Unless you've been living in a hole the past week, you should have seen the latest tradgic incident concerning dogs and children.

Just one report of the incident

Now, while I believe that it is the dog owners responsibility to ensure that the dogs are kept securely locked away, I feel that some of the responsibility of this most recent attack should fall on the parents of the child. The question I put to you is what kind of parent would allow a 4 year old child to roam about the neighborhood at 7.30 pm? Why weren’t the parents watching their child? Alot of these tragedies seem to occur when the children enter other people’s properties without any kind of supervision.

Meanwhile, a three-year-old boy is in a stable condition in Sydney's Nepean Hospital after he was attacked by a dog in the city's west.

The child was attacked by a Staffordshire-type dog after falling into his neighbour's yard while climbing a tree about 1.30pm yesterday, police said.

Above link taken from this article
If parents took just a little more care when it came to supervising their children alot of these tragedies could be avoided.

I suppose both are to blame really, but most people will see to it that it is the dog owners fault.

Also, why the hell would you need 6 hunting dogs? 2-3 at max is all you need for w.e the hell he does, 6 is just plain stupid...

IMO it has to do with the breed of dog, its temprement and how its raised. any dog can be vicious if its been raised that way. only diffrence between a vicious staffy and a jack russel is one bites your leg while the other rips it off.

I blame the owners. But then again dogs have a tendancy to snap at times as well.

But if the parents of the 4 year old didn't let her roam about at 7.30pm this may never have happened (yes, it could have happened the next day but the parents lack of supervision at this time resulted in this tragic incident).

man when I was a kid I could roam around the farm land behind us at all hours and not come to any harm. These days kids can't set foot outside the door without being set uppon by pedos and animals of some kind. I blame society in general for degrading into the cesspool that has become planet earth where no one is safe.

as for that stupid girl who died, she did what to get to the dogs? the news said she climbed over 2 fences. It's her own dumb fault.

Blame the stupid mother for letting her girl walk around the streets unsupervised... could of been snatched by pedo's, could of been hit by a car, could of drowned in a pool.

BUT NO... blame the dogs that were behind TWO fences and inside a CAGE.

i blame the government. it's always the government's fault.

The details in this article are not enough to make an educated decision. Did the child have any idea that what they were entering held dangerous animals?

There's a difference between opening a random door with killer dogs inside and a door with WARNING f*** OFF DANGEROUS DOGS WILL KILL YOU IF YOU GO FURTHER.

It's hard to know if there was sufficient warning about the dogs in this case. I've opened a bunch of fences in houses all around the place to retrieve lost cricket balls,etc.

If there was actual signs about dogs, then it's the idiot parents fault for letting their kid loose when dangerous animals were nearby. If there weren't, then it was the a****** owners. Tough call with teh information provided.

Trog, there were 2 LARGE fences, they have no idea how a 4 year old got past them, and the dogs are kept in cages.

The girl regularly patted the dogs, her parents took her over there all the time.. always been warned to never approach the dogs alone.

You really need to see the news story and the house to understand how much bulls*** they have spun on this... I'm talking a large front fence, 10 metres then there's another fence (these are like 2 metres high), then 30 - 40 metres and the dogs are inside cages.

So the girl jumped 2 fences, and GOT INTO THE CAGE with the dogs.

I've been livin in a hole! LORD HELP ME!

so your saying she had it coming bascially. who was watching the kid?

i blame you. yes you.

The dogs were behind large fences and the child was wandering the street with blood over her (they had prevuiously taken a chicken off her that she was taking to feed them - again, no parents in sight).

No one knows what happened but what we do know is that-
She entered the dogs territory in the dark while their owners weren't at home, smelling like blood.
The child's parents weren't watching her

It isn't the dogs fault and their breed is irrelevant.

How about we start locking up mongrel kids rather than dogs.

Insert the usual 'Blame the Deed not the Breed' comment here. Not that the majority give a f***, if it looks mean it must be - Only dog I have ever been attacked by was a fluffy lap dog - put all THEM down thank you very much.

I was going to say something similar to what kat said, but she summed it up pretty well

Kat, if that's the case, the parents should be penalised for reckless endangerment or something.

i agree. bloody neglectful. reminds me of the kids who got hit by the train out near goodna.

Regardless of this case i think agressive dogs should be banned.

No need for them. There's 1000 other breeds to choose from - why do u need a vicious ugly one? Make u feel tough? Whatever.

some aggresive breeds ARE banned. how do you decide how aggressive is too aggressive?

Regardless of this case i think agressive dogs should be banned.

all dogs can be aggressive if they are treated in a certain manner or they are in a particular environment.

Survival of the fittest. It was her time to learn a lesson NO TRESPASSING. Parents can't protect dud babies all the time.

The Cock, what is agressive???

Any of these dogs on your list? Simply because they 'look' mean? Or because they are a certain breed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eINuJebMKWo

And
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYGFvWTgeEI&search=BSL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0bLrVPSbEg&mode=related&search=BSL


As someone said, ALL dogs have the potential to be dangerous. That is like saying all men have a penis so they are ALL capable of rape - so we should just castrate them all. Why should you be punished for something you didn't do? It wasn't you, but someone who shares certain traits

last edited by Kat at 11:19:09 22/Jul/06

I blame the fences not being tall enough.

http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html

lol

No need for them. There's 1000 other breeds to choose from - why do u need a vicious ugly one? Make u feel tough? Whatever.

Get your head out of your ass... they're hunting dogs, you use them to hunt. They weren't really typical dogs, he kept them in cages.

I thought it was bad before, but if what Kat said is true... I think the parents really need to be punished.

It worked for banning automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

And besides, certain breeds are pre-dispositioned to being angry mofos - that's why they should be banned. There's been plenty of cases where f***ed up breeds of dogs have been raised well, but suddenly just snapped and torn someone a new face.

