The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Ducay

What's next? Banning white sunglasses? Lift kits? Rap T-shirts?

We can dream...

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...ylaw-1.3780335



I wonder if we will see more cities following suit in Canada. Should be interesting.

This is true and interesting:

The sad thing about this is that the attack in question wasn't even perpetrated by a pit bull. Breed bans are totally ridiculous and have not proven effective for reducing attacks anywhere they've been implemented.

[killer_carlson]

nm

[Olao32]

"Alberta dog rescue group says province could become 'mecca' for Montreal pit bulls"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...scue-1.3785272

[polak]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The sad thing about this is that the attack in question wasn't even perpetrated by a pit bull. Breed bans are totally ridiculous and have not proven effective for reducing attacks anywhere they've been implemented.

Are you saying that banning a specific breed doesn't reduce attacks by that specific breed?

Sure one can probably argue that banning a breed doesn't reduce dog bites overall. I could believe that. I don't see how a properly enforced ban on pitbulls doesn't reduce pitbull attacks considering there shouldn't be any pitbulls in the city?

The point of a breed ban on Pitbulls is that their power is so much more significant and damaging that there's no reason to allow them to be bred. There's no benefit to allowing Pitbulls. Anything you can get from a pitbull, you can get from a less powerful breed.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The sad thing about this is that the attack in question wasn't even perpetrated by a pit bull. Breed bans are totally ridiculous and have not proven effective for reducing attacks anywhere they've been implemented.

The article says it was originally called a pit bull and are now doing DNA tests. Do you have a link that shares the results?

Originally Posted by polak

Are you saying that banning a specific breed doesn't reduce attacks by that specific breed?

Sure one can probably argue that banning a breed doesn't reduce dog bites overall. I could believe that. I don't see how a properly enforced ban on pitbulls doesn't reduce pitbull attacks considering there shouldn't be any pitbulls in the city?

The point of a breed ban on Pitbulls is that their power is so much more significant and damaging that there's no reason to allow them to be bred. There's no benefit to allowing Pitbulls. Anything you can get from a pitbull, you can get from a less powerful breed.

I've always found the correlation between attacks and breed bans to be kind of weird. What do they have to do with each other? How can you possibly know for sure if a breed ban has had positive effects? Surely we aren't just doing it for the sake of reducing overall reports of bites. As you say, based on basic logic, pit bull attacks should decrease if pit bulls are banned. Having on more than one occasion been forced to deal with people who have insane pit bulls, I'm all for it based solely on my anecdotal experience.

It seems to me pointing solely to reports of attacks/bites before and after the bans is kind of like saying violent crime rates stayed level after guns were banned. Well sure, but did gun crime decrease? The whole point of these bans is to help reduce the number of potentially fatal, or at the very least severely damaging, dog attacks. I honestly can't wrap my head around how someone wouldn't see that banning one of the breeds that can inflict the most amount of damage wouldn't help.

Will there still be other violent breeds? Sure. But now there is one less potentially deadly breed out there. How is that a bad thing? You can point to bad owners all you want but as is often pointed out, albeit a bit extreme of an example, if every bad owner could only own a Chihuahua we would have a huge decrease in violent dog attacks. No matter how bad an owner is, those dogs simply can't inflict as much damage period.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by polak

Sure one can probably argue that banning a breed doesn't reduce dog bites overall. I could believe that. I don't see how a properly enforced ban on pitbulls doesn't reduce pitbull attacks considering there shouldn't be any pitbulls in the city?

So if someone is mauled by a German Shepherd or Rottweiler, or something they will be fine with that? That seems like a silly argument to me.

I don't care what the breed is - I'd rather not be bit at all.

[Goodlad]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...ourt-1.3788730

Quebec Superior Court Justice Louis Gouin has temporarily suspended the ban and restrictions on pit bull-type dogs until he makes a further ruling on Oct. 5.

Gouin's ruling comes at the end of full day of arguments by lawyers for the SPCA and the city of Montreal.

