2 year old mauled by two Rottweilers

[Goofball]

This crap makes my blood boil. The owners of the dogs didn't even know they were out of the yard, yet the bylaw officers found that they were "reponsible" owners so no charges will be forthcoming. But how "responsible" can you possibly be if you are unaware that your two killing machines have been AWOL for an entire day? And they obviously didn't take proper measures to ensure the vicious beasts couldn't escape.

Just makes me sick.

On the flip side, if we grant that the owners are responsible and did everything they could, this sure takes the wind out of the old "there are no bad dogs, only bad owners" argument.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061228.wdogs27/BNStory/National/home



Saving boy from dogs 'a tug of war'


TIMOTHY APPLEBY
Globe and Mail Update

HAMILTON — Together with his young son and his girlfriend, Mark Berka was just pulling into his driveway late Christmas afternoon when he heard the screams and cries for help.
Steps away from his Grosvenor Avenue home, in the sprawling playground of east Hamilton's Memorial elementary school, two collarless Rottweiler dogs were tugging at a small boy, while the child's terrified guardian, a young woman in her 20s, struggled to wrest him free.
"It was a tug of war," recounted Mr. Berka, who still does not know the name of the two-year-old Canadian-Chinese boy, new to the neighbourhood, whom he saved from near-certain death.
"Just unreal. Those dogs just wanted this little boy. I've never seen anything like it."

Across the street, 16-year-old Laura Miller was sitting down to Christmas dinner with her family when she, too, saw the drama unfold.
The boy "looked like he was a doll being torn apart," Ms. Miller said. "One dog had him by the hand or arm, the other had him by the leg."
And she recognized the dogs because a few days earlier they had chased the family cat onto the porch of the house and then cornered her father.
On seeing the attack on Monday, Mr. Berka, a burly 41-year-old who works for a local hydraulics company, sprinted to the schoolyard and began hitting and kicking the two Rottweilers with all his might. One of them soon abandoned its attack on the child.
But the other did not, and for at least five minutes Mr. Berka and the boy's companion were locked in combat with the dog.
"It was relentless," he said of his adversary. "At one point, the dog ripped the boy out of my arms and started shaking him."
Laura's mother, Alicia English, was watching in horror.
"That kid hit his head on the pavement so many times I couldn't count it," she said. "The dog had him in his mouth and was shaking him against the walkway, over and over, I don't know how he was still conscious."
Finally, Mr. Berka tore the child free again and hustled him into the arms of his guardian, who ran him across to Ms. English's house, where towels were brought to stanch the boy's wounds.
The child was bleeding copiously. The boy's pants had been ripped off, exposing deep bites to his legs, belly and buttocks. Part of one cheek was hanging open and an ear was partly ripped off.
"His face was kind of gaping," Ms. English said.
Yet the boy was astonishingly calm, she recalled.
"He didn't make a sound. You'd expect him to scream and cry because my God, it had to hurt, but he didn't even move, he just sat there. It had to be the shock."
Police trapped the Rottweilers in the schoolyard, where animal-control officers captured them with lasso-like nooses. The boy's mother also arrived, too hysterical to speak. Then his father appeared, accompanying his son in the ambulance that whisked them to Hamilton's McMaster Children's Hospital, where the boy will spend several days. He is expected to be badly scarred. Last night, he was listed in stable condition.
Yesterday, Mr. Berka shrugged off his act of heroism, insisting that most other people would have acted similarly. He modestly concedes that had he not plunged into battle — emerging without a single bite — "the police told me the little boy would have been killed."
Yet just who that little boy is remains much of a mystery. Authorities would not release the family's name, citing privacy considerations, and few residents seemed to know anything about them. Police told the English household they are thought to have moved into the neighbourhood just before Christmas.
The owners of the Rottweilers, too, remain anonymous, although they are known to local authorities because the dogs had escaped their backyard pen at least twice before, said Jim Gillis, who heads municipal law enforcement in Hamilton.
When bylaw officers contacted the owners on Boxing Day morning — roughly 18 hours after the attack — "they believed their dogs were still in the backyard," Mr. Gillis said.
His office has nonetheless concluded that the couple were "responsible owners," who took good care of the 16-month-old Rottweilers, a male and a female that appear to be from the same litter.
The dogs had food, water and shelter and their owners had attended obedience classes with them, Mr. Gillis said. And on learning about what happened, the "very distraught" couple immediately surrendered them to authorities.
That means after 10 days of scrutiny for rabies at the city's animal control shelter, where both were confined yesterday, the Rottweilers will be euthanized.
And there, it seems, the matter will end, to the dismay of Mr. Berka, who believes that "if you want a dog like that you should be held accountable."
But there is little scope in the Criminal Code for laying charges for a dog attack of this type, and Mr. Gillis said his office, too, is unlikely to pursue matters.
"The owners signed the dogs over right away, we've got them off the street, and they will be euthanized."
What will linger, however, at least for those involved, is the memory of a day in which joy and celebration were interrupted by a savage, bloody assault on a defenceless little boy.
"This was not a Christmas Day anyone wants to repeat," Ms. English said.

