Woman killed by two bull mastiffs in Galway

Footoo · 05-06-2017 09:14AM

Beyondgone wrote: »

I've a pit bull. When we have visitors he slinks off into the utility room and stays there till they leave. He'd lick them to death if he was let, but he knows people see him and think "killer dog!". He's the most laid back, nicest animal I've ever known. He'd almost speak to you, and usually all he'd say would be "Any Biscuits going?"

No he doesn't.

enfant terrible · 05-06-2017 09:16AM

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Where did I say that?

I'm saying the list was drawn up in an arbitrary manner. You have GSDs on it, but not Belgian Shepherds. People are now deliberately getting Belgian Shepherds to avoid having a dog on the RB list, and yet the dogs are of the same strength and ability. Same with the Bullmastiff, don't want a dog on the RB list? Get a Dogue De Bordeaux (French mastiff) or a Neopolitan (Italian), huge, powerful dogs, but not on any list. You can find a comparative breed that not on the list for most of the dogs that are on it, that would be just as capable of the damage caused by dogs on the list.

I'm saying the list is the problem. If you stigmatise certain breeds, a few things happen. They suffer because they can't get adequate socialisation and can become problem dogs. Or they can become a target for people who would use them as a status dog. Look at Sweden, they used to have RB legislation but repealed it a number of years ago. Why? Because the number of bites didn't decrease, if the so called "dangerous" breeds were restricted (and Sweden is a VERY compliant country when it comes to implementing laws) then it was other breeds that were doing the damage. Their list was giving the impression that the only dangerous dogs were the breeds on the list, when their statistics showed that breed wasn't the problem, it was leading to complacency with dog owners that once your dog wasn't restricted then it was deemed safe.

Switzerland has a very proactive stance to dog ownership. You have to take a test before you own a dog. So if you want to own a powerful breed, you need to show you have the knowledge and skill to handle that breed, no matter what list it's on. A bit like a driving test for dogs.

I couldn't care less what dog is on a list or not not a list, what I care about is reducing the number of fatalities from dog attacks.

I would like to see the banning of pit bull breeding put in place in Ireland, if the statistics about pit bulls are true.

31 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2016. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 900 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 71% (22) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population

Together, pit bulls (22) and rottweilers (2), the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 77% of the total recorded deaths in 2016. This same combination also accounted for 76% of all fatal attacks during the 12-year period of 2005 to 2016.
The breakdown between these two breeds is substantial over this 12-year period.

From 2005 to 2016, pit bulls killed 254 Americans, about one citizen every 17 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 43, a citizen every 102 days

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2016.php

Jawgap · 05-06-2017 09:21AM

Some dog bite stats from the US......

Approximately 4.5 million dog bites occur each year

In 2016, there were an estimated 78 million dogs in the U.S.

In 2016, there were 41 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities, which means 0.00000053% of dogs caused fatalities
Pit bulls contributed to 22 of these deaths

Labradors contributed to 3 deaths

Rottweilers, American Bulldogs, Belgian Malinois, Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherds and mixed-breeds each contributed to 2 deaths

31% of deaths were infants ages 3 to 6 days
42% (13) of deaths were children ages 9 and younger
58% (18) of deaths were adults ages 30 and older
Pit bulls and Rottweilers accounted for 76% of fatal attacks from 2005 to 2016

......and to give some context.....

You have a 1 in 112,400 chance of dying from a dog bite or strike

You are at more risk of dying from:
Cataclysmic storm: 1 in 66,335
Contact with hornets, wasps and bees: 1 in 63,225
Air and space transport incidents: 1 in 9,821
Firearm discharge: 1 in 6,905
Choking from inhalation and ingestion of food: 1 in 3,461
Heart disease and cancer: 1 in 7

Most dog bites involve dogs who are not spayed or neutered

Fatal Dog Attacks states that 25% of fatal attacks were inflicted by chained dogs of many different breeds

The insurance industry paid more than $530 million in dog bite related claims in 2014

.......and I still wouldn't have certain breeds in the house, like I don't keep my shotgun in the house......it's benign, even attractive when handled properly, but a mistake or a moment of completely unintended carelessness can have serious repercussions that are completely avoidable by not having the risk in the house.

borderlinemeath · 05-06-2017 09:38AM

enfant terrible wrote: »

I couldn't care less what dog is on a list or not not a list, what I care about is reducing the number of fatalities from dog attacks.

