Pitbulls in Canberra. Time to ban? [With poll]

Yeah, let’s just ban everything we don’t completely understand.

Sorry made a mistake The Pommerainian killed a baby several years ago not six months ago as I previously stated!

clintonDogowner said :

Punish the deed not the breed

Who writes your slogans? Tony Abbott?

YOUR DOG’S BREED COULD BE NEXT!
Punish the deed not the breed

Does anyone actually know what one looks like? I challenge anyone to pick one from a line up of dogs! On a website called ” The Proper Pitbull.com” there is a page that has several breeds of dogs commonly mistaken as an American Pitbull Terrier choose one than click on it you will be surprised! Oh and wikepedia as everyone knows is edited by it’s users!!
No dog should be labelled as dangerous just because of it’s breed! Did anyone hear about the thirteen dog attacks in Sydney one night a couple of months ago four were allegedly from pitbulls the other nine went unreported! Or how about the Pommerainian that killed an infant about six months ago? Or Th family golden retriever that mauled four people in Sydney!
Get a grip people!

Erg0 said :

what_the said :

If there’s evidence to support it, then I’ll happily take it on board. Anatomically, they are no different to any other dog.

Anatomically, a 90 pound weakling is no different to a professional boxer. Even putting temperament aside, I know which one I’d rather be attacked by.

Anyways, I agree that nothing should be done without evidence, but I also don’t see much of a rational justification for the continued existence of the breed. I’m not talking about rounding them all up and shooting them, but I think it would be reasonable to ask the breeders to show reason why they should be allowed to continue breeding them.

And this comes back to the original point I made when posting this topic. All I would like to see is some stricter regulations in the ACT for these dogs (and other breeds of dangerous dogs). We are the only state or territory that has no additional regulations (on top of normal dog ownership regulations) on pitbull ownership.

shadow boxer said :

Well not according to Wikipedia who state;

“The dog was bred first to bait bulls and bears”

You can spin it however you want but everyone knows the dog has been bred to fight and to produce the most muscled, aggresive dog possible.

@calamity, I dont think anyone is suggesting we should round them up and kill them, just stop breeding them.

I have owned a few dogs including a pure bred Staffy , a staffy ridgeback cross and a pure bull terrior which I swear was the smartest dog I have ever seen, you could literally have a conversation with it.

All good breeds with all the good points inherent in the Terrior breed. Never seen why anyone would want a genetically engineered mostrosity of all their worst features and I’m genuinely curious why anyone would.

Ahahahahaha…Wikipedia is alway the most reliable source of information.

shadow boxer said :

Well not according to Wikipedia who state;

“The dog was bred first to bait bulls and bears”

You can spin it however you want but everyone knows the dog has been bred to fight and to produce the most muscled, aggresive dog possible.

@calamity, I dont think anyone is suggesting we should round them up and kill them, just stop breeding them.

I have owned a few dogs including a pure bred Staffy , a staffy ridgeback cross and a pure bull terrior which I swear was the smartest dog I have ever seen, you could literally have a conversation with it.

All good breeds with all the good points inherent in the Terrior breed. Never seen why anyone would want a genetically engineered mostrosity of all their worst features and I’m genuinely curious why anyone would.

And yes, sorry – I’m not sure where I got the impression that people were planning to raid homes and kill innocent dogs! I’m not necessarily against restricting or monitoring the breeding of pitbulls or what have you, so I think I may be arguing against nothing LOL

shadow boxer said :

Well not according to Wikipedia who state;

“The dog was bred first to bait bulls and bears”

You can spin it however you want but everyone knows the dog has been bred to fight and to produce the most muscled, aggresive dog possible.

@calamity, I dont think anyone is suggesting we should round them up and kill them, just stop breeding them.

I have owned a few dogs including a pure bred Staffy , a staffy ridgeback cross and a pure bull terrior which I swear was the smartest dog I have ever seen, you could literally have a conversation with it.

All good breeds with all the good points inherent in the Terrior breed. Never seen why anyone would want a genetically engineered mostrosity of all their worst features and I’m genuinely curious why anyone would.

Well, it sounds like you should meet Alilyn’s dog in order to gain that understanding.

Well not according to Wikipedia who state;

“The dog was bred first to bait bulls and bears”

You can spin it however you want but everyone knows the dog has been bred to fight and to produce the most muscled, aggresive dog possible.

@calamity, I dont think anyone is suggesting we should round them up and kill them, just stop breeding them.

I have owned a few dogs including a pure bred Staffy , a staffy ridgeback cross and a pure bull terrior which I swear was the smartest dog I have ever seen, you could literally have a conversation with it.

All good breeds with all the good points inherent in the Terrior breed. Never seen why anyone would want a genetically engineered mostrosity of all their worst features and I’m genuinely curious why anyone would.

The analogy was intended to demonstrate that I love my dog like family, and anyone who believes that she should be destroyed for no reason is incredibly cruel. If you really believe that any dog breed which may exhibit aggression should be eliminated then we should ban dogs all together… and cars…kitchen knives…and anything else that cause harm when in the hands of the wrong person?”

“When we were looking for a dog, my family decided that we would much rather save a life than line the pockets of some backyard breeder. Our pitbull was rescued from the pound- we did not choose her, she chose us. Her temprement, personality, affection and sweet brown eyes made the choice easy. And it has proven to be the best one we ever made. She deserves a loving home like any other pet and that loving home ensures she is a loving pet, not the agressive monster you are trying to suggest she is.

Calamity said :

shadow boxer said :

Alilyn said :

I am so glad to see the results of this poll prove that a majority of people understand that it is owners rather than dogs who should be held responsible here.

As the owner of a pitbull, it breaks my heart when people say thing like “they should all be destroyed”. To me, that suggestion is the same as suggestings that someone come into your home and tear your children away from you …even if they had done nothing wrong. I love my dog and your vitriolic hatred of her kind is akin to racism, you tar the whole breed with the same brush (when any dog can be dangerous and often what is called a pitbull is NOT).

My dog is well trained, gentle and loving. She has just become a therapy companion, visiting the sick and elderly. And yes, she is a pitbull. I have met many other pitbulls like her, and it always comes down to the owner. What happened in Melbourne was truely tradgic, but the owner is at fault here. The dog should never have been able to get out into the street and should been properly trained.

Thank-you to all of those people who used common sense and understanding when responding to this small minded camaign against the breed. My dog has as much right to live as any. A loving, responsible pet owner would never suggest killing innocent dogs.

Have your children been systematically and deliberately bred to be as strong, agressive and lethal as possible ?, if not the analogy is clearly false.

By your dogs don’t kill people, the owners do, defence we should just do away with gun laws, most owners are good and we could just blame the obad owners as the carnage continues.

You seem a reasonable person, what on earth made you decide to buy a dog like that ?

The analogy was intended to demonstrate that I love my dog like family, and anyone who believes that she should be destroyed for no reason is incredibly cruel. If you really believe that any dog breed which may exhibit aggression should be eliminated then we should ban dogs all together… and cars…kitchen knives…and anything else that cause harm when in the hands of the wrong person?

When we were looking for a dog, my family decided that we would much rather save a life than line the pockets of some backyard breeder. Our pitbull was rescued from the pound- we did not choose her, she chose us. Her temprement, personality, affection and sweet brown eyes made the choice easy. And it has proven to be the best one we ever made. She deserves a loving home like any other pet and that loving home ensures she is a loving pet, not the agressive monster you are trying to suggest she is.

first My sympathies go to the poor family of this little girl this is a truly horrifying ordeal..

