Cartooniverse, you really need to improve your reading comprehension skills. Stoid is saying that the owner of the dog needs to be able to think like a dog to establish dominance and control it. This should be pretty obvious, considering you included the relevant quote in your post. Too many idiot dog owners don’t have a clue how to do this, and end up being the omega in the pack instead of the alpha.
OK, well then I think it’s great that you take responsibility for your dog’s aggressive behavior. Good for you!
I only replied because you seemed to be making some point about not being able to control your dog, even though she’s only 25 lbs. Frankly, that makes me wonder how anyone can be expected to control a dog that weighs 60 lbs.
So which dog started the fight? Yours or the Rottie? I thought you were saying that the Rottie wasn’t being aggressive, but if your dog had to hide under a car to escape it, then thank you for yet another story about an aggressive dog terrorizing a smaller one. I think? Maybe I’m just not clear what your point was. It happens . . .
Vanilla:
The reason every dog attack story you read is about a pit bull is that reporters tend to call any dog that attacks a human a “pit bull”. Many dogs are described as pit bulls if they attack people, but if you see a picture of the dog it is clearly not a pit bull.
Cartooniverse:
The owner of that dog that attacked you was clearly at fault. But I don’t think this falls under the category of “attacked without warning”. The dog was clearly aggressive. Personally, I think both the dog AND the owner should be euthanized. But any dog that attacks like that has clearly been trained to be aggressive. But what those idiots who train their dogs to attack don’t seem to understand is that a dog doesn’t understand when it is appropriate to attack and when it isn’t.
It takes a highly skilled person to control an attack trained dog. The trainer has to understand dog psychology inside and out, and be able to tell the dog what it should do. And trained attack dogs like police dogs aren’t trained to hurt people, they are trained to grab people and wait for the trainer to catch up. In any case, owning an attack dog is a 24 hour a day job, and having an attack dog sitting around when expecting visitors is criminal negligence.
Dogs just can’t understand when they should be aggressive and when they should be submissive. So, unless you are an expert, you should simply train your dog to always be submissive. And this is very easy to do, there are just a few tricks you need to learn, like feeding your dog after people eat, rolling it on its back, and instantly punishing any aggression.
Anyway, the point is that you weren’t randomly attacked. Your attack was predictable. Not by you, but by the owner. The owner could have, and should have, known that his dogs were likely to bite someone. The fact that he did nothing to prevent your attack was (IANAL) criminally negligent.
Ah, so much to reply to.
To preface, though, I haven’t seen any solid evidence that Pit Bulls are agressive by nature, although some of the anecdotal evidence given backs that up. So I’m not saying that Pit Bulls should be banned. However, if evidence comes up that proves they truly are naturally dangerous, I have no problem with sterilizing the breed out.
I guess I better start with Oldscratch’s excellent, but logically unsound, post:
I don’t understand that logic. Are you saying there is no link of any sort between dog-dog aggresion and dog-human aggression? That would be surprising. I would expect an aggressive dog to be aggresive to everyone of any species. Truly non-aggresive dogs I know play fine with the cats in the house. If I saw a dog chasing one with the intent to kill, I’d certainly be careful around that dog.
But since most of the stories of Pit Bull attacks on this board are of a “extremely unexpected, totally random attack” variety, I wonder if any test can test for this once-in-a-lifetime freakout occurance. I’m not claiming the propensity for the freakout attack exists, but if it did, this test probably couldn’t test for it.
No way this is true. Even in this limited sample size, several people including Holly have provided examples. The reasoning on this thread is circular:
Holly: A Pit Bull attacked me.
Oldscratch: Well it must not have been properly trained then!
So basically, we could argue forever, and all that would happen is that you’d keep refining your definition of “properly raised, trained, and tested”.
Even so, the statement by Oldscratch is not practically useful. Every time I’m around a Pit Bull, I can’t be asking what the Pit Bull’s entire history is. Even when three posters gave examples of Pit Bulls that had a good history yet attacked, Oldscratch was still not satisfied - evidently just appearing to have a good history is not enough. Throw in some uncertainy about the past, and people tendency to lie, and pretty much there’s no way to tell if a Pit Bull will attack you.
