Jump to content
BC Boards

How do you feel about banning a breed?


Recommended Posts

Here all dogs are supposed to be registered with the city. Registration cost a few dollars more for intact dog.

 

So not quite a license to own a dog but slight incentive to get it neutered-spayed.

 

I simply choose to see the fee as:

i) a way to fund the municipal shelter

ii) an insurance if my dog gets lost, first thing everyone is likely to do is to check with the city.

 

Found a small chihuahua a few months ago, registration wasn't current but city still had owner contact on file. 1hr later she came to pick up her dog.

 

(edit: oups was meant as reply to the licensing thread)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Legally dogs are considered property.

 

Like any other property you own, if by your negligence your property causes bodily harm to another person you should be held responsible. If your parked car rolls down a hill, into someone’s home injuring them; you are responsible. If you have not properly cared for a dead tree and it falls on your neighbor’s house; you are responsible. If my sheep get off my property I am responsible for the damage they cause including automobile accidents. If I am negligent in the operation of my automobile and it results in a death I am responsible for that death.

 

Why should this be any different for dogs, regardless of the breed?

 

There is no need for breed specific laws; only enforcing laws that hold property owners responsible for damage (including deaths) due to their negligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I take it you're in favor of banning mastiffs, rottweilers, GSDs, pit bulls, and all mixes thereof? And you're okay with that meaning the death of hundreds of thousands of dogs?

 

Ban doesn't mean dogs have to be killed. They way it was introduced here in Ontario was that all existing dogs were grandfathered.

 

And yes I agree with the ban (subject of that other thread), doesn't mean that there are no good pitbulls but:

i) Most people that want them want a 'tough' attack or guard dog without any intent to train him. I am yet to see a single owner or prospective owner of pitbull that wanted a nice mellow family pet or had intention of training his dog. Sadly it's easier to regulate dogs than stupid owners but even if some will go get another breed a lot will simply pass on the dog because other breeds don't have that 'status symbol'.

ii) Pitbulls have been bred to be aggressive, most toward dog (and dog-dog statistics are not well kept), but some also toward humans. Until pit breeders (and lots are underground) get more responsible, then ban the breed.

 

Doesn't mean any individual dog is not a very nice dog but at the moment, or at least until the 'tough dog' fad passes then ban them.

 

Statistics are also quite abuse by a lot of people. Absolute number of bites is not the relevant stat, the number of bites to humans and other dogs per capita of dog of a certain breed as well as the severity of said bites is the relevant stat. (pretty hard to get mauled to death by a chihuahua, although I'm sure it happens)

 

To reinforce both points above, what is the most frequent breed to show up in shelters?

 

To get back on topic, yes I think a license should be required for an intact dog. Just fill in the paperwork and submit it. Wouldn't affect anybody's "right" to own a dog but would certainly do a little bit to compensate the cost that is passed on to society by accidental and/or irresponsible breeders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is no need for breed specific laws; only enforcing laws that hold property owners responsible for damage (including deaths) due to their negligence.

 

How do you enforce responsibility for a runaway dog with no identification and others that runs away from the scene of the accident? (i.e. a canine hit-and-run).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue in favor of licensing, with anyone owning a dog above a specific weight limit required to either take obedience and dog behavior classes or have the dog pass a temperament test. If the owner is unwilling to do so, I'd be in favor of mandatory neutering -- of the owner,-- though I'm happy to hear responses that both dog and owner would be safer if de-sexed. I know, not going to happen....

I would love to trade such a test for the freedom from leash laws!

 

And no, not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Banning breeds won't stop the problem you describe.

 

 

Penalizing those who are not responsible will lead to others thinking twice about being irresponsible.

 

Certainly evidence here that it does help.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/05/controversial-pit-bull-bans-result-in-fewer-dog-bites-study/

(sure there could be other factors at play)

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/01/barbara-kay-on-ontarios-pit-bull-ban-pit-bulls-are-bred-to-maul/

(sure it's an opinion piece but stats are pretty alarming)

 

Won't solve everything but can certainly help (I think).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with those is the same as with all of those statistics. How do you identify 'pit bull', how do you define 'pit bull' and how do you account for the cultural factors. People who see pit bull bites reported will probably be more likely to report a biting dog as being a pit bull. And people who are looking for a tough dog, or who acquire dogs as status symbols, may be more likely to have dogs involved in a biting incident.

