posted
"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.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 306 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
Jay, domesticated dogs, while still animals, are not quite on the same order as wild animals that have been "tamed."
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
