The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Sliver

So what? Neuter them all and adopt them out. The point is after this current generation of pit bulls is dead there should not be any more coming along.

We're being realistic and humane. We recognize there aren't great options to solve this tomorrow, but a decade from now we won't have to keep posting about more pit bull attacks.

But that would go against what was suggested, IE no new registrations.

And yes, it's an offleash area in a city you don't live in, so you're safe, don't worry.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Coach

But that would go against what was suggested, IE no new registrations.

And yes, it's an offleash area in a city you don't live in, so you're safe, don't worry.

Whatever. Maybe somebody had the wording a little off, but you'll be hard pressed to dig up a post in here by somebody saying all pit bulls should be put down.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Coach

But that would go against what was suggested, IE no new registrations

You got me, I only want certain ones to die, especially those orphaned ones.

[Amethyst]

The problem with banning a breed is that another would just take its place. People who get pitbulls and don't train and care for them properly and don't keep them in safe situations, won't suddenly stop owning dogs. They will just move on to another breed and treat it the same way. Also, most dogs are mutts, so it's hard to determine which one is or isn't a certain breed.

Forcing people to take training doesn't work for those who don't bother to register their dog in the first place, which is often the case with dogs who end up in the news for the wrong reason.

One of the biggest issues for pitbull type dogs right now is that they are trendy. Disreputable breeders cash in by breeding dogs to look a certain way, even if it's unhealthy for the dogs. And every time you breed an unhealthy dog, the offspring have a greater chance of having physical and mental health issues which lead to bad situations.

[Coach]

I wasn't trying to get anyone. I was genuinely curious about the train of thought and what people thought should happen to those dogs already in existence. Or what should/would become of half-breeds.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Envitro

Good 'ole ban party here.

"But if it saves one life..... ban it."

Curious about the thought process of entering conversations around human beings being violently killed by something and always taking issue first and foremost with people who don’t like the thing that violently killed someone.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Like why not a Setter, a Lab, a Retriever if you want a larger dog? Why pitbull???

Because Pitbulls can easily maul people to death. There is no other real reason.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Sr. Mints

That's just as infuriating as the dog attack. I want to know why the hell it took so long? Is that standard now?

"no comment from AHS" Yeah #### that noise.

When the UCP keeps making safe injection sites harder to access, people will stop using them. Now you have a bunch of EMS going all over the city responding to random overdoses instead of freeing up the EMS completely by having a dedicated facility with nurses to attend to those overdoses. We'll get told it's lack of funding or Notley's fault somehow, but all but guaranteed that at least one of the EMS tied up will have been doing so over an overdose that may have not been required at all if not for the UCP's new policies.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Sliver

So what? Neuter them all and adopt them out. The point is after this current generation of pit bulls is dead there should not be any more coming along.

We're being realistic and humane. We recognize there aren't great options to solve this tomorrow, but a decade from now we won't have to keep posting about more pit bull attacks.

Just Shepard, Rotti, or whatever breed #######s decide to get next.

Really dogs and guns are the same debate. Occasionally someone in society dies because we want to own guns and dogs. Its a natural consequence of having dogs that can kill people.

You can put all the rules in place, breed bans, licencing or training requirements. In the end unless you ban all dogs over x weight this will be a regular occurrence.

I’d really like to see criminal negligence causing death charges as these incidents are a natural and foreseeable consequence of owning a large dog and not taking proper precautions. This is no different than a drunk driver.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

When the UCP keeps making safe injection sites harder to access, people will stop using them. Now you have a bunch of EMS going all over the city responding to random overdoses instead of freeing up the EMS completely by having a dedicated facility with nurses to attend to those overdoses. We'll get told it's lack of funding or Notley's fault somehow, but all but guaranteed that at least one of the EMS tied up will have been doing so over an overdose that may have not been required at all if not for the UCP's new policies.

Is this better or worse? Concentrating the issue into one area has one set of consequences as does dispersing it out. Real honest and thorough evaluation and acknowledgement of the disproportionate burden residents near these sites near is important. Disperse and staff EMS better at be a lower harm option.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

I truly believe that people need to be held responsible for their dogs if they attack someone, fines I guess for less severe things and jail time for mauling people to death.

I also think that better education is needed for owners who want a dog that say weighs more than 50 lbs, at least learn the basics of dog behavior and their cues. I also think in order to license a dog, you need to submit photos or have a bylaw officer come to your home or something, people can say anything on the internet these days and get away with it. If owners don't follow the bylaws for registering a dangerous breed, the consequence should be simple, the dog is ceased and rehomed or euthanized if it isn't capable of being safe in a proper home.

I have been a foster parent for over 5 years now, the training we received on dog behaviour really helps in not only assessing what your own dog is feeling but what other dogs are feeling/thinking based off of basic cues they give off (lip curls, turning their head away, ear position, tail position, what different barks mean, etc). A lot of people do not understand these things, and it wouldn't be too hard to teach.

So many of these mauling stories have more than one powerful breed in the household, I feel owning more than one powerful breed is hard to deal with and I believe I am a responsible dog owner and I would never in my right mind own more than one dog over 80 lbs, let alone walk 2 of them at the same time, this guy in the article had 3, and walked them all together! That is a bit nuts. Anyway, this won't get fixed any time soon in this city, I don't think they bill ban pitbulls in Calgary, as the humane society doesn't agree with breed bans but I do think the system for owning these dogs should be different.