I want to dispel a few myths.
there is no such thing as a “PitBull” this is a name that has been given to a group of dogs descending from the same lines, ie; Amstaff, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and The American Pitbull Terrier. All these breeds and several others were bred from the Old English Bulldog and the White English Terrier ( now Extinct). These original cross breeds started with the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Different People Bred them for different reasons, Mostly Ratting and For general Farm dogs. On Arrival in the USA A slightly Larger more athletic Dog was required to Guard Kids from Bears and wolves and also for flushing out game. This Dog later became the American Pittbull terrier AKA New york Terrier, Nanny Dog, and American Smooth haired Terrier. Some 100 or so years past, and the tenacity ,loyalty,trainability and non human aggression led these dogs to be used for all sorts of cruel money making ventures by poor dock workers including pit fighting( this is where the name stems from). For most of the 300 or so years these dogs have been around only the most placid were bred. and the story is a lot longer but you get the picture…The unfortunate side of this means that these dogs excel at anything their masters wish them to.. so when driven underground as the breeding of the APBT has become there is no control over who breeds them and what stock they select from.. because The APBT is restricted in most places in Australia People think it’s cool to own such a dog and they become status symbols and not the dogs they should be allowed to be…
Food for thought, The American Pitbull terrier holds many world records., they are used as search and rescue dogs most famously at the Twin Towers Disaster, and also Thearapy Dogs.. Alot of states in the United States of
America have now overturned Breed Specific Legislation as have other European countries as they have proven it does not reduce serious dog attacks.
PUNISH THE DEED NOT THE BREED.

shadow boxer said :

Alilyn said :

I am so glad to see the results of this poll prove that a majority of people understand that it is owners rather than dogs who should be held responsible here.

As the owner of a pitbull, it breaks my heart when people say thing like “they should all be destroyed”. To me, that suggestion is the same as suggestings that someone come into your home and tear your children away from you …even if they had done nothing wrong. I love my dog and your vitriolic hatred of her kind is akin to racism, you tar the whole breed with the same brush (when any dog can be dangerous and often what is called a pitbull is NOT).

My dog is well trained, gentle and loving. She has just become a therapy companion, visiting the sick and elderly. And yes, she is a pitbull. I have met many other pitbulls like her, and it always comes down to the owner. What happened in Melbourne was truely tradgic, but the owner is at fault here. The dog should never have been able to get out into the street and should been properly trained.

Thank-you to all of those people who used common sense and understanding when responding to this small minded camaign against the breed. My dog has as much right to live as any. A loving, responsible pet owner would never suggest killing innocent dogs.

Have your children been systematically and deliberately bred to be as strong, agressive and lethal as possible ?, if not the analogy is clearly false.

By your dogs don’t kill people, the owners do, defence we should just do away with gun laws, most owners are good and we could just blame the obad owners as the carnage continues.

You seem a reasonable person, what on earth made you decide to buy a dog like that ?

Shadow boxer – Do you have a dog/cat/companion pet yourself?

You are asking why someone would buy this breed of dog, and I would answer that it’s the same reason anybody else picks a favourite breed – their compatibility with the owner’s lifestyle and the breed’s personality traits. Pitbulls do have other traits, you know – Other than being inherently evil, I mean.

This person obviously owns a passive, well-trained and loving dog. Are you really suggesting it should be put down because other dogs of that breed have exhibited bad behaviour? That just seems ludicrous to me, and while it may sound dramatic – it really is the canine version of racism. Think about it.

what_the said :

If there’s evidence to support it, then I’ll happily take it on board. Anatomically, they are no different to any other dog.

Anatomically, a 90 pound weakling is no different to a professional boxer. Even putting temperament aside, I know which one I’d rather be attacked by.

Anyways, I agree that nothing should be done without evidence, but I also don’t see much of a rational justification for the continued existence of the breed. I’m not talking about rounding them all up and shooting them, but I think it would be reasonable to ask the breeders to show reason why they should be allowed to continue breeding them.

Alilyn said :

I am so glad to see the results of this poll prove that a majority of people understand that it is owners rather than dogs who should be held responsible here.

As the owner of a pitbull, it breaks my heart when people say thing like “they should all be destroyed”. To me, that suggestion is the same as suggestings that someone come into your home and tear your children away from you …even if they had done nothing wrong. I love my dog and your vitriolic hatred of her kind is akin to racism, you tar the whole breed with the same brush (when any dog can be dangerous and often what is called a pitbull is NOT).

My dog is well trained, gentle and loving. She has just become a therapy companion, visiting the sick and elderly. And yes, she is a pitbull. I have met many other pitbulls like her, and it always comes down to the owner. What happened in Melbourne was truely tradgic, but the owner is at fault here. The dog should never have been able to get out into the street and should been properly trained.

Thank-you to all of those people who used common sense and understanding when responding to this small minded camaign against the breed. My dog has as much right to live as any. A loving, responsible pet owner would never suggest killing innocent dogs.

Have your children been systematically and deliberately bred to be as strong, agressive and lethal as possible ?, if not the analogy is clearly false.

By your dogs don’t kill people, the owners do, defence we should just do away with gun laws, most owners are good and we could just blame the obad owners as the carnage continues.

You seem a reasonable person, what on earth made you decide to buy a dog like that ?

I am so glad to see the results of this poll prove that a majority of people understand that it is owners rather than dogs who should be held responsible here.

As the owner of a pitbull, it breaks my heart when people say thing like “they should all be destroyed”. To me, that suggestion is the same as suggestings that someone come into your home and tear your children away from you …even if they had done nothing wrong. I love my dog and your vitriolic hatred of her kind is akin to racism, you tar the whole breed with the same brush (when any dog can be dangerous and often what is called a pitbull is NOT).

My dog is well trained, gentle and loving. She has just become a therapy companion, visiting the sick and elderly. And yes, she is a pitbull. I have met many other pitbulls like her, and it always comes down to the owner. What happened in Melbourne was truely tradgic, but the owner is at fault here. The dog should never have been able to get out into the street and should been properly trained.

Thank-you to all of those people who used common sense and understanding when responding to this small minded camaign against the breed. My dog has as much right to live as any. A loving, responsible pet owner would never suggest killing innocent dogs.

Erg0 said :

what_the said :

Erg0 said :

what_the said :

Fact is any dog is dangerous when a deadshit owns it. Treat an animal badly, it will react badly. Generally dogs are just a representation of how crap their owner is. Unfortunately it seems a lot of deadshits own Pit Bulls. But surely anyone can see the logical conclusion – ban pitbulls and the deadshits will move onto another breed and surprise, you’ll be seeing headlines on how dangerous x dog is.

Perhaps, but the important distinction is that Pit Bulls have a potential to cause greater harm in the event of an attack than many other breeds. Surely you can see how swapping a neglectful dog owner’s Pit Bull for a Blue Heeler (for instance) would reduce the potential for harm?

Like I said, remove the Pit Bulls, you’ll see a rise in some other breed. I dont see that wiping out an entire breed of animal is balanced response to the problem which is what many people are calling for, especially if it’s an emotive based response with little evidence to back it.

I’m not sure you’ve grasped my point, which is that other breeds are inherently less dangerous than Pit Bulls, even with a bad owner thrown into the mix.

Aside from that, I don’t agree with your basic stance that any given dog breed has a right to exist. This isn’t an extinction-type scenario, they’re all basically the same animal with certain characteristics created by humans through selective breeding. In this sense, the argument against “wiping out” a breed that is ill-suited to domestication is actually an emotive one.

If there’s evidence to support it, then I’ll happily take it on board. Anatomically, they are no different to any other dog.

what_the said :

Erg0 said :

what_the said :

Fact is any dog is dangerous when a deadshit owns it. Treat an animal badly, it will react badly. Generally dogs are just a representation of how crap their owner is. Unfortunately it seems a lot of deadshits own Pit Bulls. But surely anyone can see the logical conclusion – ban pitbulls and the deadshits will move onto another breed and surprise, you’ll be seeing headlines on how dangerous x dog is.

Perhaps, but the important distinction is that Pit Bulls have a potential to cause greater harm in the event of an attack than many other breeds. Surely you can see how swapping a neglectful dog owner’s Pit Bull for a Blue Heeler (for instance) would reduce the potential for harm?

Like I said, remove the Pit Bulls, you’ll see a rise in some other breed. I dont see that wiping out an entire breed of animal is balanced response to the problem which is what many people are calling for, especially if it’s an emotive based response with little evidence to back it.

