Seems like a strange story. On so many levels. Who lets their 2-yr old wonder off. They’re talking on local radio shows about if the owner will get in trouble. But I’m almost of the opinion that it’s not his fault. Not sure. Especially when he warned them. But I’m also of the opinion that Pit Bulls should be outlawed and no one should be allowed to have them. But that’s not the law yet, so…… Anyway… a tragic story that’s getting a lot of air time here in WV and thought I’d see what my friends on Hatrack thought.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
It's the owner, not the dog. Meaning ANY dog can become a mauler given the improper care and training of an irresponsible owner.
Pit bulls are NOT inherently evil and can actually make good family pets. You have to raise them right, like any dog.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This guy knew the dog was dangerous. He knew a 2-year old was around. He definitely is at fault and should be in trouble.
The parents are at fault, too, for letting their 2-year old out of their sight knowing a dangerous dog was around. But not as much as the keeper of the dangerous animal.
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
I am an animal lover, have pets myself. I never believed that any dog was inherently evil, and I do place responsibility on the owner in raising the animal properly... BUT... I had a good friend who was the Director of the SPCA here in town for several years. The SPCA will not take in Pit Bulls, and I asked him why. He said that no matter what kind of training or upbringing you give a pit, there is a chance that the dog will turn on you. He said you could raise ten pits in ten loving and caring families, and he could guarantee that one would turn. Apparently it's genetic - breeding has created this instinct, like being a bird dog or a digger. It's sad to see, and I was really surprised to hear that from a person that I KNEW loved animals and knew his business. I know several very sweet pits myself, but I always have what he said in the back of my mind.
As for that baby, it is truly a tragedy. There are so many variables that you can't really pass judgement. Did the owner know his dog was violent? Did he warn the parents? Were the parents watching their child? Did the child know how to treat an animal? Did she antagonise the dog? So many questions, and no good answers apparently. Just one dead little girl, which is a terrible terrible thing.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: Young says there are conflicting statements about how the visitors to the house were warned about the dog and how the girl got into the house.
It sounds like they're still determining how the girl got in the house. If she got in without the owner's knowledge, how is he responsible. The dog was quarantined in the house and the girl's family had been warned.
Of course, if the owner let her in, that's a different story.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
And there are muzzle laws, but the dog wasn't wearing one?
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
If the dog was locked inside away from people, why would a law require he be muzzled?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Because he'd already attacked someone. If there were visitors, he should have been muzzled.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
You can't muzzle a dog all the time. How could they eat?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I didn't say he should be muzzled all the time. But while visitors were in the house, he should have been.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
From what I understand, pit bulls do tend to be a very aggressive breed, but unless they are trained otherwise (or maltreated), their aggression is typically toward other dogs. There are, of course, exceptions that prove the rule, but this would be true of ANY animal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It sounds like they're still determining how the girl got in the house. If she got in without the owner's knowledge, how is he responsible. The dog was quarantined in the house and the girl's family had been warned.
Of course, if the owner let her in, that's a different story.
First, if you own a dangerous animal, you take a certain amount of responsibility for damage caused by that animal. Here, there was ample warning: the earlier incident and the fact he was quarantined. This gives some responsibility no matter what safety precautions were taken or what warnings were given.
Second, the owner's responsibility was to both keep the dog in and keep people out. While a burglar would enter at is own risk, a child who was a guest in the house needs to be protected from wandering into the dog. The door should have been locked so no one could get in without breaking in.
These are my moral opinions, by the way, not legal ones.
Dagonee
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
That's terrible. I want to scream everytime I see one of these stories. Mack is right, pit bulls aren't evil - but, there's no getting away from the fact that as a breed they have been bred for a much higher aggression level than other dogs. Any dog *can* be a danger, but pit bulls (I'll include rotties here too) are known to be more of a risk due to their bloodlines, much like labs are known to be more loving and good with kids. In either case, as with anything, there are exceptions.
When I worked for a vet he would not allow rotties or pits to come for overnight boarding (or dalmations either, for that matter - they can get "nippy" as they age). To be honest, I would never allow my children to go over to a friend's home who had an uncaged rottie or pit. I know some of them can be loving dogs, but some of them have killed people, and these are not isolated cases.
space opera
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
They weren't in the house, though. He specifically told them NOT to go inn the house.
