Dog attack

[Outcast]

The laws need to target dangerous dogs in general and the bad owners in particular.

Is it safe to assume that you are for the python ban? Are those not dangerous snakes? Therefore the ban is good because it targets the snakes and by targeting the snakes it punishes the owners, even the good ones.

I just don't understand why everyone has to be divided like this, none of us want to see snakes banned in the US, but it seems to be well on its way, and like the link to the fishing issue earlier in the thread. We all need to ban together and fight these unjust laws, every one of them. Because if they are able to ban Pits and Rots, or Boas and Pythons, then what is to stop them from banning every other type of pet on the grounds that it may be dangerous?

 

[Shiari]

There seems to be a secret handbook out full of canned answers that pitbull owners use to deny that there is in fact some risk.
There will be no true dialogue until each side can verbalize some of the truths spoken by the other side, and that canned answers are disposed of in favor of real communication.

I don't own a pitbull. However, I know several, have met many, and researched the good and the bad.

Yes, pitbulls were used to dogfight. This is one of the reasons why they had low *people* aggression, because the handlers needed to be able to get their dogs even while said animal was in an extremely heightened state of excitement and agitation.

Pitbulls have a strong drive, stubborn personality but are also extremely sensitive. They are not the right dog for everyone as you have to be firm and gentle at the same time so your dog knows that you are leader, but you don't emotionally harm the dog at the same time. It's not the dog's fault that most people can't handle them correctly. It's the same reason why I don't own one yet. I do not yet feel I am capable of the task.

That same "secret handbook" mentioned can be used by owners of chows, akitas, dobies, rotties, all mastiffs, st. bernards, golden retrievers, labradors, and any other large breed. ANY one who owns a large dog must be constantly aware of the potential danger their animal poses to other people. Like I said with my own dog, he's normally happy go lucky *everyone is my bestest, BESTEST friend!" but I have first hand knowledge that in the right situation, he will attack in order to protect the pack. And he's a *herding* dog. Quite far removed from any bully breed.

Maybe the dialogue would go better when pitbull owners aren't immediately met with "your dog is a menace to society and needs to always be muzzled in public!". But muzzling is still a bad idea. It tends to make dogs *more* aggressive and *more* reactive because they feel stressed. Muzzling all pits will create a self-fulfilling prophecy of aggression.

 

[Sweetseraph]

There seems to be a secret handbook out full of canned answers that pitbull owners use to deny that there is in fact some risk.
There will be no true dialogue until each side can verbalize some of the truths spoken by the other side, and that canned answers are disposed of in favor of real communication.

Oh crap! How did you find out??

 

[Sweetseraph]

Is it safe to assume that you are for the python ban? Are those not dangerous snakes? Therefore the ban is good because it targets the snakes and by targeting the snakes it punishes the owners, even the good ones.

I don't know anything about the python ban. I'm in Canada and new to snakes in general. Pythons and boas are illegal in my municipality already, along with some other random stuff, like doves, centipedes and all arthropods. I've thought about trying to get that changed, but don't know where to start, but that's another thread.

When I said that there should be laws against dangerous dogs, I meant that specific dogs, not an entire breed, that have already shown aggressive tendencies should be dealt with. Like the dogs in the article, since this wasn't the first time they were running amok.

 

[animalhouse]

I am not even sure how to put in to words all the thoughts in my head right now about this entire thread.
I understand people who own bully breed dogs wanting the public to understand that not all pits (or rotties, or chows, or any other bully breed) are bad dogs. I have a rottie, a GSD and a wolf mix and all three of them are great dogs. I wouldn't want anyone to feel afraid of my girls due to their large size although I know they can be intimidating to some people. I cannot imagine my girls ever hurting someone, but I also keep an eye on them at all times because I fully understand that you can never fully know what could someday set them off and if they ever did decide to bite or attack it could be quite bad.
I also understand however that because they are larger breed dogs that IF they do bite, it is going to be much more detrimental to the person bit - up to and possibly including death so I can appreciate why people can be afraid of them - not just my dogs but any large breed dog.

I am sure if you looked at just BITE statistics you would see lots of different breeds of dogs responsbile for the number of bites around the country each year. I think the point that some people are missing on this thread though is we are not just talking about bites - we are talking about serious attacks resulting in maimings and death and the unfortunate truth is that most of those are by large breed dogs specifically because they are larger and can cause more damage than a small dog. Yes, small dogs bite - a lot - but they cannot kill an adult most of the time. I think that is where the disconnect in this thread is coming from. The pit owners keep trying to prove that all dogs can bite - and they are right, but what they are missing is that the people talking about banning or muzzles and such are talking about the attacks that result in more than just a bite.