I would bet, London to a brick, on, that Pit Bulls (pure bred and part) are disproportionately more likely to attack than any other breed. I do not believe it is all down to the owners.

The Antichrist said :

The Antichrist cannot recall the last headline that said ” Collie viciously attacks and fatally maims a 4 year old child”……or Dalmation or Beagle or Labrador or even Terrier……

But he can recall several with the words “pit-bull” in the headline.

That says it all really. No place in a human or even a humane society for this breed.

Here you go
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/2846739.stm

what_the said :

Erg0 said :

what_the said :

Fact is any dog is dangerous when a deadshit owns it. Treat an animal badly, it will react badly. Generally dogs are just a representation of how crap their owner is. Unfortunately it seems a lot of deadshits own Pit Bulls. But surely anyone can see the logical conclusion – ban pitbulls and the deadshits will move onto another breed and surprise, you’ll be seeing headlines on how dangerous x dog is.

Perhaps, but the important distinction is that Pit Bulls have a potential to cause greater harm in the event of an attack than many other breeds. Surely you can see how swapping a neglectful dog owner’s Pit Bull for a Blue Heeler (for instance) would reduce the potential for harm?

Like I said, remove the Pit Bulls, you’ll see a rise in some other breed. I dont see that wiping out an entire breed of animal is balanced response to the problem which is what many people are calling for, especially if it’s an emotive based response with little evidence to back it.

I’m not sure you’ve grasped my point, which is that other breeds are inherently less dangerous than Pit Bulls, even with a bad owner thrown into the mix.

Aside from that, I don’t agree with your basic stance that any given dog breed has a right to exist. This isn’t an extinction-type scenario, they’re all basically the same animal with certain characteristics created by humans through selective breeding. In this sense, the argument against “wiping out” a breed that is ill-suited to domestication is actually an emotive one.

I got attacked once by a large pit bull while out running. It saw it, and it saw me, from about 200m away, and it came after me. I crossed to the other side of the road and was getting very worried when I finally found a large rock on the ground, with this monster by then just metres away. I have no doubt I’d have been on my way to hospital if that rock hadn’t been there. People who own pit bulls should be subject to the same regulations as someone who wants to own a handgun – and treated the same if they are found in possession of one without a license, or if it ends up out of the yard killing someone.

Erg0 said :

what_the said :

Fact is any dog is dangerous when a deadshit owns it. Treat an animal badly, it will react badly. Generally dogs are just a representation of how crap their owner is. Unfortunately it seems a lot of deadshits own Pit Bulls. But surely anyone can see the logical conclusion – ban pitbulls and the deadshits will move onto another breed and surprise, you’ll be seeing headlines on how dangerous x dog is.

Perhaps, but the important distinction is that Pit Bulls have a potential to cause greater harm in the event of an attack than many other breeds. Surely you can see how swapping a neglectful dog owner’s Pit Bull for a Blue Heeler (for instance) would reduce the potential for harm?

Like I said, remove the Pit Bulls, you’ll see a rise in some other breed. I dont see that wiping out an entire breed of animal is balanced response to the problem which is what many people are calling for, especially if it’s an emotive based response with little evidence to back it.

what_the said :

Fact is any dog is dangerous when a deadshit owns it. Treat an animal badly, it will react badly. Generally dogs are just a representation of how crap their owner is.

The same could be said not only for some owners and their dogs, but some parents and their children. If you raise a dog or a child the right way, they’ll turn out well in the world. If theyre neglected and mistreated, or simply not brought up properly, its hardly their fault they react badly in the world, but their owners or parents.

what_the said :

Fact is any dog is dangerous when a deadshit owns it. Treat an animal badly, it will react badly. Generally dogs are just a representation of how crap their owner is. Unfortunately it seems a lot of deadshits own Pit Bulls. But surely anyone can see the logical conclusion – ban pitbulls and the deadshits will move onto another breed and surprise, you’ll be seeing headlines on how dangerous x dog is.

Perhaps, but the important distinction is that Pit Bulls have a potential to cause greater harm in the event of an attack than many other breeds. Surely you can see how swapping a neglectful dog owner’s Pit Bull for a Blue Heeler (for instance) would reduce the potential for harm?

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Jethro said :

what_the said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

what_the said :

Ok, how about some facts in this one
http://www.gtp.com.au/kidsafeqld/inewsfiles/inews.2773.1.pdf

According to Kidsafe QLD, the highest attacks besides unknown category (which I’m assuming are mixed breeds) are BLUE HEELERS. Yep, the great Aussie mate, BAN EM BAN EM QUICK!! Lets get hysterical!! They constitute 14.3% of the 1200 recorded attacks in WA in 2000. Next come Kelpies (11.1%), Border Collies (6.3%) Bull terriors (6.3%), German Shepards (4.8%), Rottweillers (4.8%) and Dobermans (3.2%), Golden Retrievers (3.2%) and Weimeraners (3.2%)

And what percentage of total dogs do they represent? That is a complete misuse of statistics, but I guess that is the great thing with statistics – torture them enough and they will tell you anything you want.

Yep, those guys at Kidsafe are ruthless twisters of the truth.

I think the point CSFI is making is that they don’t show attacks as a percentage of a dog’s population. eg. Bull terriers and border collies have equal representation in the stats listed, but border collies probably outnumber bull terriers 20 to 1.

Thank you. Yes that is the point – not sure how it could have been missed…

Ease up turbo, no need to get snooty.

Jethro said :

what_the said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

what_the said :

Ok, how about some facts in this one
http://www.gtp.com.au/kidsafeqld/inewsfiles/inews.2773.1.pdf

According to Kidsafe QLD, the highest attacks besides unknown category (which I’m assuming are mixed breeds) are BLUE HEELERS. Yep, the great Aussie mate, BAN EM BAN EM QUICK!! Lets get hysterical!! They constitute 14.3% of the 1200 recorded attacks in WA in 2000. Next come Kelpies (11.1%), Border Collies (6.3%) Bull terriors (6.3%), German Shepards (4.8%), Rottweillers (4.8%) and Dobermans (3.2%), Golden Retrievers (3.2%) and Weimeraners (3.2%)

And what percentage of total dogs do they represent? That is a complete misuse of statistics, but I guess that is the great thing with statistics – torture them enough and they will tell you anything you want.

Yep, those guys at Kidsafe are ruthless twisters of the truth.

I think the point CSFI is making is that they don’t show attacks as a percentage of a dog’s population. eg. Bull terriers and border collies have equal representation in the stats listed, but border collies probably outnumber bull terriers 20 to 1.

I doubt you’d ever find those details without an intensive study into them. These figures just represent 1200 children present at the hospital as a result of a dog attack. It’s just one study, take from it what you will.

Fact is any dog is dangerous when a deadshit owns it. Treat an animal badly, it will react badly. Generally dogs are just a representation of how crap their owner is. Unfortunately it seems a lot of deadshits own Pit Bulls. But surely anyone can see the logical conclusion – ban pitbulls and the deadshits will move onto another breed and surprise, you’ll be seeing headlines on how dangerous x dog is.

Jethro said :

what_the said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

what_the said :

Ok, how about some facts in this one
http://www.gtp.com.au/kidsafeqld/inewsfiles/inews.2773.1.pdf

According to Kidsafe QLD, the highest attacks besides unknown category (which I’m assuming are mixed breeds) are BLUE HEELERS. Yep, the great Aussie mate, BAN EM BAN EM QUICK!! Lets get hysterical!! They constitute 14.3% of the 1200 recorded attacks in WA in 2000. Next come Kelpies (11.1%), Border Collies (6.3%) Bull terriors (6.3%), German Shepards (4.8%), Rottweillers (4.8%) and Dobermans (3.2%), Golden Retrievers (3.2%) and Weimeraners (3.2%)

And what percentage of total dogs do they represent? That is a complete misuse of statistics, but I guess that is the great thing with statistics – torture them enough and they will tell you anything you want.

Yep, those guys at Kidsafe are ruthless twisters of the truth.

I think the point CSFI is making is that they don’t show attacks as a percentage of a dog’s population. eg. Bull terriers and border collies have equal representation in the stats listed, but border collies probably outnumber bull terriers 20 to 1.

Thank you. Yes that is the point – not sure how it could have been missed…

Jethro said :

what_the said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

what_the said :

Ok, how about some facts in this one
http://www.gtp.com.au/kidsafeqld/inewsfiles/inews.2773.1.pdf

According to Kidsafe QLD, the highest attacks besides unknown category (which I’m assuming are mixed breeds) are BLUE HEELERS. Yep, the great Aussie mate, BAN EM BAN EM QUICK!! Lets get hysterical!! They constitute 14.3% of the 1200 recorded attacks in WA in 2000. Next come Kelpies (11.1%), Border Collies (6.3%) Bull terriors (6.3%), German Shepards (4.8%), Rottweillers (4.8%) and Dobermans (3.2%), Golden Retrievers (3.2%) and Weimeraners (3.2%)

And what percentage of total dogs do they represent? That is a complete misuse of statistics, but I guess that is the great thing with statistics – torture them enough and they will tell you anything you want.

Yep, those guys at Kidsafe are ruthless twisters of the truth.

I think the point CSFI is making is that they don’t show attacks as a percentage of a dog’s population. eg. Bull terriers and border collies have equal representation in the stats listed, but border collies probably outnumber bull terriers 20 to 1.

They also don’t assess the severity of the attack, which in the case of a pitbull is invariably horrendous and beyond the ability of the dog’s owner to stop, as was the case in Melbourne

Jethro said :

I think the point CSFI is making is that they don’t show attacks as a percentage of a dog’s population. eg. Bull terriers and border collies have equal representation in the stats listed, but border collies probably outnumber bull terriers 20 to 1.

Quite. It would also be more meaningful, in the context of this discussion, to have a breed-by-breed breakdown of the 18% of cases which actually required emergency room admission.

what_the said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

what_the said :

Ok, how about some facts in this one
http://www.gtp.com.au/kidsafeqld/inewsfiles/inews.2773.1.pdf

According to Kidsafe QLD, the highest attacks besides unknown category (which I’m assuming are mixed breeds) are BLUE HEELERS. Yep, the great Aussie mate, BAN EM BAN EM QUICK!! Lets get hysterical!! They constitute 14.3% of the 1200 recorded attacks in WA in 2000. Next come Kelpies (11.1%), Border Collies (6.3%) Bull terriors (6.3%), German Shepards (4.8%), Rottweillers (4.8%) and Dobermans (3.2%), Golden Retrievers (3.2%) and Weimeraners (3.2%)

And what percentage of total dogs do they represent? That is a complete misuse of statistics, but I guess that is the great thing with statistics – torture them enough and they will tell you anything you want.

Yep, those guys at Kidsafe are ruthless twisters of the truth.

I think the point CSFI is making is that they don’t show attacks as a percentage of a dog’s population. eg. Bull terriers and border collies have equal representation in the stats listed, but border collies probably outnumber bull terriers 20 to 1.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

what_the said :

Ok, how about some facts in this one
http://www.gtp.com.au/kidsafeqld/inewsfiles/inews.2773.1.pdf

According to Kidsafe QLD, the highest attacks besides unknown category (which I’m assuming are mixed breeds) are BLUE HEELERS. Yep, the great Aussie mate, BAN EM BAN EM QUICK!! Lets get hysterical!! They constitute 14.3% of the 1200 recorded attacks in WA in 2000. Next come Kelpies (11.1%), Border Collies (6.3%) Bull terriors (6.3%), German Shepards (4.8%), Rottweillers (4.8%) and Dobermans (3.2%), Golden Retrievers (3.2%) and Weimeraners (3.2%)

And what percentage of total dogs do they represent? That is a complete misuse of statistics, but I guess that is the great thing with statistics – torture them enough and they will tell you anything you want.

Yep, those guys at Kidsafe are ruthless twisters of the truth.

what_the said :

Ok, how about some facts in this one
http://www.gtp.com.au/kidsafeqld/inewsfiles/inews.2773.1.pdf

According to Kidsafe QLD, the highest attacks besides unknown category (which I’m assuming are mixed breeds) are BLUE HEELERS. Yep, the great Aussie mate, BAN EM BAN EM QUICK!! Lets get hysterical!! They constitute 14.3% of the 1200 recorded attacks in WA in 2000. Next come Kelpies (11.1%), Border Collies (6.3%) Bull terriors (6.3%), German Shepards (4.8%), Rottweillers (4.8%) and Dobermans (3.2%), Golden Retrievers (3.2%) and Weimeraners (3.2%)

And what percentage of total dogs do they represent? That is a complete misuse of statistics, but I guess that is the great thing with statistics – torture them enough and they will tell you anything you want.

Ok, how about some facts in this one
http://www.gtp.com.au/kidsafeqld/inewsfiles/inews.2773.1.pdf

According to Kidsafe QLD, the highest attacks besides unknown category (which I’m assuming are mixed breeds) are BLUE HEELERS. Yep, the great Aussie mate, BAN EM BAN EM QUICK!! Lets get hysterical!! They constitute 14.3% of the 1200 recorded attacks in WA in 2000. Next come Kelpies (11.1%), Border Collies (6.3%) Bull terriors (6.3%), German Shepards (4.8%), Rottweillers (4.8%) and Dobermans (3.2%), Golden Retrievers (3.2%) and Weimeraners (3.2%)

By law:

Any deemed dangerous dog breed (a), or identified (b) or sold (c) , or described (d) as a dangerous dog breed shall:

must not be sold: and
not be mentioned as such in any as commercial advertisement; and
must be microchipped;
must be tattoed with an owners details in the ear; and
must wear a current dog tag at all times; and
may not be taken in the public unless taken to the vet or dogs home: and
must be kept at dingo proof cage at the owners residence 23 hours out of 24.

Penalty: $20,000 and/or 6 months jail.

The Antichrist said :

The Antichrist cannot recall the last headline that said ” Collie viciously attacks and fatally maims a 4 year old child”……or Dalmation or Beagle or Labrador or even Terrier…..

Weve got a Rottweiler and a Labrador. Honestly, when feeding the dogs by hand, the rottie is much more gentle than the Lab. Its all to do with how you train them.

Its interesting how someone can say lets ban a certain dog because of its dangerous history, but if someone was to say ‘lets lock up black men between 15 and 25 “because of their dangerous history”, would you have a problem with that? Or what about if there was a law passed that anyone from the middle east should be locked up because theyre a terrorist.. whether they are or not, lets just lock em up and destroy them just in case, because otherwise it might be your 4 year old who gets mauled or shot by a gang or blown up by a terrorist.

shadow boxer, as for the Magpies, have you never seen a magpie ‘go next door’ from its nest, and aggressively swoop at animals and people? Theyre indiscriminate, theyll sit in their tree and attack anything that moves. What about we ban magpies… Ive seen some fairly serious injuries from them. Infact, Ive been swooped by magpies way more times than Ive been bitten by pitbulls, infact, way more times than Ive been bitten by any dog.

Note, I dont actually advocate the banning of any animals or humans, Im just trying to point out how stupid it is to try and ban an entire race or breed, based on the history of some of its blood relations.

Any dog can attack if badly trained – owners of violent animals should have larger fines/jail terms for allowing their pets the freedom to harm or kill. One does wonder at the mentality of someone who wants to own a dog breed that is bred for violence. Small something syndrome?

Quite a few years ago I used to run with my neighbour’s collie over a few years. One evening during winter a bloke was chatting to his neighbour or a visitor on the driveway. Two dobermans raced across the road with teeth barred (one snarling and baling up Charlie the Collie and one baling me up). We froze and said nothing. Charlie made eye contact with the more aggressive dog yet remained still. Being an older dog he may have encountered other situations with aggressive dogs and knew it was best not to react. I slowly turned my back in order to call out to its owners so that my face and frontal would not suffer the attack.