[Prince of the Poodles]

I hope this thread doesnt degenerate into a call for banning certain breeds.

As Goofball posted.. "there are no bad dogs, only bad owners"

[marcusbrutus]

Even when they are kept responsibly all animals are dangerous - especially to 2 year olds. If we don't want people to keep certain animals then the law needs to change on what animals people can keep.

Personally I don't think rottweilers are pets - I only know 2 people who keep rottweilers and they treat them as status symbols, taking pride in how vicious they are.

[Prince of the Poodles]

Rotts can be sweet, loving dogs when raised correctly, just like all dogs.

[Hosakawa Tito]

The owners are ultimately responsible for the actions of their dogs, full stop. Without knowing more about the history of the animals, their parentage, and upbringing by the owners it's difficult to say what could have set them off. To hazard a guess, being just 16 months old and probably little to no structured exposure to anyone but their owners, sounds almost like an instinctual hunting behavior/agressive dominance type action to me.

Reminicent of a show I watched on teenage bull elephants harassing and killing rhinos in an African game preserve. They appeared to do it, just because they could, and were only stopped by the introduction of larger, mature bull elephants into the park, to put them in their place.

I have owned several rottweilers, and have never had any of them display such unprovoked, agressive behavior. In this case, the authorities would not have had to remove the dogs from my possession, I would have shot them both, on the spot.

I hope the family of this poor child will persue a civil lawsuit against the owners and the township. If there's no law on the books for this, then that needs to be corrected. Unfortunately, being new immigrants, the family may be afraid to press for legal redress. I hope not, may there be a lawyer or citizens organization that will push to help them?

[Goofball]

Even when they are kept responsibly all animals are dangerous - especially to 2 year olds. If we don't want people to keep certain animals then the law needs to change on what animals people can keep.

Personally I don't think rottweilers are pets - I only know 2 people who keep rottweilers and they treat them as status symbols, taking pride in how vicious they are.

Agreed.

PoP, I was actually pointing out that the "only bad owners" argument doesn't seem to hold water in this case.

I am all in favor of banning certain dog breeds in urban areas. If you want to own an aggressive, dangerous breed on your farm, or out at your cabin in the woods, go ahead. But the danger of owning these dogs in densely populated areas outweighs any benefit they offer.

[scooter_the_shooter]

I am all in favor of banning certain dog breeds in urban areas. If you want to own an aggressive, dangerous breed on your farm, or out at your cabin in the woods, go ahead. But the danger of owning these dogs in densely populated areas outweighs any benefit they offer.


That is just wrong; the kid is probably disfigured for life. The owners oughta' be sued into oblivion. I actually agree with goof ball for a change...a dog is not an inanimate object it has a mind of its own.


