Family Pit Bulls Kill Child

hedonist

Also, I have huge respect toward Cesar Milan for his understanding of dogs and getting their owners to that place.

Still, even he's been bitten.

hedonist

Cosmo wrote:

...
The Human STILL needs to be responsible and accountable for the actions of their pet dog.
If the dog is not fully tamed, then it is the Human's responsibility to contain the animal from contact with other humans.

I'm with you on this too (go figure, agreeing with two who typically make sense to me ). Although I don't think any dog can be fully tamed. Just like cats.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Jeanwah wrote:

What I highlighted is the point people are missing in this thread. It's not just pit bulls, rottweilers or shepards. Dogs bite. They have some kind of natural instinct to attack. I'm tire of the pitbulls getting blamed when ANY dog can and does attack. What's lost is the respect that dogs are not completely tame and that we should be more aware of this and know that they are territorial and prone to attack when their instinct tells them to. They also smell fear, another precaution people and owners need to understand. People need to know this before accidents happen.

Nobody has missed anything.

Why should we be very aware of dogs and their propensity to attack or bite? We only share the earth with domestic dogs because we choose to do so. Given that we choose dogs for pets... why not choose appropriate ones? I'm not buying the dog's a dog's a dog bullshit. The three breeds you listed (as well as some other notorious ones) are prone to biting/attacking humans... and when they do the results are disastrous for the attacked.

It is extremely rare to hear of golden retrievers tearing apart a child. Same as pomeranians. If a daschund comes ripping after someone... who cares? We continually hear of pitbulls and regardless of the reason... the fact that we do begs some form of consideration. Just because one dog is "sooooo nice" doesn't mean we ignore the other members of the pack that are flat out dangerous.

Regardless... scrap the 'ban' idea. Let's have dog owners put their money where their mouths are: if your dog attacks someone then you should be held accountable. If you are a good owner and the dog really truly is not a threat... then you have nothing to worry about. Remember... some exceptions exist (such as the dog being tormented and finally attacking).

On the other hand though... if your dog is a violent breed or you are just a bad dog owner, and you want to roll the dice anyways because it's that important to you to own such a dog... then go ahead... but be warned that you face the consequences if someone's little girl gets mauled and lives the rest of her life with a scarred face.

Fair enough, no?

Jeanwah

Cosmo wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I don't know. I disagree that as long as the human owner stays dominant that nothing will ever happen. Dogs are not fully tame. They just aren't. Owners and potential owners need to know that dogs cannot be fully trusted 100% of the time regardless if the owner is present or not. There's a lack of real respect that the dog will not act on instinct ever.

It's like owning a wolf, say. I've known people who have. The one wolf I got to see towered over me when he had his front legs up on top of his fence. People know that owning a wolf is dangerous regardless of taking care of it since it was a pup, say, or he/she seems docile. People should know this going into dog ownership.

I'm not sure about owners being fully to blame either. You can't control your dog 100% of the time, but if a child gets killed someone has to pay the consequences.

...
The Human STILL needs to be responsible and accountable for the actions of their pet dog.
If the dog is not fully tamed, then it is the Human's responsibility to contain the animal from contact with other humans. If someone enters the containment area, that human is responsible (not the owner) for any harm the dog inflicts on them. But, the owner still has the responsibility of fencing in the dog and posting warnings to stay out.
As for owning a wolf... there is no owning a wolf. People have tried, unsuccessfully, to nuture a wolf cub into a domestic pet, but when the animal reaches a year or so, it reverts to it's natural instincts. It would have to be a process of selective breeding of certain wolves... the ones who are the most tame with other wolves showing the 'tame' gene, through several generations to attempt to domesticate the wolf... and even then, you will probably fail.
Check out the Silver Foxes in Russia.. it is an intersting example of selective breeding and gives us an insight on how humans might have first come to domesticate the wolf to the dog.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/ ... tliff-text

Yeah, I agree about the responsibility and accountability part. But I do know some people who own wolves or part-wolf/part-dog. One lived til she was 18 and was healthy right up til the last 6 months. She was a real wild one that was part husky.

That link was something. I never imagined owning a hog (?) that sits in my arm chair. (the dog link was there on the sidebar)

Cosmo

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Nobody has missed anything.

Why should we be very aware of dogs and their propensity to attack or bite? We only share the earth with domestic dogs because we choose to do so. Given that we choose dogs for pets... why not choose appropriate ones? I'm not buying the dog's a dog's a dog bullshit. The three breeds you listed (as well as some other notorious ones) are prone to biting/attacking humans... and when they do the results are disastrous for the attacked.

