Monk survives pit bull onslaught

[jacko45k]

2 hours ago, Rally123 said:

The point is they were not allowed to roam. The dogs escaped from their secure enclosure. And it is already illegal, in Thailand, for a Pit Bull to be out without being leashed. Don't blame the dog, blame the owner.

They were allowed to get out. That doesn't suggest a secure enclosure at all. 

Putting the owner down won't stop it happening again....!

I certainly do blame the dogs for attacking someone!

 

Edited May 18, 2018 by jacko45k

[bangrak]

On 16-5-2018 at 8:59 PM, bangrak said:

Snif-snif, danger for boss' wallet, attack mode! Waf-waf, arf-arf, grrr, roar! Well trained dog, more of this, please! Anyone having some stuff with the smell of Dhammajayo on to provide to this dog's owner? ...Clockwork orange for the bold embezzler then!

Yeah, sorry 'YTP', with a large pinch of dark humour, but I thought maybe a well trained dog with a good nose and a sharp set of theeth mights succeed in localising tha evasive mega-crook, where the whole RTP failed. When the same had, then, been done about Kamnan Po... Maybe the deadly snake's (elegant formula for a convicted murder mastermind, woudn't you say?) off-springs would not have been offerd (other) high official positions by the Generals' circus?

[Sir Dude]

Criminals often have dangerous dogs as cheap security...especially if they keep large amounts of cash in the house. There is an opulent house that has 3 of these dogs at the end of my street roaming around their garden 24/7 and I reckon they have them for this reason, due to there being a changing assortment of vehicles parked outside their house that appear then disappear in a temporary fashion. 

[Neeranam]

On 16/05/2018 at 9:46 PM, happy chappie said:

I hope the dogs are all up to date with their shots,don't want them catching anything.

Wow, I wouldn't want your karma in the next few days. 

Unbelievable.

[Neeranam]

Pit bulls should be killed, and often are in my area. 

They have been bred for one thing, which is illegal now. Let's all do our but to save lives and help in eradicating these misfits of nature.

 

 

[wildewillie89]

5 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Pit bulls should be killed, and often are in my area. 

They have been bred for one thing, which is illegal now. Let's all do our but to save lives and help in eradicating these misfits of nature.

 

 

You do know Dangerous Dog Legislation doesn't work. Whether you ban them or kill them bite statistics still go up. Victoria (Melbourne) is in the process of dropping their Dangerous Dog laws as enough evidence has shown dogs like Pitbulls are not the issue, owners are. UK bite stats also have gone up since the introduction of the laws. Restriction on owners are a better option, not dogs. Everyone knows Pitbulls, raised in a normal manner, make useless guard dogs as they are people friendly. Comes down to what evidence people like to consume, legitimate (what the courts accept), or gutter journalism who wouldn't know a Pitbull type breed from a Mastiff. 

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

These kinds of stories always bring out two undesirable brigades. "kill the dogs" sadists and those what "love" them so much they would rather see a monk savaged by uncontrolled pitbulls and children bitten by rabbed strays than change anything about keeping dogs in Thailand. Pitbulls are dangerous and should be banned.

 

A quick  recovery to His Reverence Phrakhru Samutkhanisorn Panyawichuro whose trainings and disciplines have well prepared him for this completely avoidable ordeal.

Edited May 19, 2018 by ChiangMaiLightning2143

[wildewillie89]

Rather than killing dogs, maybe a similar system should be used as the gun control systems. So background checks, training and needing to buy a license to own dogs. The Dangerous Dog legislation is silly as it mainly is focused around Pitbulls, ignoring the other breeds (usually Filas, Dogos, Tosas, Presas etc). Pitbulls are people friendly if raised properly. However, a dog like a Fila has been specifically bred to be not-friendly towards people (ojeriza - aversion to strangers) regardless how well it has been raised. Few exceptions, but usually a result of cross breeding in a softer line. 

