The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by polak

This might seem inhumane but how about a yearly dog evaluation? It would be mandatory and you'd have to pay into it so users pay for it and you'd test the dogs temperament off leash. Once you pass, you carry a registration card that shows your dog passed his yearly evaluation.

Dog doesn't pass, it gets put down.

In my opinion you would only fail if the dog showed serious signs of aggression. This would eliminate the possibility of having a guard dog, but I don't really care. You don't need a guard dog. Get an alarm. At least you can't lose momentary control of an alarm and have it maul someone.

I'm just going to ignore the inhumane aspects of this (which are vast) and focus a bit on the logistics. You say the users would pay for it, but realistically how often will that happen? How are you going to enforce the evaluations? Raise taxes to hire a task force?

This is similar to the repeatedly proposed breed bans that have proven in the past to be incredibly expensive, and yet showed almost no reduction in dog attacks.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

22 of Mike Vick's dogs went on to live happy lives with families. If you can rehabilitate a dog, why wouldn't you? Cause grandpa knows best?

No one can have any idea as to whether a dog is safe or not though, you think they are rehabilitated right up until they attack someone else, there is no test that will tell you a dog is safe.

More to the point though we need a c change in how people view dogs and dog ownership, these are livestock ultimately, they need to be seen as animals not children. Dogs are useful, even loving and lovable but no dog is ever safe or trustworthy, they can all be aggressive. I am sick to death of seeing dog owners that dont constantly watch their dogs when they are in public, won't discipline the dogs when they are out of control, to own a dog is to own a small aggressive child, you should always be aware of the dog and your environment, you can feel and see a dogs mood or fear response and should be on top of it.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Goodlad

I'm just going to ignore the inhumane aspects of this (which are vast) and focus a bit on the logistics. You say the users would pay for it, but realistically how often will that happen? How are you going to enforce the evaluations? Raise taxes to hire a task force?

This is similar to the repeatedly proposed breed bans that have proven in the past to be incredibly expensive, and yet showed almost no reduction in dog attacks.

Yeah I really don't care if it's inhumane to put down aggressive dogs. Public safety is much more important than a pet.

What do you mean how often will that happen? As often as car owners pay for their registration. And yes you would hire people to enforce it and you'd also make the punishment really severe for not being registered. Charge the hell out of dog owners so that it's all covered. I don't care. It's not a right to have a dog. Especially if you limit it to dangerous breeds only. Then they really get no sympathy from me for it being expensive.

[foshizzle11]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

No one can have any idea as to whether a dog is safe or not though, you think they are rehabilitated right up until they attack someone else, there is no test that will tell you a dog is safe.

More to the point though we need a c change in how people view dogs and dog ownership, these are livestock ultimately, they need to be seen as animals not children. Dogs are useful, even loving and lovable but no dog is ever safe or trustworthy, they can all be aggressive. I am sick to death of seeing dog owners that dont constantly watch their dogs when they are in public, won't discipline the dogs when they are out of control, to own a dog is to own a small aggressive child, you should always be aware of the dog and your environment, you can feel and see a dogs mood or fear response and should be on top of it.

the only circumstances that we know of from this story is that one or maybe two or maybe all of his dogs mauled the smaller dog to death. We don't know if they were all involved or not. Why put them all down?

It is pretty telling if you were to do some research and learn about dog behaviour. Experts can give an opinion on when a dog should be put down or not and that is exactly what will happen when these dogs are assessed at the humane society or where ever they went.

I am glad the average person doesn't get to decide if a dog is too dangerous. My brother inlaw has a 150lbs mastiff that is a puppy dog, wouldn't hurt a fly. Is in fact scared of most little dogs. Is he considered dangerous because of his power?

My dog, a 60 lbs shepherd mix was minding her business at the dog park and a little ####zu mix attacked her neck, so my dog pinned her. Didn't hurt the other dog, but sure as hell scared the other owner and the other dog. These small breeds aren't accountable for what they set off in these larger, more powerful breeds? I think it is pretty simple that if you dog is unpredictable no matter the breed it should be considered dangerous. Who will decide that? Who will tell me if my dog is dangerous? We have a 25lbs cockerpoo is more unpredictable than our shepherd mix sometimes.

Muzzle every dog, not sure that will solve anything.

[Amethyst]

A breed ban won't work. The idiot owners who get pitbulls because they are tough dogs and either mistreat them or train them to be vicious will just get something else. And a similar size dog who gets raised by that owner will be just as capable of inflicting serious damage as a pitbull (or whatever breed you're planning to ban).

The only way to make it even remotely "work" would be to ban all dogs over 20 pounds or something like that. And even saying that, the worst bite I ever got came from a 10-15 pound dog.

What I would like to see is severe punishment for people like the owner in the newspaper article. No one hates bad dog owners more than good dog owners, because they give us all a bad reputation.

[polak]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

the only circumstances that we know of from this story is that one or maybe two or maybe all of his dogs mauled the smaller dog to death. We don't know if they were all involved or not. Why put them all down?

It is pretty telling if you were to do some research and learn about dog behaviour. Experts can give an opinion on when a dog should be put down or not and that is exactly what will happen when these dogs are assessed at the humane society or where ever they went.

I am glad the average person doesn't get to decide if a dog is too dangerous. My brother inlaw has a 150lbs mastiff that is a puppy dog, wouldn't hurt a fly. Is in fact scared of most little dogs. Is he considered dangerous because of his power?

My dog, a 60 lbs shepherd mix was minding her business at the dog park and a little ####zu mix attacked her neck, so my dog pinned her. Didn't hurt the other dog, but sure as hell scared the other owner and the other dog. These small breeds aren't accountable for what they set off in these larger, more powerful breeds? I think it is pretty simple that if you dog is unpredictable no matter the breed it should be considered dangerous. Who will decide that? Who will tell me if my dog is dangerous? We have a 25lbs cockerpoo is more unpredictable than our shepherd mix sometimes.

Muzzle every dog, not sure that will solve anything.

If your dog can inflict life altering injury to a human then your dog is dangerous. Just cause you claim that it's super safe doesn't matter because although you might be telling the truth, no dog owner is going to admit otherwise. It's not about predictability. It's about potential danger. Cause all it takes is for a dog to get spooked, even your dog, and it can hurt someone.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

the only circumstances that we know of from this story is that one or maybe two or maybe all of his dogs mauled the smaller dog to death. We don't know if they were all involved or not. Why put them all down?

It is pretty telling if you were to do some research and learn about dog behaviour. Experts can give an opinion on when a dog should be put down or not and that is exactly what will happen when these dogs are assessed at the humane society or where ever they went.

I am glad the average person doesn't get to decide if a dog is too dangerous. My brother inlaw has a 150lbs mastiff that is a puppy dog, wouldn't hurt a fly. Is in fact scared of most little dogs. Is he considered dangerous because of his power?

My dog, a 60 lbs shepherd mix was minding her business at the dog park and a little ####zu mix attacked her neck, so my dog pinned her. Didn't hurt the other dog, but sure as hell scared the other owner and the other dog. These small breeds aren't accountable for what they set off in these larger, more powerful breeds? I think it is pretty simple that if you dog is unpredictable no matter the breed it should be considered dangerous. Who will decide that? Who will tell me if my dog is dangerous? We have a 25lbs cockerpoo is more unpredictable than our shepherd mix sometimes.

Muzzle every dog, not sure that will solve anything.

Assuming that you aren't sure which dog did what then yes, they all get put down because they're just dogs and you don't give them a jury of their peers, they're dogs for Christ sake. I say this as someone who owns and loves dogs but they are dogs, livestock, and in the same way that if one cow gets hoof and mouth we cull the whole herd we do the same thing with dogs.

Those experts at the SPCA are a symptom of how stupidly anthropomorphic we have become about dogs, thirty years ago a dog that was involved with any kind of attack wasn't 'assessed', the owner just took the bloody animal to the vet and had it put to sleep.

That used to be what responsible dog ownership consisted of a few decades ago, having your dog put down if it bit someone.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

No one can have any idea as to whether a dog is safe or not though, you think they are rehabilitated right up until they attack someone else, there is no test that will tell you a dog is safe.

More to the point though we need a c change in how people view dogs and dog ownership, these are livestock ultimately, they need to be seen as animals not children. Dogs are useful, even loving and lovable but no dog is ever safe or trustworthy, they can all be aggressive.