On the flip side...


I have meant a rottweiler that a two year old could pull her ears and take its food and be fine(raised a by a veterinarian)

I have meant little dogs that are down right vicious. And that a two year old should not go near.


...

But I do think some dogs should be regulated; now the law is too slanted for the owners of vicious dogs....

There was a dog attack on my street and the cop that came to take the report told me that if I walked outside and shot all three of them; I would have to pay for the dogs and could get into some legal problems if it didn't happen on my own property.:thumbsdown:

[KrooK]

I heard interesting mark about big agressive dogs.

"As bigger dog and bigger car, as smaller d...." :2thumbsup:

[Prince of the Poodles]

I am all in favor of banning certain dog breeds in urban areas. If you want to own an aggressive, dangerous breed on your farm, or out at your cabin in the woods, go ahead. But the danger of owning these dogs in densely populated areas outweighs any benefit they offer.

I disagree.

A dog's personality has much more to do with its upbringing than its breed.

Furthermore, responsible owners do not allow animals to roam free.

My family has owned several large breeds that are commonly associated with agression, yet with proper socialization and training, we have never had a problem. Also, we have never allowed our dogs to run lose.

While I understand your position, it would anger me immensely if my father's adorable bull mastiff was taken away due to a witch hunt of sorts.

Also, who decides which dogs would be banned? Ive got a friend with a mean labrador....

[Louis VI the Fat]

I hope this thread doesnt degenerate into a call for banning certain breeds.

As Goofball posted.. "there are no bad dogs, only bad owners"Uh, I am going to join that call indeed. Different breeds have been bred for different purposes, plain and simple. Some are great family pets, some are good shepherds. Some are for hunting and some, like rotweilers, serve as a deterent, they're watchdogs. Bred for an agressive, vicious nature. You can breed animals for character just as much as you can for hair lenght or height.

And yes, each dog has a character of its own, formed to a good extent by the owner and blahblahblah. Yet, some dog breeds simply are too dangerous too be allowed anywhere near humans. And let's face it, we all know what type of people get these kinds of dogs. They simply relish in the dangerous nature of these beasts. They've chosen them for their agression.

Rottweilers, pitbulls, dobermans and what not are the IED's of suburbia. Ban 'em. :thumbsdown:

[Lemur]

I am all in favor of banning certain dog breeds in urban areas. If you want to own an aggressive, dangerous breed on your farm, or out at your cabin in the woods, go ahead. But the danger of owning these dogs in densely populated areas outweighs any benefit they offer.
Unfortunately, breed bans don't work very well. Consider how easy it is to cross-breed and create a similar dog to, say, a pit bull, and you'll see the problem. How does one define "pit bull"? What if it is a mutt with 1/16th lab in it? How do you differentiate between nervous, dangerous dogs and docile animals?

On the other hand, holding owners legally responsible for the dog's actions works very well. Witness the 2nd degree murder conviction in the Diane Whipple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Whipple) case. (I know, I know, it was overturned for a manslaughter conviction, but it still made me happy.)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Uh, I am going to join that call indeed. Different breeds have been bred for different purposes, plain and simple. Some are great family pets, some are good shepherds. Some are for hunting and some, like rotweilers, serve as a deterent, they're watchdogs. Bred for an agressive, vicious nature. You can breed animals for character just as much as you can for hair lenght or height.

And yes, each dog has a character of its own, formed to a good extent by the owner and blahblahblah. Yet, some dog breeds simply are too dangerous too be allowed anywhere near humans. And let's face it, we all know what type of people get these kinds of dogs. They simply relish in the dangerous nature of these beasts. They've chosen them for their agression.