The owner laughed and jeered with his mate (in their mid 30’s) calling both dogs back. Only the black doberman obeyed, the gold dog remaining to taunt Charlie. A second call by the owner and he/she retreated. I quickly headed in the opposite direction with Charlie and avoided the street over following months. Despite a complaint nothing was done. A for sale sign appeared months later and after it was sold I allowed a few weeks and sometimes cut through the street again.

A working colleague told me that one of those dogs was put down after attacking a small dog in the same suburb. The black doberman lived.

We all know that the responsibility fully rests with all dog owners.

just ban kids?

Wish i could vote for both options. Happy to see the dogs disappear, but for mine, dog owners are frequently the most insensitive and selfish people on the planet. I assume it’s the bad apples giving everyone else a bad name, but gosh there seem to be more than a few of them. Still, to me it’s part of the price of living with other humans in society that we tolerate each others’ lifestyles, so i wouldn’t stop others owning reasonable dogs. But why anyone in Canberra needs to own pitbulls and other provenly savage dogs is beyond me. Pitbulls don’t kill kids, selfish macho fkwits do. If we could ban them both I would! (Incoming…)

The Antichrist said :

The Antichrist cannot recall the last headline that said ” Collie viciously attacks and fatally maims a 4 year old child”……or Dalmation or Beagle or Labrador or even Terrier……

But he can recall several with the words “pit-bull” in the headline.

That says it all really. No place in a human or even a humane society for this breed.

Wow.

Just… wow.

Let’s see how many completely unfounded assumptions you’re making:
1. That the media reports every single dog attack ever, without bias towards particular breeds.
2. That you manage to be aware of every media report on dog attacks.
3. That you manage to remember every single media report on dog attacks you see, without bias towards which ones you remember better.
4. That the media does not make mistakes about which breed of dog they’re talking about.
5. That when the media incorrectly report the breed of dog, they always publish a correction.
6. That you always read said corrections, and automatically remove from your memory the original article which had the mistake.
7. That because some dogs of a particular breed have been shown to do bad things, that every single member of the breed does not deserve to exist.

I’m not a fan of pitbulls but don’t believe they should ban them.
I’ve had encounters with good and bad pitbulls unfortunately more bad than good First was when I was 13 and one broke through a chicken wire enclosure to kill our family male Pom and left the 2 females alone and second was a red nose pitbull attacking my then 9 month old rottweiler while he was sitting at my partner side on a leash, which has left my rottweiler now 6years even after socialization with other dogs and training at times aggressive towards if they arc up at him first, meaning we can no longer take him to dog parks or off leash anywhere prior to this attack he was awesome with all dogs and small animals and all 3 rottweilers & one jack Russell I’ve owned over the last 10years have all grown up with my kids but in saying that would not leave other children unsupervised with my dogs and the worst one was the jack.

All breeds are capable of being dangerous it just the size and jaw strength that make some breeds more fatal to humans.
Restricted laws on whom may own pit bulls may help reduce attacks but highly doubtful they will stop.

The Antichrist cannot recall the last headline that said ” Collie viciously attacks and fatally maims a 4 year old child”……or Dalmation or Beagle or Labrador or even Terrier……

But he can recall several with the words “pit-bull” in the headline.

That says it all really. No place in a human or even a humane society for this breed.

if only we could ban jerks…

Calamity said :

“We’d like to see regulations that exist in NSW – deeming that dogs of pitbull heritage must be temperament-assessed by a licensed assessor – adopted nationally,” he said in a statement.

“This ensures that restrictions are placed on dogs in relation to the way they are kept and where the dog can go.”

Seems like a smart option to me?

Tooks said :

Frustrated said :

My dog was almost torn apart by Pitbulls back in 2007. Owner didn’t have them on leash and they chased my dog from 100metres away unprovoked.

Ban the bred I say. Owners problems or not

They were bred for fighting after all, they are not family pets

I’ve seen and heard of numerous other breeds doing the same.

Ok… so maybe there needs to be a focus on changing our current dog ownership rules in general. If a dog is reported to authorities as acting in a dangerous manner it should be assessed. Doesn’t need to be breed specific.

Frustrated said :

My dog was almost torn apart by Pitbulls back in 2007. Owner didn’t have them on leash and they chased my dog from 100metres away unprovoked.

Ban the bred I say. Owners problems or not

They were bred for fighting after all, they are not family pets

I’ve seen and heard of numerous other breeds doing the same.

My dog was almost torn apart by Pitbulls back in 2007. Owner didn’t have them on leash and they chased my dog from 100metres away unprovoked.

Ban the bred I say. Owners problems or not

They were bred for fighting after all, they are not family pets

shadow boxer said :

Tooks said :

Stevian said :

Pitbulls are purpose built killing machines, specifically bred to be thrown into a pit (hence the name) and fight to the death. Since they serve no other purpose why would you want one? The owners are to blame, put them down with their dogs……….in the pit

That’s brilliant. Rhodesian Ridgebacks were originally used for hunting lions, let’s ban them too as that’s all they are capable of.

Sigh, there is a difference between a humting dog and a fighting dog, there is also a difference between what we could breed 100 years ago and what the pit bull idiots did.

The list of dangerous dogs in NSW is here.

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Restricted_and_Dangerous_Dogs_in_NSW_-_Brochure.pdf

*Sigh* you missed my point.

I was horrified to see the news article and surprising to see that there are people who are in support for these wild dogs as pets. Our neighbour’s dog is out in the backyard the whole day and barks constantly , we are thinking of speaking to the neighbour but not sure how they will take it . Appreciate you opinion the best way to deal with this situation.

Tooks said :

Stevian said :

Pitbulls are purpose built killing machines, specifically bred to be thrown into a pit (hence the name) and fight to the death. Since they serve no other purpose why would you want one? The owners are to blame, put them down with their dogs……….in the pit

That’s brilliant. Rhodesian Ridgebacks were originally used for hunting lions, let’s ban them too as that’s all they are capable of.

Sigh, there is a difference between a humting dog and a fighting dog, there is also a difference between what we could breed 100 years ago and what the pit bull idiots did.

The list of dangerous dogs in NSW is here.

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Restricted_and_Dangerous_Dogs_in_NSW_-_Brochure.pdf

Stevian said :

Pitbulls are purpose built killing machines, specifically bred to be thrown into a pit (hence the name) and fight to the death. Since they serve no other purpose why would you want one? The owners are to blame, put them down with their dogs……….in the pit

That’s brilliant. Rhodesian Ridgebacks were originally used for hunting lions, let’s ban them too as that’s all they are capable of.

shadow boxer said :

The_TaxMan said :

Many breeds have had their time in the ‘media’ sun touted as dangerous and vicious, Staffordfshire Bull Terriers, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Bull Terriers and Pit Bulls are the most common mentioned. My biggest problem is that in most cases when you see the dog in question it is clearly NOT the dog specified but a mongrel cross breed but let’s not let the truth get in the way of a good story, the dog that killed the child called a Pit Bull the fact is it is NOT a Pit Bull.

Those calling for the killing of dogs and owners where do you stop? if you are going to kill Pit Bulls why not Staffys & Bull terriers as well? oh and how about we completely ban St. Francis terriers.

My sympathy goes to all the people affected by this tragedy.

It was a pit bull-mastiff cross, if you don’t think that is a dangerous breed of dog I don’t know what to say to you.

Bull Mastiffs and Pitbulls are not generally aggressive towards people; in fact, Bull Mastiffs are generally very placid. Aggression towards people in even a fighting Pitbull has always been an undesirable trait:

Historically, humans were always in the pit, handling fighting dogs closely, while the animals were in full fight drive. A dog that was a danger to people and prone to biting was not feasible, and therefore carefully selected against.

I’m not for or against Pitbulls, but the breed blame game takes the focus off who is really at fault – and that is the owner.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/calls-for-more-action-on-pitbulls/story-e6frfku0-1226117378840

“We’d like to see regulations that exist in NSW – deeming that dogs of pitbull heritage must be temperament-assessed by a licensed assessor – adopted nationally,” he said in a statement.

“This ensures that restrictions are placed on dogs in relation to the way they are kept and where the dog can go.”

Seems like a smart option to me?

