A pit bull dog below in Wexford the latest episode of a child been savaged . Are these dogs suitable for pets .
PS The only people with Pitbulls or similar in our town are involved in drug dealing and or general criminality.
Threadbanned Posters:
xhomelezz
What does this have to do with this thread?
I'm not dying on any hill, and yeah I do understand that phrase..
I could say the same about numerous posts here. Still didn't realise the point I'm making, do you?
Regardless the breed involved, doggos should be looked after, should be raised well, breeding should be controlled etc.. Ireland is failing to provide and control any of this shít. I do not give two fingers about XL bullies , do not own any of those dogs, not interested to own one in future either. But I have no problem to react to this kind of nonsense..
Again, a “peep” with a chihuahua is no danger to anyone.
…
Edit: forgot to add, again aggression in dogs is not breed specific, you can look it up yourself. There are plenty of reasons for canine individuals to be aggressive, but there's not much of back up to paint certain breed that way.. Obviously you can prove me wrong and post your own resources.
I've been around this thread since the start and don't remember much of insight on the problem on your side, bar from the usual "killem all" nonsense..
See, you’re missing the point. You keep saying aggression isn’t breed-specific, but even if that’s correct, you’re ignoring the fact that an aggressive or neglected spaniel is no threat to a fully grown adult but an aggressive XL bully needs armed police to control it. I simply cannot understand why you refuse to acknowledge this most basic of truths. The problem is NOT just the owner, the dog is a huge part of it.
Secondly, you might think that you cannot breed character traits into a dog but this is news to me. The entire world thinks that some breeds are more docile than others, but you and only you know the truth, that in fact they’re all the same. Fair enough, but you can understand why so many people disagree with you?
you’re ignoring the fact that an aggressive or neglected spaniel is no threat to a fully grown adult but an aggressive XL bully needs armed police to control it.
Of course I'm not ignoring that. But there are 50 + breeds capable of that . You wanna ban them all, or what? I get that ban seems to be right thing to do, but in the long run, it's only about pushing dog problem away, not sorting it out. You and other posters painted a certain dog breed as a dangerous and aggressive, that's what I have problem with, because you have nothing to back that with, bar from few news articles.
I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but I haven't said anything like that. Quiet the opposite. Dogs are individuals, you won't find two same ones. On the aggression in dogs, I think I've posted enough of links to research done on that matter. Examples of countries who do things differently and it actually works for them. Which just got buried in usual rubbish posts this thread is full of.
My biggest problem with this topic is, that government is not able to put in some plan to actually sort out this mess. Breeding, ownership etc. The ban is populist "solution", it won't affect dog attacks. It won't improve anything IMO
50 plus breeds that would require armed police to stop them from killing? 50 that a grown man in good fitness couldn't survive or fight off?
Name them pls. I'd guess about 10 to 15, most of which are vanishingly rare.
If there are 50, then absolutely yes, make them all illegal apart from use by police/armed forces.
2I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, but I haven't said anything like that
To be very clear, you said:
“aggression in dogs is not breed specific”
It's in post 2642, and you've said similar things over and over again.
Maybe I misunderstood but you seem to be saying that no breed is more aggressive than any other. It is widely accepted that some breeds are more docile, others are more aggressive. It's absolutely bananas to deny this.
If everyone was going around with labradors and border collies, the number of attacks would plummet.
My biggest problem with this topic is, that government is not able to put in some plan to actually sort out this mess. Breeding, ownership etc.
Why should this be on the government? Shouldn't dog owners bear the responsibilty of this? Why should we p*ss away my tax money on trying to teach toerags how to stop their custom-designed killing machine from savaging the neighbours?
People buy these dogs precisely to show that they don't follow the rules. Trying to educate these people to be more responsible dog owners is absolutely futile - no one who buys an XL bully is ever going to be responsible with it, because if they were, they wouldn't get one in the first place.
Common sense has prevailed, the ban is in.
I think I'd fancy my chances with an aggressive chihuahua, an XL bully would probably kill me given their history. Is it not time to stop pretending any breed is equally dangerous?
Only a complete idiot, or a troll, would try to argue that every dog breed is as dangerous as the next.
I don't think I have ever read a story of a child mauled to death by a chichiuaua, or a poodle, or a cocker spaniel. If anyone wants to prove me wrong, post the link.
But I'd hazard a guess that 99% of maulings are by a very small number of breeds.
I was walking on a beach yesterday. Plenty of dogs about with and without leashes. What are the rules?
I thought dogs weren't allowed on beaches now between certain times?
Usually 1st June to 15 Sep, during certain hours, on blue flag beaches, in the bathing section.
https://beachawards.ie/blue-flag/dog-restrictions-on-blue-flag-beaches/
But ultimately it's up to each local authority to apply their own rules.
