We had a horrible pit bull attack in my neighborhood over the weekend. Two children were critically and seriously wounded, the owner’s thumb was bitten off, and a couple other people were chewed up by three pit bulls that went berserk. The kids were delivering candy that the people had ordered. The dogs were killed right then and there (officials feared for their own safety).
So…I hear all this talk about outlawing these dogs (which is stupid, mainly because it’s unenforceable). I’m sure there are pit bulls out there that will never ever bite anyone, but there are too many instances of these animals tearing people to shreds, so I’m convinced, at this point anyway, that there is some sort of generalized danger associated with, or bred into, this breed.
Should these breeds (and others that are notoriously violent) be licensed the same way a gun is? Should we hold the owners criminally responsible if someone dies due to an attack? If not, how do we handle this?
The community next to mine just passed a pitbull ban that will go into effect next year. A kid in that community was almost killed by his own dogs after the ban was passed. Denver has had one for a while.
Not really. The American Pit Bull Terrier is a wonderful dog, when raised correctly. They are loving, playful, even gentle. I had a couple of them pass through my life when I was a kid and they were great dogs. However, they are very strong dogs. They aren’t particularly violent unless trained to be so. You’re much more likely to be bitten by a random Chow than a Pit. But when abused or neglected, the potential for harm is great. Which leads us to the second part:
Absolutely. It is the responsibility of a dog owner to ensure they are properly trained and safely constrained at all times.
Some states already do, especially if it can be proven that the dog was a known risk. Either way, I think they should be banned in heavily populated areas where there’s kids around.
They were his sister’s dogs. She had just moved back in with them the week before. Awful, awful dog training is to blame here.
That said, if a breed is so susceptible to being owned by people who are careless and do not train the dogs properly, maybe there is something to banning the breed. It may only be erratically enforceable, but at least it’ll get rid of some of 'em.
I just heard the details on this little boy’s injuries (evidently he tried to protect the little girl and caught the brunt of it). His arms, legs, buttocks, hands, and shoulders are chewed up. It’s beyond sad. I think he’s only like 10 years old.
http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=4083615
“A 14-month-old girl died Sunday after being attacked by a pit bull that belonged to her family. Kylee Johnson died about two hours after she was bitten in the back of the head.”
Now does this next part strike anyone else as odd?
"Meloche says there is a lesson here for all dog owners, regardless of the breed, who show any aggressive signs. “All the time, you have to favor your kids before the dog. It’s a tough decision, but the best decision.”
Do you really think charges should be filed? The father says that they never had a problem with the dog. There are a lot of children who grow up with dogs and are never hurt. How were her parents supposed to know that this was going to happen?
I disagree with this premise. I’ve witnessed pit bull puppies playing with other dogs and going completely berserk without warning. While training may improve on this behavior it will not erase what nature has created. Different breeds of dog possess different qualities. These traits can be documented over time and should be taken into account when local ordinances are created.
Specific dogs that have a history of attacking people should be put down. I would say that any dog that does more than some amount of physical damage to a person should be put down on the first offense, and any dog that attacks a person on more than one occasion should be put down.
I think dog owners should only be criminally responsible for their dog if they actually did something that they knew or should have known that they shouldn’t do (like letting a dog they know is aggressive run off-leash when kids are around). Animals can turn vicious with little or no warning to the owner- my mother once had a cat that went crazy and attacked her brother with no warning.
What is the evidence that the dogs in any of these cases are “pit bulls”? I ask because I’ve seen dogs called “pit bulls” because they attacked someone, not because the dogs were of any specific breed.
I should clarify. How did the people who wrote the various articles learn the breeds of the dogs involved? I’ve seen Boxers and Mastiffs labeled “pit bulls.” I don’t trust the ability of the average person to identify a breed, especially one that has so much hoopla attached.
While I can’t speak for all pit bulls, there is one in my neighborhood that comes up on my deck and lays down with my cats. Gentlest dog I have ever seen.
I have no idea who owns him.
I have always heard the smaller the dog the more likely it is to bite.
I had been following some of the Animal Rescue efforts after Katrina and Wilma, most of the dogs rescued (60%, I believe) were pit bulls or ‘pit bull type’. I am not all that familiar with that breed, so I did a bit of research on tham and came across a couple of very helpful sites: