The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I think the answer is pretty easy. Every dog over a certain height (or perhaps just EVERY dog if you want to make it even simpler) should be required to wear a muzzle when out in public. They do it in a lot of countries in Europe, and I think it works well.

If we do this, I think it would perhaps allow the loosening of laws in other ways (ie. more off-leash opportunities).

Would really put a stop to all those Great Dane and St. Bernard maulings I hear about happening on sidewalks all the time.

The answer clearly has to do with dog breeds, not size. If you breed dogs to protect, chase, and fight, and put them around people they don't know, it's only a matter of time until they get the wrong idea.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by chedder

I would bet little dogs bite more people than large ones. People tend to accept little dogs biting. I realize little dogs are unlikely to kill someone but I've seen and experienced nasty bites from little dogs. The good thing is you can slam dunk a little arsehole dog once you get his teeth out of you (half joking and I am a dog person)

This is a major part of it. Why do people need dogs with anatomy that makes them ideal for fighting and killing? All dogs can bite, but not every dog is designed to kill. A group of 3 toy poodles would not have killed that lady.

[pseudoreality]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

A lot of good ideas in here. Also, liability insurance should be mandatory.

I like the idea of that. It makes the insurance companies do risk assessments on both breeds and owners.

The downside is it makes dog ownership even more expensive. I don't want to deny a poor kid the joy of having a dog.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

I like the idea of that. It makes the insurance companies do risk assessments on both breeds and owners.

The downside is it makes dog ownership even more expensive. I don't want to deny a poor kid the joy of having a dog.

An issue with this is that you would essentially force euthanization of a lot dogs. A lot of low income people aren't going to be able to afford insurance. When someone has a liter of dogs, finding them all homes would be more difficult. Generally, it's going to put up an extra barrier to finding homes for unwanted dogs.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by blankall

An issue with this is that you would essentially force euthanization of a lot dogs. A lot of low income people aren't going to be able to afford insurance. When someone has a liter of dogs, finding them all homes would be more difficult. Generally, it's going to put up an extra barrier to finding homes for unwanted dogs.

Well I’m not suggesting that all of a sudden one day everyone who already has a dog must start paying insurance on it. That sounds completely unattainable, and unfair as you outlined.

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for dog ownership being expensive. It’s a luxury, not a right. And keeping them healthy, both mind and body, takes effort and money.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Well I’m not suggesting that all of a sudden one day everyone who already has a dog must start paying insurance on it. That sounds completely unattainable, and unfair as you outlined.

Most dog owners already do have insurance, and are covered under their home insurance. I guess, you could expand on this and force anyone with a dog to get home owner's insurnace.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by blankall

Would really put a stop to all those Great Dane and St. Bernard maulings I hear about happening on sidewalks all the time.

Bernards and Danes perhaps not (although those are fairly rare breeds in the big picture) but Labradors, one of the more popular breeds around here, are responsible for a lot of bites. They may not cause fatal maulings, but it doesn't mean they don't do damage or aren't an annoyance to others. In my experience (dad is a vet, and we've had tons of pets over the years), Labs and Retrievers especially get more unpredictable when they get older.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-claims.html

Labradors are the worst dogs for biting and responsible for the highest number of personal injury claims

I agree that we should phase out Pit Bulls, but it doesn't mean that other dogs can't be problems either. Especially when it's not always clear what breed a dog is.

[PepsiFree]

I don’t think denying kids the experience of owning a dog is a big deal. Plenty of kids never have dogs. And plenty of kids with dogs grow up into adults who don’t want dogs.

At the same time, the threat of a bunch of dogs being humanely destroyed doesn’t seem like much of a deterrent either. We kill a whole bunch of animals for a wide range of important and unimportant reasons, what’s another one?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

This is a major part of it. Why do people need dogs with anatomy that makes them ideal for fighting and killing? All dogs can bite, but not every dog is designed to kill. A group of 3 toy poodles would not have killed that lady.

But it would have been cute to watch them try.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Bernards and Danes perhaps not (although those are fairly rare breeds in the big picture) but Labradors, one of the more popular breeds around here, are responsible for a lot of bites. They may not cause fatal maulings, but it doesn't mean they don't do damage or aren't an annoyance to others. In my experience (dad is a vet, and we've had tons of pets over the years), Labs and Retrievers especially get more unpredictable when they get older.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-claims.html


I agree that we should phase out Pit Bulls, but it doesn't mean that other dogs can't be problems either. Especially when it's not always clear what breed a dog is.

I don't disagree that all dogs carry risk. A lot of dogs go pretty nuts as they got older, and suffer from dimensia-like symptoms that make them more dangerous. I'd much rather deal with a crazed labrador retriever than a crazed pitbull. Once again, all dogs carry a risk, not all dogs are bred to kill other things.

Retriever dogs have instincts that will cause them to bite, but not maul. They are bred to pursue birds and small game. Pit bulls are designed to have maximum bite force and chomp down on necks and faces and not let go until their opponent is dead. Once again, I just don't see why anyone needs a dog that has been bred to have maximum bite force and upper body strength. Couldn't you just have a dog that doesn't have those characteristics that accomplishes the exact same companion-type role?

I just don't understand it. There are so many things that people do that pose a risk to other people. We normally enforce restrictions that mitigate these risks....except with pit bulls, where you can just go nuts and own a killing machine. Just cause...you like it.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't disagree that all dogs carry risk. A lot of dogs go pretty nuts as they got older, and suffer from dimensia-like symptoms that make them more dangerous. I'd much rather deal with a crazed labrador retriever than a crazed pitbull. Once again, all dogs carry a risk, not all dogs are bred to kill other things.

Retriever dogs have instincts that will cause them to bite, but not maul. They are bred to pursue birds and small game. Pit bulls are designed to have maximum bite force and chomp down on necks and faces and not let go until their opponent is dead. Once again, I just don't see why anyone needs a dog that has been bred to have maximum bite force and upper body strength. Couldn't you just have a dog that doesn't have those characteristics that accomplishes the exact same companion-type role?

I just don't understand it. There are so many things that people do that pose a risk to other people. We normally enforce restrictions that mitigate these risks....except with pit bulls, where you can just go nuts and own a killing machine. Just cause...you like it.

I had what I believe was a cocka-poo mutt bite my hand once as we were playing. It tickled so much that I laugh-cried.

So I guess you are right. All dogs.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't disagree that all dogs carry risk. A lot of dogs go pretty nuts as they got older, and suffer from dimensia-like symptoms that make them more dangerous. I'd much rather deal with a crazed labrador retriever than a crazed pitbull. Once again, all dogs carry a risk, not all dogs are bred to kill other things.

We are on the same page about Pitbulls. I hate them, they are high-risk animals, and I think they should be banned.

I personally just think we need to go further and mitigate the risk as plenty of other non-pitbull dogs can cause damage or annoyance too. Just because a bite is not fatal doesn't mean it can't cause some physical or psychological damage to people (kids especially) or be a general nuisance (I for one, hate it when random dogs run up and lick my hand). I think all medium/large dogs having to wear muzzles is a cheap and effective way to mitigate a good many of these negative issues, without having to get too bogged down by bureaucracy or having to kill off every breed that is a problem...which lets face it, is all of them if the owners are bad enough.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Bernards and Danes perhaps not (although those are fairly rare breeds in the big picture) but Labradors, one of the more popular breeds around here, are responsible for a lot of bites. They may not cause fatal maulings, but it doesn't mean they don't do damage or aren't an annoyance to others. In my experience (dad is a vet, and we've had tons of pets over the years), Labs and Retrievers especially get more unpredictable when they get older.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-claims.html


I agree that we should phase out Pit Bulls, but it doesn't mean that other dogs can't be problems either. Especially when it's not always clear what breed a dog is.

Aren't labs/retrievers far and away the most common breed of dog? It would track that they have the highest number of bites.

[krynski]

This was an absolutely terrible incident, and my heart goes out to all the friends and family of the victim. Clearly, these dogs were not socialized properly and the owner should be facing consequences for having an inadequate fence or barrier in place, as well as the behaviour of the dogs.

The fact of the matter is that behaviour is not tied to a particular type of breed, and the rules that some have decided to impose that restrict particular breeds simply do not understand dogs. See attached article:

Particularly low was the connection between breed and how likely a dog was to display aggressive behaviour, which could have implications for how society treats “dangerous” dog breeds.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01193-1

Based on this and applying it to our human experience (humans are all 1 species, like all dogs are 1 species), how would you feel if society identified a subset of the human population as being more likely to cause crime? More likely to be homeless or be of lesser intelligence?

