The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'd be happy to see a breed ban even if it still left some issues to be resolved, I'd also like to see dog ownership limited to one dog only, particularly for bigger dogs. Dogs are massively less predictable in groups as it reinforces their hunting behaviour.

It won't fix some things and leave some things unresolved. It will change nothing, unless you ban any dog capable of doing damage - and that's pretty much all dogs.

As for dogs being less predictable in a group, my experience has shown the opposite.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by polak

You should learn what "species" means before you act like a smart ass.

Here I'll give you some help: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/species



Incase that isn't clear enough, if they can have fertile offspring, they are the same species.

It depends who is doing the classification. They used to be the same genus but different species. The fact that the do inter breed makes them at best a sub species only. Their traits are so totally different that they would likely never interbreed if left in their typical arrangements. This is all changing little by little as humans get involved as intermediaries.

Your point that we would shoot a wolf without question is invalid because they are totally different than dogs in that respect. They will hunt you and eat you instead of follow you hoping for a food handout. So you had better shoot them if you want to keep living.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

It won't fix some things and leave some things unresolved. It will change nothing, unless you ban any dog capable of doing damage - and that's pretty much all dogs.

As for dogs being less predictable in a group, my experience has shown the opposite.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to that, I've never seen any dog behaviour expert that doesn't say that two or three dogs are far more likely to revert to a hunting pack mentality, that essentially they all become as badly behaved or reactive as the worse dog in the group.
Unless of course you mean that a pack of dogs is predictably reactive.

[Amethyst]

Predictability itself is neither good not bad. In the article mentioned above, it was likely predictable that something bad would happen. I fail to see how banning a certain kind of dog would have done anything to prevent the situation. This guy likely would have had four badly behaved dogs of another breed instead.

As for predictability being a good thing, an example might be a dog who could be a runner. Alone, you couldn't trust him to come when called. However, when he's with a group, he would.

The one thing I do know though is that if you find a "dog behaviour expert" who says one thing, you can just as easily find one who says the opposite.

[polak]

You're whole argument is based on "all dogs are dangerous dogs" which is asinine. Dogs that have strong jaws and brute strength are a lot more dangerous then small and medium sized dogs.

If that guy had 4 terriers the old guy could have fought them off and the worse that would've happened is a few cuts.

[V]

I like the argument that all dogs are dangerous. Ban them all. Stupid animals.

[Zevo]

Some dogs are dangerous.

All dogs are only dangerous to stupid people.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Such a circular debate. It doesn't matter how many kids get their faces bitten off, the right to own a dangerous breed of dog trumps all apparently.

I did like the idea about muzzles, but it makes too much sense so it will never happen. Besides, I'm sure dog owners would bitch and moan about that too.

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Have no idea how to

This is for you.

[Jason14h]

The issue with ideas like muzzles in public is most these attacks occur by unsupervised / escaped dogs . The people letting these dogs roam free aren't going to be obeying muzzle laws or more strict registration laws

[killer_carlson]

My thoughts:

I'd like to see more probation conditions include not being allowed to own a dangerous breed dog or a dog over a certain weight. If someone can't get their act together to stay out of jail, im not comfortable with them owing a pitbull or a rotweiller.

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by polak

Yeah I really don't care if it's inhumane to put down aggressive dogs. Public safety is much more important than a pet.

What do you mean how often will that happen? As often as car owners pay for their registration. And yes you would hire people to enforce it and you'd also make the punishment really severe for not being registered. Charge the hell out of dog owners so that it's all covered. I don't care. It's not a right to have a dog. Especially if you limit it to dangerous breeds only. Then they really get no sympathy from me for it being expensive.

I'm not going to claim to know what it's like in Calgary, but here in the states and especially in California only a small percentage of dogs are actually current on their licenses. I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that if you attached conditions to that registration that might result in your pet being euthanized that number will drop even lower. Is your solution to start going door to door to see if the residents own a dog that falls under your guidelines?
Again, you're looking at a huge burden on taxpayers to support a nearly impossible to enforce policy.

[Old Yeller]

Originally Posted by polak

This might seem inhumane but how about a yearly dog evaluation? It would be mandatory and you'd have to pay into it so users pay for it and you'd test the dogs temperament off leash. Once you pass, you carry a registration card that shows your dog passed his yearly evaluation.

