Should the law get rid of dangerous dogs?

Remove all ads!

Sometimes you will get an animal that is naturally just more vicious than the rest of its breed or species, sometimes certain breeds or species are prone to a higher rate of 'vicious' births.

That is not to say the whole breed or species is dangerous and should be treated as a threat, but that some breeds and species do need extra consideration.

For example a friend of mine bought a labrador, most labs are charming creatures enough, this one tried to bite her on the first night with no provocation, even lunging and growling at her trying to leave the room. She took the dog to the vet as phoning the previous owner resulted in "Well you probably made him sick." the vet said as such sometimes you just get a "mad dog" and said to take the dog back to the previous owner, demand the papers for the dog and if not provided with them return the dog, as it wasn't safe to keep around the young children she had.

Previous owner insisted the papers were simply missing, later admitting that he had been causing problems since a young puppy and was the last one of the litter to be sold as a result.

The importance of a reputable breeder in such instances can also not be underdressed. If a ***** or a hound displays behavioural or excessive health problems they are usually not allowed to breed.

I'd be curious of all these pitbulls, mostly unregistered, are the results of back yard breeders who have less expertise in such a field or are simply hoping to make some cash from the pets they already have.

 

There are an estimated 4.5 million dog bites every year in the US and I would imagine any breed-based statistics on bites follow the breed population within a few percent. Dogs bite -- that's just the way it is, but some dogs are more prone (due to breeding) to administer fatal bites. It seems to me if 70-90% of all deaths by dog attack annually are caused by two breeds (pit bull and rottweiller) those breeds should be very restricted.

There are enough cultures in the world where dog meat is acceptable that these dangerous breeds do not need to go to waste.

 

lol, for a moment there I puzzled over why 8 was dropping f-bombs in the middle of such an otherwise congenial post ...

 

That makes a lot of sense to me. Most states have mandated auto insurance if you wish to buy a car. I assume most states also require owners of pet's to get licenses for them, they should also require insurance. People who own dangerous dogs would of course have higher premiums which would be no different then car insurance being based on the skill of the driver and the value of the vehicle.

 

I agree they should be restricted, but this thread is not about about that its about the law getting rid of these animals, I am not about to see these animals disappear, people can keep dangerous snakes, spiders, even large cats
besides: "In the 3-year period from 2006 to 2008, pit bull type dogs killed 52 Americans" (from dogsbite). on aug 19th 2011 the population of the USA stood at 312,018,00052 people were killed in a 3 year period, thats %0.00000166 of the population over 3 years, statistically you are more likely to die from an allergic reaction to an insect sting.
FYI:

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2010/03/the-truth-behind-dogsbiteorg.html

 

It's not the dog's fault, at all. Pit Bulls and Rotties have a reputation of this crap, so idiots who think its cool get them and train them to be mean. You can train any dog to be mean, but because of the reputation some breeds have, certain breeds get the crap end of the stick. I have a pit bull mix, and she's the biggest puss on the face of the planet towards people. She's been attacked by other dogs, but her idea of fighting back is mounting and holding the scruff in her mouth while she dominates (humps), she's never drawn blood. My last dog was a Mastiff mix, and he was a big teddy bear who was scared of rodents, pigeons, and my cat. Dogs aren't mean because of breed, they're mean because their owners don't know better (or do but are just scum).

I believe that limitations should be placed on owners, and not the animals. Some good points have been raised in this regard, it's just too bad the lawmakers don't make money from animals.

 

When there is an owner, sure. On the other hand, here we have a lot of stray dogs that are nearly feral; most aren't a problem but there are a few case of pack chasing or attacking people every year. In that case, I think the authorities have to take measures - anything from adoption to castration to, possibly, killing.

 

You link to an article that correctly points out that the results of dog bite studies are not pin-point accurate (duh) as evidence that the studies conducted and referenced by dogbite.org are completely unreliable? Uh, sure.

Dog owners don't (usually) bite people -- let alone to death -- but dogs do, and the dogs of irresponsible owners are more likely to bite. To borrow your (woefully out of place an entirely off-topic) analogy to guns, responsible gun owners don't shoot people. A responsible owner of a grenade launcher or an assault rifle will keep his weapon locked up, but we still ban them. Why? Because not everyone is a responsible gun owner. Since it is not possible to spy on every gun owner in the country and keep track of how "responsible" he/she is being, we regulate which guns people are allowed to own, we limit how many guns they are allowed to own, we regulate where they are allowed to carry them, and we regulate how they are to be transported. Sound familiar? It's the same approach that we are suggesting for dangerous dogs.

As to why you want to continue with your ridiculous man-biting-man canard, I really don't understand. It seems that you are more obsessed with "winning" than arriving at the truth, but this silly little distraction strategy will help you with neither goal.

 

On a tangential note, anyone doubting the biting force of at least medium-sized dog jaws is seriously recommended to attend any detaining training session, ie. where dogs are trained to hold a suspected fugitive in place. It takes serious muscle to get anywhere even when the dog is less than quarter in size compared to the "fugitive", and nearing impossible as you get to the 40+kg dogs like German Shepherds.

Hanging with their whole weight using nothing but bite strength to cling is no great feat for a dog in general, and many breeds manage just about anything from a good shake to vertical mid-air spins using the same. My own German Shepherd was kind enough to demonstrate her bite strength when I wrapped a heavy towel around my arm, and let me tell ya, there wasn't a drop of blood circulating in my arm unless she let it. A real eye-opening experience, that.