 

The people in the E.R. aren't trained in dog identification (they don't even see the dog), which the average person is notoriously poor at, and most people are frankly terrible at it. So you have a high-stress situation between two people who both are unlikely to have expertise in this area, with people recording this who are probably not prioritising accurately recording the breed of dog (as compared to, say, treatment given.)

Why they would be more reliable than veterinarians, who presumably have to deal with many more dogs and results of dog aggression than the ER, is beyond me. Frankly I would be surprised if ER breed identifications had any successes at all.

 

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/breed-identification-1/

 

Clifton says there are few accidental pit bull births because "nothing resembling a pit bull occurs in nature". What? Nothing closely resembling a dog occurs in nature. Certainly border collies or chihuahuas don't. What this would have to do with the likelihood of accidental litters is beyond me.

 

"Most killer PBs were raised in loving homes and seemed sweet — until they attacked" Most dogs who have killed, of all breeds, would probably have seemed sweet until they attacked- because only an idiot would keep a large powerful dog in a position where it could attack someone if they didn't think it would be fine.

 

Semonyovan appears to be arguing that pit bulls are currently and originally bred to attack people, which is not something at all usual. The worst of dog fighters tend to be very intolerant of dogs who go after people.

 

"By seven months, those cuddly pups usually start attacking other animals without provocation. Small children are at particular risk for harm because they are easy prey." Children are more likely to be hurt in any encounter with a dog, or horse, or anything- they're small.

 

A lot of the claims in that article are myths so laughable they can be debunked by a visit to the local dog park. Apparently non-pit bulls won't fight to the death, pit bulls attack without warning, other dog breeds only attack when abused/starved/cornered... And the 'characteristic' 'grab and shake death lock' can be observed in many breeds. I've seen a dog quite neatly dispatch a large rat with it, and another with a rabbit.

 

 

Again, the majority of pit bull incidents could be neatly avoided if current dog laws were enforced, and applied to all dogs. I'm not a pit bull owner, it wouldn't affect me if there was never another litter born of them, but the evidence presented for banning pit bulls is far from convincing. Any dog can bite, any large dog can do harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the claims in that article are myths so laughable they can be debunked by a visit to the local dog park. Apparently non-pit bulls won't fight to the death, pit bulls attack without warning, other dog breeds only attack when abused/starved/cornered...

 

Can't... pit bull have been banned for years around here and doesn't look like the dog owning population -apart of the vocal pro-pit people- are unhappy with it. And 'myths' are not debunked by an anecdotal visit to the dog park.

 

I will agree that better and especially non emotional stat about it are required. That is collected from empirical data, reduced for variables such as number of dogs, severity of bites, even economic conditions and not from anyone on either side of the debate trying to prove a point. Deed not breed may be catchy but is just one other empty statement.

 

Another count of injuries 'even if half pitbull attacks are mis-identified it's still disproportionate' (usual caveat of methodology, etc)

http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Dog+attack+stats+with+breed+2012.pdf

 

This is a more serious study, stating better study are required

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3664365/

But it shows indications that it might help reduces bites (although not sure they have controlled for population or dog population growth)

 

Let's put it another way. Assuming a progressive ban (no new animals, existing ones ok, starting in a few years) what is the downside of such a ban once in place?

 

If only it serves to make people more accepting of dogs in general because they are (falsely or rightly) more confident knowing that there are no 'dangerous pit bulls' around. I'm all for it.

 

I wouldn't request a ban but now that it is in place (in Ontario) I would rather see it stay.

 

I also know that across the river in Quebec, Pits are huge problem in shelters. Way too many unwanted pits for the number of interested adopters. Dead dogs are not happy dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in Iceland it is forbidden to import certain breeds, amongst them for instance pit bulls.

It is an advantage of the isolated position of the island, and the fact that keeping dogs as companion animals in the villages/cities, as opposed to the farm dogs is a pretty recent development here. Certain breeds simply don´t exist here, and due to the draconian import laws it is very easily controlled what dogs enter the country. I am not very sad about this aspect of that legislation..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few random things....

 

 

In Italy, Border Collies are on a dangerous dogs list. Granted, it is not a total ban, just bans minors, felons and other like wise folks from owning one.

 

Many countries have changed their breed bans. They have replaced them with laws that put responsibility on the owner. But in one case it also means that a vet has the responsibility by law to report any dog he/she deems dangerous. I suppose that would mean that my Mini Aussie (who is an alert barker and quite fierce but loves, loves, loves kids and anyone who gives her attention) would fall under that category - according to one vet.