So laws will be changed to cater for Pitbulls, then people will buy something like FIlas without understanding them, and then media and knee jerk reactions will occur again to ban certain dogs. The kill all 'aggressive' dog line is ridiculous as it is your 'family loving dog' that results in most bite stats - usually as people haven't been trained to read the signals the dog gives out or don't train/supervise children.  

The countries that have Dangerous Dog laws don't work for numerous reasons. These dogs don't qualify a high enough percentage of bite statistics to make any difference (bite stats are going up). And also, even without these dog, the idiots will just buy the next dog the think is 'tough', so Rotties, Cane Corsos etc. I agree some breeds need muzzling when in public and extra strong fencing, but Pitbull type dogs wouldn't be anywhere near the top of my list for those requirements if raised properly. 

Edited May 19, 2018 by wildewillie89

[Expatthailover]

On 17/05/2018 at 12:21 AM, Henrik Andersen said:

Sorry meny people in here don't respect Buddha monk etc I  really hope people who disrespect this will get ban from Thailand 

You are guest in this country so behave as nice guests so meny of your guy's only have sick comments 

I will never respect people with this attitude 

Excellent excellent post.

Well said. 

Sadly most that you refer to will never change

[wildewillie89]

I have told my Thai family I am not religious. They said they don't mind if the children are not religious, but they said sometimes it is best to write 'Buddhist' on the forms. I replied with, I don't mind if they are Buddhist (as it promotes always updating your knowledge), but learn from Buddha's words, not a local monk. So the kids decide themselves when they are of an age of comprehension and critical thinking what they want to be (for any religion). They said that is a better way to learn anyway, as many monks these days are just after your money. My local monks kick dogs, stand their smoking, burn rubbish and if they are not at the temple, then they are at the cafe or IT stores. 

I would be inclined to think more locals don't respect the monks as opposed to us guests, as they are ones always being asked for something. 

[AWillOz]

I've been explaining to my wife just what would happen in australia if this incident occurred..

[wildewillie89]

16 hours ago, AWillOz said:

I've been explaining to my wife just what would happen in australia if this incident occurred..

You mean the introduction of ridiculous knee jerk legislation by states? It looks like a parliamentary inquiry in Victoria found their is enough evidence to show Pitbulls are not anymore dangerous than other breeds and are moving to water down the legislation (although keep some conditions like being muzzled in public). Why? As bite stats have gone up regardless of the legislation (i.e. 'Pitbulls', which are almost impossible to identify, make absolutely no significant impact on bite stats).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-23/dangerous-dog-pit-bull-declaration-laws-not-working/7270198

Edited May 31, 2018 by wildewillie89

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 9:19 AM, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

These kinds of stories always bring out two undesirable brigades. "kill the dogs" sadists and those what "love" them so much they would rather see a monk savaged by uncontrolled pitbulls and children bitten by rabbed strays than change anything about keeping dogs in Thailand. Pitbulls are dangerous and should be banned.

 

A quick  recovery to His Reverence Phrakhru Samutkhanisorn Panyawichuro whose trainings and disciplines have well prepared him for this completely avoidable ordeal.

What's sadistic about wanting dangerous dogs put down? I'm in favour of humane killing, not beating them slowly to death, which would be sadistic.

If putting dogs down humanely is sadistic, so too is the death of every animal that we eat.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 7:54 AM, wildewillie89 said:

You do know Dangerous Dog Legislation doesn't work. Whether you ban them or kill them bite statistics still go up. Victoria (Melbourne) is in the process of dropping their Dangerous Dog laws as enough evidence has shown dogs like Pitbulls are not the issue, owners are. UK bite stats also have gone up since the introduction of the laws. Restriction on owners are a better option, not dogs. Everyone knows Pitbulls, raised in a normal manner, make useless guard dogs as they are people friendly. Comes down to what evidence people like to consume, legitimate (what the courts accept), or gutter journalism who wouldn't know a Pitbull type breed from a Mastiff. 

Regardless of anything you say, there is no justification for not putting down dogs that have attacked people, and that should be the first time. Applies to any breed of dog.