If u remove the most dangerous of species, then incidents will be reduced even tho total dog population won't be reduced. It's a fact.

It's the same with cars. If every 18 year old was in a V8 car then accidents would rise. Put them all in a slower but safe car and fatal accidents would be reduced.

But my point remains - why does anyone give a s*** about culling off certain breeds of dogs? There's so many other ones to choose from. I don't understand the obsession with "tough" dogs.

And if u want a tough dog for hunting or some bs, u should need a permit with strict guidelines on how to keep them, and massive penalties if the s*** hits the fan. Just like gun laws that require u to store the gun in a locked cabinet and the ammunition in a separate locked cabinet etc.

The Cock, you still haven't answered my question - WHAT are 'dangerous dogs'?

I'm sure if someone finds a list of fatal or serious dog attacks over the last 20 years and sorted in breeds, certain breeds will be more prominant than others. They are the dangerous dogs. And if u wanna argue that that particular breed has just been raised dangerously for 20 years - stiff s***.

It's complete bulls*** to claim it's all in the raising. It's instinct, or genetics, whatever u wanna call it. Look at just about any animal - wales for instance. Killer wales are mean f***ers, humpbacks aren't. Sharks - only a few species of sharks actually go after humans, the rest are generally not interested. etc etc.

If you have a look at this study Here it lists the highest fatality rates down as 'pit bull type'. What exactly is a pure bred pit ball type dog??? Using that as a cross breed description I could understand but since they have put them under pure bred I would accept 'Pit-Bull' or nothing.

Since the figures show 'type' I am guessing you could have 4-6 breed types in that one figure which would mean that the biggest cause of 'death' by any one breed would in fact me a Rottweiler followed by a german shepard

Then if you take these statistics here
It will show you that dog breeds which have the higest attack rate are again rottweilers, NOT Pitbulls, Staffords, or those 'dangerous looking' dogs that the BSL is aimed at followed closely by Retrievers.

CHIRPP ranked the most common breeds causing a bite injury as German Shepherds, Cocker Spaniels, Rottweilers and Golden Retrievers.

I see no pitbulls there, but I am guessing we should only focus on the deaths and not the attacks, because at least the victims of attacks live, right? Who knows the severity of their attacks, but that doesn't matter does it?

again, WHAT do YOU call dangerous breeds? I have a 'child killer here' who I am sure many would call a dangerous dog. She is anything but
http://www.kathleenmcgovern.com/images/PICT1496.jpg
http://www.kathleenmcgovern.com/images/PICT1501.jpg

She could crush a small child with those teeth.
http://www.kathleenmcgovern.com/images/IMG_4309.jpg

You should supervise children around ALL dog types. I don't care what they 'look like'. Their behaviour isn't affected by their looks. They aren't human, they don't get cranky when called ugly;

Most of the reports in the news about dog attacks involve cross breeds and they usually pick the breed which suits the whole push for BSL. If you have a stafford cross lab, you will use the 'staffy cross' more than the 'lab cross' as it stirs more hype.

last edited by Kat at 16:30:57 22/Jul/06

You're an idiot kat. You've linked two articles which support my argument, and tried to pluck out a select sentence or 2, manipulate its meaning, and turn it into your own argument.

In the first article, pittbulls are responsible for DOUBLE the amount of fatalities of the breed that comes in second place (which is a rottweiler). Even if there are SIX different breeds that come under pittbull, if u divide the total fatalities of pittbulls by 6, then every breed with come in the top 5 STILL!!!!

In your second article, if u bothered reading it you'd see:

Golden and Labrador Retrievers have a reputation for being friendly and good-natured. The high number of bites is because they are very common. The Dutch survey found that for Rottweilers and Bull Terriers, the chances of biting are seven and six times higher respectively than for other pedigree breeds.

You're an idiot secondly, for allowing a dog around (what i assume is) your baby. Danger asside, there's a hygene issue.

I really have no idea what went through your head when u attempted to use those articles to support your argument.

Last of all, if u hadn't realised already, I don't give a f*** about culling off 5, 10, 20 breeds of dog, so ur not going to convince me, especially with your bizzare referencing.

last edited by The Cock at 16:41:25 22/Jul/06

I owned a Rottweiler for over 10 years, she looked mean, but the worst she would do to a person is lick them to death.

Ok u just edited your post and added a pic of teeth with the caption "she could crush a child with those teeth."

No f***ing s***. That's my point. Certain breeds of dog have evolved or developed through selective breading much stronger and damaging jaws than other dogs. Thats what makes them even more dangerous. f***.

Their physique is also a reflection of their character and ability. Tigers have claws and big teeth cos they f***ing hunt s*** and tear it to pieces! Everything in nature evolved for a particular use, not because "it looks tough" or "looks pretty to humans".

In regards to Tanaka's comment,

I'm not saying 100% of pittbulls/rottweilers are going to kill someone in their lifetime. That's rediculous. We're talking about odds of it happening, and the STATISTICAL PROOF shows that particular breeds are more inclined to attack humans. The logical step is to get rid of the worst offenders.

What is so hard to understand? (this is directed at kat, not tanaka).

Why do i even bother arguing with a moron?

In the first article, pittbulls are responsible for DOUBLE the amount of fatalities of the breed that comes in second place (which is a rottweiler).

No, it says 'pit-bull type' dogs are; NOT pit-bull's. As I said, there are several different breeds which look like pit-bulls or at 'pit-bull type'. Being a 'type' of dog isn't a breed. Being a breed is being a breed. If they bunched the actual breeds together then that figure would be spread out and they wouldn't be on the top of the list.

If you are going to do a study, then they should get their facts straight.

Even if you put the 'pit bull type' down in cross breed it still doesn't take into account the 'cross' part of the dog.