Rottweilers, pitbulls, dobermans and what not are the IED's of suburbia. Ban 'em. :thumbsdown:

While I agree that dogs a bread for different purposes no breed is an indiscriminate killing machine. Even a wold can be trained to be child safe. Irish Wolfhounds are a prime example. The modern breed is somewhat mellowed and reduced in size but historically those were, and still are, wardogs. Wolfhounds were used to kill armoured knights and the Romans only ever transported them in cages. Despite this it would seem the same dog could be used to gaurd your sheep or your children.

Simply banning breeds will do nothing. I could train a dog to be child safe and kill on command, it would take years and the child safe part would come first but it can and has been done.

Mastiffs, Wolfhounds etc. are not inherently dangerous, except for their size and power.

HOWEVER, if you are going to own a dog you should be able to walk around with it at heel without a muzzle or collar with the full knowledge that it is safe. If you can't do that then you shouldn't have it, and if you can't afford to have it with you at all times you shouldn't have it.

Those people should be prosecuted for neglect and creating a public danger, then the animals should be destroyed, they're too far past training now.

It is true, there are no bad dogs but a neglected dog is just as dangerous as a neglected child, both grow up without structure or knowledge of right or wrong, both cause problems.

[yesdachi]

I am all in favor of banning certain dog breeds...
I would rather ban certain people breeds. ~D

[doc_bean]

I think they should be charged with criminbal negligence or whatever it's called, at least. It might have been an accident, they might have been responsible owners (but something just went wrong, like a gate broke). That's for the courts to decide.

My aunt used to have a rottweiler that could act really mean and vicious, yet was an absolute sweetheart once you knew him (except to other dogs, they had a few 'lawsuits' because he wouldn't always play nice...). I don't think calling for a ban would do much good, like lemur pointed out, they'll just breed a slightly different dog.

Make no mistake, rottweilers aren't bred to be family dogs and i'd never let one near small children, even if they knew the dog.

I think checking the breeders might also work, a lot of dogs are inbred, which can result in 'abnormal' and aggressive behaviour. Checking a dogs breeding line (and making breeders accountable if they break certain norms) could do wonders.

[drone]

And let's face it, we all know what type of people get these kinds of dogs. They simply relish in the dangerous nature of these beasts. They've chosen them for their agression.
While I don't agree that breed bans are the answer, your statement here points out the true problem. Some people want certain types of dogs just because they think it makes them look tough. Rottweilers are smart, protective dogs, and when raised correctly shouldn't pose a threat to anyone (unless someone tries to break into the house). Rottweilers were not bred to be attack dogs, they were actually used as herders, drovers, and carters up until the 1900s. But they can also be raised to be unruly and aggressive (as can any dog), this is were the "no bad dogs, only bad owners" saying comes in. Punishing the owners is the right way to go (and publicizing the potential penalties). Punishing the breeders to some extent might help as well. Selling a Rottweiler or AmStaff puppy to some chav/toughguy wannabe is asking for trouble, it should be in the breeder's best interest to see that the dogs go to good homes.

I have 2 dogs that would likely be outlawed eventually if breed bans became commonplace. For Fairfax County, the Siberian Husky breed represents a large percentage of dogs on the dangerous dog list. They love other people and dogs, and you wouldn't think them dangerous at all. But they also will hunt small game (read: cats) if not kept contained, and are put on the lists for companion animal attacks. This is a far cry from mauling 2 year olds, but the law doesn't make much distinction.

[Banquo's Ghost]

There are good arguments on both sides of the debate about banning breeds.

Personally, I think it comes down to the person wanting the dog rather than the breed - but breed choice can be a good indicator. No-one should be allowed any pet without a formal licensed training (that includes small animals like hamsters - to protect them, more than the other way round :smile: ).

If a person wants to own a large breed, especially one like a Rottweiler, they should prove themselves capable to train and appropriately dominate the dog - and demonstrate a psychological stability rather than a wish to look cool.

I agree with Lemur that full criminal responsibility would go a long way to concentrating owner's minds. The owners in this case clearly demonstrated form in their neglect and should be liable.

