Heroic action saves tot from dog

**Biff** · 7th August 2007, 11:48

Graphic image (mauled child), sad story:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4155221a10.html

Ban 'dangerous' breeds of dogs I say.

How to define a dangerous dog....?

**ManDownUnder** · 7th August 2007, 11:55

Originally Posted by Biff

Graphic image (mauled child), sad story:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4155221a10.html

Ban 'dangerous' breeds of dogs I say.

How to define a dangerous dog....?

Get the breeds of dog represented in maulings. Find someone good at stats and ask them to correlate breeds with maulings.

Any breed involved in more than 2 maulings a year (number out of my arse)... ban them. After 2 years put a price on their heads. $1,000 reward for anyone dobbing in a dangerous dog.

**Curious_AJ** · 7th August 2007, 12:02

its not the dogs that ar dangerous themselves.. its the owners who don't raise them properly... I hate people who let their dogs get like that, or force them to be like that in any way...

but then, the thing is, was the kid supervised? was it trying to annoy the dog at all?

"Senior Constable Rob Fraser said there had been no previous complaints about the dog"... not often are dogs likely to just fly off the handle unless something particularely annoys them...

its bad what happened.. but you have to look at the bigger picture as well... maybe it was the child's parents fault, as that story didnt seem to state that they were watchign her in any way... a kid doesnt really know what a dog doesn't like...

people should take care of their kids and dogs properly I say...

p.s could be both parties fault as well...

**sugilite:Me** · 7th August 2007, 12:11

Originally Posted by ManDownUnder

Get the breeds of dog represented in maulings. Find someone good at stats and ask them to correlate breeds with maulings.

This has already been done, Labradors came out on top by quite some margin.

**Swoop** · 7th August 2007, 12:16

Thank goodness the labour party got rid of dog maulings, by getting all dogs microchipped......

**MisterD** · 7th August 2007, 12:19

Originally Posted by sugilite

This has already been done, Labradors came out on top by quite some margin.

I'd dispute that....Labs will probably come out top if you define a "dog attack" to include any time a dog bites a child, but almost invariably that will be the dog acting as it would with an over-boisterous puppy and administering a disciplining "nip". I don't think I've ever heard of a Lab responsible for a full-on, won't let go, life-threatening mauling.

**avgas** · 7th August 2007, 12:22

Originally Posted by Biff

How to define a dangerous dog....?

The one with a moron for an owner.
I still don't understand why you don't have to do a course to own a dog.

**MisterD** · 7th August 2007, 12:22

Originally Posted by ManDownUnder

Any breed involved in more than 2 maulings a year (number out of my arse)... ban them. After 2 years put a price on their heads. $1,000 reward for anyone dobbing in a dangerous dog.

The trouble is, how do you define a breed? Ban "Pit-bulls" then suddenly you have loads of mongrels with a hefty dose of pit-bull blood...so when do they stop being undefined mongrels and start being a particular breed?

Do we ask them how they define themselves, like Maori?

**Biff** · 7th August 2007, 12:23

Originally Posted by Curious_AJ

its not the dogs that ar dangerous themselves.. its the owners who don't raise them properly...

Unfortunately that's not entirely correct, as some dog breeds are simply much more likely to attack people (especially kids) than others. Sure the way that you treat a dog can have a massive impact on its temperament, but the fact is that a staffie is much more likely to attack human than a poodle, for example...

**MisterD** · 7th August 2007, 12:24

Originally Posted by avgas

The one with a moron for an owner.
I still don't understand why you don't have to do a course to own a dog.

You don't have to do a course to have a baby and we're not allowed to put them down when they become dangerous to society....

**Flatcap** · 7th August 2007, 12:28

Originally Posted by Biff

Ban 'dangerous' breeds of dogs I say.

How to define a dangerous dog....?

I have a dog and I agree with banning some of the dangerous breeds.

Not only do they attack people, my arithritic Beagle gets monstered frequently on walks because he has no agression at all (unlike his master who is free with swift kicks in the kidneys).

The problem is defining the aggressive breed, and then defining if a particular mongrel belongs to that breed.

**Swoop** · 7th August 2007, 12:37

The Harold:
Updated 12:25PM Tuesday August 07, 2007

Prime Minister Helen Clark says dangerous dogs give her the "creeps" and she is personally in favour of tougher dog laws.

There have been calls for tighter dog control after two-year-old Aotea Coxon was savaged by a dog in a Christchurch park on Sunday, requiring 290 stitches and a plate inserted in a broken jaw.

Miss Clark said she was "repulsed" by the attack.

"It gives you the creeps to think of dangerous dogs strolling around ready to pounce on innocent people. That is why I am more than happy to keep looking at how the law can be improved and how enforcement can be improved," Miss Clark said.

Miss Clark said she had "stronger views" on dog laws than most people, but every time there was a call for a tougher regime there was "pushback" from responsible dog owners and breeders.

The Government was currently waiting for a report that it had commissioned three months ago.

Her comments came after the father of Carolina Anderson, whose injuries from a dog attack three years ago shocked the nation, said some dogs in New Zealand are "loaded guns waiting to go off".

John Anderson said if vicious dogs bred to fight could not be banned at least they should wear muzzles.

"Those sorts of dogs are loaded guns waiting to go off."

The horrific dog attack on his daughter Carolina in an Auckland park in 2003 led to changes in dog control laws.

But he said today not enough had been done.

"We don't have the controls that we need. The first step would be muzzles on these sorts of dogs," he said.

He said the dogs were not needed and were unpredictable and highly dangerous.

United Future leader Peter Dunne backed the call for a ban.

He said there have been eight serious attacks reported by the media in the last year - all of them involving pitbull terriers, bull mastiffs or staffordshire bull terriers.

"It is totally unacceptable that the Government is just standing by and watching as another child has her life turned upside down in such vicious circumstances," he said last night.

"The community is simply not a place for large, aggressive, territorial attack dogs."

Mr Dunne, whose party has a support agreement with the Government, said attacks would continue until dangerous dogs were banned.

Two-year-old Aotea was playing at a park in Christchurch yesterday morning when a staffordshire-cross began to maul her.

The little girl suffered severe facial injuries but is in a stable condition in hospital.

Police are considering charging the owners of the dog. It was destroyed with their permission yesterday afternoon.

Nice when politicians are bringing their biases to the issue, instead of being the representative of their electorate and its views/wishes/direction...