Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: BANNING dangerous dog breeds would not prevent dog bites

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lala View Post
    Her and I had a chat about BSL where I voraciously defended pitbull types and she just would not listen. When we had our pitty whippet x, she wouldn't let him anywhere nearher, despite the fact he was a pup and was constantly lecturing me about the dog. My brother also currently has a pitbull/rotty mix (not the ideal mix of breeds IMHO as they both need a firm hand, but it doesnt make it n evil dog) who thus far seems to be a lovely lovely girl (and has been named Saint as she is such a sweety) but my mum is absolutely adamant it will kill my brothers children. She's not stupid, but this idea is in her head and it didn't come from the media. This is all despite me spitting out statistics about the percentage of pitbulls that pass temperament tests versus border collies (whom we had one of as a child) - who pass less often than pitties.
    So if your mother didn't get the idea that Pitties are killers and your brothers dog will "kill his children" from the media. Where exactly did she get it from? People don't just wake up one day and decide that a particular breed of dog that they have never interacted with before is a born killer....it had to come from somewhere.

    I had only heard second hand things about Pitbull's when I met my first one but I was afraid, irrationally because all I had ever heard about was their bad rep and how they were banned but it still had an effect on me.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Gippsland, Victoria
    Posts
    743

    Default

    The alternative:

    A science driven approach to prevention of dog related incidents. Ie- using what has been shown to work
    * education especially children but also whole community
    * incentives for responsible ownership
    * susidised desexing
    * creation and use of an empirically based tool to assist with determination of dangerousness in individual dogs and amicability scales (this is being done right here in Melbourne right now by a good friend of mine)
    * actual enforcement of local laws such as leash laws, wandering, containment, registration, picking up poo and fines for infringements.
    * increased fines and stiffer penalties for infringements such as rushing, menacing etc
    * follow up on complaints and incidents and recording precipitating factors, circumstance etc
    * targeting irresponsible owners, assisting people to 'get it right'

    If you google 'Calgary Model' you will read about an approach which may not be perfect-yet- but has had
    a considerable community impact in reduction of incidents. I say it isn't perfect, yes, but it's a work in progress as opposed to BSL which is an acknowledged worldwide failure.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keira & Phoenix View Post
    So if your mother didn't get the idea that Pitties are killers and your brothers dog will "kill his children" from the media. Where exactly did she get it from? People don't just wake up one day and decide that a particular breed of dog that they have never interacted with before is a born killer....it had to come from somewhere.

    I had only heard second hand things about Pitbull's when I met my first one but I was afraid, irrationally because all I had ever heard about was their bad rep and how they were banned but it still had an effect on me.
    She just doesn't like the way they look. Never has. Probably the media has made the opinion worse and more steadfast but that's not where it originally came from. I imagine it came from secondhand gossip abotu a friend of a freind of a freidn who got bitten by one originally. But I told her she shouldnt hate a breed coz of what the media says and she said she doesnt bother listenign to that but "knows all abotu them" LOL. I never said she hasnt interacted with them. Where I grew up, pitbulls and pitbulls types are EXTREMELY popular (i.e. one over most back fences - rough part of town). But we have never really gone too indepth about it. I can't with her because se makes me crazy. She is irrational when it comes to these dogs.

    My mum has had this idea for so long, long before pitbulls were "victimised" by the media in NZ.

    Not everyone get's all their opinions from the media.

    EDIT:

    What is especialy weird about her opinion is, she loves Staffords and we had one growing up. I knwo they look quite different (well to me they do, maybe not to someone who does't know) but if you dare (to wind her up) put a stafford in a similar category to a pitbull, she goes absolutely nato on ya LOL. It's really quite bizarre...and morbidly fascinating.
    Last edited by Lala; 12-14-2011 at 03:56 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Villain & Flirtt View Post
    The alternative:

    A science driven approach to prevention of dog related incidents. Ie- using what has been shown to work
    * education especially children but also whole community
    * incentives for responsible ownership
    * susidised desexing
    * creation and use of an empirically based tool to assist with determination of dangerousness in individual dogs and amicability scales (this is being done right here in Melbourne right now by a good friend of mine)
    * actual enforcement of local laws such as leash laws, wandering, containment, registration, picking up poo and fines for infringements.
    * increased fines and stiffer penalties for infringements such as rushing, menacing etc
    * follow up on complaints and incidents and recording precipitating factors, circumstance etc
    * targeting irresponsible owners, assisting people to 'get it right'

    If you google 'Calgary Model' you will read about an approach which may not be perfect-yet- but has had
    a considerable community impact in reduction of incidents. I say it isn't perfect, yes, but it's a work in progress as opposed to BSL which is an acknowledged worldwide failure.
    Spot on V&F (love the name by the way).

