The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[chemgear]

Good.

http://calgarysun.com/news/crime/que...c-3e53c36cf035

A Quebec man whose pit bull-type dog mauled a young girl in 2015 has been sentenced to four years in prison.

Jean Gilles was found guilty of criminal negligence causing bodily harm after the attack left the seven-year-old girl with severe damage to her face and cranium.

Crown attorney Claudie Gilbert had said Jean Gilles should be given a three-year prison term because of the extent of the girl’s injuries, his prior criminal record and the fact he seemed to have no remorse or empathy.

The conviction carried a maximum 10-year prison term.

[monkeyman]

Tragic.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ured-1.4825775

[Ryan Coke]

I watched an interesting fifth estate episode on pit bulls and breed bans last night.

Im very sceptical of these types of shows due to the tendency to drive a pre planned agenda, but there was some interesting data mentioned.

In Toronto, the last year prior to the breed ban, there were well over 100 dog attacks recorded (I don’t remember the precise number). Last year there were 15.

In the US there was a large study done, and over half of all serious dog bites were from pit bulls. They didn’t mention what the percentage of the dog population pit bulls are, but I think it is safe to assume it is far less than 50%.

The debate and lobbying around this issue reminds me a lot of the gun debate in the states. Blame the less than flattering statistical data on ‘bad owners’, meanwhile people continue to get injured or killed, because of course you can never eliminate imperfect human pet owners. Nevermind the ones that feel they did everything right and still had an unexpected attack.

Having said that, I wouldn’t want an emotional response to the issue, I want a factual data driven response. But I am definitely starting to believe that the risks are too substantial to continue hoping that responsible pet ownership is all that’s needed, or is even achievable.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

Tragic.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ured-1.4825775

Yesterday I read how this family said it is completely out of character for this dog and they were surprised that it would attack like that. The neighbours in the area characterized the dog as "aggressive". It is this type of cognitive dissonance from pit bull owners that contributes to mauling and deaths. Be honest with yourselves. You own a breed of dog that is prone to "snapping" and attacking your fellow neighbours. Take more and better precautions.

[CliffFletcher]

I know most pitbulls have responsible owners and are fine around kids and other dogs. But the fact is the consequences of bad pitbull owners - or even a pitbull just going off its head - are catastrophic compared to the consequences with a golden retriever or labrador. I'd support a breed ban in Calgary.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Yesterday I read how this family said it is completely out of character for this dog and they were surprised that it would attack like that. The neighbours in the area characterized the dog as "aggressive". It is this type of cognitive dissonance from pit bull owners that contributes to mauling and deaths. Be honest with yourselves. You own a breed of dog that is prone to "snapping" and attacking your fellow neighbours. Take more and better precautions.

I think being lackadaisical about the risks a pit bull poses is a defining characteristic of pit bull owners. There's a car wash in Calgary where the lady who runs it just lets her pit bull wander around the bays off leash. It's nucking futs.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

I watched an interesting fifth estate episode on pit bulls and breed bans last night.

Im very sceptical of these types of shows due to the tendency to drive a pre planned agenda, but there was some interesting data mentioned.

In Toronto, the last year prior to the breed ban, there were well over 100 dog attacks recorded (I don’t remember the precise number). Last year there were 15.

In the US there was a large study done, and over half of all serious dog bites were from pit bulls. They didn’t mention what the percentage of the dog population pit bulls are, but I think it is safe to assume it is far less than 50%.

The debate and lobbying around this issue reminds me a lot of the gun debate in the states. Blame the less than flattering statistical data on ‘bad owners’, meanwhile people continue to get injured or killed, because of course you can never eliminate imperfect human pet owners. Nevermind the ones that feel they did everything right and still had an unexpected attack.

Having said that, I wouldn’t want an emotional response to the issue, I want a factual data driven response. But I am definitely starting to believe that the risks are too substantial to continue hoping that responsible pet ownership is all that’s needed, or is even achievable.

The number is 112 recorded bites by the four breeds that are grouped into the "pit bull" category, reduced to 19 in 2014. So the law succeeded in that respect. Even in 2004, pit bulls were not the top biter and if broken out by breed (like all the other top 10 are, would be even lower on the list).

But at the same time, dog bites in Toronto have actually increased since the ban. Which is probably why the Toronto Humane Society says that instead of a breed ban, a model like Calgary's would be better (we have seen a decrease in the number of bites with no breed specific laws).

Why do you feel that these 4 breeds are the ones that need focusing on? Since they were off the top ten list in the last few years, do you feel we should be looking at breed specific laws surrounding the breeds currently on that list?

How does everyone feel about the humane societies and the AMVA/CMVA saying that breed specific laws are not the answer? These are probably the more knowledgeable people on the matter, should we not be looking at their input in the matter?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Number of bites isn't the right metric as the damage a bite can do depends greatly on the dog doing the biting.
So that's part of the problem. We are looking at bad metrics.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Number of bites isn't the right metric as the damage a bite can do depends greatly on the dog doing the biting.
So that's part of the problem. We are looking at bad metrics.

Yes. And many bites go unreported because they're not super serious or the people don't want to get the dog in trouble. Definitely all bites are not the same.



If your goal is to decrease serious bites by pit bulls then banning pit bulls does have the desired effect.

[Jiri Hrdina]

A goal that is to decrease serious bites overall feels right to me.
The key is how do you define "serious"? Requiring medical attention?
Something like that...

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Number of bites isn't the right metric as the damage a bite can do depends greatly on the dog doing the biting.
So that's part of the problem. We are looking at bad metrics.