 

I have German Shepherds. I have had several over the years. My old girl you would have to beat almost to death to get her to bite. She has had protection training but is a super clear headed dog. I trust her with my life and any child I meet as well. The only way this dog would turn on a human was because of a brain tumor or anything else like it. This is the most stable dog anyone could want. My czech girl is also super clear. But she is a sport dog. And has the same super temperament the old girl does, except that she has, once in her life, alerted on a vagrant in a park that I did not see. And she was ready to do something. My young 7 year old....yes, she is nervy and it is my job to keep her safe from the outside world. Yet, she is a kind and happy dog to the people she knows. She is just very clear about what is hers and it is non negotiable to her unless she is properly introduced! I adore her because I know, she will keep me safe. Although we do have arguments as to when it is needed at times. So having owned a few, trust me, there are tons of GSD's that don't bite. Ask the folks that have spend thousands on them....

 

During my time (a while back) of training for protection sports, I have seen a few pits. These are not picked of the road or ill bred animals. They were the hardest to entice to bite a sleeve on a person. Obviously, these are sport dogs and it is all a big game to many but, it still requires the willingness of an animal to step into a persons space. For many this is not something they care to do.

 

Also, why, and trust me, this city that is not far from me and is huge and has as a big of a pit bull population and problems as any other out there, why are there so many pits that come into rescue that where used as bait dogs and obviously, as told by their injuries, did not do well when used to train the fighter? You can not tell me that all pits are made alike and I have to believe that breed is just as varied as any other as we constantly argue on working ability in Border Collies. Not all will work! Same in the GSD's or any other working breed. I see many a pit or pit cross coming through rescue that allowed horrible abuse without turning.

 

So, to me, I think (can't prove it on paper), that a huge part of any animal related injury does simply go down to very basic humanizing our animals and forgetting that they are still animals who largely operate on instinct. Knowing this instinct and what an animal does is not something many understand or even think they need to understand. Human arrogance. We are born all knowing and dominating! After all, Fluffy could not possibly be an animal with instincts others than to "love" us because we choose them. Not that simple. I am not sure how I would feel about any legislation that will kill or take my pet from me unless there is a proven history of aggression. Especially not when someone can drive drunk 16 times, still get a license and then by sheer accident kill a person.....! *sarcasm* Really?

 

Yes, I am very divided on the issue. My only major bite came from a non dangerous breed. Super dog but a perfect storm and I screwed up. Still did not make it ok but I do have to own it. And I have had potential biters. One of a highly suspicious breed and one is a Border Collie.

 

I have been on these boards for years. Again and again, issues with Border Collies come up. Aggression, resource guarding, suspicious behavior around kids and so on. I have heard more than one person say "Border Collies are aggressive" (ignorant folks but they heard it somewhere!). So, what does a potential breed ban mean for a breed like the Border Collie? And yes, maybe it is way out there...but look at Italy, they have made it on one list! NO matter how far down.

 

And honestly, I often get so dismayed when I see dogs that I so love, my Germans, who truly are one of the most loyal and regal dog breeds out there (when you get a well bred one) thrown under the bus. And yet, I know that there are very bad ones out there. We as dog owners need to control outselves and not let outsiders that have not lived with them, make choices for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I was afraid of pits until I started taking care of some. The ones I have are just big goofs. I'm surprised that I'm not afraid of them at all when I work with them.

 

The breed that I won't take are Rotties. I am afraid of those dogs . Can't help it. I can't read their eyes.

 

The mastiffs that I have as customers have been fine. Kind of big. But fine.

 

The most dangerous dog that I have as a customer is a big springer spaniel. She is just flat dangerous. She hates men and will just attack them. She has always been OK with me but I never push her. I really don't trust her as far as I can see her. I had another springer that was just as snarky and I realyy didn't like that dog much but I don't think he was really dangerous. Just snarky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you enforce responsibility for a runaway dog with no identification and others that runs away from the scene of the accident? (i.e. a canine hit-and-run).

Banning breeds won't stop the problem you posted; it will only alter the breeds involved.

 

How much of the pit bull problem is due to the breed itself as opposed to this particular breed being very popular at the moment resulting in being overbreeding and poor breeding? When a breed is popular, the total number of dogs from the breed can start to dominate the dog population additionally when a breed is popular unqualified people are breeding this dog producing poor genetic examples of the breed. It is the precentage of the dog population, the poor genetic examples, and the attitude of those who own this status symbol that are the core problems.

