The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by 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.

So punish responsible pitbull owners, who have had pitbulls for years and years, by saying, "once that one dies, you can't have another, because a select few ruined it for you."
That's like telling a whiskey drinker that after that bottle, he'll have to find another spirit, cuz to many people get in bar fights when they drink whiskey.
The only thing that banning a breed does, is punish the dogs, and the responsible owners, because as others have said, the ones that are causing the problems will just move on to the next flavour of the month.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by wretched34

So punish responsible pitbull owners, who have had pitbulls for years and years, by saying, "once that one dies, you can't have another, because a select few ruined it for you."
That's like telling a whiskey drinker that after that bottle, he'll have to find another spirit, cuz to many people get in bar fights when they drink whiskey.
The only thing that banning a breed does, is punish the dogs, and the responsible owners, because as others have said, the ones that are causing the problems will just move on to the next flavour of the month.

I asked what the harm to pit bull owners was. What is the net harm of having to choose a different breed of dog. You didn't address this it was

And when the bad owners move onto another breed it will be a less destructive one does less damage when it attacks even if it's a Shepard or rotty.

[Travis Munroe]

nvm

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by wretched34

So punish responsible pitbull owners, who have had pitbulls for years and years, by saying, "once that one dies, you can't have another, because a select few ruined it for you."
.

That's exactly what people are saying, and it's been implemented in many cities, so it's not some crazy pie in the sky idea brought on by some out of touch Calgarians on a message board, like you guys seem to keep implying.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Mother of god.

[jayswin]

^^^^^^^

I think I might actually have a worse, gut wrenching feeling coming face to face with that thing in real life than a cougar or bear. Holy crap, what an ugly monster.

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by GGG

I asked what the harm to pit bull owners was. What is the net harm of having to choose a different breed of dog. You didn't address this it was

The harm, is being told you're no longer allowed to have a loyal, caring companion in your home. Something that many people rely on.

Originally Posted by GGG

And when the bad owners move onto another breed it will be a less destructive one does less damage when it attacks even if it's a Shepard or rotty.

I disagree, the average size of a full grown male American Pitbull Terrier is 55-70lbs, German Shepard is 65-90lbs, and rottweiler is 110-130lbs. If the bad pitbull owners cant control their 65lb dog, what makes you think they can control a 120lb rotty? And if your statement is based solely on the thought that Pitbulls attack more viciously than either of those other breeds, you would be mistaken.
Pitbull types were bred as bait dogs, when they attack, their goal is to hold on, and subdue it's prey, not kill it. Shepards and Rottweilers along with other large breeds have more of a hunting instinct, which includes killing it's prey.

Originally Posted by flameswin

That's exactly what people are saying, and it's been implemented in many cities, so it's not some crazy pie in the sky idea brought on by some out of touch Calgarians on a message board, like you guys seem to keep implying.

Yes, it's been implemented, but has it been successful? Or is it simply fear mongering from the media, that makes people believe "if we get this one awful breed off the streets we'll all be safe" again relates back to get rid of one, and bad owners will find another.
Many studies have concluded that Breed Specific Legislation has no effect at all on the number of reported attacks or bites in any given area, in fact, many cities/countries that introduced BSL have since overturned it, after realizing that the issues were not breed related.
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil...ion-bsl-faq/#5
• The Province of Ontario in Canada enacted a breed ban in 2005. In 2010, based on a survey of municipalities across the Province, the Toronto Humane Society reported that, despite five years of BSL and the destruction of "countless" dogs, there had been no significant decrease in the number of dog bites.[7]

• Winnipeg, Manitoba enacted a breed ban in 1990. Winnipeg’s rate of dog bite-injury hospitalizations is virtually unchanged from that day to this, and remains significantly higher than the rate in breed-neutral, responsible pet ownership Calgary[8]


• The Netherlands repealed a 15-year-old breed ban in 2008 after commissioning a study of its effectiveness. The study revealed that BSL was not a successful dog-bite mitigation strategy because it had not resulted in a decrease in dog bites. [6]

[JiriHrdina]

You are using the wrong metric. Number of dog bites doesn't account for severity of the bites. The Winnipeg study make have some validity.
No one is saying you can't have a loyal companion in your home - just choose a different breed.
Also some of the sources on that site, in addition to the site itself, are questionable as they clearly have a certain POV on this issue.

[wretched34]

So then your views in favor of just simply banning and destroying a breed are questionable, along with all others who agree with you, as there is clearly a certain POV on the issue.
Of course there are clear POV's, as there are those for it, and against it.
Those against it, are atleast offering up information as to why it doesn't work, and why the breeds effected should not be the ones punished, and that it should be owners held responsible. We're not arguing that there isn't an issue, because there is, and it's just as upsetting to us, as it is to everyone, actually, probably more upsetting, because we have more to lose, simply due to ignorance and misinformation.
The only thing I seem to hear from the Pro BSL side is "The newspaper wrote another story about it, so obviously all dogs that look like such and such are evil and dangerous, no one should be allowed to own them".

