What.. the.... f.....


Mother of mauling victim feared family dog
Shut boy in basement while she ran errands
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/12/fataldog.mauling.ap/index.html

Monday, June 13, 2005 Posted: 2:43 AM EDT (0643 GMT)

Maureen Faibish said she ordered Nicholas to stay in the basement while she did errands on June 3, the day he was attacked by one or both of the dogs.

She said she was worried about the male dog, Rex, who was acting possessive because the female, Ella, was in heat.

"I put him down there, with a shovel on the door," Faibish said in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. "And I told him: 'Stay down there until I come back.' Typical Nicky, he wouldn't listen to me."

Nicholas apparently found a way to open the basement door.

Despite her concerns about Rex that day, Faibish told the newspaper: "My kids got along great with (the dogs). We were never seeing any kind of violent tendencies."

Faibish found her son's body in a bedroom. He was covered in blood from several wounds, including a major head injury.

No charges have been filed.

"It's Nicky's time to go," she said in the interview. "When you're born you're destined to go and this was his time."

Ella was shot to death by a police officer the day of the attack.

Rex was taken to a shelter, but Faibish said she wanted him put down.

OMG... someone please tie that woman's tubes.

Hmm, were the dogs pit bulls?

I thought she'd locked the dog in the basement. Then I read it again...

They're not filing charges?

Yeah, they were pits, guice. There's a picture on that link.
<img src="http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/US/06/12/fataldog.mauling.ap/story.vert.mauling.2.ap.jpg">

That is just sickening. For a mother to make the decisions she made knowing there was a problem and then to have the attitude that she did about it. I mean your child is dead in your home from a pet you knew couldn't be trusted and you say "It was his time to go, he never would listen and do as he was told." That is just so far beyond my understanding. If there are any other children in that family I hope they have been removed and placed in a safe environment.

I read this followup story this morning, too. Sometimes I DO believe that IQ tests should be mandatory for prospective parents. By her reasoning I wonder why she even bothered to lock him in the basement.

But, its not her fault.

Her junk DNA told her to do it.

Yeah, they were pits, guice.
Figured as much. Every pit bull story I've read was the same thing; they showed nothing but love and care. But the moment I turned my head, they killed my kid! Same story, same breed of dogs. And people wonder why Denver, CO has officialy banned Pit Bulls within city limits.


Yeah, I did read about the fact she locked her kid in the basement. That's pretty insane. Didn't give a reason why she didn't lock the dogs down there. Really odd. And even used a shovel? You're telling me that she actually jerry-rigged the door with a shovel? What the hell where the dogs gonna do? Use their paws and open the door?!

A 12 year old kid would have been old enough to understand "stay away from the dogs" instead of locking him in the basement.

Now that I think about it more, I can now understand her reasoning. It's extremely obvious she was an abusive mother (yeah, duh factor there) and felt her child was more of a hinderance than an actual child of hers. Of course he didn't listen cause he resented her! No kid will listen to a parent they hated! I bet the dogs attacked him cause they sensed his anger towards his mother. I mean, when he finally got out of the basement, you'd bet that boy would have been pissed. And w/out her around to protect the child/stop the dogs, they went to town...

Its in the Pit Bulls junk DNA. :D

HAHA, its ok to stereotype dog breeds. Its not ok to stereotype humans.

The local story here is that a family had reported to security police that their dog tried (as in attempted) to bite their kid. So they put down the dog. I don't know the breed. I do know sometimes kids to stupid things around animals. It is entirely possible the kid was pestering the dog.

One of my mother's dogs was kept on a chain (as per the laws) in our backyard. A kid came over after school each day and threw rocks at it. Of course, the dog tried to get back at the kid. One day, he got too close.

The kid's dad came over and threatened to run over her dog with his bulldozer because it was so unruly.

I don't excuse the mother's behavior, but I also see a lot of idiocy toward pet treatement and the pet suffers for it without any compunction from seemingly everybody else in the world.

No, sorry. I don't buy that. Pit Bulls just go ape **** for no good reason. I keep seeing it and hearing the mother's and father's sobbing on TV saying, "Our dog was so good and gentle we can't understand why he mauled the little boy running through our yard to get his ball".

Frankly, I think they see a small, strange human and their instinct to kill prey gets triggered.

I have known plenty of non-aggressive pit bulls. I have also seen plenty of people who want to have the stereotypical "mean dog" and treat their dogs in such ways as to encourage or train those behaviors into them. In the '70s it was done with German Shepherds and Dobermans. Now it's pit bulls. Some movie will come out with, say, Mastiffs, in it soon, and then Mastiffs will become the next "mean" dog breed.

There can be mean dogs of any breed. My parents own a dog whose breed is supposed to be nothing but cuddles n love, but one of theirs is a bit on the spooky side...doesn't like children, doesn't think too much of adults either. They are very careful with their dog and would NEVER leave a child alone in the house with that dog.

If the dog has already attacked someone, and the attack was unprovoked, the dog needs to be taken care of. If the dog is suspicious, it is the owner's responsibility to take care of the dog in such a way as to make the dog a non-threat, not to lock their children in the basement.

Do kids torment dogs? Yes they do. Does this dog already have a reputation for being aggressive? Yes he did. I doubt very seriously that it was the kids fault.

I don't think its a case of training pit bulls to be mean, they're just genetically coded to do what they do. That's why all these pit bull owners come on TV and sob, we were so good to the dog, we raised him to be gentle and he was great around kids... until he ate one. Its nature over nuture.

Pit Bulls don't go "ape **** for no good reason" - they're pack animals just like all other dogs. When they believe that they are dominant over the humans they go to assert that domination. If you can't handle being "Alpha" of your "pack," then you should get a dog with less dominant tendencies, or take every step possible to reduce the aggressive nature of your dog - including spay/neutering, or getting a dog that you can control no matter what (and this doesn't necessarily mean a small dog - I've seen 15lb dogs that I'd consider more "vicious" than 120lb pit bulls).

No dog, no matter how well you think you have them trained, should ever be left alone with a small child. Dogs are much baser animals than humans and think nothing of "correcting" a child that's stepped over into what the dog considers their territory. While other dogs have enough sense (instinct) to roll over and show their neck/stomach, the human panic drive usually consists of a "run/hide/strike wildly" mentality which is the exact opposite of what you want to do if you're confronted by an aggressive dog.

A friend's dad raised show Rottweilers, gorgeous dogs - and the most tenderhearted pushovers you've ever seen. Giant 180lb dogs that tolerated a small 40lb infant drooling all over it, yanking its ears and tail with nothing more than a slight "wuff" and a sigh. However, every once and a while, the biggest Rotty would get into its head that it was strong enough to challenge the father for pack leadership, and the guy would literally have to wrestle the dog to the ground and smack it on the head with a 2x4 before the dog would submit. The dog would eventually tuck its tail and go limp showing submission, and when the guy let the dog up, friendliest dog in the world. This wasn't an "every day" thing, but it was normal and absolutely not a fault of the dog. In the wild, that particular rotty would have probably been the alpha of a pack - while his brother, another AKC best of breed winner, never showed any interest in leadership at all - he probably would have just been a pack member, or even an omega since he got bullied by his bigger brother all the time.

I think possibly raising a "mostly harmless" pit bull requires a lot of additional care and attention than most dogs. You have to overcome their built-in agressiveness. However, I think some people attracted to the pit bull are going because of its macho appeal as a dangerous animal. They aren't neutering them, they're encouraging its agressiveness, they aren't getting properly trained. I don't think most dog owners spend that sort of time and attention on their animals to ensure it doesn't revert to its genetic programming.

http://www.rosenblog.com/2005/05/24/pit_bull_attacks_raise_questions.html
Links to articles in this article.


RECENT FATAL ATTACKS BY PIT BULLS

An 82-year-old Spotsylvania, Virginia woman was mauled to death by her neighbor's three loose pit bulls.

A two-year-old Huntington, West Virginia girl was buried yesterday, killed in a mauling by a neighbor's pit bull that was supposed to have been quarantined eight days earlier. The animal's owner shares responsibility with the child's mother, who had been instructed not to let the young girl into the house (they had been visiting, on the porch). The owner said he orginally bought the dog to protect his wife while he lived in Texas and was sometimes away, serving in the military. I think he should have bought her a gun instead.

A St. Charles County, Missouri man who owned two pit bull mixes was killed in his home by one or both of them, due to crushing injuries to his neck from dog bites. Neighbors said he loved his dogs and had talked about how well-behaved they were.

ATTACKS BY PIT BULLS OF FAMILY AND FRIENDS

In another St. Charles County, Missouri incident, a man and his 13-year-old stepson were attacked viciously by a relative's pit bull in their home.

In Charlotte, North Carolina an eight-year-old girl waiting in a family friend's house to get her hair braided was attacked by a resident pit bull, and suffered an armpit puncture wound, a missing chunk from a calf, and a blood clot threatening a main leg artery.

A 23-month-old Portland, Oregon boy was in critical condition after being attacked by tethered pit bull owned by his family, in his own back yard, with an adult present.

In Albuquerque, a two-year-old girl was mauled by her family's three pit bulls, and was in critical condition with multiple bites and massive upper torso trauma.

A six-year-old Florida girl underwent surgery to have her left eyelid re-attached after it was bitten off by the pit bull of a family friend on a Mother's Day outing. She had approached the dog carefully, to pet it, when it snapped. The dog's distraught owner said it had never shown aggressive behavior before, and would be destroyed.

A Tennesee grandmother was shocked after her previously well-behaved pit bull mauled two of her grandchildren.

ASSORTED OTHER ATTACKS

A two-year-old San Marcos, California girl suffered puncture wounds to her head and forehead in a pit bull attack after the dog came out of a house her parents had come to in order to test drive a used car for sale.

In Toledo, Ohio, a loose pit bull bit off part of the lip of a 10-year-old boy who had been walking down an alley.

A 10-year old boy with cerebral palsy, from Old Bridge, New Jersey suffered bites on the head, arm, underarm, and hand from a neighbor's pit bull, and subsequent emotional trauma. The owner said the dog had never caused problems before. The pit bull was driven off by the child's older brother, with a plastic toy sword.

A Jacksonville, Florida man's nose was bitten off by a pit bull.

A 79-year-old Grand Mound, Washington woman was hospitalized after being attacked, unprovoked, while walking on a city street, and bitten by a pit bull and a pit bull-Rottweiler mix.

A 79-year-old Winfield, Kansas woman was hospitalized with a severe dog bite after attempting to feed a pit bull that had been chained and left without water or food. Yes, she probably just should have called animal control. But the dog's treatment speaks to an ongoing problem: there is a sizeable sub-group of pit bull owners - callous and irresponsible - who either like their pits hungry, mean and mad, or who tire of caring for them.

Two Indianapolis pit bulls were impounded after attacking an air conditioning repairman in a neighbor's yard.

A pregnant woman in Houston, Texas, and her dog were attacked by pit bull that had broken free of its chains. A neighbor chased it off with a baseball bat, another neighbor says he had regularly used a golf club to scare away aggressive pit bulls.

A 74-year-old Beaverton, Oregon man got bites on his hands and arms when he walked out of his house and a pit bull leaped out from behind some shrubs to attack him.

A pair of loose pit bulls in New Orleans bit four people before being caught.

A three-year-old Chicago girl had to have an ear re-attached after a pit bull attack.

There were "deep, significant injuries to leg and groin area" for a four-year-old in Danville, Virginia attacked by a pit bull.

In Columbus, Ohio, a seven-month-old baby was hospitalized after being attacked by a pit bull in a house.

A 12-year-old Toldeo boy required 80 stitches after being bitten by the pit bull of a 15-year-old, who, angered at being teased by the younger boy and some friends, sicced his dog on them.

PIT BULLS AND POLICE

It is popular now for pit bull owners to sometimes claim excessive force or over-reaction when police feel forced to shoot attacking pit bulls. This is disingenuous. It is incumbent upon owners, to begin with, to ensure that their pit bulls do not escape, violently charge, or otherwise exhibit aggressive behavior toward police or other individuals.

In Melbourne, Florida, a stray pit bull with no tags jumped inside a police car and attacked a police dog. A stun gun failed to subdue the pit bull, who was then shot dead by police.

In Warren, Ohio, a home alarm went off; police and a police dog came; and a neighbor's three pit bulls came out to investigate. The neighbor's pit bulls attacked the police officer and police dog, with one of the neighbor's pit bulls locking its jaws onto the police dog. That attacking pit bull and another of the neighbor's pit bulls were killed by police in response.

In Lancaster County, Nebraska, a deputy responding to a domestic call was attacked by a pit bull that exited a nearby vehicle. The pit bull latched onto the deputy's shooting arm; the deputy passed out and was hospitalized with puncture wounds.

Rampaging pit bulls were shot by police in Danville, Virginia.

In Petersberg, Virginia, a loose pit bull roaming a city block chased people, bit a man twice, trapped another, bit off a broom handle proffered in defense, then attacked a police officer and was killed.

A sherrif's deputy in Savannah, Georgia serving a subpeona was charged by a pit bull, and killed it.

Police officers in Tacoma, Washington responding to a call were met by a charging pit bull, which one of them shot dead.

SOME RECENT PIT BULL ATTACKS ON ANIMALS

In Auberry, California two loose pit bulls killed nine sheep.

In Toldeo, two pit bulls were impounded after killing a Yorkshire terrier and a cat, and attacking a repairman.

A pit bull leaped from a parked car in a San Francisco transit station parking lot, into another car, to attack a service dog in-training, causing severe injuries to the service dog's face.

A Texas woman's Shih Tzu-Chihuahua mix was killed by a neighbor's pit bull.

A miniature horse in a barn near Eugene, Oregon was attacked and seriously injured by two stray pit bulls, before they were driven off with a rake.

SOME RECENT RESCUES

A Bayview, New Jersey teen was hailed as a hero, after saving three younger kids from a pit bull attack, although one child had a toe bitten off.

An 11-year-old Bartlesville, Oklahoma boy turned himself into human shield to protect his two younger siblings from a pit bull attack. He required surgery to re-attach muscles to his calf.

BREEDING AND FIGHTING OPERATIONS

In Albany, Georgia police busted up an illegal pit bull fight, and confiscated two dogs as the crowd quickly scattered.

Six pit bulls were stolen from an animal shelter in Rockford, Illinois less than 24 hours after they'd been siezed in a raid by federal authorities on what's described as a large-scale, illegal pit bull breeding and fighting operation.

Pit bulls were siezed in a suspected fighting ring in Wilkes County, North Carolina.

Authorities siezed 19 pit bulls from the house of a Durham, North Carolina drug convict. A number of the adult dogs and puppies showed recent facial scars, a sign of having been used in fights.

A Vancouver, Washington man was charged with 16 counts of animal fighting after 16 pit bulls were found on his property, with training equipment for fighting pit bulls, and rabbits police believe were also used in the training.

Nine pit bulls were impounded in Toldeo in connection with an illegal breeding and fighting operation.

A Virginia man was sentenced to three years for selling mail order videos of pit bull fights.

FURTHER DISCUSSION

Clearly, there is a serious problem here, and all the exhortations regarding responsible pit bull breeding and ownership aren't enough. One contributor to a newspaper reader comment forum appended to this above-linked Texas article asserts:

The term "responsible pit bull owner" is fast becoming an oxymoron....The breed is being ruined by the nuts out there who call themselves breeders, who aren't breeding for good, stable temperments. Anyone who has ever flipped through any of the major dog magazines, like Dog Fancy, cannot with a straight face claim that pit bulls are being bred as loving family pets. I have never met a group of dog owners who know less about their breed, or dogs in general, than pit bull owners. They insist that "it's all how you raise them" and completely ignore the genetic component of dog behavior.

Human affection won't make my bird dog ignore birds; and love and kisses won't make a fighting breed safe to be around other animals....only years and years of constant training and socialization will temper that genetic drive. Animal aggresion in pits is real, and very dangerous, as many people have been mauled trying to save their pet from a neighbor's pit who "just got loose once". Its called re-directed aggression, and it happens.

And the pit who attacks other small animals who has not been socialized with small children may mistake a toddler for an animal...it's called prey drive....the news is full of such accounts.

...When you combine the pit's massive jaw strength, and genetic trait known as "gameness"...the ability to hang on and keep attacking and not back down, that prized trait of fighting dogs.....unless this animal is very carefully bred for temperment you have a very dangerous dog.

No doubt a pit bull carefully bred by a responsible breeder for a non-aggressive temperment, owned by a responsible owner who spends lots of time training and socializing the dog, can make a wonderful pet. Even so, responsible owners of fighting breeds know that they cannot take their animals to dog parks or let them off leash in public EVER.

They don't set their dogs up to fail. The problem with pit bulls is the owners, and you will never solve the problem of forcing the types of people who are attracted to this breed to do the right thing. That's why people want them banned.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/09/15/deadly.dogs.ap/
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/02/25/dog.bite/

And a follow up to the weirdo mom original story:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=823394&page=1

And a whole website devoted to the subject:
http://www.fataldogattacks.com/

"Legislation should be more focused on the owner and the owner's responsibility for the dog's behavior," Mann said. "In the end, it's the owner's fault."
This I agree to. Make the owners responsiable for their dog's reactions and maybe things will quiet down. /shrug

"Breed-specific laws fail because they do not take into consideration the reality that any dog, regardless of its physical characteristics, must be raised, trained and socialized properly to become a good pet and canine good citizen."
Just buy a cat and you're safe. ;)
No training, socializing, etc required. Cats could fataly kill somebody, if they attack correctly, but since when have your herd of a house hold cat killing somebody?

<img src="http://web2.airmail.net/naomi/temp/cat-sniper.jpg">

?

Yeah, but he's just sniping a rat or bird on the ground. ;p

OMG! So THAT's who really shot JFK!!!

I love that sniper kitty!

You know, some dogs are just going to be a lot harder to train and socialize. And when those dogs are gifted with jaws that can crush a truck... well, I don't think its worth it frankly.

And when those dogs are gifted with jaws that can crush a truck... well, I don't think its worth it frankly.
Pet gators. Already possible. ;)

But again, you require special licenses to own a gator privately.

Most all dogs have jaws that can crush bone - yeah, including those little rats, the chiahuahhuahwtfs. Owning any type of animal means that you're responsible for every facet of that animal's well being - that includes deciding when you're in over your head.

Personal story - my roommate and I went to the local private animal shelter to pick out a dog for her son. The dog she got was the ultimate "Little Boy's Dog" - a Lab-ish looking medium sized golden tan mutt - one that you could almost picture immediately in a Rockwell-esque setting. This dog was great, but just a little shy. He'd hide under the table and not get anywhere near strangers, even while the family members were around. Since the shelter didn't know the dog's background, we had no idea what might have happened to him when he was a newborn (we got him at the age of around 4mo). This dog was also what we termed "depressed" - he wouldn't come out to play, he would only walk grudgingly. He had a littermate with him at the shelter (a white, rather goofy looking dog with a severe underbite) - we went back to also adopt her (brother and sister). Once we got the sister, he perked up a little bit - they'd run ragged circles around each other, tearing up the backyard while they played. However, when outsiders came into the house, he'd immediately shutdown and go back into cower mode.

That seemed to be the extent of the behavior problems, he was severely shy around outsiders and that was it. That is, until he decided to bite the neighbor. It happened when the kids were out walking the dogs as normal - the neighbor didn't make a hostile move towards the dogs or even towards the kids - he was walking from his house to his car parked on the curb. This dog panicked, lunged and bit (hard), going through both suit pants and breaking the skin. Luckily the neighbors were very much animal people too, so they didn't report the incident. We spoke with the shelter and they gave us tips on what to do - suggested some major socializing - dog parks, muzzled walks, exposure to as many people and dogs as possible.

For the next month or so, he was getting more and more withdrawn when strangers would come by - however he was the perfect dog around the family (Schizoid dog). What's worse was that his antisocial behavior was starting to rub off on his sister (who was always shy, but not aggressive). Barking, growling, hiding whenever outsiders came into the household. Even when accompanied by and adult on walks, he would always shy away from friendly "offered" hands, and mentally shutdown.

The final straw came when he bit again - this time my roommate's brother. The dogs were hanging out on the porch with the kids and family, my roommate's brother was going up the stairs back into the house when the dog again freaked out and bit (this time he bit through denim and broke the skin - hard enough to bruise). Again we were lucky in the fact that it wasn't a complete stranger, but as much as we loved the dog and wanted to help him work through his socialization problems, we had to admit our lack of knowledge and experience. Unfortunately we had to take him back to the shelter and put him up for adoption.

The private animal shelter showed its true colors by adamantly refusing to take the dog back (the shelter was there to make a profit, after all, and there's no profit in a biting dog). We had to take the dog back to the county shelter, which as you can all guess, is a kill facility. The dog's behavior was explained and the shelter worker said point blank that in 99% of the cases of aggressive animals, if the animal therapist deems that there is no working with the dog, they are immediately put to sleep (try telling that one to an 10yr old). However since the dog was still pretty young, they would try their best.

