Cork woman severely injured after attack by Pitbull Mastiff

Nody · 27-01-2016 12:27PM

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Ya but to be fair collies are by a long way, the most common breed, and terriers are very common also. Also, you need to take into account the kind of damage that can be done if a particular dog turns on someone. A terrier can be aggressive, but generally you might get a nip on the heel. What is a pitbull, or any mix thereof going to do? It is the same logic that allows people to buy an air-rifle but not a rocket launcher.

I appreciate that with the right owner, a dog will be ok, but then with the right owner, a rocket launcher would also, wouldn't it? The reality is you cant guarantee that, so it isn't a reasonable resolution.

Oh I don't know how about Collie biting leg of baby? Or being shaken like a teddy bear to a 3 year old? Biting 5 year old in the face? Tiny Terrier killing 3 month old baby? I can go on but you get the point; claiming they can't do damage is BS; any breed can easily do quite a bit of damage and if you look at statistic in general you'll find Collies tend to be in the top in terms of attacks as a percentage of overall dog population (i.e. Collies are among the most likely breed to cause damage to humans in terms of attacks / 100 dogs).

And in general what all cases have in common is clueless owners; they could have had any breed and the chances are they would have the same thing would have happened.

seamus · 27-01-2016 12:34PM

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Is that acceptable in society though? I would say it isn't. It is fanciful in the extreme to suggest that every person on the street will understand concepts like redirect bites when the times comes that they encounter them. To continue with the gun analogy, the above is basically like having a weapon that can potentially go off on it's own accord, and your reasoning is that the people around it simply need to understand that and be able to deal with it. Remove the emotion connected to dogs for a second and it begins to sound quite different.

It's worth remembering not to get too hysterical about it. For the number of dogs we have in this country the number of injuries are extremely low. Even in Ireland, guns kill more people than dogs do.

I don't think it's fanciful to expect your average person to know how to interact with dogs appropriately.
It's kind of crazy that someone who went for a walk in the countryside would know not to approach a bull or a horse lest you get trampled or kicked. But when it comes to dogs that we interact with daily, people seem to think that they're fluffy little cuddly toys and if the dog reacts badly, it's a bad dog.

I never once remember being told in school, or in any kind of educational settings, or even from home - do not approach any dog without the owner's permission. That's the most basic rule, one of a handful of simple rules that everyone should be following with dogs.

MayoAreMagic · 27-01-2016 12:38PM

PucaMama wrote: »

The kind of state I was seconds from when the dog that attacked my small terrier tried to get me by the face. It's what started the fight in the first place she was defending me. Don't assume I havnt been in the situation.

So a bullmastiff tried to bite you in the face out of the blue?
Surely that only proves that these animals are in fact dangerous?

DBB · 27-01-2016 12:39PM

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Fair enough.

Is that acceptable in society though? I would say it isn't. It is fanciful in the extreme to suggest that every person on the street will understand concepts like redirect bites when the times comes that they encounter them. To continue with the gun analogy, the above is basically like having a weapon that can potentially go off on it's own accord, and your reasoning is that the people around it simply need to understand that and be able to deal with it. Remove the emotion connected to dogs for a second and it begins to sound quite different.

Ehhh.. What reasoning? You're making a big (and wrong) assumption, as there is nothing in my post to suggest that I'm trying to reason for or against the motivation behind a bite, I merely explained it, without emotion, without opining. I have no clue how you could therefore assume anything about what I consider to be acceptable in society.
But in case you'd like to know how I do feel when a dog bites someone so hard that they are hospitalised, in the immediate case it matters not one whit why the dog did it... The reality is that he did, and he is therefore a demonstrably unsafe dog, particularly in certain circumstances.
Whilst I have little issue with the dog being ultimately euthanased, this unfortunately tends to be done without any attempt to have the dog properly assessed by a behavioural expert, so that we might understand better the whys, whos and hows, which might help reduce the incidence of such events on a larger scale, such as education, regulated breeding, effectively regulated ownership etc. But that's for a different thread.
The lack of a coherent response is pretty clear in this and many dog bite cases, as is evidenced by the jumble of mixed stories in each different newspaper. As it stands, without any good information, we're none the wiser from this attack.

