# Maltese terrier joins dangerous dogs list



## ilovemymaltese (Oct 9, 2008)

You've got to be kidding me. :shocked: 

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0...141-953,00.html

Wow, they're so dangerous, yet if you accidently step on them, they might die..... 
So I wonder what medical attention the people that were attacked by these "dangerous" dogs got? A 911 call for an ambulence or a _band aid!_ :HistericalSmiley: :HistericalSmiley: 









I guess this image is appropriate...

My maltese isn't a "terrier" in any way I would think. My goodness, my poor Gigi could probably run from one if it got near her! :smrofl:


----------



## Orla (Jul 5, 2009)

Already been discussing this on another forum, a general dog forum where at the moment I am the only maltese owner.

yes, you can get vicious maltese, like you can get vicous rotties or vicious labs!
You can also get lovely calm gentle maltese, rotties and labs!
Its down to the breeder and owner! Not the breed!!


Lots of people on the other forum have only met one maltese - Milo and I'm glad that he's very good and gentle so that they met him before they read this article - otherwise they could get the impression that all maltese are "killers" :blink:


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

Actually small dogs can do quite a bit of damage...it is not to be taken lightly. Children especially can get very nasty injuries on the face from small dogs. ANY dog can bite and any dog that does is a DANGER.


----------



## gibbert (Jan 13, 2005)

:w00t: 
perhaps they meant "attacking" with kisses and cuddles ... ? In which case I'd have to agree ... the Tater Tot is notorious for going right for the kisser! :yes: olice: 

I'm sorry; I don't want to make light of the issue. what Jackie (JMM) says is absolutely right. I've just never personally known a maltese that was aggressive ... I have no doubt that it happens, as with any breed.


----------



## mi_ku_5 (Jun 2, 2008)

Just goes to show how important temperment and socialization is.


----------



## I found nemo (Feb 23, 2006)

I think ANY dog can be dangerous, I don't care what breed it is.


----------



## ilovemymaltese (Oct 9, 2008)

Oh yes, I am just kidding! No dog biting should be taken lightly. :yes: I just hope they won't learn to kill anybody though.


----------



## mi_ku_5 (Jun 2, 2008)

Toy breeds have been responsible for at least two deaths in the U.S.


----------



## The A Team (Dec 1, 2005)

Friends of Stan got a bichon when they met my Lacie.....then a few years later they got a malt when they met Archie. Only their malt was a rescue from a shelter ....with lots of "issues" he bites and is nasty.

All I can say is he must have had a terrible start in life.


----------



## ilovemymaltese (Oct 9, 2008)

QUOTE (mi_ku_5 @ Oct 26 2009, 07:19 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=843973


> Toy breeds have been responsible for at least two deaths in the U.S.[/B]


Oh my! What kind of toy breed? What kind of death?


----------



## myfairlacy (Dec 28, 2007)

QUOTE (ilovemymaltese @ Oct 26 2009, 08:24 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=844036


> QUOTE (mi_ku_5 @ Oct 26 2009, 07:19 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=843973





> Toy breeds have been responsible for at least two deaths in the U.S.[/B]


Oh my! What kind of toy breed? What kind of death?
[/B][/QUOTE]

I'm curious about this too. I can't imagine a toy breed dog being able to kill a human unless it was an infant. Yes all bites are serious but toy breeds can't do nearly the damage that a large dog can so I usually worry way more about vicious large breed dogs than vicious toy breed dogs..


----------



## pammy4501 (Aug 8, 2007)

QUOTE (ilovemymaltese @ Oct 26 2009, 06:24 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=844036


> QUOTE (mi_ku_5 @ Oct 26 2009, 07:19 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=843973





> Toy breeds have been responsible for at least two deaths in the U.S.[/B]


Oh my! What kind of toy breed? What kind of death?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Death by licking???


----------



## roxybaby22 (Feb 25, 2009)

QUOTE (ilovemymaltese @ Oct 26 2009, 09:24 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=844036


> QUOTE (mi_ku_5 @ Oct 26 2009, 07:19 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=843973





> Toy breeds have been responsible for at least two deaths in the U.S.[/B]


Oh my! What kind of toy breed? What kind of death?
[/B][/QUOTE]

I'm curious too. I can't even imagine it! :shocked:


----------



## iheartbisou (Feb 13, 2007)

Found this article here

Which dog Breeds article
_

Which Dog Breeds Are More Likely To Kill People
By: otaffy 

"Dog breeds in general have similar characteristics. Some dog breeds are more likely to kill than others and some breeds are more protective of their masters and physical surrounding than others. There has been a 20 year study to determine which dog breeds are more likely to actually kill human beings. This United States study was done for the years 1979 through 1998.

This study tracks 238 human deaths from dog attacks during a 20 year period. 24% of these attacks involved unrestrained dogs off their owners property. 58% of the deaths involved unrestrained dogs on their owners property. 17% involved restrained dogs on their owners property and less than 1% involved a restrained dog off the owners property.

Some of the conclusions of the study are not suprising. Yes, certain breeds are more likely to kill than others. Yes, deaths from dog attack are quite rare. Also it is sometimes difficult to determine the actual breed of a dog. Communities who try to ban specific dog breeds for public safety will find it difficult to define the parameters of what constitutes that breed.

Several factors interact with the dog to enhance the possibility of a human being attacked by a dog besides the breed of the dog. These factors include heredity, sex, early experience, socialization, training, health, reprodcutive status, quality of ownership and victum behavior. Additionally, this study did not look at intervening variable such as was the dog protecting his owner from serious harm or death or was the dog actually protecting himself from serious harm or death.

Male dogs are 6.2 times more likely to bite then female dogs. Sexually intact dogs,both male and female, are 2.6 more times likely to bite than neutered dogs and chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite then unchained dogs.

One surprising conclusion of several studies is the fact that many varieties of dogs have been involved in a fatal human attack for one reason or another. Topping the list of deaths by dog in a twenty year period is the Pit Bull and Pit Bull mix at 66 human deaths. The Rottweiler and Rottweiler mix was responsible for 39 human deaths. The German Shepherd dog and mix were responsible for 17 human deaths. The Husky type dog was responsible for 15 human deaths as was the Malamute responsible for 12 human deaths. The Chow Chow was responsible for 8 deaths while the Doberman was responsible for 9 human deaths. The Saint Bernard was responsible for 7 human deaths and the Great Dane was also responsible for 7 deaths. The Akita killed 4 people, the Bulldog 2, the Mastiff 2, the Boxer 2 and believe it or not the Labrador Retriever was responsible for 1 death while Lab mixes were responsible for 4 deaths. The following dogs were responsible for killing one human each during these twenty years: The Bullmastiff, Cheasapeake Bay Retriever, West Highland Terrier, Japanese Hunting Dog, Newfoundland, Coonhound, Sheepdog, Rhodesian Ridgeback and cocker Spaniel.

The conclusion that I make from this study is that almost any dog of size can be dangerous, particularly to children. Dogs must be properly trained, supervised, and care must be taken when choosing a breed with the propensity to be aggressive. Most important, keep young children away from male, sexually intact, chained dogs."_


PS- the gov. report of this study can be found here, from the CDC CDC Report

It seems the only death mentioned during these years from a smaller dog -was a cocker spaniel. I could be wrong though- I skimmed over it.


----------



## roxybaby22 (Feb 25, 2009)

QUOTE (shanghaimomma @ Oct 27 2009, 12:37 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=844078


> The following dogs were responsible for killing one human each during these twenty years: The Bullmastiff, Cheasapeake Bay Retriever, *West Highland Terrier*, Japanese Hunting Dog, Newfoundland, Coonhound, Sheepdog, Rhodesian Ridgeback and cocker Spaniel.
> 
> It seems the only death mentioned during these years from a smaller dog -was a cocker spaniel. I could be wrong though- I skimmed over it.[/B]


The Westie is also pretty small. That's crazy, but I wonder the age of the people killed by these smaller dogs.


----------



## iheartbisou (Feb 13, 2007)

I didn't see the Westie- they are small. I wonder too the circumstances in which these deaths occurred. very sad.


----------



## mi_ku_5 (Jun 2, 2008)

I found the story I heard about the Pomeranian, but not about the Yorkie. (I only looked at the first page of search results.) In searching for the articles, I also ran across a Dachshund that severly maimed an infant and a Jack Russel Terrier that sent two women to the hospital. I personally was bitten in the face by a Chihuahua as a child, I could've easily lost an eye. Why is it any different when an infant is killed? They can't provoke a dog, nor can they run, which kicks a dog's prey drive into gear. IMO, it's worse for a dog to attack an infant. 

Pomeranian

Taken directly off the CDC website:
"A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). *It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic.* Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. *There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.*
Many practical alternatives to breed-specific policies exist and hold promise for preventing dog bites. For prevention ideas and model policies for control of dangerous dogs, please see the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions: A community approach to dog bite prevention."


----------



## iheartbisou (Feb 13, 2007)

QUOTE (mi_ku_5 @ Oct 27 2009, 01:27 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=844092


> They can't provoke a dog, nor can they run, which kicks a dog's prey drive into gear. IMO, it's worse for a dog to attack an infant.
> 
> Pomeranian[/B]


I agree especially since infants can't walk/run/kick etc.

Edited: but Brianna is correct (below)- nobody was implying whether or not it's okay for a dog to bite/maim/kill because of the age of the victim.

The Pom article says it was 6 week old infant by the way


----------



## roxybaby22 (Feb 25, 2009)

QUOTE (mi_ku_5 @ Oct 27 2009, 01:27 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=844092


> I found the story I heard about the Pomeranian, but not about the Yorkie. (I only looked at the first page of search results.) In searching for the articles, I also ran across a Dachshund that severly maimed an infant and a Jack Russel Terrier that sent two women to the hospital. I personally was bitten in the face by a Chihuahua as a child, I could've easily lost an eye. *Why is it any different when an infant is killed? They can't provoke a dog, nor can they run, which kicks a dog's prey drive into gear. IMO, it's worse for a dog to attack an infant.*[/B]


I don't think anyone meant to imply killing an infant was different, but _I_ couldn't imagine any small dog killing a human (although I know it's not impossible) unless the human was an infant or handicapped.


----------



## Harley & Dakotas Mum (Jun 11, 2005)

QUOTE (JMM @ Oct 27 2009, 09:01 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=843939


> Actually small dogs can do quite a bit of damage...it is not to be taken lightly. Children especially can get very nasty injuries on the face from small dogs. ANY dog can bite and any dog that does is a DANGER.[/B]


Totally agree - Have teeth = can bite.

I would drop dead of shock if either of mine ever bit anyone, but I would never in a million years leave them unsupervised with infants, in fact, I dont even leave them unsupervised with my sisters kids who are 5.5 yrs & 4 yrs old.

Just because I dont _think_ they would ever bite anyone, doesn't mean they never would.

I cringed when I first read this article.... not only are my dogs considered 'yappy' ... but thanks to this news, they are now considered 'dangerous' by the general public. *sigh* (Dakota's reactiveness doesn't help the perception either!!)


----------



## EmmasMommy (Jun 2, 2008)

Why are they called "Maltese Terriers" in Australia? I always thought the Maltese was a spaniel type dog, not a terrier? Am I wrong?


----------



## Orla (Jul 5, 2009)

QUOTE (EmmasMommy @ Oct 27 2009, 10:10 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=844118


> Why are they called "Maltese Terriers" in Australia? I always thought the Maltese was a spaniel type dog, not a terrier? Am I wrong?[/B]


I'm in Ireland and the correct name is just maltese yet everyone(including my dogs vet) calls them maltese terriers - It really really annoys me because that is not the correct name!! The IKC uses "maltese".


----------



## mi_ku_5 (Jun 2, 2008)

At some point they were called "Maltese Terrier." I've seen it older books a few times. It just stuck around, I'm sure some people still call Japanese Chins, "Japanese Spaniels." I still call Brittany dogs (? not sure what the plural is) Brittany Spaniels. My grandfather raised them many years ago (before I was born) and that's what he always called them. "My Brittany Spaniels were the best bird dogs I ever had." It's hard to break habit. I think there was also a post here a while back about a Maltese Terrier Club and the dogs on the site looked like they might have been mixed w/ something.


----------



## Orla (Jul 5, 2009)

QUOTE (mi_ku_5 @ Oct 27 2009, 08:00 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=844308


> At some point they were called "Maltese Terrier." I've seen it older books a few times. It just stuck around, I'm sure some people still call Japanese Chins, "Japanese Spaniels." I still call Brittany dogs (? not sure what the plural is) Brittany Spaniels. My grandfather raised them many years ago (before I was born) and that's what he always called them. "My Brittany Spaniels were the best bird dogs I ever had." It's hard to break habit. I think there was also a post here a while back about a Maltese Terrier Club and the dogs on the site looked like they might have been mixed w/ something.[/B]


I had a disagreement on another forum about that site, it was just a few days ago.
Someone who claims to have 3 maltese yetm knows nothing about them and then basically told me that I could learn from that website! :blink: 
all of the pics were of cross breeds!!! and they also suggested using a shock collar on maltese!


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

I had always been told Maltese were spaniels, not terriers...but research on liver shunt/mvd points that Maltese have common ancestory with some terriers.


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

Dogs are known to go for the neck...that includes humans too. If they bite into the jugular
life can end quickly. Small dogs are capable of this too. I had a yorkie once who always
went for the jugular of my other dogs when she became irritable. I had to place her in a one
dog home. By the way, when a big OR a LITTLE dog clamps down, it's not always easy
getting them to let go. 

Although most behaviors are due to lack of training or aggression training, once in awhile it
can be due to a neurological problem.


----------



## princessre (Dec 23, 2008)

It is so hard for me to imagine a Maltese causing death, since my dog still gums his food and would much rather employ his tongue rather than his teeth to "attack" anyone, but I suppose anything's possible? :blink:


----------



## Kutsmail1 (Dec 26, 2007)

With the pressure on pit bull, rottie, dobies, etc., I really see the "any dog can be vicious" theme infiltrating all breeds as sort of a campaign to throw the limelight off their breeds. Insurance companies are refusing to insure some of these owners, or set premiums too high for them to afford.


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

QUOTE (Kutsmail1 @ Oct 27 2009, 09:24 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=844426


> With the pressure on pit bull, rottie, dobies, etc., I really see the "any dog can be vicious" theme infiltrating all breeds as sort of a campaign to throw the limelight off their breeds. Insurance companies are refusing to insure some of these owners, or set premiums too high for them to afford.[/B]


This "theme" is simply the truth. Dogs have teeth. Our dog's behavior is a significant reflection of the human factor in the dog's life. Bigger, stronger dogs will always do more damage, regardless of breed. Labradors are one of the most common biters I see, yet insurance companies haven't banned them because the news isn't excited at the labrador biting a little kid...its no pit bull. 

Meet a well bred American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier. They are far from vicious. Same for a Rottie. Same for a Dobie. Responsibly bred and responsibly owned dogs of ANY breed are not responsible for attacks. The bottom line is the HUMAN component, not something inherent in the dogs. 

If we could ban anything, forget about the dog breeds...how about banning bad owners.


----------



## MandyMc65 (Jun 14, 2007)

QUOTE (JMM @ Oct 27 2009, 06:52 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=844435


> QUOTE (Kutsmail1 @ Oct 27 2009, 09:24 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=844426





> With the pressure on pit bull, rottie, dobies, etc., I really see the "any dog can be vicious" theme infiltrating all breeds as sort of a campaign to throw the limelight off their breeds. Insurance companies are refusing to insure some of these owners, or set premiums too high for them to afford.[/B]


This "theme" is simply the truth. Dogs have teeth. Our dog's behavior is a significant reflection of the human factor in the dog's life. Bigger, stronger dogs will always do more damage, regardless of breed. Labradors are one of the most common biters I see, yet insurance companies haven't banned them because the news isn't excited at the labrador biting a little kid...its no pit bull. 

Meet a well bred American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier. They are far from vicious. Same for a Rottie. Same for a Dobie. Responsibly bred and responsibly owned dogs of ANY breed are not responsible for attacks. The bottom line is the HUMAN component, not something inherent in the dogs. 

*If we could ban anything, forget about the dog breeds...how about banning bad owners.*
[/B][/QUOTE]

:amen:


----------



## vegaschik99 (Jun 28, 2009)

that is absolutly rediculous. I mean come on the maltese for one and lab's...do they even take into account why the bite even happend?


----------



## almitra (Apr 24, 2009)

Wow, this article caught me by surprise.....never expected to read anything like this, but it does put a perspective spin on things, doesn't it? Proof positive that it isn't the size of the dog in the fight, but rather the size of the fight in the dog. :mellow:


----------



## mi_ku_5 (Jun 2, 2008)

QUOTE (vegaschik99 @ Oct 28 2009, 11:02 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=844617


> that is absolutly rediculous. I mean come on the maltese for one and lab's...do they even take into account why the bite even happend?[/B]



That the problem w/ dog bite stats, as a whole is, they rely on poor sources for the dog's breed, they don't ask about the conditions the dog lives in, whether it had any formal training, whether it was provoked, etc. If they are going to rule out infant deaths and cases where the dog was provoked, they have to do that for all breeds, not just little ones and "friendly" breeds like labs. B/c of their popularity, Labs are terrible overbred and they are a hyper breed too. It's perfectly understandable that they would have a high number of bites. They actually have a higher rate than what's reported b/c many are listed as pitbulls and pit mixes when they bite. People are prejudiced against pits and think (for some incredibly dumb reason) that Labs don't bite. The French Woman who had a face transplanct, was attacked by her own Labrador Retriever. When the story first hit, it was reported that a pitbull did it.

Interesting read:Dog bites in CO


----------



## mi_ku_5 (Jun 2, 2008)

If people want to address dog bites in an intellegent manner, they would address the real factors, not breed. If you look at the study I linked and the CDC website; dogs that bite are overwhelmingly young, intact males and the victims are often children. We need to encourage (not force; force has been proven to fail) people to train and neuter their dogs and properly supervise their children. Reduced cost and free spay/neuter clinics as well as reduced cost training classes have been proven to reduce the pet overpopulation and I'm sure it would reduce the number of bites aswell. Many cities offer reduced license fees for speutered pets. I also think there should be school programs on responsible pet ownership and how to interact w/ dogs. We have programs teaching kids about strangers, why not dogs too, when so many kids are bitten every year? These are simple things that are relatively inexpensive and much more affective that knee jerk BSL.


----------



## Luna'sMom (Oct 7, 2007)

I think it's important to fully understand what statistics were used in the article and how a dog is classified as a Maltese (or Lab etc). It's my understanding that most pounds/organizations in Australia classify anything small white and fluffy as Maltese, additionally only a small fraction of Maltese in Australia are from registered and reputable breeders, alot of so called 'Maltese' in Australia are from pet shops and bybs. Whilst they are extremely common as pets, the number of Maltese shown or bred by reputable breeders is fairly low. 

Small dogs are routinely involved in dog attack incidents because of lack of socialization and improper supervision with children - alot of people (joe public dog owners) do not socialize their small dogs, let the small dog run the house hold and don't supervise children with dogs properly (probably because of the misconception that small dogs can't hurt anyone). I know some friends of mine who were saying they won't take their puppies out for walks/socialization because the puppy is scared and it doesn't need it since its nice to them :mellow: 

The reporter is calling the breed a Maltese Terrier because they haven't done their research properly and most people believe that's the breed name because it used to be Maltese Terrier a few decades ago, its a common misconception in Australia. 

The number of dog attacks (and thus presence of Maltese on the list) is probably due to the popularity of the breed (or whats classified as the breed) in Australia, when you consider that the top offenders had 116 to 50+ attacks in the 3 month period but Maltese only had 12 it's fairly obvious that the list is biased. I doubt the list took into account the number of dogs of a certain breed present in Australia or severity of attack etc etc. 

Whats interesting is that 856 'attacks' were reported but only 256 infringement notices were filed and only 126 dogs destroyed - seems likely that alot of so called 'attacks' weren't real or were provoked etc otherwise more infringement notices would have been filed and more dogs destroyed. 

I also love the fact that when the 'journalist' is talking about Maltese attacks they are definitive about the number of attacks yet when discussing the Labrador they say 'reportedly' indicating that they believe Maltese are more nasty than labs ... yet labs had more attacks :blink: I also find it annoying that the journalist makes a big deal about the inclusion of the Maltese on the bottom end of the list (12 attacks) yet only mentions the Lab's inclusion on the list in passing, yet Lab's were responsible for MORE dog attacks (20)... 

Lists of this type are stupid, misleading, biased and ultimately not useful for determining dangerous breeds... 

Blame the deed not the breed imo.


----------

