What's up Down Under?

  Earlier this week, a three year old child Australian girl died , and her 16 month old sister was injured, when their baby sitter's four dogs turned on the girls.

This story fits the profile of so many fatal incidents. Larger dog, multiple dogs, a young child, and the reality that the dogs had never been socialized with the young children. The attack isn't all that disimilar to the fatality in Georgia earlier this week.

The dogs were initially described as Bull Mastiff cross breeds -- although many media outlets have just started calling them cross breed dogs. You can look at pictures of the dogs here.

Following the attack, there have been a few media reports now talking about how Bull Mastiffs are one of the most dangerous canine breeds.  Featuring comments like:

"A Bull Mastiff is a very big dog with plenty of weight and is easily stirred into a rage."

"Once it is stirred up, the rest of the pack are stirred up and they won't stop the attack until the attack is over."

Do those claims sound familiar to how people describe 'pit bulls' here?  They're nearly identical things that were said about 'pit bull' when they were restricted in this Australian province a few years ago. Meanwhile, the AKC describes Bull Mastiffs's as "docile". But the media is using fear mongering to scare people about Bull Mastiffs.

In 2005, the Australian State NSW (where this attack took place)passed very harsh restrictions on owners of 'pit bulls'.  It's my understanding that it required muzzling, altering, certain cage requirements, warning signs -- those types of things (someone please correct me if I'm wrong on that one - but that seems to be the case). 

The message that was sent to the people in the state?  Pit bulls are dangerous. Other dogs are not.  The problem is, there will always be a "different" breed that will be a problem.  The people who have no idea how to properly train/socialized/care for their dogs, will continue to own SOMETHING.

Until we focus on the owners, the way dogs are raised and socialized, and cared for, we will fail at improving public safety. The situations that lead up to attacks like this all follow a common pattern -- the breed of dog is irrelevant. We MUST focus on these issues, because focusing on breeds of dogs is proving repeatedly to be a failed endeavor.

Comments

[Selma]

Oh, for Dog's sake. Only one of those dogs looks much like a Bullmastiff (the dark one) and its not exactly representative of the breed. All the dogs appear grossly obese, unless they are pregnant.

Bullmastiffs are not an aggressive breed at all, like most mastiff types. They don't hunt in packs, they were bred to accompany gamekeepers looking for poachers.

What is that enclosure? What's the big structure? Is that the dogs' house?

As for media, what a bunch of wankers. The reason that tiny tots tragically suffer more fatalities from dog bites is that they are small, basically defenseless and don't have much blood. They tend to get bitten on the head and neck more because of their stature.

It's so sad, I really wish these things would never happen because their families will be scarred for life.

However, in making up campfire tales about 'Bullmastiffs', media aren't helping. What a surprise.

[Selma]

Oh, for Dog's sake. Only one of those dogs looks much like a Bullmastiff (the dark one) and its not exactly representative of the breed. All the dogs appear grossly obese, unless they are pregnant.

Bullmastiffs are not an aggressive breed at all, like most mastiff types. They don't hunt in packs, they were bred to accompany gamekeepers looking for poachers.

What is that enclosure? What's the big structure? Is that the dogs' house?

As for media, what a bunch of wankers. The reason that tiny tots tragically suffer more fatalities from dog bites is that they are small, basically defenseless and don't have much blood. They tend to get bitten on the head and neck more because of their stature.

It's so sad, I really wish these things would never happen because their families will be scarred for life.

However, in making up campfire tales about 'Bullmastiffs', media aren't helping. What a surprise.

[Selma]

??? Hey, my comment wasn't that good....

[shel]

The saddest part is the end to this story - three of the dogs died, not from deliberate euthanasia, but from being sedated and impounded in the Australian summer heat
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24886610-5006301,00.html

The media is reporting "no one is to blame for the death"...

... of the child obviously. The dogs get no such sympathy.

[Siani]

Once again, a dog breed is demonized because of the failings of humans. This horrendous tragedy could have been averted with a bit of common sense. I won't allow small children to approach my little Shih Tzu unless he's on a tight leash - and he's a small dog. Why the hell did this woman not have the good sense to keep big, powerful dogs away from tiny children? Not only are her dogs large, but they didn't know those poor infants. A big dog can unintentionally hurt a small child during play. When you have a number of dogs together, however loving they normally are, if one attacks, the pack instinct will take over. They're just animals.

It is up to dog owners to make sure these horrific attacks do not occur. All too often, people assume that dogs see the world through human eyes, and in so doing, create potentially dangerous situations. Any dog, however gentle he or she normally is, has the potential to bite someone, whether through fear, anger, territory-guarding, etc. The reason big, powerful breeds have a bad reputation, is because they can cause more damage than a small dog. The miniature dachshund is generally believed to be responsible for far more attacks on humans than pitbulls, rottweilers, etc. Yet no-one is heading a campaign to ban the dachshund. I'm tempted to say ban types of dog owner, not types of dog. That would solve the problem of dog attacks more effectively than outlawing specific breeds.