DBB · 27-01-2016 12:44PM

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

So a bullmastiff tried to bite you in the face out of the blue?
Surely that only proves that these animals are in fact dangerous?

What's with the hysteria? How can a bite to a human that happened whilst the human was trying to separate two fighting dogs, possibly be deemed "out of the blue"?
On the contrary, this is one of the most common situations where one can reliably predict there's a strong chance the human's going to get bitten.
And lest you assume that I'm making the case for why it was acceptable for the Bull Mastiff to have a go at Puca Mama, I'm not. I'm merely explaining.

PucaMama · 27-01-2016 12:50PM

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

So a bullmastiff tried to bite you in the face out of the blue?
Surely that only proves that these animals are in fact dangerous?

You sound hysterically afraid of these dogs. It wasn't a bull mastiff that went for me it was big German shepherd mix that I owned myself at the time. Complicated situation because it still wasn't the dogs fault either. I tried to put her outside when she didn't want to and when my other dogs were staying in. She was jealous of the small terrier. She got frustrated and went for me. I only got bitten seperating the two. But if she had got me by the face it would have been worse for me. It was a serious fight that I ended up with a 900 euro vet bill and almost lost my little terrier. Dogs don't bite just because they feel like it.

MayoAreMagic · 27-01-2016 12:55PM

Nody wrote: »

Oh I don't know how about Collie biting leg of baby? Or being shaken like a teddy bear to a 3 year old? Biting 5 year old in the face? Tiny Terrier killing 3 month old baby? I can go on but you get the point; claiming they can't do damage is BS; any breed can easily do quite a bit of damage and if you look at statistic in general you'll find Collies tend to be in the top in terms of attacks as a percentage of overall dog population (i.e. Collies are among the most likely breed to cause damage to humans in terms of attacks / 100 dogs).

And in general what all cases have in common is clueless owners; they could have had any breed and the chances are they would have the same thing would have happened.

Yes but as was indicated earlier, terriers are far more common, so you will have more stories on them to quote. Im never said terriers wont bite you or do damage, my point was if a terrier and a bullmastiff attacked two people, chances are the bullmastiff would do a lot more damage, and I used the rocket launcher - air rifle comparison to show how this is handled in other walks of life. Can you understand that logic?

As for blaming clueless owners, I disagree. You can be a good owner and simply not be knowledgeable on something like redirect bites, and you could end up with a serious bite. I wouldn't say clueless owners, Id say non-expert owners. But the thing is, you cant guarantee all owners to be experts on dogs, so blaming the owners all the time is not a realistic resolution nor is it an acceptable conclusion going forward.

For the record, Im not against dogs in any way, I own a lovely collie myself. I just try to be as objective as I can on the topic, and blaming the owner across the board might be an acceptable solution for asserting blame, but it is not an acceptable solution for dogs in our society.

topmanamillion · 27-01-2016 01:04PM

Nody wrote: »

Do you know the most common breeds that cause bites in Ireland? Collies and terriers and neither is on the RB list; Papillons and Pekingese are also in the top 10 list of biters who are small cute dogs while the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is among the least likely to bite as per actual statistics; so how about we stick to the actual facts and the simple reality that the RB list is meaningless?

I'm all for facts but remember there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Here`s a piece that rips your assertion to shreds.

"Whether a pit bull bites more or less than another dog breed is not the point. The issue is the acute damage a pit bull inflicts when it does choose to bite. The pit bull's "hold and shake" bite style causes severe bone and muscle damage, often inflicting permanent and disfiguring injuries. Moreover, once a pit bull starts an attack, firearm intervention may be the only way to stop it.
When analyzing dog bite statistics, it is important to understand what constitutes a bite. A single bite -- recorded and used in dog bite statistics -- is a bite that "breaks the skin." One bite by a poodle that leaves two puncture wounds is recorded the same way as a pit bull mauling, which can constitute hundreds of puncture wounds and extensive soft tissue loss. Despite the "quagmire" of dog bite statistics, pit bulls are leading bite counts across U.S. cities and counties."