 

I am completely against the banning of a breed of dog. Like a few people said already, if you train your dog to fight or treat him badly, of course he'll have behavioral problems.

(Cesar Milan)

Aside from aggression training or mistreatment, 99% of bad dog behavior in normal homes is tied to a lack of exercise. If you burn enough of his energy, he'll just lie down and sleep. So it is negligence no the part of the owner.

So how do you fix the problem (or help)? There should be mandatory basic dog training lessons. Just like for a car license. Yes, there will be idiots who buy dogs for fighting, but I believe they're marginal. A lot of dog aggression is a result of people who have no control on their dogs, either because they don't know how to assert leadership or because they can't. A dog training course will either show them how to accomplish this or just show the owner's flaws to the dog trainer who would "revoke" their dog license. Simple as that. At dog parks, I have seen people who's dog start attacking other dogs. The owner just stands there terrified or yell at the dog. If my dog attacks another dog (or a human), I'd charge in there tackle him down or grab him by the neck and yank him out of there.

And by the way, an attack dog or a guard dog (often both training are mixed together) is not necessarily a bad thing. A well trained attack dog attacks on command and not to kill (he'll attack the arm or leg to immobilize the target). They don't attack on their own (or at least, not more than an average dog). Again, it's the poor training or negligence which is the real threat.

I have a 100+ pound Rottweiler and damn proud of it. He is well cared for, he walks two times a day, he has his Basic training "diploma" and I took extra classes for half a year. I am very strict with my dog (Rottweilers are natural leaders and are very thick headed) and I allow him no room to make decisions. It's all an authority thing. The more he makes decision, the more authority he has and he thinks I have less. So when we're walking, I'm the one who decides where and when he stops to pee, when and where he can smell things (and for how long), ect. My dog will lick you until the skin peels off before he will attack you. He's a very social dog, he's super happy when people come to my place.

So I can safely say I have a good dog. Yes he could attack someone (but a human COULD too), however because of the training and the supervision I have over him (I would never do something stupid like leave him unattented with a baby, even though I am 99% sure he would not attack), I think the chances of him attacking someone are nulled.

My point is if my Rottie can grow up to be a nice dog, any Rottie can. All a matter of training and supervision.

No. I worked in a pet shop for a summer. No. Those buggers can hurt you. I despise hamsters...

 

Unfortunately, in some areas there's a significant black market for it, making it potentially very lucrative and problematic almost to epidemic proportions.

 

A grenade launcher has one purpose. Launch grenades to cause explosions. I wouldn't use a grenade launcher to clean the dishes or apply sunscreen on my girlfriend's back. A dog, however, is not the same. It has not purpose other than what we make of it. Even a dangerous dog like a pitbull can make a family friendly pet (yes, I knew someone who had a Pittbull as a pet and he was very friendly). So I see no reason why we should ban a breed of dog. It's the owners that have to become more responsible.

I agree. But let's say we ban a breed of dogs. Do you seriously believe that it will stop people from selling them on the black market? The idiots who want, for example, train their dog for fighting, they'll find a way to get what they want. If you want that to stop, you have to stop the owners, not the breed of dogs. For the general populace, it's a matter of education and owner approval (like a driver's license test).

 

No, I'm not really speaking to the ban/no ban debate (which I think is kind of ridiculous for the reasons you cite, among others, but I'm not well informed on the matter). I'm just pointing out that in some places, the problem of dog-fighting operations is very serious, not "marginal."

 

Doesn't that really depend on the breed of dog? Everyone wants to believe their dog is wonderful and safe, that they would never make a dangerous choice to be around their children -- but that's just not true.

 

Giant hamsters must be the ultimate biological weapon! If only we could get them miniaturized...

 

http://m.edmontonsun.com/2011/08/20/dog-put-down-after-vicious-mauling

iPhone is a pain, sorry for requiring a cut and paste.

This just occurred in Alberta, and it's really got me thinking. I believe that in general, animals should be evaluated on a case by case basis. After inflicting wounds requiring over 600 stitches, I don't think there are many people who would disagree with this dog's euthanasia.

I don't see banning certain breeds overall as a solution. Perhaps in special cases it might work for limited geographical areas, but overall it won't solve the problem of stupid owners. It also won't solve the problem of animal unpredictability -- there have been cases of the sweetest, best behaved dogs suddenly getting really violent for no discernable reason.

 

Looking at the big picture: With hundreds of breeds and millions of stray or abandoned dogs, why does it really matter if two or three breeds (representing a very small percentage of the dog population) become banned or even go away completely?

 

As far as I'm concerned, stray or feral animals should be put down if they become a nuisance. I saw a documentary a while ago that looked at how ridiculous the stray cat population is in some areas of the US and Canada.

But if I were a responsible pet owner who had a well trained attack pit bull, I wouldn't want my dog euthanized based on statistics. To me it's the same idea as gun bans. Breed bans won't solve the problem. Destroying violent pets and adequately punishing useless owners is more effective and just.

 

LKD, breed bans can stop the problem, and they don't even require putting dogs down. Simply mandating spaying and neutering and banning breeding will cause the problem breeds to go away on their own in about 10-15 years. There will almost certainly be some mixes left, but diluting the breed would, for all intents and purposes, have the same effect. When a breed that makes up a small percentage of the dog population causes a disproportionately high percentage of dog bites (and particularly dog bite fatalities), the breed is the problem. We don't ban assault rifles because we fear law-abiding and responsible gun owners. We ban them because of irresponsible and non-law-abiding gun owners. The same logic should hold true with dogs.