"German shepherds most dangerous dog" - Poor Journalism (2 Viewers)

[Jiga]

Im sure alot of ppl own dogs around here, this was of interest to me:

"German shepherds most dangerous dog
Email Print Normal font Large font Frank Walker
June 10, 2007

GERMAN shepherds, cattle dogs, Rottweilers, Staffordshire terriers and pit bull terriers are the most dangerous dogs in NSW.

Figures from local councils show there were 873 reported dog attacks in 2004-2005.

Eleven per cent of the attacks were on children, 43 per cent involved adults and 38 per cent were on other animals. Injuries resulted in 38 people being sent to hospital.

Despite tough regulations controlling aggressive dogs, only 77 dogs were destroyed. Warnings were issued in 30 per cent of cases, penalties applied in 16 per cent and court action initiated in just 3 per cent.

German shepherds recorded the highest number of attacks at 63. There are 35,711 of the breed registered in NSW.

The dog most likely to attack is the pit bull terrier. They made 33 attacks, with only 3244 of the breed registered.

The most unlikely breeds to attack were the dingo, collie, fox terrier, Maremma sheepdog and the Great Dane.

There are almost 1 million registered dogs in NSW"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My thoughts on this.... what a CRAP article. From the title I was expecting some damning evidence that German Shepherds are dangerous dogs, yet they only account for 63 attacks which despite sounding bad when considering the total amount of REGISTERED dogs amounts to 0.17% of German Shepherds being recorded in an "attack" which is used very loosely in this poor piece of journalism as it includes attacks to other dogs (40% - in german shepherds case this means that only 0.10% of the beed have been recorded as 'attacking' a human) and attacks which were that minor that people didnt need to go to hospital (a proper dog attack would get you admitted to hospital so for that not to have happened they must be counting a dog nipping someone on the bum without drawing any blood as an 'attack' - and yes Im aware that alot of people just go to their local GP for tetnis shot etc but these kinda attacks are hardly enough to warrant a dog being destroyed!!!) are also counted. And even the Pit Bull which people expect to be aggressive only has 1% of its breed attacking people... which for a dog that everyone thinks is highly aggressive isnt extremely bad esp when you consider how built up most areas are these days and suspeticbility to attacks (Also shows again how the German Shepherds are not that dangerous when compared to pit bulls at least when you consider they have 10x the animals going around yet only double the attacks!). And interestingly they dont put the figures up for the dogs which are most unlikely to attack, now I couldnt say with a great degree of confidence this but its possible... maybe they do this because even these 'placid' dogs have a reasonable tally at the very least compared to the number registered, surely if they didnt then it would be logical to contrast the bad dogs from the good statistically! But they dont, manipulating the stats through selection.

And on top of this they try to say the tougher regulations aernt working, because only 77 dogs were destroyed... I suppose the author of this article would have a dog destroyed because it has a tussel with another dog which accounts for 350 of the 800 (40% as they say) attacks they have recorded? Or because a dog nips someone as Im sure has happened to everyone (I know its happened to me before... I didnt at one stage think I want that dog killed) we are gonna destroy them which accounts for potentially 95% of these other 'attacks' which dont involve hospitalisation? . Hell 77 dogs being destroyed when in 39 of the cases (assuming there wasnt a pack of dogs attacking in some caes) the person wasnt admitted to hospital seems more then reasonable!

Dont get me wrong, German Shepherds and the like aernt angels.... but this crap were they jump onto the lets ban dogs bandwagon is bullshyte and this article does nothing for my opinion to sway!

Discuss.... if this is of any interest to you!

 

[ari89]

German Shepherds are the best



You're right about the horrible journalism. German Shepherd's are such a popular large dog breed so it only makes sense that in number wise they'd have the most amount of attacks. (I'm sure theres plenty of little dogs that are aggressive that attack but who would report that?).

The reason why there are so little terminations is probably because people are still thinking of the old laws where if the dog attacked on private property once it can't be put down. Now the new laws are a bit over the top. Probably only done to please the media with their yearly 'pitbull attacks' story.

 

[Jiga]

Yeah... I think in the case of the German Shepherd people are intimidated by their size and bark, from this the media creates stupid articles like this when the stats clearly show that German Shepherds aernt the most dangerous dog... he has contradicted himself really!