Give me a Collie or terrier bite anyday!

sillysmiles · 27-01-2016 01:12PM

I think the saddest thing about this (and all serious dog bite incidents) is the lack of rationality. The dog bit and is pts. There is no attempt to work out why. It increases fear in the general population (which seems to be the want of the media in general) and generally adds to confusion and borderline hysteria in relation to dogs.

I do think that in a serious biting incident there should be an investigation and if the it is found that the likelihood of the dog biting is because the owners are effectively bad owners then the owners should be restricted from owner a dog again.

PucaMama · 27-01-2016 01:15PM

sillysmiles wrote: »

I think the saddest thing about this (and all serious dog bite incidents) is the lack of rationality. The dog bit and is pts. There is no attempt to work out why. It increases fear in the general population (which seems to be the want of the media in general) and generally adds to confusion and borderline hysteria in relation to dogs.

I do think that in a serious biting incident there should be an investigation and if the it is found that the likelihood of the dog biting is because the owners are effectively bad owners then the owners should be restricted from owner a dog again.

A dog can bite without being at fault and at the same time without the owner being at fault.

I didn't put either of mine that were involved in the fight down. I knew the gsd mix would do very well as an only dog and I knew the terrier only bit me by mistake.

DamagedTrax · 27-01-2016 01:16PM

Moreover, once a pit bull starts an attack, firearm intervention may be the only way to stop it

I've broken up 2 seperate APBT fights (not my own as she needs to stay on a lead and i dont think she should be running about the place). I didnt need a fire-arm in either situation, i used a break stick. Just a common little piece of wood that anyone can carry in their pocket.

The fact is i would have no issue breaking up a fight involving APBT or Staffords. They are bred for human submission in those situations and they stay quite level headed and focused. The worst part about these breeds (bred for fighting) is actually their saving grace with humans.

On the other hand, I would never try break up a fight between any other breeds in the same way. I wouldnt trust them in a fight situation, the poor things can freak out very easily and start randomly biting.

sillysmiles · 27-01-2016 01:20PM

PucaMama wrote: »

A dog can bite without being at fault and at the same time without the owner being at fault.

True.
But in many cases it appears to be a blanket statement of it was a bad dog and it was destroy and now all is fine. There is no way to know if there was a bigger issue.

I would be an advocate anyway of owners being registered and licensed rather than a dog.

Dyr · 27-01-2016 01:20PM

Gonna be honest when I heard they were from croatia and had imported the dog it immediately triggered a stereotype I have of certain visitors to these shores who drive around in decade old beamers, have the hardest dog they can find and generally think the trappings of scarface and american rappers are what life in the free west is about.

MayoAreMagic · 27-01-2016 01:23PM

PucaMama wrote: »

You sound hysterically afraid of these dogs. It wasn't a bull mastiff that went for me it was big German shepherd mix that I owned myself at the time. Complicated situation because it still wasn't the dogs fault either. I tried to put her outside when she didn't want to and when my other dogs were staying in. She was jealous of the small terrier. She got frustrated and went for me. I only got bitten seperating the two. But if she had got me by the face it would have been worse for me. It was a serious fight that I ended up with a 900 euro vet bill and almost lost my little terrier. Dogs don't bite just because they feel like it.

Im not afraid of them at all. Im just going off what you said - a large dog tried to 'get you by the face'. I was trying to get more information on this point as it sounded like you thought a dog grabbing you by the face was backing up your point, somehow.

To be honest, I think your example only highlights part of the issue. No dog should go for you by the face in an instance like that - ever. If you wanted the dog outside, he should have gone outside. Im assuming you are a reasonably knowledgeable owner that isn't going to be acting in a manner that would enrage a dog here - like most dog owners would be. Objectively speaking, what has actually occurred there is that dog has shown a temperament issue and going forward, shouldn't be bred from.