Turns out that the therapist found that the dog could be put up for adoption with 1038402938 warnings to the adoptees (and if you've ever tried to adopt from a public shelter, they take adoption <b>very</b> seriously). The dog was adopted by a local man and woman who actually trained dogs for a living and loved the dog at first sight (again, this was a gorgeous dog). Last we heard, he's still extremely shy and mistrusting, but working through it. Unfortunately we don't know much more than that, because it's shelter policy to keep adoptive information private - but they could see we did care about the dog and wouldn't be giving him up if we didn't think it was for the best. They still have our information on record just in case the other family decides they cannot work with him (this is a year later).

Yeah, I know it's a long story, but the moral being that there are sometimes when you've got to admit that you may not be the best caregiver for your pet and you've got to hand them over to professionals. Yes there was a large possibility that the dog was going to be put down immediately, but as cruel as it is, that's a better fate than ignoring his behavior and having him bite a small child sometime later down the road.

Most all dogs have jaws that can crush bone - yeah, including those little rats, the chiahuahhuahwtfs.

Heh! On a mouse... perhaps. They could definitely break the skin, but I seriously doubt they couldl crush the bones of most humans. Maybe if they had a week to gnaw on a finger bone of a pgymy. My cat is about the size of 3 chiahuawfts and couldn't crush bone, but dang, he could damage someone real badly if he wanted.

Chihuahua. Simpler to spell than you might think! ;)

AKA Chia pet. :p

I don't think the mother is as dumb as you think she is. After all, she did get her dog(s) to kill her kid for her - the perfect crime. Where's the proof she really locked the kid in the basement to begin with?

She wanted the kid dead for some reason. She even dissed the kid after he's dead... And I told him: 'Stay down there until I come back.' Typical Nicky, he wouldn't listen to me. "My spidey senses are tingling on this one.... :bs:

The dogs that I have experienced can detect if a person is mentally slow, which seems to trip an aggressive behavior.

My Dalmation could smell the difference of African Americans(not within sight) as well as homosexual boys/males, and that would trigger aggressive/defensive type behavior with her. She was overtly dominant though, but she was the runt of the litter, go figure.

I pray they punish this woman for her sons death, but somehow, I don't think she will ever understand what she's done.

It is not the dog's fault, it is simply in their nature. It IS the mothers fault. Her son would still be alive today if she'd used even a fraction of her brain power before she decided it best to lock *him* in the basement.

May she be tormented until it is HER time by nightmares of her son's brutal and painful death.

From the sounds of the article, she will blame her son for getting himself killed, and she will bear no guilt about this. Using phrases such as "it was his time" and "he never listens" are classic ways to transfer responsibility from oneself to elsewhere (fate, god, the victim, whatever).

Stormy's links were very interesting, particularly the percentage of dog attack deaths carried out by non-neutered males.

Pit Bulls don't go "ape **** for no good reason" - they're pack animals just like all other dogs. When they believe that they are dominant over the humans they go to assert that domination. If you can't handle being "Alpha" of your "pack," then you should get a dog with less dominant tendencies, or take every step possible to reduce the aggressive nature of your dog - including spay/neutering, or getting a dog that you can control no matter what (and this doesn't necessarily mean a small dog - I've seen 15lb dogs that I'd consider more "vicious" than 120lb pit bulls).

No dog, no matter how well you think you have them trained, should ever be left alone with a small child. Dogs are much baser animals than humans and think nothing of "correcting" a child that's stepped over into what the dog considers their territory. While other dogs have enough sense (instinct) to roll over and show their neck/stomach, the human panic drive usually consists of a "run/hide/strike wildly" mentality which is the exact opposite of what you want to do if you're confronted by an aggressive dog.

A friend's dad raised show Rottweilers, gorgeous dogs - and the most tenderhearted pushovers you've ever seen. Giant 180lb dogs that tolerated a small 40lb infant drooling all over it, yanking its ears and tail with nothing more than a slight "wuff" and a sigh. However, every once and a while, the biggest Rotty would get into its head that it was strong enough to challenge the father for pack leadership, and the guy would literally have to wrestle the dog to the ground and smack it on the head with a 2x4 before the dog would submit. The dog would eventually tuck its tail and go limp showing submission, and when the guy let the dog up, friendliest dog in the world. This wasn't an "every day" thing, but it was normal and absolutely not a fault of the dog. In the wild, that particular rotty would have probably been the alpha of a pack - while his brother, another AKC best of breed winner, never showed any interest in leadership at all - he probably would have just been a pack member, or even an omega since he got bullied by his bigger brother all the time.


Yep, exactly right. Pit Bulls are no more aggressive than a small breed. In fact, I've met more rat dogs with Napoleon complexes than mean big dogs. The problem is that when they are aggressive they can do much more damage than a rat dog. A pit bull won't randomly attack people more than any other breed.

In reality, a pit bull is no more dangerous than a Doberman or a German Shepard. What compounds the problem is that a large number of pit bull owners buy the breed specifically for it's fearsome qualities and nurture those agressive tendancies that all pack animals have.

Bans on pit bulls scapegoat the breed, when laws should focus on irresponsible owners, the ASPCA and AKC say. (AP Graphics Bank)

You know, if the ASPCA and AKC can come up with a way to prevent irresponsible owners from getting ahold of potentially dangerous dogs, then more power to them. Until then... ban the breed.

I can't have a lion, why should someone be able to have a pit bull?

Dunno Pan, you could have a lion if you lived here, you'd just have to have a permit to own one. I'm beginning to think anyone who owns a anything bigger than a guinnea pig should have to have a permit to own it, not so much to protect the humans as to protect the animals from the humans.

As per the CNN link I put up, you should be banning Rottys and German Shepards along with Pits. And I agree with Teae, if you're going to ban Pits because they're aggressive, you need to be banning the Chia-rat/pugs/Lhasa/Pomers/Jack Rus. because chances are that they're just as aggressive - probably more so because they're owners feel that the dog can't do any bodily harm and therefore don't control their small dogs.

And if you want the SPCA to have more power, that's up to the voters. There are some areas in the US where the SPCA is a law enforcement agency and are able to whether people with a history of animal abuse/neglect are able to keep pets within city limits.

eh, just ban all dogs. Start creating *real* hotdogs like they do in China and call it square. :p

You know, if the ASPCA and AKC can come up with a way to prevent irresponsible owners from getting ahold of potentially dangerous dogs, then more power to them. Until then... ban the breed.

I can't have a lion, why should someone be able to have a pit bull?


The same reason that you can't have Wolves. Lions and Wolves aren't a domesticated breed. They never have been. Remember, Dogs are a result of man breeding them over thousands of years.

Pit Bulls are just the current whipping boy for the media. When I was growing up it was Dobies. How about, rather than banning a breed of dog, increasing penalties of those that don't control their pets?

For the record, I have been around Pits all my life. My brother has owned several and all of them have been great dogs. Only one of them ever bit someone. My Brother's roomate had the dog out for a walk and it grabbed hold of someones are and wouldn't let go. Of course, the guy was holding my Brothers Roomate at knife point, so, I'm not going to fault the dog for protecting him.

Pit Bulls have an overly bad rep. Mostly due to it's owners. Heck, The "Little Rascals" tv show had a Pit Bull in it as the gang's pet.

So... if you require dog owners to have permits. What's that prove? That they have a permit. It doesn't mean they're a responsible dog owner or their dog is properly trained, neutered, housed, fed, etc.

Little breed dogs might be obnoxious, annoying, tear your pants, slightly puncture your skin... but they generally don't kill people. I think the policies in place, like reporting dog bites, can handle that. The dangerous dogs need to be controlled before they bite, because they're so dangerous.

You're not listening Pana (or choosing to only selectively listen). Any large dog is as equally dangerous as another if you're talking about bite strength (and yes, chias can break through bones - usually not a arm or leg, but definitely fingers, I've seen it). And while you seem to have some sort of single-minded prejudice against pits, records will show that they aren't always the most common biters (again, one of the US's fabled "Golden Boys" of dogs - the German Shepard - being one of the more aggressive).

Every single dog bite is a high possibility for infection, and pretty much any dog can penetrate skin and cause flesh trauma. Every single dog bite needs to be treated with equal severity because any dog that bites a human <b>no matter what the breed's size</b> is a dog that's out of control.

If your chia bites anyone, that dog should face the same risk of being put to sleep as a pit bull or German Shepard or Great Dane.

Newspaper and Media Accounts of Dog Attacks
The media has vast influence over our perceptions of which breeds of dogs are dangerous, as they decide which dog attack stories to publish. With over 4.7 million dog bites recorded each year in the United States and with over 800,000 of these attacks serious enough to require medical attention, the resources for dog-bite stories appear unlimited. Yet, the media seems to delight in Pit bull related stories, so much so, that in their haste to report the latest Pit bull attack story the truth often takes a backseat to sensationalism.

http://ncrf2004.tripod.com/id9.html

It may be worth noting that "pit bull" is a generic term just like a "retriever."

Even more interesting is that the American Pit Bull Terrier, according to the AKC, can trace it's heretige directly to the Mayflower.

Mostly it's the media and uninformed that think Pit bulls are more dangerous than Shepards and other large dogs.

Any large dog is as equally dangerous as another if you're talking about bite strength
ha, oh now you've added "large" into your classification. :p

One thing you can say about them being the current media's "whooping boy" is that once the media and the public has a cow, they no longer become a problem, no?

So in essense, the dogs are a problem no. Once fixed (in what ever way), another breed will become a problem.

Yes, the underlining issue is most likely due to irresponciable raising, but it still the case.


The same reason that you can't have Wolves. Lions and Wolves aren't a domesticated breed. They never have been. Remember, Dogs are a result of man breeding them over thousands of years.
This argument falls null when one of the fact people are trying to say Pit Bulls are dangerous is due to their genetics, aka natural instincts. You've just gave a perfect example to support their argument.

Pit Bulls were trained, for hundereds of years, to be vicious attack dogs. Now people are trying to make them domestic. Your example as to why Wolves cannot be a domestic animal can old true against Pit Bulls, too.

Now, I don't know the full history of the Pit Bulls, but that's the general arguement I've been hearing about them and being in their genes.

Pit Bulls were trained, for hundereds of years, to be vicious attack dogs.

All domestic dogs were BRED over thousands of years, to live amongst people. Why on earth would people BREED dogs which attack them?

Wolves have NOT been bred to live among humans. Neither have lions or tigers.

Many regions allow people to have "exotics" in their possession, as long as they are permitted. Part of the permitting requirements have to do with how the animal will be cared for, its living conditions etc.

If SF wants to "do something" without outright banning pit bull type dogs, they could easily go to a permitting solution, where the owner has to agree to take a class in dog behavior, enroll their dog (and themselves) in obedience training, and demonstrate via these means that they are responsible enough to own the dog.

Then again, I think pretty much anyone who wants to buy a dog should have to do that. I worked at a boarding kennel for several years on college. The worst bite I ever received was from a "gentle" small dog, a sheltie mix of some sort. The kind of dog everyone would say "oh, what a pretty dog!" to and think nothing of. The dog took nearly all the skin off the back of my hand. On the flip side, of all the pit bull types we got in, not a single one of them was in any way spooky or aggressive, most just wanted to be loved.

Then again, obnoxious owners who think having mean dogs is somehow 'cool' don't take their dogs to boarding kennels.

"pit bulls" were originally bred as pit fighers. Litterally fighting dogs. The funny thing is, Pit Bulls aren't overly aggressive. They are more docile than many other breeds. According to the AKC "Choose from a responsible breeder and make sure the puppy is properly socialized and handled. A minimum of training will produce a tranquil, good, obedient, companion dog"

Here's a bit of the breeds history.

Originally bred from a variety of bulldogs and terriers, American breeders increased his weight and gave him a more powerful head. A forbearer to the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, they were originally bred to be a fighting dog. Bull baiting was banned in England in 1835 and these dogs are no longer been bred to fights. There is some complication in registries of this breed. The AKC considers the American Staffordshire Terrier as separate and distinct from the American Pit Bull Terrier, yet the UKC will register both as American Pit Bull Terriers (APBTs).
In America, the Pit Bull flourished. It was one of the most popular breeds, highly prized by a wide variety of people. The Pit Bull was used to represent the US in WW1 artwork; popular companies like RCA and the Buster Brown Shoe Company used the breed as their mascots. A Pit Bull named Petie starred in the popular children's television series, Our Gang; a Pit Bull mix named Stubby became a decorated WW1 hero. Pit Bulls accompanied pioneer familes on their explorations. Laura Ingalls Wilder of the popular Little House books owned a working Pit Bulldog named Jack. Famous individuals like Theodore Roosevelt and Helen Keller owned the breed. It was during this time that the Pit Bull truly became America?s sweetheart breed, admired, respected and loved.
In 1898 the United Kennel Club was formed with the express intent of providing registration and fighting guidelines for the now officially-named American Pit Bull Terrier. Later, those who wished to distance themselves from the fighting aspect of the breed petitioned the American Kennel Club for recognition of the Pit Bull so that it would be eligible for dog shows and other performance events. The AKC conceded in 1936 but only under the stipulation that the dogs registered with them be called "Staffordshire Terriers", the name of the province in England the breed supposedly originated in. Upon acceptance of the breed, many people dual-registered their dogs with both the AKC and the UKC. Lucenay's Peter (the dog that starred in the Our Gang series) was the first dual-registered Pit Bull/Staffordshire Terrier. The UKC evolved, eventually beginning to register other working-type breeds, and later holding shows similar to those of the AKC. Currently, the UKC is the second largest purebred dog registry in the United States, complete with strict bylaws that ban anyone who is convicted of dog fighting. The American Dog Breeders Association was formed in 1909 because of certain fanciers' opinions that the UKC was not doing it's job protecting and preserving the Pit Bull breed as they felt it should be preserved. The ADBA's goal is the same now is at was then: to register, promote and preserve the original American Pit Bull Terrier fighting-type dog.
The AKC eventually closed it's studbooks to American Pit Bull Terriers. They allowed registration only to those dogs with parents registered as Staffordshire Terriers. For a short period in the 1970's, the AKC reopened its studbooks to American Pit Bull Terriers. In 1973 the AKC added the prefix "American" to the breed's name in an effort to distinguish it from the newly recognized Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Today, only those dogs with AmStaff parents are eligible for registration. Both the UKC and the ADBA allow registration of AmStaffs, but in these organizations the dogs carry the original name, "American Pit Bull Terrier."
Today the Pit Bull has evolved into a marvelous working and companion dog, used for purposes as varied as those it originally performed. Pit Bulls are employed as police/armed services dogs, search and rescuers, therapy animals, and livestock workers. They compete in all manner of organized dog sports, from herding to agility to conformation to obedience and the bite sports like Schutzhund and French Ring. They make loving pets for children and seniors, and everyone in between. The are indeed one of the most versatile breeds on the planet. Much of this is owed to the activities it once performed. The harshness and physical demands of the activities molded a strong, healthy, stable animal, one anyone should be proud to own.

Wolves have NOT been bred to live among humans. Neither have lions or tigers.
Wolves are just a type of K-9 that was not domesticated. Huskys, the wolves closest domestic relatives, however have been.

Dingos, closest wild K9 (to my knowledge) to domestic dogs, were not bred to be domestic animals. Maybe due to the time frame of Australia's colonization (only a few hudered years at the most?)?

And onto the subject of training them back is simple; they want a dog that will be loyal ot SELECT ONE group/person and not towards anybody else, which makes them to be the prefect Protection dog. Maybe that's why we're having a problem with pit bulls now? People can no longer train rots to be protection dogs, so they started to train pit bulls to be? There's a thought for you...

Anyway, my history of Pit Bulls isn't perfect. I just know I did read somewhere recently that Pit Bulls were trained to be protectors and were taught to be viciously agressive for protection purposes. And I'm sure they've said this was done in the past for hundereds of years, which makes it in their genes. Hense, the argument that other's have brought up of it being hard coded in their genetics.

(Teaenea has posted their history .. I was off by their purpose, but does show they were bred specifically for attacking)

ah, thanks Teaenea. That just helps prove the point I brought up in how Pit Bulls were indeed bred to be vicious attack dogs.

Many dogs were. Mastifs, Bull dogs, Even "less dangerous" dogs were. Schnowzers (sp?), were bred to kill rodents. Heck, great danes were bred to hunt wild boar.

The characteristics that made the Pit Bull a fighting dog was it's build (it's a very powerful dog), and it's lack of fear. It's temperment is actually better than most other dogs because it doesn't, typically, suffer from the "fight or flight" reaction caused by fear. The same can't be said of most other breeds.

The fact that they are used in nursing homes as therapy dogs because they typically love humans is a testiment to the dogs temperment.

edit: After doing more research. One trait of the "pit fighting" pit bull is Non-Human Aggression. Pit Bulls were trained to fight, but any dogs that attacked humans were culled. So, Pit Bulls attacking humans is actually going against what the breed was created for.

Guice, Dachshunds were originally bred to hunt and kill badgers but you won't find many people who believe them to be anything more than a sweet, devoted family dog today. The thing is, "originally bred for" doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot when you have a few generations of breeding a new set of traits.

(guice, I have no idea what you were trying to say in post #41 :( )

Pit Bulls being bred as fighting dogs is probably the #1 reason that the media and the public latch on to them as a "vicious breed" stereotype. But again, the other high fatality/injury breeds are the German Shepard, Chow-Chow, Husky, and Rotty and like I said earlier, the Rotty is starting to surpass the Pit in terms of injury incidents per year.

However you never really hear of the media going ga-ga over a Shepard or Husky attack because what are you going to say about them? "For centuries the German Shepard has been bred as a herding dog which is protective of their owners and renown for their courage, intelligence, and service to man"? That won't make for much of a story - heck that almost makes it sound like Lassie or Rin Tin Tin went insane and killed your little 2yr old. No, German Shepards have been put on a golden pedestal of being the ultimate cop dog (even though labs and hounds are used just as often) and people would never believe that the Shepard is a "violent" dog. No, better (easier) to assume that all pit bulls are evil by nature. And to be quite frank, I've been more nervous around chows than around pits.

In fact, if you heard all the dogs that were "bred" to be fighting dogs for at least one point in time during history, you'd probably be surprised at the list. They include: Tibetan Mastiff, Mastiff, Akita, English Bulldog, Bull Mastiff, Bordeaux Dog, French Bulldog, Bull Terrier, Staffordshire (Bull) Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Great Dane, Boxer, Tosa Inu, Boston Terrier, Pug among others.

Personality traits are an important part of a breed of animals. And its just as much of a hallmark of the breed as their fur and tails. Just because an animal is no longer bred for a specific purpose doesn't mean it doesn't carry the instinct for that purpose.

For instance, I never heard of anyone breeding siamese cats for their chatty, funny sounding meow, yet most of them have that trait.

Probably in its junk DNA somewhere. ;)

Personality traits?
I would call every single one of the dogs I listed as loyal, courageous, friendly, stubborn and playful. Not one of those breeds would I categorically say is outright vicious or dangerous.

It's the human that makes the dog vicious and the human that keeps the dog from being vicious.

For instance, I never heard of anyone breeding siamese cats for their chatty, funny sounding meow, yet most of them have that trait.
Oh, pure bred siamese cats are vicious little things. We've had a couple. Perfectly tame creatures, but something just flips and you gotta litterally RUN from them! They turn into ferocious scratching/biting beasts (against humans mostly--hadn't seen ours attack the other cat, which happened to be siamese, too)! One of them has injured my sister a few times in his hissy fits.

I guess you can say the same with these pit bulls? I don't know of any siamese cats that aren't errogant and like to just flip for no appereant reason...It's part of the personality of that breed of cat.

Personality traits?
Being around cats long enough, I can tell you that different breeds will have different/similar personality traits. Surely it would be the same with dogs, too.

Pit Bulls being bred as fighting dogs is probably the #1 reason that the media and the public latch on to them as a "vicious breed" stereotype.

I think it's the wide spread of bad personal experiences from pit bulls that has made the public latch on to them as a "vicious breed" strereotype. We had a lot of media attention on dangerous dogs in the UK 5-10 years ago and I think the result was that a number of dangerous breeds were restricted. Nobody has missed them.

It doesn't matter what good traits the dangerous breeds have. There are plenty of other breeds which make good pets, good guard dogs, and loving companions. Nobody will miss the dangerous breeds after a few years of their being resticted.

It's the human that makes the dog vicious and the human that keeps the dog from being vicious.

So what? There will always be people who make their dogs viscous and unfortunately those people seem to prefer owning dangerous breeds of dogs. They are exactly the reason that dangerous breeds should be restricted.

Oh, pure bred siamese cats are vicious little things. We've had a couple.

Hmmm... my experience is quite the contrary. My siamese is a pud. I had a boss once that bred them, they were all puds. (pud = puddy tat, sweet, good natured).

Although, if I get my cat too riled up, in his cat tree... he boffs me upside the head with his paw. But he does it with claws retracted.

About the worst thing my siamese does is nag me incessantly when I'm in the kitchen. But it is entirely my fault... I started giving him bits of whatever I was cooking. Now he thinks it'll happen every time.

Of course breeds have personality traits, have you never seen a dog show on TV? They describe the personality traits of each animal that shows, make recommendations about the sort of environment such a dog should live in. For instance, Border Collies are extremely energetic and smart. They would be miserable dogs to have in a small apartment. They've got a built in herding instinct. They need tons of attention and training.

Some dogs have personalities that are incredibly mellow and sweet. I've always heard that Golden Retrievers are that way.

Some dogs like to bite trucks in half...