[doug]

You guys want to have your cake and eat it to....

Brent says..."the AKC says Mastiffs are docile"

Selma "Bull Mastiffs are not an agressive Breed"

You can't say that there is no negative effect with breeding pit bulls to fight and kill....and then turn around and say Mastiffs are docile or not an agressive breed.

Your only stance can be...all dogs are individuals and their behavior, actions and temperment are only as a result of their enviornment and NOT due to breeding....Because you have every paid expert out there pushing a book or program....saying there is no negative effects from breed dogs to be mean...Yet you are always pumping positive traits....again...if you can breed a dog to be nice you can do so to be mean.

And the smartest one of the Bunch Siani...who agrees with me for banning certain types of owners...

[Brent]

Doug,

Almost everyone here agrees with you about banning certain types of owners...you're the one who continues to try to put specific breeds in your ordinance of choice.

[Brent]

BTW Doug. Behavior does not have to be an all or nothing proposition. It is neither 100% bred in, nor is it 100% based on the environment.

You can take a really well bred dog, abuse it, and put it in an horrible environment, and it will likely become a problem.

Meanwhile, virtually any dog put in a good environment, and that is well trained, is going to be a good dog.

Because of the wide variety of different environements dogs have, they end up developing a wide variety of temperaments even within the same breed -- which is why they should be judged individually, not as a group.

[Selma]

Here's the thing, Doug. No breed of dog is inherently aggressive.

I was commenting on the media nonsense about a breed of dog and would say the same about any breed - which is really just a shape or family within the same species.

As for your ongoing belief that 'pit bulls' (which you still haven't defined, despite my question of a couple of weeks ago) are 'bred' to fight and kill, bollocks. I'll not go into the fact that over half of the breeds we have today were selected to fight and kill because it's so obvious.

Some of the old-time APBTs were bred to have characteristics that made them more likely to be suitable for fight contests. However, even among the old gamedog lines, not all or in some cases any pups would have the qualities needed for these grim contests.

It's all about training and conditioning. It's about being able to identify the particular set of talents your dog possesses and figuring out how to use those talents so both you and the dog have a good life.

The mastiff types are among the oldest out there. The traditional mastiff is a guarding and draft dog, not an attack dog. I'm always surprised when I hear of someone being bitten by a mastiff type because they tend overall to be rather lethargic, non-reactive and reliable. They'd have to be. Otherwise, no one would be able to keep one as a pet.

Mastiffs include the Great Dane, Bullmastiff, Alabai, Newfoundland, Rottweiler and others. Overall, a pretty solid bunch of breeds.

So, I'll repeat my two questions from earlier. What do you mean by 'pit bull'? Why the 30-pound size cutoff?

[MichelleD]

I personally think we are interchanging the term "agressive" with "reactive".

To Selma's point: I also think people have completly confused the the term "bred". I may be wrong about the origins but "being born and bred in Tennesee" didn't mean people were specifically breeding to produce people from Tennesee but were raised in the traditions of Tennesee culture. I personally think that's where the whole myth of being "bred to fight" came from...not that two dogs were paired to produce fighters but the whole conditioning that went along with that activity. Born and bred = Born and raised.

Plus the ridiculous notion that EVERY APBT in the world was "born and bred" to fight pre-1950...that defies logic. And as far as 'game' goes...stay away from the weenie dogs! They fought badgers!

[doug]

My point was you can't have it both ways....if you can't breed a dog to be mean you can't breed a dog to be nice or people friendly either...

When I use the term pit bull, I am refering to dogs which are pit bulls.

Selma...I am sure you are a smart lady but....tip toeing around Pit Bulls and dog fighting and implying that they really dont go hand in hand or have that much history...is a little much....

Pit Bulls were/are bred to fight and kill....as well as being bred as man's best friend...

Let me know if the Humane Society of the US has reported any other dog fighting operation busts which do not involve pit bulls....I have not found any....so like it or not pit bulls are the dog of choice for dog fighting...

As far as the weight limit goes....its only for ex-cons. Any law abiding citizen can own any type of dog or size of dog which they choose. As far as not having any convicted felon's owning dogs which weigh over 30 pounds....This kind of rules out dogs which can be used for guarding or protection or fighting...and general rule of thumb the bigger the dog the bigger the potential damgage....

And why should we give ex-cons any perks when they get out....in-stead of tending to the needs of dogs they should be looking to give back to society.....

Brent, saying that behaivor is not neither 100% bred in or developed....I will let slide....I think you just miss typed....Because if its some other percentage lower than 100% of behaivor which CAN be bred into a dog...this will just lead to more BSL.