That is the danger with this 'the owner is always at fault' attitude. We end up taking too much blame and inadvertently reintroducing these types of traits into the breed by overlooking these actions, when in fact we should be objectively viewing their behaviours to improve the breed of the animals in general. That is a responsibility that dog owners are flouting. If people actually want to improve this issue, point blank refuse to breed animals that show this sort of behaviour. Making excuses for them is only doing them more damage.

DamagedTrax · 27-01-2016 01:27PM

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

If people actually want to improve this issue, point blank refuse to breed animals that show this sort of behaviour. Making excuses for them is only doing them more damage.

Gotta agree with this, with the addition that breeding practices are a large chunk of the problem with some aggressive dogs, the breeds themselves are not.

A little less eyes on the $ and a little more on what you produce would go some way to helping the problem.

But then people would be up in arms at culling practices. Sometimes there is no winning solution.

MayoAreMagic · 27-01-2016 01:29PM

DBB wrote: »

What's with the hysteria? How can a bite to a human that happened whilst the human was trying to separate two fighting dogs, possibly be deemed "out of the blue"?
On the contrary, this is one of the most common situations where one can reliably predict there's a strong chance the human's going to get bitten.
And lest you assume that I'm making the case for why it was acceptable for the Bull Mastiff to have a go at Puca Mama, I'm not. I'm merely explaining.

The original post sounded like the dog tried to attack the owner from nowhere and the terrier stepped in to defend the owner, subsequently starting a fight which the owner subsequently tried to stop. That is why I tried to clarify if it was out of the blue.

Nody · 27-01-2016 01:35PM

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

As for blaming clueless owners, I disagree. You can be a good owner and simply not be knowledgeable on something like redirect bites, and you could end up with a serious bite. I wouldn't say clueless owners, Id say non-expert owners. But the thing is, you cant guarantee all owners to be experts on dogs, so blaming the owners all the time is not a realistic resolution nor is it an acceptable conclusion going forward.

98% of the bite incidents studied for a six year period involved the person interacting with the dog before they were bitten. That is a clueless owner problem if they can't recognize when their dog is fearful (bite being the last resort in general) and often involve clueless owner behaviour such as leaving children/babies alone with the dog (wtf?!) or locking them up in a yard and thinking things will work out ok.

A owner of a dog is RESPONSIBLE for the dog's behaviour; the dog is not responsible for being a dog and acting like a dog yet the most common solution is to simply kill the dog or ban the breed. Neither which fixes the problem which is clueless owners.

DBB · 27-01-2016 01:45PM

That is the danger with this 'the owner is always at fault' attitude. We end up taking too much blame and inadvertently reintroducing these types of traits into the breed by overlooking these actions, when in fact we should be objectively viewing their behaviours to improve the breed of the animals in general. That is a responsibility that dog owners are flouting. If people actually want to improve this issue, point blank refuse to breed animals that show this sort of behaviour. Making excuses for them is only doing them more damage.

I too feel a little icky at the owner always being blamed... Although I do think the vast bulk of the problem originates with human error at some point along the line, whether purposeful or not.
There is without any doubt a bigger picture here whereby in theory, it is entirely possible to just breed nice dogs. Not just breed them, but breed and raise nice dogs, that are 100% designed and produced to be excellent, safe pets.
For me, an owner should be able to make mistakes without being bitten, or at worst, without being bitten so badly that they need stitches, or worse. And by "at worst", I mean that as a bite that occurs in very challenging, threatening, distressing circumstances. We can and should produce dogs that limit the force of their bite even when the poop hits the fan.
To illustrate, my huge GSD has been accidentally stood on by a stranger, who had lost her balance and the dog was in the wrong place at the wrong time. All too often, you would think the lady would have got bitten. But no... The dog didn't even growl, nor show any signs of aggression. She just apologetically got up and went straight to the lady with wagging tail, licking her hand. I'd expect no less from this dog, I use this merely to illustrate that she was bred and raised to be bombproof. I know her lines, and I owned her aunt before her who was exactly the same.
My point is, it's entirely possible to "produce" dogs that just won't bite (unless under really, really serious threat). It's also possible to educate owners how to assess and choose such dogs, whether they're buying a pup, or going for an adult rescue dog. And I agree completely with you, the corollary of my point, that dogs with any hint of nervousness or aggression should not be bred from.
However, I know it's all a pipe dream! But it'd be a nicer world if we could fill it with dogs just like the lovely lady I described above