Sure, if they were in the house, he should have secured the dog. Personally, I think pit bulls shouldn't be allowed as run of the mill pets. I think you should have to have a special licence or something, becausse they are a dangerous breed.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
You can't just tell a 3-year-old not to go in the house and leave it at that, and not be prepared for her to sneak away and go in the house. I wouldn't let my child play unsupervised where I know there are dangers like outlets and knives and small objects, and neither would I rely on my being able to watch a 3 year old closely while socializing and having warned her not to go in to keep her away from a potentially dangerous animal.
That is directed both at the parents and at the owner.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
God. I knew pit bulls were dangerous and stuff, but I had never heard of one killing anyone. Just a side question, what's deadlier? A pitbull or a rottweiler? I know they are both very aggressive breeds...
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Right. But I don't think it's a legal issue of a muzzle.
I muzzle our dog when we go for walks. She was abused and has a tendency to snap at people if she feels threatened. When she's in the back yard, we don't keep her muzzled. The fence is a tall one and we generally lock the doors to the back yard.
I don't think a normal person would think to muzzle a dog who was closed up in the house if he was out in the front yard talking to people who dropped by for a visit.
I'm not saying the owner and the parents are not culpable, I'm just saying that suggesting that muzzle laws apply is a bit overboard. Plus, I'm not sure what, if any muzzle laws there are in this particular state. I don't think all states have muzzle laws, and certainly those that do are not uniform.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, they were mentioned at the end. You're right that muzzle laws vary even by county. But even when there aren't strict laws, vets will sometimes recommend a dog be kept muzzled except when eating (although I'm not saying it happened here).
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
FG's linky makes me wonder - has anyone heard of any cases in which a non-pit or rottie has killed? Surely it's happened, but I honestly can't recall any at all.
(I'm not jabbin' at the link, FG - I think it shows a good story - it just made me wonder)
space opera
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I couldn't find any specific information on muzzle laws in West Virginia, but the guy was culpable for having a known Viscious dog according to this ( I think):
The whole story didn't load the first time I clicked on the link posted by Jay. I don't know why.
I don't think they have a muzzle law. The above does make it illegal to own a known vicious animal, except by special licence for 'protection'.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've seen reports on a Jack Russell terrier, but couldn't find a good link.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
We had a situation about my dog nearly biting someone when I was younger. He'd just gone blind and was a bit pissy about it. Basically, he wasn't used to the loss of one sense yet and got scared easily by people he wasn't familiar with. A neighbor came over to talk to my father and his daughter (teenage, we're talking 15 years old) and her friend of the same age came over with the neighbor. My dog was on a run in the backyard (he hated being indoors during the daytime, but we weren't going to let him run free. He always had a a line run or a full fenced in run, especially since he went blind). Anyrate, my father told both the neighbor and the daughter and friend to stay away from Buddy (the dog) because he was easily startled lately and would try and bite out of fear. My father and the neighbor chatted. In the meantime, the friend, DESPITE the warning and the dog being on a run far enough away to keep people away from danger. DESPITE my father and the neighbor being there, this kid decided to walk up to my dog. She scared him, and he went to bite. She backed off and he was stopped by the line on his run. Thank god.
But what the hell? She'd been told. It had been explained. She was EXPRESSLY told NOT to approach the dog because of his condition. And yet she did so--and she wasn't some little kid, it was a fifteen year old.
Had he managed to bite her, I'm not sure what would've happened. The poor dog was already trying to adjust to being blind. He wasn't a mean dog by any measure. He was scared, as anything would be when you lose a sense you've had all your life.
*sigh*
It just doesn't seem fair, when you warn people, when you DO keep your dog away from folks to keep both the dog AND the people away from danger, and people still go looking for trouble. A two year old--her parents REALLY should've been watching her much better. Though the story doesn't say how she got into the house. Yes, it should've been locked. The owner kept the visitors outside for a reason but he didn't fully secure the house.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Last sentence:
quote:Young says Huntington has a muzzle law for such dogs, but stronger laws are needed.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:The owner kept the visitors outside for a reason but he didn't fully secure the house.