It is extremely rare to hear of golden retrievers tearing apart a child. Same as pomeranians. If a daschund comes ripping after someone... who cares? We continually hear of pitbulls and regardless of the reason... the fact that we do begs some form of consideration. Just because one dog is "sooooo nice" doesn't mean we ignore the other members of the pack that are flat out dangerous.

Regardless... scrap the 'ban' idea. Let's have dog owners put their money where their mouths are: if your dog attacks someone then you should be held accountable. If you are a good owner and the dog really truly is not a threat... then you have nothing to worry about. Remember... some exceptions exist (such as the dog being tormented and finally attacking).

On the other hand though... if your dog is a violent breed or you are just a bad dog owner, and you want to roll the dice anyways because it's that important to you to own such a dog... then go ahead... but be warned that you face the consequences if someone's little girl gets mauled and lives the rest of her life with a scarred face.

Fair enough, no?

...
I agree with both, any dog can bite and it depends on the dog.
If a Schit-zu tries to bite my ankles, i'm punting his ass over the fence.. a Pit Bull or Mastiff.. i'm in trouble.

Jeanwah

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

What I highlighted is the point people are missing in this thread. It's not just pit bulls, rottweilers or shepards. Dogs bite. They have some kind of natural instinct to attack. I'm tire of the pitbulls getting blamed when ANY dog can and does attack. What's lost is the respect that dogs are not completely tame and that we should be more aware of this and know that they are territorial and prone to attack when their instinct tells them to. They also smell fear, another precaution people and owners need to understand. People need to know this before accidents happen.

Nobody has missed anything.

Why should we be very aware of dogs and their propensity to attack or bite? We only share the earth with domestic dogs because we choose to do so. Given that we choose dogs for pets... why not choose appropriate ones? I'm not buying the dog's a dog's a dog bullshit. The three breeds you listed (as well as some other notorious ones) are prone to biting/attacking humans... and when they do the results are disastrous for the attacked.

It is extremely rare to hear of golden retrievers tearing apart a child. Same as pomeranians. If a daschund comes ripping after someone... who cares? We continually hear of pitbulls and regardless of the reason... the fact that we do begs some form of consideration. Just because one dog is "sooooo nice" doesn't mean we ignore the other members of the pack that are flat out dangerous.

Regardless... scrap the 'ban' idea. Let's have dog owners put their money where their mouths are: if your dog attacks someone then you should be held accountable. If you are a good owner and the dog really truly is not a threat... then you have nothing to worry about. Remember... some exceptions exist (such as the dog being tormented and finally attacking).

On the other hand though... if your dog is a violent breed or you are just a bad dog owner, and you want to roll the dice anyways because it's that important to you to own such a dog... then go ahead... but be warned that you face the consequences if someone's little girl gets mauled and lives the rest of her life with a scarred face.

Fair enough, no?

Yet you have missed the point. Get off of the "vicious breeds" for a minute and realize that all dogs are territorial, all dogs can and will bite when instinct calls, all dogs can be unpredictable. That's what I'm talking about, not just merely those that maul people to death. They are not 100% tame, even though we choose to think that, especially of the dogs we own.

Why is it that a postal carrier, UPS guy, anyone in a uniform has to watch out for dogs, even the little ones? Because there's something about that uniform that most dogs hate.

Cosmo

Jeanwah wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Check out the Silver Foxes in Russia.. it is an intersting example of selective breeding and gives us an insight on how humans might have first come to domesticate the wolf to the dog.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/ ... tliff-text

Yeah, I agree about the responsibility and accountability part. But I do know some people who own wolves or part-wolf/part-dog. One lived til she was 18 and was healthy right up til the last 6 months. She was a real wild one that was part husky.

That link was something. I never imagined owning a hog (?) that sits in my arm chair. (the dog link was there on the sidebar)

...
Read the article. It is about 'Mavrik', the pet dog that is really a fox.
In Siberia, they proved how selective breeding can transform wild foxes into tame housepets by only breeding those animals who had a tame personality. In the transformation, the animals changed... their coats changed, they developed a bark, their ears got floppy, tails curled and they adapted to life with humans. It is fascinating.
It was an accident, of sorts. they were trying to breed the animals for their coats in 1953. in a relatively short period of time, they were able to breed animals that didn't need to be caged, like their wild brethren. It is probably how wolves were first domesticated into dogs by early Man... over a much longer period.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Jeanwah wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Nobody has missed anything.

Why should we be very aware of dogs and their propensity to attack or bite? We only share the earth with domestic dogs because we choose to do so. Given that we choose dogs for pets... why not choose appropriate ones? I'm not buying the dog's a dog's a dog bullshit. The three breeds you listed (as well as some other notorious ones) are prone to biting/attacking humans... and when they do the results are disastrous for the attacked.

