The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[terminator]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Yes, childen will grow up. And in Canada, there's a better than 50% chance they will grow up to be dog owners as well. In fact, there's now a better chance they will own dogs than children.

But I disagree, dogs are very much social investment. There's lots of information and semi valid research showing the health benefits of walking the dog, the social benefits and the other quality of life benefits including over all happiness. Not to mention, dogs used to provide some of the services taxes do today...protection, warning, guidance and transportation, trash removal. We domesticated them, we are obliged to care for them. While you may not see the social investment here, you will see the lack of social investment in places that do not care for animals.

Man its morons like you that make dog owners look like stupids. After reading this post I had to slam my head into the wall just to make sure I was not dreaming.

A dog is a dog is a dog. Children unlike dogs, are not all alike and will grow to fill different requirements in our social system, further they are humans which are far more valuable, intangibly and tangibly, then dogs. Canada promotes immigration, why? Because we need more Canadians. Unfortuantley a dog cannot become a SIN holding citizen of Canada while a child can.

Further having children is promoted by the GOC simply due to the fact that we need to grow our organic citizenship, dogs do NOT contribute. Finally children are created by humans.

Oh did I mention I love dogs.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by terminator

Man its morons like you that make dog owners look like stupids. After reading this post I had to slam my head into the wall just to make sure I was not dreaming.

A dog is a dog is a dog. Children unlike dogs, are not all alike and will grow to fill different requirements in our social system, further they are humans which are far more valuable, intangibly and tangibly, then dogs. Canada promotes immigration, why? Because we need more Canadians. Unfortuantley a dog cannot become a SIN holding citizen of Canada while a child can.

Further having children is promoted by the GOC simply due to the fact that we need to grow our organic citizenship, dogs do NOT contribute. Finally children are created by humans.

Oh did I mention I love dogs.

Good one. Now, can you point to a place where I said anything contrary to your fantastic rant? Anything at all? Anything about dogs being like children? Anything about dogs being more valuable than humans? Or did you slam your head too hard?

[terminator]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I feel the same way about people with kids. Like why do they get all the good tax breaks? Pay for your own damn daycare.

there you have it.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by terminator

there you have it.

Ah. Gotcha. I'll be sure to explain sarcasm next time. Anyway, for future reference...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[terminator]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Ah. Gotcha. I'll be sure to explain sarcasm next time. Anyway, for future reference...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Kindly do explain your sarcasm, its called green text.

I offer no apology, but agree that I may be wrong.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by terminator

Kindly do explain your sarcasm, its called green text.

I offer no apology, but agree that I may be wrong.

Actually I've been wondering about the green text. I'll admit I'm too clueless to figure it out.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Actually I've been wondering about the green text. I'll admit I'm too clueless to figure it out.

Green text means you are the greatest poster on the forum.

[chemgear]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...tion-1.3070175


Calgary's Animal and Bylaw Services has been busy over the last few days investigating three separate attacks.

A 10-year-old girl and 12-year-old boy were taken to hospital Monday afternoon after they were bitten by a great pyrenees in Abbeydale. EMS says the children received minor injuries, and police say the dog did not belong to their family.

Two small dogs were also killed in separate attacks over the weekend involving pit bulls.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...legs-1.3072573

A teenage girl was taken to hospital after she was bitten by a "pit bull-type dog" in southeast Calgary.
It's the fifth dog attack in Calgary since Saturday, with three suspected to involve pit bulls.

"That specific breed has caused a lot of damage in the last five days," said animal services director Ryan Jestin.

"Quite clearly there's a public safety issue here," he added.

[OutOfTheCube]

Clearly pitbull ownership should be banned. It's such a cut and dry issue I'm not sure why it hasn't happened yet. They're a violent breed with violent tendencies, and it doesn't matter how well domesticated or how awesome a person the owner is, having them out there is just asking for trouble as they can snap at any moment and seriously injure other pets and even humans.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Clearly pitbull ownership should be banned. It's such a cut and dry issue I'm not sure why it hasn't happened yet. They're a violent breed with violent tendencies, and it doesn't matter how well domesticated or how awesome a person the owner is, having them out there is just asking for trouble as they can snap at any moment and seriously injure other pets and even humans.

It's ####ty and irresponsible owners that should be banned from owning dogs and heavily fined in the event their dog is involved in an altercation. Regardless of breed, even the article points out that there were other breeds responsible for attacks over the weekend.

Instead, your response is that punishing all responsible owners and pets is an appropriate action to account for the actions of the few.

Banning a specific breed based on the bad behavior of a few is not the answer. Once you ban pitbulls, people will demand the next breed on the list be banned since it is now the "most aggressive". After we ban that one, there will be another.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

It's ####ty and irresponsible owners that should be banned from owning dogs and heavily fined in the event their dog is involved in an altercation. Regardless of breed, even the article points out that there were other breeds responsible for attacks over the weekend.

So the only time the problem is addressed is AFTER an attack has happened.
Ban the breed. Do it. The problem is that they can do so much damage when they attack.
Get rid of them.

[chemgear]

Hopefully at least a start.

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/rules-coul...ners-1.2373497

Animal and Bylaw Services says they’re considering changing the rules for owning certain breeds of dogs, because three of five recent attacks have involved pit bulls.

The department says those and Rottweilers seem to be at the top of the list when it comes to dangerous dog incidents.

“Simply putting the onus back on the owners,” says Alvin Murray, north operations manager for Calgary Animal and Bylaw Services. “If you want to have a pit bull at home, you can, but I expect it will cost you much more for licensing, much more in the event there’s an attack like we’ve seen in the last few days.”

In the Dover incident, a 14-year-old girl was attacked while she was walking to school. She suffered injuries to both of her legs and had to be taken to hospital for treatment.

