Does something need to be done about dogs?

[ttaskmaster]

That seems unnecessarily excessive though, there are plenty of organisations that rescue dogs in other countries (Romania, Greece etc..) and find homes for them in the UK, rescue dogs like that are often mongrels.

Some are, some aren't. But at the same time, most of the people who'd want a status dog won't be getting one from a rescue centre either. Those who do tend to have done their research and are determined to do well by their adoptees. So in the relatively infrequent circumstances where the individual dog does have some 'issues' in its past, the owners are more likely to be aware and prepared to help it reintegrate into society.

But we don't have a huge issue with mutts in general killing people, the issue is with big fighting dogs, like the XL bully which is basically just a big version of a pitbull.

Tell me again about issues with numeracy...
I say this because the statistics, which you yourself have cited in the past, often assert mixed/mongrel/cross breeds and 'unknown' as the highest proportion of attacks.
Pit Bull types have the higher likelihood of fatal attacks, but other breeds have higher rates of serious injury, which highlights how "the issue" is not confined to one particular breed, sub-breed or variant.
Also, you seem to have missed how many cross/mixed breeds were on the frequently-posted Wiki list of fatal attacks.

 

[dowie]

I say this because the statistics, which you yourself have cited in the past, often assert mixed/mongrel/cross breeds and 'unknown' as the highest proportion of attacks.
Pit Bull types have the higher likelihood of fatal attacks, but other breeds have higher rates of serious injury, which highlights how "the issue" is not confined to one particular breed, sub-breed or variant.
Also, you seem to have missed how many cross/mixed breeds were on the frequently-posted Wiki list of fatal attacks.

Nope, the stats I cited showed that pitbull types are disproportionately killing people. Do you not understand that as far as the most serious attacks are concerned then that's also indicative, for every fatality there will be several more very serious cases where someone was able to be saved.

I've also not missed that various crosses are posted on the list of fatal attacks though they're hardly any old mutt, bit different if it's say a bulldog/mastiff cross.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Nope, the stats I cited showed that pitbull types are disproportionately killing people.

Go back and re-read what I actually wrote....!
You do realise you're saying the same thing, right?

Do you not understand that as far as the most serious attacks are concerned then that's also indicative, for every fatality there will be several more very serious cases where someone was able to be saved.

Leaving aside that 'Saved' is a subjective term, given that those with serious injuries (Levels 4-5 on Dr. Ian Dunbar's bite severity scale) tend to have life-altering effects...

The most common breed causing such an injury is 'Unknown'.
Prior to the implementation of the DDA, 24% of people admitted to a hospital with dog bite injuries were bitten by German shepherds, compared with 18.2% bitten by mongrels, and 6% bitten by those considered “dangerous” breeds (Pit Bull types, Rottweilers, and Dobermans). Subsequent studies examining the effectiveness of the DDA showed these same numbers remaining roughly consistent for decades.

Actual stats vary between areas, but GSDs, Rottweilers and various working breeds tend to rank higher than Pit Bull types for serious injuries, with more traditional family breeds also coming higher when looking at frequency and likelihood of biting (albeit not always as seriously).

So while "indicative" meaning suggestive might be a logical term to use when theorising, the real-world numbers say otherwise. - Pit Bull types kill more, other breeds seriously injure more.

Five most dangerous dog breeds according to lawyer with warning

An expert lawyer known as The Dog Bite Solicitor says changing the law on XL Bully dogs will not stop attacks

www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk

I've also not missed that various crosses are posted on the list of fatal attacks though they're hardly any old mutt, bit different if it's say a bulldog/mastiff cross.

Then you'll also not have missed that the vast majority of breeds given in those stats are from media sources, including the Wiki page.
90% of the dogs in the fatal bite study posted earlier were reported by the news media as belonging to a single breed, despite the fact that documentation of breed was rarely available. Accurate identification of breed was able to be made in only 18% of the cases. Of those 18%, 20 different breeds were represented. Therefore, it is not reliable to utilise the news media as a source of information regarding breed identification.

Dog Bite-Related Fatalities: A Literature Review - National Canine Research Council

DBRFs are extremely rare, and because research indicates that they are largely preventable and may disproportionately affect children, there has been a push to better understand the circumstances and variables that contribute to such incidents.

nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com

 

[dowie]

Leaving aside that 'Saved' is a subjective term, given that those with serious injuries (Levels 4-5 on Dr. Ian Dunbar's bite severity scale) tend to have life-altering effects...

No there isn't much subjectivity there, there is either a death or a life has been saved. That someone is severely injured permanently is tangential to whether or not they died!

As for your guff about the spike in dog deaths being from misidentified XL Bullys, as if some other mythical breeds have suddenly started killing... pure cope!

 

[ttaskmaster]

No there isn't much subjectivity there, there is either a death or a life has been saved. That someone is severely injured permanently is tangential to whether or not they died!

In many cases, death would have been preferable to living the rest of your life permanently disfigured, traumatised and ever in fear of dogs. Just because you seem to think death is the worst possible fate and thus the only one counting, does not negate the subjective realities that survivors continually face.

As for your guff about the spike in dog deaths being from misidentified XL Bullys, as if some other mythical breeds have suddenly started killing... pure cope!

Lucky I never said that either then, innit!
You really don't read anything properly, do you?