This is where I have a problem. Making the assumption that the girl went into the house without the owner's invitation or knowledge, why should he have to keep his house locked. Her parents should be responsible for where she is and what she's doing at all time.
I have the same issue with pools. In Florida, even if your pool completely screened in, you still have to have a baby fence around it and keep it closed at all times. I can agree with mandating a latch on the screen door out of reach of young children, but beyond that, I think you're messing with a homeowner's rights. Why should a homeowner have to take responsibility that should belong to the parents?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I think because of the society we live in today. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Because you can watch and watch and watch some kids, and they still get away! My brother even used to escape a kiddie harness and get about 300 feet away without my dad noticing, and my dad was very watchful.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is where I have a problem. Making the assumption that the girl went into the house without the owner's invitation or knowledge, why should he have to keep his house locked. Her parents should be responsible for where she is and what she's doing at all time.
True, her parents should be watching her. But that he chose to keep a dog he knew was dangerous. By doing that, he assumes moral responsibility for the damage caused by that dog.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
So should the parents be charged?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Don't know enough, but probably not.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
If they didn't know the dog was dangerous and the door was unlocked, were watching her but she slipped off when they weren't looking, then no. They shouldn't be.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
The parents could be in Florida depending on circumstances. There have been several cases where a child gets out of the house unnoticed and is found later in a ditch, retention pond/lake, etc.
I don't think it's been done, though. I can't think of any punishment that the law could dish out that would drive the lesson into someone more than losing their own child.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know, Dagonee. I think his only moral responsibility is for damage done by the dog before he quarantined it, or damage done after he quarantined it, if the dog escaped through some negligence on his part. (For instance, leaving a window open or something).
If the child entered his home without his permission or knowledge, and she had never done so before, I don't see how he has moral responsibility for this injury.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: Because you can watch and watch and watch some kids, and they still get away! My brother even used to escape a kiddie harness and get about 300 feet away without my dad noticing, and my dad was very watchful.
But if the patio door is latched and locked in such a way too prevent a small child from getting in, why is another fence necessary?
Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
quote: The deputy chief says there was a lot of blood. He says vicious pit bulls go for the throat when they attack.
I know I'm nitpicking, but don't all Canines go for the throat when they attack?
I know i just sound like a copycat when i say this, but it really does depend on whether the owner know she was in the house or not. If he did the he is responsible, if he didn't he isn't. It's that simple, IMHO.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a moment...if the owner of the dog should have some moral responsibility for the damage the dog does, just by virtue of owning a dangerous dog (not dangerous because he's a pit bull, but because he's shown history), then should not a parent also own some moral responsibility for things their child does if they elude their watch?
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
quote:He says vicious pit bulls go for the throat when they attack.
It also has nothing to do with the fact that a child's face and neck are at eye level for a big dog.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Pit bulls actually aren't that big. They're more a medium sized dog.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Right, they are toddler sized. Assuming they are referring to an actual American Pit Bull Terrier, and not some other mix or breed that is called Pit Bull by journalists.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I searched for state laws only, but then, my google-fu is notoriously weak.
They shouldn't be charged, but they should feel darned guilty (and I'm sure they do). They were warned by the guy (it was either in this article, or one of the others I've seen on the subject), who told them to stay out of the house because his dog bites.
I dunno about anyone else, but my babies never got out of my arms around any dog except my mother's Yorkie, who knew them well. Not even when the dog owner's kids were standing right next to the dog inviting one of them to pet it. I was very cautious, because I've seen the results of dog bites, even minor ones if they happen to be to an extremity or the face.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
How very sad.
Personally, I would never own a pit bull (or rottie), because of the aggressiveness that has specifically been bred into them. Those that do choose to own them (and this would be good advice for any dog owner) should be aware of the possible risks involved and do what they can to prevent problems. Not knowing all the details of this story makes it hard to figure out where responsibility lies. The parents are responsibile for watching their child. I know it's hard and I know kids can disappear quickly, but they should have been watching their daughter. The owner is responsible for controlling his dog. I understand the dog was confined to the house (a good idea) and she may have "snuck in" (difficult to do anything about), but he chose to keep an animal that was known to have problems. Basically, a little girl is dead and I think there's plenty of blame to go around. It's a tragedy. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If the child entered his home without his permission or knowledge, and she had never done so before, I don't see how he has moral responsibility for this injury.