I would like to see the banning of pit bull breeding put in place in Ireland, if the statistics about pit bulls are true.

31 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2016. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 900 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 71% (22) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population

Together, pit bulls (22) and rottweilers (2), the second most lethal dog breed, accounted for 77% of the total recorded deaths in 2016. This same combination also accounted for 76% of all fatal attacks during the 12-year period of 2005 to 2016.
The breakdown between these two breeds is substantial over this 12-year period.

From 2005 to 2016, pit bulls killed 254 Americans, about one citizen every 17 days, versus rottweilers, which killed 43, a citizen every 102 days

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2016.php

You do know what a pit bull is don't you? It's a type rather than a breed, they are identified by head measurements so a staffy crossed with a lab is 99% of the time identified as a pit bull. Or a mastiff crossed with a lab is identified as a pit bull. I'd say that most of the dog wardens in this country couldn't tell the difference between a staffy and a pit bull. Or a GSD or a Belgian shepherd. Or in one particular case where a child was bitten a few years ago, the warden went on record and on live radio to say that he had seized the "husky" when it was a malamute.

I'd reckon that maybe 6% of American owners say they own a pit bull. The rest of them are crosses that the authorities may identify as a pit bull but the owners think is a cross breed mutt.

enfant terrible · 05-06-2017 09:43AM

borderlinemeath wrote: »

You do know what a pit bull is don't you? It's a type rather than a breed, they are identified by head measurements so a staffy crossed with a lab is 99% of the time identified as a pit bull. Or a mastiff crossed with a lab is identified as a pit bull. I'd say that most of the dog wardens in this country couldn't tell the difference between a staffy and a pit bull. Or a GSD or a Belgian shepherd. Or in one particular case where a child was bitten a few years ago, the warden went on record and on live radio to say that he had seized the "husky" when it was a malamute.

I'd reckon that maybe 6% of American owners say they own a pit bull. The rest of them are crosses that the authorities may identify as a pit bull but the owners think is a cross breed mutt.

Where did the 6% come from?

Are you saying the statistics I posted from the studies are wrong?

Samaris · 05-06-2017 09:45AM

https://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images23/DogoCanarioPresaDogToba1Dog12Mohths.jpg

A friend had one of these fellas. You can't see the scale too well from that picture, but the dog's head was as wide as my (average-sized, female) torso and he was strong enough that the lash of his tail would knock you back a pace if you weren't ready for it.

I should make a couple of things clear - first, the owner was a trained dog-handler and works in a dog rescue. The second is that the reason he had the poor creature was that the dog had late stage cancer. He couldn't be adopted out, it was incurable, and said friend (who lives in the country) wanted to give him the best quality of life he could for his last few months. (The dog was put to sleep due to his illness once the poor quality days started to outnumber the good quality days, but he had a very happy few months).

Now, I would not trust one of those dogs meeting it in the street. Believe me, it could absolutely kill you if it wanted and unless you had a gun on you, I don't think anyone could stop it. It is a huge dog and extremely strong with a jaw like a steel trap. Friend was sure to caution me about the size of the dog in case I was likely to react with fear. However, he was also an extremely sweet-natured thing, very friendly to people and very friendly with the other large dog in the house (it was less keen on the cats).

Dunno if I quite agree on the dangerous dogs list. Nurture does seem to be more important than nature, but I'll also concede that dogs do have specific personalities and some may be more prone to dangerous or nervy ones. I find setters, greyhounds and even collies pretty nervy dogs and I'd be a tad cautious approaching any of them unless its owner was there and indicated it was safe to do so. Also, collies and greyhounds need space and exercise, especially collies. If you can't give the dog what its breed needs, be it lots of play, lots of exercise, no small, loud, fragile toddlers that will poke at it, whatever, then don't get it. The worst thing to do with a dog (outside outright cruelty, ofc!) is to get one and keep it in conditions that will make it bored and frustrated. Idiots who get "status dogs" don't tend to be the most sensible about thinking about the -dog's- needs rather than their own wants.

borderlinemeath · 05-06-2017 09:49AM

enfant terrible wrote: »

Where did the 6% come from?

Are you saying the statistics I posted from the studies are wrong?