 

[dowie]

In many cases, death would have been preferable to living the rest of your life permanently disfigured, traumatised and ever in fear of dogs. Just because you seem to think death is the worst possible fate and thus the only one counting, does not negate the subjective realities that survivors continually face.

No, I'm simply pointing out that for every death there are probably more cases where someone has survived but been seriously injured.

And somehow you've decided to go off on one about "survive" being objective or to start making some subjective argument about whether it's better to die or to be permanently injured etc.. when that's got nothing to do with the point being made.

 

[ttaskmaster]

No, I'm simply pointing out that for every death there are probably more cases where someone has survived but been seriously injured.

On its own, did that even need pointing out?
Hey, get this, right - For every dog that attacks, there are several thousand that don't attack... Just 'pointing it out', y'know...

However, in the context established by your previous sentence, you were fallaciously trying to focus both elements, and imply blame, solely upon Pit Bull types, when the stats assert otherwise.

And somehow you've decided to go off on one about "survive" being objective or to start making some subjective argument about whether it's better to die or to be permanently injured etc.. when that's got nothing to do with the point being made.

Since you haven't read up on the bite severity index, the injury levels from the other breeds mentioned are considered serious enough that the aftermath is comparable to an outright kill, both subjectively and from a legal standpoint.
The reason for bringing them us is that you're getting yourself blinkered by just deaths and by just the one variant of a wider breed, when the same factors dictate the problem as a whole.

 

[dowie]

On its own, did that even need pointing out?
Hey, get this, right - For every dog that attacks, there are several thousand that don't attack... Just 'pointing it out', y'know...

However, in the context established by your previous sentence, you were fallaciously trying to focus both elements, and imply blame, solely upon Pit Bull types, when the stats assert otherwise.

Not at all, no one said other dogs don't attack the point you're oblivious to is pitbull types being disproportionately more likely to kill and seriously injure.

 

[dowie]

Looks like they'll be banned in NI too now:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752745981299335672

 

[Dis86]

Story on the local news about them atm and the state of the owners being interviewed. Without exception they're all just absolute dregs.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Not at all, no one said other dogs don't attack the point you're oblivious to is pitbull types being disproportionately more likely to kill and seriously injure.

Kill yes, seriously injure no, which was the point you're oblivious to, as illustrated by the very statistics you're so reliant upon, which is why the very small number of deaths from just one particular variant of a sub-breed are only a part of the wider problem.

 

[dowie]

Kill yes, seriously injure no, which was the point you're oblivious to, as illustrated by the very statistics

Which statistics?

 

[ttaskmaster]

Which statistics?

Nope, the stats I cited showed that.....

Are you really that far out of ideas, now?

 

[dowie]

Are you really that far out of ideas, now?

I think you're getting confused, I'm referring to the stats re: deaths and you're apparently imagining some other stats?

 

[ttaskmaster]

I think you're getting confused, I'm referring to the stats re: deaths and you're apparently imagining some other stats?

What, the dog attack statistics we've been talking about throughout this thread?
Nope, no imagining there. You yourself have cited them on several occasions, as well as trying to assert things based on them, while also discounting them, depending on which perspective serves your agenda at the time.

These are the same stats which you assert are "indicative"... enough that you definitively argue that there "will be" several-fold more serious cases per fatality... before then backpedalling that to a mere assertion of "probably"... and now you're back to ignoring everything else but the one stat on deaths attributed to the one breed sub-variant.

 

[dowie]

What, the dog attack statistics we've been talking about throughout this thread?

Just cite whatever you're talking about or shut up tbh..

 

[ttaskmaster]

Just cite whatever you're talking about or shut up tbh..

Already cited several times, including on this very page. But then, you never read that anyway.
Your refusal to even acknowlege your own citations is pure disingenuity... or 'cope', as you would say.

 

[Johno please?]

Story on the local news about them atm and the state of the owners being interviewed. Without exception they're all just absolute dregs.

Probably true but you could also pick out another 5 breed like bulldogs or bull terriers, staffies, and the owners will be just as scummy.

I used to walk a bull terrier and he has real issues, eats anything from the floor, and his owners just didn't seem to give a ****, it was 30mins of stress worried he was gonna eat another bit of cardboard or plastic rubbish and have him die on my watch.

 

[dowie]

Already cited several times, including on this very page.

I can't see you citing any stats I've posted, use the quote function you're so fond of next time. If you're going to reply to a post asking for a citation/clarification re: whatever TF you're dribbling on about and you're claiming it's been posted multiple times then it's super easy to just quote where. Don't just assume everyone has read the essay-length stuff you've sperged out here where you go off on multiple tangents. If you've got some specific point to make re: some stats you claim I posted then just quote the relevant post and make the point... if you can't even do that and just reply with some more waffle then that says it all really.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I can't see you citing any stats I've posted, use the quote function you're so fond of next time.

I already did that.
And again:

Nope, the stats I cited showed that pitbull types are disproportionately killing people.

Same stats, mate.
Not my problem if you're incapable of acknowledging more than just the bits that suit your own internal narrative.

Don't just assume everyone has read the essay-length stuff you've sperged out here where you go off on multiple tangents.

If you're not going to read it, then any response you have is invalidated by your own wilful ignorance.