The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[onetwo_threefour]

I'm not in favour of breed bans, partially because they simply ignore the fact that any dog can cause significant damage and partially because they unfairly demonize a particular subset of dogs based on a series of incidents that are largely the result of poor ownership rather than an inherent breed problem.

Having said that, I would be okay with a mandatory muzzle law within urban areas for breeds that are inherently able to cause more damage, whether the breed itself has a history of aggression or not, and for specific dogs that have any history of altercations/agression with either people or other dogs. Perfect example of this, several years ago I owned a Bernese Mountain Dog which is a big dog with a big mouth, not known for aggression. For the first few years of his life he was very sweet and we never had any indication of aggression. Fairly soon after he turned four, we noticed that he was becoming more aggressive around other dogs and even myself and my wife especially surrounding food possessiveness. We started muzlling him at the offleash park, which helped a lot and tried to discover the problem, which we didn't. Ultimately he died about six months later after losing massive amounts of weight in a few weeks, and although we never got a firm diagnosis, it was suspected to be a brain tumour or other cancer and we susepct that the aggression came from the pain he was in but otherwise hid very well. (as they do)

The point of the story is that it was a responsible step to start muzzling him in my opinion and it was his behaviour that led to the decision, not his breed. People who object to muzzling as being inhumane are out to lunch in my opinion. It is a fair balance between the rights of dogs and dog owners and public safety in an increasingly dense urban environment where dogs enounter unknown people and dogs on a regular basis and there is less certainty about how even a reasonbably well-trained animal will react in any given stressful encounter.

[driveway]

While a breed-ban seems to make sense, there is no evidence to support its efficacy. There have been breed-bans effected in many municipalities and there has been no observed change in such things as: rate of dog-bite incidents, rate of hospitalization for dog-bite incidents, or rate of fatal dog-bite incidents.

As there is no scientific evidence to support breed-bans, I oppose them as needless government intervention. Show me data that supports their effectiveness for the desired outcome and I will support them.

[RichKlit]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Sliver's views are on the extreme side but I share his thoughts that certain breeds should be banned.

Within any debate you have people with all sorts of viewpoints, including some that are very extreme. I'm not sure why it should be considered so surprising that someone really REALLY dislikes dogs.

The fact he messes with dogs for the hell of it in my mind is the reason people are coming down fairly hard on him. The debate about dog breeds has become secondary to his nonsense over the top comments. He has made good points on several fronts but i cant take him seriously because of the pointless comments.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

People can choose from hundreds of breeds, or if they want a pitbull - go live on a farm.

Oh heavens no. Then when I ask a farmer if I can hunt on his land, I'm going to have somehow get past the pit bull, instead of some old friendly farm dog.

May cut down on the hunting, or hunters, in some areas.

[RichKlit]

For the record i avoid pitbulls if i can but i think a breed ban is a slippery slope, you have to wonder where will it stop? Im not trying to be an alarmist or anything but how long after pitbulls are banned until another breed bites a kid and someone else bangs the drum loud enough for that breed to banned and so on and so on.

Obviously steps have to be taken but why cant you pass laws about muzzles outside of the home, outrageous licensing fees for certain breeds and extreme fines for violations with certain breeds. All measures should be taken first before a breed ban is resorted to IMO.

[JiriHrdina]

Is there any evidence that it is a slippery slope. In communities where bans have been put in place have those bans then be extended to include other breeds?

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by RichKlit

The fact he messes with dogs for the hell of it in my mind is the reason people are coming down fairly hard on him. The debate about dog breeds has become secondary to his nonsense over the top comments. He has made good points on several fronts but i cant take him seriously because of the pointless comments.

And by that same token some pretty silly things have been said by those on the other side of the debate.

[RichKlit]

I have no idea about the results of breed bans, I was speaking how i felt about the subject. Other posters commented on breed bans from both sides not sure there was mention about the slippery slope part, do you have any info on the subject? I would like to know if there is any validity to it or not.

Many stupid things have been said by both sides of the debate but like i said Silver harassing animals for no reason bothered me a LOT i could get by all the unnecessary murdering, filthy, disgusting comments about dogs, but really harassing dogs in cars for kicks.

[RichKlit]

I also want to add that i generally find Silver to be a great poster this thread just touches a chord.