I think far more people in the US have what authorities consider to be pit bulls then they realise. Where does the 6% stat come from? Registered dogs? Shelter dogs rehomed? I'm not denying the stats on the dog bites, but if there was a proper analysis done on pets in the US there would be far more than 6% of dogs that are considered pit bulls by the authorities. I'd say plenty are kept hidden due to state and county laws and plenty are out and about as plain old lab crosses.

Ninjavampire · 05-06-2017 09:50AM

God some people are completely clueless. All this anecdotal evidence where everyone's giant fighting dog is such a gentle sweetheart. Do people not realise, like people, some dogs are going to be unpredictable and violent no matter how good their training and raising has been? Is every person in the Joy a result or their parent's poor decisions?

And what about gentle nature dogs that misunderstand the situation? They are dogs after all. You can never be sure they won't mistakenly think a toddler who gives them a rough pet isn't trying to hurt them or steal their food.

enfant terrible · 05-06-2017 09:51AM

Samaris wrote: »

https://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images23/DogoCanarioPresaDogToba1Dog12Mohths.jpg

Dunno if I quite agree on the dangerous dogs list. Nurture does seem to be more important than nature, but I'll also concede that dogs do have specific personalities and some may be more prone to dangerous or nervy ones.

I guess if you don't support even a dangerous list you definitely wouldn't support banning pit bull breeding?

I find that amazing looking at how overwhelming responsible pit bulls are for fatalities.

enfant terrible · 05-06-2017 09:54AM

Ninjavampire wrote: »

God some people are completely clueless. All this anecdotal evidence where everyone's giant fighting dog is such a gentle sweetheart. Do people not realise, like people, some dogs are going to be unpredictable and violent no matter how good their training and raising has been? Is every person in the Joy a result or their parent's poor decisions?

And what about gentle nature dogs that misunderstand the situation? They are dogs after all. You can never be sure they won't mistakenly think a toddler who gives them a rough pet isn't trying to hurt them or steal their food.

People see dogs as family members, its like a mother defending her criminal son.

You always hear he's harmless and would never hurt a fly and even if their pit bull did attack a child, they would probably blame the child for poking it in the eye or pulling its tail etc.

digzy · 05-06-2017 10:01AM

Know it's off topic, but I'd advise anyone with Netflix to watch 'champions'.
It's about how NFL player michael Vick's dogs were dealt with after they were taken off him.....it'd really open your eyes.

Obviously my sincerest sympathies to the victim in Galway and her family.

MadDog76 · 05-06-2017 10:03AM

Been searching online for the headline "Woman killed by two Yorkies ........ " but can't seem to find it???

enfant terrible · 05-06-2017 10:04AM

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I think far more people in the US have what authorities consider to be pit bulls then they realise. Where does the 6% stat come from? Registered dogs? Shelter dogs rehomed? I'm not denying the stats on the dog bites, but if there was a proper analysis done on pets in the US there would be far more than 6% of dogs that are considered pit bulls by the authorities. I'd say plenty are kept hidden due to state and county laws and plenty are out and about as plain old lab crosses.

So would you agree they account for an overwhelming amount of human fatalities?

borderlinemeath · 05-06-2017 10:07AM

enfant terrible wrote: »

I guess if you don't support even a dangerous list you definitely wouldn't support banning pit bull breeding?

I find that amazing looking at how overwhelming responsible pit bulls are for fatalities.

What I find amazing is that you think that a law suggesting that all "pit bull" breeding is banned will eliminate problem dogs. It will only drive it underground, into the hands of the nefarious characters who like to think of themselves as hard men, so it's guaranteed that the dogs they produce will be bred for their fighting prowess. The ones that are no use as fighters will be given away, so will be out in the public domain again. It's what they tried in the UK and it's failed. MISERABLY failed.

Wake up. Experts have been telling authorities for years that lists are counter productive. Education, and a better system such as the Swiss have would do far more to protect people from dogs that are a danger to them.

Samaris · 05-06-2017 10:08AM

enfant terrible wrote: »

I guess if you don't support even a dangerous list you definitely wouldn't support banning pit bull breeding?

I find that amazing looking at how overwhelming responsible pit bulls are for fatalities.