If you ban pitbulls, people will start getting cane corsos, shepherds, rotties, mastiffs, etc which are also dangerous breeds if they are not socialized properly, trained, exercised and disciplined.

Anyway, I don't even know what to say, I don't think people should be breeding pitbulls, there are enough mutts and rescues that need help and a lot of people can't handle them, so why make it worse be allowing people to breed. Spay and neuter all of them, maybe that is the starting point.

This reminds me of the gun debate in the US. Every time there's a mass shooting there's endless debate of the root cause and what could be done to fix it, when the answer is obvious, get rid of the guns. Same thing here, so many posts debating on how to fix dogs killing people when the answer is obvious, get rid of the dogs. No one needs to own a pitbull, they serve no purpose other than to make Tapout and Affliction bros feel like big men. Just ban the breed already

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

The problem with banning a breed is that another would just take its place. People who get pitbulls and don't train and care for them properly and don't keep them in safe situations, won't suddenly stop owning dogs. They will just move on to another breed and treat it the same way. Also, most dogs are mutts, so it's hard to determine which one is or isn't a certain breed.

Forcing people to take training doesn't work for those who don't bother to register their dog in the first place, which is often the case with dogs who end up in the news for the wrong reason.

One of the biggest issues for pitbull type dogs right now is that they are trendy. Disreputable breeders cash in by breeding dogs to look a certain way, even if it's unhealthy for the dogs. And every time you breed an unhealthy dog, the offspring have a greater chance of having physical and mental health issues which lead to bad situations.

This reads as if the solution isn't perfect, don't even try. Banning pitbulls would result in fewer fatal dog attacks, I don't see how anyone can argue that. Sure the Oakley bros might move to the next breed of the week, but re-evaluate when and if that becomes a problem. Banning the most dangerous breed is as good of a start as there is though

[Faust]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

30 mins for EMS? Wow...

EMS response times have been steadily deteriorating over the last few years and this has been in the news frequently over the last few weeks:

https://globalnews.ca/news/8820808/a...tial-collapse/

https://globalnews.ca/news/8828022/a...rvices-crisis/

https://globalnews.ca/news/8869029/a...ems-positions/


I have a family member that works as a paramedic here in Calgary. It’s a highly stressful and difficult job with high rates of PTSD and burnout. The UCP have been pushing for wages to either be rolled back or frozen for this profession, so we are educating these people only to see them turnover to other careers typically after only 5 to 8 years on average.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

This reads as if the solution isn't perfect, don't even try. Banning pitbulls would result in fewer fatal dog attacks, I don't see how anyone can argue that. Sure the Oakley bros might move to the next breed of the week, but re-evaluate when and if that becomes a problem. Banning the most dangerous breed is as good of a start as there is though

No, it's "don't do something that doesn't make sense just for the sake of doing something."

Any large breed dog that is unhealthy, not properly trained, cared for, or supervised can do the same. Whereas as healthy, well-trained and supervised pitbull can be very safe.

[Acey]

Interesting take by AHS to essentially say "she would have died anyway" in reference to their response time.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

No, it's "don't do something that doesn't make sense just for the sake of doing something."

Any large breed dog that is unhealthy, not properly trained, cared for, or supervised can do the same. Whereas as healthy, well-trained and supervised pitbull can be very safe.

So the answer is ban large dogs or as a society we accept people occasionally die.

There isn’t a only responsible owners will own large dogs option.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

No, it's "don't do something that doesn't make sense just for the sake of doing something."

Any large breed dog that is unhealthy, not properly trained, cared for, or supervised can do the same. Whereas as healthy, well-trained and supervised pitbull can be very safe.

No it won't.
You made that up and there's absolutely zero evidence or data to back it up.
Its akin to saying if there was no great white sharks, other sharks would attack in equal amounts. It's made up nonsense.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

No it won't.
You made that up and there's absolutely zero evidence or data to back it up.
Its akin to saying if there was no great white sharks, other sharks would attack in equal amounts. It's made up nonsense.

It probably is akin to saying that as other sharks would move into the great whites spot in the food chain and likely attack humans just as much. Replacing the great whites with Tiger Sharks isn’t helping.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by GGG

Just Shepard, Rotti, or whatever breed #######s decide to get next.

Really dogs and guns are the same debate. Occasionally someone in society dies because we want to own guns and dogs. Its a natural consequence of having dogs that can kill people.

You can put all the rules in place, breed bans, licencing or training requirements. In the end unless you ban all dogs over x weight this will be a regular occurrence.

I’d really like to see criminal negligence causing death charges as these incidents are a natural and foreseeable consequence of owning a large dog and not taking proper precautions. This is no different than a drunk driver.

Guns and dogs are a pretty poor comparison. Dogs kill 1-2 people a year in Canada from a quick google.

[Jason14h]

https://www.knrlegal.com/dog-breeds-...y-bite-humans/

When one breed causes 65% of deaths considerations have to be made

This to me is very similar to the assault rifle argument. Sure you can have one and be safe - and the vast majority will never kill someone - but one type is overwhelming more dangerous then other breeds /types of weapons

Saying people will switch to Rottis is a kin to saying they will switch to a lesser weapon. While factually true , less damage will be done

Where I will debate is whether responsible owners should be allowed both - I argue yes - BUT can you really enforce being a responsible owner ? That I am not sure of , which means the only realistic option is a ban

And I like big guns and Pitbulls