What will you do to repell aggressive/attacking dog?

A girl was apparently mauled to death by dog. Quite shocking!


The dog attacks are not uncommon in Australia. Not just within house, even if you are walking outside, you can be attacked by astray dog or the dog who managed to escape from the house or unleased itself. The situation could become alarming if you are walking with your kids.

What would you do here to stop the attack?


  • Stop breeding dogs and blaming them that we made them what they are.

    • Stop making yummy babies.

    • It's not the breeding but the lack of training and socialisation on behalf of the owner that makes a dog attack another person or animal.
      Up here in the Territory I've seen plenty of pitbulls that are great family pets but I've also seen some terrible ones. All about the owners.

      • I agree with you, but due to misuse privileges get removed. Same as guns after Martin Bryant’s misuse in the Port Arthur massacre.
        Also it’s been said that no matter how well trained & socialised a fighting dog breed is, the ugly side can always come out

      • Please don't pretend that the breed of the dog has nothing to do with attacks on children, etc.
        Go look at the statistics.
        Pit Bulls are responsible for the largest number of attacks and fatalities (60%-70%), even though they are usually less than 10% of dog breeds.

        You can get everything from another breed of dog that a pitbull can bring, so I also wonder why people buy them.

        • I'm going to call BS on your stats unless you provide some references please.
          But I can guarantee that they are nowhere near the truth here in Australia.
          In Darwin where we have no restrictions on dog breeds like NSW pitbulls are not over represented in dog attacks.
          The vast majority of attacks here in Darwin stem from poor choices made from animal owners either lacking adequate containment for their dog or poor behaviour training leading to the dog showing uncontrolled aggression.
          I'm not disagreeing that breed specific behaviours exist I just think it's a cop out to over emphasis breed over more pertinent factors.

          • @DarwinBoy: Society cannot control the owner, but can restrict the dog breed.

            Pitbulls = 66% of fatalities = 6.4% of dogs.

            You are welcome to call BS on my statistics.

            Now sure the stats are in the US, but I think 12 years of data do suggest there is some issue with that particular breed.
            Looks like Pareto's law strikes again.

            • @IHatePeople: Noticed the statement in the article "There is evidence to suggest that owners of vicious dogs are far more likely to have criminal convictions for violent crimes which may go some way towards explaining the Pit Bull’s disproportionate rate of fatal attacks.".
              Do you think that there could be a relationship between people who are less likely to train their animal / want a manly/strong/tough guy dog? Like people who are likely to encourage their dogs' aggression are drawn to pitbulls resulting in more pitbulls being owned by irresponsible owners?

          • @DarwinBoy: Call bs all you want the stats are there. Some breeds of dogs are more timid than others by virtue of this fact then why wouldn't the opposite be true?

            Pitbulls were bred to be fighting dogs. And They have the traits of one aggression, endurance, strength.
            Once they have their sights on you they do not (profanity) give up hence the fatalities and awful injuries. No other breed of dog causes injuries like Pitbulls.

          • @DarwinBoy: I'm calling BS on your statement, unless you provide some references and statistics.

            • @cameldownunder: My 'stats' are from investigating hundreds of dog attacks from 2015 to 2019 in a large metropolitan area that includes pitbulls in the mix of dog breeds.
              Pitbulls did not ever over represent other dog breeds in all the investigations I conducted.
              I will say again the common denominator for dog attacks was either dog owners who did not care for correct animal trainimg or owners who unintentionally reinforced poor behaviours. The final straw generally been an issue associated with dog containment that allowed the dog to interact with the public and instigate an attack.
              I was able to meet Trish McMillan last year who works in the US rehabilitating pitbulls seized from dog fighting rings. Great person to meet and learn from. Would love to have her input with some of the comments here(Google her work).
              And to the 4 people (will probbable be more) and other who will wish to neg this comment get some more info then googled stats from America. Comparing us to them in anything is just embarassing.

              • @DarwinBoy: I thought with a large number of pet owners the stats would be even better.

                You keep denying that the lethalness of this dog breed is only because of bad owners.
                Well I would argue that Rottweilers would probably have just as many bad owners, yet there are a much lower number of killings (284 vs 45).

                2018 stats are even worse showing pitbulls responsible for 72% of killings

                Labradors are much more populous and so there would be a large number of poorly owned labradors, but they have managed to only kill one person in 20 years (I think through infection of the wound, but would have to check).