It is extremely rare to hear of golden retrievers tearing apart a child. Same as pomeranians. If a daschund comes ripping after someone... who cares? We continually hear of pitbulls and regardless of the reason... the fact that we do begs some form of consideration. Just because one dog is "sooooo nice" doesn't mean we ignore the other members of the pack that are flat out dangerous.

Regardless... scrap the 'ban' idea. Let's have dog owners put their money where their mouths are: if your dog attacks someone then you should be held accountable. If you are a good owner and the dog really truly is not a threat... then you have nothing to worry about. Remember... some exceptions exist (such as the dog being tormented and finally attacking).

On the other hand though... if your dog is a violent breed or you are just a bad dog owner, and you want to roll the dice anyways because it's that important to you to own such a dog... then go ahead... but be warned that you face the consequences if someone's little girl gets mauled and lives the rest of her life with a scarred face.

Fair enough, no?

Yet you have missed the point. Get off of the "vicious breeds" for a minute and realize that all dogs are territorial, all dogs can and will bite when instinct calls, all dogs can be unpredictable. That's what I'm talking about, not just merely those that maul people to death. They are not 100% tame, even though we choose to think that, especially of the dogs we own.

The point is not that tough to get. As I said before... it is understood, but it is not entirely true and ignored: you would suggest that dogs all have the same internal wiring and respond the same to stimuli they face which... is... wrong.

Some dogs have been bred to work. Some dogs have been bred to sit in a grandmother's lap. Some dogs have been bred to fight and to assist humans with their ferocity used towards other humans (guard dogs, police dogs, military dogs). The dogs you listed have a deep history of training for aggression and this is why some owners are left wondering why their dog acted out in such a capacity when prior to their violent outburst... they had been such great house pets.

You ignored my suggestion regarding full responsibility for the dogs people choose to own? By full responsibilty... I mean full responsibility. Go ahead... have a Rottweiler... but if it kills a kid... the dog was an extension of you. Murder. Not premeditated... but murder. If people are so confident... they shouldn't have a problem with such a simple concept, yes?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Pit Bulls are banned in my province. Have been since 1990. Every animal has the potential to be sweet and loveable. But an aggressive breed should NOT be domesticated. It's common fucking sense.

I had a fucking small, stupid, super friendly dog as a child. When he got hold of a rib bone by going through the garbage, he'd growl and fucking bite us if we tried to get near him to take it away. Every other minute of his existence he was the nicest dog you'd ever want to meet.

How small is your penis that you have to own a giant truck and an aggressive animal? I guess it makes some feel macho.

It's not rocket science, people.

PJ_Soul

This week in greater vancouver a little girl was attacked by her neighbor's pit bull. Hundreds of stitches in her face.
I think pit bulls should be banned. I know some are good (i've known some... Yet i NEVER made the assumption that they would never snap and becone viscious, because that is in their nature), but so what? The danger outweighs all the arguments for pit bull ownership. And i do know the arguments, and understand the issue fully ( i am not ignorant Pandora ). And still i think that after all is said and done they should be illegal to own or breed. The fact that it is often the failure of their owners to train them properly is meaningless. The problem is there - why it's there is irrelevant. These dogs are too unpredictable (and it is bullshit that it always a matter of training - that is not always the case. Even if it were, there is no way to ensure pit bull owners are responsible, but there is a way to keep them from having the opportunity to be irresponsible - by making it illegal to own one).

Prince Of Dorkness

Just about any animal can be dangerous. I've known many Pitt bulls and they're harmless, gentle animals. But if we just blanket ban a breed (and therefore execute even gentle harmless dogs), why do we allow people to have any pet or work animal that could kill a person?

Owning a Pitt Bull is a responsibility that clearly many people aren't able to take. But that doesn't mean we need to kill all of the hundreds of thousands of them.... Because sme idiots kept 9 and didn't give a shit about the safety of their baby.

Seems to me we should execute all the dumb people.

And think of all the open real estate in Mississippi.

PJ_Soul

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Just about any animal can be dangerous. I've known many Pitt bulls and they're harmless, gentle animals. But if we just blanket ban a breed (and therefore execute even gentle harmless dogs), why do we allow people to have any pet or work animal that could kill a person?

Owning a Pitt Bull is a responsibility that clearly many people aren't able to take. But that doesn't mean we need to kill all of the hundreds of thousands of them.... Because sme idiots kept 9 and didn't give a shit about the safety of their baby.

Seems to me we should execute all the dumb people.

And think of all the open real estate in Mississippi.

