a guard is big, a sighthound is slender and fast, a herder is wiry and agile, etc) and the "type" was born.

From about the mid 1800's with the breakdown of the feudal system (only gentry could have hunting dogs until then) dogs became more fashionable and a pet more than a worker. Soon after people started forming breeding clubs and set up breed standards.

From then on the emphasis was not on ability any more (or much less so) but on looks according to the standard.
Standards became ever more stringent and ridiculous, changing with the fashion of the day and totally neglecting ability over looks. Inbreeding or close line breeding were (and still are) common, to keep that all important colour or backline, thus introducing illnesses and weaknesses (most of them hereditary) into the breed.

This is why there were / are so many herders that are either afraid of sheep or kill them, retrievers that never come back, fox hounds so aggressive that they killed each other as pups, guard dogs so highly strung that they lash out at everything, etc, etc ...the list is endless.

But what has happened recently, in the so called information age, is the perversion of it all.
Customers have woken up to the fact that dogs aren't what they used to be any more. They're sick, they die young, they're hyper, they're shy or in the worst case aggressive.
But what do breeders do? Re-think their breeding? (ok some do and that needs to be commended)

No ...the big breed clubs (remember ...there is a lot of money to be made breeding pedigree dogs) invent HISTORY and MYTH. Every breed under the sun, when you read up about it in books or on the internet, has an ancestor that shared a cabin with Noah on the ark. Every breed is "noble", shared a fire with the Native Americans, Celts, Vikings, Goths, King Arthur, Ali Baba (please tick according to desired image).
Each breed is a master hunter, a "nanny", friendly, playful, true, obedient, strong, independent, fearless (again ... please tick according to desired image).

Rhodesian ridgebacks are Lion hunters
Irish Wolfhounds fought with / against Queen Maeve
Rottweilers were originally Roman fighting dogs
The old English sheep dog kept King Arthurs children save
Siberian Huskies were left behind in Asia when the first "Indians" crossed over to America

And people's eyes glaze over ...they buy into the myth and get "THAT" puppy ...truly the noblest, bestest dog in the whole wide world.

COTSWOLLOP !

That is what i meant when i said: Get that breed nonsense out of your head, quickly !!

What has this all to do with Pitbulls?
Nothing really ... but still a lot. By buying into general (undeserved) condemnation of one breed as vicious, brutal, not to be trusted dangerous, you're playing into the hands of those, who are breeding sickness and disease ridden unworthy replicas of a dog, making them out to be the best and noblest thing in the world ...well, at least "better" than a Pitbull, because, you know ...Pitbulls they're just pure evil, I'm tellin' ya ...

Catch my drift?