Any dog over 60 pounds is capable of killing you. Any of them. And like I said before, if you ban pits, the fucktards are just going to move on to another large breed. When you ban that breed, they’ll move on to another, and another, and another. The only way you’re ever going to stop fatal maulings by dogs owned by irresponsible fucktards is to ban every single breed with an adult size of 50# and over. We’re not just talking about the huge honkin’ dogs like St. Bernards and Great Danes and the mastiff breeds. We’re talking Dobermans, and German Shepherds, and Huskies. Dalmatians? So long, Pongo, you’re dangerous. Goldens? Buh-bye. Labs? Out the door. Have you seen the size of those mouths? Won’t somebody think of the children?
(On a side note, the two meanest dogs I’ve ever seen have been a Dalmatian and a Golden. Dalmations tend to be pretty damn neurotic anyway, as do German shepherds, Akitas, huskies, malamutes, and chows, so you always have to watch them. Goldens are usually nice dogs, but the mean ones are always seriously mean.)
Rickjay, Dorkness you know you may be on to something. I’ve been saying for years that those niggers and and spics aint good for nothing. I used to think, hey they’re only people, but point out the crime statistics and yea, its fucking bad blood.
I raised dobies for many years and only once came up with a pup that was truly “bad blood” he didn’t lose his mind till arter puberty (was a sweetheart till then) yet I still managed to train him not to kill other dogs. He still will deliver an ass nip to people he dont like. Yes he should probabnly be put down, but he is kept in a back yard with six foot fence. His family loves him and he them.
Exactly what CrazyCatLady and others have said – ban pits and idiots will move on to Newfoundlands, Bernards, Bernese, etc.
Anyway, RickJay, you make good points. Children shouldn’t be frightened by large dogs allowed to roam free, but that’s a failing of the owner and he/she should be held responsible for that. Neither I or my very well controlled dogs should suffer simply because there are negligent assholes in the world.
I’m personally sick of small children running around my yard and through my house without my permission, as this upsets my highly nervous Shepherd/Lab mix-- do I blame the kids or blame my brother- and sister-in-law for letting their little monsters run free?
Personally, I say ban children, but no one seems to be with me on that one.
I’d really like to see statistics on the circumstances of dog bites/maulings. I’m curious as to how many of these were situations where a dog simply attacked for no reason, and how many of them were situations with the dog being goaded into it.
Just a note and a very slight hijack – I do believe that pets **are ** considered “property” in the strict sense of the word. Just out of curiousity, is that also true of children?
Maybe, we shouldn’t abandon the reality of the situation just because you had a friendly dog growing up. It seems a lot of people get bit by dogs every year. Despite the fact that other dogs are on the list, pit bulls and rottweillers account for the majority of dog fatalities. Actually addressing that situation may be more useful than mocking the idea of banning a clearly dangerous breed/owner situation. I agree that a ban is not the best idea but it might serve as a stop gap until there are laws on the books restricting the ownership, breeding and raising of all breeds. It may take lazy owners to produce bad dogs, but pits/rotts are easier to screw up.
Maybe we could have a graduated licensing system both for breeding&ownership : old ladies could easily get permits for their lap dogs and it gets harder as you go up in size/tendencies??
Please. Of course dogs are living, sentient beings; so are cows and chickens. They’re still property. My dog is my property, and I am responsible for using it safely. Your dog is your property and you’re responsible for it. The dog is responsible for nothing. If you don’t think dogs are property, I suggest you consult the law, because you are gravely in error.
The latter statement is simply false. Pit bulls have attacked children on their own. Here’s one that attacked a teenager:
What’s your definition for “attack on its own”? What papers are YOU reading? These animals are attacking people all over the damned place.
As to the former claim, I don’t care, and nobody cares, WHY pit bulls are unusually dangerous. It doesn’t matter if they’re the way they are because they were bred that way or because God made them that way or because they were engineered in a mad scientist’s lab. The issue here is not whether or not the dog is at fault. A dog cannot be “at fault” any more than a car is at fault for an accident. All that matters is that they ARE that way.
Again, I am not saying I know banning the breed is the right approach. But this reflexive “it’s not the dog’s fault!” attitude pisses me off. It doesn’t matter if the dog is at fault or not. Dogs can’t be “at fault.” This issue has nothing to do with dogs being at fault, it has to do with what is safe for people to own in a crowded city.
That statement is plainly nonsense. You’re clinging on to the absurd belief that only abused dogs attack people because… well, I’m not sure why, but I’m amazed anyone who owns a dog would say that. Dogs DO attack people of their own accord.
In the attack cited in this article there is NO reason to believe the dog was mistreated. “Wilson said the dog in Monday’s attack showed no signs of being a fighting dog.” By every account it’s a loved family pet.
