The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by pylon

I agree to an extent. But even the most docile dog, can attack if a child approaches it the wrong way, or uses the wrong body language towards it. So in that off chance your perfectly docile pit bull decides your little toddler is a threat, the reality is the child will be killed or maimed for life.

There is some absolutely terrifying and gory videos of pit bull attacks online. When they grip, the simply don't let go. Most dogs can at least be called off during an attack, there are pit bulls that have continued to attack while being shot.

For me personally, ya there's a fear there that something could happen, and it absolutely is because of the damage they could do. I've been to enough dog parks and have seen enough minor scuffles between dogs that were playing and it turns a little ugly, but the're easy to separate, no harm done. Put a pit bull in the mix and I'm nervous to help break it up and worried for the other dog.

I wish I didn't have to think like that though as studies show that the vast majority of pit bulls aren't like that. But it's that one that is can do so much damage.

[driveway]

I personally want a pit bull, every single one I've ever interacted with has been phenomenal.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Zevo

For me personally, ya there's a fear there that something could happen, and it absolutely is because of the damage they could do. I've been to enough dog parks and have seen enough minor scuffles between dogs that were playing and it turns a little ugly, but the're easy to separate, no harm done. Put a pit bull in the mix and I'm nervous to help break it up and worried for the other dog.

Yep. My dog has been involved in several scuffles at off leash parks. No serious harm done. But if any of those had involved a pit bull, there are pretty good chances my dog would have been severely injured or killed.

[Old Yeller]

City Councillor wants all dogs muzzled for first year

Ward 2 Coun. Joe Magliocca says he plans to introduce a motion at next month’s council meeting that would require all dog owners to muzzle their dogs in public for their first year, regardless of breed, after which the pets would have to wear colour-coded bandanas indicating how dangerous they are.

I would support increased licensing fees for some dogs, a tripling of fines and other various measures, but I'm glad we have such fine upstanding non knee-jerk reactionary councillors... jesus christ.



I think a motion should be introduced muzzling Joe Magliocca before his chins suggest something else.

[Flamesoholic]

Originally Posted by Old Yeller

City Councillor wants all dogs muzzled for first year



I would support increased licensing fees for some dogs, a tripling of fines and other various measures, but I'm glad we have such fine upstanding non knee-jerk reactionary councillors... jesus christ.



I think a motion should be introduced muzzling Joe Magliocca before his chins suggest something else.

This is utterly ridiculous. He can't possibly be serious, colour coded bandanas?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Can we colour code our Councillors?

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Old Yeller

City Councillor wants all dogs muzzled for first year



I would support increased licensing fees for some dogs, a tripling of fines and other various measures, but I'm glad we have such fine upstanding non knee-jerk reactionary councillors... jesus christ.



I think a motion should be introduced muzzling Joe Magliocca before his chins suggest something else.

Sliver's identity is finally revealed.

[Sliver]

Man, even I find that idea idiotic.

[Bunk]

From "The Hill" Twitter



Red is not good

[Bunk]

http://www.theonion.com/article/new-...iefs-man-26301

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Flamesoholic

This is utterly ridiculous. He can't possibly be serious, colour coded bandanas?

While the muzzling is a stupid idea, the original idea for color coding dog collars is a good one/one that's been in practice for a while now.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Responsible people don't own pitbulls.

Responsible people dont listen to you for advice . period.

[wretched34]

Pitbull type breeds are not new, they've been around longer than most domestic breeds, and until recently, they had never been an issue, but now, with back yard breeders taking full advantage of their popularity, and uneducated, and irresponsible owners taking advantage of the over breeding, the breed should be punished?
If anything, restrictions should be placed on breeding, to protect the breeds and restore them to the glory they were once acknowledged for.

Here's a fun tidbit: "From the turn of the century until the early 1980s, there is exactly one dog attack story to make the national papers and mention pit bulls, but that’s probably because it involved a man intentionally siccing a pack of 26 dogs on a young woman. According to a 1947 article in The Independent (St. Petersburg, Florida), “Attorneys said they believed it was the first time the state had invoked a statute which would find the owner guilty of manslaughter if it were proven that he permitted vicious animals to run free and they attacked and killed a human being.” There’s no mention of pit bulls as vicious and no call for a ban of the breed, just a human who is held responsible for inducing the dogs to attack."
Pitbull type breeds are very strong, athletic, energetic dogs, which is why they are the first choice for dog fighting, or guard dogs. They are the most capable for performing these duties, that HUMANS train them for. It is not that it is natural instinct for them to act this way, they are taught, normally, by force to act this way.
In fact, Bully breeds in general, are some of the best family dogs on the planet. 4 of the top 15 breeds best suited for kids and families, are bully breeds, 2 of which are top 4, 3 of which are considered "Pitbull types" in Alberta.
http://www.dogreference.com/16-best-...ong-with-kids/

As far as Pitbull owners all being the same, irresponsible wannabe macho men over compensating for something, I find that insulting, and ridiculous. I do agree, there certainly is a large number of "meathead" owners, that take advantage of the stature of the breed to act tough, but a responsible owner, owns the breed for the right reasons. Specifically their loyalty, obedience, and companionship, which are the traits I chose bully breeds for, I trust them with my life, and my childs.
I was born and raised around large dogs, and have been a bully breed owner for over a decade (Currently an Olde English Bulldogge, and American Pitbull Terrier) and have been attacked numerous times. The attacks were suffered at the jaws of several small breeds, including a chihuahua, miniature pinscher, multiple ####zu's, and a pomeranian, only once have I been attacked by a large breed, and it was a German Shepard Akita mix. Obviously the attack by the Shepard/Akita resulted in the more severe injuries, but I wouldn't consider it a worse attack, and in all honesty, I'd say that the small dogs attacked me more viciously, and more relentlessly then the Shepard/Akita. It's pure ignorance that allows small dogs the free pass when it comes to behavioral issues and proper training.
/end rant