Heck, I get worried when my cat is missing for more than a few hours, let alone 18. :rolleyes3:

[Prince of the Poodles]

And let's face it, we all know what type of people get these kinds of dogs. They simply relish in the dangerous nature of these beasts. They've chosen them for their agression.

What types of people would those be?

Ive never owned rotts, but I have had a doberman, danes, a mastiff, and a bull mastiff.

We took the time, from birth, to raise those dogs right and never had any problems out of them.

I am certainly not trying to look tough, I just happen to like big dogs - some of which are seen as aggressive by the ignorant.

[Samurai Waki]

Rottweilers and Pitbulls get more guff than they as a breed deserve. People breed them to fight, they are trained to fight, and protect. All dogs can be trained to fight and protect, and some dogs just have a nasty disposition irregardless of breed.

If you blame any animal on breed, be far more afraid of Half Feral Breeds (half wolf, Coyote etc.) than any breed that has been thoroughly domesticated.

It's sad that the 2 year old got mauled, the dogs should be removed from the family and given over to a more suitable family, that can look after them better. And the owners should get charged the full penalty for negligence.

[Slyspy]

The behaviour of a dog is almost entirely down to the quality of the training provided by the owner. These two dogs, while technically looked after according to the welfare people, were clearly not adequately trained and this has cost a boy alot of fear and pain and the dogs their lives. At sixteen months it is too late to think "actually the dogs aren't that good with children/other dogs/postmen etc".

A pooly behaved dog is a badly trained dog, and with larger breeds this can clearly pose a danger. On the other hand even a couple of jack russels could make a mess of a two year old boy. For those proposing a ban - statistically the most dangerous dog in Britain is, IIRC, the Labrador. Of course they are likely also the most common breed. But in terms of violence on humans this makes them far more dangerous a breed than rotties.

There was an incident over here in which two rotties (I think) killed a baby not so long ago. Kept as guard dogs at a pub the idiot parents (who were not the dog owners) left the child alone with them and the rest is history. Dogs of any kind should never be left unsupervised with children. Human stupidity and carelessness is more dangerous than anything else I think.

[Vladimir]

Personally, I think it comes down to the person wanting the dog rather than the breed - but breed choice can be a good indicator. No-one should be allowed any pet without a formal licensed training (that includes small animals like hamsters - to protect them, more than the other way round :smile: ).

Apologies in advance but I don't think you've thought this out. Would you require that someone acquire a license to feed live mice to a snake? Or the more benign example of feeding goldfish to an Oscar (I love my Oscar :grin:) ? Do only cute fuzzy animals deserve protection?

[Xiahou]

Banning breeds is ridiculous. The only dog I've ever been really bitten by was a labrador- that taught me that you can't make blanket judgments based on breed.

Sure, some breeds are designed to be bigger, stronger, more active, ect- but it's the owner that's responsible for its behavior and disposition. It's a complete travesty that the owners in this story were called "responsible" pet owners when it was documented that they previously allowed their dogs to escape and threaten other animals/people. Were this a 1-time, surprise incident I'd be a little more sympathetic to the owners (although they're still responsible), but in this case they're criminally negligent imo. If the Canadian justice system can't deal with this, then I hope the civil courts will make the owners pay.

[Mooks]

When I was 6 years old I was attacked by my neighbor's rottweiler.

I remember it vividly. I was standing in my yard, running around. When I noticed my neighbors, who recently moved in dog watching me. I wasn't the brightest of childs, so I stared back at the dog. There was a road seperating me from the dog. Then suddenly the dog (Short and slender, but pure muscle) got up and chased me across my yard and bit me in the ass, then went back to its yard. My dad called the sheriff, and they had the dog put down (But not before the sheriff said he needed proof that the dog bit me, had to flash the sheriff).