                Also you have not provided any real evidence, just your observation and "investigations" which is basically worth nothing.
                Many of the news reports I read (usually with pitbulls attacking toddlers) state that the dog has not shown aggression before, another article pointed to the fact the pitbull had food in its stomach and was kept indoors (meaning someone is feeding it and taking care of it).
                The statistics back up the fact these dogs have been breed to fight and hence their bite is much, much worse than other breeds (as they have a history of locking on and do not release).

                My guess is that you have some interest in the breed and you wish to protect the breed's reputation. The attitude kind of reminds me of the guy who buried the ashes of his pit bull in his wifes and unborn child's coffin (yes the pitbull killed the wife), just obviously less extreme.

                If the average person cannot keep at pitbull, then the breed should be banned for the average person. If the only person who can properly look after a pitbull is a trainer, then a trainer is the only one who should be able to own a pitbull.

        • i think the pit bull numbers are skewed because there is a small subset of loud, violent dog owners who want loud, violent dogs and the pit bull is their weapon of choice

        • You linked a summery with poor ananlysis.

          Here is the CDC article referred to by Forbes:


          What that shows is large dogs are mostly responsible for deaths and that after 87-88 pitbull deaths decreased.

          What started in '87? Pitbull bans.

          If you look at the data your articles are based on you will notice that pitbull deaths decrease after the start of bans but dog deaths stay the same:


          But the data is rubbish, missing deaths and over reporting. Look at this note under the table:

          Data shown only for breeds and crossbreeds involved in four or more fatalities. Each breed contributing to the crossbreed is counted only once.

          So there are atleast 9 deaths double reported (the three cross breeds with only 3 deaths), and an unknown amount of deaths ignored.

          Further, the editorial note believe there are at least a further 25% of dog deaths unreported and clearly states:

          Second, to definitively determine whether certain breeds are disproportionately represented, breed-specific fatality rates should be calculated.

          The author states that in '94 there were ~4.3 million dog attacks, ~800,000 requiring medical treatment and in '93/'94 there were ~25 deaths.

          But what is the source for this data? https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/2/1/52.f...

          A phone survey of 5236 people

          And that article states there are approximately 20 annual fatal dog bites, not the 10 to 35 reported when each part of a cross breed is counted as a separate death. The Author should know, they are the reference for dog death statistics

          I am not paying for J.J. Sacks' other report (same link as last) that reportedly actually contains information and not just approximations and misrepresentations (that CDC table is very limited in it's usability).

          Buuutttt dogsbite.org

          Is not a credible source. They claim pitbull's are only 7% of the total dog population. Their source for that claim state's pitbull's are the post popular bread available for sale/addoption, making 15% of the market

          So now we have ~7 pitbull deaths (half of the '87 -'88 total, CDC table) with a population of over 1.7 million pitbulls for sale/adoption (Top Nine US Dog Breeds and Types - Animals24-7 (The analysis on that page to my eyes is a bit 'how you going').

          How can you claim pitbulls are naturally dangerous when there are ~0.0000041% pitbull deaths per pitbull's available?
      • Same thing applies to children to be fair

    • We kind of did though. We literally breed dogs for their temperaments and disposition. e.g. Labradors and Golden Retrievers. We used to breed many "aggressive" dogs for hunting and fighting, too.

      I'm not saying environment doesn't play a role - it totally does - but this notion of "oh it's the owner not the breed" always struck me as double-think.

      • We treat dogs like other chattel, tailoring them to our own whims rather than their own wellbeing. We make them what they are according to our wants, and sometimes our experiments backfire on us.

        It's not unlike guns. If you think "guns don't kill people, people kill people, " then commensurately "dogs don't kill people, people kill people." I expect those who apply a "no gun" policy will struggle to apply a commensurate "no dog" policy, and those who are liberal about guns will struggle to blame dog "owners" the same way they would blame gun owners - both of these contradictory approaches are rooted in a sense of entitlement about dogs being our property rather than the subjects of their own existences and deserving lives largely free from human interference.

        Also in this instance the dog, unlike an inanimate object like a gun, is also subject to their own suffering - be it being killed when they do something "wrong," or even the fact that they exist in a largely one-way exploitative master/slave role, never having anything resembling a natural existence.

        • It's quite unlike guns. Guns aren't sentient creatures with legislated rights and protections. It's funny, you just (rightfully) pointed out that people treat animals like property then immediately compare them to inanimate objects.

          My point, which you didn't really address, still stands: humans have bred these animals for certain traits, like aggression. We literally have made them what they are - which can include being aggressive.

          • @MetaLaugher:

            It's funny, you just (rightfully) pointed out that people treat animals like property then immediately compare them to inanimate objects.

            Dude, this is what nonvegans do. I am pointing it out. Check my comment history - I am the annoying vegan in the village. If it was up to me there would be zero domesticated animals.

            Humans have bred these animals for certain traits, like aggression. We literally have made them what they are - which can include being aggressive.

            That was essentially the first thing I said in this thread.

      • In the original days of dog fighting when the pit bull rose to fame, there would be people in the "pit" with the dogs while they fought. The dogs that were human aggressive were obviously a problem. And were bred out of the bloodlines. You can have a human aggressive dog in situations like that.

        When a dog showed signs of wanting to quit the dogs were separated and the dog who turned was given the opportunity to scratch and engage the other dog which was dominant and was being held back by its owner. Man biters can't be separated and held.

        So, put bulls were bred very specifically for gameness. That is the trait to not give up. Any signs of aggression towards humans was quickly extinguished.

        It's pretty interesting to get to know the history of the breed. They've shown themselves to be extremely loyal, gentle and physically sting and agile. As evidenced by their excellent scores in shutzhund training and competition.

        The more you know

  • Google answer while running away from dog…

  • +2 votes

    The dog attacks are not uncommon in Australia

    Statistically, how common are you saying they are?

  • +10 votes

    Read this thread

  • Isn't a Pit Bull a restricted breed/ownership in most states of Aust.

  • Do a drop kick.

  • The Last of Us Part 2 is Interactive training for this.

  • Insert a digit.

  • If you don't have a weapon, there's not much you can do. People underestimate how ferocious fighting dogs are. A 30kg pit bull can ruin a grown adult. Their necks are pure muscle, so good luck choking one out, and their skulls are so thick you'd never punch it out. That's assuming it doesn't take your fingers in one bite. Try kicking and you risk getting pulled to the ground where it can reach your face and neck. Your only real advantage is height. Do everything you can to stay standing so it can't reach your vital organs, while finding a weapon, help, or some place it can't reach.

    • You’re right kicking a dog is never a good idea.

      If it bites your thigh one could easily bleed out.

      Standing still (Until owner can get take it away) or backing slowly away to safety (if no1 around. Eg climb a tree or go over a fence or get into a car), facing the dog, avoiding eye contact might work. Having something in your hands is good to fend it off…. best to let the dog rip it out of your hands (it may think it’s part of you and buy you some time backing away time) than hit the dog with it.

      I remember being stalked and then aggressively bailed up at a beach in Cambodia by a very large dog once. Owners were European. It is there guard dog; they take it for walks on the beach.

      I’ll never forget the terror.

    • You grab it's leg and go to town, wouldn't be difficult to dislocate something. The biggest mistake you could make is being scared.

      • You grab it's leg and go to town, wouldn't be difficult to dislocate something

        Okay, Liam Neeson. Which leg would you grab? Pick a fore, and expose your soft hands to the pointy end. A hind is hardly better because dogs are flexible enough to lick their own butts and in a fight, and can whip their necks as quick as a snake, much quicker than you can ‘dislocate’ a stifle. You’ve obviously never seen an actual dog attack.

        • Why would you be worried about your hands ? that's where you want it to bite. I'd be worried about it grabbing your jugular. Anyways it doesn't matter which leg, if you can't stay calm you've already lost.

          • @Tasmaniac:

            Why would you be worried about your hands ? that's where you want it to bite.

            A dog can bite down on your fingers and tear them off with one toss of its head. There goes any hope of pulling yourself out of reach or wielding a weapon. That's assuming it doesn't just clamp down like a bear trap and pull you down. The whole point is to stay standing and protect your head/neck/hands at the expense of your legs.

            Anyways it doesn't matter which leg, if you can't stay calm you've already lost.

            Reaching down to an aggressive dog in an attempt to grasp its leg is stupid and dangerous advice.

  • Top