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What's sadistic about wanting dangerous dogs put down? I'm in favour of humane killing, not beating them slowly to death, which would be sadistic.

If putting dogs down humanely is sadistic, so too is the death of every animal that we eat.

The kill the dogs sadists don't only recommend killing dangerous dogs!  Every time they see a soi dog they want it rounded up and killed. If some poster complains a neighbors dog is barking they immediately suggest feeding the dog with poisoned meat. The most brutal and sadistic methods, not rational animal control as practiced in countries around the world. (Many of these Farangs are borderline/actual psychopaths who as children mutilated animales. Now as failed adults they walk the streets of Thailand).

 

 

[wildewillie89]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Regardless of anything you say, there is no justification for not putting down dogs that have attacked people, and that should be the first time. Applies to any breed of dog.

In Thailand, where we live, there seems to be a lot of justification. In other countries, not so much. Hence why the majority of dogs that are put down is the 'adored family pet', the opposite of what society consider a 'dangerous' breed of dog. 

Dogs bite, it is a fact of life. Education on bringing up dogs (will be different depending on the dog), education on teaching bite inhibition, education on interaction with dogs, education on reading dogs body language and education on how to keep a dog on your own land with proper fencing is what is needed. The legislation regarding putting down dogs who attack or dangerous dog breeds are only increasing bite stats (bother to go look them up). Why? As the person just goes out to get more dogs that will also end up attacking. Why don't dangerous dog laws work? As instead of a Pitbull type breed, people just go out and by a Rottie and rough it up instead. Simplistic solutions may give you instant gratification and the illusion something is being achieved, but do not work in fixing the long-term overall problem of dogs attacking.

On a side note I love how the 'report' starts off saying nearly 10 Pitbulls, then it goes to 1 chasing, followed by 5-6. So from 10 to possibly 6 in a paragraph. If a witness cant even count the number of dogs then I would like to know how they identified the dogs seeing as experts considered credible witnesses in Western courts cant even identify a Pitbull with the dog in front of them (and DNA testing). 

[Cereal]

23 hours ago, wildewillie89 said:

You mean the introduction of ridiculous knee jerk legislation by states? It looks like a parliamentary inquiry in Victoria found their is enough evidence to show Pitbulls are not anymore dangerous than other breeds and are moving to water down the legislation (although keep some conditions like being muzzled in public). Why? As bite stats have gone up regardless of the legislation (i.e. 'Pitbulls', which are almost impossible to identify, make absolutely no significant impact on bite stats).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-23/dangerous-dog-pit-bull-declaration-laws-not-working/7270198

Pit Bull dogs are more dangerous and more inclined to attack than any other breed. The biggest danger is their incredible strength and bite.

 

Read these statistics.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/miami-baby-mauled-death-pit-092512847.html

[dick dasterdly]

20 hours ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

The kill the dogs sadists don't only recommend killing dangerous dogs!  Every time they see a soi dog they want it rounded up and killed. If some poster complains a neighbors dog is barking they immediately suggest feeding the dog with poisoned meat. The most brutal and sadistic methods, not rational animal control as practiced in countries around the world. (Many of these Farangs are borderline/actual psychopaths who as children mutilated animales. Now as failed adults they walk the streets of Thailand).

 

 

I agree with the first two sentences, but the rest is more than a bit OTT.

 

At the end of the day, the two 'sides' will never agree.  Some have no problem with killing all animals that annoy them, whilst others have an entirely different opinion.

 

In this case, the monk obviously falls within the latter group.  But of course he would have to be in view of his beliefs.

 

I've no doubt that the 'owner' of the dogs will do everything possible to prevent a recurrence,  as (doubtless) he'll be horrified by his dogs attacking a monk, and the publicity around the attack.

 

Whether the owner is prepared to put in the time and effort involved in teaching his dogs that attacking others is not acceptable, is another question..... 

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, Cereal said:

Pit Bull dogs are more dangerous and more inclined to attack than any other breed. The biggest danger is their incredible strength and bite.