:laugh4:

[Goofball]

It's sad that the 2 year old got mauled, the dogs should be removed from the family and given over to a more suitable family, that can look after them better. And the owners should get charged the full penalty for negligence.

Erm... No...

The dogs should be (and fortunately, are being) euthanized. Sorry. No second chances for dogs like this.


And the owners should get charged the full penalty for negligence.

Yep. But they hardly ever are.


A pooly behaved dog is a badly trained dog, and with larger breeds this can clearly pose a danger.

Really? From the article:

"The dogs had food, water and shelter and their owners had attended obedience classes with them"


On the other hand even a couple of jack russels could make a mess of a two year old boy. For those proposing a ban - statistically the most dangerous dog in Britain is, IIRC, the Labrador. Of course they are likely also the most common breed. But in terms of violence on humans this makes them far more dangerous a breed than rotties.

I've seen that statistic too. And it is mainly due to there being more labs than there are other breeds. Also, the statistics I saw only dealt with the number of "bites" reported per year, which could include anything from a pain in the ass neighbor complaining out of spite after your Shih Tzu gave her a little nip that didn't even break the skin, right up to full on maulings.

But think about this (and I realize this is only anecdotal): I don't think I have ever read a story in the paper about a two year old being killed/mauled by a lab. Invariably, when I see the headline about a kid getting attacked by a dog, I know if I bet on either a pitter or a rotty being the culprit, I'm going to be right.

I realize banning breeds is an imperfect solution, because poor care/handling by people is almost always the problem.

But the right of my kid to not get eaten at the playground outweighs by far the right of the steroid doing, Foghorn Leghorn pant wearing, creatine eating juice-monkey's right to own 3 rottweilers so he can look even tougher on his walk to the gym.

:idea2:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Apologies in advance but I don't think you've thought this out. Would you require that someone acquire a license to feed live mice to a snake? Or the more benign example of feeding goldfish to an Oscar (I love my Oscar :grin:) ? Do only cute fuzzy animals deserve protection?

Nope, tarantulas deserve protection from the Kewl Kids too. :yes:

There are bound to be anomalies, but yes, a pet owner that has a snake should be licensed. Reptiles get a lot of bad treatment - again because some people think its "cool" to own one.

For example, feeding live prey to reptiles is actually illegal in the UK and Ireland. There is no biological necessity for them to have live prey in most cases. If an animal does require live prey, the owner should be properly screened and licensed.

There is too much neglect and cruelty inflicted on pets by people that shouldn't be allowed to own a ham sandwich, let alone an animal. In the context of the thread, having prospective dog owners compulsorily trained and then licensed would reduce the instances of neglect and abuse.

I can see it's very bureaucratic, but it would be paid for by the prospective pet owner.

Or we can just ban every dog bigger than Snoopy. :shrug:

(A friend has an Oscar - lovely fish! :2thumbsup: )

[Hosakawa Tito]

Here's a good article, rather long, but full of well researched information.
Dangerous Dog Stats (http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus74fordhamlrev2847.htm)

[Louis VI the Fat]

What types of people would those be?
Goofball summed it up perfectly: steroid doing, Foghorn Leghorn pant wearing, creatine eating juice-monkeys who want to look tough on their walk to the gym.

Other than that, I guess the kind of people that won't appreciate cute and fluffy bonzai panda dogs. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmleUOEnnec)

(BTW - Can any of you tech wizards here tell me how to embed YouTube videos?)




Ive never owned rotts, but I have had a doberman, danes, a mastiff, and a bull mastiff.

We took the time, from birth, to raise those dogs right and never had any problems out of them.

I am certainly not trying to look tough, I just happen to like big dogs - some of which are seen as aggressive by the ignorant.It's not ignorant to see a pit bull or the like for what it is: a dog bred for fighting, the favourite of criminals and wannabe tough guys. I'd much prefer to ban their owners, but alas...

Big dogs themselves are not the problem though, a great Dane or a saint Bernard is usually a gentle creature, a clumsy oversized pet.