It's the human that takes the viciousness out of a dog... Otherwise, they're pretty vicious if they're feral. Just like cats are.

So what? There will always be people who make their dogs viscous and unfortunately those people seem to prefer owning dangerous breeds of dogs. They are exactly the reason that dangerous breeds should be restricted.
That's the whole point, there aren't any "vicious" breeds. Find one study from a credible source that conclusively states that the breed is the problem with animal attacks. My guess is you won't find one. In fact, most of the studies (including the ones linked here) conclusively state that restricting breeds would be a waste of time and money.

No, I won't find any source you would credit as being credible, I'm quite sure of that.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20010415/1567.html
Several dog breeds have been identified for their role in fatal dog bite attacks, including pit bull breeds, malamutes, chows, Rottweilers, huskies, German shepherds and wolf hybrids.1,2,8 From 1979 to 1988, pit bull breeds accounted for more than 41 percent of dog bite*related fatalities, three times as many as German shepherds.2

http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution.asp?wasp=03086852aded44f8b846d26ebb58 3079&referrer=parent&backto=issue,4,16;journal,11,51;linkingpublication results,1:105485,1
Behavior Genetics of Canine Aggression: Behavioral Phenotyping of Golden Retrievers by Means of an Aggression Test

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Faculty/Gosling/reprints/JPSP03-adogsgotpersonality.pdf
I haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting.

Most of the stuff about pit bulls is from their owners saying how sweet and wonderful their pit bull is... other than the ones that had a pit bull that ate someone.

So... if you require dog owners to have permits. What's that prove? That they have a permit. It doesn't mean they're a responsible dog owner or their dog is properly trained, neutered, housed, fed, etc.

Little breed dogs might be obnoxious, annoying, tear your pants, slightly puncture your skin... but they generally don't kill people. I think the policies in place, like reporting dog bites, can handle that. The dangerous dogs need to be controlled before they bite, because they're so dangerous.

Cops kill more innocent people every year than pit bulls.

Who do we really need to get rid of?

And cars kill more people, get rid of them. In fact, get rid of everything, no matter how useful, because it kills more people than pit bulls...

ah, thanks Teaenea. That just helps prove the point I brought up in how Pit Bulls were indeed bred to be vicious attack dogs.

So were Irish Wolfhounds..they were bred to hunt and kill wolves, to wage war and to protect the home, the largest dogs in the world as a breed, and you'll not find a Wolfhound that isn't the gentlest, kindest, and least aggressive dog you've ever met.

Oh, and btw, Pit Bulls aren't large dogs =P They are cute lil guys.

And cars kill more people, get rid of them. In fact, get rid of everything, no matter how useful, because it kills more people than pit bulls...

Yet you're the one arguing to get rid of pit bulls because they are dangerous.

But the difference is, cops perform a service and are useful, as are cars. WTH should your neighbors have to assume risk because you want to keep an agressive, dangerous animal as a pet?

You're still selectively ignoring the fact that small dogs attack humans just as often (if not more so) than larger dogs.

You're still selectively ignoring the fact that small dogs attack humans just as often (if not more so) than larger dogs.Doesn't matter. It's the difference between hand guns and grenade launchers.

Some dogs have personalities that are incredibly mellow and sweet. I've always heard that Golden Retrievers are that way.


My Oldest friends Family has had Goldies forever. Not one of them could be called mellow. Typically they are overactive and hyper. Not vicious per say, but have caused injuries by just being hyper.

You're still selectively ignoring the fact that small dogs attack humans just as often (if not more so) than larger dogs.
Yeah, because it's a ludicrous argument.

Hummingbirds are even more fierce! Why, there's a flock of Brazillian Butterflies that is known for attacking people. Just last year, 17 people were winged by the crazed butterflies. One had to be rushed to a bathroom mirror where she could pick a piece of butterfly dust out of her eye.

Wow, that's complete and utter BS - small dogs cause injury, destroy property, and cause all around mayhem just as much as any other dog. Talk about a double standard. Must be nice to be able to condemn an animal from such a high pedestal.

http://ncrf2004.tripod.com/id2.html

So, we should ban Labs, Chow's, Great Danes, Huskies, St. Bernards, rotties, and others. After all, all of them can be dangerous.

Although pit bull mixes and Rottweillers are most likely to kill and seriously maim, fatal attacks since 1975 have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictibility is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section

Hey look at that We NEED to ban Pomaranians too!

Wow, that's complete and utter BS - small dogs cause injury, destroy property, and cause all around mayhem just as much as any other dog.


Sorry, Stormhaven, but you're a bit off base here. Sure, a JR or Chiahuahua can be aggressive and bite me. But one isn't going to inflict grievous bodily injury or kill me.

You cannot ignore the magnitude of the potential injury or damage.

Wow, that's complete and utter BS - small dogs cause injury, destroy property, and cause all around mayhem just as much as any other dog.


Sorry, Stormhaven, but you're a bit off base here. Sure, a JR or Chiahuahua can be aggressive and bite me. But one isn't going to inflict grievous bodily injury or kill me.

You cannot ignore the magnitude of the potential injury or damage.

In a 6-year study published in the medical journal PEDIATRICS (Vol.97 No. 6, 891-5), Jeffrey J. Sacks, M.D. and associates reported the finding of 109 bite-related fatalities. They found that 57% of the deaths were in children under 10 years of age.

Given that, and the above story of the infant that was killed by a small dog, it seems that she isn't that far off base.

http://www.westwinddogtraining.com/Articles_Etc/Washington_Post/washington_post.html
The mauling victim, a 6-week-old boy, is hospitalized in serious condition, and the dog, a family pet, is locked away in a St. Mary's County animal shelter and faces being destroyed. Yesterday, shelter workers said they didn't know the animal's name, age or weight. But they said it is a male.

A male dachshund.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/22/MN47319.DTL related to dog bites in general.

Find one study from a credible source that conclusively states that the breed is the problem with animal attacks.

You don't need fancy studies to tell you the obvious. Many pets can be bad tempered and bite or scratch but only some can cause potentially fatal wounds. We both know full well that some breeds of dog have vice like jaws that you cannot prise open without tools or knocking out the dog. In 1991 we banned the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Braziliero in the UK. All existing dogs were muzzled and neutered so the breed died out. Nobody has missed them.

Oh, and another woman was put in hospital by her pit bull yesterday, also in San Francisco.

<a href="http://www.fims.uwo.ca/newmedia/default.asp?id=187">More on small dogs</a>
Vanessa McMain at the Humane Society’s head office said while a province-wide ban might minimize attacks on humans, it will never completely solve the problem of dangerous dogs.

"It's often the fault of the breeder."
Vanessa McMain, Humane Society

“The problem with this legislation is that it will not stop bites,” said the wildlife program officer from her Toronto office. “It doesn’t consider the implications with other breeds.”

<b>She said the government should start acknowledging that dangerous dogs are not a result of bad genes, but rather bad breeders.</b>

“If your dog is acting in a menacing way, it’s often the fault the breeder,” she said. “They’re breeding dogs, but they’re not breeding a good pet . . . and that’s the case with many popular breeds.”

McMain said popular breeds of dogs are often recognized as the most violent simply because there are more of them.

So, which popular small dogs are statistically more dangerous?

“I have known cocker spaniels to bite,” said McMain. “I saw it when I worked in a hospital, but again, it’s also because they’re a popular breed.”

According to a report issued by the Public Health Agency of Canada, the cocker spaniel - which rarely tops twenty pounds - is second only to the german shepherd in sending children to hospital.

Michelle Beattie of the Blue Cross Animal Hospital said that the most vicious small dogs - cocker spaniels, chihuahuas and yorkshire terriers - bite because they are poorly trained. She said the main problem is that people who choose a small dog over a big one often do so because they see such ownership as less responsibility.

Small dogs not dangerous? How about when a <a href="http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/10/09/pomeranian.kills.ap"> - Pomeranian kills 6wk old child</a>?

Statistically biased? Since everyone in the "Breed ban" bandwagon can't seem to come up with any type of support for their argument from credible sources, how about a few that say it won't work?


http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)
CDC not credible enough? How about...

http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/dangerous_dogs.html

The HSUS opposes legislation aimed at eradicating or strictly regulating dogs based solely on their breed for a number of reasons. Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is a common first approach that many communities take. Thankfully, once research is conducted most community leaders correctly realize that BSL won't solve the problems they face with dangerous dogs.

There are over 4.5 million dog bites each year. This is an estimate as there is no central reporting agency for dog bites, thus breed and other information is not captured. Out of the millions of bites, about 10-20 are fatal each year. While certainly tragic, it represents a very small number statistically and should not be considered as a basis for sweeping legislative action.

It is imperative that the dog population in the community be understood. To simply pull numbers of attacks does not give an accurate representation of a breed necessarily. For example, by reviewing a study that states there have been five attacks by golden retrievers in a community and 10 attacks by pit bulls in that same community it would appear that pit bulls are more dangerous. However, if you look at the dog populations in that community and learn that there are 50 golden retrievers present and 500 pit bulls, then the pit bulls are actually the safer breed statistically.

While breed is one factor that contributes to a dog's temperament, it alone cannot be used to predict whether a dog may pose a danger to his or her community. A September 2000 study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (VetMed Today: Special Report) further illustrates this point. The report details dog bite related fatalities in the United States from 1979 through 1998, and reveals that over the nineteen years examined in the study at least 25 different breeds or crossbreeds of dogs were involved in fatally wounding human beings. Breeds cited range from oft-maligned pit bulls and Rottweilers to the legendary "forever loyal" breed of St. Bernards. The study was conducted by a group of veterinarians, medical doctors, and psychology and public health experts.

The main conclusion of the study was that breed-specific legislation doesn't work for several reasons: that there are inherent problems in trying to determine a dog's breed, making enforcement of breed-specific legislation difficult at best; that fatal attacks represent a very small portion of bite-related injuries and should not be the major factor driving public policy; and that existing non-breed-specific legislation already exists and offers promise for the prevention of dog bites.

Two decades ago, pit bulls and Rottweilers (the most recent breeds targeted) attracted little to no public concern. At that time it was the Doberman pinscher who was being vilified. In 2001, few people had heard of the Presa Canario breed, involved in the tragic, fatal attack on Diane Whipple in California in January of that year. Now that breed is being sought by individuals who desire the new "killer dog." Unfortunately, the "problem dog" at any given time is often the most popular breed among individuals who tend to be irresponsible, if not abusive, in the control and keeping of their pets. Simply put, if you ban one breed, individuals will just move on to another one. Banning a breed only speeds up the timetable.
...
<b>Restrictions placed on a specific breed fail to address the larger problems of abuse, aggression training, and irresponsible dog ownership. Again, breed alone is not an adequate indicator of a dog's propensity to bite.</b>

It doesn't matter as much that cocker spaniels bite compared to pit bulls. They don't have vice like grips on their prey which can cause serious injury.

Single freak instances of small dogs killing people do not prove that small dogs are as dangerous as fighting dogs. Use some common sense instead of false logic.

The humane society report argues that banning specific breeds of dog will not solve the problem, whereas in the UK we have banned specific breeds and it does seem to have reduced the problem. No additional breeds have been added to the list since it was introduced 15 years ago. Why believe the conjecture when there are people who've done it and are satisfied with the results?

Banning a single breed of dog won't do anything. The people who are buying them to be vicious will just buy another equally dangerous dog. But, the humane society and Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association both say that breed alone is just one factor and not enough to determine if a dog is dangerous or not. medical doctors, and psychology and public health experts all support this. The wholesale banning of an animal SOLEY on it's breed is just overkill.

I, personally, would agree the above mentioned people and not politicians and reactionist because of a percieved problem that really isn't that great of a threat.

Banning pit bulls wouldn't stop people being killed by dogs because you would need to ban all dogs that have killed before. Even "harmless" dogs can and do kill and seriously injure humans.

It's also worth mentioning that there are only 4 breeds banned in the UK including the "pit bull terrier" But not on that list is the staffordshire bull terrier which is. btw, a breed of pit bull! This info is from the UKC. Also not on the list are Rotties, Shepherds, Huskies, and other Dogs that frequently kill humans.

But the difference is, cops perform a service and are useful, as are cars. WTH should your neighbors have to assume risk because you want to keep an agressive, dangerous animal as a pet?

I would suggest that your assumption that cops are useful is just that, an assumption.

WTH should I have to assume the risk of being abused by an idiot cop because my neighbors want to keep an aggressive, dangerous, animal as a public servant?

However, every once and a while, the biggest Rotty would get into its head that it was strong enough to challenge the father for pack leadership, and the guy would literally have to wrestle the dog to the ground and smack it on the head with a 2x4 before the dog would submit.

This is interesting. My uncle's previous dog, a Kuvase, once decided it was time for him to be boss. He jumped at my uncle, who deftly put him back in his place. The dog understood the relationship much better from then on.

My own dog, a no breed, sometimes gets it in his head that he should be #1. About every three months he needs a reminder. Last night was one of those new reminders. Why does he have to pick days I am tired?

Let us follow the logic of some of these suggestions (which amount to eradicating a living creature because some of them are bad).

Let us now neuter all people who have criminal behavior in their past. After all, the potential exists that they can also be a criminal. Since we can't make people responsible enough to curb that behavior, we should eliminate the possibility of future generations of that gene strain.

Let us ban motor vehicles. They can cause great harm due to their mass when mishandled by an owner.

The next argument will be: It isn't the same. It IS the same. You are advocating the elimination of a species because some people don't know how to deal with it. Geez, people, if you were among the first Europeans to come to America you'd be advocating the elimination of the Native Americans. Heck, they are savage and some of them have killed settlers.

Dogs are not people, they live by the rules of the animal kingdom. You must deal with them on that level. If you cannot, then you get what is coming to you. Its called a consequence to your chosen action (or inaction). Because some people can't be responsible enough to know that isn't grounds to ban the activity from everyone. If we continue down that line, pretty soon everything will be banned.

In some places (even in the US) you CAN own a lion. You have to have a license which presumes you've passed some minimal standard of understanding the consequences of owning a lion. Rather than eliminating the breed of dog, we should change the requirements for owning said dog. Banning is just a whole lot easier and, after all, we are lazy creatures.

I, once again, submit that it isn't the dog but the owner who is at fault when these things happen. They lacked basic understanding of dogs and for that, a living creature condemned.

<i><b>Anka said</b>: It doesn't matter as much that cocker spaniels bite compared to pit bulls. They don't have vice like grips on their prey which can cause serious injury.

Single freak instances of small dogs killing people do not prove that small dogs are as dangerous as fighting dogs. Use some common sense instead of false logic.</i>

Spaniels have the exact same teeth configuration as "pit bulls" - scissor bite - where the teeth (should) meet precisely and tightly with little to no spacing. This formation is used for ripping and tearing, and I can assure you that human flesh will yield to tearing quite easily - just like the skin of rabbits, doves, and other small game which the Spaniel was originally bred for retrieving, flushing, and dispatching. Seeing that something in the area of 70% of all dog bites are on children, I would suggest you use some common sense yourself and stop assuming that only large breed dogs can injure humans (or stop assuming that only adults get attacked).

<i><b>Anka said</b>: The humane society report argues that banning specific breeds of dog will not solve the problem, whereas in the UK we have banned specific breeds and it does seem to have reduced the problem. No additional breeds have been added to the list since it was introduced 15 years ago. Why believe the conjecture when there are people who've done it and are satisfied with the results?</i>

Both the RSPCA and the HSUS have figures that state that dog attacks <b>range</b> across something like thirty breeds. And like the articles from the CDC and the HSUS states above, just because there's 20 bites from "pit bulls" and 5 from retrievers doesn't necessarily mean that the pit bull is the more aggressive dog - <b>especially since there is no required registration of dog breeds in the United States by which to establish a baseline of dog population.</b>

It's rather interesting that you say that the DDA works, because if you look, there will be completely conflicting arguments on both sides. Some areas show that the number of dog attacks has gone up since 1991 (which is when it was introduced, which if that's 15 years, it would be 2006 right now), others that say it has gone down, but what's universally consistent is that no governing body is keeping record.

Also, the reason why you don't see other breeds added is because there is a clause in the law which addresses <b>any other breeds</b>. (The original "list" being: Pit Bull Terrier & Pit Bull Terrier types,Japanese Tosa, Dogo Angentino, Fila Braziliero). Not only that, but as per the DDA, <i>"Even if no attack has taken place a dog can still be considered a threat, particularly if it has been left in a situation where it could attack the public. This would also include dogs located on private land or in proximity to areas of public use."</i>

In other words, your dog doesn't even have to <i>attack</i> anyone. If you leave your dog in your yard and it makes your neighbor <i>nervous</i> that it <i>might</i> attack someone, you can use the DDA to have the dog taken away. It is then up to the owner to prove that the dog is not aggressive. The burden of proof becomes "guilty until proven innocent." In other words, a dog can be destroyed without making a single aggressive move towards any human.

Yeah, sounds like a great law to me. /sarcasm.

Since there seem to be no good statistics on dog attacks, why keep quoting them?

I think it's patently common sense that a dog bred spcifically to be the most powerful fighting dog, the pit bull, is more dangerous than a spaniel. You're indulging in a very false argument to suggest otherwise. Pit bulls were not bred for hunting or farm work but for fighting other animals for sport. They are aggressive and dangerous by nature. All dogs can injure humans but the damage the pit bulls inflict is far far more severe.

While my niece was on holiday, her dog was saved by another dog in a public park in Spain. I don't know the breed involved, but the people at the incident were almost unable to remove this other dog's jaws from the neck, and the pet nearly died. Happily it recovered over 3 months, but I doubt this an isolated or freak incident. I don't know the breeds involved, but animal welfare isn't just about protecting these dogs from humans.

This is entirely different from neutering humans to remove them from the gene pool. I can't imagine how you think it is the same at all. These breeds of dog were specifically bred to be extremely dangerous fighting animals. By restricting them, we are only halting a purposeful breeding process that has previously taken place to create these animals. We should be capable of acknowledging that our social standards have changed, we do not now tolerate dogs fighting each other for sport, and we do not now need the dangerous dogs bred for that purpose.

The UK law on restricting breeds does seem like a good law. I can't remember the last time I saw a report about a dog attack in my country, even in my local press which usually gets excited when anyone falls off a ladder. We do not miss the dangerous breeds of dogs. We know that dangerous dogs will be safely managed. We don't have dogs always being put down because off poor neighbours. Instead of suggesting all sorts of ways that the UK laws might fail, find some concrete evidence that it is failing. The law has been here 15 years now, I live with it, and I'm happy with it and so is everyone I know.

Dogs are not people, they live by the rules of the animal kingdom. You must deal with them on that level.

No, not at all. We already put down dogs with a proven dangerous history even though they are acting at their own level and live by the rules of the animal kingdom. For almost all purposes, an owner can get a dog that will suit their needs without getting one of the most dangerous breeds as a family pet.

Judging by the responses in this post, it's clear that the pit bull has far more affection in the US than it did in the UK. Back in 1991 it was a breed that had recently been brought back into Britain and it was clear that the small number of these dogs in the country accounted for a very large numbers of attacks. The banned breeds were not commonly owned and as I keep saying, nobody misses them at all. Perhaps the US isn't in the same position.

Ah yes, I can see how the Brits used tons (or is that tonnes?) of logic in their breed ban. I wonder how much the UKC had to do with which breeds got banned? Hrm...the staffordshire pit bull wasn't banned, despite it being essentially the same dog.

The government banned Dogos, Filas, Tosas and "American" pit bulls -all breeds with no Kennel Club support, and all perceived as "foreign". One can get a feel for just how ludicrous this ban was when one considers that at the time of its passing there were NO dogos or filas in the country, and only one, gentle old tosa!http://www.workingpitbull.com/UK.htm

Glad to see they banned those horribly dangerous dogs that didn't even exist in their country. And that ONE Tosea dog was going to be responsible for every dog related killing of a human?

More thoughts from those in the UK about their own law:

Scientific evidence from around the world conclusively demonstrates that factors such as the criminal or social background of the owner is far more significant than the type of dog involved. Of course the newspapers will frequently cite the Pitbull, the Rottweilor or other powerful breed of dog but this is increasingly being proven, after the event, to be something else entirely. Why is this? Simply that the general public's knowledge of 'breeds' is substantially based on what they read in the newspapers. If the papers have been full of stories about German Shepherds then the public will report anything from a Rough Collie to a Briard/Dobermann cross as a 'German Shepherd'.

In 1993 or so, the National Dog Wardens Association printed a list in their newsletter of what the public described and what they found when they attended to collect a stray or deal with a 'dangerous' dog incident. I always loved the description of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as "it had a head like a coal scuttle". Perhaps more telling, given the media furore over them at the time, was when the public described a 'Pitbull' and the wardens, on attending the incident, found "almost any breed under the sun".http://www.petplanet.co.uk/petplanet/domino/newsbody.asp?article_id=333

And the ban seemed so nicely effectual in preventing harm, that the German's took it one step further. From the UK German Embassy's list of dog not allowed in Germany now:

http://www.german-embassy.org.uk/Att1.pdf

I like #1 personally. Any dog weighing over 20 kilos (~40 lbs). Hope you all enjoy your rats!

