Police investigate dog breed after death

Originally posted by ThePittman
Yes they can have a traits passed down from generation to generation but that doesn’t make then more or less naturally aggressive, aggression is not a natural trait such as herding or walking around in circles before they lay down. Aggression is not limited to any one breed, which would be the same as saying that blacks are more prone to violence because of their race and that they came from a violent background. Do they know how to effectively kill their prey better than other breeds, yes but that doesn’t mean they are more aggressive than other breeds.

Someone needs to watch more dog whisperer........you're mixing traits and behaviors poorly in this discussion.

Originally posted by Soleran
Someone needs to watch more dog whisperer........you're mixing traits and behaviors poorly in this discussion.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Have you ever watched the show? He says the same thing that I am, also my wife is in her 3rd year of Vet School and is also very much against the banning of Pitbulls and Rottweilers and works to get the bans lifted. What makes you so educated in this anyway and that my argument is flawed?

Well for one thing this comment:

aggression is not a natural trait such as herding

Agression can also be a sign of dominance and that is natural, hunting is natural and those two traits are apparent. To say certain breeds of dogs aren't more prone to violence due to breeding is crazy.

Is it safe to safe we selectively bred animals for herding, the answer is yes and they display these tendencies. Whats to say it cannot be done with other traits? Here's the answer, it can be done. Hence there are breeds of dogs more prone to aggression due to breeding.

Aggression is not a black and white thing, you breed animals for certain traits such as fighting ability, strength, sense of smell or what ever but aggression is something different. You can compare two dogs and one may be more protective then the other but that doesn’t mean it is more aggressive. Aggression varies even in its description.

http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/our_pets_for_life_program/dog_behavior_tip_sheets/aggression.html

If you subscribe to the idea that violent behavior is passed down from generation to generation then I can see what you mean. Aggression is a description of a reaction much like trying to describe feelings; can you say one breed is happier than another?

Originally posted by ThePittman
Aggression is not a black and white thing, you breed animals for certain traits such as fighting ability, strength, sense of smell or what ever but aggression is something different. You can compare two dogs and one may be more protective then the other but that doesn’t mean it is more aggressive. Aggression varies even in its description.

http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/our_pets_for_life_program/dog_behavior_tip_sheets/aggression.html

If you subscribe to the idea that violent behavior is passed down from generation to generation then I can see what you mean. Aggression is a description of a reaction much like trying to describe feelings; can you say one breed is happier than another?

Here's the answer, it can be done. Hence there are breeds of dogs more prone to aggression due to breeding.

Which is why I also went to the extra effort to display different types of uses for dogs and their tendancies based on their purpose and breeding.

So it's fairly safe to assume based on previous uses and breeding a "fighting" breed will display more aggressive tendancies, they are more aggressive, that's how it is. Pit Bulls fall into fighting breeds.

Here is an email that was sent out to CSU vet students when the ban happened here in Colorado.

"This type of breed specific legislation has been attempted in other cities. Statistically, these laws do NOT decrease the number of dog bites or attacks reported annually. Keep in mind that a Pomeranian killed an infant in 2000 and a jack Russell severely mauled a child in 2003.The concept of “dangerous breeds” stemmed from a CDC report looking at the number of fatal dog attacks between the 1979 to 1996 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm). Breeds associated with high fatal attack numbers included pit bulls (highest), rotties, Dobies, huskies, st. Bernard’s, etc. These were compared based on number of attacks alone, rather than the prevalence of attacks.

By way of example: If you had 1000 pit bulls in a city and 3 fatal attacks, but 100 cocker spaniels and 2 attacks, the pit bull would still be listed ahead of the cocker in terms of “Likeliness to attack.” However, statistically, the cocker would be the more aggressive of the two. The population of a certain breed of dog obviously greatly influences the number of bites reported. Now that Rottweilers are gaining in popularity, they are surpassing pit bulls in number of attacks. Furthermore, the CDC data only represents fatal attacks and does nothing to identify the breeds associated with much more common nonfatal, but often disfiguring, bites.

The CDC itself says, “Additional strategies to encourage responsible pet ownership and reduce dog bites include regulatory measures (e.g., licensing, neutering, and registration programs and programs to control unrestrained animals) and legislation (7). “Dangerous” dog laws focus on dogs of any breed that have exhibited harmful behavior (e.g., unprovoked attacks on persons or animals) and place primary responsibility for a dog’s behavior on the owner. Because a dog’s tendency to bite depends on other factors in addition to genetics (e.g., medical and behavioral health, early experience, socialization and training, and victim behavior), such laws might be more effective than breed-specific legislation (7). These prevention strategies require further evaluation.” (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm)
It is vital to educate the public on responsible dog ownership and to take a hard-line with truly aggressive dogs. However, this breed specific legislation wastes tax dollars without addressing the problem. Please take a moment to sign the petition.