[Phatose]

I'd argue it is ignorant to see it that way, if you're not going to see all other breed in the light of their breeding. It's completely unfair to see the pit bull or the like as a breed of criminals, while ignoring the breeding of Shepherds or Collies or Retrievers - all selectively bred for very specific tasks which are by and large part of the wild dog's hunting behavior. Dogs bred for companionship are by far the exception and not the rule.



But the right of my kid to not get eaten at the playground outweighs by far the right of the steroid doing, Foghorn Leghorn pant wearing, creatine eating juice-monkey's right to own 3 rottweilers so he can look even tougher on his walk to the gym.

Foghorn leghorn looking types indeed. Or perhaps women looking for a breed known for it's affectionate nature as well as it's tenacious loyalty and protective instincts? 40% of all dogs are purchased for protection, you know. It's tempting to give in to stereotypes, I know, but it isn't wise any way you look at it. Do you really want to stand on that slope?

I wonder if it's even reasonably possible to conduct a study of how many crimes and violent assaults those dogs have prevented merely by their reputation. I have to wonder, if perhaps, society is on the whole safer because of pit bulls, rotties, and their reputations. But how does one gather statistics on how many women haven't been raped and murdered because they had their faithful, lovable, face licking pit bull by their side?

I daresay it is absolutely silly to cast any judgment on the breed until there is major research done into it's benefits. If 'dangerous breeds' cause 40 deaths a year, but prevent 50 murders and 100 rapes, isn't society, on the whole, better with them? I think this is something worth major consideration.



As for the playground...your children are more likely to be killed in your car while you drive them to the playground then eaten by a dog once they get there. About 400 times more likely, in fact. If you walk them instead of driving them, the chance of somebody else running over them while you walk is still nearly 20 times that of being killed by a dog at the park.

In fact, your children are more likely to be struck by lightning on the swing at the park then killed by a dog there.

Considering that death from falls on the same level are still 10 times more likely then getting your kid eaten, I'd probably stay at home. Well, at least I would until I saw the death by home fire statistics.


Sorry to tell you this, but you may think you have a right to take your kids to the park safely, but basic statistics begs to differ.


And this is all before the much more mundane and practical considerations of BSL. What, exactly, is a pit bull? An American pit bull terrier? How about a Staffordshire? What about a half PBT, half Collie? Quarter PBT, 3/4 beagle?

Do criminals, when faced with BSL, actually follow it? Is it enforced? Animal Cruelty laws are pretty laxly enforced as is. What's the chance of this achieving actual enforcement even if we do make it law?

And even if it IS enforced, what's to prevent the criminals to switch to some other breed? It's not like dog breeding magically stopped a thousand years ago.



Ultimately, I'm going to say Breed Specific Legislation is little more then a knee jerk play on emotions. I'd say it was poorly thought out, but to be blunt, I don't believe it was actually thought out at all.

If you want to do the world some good, protect it from the evil, man eating dogs that are less dangerous then your average bike ride, fine. But do it the smart way - go to your local shelter, find some pit bull in desperate need of a loving home, and give it to him. Or her. You'll have one less 'dangerous' dog in the hands of those criminals, and a little hit into that reputation of being 'badass' that makes the breeds attractive to those criminals in the first place. And the good karma will do you some good.

[Prince of the Poodles]

Goofball summed it up perfectly: steroid doing, Foghorn Leghorn pant wearing, creatine eating juice-monkeys who want to look tough on their walk to the gym.

That kind of stereotyping what is so wrong about banning breeds. It would be the same thing as saying only gay people own poodles and only pretentious 20 something paris hilton wannabes own toy dogs. :dizzy2:

Breeds get labels that are often completely innaccurate.





It's not ignorant to see a pit bull or the like for what it is: a dog bred for fighting, the favourite of criminals and wannabe tough guys. I'd much prefer to ban their owners, but alas...