Because people can say there is 5%, 15% 20% chance that 500 years of pit bull fights can alter their behaivor...which makes them snap and kill....even taking into account the enviornment aspect.....so bottom line.....you get a free pass.......

[Selma]

Geez, Doug, speaking of dancing around...

What do you mean by 'pit bull'? How would you define it? You can't legislate something you can't define.

So, how would you write it up so that everybody would know what you meant by 'pit bull'? Maybe I'm not being clear. Are their breeds that you believe are 'pit bulls'?

And I repeat - what is the REASONING behind the 30-lb limit?

No, you absolutely cannot breed dogs to be friendly or nasty. You can only condition them to be so - barring disease or disorder.

You can breed for physiological characteristics that will make it more (or less) likely that certain types of behaviour will be expressed more readily with proper handling and conditioning. Nobody disputes that. For example, you'll not make a field retriever out of a Bulldog but you can teach one to play fetch. His physiology is working against him for certain activities.

Mentioning the Hsux diminishes your credibility even further, by the way. They aren't a humane society.

[Selma]

Mea culpa, I see that the 30-lb thing is because of concerns about guarding and fighting.

That leaves what you mean by 'pit bull'.

[MichelleD]

An "agression" gene doesn't exist. They have tried to find it in humans as well - no luck. Show me some science.

What about Akitas, Shar Pei, wolves, Rat Terriers, Fox Terriers, Daushounds? All "bred" for fighting or used for fighting - Heck, Cane Corsos type dogs were supposedly used to hunt down people back during the Roman Empire. What about the mutts they're using in Afganistan for fighting? I saw my neighbor urge his Dobbie to attack a rabbit - so Dobbies are fighting dogs too.

[Selma]

Yeah, and how about hounds - scent and sight? All terriers? Bred to hunt, fight and kill other animals. Livestock guards. Herding dogs.

It's a bullshit argument, like all of the arguments against breeds which are the current media darlings.

[doug]

Brent...help me out...here....

Ladies...I think if you go back and re-read my comments...you will find that I am on your side...I accept the fact that you can't breed agression into dogs....

However you also can't have it both ways...If you cant breed meanness into a dog....you cant breed nice into it either...you have to treat each dog as its own dog....

Here is the funny thing with pit bulls....if it is so difficult to identify what a pit bull is....and even trained Vets can't tell.....I suggest that we have former professional dog fighters determine what a pit bull is....because they seem to only use pit bulls when fighting dogs...so that must know what one is when they see one...this will give them a chance to give back to society.

[Becky]

It seemed pretty obvious to me as soon as I looked at the photos. These dogs are caged, like wild and dangerous animals. What would you expect?

They are not family companions. And if they are in fact, a pack, they have no leader. And/or they are understandably very unbalanced due to their situation. I'm not sure what you would expect in this.

I read the article very quickly. But I did not find any explanation as to how or why a 3 yr old and a 16 mo old were in the midst of 5 large dogs? Were the dogs caged after the attack or are they kept caged like wild animals? If so, how did the children end up out there? An 'accident'???

[Selma]

Doug,
It is, in fact, so difficult to identify a generic 'pit bull' (as it would be to identify a 'pariah', 'cur', 'shepherd', etc) to a standard suitable for conviction that several major cities in Ontario have publicly declared they will not enforce our stupid, albeit optional, provincial law.

(Ontario is large, in case you don't know. It's almost 3 times the size of Texas, is 3 times the size of Germany, 5 times the size of the UK.)

They find it difficult indeed as well as expensive and ultimately pointless.

My question wasn't what do you think is a 'pit bull'. The question is: How would you define a 'pit bull' in law so that people would a) know whether or not they were affected and b)would be able to enforce the legislation?

It really isn't a difficult question to answer.

[doug]

Again, with MY "DOL" Dangerous Owner Law....anyone can own any kind of dog...its only people who are convicted of a Crime, too young, or had past dog ownership violations which can't own pit bulls.

I know how big Ontairo is, I used to work there...I remember driving well over a 100 mph for long periods of time without seeing other cars or cops.

I still dont get why everyone clings to the concept that you can't define what a pit bull is...people who organize dog fights can figure it out. I think the rest of us morons can figure it out as well.

Okay so I took the time and looked up Pit Bull on Wiki...= American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

And again...in my law it would force people to find out for themselves....for two reasons....if they were a convicted felon and they owned a dog, they could go back to jail...also if they were just an average citizen and they own a dog which was a pit bull and the dog got loose and bit someone...they were going straight to jail too...so as owner, I would want to know what my potential liability and risk/reward was for owning the breed...

I am sure every pit bull owner on this Blog, has never had their dog attack someone, because you are all responsible owners, have money and invest in your dogs health...

Well that is just not the case for the majority of ALL DOG owners...

So in order to bring up the status of your breed you will have to feel some more pain (IMO) until you weed out the dirt bags.

