Pit bull attack sends four to hospital

It is unfortuante the piolice did not shoot teh owners of the dogs as well.

Dog fighting is sick and cruel. It is a pointelss sport for sick morons who get of on agony and pain.

There is absolutely no rational reason why a citizen should possess a breed of dog that has been specifically bred for fighting. I will not let my children within a 100m of any pit bull no matter how loving their owners claim they are.

I hope the final chapter of this story is that they introduce a ban on dangerous dog breeds and send the owners of these two dogs to prison for abetting common assault.

No doubt this being Sweden, the state will have to reimburse compensate them for their grief.

Hmm.Nasty Business,

Somewhat unclear about the circumstances leading to the fight.

Was it accidental,pre-arranged or agreed to on the spot?

The fact that the dogs were loose gives the impression it began with the owners consent,unless they both belonged to the same guy and got loose to attack the third dog?

I presume dog-fighting is illegal in Sweden as in the UK.

However is it legal to breed or keep pure Pit-Bulls here?

They were outlawed quite a while back in the UK.

However owners get round the law by claiming their dogs are not pure bred, in which case they come under the dangerous dogs act,....dogs which must be safely controlled at all times in public places.

Personally I think that any cross-bred dogs which appear to experts to be MAINLY bred from Pit-Bull or other illegal breeds should also be outlawed, especially as they are usually kept by the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

Pit bulls, rottis... these are dogs that are known for "bad things". I see a LOT of pit bulls and rottis, and apparently there is no mandatory pet neutering law here? What a waste. There is no reason to own a pit bull or pit bull-derived breed and no, saying "but mine is different!" will not work. Breeding ALWAYS wins out in the end, when related to plants and animals. Pit bulls should be an outlawed breed inside any city limits. Period. No one has a "right" to own a breed of animal that has such a high risk to other people just no one has a right to engage in any other activity that can harm another person.

I've had the luxury of living with a pitbull and she was the most loving and kind animal there ever was! Anyone who fights em needs a bullet in the head and good old fashioned beat down!

I was bitten by a Rottweiler in central Malmö a couple of months ago. I was just walking along and didn't even notice the dog that was tied to a pole while the owner was buying cigarettes. Suddenly he lunged (no barking) and nailed my arm. Fortunately, I was wearing a thick coat and he only had one shot before I swung out of reach. Still, he nearly broke my arm. They can kill a person easily and I can't imagine why, in a country that is usually focused on safety, so many dangerous dogs are allowed to be in public without muzzles. I assume that many, many more people will end up in hospitals before something is done.

Pit bull ownership is now banned in the Canadian province of Ontario and I also believe in several USA states. I don't understand why anybody would want such a breed of dog. It's mostly bikers or the illegal dog fighting scumbags that traditionally have these dogs.

My wife has been bit twice by dogs while out running - both times by German Shepherds.

I've only ever owned Golden Retrievers or Labrador Retrievers. In fact, we now have a golden/black lab mixed breed cross. Wonderful dog.

Nothing wrong with the dogs per se, its the owners that train them to be aggressive, coupled with the build of the dog, its not a good combination.

I mean, I've no experience with dogs but have on occasion looked after a number of rottweilers (for a friend) and even in a strange place with strange people, they've never ever been any sort of a problem.

Tho Princess Ps westie sounds like a vicious out of control animal that should be banned.

"ANYONE WHO FIGHTS EM NEEDS A BULLET IN THE HEAD AFTER A GOOD OL FASHIONED BEAT DOWN!"

Good job presenting your arguments. With an attitude like that you probably shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than a chihuahua ;p

Did I miss something here?? No where in the article does it even imply that these dogs were brought together to fight!

How on earth did you start to condemn the owners for 'fighting dogs'?

Seriously people, READ!

Let's be honest, the greatest majority of the people in possession of these types of dogs do, judging the books by the covers, appear to be from the lower reaches of society.

They're either dealers, wanna-be dealers trying to look hard in a baseball cap, or just thick as pig siht.

Why on earth would you want to keep as a pet an animal biologically programmed to have such a high propensity to fight something that moves too quickly. Like a child in park.

Saying that there is a fine line with this, I mean where does the cull stop? Alsations are mentioned up thread. To me the're pretty good breed. All dogs can turn but these skinny half wits trying to compensate for their small tadgers or having not eaten their Weetabix need a slap - or a bite on the balls.

what a fuuny .......pervention was better than cure .....

Inability to proper train a dog and a whole breed gets a bad name.

Don't blame the dogs, blame the owners!!!

Nowhere in the article (or any other media reporting about this) have I seen any mention that this would have been an arranged dog-fight, more like two dogs getting out of hand...

Tragically these things do happen, completely needlessly!