 

Let's say pit bull bans succeed and no more pit bulls are bred. What happens if another breed becomes very popular, like Kangals? Has the pit bull ban really addressed the problem or just symptoms of the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people in the E.R. aren't trained in dog identification (they don't even see the dog), which the average person is notoriously poor at, and most people are frankly terrible at it. So you have a high-stress situation between two people who both are unlikely to have expertise in this area, with people recording this who are probably not prioritising accurately recording the breed of dog (as compared to, say, treatment given.)

Why they would be more reliable than veterinarians, who presumably have to deal with many more dogs and results of dog aggression than the ER, is beyond me. Frankly I would be surprised if ER breed identifications had any successes at all.

 

The statistics aren't from the victim's account of the incident. They're from when the dogs are seized and then euthanized by Animal Control, which is policy in almost all jurisdictions. Considering that most dogs that attack are pets, not stray/feral dogs, it's not hard to find them and then ID them. When the dog can't be found, its breed is listed as "unknown." Scientists know how to take these things into account because anecdote is the weakest form of evidence from a scientific perspective.

 

A lot of the claims in that article are myths so laughable they can be debunked by a visit to the local dog park. Apparently non-pit bulls won't fight to the death, pit bulls attack without warning, other dog breeds only attack when abused/starved/cornered... And the 'characteristic' 'grab and shake death lock' can be observed in many breeds. I've seen a dog quite neatly dispatch a large rat with it, and another with a rabbit.

 

See above-- and your own claim that victims can't accurately ID the breed of the animal that attacked them. Anecdote is not considered admissible as a form of scientific evidence. You can't "debunk" anything through your own anecdote. My grandfather smoked two packs a day and lived to be 94 and never got cancer. Does that mean cigarettes don't really cause cancer, and that all studies suggesting otherwise are just a cruel ploy of the anti-smoking lobby? Of course not.

 

I've seen lots and lots of good pit bulls at the dog park. As I mentioned earlier, the kinds of owners who take their dogs to the dog park are the kinds who are making sure that their pets are socialized and trained from an early age and have plenty of supervised interaction with other dogs.

 

I've seen lots of other dogs do the grab-and-shake "death lock." (Wolves use it to kill medium-sized prey; it's an instinct in all dogs.) But we know that *statistically*, pit bulls are more likely than average to attack, and to attack without provocation. Again, this is science we're talking about here. It doesn't care if you don't like its findings; it's going to be true anyway.

 

 

 

That said, I oppose BSL. I just don't think that we can pretend to ignore that pit bulls were bred for aggression and that owners need to be aware and educated about pit bulls' specific needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Italy, Border Collies are on a dangerous dogs list. Granted, it is not a total ban, just bans minors, felons and other like wise folks from owning one.

 

Statistically, I'm sure border collies do bite much more than other dogs, including pits, but I doubt they attack as often. I have worked and worked and WORKED on training Maggie so she doesn't nip at the ankles of children, and I had to train her with a choke collar and treats so she wouldn't go nuts every time she saw a bicycle. I'm sure that if I let her run loose in the park without LOTS of prior training, she would be pulling people off their bikes and biting into kids' ankles all over the place. In that regard, I can see how and why a BC could be considered a dangerous dog. An untrained, unleashed BC anywhere besides an open pasture has the capacity to be dangerous. They're not likely to attack, but they are likely to cause accidents (car, bike, scooter, etc.) with their herding instincts.

 

I don't see how preventing felons from owning them would help anything, since it's uneducated people, not violent people, who let their untrained BCs run off-leash around kids on bikes. More public education about the needs and instincts of BCs would help prevent BCs from being dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pit bulls are not statistically more likely to attack without provocation. Pit bulls were not bred for aggression, they were bred for aggression to other animals, and that's unfortunate because predatory drift does happen as a result - especially now, when the breed is being converted from dog fighty by nature. In a sad and twisted way, the breed was better off when it was managed by dog men who ruthlessly culled anything that showed aggression to people. It would be very dangerous to go into a dog pit with dogs who would redirect on people, so those dogs were eliminated from the gene pool fast and often.

 

The vast majority of pit bull type dogs that come through our Animal Control are lovely with people, despite the majority of them having less than stellar owners. Many of them are dog selective or aggressive, but a goodly percentage of them are not. Our "dangerous" pit bulls in our municipality are largely designated as such for killing other dogs, not for aggression to people. The dogs that we have the most difficulty with in terms of being aggressive with people are breeds other than pitbulls, largely dane type mixes, and the Asian breeds (Jindos, Shar Pei, Chows and mixes) and some of the other bully breeds, like Presas. Give me a pitty over a Presa any day, tyvm.