Bang on. There needs to be a correlation between the bite and injury caused. There are bad dog owners who own chihauahas or French bulldogs that have allowed those dogs to be snappy. The difference is generally those bites won’t cause serious injury or death.

And to the poster comparing it to the gun issue in the states, I agree with you there as well. Sure some people want to own an AR-15, but WHY do you need to? In my experience the motives for people wanting to own things like this are suspect.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Yes. And many bites go unreported because they're not super serious or the people don't want to get the dog in trouble. Definitely all bites are not the same.



If your goal is to decrease serious bites by pit bulls then banning pit bulls does have the desired effect.

Agree with the first point, which supports what Jiri said. It’s dog bites which cause serious injury that are the issue.

....Actually, I just misread the second sentence.

[OMG!WTF!]

I might start with causing death (not being snippy here). But that's a big deal. Chihuahua's aren't going to kill anyone. I would then take a serious look at what expert dog behaviorists have to say about the difference between attacks and bites.

Agree with the first point, which supports what Jiri said. It’s dog bites which cause serious injury that are the issue.

Can you expand on your second point, on its face it is illogical

I think serious attacks causing death are likely the domain of a few breeds in particular. I'm sure a golden retriever somewhere sometimem has killed a person. But I think the majority of fatal attacks are done by a few breeds. Wouldn't banning those breeds, or even the breed most likely to kill people, result in fewer deaths by dog attack?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

If your goal is to decrease serious bites by pit bulls then banning pit bulls does have the desired effect.

Should the goal not be the reduction of serious dog bites overall? A very narrowly focused ban is the easy route, you can get a bunch of people on board because it won't affect them and it's great for optics. Toronto managed to cut bites by pit bulls; great, so the ban mostly worked. Now, what it Toronto's plan to deal with the overall increase in bites? Is there evidence that if they had taken a different approach, that same decrease would not have happened? The ban did result in scores of needless euthanizations though.

Somehow in Calgary, we saw an overall reduction with no breed ban.

The other issue is that the data is generated when treatment is sought, there doesn't seem to be a distinction made, or a definition for, a serious bite. So right off the bat, the stats are flawed.

[PepsiFree]

If a narrow ban is the easy route, why not take it? In fact, take it multiple times until dangerous breeds are all gone

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Should the goal not be the reduction of serious dog bites overall? A very narrowly focused ban is the easy route, you can get a bunch of people on board because it won't affect them and it's great for optics. Toronto managed to cut bites by pit bulls; great, so the ban mostly worked. Now, what it Toronto's plan to deal with the overall increase in bites? Is there evidence that if they had taken a different approach, that same decrease would not have happened? The ban did result in scores of needless euthanizations though.

Somehow in Calgary, we saw an overall reduction with no breed ban.

The other issue is that the data is generated when treatment is sought, there doesn't seem to be a distinction made, or a definition for, a serious bite. So right off the bat, the stats are flawed.

I don't know if it resulted in needless euthanizations. I know there was no mandate to put your dog down.



In general, I don't care if a dog bites someone. I do care about full on attacks. Goldens have the third highest number of bites by breed in some metrics. But who cares? They're not going to lose their minds and kill you. Most dogs bite and release. The ones that don't result in serious injury and those are a few specific breeds.



I think the reasoning for not having a breed banning law is that it punishes good owners, it's hard to enforce and it doesn't prevent all dog bites. Kind of sounds like the gun law argument in the States.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If a narrow ban is the easy route, why not take it? In fact, take it multiple times until dangerous breeds are all gone

How do you classify a dangerous breed then? Are we going to go off number of bites? Are we only going to outlaw dogs that have a greater than 50% DNA contribution from one of these breeds or is even having a small amount enough to warrant inclusion?

Because I think you'll run into a little bit more resistance when you start in on German Shepards, Labrador Retrivers and Rottweilers. Then in a few years when they drop off in bite occurrences, we can start going after the next batch that has moved up the list.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

How do you classify a dangerous breed then? Are we going to go off number of bites? Are we only going to outlaw dogs that have a greater than 50% DNA contribution from one of these breeds or is even having a small amount enough to warrant inclusion?

Because I think you'll run into a little bit more resistance when you start in on German Shepards, Labrador Retrivers and Rottweilers. Then in a few years when they drop off in bite occurrences, we can start going after the next batch that has moved up the list.

I think you’re getting “scope creep” here. The spirit and intent of these bans are to reduce bites that cause serious injury and death, not all bites. Obviously, zero dog bites would be ideal but it’s not an achievable goal. Now, it would appear with Toronto that they have evidence to correlate the banning of pitbulls to fewer serious bites. That would indicate banning pit bulls is a reasonable proposal in the name of public safety.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

How do you classify a dangerous breed then? Are we going to go off number of bites? Are we only going to outlaw dogs that have a greater than 50% DNA contribution from one of these breeds or is even having a small amount enough to warrant inclusion?

Because I think you'll run into a little bit more resistance when you start in on German Shepards, Labrador Retrivers and Rottweilers. Then in a few years when they drop off in bite occurrences, we can start going after the next batch that has moved up the list.

I'm not going to research this very much but generally it's pit bulls that cause the most fatalities.






At 71% it's pretty clearly a pit bull problem. I would also happily rely on animal behaviorist research indicating some breeds are more prone to aggressive attacks than others.

[V]

Sounds like it’s not a good idea because it’s hard and not the perfect solution. Too bad. Perfection doesn’t have to get in the way of progress.