But what makes the incident even worse is the fact that witnesses say the owner did nothing to stop the attack.

Bylaw officers have said that all of these attacks have something in common – they’ve all occurred in public areas like sidewalks and not in off-leash dog parks.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Banning a specific breed based on the bad behavior of a few is not the answer. Once you ban pitbulls, people will demand the next breed on the list be banned since it is now the "most aggressive". After we ban that one, there will be another.

I don't really see a problem with this either. We wouldn't lose much phasing out pitbulls and rottweilers and all the other big, mean, aggressive breeds from cities. Eventually we're just left with nice dogs that make great pets and aren't fearing for our childrens/small pets safety when they're taken out to a park.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

I don't really see a problem with this either. We wouldn't lose much phasing out pitbulls and rottweilers and all the other big, mean, aggressive breeds from cities. Eventually we're just left with nice dogs that make great pets and aren't fearing for our childrens/small pets safety when they're taken out to a park.

That just isn't true. with irresponsible owners it doesn't matter what breed you have, they can be aggressive and do damage. The problem is what Jiri mentioned. The only time irresponsible owners are dealt with is after attacks (dealt with is probably the wrong word).

In a perfect world dog owners should be somewhat screened to ensure they would be acceptable owners, but that just isn't the case.

[WCan_Kid]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So the only time the problem is addressed is AFTER an attack has happened.
Ban the breed. Do it. The problem is that they can do so much damage when they attack.
Get rid of them.

http://www.beachpetpals.org/info/display?PageID=5124

Just because pits are the flavor of the month for dbag owners doesn't make them bad dogs. There are lots of breeds that are just as "dangerous" and capable of inflicting as much, or more, damage. There just aren't as many of them around right now, however you've got to think that a ban on pit bulls will change that in a hurry and then we're on to the next breed.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by Robbob

That just isn't true. with irresponsible owners it doesn't matter what breed you have, they can be aggressive and do damage. The problem is what Jiri mentioned. The only time irresponsible owners are dealt with is after attacks (dealt with is probably the wrong word).

Of course it wouldn't stop all the problems, nothing would. But it would mitigate most of them. It's not just a coincidence these attacks are almost all by a select few breeds. An irresponsible owner with a good breed doesn't necessarily end up with an aggressive, violent dog. An irresponsible owner with an aggressive, violent breed will almost always end up with an aggressive, violent dog.

If I'm out and about with my kid and see someone walking by with a lab and golden retriever, even though they are big dogs that could do lots of damage if they wanted to, I'm likely not even batting an eye. If the person has two pit bulls I'll probably cross to the other side of the street.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Robbob

In a perfect world dog owners should be somewhat screened to ensure they would be acceptable owners, but that just isn't the case.

It is is the case if you adopt dogs. There's a pretty good screening process when you apply at most places it seems.

I doubt breeders care who buys their dogs. The types of people that want pitbulls are generally those who want a big, tough, mean dog (For some reason. Compensation I guess...) and so they train them as such (or not at all). They don't want a pet they want a guard dog.

My question to those who would phase out the breeds, what do we do with the current ones? Mass puppy graves?

I'd rather see anyone registering a pitbull (or maybe give a few breed a "dangerous breed" tag: Pitbulls, Rotts, Dobermans) having to go through mandatory training session before getting the license, rather than just bumping up the fee. Put the fee towards the actual problem. Maybe you could have them need yearly training "updates" where a trainer assesses their behaviour and whether or not they have been properly trained, or needing another session before re-licensing.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Regardless of breed, even the article points out that there were other breeds responsible for attacks over the weekend.

Banning a specific breed based on the bad behavior of a few is not the answer. Once you ban pitbulls, people will demand the next breed on the list be banned since it is now the "most aggressive". After we ban that one, there will be another.

In the previous article, pit bulls and rottweilers are apparently at the top of the list in attacks and deaths in Calgary.

The second paragraph reminds of the gun arguments in the US. "If they try to take my double barrel fully automatic assault weapon mounted on my private tank, then they're going to try to take away ALL the guns!!!"

Originally Posted by Robbob

it doesn't matter what breed you have, they can be aggressive and do damage.

Just like the gun argument. If you've at least taken away the most dangerous breed then at least the attacks that do happen would at least be less damaging.

Injury versus outright and immediate death regardless of how bad owners can be with their lack of responsibility.

[aaronck]

I don't think banning certain breeds or increasing the license fees would do anything- Just like the Canada's worst driver guy who can't afford insurance, or someone with illegal guns, the people that own these dogs just won't bother registering them. Proper consistent training is the key to responsible dog ownership, is it a coincidence that most of these "aggressive" dogs belong to people with Tapout shirts and sideways hats who let them free range and usually don't even clean up after them? If they figure their dog's crap is someone else's problem, then I assume so is the training and eventual problems than follow.

I've met some awesome Pit Bulls and Rotweilers that are totally gentle. I've encountered many vicious border collies and angry small chihuahuas. I also know a person that was attacked by his own golden lab out of the blue.

[polak]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Banning a specific breed based on the bad behavior of a few is not the answer. Once you ban pitbulls, people will demand the next breed on the list be banned since it is now the "most aggressive". After we ban that one, there will be another.

I never understood the outrage with this?

We breed dogs to make the best suitable animals for domesticated life with humans. There's no reason to keep traits like uncontrolled aggression in the gene pool.

Pitbulls have been a problem breed for many years.

I'm not saying kill all pitbulls but the breed has issues. Why do we risk it?

I'd be okay with a ban on breeding Pitbulls.

100% against anything that effects existing Pitbulls though. Don't blame the animal for our stupidity.