Actually, I do, albeit not for quite the reasons that you might think. I dislike the purebred breeding of most types of dogs. I think it cruel and selfish. Many breeds - far too many - have had awful congenital disabilities bred into them that can cause pain and poor quality of life for the resultant animals. King Charles Spaniels being bred to the point that their brains are too large for their skulls can result in dogs with killer migraines and even madness. That's one of the reasons that tiny, adorable little KCSs can be surprisingly vicious. The poor feckers can be insane from constant, agonising pressure on the brain. The only way to relieve it is to cut the skull open to let the brain expand. Pit bulls are bred in way that encourages the breeds propensity to hip dysplasia. Many larger breeds are prone to joint problems as they are too heavy for their frames.

Apart from anything else, what does anyone think breeding a dog to be in constant pain once it gets out of the puppy stage is going to do to its temperament? And the same issue arises from the disgusting issue of puppy mills. Crufts and other dog shows run by breeders, which extol certain breed signs, including those deeply disadvantageous to the dogs (see stooped back on German Shepherds, breeding for wrinkles that actually blind the dog in pitbulls, syringomyelia in KCS) are also disgraceful.

Honest to god, I look at modern breeds of dogs compared to what they were bred from and ask "what the fcuk have we done?"

I would certainly support a Swiss approach of, well, basically a dog licence. A person has to prove they are competent and knowledgeable enough about the breed of dog they want to own to be allowed to own one. For the dog's sake and for the sake of the people exposed to it. That does indeed go double for dogs which have been bred for superior strength, jaw strength or temperments that make them more inclined to attack, although I grant that one may be debatable.

That big boy I was talking about in the last post? I would not agree with that dog being owned in a town or in a small area. I would also not agree with him being allowed to wander around loose. He was indeed a very sweet-natured creature, but if he -was- allowed to wander loose in public and met someone that had a toddler who was frightened, the parent lashed out at him in response...could I guarantee that he wouldn't attack? No. If I -did- see a dog that size attack either an adult or a child, could I do anything about it? Nope.

Gael23 · 05-06-2017 10:16AM

RTÉ also saying that it was up to two hours before she was found as there was nobody else in the house.

micar · 05-06-2017 10:18AM

Gael23 wrote: »

RTÉ also saying that it was up to two hours before she was found as there was nobody else in the house.

That's awful...... Don't even want to think of the scene when she was found.

blackcard · 05-06-2017 10:23AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Some dog bite stats from the US......

Approximately 4.5 million dog bites occur each year

In 2016, there were an estimated 78 million dogs in the U.S.

In 2016, there were 41 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities, which means 0.00000053% of dogs caused fatalities
Pit bulls contributed to 22 of these deaths

Labradors contributed to 3 deaths

Rottweilers, American Bulldogs, Belgian Malinois, Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherds and mixed-breeds each contributed to 2 deaths

31% of deaths were infants ages 3 to 6 days
42% (13) of deaths were children ages 9 and younger
58% (18) of deaths were adults ages 30 and older
Pit bulls and Rottweilers accounted for 76% of fatal attacks from 2005 to 2016

......and to give some context.....

You have a 1 in 112,400 chance of dying from a dog bite or strike

You are at more risk of dying from:
Cataclysmic storm: 1 in 66,335
Contact with hornets, wasps and bees: 1 in 63,225
Air and space transport incidents: 1 in 9,821
Firearm discharge: 1 in 6,905
Choking from inhalation and ingestion of food: 1 in 3,461
Heart disease and cancer: 1 in 7

Most dog bites involve dogs who are not spayed or neutered

Fatal Dog Attacks states that 25% of fatal attacks were inflicted by chained dogs of many different breeds

The insurance industry paid more than $530 million in dog bite related claims in 2014

.......and I still wouldn't have certain breeds in the house, like I don't keep my shotgun in the house......it's benign, even attractive when handled properly, but a mistake or a moment of completely unintended carelessness can have serious repercussions that are completely avoidable by not having the risk in the house.

And if you are between 9 and 30, you have 0% chance of being killed

enfant terrible · 05-06-2017 10:24AM

borderlinemeath wrote: »

What I find amazing is that you think that a law suggesting that all "pit bull" breeding is banned will eliminate problem dogs. It will only drive it underground, into the hands of the nefarious characters who like to think of themselves as hard men, so it's guaranteed that the dogs they produce will be bred for their fighting prowess. The ones that are no use as fighters will be given away, so will be out in the public domain again. It's what they tried in the UK and it's failed. MISERABLY failed.