MayoAreMagic · 27-01-2016 01:47PM

Nody wrote: »

98% of the bite incidents studied for a six year period involved the person interacting with the dog before they were bitten. That is a clueless owner problem if they can't recognize when their dog is fearful (bite being the last resort in general) and often involve clueless owner behaviour such as leaving children/babies alone with the dog (wtf?!) or locking them up in a yard and thinking things will work out ok.

A owner of a dog is RESPONSIBLE for the dog's behaviour; the dog is not responsible for being a dog and acting like a dog yet the most common solution is to simply kill the dog or ban the breed. Neither which fixes the problem which is clueless owners.

Look it is a natural instinct for a person to try to break up a fight between their dog(s). You call that being clueless, I call it being human. This is what we need to understand, owners will always be people, owners will rarely be experts on dog behaviour. If we want to have these animals as part of our society, we need to suitably breed then to suit our society, like we were doing a few hundred years ago - what you are suggesting is that we adapt the theirs by all becoming dog experts to avoid being bitten, regardless of if you own one or not. It isn't realistic.
We need to stop overlooking these actions, and instead start breeding them out of the animals, like they do in farm animal husbandry. Otherwise it will just continue this way, but you cant blame 'clueless owners' for that, you blame anyone who has ever bred a dog.

DBB · 27-01-2016 01:51PM

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

The original post sounded like the dog tried to attack the owner from nowhere and the terrier stepped in to defend the owner, subsequently starting a fight which the owner subsequently tried to stop. That is why I tried to clarify if it was out of the blue.

Yep, re-reading that post now, I can see why you thought so. My apologies!

MayoAreMagic · 27-01-2016 01:58PM

DBB, I believe we could make a serious dent with that ethos though. That is what annoys me. We have people who are knowledgeable on dogs, and keep them throughout their lives, who will still go out and get a 'little girlfriend/boyfriend' for a dog who they tiptoe around and blame themselves for when he becomes aggressive over something he shouldnt. If everyone who considered themselves a good owner made that effort to improve the breed, it would improve - fast.
If we have a problem with that, then we should remember that this is how we got dogs into our society in the first place.

PucaMama · 27-01-2016 03:03PM

I see there was some confusion in the way I wrote my post. I wasn't doing anything new with my dog when she went for me. I like routine and I like to keep my dogs in a routine. I'm also not a breeder and had no intention of breeding any of my dogs so that trait will end with her. I made the decision to rehome for her own good. She's an excellent beautiful dog when she's not with my other dog. She loved our 3rd dog tho. She's a lovely dog with children. So I didn't see a real reason to put her down. Don't we all snap sometimes? She was such a good dog she deserved the 2nd chance. I love her and I miss her so much.

DBB · 27-01-2016 03:40PM

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

DBB, I believe we could make a serious dent with that ethos though. That is what annoys me. We have people who are knowledgeable on dogs, and keep them throughout their lives, who will still go out and get a 'little girlfriend/boyfriend' for a dog who they tiptoe around and blame themselves for when he becomes aggressive over something he shouldnt. If everyone who considered themselves a good owner made that effort to improve the breed, it would improve - fast.
If we have a problem with that, then we should remember that this is how we got dogs into our society in the first place.