[V]

It's not like Sliver harasses animals for no reason. Dog owners are so oblivious of how terrible they are as people that it makes the animal look bad. It's just easier to ban all dogs instead of banning all dog owners.

[Table 5]

I'm going to post my suggestion that I say every time this comes up: Make dogs over a certain height have to wear a muzzle whenever in public. Anything over a certain weight or height (ie, dogs that you cant kick like a football) has to wear one, no exceptions unless they are service dogs.

You don't have to ban anything and cops and Bylaw officers can easily who's breaking the law. And the dogs can bark and hump all they want, but won't do any real damage.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'm going to post my suggestion that I say every time this comes up: Make dogs over a certain height have to wear a muzzle whenever in public. Anything over a certain weight or height (ie, dogs that you cant kick like a football) has to wear one, no exceptions unless they are service dogs.

You don't have to ban anything and cops and Bylaw officers can easily who's breaking the law. And the dogs can bark and hump all they want, but won't do any real damage.

I would be ok with this anywhere off my property if the city were to decide that it's the law (probably a soft nylon muzzle as opposed to those cage things though). It would be a pain in the ass to constantly put a muzzle on though (especially on dogs who aren't accustomed to it). Also, 95+% of the dogs out there aren't biters. It would be a solution to a problem that, by and large, isn't there.

I would hope that owners recognize when their dogs have problems and are proactive in using muzzles but that doesn't really happen. The best solution is training but sadly, as a lot of people find out, is really time consuming and they aren't ready/able to do it.

[RichKlit]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'm going to post my suggestion that I say every time this comes up: Make dogs over a certain height have to wear a muzzle whenever in public. Anything over a certain weight or height (ie, dogs that you cant kick like a football) has to wear one, no exceptions unless they are service dogs.

You don't have to ban anything and cops and Bylaw officers can easily who's breaking the law. And the dogs can bark and hump all they want, but won't do any real damage.

I agree completely and suggested the same, it seems like such a simple solution.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'm going to post my suggestion that I say every time this comes up: Make dogs over a certain height have to wear a muzzle whenever in public. Anything over a certain weight or height (ie, dogs that you cant kick like a football) has to wear one, no exceptions unless they are service dogs.

You don't have to ban anything and cops and Bylaw officers can easily who's breaking the law. And the dogs can bark and hump all they want, but won't do any real damage.

It punishes so many breeds and owners for no reason. I mean yeah it would work, but jesus. It also gives a pass to owners of little-#### dogs who they don't get trained.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

I would be ok with this anywhere off my property if the city were to decide that it's the law (probably a soft nylon muzzle as opposed to those cage things though). It would be a pain in the ass to constantly put a muzzle on though (especially on dogs who aren't accustomed to it). Also, 95+% of the dogs out there aren't biters. It would be a solution to a problem that, by and large, isn't there.

Well the issue is that nobody seems to be able to decide whats a dangerous dog and what's not. I've seen some pretty crazy Labs in my day, older Cocker Spaniels who go ape crap......and Pitbulls and Rottweilers who are giant babies. It's hard to go dog by dog.

Yes, it's a bit of a blanket solution, but it's a relatively cheap one, and plays on the safe side without dogs having to die, or owners being stopped from enjoying their breeds.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

It punishes so many breeds and owners for no reason. I mean yeah it would work, but jesus. It also gives a pass to owners of little-#### dogs who they don't get trained.

How does it punish a dog exactly? It's not like the muzzles are made of metal spikes. They just keep their mouths from opening a certain amount, not from breathing.

If you don't like that solution, feel free to keep arguing in circles for the next 50 pages about what dogs are dangerous. There is no perfect answer here, but if the point is to stop dog violence, I think the muzzle one is not a bad one.

[flamesfever]

Just pass a law saying all pit bulls have to be muzzled in public, and back it up with stiff enough fines to make owners comply.

[V]

Why just pit bulls? There are plenty of dogs that are dangerous and deadly. I like the idea of a blanket muzzle law.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Just pass a law saying all pit bulls have to be muzzled in public, and back it up with stiff enough fines to make owners comply.

It wont' deter alot of the trash that owns the pitbulls. Look at that first guy. He didn't even license his effing dog.

[Byrns]

Not to mention if the pit bull busts out of his yard...