Wake up. Experts have been telling authorities for years that lists are counter productive. Education, and a better system such as the Swiss have would do far more to protect people from dogs that are a danger to them.

I need to wake up the irony

You think banning the breed will lead to more deaths, your delusional.

Yes I can see your point about education, the "nefarious characters" you said will take the dogs "underground" will be well up for some education classes

"Wake up" and stop letting your love of your pet cloud your judgement.

borderlinemeath · 05-06-2017 10:24AM

enfant terrible wrote: »

So would you agree they account for an overwhelming amount of human fatalities?

That's what the authorities say. So it must be true, right?

But if the authorities are anything like our dog wardens and dog pound employees - who are nothing but council employees, they have no dog training or qualification in canine behaviour - they would be fairly useless at identifying dogs. Perhaps deliberately so, in order to skew statistics to further demonise the pit bull?

Even the Irish times first reported that the poor woman was killed by 2 pit bull terriers. Whether that info came from neighbours who said that they were "pit bulls" or paramedics who said they were "pit bulls" or whoever they interviewed said they were "pit bulls". The fact is that it was 2 mastiffs, so for statistics to be right, identity needs to be right. And as this case it was reported and headlined incorrectly for some time.

enfant terrible · 05-06-2017 10:27AM

Samaris wrote: »

Actually, I do, albeit not for quite the reasons that you might think.

Reducing the number of human fatalities doesn't interest you at all? :P

enfant terrible · 05-06-2017 10:29AM

borderlinemeath wrote: »

That's what the authorities say. So it must be true, right?

But if the authorities are anything like our dog wardens and dog pound employees - who are nothing but council employees, they have no dog training or qualification in canine behaviour - they would be fairly useless at identifying dogs. Perhaps deliberately so, in order to skew statistics to further demonise the pit bull?

Even the Irish times first reported that the poor woman was killed by 2 pit bull terriers. Whether that info came from neighbours who said that they were "pit bulls" or paramedics who said they were "pit bulls" or whoever they interviewed said they were "pit bulls". The fact is that it was 2 mastiffs, so for statistics to be right, identity needs to be right. And as this case it was reported and headlined incorrectly for some time.

Ah I see its a conspiracy against pit bulls, makes sense now.

05-06-2017 10:30AM

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

No, but I hope the dogs don't have to die aswell! Why should they? A dog is as smart as it's owner.

Either the dog was badly trained or badly teased.

Humans with conscience and understanding don't get the death sentience, why should a dog?

I spend my every min teaching my daughter how to treat our dog, not the other way around

RIP

If it was a relative of mine was killed by a dog, I'd want to pull the trigger on him myself.

If a dog attacks somebody then it deserves to die.

Too many apologists in this thread.

Samaris · 05-06-2017 10:32AM

enfant terrible wrote: »

Reducing the number of human fatalities doesn't interest you at all? :P

Ah come on, did you even read what I wrote? I courteously put thought and effort into my response and actually answered your question. Maybe I put too much into it and it was boring to get through, fine, but why would you deliberately misrepresent me for the sake of a silly "zinger"?

I would ask you to do me the common courtesy of reading the last two paragraphs again. If that did not make it clear enough, yes, I believe there should be particular controls on dogs that are bred either for superior strength/jaw power or temperaments that make them more inclined to lash out, and that -all- dog owners should be required to have a certain amount of training themselves. I hope that was concise.

Edit: I also believe that dogs in general should not be bred into purebreed money-makers at the expense of the dog's own health and I think it's an absolutely disgusting trait we humans have that we're happy to do it, allow it or encourage it for -looks- or for cash value.

All My Stars Aligned · 05-06-2017 10:35AM

I really do not understand why a genuine animal lover would consider getting any one of these types of dogs. Yes, there have been a couple of obviously very loving people on here that have ended up adopting bull breeds that otherwise most likely have been PTS, and these people seem to understand the 'risks' of such dogs, but as to specifically picking such a dog is beyond me.

All dogs have the potential to bite but the difference between Mastiffs/Bull breeds and most other dogs is the damage they can do if they do bite another dog or person. To my mind it is about reducing risk.