I found this graph online (apologize I am at work and unable to attach it at the moment) but it clearly shows that most fatal dog attacks are by large breed dogs, specifically pits. It does show that smaller dogs have attacked and killed in a few cases, but the numbers are a huge difference.
Between 1979 and 1988 it shows 118 total (pit purebred and crossbred) deaths, 67 rottweiler, 41GSD, 21 husky type and keeps going down the line. At the bottom it does show fatal dog attacks also by a westhighland terrier and a cocker spaniel - one for each.
No - it does not address the circumstances which could prove a vital role in determining why these dogs attack (as mentioned in bad upbringing, tormenting a dog or if it was unprovoked). And I do think the media does sensationalize a lot of these stories as they do with everything else. Are they really going to say that a teenager was tormenting a pit bull when he was attacked or are they just going to say that the dog attacked someone. We all know the answer to that question already anyways...

I do like what you have wrote. And agree. I am one that trys to protect. And I am HORRID with the way I say things. But I think you have put it closest to what I have been trying to say. You aren't going to hear in the news the real reasons why these dogs attack. It isn't going to happen. If it did.. the story wouldn't be as interesting. It is sad.. it really is.

 

[tom e]

Is it safe to assume that you are for the python ban? Are those not dangerous snakes? Therefore the ban is good because it targets the snakes and by targeting the snakes it punishes the owners, even the good ones.

I just don't understand why everyone has to be divided like this, none of us want to see snakes banned in the US, but it seems to be well on its way, and like the link to the fishing issue earlier in the thread. We all need to ban together and fight these unjust laws, every one of them. Because if they are able to ban Pits and Rots, or Boas and Pythons, then what is to stop them from banning every other type of pet on the grounds that it may be dangerous?

Who said ban?

 

[wade]

This is something none of us have considered. Check out this story.

You have to watch a commercial first but be patient.

 

[LBoz]

This is something none of us have considered. Check out this story.

You have to watch a commercial first but be patient.

That is just so tragic.

 

[jesserca]

You know, I just wish owners would understand the dogs they own and what they are capable of. I have a shepherd mix (not very big) and a malamute (huge!). I would never expect my malamute to be aggressive to anyone, its not in his nature. But I know if he did snap he could cause serious damage to a person and possibly kill a child. Do I ever expect that to happen? No never, he is the sweetest pup. Would I let him roam around town or put him in any situation in which he could hurt a person or another dog? No. I take responsibility for my dogs, if they attacked someone, it would be my fault, I take responsibility for my animals. I wish other pet owners would be that way.

 

[Shiari]

What I would like to see is this:

Every dog, in order to get licensed and every time the license is renewed, should be temperment tested by a behaviourist. Owners with dog-aggressive dogs should be required subsequently to go through a behaviour modification course to help the dog and train *them* in how to handle their dog's behaviour correctly. Dogs that show human reactivity should be muzzled outside the home as well as go through behaviour modification courses. And I think ALL dog owners should have to carry liability insurance.

That would create jobs (behaviourists, trainers, animal control checking on animals for tags) and decrease the number of truly aggressive dogs as well as truly ignorant owners.

That way it doesn't target a specific breed, but rather the bad apples that exist across all breeds.

 

[Michael823]

I agree with all of that, Shiari. On top of that, I would add, is having a system in place to really penalize un-licensed dogs, as there will most likely be a lot of people who do not.

 

[animalhouse]

What I would like to see is this:

Every dog, in order to get licensed and every time the license is renewed, should be temperment tested by a behaviourist. Owners with dog-aggressive dogs should be required subsequently to go through a behaviour modification course to help the dog and train *them* in how to handle their dog's behaviour correctly. Dogs that show human reactivity should be muzzled outside the home as well as go through behaviour modification courses. And I think ALL dog owners should have to carry liability insurance.

That would create jobs (behaviourists, trainers, animal control checking on animals for tags) and decrease the number of truly aggressive dogs as well as truly ignorant owners.

That way it doesn't target a specific breed, but rather the bad apples that exist across all breeds.

I actually like this Idea. I think people need to check on breeders more as well. And people breeding dogs to make a quick Buck.. need to be shut down.

 

[ComoxCorn]

I actually like this Idea. I think people need to check on breeders more as well. And people breeding dogs to make a quick Buck.. need to be shut down.

The problem with dog breeding is that there are far more unlicenced dog breeders than there are AKC or CKC registered. I think most of us know people who have had a friend with a litter of pups, whether by accident or by thinking it would be cool to breed their dog just once.
I'd go out on a limb with this one by saying I am willing to bet there are more American Cornsnake Registry breeders then there are registered American Pit Bull Terrier breeders. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of pits come from unknown pedigrees and that most people don't know the lineage of their dog past the dam and sire, and that's why I don't think many can make claims that pits have had the aggression bred out of them.

 

[animalhouse]

You are probably right. Lol And that is So Sad. Something has to be done. Not just for Pits.. But for all breeds. There are breeds out there just all F'd up.. because of breeding issues. That is for another thread LOL

 

[Hypancistrus]

It seems to me that dog lovers who love certain breeds explain away certain kinds of behavior.
It just seems to me that you don't hear of that many labs or Irish setters in maulings. So there should be no dogs permitted at all in most households because of the possibilty of improper raising? Are you saying that?

NO dog, of ANY breed, should be left alone with a child. ANY dog can and will snap when poked, prodded, pulled, kicked, bit, pinched or any other assorted nasty behavior a human child can lay upon it. To leave a small child alone with an animal of any sort is piss poor parenting.

But... it is a persons right to make piss poor decisions. Even ones that I scoff at.

My Golden Retriever is really good with kids. My mom's Scottish Terriers, who weighed less than a quarter of Riley's weight, I would not have trusted with a child (or a human stranger for that matter) for any amount of time. A lady in the local Scottish Terrier club actually had one of her Scotties bite and tear the calf muscle clear off of her 2 year old grandchild.

So why are we not screaming for a Scottish Terrier ban??

Because pits get publicity. Any time a dog attacks, if it even LOOKS like a pit the media coverage is "Pit bull attacks" and it makes the front page. But if it's another breed, it's at most a tiny blurb in the local section and it's just labelled dog attack. Publicity is good for the media. It's how they make a living. If it won't sell, they don't care.

Also, I have never met a friendly yapper dog. Ever.

From the time I was 14 until I was 17, I worked at an animal hospital in Baltimore City as a kennel attendant. Baltimore is like the pit bull capital of the East. I would wager to say at least 80% of our larger dogs were pits or bully breeds of some sort. There was a fair amount of rotties, too, because it was the 90's and the rotties were popular then. Of all those large dogs, I only ever met ONE who was aggressive and scared me. Her name was Diamond, she was a huge 100 pound rottie. Her owner had her and an un-neutered male named Satan. Getting any pictures in your head of the guy that owned them? They were status symbols for him. He wanted them as mean as possible.

Every single bite I've ever gotten off of a dog has been from a smaller breed. I got bit for the first time at work by a Sheltie mix. I lost track of the number of times Lhasa's and Peke's connected with my arm... thank God their teeth were so mangled and screwed up they couldn't break my skin... but if they grabbed the hand of a small child??? We were always busting out muzzles for the tiny "Grandma" dogs... very rarely for a large breed. I think the other reason for this is that so many people treat small dogs like they AREN'T dogs... they DON'T obedience train them... they coddle them and pick them up... it leads to serious behavioral issues, and these are just brushed under the rug.

I think there is a BIG difference between a WILD animal and a DOG.

I don't. When I bring animals into my classroom or to community presentations and people ask "Does it bite?" I always answer "It could. It does have teeth." Because honestly, we never really know what will be the "trigger" that causes our 100% animal to drop to 99%. Every interaction you make with an animal of any kind is a calculated risk.

The girl that died at Sea World KNEW the risk of working with an animal as large as an orca. She knew exactly what COULD happen, and she chose to take that risk to work with a species she loved.

I know the risks of working with every single species I keep. That includes my dogs... cats... (honestly, all of my pet scars come from the damn cats)... reptiles... birds... all of them. I choose to take those risks in the pursuit of happiness for myself and for people I choose to share my animals with. It is my RIGHT to do so... and I will fight for the RIGHTS of others to do what makes them happy, too, so long as they understand the risk and take steps to control it.

 

[LBoz]

NO dog, of ANY breed, should be left alone with a child. ANY dog can and will snap when poked, prodded, pulled, kicked, bit, pinched or any other assorted nasty behavior a human child can lay upon it. To leave a small child alone with an animal of any sort is piss poor parenting.

Brava!! Yes, a bully dog can do more damage, but I couldn't agree more with the above statement. Unfortunately, I had to learn that lesson the hard way. Matthew was 2 and was sitting on the couch. I walked into the kitchen to get him some water. Less than ten seconds later I heard a bark and then Matthew screaming. Ivan had been on the other end of the couch sleeping. Matthew crawled over and must have tried to hug him or something and Ivan, the sweetest most loving dog in the world, snapped. 25 stitches in Matthew's face.

So yes, I agree that any dog can do damage to a human. Ivan was a husky, GSD mix...and not a small dog. Pits, however...and maybe I'm wrong about this, but I've heard that not only is it their jaw strength, but also that their jaws lock when they bite, so they actually have to tear the flesh away rather than open their mouths to let go. Is this true? I've never had one and never really had a reason to study them.

My neighbor has a beautiful pit/ABD mix. Sweet, loving and beautiful...until she sees a stranger walk by her house. She ran her electric fence while I was walking Dino and charged him, headbutting him in the side. Dino is a good 120# and didn't even move an inch, but the pit literally bounced off of him, looked at him with a stunned expression and ran home. But...what if that had been one of my children that he'd charged and knocked over? I shudder at the "what if's" of that, much more so than if their little pom had charged us.

 

[Hypancistrus]

My neighbor has a beautiful pit/ABD mix. Sweet, loving and beautiful...until she sees a stranger walk by her house. She ran her electric fence while I was walking Dino and charged him, headbutting him in the side. Dino is a good 120# and didn't even move an inch, but the pit literally bounced off of him, looked at him with a stunned expression and ran home. But...what if that had been one of my children that he'd charged and knocked over? I shudder at the "what if's" of that, much more so than if their little pom had charged us.

See, I think that keeping a bully breed in a yard with an "electric fence" counts as being irresponsible and not acknowleging and controlling risks.

Bully breeds were bred to be aggressive towards other animals. This is a fact of their nature. They were NOT bred to be aggressive to people. But given their aggressiveness towards other critters, keeping a bully without a fenced yard means you are allowing other animals to wander up to them at will, thus putting yourself and your dog in a dangerous situation.

I am a big fan of bully breeds, but I doubt I'll ever own one. It's important to me to have as few restrictions as possible with regards to my menagerie interacting together. I would not want to have to pen up my cats (and for some bully's, that would be a necessity) or worry about same gender aggression between my dogs.

 

[whippet]

I was attacked by a dog when I was about 4 or 5...still have a few scars on my face and arm. Guess what breed?
.
.
.
An Afgan Hound.
Yep...any child, any dog, any time.

Now mind you my mother was right there, and in fact was grooming said dog at the time. But it just goes to show you. Never leave a child alone with a dog.

 

[Outcast]

What I would like to see is this:

Every dog, in order to get licensed and every time the license is renewed, should be temperment tested by a behaviourist. Owners with dog-aggressive dogs should be required subsequently to go through a behaviour modification course to help the dog and train *them* in how to handle their dog's behaviour correctly. Dogs that show human reactivity should be muzzled outside the home as well as go through behaviour modification courses. And I think ALL dog owners should have to carry liability insurance.

That would create jobs (behaviourists, trainers, animal control checking on animals for tags) and decrease the number of truly aggressive dogs as well as truly ignorant owners.

That way it doesn't target a specific breed, but rather the bad apples that exist across all breeds.

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:

 

[stephen]

Well

I have owned one before(,not by my choice).
It was left behind, by its owner who left the state.
I ended up also having to get rid of the dog cause it hated cats!
I studied up a little on them and found that NO other dog has the jaw pressure that PitBulls have.The only other animal in the world that came close to the the power of a Pitbulls bite is a Hiheena.
Also when it attacked a cat which lead to me having to get rid of him,as I tried to get him off it, I noticed its eyes where rolled in back of its head and couldnt hear me yelling stop.I found a long stick to pry the dogs mouth open.This all happened in front of a elderly lady who owned the cat,in the end the cat was dead.I felt really bad.I knew if i didnt give the dog away it would have been put to sleep,which didnt want to happen because I loved the dog and the dog loved me.
Fact is there are so many Pitbulls in the US they will never be able to get rid of them all,I can say that if you do own a pitbull or live in a area that there are alot of them You should carry PEPPER SPRAY!!!
This will stop ANY dog attack or for the matter human attack. I know postman usually always carry it and it works,a quick spray in the face and problem solved.