Golden and Labrador Retrievers have a reputation for being friendly and good-natured. The high number of bites is because they are very common. The Dutch survey found that for Rottweilers and Bull Terriers, the chances of biting are seven and six times higher respectively than for other pedigree breeds.

Okay smarty pants. Find me the statistics on the breeds of dogs that attack and the percentage of the dog population that dog is. Just because they say 'Labs are popular' doesn't mean that other types aren't. It is really cute how they make excuses for statistics on dog bites/attacks. I mean you couldn't possibly release statistics which say they are just as dangerous as those 'dangerous looking dogs'.

Again - what are dangerous looking dogs?

Last of all, if u hadn't realised already, I don't give a f*** about culling off 5, 10, 20 breeds of dog, so ur not going to convince me, especially with your bizzare referencing.

Yet you refuse to state what breeds or why.. just you don't think 'dangerous looking dogs' should be allowed to be owned.

Dogs attack because of the circumstances and/or how they were raised. They don't attack because they look a certain way.

Their physique is also a reflection of their character and ability. Tigers have claws and big teeth cos they f***ing hunt s*** and tear it to pieces! Everything in nature evolved for a particular use, not because "it looks tough" or "looks pretty to humans".

http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/

Heart failure and Malignant neoplasms cause over half of all deaths of people over 45. Accidents and adverse effects resulting from the accidents is the leading cause of death for people under 45 to 1 year of age. Of all the causes of death due to accidents, the leading cause is motor vehicle accidents. Motor vehicle accidents remain a high risk for all age groups.

Quick - we better ban all cars because they kill the most humans!!!!!!

The top 10 deadlist animals include, a frog (Poison Dart Frog), and Elephant, a Australian Box Jellyfish, with the deadlist being a Mosquito.....
Yeah, your logic works.... I don't see 'dog' being in the top 10 link

last edited by Kat at 16:46:49 22/Jul/06

So how much further should this owner have gone then 2 large fences and a cage? A bomb shelter? A time delay safe? FFS, take some responsibility.

Oh ffs kat u f***ing moron.

Even if u take the total number of pitbull fatalities, divide it by 6, ur still coming 4th in the entire list of dog fatalities.

And u say "it doesnt take into account all the 'cross' parts of the dog". Oh for f***s sake. No matter what the cross is, pittbull types are way on top on fatalities and attacks. THE ONLY COMMON DENOMINATOR is that THEY ALL have part pittbull in them!!! So it doesnt f***ing matter!!!! If it was another part of the cross causing the agro, then that type would be high up on the list, not pittbull!!!! I don't expect u to understand this because ur an idiot, but let me assure u it destroys your argument. Just accept it.

This is f***ing rediculous. U have figures staring u in the face and u just can't accept them.

I'm done. I feel like that pic "arguing on the internet is like the special olympics."

You have an abundance of studies showing that particular breeds of dogs cause more deaths and injuries than others, but u just cant accept it.

This is beyond me. U need help.

So answer the bloody question then -
what are dangerous looking dogs?

I don't care if YOU think I am an idiot - I just won't let people like YOU tell me if my dog is or isn't dangerous based on what she 'looks' like. You can't say that my dog should be banned/put down because of how she looks.

Reminds me of suicide statistics. Apparently more male teenagers kill themselves than female - mearly because they do it in such a way that 'gets the job done', not because there are more male teenagers out there who are suicidal than females

I think each dog should be judged individually, and people should use common sense. Of course certain breeds tend to be more violent then others... but that does not mean every dog of that breed is going to kill, that's stupid... so therefor banning purely on breed is unfair. Any dog can snap, I've seen mini-foxies put scars on kids faces... kids should not be alone around dogs, period.

In this case, the dogs were violent (they're hunting dogs duh), but they were kept locked away and the neighbours were educated about them... therefor, not his fault.

Stop editing your posts, cos then i just have to do another post destroying the latest lame addition u've made.

The top 10 deadlist animals include, a frog (Poison Dart Frog), and Elephant, a Australian Box Jellyfish, with the deadlist being a Mosquito.....
Yeah, your logic works.... I don't see 'dog' being in the top 10 link

Yes they're the deadliest, but people dont keep them as f***ing pets do they. And they're not in abundance in the common Australian suburban backyard.

As for your "ban the cars" argument, I've already covered that in a previous post. If young drivers were forced to only use low-powered cars, then fatalities would be reduced. I don't think that will ever happen, and i don't support it, but its true.

As for your other bulls*** about heart disease or [insert crap argument here], of course there's things that kill more people than dogs. The f***ing point is that dogs still kill people.

U astound me.

What the f*** does the look of the dog have to do with anything? If i said that earlier, it's cos i didn't know the name of "pittbull" and "rottweiller" but i do now.

The point is the breed.

Oh and by happy coincidence, the pittbulls and rottweilers ARE f***ing ugly and dangerous looking. Funny that!!! Whats your f***ing point???

Kat, I urge u to end this with the remaining dignity u have, and simply state that although the statistics show that pittbulls and rottweilers are by far the most prone to attacking humans, u still like them and believe they can be raised safely and don't want them banned.

Is that so hard? To actually act your age?



(or and i don't believe they can all be raised safely cos I had 2 border collies, 1 was nice and pie and the other one just loved to bite so we got rid of the biter).

you didn't just pick your nick randomly did you?

I think the real argument here is in the thread title:

Dangerous Dog Debate or is it a Dangerous Deabate about dogs?

Stay tuned.

The Cock, I believe that dangerous dogs should be banned. They are across all breeds and across all owner types. Just because red necks may choose to own a certain type of breed and rough them up doesn't mean that the rest of the breed should be put down.

In this specific case the dogs were dangerous dogs and they were tied up, in their own yard. The child entered their property - not the other way round.

how many fatal attacks involve unsupervision? Or is that also an irrelevent issue?