As far as I'm concerned, don't ban the breed of dog, make a 'dog-owner's license' mandatory instead... As a matter of fact, make it mandatory for all people wanting to be animal owners (or for that matter parents) to take classes and prove their suitability!

*runs for cover*

Yeah right, it's not the breed.. When did you last read a headline;

'POODLE GOES BESERK IN PARK' or

'CHIWAWA DEVOURS NEIGHBOUR IN FRENZIED ATTACK'?

Nice one,Eric!

You don't hear about those because they're not as spectacular; obviously, bigger dogs cause more damage when they do bite. Yet most children who are injured by dogs are injured by smaller breeds.

Any dog can harm a person: there have been confirmed cases of fatal attacks on adults by pomeranians. YES, POMERANIANS. Toy poodles and chihuahuas have some of the lowest bite inhibition thresholds among popular breeds; they simply are not massive enough to cause serious damage in most cases.

it is the owners. as the saying goes there is no bad dogs only bad owners. pitbulls are or were breed to fight DOGS not bite people. my wife has worked in a vet. clinic for 8 yrs. she and the DR loves pits and many of the big dogs. the ones they hate the most is chiwawa and poodles. no sh*t my wife has scars from them damm chiwawas on her hands. i will never let my child next to any small dog. we have a 45 kilo American Bulldog and a 5 kilo minature poodle named Bo. Bo has bit me and my wife a couple of times and just put him down last week because of are 3mo. old son. Matilda (Am. bull) is the best with him, but as i walk her i hear sweds say oh there is a murder dog. it is out of stupidity. how were they bitten by sticking there hand in there mouth trying to break up the fight. it is only making headlines because of the breed. it is media propaganda. i hope some of you are smart enough to see that. may Bo R.I.P.

Any dog can turn given the right or wrong circumstances.

A great number of the larger dogs which are in the dangerous dog category are in the hands of the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

If a child is attacked by a small dog its chances of survival are high and with adults present not difficult to stop quickly.

If a child is attacked by one or more large dogs in the dangerous category its chances of survival are not good and even with adults present it may still not be possible to stop the attack in time to prevent serious injury or death as has happened quite a few times previously.

Maybe very strict licence conditions or qualifications should apply to both owners and the class of dangerous dogs,possibly involving substantial fees to cover the cost of administration and spot checks.

I have seen some horrific sights resulting from stray dogs of the large dangerous type but nothing very serious from any small breed.

I don’t quite get your point Playmaker. You start by saying it’s the owners to blame then proceed to tell about your own dog you had to put down. So what does that tell us about you? No offence intended. OK, I accept the social status in the pack and a new baby seen as a threat.

Obviously not all Bull type dogs are destined to attack, but surely there is an element of their physiological makeup which provides for a lower reactionary threshold?

I also accept that smaller dogs can be vicious little sihts (often like small people - Napoleon factor springs to mind) and Miguel mentions the size affecting the damage done in an attack.

So to continue the comparisons of stereotypes; St. Bernard - huge and strong, not known for being kept by drug dealers. Great Danes – erm, wouldn’t argue with one but how come you don’t get many gangsters training them to fight? Is it because they don’t fit in council flats or Range Rovers, or is it because they’re not ‘naturally aggressive’?

You may well get people muttering as you walk past. People tend to care bout their small children and reared in the wrong hands those mastiffs and pit bulls etc are more likely to ‘go off’ than a say a handy Jack Russell.

RIP Bo.

From a dog-lover, and father..

there should be control system who can own special dogs. Like battlefield conditions focused or/and security focused races should be available only to those who need them in work. or as other special situations if person has good reason one probably gets permission to own teargas etc. and if one wants to own it some kind of system to control the level training which owner has learned and capable to give. as for a pet there is much better races than these. we have many pit bulls in our town and most of owners are as others have described in earlier comments before, those kind of persons who probably wouldn't be good dog owners at all. three categories of owners those who think those dogs are little children, those who beat them, and those who jokingly scare other with them. all those categories need more psychological help self not to get dangerous dog to solve their broken personality.

Well we got Bo when he was 8 and we put him down when he was 14. we tried to retrain him and did a little, but my wife and her boss Dr. thought he was senile also. we are big dog lovers. my wife just informed me that most dog bites on children are from wait get ready for this is GOLDEN RETRIVER but this is also because there are many of them in homes worldwide. And pitbulls are not a Large dog there wieght is no more than 25 kilos and that is only fat males. and people and kids also have to take some responabilty the family rottweiler in Finland that killed the kid had over 100 staples in it upon inspection from the vet before they put it down. it took over 100 staples before the dog snaped. that is bad parenting. and like i said before pitbulls were breed to fight dogs not people. look on about.com/aggressive dog breeds. they say it all just perfect.

it's an age-old debate; the dog v. dog owner.

i am on the side of the dog owner being the problem. there's no way that you can distinguish "safe" from "unsafe" dogs and then passing that over to allowing or banning certain breeds. if a specific breed gets banned another breed will take its place as a good dog to look/sound/act tough.

german shepherds are currently not "in" with goon pack who like to elongate their manhood by leashing a disturbed dog, but they could easily become. and then you can always breed a new "breed" to get around legislation.