This is not that uncommon of a concept...they Regulated the UFC...now its the fastest growing sport in America...
They Regulated Compaines with Sarbain/Oxley...They did with it with the airline do not fly list....although that is a joke....

Bottom line is the pit bull breed has been overtaken by low lifes for the past 30 years...and the word PIT BULL has earned its BAD RAP for a reason...because dirt bag owners treated them bad and they reacted as a poorly treated animal would....

So in order to get the good name back of Pit Bull...you need to get rid of the bad owners...and you can't do this with neutral laws....and anti tethering statutes...

Because there are not enough cops out there to enforce...you need to make a law which will make people want to comply...

[Brent]

Doug, Doug, Doug,

So how would you define an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, etc. 100% pure bred? 75%? 50%? Any of those breeds? Proving a dog is 100% anything is impossible unless it has some type of registration papers which most dogs don't. If you make it 50%, almost any dog mixed with an American Bulldog, mastiff, boxer, sharpei, or even a Lab is going to look like it could be 1/2 pit bull. When you get into mixed breed dogs, it becomes impossible.

And again, you can't Constitutionaly make someone have to prove innocence -- the onus is on the city to prove guilt.

The reality is that the ONLY way to crack down on these low-life ordinances is with breed neutral laws. Because while you're spending all your time and money trying to determine if your low-life's dog is part "pit bull' or not, and if it is, how much 'pit bull' is in the dog, a breed neutral law allows you to almost instantly determine if the dog is aggressive or not. And if the deadbeat wants to an aggressive Akita, or Chow, or German Shepherd, or whatever, that's ok? But owning a non-aggressive 'pit bull' is a problem?

It just doesn't make any rational sense.

[Selma]

No, and with the arbitrary 30-lb limit you get into more trouble.

You'd have to exclude the Staffordshire Bull, which is from 18 - 34 lbs, with most coming in around 25 lbs.

The AmStaff has been bred strictly as a pet and companion dog for nearly 100 years, the SBT for over 100 years (as well as most APBTs), so I will assume you are referring to the American Pit Bull terrier (APBT) when you talk about 'pit bulls'.

The standard size for an APBT is 35 - 50 lbs - that's for the true APBT. Some are smaller, I have a friend with a purebred who weighs 29 lbs - so is she in or out?

I still don't understand the weight restriction, and not only because it's senseless in terms of preventing dog bites or addressing serious bites. Any dog can open an artery. What if I have a breed that usually weighs under 30 lbs, but it's either obese or a pet quality dog that's too big? Am I in or out?

Saying that the majority of dog owners don't care for their pets is simply untrue and is not backed up by any reliable data.

I'm not going to waste any more time over this, I just wanted to get answers to my two questions, which were completely unsatisfactory, as I fully expected.

And ditto to what Brent said.

[Becky]

Doug,

I am in favor of banning criminals and hoodlums from doing most of the stuff that they do, including owning dogs.

All WE want is for decent, law abiding citizens to be able to provide dogs w/ homes, regardless of breed.

Whether you choose to target pit bulls, bull mastiffs, poodles, shopping carts, or guns, exactly HOW do you propose that we get criminals and other law breakers to abide by the law?

Declaring a punishment obviously does not prevent them from doing harm or provide public safety. It only serves to punish them after the fact, and only when they get caught. By then, whatever the harm was already done.

Why don't we just go after the criminals and the dogs that are actually dangerous and leave everyone else alone?

btw, I frequent the dog park at least 5 days per week. I have seen children behave properly around dogs about twice. Most often I see flagrant taunting, screaming and arm flailing, hitting, children throwing rocks at dogs and hitting them in the face w/ sticks.

Children do not deserve to die for these things. However, we've got to take some kind of responsibility here other than placing it on a breed of dog. That's nothing but a waste and the children still remain in danger because of their actions.

[Selma]

Exactly, Becky. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Only law-abiding people do that and they aren't a problem.

We had out of control kids at our dog park, but because our Code of Conduct included a clause saying that children must be under CLOSE supervision at all times (within arms' length), we had a tool to make the parents keep 'em close or leave the park. I wanted to ban kids under a certain height but the City wouldn't allow it.

I also considered a leashing requirement for little kids, ie, under 4 feet high, but they nixed that too.

[Selma]

Exactly, Becky. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Only law-abiding people do that and they aren't a problem.

We had out of control kids at our dog park, but because our Code of Conduct included a clause saying that children must be under CLOSE supervision at all times (within arms' length), we had a tool to make the parents keep 'em close or leave the park. I wanted to ban kids under a certain height but the City wouldn't allow it.

I also considered a leashing requirement for little kids, ie, under 4 feet high, but they nixed that too.

[Becky]

Afterthought: I bet criminals have maimed and killed more people with STICKS than their dogs ever did, including their pit bulls. What are we gonna do about that??