I agree, this Presa actually looks quite nice with ears compared to the beast above.

 

That looks a lot nicer. Personally i cant see any other reason to snip there ears other than to make them look more intimidating and agressive. Its the people that own them for that reason are the people who shouldn't

 

Just a quick update the dog in question was a pitbull "style " dog,it was off the lead being teased by it's owner as they walked down the street ,the street had several children playing in it,the dog then ran across the street to the other side and started to attack an 11 year old girl,what I'm annoyed with is that this dog has been used for dog fighting,it has attacked a child before,the owner hid the dog until the police stopped looking for it,after giving a statement to the police today and talking to the head of the investigation,the police are taking this very seriously and are actively searching (yet again) for the dog and also this time the owner,who have gone into hiding!,as for the condition of the girl it's not looking good as it's 50/50 if she will have to have her leg amputated .

 

That is terrible, God I can't imagine the anguish the poor girls parents are going through.
I hope someone gives the dog owner what he deserves when he is found..

 

From what you have said it sounds very much like the owner is to blame rather than the dog. Especially if it has been trained to fight.

I hope the little girl makes a full and speedy recovery.

 

I sincerely hope he is dealt with harshly under the dangerous owners act ...

 

They wont punish him but will destroy the dog.

 

Yeah man sounds like that.

Harsh but fair.

 

Pit Bulls are bred for one thing, fighting, they are not a natural breed and they cannot be safely and reliably trained. Dont confuse them with Staffies, they are not the same. Its in their genes, most can be quiet dogs but there is always the risk of their breeding coming out if the situation triggers it. Same as some wild animals they cannot be completely domesticated.

 

Probably not Alex/Jason/Jaycee (whoever you are today) - even possibly unclebuck? but its not far from the truth to say you haven't got a clue on this subject - something that has been clearly established over many threads previously.

I'm with you on the banning of breeds specifically bred to fight, though, so lets not go down that road


tut..tut...now you are humanising the way in which you feel a dog may react to try and rationalise your position, and yet by your own comments that is an irresponsible thing to do

But indulge me with this. You are sitting quietly in your garden when someone enters unlawfully and approaches you in a threatening manner waving a big stick about. Your instinct tells you there is a serious threat (if it wasn't blindingly obvious) You can't run away because your exits are blocked. You are unable to communicate with the "oik" that is invading your property and he/she is not responding to what to you is a clear and obvious warning.

What do you do?

 

The owner and the dog should both be shot (if the above is true)

 

Clearly the fact I was taking the **** out of Airhead has sailed straight over your shiny bonce
You know what, Dogboy, almost exactly that happened to me 5 months ago ... just replace human and stick with three Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

Please, you are all all lining up to tell me I don't have a clue (apart from the fact you agree with the breeds banned so far )... elaborate why don't you!

 

The clue you don't have is in relation to animal behavior.

Interested as to why "dogboy" Alex. ( I'm assuming its Alex as it can't be Jason C as he has a shiney bonce as well )



Or is it Jaycee, in which case drawing a similarity to animals is a very, very dangerous place to go...LOL....

Why the hostility dude...you still smarting from when you got well and truly owned by Alan on TRL ??

 

Diablo unfortunately it is true ,this is something that cannot be made up.

 

Its the owners fault not the dog i bet its more confused than anything maybe he "play bites" his owner and not realised?
its the owner that should be punished afterall it was supposed to be on a lead, staffs can be as bad as pit bulls as my brothers staff went to bite his girlfriend after she tried to let him out of his cage coz he went toilet in it by accident but lucky it didnt bite her. I hope the girl makes a full recovery without having to have her leg amputated that would be just horrific at that age.

 

Oh look, another unfortunate child who turned down Dogboy's school of animal behaviours... more fool him then

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/c...re/4797291.stm

 

Quick change of login I see. Was the sociopath/Martin Aimless thing getting too complex?

Its the dog owner's fault on this occasion. Your point is what exactly?

 

Did you watch the video and catch the favourite phrases, totally out of character, usually fine with kids, professionally assessed... oops, it's that owner thang again!

If you know not what my point is now you never will, you hapless cretin!

 

I caught something on the news at lunchtime saying young lad had been attacked by American Terrier (or something like that). Ripped his face apart. Needed 200 stitches Dog had been in Rescue Home before being found a new home. dl

 

He cannae handle the truth.

 

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...538086,00.html

?

 

grim....i will never own a dog again capable of such damage. simply dont see the point when theres so many breeds and so many of them are just not able to do that damage.

my EBT was better with my kids than my lurchers are.....but if he wanted he could have killed them and the lurchers simply could not do that damage - why bother with the extra risk????

 

Ah...yet another incarnation. Are you so spinless that you need to keep generating alternate egos?

Of course I can handle the truth. If a dog (or any animal) attacks without provocation it should be destroyed.

If it attacks as a defence mechanism, thats a different matter.

What you ***** can't grasp is that 99% of the time the dogs behaviour in these circumstances is down to either innapropriate (or non existant) training and handling, in the same way as all these nasty little *******s who grow up to a life of crime can thank their parents (or carers) for not doing a proper job bringing them up.

I've just read the sky article:

"the dog, called Fin, was put down after the attack.

Police had reportedly received complaints about it several weeks ago but could not take any action"

Which raises a number of points :-

We have a suspected dangerous dog in the area.

Police do nothing

Kids are out playing

Owner is clearly irresponsible

It's not, therefore, surprising this happened, and could have been avoided in any number of ways.