Hey! I wish people would stop stereotyping and discriminating! Just because he slobers in bouts of happiness whenever he sees another being, it does not mean we can not keep our career options open!

[attachment=450:n5489183...699_5956.jpg]

Damn right! Been saying this for years!

I find it really confusing how readily people accept genetic manipulation ( breeding ) of animals as an undisputed fact wherein one can breed for intelligence, "common-sense ", physical stamina, ect. One can breed either positive or negative attributes into an animal line, this is fact. However, when one starts to apply these same accepted techniques to humans all of a sudden people say ,"...oh certain particular attributes ( intelligence, social construction, common-sense, ect.) pertaining to human breeds ( races ) is the product of stereotyping, bigotry, racism, ect." The fact is you have thoroughbred human breeds just as you have thoroughbred race horses.....this is the reason you have a place like Sweden and place like Ethiopia or a place like Germany and a place like Pakistan.

Perhaps almost as dangerous as some sexist female wandering round town with an out of control German Shepherd whilst trying to improve her street cred.

Reading Jimmy James' first line, I was all prepared to get engrossed in a discussion veer into genetically manipulated food, and why people are so against it. Actually quite disappointed to find out he's talking about people, instead.

May I ask the dog owners here a question? At least in our area, it's quite common for people when out walking dogs to let two dogs that are unfamiliar with each other, approach each other very close. The dog owners here explain it as teaching dogs to not be aggressive. I'm from a very dog-oriented culture- you ain't seen nothing like Alaska when it comes to people living and working with dogs 24-7- and we would never do that. We keep our dogs on much tighter leashes, literally. Can you explain why the philosophies on training and controlling dogs are so VERY different here? I have always wanted to know, but it's hard to ask my friends here, who are convinced that all dogs should automatically be friends when they first meet.

As long as the dogs are on a tight leash there should be little cause for concern when they meet.

A lot of dogs have very restricted lives at home so its probably a good thing to let them meet and peacefully socialise under control, so they become comfortable in the presence of others.

A dog which is very restricted and rarely meets others may be a touch nervous on the odd occasion it does get out, with somewhat unpredictable consequences.

Apart from all that, its an easy way for owners to meet other ppl.and break the ice which obviously some find difficult here.

Exactly! But this isn't unfortunately the easiest solution, it does take more efforts, certainly a higher level of investiments, technology and control and seems to me that some populist politicians think that prohibitive legislation does give them immediate results and directly solve the problem.

Totally agree! It's the owners fault. Those dog owners that raise specific breeds for fighting, or raise them without proper training should be "fixed" themselves!

I dont believe theres any disagreement that owners are TOTALLY responsible for the actions of their dogs and as I understand it thats the way the law stands on the subject.

However theres not a lot of satisfaction from seeing an owner in court after a child has already been killed or maimed for life and there will always be some careless or irresponsible owners who allow this to occur.

By experts defining what breeds are most likely to be involved in the most serious and life threatening attacks another step can be taken to reduce the carnage.

Obviously the first step was not enough as crosses of the most dangerous breeds,not covered by the law have been involved in some nasty incidents.

Licences were mentioned,nothing new in the UK,used to be ten bob a year before they were scrapped due to costs of admin.and many ppl. not bothering anyway.

Proving ownership was a big problem then, but maybe not so much the case now.

No doubt there will always be cases of bad attacks by any number of breeds, but anything within reason that can be done to further reduce the risks should be considered.

I don't know if the comment regarding licenses in Jack's comment refers to what I said previously on here, but just in case I want to clarify my position...

Anyone wanting to own a dog should have to prove that they are capable of taking care of one, much as one supposedly has to prove that one has the ability to maneuver a car before one is allowed to operate one! I am talking about introduction courses in dog psychology, dog training and basic knowledge about dogs in most ways... If it were up to me, anyone wanting to own an animal should be exposed to much the same kind of scrutiny as someone wanting to adopt a child... I know it's not a realistic wish, but I do think it would make most of these problems go away!

As much as I loathe governmnet bans of this and that, I must agree. These animals seem to "go off" for no particular reason, followed by the owner stated how gentle the dog was and that was his little girl's playmate.

A dog can be a big soft baby or a gentle giant in the house, but it can "go off" or go berserk outdoors for quite a number of reasons apart from aggression by another dog.