Stevian said :

Calamity said :

Stevian said :

Pitbulls are purpose built killing machines, specifically bred to be thrown into a pit (hence the name) and fight to the death. Since they serve no other purpose why would you want one? The owners are to blame, put them down with their dogs……….in the pit

Dogs don’t need to have a purpose. They’re companions.

Dogs as companion animals is a purpose. Why do you want to own an uncontrollable killing machine?

Alas, some wankers obviously want to own one because they are tough – as though that somehow reflects on their deadsh!t owner. Happy to acknowledge that! No contest.
BUT a lot of people own pitbulls because they genuinely love the breed and because, when trained correctly, they’re lovely dogs like any other.

And that’s the issue. This breed dog is capable of very bad things – agree. This breed of dog is a lost cause and all of them are ruthless killing machines – disagree.

Calamity said :

Stevian said :

Pitbulls are purpose built killing machines, specifically bred to be thrown into a pit (hence the name) and fight to the death. Since they serve no other purpose why would you want one? The owners are to blame, put them down with their dogs……….in the pit

Dogs don’t need to have a purpose. They’re companions.

Dogs as companion animals is a purpose. Why do you want to own an uncontrollable killing machine?

Jethro said :

I think it is disingenuous to say that all dogs can be dangerous, so we shouldn’t have restrictions on certain breeds.

Sure, every dog has the potential to bite, but certain breeds of dogs (such as pitbulls) are bred to have strong prey drives and will instinctively go for small fluffy dogs as per my OP. Similarly, certain breeds (such as pitbulls) are selectively bred to have very strong jaws and to clamp their jaws shut once they get ahold of prey. They are inherently more dangerous than a yappy Shitzhu, which might cause a few puncture wounds but isn’t going to kill a child by crushing its skull.

+1 – What I was trying to get across. Yes, all dogs can be dangerous but obviously some are capable of doing a lot more harm and as such, should be more closely monitored.

I think it is disingenuous to say that all dogs can be dangerous, so we shouldn’t have restrictions on certain breeds.

Sure, every dog has the potential to bite, but certain breeds of dogs (such as pitbulls) are bred to have strong prey drives and will instinctively go for small fluffy dogs as per my OP. Similarly, certain breeds (such as pitbulls) are selectively bred to have very strong jaws and to clamp their jaws shut once they get ahold of prey. They are inherently more dangerous than a yappy Shitzhu, which might cause a few puncture wounds but isn’t going to kill a child by crushing its skull.

shadow boxer said :

Very true Calamity, unfortunately some idiots bred these ones for a purpose.

Where di that RSPCA bloke go, I was looking forward to giving him a good old internet slapping.

Yup, suppose my point was in response to Stevian’s ‘That is their bred purpose. If it’s not for that purpose – Why else would you want one?’ – I know a lot of people who own huskys and whom don’t do a hell of a lot of dog sledding.

Very true Calamity, unfortunately some idiots bred these ones for a purpose.

Where di that RSPCA bloke go, I was looking forward to giving him a good old internet slapping.

shadow boxer said :

It is when that breed has been specifically and deliberately bred by humans to be as aggressive and lethal as we can we can make it, it’s not the individual dogs fault but a dog genetically engineered to fight and kill other dogs has no place in civilised society.

As for the “guns don’t kill people defence”, clearly ridiculous.

I don’t know how I can make my point any clearer, but I’ll try.

Pit bulls, like many other fighting breeds, were bred to be generally aggressive towards other animals, but NOT humans, because human-aggressive dogs are dangerous for the handler.
Anyone [i]currently[/i] trying to breed aggression towards humans into any breed of dog should be banned from breeding animals, period. (Notice how I said that up there?) Animals bred for human aggression need to be rehomed with a highly skilled animal trainer, permanently muzzled or else possibly euthanised.

If you’re going to start banning whole breeds of dog due to detrimental genetic selection, you’d better not forget Rhodesian Ridgeback breeders who cull ridge-less puppies, because dogs with ridges are predisposed to spinal diseases, and Pug breeders who breed for super-curly tails, which also is likely to result in spinal deformities compared to a straighter-tailed dog. Or how about German Shepherds bred with bad hips to make them look like they have sloping back in the show ring?

Stevian said :

Pitbulls are purpose built killing machines, specifically bred to be thrown into a pit (hence the name) and fight to the death. Since they serve no other purpose why would you want one? The owners are to blame, put them down with their dogs……….in the pit

Dogs don’t need to have a purpose. They’re companions.

This is what they look like. http://tinyurl.com/3ar8t88

qbngeek said :

shadow boxer said :

It was a pit bull-mastiff cross, if you don’t think that is a dangerous breed of dog I don’t know what to say to you.

What do you consider dangerous?? I consider small dogs to be dangerous.

I spent my teenage years around Maltese Terriers, I think they are far more dangerous. I was bitten bythem several time but my moron step-father swore they were harmless. I now own English Mastiffs and they are the most placid, relaxed an loving dogs you could hope for. Would I leave them alone with my 2 year old….don’t be stupid…but would I allow either of my children anywhere near Maltese Terriers, chihuahuas or any of the other little yappy pissant breeds….not on your life.

I can assure you that you would change your mind if you were bitten several times by an American Pit Bull 😉

rebcart said :

shadow boxer said :

Fair dinkum, I have never known a pond, window or magpie to escape from the neighbours yard, go next door and maul a 4 year old child to death.

And you think my logic is flawed…….

It’s not the pond’s fault that it contain enough water to drown a child. It’s not the window’s fault that it’s an imperfect barrier between itself and the outside world. It’s not the magpie’s fault that it doesn’t know whether to trust the child or not near its eggs, and errs on the side of caution. And it’s certainly not the fault of all ponds, all windows or all magpies that this might happen to a few individual ones.

The fact is, it’s not the fault of the BREED of dog for why it attacked. Either it was inherently human aggressive, in which case it’s the fault of the specific breeders for being utter idiots (why would you want to breed an animal that automatically attacks any human? it’ll turn on you super fast… ) and they should be banned from breeding dogs. Or, that specific dog was taught to attack humans, through lack of socialisation and bite inhibition training, or through fear, or through direct encouragement to attack – in which case, that’s very specifically the owner’s fault for obtaining an animal and not making it a good canine citizen, and they should be severely punished through jail or banning from owning animals.

It’s not the breed’s fault.

It is when that breed has been specifically and deliberately bred by humans to be as aggressive and lethal as we can we can make it, it’s not the individual dogs fault but a dog genetically engineered to fight and kill other dogs has no place in civilised society.

As for the “guns don’t kill people defence”, clearly ridiculous.

damien haas said:

“I see many greyhounds walking with muzzles attached, perhaps mandating muzzles for pitbulls would be better than killing, which is what banning’ really means, peoples pets.”
——————————————————————————-
The reason that in some jurisdictions greyhounds wear muzzles in public has nothing to do with thembeing a danger to humans. I’m pretty sure there is not a single human death attributed to a greyhound in Australia, and very few injuries.

Its because they are sight-hounds, ie they react to small, fast moving, fluffy objects (like rabbits, cats and small fluffy dogs) by chasing and trying to catch them in their mouths. That would be why they follow the lure on the racetrack. However, many jurisdictions have recognised that this is OTT and muzzles are no longer required.

If you have ever met a pet greyhound, you will know that they are one of the least aggressive breeds around humans, and in no way comparable to the fighting breeds or even working breeds on that scale.

shadow boxer said :

It was a pit bull-mastiff cross, if you don’t think that is a dangerous breed of dog I don’t know what to say to you.

What do you consider dangerous?? I consider small dogs to be dangerous.

I spent my teenage years around Maltese Terriers, I think they are far more dangerous. I was bitten bythem several time but my moron step-father swore they were harmless. I now own English Mastiffs and they are the most placid, relaxed an loving dogs you could hope for. Would I leave them alone with my 2 year old….don’t be stupid…but would I allow either of my children anywhere near Maltese Terriers, chihuahuas or any of the other little yappy pissant breeds….not on your life.

So we jump straight to ‘banning’.

