Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 75

Thread: New Dog Attack Report - Fingers Pointed at APBT Again

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2009


    Oh okay, thanks for that, i was reading all the post's but with all the stat's and stuff i got alittle bit lost.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2009


    The point of the stats was to illustrate that most dog bites are not done by pitbulls even if for any given pitbull they might be more likely to bite, or damage you if they do bite, you are far less likely to meet one because they are not popular dogs in Australia.

    I wonder if the media problem relates to a couple of things - how fierce/ugly the dogs look (Great White Shark has this problem too), and how popular they are in the USA especially as protection for people in dodgy neighbourhoods (which would up the number of opportunities to bite). So maybe the bad press really comes from the USA where a lot more people are being bitten (probably for good reason eg dog defending owner or home) by these really ugly dogs.

    And the media labelling the dog breed dangerous (sometimes without evidence) is problematic - in the same way as labelling local armed robbers with racist tags.

    I'm not sure what the deal is with the media. Part of it is what gets us talking. Could we possibly have the same discussion about a savage yorkie? (guess what threatens the joggers at our local oval, and it's not the ACDx). And yet the rate of (preventable) car accidents which cause far more damage than dog attacks is of no concern to the media and doesn't get discussed with anger on talkback radio or cause heaps of letters to the newspapers or local political reps.

    Anyway - media bias whether caused by us or them, is one reason I refuse to buy or read the local paper or listen to commercial talk back radio. Or watch 38 minutes. I feel these things sucking the thinking power, and facts of life out of my head and replacing it with toxic insubstantial lies and hyperbole and I don't like it.

  3. #63


    Quote Originally Posted by Hyacinth View Post
    Anyway - media bias whether caused by us or them, is one reason I refuse to buy or read the local paper or listen to commercial talk back radio. Or watch 38 minutes. I feel these things sucking the thinking power, and facts of life out of my head and replacing it with toxic insubstantial lies and hyperbole and I don't like it.
    Great post Hyacinth, and I hear you on the media. I don't like being spoon fed information, would rather find out for myself.

    I think most of us have an issue with the big push to blame breeds or types of dogs for the actions of individual. I'm sure most of us would also agree that the vast majority of dogs are shaped by their environment. Yet there is litle public talk of regulating owners, just breeds.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    South Coast NSW


    Response from RSPCA President regarding the recent Pitbull debate around the country.

    The owner, not the dog, is the issue (quoted the content for those like m with slow comps atm...)

    The owner, not the dog, is the issue
    October 21, 2009 - 1:45PM

    Comments 16

    What has been largely missing from the pit bull debate of the past few days is that dogs that attack people have owners. To focus our attention on the breed of the dog is to abdicate our responsibility to be accountable for the behaviour of our pets. The recent case in Victoria occurred because a dog owner allowed a poorly trained and poorly socialised dog to roam freely in a public place. So let's bring this issue back to where it started, with the owner of the dog. Only then will we get close to addressing the root of the problem.

    We know that a dog's tendency to bite is the product of at least five factors: the dog's genetic predisposition to aggression; early socialisation to humans; its training or mistraining; the quality of its care and supervision; and the behaviour of the victim. Genetics is only one of these factors. In the wrong circumstances, any dog, regardless of size, breed or mixture of breeds can be dangerous. The RSPCA believes that deeming a dog as "dangerous" should therefore be done on the basis of its behaviour, not its breed.

    In fact, studies have found that dog breeds subject to breed bans are no more likely to attack or cause more serious injuries than any other similarly sized dog. While there is some evidence that certain breeds may be genetically predisposed to aggressive behaviour, most research concludes that breed-specific legislation is unlikely to have a significant impact on the frequency of dog bites. Recent experience both here and overseas has also shown us that it is virtually impossible to effectively enforce such legislation.

    It doesn't make a good headline, but at the heart of this issue is responsible pet ownership. The RSPCA firmly believes that dog-bite prevention strategies should focus on public education and training of both dogs and owners. That's why our approach centres on educating pet owners, educating the public, identifying problem behaviours early, encouraging the selection of dogs with appropriate behavioural characteristics, and pushing for better control and management programs for those dogs that are declared to be menacing or dangerous.

    None of these strategies works without the others: without proper management programs by local governments, they all fall over. It's time for local councils to crack down on the owners of unregistered dogs and dogs that are known to be a nuisance or danger in their community. Councils should be much more proactive in dog control for all dogs, be they mixed breeds, pure breeds or restricted breeds. You shouldn't be allowed to breed a dog without a licence and breeding standards should be properly regulated.

    Dogs are a treasured part of Australian, society but the reality is that as long as we share our lives with them, dog bites will be a risk. However, there is much we can do to reduce that risk. Firstly, never leave young children unattended with dogs, even a trusted family pet. Children are unpredictable and can often display what a dog perceives as threatening behaviour. Always ensure your dog is properly confined in your house or yard and under effective control when walking. Make sure your dog receives proper training and socialisation with other dogs and people from an early age, and if your dog does display aggressive or worrying behaviour, speak to your vet or your local RSPCA about a behavioural assessment. And lastly, if you're thinking of adopting a dog, make sure you research your options thoroughly to ensure you choose the best pet for your family situation and lifestyle.