Of course that’s what a reasonable person would tell you. It’s not that Pit Bulls will NEVER attack you without reason, or that they ALWAYS will attack you without reason, it’s that they will attack you without reason with a certain probabiliy, even properly raised. Like any dog. These are living creatures, and as such are not by nature predictable. The only question is whether the probabiliy of Pit Bulls attacking without reason is higher than other dogs, or if they are more vicious when attacking.
Furthermore, what we’ve seen on this discussion is an abandonment of this remark. The dog attacked you? It must have been raised incorrectly. No? Well you must have been provoking it. You weren’t? Well didn’t you see the warning signs?
In an ideal world, yes. However you can’t legislate good dog ownership. Actually, maybe a good idea would be to have classes similar to the mandatory handgun training classes you get when you buy a gun. The problems are quiet similar, and a similar approach could help a bit. Just a bit though. Really, in any case you will have people that don’t treat their dogs well. Toy poodles that aren’t treated well aren’t a problem. Any large dog that isn’t treated well is a problem to society at large. Seeing that people may die because of this, then you have to consider what you want to do about it.
And to the claim that THERE ARE NO BAD DOGS ONLY BAD OWNERS: This is the stupidest statement I’ve heard all month. The statement would better read “THERE ARE NO BAD DOG BREEDS, ONLY BAD OWNERS”. That probably still wouldn’t be true, but it’s closer to the truth at least. The truth would be “ANY SUFFICIENTLY LARGE DOG BREED MAY BE DANGEROUS GIVEN A BAD OWNER”.
Or, on the off change that the person who wrote the slogan actually mean that the dogs, even if they’ve killed someone, are innocent, then may I suggest the following slogan: THERE ARE NO BAD DOGS, ONLY BAD PARENTS THAT RAISE DOG OWNERS TO BE BAD or THERE ARE NO BAD DOGS, ONLY BAD SOCIETIES. That outta teach 'em!
I have a friend who had a pit bull-Bandit and he was an extremely gentle and intelligent dog. Another friend raised Rottweilers and they were also gentle and friendly. These dogs were well-socialized and well-trained and a joy to be around. The reason these breeds are often involved in aggressive behavior is that they are naturally protective of their “people” whom they perceive as members of the pack. When stupid owners encourage and reward aggressive behavior their dogs respond with even more aggressive behavior.
My aunt has a cocker spaniel who has bitten nearly everyone he has met. He is cute and fluffy and clearly defective. He really should be put down but he is not seen as a viscious dog 'cause he is so damn cute.
I had a shih tzu who was aggressive and a biter when I got him and it took months of patient training to “unlearn” him of that behavior.
I currently have 2 Brittanies who are great dogs and real members of the family. They are friendly and great companions.
I just want to echo the phrase
THERE ARE NO BAD DOGS–JUST BAD OWNERS
THERE ARE NO BAD DOGS–JUST BAD OWNERS
THERE ARE NO BAD DOGS–JUST BAD OWNERS
THERE ARE NO BAD DOGS–JUST BAD OWNERS
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stoid *
**
Oh god. First of all, yes, I admit I misunderstood your wording, and I apologize. Now, fuck the debate- are you ALL RIGHT? 
Were you injured?
Cartooniverse
I think we’re wondering a little off topic here and would like to clarify a couple of points.
When “doggy people” in this thread state that “there are no bad dogs, only bad owners” they are putting all responsibility for a dog’s behaviour back on the owner. The reason we do this is because it is the responsibility of the owner (and I include breeders in this, as they own a dog until such time as they sell it) to ensure that their dog can function in society without representing a threat to humans or other animals.
It is inexcusable to not take action if your dog is exhibiting aggressive tendencies, and sometimes the only appropriate action available will be to put that individual animal down.
Alpha behaviour tends to be tolerated more in small breeds and even regarded as “cute” by some people, but there are plenty of children who have permanent facial scars as the result of bites from small, cute dogs.
Personally, the only circumstance under which I would not put down a dog of mine which bit another person or animal is if the bite was in response to a direct attack on either one of our family members or my dog. In all other circumstance, the dog must defer to my judgement.
