Woman killed by two bull mastiffs in Galway

RIP to that poor woman. What a horrible way to go.

People asking why anyone would own a "dangerous" (restricted) breed. I own two. I am a normal person. Certainly not what you'd call "rough". We are a normal family of myself, husband, toddler son.

About 10 years ago we fostered a litter of mixed breed pups. They all moved onto their forever homes, apart from the runt who almost died. We nursed him back to health and he stayed with us. Turns out he's a Pitt cross.

Then my second restricted dog, also very sick when fostered, at deaths door. Survived and became my shadow. He's a staffy. He is so in love with our family and us with him. Such a sweet gentle soul. so I dunno about others, but that's how we ended up with two restricted breeds.

personally, I hope these dogs haven't been pts yet. I think it's important for our understanding of why fatal attacks happen, to investigate the circumstances, dogs, owners and exactly what happened. Not to make excuses, but to maybe help prevent it happening again. Ultimately though, I do believe these animals should be pts - after they have been assessed to see if it can be learned why it happened.

With regards to breed tendencies and strength. Not that it matters here as a woman is dead but in general; bite force is directly related to head size. This goes for most animals across species (I want to say all animals but I imagine there is an exception to the rule). Therefore a large dog of any breed, eg. a St. Bernard, is a danger (before anybody says St. Bernard not likely to attack. I've had an adult one literally come through my (closed) car window after a puppy.)

Secondly; many dogs are bred for aggression against other animals. For this to work they have to be responsive to human cues. Fighting dogs are pulled half dead from the ring to be fixed up and fight again. They don't attack their people. Even human attack dogs would, in the past, have been bred to respond to their handlers cue to leave it. No game keeper, guardsman etc would want an uncontrollable dog. It is bad breeding which causes these issues (as well as bad handling) not a bad breed. Puppy farms need to be eradicated. I sincerely hope that the breeder of these dogs are looked at. that level of aggression is not normal.

Finally. I work with dogs and have done exclusively for about 7 years. At one stage of my work I would have been handling an average of 80 dogs a day, max of 100. Every day, 6 days a week (working two jobs). In my personal experience, you can tell more about the dog by the equipment it came in with than by the breed. If I go in at night to lock up the kennels and look down the run of gates to see a prong or electric collar hanging on one, I would guess that it will be unpredictable and likely flighty. Usually I'm right, that, or shut down and nervous. So for me in my daily work it's definitely more about treatment than breed.

If I was to name breeds I'm most wary of, bull breeds would be way down the list while some "family breeds" would be up there. Of course that's one persons experience and not evidence of anything but might interest some of you.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I am afraid of dogs. All dogs..... I was attacked and bitten and turned over when I was a kid.

Anyway, what dogs are placid and will never attack anyone ever does anyone know?

Thanks.

Greyhounds.

No doubt tomorrow the full truth will emerge.

Deleted User wrote: »

My post referred to times when they are out in public areas. When I rarely see these dogs on a leash, and never muzzled. If you don't think there are any lessons whatsoever to be learned, on the basis that this death happened on private property, fair enough.

Maybe the lesson to be learned is that the control of dogs legislation should extend to private property?

Sorry, managed to miss this last night.

I actually believe that the restrictions imposed on RB dogs is accounting for some behavioural problems, as I alluded to early on in the thread. If you completely adhere to the law and walk your dog while muzzled and on a short lead then you are projecting the image to others that the dog is a danger to them. Naturally people will avoid you, even people with other dogs. And has been stated multiple times in this thread - dogs need vital socialisation with people and other dogs, and early on in puppyhood is essential for their mental wellbeing. Ongoing socialisation with different breeds and bitches/dogs and if your dog is going to be around kids, they need to meet them when they're only a few weeks old - the breeder should be introducing them when they're still part of the litter.

I met a dog last week that had never been away from home in the 2 years they had her, she never met anybody outside the family either. She was a bag of nerves and bared her teeth and snapped at my dogs when they very politely went to say hello to her. She wasn't an RB, but a cute fluffy thing about ankle height. But the owners did everything wrong, they have shielded her from experiencing life, and people and other dogs and she's going to have a really hard time coping when they go on holidays, or has to stay over in the vets, or perhaps gets rehomed because things change in the family.