It essentially acts as a safeguard to ensure that Montrealers can continue to adopt pit bulls – and pit bull-type dogs don't have to be muzzled – until Gouin makes his decision Wednesday on a longer temporary ban, which would last until the SPCA's challenge of the bylaw is heard in court.

Lawyers for the SPCA have argued that even though the Supreme Court upheld Ontario's ban on pit bulls, Montreal's new animal control bylaw raises issues not yet heard by the courts.

Some of the issues the SPCA has with the bylaw include its "vague and imprecise" definition of a "pit bull-type dog" and its lack of a means to challenge that classification.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

So if someone is mauled by a German Shepherd or Rottweiler, or something they will be fine with that? That seems like a silly argument to me.

I don't care what the breed is - I'd rather not be bit at all.

Nope not really. No point of allowing regular folk to have big powerful dogs.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by polak

Nope not really. No point of allowing regular folk to have big powerful dogs.

Why? People are allowed big powerful cars(that aren't necessary) that kill and maim way more people than dogs ever will.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Why? People are allowed big powerful cars(that aren't necessary) that kill and maim way more people than dogs ever will.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Why? People are allowed big powerful cars(that aren't necessary) that kill and maim way more people than dogs ever will.

We do have limits on what constitutes a street legal vehicle. We have licensing of owners. We have laws that if you suck at driving your license gets revokes.

I don't think any dog owner would appreciate dogs and dog ownership being regulated like automobiles. But you do make a good point that things that cause harm should be regulated.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by GGG

We do have limits on what constitutes a street legal vehicle. We have licensing of owners. We have laws that if you suck at driving your license gets revokes.

I don't think any dog owner would appreciate dogs and dog ownership being regulated like automobiles. But you do make a good point that things that cause harm should be regulated.

Actually, I would have no problem with it, considering how it was done of course.

One idiot in Montreal, who has a dog that wasn't even a pitbull, leaves it outside unattended, with a crappy fence, and it escapes and kills someone. So an owner who has attended classes, has a well-trained, friendly dog should be punished because they happen to own a certain breed? I don't think that's fair to the good owners and I don't think BSL laws will protect the public.

I think there should be significant punishments for people whose dogs injure others. And I wouldn't have a problem if people had to qualify before they could get a dog. I volunteer in rescue and see the results when any idiot who can find kijiji can get a dog.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by GGG

We do have limits on what constitutes a street legal vehicle. We have licensing of owners. We have laws that if you suck at driving your license gets revokes.

I don't think any dog owner would appreciate dogs and dog ownership being regulated like automobiles. But you do make a good point that things that cause harm should be regulated.

Absolutely I would be for more regulation on big dogs. I totally agree with everything Amethyst said. Most responsible pet owners would.

But if people want to ban 'big powerful dogs' why do we have big powerful cars that go over 100 km/hr. Shouldn't everything be geared toward safety and not speed? Why even have motorbikes? (for the record, I'm not against any of these. Unless you want to take my Shepherd...then you can die a boring, uneventful death.)

[polak]

I said earlier in this thread there should be proper licensing for dogs. That'd be better than a ban but people are unwilling to do it so they go with the easier, less expensive option.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

I have 3 pitbulls. Its nurture over nature. I think owners are at fault for a lot of this. My dogs are all over 4. The sisters are 5 and the older one is 6. I made sure they had nothing but positive experiences with other dogs adults and children from the time I got them each at 8 weeks. A lot of people buy a dog, keep it in the house, dont take it to the dog park or anywhere. Then that dog gets out or comes into contact with another dog or a child for what may be the first time, maybe on its home territory and the outcome is scary. Not just pitbulls but any un-socialized dog is usually a fear-aggressive nutjob.

I've owned or cared for 7 dogs in my lifetime. 4 have been pitbulls. I always say that the only bad thing about pitbulls is the kinds of owners they tend to attract.. People who know jack #### about dogs and want some kind of penis extension. The typical rig pig roid monkey in his lifted pickup truck wearing his tapout shirt. A lot of really poor, uneducated, inexperienced dog owners or even criminals seem to be obsessed with pitbulls. People who shouldnt have ANY dog.