It is ridiculous to expect everyone to know the warning signs of aggression in each individual breed (although I’m all for people knowing what not to do when confronted with an aggressive dog) - but there is absolutely no excuse for a dog’s owner being unaware of or tolerating aggressive behaviour in their dog, let alone encouraging that behaviour.
While you cannot legislate for stupidity, you can certainly make the fines relating to unacceptable behaviour in canines large enough to make an impact. We have fairly strict animal control laws here, but they are not enforced enough. Following through on enforcement of those laws would make a huge difference.
I think a great many owners and breeders of breeds with a natural tendency towards dominance would be more than happy to see a licensing system whereby people had to demonstrate their ability to handle such breeds before being allowed to own them.
There are some just plain loopy dogs out there of all breeds, and the responsibility for ensuring that those dogs are never in a position to cause anyone harm rests with their owners and their breeders. There are many more dogs, however, whose agressive behaviour is the direct result of either an action (ie deliberately encouraging aggression) or an inaction (not establishing dominance ove their dog or failing to have the dog put down if dominance could not be established) on the part of its owner.
Owning a dog is not a right, any more than holding a driver’s license is. We need to start treating dog ownership as the privilege and responsibility it is.
oldscratch, you sure do type a lot!
Anyway, you have put a great deal of information in here, and hopefully some of the ignorant can learn from it.
I did want to remind you about one aspect of Big Dog ownership you neglected to mention - you must have the proper vehicle to transport your dog, and of course most (8 out of 10) big dogs prefer SUVs!! 
Cain
John Wayne Gacy
Hannibal
Jack the Ripper
Typhoid Mary
William Bonney
Josef Stalin
Peter Kurten
Vlad III of Carpathia, “Tepes”
Rasputin
David Berkowitz
Adolph Eichmann
Bernhard Goetz
Here we have a species with a history of unprovoked and unpredictable violence. I call for immediate eradication of this species with extreme prejudice. We cannot trust it–it has been bred for violence and mayhem. It should be outlawed and all members euthanized.
[sub]And when she saw what she had done,
She gave her father forty-one.[/sub]
I could not agree more, Reprise. New York State law is extremely clear. The first bite is free. The burden of proof is on the victim to show that the animal had a propensity for violence. I have had to bear witness to this both as a bite victim, the FATHER of a bite victim, and an EMS worker responding to a 3 year old girl bitten twice in rapid succession in the face. First bite’s free. The owner cannot be forced to kill a dog because of first bite.
And now, since now we’ve been told that we are SO far astray of -real- facts, take a look at This Dog Bite Law Site. Like it or not, this is case law and detailed information. Go, look learn a little. Or not.
Here is some more detailed information in the legal liability and responsibility of a dog owner when the dog attacks or kills. California info only, but links to other areas.
And, for further edification, [Dogs Most Likely To Bite](http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html#The dogs most likely to bite).
and,
In New York State One Bite Dog Law, things are made pretty clear.
[Nationwide Dog Bite Law Page](http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/legal_ri.htm#States other than California). This is interesting , it helps define “One Bite” states, as well as other dog bite statues.
Of course, those who have posted here who oppose the statistics and case law cited in these web pages are free to say that the laws cited are a total lie. Far be it for me to provide case law, including penal code numbering and excerpts from written decisions to prove my point. :rolleyes:
Hopefully the same people who rallied around the supposed bulletproof veracity of their cites will visit these, and at least read some of the provided materials. Me, I’m going to go back up to the top of this thread, and go and read the OTHER sites provided by Oldscratch, and some of the other supporters of that point of view.
Cartooniverse
Wow! When you put it such a logical way, it really makes sense! I change my mind! Big scary dogs for EVERYone!
Give me a break!
Do you support the death penalty for every person who commits a murder? How do you feel about euthanizing a dog that has killed someone? I can only assume that you think of the two differently. You can’t compare humans to animals, I’m sorry, but it’s a ridiculous argument. Although I’m sure there would be a lot less pollution, war, sickness (not to mention a curious lack of morons) if humans were to be eradicated. But until squirrels win the right to vote and dogs figure out how to open cans, humans are still at the top of the pecking order.
