Beat this besti4lity thread if you can...

[karrie]

And to those who've suggested that a dog has acted without provocation I suggest they just simply didn't know what the provocation was. To those who've suggested animals attack without warning I submit that they don't understand body language. Nothing responds without warning and provocation including the human being...It's against nature. Those that state it's happened prove by saying such they simply don't know what the reason was.

So what is your point? Do you really think that, after a dog has torn some child's face off, explaining to his parents that he must have done something to provoke it, helps?

Not knowing what set a dog off doesn't change the fact that it was set off, and its anger was totally unanticipated by its owners and handlers, and carnage resulted.

 

[Unforgiven]

you're comparing children being mauled to death, dogs being forced to beat eachother to death, and people using dogs as an attack weapon.... to tv watching. I don't think you warrant much conversation beyond that point.

My dog didn't do any of that. So why do you want to blame him and anything like him regardless of the fact that a number of people here have shown you that it's an individual occurance not a breed specific one?

It's the dog not the breed that does the deed. Blame the owner, not me.

 

[Twila]

So what is your point? Do you really think that, after a dog has torn some child's face off, explaining to his parents that he must have done something to provoke it, helps?

Not knowing what set a dog off doesn't change the fact that it was set off, and its anger was totally unanticipated by its owners and handlers, and carnage resulted

So, maybe we should keep all research to ourselves then? Maybe we shouldn't explain to people what happens when? Let the world live in ignorance. Maybe if those who have the breed understood the breed children wouldn't loose their faces. I know it's a radical idea. However, pitty breeds do as much damage as standard poodles and as often. I see no call to banning standard poodles.

If emotion is taken out of the equation rational thought WILL prevail.

 

[karrie]

So, maybe we should keep all research to ourselves then? Maybe we shouldn't explain to people what happens when? Let the world live in ignorance. Maybe if those who have the breed understood the breed children wouldn't loose their faces. I know it's a radical idea. However, pitty breeds do as much damage as standard poodles and as often. I see no call to banning standard poodles.

If emotion is taken out of the equation rational thought WILL prevail.

I wasn't commenting on your research. I clipped that out of the quote. I was commenting on your assertion that just because someone doesn't know what set a dog off, doesn't mean they didn't do something. My point is that it's of little reassurance. Take my sister's attack for example. Walking away from a calm dog is not in any research I've ever seen as a way to provoke an attack. Yet, she was attacked. Of course SOMETHING set the dog off. And of course we don't know what it was. Does that replace the skin and meat torn from her thigh and buttock?

 

[tracy]

you're comparing children being mauled to death, dogs being forced to beat eachother to death, and people using dogs as an attack weapon.... to tv watching. I don't think you warrant much conversation beyond that point.

Well, how about something like guns? Is that a reasonable comparison? Guns owned by responsible owners are as safe as can be, but every year guns kill dozens or hundreds of people (as opposed to maybe one dog mauling death). We know they are used by gangs and criminals. We know they cause death and destruction. Should responsible, law abiding gun owners be banned from possessing them because the lowest common denominator types drag their reputation down too?

What is the real difference between the two?

 

[karrie]

Well, how about something like guns? Is that a reasonable comparison? Guns owned by responsible owners are as safe as can be, but every year guns kill dozens or hundreds of people (as opposed to maybe one dog mauling death). We know they are used by gangs and criminals. We know they cause death and destruction. Should responsible, law abiding gun owners be banned from possessing them because the lowest common denominator types drag their reputation down too?

What is the real difference between the two?

I'm all for breed specific gun bans too. Keep all the rifles you want, I see no reason for anyone outside the police force to own hand guns. And, if you do own one, you should be, as with breed laws, subject to certification and exams to prove that you are capable of owning one responsibly. And yeah, it's largely due to the lowest common denominator in that case too. It usually is.

 

[tracy]

I'm all for breed specific gun bans too. Keep all the rifles you want, I see no reason for anyone outside the police force to own hand guns. And, if you do own one, you should be, as with breed laws, subject to certification and exams to prove that you are capable of owning one responsibly. And yeah, it's largely due to the lowest common denominator in that case too. It usually is.

And if the stats show it's actually rifles that cause the most deaths among our children?

www.caringforkids.cps.ca/keepinkidssafe/FirearmSafety.pdf

 

[Twila]

Well Karrie if what I said doesn't pertain to your situation why bother responding?

 

[karrie]

And if the stats show it's actually rifles that cause the most deaths?

www.caringforkids.cps.ca/keepinkidssafe/FirearmSafety.pdf

Then by all means, create laws that ensure that they do not come into contact with children.

The funny thing about a gun though, is unlike a dog, it won't ever break out of your yard on its own and kill someone. Whereas, chaindogs are notorious for attacks when they manage to escape their yards.

 

[Twila]

I would push for a further jump to any possession of an animal must be accompanied by a registered and licenced owner or certified agent. And that enforced rigorously.

Unforgiven, I'm with you there! I'd like to see the same thing for people breeding.(as in having baby humans, not breeding dogs) Might save the welfare roll call some money as well as prevent much incarceration.

 

[tracy]

My main problem with the breed ban people is that the evidence doesn't matter to them. It doesn't matter that pitbulls score higher on temperament testing than most other breeds. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of them live perfectly safely. It doesn't matter that most dog bites are by mutts. It doesn't matter that other breeds can and do cause fatalities. It doesn't matter that deaths and serious injuries have always been caused by the popular big breed of the time (Rotties, Dobies, Shepherds, etc). It doesn't matter that we're more likely to be struck by lightening than mauled to death by a dog. It doesn't even matter if breed bans actually even work. Pit bulls look scary and mean, stupid people have used them for violence. End of story. Eliminate the breed.