I will say one thing though about the breed, they are really good with humans but need to be socialized with other dogs from an early age. Not because they arent naturally dog friendly but because they are pound for pound the most physically powerful dogs on the planet and can do more damage than most medium-size breeds. I've seen my fair share of dog confrontations at parks and most dogs will not do too much damage even in a long confrontation. A 40lb pitbull in just one minute would do damage that not many other 40lb dogs could do. It is a terrier thing, not a pitbull thing. They latch on and shake the #### out of whatever they bite. Terrier is Welsh for 'earth-dog' and its something they were bred for as dogs that go into fox-holes and rabbit holes - they cant let go no matter what.

In essence its like having 3 kids. 2 weak kids and one strong football playing child who boxes on weekends. Obviously the strong kid isnt going to naturally be meaner or more aggressive but its more important to make sure he isnt violent because he can do more damage.

Pitbulls are not good guard dogs. In fact they are terrible guard dogs. They are a mix between a ratting dog and a bull baiting dog, what can you expect? Anyway I think a lot of the problem comes from people who dont socialize their dogs with other dogs at a young age and people trying to use pitbulls as guard dogs and trying to "toughen them up'' to be something they are not.

There should be a breeding ban on pitbulls and an import ban on them. There are enough pitbulls but not enough honest and loving pitbull owners. I think current owners should be grandfathered in once they agree to neuter and spay. I know that would mean I cant have any more pitbulls after these 3 but I'm fine with that as long as the breed stops being abused by these selfish bastards.

Pitbulls are great dogs. Many pitbull owners happen to be #### people.

Anyway theres my rant.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by polak

I said earlier in this thread there should be proper licensing for dogs. That'd be better than a ban but people are unwilling to do it so they go with the easier, less expensive option.

Are they? I don't recall the possibility of dog licensing ever being raised in Calgary.

Here's the process we went through to get a dog from a rescue organization:

1. Filled out a lengthy online form (took about 1 hour), including answering detailed questions about our living arrangements, dog training, and how we would respond to various scenarios.
   
2. Had a follow-up phone interview with someone from the rescue organization that lasted about 30 minutes, and asked questions about how we would address a series of problems (destructiveness, biting, barking, etc.) with a dog.
   
3. Went to a location to meet the dog and speak with the dog's foster parent. They watched us and our kids closely while we played with the dog.
   
4. If you make it through all those steps, that means you've beaten out several (in the cast of our last dog, almost a dozen) other potential adoptees.
   
5. At this point, they do a home inspection. The look at your yard, your fencing, and examine every single room in your home (including closets and bathrooms).
   
6. If your home passes muster, they leave the dog with you overnight.
   
7. If the overnight goes well, you can adopt the dog (after paying for spaying/neuturing).

I have no problem with a similar system being set up to license dogs. The problem, of course, is how to stop illegal puppy mills from selling dogs to the kinds of d-bags who would disregard licensing (who it's safe to say have a large overlap with the kinds of d-bags who raise savage dogs). At that point, it's a matter of enforcement. Which is costly. And that's probably why the city hasn't tried to introduce mandatory dog licensing. Easier just to ban one breed and give the impression that you're trying to do something (even though you know it will be ineffective). This is all optics.

[chemgear]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...lage-1.3791983

A 71-year-old woman says she has no choice but to put her home up for sale because a dog that attacked her has been allowed to stay in the trailer park where she lives.

"It threw me down to the ground, I couldn't get my arm out of its mouth, just snarling on top of me, and at that point I just gave up and buried my head in the snow. My life as I knew it was just destroyed."


Stewart is still being treated for torn muscles in both shoulders and problems with a dislocated jaw. And she is terrified to go outside, since the dog was allowed to stay in the trailer park despite rules to the contrary.

[Fuzz]

They put the owner down though, right?

[chemgear]

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/child-rush...dogs-1.3226280

A four-year-old boy has been taken to Alberta Children’s Hospital in serious condition after being bitten by two dogs.

“The volume and magnitude of the injuries he did sustain are very significant which leaves him in very serious condition but at this time remains non-life threatening.”