Dog doesn't pass, it gets put down.

Automobiles kill a lot more people than dogs, so we should have yearly driver evaluations.

Driver doesn't pass, they get put dow.... Err lose their license.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by V

I like the argument that all dogs are dangerous. Ban them all. Stupid animals.

Why would you post something so idiotic.

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by polak

You're whole argument is based on "all dogs are dangerous dogs" which is asinine. Dogs that have strong jaws and brute strength are a lot more dangerous then small and medium sized dogs.

If that guy had 4 terriers the old guy could have fought them off and the worse that would've happened is a few cuts.

I believe terriers are a breed you want evaluated yearly and euthanized...

[foshizzle11]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

The issue with ideas like muzzles in public is most these attacks occur by unsupervised / escaped dogs . The people letting these dogs roam free aren't going to be obeying muzzle laws or more strict registration laws

Exactly and not to mention the psychological affects of having all dogs muzzled in public will have on said dogs. Their nose/face/mouth is like our hands. It could create more fearful or aggressive dogs from having them wear these things. I know my dog would be terrified of having anything on her face, she is a bit skittish when things are on her (like blankets over her head or anything like that).

I think the hardest part is trying to convince any dog owner that their friendly, family pet needs to wear a muzzle in public. What does that even mean? If I go for drive with my dog in the car/truck does it need to be muzzled? It is a law that just won't or can't be enforced.

Now muzzling large, strong breeds in off leash areas is a great idea (50lbs plus). That could easily be enforced by having "peace officer" types at these major parks handing out tickets to people if they aren't muzzling their dogs. I hate dog parks, they are terrible places and we have stopped going. Would this help in the case linked above, yes likely.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

Exactly and not to mention the psychological affects of having all dogs muzzled in public will have on said dogs. Their nose/face/mouth is like our hands. It could create more fearful or aggressive dogs from having them wear these things. I know my dog would be terrified of having anything on her face, she is a bit skittish when things are on her (like blankets over her head or anything like that).

First of all, I'm willing to bet you're not an animal psychologist and don't, in fact, know if muzzling dogs would have a negative psychological impact on them. Can you point to any evidence to support this claim? I'm sure your dog wouldn't like having a muzzle at first, but she'd get used to it. If she didn't, I guess she couldn't leave your house/yard. Oh well.

Second, if a dog didn't like wearing a muzzle, who the fata cares? This is a public safety issue. I'm more concerned about preventing my daughter from getting mauled by a pit bull than if a muzzle makes a pit bull sad.

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

I think the hardest part is trying to convince any dog owner that their friendly, family pet needs to wear a muzzle in public. What does that even mean? If I go for drive with my dog in the car/truck does it need to be muzzled? It is a law that just won't or can't be enforced.

Is it really that confusing? Do you know what a muzzle is? Do you know what public means? Yeah, if you left your property your dog would need a muzzle. It's super simple.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Second, if a dog didn't like wearing a muzzle, who the fata cares? This is a public safety issue. I'm more concerned about preventing my daughter from getting mauled by a pit bull than if a muzzle makes a pit bull sad.

Naaaaah look at this pitbull. It's wearing a funny hat. Who cares about human children?

[CliffFletcher]

How often do people encounter dogs in public? This isn't like 30-40 years ago, when there were enough stray dogs and dogs running loose that dog-catcher was a full-time job. When a dog does run loose now, the response from bylaw seems to be swift, and the consequences for the owner serious.

In my experience, you rarely see dogs anywhere except off-leash parks. And that's where we see the most problems, mainly with dogs attacking other dogs.

[Fuzz]

CliffFletcher, not true at all. I ride my bike to work, and run into dogs daily that aren't on leashes. People let there dogs run all over, big or small. Off leash or not, they believe their dogs are well behaved, until they are not. Go up nose hill, dogs run loose everywhere. Spend any time on MChugh bluff, same thing. Some areas of the bluff are off leash, BUT if you are on the path with your dog, it must be on a leash. Almost no one does this. Bylaw is only going to do something if there is a complaint, they don't patrol these areas.