Turning back to my Alex/Jaycee/Jason/UB fan club, what do you propose? Ban everything that could potentially injure a child?

The answer is easy. You need to pass an intelligence and attitide test to obtain a licence to keep a dog. The tests themselves would be set with input from those who know the specific breed traits and what is required.

You fail, you can't have one. You defy the law, you go to jail.

Hell, lets extend it to parenting as well.

I'd be all in favour of that.

 

Yeah, keep going, nice big list you have there

Do you not have contacts in the moderator world who might confirm the one account I use? Do you have any friends in there since you were sacked? Maybe they can help you
This is your problem, Dogboy, your inability to comprehend beyond black & white. I am guessing you are an uptight sort

Your highly inflated opinion of yourself clouds your objectivity, a dog attacking a human = bad owner, case closed... a child becoming a criminal = bad parenting, case closed. This is Dogboy's world and we simply inconvenience him by living in it, case closed

 

To be honest, I couldn't care to argue who you are. Others may want to know what they are dealing with, though.

Proxy access/ non fixed IP addresses, all of that makes it impossible for the moderators to confirm the position anyway. Your knowledge and posting style says more. If you wish to try and continue the masquerade then please do so.

You seem to have a real issue with this whole dog thing, perhaps something is preventing rational discussion? Something you would like to share, so perhaps we could better understand your issues?

On this thread I have posted at least twice that the dog should be destroyed.

Whether you wish to believe it or not, it is a matter of fact that a dog attacking a human = bad owner. That owner may be the nicest person in the world, but that doesn't stop them being a "bad owner".

Ironically you accuse me of being unable to see beyond black and white, and yet yourself hold a very, very defined view on this and are yourself unwilling to see the grey areas.

If you consider speaking ona subject with the benefit of first hand experience of what you consider to be "dangerous dogs", dog behaviour, dog rehabilitation, proper training and behavioral regimes as having a "highly inflated opinion of myself that clouds my objectivity" then that is your perogative.

Personally, I would always base my objectivity on my knowledge and personal experience of the subject in hand, and would never now, with the benefit of age and experience, profess to comment with any conviction on anything of which I was not sufficiently knowledgeable that I could do so accurately.

Tell me oik, what do you base your objectivity of the subject of "dangerous" dogs on ?

 

Oh, so now you 'don't care'!

There you were, going to all that trouble accusing me of being just about anybody and now, all of a sudden, 'I couldn't care to argue who you are'
I am not hiding anything, go ahead, ask one of your moderator friends, you do have some don't you?
I take issue with an animal capable of these atrocities being in a situation where one simple mistake means a leg eaten, or a face ripped off... you hide behind owners and licencing all day, it changes nothing.

Really, well I never!
You are irrational, you simply cannot accept that it is possible for a dog of this type to be unpredictable and savage with devastating consequences, with or without owner guidance at the Dogboy Behaviourist Centre!
Oh dear, you were doing ok up to that point!

Pretentious, moi?

No no, you have convinced me, I accept your point on not banning anything that would potentially harm children, apart from the fact that has already happened, and will continue to happen... I am thinking of perhaps buying an Alligator, I will be a responsible owner and it will need socialising of course! Fancy popping round for a coffee?

 

LOL you only read what you want to believe, don't you

I can accept that it is possible. Of course I can. If I didn't, there would be no need for me to argue the case for responsible ownership you halfwit

There, that kind of screws your whole point, doesn't it

Alex, I'd be happy to come and visit your Alligator

And lets try harder on answering my question as to how you base your objectivity on the subject of dangerous dogs.

Replying with sarcasm is a poor effort and a cop out if ever I saw one. I expected more of you.

 

I have more experience than you could possibly fathom
Let's see you agree then, let's see you accept that the notion "there is no such thing as a bad dog, just a bad owner" simply isn't true!
The only thing that is 'screwed' is your take on reality old chap!
LOL! Oh well, at least you have had a stab a whittling the list down!

 

Please, share that experience with us. Share with us the basis upon which you are qualified to comment "objectively"

Are you a vet? An animal behaviorist? Do you even have a dog? Or are you commenting as one who has a fear of "big dogs" based upon some traumatic event in your life?

If its the latter, you are hardly in a position to comment "objectively"

Ah, the old "lets catch out with a miss qote routine"

You're rather pathetically trying to base your argument on semantics as you have failed otherwise.

I think you'll find that anything of that nature I've posted previously was qualified with a few exceptions. Taking those exeptions into account, no, there is no such thing as a "bad dog".

Illness, bad breeding (to promote aggression), mistreatment and poor training can, of course, result in unpredicability or, in your words, a "bad dog". Would you not agree that all of those, with the exception of illness, are down to human intervention ?

Would you also not agree that a responsible owner would take steps to ensure that such a dog was never in a a position to cause harm to anyone?

Would you also not agree that if said "bad dog" was allowed to cause harm that the owner must accept responsibility?

 

That type of dog is, by it's very nature, dangerous, so a bit obvious that one
What are they supposed to do, nothing has happened yet, we need a face hanging off or a leg eaten first...
You can picture the scene, birds tweeting, the infectious sound of childrens laughter permeates the air
Hang on! You have missed a bit... what about the part where the animal charges for the boy and eats his face, without provocation and having been assessed and cleared by professionals like yourself!

Did the animal slip it's leash?, was it a mistake? Nobody is perfect (yourself excepted, naturally
No, with this type of dog it isn't surprising, unfortunatley
Why don't you ask them?
Black and White... it's easy peasy!