Thanks for your time,
Liz Gray
Elizabeth Gray, MS
Colorado State University PVM 2006
"

A little more

http://www.dogobedienceadvice.com/which_dog_breeds_are_most_aggressive.php

Originally posted by Kayne Archeron
pit bulls are aggressive, but not naturally THIS violent. NO ANIMAL that you can legally own in your home is THAT violent on its own. this had to be an abusive act of the owners

I agree.

Originally posted by smoker4

Ms Simpson also suffered serious injuries in the deadly assault. The dog was shot at the scene by police marksmen.

Source [/B]

Thats like Resident Evil Shit.

Following on from the original article:

Twenty-six pit bull-type dogs have been seized and seven people arrested after a series of police raids. Sixty officers, supported by 30 RSPCA staff, stormed 16 addresses in the Knowsley area of Merseyside.

Seven people are in custody under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, following tip-offs from the public.

Pit bull terriers are one of four types of dogs that are banned under the legislation. Those who break the law could be jailed for six months.

Superintendent Dave Connor said:

"This is not a problem specific to Merseyside and it is clear that some people keep pit bull terriers as a status symbol.

"They may not fully understand the implications of owning this type of dog. There is, though, a criminal element that keep them for more sinister purposes.

"Dog fighting is a barbaric activity and it will not be tolerated. Anyone who trains or breeds animals for that purpose can expect to be dealt with robustly."

The RSPCA estimates there may be around 100 people involved in 'hard core' underground dog fighting in Britain, 170 years after the 'sport' was banned.

RSPCA chief inspector Ian Briggs said: "A fight can last for up to two hours, and the animals continue to fight - urged on by their owners - until one is incapable of moving or has drawn its last breath.

"It is a brutal crime, of which the dog is the victim."

The raids follow a number of incidents in which dogs have attacked people, including the fatal mauling of five-year-old Ellie Lawrenson by a family pet.

The youngster was savaged by a pit bull-type terrier while staying at her grandmother's home in St Helens, Merseyside, on New Year's Day.

The total number of suspected pit bulls seized in Merseyside since Ellie's death now stands at 49.

Source

Update

ITN - 1 hour 38 minutes ago

The uncle of a five-year-old girl who was killed by a pit bull terrier has been jailed for eight weeks for owning the illegal dog.

Kiel Simpson, 24, pleaded guilty to owning a dog banned under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act at a previous hearing at Liverpool Magistrates' Court.

Ellie Lawrenson was mauled to death by the one-year-old American pit bull terrier while at her grandmother's house in St Helens, Merseyside, in the early hours of New Year's Day.

Simpson showed no emotion as the sentence was passed. He was led into the cells handcuffed to a guard.

District Judge Alan Jones told Simpson he did not accept the mitigating argument that he had been given official advice that he could keep the dog or that he had instructed his family to leave the animal outside.

"I don't accept that a police officer or any person giving advice would have said it was enough to keep the dog muzzled and on a lead in public if you properly told them what type of dog it was," he said.

"Any court will have experience of dogs like these being used in connection with criminal offences such as drugs trafficking.

"You must have known this as well, since you have a serious conviction for drugs trafficking. Of all people, you in particular should not have had this dog.

"This is a dog of a type nobody has been allowed to possess for the last 15 years, and for good reason. They are capable of inflicting serious injuries to any able-bodied person.

"That a young child suffered such a tragic attack was something which was foreseeable, particularly because the dog was especially fit and had already behaved aggressively to another member of the family.

"It is not enough to absolve you of responsibility that you left the dog with instructions that it should not be left inside the house."

Simpson's mother, 46-year-old Jacqueline Simpson, has been charged with Ellie's manslaughter. A trial will take place later this year.

No dog is more predisposed to violence than any other. It is all about their upbringing and how they were treated. A pitbull owned by a 60 year old granny would never do some thing like this because it would not have that killer instinct. This pitbull was trained to fight.

These dogs were orginally breed to fight, so yes, they do have a tendency to be more aggressive than say a Pomeranian; it's isn't their fault, regardless the aggression is there.

A woman I worked with raised one from an 8 week old puppy, the dog was never abused, I used to play with it when she brought it in on Fridays; he was an extremely friendly dog.. Yet at 1.5 years old, it attacked a young girl for no apparent reason. Yes, I know it's anecdotal, but similar stories are not uncommon when dealing with Pitbulls.

Some dogs have a more protective nature than others which would lead to more “aggressive” behavior, even though a dog is not “abused” doesn’t mean that it will not be aggressive it is more of how it is train and what the dog is thinking. If the owner is not training the dog properly and established that it is the alpha of the family most dogs will assume this role and protect its pack.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Some dogs have a more protective nature than others which would lead to more “aggressive” behavior, even though a dog is not “abused” doesn’t mean that it will not be aggressive it is more of how it is train and what the dog is thinking. If the owner is not training the dog properly and established that it is the alpha of the family most dogs will assume this role and protect its pack.

Still doesn't take away from the fact that these dogs were specifically breed to fight, meaning "aggression" and "pain resistance" were the traits that were magnified in the breed through selective breeding. I know that back in the day "dog fight" dogs that showed aggression towards it's handlers/humans were killed, but still, aggression was the one trait these dogs were breed for.