    Ultimately, the responsibility of a dog will always rest with the owner. It's convenient to blame the dog when things go wrong, but to ignore the human factor is a paltry attempt to address the issue from the wrong end. Dog attacks are a people problem. We must do far more to promote responsible pet ownership if we are going to reduce the incidence of dog bites in the future.

    Lynne Bradshaw is national president of the RSPCA Australia.

  5. #65


    Finaly! A voice of reason!
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  6. #66


    RSPCA Australia-wide does not have policy against certain breeds, despite that some large mouths may like people to think otherwise. They need to stay focussed as an animal welfare and not control/regulation body.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2009


    Yes a voice of reason but I do not agree with her statement of ,'Councils should be much more proactive in dog control for all dogs, be they mixed breeds, pure breeds or restricted breeds. You shouldn't be allowed to breed a dog without a licence and breeding standards should be properly regulated."

    The reason being IMO Councils have too much power now, to the point of being dictators, so could you imagine what they would be like if they had more power over dog people within their municipalities? I also don't agree with their idea of licensing to breed because it stops responsible caring (registered) breeders ,who might have two or three breeding animals ,from enjoying their hobby and allows the big puppy farms, who have dozens of breeding animals, to continue their outrageous exploitation of dogs for money.
    Breeding should be left up to registered breeders of a State Canine body ,who abide by a code of ethics for breeding and a breed standard for their breed. These are the only people who should have a license to breed dogs ,NOT cross breed money making puppy farms ,all of which should be shut down by our so called authorities.

  8. #68


    Problem with that is that the Government structure in Australia is such that councils ARE resposible for animal control. So if they need power to fulfill that role, they need it. Who else is going to have that power? It would bemisplaced anywhere else.

    No other agengies are involved in out-and-out animal control. Police only dal with animals in criminal matters, RSPCA only if it is welfare matters. Pure animal control belongs to councils.

    Unless you change the whole governmental set up there's no way around it.

  9. #69


    Quote Originally Posted by Nattylou View Post
    Paramedics put down attack dog - Yahoo!7 News

    I feel terrible for this man, losing his dog like this, what a traumatic tragedy.

    But I find the reporting styles in these matters very sensationalist and lacking in factual info.

    If ANY dog, let alone a bull breed with a powerful jaw, was attached to a human hand during an attack for 20 minutes - would they have injuries that amounted to several stiches?????

    And how come the offending dog has been so positively identified prior to it's owner talking to the authorities and/or media?

    I notice the victim dog is only a "small fluffy dog" but the offending dog is insurmountably a pitbull??? If he can't identify the breeding of his own dog then how come he's an expert on other breeds??

    The link I followed to the story of Yahoo even used this photo of a bull breed type dog, yawning:

    This picture is completely unrelated, and comes from somewhere called "getty images". But tell me, if you see this photo attached to this story - do you assume it is the dog responsible? I think we're supposed to, and I suppose most people do.

    Is a yawning dog supposed to be threatening?? No wonder the average joe has so little idea of dog ID and behaviour!!

    I don't think the media treating it like this does anyone a favour - even the poor victim of this pointless attack by some ratbag's wandering mutt.
    Another ridiculously reported dog attack story!

    Like Natt said, I feel sorry for the little dogs owner for loosing his little dog and for him for sustaining injuries and going through such horrific experience but pppppleaseeeee if the dog was really attatched to the guys hand for 20mins he would have no hand left or at least more than a few stitches.

    I must say, that I also feel sorry for the owner of the "attacking" dog as not much has been said about him (correct me if i'm wrong) but that his dog was given the needle as he helplessly watched while being held by ambos/cops. I know that his dog did a horrible thing, but lots of great dogs are 'dog aggressive', lots of dogs manage to get out of the yard - even if it's just once in their life. This does not mean that the owner is a bad owner and this might have been the case here...but you never hear the other side of the story just all sorts of assumptions about the owner all the bull about dog control laws, BSL etc.

    Don't get me wrong, it's horrible what happened but i just wish that these reports were 100% truth, based on facts and told both sides of the story.- I know i'm dreaming but this is the reason why I avoid reading about them as it makes my blood boil to see the media get away with so much bull.( in general-not just in re. to dogs).

    Oh, and the photo of the yawning dog. I thought it was quite cute ,they were better off having no pic if that's the best they can come up with.
    Last edited by Magdalena; 10-22-2009 at 12:29 AM.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2009


    An innocent man takes his two dogs for a walk and comes home with injuries, having witnessed BOTH his dogs savaged to DEATH by another dog that was roaming the street.

    That is the crux of the story. Not the breeds.

    This could be me walking down the street with my Pugs on leads. An innocent outing that turns to horror and death of two much loved family pets.

    If you do a little searching and if your read the article you will see that the dog that attacked had also menaced other dogs and has possibly been responsible for an alleged attack on a cat, another dog and a child. It has been reported that this was certainly not the first time the dog was seen roaming. The owner of this dog should be charged.
    A pessimist sees the glass as half empty;
    An optimist sees the glass as half full;
    A realist just finishes the damn thing and refills it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

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