I believe some itbulls can be dangerous, I also believe some kelpies can be dangerous. The same goes for GSDs, Labs, Staffords, Pommies, etc etc.

Again. I believe dogs that are unable to get along with other dogs or humans shouldn't be allowed to associate with them. I don't believe for one second that a dogs nature is determined by the way they look.

is unsupervision even a real word? this is just getting ridiculous

Sorry 'lack of supervision' :p

The Cock, I believe that dangerous dogs should be banned.

I disagree - have some faith girl

Kat, I urge u to end this with the remaining dignity u have

wtf? dude - you're on Qgl.. take a good look around. We gotz all kind here biznatch

and simply state that although the statistics show that pittbulls and rottweilers are by far the most prone to attacking humans

I can only assume the study you pulled your results from is flawed - otherwise my wife and her siblings would be dead. Some of us grow up on land brother - and we know how to control out animals. Here's a study subject my fellow city slickers: you're stupid, and you'll stay that way given the choices you make for yourselves. Go whine to the Govt for not giving you challenges allow even the dimmest of you to be safe to grow and prosper... or maybe something else???

last edited by koopz at 21:55:19 22/Jul/06

Oh and by happy coincidence, the pittbulls and rottweilers ARE f***ing ugly and dangerous looking.

While I agree they are dangerous looking, I have to disagree about rottweilers being ugly. They are the coolest looking dogs around!

http://www.users.on.net/~calmoss/intr.jpg
http://www.users.on.net/~calmoss/k151d5.jpg

I disagree - have some faith girl

You know what I mean :)

If a dog is purchased for a pet and shows signs of ahgression and no amount of obedience, diet, etc can save it, that paticular dog shouldn't be a pet :)

It should be done on case by case basis and I believe that ALL dogs and their owners should be forced to do obedience classes.

last edited by Kat at 11:13:16 23/Jul/06

Wow kat you've actually expressed a valid opinion! Congradulations!

If only u had written that 10 posts ago!

Danger asside, there's a hygene issue.

Except that like, a dog's mouth is generally still cleaner than a human's.
You make out with them though.
Dogs lie around in the dirt, kids play around in the dirt.

You want a f***ing bubble-suit next bitch?

Continue on Kat, you're in the clear.

so in conclusion this debate will have no effect on any legislation anywhere ever

I believe 'The Cock' Should be put down, because by the [b]looks[/b] of his posts, he's dangerous to the median intelligence quotient of the gene pool.

Oh and the name change is gay, no I mean it really is gay, in both senses of the word.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4086/emonw4.gif
Pay attention to me.

Thanks for gif, I feel loved that you went to that much effort for me.

ps that last post is from loki.

You're an idiot secondly, for allowing a dog around (what i assume is) your baby. Danger asside, there's a hygene issue.

Yeah, i was looking at that pic and thinking "no way in hell would i jam any animal or pet into my babies face, esp with teeth that could 'crush its head'". s*** happens, Do you think before you post?

Hey there 99 and loki, how are you kids doing these days?

Astroboy: Again, you suddenly go into the ignorant stance of 'It looks mean, therefore it must be'.

I took the "it looks f***ing stupid, it is f***ing stupid, you are f***ing stupid" stance.

Hey there 99 and loki, how are you kids doing these days?

Hi2u2.

Haha. Am I the only one that sees the funny in this?

Loki dates forum girls...

Hahahahaha...

Loki dates forum girls...

But Loki is single...
Wanna go out on a date Greazy?

Isn't that a long distance relationship? If so it'll never work.

so in conclusion this debate will have no effect on any legislation anywhere ever

yeah prolly not, but it highlighted a pretty important point.


Dogs can be very dangerous when not kept responsibly - but what is more important [jerry springer] is that we talked about it, threw some chairs at each other, and moved on. that's the american way [/jerry springer]


goddam it I sooooo-haveto sample that guy off the who's-line-is-it-anyway ad on the Comedy Channel for better effect in the future.


meh - I only posted again because your sig shows someone boosting off a ramp and I'm angry my little bro lives in a new estate where the local kids aren't allowed to do that because kids who do that kind of stuff in the street are seen by the body corporate as something that lowers the land-value. As are 'dangerous' dogs. Damn... all that ranting and all it a amounted to was a pitiful attempt to derail the thread towards something a little more interesting

Rofl at any of you people who blame the child if so, your a f***up. God i hope your first comment pingu wasn't serious, otherwise you honestly need help.

The children involved were 3 and 4 years of age ? Haha its so funny that some people mention signs and the like, did it occur to you that the kids couldnt read them? You should reminisce on the times you were children, didn't you have a sense of adventure? If you had been to your neighbours frequently to see/play with their dogs, wouldnt you be inclined to do it again ? If she climbed over two fences (which i highly doubt, ive got a feeling one or both would be open to be frank) i'd imagine she was going for the light at the end of the tunnel, seeing the dogs.

Seems like a lot of blame should also be lain at the parents feet, f*** 7:30 at night, my brother is 6 and he's normally asleep by that time.

Btw, kat, sit down, like cock said, take whatever dignity you still hold here and make sure you dont loose anymore.

Rofl at any of you people who blame the child

I blame the parents of the child in this instance, allowing a 4 year old girl out at 7.30pm is just negligent to say the least.

make sure you dont loose anymore.

Freudian slip?

Normally I stay clear of Kat bashing, but I've gotta chime in here. I question your parenting abilities if you would allow a dog to sit around with your baby like that. Dogs can attack infants and young children out of jealousy. A baby can steal all the attention away from teh dog, making it feel as though it's position is threatened. By the looks of those teeth and muscular jaws, it could just take 1 bite for that dog to cause serious injury or death to teh infant.

There's also the hygene issue. Sure a dog's mouth may be cleaner than a human's, but what if your dog just rolled in its own feces or something (as they sometimes accidentally do) and there it is with your baby. The dog could have gone straight from licking its own ass to licking your baby's head, but them you probably kiss your baby with that s*** dribbling mouth of yours.