And typical of Ireland, there will be no enforcement, and gulpins won't think any rules apply to them.
but I trust that our media are reporting serious attacks accurately.
A light moment of levity in an otherwise serious thread.
I'm saying that aggression is not inherited trait to any breed. And backed it up by studies and research done on that topic. If you happen to be attacked by German shepherd, that doesn't mean that whole breed is aggressive.. So how is it widely accepted? Humour me on that topic please.
The way I see it wrong dogs ends in wrong hands. Of course I accept that some breeds are potentially able to cause significant damage and potentially kill than others. But that doesn't say "this dog breed is aggressive". The problem of dog aggression is very complex and from what I've read, it's getting more common across all breeds. Start with breeding ass way, owners being shíte, social media..etc., the list is long. It is estimated by some studies that about 82% of dogs attacks are down to their pain.
I see you mentioning labradors in your post, breed which stands in bite stats very high, some argue it's because of high number as in popularity of that breed. For me it only shows awful amount of clowns owning those dogs. I love them , I'm on my second lab, she's pretty old in lab terms. Always was kind and great to my kids.
Love that part about pissíng away your tax money? What money you think are paying for implementing that ban? UK does the same approach and where did they get with it? One ban running from late 80' and dogs attacks on the rise.. That's what I would call píss away with my tax money..
Why should we p*ss away my tax money on trying to teach toerags how to stop their custom-designed killing machine from savaging the neighbours?
Just to say, is there anything to stop or prevent those people from buying different dog breed and use those dogs same way?
Give it a few years, or maybe even less and we'll be having the same conversation, just different breed. I'll probably remind you where your tax money ended.
Pit Bull is by far the most vicious.Only 6% of the dog population, Pit Bulls were responsible for 72% of human deaths by dog attack last year.Pit Bulls kill 30 Americans every year.Fatal dog attacks occur more often in Texas and California than any other state.
How dare you come in here with some facts and common sense.
Those people who are of the view that there's no such thing as a bad dog, only bad owners etc. What sort of Laws should be in place to prevent bad owners getting restricted breeds? What does it look like in practise?
There's 89 pages (that's the page count on my android browser) to read. If you'll manage to somehow skip the machine guns, tigers, crocodiles and whatnot, you might be lucky and get some insight from both sides of argument, actually it's three sides..
Trying to.move beyond that stage. The Governments approach has been to designate certain breeds as needing a muzzle, short lead and adult handler when in public. If this approach were genuinely enforced, it would safer for the public, but at the expense of these dogs comfort.
This thread is full of people who dont like this approach - making the point that a good owner makes restricted breed dogs safe. This is a very valid argument to make, but how do you translate it into practical public safety laws that are easy to enforce? If the Law was changed to adopt this approach, what would the Laws look like?
....
Another attack by a beloved family pet.
No prizes for guessing type of dog involved.
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/pit-bull-type-dog-that-mauled-woman-in-cork-was-beloved-family-pet/a103418778.html
Yes because we don't really know what type of the dog was involved edit I mean it, we don't really know what type of the dog was involved, but that's not really important bit. Beside that I feel sorry for the woman, it must be horrible experience for her. I don't really understand how some dog owners still didn't get the message to keep the dogs secured on property. It should be standard by now, but nope..
The arguments on here go around in the circles, with some posters refusing to believe that certain dog breeds carry a greater risk of causing injury than others.
Even if all dog breeds had the same temperament, there are some dogs that because of their physicality and because of their inherent characteristics are of greater risk than others. We can never eliminate the risk of a dog attacking a human and causing injury or death, but we can greatly reduce the risk by banning certain breeds.
It's like Dangerous Dog Bingo.
The only saving grace in this story is that it was the owner who got attacked and not some innocent person. She has herself and only herself to blame, zero sympathy.
Is it owner again? Fúck thats something.
Id still have sympathy for anyone attacked by a dog, but surely at this point anyone who owns one of these dogs must be looking at the news and thinking, "jez that was their lovely family pet who attacked her, maybe ours is capable of that too".
If not, then it is hard to understand their logic. Especially if they have them around kids. You'd never live with yourself if you pet dog mauled your child.
One could say the same about this type of argument circling around, yet not much evidence posted that bans actually works.., it's quite the opposite.
And still didn't forget your small dog + small garden = free roam definition of happiness for your canine companion.
The owners of these dogs are generally a certain type of person….the "sh1t happens" type!!
Jeez not this again.
Is there actually any info on what dog breed was involved in the attack? Not that it matters, but as I can see the usual pitchfork and torche type of posts is back, i thought I might ask?
Reports saya pit bull type dog. Pretty sure it wasn't a Poodle.
Yes, it was a pit bull or similar
