The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

Guns don't kill people, pit bulls with guns kills people.

No. Every other dog breed with guns kills pitbulls.

[flamesfever]

I believe one of the biggest problems with banning is defining what is a pitbull. A dog could be any breed, or combination thereof, and have a certain percentage of pitbull in their lineage, and still come out looking like a pitbull. If for example a dog is 1/4 or 1/8 pitbull, are they still a pitbull? I have seen a lot of dogs that look like pitbulls, and the owner will say, it's a lab / shepherd / border collie / pitbull cross, and therefore isn't really a pitbull.

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by pylon

Because the typical person that buys these dogs will never follow through with any of these things. They have better things to spend their money on, like tribal tattoos, Affliction T-shirts, truck nutz, and white Oakley sunglasses for the back of their head. I mean c'mon, those UFC PPV's aint gonna pay for themselves. It sounds like hyperbole, but virtually every single one of these Pitbull attacks, the owner of the animal fits the above description to a tee, with a smoke behind his ear, sunken in cheeks, twitchy movements, a face tattoo and a grade 6 vocabulary in his inevitable global interview.

Banning a breed of dog, isn't like banning Siberian White Tigers or something. These breeds have been developed in most cases over a couple hundred or thousand years of inbreeding mutant copies of Canis lupus familiaris. How do you think dogs like sharpeis, pugs, or wiener dogs exist. I have read if humans disappeared tomorrow, toy breeds would be gone within a couple years, and within 5 or 6 generations, we would pretty much be back at simple 'dog' again. These breeds are strictly for the vanity of humans, and in reality, all dog breeds except for wolves are deformed mutants to an extent. So what is the big deal if we stop breeding the ones that pose a significant risk?

This whole argument of "It's the owners, not the animals." Is so much like the US gun debate, just to a lesser extent. Americans have access to whatever weapons they want, and look where that has got them. Nothing good can come of giving loser, unpredictable, bottom rung humans with a chip on their shoulder, access to dangerous fighting machine dogs, that are bred with the sole purpose of killing in the most efficient manner possible.

Until it is proven Pit Bulls tears are a hidden cure for cancer, the breed needs to be banned.

One could infer from your post that the best course of action would be to ban humans with "tribal tattoos, Affliction T-shirts, truck nutz, and white Oakley sunglasses for the back of their head".

[sec304]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

One could infer from your post that the best course of action would be to ban humans with "tribal tattoos, Affliction T-shirts, truck nutz, and white Oakley sunglasses for the back of their head".

I'd be okay with that!

[Halfcreek]

Flamesfever, you have a really good point.

If a breed ban were to be put in place, it would have some really specific guidelines and, since many crosses don't come with papers, it would be tough to enforce.

If we instead checked licensing regularily (as a few dogs invovled in recent incidents weren't licensed), increased fees to license a dog and introduced mandatory obedience courses for dog owners, it would be easier to regulate. The city could even farm this out to companies that could bid on hanlding the whole process and it could provide some jobs around the city.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

One could infer from your post that the best course of action would be to ban humans with "tribal tattoos, Affliction T-shirts, truck nutz, and white Oakley sunglasses for the back of their head".

Sounds good to me.

[flamesfever]

Thank you Halfcreek. Although from everything I have read in this thread, I think the best idea is to regulate that all dogs, with any percentage of pitbull in them, must be muzzled in public.

I read in the Herald, that some person has invented and patented a system for identifying all dogs that have a potential for causing harm, and outlines what steps are to be taken. I believe he is about to discuss his system with the City of Calgary officials.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Thank you Halfcreek. Although from everything I have read in this thread, I think the best idea is to regulate that all dogs, with any percentage of pitbull in them, must be muzzled in public.

I read in the Herald, that some person has invented and patented a system for identifying all dogs that have a potential for causing harm, and outlines what steps are to be taken. I believe he is about to discuss his system with the City of Calgary officials.