I think the problem is even bigger and more insidious, though it's without doubt what you say is also throwing its hat into the ring.
Irresponsible, fast-track puppy production plays a huge role too... Puppies being born to any old parents regardless of health or temperament. These puppies, already genetically "stunted", then reared in oul sheds with no interaction with the world they're expected to live in, during the most critical period of behavioural development (3-12weeks of age)... These dogs make up a HUGE proportion of the puppy market... I would guess as much as 80% of it (I suspect I'm underestimating), yet the chances of them being steady, easy, safe pets are hugely diminished before their new owner even sets eyes on them.
And this practice, by puppy farmers and back-yard breeders has been bloody well legalised by legislation introduced in 2010. It beggars belief, but reflects exactly how our leaders view dog production here... "Feck the animals, feck their owners, feck those who get injured by these substandard dogs... How can we tax the breeders?"
That's all the new legislation does.

muddypaws · 27-01-2016 03:47PM

topmanamillion wrote: »

I'm all for facts but remember there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Here`s a piece that rips your assertion to shreds.

"Whether a pit bull bites more or less than another dog breed is not the point. The issue is the acute damage a pit bull inflicts when it does choose to bite. The pit bull's "hold and shake" bite style causes severe bone and muscle damage, often inflicting permanent and disfiguring injuries. Moreover, once a pit bull starts an attack, firearm intervention may be the only way to stop it.
When analyzing dog bite statistics, it is important to understand what constitutes a bite. A single bite -- recorded and used in dog bite statistics -- is a bite that "breaks the skin." One bite by a poodle that leaves two puncture wounds is recorded the same way as a pit bull mauling, which can constitute hundreds of puncture wounds and extensive soft tissue loss. Despite the "quagmire" of dog bite statistics, pit bulls are leading bite counts across U.S. cities and counties."

Give me a Collie or terrier bite anyday!

However, it must also be considered that the majority of the general public don't know what a pit bull actually looks like. They will use that term for any dog that they think looks like one, such as a Staffie, so it appears from statistics that pit bulls have a high bite incidence, when in fact they do not. Its the same as people saying husky, when the dog they are referring to could be an Akita, a Malamute, a Samoyed and a few other different breeds.

seamus wrote: »

It's worth remembering not to get too hysterical about it. For the number of dogs we have in this country the number of injuries are extremely low. Even in Ireland, guns kill more people than dogs do.

In Ireland, cows kill more people than dogs

DamagedTrax wrote: »

Gotta agree with this, with the addition that breeding practices are a large chunk of the problem with some aggressive dogs, the breeds themselves are not.

A little less eyes on the $ and a little more on what you produce would go some way to helping the problem.

But then people would be up in arms at culling practices. Sometimes there is no winning solution.

Agree that when breeding, temperament should be just as important, if not more so, than conformation. I know I have mentioned this on here previously, but there was a line of malamutes with epilepsy, a friend had to have her mal pts due to it, as unfortunately it manifested itself as aggression. I met someone with a dog from the same lines and gave him a friendly warning, thinking he would want to know about it, he wasn't interested, there were champions in the dog's pedigree, so he wanted to get money out of breeding, I know that he has bred quite a few litters from that dog, passing the issue on.

I was at the vets this morning, and a woman was there with a cat, she was talking to the receptionist about how worried she now is about her own dog at home, as, according to the media after this incident, all dogs are dangerous. Hopefully the receptionist and I managed to allay her fears, as her dog sounded lovely, and is a much loved house dog.

Evac101 · 27-01-2016 04:00PM

topmanamillion wrote: »

I'm all for facts but remember there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Here`s a piece that rips your assertion to shreds.

"Whether a pit bull bites more or less than another dog breed is not the point. The issue is the acute damage a pit bull inflicts when it does choose to bite. The pit bull's "hold and shake" bite style causes severe bone and muscle damage, often inflicting permanent and disfiguring injuries. Moreover, once a pit bull starts an attack, firearm intervention may be the only way to stop it.
When analyzing dog bite statistics, it is important to understand what constitutes a bite. A single bite -- recorded and used in dog bite statistics -- is a bite that "breaks the skin." One bite by a poodle that leaves two puncture wounds is recorded the same way as a pit bull mauling, which can constitute hundreds of puncture wounds and extensive soft tissue loss. Despite the "quagmire" of dog bite statistics, pit bulls are leading bite counts across U.S. cities and counties."

Give me a Collie or terrier bite anyday!