    I started studying dog bites, and then moved on to look more closely at the severe dog bites. What I've come across is that most (and I'm talking >90%) severe dog bites and fatalities have been from male dogs. And then, most of them, were entire. Where females have been involved, many of them were in estrus, pregnant, or had recently given birth to puppies (1 day - 3 months).

    Again, in most cases that involve children (and most victims are children and then the elderly), the child has been unsupervised with their own dog (or a 'pet' kept in the backyard), or a neighbours dog has strayed from their property (inadequately confined).

    I haven't come across any cases of the dog being infested with rabbies, but in a few cases the dogs have been severely neglected (starving, ridden with parasites). A few of the cases involving Pit Bulls and American Bulldogs the Animal Control Officer noted signs that the dogs had been involved in dog fighting (scars and lacerations around the face and upper body).

    The reason that I support Anti-BSL is, aside from being ineffective in itself, that it fails to recognise that most of these attacks could have been avoided if a few simple measures were followed, (i.e. adequate confinement, effective control, supervision and education). If there aren't enough resources to enforce those measures, then what on earth are the government thinking layering more and more unenforceable regulations on top.

    2009 - http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil...ort%20DBRF.pdf

    1979-82 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00101-0057.pdf

    1974-75 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00146-0031.pdf

    When you look at the three reports - you'll see that breed changes over time, but three main things like supervision and adequate confinement (as far as I can tell, when they say "chained" it could also mean tethered with a rope) and entire males (and to a slightly lesser extent females) are consistent. Even looking back into the early 1900's - late 1800's, a lot of attacks took place 'in the street' or when unsupervised children went too close to a chained dog. In fact, the report from 79-82 is "severe" attacks and includes only 1 fatality. The author attributes the low number of fatalities to an adult being present (near) or in very close vicinity to the attack and was therefore able to end it (albeit with some difficulty).

    You'll also notice that "shake and hold" is not limited to the Pit Bull, and that "refusing to let go" is also attributable to other breeds as well as the Pit Bull. The myth is that these things are unique to Pit Bulls and therefore justifies singling Pit Bulls out in legislation.

    I support legislation that will protect children and the community from ALL dog attacks, not just the ones by Pit Bulls. And that will reduce bites by all breeds and mixes, not just Pit Bulls. My biggest concern with Pit Bulls is the owners that don't or can't control them. It is true that owners wanting a 'status dog' are attracted to the Pit Bull and other large, powerful breeds, so I do make sure I am paying attention to the dog's body language. But, I do that with all dogs. It's not because there is something innately bad about the breed, just that they do suffer from a higher portion of irresponsible owners. In the right hands, they are just another dog.

    I feel that by only banning one breed, the implication is that deaths and attacks by other breeds are okay. So where to from there? Ban every dog of a particular breed because one causes a fatality? That's a somewhat 'reactionary' approach, don't you think? What about actually preventing attacks based on the known history of circumstances surrounding past fatalities by enforcing a few simple measures instead of buying an expensive net that might only catch a few bad dogs? Most dogs don't bite, most Pit Bulls don't bite either. The money needs to be spent where the problem is. And that's people who don't confine or control their dogs, and educating children to recognise dog body language.

    Most dog bites are from the person's own dog, or a dog belonging to a friend or relative. When people think that 'pets don't bite' and the risk is from 'the scary looking dog down the street', they leave their kids alone with their dog. And they can do that 100 times and nothing happens. But that one day, when the dog's over excited, and the child tries to hug it and the dog turns around and bites the child on the face, and then.... maybe it's just a bite, or maybe the dog's already in a heightened state of arousal and can't calm down, and it turns into a full on attack. Children and adults have died from a single bite wound to the neck (causing the trachea to swell and suffocate the victim). So, yes, parents need to be taught that their dog is more likely to be the culprit than someone else's. When the government stands up and says that banning Pit Bulls (or any other breed) will keep their children safe, it is actually endangering their health and safety.