Dogs are not humans, I understand that, but there really is no difference if we just point fingers and do not attempt to understand behaviour whether that be animal or human behaviour.



One of my other concerns is how many pets are allowable per household in Calgary, which is astronomical. 3 already seems like too many to me. Could you imagine having 12 cats and dogs?

Pet ownership will be limited to six dogs and six cats per household and the number of dogs a person can bring to an off leash area will be limited to six per individual. The bylaw also includes increases to fines for aggressive pet behaviours.

https://newsroom.calgary.ca/responsi...%20individual.

Our biggest responsibility as humans is to be responsible, and there are ways that we can do that properly.

[PepsiFree]

My god, did you just compare singling out Pitbulls to racism?

There is an obvious difference between a pit bull and a yorkie. Let’s not get completely idiotic.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

My god, did you just compare singling out Pitbulls to racism?

There is an obvious difference between a pit bull and a yorkie. Let’s not get completely idiotic.

Yes, I did, and it makes sense in the comparison made. The genetic selection of physical dog traits in the last 2000 years that we have been breeding and selecting for traits has not correlated to behavioural traits. Behavioural traits are much less genetically selectable (which is science). Maybe there should be rules for larger dogs regardless of breed? That makes sense to me, but it truly does not if you are making rules based off of breeds specifically.

In terms of aggression or behaviour, no there is no difference between a yorkie and pit bull. When my german shepherd goes to my friends place, it is far more gentle and well behaved than his chihuahua. Maybe read the results of the study if you disagree.

I realize I'm going to get crapped on for my last post, but frankly, it's science and I'm a little tired of seeing the fingers being pointed without any hint of truth or science being used.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Aren't labs/retrievers far and away the most common breed of dog? It would track that they have the highest number of bites.

Labs I can see but I wouldn't be so quick to lump in retrievers with them..

I think they're a lot more docile. Like your typical stoner friend. Whatever. Agreeable to pretty much everything.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by krynski

This was an absolutely terrible incident, and my heart goes out to all the friends and family of the victim. Clearly, these dogs were not socialized properly and the owner should be facing consequences for having an inadequate fence or barrier in place, as well as the behaviour of the dogs.

The fact of the matter is that behaviour is not tied to a particular type of breed, and the rules that some have decided to impose that restrict particular breeds simply do not understand dogs. See attached article:



https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01193-1

Based on this and applying it to our human experience (humans are all 1 species, like all dogs are 1 species), how would you feel if society identified a subset of the human population as being more likely to cause crime? More likely to be homeless or be of lesser intelligence?

Dogs are not humans, I understand that, but there really is no difference if we just point fingers and do not attempt to understand behaviour whether that be animal or human behaviour.



One of my other concerns is how many pets are allowable per household in Calgary, which is astronomical. 3 already seems like too many to me. Could you imagine having 12 cats and dogs?



https://newsroom.calgary.ca/responsi...%20individual.

Our biggest responsibility as humans is to be responsible, and there are ways that we can do that properly.

So based on the above are you advocating for consequence based bans?

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

You know, I did some more research on this, starting with New Zealand's ban on bully breeds. It looks like places that have implemented breed bans, have not seen a decline in incidents that they were expecting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-...ic_legislation

I have somewhat switched my thinking to ownership level restrictions. Things like mandatory training for certain breeds possibly. Implement actual severe penalties to the owners for even a simple bite and start enforcing them. How many times have we seen a death and the only thing that happens is the dog is put down. Go after that owner, they are the just as guilty here. Make people think "Is this the right dog to get since if something goes wrong with it, I'll be responsible both criminally and financially?"

If you own a dog and it kills someone you absolutely should be held up to manslaughter or criminal negligence.

I am fairly sure these dogs never were taken to obedience school, but if they were prove it as a defendant in court.

If more owners knew their dope pit Bull would land them with a criminal record maybe they would either train them properly or not get them

[FlamesAddiction]

Some breeds are just much more likely to go into survival or hunting mode, and when they do, you can't reason with them obviously. It's like flipping a switch and the things that trigger it are usually not even noticed by a human. Combine that with a dog that also has the physical ability to easily maim or kill a human, and it is a guarantee that eventually there will be tragedy. IMO, not one human life or disfigured child is worth someone else's privilege to own any dog breed they wish.