The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

How do you classify a dangerous breed then? Are we going to go off number of bites?

Why would we go off number of bites? Do you see a pit bull and a teething lapdog puppy as equally dangerous?

[undercoverbrother]

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

The answer is obvious ban all dogs.



#inDESSwetrust

[81MC]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

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?

I don’t think having a special interest group dictate public safety policy is a good thing. How AARCS and Humane Society and the hundred other animal loving groups feel about things should be of very little consequence when it comes to policy decisions. They all do great work no doubt, but obviously have a view that leans pretty hard in one direction.
Honest question, because I haven’t seen the stats (other than the odd news article reference). Has any pit bull ever been adopted from a ‘rescue’ agency, commites a violent act, and been pre-identified as being violent? It seems to me the stories are always ‘never had issues’ or ‘otherwise a gentle loving dog’ yada yada yada. If the groups and people in positions to identify aggressive dogs are unable, how can a family who sees a cute face and puppy dog eyes be expected to?
The day I meet someone who can accurately predict their dog will bite, I’ll maybe give some credence to the idea that breed specific bans aren’t good. Until then, it’s Russian roulette.

And again, most of these owners do a huge injustice to their dogs in the first place. These aren’t breeds designed to sit in a yard all day. You better be running that dog well last the point you think is enough. When your dog is pulling you along a walk, that’s a pretty solid indication it has a hell of a lot more energy than you are allowing it to express.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The answer is obvious ban all dogs.

I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

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.

The stats do not track the severity of the bites though, they track times where someone who has been bitten by a dog has sought treatment from a doctor. What Toronto has shown is that banning breeds classed as pit bulls results in fewer bites by those breeds.

If the goal is to reduce the cases of serious injury and death, we need stats that show both those things before we can figure out what the solution is. Right now, we have incomplete data. Maybe emulating the approach that Calgary has taken is a good stop gap until reliable data is available.

If we are going to diminish input on policy making by groups such as humane societies and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association , then we should have the best data possible to base decisions on. It would seem that most people would want evidence based policies to be enacted, but not having complete evidence defeats that.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The stats do not track the severity of the bites though, they track times where someone who has been bitten by a dog has sought treatment from a doctor. What Toronto has shown is that banning breeds classed as pit bulls results in fewer bites by those breeds.

If the goal is to reduce the cases of serious injury and death, we need stats that show both those things before we can figure out what the solution is. Right now, we have incomplete data. Maybe emulating the approach that Calgary has taken is a good stop gap until reliable data is available.

If we are going to diminish input on policy making by groups such as humane societies and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association , then we should have the best data possible to base decisions on. It would seem that most people would want evidence based policies to be enacted, but not having complete evidence defeats that.

Gonna go out on a limb here, but I’m guessing that if you need medical treatment from a doctor for a dog bite it’s probably somewhat serious.

[OMG!WTF!]

Teaching kids how to properly treat dogs would result in the biggest reduction in dog bites. I think there should be a category for "they had it coming" bites.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Teaching kids how to properly treat dogs would result in the biggest reduction in dog bites. I think there should be a category for "they had it coming" bites.

A 3-year-old under any circumstance would never deserve being severely and perhaps fatally attacked by a vicious dog. The blame has to be on the parents and owners, often too stupid to realise how vicious their dog is.

[pepper24]

I think with any breed you need to be careful around kids. We had a pit bull for years with no issues. We never put her in a position to bite. It's unfair to the dog and humans to put them in an uncompromising situation. Kids played with her all the time but knew the rules and we supervised. Never any issues. The most well behaved dog I've ever had but we also took really good care of her knowing the breed.

To contrast our neighbour had to put down her lab cross recently due to biting a neighborhood kid. It was lawsuit or dog. The owners didn't take care of her and the dog had to pay the price. Really upsetting to me.

It's all about the owner not the breed.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by pepper24

I think with any breed you need to be careful around kids. We had a pit bull for years with no issues. We never put her in a position to bite. It's unfair to the dog and humans to put them in an uncompromising situation. Kids played with her all the time but knew the rules and we supervised. Never any issues. The most well behaved dog I've ever had but we also took really good care of her knowing the breed.

To contrast our neighbour had to put down her lab cross recently due to biting a neighborhood kid. It was lawsuit or dog. The owners didn't take care of her and the dog had to pay the price. Really upsetting to me.

It's all about the owner not the breed.

Ok but
1. Do we agree that you are never going to be able to figure out how to ensure that all owners are responsible?
2. How hurt was the kid? Horrible to be sure but was it a serious injury?

If not then it isn't the type of thing we are trying to eliminate here.

[wretched34]

"Pitbulls" are the current 'designer' breed.
They are being over bred in the states (and Canada) for profit, at a ridiculous rate, resulting in thousands, and thousands of abandoned puppies, and puppy mills pawning dogs off on people who have no idea how to raise a well adjusted power breed. On top of this, we then have "Rescues" shipping dogs into Canada from the States because god forbid these street dogs, and dogs that couldn't be cared for, be euthanized.

I am a dog person, and love Bully breeds, but will say, that the stupidest thing happening is these rescues pumping dogs who have gone through abuse, and trauma, into homes with people who have no idea what they're doing, all for profit. They aren't helping the breeds reputation at all, in fact, they do more harm than good.
"Pitbulls" are not for everyone. If you want to save a dog for the sake of a bleeding heart, save a chihuahua, lots of them in shelters too.
"Pitbulls" that have spent time homeless, and in shelters more often than not, require tonnes of rehabilitation, and training, and very experienced owners.

I'm not saying that all these dogs being rescued are bad dogs, simply that the rescues are not doing their due diligence in finding proper homes for these animals, or providing the proper training prior to re-homing. Often time the people adopting are first time dog owners, and don't take the time, or spend the money required to help a dog re-adjust to a normal life.

After the whole Michael Vick ordeal, all the "Pitbull" lovers point to the rescued dogs who were re-homed and led happy lives. What a lot of them fail to realize is how extensive the rehabilitation process was for those dogs. It wasn't simply out of a bad yard and into a good yard. It took years for some of those dogs to move on to happy homes, and some never did.

Rescues should be held responsible for proper training, and should be liable for issues within the first year of re-homing a dog. Maybe that would help deter them from "Rescuing" dogs for profit.

[Amethyst]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Gonna go out on a limb here, but I’m guessing that if you need medical treatment from a doctor for a dog bite it’s probably somewhat serious.

Not necessarily. I got a minor bite but it got infected, so I had to go to the doctor and then urgent care when the antibiotics didn't seem to be working.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by wretched34

"Pitbulls" are the current 'designer' breed.

Why? What's the appeal, besides 'my dog could rip someone's arm off so don't #### with me'?

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

Not necessarily. I got a minor bite but it got infected, so I had to go to the doctor and then urgent care when the antibiotics didn't seem to be working.

I would say that’s the exception to the rule.

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Why? What's the appeal, besides 'my dog could rip someone's arm off so don't #### with me'?

Honestly, I dont know.
Accessibility and cost play a big role.
I think the "my dog could RIP your arm off" owners are the minority. Most want to be advocates for the breed, and talk about how they saved a life while enjoying a vegan meal. Sadly, neither of these groups tend to know anything of any use when it comes to the breeds, and want them to be aggressive, or just expect them to be affectionate and cuddly, because they are very capable of both.

[nik-]

I think they're awesome looking dogs. I would never own one.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

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.

Not true . Ban all dogs... #### em. Back in the day when we relied on dogs for hunting and security of a tribe it made sense. There is literally no good reason for dogs to exist in todays society unless your a cop or service dog.


I use to be 100% pro dog untill I got attacked a few times 3 x by german shepherds and 1 time by a lasa apso. One of the times a German shepherd that was a rescue jumped his fence and took a good chunk out of my arm .
The lasa apso I must of walked past 30 times untill the one time he was with a dog walker and I was walking past it and it grabbed my Achilles tendon and severed it.


#### dogs now I trust non of those little ####ers.

[OMG!WTF!]

There are dozens of reasons, specific uses and benefits of dog ownership. Sorry a Llasa snapped your Achilles and I get why you have your opinion. But you're not right about dogs having no purpose nor in a world full of nail guns, hammers, cars, planes and jet ski's is your logic correct.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think they're awesome looking dogs. I would never own one.

I call them anus dogs. It's all you see when you see a pitbull.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Why? What's the appeal, besides 'my dog could rip someone's arm off so don't #### with me'?

Like all dogs, they have certain characteristics that some people really like. They are generally healthy, hardy, low maintenance, loyal, obedient and, in my opinion, nice looking.

All dogs have been bred to have certain characteristics and as a result they fit some peoples lifestyles better than others. Border Collies, for instance, aren't for everyone. They are very intelligent, need a lot of tasks and get bored easily. People that don't work them regularly and/or give them lots of exercise risk having a dog that is bored and will likely misbehave. For a Border Collie misbehaving may be eating a couch and they're unlikely to be aggressive.

The Bull breeds, if not trained properly and given the proper environment, can also misbehave. Unfortunately, the consequences for this breed are much more serious. Too many people get dogs to be fashion accessories. For some they end up being spoiled little 2 pound monsters in a purse. For others they end up being another layer of machismo. Having a dog should provide everything the dog needs (based on breed and personality) while also giving the owner what they need (affection, exercise, whatever).

I have a rescue that is part Pit Bull. She is the best dog I've ever had. She loves people and kids and is submissive to everyone. I can't imagine not having her in my life because of a Pit Bull ban. But the truth is the negative consequences of bad Pit Bull behavior can be devastating. The purse dog is much more likely to bit someone but usually it gets laughed off.

Perhaps instead of banning Pit Bulls we should treat them like we treat guns and enforce mandatory special training and special licencing to keep the owner of the dog responsible and accountable.