The only time I could see my dog properly attacking someone is at my house, which is his purpose as a guard dog! One time I jumped my fence at night and he ran towards me barking until he realised it was me... so I wouldnt wanna be in that situation! But out and about walking he doesnt really care about other people, in fact he got out one time and I came home to him lying down on the porch with people walking passed etcc... loyalty. He doesnt like dogs though and Ive heard this about alot of German Shepherds, as they were breed originally to guard sheep from other dogs (ie Wolves) Im guessing its part of their instinct to not get along well with other dogs (unless socialised big time)... I would go out on a limb and say a significant number of those 63 German Shepherd attacks are just on other dogs in light of this.

I'm sure theres plenty of little dogs that are aggressive that attack but who would report that?).

Exactly in my short life I have been "attacked" once by a small little terror which drew blood, a friend was "attacked" by alittle terrior, a teacher spoke about how a relative was attacked (this was actually a bad one, needed heaps of stitches) by some small dog and one time alittle terrior or something attacked this kid at a park while I was playing with friends, fair bit of blood as well! As a tradesman once said when he came to our house to be greeted by barks from our dog, its the ones that dont bark and warn you that you have to watch out for!!! Not the ones that make their intentions quite clear! But I dont think any of this matters, the article is just trying to appeal to those idiots who think German Shepherds and the like should be banned.... forget the many cases where such breeds like the German Shepherd have saved peoples lives (I can think of heaps like one that got shot 3 times or so when it attacked an intruder threatening its owner with a gun or another which opened a door of all things and came inside to attack an intruder in some shop!) or forget the many service dogs that are employed with cops and rescue organisations... we will ban them because 0.10% have attacked people !

 

[yosemite sam]

My shepherd never attacked anyone...he'd bark scarily but then if someone he didn't know came in to the yard or whatever, he'd just sniff them and walk away. Bit useless as a guard dog really. I got attacked by a tteny tiny sausage dog once... its bite hit the bone in my ankle, whereas our giant shepherd never hurt anyone. Stereotyping yes?

 

[gracie007]

i think german shepards are pretty scary, and seem vicious, but ive never really heard of one attacking someone.
ive got two cattle dogs and id really hav to disagree that they are dangerous...no way!

 

[white lady]

GSDs are the best.
my girl would never attack anyone unless if she were protecting her family from danger, she can intimiating.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

there's a lovely german shepherd that lives up the road from me. the owners let it roam freely wherever it wants (which is probably not a great idea) but it's the friendliest dog ever, good with kids, not nasty at all. it does bark at passers by when it's at home but then, so do all dogs. its never attacked anyone. i like them.

 

[parramattitude]

that is the most ridiculus thing i have ever heard...i used to have a german shepherd before she died last year from cancer, but she was the sweetest most loving dog in the entire world, she wouldnt even hurt a fly...my previous gs before her was the same, as with every single other gs i have ever met

 

[cabramattitude]

i had a german shepard once. it barked and attacked anyone who came into our yard. one day it broke out and mauled an infant. we didn't like the parents so we were happy about it. the police weren't and we were charged. our dog was put down.

 

[Gilbert1]

lmao @ cabramattitude

yeah me too

 

[Jiga]

You cant say German Shepherds are perfect, just like humans you have different characters of dog... but you on the same note you cant say German Shepherds are 'dangerous' when you have 35,000 of them going around, with Im sure many of these animals each day have the opportunity to attack someone (like if they get out of their yard), yet it doesnt happen that often. Gotta put it in perspective, 873 attacks in which only 40 people were hospitalised isnt a bad figure when as they say there are 1 million dogs, German Shepeherds certainly aernt over-represented in the stats compared to other large breeds, so I see no reason to ban these dogs and luckily the powers that be even in the past when there was real pressure (not from some second rate jouranlist) have made logical decisions. Same applies to destroying them, 39 were killed when someone wasnt even hospitalised, seems abit far fetched to say the new regulations are not working and more should have been put down...

 

[white lady]

You cant say German Shepherds are perfect, just like humans you have different characters of dog... but you on the same note you cant say German Shepherds are 'dangerous' when you have 35,000 of them going around, with Im sure many of these animals each day have the opportunity to attack someone (like if they get out of their yard), yet it doesnt happen that often. Gotta put it in perspective, 873 attacks in which only 40 people were hospitalised isnt a bad figure when as they say there are 1 million dogs, German Shepeherds certainly aernt over-represented in the stats compared to other large breeds, so I see no reason to ban these dogs and luckily the powers that be even in the past when there was real pressure (not from some second rate jouranlist) have made logical decisions. Same applies to destroying them, 39 were killed when someone wasnt even hospitalised, seems abit far fetched to say the new regulations are not working and more should have been put down...

thats so true :uhhuh:

 

[codydhu]

German Shepherds are the best

Years ago my old one attacked a some encyclopedia seller guy who would come to our house after we told him to get fucked multiple times came on when we weren't home. Apparantly he was there for half an hour knocking at our door till our dog broke the chain lol. Our dog was declared dangerours by the council and stuff. Got sued for $700k, loss of income etc and then a few years later the guy came to our other house trying to sell encyclopaedias.