 

[tracy]

Then by all means, create laws that ensure that they do not come into contact with children.

The funny thing about a gun though, is unlike a dog, it won't ever break out of your yard on its own and kill someone. Whereas, chaindogs are notorious for attacks when they manage to escape their yards.

No, they do get stolen and used in crimes quite often though. Same difference. Some have estimated that 40% of gun crimes are committed by legally owned guns, stolen from their legal owners. Plus, they kill more kids than pitbulls everyday, but I doubt anyone is going to jump on the ban all rifles bandwagon. Most people will say that responsible hunters who own rifles shouldn't be punished for the stupidity of those who don't handle their guns properly. I'd agree with them.

BTW, NO dog should ever be chained. EVER. It's the fastest way to make a dog aggressive, and it's pretty easy to make sure your dog stays on your property without doing that.

 

[karrie]

Well Karrie if what I said doesn't pertain to your situation why bother responding?

I asked an honest question Twila. Knowing what all the provocations are doesn't stop dog attacks from happening. I get what you were saying, but it doesn't change the fact that people will screw up around dogs.

 

[karrie]

My main problem with the breed ban people is that the evidence doesn't matter to them. It doesn't matter that pitbulls score higher on temperament testing than most other breeds. It doesn't matter that the vast majority of them live perfectly safely. It doesn't matter that most dog bites are by mutts. It doesn't matter that other breeds can and do cause fatalities. It doesn't matter that deaths and serious injuries have always been caused by the popular big breed of the time (Rotties, Dobies, Shepherds, etc). It doesn't matter that we're more likely to be struck by lightening than mauled to death by a dog. It doesn't even matter if breed bans actually even work. Pit bulls look scary and mean, stupid people have used them for violence. End of story. Eliminate the breed.

Not all breed bans 'eliminate the breed'. Most breed bans I've seen are city specific. Because when you're raising a dog in the city, there is more to look at than just stats. Like you said, you chose not to get a bully because people are scared of them. And what happens when someone on the street reacts to your dog in fear? An increased risk of trouble.

Frankly, few dogs I've seen raised in the city should be. Probably half of them are too big and exercised too little. It frustrates the ever living daylights out of me.

 

[karrie]

BTW, NO dog should ever be chained. EVER. It's the fastest way to make a dog aggressive, and it's pretty easy to make sure your dog stays on your property without doing that.

I think most rational pet owners know that.

 

[Unforgiven]

Unforgiven, I'm with you there! I'd like to see the same thing for people breeding.(as in having baby humans, not breeding dogs) Might save the welfare roll call some money as well as prevent much incarceration.

Yep but that wouldn't fly to well for any politician to champion as it leave the whole human rights ethic as a tool to bludgeon them with. Heaven forbid someone mention ignorant and those least able to care for themselves shouldn't be having a half a dozen kids the rest of us can support.

 

[tracy]

Not all breed bans 'eliminate the breed'. Most breed bans I've seen are city specific. Because when you're raising a dog in the city, there is more to look at than just stats. Like you said, you chose not to get a bully because people are scared of them. And what happens when someone on the street reacts to your dog in fear? An increased risk of trouble.

Frankly, few dogs I've seen raised in the city should be. Probably half of them are too big and exercised too little. It frustrates the ever living daylights out of me.

Sure, but no one advocates banning them all from the city do they? It's just the "pitbull", today's monster dog (nevermind the fact that they are actually completely suitable to city living).

I chose not to get a pitbull because I rent. It isn't because I don't think the neighbours would accept one or because I don't think they would do well living here in the city. Several of my neighbours actually do own bully breeds and mixes. My dog LOVES one neighbour's pit named Lucy, who lives in a family with three kids and is just lovely. My roomate reacted in terror the first time she came up to us and Lucy was blissfully oblivious like always. I don't have a pitbull because I can't guarantee a landlord would accept it. A lot of apartment complexes list breeds they will not accept and needless to say that's one breed on the list. I've seen lists that included Dobies, Rotties, Great Danes, Chows, Shepherds, Bulldogs and Mastiffs as well so I wouldn't get any of those breeds either. The irony is that's why I got the dog I did and he is by far the least stable dog I've ever owned. I would trust a dog like Lucy anywhere. My own dog is completely untrustworthy around children and strangers.

 

[karrie]

Sure, but no one advocates banning them all from the city do they? It's just the "pitbull", today's monster dog (nevermind the fact that they are actually completely suitable to city living).

I chose not to get a pitbull because I rent. .

I could have sworn it was you who mentioned that part of the reason they didn't get a bully despite liking them is the reaction of other people to it. My bad. Personally, we're heading in to be landlords, and I'd sooner rent to someone with a GreatDane than someone with a shi tzu. lol.

Oh, and, some of the city by-laws I've seen call for the banning of akitas, rotties, and pitbulls.

 

[tracy]

I probably should add that I live in a VERY dog friendly area. I don't want it to sound like I'm complaining about it. Dogs here are very welcome in public, even in most stores (plenty of them keep dog treats behind the counter). More than half the restaurants nearby have outdoor eating areas and will let pet owners eat out there with their dog. I have a dog park on the beach accross the street. It's a great neighbourhood for a dog owner.

 

[tracy]

I could have sworn it was you who mentioned that part of the reason they didn't get a bully despite liking them is the reaction of other people to it. My bad. Personally, we're heading in to be landlords, and I'd sooner rent to someone with a GreatDane than someone with a shi tzu. lol.

Oh, and, some of the city by-laws I've seen call for the banning of akitas, rotties, and pitbulls.

I did say I usually choose a lighter dog for that reason. People react differently to the blond ones.