Doesn't help when they 'escape' from their yard. I mean those 2 pitbulls who escaped and bit that woman had 4 police officers hunkered into their cruisers before the owner finally came out and made them get into the police car.

[HerbalMagic]

Hard to ban a breed that doesn't exist...since pitbulls is really just a generalized term on the phyiscal look of the animal. If you ban pitbulls you're banning about 10-20 different breeds of dogs that could be mixed together to "look" like a pitbull. Lets ban those black people cause they look like some bad guys I saw on TV a bunch of times.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by pylon

Because the typical person that buys these dogs will never follow through with any of these things. They have better things to spend their money on, like tribal tattoos, Affliction T-shirts, truck nutz, and white Oakley sunglasses for the back of their head. I mean c'mon, those UFC PPV's aint gonna pay for themselves. It sounds like hyperbole, but virtually every single one of these Pitbull attacks, the owner of the animal fits the above description to a tee, with a smoke behind his ear, sunken in cheeks, twitchy movements, a face tattoo and a grade 6 vocabulary in his inevitable global interview.

Banning a breed of dog, isn't like banning Siberian White Tigers or something. These breeds have been developed in most cases over a couple hundred or thousand years of inbreeding mutant copies of Canis lupus familiaris. How do you think dogs like sharpeis, pugs, or wiener dogs exist. I have read if humans disappeared tomorrow, toy breeds would be gone within a couple years, and within 5 or 6 generations, we would pretty much be back at simple 'dog' again. These breeds are strictly for the vanity of humans, and in reality, all dog breeds except for wolves are deformed mutants to an extent. So what is the big deal if we stop breeding the ones that pose a significant risk?

This whole argument of "It's the owners, not the animals." Is so much like the US gun debate, just to a lesser extent. Americans have access to whatever weapons they want, and look where that has got them. Nothing good can come of giving loser, unpredictable, bottom rung humans with a chip on their shoulder, access to dangerous fighting machine dogs, that are bred with the sole purpose of killing in the most efficient manner possible.

Until it is proven Pit Bulls tears are a hidden cure for cancer, the breed needs to be banned.

I think your post equally applies to sports cars and large lifted trucks as well. They cause the road to be unsafe. Everyone needs to drive 130 hp cars because they aren't legally allowed to go over the speed limit anyways.

Unless the truck is used strictly for work purposes or off road they are only a danger to society.

The amount of ignorance in your posts is actually impressive.

I just don't agree with breed banning and there are better ways. Making a d bag owner comply is as simple as fining the owner if they don't comply. If caught unregistered a large fine, have neighbors report, patrol the dog parks randomly.

It's a start at least instead of over the top "who will think of the kids" reactions from those on their high horses about the breed of dog they own.

I don't own a pitbull and have no intentions of ever getting one.

You can be sure that another breed or two will take the pitbulls place and you will have as many problems.

Until the majority of vets, dog experts/trainers come forward agreeing with the ban I'll go with them, instead of those who are just spouting off about what they read in the paper.

The ASPCA "A well-socialized and well trained pit bull is one of the most delightful, intelligent, and gentle dogs imaginable."

[rayne008]

The fact is, even responsible owners cannot prevent PB attacks. Most killer PBs were raised in loving homes and seemed sweet — until they attacked. Semyonova says, “There is no temperament test or behaviour test that can predict or assure that a pit bull won’t suddenly do what it was bred to do.” PB “impulsive aggression” is a genetically carried trait and strongly heritable. By seven months, those cuddly pups usually start attacking other animals without provocation. Small children are at particular risk for harm because they are easy prey.

Fact: When it comes to dog bites, it very often is the breed. Each year, about one PB in 100,000 kills someone, compared with one non-PB in about 10 million. About one adopted PB in 30,000 kills or disfigures someone after passing behavioral screening. (Other dangerous breeds, like Rottweilers and Huskies do plenty of damage too; more on them another time).

Taken from a National Post Article Aug 2012

It would seem that more than the frequency of Pit Bull attacks, it is the catastrophic damage they cause.

I would think a soft muzzle bylaw would be a reasonable step when Pit Bulls are in public, and massive fines if the dogs escape from a household yard.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

I think your post equally applies to sports cars and large lifted trucks as well. They cause the road to be unsafe. Everyone needs to drive 130 hp cars because they aren't legally allowed to go over the speed limit anyways.

Unless the truck is used strictly for work purposes or off road they are only a danger to society.

The amount of ignorance in your posts is actually impressive.

I just don't agree with breed banning and there are better ways. Making a d bag owner comply is as simple as fining the owner if they don't comply. If caught unregistered a large fine, have neighbors report, patrol the dog parks randomly.

It's a start at least instead of over the top "who will think of the kids" reactions from those on their high horses about the breed of dog they own.

I don't own a pitbull and have no intentions of ever getting one.

You can be sure that another breed or two will take the pitbulls place and you will have as many problems.

Until the majority of vets, dog experts/trainers come forward agreeing with the ban I'll go with them, instead of those who are just spouting off about what they read in the paper.

The ASPCA "A well-socialized and well trained pit bull is one of the most delightful, intelligent, and gentle dogs imaginable."

I think you need to read the post below yours.

The core of the issue here isn't the fact that the dogs attack, all dogs have the potential of snapping. It is the devastating damage the dogs cause when they do, and the out of no where way in which pit bulls do it. There is a reason why you don't keep cougars and tigers as pets, yet you can keep a normal house cat. Also trucks don't have the ability to autonomously kick into gear and go on a targeted killing rampage.

edit:

Each year, about one PB in 100,000 kills someone, compared with one non-PB in about 10 million.

So statistically, you are 100 X more likely to be killed by a Pit Bull than any other breed.

How can that be ignored?

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by pylon

I think you need to read the post below yours.

The core of the issue here isn't the fact that the dogs attack, all dogs have the potential of snapping. It is the devastating damage the dogs cause when they do, and the out of no where way in which pit bulls do it. There is a reason why you don't keep cougars and tigers as pets, yet you can keep a normal house cat. Also trucks don't have the ability to autonomously kick into gear and go on a targeted killing rampage.

edit:


So statistically, you are 100 X more likely to be killed by a Pit Bull than any other breed.

How can that be ignored?

I did, and maybe as suggested a soft muzzle law is the solution I don't know enough about soft muzzles and what effects it will have on the dog.

But if the same irresponsible owners are operating those vehicles I'll take my chances with the dog.

If I'm not mistaken the breed that has cause the most fatalities in Canada since 1990 is the Husky, and the rottweiler .

Next, since 1990 there has been 1 fatality from a pit bull in Canada.

I completely understand the argument that pit bulls can do damage.

If you look at the stats pitbulls are 4-5% of the dog population and have caused 233 deaths (including u.s.) since 1983. The husky caused 24 deaths and is 0.05% of the population. Per dog which breed is more dangerous? It's the Husky.

Ban the breed and those owners will find replacements. (got the numbers from dogbite.org)

Honestly I'm tired of this argument. I'll let fear mongering reign.

[TheGrimm]

Can we get a poll here? I am curious whether the ban speak is a vocal minority or whether enough people would actually like to see a ban.

My poll proposal:

"What do you think is the best course of action to prevent dog attacks in Calgary"?

- Nothing, the current bylaws are fine
- Ban "dangerous" breeds
- Increase fines for owners in dog related incidents
- Increase registration costs for "dangerous" breeds
- Mandatory muzzles in public for all dogs
- Mandatory muzzles in public for large or "dangerous" breeds
- More training for owners
- Enforce behaviour testing on large dogs as part of registration

Am I missing any?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

Can we get a poll here? I am curious whether the ban speak is a vocal minority or whether enough people would actually like to see a ban.