[JiriHrdina]

Yeah but I'm not trying to pretend I'm an expert or the source of any data on the subject. Pointing to a source that has a clear slant is different from debating personal opinions.
Studies produced by biased sources aren't going to convince me I'm wrong.

And I don't know if anyone from the Pro BSL side has said anything close to what you just "quoted".

My argument is simple. These dogs are capable of doing FAR more damage in any attack. I'm not suggesting they are evil or anything - just that they have a higher capability of seriously hurting someone. And I don't think they are needed in an urban setting. You can choose from any number of other breeds to have a dog. Or move to the country.

[flamesfever]

On one occasion, while walking my dog at the off leash park, a large pit bull ran over and jumped on my lab, who immediately remained motionless. Thankfully the pit bull backed off and departed. As I passed the owner he said in a surly manner, "My dog takes issues with dogs that are unneutered.

Ever since, when I take my dog for a walk, the first thing I do is glance around to see if there is a pit bull present, and if so I choose a different direction to walk.

Rather than banning pit bulls, which I think has its problems, I would like to see it be mandatory that every pit bull be muzzled while outside the owner's home.

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Yeah but I'm not trying to pretend I'm an expert or the source of any data on the subject. Pointing to a source that has a clear slant is different from debating personal opinions.
Studies produced by biased sources aren't going to convince me I'm wrong.

And I don't know if anyone from the Pro BSL side has said anything close to what you just "quoted".

My argument is simple. These dogs are capable of doing FAR more damage in any attack. I'm not suggesting they are evil or anything - just that they have a higher capability of seriously hurting someone. And I don't think they are needed in an urban setting. You can choose from any number of other breeds to have a dog. Or move to the country.

Agreed to an extent. Yes, Pitbulls obviously will inflict far more damage than a smaller breed, but are on par with other dogs their size, while even larger breeds can and will cause far more damage.
Why does it matter what breed a person chooses as a family dog? Or what setting the family lives in?
Pit Bull type dogs were once knows as the "Nanny Breed" due to their calm nature, loyalty and accepting personalities. They are far more resilient and accepting of the abuse a child can unknowingly cause, while staying calm and collected and not becoming aggressive towards humans.
If the breed chosen is meant to be a family dog, a responsible owner will take the time to train any breed to produce the results they are looking for.

Originally Posted by flamesfever

On one occasion, while walking my dog at the off leash park, a large pit bull ran over and jumped on my lab, who immediately remained motionless. Thankfully the pit bull backed off and departed. As I passed the owner he said in a surly manner, "My dog takes issues with dogs that are unneutered.

Ever since, when I take my dog for a walk, the first thing I do is glance around to see if there is a pit bull present, and if so I choose a different direction to walk.

Rather than banning pit bulls, which I think has its problems, I would like to see it be mandatory that every pit bull be muzzled while outside the owner's home.

That sounds like a poorly socialized dog, and terrible dog owner.
My 90lb Olde English Bulldogge has been roughed up at dog parks on numerous occasions, by all sorts of breeds, including labs, retrievers, shepards, and many smaller breeds. It is not only pitbulls that can be poorly socialized and aggressive.
Bully breeds by nature play differently than the majority of breeds, and they can come across as aggressive. This is something a good owner is aware of, and takes time to correct, with proper training, obedience and socialization.
It's dogs and owners like the one you encountered that give certain breeds bad reputations. Clearly though, the Pitbull that jumped on your lab appeared to be attempting to play, rather than attacking, when your dog showed no interest in playing along, it backed off. That is not a sign of aggression, the the owner was obviously a bonehead, blaming the incident on your dog for being unneutered.
Muzzling a dog can have psychological effects on it, creating aggression, I don't believe it is a good solution, nor does it change the perception of a breed, it only adds to the stereotype. I understand that it would make most feel more comfortable knowing that what could be an aggressive dog is incapable of attacking with it's jaws, but why should muzzling be limited to specific breeds. As I said, my bully has been roughed up by many breeds no one deems aggressive. If they had full on attacked, and my boy was muzzled and unable to protect himself, I would feel horrible for knowing I took away that ability from him, simply because the media says bullies show aggression towards other dogs. If you want dogs muzzled in parks, it should be all breeds that are muzzled, is that fair to your lab?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by wretched34

The harm, is being told you're no longer allowed to have a loyal, caring companion in your home. Something that many people rely on.

This is not the consequence of banning pit bulls. What is the net harm of not being able to have a pit bull and instead having to choose another breed. Outside of Silver no one is advocating banning dogs.

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by GGG

This is not the consequence of banning pit bulls. What is the net harm of not being able to have a pit bull and instead having to choose another breed. Outside of Silver no one is advocating banning dogs.

To some, like myself, it is a consequence of banning pitbulls.
I much prefer bully breeds, for traits that other breeds do not have.
Choosing a breed is simply a preference, and those that prefer bullies would see it as harmful to have them banned.
Just because you don't see it that way, doesn't mean people are not harmed by the decision.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by wretched34

To some, like myself, it is a consequence of banning pitbulls.
I much prefer bully breeds, for traits that other breeds do not have.
Choosing a breed is simply a preference, and those that prefer bullies would see it as harmful to have them banned.
Just because you don't see it that way, doesn't mean people are not harmed by the decision.

So you wouldn't get another dog if pit bulls were banned? I'm trying to find out the harm because I don't see it.

Would it be fair to say that in one generation that there would be zero harm as people would no longer develop that preference.

[wretched34]

It depends on what the ban classifies as Pitbulls.
If Bulldogs were lumped in as they have been in many places, then no, I would not get another dog.
Outside of people losing out on a specific breed, it would result in a lot of unnecessary euthanization, and taxpayer money to enforce the ban.
And no, i don't think it is fair to say that in one generation there would be zero harm from a preference standpoint, unless you ban the breed globally, and essentially render it extinct.
Banning a breed in isolated areas will not make people forget about them, or new generations not learn about them.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by wretched34

That sounds like a poorly socialized dog, and terrible dog owner.
My 90lb Olde English Bulldogge has been roughed up at dog parks on numerous occasions, by all sorts of breeds, including labs, retrievers, shepards, and many smaller breeds. It is not only pitbulls that can be poorly socialized and aggressive.
Bully breeds by nature play differently than the majority of breeds, and they can come across as aggressive. This is something a good owner is aware of, and takes time to correct, with proper training, obedience and socialization.
It's dogs and owners like the one you encountered that give certain breeds bad reputations. Clearly though, the Pitbull that jumped on your lab appeared to be attempting to play, rather than attacking, when your dog showed no interest in playing along, it backed off. That is not a sign of aggression, the the owner was obviously a bonehead, blaming the incident on your dog for being unneutered.
Muzzling a dog can have psychological effects on it, creating aggression, I don't believe it is a good solution, nor does it change the perception of a breed, it only adds to the stereotype. I understand that it would make most feel more comfortable knowing that what could be an aggressive dog is incapable of attacking with it's jaws, but why should muzzling be limited to specific breeds. As I said, my bully has been roughed up by many breeds no one deems aggressive. If they had full on attacked, and my boy was muzzled and unable to protect himself, I would feel horrible for knowing I took away that ability from him, simply because the media says bullies show aggression towards other dogs. If you want dogs muzzled in parks, it should be all breeds that are muzzled, is that fair to your lab?

That wasn't an attempt to play..it was a full on attack. I forgot to mention the growl and roar of the pit bull just before landing on my dog.

I've witnessed other "bullies" in my lifetime be as friendly as you could ever hope to people and other animals they know and like, yet in a split second their super aggressive nature can erupt with the result of a dead dog. One particular pit bull cross, owned by a friend in mine in my youth, had killed no less than 3 small dogs.

Sure there are other breeds that can inflict injury, but the pit bull or "bullie" as you call it, does not get a bad name for nothing. I don't know what I would do if a pit bull killed my dog, but I would sure join the campaign to have them banned or muzzled.

And Muzzling doesn't negatively affect a dog. I see many dogs muzzled for eating poop, and they seem very happy and playful.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by wretched34

My 90lb Olde English Bulldogge

Ba ha. Seriously? That's how they spell it?

[TheDebaser]

Originally Posted by MattyC

It is is the case if you adopt dogs. There's a pretty good screening process when you apply at most places it seems.

I doubt breeders care who buys their dogs. The types of people that want pitbulls are generally those who want a big, tough, mean dog (For some reason. Compensation I guess...) and so they train them as such (or not at all). They don't want a pet they want a guard dog.

My question to those who would phase out the breeds, what do we do with the current ones? Mass puppy graves?

I'd rather see anyone registering a pitbull (or maybe give a few breed a "dangerous breed" tag: Pitbulls, Rotts, Dobermans) having to go through mandatory training session before getting the license, rather than just bumping up the fee. Put the fee towards the actual problem. Maybe you could have them need yearly training "updates" where a trainer assesses their behaviour and whether or not they have been properly trained, or needing another session before re-licensing.

You would sterilize all Pitbulls and ban owners from getting new ones. That way current owners could keep their dogs, but the problem would disappear eventually. Kind of like how the nhl handled making players wear visors.

Only con to that plan is that in the meantime there will probably be an attack or two by a pitbull, but I think taking away peoples pets would create too much backlash.

[FlamesAddiction]

The dog in those pictures above should have to wear pants.