 

Read these statistics.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/miami-baby-mauled-death-pit-092512847.html

To a certain extent you're right,  but (AS ALWAYS...) it depends on the owner.

 

Sadly, pit bulls often attract the worst owners, that want them to fight or those that don't care much about their dog, they just want to 'look hard'. ☹️

 

Most forget that bull terriers (raised as a family pet) love people.

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

The kill the dogs sadists don't only recommend killing dangerous dogs!  Every time they see a soi dog they want it rounded up and killed. If some poster complains a neighbors dog is barking they immediately suggest feeding the dog with poisoned meat. The most brutal and sadistic methods, not rational animal control as practiced in countries around the world. (Many of these Farangs are borderline/actual psychopaths who as children mutilated animales. Now as failed adults they walk the streets of Thailand).

 

 

I too want soi dogs rounded up and euthanized. I have been terrorised by too many of them to have any sympathy for them.

The method you mention is only necessary because Thai authorities won't do the right thing and allow humane killing of unwanted dogs.

[dick dasterdly]

23 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I too want soi dogs rounded up and euthanized. I have been terrorised by too many of them to have any sympathy for them.

The method you mention is only necessary because Thai authorities won't do the right thing and allow humane killing of unwanted dogs.

To be fair, I've only had problems with 'owned' dogs - as there are very few genuinely soi dogs where I live on Phuket.

 

My earlier post point out my (and the monk's) attitude towards killing animals because they've hurt or annoyed us,  or - even worse - because we're convinced that out own 'needs' outweighs all other species....

Edited June 1, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[wildewillie89]

5 hours ago, Cereal said:

Pit Bull dogs are more dangerous and more inclined to attack than any other breed. The biggest danger is their incredible strength and bite.

 

Read these statistics.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/miami-baby-mauled-death-pit-092512847.html

Pitbull type dog's bite force is incredibly small if compared to the image given to the dog by the media and comparing it to other breeds. The jaw looking has also proven to be a myth before anyone mentions that. The jaw is easily opened with a break stick. Both my dogs have bites twice as powerful if we are talking psi measurements, and many people's dogs would have similar or greater bite force also. Should we just make one standrdised robot type dog everyone owns?

It is why it takes the poor dogs hours in dog fights the idiots use them for as the force is not sufficient to end it quickly. In general, Pitbull type dogs are very people friendly, maybe not so much animal friendly, but yes, people friendly. It is when the dog doesn't match up to the image that has been created that people take matters into their own hands to try and make it be like that (turning a nice dog into an aggressive one - same result would be with any dog). I only know of one breed that I would consider outright aggressive regardless of socialiation/how it is brought up. Many are suspicious, but I only know of one that is outward aggressive.

Take away the Pitbull type breeds and idiots will use Rotties, so lets ban Rotties (who have a stronger bite than a Pit). Take away Rottie, etc etc until we get down to Poodles. Ban Poodles? It is a silly slippery slope, as the parliamentary inquiry found. 

Australia and the UK took these dogs away, what happened? Bite stats went up. Are we going to say Pitbulls are still making up high percentages of the growing number of dog attacks, even though their numbers are extremely limited due to strict laws? 

Edited June 1, 2018 by wildewillie89

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

I saw a video online where a Thugs pitbull on the beach in Venice (CA) had a passersby dog in a death-bite and could not be pulled. Off by multiple people.

A man ran up and stuck his thumb up the pitbulls bum and it released. Does that always work?

[wildewillie89]

Some people swear by sticking the finger up the bum. I think it depends on the dog though. You would also think the dog would become desensitised to it after a while. Then again, if a dog is having it done that many times that it does become desensitised, then that is one irresponsible owner.

Responsible owners of these types of breeds (who have game lines) always carry break sticks with them. I think a breathable muzzle and break stick is enough (to keep the whingers happy). If people are still so scared of a 20kg dog with a muzzle on a leash then the issues are on them, not the dog. Don't need to have expensive legislation that has been proven not to work due to people forming their views from gutter journalism or wanting to be wrapped in cotton wool every time they go outside.