    Rant over, going to make myself a bowl of icecream... anyone else want some?
    "What other people say about you, is a reflection of their character, not yours."

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aSoulfulDecorum View Post
    Spot on V&F (love the name by the way).

    I started studying dog bites, and then moved on to look more closely at the severe dog bites. What I've come across is that most (and I'm talking >90%) severe dog bites and fatalities have been from male dogs. And then, most of them, were entire. Where females have been involved, many of them were in estrus, pregnant, or had recently given birth to puppies (1 day - 3 months).

    Again, in most cases that involve children (and most victims are children and then the elderly), the child has been unsupervised with their own dog (or a 'pet' kept in the backyard), or a neighbours dog has strayed from their property (inadequately confined).

    I haven't come across any cases of the dog being infested with rabbies, but in a few cases the dogs have been severely neglected (starving, ridden with parasites). A few of the cases involving Pit Bulls and American Bulldogs the Animal Control Officer noted signs that the dogs had been involved in dog fighting (scars and lacerations around the face and upper body).

    The reason that I support Anti-BSL is, aside from being ineffective in itself, that it fails to recognise that most of these attacks could have been avoided if a few simple measures were followed, (i.e. adequate confinement, effective control, supervision and education). If there aren't enough resources to enforce those measures, then what on earth are the government thinking layering more and more unenforceable regulations on top.

    2009 - http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil...ort%20DBRF.pdf

    1979-82 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00101-0057.pdf

    1974-75 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00146-0031.pdf

    When you look at the three reports - you'll see that breed changes over time, but three main things like supervision and adequate confinement (as far as I can tell, when they say "chained" it could also mean tethered with a rope) and entire males (and to a slightly lesser extent females) are consistent. Even looking back into the early 1900's - late 1800's, a lot of attacks took place 'in the street' or when unsupervised children went too close to a chained dog. In fact, the report from 79-82 is "severe" attacks and includes only 1 fatality. The author attributes the low number of fatalities to an adult being present (near) or in very close vicinity to the attack and was therefore able to end it (albeit with some difficulty).

    You'll also notice that "shake and hold" is not limited to the Pit Bull, and that "refusing to let go" is also attributable to other breeds as well as the Pit Bull. The myth is that these things are unique to Pit Bulls and therefore justifies singling Pit Bulls out in legislation.

    I support legislation that will protect children and the community from ALL dog attacks, not just the ones by Pit Bulls. And that will reduce bites by all breeds and mixes, not just Pit Bulls. My biggest concern with Pit Bulls is the owners that don't or can't control them. It is true that owners wanting a 'status dog' are attracted to the Pit Bull and other large, powerful breeds, so I do make sure I am paying attention to the dog's body language. But, I do that with all dogs. It's not because there is something innately bad about the breed, just that they do suffer from a higher portion of irresponsible owners. In the right hands, they are just another dog.

    I feel that by only banning one breed, the implication is that deaths and attacks by other breeds are okay. So where to from there? Ban every dog of a particular breed because one causes a fatality? That's a somewhat 'reactionary' approach, don't you think? What about actually preventing attacks based on the known history of circumstances surrounding past fatalities by enforcing a few simple measures instead of buying an expensive net that might only catch a few bad dogs? Most dogs don't bite, most Pit Bulls don't bite either. The money needs to be spent where the problem is. And that's people who don't confine or control their dogs, and educating children to recognise dog body language.

    Most dog bites are from the person's own dog, or a dog belonging to a friend or relative. When people think that 'pets don't bite' and the risk is from 'the scary looking dog down the street', they leave their kids alone with their dog. And they can do that 100 times and nothing happens. But that one day, when the dog's over excited, and the child tries to hug it and the dog turns around and bites the child on the face, and then.... maybe it's just a bite, or maybe the dog's already in a heightened state of arousal and can't calm down, and it turns into a full on attack. Children and adults have died from a single bite wound to the neck (causing the trachea to swell and suffocate the victim). So, yes, parents need to be taught that their dog is more likely to be the culprit than someone else's. When the government stands up and says that banning Pit Bulls (or any other breed) will keep their children safe, it is actually endangering their health and safety.

    Rant over, going to make myself a bowl of icecream... anyone else want some?

    Well said.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •