Dog attack

[Outcast]

. It seems to me as though more and more regulations actually hinder the supposed freedom that I have fought for the past 4 years...:angry01:

That was supposed to say "that I have fought for, for the past 4 years.)

 

[LBoz]

I don't really agree with this, Its like saying that everyone who owns snakes or any animal for that matter should register them. Yeah sure it would create jobs, but less and less people would have pets because of something like this and I am a firm believer that pets help people live longer...

My main issue with this is that it seems as though you are wanting to see more regulations. Correct me if I am wrong, but the US is supposed to be a free country. It seems to me as though more and more regulations actually hinder the supposed freedom that I have fought for for the past 4 years...:angry01:

With freedom comes responsibility. I only wish more people would have to become registered and licensed to have children...but that's for another topic!

 

[Michael823]

I don't really agree with this, Its like saying that everyone who owns snakes or any animal for that matter should register them. Yeah sure it would create jobs, but less and less people would have pets because of something like this and I am a firm believer that pets help people live longer...

Yes, less people would probably own pets, and that's great. If the thought of responsibility, and repercussion of irresponsibility prevents people from choosing to bring an animal home, then that is wonderful, and exactly why regulations like this would be so successful. People will still be free to own pets, and although you may have fought for our country, we are all equally entitled to our ideas of freedom, and if freedom to us means that we will have the freedom to walk our pets and children, without the fear that irresponsible pet owners will have their possibly aggressive dogs free to roam around. Freedom is to protect us, and sometimes we're the victims of the "freedoms" that we have, and it comes around to be a danger... like the freedom to have a dangerous animal running loose around our families.

 

[Shiari]

I don't really agree with this, Its like saying that everyone who owns snakes or any animal for that matter should register them. Yeah sure it would create jobs, but less and less people would have pets because of something like this and I am a firm believer that pets help people live longer...

My main issue with this is that it seems as though you are wanting to see more regulations. Correct me if I am wrong, but the US is supposed to be a free country. It seems to me as though more and more regulations actually hinder the supposed freedom that I have fought for the past 4 years...:angry01:

Freedom does not mean "get to do whatever you want". That's anarchy, not freedom.

I only suggested those rules for *dogs*. Why? Because we walk our dogs. We take them out in public where they are around other people. We actively socialise with them. And many of them are large and far stronger than we are. And because a lot of people *don't* often remember how potentially dangerous their dog is. Case in point, I was waiting for the petco to open and a woman about 20 feet away had an enormous golden-doodle looking dog. Very petite woman, dog clearly outweighed her. A man walked near the dog and it *roared*, leaped up and chomped him on the arm. Fortunately the man had on a thick jacket and suffered no punctures. The woman was struggling to pull the dog away and the dog wasn't budging. The best she could do was lean back and keep the dog from chasing that guy. That woman should not have had that dog in public unmuzzled if it is that human aggressive. She should not have the "freedom" to endanger others recklessly that way, and SHOULD be forced to carry insurance since her dog can, has, and likely will again, bite someone. What if it had been a child? This dog could have taken its head off.

I don't propose this for cats, because many are indoor only, people tend to leave them alone if they obviously don't want to socialise, and they're far less likely in general to attack you than simply wedge themselves under the couch or bed. We tend to treat cats as if they're still quite wild... and compared to dogs, they are.

I want to see simple, across the board regulations specifically for dogs. It's MUCH better than banning an entire breed. I also don't see how my proposals limit "freedom". You can still have the dog, but if it's a menace certain precautions need to be taken, whereas if you ban an entire breed, as has happened, then the "freedom" to own that breed has been completely removed. It would just be something added onto the "we need proof of rabies" that is already required. I guess that's taking away a "freedom" too? The freedom to have our dogs potentially carry a fatal virus?

We're not free to get behind the wheel of a car without insurance and and a couple examinations. Doctors aren't "free" to practice medicine without passing state and national boards, having insurance, and being under the authority of a group that can take their license away. I am, however because of that, "free" to get on the road knowing that most of the people there have gone through driving school. I'm equally "free" to go to a doctor and expect them to know what they're talking about, and for them to do what they can to help me.

You fought to keep me from being forced to follow religious laws. You fought to keep me free to make choices about what I want to do with my life and person. You did not fight to allow me the freedom to decide to assault someone, to commit a forgery, to break into someone's house. Instead, you fought so that I could be free of people assaulting me, committing forgery in my name, and free of people invading my property.

 

[Hypancistrus]

I don't propose this for cats, because many are indoor only, people tend to leave them alone if they obviously don't want to socialise, and they're far less likely in general to attack you than simply wedge themselves under the couch or bed. We tend to treat cats as if they're still quite wild... and compared to dogs, they are.

I want to see simple, across the board regulations specifically for dogs. It's MUCH better than banning an entire breed. I also don't see how my proposals limit "freedom". You can still have the dog, but if it's a menace certain precautions need to be taken, whereas if you ban an entire breed, as has happened, then the "freedom" to own that breed has been completely removed. It would just be something added onto the "we need proof of rabies" that is already required. I guess that's taking away a "freedom" too? The freedom to have our dogs potentially carry a fatal virus?

I am okay with reasonable dog ownership/ licensing requirements.

I do want to respond to the part in bold...

You should come meet our cat, Evie. She'd change your mind.

 

[Shiari]

Oh, I have a cat that is my "attack cat" as well. That's why I said "in general". Cats are a prey species as well as predator and are thus more likely to run unless cornered. I also keep my evil cat in my bedroom where he can't come after people. He *loves* me though, which is why he ended up with me. :/ Stupid Hawthorn.

 

[Michael823]

I am okay with reasonable dog ownership/ licensing requirements.

I do want to respond to the part in bold...

You should come meet our cat, Evie. She'd change your mind.

Yes, and my cat, Calvin. I'm afraid for my German Shepherd, sometimes, that the cat will just black out and go primal on her, lol. If he was Pit Bull sized, I would have him looking like Hannibal Lector... but I still love him (on occasion)!

 

[tom e]

I don't see why that should be a responsibility of every dog owner. Still people aren't getting the difference between attacked by a chihuahua and attacked by a dog that was bred to be be a fighter. I can only shake my head.
Besides that I wouldn't even suggest anything that draconian or expensive. All people should have to do, is what a Burm owner in Florida has to do. Prove he can house it safely. That's all I'm worried about!

Already there are laws in place for what happens to (ANY SIZE) dog who attacks somebody. I'm happy with those laws. I know what the results would be of my miniature poodle biting a child. They'll take him away from me and put him down. That's why I tell kids I don't know (when they ask) "No I'm sorry I can't let you pet him, he's not used to kids." (Actually he's fine with kids, but I don't know those kids, lol! I don't know what they are going to do..) The difference is, the child will not go to the hospital from a Jax attack. And I can pick my dog up and physically restrain him any way I see fit.

I would propose breed specific legislation (or maybe size specific) that just says you have to have a proper fence and yard (or other minimum housing restrictions) to own them.

If there was a place where I could see them being more strict it's from pounds.. When the county has an animal that hasn't been picked up by it's owner, that animal is property of the county. So, I don't think it would be so wrong for them to require more with adoption. Maybe something like Shiari suggested with a trainer being paid for and such (if the staff feel there is a need for that specific animal- at their discretion) before an animal can be adopted. They already require you to pay for the animal to be fixed before he can leave the pound. Honestly though, I'd hate to see them get adopted less.

 

[Shiari]

Still people aren't getting the difference between attacked by a chihuahua and attacked by a dog that was bred to be be a fighter.

What you don't seem to be getting also though is the difference between a dog that was bred to be aggressive to humans (war/guard/guardian breeds) and one that was bred to be aggressive to other dogs ("fighting" dogs). Dog aggression is not linked to human aggression.
The only difference between the chihuahua and the "fighting" dog is sheer size. If you need proof that a "fighting" dog is not also a "fighting people" dog, go look up Bad Rap and read up on the stories of the Vic dogs they rehabbed and rehomed.

I have yet to meet a nasty pitbull. I have already met tons of nasty chihuahuas, dachshunds, yorkies, dalmations and mastiffs. I've known a seriously nasty golden, already mentioned the golden-doodle that attacked a guy, and was myself attacked by a labrador retriever as a child.

And a strong backyard fence won't prevent a dog from biting someone when you're on a walk. That's why behaviour testing (once every 3 years. Come on, that's not a hardship) for license renewal is probably a good idea. That way, if the dog shows aggression, steps can be taken *before* an attack, not after.

 

[tom e]

Nasty isn't the issue, the issue is these pit bulls that keep mauling people and their pets, no matter how sweet they actually are.

 

[animalhouse]

Pit Bulls don't have a "Lock Jaw" Just to answer a previous post.

 

[Outcast]

If I had been the guy that that whatever-doodle attacked, I wouldn't have run. I probably would have ended up killing it in front of its owner... Recently my fight or flight tendencies have leaned towards fight, a whole lot more since my last deployment. In fact a dog charged me the other day when I was walking down the road, I saw it coming and prepared myself to do it harm if it tried to do myself or my fiance harm. The owners were in their front yard with it and it saw us and charged. It was a mix of some sort, looked like Australian Shepard something. I was fully prepared to make the owners cry over their lost dog. Not that it was the dogs fault that he could run free, probably for the first time since they got him, but was in fact the owners who were in the middle of moving and playing with the dog before kenneling him for the trip.
My experience does not in any way make me feel that there should be a licensing or registering of dogs. I love dogs and would hate to see that my getting any type of dog, be it a bully breed or a small yappy breed, be hindered or postponed until I somehow prove that I am worthy enough to own a dog. Because that's exactly how I see this type of legislation going down. In the beginning it looks good on paper, but then you get some "holier than thou" animal rights people running the show and it goes to hell.

 

[tsst]

Pit Bulls don't have a "Lock Jaw" Just to answer a previous post.

That's correct. They just choose not to release.

 

[LBoz]

Pit Bulls don't have a "Lock Jaw" Just to answer a previous post.

Well then I'm glad I asked because that what I've always believed. Maybe based on....

That's correct. They just choose not to release.

....^that!

 

[Michael823]

Another idea, is just as they teach stop, drop, and roll. Stranger danger. Etc... they should teach children the best thing to do when a strange dog approaches/charges, as well as to teach them to stay away from any unfamiliar dog.

 

[Shiari]

Nasty isn't the issue, the issue is these pit bulls that keep mauling people and their pets, no matter how sweet they actually are.

What about those rotties and cane corsos and labradors that maul people and their pets? What about the St. Bernands and great danes?

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/01/2009-dog-bite-fatalities-final-report.html

Interesting article. Most fatalities were unsupervised children, and many of the dogs involved were actually chained and had shown previous signs of aggression.

http://canineaggression.blogspot.com/2008/01/2007-fatal-attack-facts-and-figures.html one for 2007. I found one from 1974 as well. No pits involved in that year, mostly German Shepherds and St. Bernards. Popularity of a breed has a lot to do with prevalence on bite and fatality statistics.

 

[tsst]

...as well as to teach them to stay away from any unfamiliar dog.

You mean like ... teach the kids to play in their own yard? :shrugs:

 

[tom e]

I agree with that Shiari. I don't mean just pit bulls. There is more than one breed of dog that was bred to be a fighter, whether in recent history or it's past. Sometimes it's likely just as proponants suggest- backyard breeders breeding/raising dogs to be violent.
I do think this is one of those things (like the python ban) where the good owners have to be MORE proactive faster. Suggesting that we have our poodles tested yearly for temperment isn't going to win anyone over to the cause.
I'm not on a mission to make any new laws here. But I'm honestly not going to stick up for anyone who fought against common sense restrictions for dangerous breeds (because they felt we were discriminating against a dog!! LOL) when the more angry emotional laws come..
I know many pit owners that are GREATdog owners. Anything I would suggest as far as compliance, those good ones are already in compliance with, many actually have gone far beyond..

 

[Michael823]

You mean like ... teach the kids to play in their own yard? :shrugs:

Of course children should be able to play in their own yard. That statement was for an overall safety course of dealing with dogs, like teaching children not to approach any dog without permission, whether it looks cute, is on leash, or other. But, as you know, the world isn't even safe enough to be in your own yard nowadays. Children just can't be left in the yard at the mercy of the outside world. Sad, but true.

 

[wade]

Haven't you guys killed that dog yet?