Dog Attack Limerick

cocoshovel wrote: »

Huskies are horrible dogs, and I say this as an animal lover. They have a terrible attitude and I think people only buy them because "they look cool".

I know someone who fits this bill....

Gringo180 wrote: »

Really? So you would be more worried about a mungrel than a Japanese Akita thats bred for hunting lions? Or a Pitbull with a lock jaw???

Sorry I can't stop laughing:pac: :pac:

Sykk wrote: »

Obviously not. But Husky's aren't vicious animals. Many of my friends and family have them and they've never snorted as much as a bark at anyone.

I think breeds like huskys in particular that are from a long line of serious working dogs don't make good pets in a urban setting. These are dogs that run almost non stop when they're in their natural environment. Taking them out of that environment and into a suburban setting is going to have problematic side effects. If you want to have one of these dogs as a pet you should be prepared to put in the work that dogs like this are breed to do. It's like taking a lion as a pet. It may work out fine most of the time but the risk is always there that the lion will snap and hurt you.

Any dog no matter what breed or size, that is trained to attack other animals or mistreated has the potential to attack. It is total ignorance from the likes of the op giving pitbulls etc the reputation as being 'vicious'. That being said I would not leave any dog alone with a small child. That's just common sense.

2ndcoming wrote: »

Cue a load of animal rights nuts wondering why they don't put down all the people involved for distressing the poor dog so much he had to attack a two-year-old.

I can't imagine anyone would call for the people to be killed. But it's only natural to question why this attack happened. Very few well-treated pet dogs will attack a child unprovoked.

Here are some areas in which people can be blamed:

Either the child was left unsupervised, or was supervised and the person looking after them didn't intervene when the child irritated the dog (I'm assuming the child irritated the dog: as I said, very few dogs will attack a child without provocation, and annoying dogs is what two-year olds tend to do).

Whoever owns the dog should have trained it better so it would be less aggressive, if it's the case that it didn't suffer extreme provocation.

That's why I think it's entirely reasonable not to simply blame the dog.

Gringo180 wrote: »

I wouldn't leave any dog around any child, but have you ever heard of say a labrador or a terrier fatally attacking a child? Why does it always seem to be Pitbulls or Staffs? This is why I dont like these dogs they just have a vicious streak no matter what way there brought up. Just my opinion.

Two reasons:

1. Assholes who mistreat dogs to make them vicious tend to buy these breeds, as they look "macho" in an attempt to compensate for their own insecurities about their masculinity.

2. Newspapers disproportionately report attacks by these breeds as they're more sensational and sell more copies. In many reports, dogs of completely different breeds are described as pitbulls or "pitbull types" by clueless witnesses.

Unfortunately, this gives these dogs worse reputations, which leads to more assholes buying them and mistreating them in a vicious cycle of stupidity.

Gringo180 wrote: »

I wouldn't leave any dog around any child, but have you ever heard of say a labrador or a terrier fatally attacking a child? Why does it always seem to be Pitbulls or Staffs? This is why I dont like these dogs they just have a vicious streak no matter what way there brought up. Just my opinion.

Very rare to hear of a Labrador biting someone but I've also never heard of a husky attacking someone either. The thing is a lot of scumbags buy these Bull type dogs because of this stupid reputation they have and actually want them to be vicious so train them to be so. A lot of stories of dogs attacking people the owners arent responsible people. And any bites I've gotten from grooming dogs have been from terriers.

Generally trying to say everything the King Of Moo is saying but he says it much better!

As someone who grew up always having dogs as pets I'd have to agree that you shouldn't leave a child unsupervised with any dog, accidents can and do happen.

It's just common sense but that seems to be lacking in a lot of people.

Hopefully the child will be ok and the family too.

armitage_skanks wrote: »

I think there needs to be much stricter laws both in terms of who can own a dog, and what type of dogs can be privately owned.

Licencing needs to be much stricter, with an actual competence test. And large/aggressive breeds need to be banned altogether. There's simply no need for them. If you own a dog for recreational purposes (company, walks etc) then a small dog will do just as well as a large/powerful one.

That would be pointless. There's no such thing as an "aggressive breed," only dogs with greater potential for aggression.
But killing off those breeds would be pointless, as idiots would just start buying the next most potentially-aggressive breed en masse.