I see many greyhounds walking with muzzles attached, perhaps mandating muzzles for pitbulls would be better than killing, which is what banning’ really means, peoples pets.

In most instances its the owners fault when a dog attacks. Poor fences, poor gates, no training – theres a number of variables at play. Many breeds of dog are unsuitable to have around children – usually because the dog has been bred for a different function but it becomes fashionable to own.

shadow boxer said :

Fair dinkum, I have never known a pond, window or magpie to escape from the neighbours yard, go next door and maul a 4 year old child to death.

And you think my logic is flawed…….

It’s not the pond’s fault that it contain enough water to drown a child. It’s not the window’s fault that it’s an imperfect barrier between itself and the outside world. It’s not the magpie’s fault that it doesn’t know whether to trust the child or not near its eggs, and errs on the side of caution. And it’s certainly not the fault of all ponds, all windows or all magpies that this might happen to a few individual ones.

The fact is, it’s not the fault of the BREED of dog for why it attacked. Either it was inherently human aggressive, in which case it’s the fault of the specific breeders for being utter idiots (why would you want to breed an animal that automatically attacks any human? it’ll turn on you super fast… ) and they should be banned from breeding dogs. Or, that specific dog was taught to attack humans, through lack of socialisation and bite inhibition training, or through fear, or through direct encouragement to attack – in which case, that’s very specifically the owner’s fault for obtaining an animal and not making it a good canine citizen, and they should be severely punished through jail or banning from owning animals.

It’s not the breed’s fault.

Here’s the link of what actually happened

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-18/dog-pulled-girl-from-mothers-leg/2845390

Tooks said :

A mongrel dog kills a kid and it’s labelled a pitbull? When in doubt, call it a pitbull cross. Breeds aren’t the problem, owners are.

– If you don’t socialise your dog regularly (with dogs and people) from a young age, you are an idiot
– If you don’t have an escape-proof yard for your dog, you are an idiot
– If you allow your dog to roam, you are an idiot
– If you walk your badly trained dog off lead, you are an idiot

…leading me to believe many dog owners are idiots. Don’t ban breeds, ban certain people from owning dogs of any kind.

Totally agree with this comment:

I’ve seen so many people in Canberra who cannot control their dogs, either off or on the lead. I see people being pulled along by their dogs, without having proper control or strength to control these animals. What is to stop that tugging dog from launching itself at a cyclist/child or anyone. I’ve always had border collies, which I have thoroughly trained to walk by my side and would never approach a stranger without being told they can. It is always the responsibility of the animal owner to correctly train and handle their dogs. If people cannot correctly control or train their dogs, then they should not own them.

The_TaxMan said :

Many breeds have had their time in the ‘media’ sun touted as dangerous and vicious, Staffordfshire Bull Terriers, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Bull Terriers and Pit Bulls are the most common mentioned. My biggest problem is that in most cases when you see the dog in question it is clearly NOT the dog specified but a mongrel cross breed but let’s not let the truth get in the way of a good story, the dog that killed the child called a Pit Bull the fact is it is NOT a Pit Bull.

Those calling for the killing of dogs and owners where do you stop? if you are going to kill Pit Bulls why not Staffys & Bull terriers as well? oh and how about we completely ban St. Francis terriers.

My sympathy goes to all the people affected by this tragedy.

It was a pit bull-mastiff cross, if you don’t think that is a dangerous breed of dog I don’t know what to say to you.

Maybe we need to hold owners responsible for the actions of their animals.

rebcart said :

shadow boxer said :

The pit bull was selectively bred to be aggressive and lethal, that is why it exists, good owners may be able to control them but most average dog owners can’t (or won’t).

More children will die until they are banned.

Kids wander away from parents and drown in ponds. Ponds should be banned. Or parents taking their eyes off kids, EVER, even to sleep, should be banned.
Kids accidentally fall out of apartment windows. Families being allowed to live in houses with windows above ground level, or the ability to open windows, or both, should be banned.
Kids get attacked by angry magpies, which swoop to protect their nests. All magpies ever should be banned.

I like your logic.

Fair dinkum, I have never known a pond, window or magpie to escape from the neighbours yard, go next door and maul a 4 year old child to death.

And you think my logic is flawed…….

Keep the dog, euthanise the owner for not taking responsibility of their pet.

Many breeds have had their time in the ‘media’ sun touted as dangerous and vicious, Staffordfshire Bull Terriers, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Bull Terriers and Pit Bulls are the most common mentioned. My biggest problem is that in most cases when you see the dog in question it is clearly NOT the dog specified but a mongrel cross breed but let’s not let the truth get in the way of a good story, the dog that killed the child called a Pit Bull the fact is it is NOT a Pit Bull.

Those calling for the killing of dogs and owners where do you stop? if you are going to kill Pit Bulls why not Staffys & Bull terriers as well? oh and how about we completely ban St. Francis terriers.

My sympathy goes to all the people affected by this tragedy.

shadow boxer said :

agreed, just as there are bad owners with fireworks there are bad owners with dogs.

That said a bad owner with a 3 inch mortar is far more dangerous that a bad owner with a sparkler.

The pit bull was selectively bred to be aggressive and lethal, that is why it exists, good owners may be able to control them but most average dog owners can’t (or won’t).

More children will die until they are banned.

know what you are talking about go have a look at wiki or a breeders page

“The APBT is a breed that is loyal to friends and family, and is generally friendly towards strangers. Many have strong instincts to chase and seize cats and other fleeing creatures, including deer and livestock (prey drive).[7] As with any dog breed, proper training and socialization at an early age is a must. According to the UKC, “aggressive behavior toward humans is uncharacteristic of the breed and highly undesirable.”[8]”

they are bred for size and speed; and are have lovely temperaments and are great with kids. most dogs must be trained and brutalised for dog fighting to make them aggressive enough. earlier in the breeds history they where strongly recommend as family dogs because of how friendly and loyal they are especially towards children.

Having owned and know a few of the breed (more towards staffis) the main problem is they are heavy, over friendly, and cant stop when they run towards someone new to say hello and end up running into walls/furniture and in most hands make fairly poor guard dogs due to being overly friendly to everyone.

I fucking hate how people CHOOSE to OWN ANIMALS, whatever the type, and keep them in their living spaces in the community and with their family….. and EXPECT these animals to behave exactly how we would like them to (in accordance with what is deemed appropriate ‘humanlike’ behaviour)

for f***s sake, they arent humans. they dont know what they are doing, let alone understand what is defined as “right” and “wrong” in our human society.

they are ANIMALS. I am an absolute animal lover and they are all precious regardless of their breed or temperaments….. they act on natural instinct, and are not responsible for acting in the way nature intended them to.

If people want to have cute little pets like dogs living with them or as a part of our norm, then deal with the fact that you can train the hell out of these animals but in the end, they are always going to have the potential to act unpredictably.

its your gamble if you have a pet animal. to simply want to ban one breed over another is absurd…. sure one may be known to be more dangerous to us, but any dog can be fucking dangerous really.

ban pitbulls. but if you are going to do that for such reasons, ban all animals.

cats kill native birds. lets ban them.

humans kill other people. lets ban them.

this might sound too black and white, but seriously… i am sick to death of hearing people rant about the dangers of certain animals, and suggesting the easy solution of “lets KILL THEM!”. its like when a dog mauls a child and the law says we must euthanise the dog.

wtf. its a dog. expect a dog to act like a dog. why kill it for being a dog with dog instincts?

i say humans deserve to be attacked… because really, we are the morons for choosing to live with other species which do not understand how our constructed world works on a more complex scale.

and yes, i have had pets. and i own two rabbits at the moment. if my rabbit decides to chew my face off, i will not be calling the authorities to kill my vicious rabbit. i will take the blame for deciding to keep this creature in my living space. it is MY fault. not the animals.

end of f***ing rant.

shadow boxer said :

The pit bull was selectively bred to be aggressive and lethal, that is why it exists, good owners may be able to control them but most average dog owners can’t (or won’t).

More children will die until they are banned.