Jesus Christ. Let me state this once again, and for your benefit I will place it in bolded capital letters:
I KNOW THAT MOST PIT BULLS DO NOT ATTACK HUMANS!!!
But you know what? They are more likely to maul and kill humans than poodles, Dobermans, St. Bernards, chihuahuas, cocker spaniels, Labradors, beagles, schauzers, shih-tzus, dachshunds, Irish setters, or any other kind of dog. Just get another kind of dog when the time comes. (The ban being suggested does not require currently owned pit bulls be destroyed.) EvilGhandi, take that stupid comparison and shove it up your ass. Let me explain why that’s a stupid comparison:
Humans have rights.
Dogs don’t.
And quite frankly, you’re an idiot to keep a dangerous dog like the one you describe.
Property: I took offence at the ‘property’ statement because it seemed like you were saying “Oh, dogs are just property, so gives two shits about them”. You seem to get my meaning, though, and yes, dogs are property in the sense that the owner has to maintain responsibility for them. Point conceded.
I’m not blaming the victim in any of the attacks. I’m simply not blaming the dog because generally dogs that are well-treated and fairly raised do not go out and attack humans on their own.
Vicious behaviour is usually (read: 90% of the time) indicative of abuse. Yes, there are psychotic pups out there who will attack unprovoked, but they are rare, and nobody should consider banning a whole breed for those exceptions.
If we know that breed has more dangerous tendencies than the next, doesn’t it make sense to train / handle those dogs within the breed in a more cautious and needs-attentive way than to just simply ban them? What about the pit bulls who aren’t dangerous and don’t get a chance to find an owner?
CarnalK, can’t tell what you mean by that–if you’re being sarcastic or not–but some people do want to own a pit bull and give it the proper treatment it deserves–including training and obedience lessons to make sure it doesn’t bite or attack people. And some pit bull out there who’s never acted violent to anyone in any way is not going to get a chance to have a home in Ontario. For me, it’s sad and frustrating.
From a scientific standpoint, the idea of banning a certain type of dog is ludicrous. The various breeds are so closely related, that any desirable trait can be reconstituted from the general population of dogs. It’s just silly. Maybe the “solution” is ban the owners.
True, but we have a current constitution/concentration of those undesireable traits in the pitbull and Rottweiller population. A temporary ban, until proper pet ownership rules are in place (like I said-for all breeds, perhaps graduated by how dangerous the dog is considered) might work.
Kythereia, yes I was being sarcastic. I am not of the opinion that should be allowed to house whatever dangerous items/animals on your property unregulated- despite emotional attachments.
And I have a husky that’s sweet as pie. An angel around children and all other dogs. His last owner was robbed while he was in the house, lol. I do note that huskies are up on the chart too. I then remember his contributions to keeping the varmint population down.
I sure as hell would hate that mass “euthanizations”. Hmm top of my head, immediate 5-yr ban on all in-province sales, current pets get muzzle law? Defining the breeds would also be tricky, particularly with the hybrid(I mean all of them) pitbulls, but those expert dog breeders/enthusiasts are fascist lunatics- I’m sure they could develop a system of breed defintion.
CarnalK, I love ya, man (woman? :o), but it’s not like all pit bulls are going to attack a human being the minute they get into someone’s home. The breed has a dangerous tendency to be aggressive that can be suppressed through correct training–but just because they can be doesn’t necessarily mean they will be.
Whatever people do with them now, Pits were not originally bred by dog fighters to be human aggressive. Pits do tend to be dog aggressive, and without extensive socialisation with other dogs, will still tend to be so, but human aggression and dog aggression are not necessarily the same thing. From what I’ve been told, old time dog fighters would cull human aggressive dogs … because someone had to handle the dogs in the pits, there was no value in a dog which would attack its handler as readily as its opponent.
Whatever criminal breeders do to the dogs now, the dogs were not bred for psychosis or human aggression.
As to breed bans. Some places in Australia have banned and restricted pits, based on a points system to identify them. In a number of instances this has led to otherwise blameless dogs being destroyed for no other reason than that they were identified or misidentified as pit bulls.
There is discussion on the topic. It is a partisan discussion by a group of dog lovers, but it explains the 22 point system used by the QLD government to decide whether a dog is a pit or not.
I’d also be interested in knowing how many of the dogs called pit bulls who are implicated in human attacks are actually pit bulls and not crosses of various kinds. My experience is that most people aren’t very good at identifying dogs, and probably less so under stress.
The media don’t help either. There was a recent case in Australia where a teenager was killed by three dogs … the dogs were Bull Terrier X Kelpies, but many of the media outlets described them as pit bulls.
And bearing in mind that American Staffordshire Terriers are pretty much the same dog as the pit, but aren’t suffering under the same laws.