I can't wait to see pictures of the Polizei wandering around with their Shiz Tzu police dogs. And the urban search and rescue people are going to have a hella time finding dogs that can walk through rubble when their bellies are only 4 inches off the ground. Makes for an amusing mental image though.

Golden Retrievers are as dangerous as Pit Bulls. I'm gonna have to agree with Stormhaven on this topic... every dog is equally dangerous. My uncle had a pit bull and he was fine.

I think pitbull attacks might be related to fear. Ever since i was little i used to be told to never show fear to a dog or they would definately attack you. I dont know how true that is but, it would make sense considering that Pit Bulls and Rotts are meaner looking and easy to cause fear to a person.

Since there seem to be no good statistics on dog attacks, why keep quoting them?
Because it's rather obvious that the people who have fears of large dogs, of the pit in particular, have had little to no real life contact with the dogs and have had their preconceived notions about the breeds put into their heads by media outlets (including the BBC) which were driven by one goal, which, believe it or not, is not public safety but rather ratings and money and creating public hysteria based upon little to no factual information. Therefore the arguments presented pretty much conclusively show two things:

1 - Breed based legislation does not work and that people who breed dogs for the sole purpose of raising an aggressive dog will simply move on to another breed which is not "on the list."

2 - Aggressive dog attacks and dog attack accidents will not decrease as the breed is used as a scapegoat and blamed for their "vicious genes" while completely ignoring the twisted human mind behind the raising of such a dog.
The UK law on restricting breeds does seem like a good law. I can't remember the last time I saw a report about a dog attack in my country, even in my local press which usually gets excited when anyone falls off a ladder.
Well I don't know exactly which country you live in, but this took me all of thirty seconds to search on bbc.co.uk.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/4079594.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4615715.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/4530189.stm

For those of you arguing that one dog breed is as dangerous as another... how come I can't have a lion or tiger in my back yard? You've got to draw the line somewhere...

I'm gonna have to agree with Stormhaven on this topic... every dog is equally dangerous.
That's absurd. You can't seriously believe that. A 65 kg rottweiler is just as dangerous as a 2 kg chihuahua? I think not.

My uncle had a pit bull and he was fine.
That's like saying World War II wasn't dangerous because your grandfather fought there and he was fine.

For those of you arguing that one dog breed is as dangerous as another... how come I can't have a lion or tiger in my back yard? You've got to draw the line somewhere...

Absolutely right, Pan. After all, they're just a breed of cat. With proper human care and training, they're very safe, loving and friendly. You just need to know how to do it... like Siegfried and Roy. You've never heard of a cat attacking them, have you... oh wait.

Absolutely right, Pan. After all, they're just a breed of cat. With proper human care and training, they're very safe, loving and friendly. You just need to know how to do it... like Siegfried and Roy. You've never heard of a cat attacking them, have you... oh wait.
But only one of them! And that's cause he accidently provoked the Tiger! They didn't put it down, from what I recall, either.

They "are not people, they live by the rules of the animal kingdom. You must deal with them on that level." ;)

I wanted to have a Tiger as a pet, too. But was informed that it would be impossible as I would have to have large land, permits and all sorts of things (training, etc). I was even given a story about how a woman tried once. The tiger was just the kindest little thing until it started growing up and it's natual instincts started to kick in; it started prowling, showing odd behaviors around the unknown, etc. In the end, the woman had to give it to a local zoo as she feared her life.


However! I've read that Bobcats have been domesticated in some parts of Africa. I want to have one of them as a pet. :grin:

Sheesh, do you guys do any research at all?

The United States is actually home to the largest population of tigers (maybe lions too) in the world outside of their natural habitat. In fact, some say there may be more tigers in the United States than in the wild.

And while you absolutely do hear of tiger and lion maulings in the news, the reason you don't hear about all 5000-something tigers in the news every day is because (*gasp!*) many of the people who own these large cats actually do know what they're doing (many are unfortunately in rescues because others had no clue what they were doing).

Not only that, but people who own exotic and undomesticated animals are more likely to be brought up on charges manslaughter or assault by the local police if their pet gets out and injures people; compared to "Bubba Joe" who's been raising dogs to bite little kids for years who'll probably get a slap on the wrist and a $250 fine (Note: I'm not talking dog fighting here, which is a felony in many cities/states, I'm talking purposefully raising a dog to be mean - which for some reason is not a crime.)

While my niece was on holiday, her dog was saved by another dog in a public park in Spain. I don't know the breed involved, but the people at the incident were almost unable to remove this other dog's jaws from the neck, and the pet nearly died. Happily it recovered over 3 months, but I doubt this an isolated or freak incident. I don't know the breeds involved, but animal welfare isn't just about protecting these dogs from humans.

Better ban the English Bulldog to then. When they get their jaws clamped down on something, they don't let go either.

This is entirely different from neutering humans to remove them from the gene pool. I can't imagine how you think it is the same at all. These breeds of dog were specifically bred to be extremely dangerous fighting animals. By restricting them, we are only halting a purposeful breeding process that has previously taken place to create these animals. We should be capable of acknowledging that our social standards have changed, we do not now tolerate dogs fighting each other for sport, and we do not now need the dangerous dogs bred for that purpose.

Most bulldogs and large hounds were bred to be extremely dangerous fighting animals. Terriers were mostly bred to kill things as well. If you start neutering all breeds which were bred for violent purpose, well..most breeds of dogs will vanish.



The UK law on restricting breeds does seem like a good law. I can't remember the last time I saw a report about a dog attack in my country, even in my local press which usually gets excited when anyone falls off a ladder. We do not miss the dangerous breeds of dogs. We know that dangerous dogs will be safely managed. We don't have dogs always being put down because off poor neighbours. Instead of suggesting all sorts of ways that the UK laws might fail, find some concrete evidence that it is failing. The law has been here 15 years now, I live with it, and I'm happy with it and so is everyone I know.

Yet the law doesn't address the most common breed involved with dog bites, rottweilers (which, mind you, are great dogs...you just have to understand how they work. Very very protective. Let them get to know you before you try to pick up "their" children, etc.) and retrievers.





Judging by the responses in this post, it's clear that the pit bull has far more affection in the US than it did in the UK. Back in 1991 it was a breed that had recently been brought back into Britain and it was clear that the small number of these dogs in the country accounted for a very large numbers of attacks. The banned breeds were not commonly owned and as I keep saying, nobody misses them at all. Perhaps the US isn't in the same position.

I just think Brits are more used to letting the government tell them what to do.

Here's a question for all of those who are advocating getting rid of dogs. Did/do any of you have dogs as pets? Panamah, for instance, is a well known cat person.

The United States is actually home to the largest population of tigers (maybe lions too) in the world outside of their natural habitat. In fact, some say there may be more tigers in the United States than in the wild.

Did you ever stop to think we might have a lot of zoos here? And since tigers are an endangered species, you might find most of them are in zoos. I'd be fine with Pit Bulls in zoos or with the same sort of permits required for other large, dangerous beasts.

Hey, Roy's tiger bit him, why don't we ban tigers? =P

Did you ever stop to think we might have a lot of zoos here? And since tigers are an endangered species, you might find most of them are in zoos. I'd be fine with Pit Bulls in zoos or with the same sort of permits required for other large, dangerous beasts.
"Captive Wildlife Safety Act"

Go look it up yourself.

The UK law on restricting breeds does seem like a good law. I can't remember the last time I saw a report about a dog attack in my country, even in my local press which usually gets excited when anyone falls off a ladder. We do not miss the dangerous breeds of dogs. We know that dangerous dogs will be safely managed. We don't have dogs always being put down because off poor neighbours. Instead of suggesting all sorts of ways that the UK laws might fail, find some concrete evidence that it is failing. The law has been here 15 years now, I live with it, and I'm happy with it and so is everyone I know.

"seems like" As I said, the UK bans 4 breeds of dogs. And not on that lists are Dobby's, Stratfordshire bull terriers ( a pit bull breed ), Shepherds, "wolf dogs", Rotties. All of these breeds, when added up account for most deaths from dog attacks in the US. Are you suggesting that banning Pit Bull Terriers, Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino, and the Fila Brazileiro (the ONLY dogs banned in the UK) will suddenly stop Rotties, Dobbies, Shepherds etc from being involved in deadly attacks.

There is a big difference between something that seems like it's workign and something that is.

Btw, my dog (Alaskan Malamute) is the same breed as the one that's mauled a few small children.

For those of you arguing that one dog breed is as dangerous as another... how come I can't have a lion or tiger in my back yard? You've got to draw the line somewhere...


Know of any Domesticated Lions or Tigers? And BTW, with proper permits, you can. Again, Dogs are Domesticated animals, Tigers and lions are not. The domesticated form of that species are called Cats.

You see, lions and tigers fall into the category of "wild animals." Just like Wolves, and hyenas (sp?). None are suitable as pets, yet most can be owned with proper precautions and permits depending on where you live. Of course that's not even taking into account the practicallity of such things. A dog is a practical pet, A lion or tiger is no. Ligers are right out.

If you wish to make a point, use a valid example.

That's absurd. You can't seriously believe that. A 65 kg rottweiler is just as dangerous as a 2 kg chihuahua? I think not.



While a chihuahua may not be dangerous to you, to an infant it's just as dangerous as a rottweiler. Again, remember, 70 or so percent of all deaths from dog attacks happened to children under the age of 10. So, a Yorkshire Terrier can be just as deadly as a Rottweiler.

Absolutely right, Pan. After all, they're just a breed of cat. With proper human care and training, they're very safe, loving and friendly. You just need to know how to do it... like Siegfried and Roy. You've never heard of a cat attacking them, have you... oh wait.

Find me a pit bull, Rottwieller, German Shepherd, or Dobby in the wild please. Then maybe we can have a valid comparison.

Sheesh, do you guys do any research at all?
Hum, she means as a private holdhold pet....

/thinks somebody needs to re-read a few things. ;)


Hey, Roy's tiger bit him, why don't we ban tigers? =P
They already are. :(

I'd like you to try and go down to a Zoo or Humain society and try to adopt a tiger (to take home with you as a pet like you would a cat or dog)...

The domesticated form of that species are called Cats. Bobcats have been domesticated in some parts of the world. ;)

It's not the species that makes them domestic anyway, that's a mute point. It's humans and years of generic "taiming" that makes them domestic. Who knows, in 1000 years Tigers might actually be a house hold pet from all the zoo tigers. Every new generation of zoo bread tigers slowly depletes their natural instincts to hunt/kill. Just like they've done to our current cat and dogs.

There are cousins to domestic cats and dogs still in the wild. Dingos for one. And Ocelot I think is a close relative to domestic cats still wild.

While a chihuahua may not be dangerous to you, to an infant it's just as dangerous as a rottweiler. Again, remember, 70 or so percent of all deaths from dog attacks happened to children under the age of 10. So, a Yorkshire Terrier can be just as deadly as a Rottweiler.
Who do you think is going to fare better, an 8 year old attacked by a rott or an 8 year old attacked by a Yorkshire Terrier? Not all bites are the same.

Look, a grand total of 15-20 people are fatally attacked by dogs on average every year. Its not known to me how many of those are idiot people who provoked the dog.

More people die from bee stings annually.

This is not a problem that needs legal remedy. There is no need to ban any dogs.

Well, technically the only reason they hadn't been "cleared out" by now is that they are pets. If these were mountain lions they would have all been captured and relocated almost immediately. And it would only take a dozen of them and aprox 5 kills within city limits.

As I read the UK articals, I noticed they have laws that make the owner of dogs responciable for animal attack when the attack accures off private grounds. Something like think I think we need. Just an over all blanket law requring that all dog owners be responciable for their animal's attacks.

People die from bee stings because they're allergic to bees. I haven't met anyone yet who died of an allergic reaction to a dog.

All I can say is that I'm glad humane people like you don't work at the SPCA.

Look, a grand total of 15-20 people are fatally attacked by dogs on average every year. Its not known to me how many of those are idiot people who provoked the dog.
Fatalities aren't the only measurement of the problem. Annually in the United States 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs. Of these, approximately 800,000 people require medical attention. That is, each year 1.8% of the U.S. population is bitten by a dog, and 0.3% of the U.S. population seeks medical care for a bite. (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbites.htm)

FWIW, there is a table in this document (ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Publications/mmwr/wk/mm4621.pdf) that lists fatal attacks by breed.

This is not a problem that needs legal remedy. There is no need to ban any dogs.
I don't know about a ban but it would be nice if owners were held 100% legally accountable for everything their pets did. Further, if owners demonstrate that they are unable to control their animals then the animals should be confiscated and the owners should be put to sleep. :)

Fatalities aren't the only measurement of the problem. Annually in the United States 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs. Of these, approximately 800,000 people require medical attention. That is, each year 1.8% of the U.S. population is bitten by a dog, and 0.3% of the U.S. population seeks medical care for a bite. (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbites.htm) Even small dogs can easily require medical care after a bit. A lhasa can cause enough damage to require it.

FWIW, there is a table in this document (ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Publications/mmwr/wk/mm4621.pdf) that lists fatal attacks by breed.
similar info has been listed in this post a lot already.


I don't know about a ban but it would be nice if owners were held 100% legally accountable for everything their pets did.

Finally a statement I don't have a problem with. I would absolutely want to hold dog owners 100% responsible.

Finally a statement I don't have a problem with. I would absolutely want to hold dog owners 100% responsible.
/agree, but best make it global and say pets in general. Defining a pet as an animal that's in direct or indirect care of a human. (ie; a dog's puppies would qualify since the mother will be in care of the human while the mother takes care of her own pups).

Main reason to make it global is that it can cover the non-dog issues (farm animals?) and it covers possible growth (I want my bobcat pet!).

All I can say is that I'm glad humane people like you don't work at the SPCA.
I care as much for animal life as I do human life. ;)

similar info has been listed in this post a lot already.
Well it's pretty clear that there are a number of people here who haven't read it then. Here's a summary for them: The table shows that pit bulls and rotts are responsible for about half of all fatal dog attacks in the US. This is all the more noteworthy when you consider that they are far from being the most common breeds of dogs.

People die from bee stings because they're allergic to bees. I haven't met anyone yet who died of an allergic reaction to a dog.

What does that matter? You are at a greater risk of being allergic to bees than being killed by a dog attack.

Hell you are more likely to get killed by a lightning strike than by a dog attack. (70 deaths average per year in the US from lightning strikes).

You're more likely to drown. You're more likely to die from alcohol poisoning. You're more likely to die in a plane crash. You're more likely to to be killed in a freak biking accident.

Few things are less fatal in our nation than dogs.

Fatalities aren't the only measurement of the problem. Annually in the United States 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs. Of these, approximately 800,000 people require medical attention. That is, each year 1.8% of the U.S. population is bitten by a dog, and 0.3% of the U.S. population seeks medical care for a bite. (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbites.htm)

FWIW, there is a table in this document (ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Publications/mmwr/wk/mm4621.pdf) that lists fatal attacks by breed.

800,000 people requiring medical attention isn't very much, to be honest. Its not like most of them are going in for surgery. Most of that is a few stitches.


I don't know about a ban but it would be nice if owners were held 100% legally accountable for everything their pets did. Further, if owners demonstrate that they are unable to control their animals then the animals should be confiscated and the owners should be put to sleep. :)

Why should an owner be held responsible if some idiot antagonizes their dog until it bites them? Or, god forbid, the dog bites someone in defense of their family?

If people have an out of control dog that bites people...the dog gets put to sleep, thats pretty much the law across the land. Further, if your dog bites someone unprovoked, they have grounds for civil action against you.

The laws are in place. They do a pretty damned good job. We don't need to ban any breeds of dogs.

Y'all need to go out and get a pet dog and realize that there is a very good reasons dogs are called Man's best friend. There is no creature on this planet more loyal, noble, playful, and loving than your pet dog, and it doesn't matter what breed he is.

800,000 people requiring medical attention isn't very much, to be honest.

You can almost get away with that if you say it quickly. That's a city's worth of people.

800,000 people requiring medical attention isn't very much, to be honest.
Uh huh.

Why should an owner be held responsible if some idiot antagonizes their dog until it bites them? Or, god forbid, the dog bites someone in defense of their family?
Self defense is fine. However, if a pet gets off their owners property and hurts someone then the owners should lose their pet, forfeit their ability to ever own a pet again, and potentially spend some time in jail. Treat it with the severity that you would treat a case of someone leaving a loaded firearm around.

Y'all need to go out and get a pet dog and realize that there is a very good reasons dogs are called Man's best friend.
I love dogs. It's people who need a good whack on the head with a 2x4.

Maybe in the UK that's a big number, but, that number is for the whole US. Which roughly= 2/10ths of one percent of the population and of all of the reported dog attacks, 2.4/1000ths of one percent of those result in death. Just for perspective.

Lets put that 800k figure into some further perspective.

Only around 400k of that 800k are deemed "serious" enough to require a trip to the emergency room.

Now consider that people go to the emergency room all the time for a couple asprin or a couple of stitches.

This is not an epidemic of any sort.

I'm definitely on the side of banning dangerous breeds of dogs as household pets. I don't have a comprehensive list in mind, but pit bulls and rottweilers would certainly be on the list. Assertions that dog bites and injuries/fatalities are infrequent, are unconvincing. Dog-lovers will defend these species because of their attachment to dogs. When it comes to choosing between people and domesticated, non-native critters that are the product of selective breeding, I will always err on the side of people.

The death in the original story is clearly the fault of the mother. Nevertheless, the death wouldn't have happened if pit bulls were banned. A child would still be alive. You can rationalize, minimize, deflect or otherwise explain away the incident, but the simple fact remains -- no pit bull/no death of this child... and while dog-related fatalities are rare, they do occur often enough in specific breeds of dogs.

As for being a cat, dog or (pick your species) person, I'm none of these. I've never owned a cat, but currently own a dog. It's a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. This breed was specifically bred to be friendly and non-aggressive. It's a great dog. It doesn't matter whether I've been away a day, an hour or 10 minutes, it always greets me with enthusiasm and devotion. Before we bought the dog, we observed the behavior of both the sire and the bitch. We also checked the references of the breeder. I've never seen our dog exhibit any nasty behavior. If it ever did, I would personally put it down (yes, with regrets).

I've never met a rottweiler that was deserving of being put down and I've met a bunch of rotties. They are fine dogs. A bit small for my taste, but truly wonderful animals. Personable, protective, and loving.

It would be a travesty for Americans to ban these creatures because a few individuals don't know how to raise their dog.

I'm sure the same can be said for pit bulls.

All I can say is that I'm glad humane people like you don't work at the SPCA.Yeah... they founded PETA instead. Controlling an animal as deadly as a weapon - by Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder and president of PETA (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/08/EDGDLD4G1S1.DTL) Here's another shocker: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the very organization that is trying to get you to denounce the killing of chickens for the table, foxes for fur or frogs for dissection, supports the shelters' pit-bull policy, albeit with reluctance. We further encourage a ban on breeding pit bulls. ...Pits can take down a bull weighing in at over a thousand pounds, so a human being a tenth of that weight can easily be seriously hurt or killed. Those who argue against a breeding ban and the shelter euthanasia policy for pit bulls are naive, as shown by the horrifying death of Nicholas Faibish, the San Francisco 12-year-old who was mauled by his family's pit bulls.
I'm not a fan of PETA but it seems that they, as an animal "rights" group, have an opinion on pit bulls that I thought was pertinent to the topic.

More people die from bee stings annually.People die from bee stings because they're allergic to bees. I haven't met anyone yet who died of an allergic reaction to a dog.Point's mute, again. Irrelevant argument as it's not illegal to go out and extermitate and entire bee's nest, but it is illegal to go out and exterminate your neighboor's dog.

I'm definitely on the side of banning dangerous breeds of dogs as household pets.I'd like to make sure people see the key words here: as household pets.
That will make owning a bit pull no different than owning a tiger. You can do it, but you require training and special licenses before you're permitted.

When all the pit bulls are dead, the irresponsible owners will simply find another breed to be the "mean dog of the day" and then we'll have to eliminate that breed. And so on until the only dog left considered acceptable will be approximately the size of a guinnea pig, will be dumb as a box of hair for all the inbreeding and will have the temperament of a hummingbird on speed.

I'd like to make sure people see the key words here: as household pets.
That will make owning a bit pull no different than owning a tiger. You can do it, but you require training and special licenses before you're permitted.
I think that's perfectly reasonable. After all, just because most breeds of dogs are fine doesn't mean they're all fine. Just like some cats are fine and generally harmless as pets, not all of them are. Some of them require special handling and special environments.

I think what the "Pro-banning" people are refusing to accept is that even if in a hypothetical situation, *all dogs* got banned, the people who raise aggressive animals <b>will find something else</b>.

Pointing fingers at the breed and making them a scapegoat is no different than saying the Great White Shark is to blame for attacking people. It's never the surfer's fault for swimming in the sharks' natural feeding ground right? Just like it's never the fault of the people who train only the aggressive side of a dog.

<b>Any dog</b> can be made aggressive. <b>Any breed</b> can be trained to bite humans. And breed doesn't make a lick of difference when you see an aggressive dog coming at you - whether it's a 20lb Jack Russell attacking your 4yr old, or a 140lb German Shepard coming at your father. There is no dog that cannot puncture human skin, that can't get in a "lucky shot" and blind, bite off fingers, rip or tear an artery or cause you other serious lacerations.

If you're one of the ones saying that size is the absolute, and that a chia or pug or pomer can't harm a human, then I dare you to take yours or your friend's/family's little child and put them in front of an aggressive toy breed dog. See exactly how much damage they "can't do" first hand. And sadly, that's exactly what happens - parent's get complacent because "Oh, Fido would never harm a fly," and then next thing you know, they're on the evening news talking about how they only "left her alone with the dog for a minute."

Are there dogs that are naturally more aggressive than others?

Absolutely - my Malamute is one of them. They are naturally <b>dog</b> aggressive and will try and cause other dogs to be submissive <b>if you allow them to think that the type of behavior is ok</b>. Unfortunately, the people who buy the breed because it "looks like a wolf" and do no research into their temperament usually allow them to run wild, don't understand why the dog never seems to listen, and ends up tying it up in the backyard. Then they're surprised when it bites someone who came too close.

Same exact thing with Rotty's and the "Pit Bull" breeds. They are both *highly* energetic dogs that require tons of exercise before they'll even start to consider listening to obedience lessons. If you have a pit that's locked up in the house all day or only has a 10x10 backyard to play in for 30min a day, you've gotta accept that <b>he's going to be near uncontrollable</b>.

Human gets pet because it "looks neat" -> Human finds out how much work raising this "neat looking pet is" -> Human neglects pet's needs (no exercise, no discipline) -> Human declines to follow up with training regime, on walks the dog is a "puller" -> Human thinks walking the pulling dog is too much work, and leaves them outside for most of the day -> Dog gets loose into neighborhood after being bored of being left outside -> Dog gets chained up in backyard, because overactive dog "jumped up" and scared kids/adults -> Dog becomes hyper-territorial of it's chained area because of lack of mental and physical stimulation -> Dog bites human -> Dog gets put down because it's obvious that the breed is dangerous.

Any dog can be made aggressive. Any breed can be trained to bite humans.Storm, but you're missing the point that while any breed can be trained, there are some breeds that are still genetically coded to do so and must be specially trained not to bite/attack. To animals, humans are nothing more than another species they have to overcome or surcome to.

We've already given plenty of proven facts showing that genetics, aka instincts, still play a role in the behaviour of our every day household and non-household animals. Every domestic animal today is bred from roots of wild animals at one time. Some animals had centuries to "tame" their instincts, others just had a few hundered years.

Just cause they are animals, it does not mean we should forgive them for every natural instinct mistake they do.

Storm, but you're missing the point that while any breed can be trained, there are some breeds that are still genetically coded to do so and must be specially trained not to bite/attack. To animals, humans are nothing more than another species they have to overcome or surcome to.
Absolutely false.

There is no dog out there that is genetically trained to attack humans. All hunting animals will flee from a fight if given the chance in order to avoid injury. The only time a wild animal will attack a human is if it feels threatened (and yes, entering their territory is part of feeling threatened - especially if they have cubs/babies).

If some dogs are genetically trained to harm humans, that means that there should be no family out there with a rotty or pit bull without a bite story, because I can guarantee you that the majority of all dog owners will not attend a dog obedience class or seek advice on how to raise their dog outside of what their vet says. Yet had several friends with several rottys and pits that have had no "special training" and are as docile as lambs.

If it's "genetically encoded" like you said, then there should be no possible way that the <b>majority of pit bulls and rottys never bite a human</b>, because like I said, the majority of them never see a training class - nor have their humans.

Google some information on dog breeds. You'll find that genetically a pug is nearly identical as a Great Dane. The difference between dog breeds is like the difference between an Asian and a European human.

Yet had several friends with several rottys and pits that have had no "special training" and are as docile as lambs.The exact same story that every single owner of a pit bull said before their dog, for some unknown reason, faitally killed their child or attacked some kid. The artical that started this thread is an example, albiet not the best given she was an abusive mother, but an example no less.

Another recent example is a mother with a bit pull family dog. Completely harmless, wouldn't hurt a fly, loved the baby, etc. She could talk the world of their dog. So, anyway, according to the artical, the baby was in it's crib and the dog was quitely laying down near by. While away she noticed thigs got very quiet really quick. She returned to find the baby dead by her dog...

You have holes in your story. Sure any dog can be trained to attack people, but our point is that some of these dogs that were NOT trained to attack people *have* attacked people. And how these special cases require that people train them NOT to attack people. The only way to insure that is to figure out the breeds that aren't "fully taimed" yet and require special permits to own one.

It's the minute difference of not trained to attack people and trained not to attack people.

This requirement can be said exactly the same for cats. Cats have been domesticated since before the era of Egyptions and before dogs ever become a domesticated breed. They have centries of instincts removed from them. However, you still have cats, which are no different than your house hold pets, in the wild with their instincts fully intact and require special permits for anybody to own them. Ocelot was only one example. I know there's a cat that's *exactly* like your average household cat, but it was a wild animal. I can't for the life of me recall it's name .. Egyption something, I can totally see it in my head; all grey, hising photo ... I knew, a few years ago, back when I was a wildlife artist...


PS: I'm bringing in cats souly to show that I'm trying not to act like I hate dogs. I'm a cat person and I want to make sure I'm not coming across as somebody that dislikes dogs.

I think what the "Pro-banning" people are refusing to accept is that even if in a hypothetical situation, *all dogs* got banned, the people who raise aggressive animals <b>will find something else</b>.

<b>Any dog</b> can be made aggressive. <b>Any breed</b> can be trained to bite humans. And breed doesn't make a lick of difference when you see an aggressive dog coming at you - whether it's a 20lb Jack Russell attacking your 4yr old, or a 140lb German Shepard coming at your father. There is no dog that cannot puncture human skin, that can't get in a "lucky shot" and blind, bite off fingers, rip or tear an artery or cause you other serious lacerations.



I respect your deep-felt opinion, and admire your obvious passion for dogs. I feel your arguments don't hold water. They use wild extrapolation (if all dogs got banned), exagerration (any dog can be made aggressive) and deflection (Great White Shark example) and 'slippery slope' analogies to move away from some very basic points.

* Certain breeds are more aggressive than others. This includes pit bulls and rotties. These breeds have a much higher chance of killing/injuring humans than the other dog species. These dogs were often bred to be aggressive.

* Whether the dog or the human is to blame (and I too blame the human), deaths and injuries are overwhelmingly caused by certain breeds of dogs.

* More powerful dogs will kill/maim more easily than less powerful dogs.

guice - the mother in the article that started this thread knew the pit was acting aggressively and knowingly left the child in the house alone.

In your other example, that behavior is not limited to breed behavior. Any family dog that has lived with specific people for any length of time can become jealous of anything that takes their owner's attention away from them. Hear the stories about the girlfriend who's dog hates the boyfriend? Same concept. Same thing when first time parents suddenly have a new baby - the dog sees the baby as a rival for the owner's attention, and any breed of dog can decide that it doesn't want this new thing in it's life taking it's owner's attention away. That is why new parents are always instructed *never* to leave their children alone with pets, no matter how long its been in the family.

And that type of behavior isn't the same type of aggression as attacking someone point blank - that's actually more along the lines of pack hierarchy. Whenever the Alpha couple have newborns in a wolf society, the other wolves will attempt to assert their dominance over the pups. A "Hey, I know you're new around here, but I just want you to know that I'm better than you." But you'll notice that they do this when the cubs are walking and their eyes are open - that's because before that time, they're vulnerable and the mother will not allow them to leave her side, or allow pack members near them. If a mother leaves her den and leaves her pups unguarded, other pack members will often come in and kill them.

This mentality is not bred completely out of our "domesticated" dogs - of any breed. All dogs are covetous of their owners attention and will do what's in their nature to do - if left unsupervised (ie: when the Alpha (you) isn't looking).

And Thicket, the "Any dog can be made aggressive" is not an exaggeration.
Families that have lost their dogs for any period of time (like a month or more) because say, Fido lost his collar and ran away, and later get found at a local shelter will often tell you that their dog acts differently from when they were raised only at home. Not only that, but there are neighborhoods around the United States where the SPCA and law enforcement tell you not to leave your dog unattended because they could be stolen - stolen dogs get used for two things primarily, reselling (if it's a "hot breed" like pugs and chiahuahuawtfs), and dog fighting. Any dog, whether you've had your loyal yellow lab for two weeks or eight years, can be "force trained" to become aggressive.

Also, the point of the injury rate is the fact that the breed will not matter. If the pit bulls get banned, if the rottys get banned, there will come another powerful dog that will take the title of the "ultimate guard dog". If you want to ban every single dog that might cause an injury to a human, then you would end up banning all dogs.

Re-read some of the articles linked in this thread and pay special attention to the part where the expert (whether they're law enforcement or animal specialists) say that every single attack was avoidable.

The solution is not to blame the dog, it's to blame the human.

I will say this though - once the dog has aggressively bitten or otherwise attacked a human, it is often too late to try and retrain the dog not to be aggressive. Animal behavioralists will tell you that if you know a dog is becoming aggressive, or shows some other worrisome signs of fear aggression, it's a thousand times easier to work with the dog before that first bite happens. Once the dog bites, it gets it into it's head that this is an acceptable form of defending itself, and it's often near impossible to break them of that (as was the case with my roommate's dog).

When all the pit bulls are dead, the irresponsible owners will simply find another breed to be the "mean dog of the day" and then we'll have to eliminate that breed.
I agree that it is the owners who are to blame. The problem is that most owners fail to understand that just because their dog is nice and gentle with them does not mean it will be nice and gentle with people who it thinks are outside of their "pack." All dogs are territorial and they have very strong opinions about who belongs and who doesn't. Interestingly, there does seem to be some consensus amongst dogs that the Postman and the Garbage Man are godless rat-bastards who are clearly up to no good.

The laws are in place. They do a pretty damned good job.
Whether they do a good job or not is debatable but we'd disagree on the measurement of success so we won't find any common ground. WRT the laws being in place, it's too bad that animal licensing isn't enforced and monitored with he same rigor that car licensing is.

Hense the heireditary thing. Some dogs will just have a cow and s* on the carpet. Cats will urinate on things outside their litter box.

Same primis. The natural insticts of being more aggresive than another is where the line crosses if a dog will actually attack something it feels is taking from it's attention. These naturally aggresive dogs need to be culled somehow. Your example show perfectly why people require special licenses to own these types of dogs. Only with proper training will a human be able to notice these things in their animal and will they be able to act accordingly, before somebody gets hurt/killed.

Re-read some of the articles linked in this thread and pay special attention to the part where the expert (whether they're law enforcement or animal specialists) say that every single attack was avoidable
*cough*expert. Your average dog owner wouldn't have known that. Thus, more support for the requirement of licenses to own these more naturally aggresive animals.

All comes back, once again, to the fact that some breeds of dogs are just naturally more aggresive than others. And without proper training they will cause problems. Blame the humans; the humans that don't know how to train their dog. The only way for a human to properly train their dog is to make them aware of the problems. The only way to make them aware of the problems is to require permits to own certain breed of dogs (cats/etc).

Your "fact" has a huge gaping hole in that not every single pit bull or rot has bitten or attacked a human.

Your "fact" has a huge gaping hole in that not every single pit bull or rot has bitten or attacked a human.
Yet statistically they are much more likely to kill humans than other breeds.

Your "fact" has a huge gaping hole in that not every single pit bull or rot has bitten or attacked a human.And you'd prefer to wait until that breed bites somebody before declaring them an aggressive breed?

And you'd prefer to wait until that breed bites somebody before declaring them an aggressive breed?

We would need to exterminate every living canid if we were to get rid of all breeds which have bitten a human being.

Sorry, I mistook her comment as not every breed of bit pull or rot has bitten somebody.

Your "fact" has a huge gaping hole in that not every single pit bull or rot has bitten or attacked a human.

How many attacks do there need to be before these breeds are restricted? I think we'd all agree that if 75% of a breed went on to seriously injure someone, then that breed should be banned. It wouldn't matter if they were a dog and most dogs are nice, that breed of dog would be banned. All the arguments about it being a slippery slope, wouldn't control other breeds, bad owners would choose other bad breeds, well trained dogs don't bite, etc. would just become irrelevant.

It's just a matter of deciding how many serious attacks need to happen before action is taken. In the UK we decided we'd reached that point for those 4 imported fighting breeds in 1991. Other measures to make all owners responsible for all their pets would probably work too, but our government would have been negligent if it had done nothing.

It's just a matter of deciding how many serious attacks need to happen before action is taken. In the UK we decided we'd reached that point for those 4 imported fighting breeds in 1991. Other measures to make all owners responsible for all their pets would probably work too, but our government would have been negligent if it had done nothing.

Yet the didn't ban the "local" fighting breeds like the Stratfordshire Bull Terrier which IS a pit bull.

All animals have the potential to be aggressive and cause injury. Being a vet student, I've seen this first hand. Owners absolutely must understand their animal in general and their breed specifically. Regardless of breed, all dogs should go through some type of professional training with their owner. Period. For those breeds that are more predisposed to aggression, owners should be extra cautious. Pit bulls and rotts make excellent companions, if handled properly. Banning breeds is not the answer. Education is. If owners are educated about the breeds they want, they will know what to look for in a breeder, and they will train their dog appropriately. Perhaps all pet owners should have to have a liscense. I believe all breeders definitely should. And unless a pet is a certified show animal or a breeder, it should be fixed.

Incidently, my worst animal related injury was a cat bite. Because cats have such long, needle-like teeth, they can cause very nasty puncture wounds. This cat got ahold of my index finger and bit so deeply that it caused nerve damage. I don't have the full range of motion or feeling in that finger because of it.

Yet the didn't ban the "local" fighting breeds like the Stratfordshire Bull Terrier which IS a pit bull.

Wasn't the pit bull bred from the staffordshire terrier to be a more aggressive and stronger fighting animal? Correct me if I'm wrong. If you want the staffordshire bull terrier to be restricted in the US then you can press for that, it wouldn't bother me one way or the other.

I've said a couple of times I think that the affection the public has for the dogs may affect any legislation. In the UK there was no affection for the pit bull as there seems to be in the US. I'm not going to defend every nuance of the UK laws, just to say that we had a lot of debate over dangerous dogs 15 years ago, we took action, and I think the public are confident that dogs can be controlled under those laws.

While as a dog owner I agree that humans are responsible for their pets' actions, the problem is simply that it takes a LOT of time, money, training and education to get people in line with the "right" way to handle pets. Unfortunately the cheapest and most expeditious way to deal with aggressive animals is to ban the top of the list and work down from there, and governing bodies tend to take the cheapest and most expeditious route when faced with a problem. Statistics are available that show certain breeds to be higher on the domesticated aggressive list than others and it's likely that more communities will be banning them as time goes on. Is it fair? No. Will it happen? Yeah... life's not always about fair and the percentage of pet owners who keep the breeds in question and feel as passionately as Stormhaven about the issue is VERY small compared to pet owners in general. Perhaps if my Eskie was on the list I would feel just as Stormhaven does, too.

Personally, I love dogs and have spent very few years of my life without one or two in my own home. I'm one of those people who tends to spiel off the names of my pets when people ask how many children I have. But there are many dog breeds out there... so many to choose from, and when it comes to a fight I would rather spend my energies on issues that have a greater impact on my day to day living.

So in a nutshell... it's cheaper and easier to monitor a ban on specific breeds than it is to expect all pet owners to act responsibily. Even when they KNOW they are held legally responsible for their own animal's actions it's human nature to say "My dog's ok... It won't happen to me. Besides, I have something more important to do today anyway."

Given the mother in the article that started this thread... those of you who are arguing for responsible pet ownership... what exactly do you think a community could have done to make her act differently than she did? Although all dogs are trainable, some humans simply aren't. :(

Wasn't the pit bull bred from the staffordshire terrier to be a more aggressive and stronger fighting animal? Correct me if I'm wrong. If you want the staffordshire bull terrier to be restricted in the US then you can press for that, it wouldn't bother me one way or the other.

I've said a couple of times I think that the affection the public has for the dogs may affect any legislation. In the UK there was no affection for the pit bull as there seems to be in the US. I'm not going to defend every nuance of the UK laws, just to say that we had a lot of debate over dangerous dogs 15 years ago, we took action, and I think the public are confident that dogs can be controlled under those laws.

The American Pit bull is a stronger animal, but it's not more aggressive, no.

That's absurd. You can't seriously believe that. A 65 kg rottweiler is just as dangerous as a 2 kg chihuahua? I think not.


That's like saying World War II wasn't dangerous because your grandfather fought there and he was fine.

Way to pick my post apart. By "fine" i mean he never ever attacked anyone he knew until he died.

And yea like someone posted a few pages back... a chihuahua can rip a baby's throat real easy.

By "fine" i mean he never ever attacked anyone he knew until he died.
So, apart from the person he attacked as he was dying, he only attacked people he didn't know? That's an odd definition of fine.

LOL! Poor Nimchip.

The problem with banning breeds is that it doesn't get to the root of the problem. All animals are capable of aggression and should be treated so. Ban certain breeds, and other breeds will show up and become problematic. In almost every dog attack you read about, the owner was surprised by the dog's aggression. Therein lies the problem. The owner didn't fully realize what their animal was capable of. Just as every gun should be treated as loaded, every animal should be treated as potentially aggressive. There are some dogs out there as well that are just bad, regardless of training. This is usually the result of bad breeding. But, if you have responsible owners, bad breeders won't have a market and will therefore die out. How do we make pet owners responsible then? I honestly don't know. As I said before, perhaps all pet owners should have to have a license. But I do know that banning breeds won't solve the problem. It can only delay it for bits of time, at best.

Also, someone earlier said something about certain breeds having "locking jaws". This is absolutely false. Hunting and fighting type dogs do have the instinct to latch onto prey, but it's not the same thing. A dog's hold can be broken by grabbing it's top jaw in one hand, it's bottom jaw in the other, and pulling the jaws apart laterally. This can break the dog's jaw, leaving him incapable of biting, but not fatally wounded. Usually, though, you can just kick a dog in the balls, and that'll put him off. The most important thing is not to panic.

And yea like someone posted a few pages back... a chihuahua can rip a baby's throat real easy.


LOL...you people have lost your sense of proportion to such an extent it is ludicrous.

Whether something can rip a baby's throat is hardly a meaningful measure of whether an animal is dangerous. Can a chihuahua cause serious injury to you? I sure hope not.

As for me, I can punt a chihuahua about 30 feet. I can't punt a pit bull, rotty, or dobie...

Death by paper cuts... sure its possible... I suppose... given long enough and possible infections.

I think we'd all agree that if 75% of a breed went on to seriously injure someone, then that breed should be banned.

Yes, even the dog breeders--I might say especially the legitimate dog breeders--would vehemently agree with this statement.

That's the whole problem. There are people who want to exterminate 100% of the animals for the behaviors of less than 1% of the population.

To put it in human terms, most gang activity where I live occurs among black males. I think to stop gang activity (which, btw, kills far and away more humans than dog attacks) we should incarcerate ALL black males.

Yeah, that'd fly. The all or nothing approach just doesn't make sense and will kill very large numbers of perfectly innocent well trained and well mannered dogs because a few are not that way.

Here are some thoughts: if a dog is starved, then a 12 month old unsupervised child wanders into the dogs vicinity, and the dog attempts to eat the child, who is at fault?
Many of you are saying the dog's genetics.

If a 3 year old unsupervised child continually pokes and prods a dog through a double fence and the dog finally gets a piece of the kids and tears the kid's arm off, who is at fault? Many of you are saying the dog's genetics.

If a dog has been kept in a small enclosure with very little exposure to human beings, then a human approaches in a hunched over "stalking" stance, appearing as aggressive to the dog as a knife weilding human would to another human, who is at fault? Many of you are saying the dog is at fault.

And more frightening, many of you are saying that hundreds of thousands of dogs which AREN'T treated cruelly, and which are perfectly fine members of the community, should be summarily executed because they happen to be related to other dogs who have been aggressive to humans (whether it was their fault or the fault of the owner).

So, apart from the person he attacked as he was dying, he only attacked people he didn't know? That's an odd definition of fine.

Klath, as soon as you can write in a second language as well as Nimchip can communicate in English, then I will give you free license to pick apart posts written by anyone whose primary language is not English. Personally, I see that kind of agressive tendency on this board to be indicative of undesirable traits in a person. Perhaps I should see about getting you and all your blood relatives banned from this board. After all, if you have those traits, all your blood relatives, no matter how distant, must also have that trait.

There are people who want to exterminate 100% of the animals for the behaviors of less than 1% of the population.
A public safety precedent has been set for this with certain types of firearms. The percentage of these firearms that were actually use in illegal activity was quite a bit less than 1%. I'm not saying it's exactly the same thing but a similar rationale was used for the ban.

To put it in human terms, most gang activity where I live occurs among black males. I think to stop gang activity (which, btw, kills far and away more humans than dog attacks) we should incarcerate ALL black males.
As absurd as that sounds, that isn't far from what was accomplished through the "war on drugs." I don't recall the exact numbers but something like one in three black males have been incarcerated. The number of black males who are currently incarcerated is a similarly alarming figure.

Klath, as soon as you can write in a second language as well as Nimchip can communicate in English, then I will give you free license to pick apart posts written by anyone whose primary language is not English.
For the love of god, I was just kidding around with him. His assertion that all dogs were equally dangerous was absurd so I thought I'd respond with similar absurdity. Next time I'll throw in a smiley face or something.