Killing them?? Who's talking about a mass murder of pit bulls??

Prince Of Dorkness

PJ_Soul wrote:

Killing them?? Who's talking about a mass murder of pit bulls??

You said it should be illegal to own them. So... What did you think would happen to the roughly nine million in existence in America alone? A government-run pittbull haven with toys and games and nappy time?

They would round them up and kill them.


(And what is a Pitt Bull? That's a term that's used to describe a few different hybrid bulldog/terrier mixes. Does that also include stafordshire terriers?)

goingtoverona

why stop there? let's ban all dogs that kill people. we just need a list of of breeds then we can ban them all. i wonder how many breeds of dogs we could ban for killing people. i bet a lot. we could send all the dogs over to china and feed them for a few years.

PJ_Soul wrote:

This week in greater vancouver a little girl was attacked by her neighbor's pit bull. Hundreds of stitches in her face.
I think pit bulls should be banned. I know some are good (i've known some... Yet i NEVER made the assumption that they would never snap and becone viscious, because that is in their nature), but so what? The danger outweighs all the arguments for pit bull ownership. And i do know the arguments, and understand the issue fully ( i am not ignorant Pandora ). And still i think that after all is said and done they should be illegal to own or breed. The fact that it is often the failure of their owners to train them properly is meaningless. The problem is there - why it's there is irrelevant. These dogs are too unpredictable (and it is bullshit that it always a matter of training - that is not always the case. Even if it were, there is no way to ensure pit bull owners are responsible, but there is a way to keep them from having the opportunity to be irresponsible - by making it illegal to own one).

JimmyV

People convicted of running dog fighting operations should be given the max sentence possible. If those sentences are not harsh enough then the sentencing guidelines should be changed. Put the fear of god in people who would train these dogs to be violent.

That won't solve the problem but it is a start. What we do with these animals that have already been damaged by these monsters is another problem.

chadwick

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Pit Bulls are banned in my province. Have been since 1990. Every animal has the potential to be sweet and loveable. But an aggressive breed should NOT be domesticated. It's common fucking sense.

I had a fucking small, stupid, super friendly dog as a child. When he got hold of a rib bone by going through the garbage, he'd growl and fucking bite us if we tried to get near him to take it away. Every other minute of his existence he was the nicest dog you'd ever want to meet.

How small is your penis that you have to own a giant truck and an aggressive animal? I guess it makes some feel macho.

It's not rocket science, people.

awesome

chadwick

i'm getting a lion for Christmas
also, where is dunkman when ya need him?

chadwick

JimmyV wrote:

People convicted of running dog fighting operations should be given the max sentence possible. If those sentences are not harsh enough then the sentencing guidelines should be changed. Put the fear of god in people who would train these dogs to be violent.

That won't solve the problem but it is a start. What we do with these animals that have already been damaged by these monsters is another problem.

michael vick should be flown to hawaii & thrown into a bubbling volcano @ 0.2 mph

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Just about any animal can be dangerous. I've known many Pitt bulls and they're harmless, gentle animals. But if we just blanket ban a breed (and therefore execute even gentle harmless dogs), why do we allow people to have any pet or work animal that could kill a person?

Owning a Pitt Bull is a responsibility that clearly many people aren't able to take. But that doesn't mean we need to kill all of the hundreds of thousands of them.... Because sme idiots kept 9 and didn't give a shit about the safety of their baby.

Seems to me we should execute all the dumb people.

And think of all the open real estate in Mississippi.

Prince...

I'm going to disagree with you somewhat. In summary, it appears you are saying that the dog is not dangerous... it's the owner. I have heard this argument from the pro-gun crowd when they defend guns.

I have over-stated that the breed of dog is dangerous. Given the never-ending stream of stories and history to date... this would seem to be common sense. Exceptions aside... there are waaaaay too many cases where the breed- programmed throughout its lineage- is prone to violent outburst when some form of stimuli sends it over the edge.

One of the earlier posts had a picture of a pitbull with some rabbits and birds or something. Cute. Now show the picture of the little girl PJ Soul mentioned where she needed reconstructive surgery for her face. Stimulus in this case? I believe it was walking to her home. You can't put lipstick on a pig. The pitbull is a dangerous breed and I have little confidence in every person who owns one to train it properly- not that this would guarantee a well-mannered dog with a gentle disposition anyways.

Where we can begin to agree is around your assertion that perhaps we should look at executing all the dumb people.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

how can one be anti-gun but pro-vicious dog? isn't that hypocritical? if you think a gun owner can not be responsible, how can you possibly assert that a dog owner can be? a gun can be controlled, whereas a dog is a living breathing eating attacking being.