 

RDM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pit bulls are not statistically more likely to attack without provocation. Pit bulls were not bred for aggression, they were bred for aggression to other animals, and that's unfortunate because predatory drift does happen as a result - especially now, when the breed is being converted from dog fighty by nature.

 

So you're acknowledging that pits are more prone to predatory drift but you're still saying that they are not more likely to attack without provocation?

 

I linked to this study earlier: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/88/1/55.abstract

 

Which showed that 94% of pit bull attacks on children were unprovoked, compared to 43% for all other breeds combined.

 

I've known some wonderful pit bulls. I love them. I think they can be great dogs. But I think that ignoring the fact that pit bulls have an instinct to fight is as dangerous as ignoring the fact that border collies have an instinct to herd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, maggiesmommy....."it" can "say" a lot of things! Many people that have kids that are being attacked wouldn't know how to judge if it was unprovoked or not!

 

How do you like this? I am sure those parents are going to scream....unprovoded attack!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10201768181635203

 

PS; by "it" I am talking articles....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the numbers were off because of parents choosing to say the attack was "unprovoked," how do you explain the EXTREME rise in reports of unprovoked attacks among pit bulls? Are parents going to say "My beloved pit bull attacked my child without provocation," but then say, "My Australian shepherd attacked my kid, but he totally had it coming?"

I mentioned (and again, this is anecdote, but it's an example that I know personally) that one of my best friends' daughters was attacked by a pit bull with no provocation when she was four. She was playing with her toys on the floor while her dad and the dog's owner watched football, and, by the account of the dog owner and her father, the dog very suddenly attacked without any warning or provocation. He bit into her skull and broke it into pieces and she needed emergency surgery to have the skull fragments removed from her brain. The dog was responsibly owned and obedience-trained but flipped a switch and nearly cost my friend's daughter her life. I'm not saying it can't happen with other breeds, but statistically, people see this happen with pit bulls more than any others. And I guarantee that no one is in a rush to blame their own dogs for the attacks, pit bull or not.

Predatory drift seems to be a common trigger for attacks on children. I was attacked once as a child and almost-attacked a second time. In neither case had I done anything wrong. The first time, I was playing outside my mom's house (urban area) when a stray Doberman (whose owner we never identified) bolted around the corner, chased me, and after backing me against a fence, ripped into my butt. The second time, I was playing outside my dad's house (rural area) when a stray mutt (a chow or spitz mix) wandered over. I tried to pet him (because I was a dumb kid) and he poised to attack. My dad's working BC intervened before he attacked me and nearly killed the dog, but if she hadn't been there, I would have likely been dead. In neither case do I think either of the attacks could have been considered "provoked." Give kids and parents a little more credit. Dogs do sometimes attack children who are not bothering them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think it is about breed. Was that dog a dog that had resource or guarding issues?

The problem is, so many little signs a dog gives are missed. And by no means am I questioning your friends horrible story.

 

When I was a pre teen, we had two ponies. Shetlands and Mini. One mare, one stallion. The lived together in a field. Wonderful guys. Very gentle. Yet, one time a friend of mine walked between him and the mare...he bit him right in the face. Sure, now I know what we did wrong. But was it a provocation? Yes! We had been in the pasture with them (against my parents warning I may add....) tons of times. This time it did not end well. Now in that case the whole situation was a provocation but is that not the case so often when it comes to kids and dogs?

 

And yes, I do give some parents credit. But often it is overlooked that a dog of a certain size should not be around a kid of a certain size. If we as dog handlers/trainers use things like tethering and crating to make sure that our young dogs don't get in trouble during a certain time of their life, why is it that most parents do not apply the same thing to kids? No, of course not tethering. But it sometimes seems to me that often (not saying in your case) less attention is given to keeping kids safe than you may believe. Fact is, a chihuahua is going to bite too. But not do as much damage as a rule. So if you have small children, don't own or let your large dogs around the kids without 100% supervision. A phone call, a ringing door bell can be enough to let a tragedy happen. Not only with dogs. A kid climbing out a window, knocking hot water off the stove, pulling a tv stand over....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Predatory drift seems to be a common trigger for attacks on children. I was attacked once as a child and almost-attacked a second time. In neither case had I done anything wrong. The first time, I was playing outside my mom's house (urban area) when a stray Doberman (whose owner we never identified) bolted around the corner, chased me, and after backing me against a fence, ripped into my butt. The second time, I was playing outside my dad's house (rural area) when a stray mutt (a chow or spitz mix) wandered over. I tried to pet him (because I was a dumb kid) and he poised to attack. My dad's working BC intervened before he attacked me and nearly killed the dog, but if she hadn't been there, I would have likely been dead. In neither case do I think either of the attacks could have been considered "provoked." Give kids and parents a little more credit. Dogs do sometimes attack children who are not bothering them.