My poll proposal:

"What do you think is the best course of action to prevent dog attacks in Calgary"?

- Nothing, the current bylaws are fine
- Ban "dangerous" breeds
- Increase fines for owners in dog related incidents
- Increase registration costs for "dangerous" breeds
- Mandatory muzzles in public for all dogs
- Mandatory muzzles in public for large or "dangerous" breeds
- More training for owners
- Enforce behaviour testing on large dogs as part of registration

Am I missing any?

Ban all dogs.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Why don't you try and solve the problem in a less extreme way. Instead of pushing for a ban push for regulation, increased penalties, and mandatory training.

People just don't get it. With a pit bull, it doesn't matter how they were brought up, trained, loved, cared for, coddled. They can and do lose it anyway, causing severe damage or even death. I know this for certain because I have seen it first hand, it completely changes your perspective. When a pit bull that has been loved all of its life attacks its owner and has to be shot to death, you start to realize that the breed has the potential to go off the rails for no apparent reason.

Now with many other breeds, it doesn't matter so much, with a pit bull it easily has the ability to kill you. I firmly believe a person should never own a pet that has the ability to kill you, but if you do own such an animal, at least make it one that doesn't have a history of losing its mind and reverting to some sort of instinctual rage.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

I did, and maybe as suggested a soft muzzle law is the solution I don't know enough about soft muzzles and what effects it will have on the dog.

But if the same irresponsible owners are operating those vehicles I'll take my chances with the dog.

If I'm not mistaken the breed that has cause the most fatalities in Canada since 1990 is the Husky, and the rottweiler .

Next, since 1990 there has been 1 fatality from a pit bull in Canada.

I completely understand the argument that pit bulls can do damage.

If you look at the stats pitbulls are 4-5% of the dog population and have caused 233 deaths (including u.s.) since 1983. The husky caused 24 deaths and is 0.05% of the population. Per dog which breed is more dangerous? It's the Husky.

Ban the breed and those owners will find replacements. (got the numbers from dogbite.org)

Honestly I'm tired of this argument. I'll let fear mongering reign.

What do you have against facts?

Originally Posted by Wiki

A 9-year (1979–88) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks in which breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (41.6%). A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds. A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (28.6%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.

A 15-year (1991–2005) review of dog attack fatalities investigated by the Kentucky Medical Examiner determined that pit bulls were implicated in 5 of the 11 fatal attacks (45.4%). Another 15-year (1994–2009) review of patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with dog bites determined that pit bulls were most often involved in these attacks: of the 228 patients treated, the breed of dog was recorded in 82 attacks, and of these, 29 (35%) attacks were attributed to pit bulls. All other dogs combined accounted for the remaining 65% of attacks. In 44.8% of the attacks, the dog belonged to the victim's family. The authors state:

Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites.

Now obviously I don't/can't quote the whole article, but take a look at it here.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by HerbalMagic

Hard to ban a breed that doesn't exist...since pitbulls is really just a generalized term on the phyiscal look of the animal. If you ban pitbulls you're banning about 10-20 different breeds of dogs that could be mixed together to "look" like a pitbull. Lets ban those black people cause they look like some bad guys I saw on TV a bunch of times.

hahahaha you're my favourite kind of pit bull-viciousness denier...the kind that denies pit bulls even exist!

They've been a recognized breed since 1898.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Sliver

hahahaha you're my favourite kind of pit bull-viciousness denier...the kind that denies pit bulls even exist!

They've been a recognized breed since 1898.

No offence, but:

The term pit bull refers to certain breeds of dog – namely, the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and any crosses between the three. In a few parts of the world, the American Bulldog is also classified as 'Pit Bull'-type dog, despite the fact that they have major genetic differences.

Are you advocating banning all those breeds?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Sliver

What do you have against facts?

What do you have against facts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull#Other_studies

Other studies
This section requires expansion. (August 2012)
A study by Dr. Malathi Raghavan proved that Sliver is a whiny baby