The child was a guest. She was too young to abide by the rules voluntarily. He knew it was a danger, a life-threatening danger. His precautions were overcome by a two-year old. Therefore they were insufficient, barring a 2-year old with magical powers.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
What lusti said.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
There's not enough information to be certain what is going on here. It seems to indicate the girl was a guest at the house, but the dog was kept inside the house, so does that mean they were all just visiting the outside? Like, as in a backyard barbecue? If so, then what about people who went inside to go to the bathroom?
Or, was the dog quarantined in only a certain part of the house, and the child went exploring and just opened the wrong door?
We don't know enough to judge who should accept what portion of the blame, but the facts remain a small child is dead, and it's because a man did not destroy a dog that had shown a tendency for viciousness. The responsible thing to do would have been to put the dog down after the first incident, especially considering this is a breed known for viciousness. Or, he should have kept the dog muzzled when there were guests anywhere near his home.
If he indeed invited these people onto any part of his property while he kept an animal known to attack others, he should have either removed the animal from the property, or muzzled it. If he couldn't keep people completely safe from the dog, yes even toddlers whose parents don't keep a sharp eye on them, then he shouldn't own the dog or he shouldn't hold parties.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Young says there are conflicting statements about how the visitors to the house were warned about the dog and how the girl got into the house. Huntington Police are investigating.
I don't know, it appears whether or not she was a guest isn't clear yet. If she was a guest, then I agree the man has moral responsibility for this. If not, then he does not, I believe.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Even that quote says they were "visitors to the house," Rakeesh. The man is claiming they were warned. How is she not a guest?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
That's my point, Dagonee. The quote contradicts itself. They were guests at the house, but they can't determine how the child got into the house?
As for the breed being 'known for visciousness', it is difficult to determine how accurate this is. Are they 'known for viciousness' because it is genetic that they are, from birth, more likely to attack humans than other dogs? Are they 'known for viciousness' because often the people who own them are people who want a dog that is excellent at fighting, and bred to have a good body for it? Are they 'known for violence' because the people who own them are too careless?
I don't know the answers to any of those questions, really, but I do know that if properly raised, I have no fear around pit bulls, and believe no one else should, either.
But of course since one cannot determine if a pit bull has been properly trained unless they've done it themselves, they should be wary around others.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's my point, Dagonee. The quote contradicts itself. They were guests at the house, but they can't determine how the child got into the house?
They were visitors to the house. He warned them (or not) not to go inside. The child went inside, but they're not sure how she got there. That could mean which door, how she unlocked it, or how she got away from the parents.
It's not contradictory - they were visitors who were staying outside.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"His precautions were overcome by a two-year old. Therefore they were insufficient, barring a 2-year old with magical powers."
Seems to me the two year-old "overcame" his parents' attention span. I wonder what people would say of a two year old who escaped the play yard of a daycare? I sure don;t think there would be a "Oh, but some kids are so hard to keep track of" kind of reaction.
No matter where the blame is placed, the pain is deep and will never end for any of them. t is just so sad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not excusing the parents. Fault isn't a zero-sum game, and the parents' fault in no way reduces the dog owner's fault.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Hmmm. The owner wasn't home. This is getting even more confused.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The owner wasn't home and the mother had two kids there. Willingly. I'm having an even harder time blaming the owner, now.
And I know the Grandmother is understandably upset, but some of those comments are ridiculous. Especially since she wasn't there.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
This is a terrible tragedy, but it pisses me off to see blanket statements condemning an entire breed as "naturally vicious". This particular dog was dangerous, yes, just as lots of other poorly-raised dogs are dangerous. But anyone who tells you that Pit Bulls or any other domesticated breed is born evil is flat-out wrong.
Think about it... Pit Bulls were bred to be in a pit. With humans. Do you really think that the original creators of the breed wanted to work close beside a crazed, human-killing dog? Pits aren't great with other animals, but they are naturally extremely loyal family companions.