And that has been the only German Shepherd dog attack I have ever heard of and I know the owners of many actual trained attack dog german shepherds.
.

Same thing is happening to us - our dog bit a real estate agent and she's claiming damages of $750,000 saying that she now has a phobia of dogs - luckily insurance covers it. So did the encyclopedia dude actually get that much or settle for less?

 

[ari89]

Same thing is happening to us - our dog bit a real estate agent and she's claiming damages of $750,000 saying that she now has a phobia of dogs - luckily insurance covers it. So did the encyclopedia dude actually get that much or settle for less?

He got that much...he was full of crap claiming that he was unable to work considering a few years later he was selling encyclopaedia's again.

 

[Jiga]

Good Samaritan dies in dog attack
June 14, 2007 - 1:15PM

A "lovely lady" who kept 14 dogs as pets has died after being found with bite wounds over much of her body at her property in Sydney's north-west.

Police were called to the 61-year-old woman's property on Neich Road, Maraylya, near Windsor, after a relative discovered her lying seriously injured in the backyard.

When ambulance and police officers arrived at 3.20pm, they found her dead.

She had suffered bite wounds to much of her body, police said.

Police said the cross-breed dogs would be euthanased later today.

They later confirmed the identity of the dead woman as Robyn Gordon.

A neighbour, who wished to be named only as Ally, said: "She was a good Samaritan that would rescue dogs from the [pound].

The woman had lived with her husband and one of her sons, who were devastated by her death, Ally said.

"I did go and console them, they were on their way out so it was a very brief moment,'' she said.

"Her husband ... had just had heart surgery a couple of months ago and when you see the ambulances you prepared yourself to be told that something was wrong with [him] and he'd had a relapse.

"When you go rushing over there and you are confronted with that kind of news, you are just blown away. That's pretty much the feeling of everybody around here today.''

The neighbour said she had concerns about the dogs in the past, because they were quite vocal, territorial and often fought with one another.

"You feel a lot of guilt. If I'd done something before, if I'd been the painful lady that complained about the dogs ... but you don't want to cause somebody else trouble,'' she said.

"She had no trouble with them and I didn't want to cause any trouble for her.''

Dogs were aggressive: neighbour

Another resident, who asked not to be identified, said the dogs were often "howling, snarling and growling".

"Those dogs should not have been there. They were aggressive dogs," she said.

"At all times of the night, all times of the day, the dogs would be aggressive, fighting.

"Sadly enough you hear her yelling at the dogs, or somebody yelling at the dogs, to shut up."

The local resident said the dogs had been separated from each other in the woman's large backyard to stop them from fighting.

She could not recall hearing anything out of the ordinary yesterday afternoon.

"All through the day you hear them [barking] but you don't sort of recollect that something's wrong.

"It's like when you live by the train line, you get used to the trains."

She said the dead woman was "just a lovely lady" who lived with her husband and son.

"She was very quiet, very friendly."

Another neighbour, who declined to give her name, described the woman as very quiet and reserved.

"They had the whole backyard surrounded in some very high Colorbond fencing and she had a number of dogs that no one really saw," she said.

"They were all cross-bred dogs. She didn't actually breed dogs as such."

She said neighbours were horrified by the apparent dog attack.

"It still hasn't hit everyone yet. A lot of people are very upset about it.

"Someone's been killed in their backyard and we didn't know it was going on."

A crime scene was established and Forensic Services Group officers examined the area.

A post-mortem examination will be carried out to determine the exact cause of death and police will prepare a report for the coroner.

A Hawkesbury City Council spokeswoman said the woman kept 14 dogs on the property.

Eleven of them have been seized by the council.

A police spokeswoman said the dogs were all cross-breeds, primarily of wolfhound, greyhound and mastiff varieties.

