The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Wait, are you saying pitbulls aren't commonly refferd to as vicious dogs? I'm not arguing on either side here, this comment just stuck out to me, as everyone I've ever talked to considers pitbulls to be nasty dogs. Is that not the whole appeal of owning them? Because it certainly isn't cuteness, as they're one of the uglier animals out there.

Golden Retrievers are the breed most likely to bite a human I think.

Bear in mind, a bite from most breeds is just that, a bite, and that's where it ends.

When a pit bull gets revved up, the attack tends to be prolonged and difficult to stop and they can do enormous damage or kill.

In the USA since 2005, of the 208 dog-related fatalities, Pit Bulls were responsible for about half. Rottweilers were second. In the last 25 years, I didn't see any instance of a purebred Golden killing any human although there were a couple of mixed breed instances.

I can certainly see why communities ban pit bulls, even as I acknowledge that idiot owners are a worse problem and create bad dogs.

It's just that an idiot owner with a Golden isn't nearly as likely to cause a fatality as an idiot owner with a pit bull.

Since you can't legislate against idiots, the pit bull breed should be allowed to die out.

Cowperson

[Lithium]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

The breed hate is completely nonsensical. Pitbulls get a bad rap because it's dirtbag owners who buy the breed to live out some faux-gangster lifestyle. When I was a kid, the dog attack breed of the day were German Shepherds. Now you rarely see people with German Shepherds. They weren't banned either, it just sort of happened. The same thing will happen with pit bulls when a new breed takes the spotlight.

I do agree that people should not own a pack of dogs unless they are capable. I also think that people shouldn't own sports cars that can be beyond their driving capabilities. I don't, however, think the government should do anything in either of these fronts. You shouldn't legislate based on 'maybes'.

You missed out Rottweilers, which I believe were between German Shepherds and Pitbulls as the "killer dog breed." Strange how people are so quick to blame things they do not understand, isn't it?

[Minnie]

We got attacked on the trail today. Damn cute little mop of hair damn near slobbered my hand right off my arm. And then Sir Bandit, another vicious critter that we met, was most appreciative of his cookie treat. And then we were lovingly attacked by an old Border Collie girl, with many kisses and grateful licks after her pop said she could have a cookie too and we gave her one.

And flameswin, you can't have talked to everyone. Our family doesn't refer to them as nasty dogs. The owners on the other hand, some of them, we use much harsher descriptor words than nasty, when referring to them.

[Hemi-Cuda]

the people who defend pitbulls and other dangerous breeds relying on "It's not the breed, it's the owner" sound eerily similar to the gun enthusiasts who say "It's not the gun, it's the person"

the fact that anyone can buy a dangerous breed of animal without any kind of background check or license is as ridiculous as how easy it is to buy a firearm in the US. pretty soon you'll have these same people saying that more pitbulls are needed (to defend yourself of course), not less

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Golden Retrievers are the breed most likely to bite a human I think.

Bear in mind, a bite from most breeds is just that, a bite, and that's where it ends.

When a pit bull gets revved up, the attack tends to be prolonged and difficult to stop and they can do enormous damage or kill.

In the USA since 2005, of the 208 dog-related fatalities, Pit Bulls were responsible for about half. Rottweilers were second. In the last 25 years, I didn't see any instance of a purebred Golden killing any human although there were a couple of mixed breed instances.

I can certainly see why communities ban pit bulls, even as I acknowledge that idiot owners are a worse problem and create bad dogs.

It's just that an idiot owner with a Golden isn't nearly as likely to cause a fatality as an idiot owner with a pit bull.

Since you can't legislate against idiots, the pit bull breed should be allowed to die out.

Cowperson

Where do you draw the line though?

Let pitbulls die out, then 10 years from now those meatheads have Rottweilers instead and they are causing injury/death. Then you let them die out?

You can control the idiots that own them. Mandatory extensive obedience/training. If caught with a pitbull without out it/unregistered severe fines. If training is not completed within 60 days more severe fines/removal of dog from the owner. We have bylaw, and police, have them patrol dog parks etc now and then, I'm sure a lot of neighbors wouldn't hesitate to report pitbulls they suspected were unregistered.

Backyard breeders? If caught, extensive fines, and I mean extensive.

You ban the breed and those morons that want "tough" dogs will just get a different breed.

Lets just ban all dogs that can do damage until we can only own pomeranians.

Also sports cars, sun tanning, contact sports, alcohol, fast food etc.

There are potential solutions, banning isn't one.