Kids wander away from parents and drown in ponds. Ponds should be banned. Or parents taking their eyes off kids, EVER, even to sleep, should be banned.
Kids accidentally fall out of apartment windows. Families being allowed to live in houses with windows above ground level, or the ability to open windows, or both, should be banned.
Kids get attacked by angry magpies, which swoop to protect their nests. All magpies ever should be banned.

I like your logic.

My chihuahua fancies himself as a specially-bred lethal killing machine, but I don’t think even he would wander into a strange house and start attacking people. It would be good to hear a bit more about this situation.

I met some dogs at a friend’s house a while back, and I don’t know what pit bulls look like, but these dogs had horrible eyes, and I didn’t trust them at all. I asked if they had any american pit bull in them, and yep, they did.

agreed, just as there are bad owners with fireworks there are bad owners with dogs.

That said a bad owner with a 3 inch mortar is far more dangerous that a bad owner with a sparkler.

The pit bull was selectively bred to be aggressive and lethal, that is why it exists, good owners may be able to control them but most average dog owners can’t (or won’t).

More children will die until they are banned.

Pitbulls are purpose built killing machines, specifically bred to be thrown into a pit (hence the name) and fight to the death. Since they serve no other purpose why would you want one? The owners are to blame, put them down with their dogs……….in the pit

fgzk said :

Jethro said :

Tooks said :

A mongrel dog kills a kid and it’s labelled a pitbull? When in doubt, call it a pitbull cross. Breeds aren’t the problem, owners are.

I would suggest that people who own these type of dogs tend to be on the less responsible side of the spectrum.

Maybe they may also not have the resources to properly contain and control their dogs. Keeping certain breeds of dog contained can defeat even the most dedicated fencer. Banning breeds of dog wont stop mans best friend from getting into trouble. An 8ft, wire topped, trenched and buried wire mesh fence wont stop a Husky escaping to kill other dogs. Individually putting down problem dogs is the way to go.

The only problem with that is that you need to wait for the attack before you can determine the problem dogs.

Jethro said :

Tooks said :

A mongrel dog kills a kid and it’s labelled a pitbull? When in doubt, call it a pitbull cross. Breeds aren’t the problem, owners are.

I would suggest that people who own these type of dogs tend to be on the less responsible side of the spectrum.

Maybe they may also not have the resources to properly contain and control their dogs. Keeping certain breeds of dog contained can defeat even the most dedicated fencer. Banning breeds of dog wont stop mans best friend from getting into trouble. An 8ft, wire topped, trenched and buried wire mesh fence wont stop a Husky escaping to kill other dogs. Individually putting down problem dogs is the way to go.

pinklink said :

The President of RSPCA in Canberra actually owns a Chihuahua. The CEO, me, has a pit bull and a number of cats – all living happily together.

What happened in Melbourne is an absolute tragedy and no family should ever have to suffer this unthinkable type of trauma.

There is no place in Australian society, any society for that matter, for dangerous dogs.

I agree for the most part, however one should realise that all dogs can be dangerous and it is generally the owner who is at fault for not properley training the dog. I dont know the whole melbourne story but i could easily say that the family involved did not care for the dog properly or they abused it.

When I was 10 I was mauled (fortunately only on the back of the head, so no visible scars) by a Dalmatian. I don’t see calls to ban them. Any dog can be vicious if untrained (or, of course, trained to be vicious, which is too often done with pitbulls). Watch Cesar Milan’s pitbulls and see what great dogs they can be in the right hands.

What happened to this little girl is of course a tragedy.

Tooks said :

A mongrel dog kills a kid and it’s labelled a pitbull? When in doubt, call it a pitbull cross. Breeds aren’t the problem, owners are.

I would suggest that people who own these type of dogs tend to be on the less responsible side of the spectrum.

I will note that the ‘time to ban’ and poll options were added by the ed. I’m not calling for a ban, just tighter controls on their breeding and ownership.

shadow boxer said :

And you don’t believe a pitbull, a dog deliberately and systematically bred to be as as agressive and lethal as possible is inherently dangerous ?

I always find it interesting to look at the puzzled looks on peoples faces as they try to comprehend how their dog could do such a thing.

It’s nearly as silly as banning fireworks because people cant follow the law and control their dog for one weekend a year

Not really. Is there any real evidence to suggest they are?

And you don’t believe a pitbull, a dog deliberately and systematically bred to be as as agressive and lethal as possible is inherently dangerous ?

I always find it interesting to look at the puzzled looks on peoples faces as they try to comprehend how their dog could do such a thing.

It’s nearly as silly as banning fireworks because people cant follow the law and control their dog for one weekend a year

A mongrel dog kills a kid and it’s labelled a pitbull? When in doubt, call it a pitbull cross. Breeds aren’t the problem, owners are.

– If you don’t socialise your dog regularly (with dogs and people) from a young age, you are an idiot
– If you don’t have an escape-proof yard for your dog, you are an idiot
– If you allow your dog to roam, you are an idiot
– If you walk your badly trained dog off lead, you are an idiot

…leading me to believe many dog owners are idiots. Don’t ban breeds, ban certain people from owning dogs of any kind.

Kill them.

The President of RSPCA in Canberra actually owns a Chihuahua. The CEO, me, has a pit bull and a number of cats – all living happily together.

What happened in Melbourne is an absolute tragedy and no family should ever have to suffer this unthinkable type of trauma.

There is no place in Australian society, any society for that matter, for dangerous dogs.

KB1971 said :

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-17/dog-kills-melbourne-toddler/2844178

Did you read the article on the ABC website? It wasnt a pit bull per say but a pit bull cross mastiff aparrently (no photo’s to back this up though). Who is to say tha mastiff part of the dog didn’t maul the child? It should be stated that the dog is a cross breed, not a pit bull. I have seen this before by the media. It also could have been bred for the purposes of hunting & escaped my mistake.

We currently have an issue with two dogs from up the street that live in the ferals house. They bail up people at the bus stop on both sides of the street, even kids. Complete PITA they are & if I was allowed to I would have shot them both in the arse with the slug gun to send them home.

Guess what they are? Bloody Shitzu’s!!!!! Small dogs can be just as agressive.

Disclaimer: I voted “Blame the owners” because there was nothing about the media misrepresenting a breed in the poll.

Totally agree – Any other breed of dog can be just as aggressive, however many simply don’t have the physical strength and capability to inflict the level of harm that a pitbull (or similar breed) can.

So me thinks surely there should be some middle ground here. There has to be an acceptance of the fact that this particular breed of dog is not an evil creature bent on killing toddlers – but unfortunately it is more than capable of doing so.

I don’t have a fully formed solution, but I suppose there needs to be some monitoring of this breed of dog. Who owns one, what for, has it been trained, how is it contained, etc. Perhaps it should be a case of – if you want one, you’re entitled, but you need to meet certain criteria to be ‘allowed’ to keep one.

It’s a fuzzy idea. But in any case, I don’t think we should be condeming pitbulls everywhere as evil killing machines.

shadow boxer said :

Doesn’t the President of our fireworks banning RSPCA own one ?

Aparrently, my wife mentioned to me this morning.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-17/dog-kills-melbourne-toddler/2844178

Did you read the article on the ABC website? It wasnt a pit bull per say but a pit bull cross mastiff aparrently (no photo’s to back this up though). Who is to say tha mastiff part of the dog didn’t maul the child? It should be stated that the dog is a cross breed, not a pit bull. I have seen this before by the media. It also could have been bred for the purposes of hunting & escaped my mistake.

We currently have an issue with two dogs from up the street that live in the ferals house. They bail up people at the bus stop on both sides of the street, even kids. Complete PITA they are & if I was allowed to I would have shot them both in the arse with the slug gun to send them home.

Guess what they are? Bloody Shitzu’s!!!!! Small dogs can be just as agressive.

Disclaimer: I voted “Blame the owners” because there was nothing about the media misrepresenting a breed in the poll.

Doesn’t the President of our fireworks banning RSPCA own one ?

There should be a third option in the poll:
Dog and owner should be euthanized as blights on society.