The pounds and rescues are full of all types of breeds so why go for a breed that in so many cased has caused such harm.

I would love to hear your reason for choosing such a dog if you have one.

enfant terrible · 05-06-2017 10:35AM

Samaris wrote: »

Ah come on, did you even read what I wrote? I courteously put thought and effort into my response and actually answered your question. Maybe I put too much into it and it was boring to get through, fine, but why would you deliberately misrepresent me for the sake of a silly "zinger"?

I would ask you to do me the common courtesy of reading the last two paragraphs again. If that did not make it clear enough, yes, I believe there should be particular controls on dogs that are bred either for superior strength/jaw power or temperaments that make them more inclined to lash out, and that -all- dog owners should be required to have a certain amount of training themselves. I hope that was concise.

Edit: I also believe that dogs in general should not be bred into purebreed money-makers at the expense of the dog's own health and I think it's an absolutely disgusting trait we humans have that we're happy to do it, allow it or encourage it for -looks- or for cash value.

Apologies, was looking for your opinion on a ban and whether you would be for or against and why?

enfant terrible · 05-06-2017 10:38AM

All My Stars Aligned wrote: »

I really do not understand why a genuine animal lover would consider getting any one of these types of dogs. Yes, there have been a couple of obviously very loving people on here that have ended up adopting bull breeds that otherwise most likely have been PTS, and these people seem to understand the 'risks' of such dogs, but as to specifically picking such a dog is beyond me.

All dogs have the potential to bite but the difference between Mastiffs/Bull breeds and most other dogs is the damage they can do if they do bite another dog or person. To my mind it is about reducing risk.

The pounds and rescues are full of all types of breeds so why go for a breed that in so many cased has caused such harm.

I would love to hear your reason for choosing such a dog if you have one.

From reading on dog forums the most common reason seems to be house protection and security.
http://puppytoob.com/dog-breeds/the-10-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-based-on-biting-statistics/

A_Sober_Paddy · 05-06-2017 10:40AM

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

I have a staffy shar pei mix. Proper gentle, in fact a coward. Had him walking on a lead, jack Russell comes up bit him, he coward behind me, for me to get the other dog away.

The shire and mare have the same temperment

If you train them as a puppy and control them properly this stuff is going to reduce in occurrence

enfant terrible · 05-06-2017 10:45AM

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

I have a staffy shar pei mix. Proper gentle, in fact a coward. Had him walking on a lead, jack Russell comes up bit him, he coward behind me, for me to get the other dog away.

The shire and mare have the same temperment

If you train them as a puppy and control them properly this stuff is going to reduce in occurrence

Why did you choose a staffy?

What do you think every other staffy owner said after it attached a child?

Samaris · 05-06-2017 10:57AM

enfant terrible wrote: »

Apologies, was looking for your opinion on a ban and whether you would be for or against and why?

I guess it wasn't concise enough.

Yes, I support a ban, but not just on pitbull breeding, but on all purebreeding where it causes damage to the dogs.

I do not specifically support a ban on specific breeds for dangerousness because there seems to be little evidence that it works. Either they are driven underground and breeding is even more lax (and training worse), or people get complacent with other dog breeds and/or it encourages the idiotic "hard man" swaggering. If X specific breed is banned, the next closest-looking is picked as the "look at the size of my penis" showpiece. Then it comes down to my anecdotal evidence against yours on whether the -dog itself- is dangerous by nature, or whether too many owners focus on getting these sorts of dogs with far more regard to their own image than to the dog's training or welfare. A straight ban, there we go, problem solved, doesn't actually solve the problem at all it would seem from places where it has been tried.

I do support a form of dog licensing where an owner has to prove themselves knowledgeable and capable of looking after a dog, and that standard is held higher when the dog breed is -capable- of causing serious harm to people if it is poorly trained, be it by size, strength or jaw. I am less certain on the natural temperament, because I've read too many opposing opinions as to whether it is a good way of separating "dangerous" from "safe", and it also appears to make people complacent about other breeds. I can go either way on that.

I apologise that my answer is "yes and no", but I don't think it's such a clear-cut argument as many would wish it to be.

And it certainly doesn't mean that I have no regard for human safety, that is a ridiculously simplistic way of interpreting what I've written.

Woman killed by two bull mastiffs in Galway

Comments