Is it just coincidence that whenever you hear of a dog mauling, a Pitbull or similar is often involved? Do you think all these [Pittbull] incidents involved a Pitbull that was abused and/or trained to attack or simply a novice owner?

-Edit, I am aware that many online dog sites and dog breeders state that a properly trained Pitbull makes for a great companion and is safe around children. I just find the coincidence of this breeds origins and "dog mauling" stories uncanny.

Originally posted by Robtard
Still doesn't take away from the fact that these dogs were specifically breed to fight, meaning "aggression" adn "pain resistance" were the traits that were magnified in the breed through selective breeding. I know that back in the day "dog fight" dogs that showed aggression towards it's handlers/humans were killed, but still, aggression was the one trait these dogs were breed for.

Is it just coincidence that whenever you hear of a dog mauling, a Pitbull or similar is often involved? Do you think all these [Pittbull] incidents involved a Pitbull that was abused and/or trained to attack or simply a novice owner?

Originally posted by Soleran
Lol anyone who thinks that certain breeds aren't more aggressive or don't have a tendancy for increased aggression need their head examined.

I agree. Most dogs have particular traits hardwired into their particular breeds. Thats why we bred particular breeds.

Originally posted by Magee
No dog is more predisposed to violence than any other. It is all about their upbringing and how they were treated. A pitbull owned by a 60 year old granny would never do some thing like this because it would not have that killer instinct. This pitbull was trained to fight.

No one is suprised when:

-A golden retriever retrieves.
-A border collie exhibits a herding instinct.
-A sight hound chases something.
-A bloodhound follows it's nose.
-A labrador takes to water.
-Or a husky enjoys pulling something (whether it be a sled or owner)

Yet when dogs that were particularly bred for an inclination for attack or violent behaviour (such as presa canarios or pit bulls) behave in such a manner the breed's supporters argue that their breeds are not violent at all.

All dogs have the capacity for violent behaviour. Some dogs have been bred particularly to exhibit that behaviour.

Anyone who argues that is in a state of denial.

As for the people who state that more golden retrievers or poodles bite more people than pitbulls, that is a ridiculous argument as there are 100 times more glodens and poodles out there than pitbulls (or presa's, whichever the case).

Exactly... one aspect of selective breeding is to make one or more traits (physical or mental) more dominant. Pits were originally breed for dog fights, the traits needed for such activities are 'aggression' and 'pain resistance'; it's not the dog's fault that it has an inclination to attack, it was breed/designed too.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Here is an email that was sent out to CSU vet students when the ban happened here in Colorado.

"This type of breed specific legislation has been attempted in other cities. Statistically, these laws do NOT decrease the number of dog bites or attacks reported annually. Keep in mind that a Pomeranian killed an infant in 2000 and a jack Russell severely mauled a child in 2003.The concept of “dangerous breeds” stemmed from a CDC report looking at the number of fatal dog attacks between the 1979 to 1996 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm). Breeds associated with high fatal attack numbers included pit bulls (highest), rotties, Dobies, huskies, st. Bernard’s, etc. These were compared based on number of attacks alone, rather than the prevalence of attacks.

By way of example: If you had 1000 pit bulls in a city and 3 fatal attacks, but 100 cocker spaniels and 2 attacks, the pit bull would still be listed ahead of the cocker in terms of “Likeliness to attack.” However, statistically, the cocker would be the more aggressive of the two. The population of a certain breed of dog obviously greatly influences the number of bites reported. Now that Rottweilers are gaining in popularity, they are surpassing pit bulls in number of attacks. Furthermore, the CDC data only represents fatal attacks and does nothing to identify the breeds associated with much more common nonfatal, but often disfiguring, bites.

The CDC itself says, “Additional strategies to encourage responsible pet ownership and reduce dog bites include regulatory measures (e.g., licensing, neutering, and registration programs and programs to control unrestrained animals) and legislation (7). “Dangerous” dog laws focus on dogs of any breed that have exhibited harmful behavior (e.g., unprovoked attacks on persons or animals) and place primary responsibility for a dog’s behavior on the owner. Because a dog’s tendency to bite depends on other factors in addition to genetics (e.g., medical and behavioral health, early experience, socialization and training, and victim behavior), such laws might be more effective than breed-specific legislation (7). These prevention strategies require further evaluation.” (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a1.htm)
It is vital to educate the public on responsible dog ownership and to take a hard-line with truly aggressive dogs. However, this breed specific legislation wastes tax dollars without addressing the problem. Please take a moment to sign the petition.

Thanks for your time,
Liz Gray
Elizabeth Gray, MS
Colorado State University PVM 2006
"

Originally posted by Fishy
Stupid dog, the parents should have known the danger of that thing... But it always makes me wonder how the hell did that dog get to the child in the first place?

It's not the dog's fault that it's owner refused to get it trained and controlled

Animals cannot be blamed for the wrongdoings of their owners