[Minnie]

When I was in my teens the 'big nasty vicious breed' was the Doberman. Lots of yammer then too, about banning the breed. Hardly hear a peep about Dobermans anymore.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Where do you draw the line though?

Let pitbulls die out, then 10 years from now those meatheads have Rottweilers instead and they are causing injury/death. Then you let them die out?

You can control the idiots that own them. Mandatory extensive obedience/training. If caught with a pitbull without out it/unregistered severe fines. If training is not completed within 60 days more severe fines/removal of dog from the owner. We have bylaw, and police, have them patrol dog parks etc now and then, I'm sure a lot of neighbors wouldn't hesitate to report pitbulls they suspected were unregistered.

Backyard breeders? If caught, extensive fines, and I mean extensive.

You ban the breed and those morons that want "tough" dogs will just get a different breed.

Lets just ban all dogs that can do damage until we can only own pomeranians.

Also sports cars, sun tanning, contact sports, alcohol, fast food etc.

There are potential solutions, banning isn't one.

Like I said, an idiot armed with a Golden is highly unlikely to have a fatality on his hands.

An idiot armed with a pit bull is almost four times as likely to have a fatality as an idiot armed with a Rottweiller since 2005.

Between those two breeds, you cover about two thirds of fatalities and, presumably, maulings.

Pit bulls should be banned and they are being banned in many communities. it is the right answer and an obvious one. I'm ambivalent about Rottweilers.

I own two Goldens, the breed most likely to bite a human.

Cowperson

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Minnie

When I was in my teens the 'big nasty vicious breed' was the Doberman. Lots of yammer then too, about banning the breed. Hardly hear a peep about Dobermans anymore.

Dobermanns have been involved in three deaths, I think, since 1988, versus more than 100 for pit bulls.

Not the same class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

Cowperson

[4X4]

I just don't understand why someone would want to own a dog that has the potential to maul or kill a person. I mean, unless it's an actual junkyard/guard dog. But as far as a pet goes, why would you want a pitbull? I can see that they're cute, I can see that they're not big, and not small, so they're an ideal size... But FFS, if that dog gets away from you, and then a blue jay looks at it funny, it could react by ripping a kid's face off. And it happens again and again. Why do people want to own these dogs?

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Guys. Three pit bulls just murdered another dog last night and maimed a young girl while they were leashed. That's horrendous. Are we so desensitized to dog attacks that your first reaction is leave the poor pit bulls alone instead of outrage at the fact that people are allowed to wander the streets with small packs of ferocious animals? I don't understand that mentality. You sound like the pro gun lobby.

Murdered? If you don't want people comparing dogs to people maybe you should stop using laws and/or terms that can only apply to people when it suits your purpose.

It's a two way street.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Cole436

What an ignorant, fear mongering attitude to have. The fact that anyone has to engage in a discussion which depicts pit bulls as a "vicious breed" of dog is beyond ridiculous after you have been constantly ridiculed for your supposed facts.

It's horrible it happened, and not every dog is right in the head, but to blame it on the breed of animals and not how the owners trained the dogs is ridiculous.

Same could be said of guns.

Edit. Hemi-Cuba said it better...and first.

[Lithium]

What is up with the dog and gun comparison?
People should be allowed to own a dog and people should be allowed to own a gun.

Do some folks actually believe that if there were no guns that there would be no murders? By that premise we should remove all cars so that there are no more accidents on the roads.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Lithium

What is up with the dog and gun comparison?
People should be allowed to own a dog and people should be allowed to own a gun.

Do some folks actually believe that if there were no guns that there would be no murders? By that premise we should remove all cars so that there are no more accidents on the roads.

Seriously?

[Lithium]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. I would like someone to answer my question.

[driveway]

Between 1990 and 2007, of the 28 fatal dog incidents in Canada, Pitbulls were confirmed responsible for one fatal attack. Rottweilers were responsible for three, huskies and "sled dogs" a combined 7, and "other", mixed-breed, and non-reported a combined 20.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...t1-cvj49pg577/

From the article: number may add up to greater than a total of 28 (or respective subtotal) because dogs from more than 1 category were implicated in some attacks

Given that the Canadian Safety Council estimates that 460,000 Canadians are bitten by dogs each year, 28 fatal dog incidents in 17 years means 0.00035% of dog-bite incidents are fatal or, more specifically, it is not a problem.

Furthermore, there is no demonstrable relationship between breed-bans, or even leash-laws, and dog-bites and fatal dog-attacks. All studies involving breeds responsible for dog-bites are fraught with sources of error (note the huge number of other, mixed-breed, and non-reported above).