Now, sadly, Pits are a popular breed for sadistic dog fighters, and some people do TRAIN them to be dangerous around humans. Those *holes deserve to be locked in a stripped-out car with one of their creations and left to fend for themselves.
But these blanket assumptions about a dog's willingness to go on a killing spree based simply on its breed are resulting in breed-specific homeowners insurance policies, rental agreements, and even breed-specific bans in a growing number of cities.
Those of you who own dogs that you've poured your heart into loving and training, how many of you would be happy to have the government declare that your dog is, by definition, a danger to society and must be killed?
And those of you who don't own dogs, please, stop and think for a second before you declare that ALL of Breed X or Breed Y is inherently dangerous.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Zeugma, I totally agree. That's why I cringe when someone says that a dog should be put down the first time it bites. My dogs are members of my family.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
First of all, I doubt many of you will actually read this entire thing and take it to heart. So, if you won't, at least watch this video, and maybe you will be encouraged to read further.
(Warning: Extremely graphic, and pretty disturbing. I have seen it many times, and it makes me cry every single time.)
quote:He said that no matter what kind of training or upbringing you give a pit, there is a chance that the dog will turn on you. He said you could raise ten pits in ten loving and caring families, and he could guarantee that one would turn. Apparently it's genetic - breeding has created this instinct, like being a bird dog or a digger.
This is completely unfounded and not at all factual. Agression is NOT an instinctual trait in dogs. Certain agressive traits are potentially hereditary and capable of being passed from sire to offspring, such as the "rage" syndrome documented in certain colors of Cocker spaniels, but this research is highly theoretical and not all proven. To say that pit bulls are inherently vicious animals is completely wrong, and without trying to offend, extremely ignorant.
quote:Sure, if they were in the house, he should have secured the dog. Personally, I think pit bulls shouldn't be allowed as run of the mill pets. I think you should have to have a special licence or something, becausse they are a dangerous breed.
Some countries have already begun to require licenses for owning pits and other breeds typically deemed as dangerous, such as Cane Corsos, Presa Canarios, Dogo Argentinos, and a number of others. I think this is a complete shame. Dog ownership and licensing should be based on a person's responsibility as a dog owner, not on the breed of dog in question. "There are no bad dogs, only bad owners."
quote:God. I knew pit bulls were dangerous and stuff, but I had never heard of one killing anyone. Just a side question, what's deadlier? A pitbull or a rottweiler? I know they are both very aggressive breeds...
No, no, NO!!! Pit bulls and Rottweilers are NOT dangerous when raised properly. Certainly not any more dangerous, in terms of temperment, than a Labrador or a Collie. Unfortunately, because of their size and sheer power, when they DO attack, they cause a great deal more damage than most other breeds. Pound for pound, a Rottweiler in a fight with a pit bull would most likely win. For their size, pit bulls are the most powerful breed of dog in existence. They are capable of doing an extreme amount of damage when provoked, but honestly, no more than any other dog of their size or weight. Anything you ever hear about a pit bull locking its jaws (such as that utter CRAP in that news article, which sets my blood boiling...no WONDER people are scared of them, when the MEDIA reports nonsense like that), or its brain growing too large for its head, causing it to go crazy, is a myth. There is absolutely no truth to that, and it's just that the pit has gotten a bad reputation from silly rumors such as those.
quote:FG's linky makes me wonder - has anyone heard of any cases in which a non-pit or rottie has killed? Surely it's happened, but I honestly can't recall any at all.
Certainly. But, because "pit bull" is a red-hot media term, you don't often hear about the other cases.
quote: A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. (Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) The experience of the author of Dog Bite Law confirms that the dogs on the CDC list are the most frequent attackers of human beings.
Owners of such dogs should be aware that if their dogs attack a person, the attacks may be scrutinized by law enforcement. The reason is that irresponsible behavior with or toward a dog whose breed is known to bite has caused a rising and unacceptable injury and death toll, which authorities are determined to stem.
"Irresponsible behavior" is defined differently from place to place. In California, for example, it can be a felony for a person to possess a dog trained to fight, attack or kill that, because of the owner's lack of ordinary care, bites two people or seriously injures one person. (See Felony prosecution of attack dog owners.)
