Talk:Dog attack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Dogs Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page) This article seems very biased. For example, the legality of shooting an attacking dog. The right to self defense exists in every jurisdiction. If you are in fear of of your life or person from a cat, dog, man or woman, you can shoot it. Of course you can't shoot and then lie that you were being attacked nor can you shoot if your fear is entirely unreasonable. Even the section concerning the behavior of dogs seems biased. This is more apparent if you compare it to the articles concerning bear attacks and cougar attacks. Unlike bears and cougars, dogs are (usually) owned by someone and that someone is fully responsible for their actions. There are articles that seem to keep the factual sections away from the subjective sections. Maybe this article would be better if it presented the facts concerning the law, insurance and the legal responsibilities and liabilities of the owners, then the tips on avoiding or defending against an attack. Including gouging the dogs eyes out if that works. And finally a small, and I mean small, criticism section. That seems to be the pattern that works best for other articles. I meant to simply rate the article but did not see much in way of rating the nature (biased) of the article. In any event, I like dogs, but at the same time there is an already long and rich legal precedent that can be talked about factually. The only portion related to "dog attacks" that I see as having much room for subjective criticism is the banning of certain breeds. Even that topic should be approached with facts first (there is already a growing legal precedent) followed by the small subjective section allowing the reader to follow leads to articles written more in the tone of a discussion (like this) rather than an encyclopedia.Syscore 05:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

User:No username This may help but I try to annoy my dog by snapping. I also try to annoy him by blocking his way with such objects like pillows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.4.231 (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

194.130.163.67 14:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)I don't like the conclusion drawn by the Legal Issues section. Neither of the two links support the conclusion that you are legally unable to defend yourself with a gun against a dog attack, since the dog wasn't behaving aggressively toward humans in either case. They just show you can't shoot a nonthreatening dog that's on your property. Does anyone know of any articles about people prosecuted for shooting an attacking dog? TurboCamel 00:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you. Elf | Talk 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember some but I don't know where to get them. I think it is at least easy to find the whole you can't fire a gun in city limits rule. The other two I have heard of also, but I don't know where to find articles. Any ideas on how to do good google news searches because I'm stumped. I believe these are accurate, though and I have seen entire articles with no references at all so maybe we should look for them together. Has anyone else heard of them? DyslexicEditor 06:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea. I own a shotgun (I do). I have a neighbor who owns two vicious pitbulls. They approach me barking and charging at me (they do reguarly but have not bitten me so they city will not do anything). What happens if I shoot the dogs as they are running at me with a shotgun? Could I get away with it? This is your basis for if it's legal to defend yourself with a gun. If someone can find proof that I can (whereas I've read I can't) then get me some proof good enough to pass a court test and I won't have to worry about my safety anymore. DyslexicEditor 06:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Golden Retriever maulings 2 Breed-specific attacks 3 Some Logical Fallacies 4 What to do once they attack? 5 Advice

[edit] Golden Retriever maulings

Can someone please cite this: "In 1999, more child maulings by dogs were as a result of a child being left alone with a Golden Retriever than with any other breed of do". It's a bold claim that I haven't been able to confirm with a google search.

Huh, me neither. I'm going to remove it. It came from the Dog article when I copied huge chunks here wholesale, and the history on that page is so humongous because of all the ongoing vandalism that it would take a tremendous amount of work to figure out who added that info to ask for citations. Someone could proabaly do it, though, with a bit of patience. Elf | Talk 17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this would fit into the article but one of the safest defenses I know of is a simple spray bottle with water. It used to work for me when I was jogging. Seemed every loose dog in the neighborhood wanted to chase me, and yes they can overtake a human. I got jumped upon a couple of times and a quick spray ended that. If it doesn't fit in it is still a non violent alternative in most cases.--Dakota ~ ° 07:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Golden retrievers are one of the most common breeds of dogs, and even if they are well-behaved, there will be occasional accidents.

No small child should ever be left alone with any large dog -- and Golden Retrievers are large dogs. Any dog can snap if something goes wrong -- and small children might do something very unwise. The teeth and claws are still large and sharp. (Don't discount dogs' claws; I have needed medical attention for an infected dog scratch -- an inadvertent one from a cocker spaniel).

Children should be told to treat dogs according to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Just as you don't want to be kicked, don't kick a dog. Just as you don't want someone to poke you in the eye, don't poke a dog in the eye. Just as you wouldn't want your tail pulled (if you had a tail), don't pull on a dog's tail. Add to that -- never take food from the dog.

That applies to any dog irrespective of breed. Someone who can't abide by the Golden Rule with humans will be in big trouble with one of the most powerful predators on Earth. Paul from Michigan 05:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Breed-specific attacks

The pseudo-science that is used - in an attempt to disprove that Rottweilers are inherently aggressive (which they are - and that's why people keep them) - is fundamentally flawed, and just another example of an author using statistics wrongly to 'prove' whatever point they want. A one one-hundredth percent risk of fatal attack by a Rottweiler is in fact (in terms of risk of fatality such as car accident, murder, lightning strike, etc.) fairly significant. And that is for the average US citizen: I, for example, haven't even seen a Rottweiler in about three years. Compare my average risk with that of a child who lives with a Rottweiler in the house, or in a street where one resides. That child runs a risk much higher than the national average. Similarly the author makes the mistake of calculating the risk by dividing the number of fatal attacks per year by the population of Rottweilers; this is wrong because a dog will live for roughly 15 years, in each of which it is approximately equally as likely to assault someone fatally. The risk is therefore about fifteen times what the author suggests (the figure of one one-hundredths of a percent only holds true if each dog is only capable of attack in one year of its lifespan. All-in-all, I believe that the author is erroneously using statistics to try to disprove what is a widely accepted view: that Rottweilers are more likely to kill people than pooches are. 194.130.163.67 14:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC) England_the_Great 14:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't read particulairly encyclopediacly either.

[edit] Some Logical Fallacies

Statistics wouldn't suggest anything except the number of attacks. The aggressiveness of a particular breed couldn't be determined based on number of attacks alone. Some attacks can go unreported, and accessability of humans to unfamiliar dogs would be needed to be taken into account, etc.

A growing population of a certain breed does not necessarily correlate with an increase of attacks with that breed. Also the CDC published statistics note that the ratio of a certain breed's attacks with its population isn't accurate because there are no accurate census of dog breeds.

Nevertheless, statistics would be useful, to suggest # of attacks.

21:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)21:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC) One thing that I like about http://www.dogbitelaw.com 's analysis is that they make an attempt to draw a clear distinction between the issue of bites and "dangerous breeds" because there's really no information out there - none that I've seen at least - to indicate that a higher propensity to bite with any of the "dangerous breeds". I have, however, seen some reports that the highest bite rates, in the US at least, are Cocker Spaniels. 1.) There is a massive and longstanding upward trend in the number of bites every year and 2.) bigger/stronger dogs (including, but not limited to the ones usually classified as "dangerous") do more damage when they bite. These are two seperate issues IMO. Their statistics page is at http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.141.201.24 (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What to do once they attack?

There is lots of advice on prevention but what if you have messed up and some crazy dog is attacking you what is the best way to stop them? Is there a punch them on the nose type defence as there is with sharks (or is that bears I forget)? Schnizzle 16:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

When I was a kid, I used to wrestle our dogs ( I was probably 50-70lbs, they 35 - 40lbs) and I found that by holding their neck (high up, right under the skull) with both hands was a good way to control them. As long as you have a good grip they can't bite you. If they're a particulary strong animal they could still make use of their limbs and body to break free I suppose. This position obviously puts you in a good position to choke them out. I'd suggest trying to cut off the blood supply of the carotid arteries on the sides of the larnyx. You can knock them out in a few seconds instead of the minutes it'd take by just choking off the air supply.

If there are two dogs and they are small enough for you hold down, you could try grabbing the scruff of their neck and pushing it down to the ground with all your weight, pinning them to the ground. Of course your stuck there 'till somebody helps you.

If your surrounded by more dogs and can't get away, your best bet is probably to kill or disable the dogs one by one as quickly as possible since the others are going to be tearing into you. Toss 'em, choke, break legs, blind 'em, whatever you can do to disable them quickly.

Of course even using these techniques, your going to get badly bitten. Protect your throat, wrap a shirt around your forearm and let the dog bite it instead (or even better, hold the twisted cloth with both hands so the dog bites it, then wrap the ends around the head/neck like a horse bridle). While it's occupied with your arm you may be able to use your other arm and legs to crush or subdue it. This is all assuming you don't have a real weapon of course. JJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.242.171.230 (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

some of this article comes across as advice, which is not consistent with the tone of most wikipedia articles. instead of "Approach dogs from the front. They could be startled if approached from behind and at the least may knock you over.", it should say something like "many dogs are startled when approached from behind, causing aggression" and then allow the reader to make a sensible decision of what to do. -anon 124.177.219.146 (talk) 18. feb 2007 kl. 08:40

I agree. This is not encyclopedic. This belongs on something like WikiHow. When I visit an encyclopedia, I don't wanna know how I should behave in any conditions. I just want to know more about the subject. --Ysangkok 17:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

this article is very poorly written.69.207.38.102 01:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

is this article written as a joke, "even the small ones have sharp teeth", and "big dogs can knock you down". Is there a section on the big bad wolf if I read more. Please rewrite the article, I was looking for information on how to treat a dog bite.128.12.168.8 (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)