There is, however, a direct correlation between gun-control and a reduction in gun-related injuries and fatalities.

While it seems like a logical argument to compare 'dangerous breed' laws to gun-control laws, it is not supported by evidence. This is one of the reasons breed bans are opposed by pretty much every dog-related and/or animal-welfare organization in the developed world.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Lithium

Yes, seriously. I would like someone to answer my question.

You aren't likely to get one. With something like this, sides are already polarized and it's a mess to begin with. Folks just begin 'shouting' the same stuff louder and louder. Everyone tries to throw bad comparisons around and nothing is really resolved.

"Vicious" dogs should be banned. Ok, which breeds are vicious this time around? Like some others here, I remember when Dobermans were the dogs du jour to hate on. As has been pointed out. You ban one thing (to the point of extinction, which is what some folks here are advocating) and others will take it's place.

Dogs are like guns, they should be registered and kept account of. Last time I checked, you are supposed to register your pet(s). But while track of the info is kept, are there actual limits? If I am a registered gun owner, couldn't I just keep collecting guns saying I'm a collector? And how's that gun registry doing for reducing crime anyhow?

When dogs get together, they rile each other up and become vicious packs. Um...have folks never heard of pre/teen gangs? Didn't someone mention that dogs have been involved in 200 or so fatalities since 2005? How many gang related deaths have there been since 2005? Last time I checked, groups (packs, if you will) of youths managed to rile each other up to some pretty destructive ends.

I'm of the firm belief that a good percentage of people who own pets shouldn't. But I'm also of the mind that a good percentage of parents shouldn't be. However, it's not in the government's rights or responsibilities to determine that. Not with the style of government we have.

Do I have any ideas for solutions? Not really. I just strongly believe that government regulation (especially to the point of extinction, as some folks here want) is not a solution. Governments have a pretty good track record of abusing pretty much any power you give them. I don't want them telling me how many kids I can or can't have just as much as I don't want them telling me how many of what sorts of animals I can or can't have.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Lithium

What is up with the dog and gun comparison?
People should be allowed to own a dog and people should be allowed to own a gun.

Do some folks actually believe that if there were no guns that there would be no murders? By that premise we should remove all cars so that there are no more accidents on the roads.

When there are fewer guns, there are fewer deaths by guns of all kinds, murders, suicides and accidents. This is borne out by every single conducted study anywhere. There is also no correlation between gun-ownership and reduced vulnerability to crime. This is likewise borne out by every single study. As guns, particularly hand-guns and "assault-type" weapons (semi-automatic, intermediate-cartridge, large-capacity magazine capable rifles), serve no purpose other than causing bodily-harm and death to humans - unlike other tools or owned items such as cars and dogs - it is demonstrably idiotic to conflate them.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Dobermanns have been involved in three deaths, I think, since 1988, versus more than 100 for pit bulls.

Not the same class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

Cowperson

How many more pitbulls are there than dobermans? Since a Doberman generally costs more than 2 grand and pitbulls can be had from backyard breeders for a few hundred I would be surprised if there were as many pitbulls as there are Dobermans. I could be wrong though.

Banning them is not the solution.

Everyone keeps avoiding the issue. Giving anyone an animal that can be dangerous.

Those same idiots/bad owners will get boxers, german shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Huskies, Wolf Hybrids etc. All these dogs can seriously hurt people. Regulating pitbulls, breeders and their owners is the answer.

Serious penalties for not registering and mandatory training is a good start. I don't mean 500 either, thousands per incident. You don't register your putbull and attend training within the first 6 months it's $5000. Don't follow up within 60 days it doubles.

I'm just not in favor of banning everything. It's a slippery. Slope because Rottweilers are next etc.

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

Originally Posted by Sliver

That's a component for sure, but public safety is the other component.

Public health is the other component. Animals that are potential vectors are legislated. Laws that deal with "dangerous" animals are sparse and are most often enacted at the municipal level.

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Same could be said of guns.

Edit. Hemi-Cuba said it better...and first.

The argument is only similar if you're looking at it completely from a superficial standpoint. One of them is a mechanism built by people with the sole purpose to kill. The other is a living, breathing organism which has the potential to be dangerous if it is trained poorly or abused. The dog is not designed as a weapon, while a gun is. Maybe there has to be special licenses that potential owners have to be approved for before owning a Pit Bull or Rottweiler, in regards to proper training. But letting an entire class of dog "die out" is unacceptable in my opinion.