In short, the responsibility needs to fall on breeders and owners, not the animals.
You want Vicious pitbulls off the street, restrict breeding to registered and accredited breeders, as they breed dogs for the right qualities, including temperament, and place dogs in the proper homes, many accredited breeders also show, and compete with their dogs, so they are always striving to breed the best possible dogs, rather than simply breeding for quick turnover and profit. End backyard breeding, and you get rid of the $250-$500 puppies, which are bought by people simply looking for the "Cool Pitbull" that doesn't actually know anything about the breeds, or how to manage and train one. This results in fewer untrained dogs being put in situations they are not capable of handling, and fewer incidents.

[JiriHrdina]

Seems easier to just ban the breed from urban settings

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Seems easier to just ban the breed from urban settings

How so? How do you enforce a ban in certain areas? Make it so they can't be registered in certain Postal Codes?
Then you have irresponsible owners avoiding registration, and hiding their dogs, in turn, not providing them proper exercise, or a proper life, leading to more dogs being untrained and uncared for.

If you ban backyard breeding, you reduce the number of dogs bred simply for quick profit. This helps eliminate the number of irresponsible owners, as I would assume the majority of uneducated owners aren't going to be willing to drop the $2000-$3000 an accredited breeder charges, just to say they have a pitbull, or look menacing when they walk their untrained dog around the neighborhood.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by wretched34

You want Vicious pitbulls off the street, restrict breeding to registered and accredited breeders, as they breed dogs for the right qualities, including temperament, and place dogs in the proper homes.

Originally Posted by wretched34

If you ban backyard breeding, you reduce the number of dogs bred simply for quick profit. This helps eliminate the number of irresponsible owners, as I would assume the majority of uneducated owners aren't going to be willing to drop the $2000-$3000 an accredited breeder charges, just to say they have a pitbull, or look menacing when they walk their untrained dog around the neighborhood.

I'm getting a bit confused as to what you are saying here.

Are you saying that registered breeders have a screening process for placing their dogs in proper homes (bolded,first quote) and if so what is it?

Or, are you saying that there is a correlation between financial ability to pay top $ for a dog and responsibility (2nd quote).

Because reading between the lines (and correct me if I'm wrong) the gist I'm getting is that if you are prepared to spend 2-3k on a dog it is therefore more likely that you are capable of providing a "proper home" for the dog, are better educated and more willing to train the dog?

Could it be considered a class issue then? i.e. Lower income dog owners are the problem?

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I'm getting a bit confused as to what you are saying here.

Are you saying that registered breeders have a screening process for placing their dogs in proper homes (bolded,first quote) and if so what is it?

Or, are you saying that there is a correlation between financial ability to pay top $ for a dog and responsibility (2nd quote).

Because reading between the lines (and correct me if I'm wrong) the gist I'm getting is that if you are prepared to spend 2-3k on a dog it is therefore more likely that you are capable of providing a "proper home" for the dog, are better educated and more willing to train the dog?

Could it be considered a class issue then? i.e. Lower income dog owners are the problem?

In regards to breeders being involved in proper placement, a responsible breeder very much should be doing their due diligence to ensure the pups they are selling are going to good homes, where they are confident the owners have the best intentions for the dog. No good breeder wants to see breeds end up with bad reputations, as is currently happening with Pitbull types.
Every time I have dealt with breeders and purchasing a pup, there was a screening process, home checks, and extensive follow up, with additional resources provided if needed. I feel this is as much my responsibility, as the breeders, it's what I expect when looking for a dog.

I wouldn't consider proper dog ownership a class issue, as I am sure, the vast majority of dog owners who don't have excessive disposable income (such as myself) are perfectly capable, responsible, well informed owners, who are aware that there are costs involved in pet ownership, outside of the initial purchase price. On the other hand, I'm guessing it's also very likely that the vast majority of irresponsible owners are the ones getting their dogs on the cheap from backyard breeders, who are not willing or capable of providing additional resources such as training and obedience when needed. I am sure there are some, who pay top dollar that end up being bad owners (such as dog fighters) but for the average owner, looking for a family dog, I find it hard to believe they'd be willing to drop $3000 and then be totally fine with having an aggressive dog and doing nothing about it. That's a poor investment, and a danger to their family.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Seems easier to just ban the breed from urban settings

While this does seem the easiest solution in the short term, and sometimes I do think it's what will happen, will it really work though. I can't see the D. bags that want pitbulls for the wrong reasons just deciding "well, can't get a pit bull, oh well, no dog for me then". They'll just move on to the next breed.

Hope it's not the Presa Canario. It's like a pit bull but twice the size. Sure you can eventually ban that one too, then they'll move on to the rotty or Akita, rinse and repeat.

[V]

Sounds good to me. Maybe by the end of it we'll be down to no dogs at all.

[GGG]

Would responsible pit bull owners be harmed by banning the breeds if existing licensed dogs were Grandfathered and you just prohibit new ownership.

I get that someone trying to take away your dog is a non starter but having to choose a different breed doesn't seem like a significant harm.