We're only talking about degrees of aggression anyway: any dog can become vicious due to a combination of their individual personality and, most importantly, their treatment by their owners.

So you'd basically just end up killing lots of innocent dogs for no reason.

I also don't see how size has anything to do with: a two-year old won't stand much of a chance against a vicious, aggressive terrier. And pitbulls are pretty small anyway, what with them being pitbull terriers, to give them their full name.
And I'd hate to see labradors, St. Bernards, Irish wolfhounds, red setters etc banned.

I agree with promoting and enforcing more responsible dog ownership, but banning (killing) certain breeds would be a pointless waste of life.

Why do people always blame the owners? Maybe some dogs are just assholes :cool:

Humans can be born complete d*cks, I bet dogs can too.

Born to Die wrote: »

There are some major assholes posting in this forum.
Automatically they defend the dog by attacking the owner.
Dogs attack people, I know I have scars from dog bites from "the family pet".


I like dogs, some dogs are cool but they are animals, they can attack for what can appear no particular reason, I was attacked by a dog we had for years, a seemingly placid animal who spent his time with the kids.
The reason he attacked me, I walked past him. The vet discovered a while later he had a tumour on the brain and his behaviour became more erratic so had to be put to sleep.

I loved that mutt and until that moment he was a friendly dog. It is not always the owners fault.

I really hope that kid is okay and doesn't have long term physical or emotional problems due to this.

Describing the child as demonic is real classy.

I'm sorry to hear about your story, but don't you think that was an isolated case due to your dog's illness? He wasn't a vicious dog, he was just suffering from a condition he couldn't control.

By and large, dogs don't attack out of the blue. Some individual dogs do have nasty personalities, just like people, and this is usually quite evident from a young age. If an owner fails to deal with this and continues to keep such an aggressive dog around children, it's their fault if something happens.

originally posted by blatantrereg
Dogs can be jealous of other dogs and young children in a household.

A dog that seems like the most gentle creature in the world might be the one that kills in a fit of jealous rage.

I worked in an animal shelter where there was a dog that had done this very thing. He was a bulldog. Came across as the soppiest most gentle animal I have encountered, without exageration. Nonetheless, he had killed and partially consumed a rival pet greyhound after being adopted by a family (who then returned him).

People can be dismissive of this sort of thing when it comes to their own pets in particular. They pooh-pooh the idea of keeping a dog well away from babies; Dismiss the suggestion as dramatic and silly. It's incredibly foolish tbh.

Incidentally, I guess I'm one of the "animal rights nuts", seeing as I worked in an animal shelter and am vegetarian etc.

And this is why, as already mentioned a few times, all young children should be supervised around any dog.
I hate to hear about children attacked by dogs, but I always think that if an adult was supervising the situation, the attack would never have happened.

originally posted by armitage skanks
If you're walking with your children and a tiny chihuaha attacks, you can fend it off with a swift boot. If a 40KG german shephard attacks, you won't be able to fight it off without a weapon.

Therefore a size and breed restriction should be in place so the only dogs allowed in a city are tiny in size and very timid in temperment. Obviously farmers and blind people would be exempt.

There is literally no argument against this, other than 'I like owning a big dog'. For most people dogs don't serve a function, they're just a recreational item. So a small dog is just as good as a large one. It will also be cheaper and result in less dog **** about the place.

I see your point, but I think that would be unfairly restricting the choices of potential dog owners. Different dog breeds have generally different personalities. It's very different playing around with a big soppy labrador than a more manic terrier. The physical differences add to that too.

Most dogs are fairly large anyway, so it seems like such a policy would be hard to implement without killing a lot of dogs.

And again, I think such a policy would be taking the easy way out and avoiding encouraging and enforcing responsible dog ownership. If people were required to look after their dogs properly, you'd have very few attacks, regardless of breed or size.

Small dogs, especially terriers, tend to be more aggressive anyway, so getting rid of larger dogs without making a serious effort to make people look after their dogs probably wouldn't make a big difference in attack numbers. A scumbag can make a Jack Russell vicious if they're banned from owning pitbulls, and someone might not always be there to kick the dog away.