In different parts of the United States at the current time, there are a number of parents who are on trial for manslaughter because their dogs have killed their children. In these cases, the prosecutors have taken the position that the parents behaved irresponsibly because they left their children in the company of dogs most likely to bite.
There is an 8 out of 10 chance that a biting dog is male. (Humane Society of the United States.)
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, Page B-5.)
In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:
* Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner most often is responsible -- not the breed, and not the dog. * An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above). * Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be likely to bite. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.
quote:Pit bulls actually aren't that big. They're more a medium sized dog.
Medium in height, yes - but pit bulls often reach 80-150 pounds. That is a LOT of muscle to be packing on such a relatively small animal.
quote:Think about it... Pit Bulls were bred to be in a pit. With humans. Do you really think that the original creators of the breed wanted to work close beside a crazed, human-killing dog? Pits aren't great with other animals, but they are naturally extremely loyal family companions.
Yes. Pit bulls were bred to fight bulls and other canines, so agression towards other animals IS instinctual, and can be problematic. Agression toward humans is not inherited, it is learned. Docility toward humans was actually encouraged in the breed, as pit fights were generally broken up by dog handlers, and they didn't want the dogs turning on THEM in the middle of the fight. Pit bulls are fiercely loyal animals, and will protect their owners at all cost, despite mistreatment. This loyalty can get them into trouble. If you train a dog to hate everyone but you, guess what! It will! And then you're going to turn around and blame the breed??!! Animal cruelty and sheer ignorance is all it is.
I could go on at great length about this. For the past 5 years I have done extensive research on pits and breed-specific legislation laws. I have mailed countless letters to countless politicians, and sometimes it makes a difference. Sometimes people are too blinded by their own ignorance and prejudice to take notice and open their minds. Feel free to ask me anything else. I'm sorry for such a long post, but you have touched on THE most sensitive part in me.
This is something I did back in high school. I won third prize in a statewide competition sponsored by the Florida Bar Association, and at the reception I had quite a few lawyers and politicians question me about my motives behind the painting. I think I changed a few minds that night, and I hope I have had some influence on you as well.
First comment: [Snarky] Is anyone really surprised this happened in West Virginia [/Snarky] (And Huntington is to my understanding, one of the Civilized towns. )
Secondly: *Sigh*, I hope this doesn't give rise to more Breed Specific Legislation. I'm personally cautious around pit bulls, because I don't trust 90% of the humans out there that breed and own them. There are the 10% of the breeders that are the exception. They would be the ones who could provide the long pedigree of reliable temperments I'd want behind any Pit Bull I owned. (and I love Dobermans and would also own a Pit Bull before I owned a Husky or a Rotweiler, because puppy millers have destroyed them so much.)
However I am forced to defend pitbulls legislatively, because corgis have been lumped into several Breed Specific Legislations, particularly in France as "dangerous breeds" and they have often included many Herding and Working breeds on that list along with the pit bulls. I personally think that instead of issuing a "Dog License" we should be issuing "Dog Owner Licenses" even though my libertarian side is at war with my socialist side on this one. It's stupid people that create problem dogs.
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Unfortunately, because of their size and sheer power, when they DO attack, they cause a great deal more damage than most other breeds. Pound for pound, a Rottweiler in a fight with a pit bull would most likely win. For their size, pit bulls are the most powerful breed of dog in existence. They are capable of doing an extreme amount of damage when provoked, but honestly, no more than any other dog of their size or weight.
This in and of itself is enough to justify different treatment under the law. I'm not sure what the different treatment should be. Perhaps it shouldn't be breed-specific, but size-specific. But the mere fact that an animal can kill a full-grown human being is reason enough to set regulatory standards.
You can call it regulating the dog or regulating the owner, but short of outright bans or kill orders, it amounts to the same thing. I want those regulations based on fact, not the misconceptions you attacked very well in your post. But it's perfectly acceptable to impose standards on pit bull owners that we don't impose on toy poodle owners.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Just as long as you include those pesky pomeranians.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
How about regulating owners who choose pit bulls?