Without a doubt there are certain types of dogs which are very much more likely to do this than others.

A license with classes? Great now instead of having to spend SRK 12K to get a dog you'll need to spend another SEK 12K to be able to own one. Wouldn't a simple law requiring all animals to be on a lead and wearing a muzzle in public suffice and be a lot cheaper? That goes for cats too. I had an inconsiderate neighbor once who allowed her tom cat to roam freely in the neighborhood (paricluarly at night)invading other houses and disturbing the neighbors. If that weren't bad enough it was extremely aggressive and on more than one occasion nearly blinded several children out playing in their own yard.

Judging from what I have been reading in the Local lately about murders of young women, Sweden had better license certain people or groups of people as dangerous or threatening to people.

I have a Rotti, and she is as gentle as she can be around me and the children. Granted, she is an guard/attack dog and she should be carefully monitored but with kind care and attention this animal is loving and gentle.

That the same can said of certain people is not a certainty.

The ignorance on this thread is absurd. 7 got it right. You can take any animal, in particular, dogs, and make them into killing machines. Unfortunately, dogs in the Molosser family (American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier etc) have become trendy and trained and bred to be aggressive. However, this is clearly not the dogs' fault, it's societal issue. It's the same thing with guns and in my opinion, children; there a lot of folks who should have either but there's no way to effectively regulate these issues. The "pitbull" was bred to catch semi-wild cattle and hogs, to hunt, to drive livestock, and as family companions.

I am definately not a ban this, ban that guy, but pit bulls are just "wrong". These dogs are bred to be aggressive and they are unpredictable.

Here in Detroit, a dog fighting center, dogs are always attacking people. The owner comes out and states was a gentle dog it is. The dog gets put down. The victim, if surviving, undergoes lengthy, expensive surgury and ends up disfigured.

The level of ignorance here is shameful. Have those who are critical of the Pit Bull ever once bothered to think beyond the bs your media has served you all these years? Did any stop to think if Pit Bulls are so bad - considering hundreds of photos exist of children with Pit Bulls from the turn of last century - why Pit Bulls became this threat during the late 1980s? Where were your Pit Bull attack headlines during the 60s and 70s or before when Dobermans were the devil dogs? Why is it the people who agree with you aren't dog experts but politicians?

"I will not let my children within a 100m of any pit bull no matter how loving their owners claim they are"

Great idea! Make it 300 metres. Don't expect Pit Bull owners to move to appease you though.

"However is it legal to breed or keep pure Pit-Bulls here?"

Yes. There is no BSL concerning domestic breeds in Sweden.

"Personally I think that any cross-bred dogs which appear to experts to be MAINLY bred from Pit-Bull or other illegal breeds should also be outlawed"

Not only does that unfairly target Pit Bulls and their owners it targets ANY dog that happens to be short haired, muscular and of medium build. Bad idea and it doesn't work.

"no reason to own a pit bull or pit bull-derived breed and no, saying "but mine is different!" will not work. Breeding ALWAYS wins out the end, when related and animals."

Get rid of all dogs derived from Pit Bulls and you're getting rid of American Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshires, English Bull Terriers, American Bulldogs, English Bulldogs, French Bulldogs, Boston Terriers, Boxers and many more. Duh.

"No one has a "right" to own a breed of animal that has such a high risk to other people just no one has a right to engage in any other activity that can harm another person."

The vast majority of Pit Bull type dogs are much more human friendly that your average family safe cur. Do the research - google American Temperament Testing Society's results before leaving these comments.

" I assume that many, many more people will end up in hospitals before something is done."

Doubt it. When all things are considered, bites statistics pretty much look the same now as they did 20 years ago. The thing that seems to differ is the breeds that are considered dangerous change from one era to the next...

Good for you sport. But I only own Pit Bulls and I wonder how you would feel if somebody were to treat your dogs like you do mine? Btw, did you know when a "Pit Bull" attacks, it's more than 230 times more likely to get media coverage than a Labrador? World's first face transplant patient lost hers after a Labrador attack. The fact that a Labrador did it wasn't important to 90 percent of media.

Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Edison, Helen Keller, Michael J Fox, Fred Astaire, Fatty Arbuckle, kids from The Little Rascals, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Buster Brown, Cesar Millan. When Dr Horatio Jackson became the first man to drive across the US by car he took with him his Pit Bull named Bud. Do you know anything at all.

If Pit Bulls are more than 230 times more likely to make headlines than other breeds for similar attacks (see National Canine Reserch Council) and media choose NOT to print attacks from other breeds, how are you going to read about it?

There are good books out there now like The Pit Bull Placebo and Dogs Bite but Balloons and Slippers are more dangerous. It wouldn't kill you people to read them or meet a real Pit Bull one day. Then your opinions might be more useful.