I can't begin to tell you the amount of people I know who have an issue with RB dogs for no reason other than they are on a bloody list. No incidences, no run ins, just because a politician** decided that these dogs are deemed more dangerous - even though there's no statistical evidence to back it up. So now they're stigmatised, and avoided by people and other dogs, and their owners do their best to socialise them, so if that means breaking the law to ensure that their dog is a confident happy one, rather than a bag of nerves then I understand that.


**You know, politicians, the same group that can be lobbied by the puppy farmers so it's now legal to run a super puppy farm with hundreds of breeding bitches on an industrial scale, with no interaction from humans and isolation from other dogs unless it's to mate which can be a highly stressful process for dogs.

Minderbinder wrote: »

But people are afraid of pit bulls and similar dogs because of their strength and ferocity if they do attack, not because they're more likely to attack than other breeds. I think I could fight off a couple of labradors but I really think certain breeds just flip out completely and will not stop whatever we do. I've never heard of labradors attacking in pairs or groups. Maybe it does happen? Is there something about certain breeds that make them more likely to attack in groups or back each other up?

Your dogs love you and your family and rightly so. But what would happen if they felt someone threatened your family? Could you be 100% sure they wouldn't attack?

I'm sure you are very responsible and do your upmost to prevent even the smallest chance of such a situation.

You are wasting your time, reason and logic goes out the window when it comes to family pets.

You have dog experts on the radio today explaining you are more likely to be bitten by a small dog, even though they are well aware how disingenuous that argument is.

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd agree with this. I've a couple of Newfs and it's a breed that was conditioned as a working dog so that's where their behaviours are directed towards......and you see it all the time in their reactions to certain situations.....they "revert" back to their breeding......all dogs do it, and if it's a breed like a mastiff or some class of bull terrier then that regression takes them to a very dangerous place.

A Newf may knock you because of its size, and a retriever or lab may nip or bite because it gets over-stimulated or threatened but those breeds never seem to 'explode' the way some others do.

What way would you see the newf reverting back ?

LDN18 wrote: »

Ur post is utter ****e!!!ive a staffy and have grown up with Staffs my whole life (37yrs) and I have never seen any of mine or family and friends dogs bite or act aggressively.yet my brother chiwawa no stop biting other dogs,children,and always aggressive.its the owners fault not the dogs fault.

People normally with no understanding of animals are the ones saying this dog and that dog are too dangerous??should jack Russell's be a banned breed seeing as one killed a baby a couple years ago in England!

I've a staffy and he never hurt anyone so all staffy's are harmless dogs.

And a jack russell killed a baby once so they are more dangerous than my staffy.

Is that your argument?

Ever heard of or looked into a thing called statistics?

Jawgap wrote: »

Well I find if they are faced with something they perceive to be threatening they pull to get between me (or the kids) and the perceived threat or "bump" you away (which if you're a kid or not great on your feet and easily knock you over).......when we go down the beach they won't walk or swim if there are kids in the water.....they go sit in the shallows and watch them......if they are threatened they back away, and will usually growl as they retreat, and bark if they continue to be threatened......given their size that usually enough for most other dogs......

......they are useless guard dogs because they tend to bond with the owner rather than be territorial, so if someone/something new arrives they'll take their lead from your reaction.

That's my experience anyway.

I've pretty much the same experience with newfs, except ours have never growled . We've on our third Newfoundland and none of them ever swam
Unreal love in them in think

Mr.H wrote: »

Staffys are bread for fighting.

Just because you love your dog doesn't mean it's bread didnt serve a darker purpose.

Fighting dogs should be banned because they are not pure bread and their biology is never 100% the same as the next one.

Anyone who can't see that is talking with their heart rather than their head

Bred - the act of breeding.

Bread - Aul Mr Brennan, Pat the Baker

Sorry, it made me laugh when I was reading your post:D

RoboKlopp wrote: »

People can butter it up any way they want

And people can ignorantly sensationalise it anyway they want.