If a dog breed has been demonstrated to kill, it should be considered the same as gun ownership. Which I personally don't have a problem with being somewhat limited. I do realize that most municipalities already limit how many animals one can care for without a breeders license.
And AJ- on the WV thing, I guess we're all bigotted just on different subjects. What city did that adult woman get killed by a dog in?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Mothertree, I was teasing someone with the West Virgina comment... I thought the "snarky" and smiley faces gave it away.
I believe one of the worst of the agressive dog stories was from the Bay Area in CA which is the state which I grew up in. I also lived in Oklahoma for 5 years, a place where cock fighting was still legal, though I think it finally got banned last year.
AJ
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
Avaduru -
thanks for the detailed info. No offense taken at all. It's good to know someone is taking the time to try and debunk the myths and stereotypes. I think that the bottom line is that if you know your dog is aggressive, then anyone at your home should be aware of that fact. Accidents can and do happen, and that's the worst part. I doubt that we'll ever get the true story about what happened in this situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I was actually in SF when that happened. If I recall correctly, those owners had a host of problems with the dogs. They were being walked by a woman who couldn't control them.
Textbook case of neglectful owners.
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
I am thankful that not everyone is falling into this "pit bulls are viscous animals" thing. Pit bulls are only dangerous because we make them that way and we portray them as this horrible breed. Considering that fact that it seems the most commonly reported dog maulings are from pit bulls, maybe it would be a good idea to impose a dog ownership license. Something that agrees they will properly train their dog(s). Then again, why not make that standard for all dogs? I have known some pretty viscous small dogs that could have used some training.
I have met some wonderful pit bulls in my time as well as some bad-tempered ones. However, the same can be said for many other breeds. Actually, I have met more mean dogs that were little. My guess is that these owners never took the time to train their little dog and just babied it instead.
It is always a shame when things like this happen. It is a shame for all of those involved. I would say it is the parent's fault for letting their kid wander in the vicinity of a known dangerous dog. I would also say that it is the owner's fault for not properly training the dog.
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
I meant to add this before, but our dog (our child, to be more accurate) is half cocker and half chow. Chows are an aggressive breed, and Sweetpea is no exception. She does not like other dogs, she is very jealous (even of the cats) and extremely protective of her food. This being said, we've had her since she was six weeks old to the day, and have NEVER messed with her food - all I can say is that this is part of her personality/genetics/whatever you want to call it. When we have friends over, especially those with kids, they are told to *Leave Sweetpea Alone* when she's eating, and they're told in no uncertain terms. There has been one incident when she did snap at a friend's child, and the parents of that kid chewed the kid's ass for not following specific directions. The parents were not upset at us or at Sweetpea. They understand animals, they know Sweetpea and how she is, and they know that their kiddo learned a valuable lesson about how to treat pets and about listening to what you're told. I just wish that everyone took responsibility like we all did in this situation. Then, I'd like to think that horrible things like what happened to that little girl wouldn't happen anymore.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
A dog bite is just as dangerous from a tiny dog as from a large dog. My friend was bitten by a very small dog, and had a terrible reaction to the bite.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
quote:protective of her food
Hmm, the half chow I had as a kid was very protective of his food. The only time he ever attacked another dog with intent to injure was when a Pit Bull wandered over and started eating out of his bowl. This same dog, however tolerated a half-blind toy poodle that bit him (or tried, couldn't usually find him through his fur) at least twice a day. Maybe chows are just sensitive about their food. Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Liz, that's an important thing to remember! A few weekends ago my daughter and I were at a yard sale, and the lady there was holding a little dog (a pom, maybe?). Anyway, the lady said Operaetta could pet it, but the dog was growling and showing its teeth. I told Operaetta to get back and not touch the dog. The lady laughed and said, "Oh, it's fine. She'd never bite!" I told the lady usually the people who say that are the ones who feel really bad after their dog bites someone. I think I kinda pissed her off.
space opera
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
And Grizzly Bears are great when raised right. Plus you’ve seen Lion trainers put their heads into the mouth of the beast. So it’s all about how you’re brought up huh? Maybe. But I can certainly see some laws regulating who can have certain breads of dogs.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)