As for teh dangerous dog debate, it's a tricky one. Some breeds are prone to violence because that's what they were raised for. This is made worse by the fact that they're designed to cause massive damage when they do attack something. The massive jaws and muscles of a staffy were designed to clamp on to things and do damage. Every staffy/staffy cross I've ever known has been sweet, friendly and gentle but if they were to snap they could do just as much damage as teh most savage dog. The excessive inbreeding of purebreds in the past still has some lingering effects on the dogs of today, and can effect their stability.

It's also very important to remember that dogs are domesticated wolves. The pack nature and mentality of the wolf still remains to a degree in modern dogs. Anything which appears to be a threat to the pack or teh dog itself can give it cause to attack. A child which has fallen into the yard, a new infant in the family who takes up time and attention or a stranger who happens to get too close can look like a threat to a dog. My dog is the sweetest, gentlest little sook towards my family (she's a german shepherd x kelpie), yet if somebody jumped teh fence she would try to kill them (as one guy very nearly found out the hard way once).

I'd also place a large portion of the blame on the parents of children who are attacked. Parents need to be responsible for their children. Young children should never be left alone around a dog, and children should be instructed from a young age how to deal with dogs, and to avoid dogs they don't know. We're just seeing more ACA/TT watching f***tards dodging their responsibilities and looking to pass the blame. IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOUR CHILD IS AT 7:30PM, YOU ARE A BAD PARENT.

< /rant >

i wouldnt trust a dog, regardless of how friendly its always been

if it has the potential to hurt a baby, id be keeping them separate at all times

but, perhaps thats just me

I would trust a dog more than I would trust a human. that's for sure.

Astroboy: Again, you suddenly go into the ignorant stance of 'It looks mean, therefore it must be'.

It appears he is saying; "It belongs to a dangerous breed, so we should consider it dangerous".

I grew up with a pig dog, it was never hostile to myself or to any of the kids on our block. One day however a large dog decided to come over and play with us and my dog ripped it a new arsehole.

Kat's argument can just as easily be aligned with "well it hasn't appeared unfriendly, yet".

typo: It has nothing to do with 'the dog hasn't killed anyone YET, so it is fine'. Owning a dog, cat, hampster, etc you get an idea of the kind of temprement the animal is and what it will and won't put up with. And if you don't know, maybe you shouldn't own one?

You should also make sure the animal is conditioned to a lot of the circumstances it will face throughout it's life.

My dog will be around kids, so therefore we sped a lot of time getting her used to the little terrors. I would hardly expect a dog who isn't used to kids to understand their surroundings and not lash out.

The whole dangerous breed thing is a load of baloney if you ask me. It is all about the animal's upbringing and relates back to similar nature v. nurture debates that happens in human psychology.

Are serial killers or child molesters born or raised to become as such.

Vicious dogs are more likely that way due to their enviornment and having being raised in an aggressive family or culture and this would be primarily becuase the family bought the dog because its physiological attributes meet that family's expectations of a pet for their hosuehold.

(Is it a possible hypothesis that placid people buy dogs which are less energetic or smaller, and aggressive people buy stronger more active dogs which could be raised to be more violent or be exposed to more violent behaviour or mistreatment.)

Although dogs do not have cognitive awareness, there would have to be a large portion of their behaviours attributable to their upbringing.

Does anyone wish to suggest that the likeliness of a dog to attack its human family is defined solely by its breed?

From here

Temperament

Terrier breeds are generally bold, inquisitive and fearless. The Staffie is renowned for its reliability as a family dog. They are extremely loving dogs, being loyal and devoted to man, with special emphasis on their reliability with children. The breed thrives in the family environment, being a suitably compact size for close family living. They can be protective of their family, especially those with small children, and it is for this reason that they make an excellent family guardian and watch dog.

As a result of their dog fighting heritage, one of the major problems noticed in this breed is a tendency of aggression towards other dogs. It must be understood that even a Staffordshire Bull Terrier with "good" temperament may fight when challenged by another dog and should therefore be adequately controlled in public places.

Staffordshire Bull Terrier owners have a certain obligation to society, and should always ensure that their dogs are correctly and adequately housed and not allowed to roam freely in public and in the vicinity of unfamiliar dogs. It is always good advice to avoid allowing your Staffie to make eye to eye contact with strange dogs, as this is normally seen as a challenge. It must also be understood, however, that dog aggression is not related to human aggression in this breed. A staffie that is aggressive to strange dogs may still be completely trustworthy to humans.

Staffies are regularly the fourth most popular breed in Australia, behind German Shepherds, Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers, according to the numbers of puppies bred each year. The German Shepherd Dog League of N.S.W recognised this very problem in its breed and has set up a tough accreditation program for its breeders. There isn't such a program amongst Staffie owners, however there are very good breeders who are mindful of producing dogs with stable temperaments.

It is important that any breeder can satisfy you that the puppy you are interested in, and its parents, have a stable temperament. Avoiding aggression can also be aided by proper socialisation and training of the puppy. Puppies should be regularly exposed to the full gamut of situations that they are likely to encounter as older dogs. Regular, supervised contact with other dogs, children and any other family pet, along with early obedience training will help ensure that the dog grows into a well socialised animal.

Obedience training is imperative to ensure that the owner feels they will have control over their dog in any situation. A Staffie well versed in the commands ‘sit’ and ‘stay’ is an animal that knows its place and can be confidently managed. If they are socialised from an early age and properly trained, owners can let their dogs roam at off-leash parks with confidence.

Some people actually do their homework before buying a dog....

Whatever. How bout that woman who had her face ripped off by her loving dog when she was asleep.

U can take the animal out of the wild but u cant take the wild out of the animal.

I don't see how it's any different from shark breeds.

I know I'd rather swim past a reef shark than a great white, tiger shark, or hammerhead. Sure, they can all attack and eat me, but the great white, tiger, and hammerhead are a lot more likely to than the reef shark!

All that aside, letter a dog in with the baby is just irresponsible in my opinion. Of course the dog loves the baby for 364 days of the year, until it rips it a new face when it gets the s***s on that 1 day.

Exposing a defenceless infant to unnecessary risks, even if they are small risks, is reckless.

like strapping them into a dangerous vehicle when going to the shopping centre? i bet none of the electrical goods in the house were tested and tagged either.

living is dangerous. get over it.

furthermore, sharks are NOT in constant contact with humans, they never become a domesticated animal, so the comparison is not valid.

Whow nells.

In summary:

1. Negligent parents, not negligent dog owners.

2. In this instance breed is irrelevant, this wasnt a family dog gone bad, these were hunting dogs and were kept as such.

3. Almost every living thing with the potential for intelligent thought also has the potential to have a bad streak - look at the human race. You can make informed decisions about allowances, but its much harder to draw that line.

4. Thats my 2c, let the bickering continue.

these were hunting dogs and were kept as such

i suppose that's the issue. they were trained killing machines.

furthermore, sharks are NOT in constant contact with humans, they never become a domesticated animal, so the comparison is not valid.

I see this in the reverse.
No type of shark has constant contact with humans, yet some breeds/species are much much more likely to be aggressive towards humans.

The same goes with dogs. U can control dogs to an extent, but certain breeds still have that killer attack instinct in them.

typo: It has nothing to do with 'the dog hasn't killed anyone YET, so it is fine'. Owning a dog, cat, hampster, etc you get an idea of the kind of temprement the animal is and what it will and won't put up with. And if you don't know, maybe you shouldn't own one?

My points where:

If the statistics suggest that something is dangerous then we would be foolish not to assume that there is some inherent danger.

Just because nothing dangerous has happened yet, doesn’t mean it isn't dangerous.

Lastly, you should sell your Dr Doolittle abilities out. I’m sure you’ll make a fortune.

Lets hope one day people out there who call 'these dogs' vicious get to actually meet one and not just rely on hype.

last edited by Kat at 15:12:50 24/Jul/06

Lets hope one day people out there who call 'these dogs' vicious get to actually meet one and not just rely on hype.

I'd much rather people live in fear of all of 'those' types of dogs.. It would save a whole lot of trouble if everyone was extra cautious around the animal wether it be a man-eater or a friendly cuddly bundle of joy

Boxhead: I think that senario is fine, if people don't plan on making laws which remove much loved and 'harmless' pets out of homes simply based on hype

There's also the hygene issue. Sure a dog's mouth may be cleaner than a human's, but what if your dog just rolled in its own feces or something(as they sometimes accidentally do) and there it is with your baby. The dog could have gone straight from licking its own ass to licking your baby's head, but them you probably kiss your baby with that s*** dribbling mouth of yours.

What the mother of f***.
Have you ever held a baby/infant before?
Did you surgically scrub your hands first? No I didn't think so.
Think about how often a kid touches things and sticks it's fingers in it's mouth, it's imfeasible to make sure every direct or indirect surface the infant comes in contact with is entirely clean and absolutely impossibile for it to be sterile.

I'm sure kat knows where her f***ing dog was or what it was doing right before that pic was taken.

But holy s*** Kat, you better go get a giant sterile field for when that kid learns to walk, wouldn't want it touching the ground or anything.


Another classic QGL bandFagwagon brought to you by QGL.

last edited by Loki at 15:43:59 24/Jul/06

Personally I would definitely autoclave (sterilise) all feeding utensils household items and pets if I had a baby... it's a joke loki - I'm not having a go at you.

Kat ur basically saying that Pittbulls are like a vial of nitro-glycerine. Treat it properly and it won't hurt u, even tho it has the potential to blow u to kingdom come. I dunno about u but I wouldnt be keeping a vial of nitro-glycerine on the table next to my baby's cott. Hence, I wouldn't be keeping a potentially volotile animal there either.

The key word you're missing is "potentially". Even if there's only a 1% chance that your dog will ever lash out - why would u take that chance when your child's life is at stake? I simply can't comprehend it.

U can't honestly tell me that a well raised pittbull (or whatever dog) has a 0.000000000000% chance of ever lashing out at a human.

The odds of winning lotto are many millions to one, and yet people win it all the time. No matter how slim the chance, it's going to happen to someone, and u should be thankful it hasn't happened to your kid yet and take more precautions.

The Cock, you don't seem to care for the answers and you have your mind made up. I am not here to have my parenting choices attack by those who aren't parents themselves and specially those who have never met my family or dog.

You can think what you like, but I will refuse to sit back and watch people like you try and pass law that will see my beloved pet seized and put down because of how she 'looks'.

Kat, not all of what has been said in this thread is correct (in my mind anyway) but I think he has a point in the last post. Basically s*** happens and no human is predictable but animals are even less so because you can't understand their thinking as easily in the absence of normal human-human communication. Of course admitting that you are taking a risk will open you up to a flood of unfounded abuse so I can see why you could never admit to it, but I hope you at least think about it.

Edit: I'm talking about dogs in general not any particular breed.

last edited by Chakas at 16:01:50 24/Jul/06

It's ok, you're on my love list Chakas.
err...


Addit (not regarding chakas' post :P):
The fact of the matter is Kat is clearly RIGHT THERE supervising HER child and HER dog.
Saying it's bad parenting is bulls***, her kid is experiencing something pretty wonderful and stimulating (a living breathing animal, the texture of it's fur and so on) that Kat has evidently identified as NOT a threat but she is still there cautiouslessly, which is GOOD parenting, it's not like she's letting the dog use the kid as a new chew tow or the kid to teeth on the dog.

And I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that the dog is clean and wasn't just rolling around in faeces or licking its ass etc.
She could easily wash the kids hands after touching the dog just as you or I would.
Nothing flickin' wrong with that.

Grow up ya plebs.

last edited by Loki at 16:03:31 24/Jul/06

Is kat next on the "forum girls to date" list?

Yeah, I'm sure kat has thought all these things through and in my previous post I wasn't suggesting that she hadn't, although re-reading it it comes off as if I did. Anyway, basically I'm agreeing with both loki and kat in the one thread and I'm not sure how I feel about that.

I want a dog, now that I have a yard.

I'm thinking a border collie.

you get an idea of the kind of temprement the animal is and what it will and won't put up with

If you think you can predict the actions and reactions of your dog, you're incredibly naive.

I hate to tell u guys, but disallowing people to own certain breeds of dog won't stop the problem. The fact is that it is normal for a dog/animal/organism (of any breed) to respond to a perceived threat...

Personally I would definitely autoclave (sterilise) all feeding utensils household items and pets if I had a baby... it's a joke loki - I'm not having a go at you.

Joking or whatever, do u know that you're actually doing more harm than good by sterilising _everything_? It effects how a child's immune system develops and in fact, being "overly clean" and not exposing children to a "reasonable" amount of germs has been confirmed as a risk factor for asthma...

You're right, you should let your dog lick its ass and then your babies face.

Yeah I do know that 99, hence I made it clear it was a joke (i.e. on the surface the absolute extreme of protection is impractical, however if you know your s*** you'll also know it's actually bad to be that clean).

Oh ffs.

"Perceived threat" ?

What friggin perceived threat. We're talking about dogs that attack small kids. Or dogs that randomly have brain explosions and attack their owners. Or attack whoever is walking down the street.

And we have already proved via statistical evidence collected in several different countries that eliminating certain breeds of dog would greatly reduce the number of dog attacks on humans.

Get with the program.

Yes, "perceived" threat! It's an instinctual thing and therefore every animal is capable of responding to it.

Also, you're last point is absolute crap. Dr Michelle Lowe (the veterinarian on Sunrise in the mornings) was talking about this the other day and in fact, eliminating certain breeds of dogs doesn't prevent/help the problem at all.

(the veterinarian on Sunrise in the mornings)

lol

^ Ghey.

Point still made.

What friggin perceived threat. We're talking about dogs that attack small kids. Or dogs that randomly have brain explosions and attack their owners. Or attack whoever is walking down the street.

Well there are only three reasons I can see a dog attacking:
1) For food - as long as the dog is fed properly I would expect this to be unlikely.
2) Because it's an arsehole - unless a particular individual dog has a history of attacking for the hell of it this is unlikely.
3) For defense - i.e. responding to a percieved threat even if it isn't a real threat.
Maybe I'm missing something major there but it makes sense to me that #3 would be the most common reason if the dog is raised well.

Edit: but yeah, I wouldn't be paying much attention to any "professional" on sunrise.

last edited by Chakas at 18:44:27 24/Jul/06

If you think you can predict the actions and reactions of your dog, you're incredibly naive.

QFT

^ I'd be paying more attn to a professional with a veterinary science qualification and experience in the field who happens to also present on Sunrise than to someone from QGL...


Also...

2) Because it's an arsehole - unless a particular individual dog has a history of attacking for the hell of it this is unlikely.

Dogs can't be arseholes cos they don't have personalities...

Seriously, if a dog went to attack someone, I'm certain it would be for a good reason (i.e. NATURAL instinct or because of "conditioning"/learning).


last edited by Agent 99 at 18:49:52 24/Jul/06

Well there are only three reasons I can see a dog human attacking:
1) For food - as long as the dog human is fed properly I would expect this to be unlikely.
2) Because it's an arsehole - unless a particular individual dog human has a history of attacking for the hell of it this is unlikely.
3) For defense - i.e. responding to a percieved threat even if it isn't a real threat.
Maybe I'm missing something major there but it makes sense to me that #3 would be the most common reason if the dog human is raised well.

Wow, we can throw these statements around like leaves in the wind all we want, they're so general they could apply to plankton. (ps still <3)

Wow Astroboy, you are like the most unoriginal unfunniest c*** that fails at being even remotely funny around here.

Next.

last edited by Loki at 19:02:15 24/Jul/06

I dont understand the debate.

It makes sense to me that if a small child was playing with a dog, a parent would be close by to keep an eye on things. The child dosnt know squat about the body language of a dog, while the parent does. So it is up to the parent to be aware of the dog's current demeanor and act appropriately.

That is what parenting is all about.

If the dog breed is known to be potentialy dangerous then the parent would act with more caution.

No need to ban dog breeds, parents and dog owners just need to be aware of what their breed is knowen to do. Then after they have learnt such things the risk of attack is weighed up by the parents.

That's the point loki I was being extremely general, but I'm not quite feeling the <3 so much there. 99, who said you should ever listen to anyone on QGL?

Dogs can't be arseholes cos they don't have personalities...

And women don't have brains, yet somehow they continue to post on QGL.

LOL.

Actually Bah, you'll find dogs (like other animals) don't have personalities as they are not sentient beings...

Please think before you post in future.

I guess they have dogalities?

If by "dogality" u mean...

Seriously, if a dog went to attack someone, I'm certain it would be for a good reason (i.e. NATURAL instinct or because of "conditioning"/learning).

then yes.


:P

Dogs can't be arseholes cos they don't have personalities...

Astroboy had a theory that Agent 99 was a fat asian girl, and there's your proof.

Gee thanks Mark!

PS U now owe me a drink.

The Cock you are a f***ing moron and I wish you were killed by a dog when you were 4 years old.

but I'm not quite feeling the <3 so much there

Hay look just cause I shat on your statement doesn't mean...
ahh meh. :P

Shat is such a harsh term....