Perhaps I should see about getting you and all your blood relatives banned from this board. After all, if you have those traits, all your blood relatives, no matter how distant, must also have that trait.
That would be a more appropriate jibe if I were actually one of the people suggesting a ban. I'm not.

Here are some thoughts: if a dog is starved, then a 12 month old unsupervised child wanders into the dogs vicinity, and the dog attempts to eat the child, who is at fault?

It's not a question of blame. It's a question of prevention. If a golden retriever tries to eat a child it would be distinctly unpleasant. If a fighting dog tried to eat a child it would be almost certainly fatal and any accompanying adults would have difficulty stopping the attack. Even in this extreme example, there is a distinction.

And more frightening, many of you are saying that hundreds of thousands of dogs which AREN'T treated cruelly, and which are perfectly fine members of the community, should be summarily executed because they happen to be related to other dogs who have been aggressive to humans

Nobody has said dogs would be exterminated. In the UK we restricted the import of 4 specific breeds, neutered all those dogs already in the country, and put in extra restrictions (muzzles in public, maybe) for the lifetimes of those dogs. If the US was to adopt similar legislation it could adopt similar treatment of the existing animals.

In fact, if dog owners had to get pets in "safer" breeds in the future, what harm is actually done? Nobody will have their lives destroyed, there is no real loss of civil liberties, no animals will suffer needlessly, people who enjoy owning dogs will have every opportunity to enjoy owning dogs in the future. The dogs will not understand any of the politics at all and wouldn't care less. For all the arguments posted why restrictions wouldn't work, there's been no explanation of what damage would be done if restrictions were introduced.

Yeah, no one here, that I'm aware of wants dogs euthanized. I think when bans like the Colorado one go into place it just means you can't bring new ones in. Existing ones are ok, but I'd imagine you'd have to have them neutered.

So, apart from the person he attacked as he was dying, he only attacked people he didn't know? That's an odd definition of fine.


He attacked people that jumped into the backyard, and he never attacked people he knew in his entire lifetime.

edited: oh forget it, it's not worth it.

And yea like someone posted a few pages back... a chihuahua can rip a baby's throat real easy.


LOL...you people have lost your sense of proportion to such an extent it is ludicrous.

Whether something can rip a baby's throat is hardly a meaningful measure of whether an animal is dangerous. Can a chihuahua cause serious injury to you? I sure hope not.

As for me, I can punt a chihuahua about 30 feet. I can't punt a pit bull, rotty, or dobie...

Yes you can punt them. But what about leaving a baby with a dog unsupervised? Like that woman did. Any kind of dog can kill a baby, or a small child. Of course it takes a bigger dog to bring down a bigger person, but i'm thinking we're mainly talking about children victims here because that is in fact the only victims (or most of them) that we hear in the news.

I don't think the problem was with the dog in that case (or even the child), so much as the woman... :P

Click here to see PUBLIC ENEMY #1!!! (http://eq.forums.thedruidsgrove.org/image.php?u=236&dateline=1074705336)

Heh, Arienne, poor Jeffrey is so old now that he's missing most of his teeth. He might gum you to death, if he doesn't lick you to death first ;)

Anyone ever read... well, there isn't much reading involved, "Good Dog, Karl"? :D Its about a Rotweiller that savagely brutalizes an infant whose mother leaves the child with the dog alone... ;) Kind of like the initial topic.

Didn't read that one Pan, but I did read Carl's day at the park, where not only does he endanger the life and well being of the child AGAIN, but also of another dog! And the mother still doesn't seem terribly worried about it, she goes off to have tea with a friend!

Between 1978 and 1998, breeds classified as "pit bulls" were cited as the cause of 66 dog attack fatalities. If you assume that there are at least 100,000 pit bulls in the United States (which I think would be an extremely low number), then you're willing to ban the breed entirely on the actions of less than one, one-hundredth of a percent (something like 0.0006%)

Not only that, but apparently many of you refuse to understand that dog aggression and human aggression are two completely separate things. Pit Bulls, being fighting dogs, means that they are naturally dog aggressive - this means that your dog may want to pick fights with other dogs (no, this isn't a hard and fast rule either - I've met pits that were the friendliest dog playmates ever, and others that wanted to start fights with every dog they met). Ask yourselves this - if you were breeding the ultimate guard dog and fighting dog, why on earth would you want to make it human aggressive? That would mean that at any moment, your dog could become a bigger threat to you than to the intruder.

In fact, pit bulls are known to be one of the most human friendly and human loyal breeds out there. And actually, the most decorated dog ever is a pit bull named <a href="http://www.jinxmagazine.com/jd_stubby.html">Stubby</a>.

There was also a quote somewhere (I can't find a current source, only <a href=http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:NSc-6CUxbHkJ:www.thedogplace.com/hotnews/av6.asp+Cindy+Cooke+%221986%22+%22has+been+involve d+in+any%22&hl=en>Google cache</a>) from the UKC which stated that no dog registered with the UKC has ever been involved on a human attack. Which means what? Which means that most people who actually take the time and effort to register their dog with the UKC are probably people who are interested in the breeds for pets or show dogs, while people who do not register the dogs are probably more interested in the dogs for protections or as weapons. You do not have a to be a dog trainer or a show dog breeder to register with the UKC, you can be just a simple breed lover who purchased a puppy from a registered breeder. Yet for some reason, although I'm sure the UKC has thousands and thousands of pit bulls registered on file, none of them have been involved in a human attack.

You would think, with all of these people on this forum swearing up and down that the pit bull is a vicious animal, that the UKC would have at least one instance of a registered pit bull attacking a person. But no. For some unfathomable reason, the UKC pit bulls which have pedigrees which can be traced back through generations of dogs, have never attacked a human. Strange for such a vicious dog, don't you think?

Not only that, but if you take a look at the American Temperament Test Society's webpage, you'll find that <a href="http://www.atts.org/stats1.html">Pit bulls</a> have a better average than many of the other dogs breeds (including the Chihuahua).

They are so loving and caring of their owner to the point they'll take any complete stranger as a threat and attempt to deal with it.

The latter is the problem we're facing. Cause of the latter, the prior has no more relevance.

Really? So again, why is it that none of the thousands and thousands of pits registered with the UKC has ever "attempted to deal with it" like you describe?

Strange that all these pit bull attacks are in situations where the dog is in negligent conditions isn't it?

And again, when dogs are in a dog fight, Hellooo... there are humans <b>in the fighting pits with the dogs</b>. Why on earth would you want to train a fighting dog as human aggressive when you're going to be in the pit with the dog when it's time to pull the dogs off each other?

Easy answer - you don't.

Pit bulls are not human aggressive and there's absolutely no proof that they "start out that way." No one here has been able to provide a shred of proof in that regard - and I think that's an extremely important point seeing that the entire argument on breed-based banning is centered on the fact that the pit bull is an <b>human aggressive</b> dog by nature.

The dog pops out of it's mother's womb and, BAM!, it's attacking humans.

Oh - that's <b>not</b> what you're all saying? Then exactly what is it? Because the story has changed throughout this thread (and each reason has been rebuked).

Are we back to the argument that the pit bull needs to be breed banned because of it's jaw structure? Because it's such a muscular dog? Again, there are 101 breeds that have the same jaw structure, have the same (or more) muscular build, and can cause as much, or in some cases more, damage than a pit bull. ANY large dog can cause massive tissue trauma to a human, and any dog in general can cause irreparable damage to a child or infant.

So now are we to the point where we're saying it's bad because it was a fighting dog? Then again, it was bred to be a <b>dog aggressive</b> animal - <b>not human aggressive</b>. And again, these are TWO SEPARATE THINGS. The pit bull, and actually, none of the dog breeds are "human aggressive" by nature.

What about the one where "fighting is in it's genes?" Again, the thousands of dogs registered with the various kennel clubs, <b>none</b> have been involved in a dog attack, and these clubs <b>still</b> recommend this dog breed as a great family pet. If fighting is truly something that the dog cannot resists and is "bred" into their genes, than the number of pit bull attacks per year would remain constant. You could say without a doubt that any pit bull being raised by a loving family could suddenly snap and start biting humans. But that doesn't happen - and again, less than one in every few hundred thousand even bites another human - so much for genes.

So it's not the genes...
And any dog can have the chance of causing as much damage...
And they're not human aggressive by nature...

So... why does breed based legislation make sense again?

Really? So again, why is it that none of the thousands and thousands of pits registered with the UKC has ever "attempted to deal with it" like you describe?

Strange that all these pit bull attacks are in situations where the dog is in negligent conditions isn't it?
How would your propose that those situations be addressed? Would you support stricter licensing laws that would require training and provide monitoring and enforcement?

Yet statistically they are much more likely to kill humans than other breeds.

And yet, statistically, they are less likely to kill humans than lightning, bees, or a 747.

A public safety precedent has been set for this with certain types of firearms. The percentage of these firearms that were actually use in illegal activity was quite a bit less than 1%. I'm not saying it's exactly the same thing but a similar rationale was used for the ban.

And such bans with guns are as unreasonable and misleading as this call to ban certain breeds.


As absurd as that sounds, that isn't far from what was accomplished through the "war on drugs." I don't recall the exact numbers but something like one in three black males have been incarcerated. The number of black males who are currently incarcerated is a similarly alarming figure.

And I think we'd all agree that was a mistake ;)

It's not a question of blame. It's a question of prevention. If a golden retriever tries to eat a child it would be distinctly unpleasant. If a fighting dog tried to eat a child it would be almost certainly fatal and any accompanying adults would have difficulty stopping the attack. Even in this extreme example, there is a distinction.

If a retriever tries to eat a child (golden or lab), that child is as likely to die as if a pit bull tries to eat the child. Both dogs are equally capable of severing arteries and crushing bone.






Nobody has said dogs would be exterminated. In the UK we restricted the import of 4 specific breeds, neutered all those dogs already in the country, and put in extra restrictions (muzzles in public, maybe) for the lifetimes of those dogs. If the US was to adopt similar legislation it could adopt similar treatment of the existing animals.

Which, effectively, destroys the breed.

In fact, if dog owners had to get pets in "safer" breeds in the future, what harm is actually done? Nobody will have their lives destroyed, there is no real loss of civil liberties, no animals will suffer needlessly, people who enjoy owning dogs will have every opportunity to enjoy owning dogs in the future. The dogs will not understand any of the politics at all and wouldn't care less. For all the arguments posted why restrictions wouldn't work, there's been no explanation of what damage would be done if restrictions were introduced.

If you get rid of one "fighting breed" another breed will be made into such. Certain people will take any dog and turn it into a killer if they thing it'd make a good one. Get rid of pits, and people will go back to rotties. Get rid of rotties and they'll go back to Dobies. Get rid of Dobies and they'll go back to Shepards. Get rid of shepards and they'll try Danes. Get rid of Danes and they'll try Standard Poodles (which, by the way, have the reputation of being rather mean dogs...) Eventually you'll have a society that bans any dog of 25 lbs.

How would your propose that those situations be addressed? Would you support stricter licensing laws that would require training and provide monitoring and enforcement?

Why is there this supposition that these situations require further addressing? The laws are already in place. The remedies are already in place. This is not a real issue. .0022% of our population is bit by a dog every year (and that's on a rather generous estimation of a population of 350 million. Which is a population estimate 5 years old now. Odds are we've gained another 25 million or so). That figure drops to .0011% of our population which requires medical attention. That drops to .0001% of our population which requires emergency medical care as a result of dog bites.

THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM. THIS IS ONLY A PROBLEM FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO REQUIRE SOMETHING FOR THEIR REELECTION CAMPAIGN, AND SILLY PEOPLE WHO BUY INTO SUCH PLOYS.

So... why does breed based legislation make sense again?

At the risk of stating the obvious again, it's because a few dog breeds have hurt and killed humans much more than the majority of dog breeds. These breeds are not suitable household pets.

It's an emotion-based argument, Storm, and although rational discussion is possible, it's not an issue that can be resolved with facts and figures.

In the end, it becomes a social issue. 25 years ago, smoking in public places and drinking/driving were socially acceptable. Today they are not (certainly a generalization, but I think the societal change is pretty clear). Laws support the change in societal norms. In the U.S., aggressive dog breeds were socially acceptable, but that is changing. The same is true in Canada.

Let me tell you about dogs in the Netherlands. The Dutch love their dogs. The Netherlands is the most densely populated country in the world, and natural wildlife is rare. To compensate, people love their pets. When I lived in the Netherlands, I would often joke that the size of someone's dog was inversely proportional to their home. There were many huge dogs.

What does a society that loves dogs look like? Some examples;

* I was driving in The Hague when I hear sirens. I pull to the side of the road and an ambulance with flashing lights whizzes by. The vehicle has "Dierenambulance" written on it. It's an ambulance for animals.

* In North America, we get older ladies canvasing door-to-door for the Heart and Stroke Foundation, Cancer Fund etc. In the Netherlands, older ladies canvas for animal hospitals.

* Sidewalks have designated dog-pooping zones (yes, right on the pavement). More affluent areas have dog-pooping areas with automatic water flushes.

Dogs in the Netherlands are very well behaved. Aggressive dogs are NOT tolerated. Societal norms don't allow it. I don't know what Dutch dog laws are like, but I do know that there are dogs everywhere. They are not allowed to run free -- always leashed or penned. They almost never bark. A barking dog is immediately and physically punished by their owner. Having a well-behaved dog is a matter of personal pride.

I'm in no way advocating the Dutch approach. There were far too many dogs for my liking, well-behaved or not. (We had something called the "Hague Shuffle". You shuffle your feet trying to clean the dog crap from your shoes after stepping in a pile). I also don't think that North America can easily emulate the Dutch norms for dog ownership. It might seem a logical alternative to breed-based restrictions, but it's much more difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, the Netherlands is a good example of a place where societal norms have dealt with aggressive dog breeds.

Of course, there are places in the world where dogs are eaten as food. No, I'm not advocating this either... Lol.

A funny dog story from my youth.

I was walking in the 'back yard' of my uncle's house on an acreage north of Toronto when I was about 10 years old. There was a fence separating his property from the neighbors.

I'm walking along the fence-line several hundred feet from his house. All of a sudden, the neighbor's huge German shepherd spots me and makes a frenzied dash to the fence. The dog was barking and growling viciously. I was scared! I barely dared to move. I was relieved that there was a fence between me and the dog.

A minute or so passed, and the dog continued to bark. For some reason, I picked up a stick from the ground, and threw it over the fence. The shepherd raced to get the stick, and dropped it near me, but on his side of the fence.

No way was I reaching through the fence to get the stick.

Not quite so scared now, I picked up another stick and repeated the process. The dog kept retrieving the stick. I did this a few more times. I was also running out of sticks.

I picked up a flattish piece of wood and threw it. The wind caught it and it landed on MY SIDE OF THE FENCE. The dog took a step back, jumped over the fence, grabbed the piece of wood and jumped back to his side of the fence!!! My heart stopped.

After regaining my composure, I picked up a rock, threw it as far as I could and raced to my uncle's house before the dog had a chance to retrieve the rock. :grin:

Didn't read that one Pan, but I did read Carl's day at the park, where not only does he endanger the life and well being of the child AGAIN, but also of another dog! And the mother still doesn't seem terribly worried about it, she goes off to have tea with a friend!

Man, that mother should be brought up on charges! Its hideous they'd make a children's book out of it.

Somehow I just knew you'd understand what I was talking about. :D

Let me tell you about dogs in the Netherlands. The Dutch love their dogs.

Ah! This is explains the joke I just heard about why the Dutch teach their children to swim at such an early age. It was something like, because if their out boating with their dog and child and it tips over, the child will need to know how to swim. :p

This thread isn't going anywhere.

We have people that favor stricter rules and licensing of dogs or any animal known to be agreesive towards humans, reguardless of "training".

And we have people that feel nothing should happen at all, regardless if it happened to them or not. The owner is at fault, but no action should take place if a dog happens to kill somebody.

That's really the arguement here now, nothing more than that.

If a dog kills a human, that animal will need to be put down. That specific animal. I understand enough about the behavior of dogs to know that once they've attacked a human, they will likely do so again.

What I don't agree with is banning an entire breed or causing its eradication by prevention of breeding (as with the DDA) simply because they are the "mean dog d'jour" and PEOPLE with less than great morals/ethics are treating these dogs in ways which lead to the dog having to be put down.

The woman in the article is a moron. She should never be allowed to own another dog. At all. Period. She shouldn't be allowed to breed again either, but the courts can't enforce that. The courts can forbid her to ever own a dog again. Happens with fair regularity.

Dealing with the issue doesn't have to involve letting all dogs run amok, nor does it have to involve the eradication of an entire breed. It would be totally possible to require licenses not for the animal, but for the human. The license would mandate training classes in obedience (for dog and owner), and a class in basic dog psychology and maintenance. People would be required to have the license before they could purchase a dog.

Not only would this be good for the humans who live with dogs in their community, it would be good for the dogs as well.

And the number of bite cases would, I'd bet, drop significantly. The number of deaths would probably also drop, but since there aren't very many deaths per year, it might not be that noticeable.

This is a very good article on the statistics, causes, and what some states are doing about things:

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

I still think a requirement to license the owner would go a long way.

Why is there this supposition that these situations require further addressing?
I favor stricter licensing as a means to deal with the more general problems arising from irresponsible pet ownership. You downplay the number of attacks on humans as being statistically insignificant so how about this statistic: the most conservative estimates place the number of cats and dogs destroyed each year in the US at over 3 million. Less conservative estimates place the figure at over ten million. I think stricter licensing could address this larger problem while at the same time addressing the problem of dog attacks.

This thread isn't going anywhere.

We have people that favor stricter rules and licensing of dogs or any animal known to be agreesive towards humans, reguardless of "training".

And we have people that feel nothing should happen at all, regardless if it happened to them or not. The owner is at fault, but no action should take place if a dog happens to kill somebody.

That's really the arguement here now, nothing more than that.

Since when do threads go anywhere in this board? :)

At the risk of stating the obvious again, it's because a few dog breeds have hurt and killed humans much more than the majority of dog breeds. These breeds are not suitable household pets.
Again, you have absolutely no comparison to base this on. You have absolutely no idea what the base population of pit bulls in the United States is - without knowing that, how on earth can you make an assumption that this breed is anymore lethal than another? Not only that, you're once again completely ignoring the <b>fact</b> that no dog is human aggressive by nature. That aggressiveness <b>has to be taught</b>.

It's an emotion-based argument, Storm, and although rational discussion is possible, it's not an issue that can be resolved with facts and figures.
That's the sad part - the media has wrapped this nation up into such an anti-pit bull or anti-rotty mindset that people are willing to overlook hard facts and keep their eyes closed about what's really going on. Rather than think that this dog, which is in thousands (if not millions) of homes across the United States and the rest of the world, might not be dangerous, people are willing to assume that by banning the breed, dog attacks would suddenly stop miraculously. People continue to believe this despite:

1 - The fact that the CDC has numbers proving that dog attacks are not confined to one breed.
2 - Law enforcement specialists have stated time and time again that breed based legislation will not work.
3 - Dog and breed experts have stated that breed based legislation will not work.
4 - Areas with breed based legislation have statistics that breed based legislation has not curbed the number of animal attacks or underground dog fighting.
5 - Animal behavioralists have stated time and time again that no dog is human aggressive by nature.
6 - Law and Animal experts have found that all of the fatal dog attacks were avoidable if the human had used common sense.

You're right.

All the facts point to the fact that a breed of dog cannot be held responsible for solving all the problems with vicious dog attacks. Yet people are more comfortable believing that it would, rather than own up to the fact that the human influence is more damaging than the breed.

If you want to stop dog attacks (and Klath this is in response to you too), you'd be better off convincing the local and state government that instead of wasting the public's money on legislation that has been proven not to work, to get harsher laws for people found with dog fighting paraphernalia, animal mistreatment in general needs carry a much heavier punishment than it does now (like I said earlier, if you starve your dog to death, right now in many states the worst you'll get is a citation, a fine and a "don't do that again"), and to give a larger budget to your local Animal Control department - whether they go through the SPCA or just a local branch of government - so they can actually enforce the "prevention of cruelty" part of their job instead of just picking up strays.

I still think a requirement to license the owner would go a long way.
I completely agree. In addition to licensing the owners, individual pets should be registered. This would make it possible to monitor compliance with licensing rules as well as state and local laws relating to animal care. Lastly, people should have to obtain a special license if they want to own a pet that is not spayed/neutered.

I completely agree. In addition to licensing the owners, individual pets should be registered. This would make it possible to monitor compliance with licensing rules as well as state and local laws relating to animal care. Lastly, people should have to obtain a special license if they want to own a pet that is not spayed/neutered.

Actually, in this case I think the woman should have had a license to have children!

Actually, in this case I think the woman should have had a license to have children!
roflmao

It's impressive just how bad parents can be. If there were a contest, the lady in this article would certainly get an honorable mention:

http://www.ky3.com/newsdetailed.asp?id=8227

Dealing with the issue doesn't have to involve letting all dogs run amok, nor does it have to involve the eradication of an entire breed. It would be totally possible to require licenses not for the animal, but for the human. The license would mandate training classes in obedience (for dog and owner), and a class in basic dog psychology and maintenance. People would be required to have the license before they could purchase a dog.No doubt. The problem here is pretty easy to see, however. It's a simple matter of funding the "inspect" of the "expect". I'd liken it to the "fight" against marijuana. Easy to get/grow, illegal to have. How much money goes into the maintenance of the plant's illegal status? But in the case of marijuana, it's coupled with other illegal substances. Think of the expense to maintain the law of it's illegality if it was the ONLY "drug" that they were looking for.