This is exactly what we are talking about with the provoked discussion. Your idea of provoked is different from mine. You reached over and tried to pet a strange dog that never met you before. To me that is provoking. People seem to think provoking a dog to bite is something negative. Like hitting the dog with a stick or throwing rocks at it. A person reaching out to pet a dog that they don't know is a bad idea. Obviously as kid you are not to blame but to me what happened is not 100% unprovoked. Many people don't understand the warning signs either and they will say the dog attacked with no warning. That is very rare. Dogs give warning and people may not be able to see or understand the signs. Plus as it has been said many of these attacks on kids happen without adults there or when they turn their backs. I know my in laws would say their grandson bouncing on the back of their pit bull would be an unproved attack if the dog chose to bite the kid. It still is opinion and not science on that level. My opinion and interpretation of the event would be different from theirs. The bottom line is that this topic has many components. We have enough laws and yet our prisons are filled. People love to blame the police for crime but it is the same as this topic- there are many many factors that lead to crime and to dog bites/attacks. Making something illegal typically pushes the problem somewhere else. Ban certain drugs and people find other drugs to use. Replace drugs with dogs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, I do give some parents credit. But often it is overlooked that a dog of a certain size should not be around a kid of a certain size. If we as dog handlers/trainers use things like tethering and crating to make sure that our young dogs don't get in trouble during a certain time of their life, why is it that most parents do not apply the same thing to kids? No, of course not tethering. But it sometimes seems to me that often (not saying in your case) less attention is given to keeping kids safe than you may believe. Fact is, a chihuahua is going to bite too. But not do as much damage as a rule. So if you have small children, don't own or let your large dogs around the kids without 100% supervision. A phone call, a ringing door bell can be enough to let a tragedy happen. Not only with dogs. A kid climbing out a window, knocking hot water off the stove, pulling a tv stand over....

 

I agree and understand that, and I'll be the first to say that my parents practiced bad judgment. Mom shouldn't have let a three-year-old play outside in a heavily trafficked urban area; Dad shouldn't have let a five-year-old play alone with a border collie playing babysitter. And if I were the owner of the pit bull who attacked my friend's daughter, I would have had the dog crated or muzzled while a child was visiting. In some ways, these accidents could have been considered "provoked" from the dog's POV (a running child or playing could provoke predatory drift; a child trying to pet a feral dog could have provoked fearful defensiveness). But I think that by "unprovoked," the statistics are referring to dogs that attacked with little warning and without the children pestering, abusing, or taunting the animal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly what we are talking about with the provoked discussion. Your idea of provoked is different from mine. You reached over and tried to pet a strange dog that never met you before. To me that is provoking. People seem to think provoking a dog to bite is something negative. Like hitting the dog with a stick or throwing rocks at it. A person reaching out to pet a dog that they don't know is a bad idea. Obviously as kid you are not to blame but to me what happened is not 100% unprovoked. Many people don't understand the warning signs either and they will say the dog attacked with no warning. That is very rare. Dogs give warning and people may not be able to see or understand the signs. Plus as it has been said many of these attacks on kids happen without adults there or when they turn their backs. I know my in laws would say their grandson bouncing on the back of their pit bull would be an unproved attack if the dog chose to bite the kid. It still is opinion and not science on that level. My opinion and interpretation of the event would be different from theirs. The bottom line is that this topic has many components. We have enough laws and yet our prisons are filled. People love to blame the police for crime but it is the same as this topic- there are many many factors that lead to crime and to dog bites/attacks. Making something illegal typically pushes the problem somewhere else. Ban certain drugs and people find other drugs to use. Replace drugs with dogs.

 

 

That makes sense, and as I stated above (before seeing your response) I can see how the attacks could be considered provoked from the dog's POV. I just don't think there would be THAT much breed bias when it comes to reporting whether or not an attack was provoked. Even though it is a matter of opinion, people want to defend their own dogs, and it is usually the child's family pet that attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...