None of that is right. Your knowledge of animal behavior ended with gramps shooting his own dog.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

, thirty years ago a dog that was involved with any kind of attack wasn't 'assessed', the owner just took the bloody animal to the vet and had it put to sleep.
That used to be what responsible dog ownership consisted of a few decades ago, having your dog put down if it bit someone.

Yeah. Progress is so stupid.

[polak]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Yeah. Progress is so stupid.

In this direction it is. This whole stupid phase humanity seems to be in treating cute affectionate animals like humans is stupid. They're animals. If a wolf attacked a human you'd kill it, no questions asked. If it's a pitbull, a member of the exact same species, all of the sudden we should fly in ceaser milan so that he can try and rehabilitate him so that he can become a contributing member of.... nothing. Cause it's a ####ing dog.

[Amethyst]

To me responsible ownership is training and supervising your dog so that he doesn't bite someone in the first place.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Yeah. Progress is so stupid.

From 1982 to 1992 there were 14 recorded deaths by pit bull in N America

In 2014 alone there were 300, ain't progress grand!!!

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

From 1982 to 1992 there were 14 recorded deaths by pit bull in N America

In 2014 alone there were 300, ain't progress grand!!!

link?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

A breed ban won't work. The idiot owners who get pitbulls because they are tough dogs and either mistreat them or train them to be vicious will just get something else. And a similar size dog who gets raised by that owner will be just as capable of inflicting serious damage as a pitbull (or whatever breed you're planning to ban).

The only way to make it even remotely "work" would be to ban all dogs over 20 pounds or something like that. And even saying that, the worst bite I ever got came from a 10-15 pound dog.

What I would like to see is severe punishment for people like the owner in the newspaper article. No one hates bad dog owners more than good dog owners, because they give us all a bad reputation.

I'd be happy to see a breed ban even if it still left some issues to be resolved, I'd also like to see dog ownership limited to one dog only, particularly for bigger dogs. Dogs are massively less predictable in groups as it reinforces their hunting behaviour.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Goodlad

link?

Have no idea how to, I just googled dog attack fatalities historic, that said I think the 300 is an aggregate from 1982 onwards, still a massive increase from 1 or 2 year to 25 or 30.

[ranchlandsselling]

While not a direct solution to breed specific debates or concerns I think dog licesnses should be restricted to two per household. Dogs in public should be limited to two per person. People with more than two dogs at an off-leash park are incredibly annoying. Two is still a stretch but . . . Lot's of people have two dogs and do a good job. Even with two I don't believe the owners are capable of picking up the crap and watching them both.

Those stupid dog walkers that come to parks with 3-7 dogs drive me crazy. Yeah, you're going to pick up 7 bags of poo, I bet! While you're picking up 1 three others went and you didn't even see it.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Goodlad

link?

The same link that says wolves are the same species as dogs. Those fatality stats aren't even remotely correct.

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Have no idea how to, I just googled dog attack fatalities historic, that said I think the 300 is an aggregate from 1982 onwards, still a massive increase from 1 or 2 year to 25 or 30.

Sorry, wasn't meaning to imply you made up the number or anything. There is a site called dogsbite.org that has repeatedly been proven to be unbelievably inaccurate, yet is constantly sourced for these kinds of statistics. I mostly just wanted to see if that's where your numbers came from.

[polak]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

The same link that says wolves are the same species as dogs. Those fatality stats aren't even remotely correct.

You should learn what "species" means before you act like a smart ass.

Here I'll give you some help: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/species

Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Incase that isn't clear enough, if they can have fertile offspring, they are the same species.

[CliffFletcher]

There are three factors at play with dog attacks:

A) The likelihood a dog will bite. This has no correlation to the size of the dog. In fact, some smaller breeds like cocker spaniels are the most frequent biters.

B) The damage a particular breed can do if it bites. No correlation with A. Newfoundlands are widely regarded as the gentlest breed of dog on earth, but a Newfie could destroy someone if it had a mind to.

C) Training and owner responsibility. Hugely variable and extremely difficult to police.

The variables between A, B, and C make this is a tough issue to come to grips with.