Despite the fact that Panamah's link states "Dog attack victims in the U.S. suffer over $1 billion in monetary losses every year.", the expense burden would shift to the tax base AND state/federal budgets to enforce licensing. Perhaps it's the most logical solution, but it's not gonna happen. Well... unless the federal government passes a law and forces the states to fund it. :shuffle:

Well we've had dog licences in the UK for longer than I can remember. They do make it easier for authorities to control any dog related issues, but remember that there's no reason why the two dogs in the San Francisco attacks from last week wouldn't have been licensed. Here in the UK we felt the need to restrict the imported breeds as well as having our existing licensing laws, and I expect any style of licensing in the US would need some extra oomph to make it effective in controlling dog attacks.

There's no reason why a simple system and dog registration and licensing shouldn't be self-funding.

There's no reason why a simple system and dog registration and licensing shouldn't be self-funding.
Also, there is no shortage of animal welfare groups who I'm sure would be willing to provide assistance given the fact that a stricter licensing system would significantly reduce their existing workload.

Dealing with the issue doesn't have to involve letting all dogs run amok, nor does it have to involve the eradication of an entire breed. It would be totally possible to require licenses not for the animal, but for the human. The license would mandate training classes in obedience (for dog and owner), and a class in basic dog psychology and maintenance. People would be required to have the license before they could purchase a dog.
There's something ironic about when you have to meet certain requirements to own a dog but not a kid. :p

There's something ironic about when you have to meet certain requirements to own a dog but not a kid. :pSo true. Perhaps we should correct one problem with another. Legalize the selling of children and pay for dog licensing with the proceeds. Voila! Bad parents would sell their kids and bad dogs would be off the street! :D

To date there have been 10 fatal dog attacks in the United States in 2005.

(Important caveat. The person compiling this list specifically cautions that newspaper reports often err in reporting dog breed type, especially pit bulls. He states that it's inadvisable to use this information to support breed-specific legislation.)

Case 1: 2 pit bull mix, 1 part chow.
Case 2: 1 pit bull
Case 3: 3 pit bull, 1 mixed breed
Case 4: 3 pit bull
Case 5: 1 rottweiler, 1 mixed breed
Case 6: 2 pit bull
Case 7: 1 rottweiler/shepherd mix
Case 8: 2 dogs, breed unidentified
Case 9: Pack of wild dogs. Breed unidentified
Case 10: 1 pit bull, 1 American bulldog, 1 unidentified

http://www.dogexpert.com/FatalDogAttacks/fataldogattacks.html

This fatality happened where I live. This short article hardly does the incident justice. It received a lot of local media attention. Banning of breeds was widely discussed. Things have calmed down, but a couple more fatal attacks will almost certainly get breed-limiting legislation passed. There was zero doubt that the 3 dogs were all Rottweilers.

There were many factors contributing to this fatality, including a drunk, single father who was under court order not to drink in the presence of his son.

There was a full-blown inquest on this fatality.

http://www.dogexpert.com/FatalDogAttacks/Outside%20US/Canada2003.htm

Interesting. Of the 10 listed, 80% of the fatal attacks were by 2 or more dogs.

Of 21 individual dogs (they don't mention how many were in the "pack" in incident 9) identified, 52% were pit bull or pit bull mixes.

Based on statistics alone, it seems to me instead of banning a breed, we should ban ownership of multiple dogs. Assuming we're going to go with an all or nothing approach.

Of course, that would mean that I would have to put one of mine down, despite the fact that the only either of them has ever harmed was my furniture (and one field mouse who was too slobbered on to come to, I think he died of a heart attack).

From a statistical standpoint, most lethal attacks occur on people under the age of 15 and, as supported above, most fatal attacks are not single dog attacks, but rather a pack or multiple of dogs.

As for licensing the humans to own the dogs, I'm thinking something along the lines of getting a driver's license. Gotta take a test, gotta pass the test. If you don't have the license, any animals you have get taken away from you.

I agree with you Pan, I do think it would be great if we could force licensing requirements on human breeding too. So far I haven't seen any court sentencing for mandatory (even temporary) sterilaztion hold as being constitutional. *sigh* I know a few people who could use it.

I completely agree. In addition to licensing the owners, individual pets should be registered. This would make it possible to monitor compliance with licensing rules as well as state and local laws relating to animal care. Lastly, people should have to obtain a special license if they want to own a pet that is not spayed/neutered.

...

Um no. This nation needs less people registered for anything, period. Registrations are not answers.

By the way, I don't know of a city/state which doesn't require by law that your dog be registered via means of a dog license. If your dog doesn't have its tags, it'll be picked up by the dog warden. As I said, the laws exist already.

And I will never neuter any male dog I have. Its cruel and it takes the life out of a dog. I've never had female dogs, so I don't know if its the same with them.


I'd see you neutered before my dog.

Um no. This nation needs less people registered for anything, period. Registrations are not answers.
I would agree with you if we were talking about inanimate objects but we're not. Animals so often get the **** end of the stick in the human/animal relationship -- a better, stricter licensing system could address this.

By the way, I don't know of a city/state which doesn't require by law that your dog be registered via means of a dog license. If your dog doesn't have its tags, it'll be picked up by the dog warden. As I said, the laws exist already.
The existing laws don't go far enough and the monitoring and enforcement of them is a complete and total joke.

And I will never neuter any male dog I have. Its cruel and it takes the life out of a dog. I've never had female dogs, so I don't know if its the same with them.
Then you could get one of the licenses I specifically mentioned in my post. Oh, did your knee jerk so hard that you neglected to read it?

And I will never neuter any male dog I have. Its cruel and it takes the life out of a dog. I've never had female dogs, so I don't know if its the same with them.You're required to in most states these days. Especially cats! Adoption agencies will *not* let you adopt any cat unless you sign a document stating you will be neutering them (if they hadn't been already). I'm sure it's the same for dogs.

The kennels don't need anymore stray animals. Jesus, nueter your bloody pets! It's not your job to spread the breed of a dog. Leave that to the professionals and licensed breeders.

By the way, I don't know of a city/state which doesn't require by law that your dog be registered via means of a dog license. If your dog doesn't have its tags, it'll be picked up by the dog warden. As I said, the laws exist already.

That's like saying we don't need driver's licenses because we have to register our cars.

Licensing the owner allows for requirements that the owner actually have some degree of knowledge about how to care for their animal, just like licensing the driver allows for some requirements that the driver have some knowledge of the rules of the road.

I totally agree with Klath on this...it would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that the animals often get the short end of the stick in this relationship.

I would agree with you if we were talking about inanimate objects but we're not. Animals so often get the **** end of the stick in the human/animal relationship -- a better, stricter licensing system could address this.


The existing laws don't go far enough and the monitoring and enforcement of them is a complete and total joke.

They go plenty far. Jesus, next thing you'll know you'll want people to get licenses to ride a bike (which, by the way, are more dangerous than dogs), to cross the street (again, more dangerous...), or to take a damned shower (yet again...more dangerous).


Then you could get one of the licenses I specifically mentioned in my post. Oh, did your knee jerk so hard that you neglected to read it?

What you are creating, with your suggestions, is a classist system where only those who can afford what will amount to a few thousand dollars in costs on top of the cost of the dog itself, can own a dog.

**** that. Mankind has owned dogs virtually unrestricted for over 10 millenia. We don't need licenses to own them now.

You're required to in most states these days. Especially cats! Adoption agencies will *not* let you adopt any cat unless you sign a document stating you will be neutering them (if they hadn't been already). I'm sure it's the same for dogs.

The kennels don't need anymore stray animals. Jesus, nueter your bloody pets! It's not your job to spread the breed of a dog. Leave that to the professionals and licensed breeders.

With cats, yes. With dogs, well, at least in Ohio, you aren't required to spay or neuter dogs you adopt.

But we weren't even talking about just dogs you adopt. Klath was talking about all dogs, even ones you buy versus just adopting.

That's like saying we don't need driver's licenses because we have to register our cars.

Bad analogy. The risk of damage to property and person from a vehicle is orders of magnitude greater than the risk from dogs.

Licensing the owner allows for requirements that the owner actually have some degree of knowledge about how to care for their animal, just like licensing the driver allows for some requirements that the driver have some knowledge of the rules of the road.

I totally agree with Klath on this...it would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that the animals often get the short end of the stick in this relationship.

No man should have to pay for permission to own a dog if he desires. Pay for the dog itself? Sure, but that's between him and the current owner of the dog. Pay just to be able to own one? No.

They go plenty far. Jesus, next thing you'll know you'll want people to get licenses to ride a bike (which, by the way, are more dangerous than dogs), to cross the street (again, more dangerous...), or to take a damned shower (yet again...more dangerous).
I thought I made it clear that my primary motivation was the wellbeing of the animals and not with attacks on humans. You may find it acceptable that we kill millions of dogs and cats each year but I feel it's something we should be attempting to reduce.

What you are creating, with your suggestions, is a classist system where only those who can afford what will amount to a few thousand dollars in costs on top of the cost of the dog itself, can own a dog.
Please explain why it would cost someone so much. It only cost me $60 to get my cats fixed -- what other expenses are you imagining?

**** that. Mankind has owned dogs virtually unrestricted for over 10 millenia. We don't need licenses to own them now.
And mankind owned slaves for millennia as well, what's your point?

Bad analogy. The risk of damage to property and person from a vehicle is orders of magnitude greater than the risk from dogs.
Consider the risk to the animals. In an earlier post you stated:

Y'all need to go out and get a pet dog and realize that there is a very good reasons dogs are called Man's best friend. There is no creature on this planet more loyal, noble, playful, and loving than your pet dog, and it doesn't matter what breed he is.
Killing strays and unwanted pets by the millions because stricter licensing conflicts with your sense of entitlement isn't a very good way of returning your love.

In all my years in the veterinary field, no one has ever convinced me that sterilizing your pet is cruel. Any risks that may come with the actual procedure are far outweighed by the advantages. Just to name a few:

Advantages of Neutering Cats and Dogs (http://www.nspca.co.za/Fact%20File%20-%20Advantages%20of%20Neutering%20Male%20Dogs%20and %20Cats.htm)

I don't advocate fixing an animal for the sake of people, but for the sake of the animal. Far too many animals get put down because of behavioral problems that could have been solved early on by fixing them. Not to mention the fact that there are way too many strays out there. There's no reason not to spay/neuter your animal unless you are a professional breeder or showing the animal.

And if you're worried about how your dog might "feel" after being neutered, theres always neuticles (http://www.neuticles.com/index1.html). I've actually seen these, and honestly, they make me giggle every time.

In all my years in the veterinary field, no one has ever convinced me that sterilizing your pet is cruel. Any risks that may come with the actual procedure are far outweighed by the advantages. Just to name a few:

Advantages of Neutering Cats and Dogs (http://www.nspca.co.za/Fact%20File%20-%20Advantages%20of%20Neutering%20Male%20Dogs%20and %20Cats.htm)

I don't advocate fixing an animal for the sake of people, but for the sake of the animal. Far too many animals get put down because of behavioral problems that could have been solved early on by fixing them. Not to mention the fact that there are way too many strays out there. There's no reason not to spay/neuter your animal unless you are a professional breeder or showing the animal.


...when you fix a male dog, you permanently alter his disposition and personality, and in my opinion, not for the better. They loose spirit, gusto, personability, and yes, aggressiveness and that protective instinct towards its family.

We've never neutered any of our dogs, nor shown any of them in my lifetime. Nor have they ever fathered any pups. Granted, its more difficult for an Irish Wolfhound to interbreed with average sized dogs naturally.

The vast majority of dogs aren't going off and spawning litters all over the place.

And if you're worried about how your dog might "feel" after being neutered, theres always neuticles (http://www.neuticles.com/index1.html). I've actually seen these, and honestly, they make me giggle every time.

LOL! That's right, heard about those ages ago. Cracked me up.

When I adopted my siamese, from a breeder, I had to sign an agreement to get him neutered. I think most responsible breeders do that for a couple of reasons, one, he wasn't really a "breeding quality pet", didn't have all the characteristics they look for in breeding animals, so he wasn't stud quality. The other being that it makes a better pet, less likely to develop undesirable habits and won't increase the population of unwanted kittens. If you do buy a kitten that is considered breeding material you have to pay a LOT more money.

Neutering a dog does not decrease his instinct to protect the family. In fact, he'll likely be more interested in the family as he'll be less interested in other dogs and animals. (And btw, I absolutely adore irish wolfhounds)

And there are pleny of dogs going off and spawning litters all over the place, even if yours aren't. Hence the problem. It's difficult to give an accurate number on how many strays are put down a year, because shelters aren't required to report it, but here's an idea (http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=nr_fact_sheets_animal_euthanas ia). "In 1997 roughly 64% of the total number of animals that entered shelters were euthanized -- approximately 2.7 million animals in just these 1,000 shelters." Granted, some of these would be due to illness, aggression, and other problems with the animal, but I'm betting the vast majority are due to overpopulation of the kennel. While dog bites may not be that huge of a problem when put into perspective, the overcrowding of animal shelters definitely is.

Another interesting link (http://www.avma.org/press/releases/050513_dog_bite_background.asp) from the AVMA on dog bites.

...when you fix a male dog, you permanently alter his disposition and personality, and in my opinion, not for the better. They loose spirit, gusto, personability, and yes, aggressiveness and that protective instinct towards its family.

We've never neutered any of our dogs, nor shown any of them in my lifetime. Nor have they ever fathered any pups. Granted, its more difficult for an Irish Wolfhound to interbreed with average sized dogs naturally.

The vast majority of dogs aren't going off and spawning litters all over the place./shrug. The way I look at it... if men can be neutered with no ill effects, certainly a dog can be.

I've owned one male dog in my life. He was a real bastard of a dachshund. We went for 5 years dealing with his "spirit" because my then husband thought that it was cruel to neuter the little guy. Funny thing tho... the three female dogs we had were all spayed without so much as a twinge of his conscience. It finally came down to either divesting ourselves of the dog or getting him neutered to see if he would settle down. We got him neutered and it worked. He became the sweetest little guy you could ever want in a pet and he stopped marking his territory all over the house and yard. There comes a time when a house pet is more of a liability than an asset. When the carpet cleaners have a regular schedule of once a quarter and the carpet is replaced twice in 6 years, I'll opt for a dog with no "spirit" every time. Dogs can be house broken but try to keep a territory marker from doing his thing! I'll never have another male dog. They're just nasty beings.

/shrug. The way I look at it... if men can be neutered with no ill effects, certainly a dog can be.

I think you'd find most men would disagree with the sentiment that men can be neutered with no ill effects.

I've owned one male dog in my life. He was a real bastard of a dachshund.

That's because he's a dachshund. Little dogs are all bastards. They have napolean complexes.

He became the sweetest little guy you could ever want in a pet and he stopped marking his territory all over the house and yard.

If your dog piddles in the house, neutering him isn't the answer. Housebreaking him is. If you can't housebreak your dog, you shouldn't own one.

There comes a time when a house pet is more of a liability than an asset. When the carpet cleaners have a regular schedule of once a quarter and the carpet is replaced twice in 6 years, I'll opt for a dog with no "spirit" every time. Dogs can be house broken but try to keep a territory marker from doing his thing! I'll never have another male dog. They're just nasty beings.

I've had eight dogs over the years. After puppyhood, once they were housebroken, none of them ever went in the house other than under extenuating circumstances (like having to keep him in the garage all day and night because it was just too cold outside).

Train your dog properly and you don't have to emasculate him.

Are you arguing for the sake of it now Aidon? Let's start with dogs being man's best friend, apart from all those little dogs which are bastards. Then there's the freedom for everyone to own dogs without license or restriction, apart from people who can't housebreak them who shouldn't own them at all. Keep posting like that and we might find you're banning yourself from owning dogs before too long;).

But we weren't even talking about just dogs you adopt. Klath was talking about all dogs, even ones you buy versus just adopting.True. Case brought up only cause I know the restriction is enforced there. It's *highly* recommended if you get your pet by any other means, but there's no way for them to enforce it like they can if you adopt a pet.

Are you arguing for the sake of it now Aidon? Let's start with dogs being man's best friend, apart from all those little dogs which are bastards. Then there's the freedom for everyone to own dogs without license or restriction, apart from people who can't housebreak them who shouldn't own them at all. Keep posting like that and we might find you're banning yourself from owning dogs before too long;).

A) Little dogs are lil bastards. Yippy lil ****s. Everyone knows that =P

B) If you can't housebreak a dog, you have no business owning one...but that's up to you, not me. But don't come complaining because your lil yippy dog with a napoleon complex piddles on your pillow, cause I'll just tell you to housebreak your dog and remind you that all lil dogs are bastards.

It certainly isn't fair to neuter the poor guy just because you can't housebreak him though =P

Spare the rolled newspaper, spoil the dog (and cost the poor fellah his doghood)

...when you fix a male dog, you permanently alter his disposition and personality, and in my opinion, not for the better. They loose spirit, gusto, personability, and yes, aggressiveness and that protective instinct towards its family.
The primary goal is to stop them from breeding so a vasectomy would solve that problem and address your concerns. The reason that vasectomies aren't more common is that there are health and behavioral benefits associated with castration that you wouldn't get from a vasectomy.

The vast majority of dogs aren't going off and spawning litters all over the place.
Yet we still destroy millions of dogs each year. They must come from somewhere.

I honestly would like to know how many of those dogs are destroyed by breeders themselves. I know many breeders will destroy pups which are unshowable, like blue merle Danes, for instance. A practice I find rather reprehensible, myself.

The number of animals destroyed by shelters would far outnumber the amount put down by breeders - even those that people would label "puppy mills". The Dallas Morning News ran an article about ten to fifteen years ago where they interviewed several Dallas SPCA workers. They said in a bad week they would destroy over a thousand animals - ranging from the "death row" adoptions, animals deemed unadoptable (feral or too aggressive), and others that were just in bad condition when they came in.

Spaying and Neutering makes absolute sense for any dog/cat owner for several reasons The biggest of them being that you're never in presence of your dog/cat 100% of the day, and two, spaying/neutering before the animals' first adolescent "episode" actually significantly reduces the chances of developing various cancers and other diseases later on.

Train your dog properly and you don't have to emasculate him.The issue was NOT housebreaking, for he was. The issue was that he insisted on marking his territory wherever he wanted. When he was finally neutered the problem was resolved. I've housebroken many dogs in my day. NEVER had one that wasn't past the first few months. Your contention that a male dog is instantly housebroken by neutering is the silliest notion I have ever heard.

**edit**
I've had eight dogs over the years. After puppyhood, once they were housebroken, none of them ever went in the house other than under extenuating circumstances (like having to keep him in the garage all day and night because it was just too cold outside).One of the cruellest things you can do to a housebroken domesticated pet is to force it to potty in a place it knows it shouldn't. Responsible pet owners take their animals out for a walk periodically if they have to keep them in. They don't lock them in the garage and forget about them.

Any animal that's let loose outside (cats are very commonly let free roam) needs to be neutered. Just cause you might think your animal isn't doing anything doesn't mean it's not. Unneutered animals actually attract each other for mating. Some stray male or female dog or cat could very easily locate any of your pets when they're in heat or just looking for a fling, fenced in or not.

Neuter your bloody pets! The world doesn't need more strays...

This reminds me of that one realistate agency when had pictures up of a house for sale with an interesting "suprise" in the window of one of the pictures. That "surpise" is a perfect example as to why you need to spay/neuter your pets.

I honestly would like to know how many of those dogs are destroyed by breeders themselves.
Tinuvieyl posted this link (http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=nr_fact_sheets_animal_euthanas ia) which seemed to have a fairly respectable accounting of the number of animals destroyed at shelters.

I know many breeders will destroy pups which are unshowable, like blue merle Danes, for instance. A practice I find rather reprehensible, myself.
I agree. In my opinion, penalties and fines should be increased to a level that would discourage this practice. Make it unprofitable and people will stop doing it.

I'm dedicated to pro-individual rights and I understand and share your general concerns with licensing/registration. However, animals are sentient beings and deserve protection from abuse even if it comes at a small cost to individual liberties. A stricter licensing system would facilitate that protection. I don't believe the costs would be prohibitively high as there are a plethora of volunteer groups who would be more than willing to lend support.

I don't know about Puppy mills, but most of the cat breeders I know of have NO problem selling their less than show-quality animals as pets for hundreds of dollars apiece.

Many reputable breeders will offer their breed dogs which have some sort of disqualification (such as deaf Dalmatians) for a significantly reduced price as long as you have them fixed immediately (when they're of age). Malamutes have a genetic defect known as Hip Dysplasia which is the only defect I know of for Mals that's serious enough to have them culled at birth.

Although it should also be noted that every single breeder I've worked with - both for my dogs and when friends got theirs - all breeders required that you sign a contract stating that you would get the dog immediately when the dog is old enough unless you planned on entering the dog in shows for competition (and if you said yes to showing, there was usually a whole slew of other items you had to agree too).