I was going to post a nice long rebutal of some of the shit in here, and I still will. but I just wanted to say this really quick before I come back.
Cartoonivers you motherfucking little liar. I’m not going to go to a site and wade through crap trying to find information that may or may not support my points. Eihter post the information you want to share with us and post the links as reference, or shut the fuck up.
Of course, you’re right. My apologies. My post was flawed, and I have no excuses.
It was Vlad II, not III, and he was prince of Wallachia, not Carpathia.
You sure caught me there, DeskMonkey.
Humans are animals. If we weren’t then animal research would be useless. We happen to be the top of the order here, but we’re still animals.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.
I think you might have missed my point cartooniverse. I’m one of the people who is opposed to the banning of breeds as a solution to dog bite related incidents.
The fact that I am opposed to that particular solution, however, does not mean that I excuse or condone irresponsible dog breeding or dog ownership.
Two laws which were introduced here at various times spring to mind. About 20 years ago when there was a problem with so-called Alsations (GSDs) being over-represented in dog-bite incidents, Western Australia passed a law that all GSDs except those owned by registered breeders had to be sterilised and breeders had to get a special permit. The rationale was **not[/b} to extinguish the breed, but rather to reclaim the bloodlines and stop the backyard breeding of defective GSDs and GSD crosses. It also made it a great deal harder for people wishing to own a “big, bad, mean dog” to acquire a GSD for that specific purpose.
In NSW, until very recently, greyhounds had to be muzzled outside the owner’s property. This restriction came about because the practise of “blooding” racing greyhounds left greyhounds extremely likely to attack any small animals (and cats in particular) which they saw. This was in fact a taught behaviour.
Both of these laws were intended to bring a man-made problem under control, and to by knowledge, both successfully achieved their objective.
One reason breed-specific rescue organisations exist is because responsible owners and breeders wish to ensure that the best attributes of the breed are retained and that undesirable traits do not become amplified and common through unregulated breeding.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll keep saying it - the sole responsibility for ensuring that my dogs do not represent any threat to human beings or other animals rests with me, and I am perfectly happy for the law to be strengthened in relation to dog owners who abdicate that responsibility.
preview is my friend :
apologies for messing up the code in that last post
Can I just say thank you? Thank you having a rational alternative and expressing it without cursing and name-calling? For having an opinion besides “you’re stupid and you lie and certain dogs are no more a threat than others, so there!”
If this has been successful in Australia, perhaps it could work here. Although I support a ban (not barging into people’s homes and euthanizing their pets), I don’t think that will ever happen and sterilization by breeders seems like it may be of some help. Of course, back yard breeders will always be a problem and those are probably where you’ll find a lot of your problem dogs being sold to dishonest people.
And Andros, thank you for accepting my help with your flawed post so graciosly. Don’t get your Vlads mixed up again! 
And Tim, thanks, I realize that humans are animals, but I figured everyone would know what I meant. That non-human living creatures (sure, you can throw plants in there if you wish) do not have human rights. They do not live by the same rules. If we were all to have the same rights, people would be sniffing each other’s butts in public with no recourse, and we just couldn’t have that.
Umm . . . what reprise said . . .
Sorry, just a little sensitive to it after dealing with a stream of folks claiming otherwise.
As for the butt sniffing it would be hysterical to see. Though I’d rather not be involved.
In the GD thread, someone pointed out another serious problem with banning pit bulls:
Given: There are certain people out there who want their dogs to try to kill everything they can get their teeth on, and these people will naturally want to get whatever dog is considered the most agressive, which according to the media, which often rely much too heavily on anecdotal evidence, would be pit bulls.
Let’s say the government successfully eradicates pit bulls: The people who want killer dogs will have to find some other dog. Eventually, another breed of dog will fill in for pit bulls as “most dangerous dog”. As more and more killer-dog enthusiasts seek this particular breed, reports of serious maulings by that breed will grow at a disporportionally high rate. Eventually, people will demand that they be banned just as pit bulls were. Repeat until all dogs large enouh to cause serious injury or death are eliminated, leaving only the farty dogs.