The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

It's quotes like this that make me seriously wonder if this isn't one gigantic troll job by you. A doggy concentration camp...awesome.

Yes that would be quite the troll job if I was advocating for a dog concentration camp. But contrary to your straw man argument that isn't what I said.

There are all sorts of activities that aren't permitted in the city:

• Raising chickens/pigs/cows/etc.
• Hunting
• Horseback riding
• Racing cars
• Etc.

My point is it's not such a stretch to suggest people exercise/enjoy/socialize their non-muzzled pit bulls in private areas away from people. If they want to take "Diesel" or "Harley" or "Killer" or whatever they call their pit bull out in public within the city, they should muzzle it. This is hardly the nut job idea you're pretending it is.

[Old Yeller]

You're back and forth generalizing between pit bulls and all dogs from one message to the next.

I think this thread needs a muzzle.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Old Yeller

You're back and forth generalizing between pit bulls and all dogs from one message to the next.

I think this thread needs a muzzle.

I might be doing that a bit, but there are multiple conversations with multiple people happening simultaneously. I can at least get behind the idea of muzzles for dangerous breeds as a move in the right direction since that idea gets support from quite a few posters. Clearly nobody is going to support a dog-free Calgary besides me and maybe a few dozen people in the city. The practical part of me would be pleased with seeing muzzles on pit bulls.

Frankly, I don't even know how anybody could dispute that given all the maulings by pit bulls in Calgary over the past couple weeks. We would be remiss to not explore ways of preventing more of these attacks.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I was envisioning more a secure dog paddock of sorts where dog owners could gather outside of Calgary if they didn't want their dog to wear a muzzle. Inside the city muzzles should be mandatory.

What exactly do you think goes on at all the off leash dog parks in Calgary? A free for all death match? It's not like people take their dogs for socialization at your kid's school or a local playground. They go to dog training classes, off leash parks, communal pathways and so on (in other words - more or less designated dog friendly areas). I don't care how awful a dog owner is, they don't take their dog to some high risk area and say "Go, socialize". My god man.

[SeoulFire]

The owners should be charged with assault with a weapon or aggravated assault (depending on the breed).

US style civil litigation should also be available.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I can at least get behind the idea of muzzles for dangerous breeds as a move in the right direction since that idea gets support from quite a few posters.

Frankly, I don't even know how anybody could dispute that given all the maulings by pit bulls in Calgary over the past couple weeks. We would be remiss to not explore ways of preventing more of these attacks.

A lot of crime in Calgary is done by low-income individuals. Of course, we would be remiss to not explore ways of preventing more of these attacks.

What is your stance on handcuffing all low-income individuals in public?

[AFireInside]

I'll try and clear it up for you.

You stated nothing you own makes noise etc. Etc.. I stated your children make noise etc and I deal with it because it's part of society. I don't have kids, I don't want them running around spreading germs, crying, throwing rocks, making messes anywhere near me. But I deal with it because it's part of society. (Clearly I'm being sarcastic here, just pointing out that there are aspects of our society that bother us, and you learn to deal with it).

As for your idea that dog owners should go to a compound outside of town. Dogs are apart of society, deal with it. If you are too afraid you should get a compound for yourself.

I was simply stating that your compound idea was is silly, and that your over the top reactions to dogs makes you sound like a maniac in a tinfoil hat.

You make it sound like your life is in danger when you leave the house and it definitely isn't. Try to be rational in your debate and you will will get a better reception.

Dog attacks are rare. In 2010 there were 102 dog bites reported in Calgary. So 0.01% of the population? (rough estimation). Now if half of those attacks take place in the owners house or property then assuming you don't go around dogs the percentage drops to what, 0.005%? Even lower since you don't frequent dog parks.

Now compare that to the number of assaults in just the past 6 months here in Calgary, 2103. You should be much more worried about people. Your fear of dogs is making you irrational.

I've said repeatedly that there are solutions to the pit bull issue but compounds outside of town, exterminating the breed, or dogs of a certain size is just over the top.

I've pointed out repeatedly that there are other breeds that are more dangerous on a per dog basis, yet it keeps coming back to pit bulls.

The term pit bull encompasses many breeds, so thats going to lead to inflated stats and you aren't getting the whole picture. Stats show that on a per dog basis other dogs are more deadly and dangerous.

There has been a study called the "Calgary model" it focused in bad owners increasing fines for bite offenses which lead to a 25 year low in dog bites. Clearly that approach can work.

Originally Posted by Sliver

Your bizarre response had nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote/what you quoted.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Let's break this down.



^ That wasn't obvious? You really didn't know muzzles would be effective at preventing aggressive dogs from biting? I don't believe you.



^ Nor that? Wouldn't you feel safer if an attacking pit bull had a muzzle?



Even I have said that muzzles would be a good step and I am pro-banning. A lot of other people have said the same. Table 5 being one respected poster I can think of off the top of my head.



I concede this one was probably less obvious, but a good idea none the less.



Again, this is fairly obvious MMF.

I think flamesfever did a good job of breaking this down, but really a lot of these were obvious. I mean, the fact that you needed somebody to tell you that a muzzle would prevent a dog bite is a little ridiculous. I thought you understood why a muzzle would work. Had it occurred to me you needed an explanation like the above I would have provided one.

And so i'll say it again, in your 70 plus posts in this thread you haven't come close to making as much "obvious" sense and reasoning as his.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

And so i'll say it again, in your 70 plus posts in this thread you haven't come close to making as much "obvious" sense and reasoning as his.

Obvious troll being a troll...

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by Sliver

If they want to take "Diesel" or "Harley" or "Killer" or whatever they call their pit bull out in public within the city, they should muzzle it.

why is a muzzle needed? they are on a leash and it's the law that you must have complete control of your dog! Responsible dog owners avoid putting their dog in situations that could be dangerous.

[V]

There are about as many responsible dog owners as there are good drivers. Good thing we have an abundance of both on this board.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by V

There are about as many responsible dog owners as there are good drivers. Good thing we have an abundance of both on this board.

What is your problem? Just because there are a few bad owners out there?

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

A lot of crime in Calgary is done by low-income individuals. Of course, we would be remiss to not explore ways of preventing more of these attacks.

What is your stance on handcuffing all low-income individuals in public?

Are you really equating poor people to animals? Or are you just trying to use a completely irrelevant and idiotic analogy to discredit Silver's argument?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

I'll try and clear it up for you.

You stated nothing you own makes noise etc. Etc.. I stated your children make noise etc and I deal with it because it's part of society. I don't have kids, I don't want them running around spreading germs, crying, throwing rocks, making messes anywhere near me. But I deal with it because it's part of society. (Clearly I'm being sarcastic here, just pointing out that there are aspects of our society that bother us, and you learn to deal with it).

I realize you are being somewhat tongue-in-cheek with the children comparison and not to pick on you as the comparison has come up multiple times in this thread and others, but it is terrible. I'm not responding to it anymore as it's been addressed numerous times other than to say kids are not equal to dogs.

Originally Posted by AFireInside

As for your idea that dog owners should go to a compound outside of town. Dogs are apart of society, deal with it. If you are too afraid you should get a compound for yourself.

I was simply stating that your compound idea was is silly, and that your over the top reactions to dogs makes you sound like a maniac in a tinfoil hat.

You guys continue to twist my ideas then argue against your own version of what I said. I respect you a lot as a poster so I'm surprised at you in particular for doing this. I didn't say dog owners should go to a compound. I was saying non-muzzled pit bulls shouldn't be allowed in public. If your pit bull needs socialization sans muzzle, you should take it outside of Calgary. This is in the context of there being a muzzle law in response to somebody saying dogs wearing muzzles can't socialize properly (which may or may not even be true - no evidence was cited). This would be no different than having to ride your horse at a ranch outside of town as I'm pretty sure - though I could be wrong - that you aren't allowed to ride your horse anywhere you want in the city.

Originally Posted by AFireInside

You make it sound like your life is in danger when you leave the house and it definitely isn't. Try to be rational in your debate and you will will get a better reception.

There is nothing irrational about my arguments. Just because we're seeing a lot of group think on the pro-dog side of the debate doesn't make it the right side.

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Dog attacks are rare. In 2010 there were 102 dog bites reported in Calgary. So 0.01% of the population? (rough estimation). Now if half of those attacks take place in the owners house or property then assuming you don't go around dogs the percentage drops to what, 0.005%? Even lower since you don't frequent dog parks.

Now compare that to the number of assaults in just the past 6 months here in Calgary, 2103. You should be much more worried about people. Your fear of dogs is making you irrational.

I doubt anybody here would entertain the notion for one second that anywhere near the amount of dog bites that actually happen are reported. That's a bit of a side step on my part as I obviously can't back that up with any proof, but I would think that would be a basic assumption we would all have.

Feel free to start a thread about assaults in Calgary as I'm sure there are legitimate concerns out there. I started this thread on dog attacks, which is what I wanted to discuss here. Just because there are human-on-human assaults doesn't mean we can't talk about the rash of dog violence.

Originally Posted by AFireInside

I've said repeatedly that there are solutions to the pit bull issue but compounds outside of town, exterminating the breed, or dogs of a certain size is just over the top.

Yes, and as I've said I never supported banning dogs over a certain size. That's your mistake to think it is my position and I've clarified it in this thread already.

Originally Posted by AFireInside

I've pointed out repeatedly that there are other breeds that are more dangerous on a per dog basis, yet it keeps coming back to pit bulls.

Yes, and when you said that I said we should look at banning those other dangerous breeds as well. It keeps coming back to pit bulls because they're in the news for attacking somebody every second day in Calgary lately. If rottweilers were attacking people right now I'd be using that breed as my example.

Originally Posted by AFireInside

The term pit bull encompasses many breeds, so thats going to lead to inflated stats and you aren't getting the whole picture. Stats show that on a per dog basis other dogs are more deadly and dangerous.

There has been a study called the "Calgary model" it focused in bad owners increasing fines for bite offenses which lead to a 25 year low in dog bites. Clearly that approach can work.

Well if we are at a 25-year low that's fantastic. I don't see why we can't keep improving that and the recent attacks to me suggest attacks are on the rise. Even reading through this thread and looking at all the attacks there have been since I started it (relatively recently) it only bolsters my position that something more needs to be done to protect people from these unnecessary attacks.

[undercoverbrother]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...n-8446139.html

Spoiler!

[Sliver]

hahaha oh man, if I ever got a dog it would have to be like that labra-lion.

[AFireInside]

Of course I'm being very tongue in cheek.

Look I'm not trying to twist your ideas, but it's been pointed out on a per dog basis pitbulls aren't even the most dangerous in terms of fatalities and attacks. When a term encompasses 3 - 4 breeds and any mix thereof the numbers will be inflated.

Second you're making A LOT of assumptions. Thers must be a lot of dog bites that go unreported, well then they likely did little to no damage, but that would also apply to every other crime. Just simply pointing out that the level of danger to you is being GREATLY over exaggerated.

A muzzle law, leading to improper socialization may lead to more damaging attacks if the dog ever gets free. It's not the correct solution, at least not initially. Secondly it's a big mistake to have pitbulls socialize only witb pitbulls, if they encounter a small dog or child and try to play the same way as they would with other large dogs it's more of a danger.

I didn't say we are at a 25 year low now, the project lead to a 25 year low showing that proper legislation can and does work. Increase the penalties and be a little more firm on the regulations.

You're making assumptions based on what you read in the media, you don't know that attacks are on the rise. I would expect that attacks are at roughly the same level as previous years give or take a few percentage points in either direction.

As for banning other breeds, where does it end? When we all own weiner dogs?
No thanks I don't need the government having that kind of control. As I stated previously irresponsible owners of large trucks and sports cars are a much greater danger to me but no one saying everyone has to drive a prius and I wouldn't expect them to.

Stop making assumptions, stop being so afraid and start looking for reasonable solutions.

Experts in dogs, and dog behavior aren't calling for a ban and they know more than all of us.

Originally Posted by Sliver

I realize you are being somewhat tongue-in-cheek with the children comparison and not to pick on you as the comparison has come up multiple times in this thread and others, but it is terrible. I'm not responding to it anymore as it's been addressed numerous times other than to say kids are not equal to dogs.



You guys continue to twist my ideas then argue against your own version of what I said. I respect you a lot as a poster so I'm surprised at you in particular for doing this. I didn't say dog owners should go to a compound. I was saying non-muzzled pit bulls shouldn't be allowed in public. If your pit bull needs socialization sans muzzle, you should take it outside of Calgary. This is in the context of there being a muzzle law in response to somebody saying dogs wearing muzzles can't socialize properly (which may or may not even be true - no evidence was cited). This would be no different than having to ride your horse at a ranch outside of town as I'm pretty sure - though I could be wrong - that you aren't allowed to ride your horse anywhere you want in the city.



There is nothing irrational about my arguments. Just because we're seeing a lot of group think on the pro-dog side of the debate doesn't make it the right side.



I doubt anybody here would entertain the notion for one second that anywhere near the amount of dog bites that actually happen are reported. That's a bit of a side step on my part as I obviously can't back that up with any proof, but I would think that would be a basic assumption we would all have.

Feel free to start a thread about assaults in Calgary as I'm sure there are legitimate concerns out there. I started this thread on dog attacks, which is what I wanted to discuss here. Just because there are human-on-human assaults doesn't mean we can't talk about the rash of dog violence.



Yes, and as I've said I never supported banning dogs over a certain size. That's your mistake to think it is my position and I've clarified it in this thread already.



Yes, and when you said that I said we should look at banning those other dangerous breeds as well. It keeps coming back to pit bulls because they're in the news for attacking somebody every second day in Calgary lately. If rottweilers were attacking people right now I'd be using that breed as my example.



Well if we are at a 25-year low that's fantastic. I don't see why we can't keep improving that and the recent attacks to me suggest attacks are on the rise. Even reading through this thread and looking at all the attacks there have been since I started it (relatively recently) it only bolsters my position that something more needs to be done to protect people from these unnecessary attacks.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Of course I'm being very tongue in cheek.

Look I'm not trying to twist your ideas, but it's been pointed out on a per dog basis pitbulls aren't even the most dangerous in terms of fatalities and attacks. When a term encompasses 3 - 4 breeds and any mix thereof the numbers will be inflated.

Second you're making A LOT of assumptions. Thers must be a lot of dog bites that go unreported, well then they likely did little to no damage, but that would also apply to every other crime. Just simply pointing out that the level of danger to you is being GREATLY over exaggerated.

A muzzle law, leading to improper socialization may lead to more damaging attacks if the dog ever gets free. It's not the correct solution, at least not initially. Secondly it's a big mistake to have pitbulls socialize only witb pitbulls, if they encounter a small dog or child and try to play the same way as they would with other large dogs it's more of a danger.

I didn't say we are at a 25 year low now, the project lead to a 25 year low showing that proper legislation can and does work. Increase the penalties and be a little more firm on the regulations.

You're making assumptions based on what you read in the media, you don't know that attacks are on the rise. I would expect that attacks are at roughly the same level as previous years give or take a few percentage points in either direction.

As for banning other breeds, where does it end? When we all own weiner dogs?
No thanks I don't need the government having that kind of control. As I stated previously irresponsible owners of large trucks and sports cars are a much greater danger to me but no one saying everyone has to drive a prius and I wouldn't expect them to.

Stop making assumptions, stop being so afraid and start looking for reasonable solutions.

Experts in dogs, and dog behavior aren't calling for a ban and they know more than all of us.

I'm not sure where banning breeds ends, but it doesn't mean we can't at least get started on the low-hanging fruit.

I hear you on your comparison between dogs being less dangerous than people in large trucks and sports cars, and it's probably true. But that is a separate issue and while a good contrast to what I'm arguing, doesn't negate that there is a dog problem IMO. Just because cars may be more dangerous, doesn't mean dogs aren't dangerous.

The problem I see with experts in dogs and dog behaviour is they generally love dogs. A guy like me isn't going to make a career out of dogs. They are not an objective party and while they should have a seat at the table, they certainly shouldn't have the final say.

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I'm not sure where banning breeds ends, but it doesn't mean we can't at least get started on the low-hanging fruit.

I hear you on your comparison between dogs being less dangerous than people in large trucks and sports cars, and it's probably true. But that is a separate issue and while a good contrast to what I'm arguing, doesn't negate that there is a dog problem IMO. Just because cars may be more dangerous, doesn't mean dogs aren't dangerous.

The problem I see with experts in dogs and dog behaviour is they generally love dogs. A guy like me isn't going to make a career out of dogs. They are not an objective party and while they should have a seat at the table, they certainly shouldn't have the final say.

Sliver, it's hard to have any good communication with you on this topic when you are so incessently one sided. You have already admitted you are not the norm and there are likely only 12 people in this city who would agree with your stance. Your zealous pushing of an extreme agenda like banning all dogs or banning all large dogs is pushing peoples buttons and you know it.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

Sliver, it's hard to have any good communication with you on this topic when you are so incessently one sided. You have already admitted you are not the norm and there are likely only 12 people in this city who would agree with your stance. Your zealous pushing of an extreme agenda like banning all dogs or banning all large dogs is pushing peoples buttons and you know it.

Okay well know what is pushing my buttons? This notion that I'm pushing a ban of all dogs or all large dogs in this thread. I'm doing neither.

It's not a secret that I would prefer a dog-free city, but that's certainly not an agenda I'm pushing as I know it's unrealistic. Muzzles are a great first step as that would be cheap to institute and could basically happen over night. Breed bans on dangerous dogs like pit bulls, rottweilers and maybe others are also another good step. I'm being painted as an extremist for these ideas but a lot of other cities/provinces/states are doing just that. It's not crazy at all. Just on CP for some reason unbeknownst to me.

I thought the Internet was supposed to like cats, anyway.