She said it was anticipated that they would all be put down once the needs of the investigation and wishes of the coroner were satisfied.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is sure to lift the number of dogs killed due to an attack! (although in this case their is no other choice...provided the cause of death was the dog attack). But I love the title, 'Good Samaritan dies in dog attack'... immediately Im expecting some story about a person saving someone else from god knows hwat and then being attacked and killed... when it was just an owner of dogs... that makes you a good samaritan these days? There is no mention of her say... getting these dogs off the streets, that might be a good samaritan, according to this title, I am a good samaritan for owning a dog and taking care of it . And its not suprising this has occured, 14 dogs is a 'pack' of dogs, when you have that many dogs their nature is going to be unpredictable and more than likely the only option is to put them down as they would be prity wild.

 

[Muki89]

How do they know the dogs mauled her to death? She could have had a heart attack or something and maybe the dogs tried to wake her up.

I hate the new dog laws, but no one seems to come into our yard anyway. It's entirely fenced, our two large dogs are free to wander around (Alaskan Malamute+Dalmatian) and there's a beware of dog sign on the fence. No Foxtel or encyclopedia guys ever come in anymore

Had a GSD as a kid, he was nice... Was a trained guard dog to protect factory and home. Then he got hit by a truck.

 

[7th Sign]

german shepards are good dogs, one of my mates has one its very placid...

dog breads such as american pitbulls are far worse in terms of "danger" this is a pretty crap article...you should compain.

 

[Jiga]

Yeah... the reports didnt conclusively say it was the dogs, the cops were saying words to the effect of 'it appears as though her injuries were from the dogs'... now if she was killed by a dog I think it would be more than obvious, it wouldnt just be bite marks but ripped to shreds!!!!

As for complaining, not worth the time... Im sure people reading it have the common sense to realise how poor the journalism is.

Had a GSD as a kid, he was nice... Was a trained guard dog to protect factory and home. Then he got hit by a truck.

Yeah my dog has been trained as a protection dog for the home (their is a proper term for it... forgot it ), he got trained at some place in Penrith, the trainers have guns... they are like ex-cops etc I think! Supposedly they said if we didnt want our German Shepherd they would take him because they liked him, Im guessing because hes intimimdating at like 65kg+ (not fat), which is good for a security dog.... and a couple of his 'ancestors' were also Police dogs so its in his blood!

 

[Erdkunde]

"German shepherds most dangerous dog"

When I read the title of this post, I honestly thought that you were going to point out the poor language use of the journalist, which reflects the lack of understanding of basic grammar which is evident in so much of the media. But...no.

Anyway, the sentence lacks a punctuation mark. It seems to be saying "German shepherds' most dangerous dog", which means "a German shephard" (a shephard who is German) "has" (owns) a "most dangerous dog".
Clearly, this should read "German shepherd's most dangerous dog", using the apostrophe as indicating a contraction of "shephard is" instead of implying ownership of a dangerous dog by a German shephard.

Even then, the grammar is poor. "German shepherd is most dangerous dog" is still ambiguous, and could be improved to "German shepherds are the most dangerous dog".
Note that phrasing it in this clearer form makes one more inclined to ask "THE most dangerous? Out of every single breed on Earth, this one dog is THE most dangerous? What does "dangerous" even mean in this context, and how can that be measured reliably?" which is certainly not what the reporter wants you to think.

If anyone has read this far, I applaud you for the effort.

 

[Azamakumar]

When I read the title of this post, I honestly thought that you were going to point out the poor language use of the journalist, which reflects the lack of understanding of basic grammar which is evident in so much of the media. But...no.

Anyway, the sentence lacks a punctuation mark. It seems to be saying "German shepherds' most dangerous dog", which means "a German shephard" (a shephard who is German) "has" (owns) a "most dangerous dog".
Clearly, this should read "German shepherd's most dangerous dog", using the apostrophe as indicating a contraction of "shephard is" instead of implying ownership of a dangerous dog by a German shephard.

Even then, the grammar is poor. "German shepherd is most dangerous dog" is still ambiguous, and could be improved to "German shepherds are the most dangerous dog".
Note that phrasing it in this clearer form makes one more inclined to ask "THE most dangerous? Out of every single breed on Earth, this one dog is THE most dangerous? What does "dangerous" even mean in this context, and how can that be measured reliably?" which is certainly not what the reporter wants you to think.

If anyone has read this far, I applaud you for the effort.

It's a language technique you douche, not the degeneration of grammar in todays culture, they do that so as to attract the largest possible audience in the second or two it takes to read the title.


And on another note, I have one, and would say it's fairly agressive/territorial, but at the end of the day it comes down to whether or not the owner is capable of controlling/disciplining it from a young age. It's about a year and half old, and only attacked once, but that's because it was provoked by drunks.