That's the big difference between reputable breeders and owners. Most of the owners of the vicious dogs probably did not want to jump through all the hoops to get a pure breed dog. And the breeders that they bought the dogs from probably didn't give a damn about how the dog was going to be used. Good breeders are an essential part of the dog purchasing procedure.

Fully in agreement here. Our breeder had initially intended to use our dog for shows, but she had a heart murmur at birth. This was fully disclosed to us. It made the dog unsuitable for shows and breeding.

We had to agree to have the dog spayed. The breeder installed a passive detection chip in her shoulder. She is also registered with a long fancy name that identified her pedigree and geneology. I can't even remember the name --- something with Knight and Lady in it... Lol... We just call her Misha.

Yeah, my two dogs with the AKC are "Stormcloud's Northern Thunder" (aka: North) and "Stormcloud's Nor'Easter" (Stormy).

Why do so many Americans buy dogs from breeders instead of getting pets from the animal shelters? It's a very different culture from the UK and the rest of Europe I'd guess, where mongrels and strays are regularly accepted as household pets.

Hmmm... I don't think Indy has got a fancy name. I remember his Mom and Dad had a fancy name though. Indy just got named "Indiana Jones" because he was quite the adventurer when he was a kitten.

Why do so many Americans buy dogs from breeders instead of getting pets from the animal shelters? It's a very different culture from the UK and the rest of Europe I'd guess, where mongrels and strays are regularly accepted as household pets.
I got my two cats from the shelter. They were from an found litter of cats. Perfect example why you must always spade/neuter your pets.

When I bought them I had to sign a document stating I must neuter them when they were of age. And of course I did. It's not only good for them, but for cats in general. Shelters have just too many cats and often they are put to sleep if they're not adopted within a week. :(

2 of my three cats were from shelters. For my third (a bombay, the one in my avatar) , I had to sign a contract to get spayed, like so many of the rest of you. She has a kink in her tail, and her eyes are just a little too green, so she wasn't showable. Her name is "Autumn Equinox", but we just call her "Nox".

And what's sad about the stats in that link I provided is the fact that it's only estimated numbers from approximately 1000 shelters that reported. As I said before, animal shelters are not required to report number of animals euthanized, or even handled.

We went through that discussion in another thread Anka.

There's nothing wrong with shelters 85% of the time, but some people (like me) like a specific breed and you can't really get that detailed on a visit to a pound (although some of the dogs you see at shelters are 100% purebreds). Another problem with shelters, that we saw with my roommate's dog, is that if you get a dog that's older than 8wks, you have no idea what happened in that dog's past. Like I said, most of the time, you end up with a perfect example of doggy love, but every once in a while you get a fear aggressive dog.

I'm definitely all for shelter dogs, and I'd recommend them to my friends at any time, however I always recommend caution because you are essentially getting a "used car," and you have to be really careful that you don't ignore tell-tell signs of aggression or other behavioral problems.

Why do so many Americans buy dogs from breeders instead of getting pets from the animal shelters?
I'd guess that it's for two reasons:

1) Many people consider their pets to be a status symbol in the same way that expensive cars, clothes, and houses are. A purebred pet conveys more status.

2) Pets from a reputable breeder are likely to suffer fewer health problems and have a more predictable temperament.

Why do so many Americans buy dogs from breeders instead of getting pets from the animal shelters? It's a very different culture from the UK and the rest of Europe I'd guess, where mongrels and strays are regularly accepted as household pets.

I'm not sure that it's that much different on this side of the ocean. Lots of people get their animals from shelters.

We got ours from a breeder because we wanted to be sure that our dog had the right temperament. If you personally see that the sire and bitch are friendly, active and engaging, there is a high probability that the offspring will be as well. You run a much greater risk of behavioral and health problems getting a stray from a shelter. I agree that we likely would have saved the life of an animal shelter dog, but we weren't prepared to take the risk.

My in-laws once got a Heinz 57 puppy from a shelter after their miniature schnauzer died. It was a disaster. After a few months the dog developed temperamental and aggressive behaviors. They returned it and bought another schnauzer from a breeder.

Dogs from breeders can be expensive. I don't know what is typical, but our dog cost $1,000 Can (about $800 U.S.). In my opinion, the benefits of companionship and unconditional love from a pet far outweighs the cost.

Of the animals I've owned (1 dog, 3 cats), three were from shelters and one I found freezing by the side of the road out in the middle of nowhere.

For my third (a bombay, the one in my avatar) , I had to sign a contract to get spayed, like so many of the rest of you. She has a kink in her tail, and her eyes are just a little too green, so she wasn't showable. Her name is "Autumn Equinox", but we just call her "Nox".
Nox looks exactly like one of my cats (Scooter) who even has the kink in his tail (which was broken when he was rescued from the dumpster he was living in). He has the softest fur I've ever felt on a cat and when he pisses me off I start thinking about what a nice pair of slippers he'd make. :)

I don't think most people would pay $800 for a household pet in the UK, not outside London anyway. The culture of pet ownership really is different. Unless you're competing in shows, having a pedigree pet is seen as pretension rather than prestige.

Why do so many Americans buy dogs from breeders instead of getting pets from the animal shelters?Many Americans live in apartments or townhomes and don't have a place for a large dog. Even many city houses are pretty tight on yard space. In a shelter, the little cute ones go fast. The ones that are hardest to place are the larger mutts of unknown origin because it's tough to predict the final size if they are puppies, and if they are grown, they are usually too big to begin with :/

I don't think most people would pay $800 for a household pet in the UK, not outside London anyway. The culture of pet ownership really is different. Unless you're competing in shows, having a pedigree pet is seen as pretension rather than prestige.The last cat I got from the shelter cost $70.00 to take home, and I had to agree to spay her within the next 6 months. Once home I had to deal with an upper respiratory infection and ringworm. The vet bills for that and shots were several hundred dollars.

The last three dogs I had died of old age. They were all in their upper teens, the oldest being 18 with the other two at 17 when they died. My last cat that died, died at the age of 20. If you consider what you spend on a pet throughout it's life on food, toys, collars, leashes, carriers, grooming equipment, veteranary and maybe even that pair of shoes before it learns what is fair game to chew, $800 is a small amount to pay. Buying a dog from a reputable breeder is just an assurance that you can know what the dog's size, health and temprament will be. I consider a pet to be an investment. They give you back ten-fold what you give to them. I don't think it's "cheating" to know what I am getting before it's mature :)

I don't think most people would pay $800 for a household pet in the UK, not outside London anyway. The culture of pet ownership really is different. Unless you're competing in shows, having a pedigree pet is seen as pretension rather than prestige.
No offense Anka, but I think you're resource pool for your "in the UK" observations are very limited. The UK is home to very prestigious organizations such as "The Kennel Club" which gets over 200,000 dog registrations per year of over 200 breeds and can provide family pedigrees just like the American Kennel Club. They also host Crufts, which is one of the top dog shows in the world.

As far as the price of dog goes, that varies from location to location. My Mally in Texas cost me $250, but the last ch. in his bloodline was three generations removed. The Mally I got in NY cost me $800 (which was the cheapest I could find) but her direct parents were best of breed winners. The popularity of the breed also plays a big part. While you can get most purebreed "Labs" for under $400, you'll be hard-pressed to find a rarer breed like the Shiba Inu for under $500 - or a "hot breed" like the pug or chihuahua which may have gone for $250 before MIB/Taco Bell, now sell for $500 easy.

My parents used to breed Leonbergers, a very rare breed. To purchase one of their puppies, the paperwork was staggering. The dogs sold for $1500 each. Rare breeds cost much more than common breeds do, and pedigrees matter.

As for me, Jeffrey (avatar) is half collie, half springer spaniel. My other dog, Wilbur the wondermutt, is half mutt, half sneaky little neighbor dog. Wilbur was rescued grudgingly from a man who didn't have his farm dog spayed. This was her 5th litter. The owner couldn't find homes for all the pups, Wilbur was the last of them, so he decided to just have Wilbur put down. (Gee, I don't see why people should spay/neuter their animals.../eyeroll) I took Wilbur instead. I got him at 7 months old, with ribs and spine protruding due to the owner's lack of proper feeding. The first thing I had to teach Wilbur was to walk through doors. He was horribly malnourished and had severe social problems (not aggression either, just some very bizarre behaviors). I believe he was and still is cognitively challenged (it took him a VERY long time to learn basic commands). My original plan was to train him to be a decent house dog, then give him to a good family. My now husband fell in love with him before that plan was finalized, and the dog is now his dog.

My recently deceased cat was a shelter animal.

More than likely my next pet will be either a rescue or shelter animal.

It isn't that most Americans want breed animals. I'm guessing based on total acquisitions of pets, most pets are NOT bought through breeders in the US, it's too expensive and there are plenty of ads for free animals in the paper.

Nothing against breeds, but I prefer mutts, and always have. Probably that birds of the feather thing...

In the UK there is a big difference between show pets and household pets. If you're breeding and showing a dog at competition then you can pay as much as you want for your animal. If you're getting a household pet you don't normally pay hundreds of $'s. No offence, but how limited is your resource pool for observations in the UK compared to mine? The only people I know who have paid large sums for cats and dogs are in US and Canada, including my brother who lives over there now. All the rest of my family living in the UK and Europe, and all my friends and work colleagues, have pretty unspectacular pets as far as I know. There is definitely a difference in culture between the US and UK.

Nothing against breeds, but I prefer mutts, and always have. Probably that birds of the feather thing...

LOL!

I have always had Moggies (mongrel cats, I think that's what they call them in the UK... correct if I'm wrong, Anka), but the last cat I got was a purebred siamese (Applehead variety, not the rat-looking ones). I liked being able to meet his family first and know the sort of socialization he got as a wee lad. I must say, it has worked out well.

The issue was NOT housebreaking, for he was. The issue was that he insisted on marking his territory wherever he wanted. When he was finally neutered the problem was resolved. I've housebroken many dogs in my day. NEVER had one that wasn't past the first few months. Your contention that a male dog is instantly housebroken by neutering is the silliest notion I have ever heard.

That was your contention, not mine. None of our dogs ever tried to mark territory inside our house


**edit**
One of the cruellest things you can do to a housebroken domesticated pet is to force it to potty in a place it knows it shouldn't. Responsible pet owners take their animals out for a walk periodically if they have to keep them in. They don't lock them in the garage and forget about them.

You don't take your dog for a walk when the windchill factor is negative 20. You don't leave your dog outside all night so it can go to the bathroom when its thunderstorming and hailing all night (and frankly, neither one of us is going to want to go for a walk in that either).

Getting a purebred animal isn't about prestige for most people that I know. It's as everyone has been saying. You just develop an appreciation for a certain look and temperment, and it's nice to have some assurance that your pet will be that way. Though Nox definitely has the drawbacks of her breed (she misbehaves horribly when ignored, for example), my shelter cats are far more difficult in terms of temperment and health, even if they aren't really that bad. My oldest cat, for example, is extremely needy, noisy, and has horrific skin allergies. My other stray was about 8 months old when she was picked up, so even now, she's still a bit feral. I absolutely cannot pick her up, or she gets really pissed off. She's also constantly trying to get outside. I feel bad keeping her inside, but there's far too many stray cats in the area that she'd probably fight with, and I'm afraid she'd get hit by a car. I don't regret adopting any of my kitties, but it's definitely nice to know what you're getting ahead of time. Also, it seems that purebred cats are easier to train. I've taught Nox to fetch and walk on a leash, for example. Of course, when she ceases to be amused, she won't humor me, but it's far more success than I've had with the others, hehe.

You don't take your dog for a walk when the windchill factor is negative 20. You don't leave your dog outside all night so it can go to the bathroom when its thunderstorming and hailing all night (and frankly, neither one of us is going to want to go for a walk in that either).Yeah I don't WANT to... but I do. At night because the "critter" population wanders in and out of the yard, I put Summer on a leash and take her out. In the winter, in the summer and in a rain or hailstorm (and in Texas we have lots of horizontal rainstorms and hail the size of grapefruit at times. I wait for the hail to subside.). If your windchill is -20 and don't have the proper clothing for it, you have a bigger problem than a dog that needs to go for a walk. It's more than cruel to make a housebroken dog go in it's sheltered area.

There's just one last thing this thread needs...
http://www.cleanfunny.com/pics/animal-satire-kitten-cat-sword-feline-martial-arts.jpg

"Most people were happy that Fluffy was still on the couch" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/10/wpet10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/10/ixworld.html

"By taking those dogs away, the RSPCA has increased the value of my house by £10,000 overnight" http://www.lost-doggies.com/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=171

There's never a shortage of shaggy dog stories.

Yeah I don't WANT to... but I do. At night because the "critter" population wanders in and out of the yard, I put Summer on a leash and take her out. In the winter, in the summer and in a rain or hailstorm (and in Texas we have lots of horizontal rainstorms and hail the size of grapefruit at times. I wait for the hail to subside.). If your windchill is -20 and don't have the proper clothing for it, you have a bigger problem than a dog that needs to go for a walk. It's more than cruel to make a housebroken dog go in it's sheltered area.

First of all, we don't put our dogs on leashes and take them for walks other than for recreational purposes. They have about a quarter of a quarter of acre fenced in yard which is theirs. Generally speaking, they spend the night outside if its nice out out. If its too cold or its raining when its time for bed, we let them inside and they bark to let us know if they want out. If the conditions are such as to preclude us from even letting them out in the middle of the night, they go into the garage.

Oh, and when the temperatures drop as cold as they can at times in northern Ohio...you just don't go outside but for a few seconds to and from a car. When you can feel the mucus freezing in your nose every time you inhale, its generally a bad idea to be outside. If I wouldn't go outside in it, I'm not going to subject my dogs to it.

"Most people were happy that Fluffy was still on the couch" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/10/wpet10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/10/ixworld.html


That's just....creepy.

"Most people were happy that Fluffy was still on the couch"

I wonder if they'll make a pillow out of grandma too!

Aw, love the avatar, Tinuvieyl. :D

Aw, love the avatar, Tinuvieyl. :D

Hehe, thanks! That's Nox's pouty face. Love it!

What's creepier is the death threats that person is receiving. I mean, it's pretty
creepy to stuff your pet period, I don't see how making pillows out of Fluffy is any more extreme. Maybe they think she's skinning live animals to make the pillows (ie: not dead pets, but animals from shelters or something)?

Hehe, thanks! That's Nox's pouty face. Love it!

You know, I used to have a black cat who grew into this humoungous cat, he weighed over 25 pounds at one time. Looked like a big panther. Anyway, he always had this pissed off look on his face and it scared people. But the funny part was, he was the sweetest guy, he just had a pissed off look all the time. You'd go and pat him and he'd let out this big meow and people would jump away. But he was just expressing his pleasure!

A friend of mine, who's a vet down in Texas and an avid dog lover, said something to me a while ago on the original breed laws topic that made a lot of sense to me and gave me an angle that I hadn't really thought of before.

He said that some people think of dogs as pets - something to play with the kids and be a companion to share space with. Other people see dogs as guardians or weapons and it's often these people who raise the uncontrollable dog.

He maintained that pit bulls, rotties, German Shepards and similar dogs are chosen for their ferocity and very little else. In addition these people assume that the dog will somehow "raise itself" to be a great guard dog. Some will just put a dog into a junkyard, warehouse or a chain in the backyard and assume the dog just understands what it's supposed to do instinctively. Unfortunately, most of the time these dogs never get properly socialized with humans or with other dogs and are skittish around new experiences with either - which, again unfortunately, is often what the owner wants. It takes quite a bit of effort to teach a dog how to properly identify the difference between intruders which mean harm and friends coming to visit.

Even people who bring in these breeds to "protect the family" often unconsciously emphasize to children and friends that the dog is the vicious one ("Sparky was baring his teeth at the mailman yesterday, you shoulda' seen'em, he looked mean!") and that he should be respected and given space. Again, this type of behavior often encourages the dog's bad behavior (the dog learns that it's ok, or even worse, that it's good) and teaches the dog that it's not the pack omega, but rather that some family members are actually below him in rank in the "pack". The dog may even become confident enough to challenge the Owner - and many Owners will even see type of conflict as a good attribute in a guard dog, not knowing that the dog now thinks that the human is "below him".

It's once the dog gets to this state and his behavior is tolerated rather than controlled, that bad things start to occur. My friend also said that dogs that end up fatally attacking humans usually give warning signs first - nips and bites that may not break the skin or even bruise, but ones that you can tell were given without a playful attitude.

It's because the breeds such as the pit bull and rottys have such a fierce physique and reputation that they end up as these generic "Guard dogs," however even if all three breeds are "banned" or "restricted," there will be another breed that will take it's place with the same result.

Natural instincts of an animal still play a major role in their attitude when they grow up. I don't care if it's a dog, cat, monkey, human, or any other kind of animal. The issue brought to the table is that pit bulls, rots, etc type dogs have a more agreesive natural instinct which makes them more likely to cause fatel attack. Human upbringing doesn't even play a role here.

While human upbringing can assist in detering their natural instincts, humans can't do that w/out first being aware of what their animals' instincts are. And we come full circle back to training the humans or banning dogs...

Many breeds have aggressive natural instincts, theoretically speaking. Dogs were mostly bred by humans to hunt and fight, over the years. That cute lil Jack Russel terrier was bred to be a vicious killer.

The cute poofy sheepdog was bred to herd..and it'll herd with a sharp nip here and there.

Every dog has aggressive natural instincts. They are generally speaking, predatory pack animals.

We are not suffering from some epidemic of vicious dog attacks, thus we do not come full circle back to your, frankly, idiotic argument that we must train humans or ban dogs. Dogs are fine. The overwhelmingly vast majority of Dog owners are fine. Those owners which fail to maintain their end of the social contract are dealt with on both a criminal and civil level already if necessary.

Your reactionist insistance on limiting the freedoms of men and their dogs are ill conceived, ill planned, and ill received. Please stop.

Your reactionist insistance on limiting the freedoms of men and their dogs are ill conceived, ill planned, and ill received. Please stop.
You've stated you are a dog lover but you've avoided weighing in on what, if anything, might be done to reduce the number of dogs and cats who are destroyed each year. Is that just the price we (they) pay for what you believe to be our right to own a pet?

If you want to reduce the number of dogs and cats who are destroyed each year, its very very very very very simple.

Don't destroy them.

If you want to reduce the number of dogs and cats who are destroyed each year, its very very very very very simple.

Don't destroy them.
What do you think should happen with all the stray animals?

Honestly, cats I don't care about. They aren't like dogs.

As for dogs, there are a plethora of agencies out there which do not destroy animals who are simply strays, further there are a plethora of people out there willing to adopt dogs.

The city government destroys dogs because they aren't willing to pay for them. Hand them over to the organizations which are willing to assume the cost and not destroy them.

We don't kill strays because we need to, we kill them because its more cost effective.

Our dog population is not a problem in this country. Not nearly so much of a problem as say...the human population.

Noone suggests we should go killing the homeless, or neutering humans to prevent homelessness.

There is no truer friend in the animal kingdom for humanity than dogs. Love them, don't kill them. Give their families the decision to treat their dogs with as much respect as they desire.

Myself, I consider my dogs a part of my family. More people should treat their dogs that way, perhaps, but I'll not stand idly by and let people like you tell me I have to emasculate a member of my family.

Honestly, cats I don't care about.
No surprise there.

As for dogs, there are a plethora of agencies out there which do not destroy animals who are simply strays, further there are a plethora of people out there willing to adopt dogs.
If this were true we wouldn't have the problem we have now.

The city government destroys dogs because they aren't willing to pay for them. Hand them over to the organizations which are willing to assume the cost and not destroy them.
The majority of the animal welfare organizations out there have already taken as many animals as they can handle. They couldn't possibly handle the volume of pets they'd get from city shelters.

We don't kill strays because we need to, we kill them because its more cost effective.
We kill them because we're too apathetic to cut off the problem at the source.

Our dog population is not a problem in this country. Not nearly so much of a problem as say...the human population.

Noone suggests we should go killing the homeless, or neutering humans to prevent homelessness.
Humans have a broad spectrum of rights that would prevent this. Animals do not.

Myself, I consider my dogs a part of my family. More people should treat their dogs that way, perhaps, but I'll not stand idly by and let people like you tell me I have to emasculate a member of my family.
A vasectomy wouldn't alter the personality of your pet at all.

Its a very simple concept Klath.

Don't attempt to tell me how to raise my dogs, because in the end, I love my hounds more than I love my neighbor.

If I had to choose between saving my dogs or saving a random person, my dogs live.

I would no more force my dogs to be neutered or get a vasectomy than I would force my brother or nephew.

Its a very simple concept Klath.

Don't attempt to tell me how to raise my dogs, because in the end, I love my hounds more than I love my neighbor.

If I had to choose between saving my dogs or saving a random person, my dogs live.

I would no more force my dogs to be neutered or get a vasectomy than I would force my brother or nephew.And therein lies the problem. A male dog owner who believes that a vasectomy will take away his own manhood so he believes that it would have the same net result on a dog. He will never be convinced differently and to try to do so is akin to butting your head against the wall. Best to "discuss" with those who will discuss. Not those who are so inflexible that they put up a wall against all incoming. :)