Actually Bah, you'll find dogs (like other animals) don't have personalities as they are not sentient beings...

Since when does a personality require a being to be sentient?

yams!

Sorry...can't debate now...thickshakes!!

Come on Loki, get off the net! :)

He's back and hearting yams more than ever clearly.

Since when does a personality require a being to be sentient?

I feel so dirty... but I'd have to agree with fpot *shudder*. Personality doesn't rely on sentience. Infants aren't sentient, would you deny that they have personality? Infants and dogs may not have a personality, but it doesn't mean they can't have personality or character. Eat semantics, biarches.

last edited by Crizane Tribal at 20:00:14 24/Jul/06

last edited by Crizane Tribal at 20:00:26 24/Jul/06

After the first time you feel less and less dirty everytime it happens.

Have you ever owned a dog for an extended period of time?

sen·tient (sĕn'shənt, -shē-ənt) pronunciation
adj.

1. Having sense perception; conscious: “The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage” (T.E. Lawrence).
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

[Latin sentiēns, sentient-, present participle of sentīre, to feel.]
sentiently sen'tient·ly adv.

Dogs feel, I'm sure. :D

Sentience by definition is awereness of your own senses and therefor perception of the seperation of self from one's environment. So dog's certainly aren't sentient, but anybody who has ever had a dog knows they have personality.

Yes, I've always owned a dog :)


Also ppl, u might like to note that Wikipedia is not really a definitive source of info (I was just reading this as I have a feeling most of you use it as your source of info). Dogs aren't sentient per se...it's complicated, but basically they don't have the ability to judge and make decisions; they're instinctive more than anything. But back to the point, they don't have a personality.

Sorry kids, can't debate now. Back laters.

You're a fat f*** fpot - if you're not participating in the debate then f*** off.

Dogs can't be arseholes cos they don't have personalities...

That's bulls***.

On several occasions when I was a kid I was walking down the street minding my own business, when packs of dogs would appear from nowhere and line me up. f***ing raving mad things barking their heads off and sprinting straight for me - I knew I was f***ed.

It was only because I was a good sprinter and fearing for my life that I made it to safety. On one occasion I had to climb ontop of a parked car just before they got to me, and they still wouldn't give up the f***ers wanted blood.

So u very nearly got your wish fpot. Am I harbouring angst from my traumatic childhood experiences? f***ing oath. The things are menaces and anyone who thinks u can "un-train" genetics and 10's of thousands of years of evolution is f***ing kidding themselves.

You do realise that dogs have undergone thousands and thousands of years of domestication and that we haven't just recently plucked them out of the wild to be our pets do you? No-one here is kidding themselves, you just don't know what the f*** you are talking about.

Also ppl, u might like to note that Wikipedia is not really a definitive source of info

Not that I have got anything from there for this particular topic, but I would always trust it 1000x more than you.



last edited by fpot at 20:11:02 24/Jul/06

Im going to have to agree with the cock on this one, fpot is a fat f***.

Im going to have to agree with the cock

Hmmm, you make an interesting point there.

I'll explain why I think dogs have a personality.

I believe they have a personality because when my dog was happy, sad, tired, sick, or bored, I could tell just by looking (lol). I could relate to it in a way that was eerily close to my strength in relationships with fellow humans. I don't really buy into all that metaphysical stuff, but I could truly feel an 'aura' around my dog (and other dogs too) that really made me feel like he was one of us.

I guess it is possible that the dog can simply mimic the actions required to trick me into thinking that way, but how could you possibly prove that? (and I'd have to admit I had been outsmarted by a dog).

edit: also the dogs trying to attack the cock is further evidence supporting that case that they have a personality.

last edited by fpot at 20:20:04 24/Jul/06

one of my favourite shows on tele is "when animals attack"

its a show about animals that we thought were our friends "attacking" us

late edit: haha, heres an awesome video of a super well trained police dog going to work!
http://poststuff5.entensity.net/072106/media.php?media=dog.wmv

last edited by Spook at 20:32:33 24/Jul/06

Does anyone else find it funny that fpot is telling us that all the empirical proof that certain breeds are more prone to attacking humans (for whatever reason) is bulls***, and then telling us his pet dog was his soul mate and he could "feel" its aura? haha!

Good one Dennis Denuto.

"...its the vibe"

Does anyone else find it funny that fpot is telling us that all the empirical proof that certain breeds are more prone to attacking humans

When did I mention anything about this? Oh wait...

you just don't know what the f*** you are talking about.

if they attacked that cock they must have a very intuitive personality

but I could truly feel an 'aura' around my dog

So are you guys f***in?

When I did the taxidermy I made sure I left a hole.

charming

some valid points there but aside from Tanaka and maybe Astroboy real men dont like the cock anyway

Lucky that you're not a real man then SCOGGEX, otherwise what/who would you ever do on a Friday night?

You really need to grow up, I showed you up in the IDF thread and this is the best you can come back at me with?

ZOMG every thread is an ePeen contest!

http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/8177/startrekspockvskirklj9.jpg
Oh teh noes, more fighting on teh interwebs.

PUPPIES!

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/3194/cutewhitepuppyth0.jpghttp://img459.imageshack.us/img459/5029/cutejackrusselsm7.jpghttp://img459.imageshack.us/img459/2145/laughingpuppyvm1.jpg

Awwwww, da cute puppies

Im exhausted.

They're clearly photoshoped, you can look just by telling at them.

Awww, how cute :)

When will people realise there's nothing wrong with bringing up certain breeds in a proper way like this: http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/local/crime_courts/15123596.htm

And then, Crizane Tribal saved the thread and won it in one fell swoop.

I win. Close thread. KTHNXBI.

ahahaha i agree on you winning

WHAT THE

f***

IS GOING ON IN THIS THREAD HAI GUYS INTERNETSZ.