There's a huge examination of dog bites, dog care and dog behaviour in a number of threads in the history of this board, the one that stands out to me being "Husky mauls child" about 3 years ago. At the time, husky's/northern breeds/hairy dogs were demonised (and poorly identified) in the press and by the Limerick dog warden as being dangerous and that they should be banned. A number of the ''usual suspects' contributed to the thread which is worth a read if you're genuinely interested in seeing this thread's future, in the past (OoOoOo time travel!). Specifically however I made a post referencing Skeptoid.com, a website/podcast run by a rigorous mathematician/statistician, whose passion is debunked commonly held truths (think a more heavily researched Snopes). One of the main points from the podcast he did on bite statistics in the States is that these reports frequently have a heavy bull breed bias due to legislation in individual states. If I remember correctly the most frequent biter is actually Labrador/Lab crosses once the reporting bias is eliminated but feel free to peruse the site yourself if you're interested.

PS Sup DamagedTrax - hows Dolly?

DamagedTrax · 27-01-2016 04:13PM

Evac101 wrote: »

PS Sup DamagedTrax - hows Dolly?

Hey :cool:

She's doing really well, thanks! We're about to start getting her ready for the athletics & show season. She needs 5 more event wins for her 'Champion of Champions' title.

Here we are in a field trying to look cool

11006417_10152792457981050_1954515851693163251_n_zpssnkluzf3.jpg

DBB · 27-01-2016 04:22PM

DamagedTrax wrote: »

Here we are in a field trying to look cool

One of the two doesn't have to try to look cool... She already is

peasant · 27-01-2016 08:00PM

DBB wrote: »

There is without any doubt a bigger picture here whereby in theory, it is entirely possible to just breed nice dogs. Not just breed them, but breed and raise nice dogs, that are 100% designed and produced to be excellent, safe pets.

I would agree with the basic sentiment, but I would put much more of the emphasis on the raising rather than the breeding part.

Yes, there is something that can (and should be) done during the breeding process such as:
- do not breed from highly insecure or aggressive parents
- do no breed from "breeding machines" i.e. puppy farming, but only from well socialised, well adjusted, proven family dogs
- ensure that all puppies are properly socialised with their siblings, parents (both!), humans, other animals and other environmental factors for the proper length of time before they are given to their new owners

But ...I still think that the major part of future behaviour is influenced by the raising, socialising and general living conditions of the pup and young dog.

In our society dogs can be put under such stresses that would turn the most carefully "designed" dog into a nervous wreck.

A few examples:
- hour long separation from the group on a daily basis (everyone goes to work/school and the dog is left behind)
- limited interaction with its owners. Even when people finally get home there is still so much to be done where the dog is just in the way and the dog gets commanded about more than interacted with
- poor quality exercise. Dragging the dog around the block on the always same path, most of it on a lead and in a hurry does not make the dog happy
- poor quality interaction with other dogs. While on the "walk" described above, the dog gets to "meet" other dogs in similar circumstances, on the lead, under pressure ...a recipe for less than ideal encounters with lots of potential for things to go wrong between the dogs (and/or the owners

)

This is the daily routine for lots of dogs on weekdays, puppies and young dogs are "trained" to fit into these unsuitable patterns and more and more dogs can not be compensated for this by a few hours of quality time over the weekend and become "problem dogs" regardless of how well they have been bred.

Roselm · 27-01-2016 08:08PM

Nody wrote: »

Do you know the most common breeds that cause bites in Ireland? Collies and terriers and neither is on the RB list; Papillons and Pekingese are also in the top 10 list of biters who are small cute dogs while the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is among the least likely to bite as per actual statistics; so how about we stick to the actual facts and the simple reality that the RB list is meaningless?

Could you post a link to the stats? Do the guards publish them each year or would it be the HSE?

Cherry Blossom · 27-01-2016 08:15PM

Roselm wrote: »

Could you post a link to the stats? Do the guards publish them each year or would it be the HSE?

As far as I know the health service does not record the breed that caused injury to a patient, just that it was a dog bite.

Cork woman severely injured after attack by Pitbull Mastiff

Comments