Thats not the truth at all. Any dog can be bred to fight and be aggressive, but I dont believe the AKC or any kennel club endorses breeding any dogs to fight anymore. Thus, responsible breeders of any dog do not breed for aggressiveness.


Big dogs themselves are not the problem though, a great Dane or a saint Bernard is usually a gentle creature, a clumsy oversized pet.

This is another example of why banning breeds based on fear and stereotypes is not a good idea.

When buying a Dane you must be extremely careful when selecting a breeder, as there are many, many aggressive strains out there. However, the Great Dane community has been successful in keeping the breed's reputation as a gentle giant, when the truth is not so rosy.

The point is a dog's personality is 90% based on how it is raised, and reputation and perceptions about certain breeds can be very different from reality.

[Samurai Waki]

My mom has two Shih-Tzu's that have a rather nasty disposition... its not that my mom hasn't trained them well, they are both very well behaved. But when a little kid comes crashing into their territory as in the case of my nephew over Christmas, they'll do everything in their power to protect their environment. Viciously. Little Scoundrels scared him pretty good, after one of them pinned him down to the floor while the other nipped at his heels. Didn't do any physical damage, but I'm sure he'll have an aversion to dogs for years. :laugh4:

[doc_bean]

I think perhaps dogs are overregulated in the 'West'. When I was in Hungary dogs were allowed to walk around without leash, even in the city. Sure it didn't feel so great when going to a small back road (in the country side) and seeing a big dog (german sheperd iirc) laying in the middle of the street. But besides some harmless following around nothing happened. I 'm pretty sure that if my neighbours (2 houses beyond ours actually) leave their gate unlocked, their sheperds WOULD cause a heck of a lot of problems...

[Vladimir]

Nope, tarantulas deserve protection from the Kewl Kids too. :yes:

There are bound to be anomalies, but yes, a pet owner that has a snake should be licensed. Reptiles get a lot of bad treatment - again because some people think its "cool" to own one.

For example, feeding live prey to reptiles is actually illegal in the UK and Ireland. There is no biological necessity for them to have live prey in most cases. If an animal does require live prey, the owner should be properly screened and licensed.

There is too much neglect and cruelty inflicted on pets by people that shouldn't be allowed to own a ham sandwich, let alone an animal. In the context of the thread, having prospective dog owners compulsorily trained and then licensed would reduce the instances of neglect and abuse.

I can see it's very bureaucratic, but it would be paid for by the prospective pet owner.

Or we can just ban every dog bigger than Snoopy. :shrug:

(A friend has an Oscar - lovely fish! :2thumbsup: )

Well said but what is the probability that an animal will be mistreated vs. that of the government using it as a revenue generating scam (therefore exploiting the citizen/subject instead of the animal)?

Oh and the important thing...How do you enforce it? :devil:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well said but what is the probability that an animal will be mistreated vs. that of the government using it as a revenue generating scam (therefore exploiting the citizen/subject instead of the animal)?

Oh and the important thing...How do you enforce it? :devil:

You do like asking difficult questions! :help:

I tend to agree that it would be difficult to stop governments using it as a revenue raising scheme.

One might think that a combination of pet shops/breeders having the responsibility to check the license before purchase and a national charity like the British RSPCA to follow up on abuse reports might work. In addition, since owners would be criminally liable both for the welfare of their pets and their behaviour, owning without a license could be taken into further account.

On reflection, it's probably unworkable. Heck, I'd rather there was a license for having children first, for much the same reasons.

[yesdachi]

(But not before the sheriff said he needed proof that the dog bit me, had to flash the sheriff).
I flashed the sheriff, but I did not flash the deputy. :laugh4:

[Vladimir]

I flashed the sheriff, but I did not flash the deputy. :laugh4:

Oh dear. :rolleyes: (:laugh4: )

BG: However I do think that if someone had to actually pay some money, maybe ANY money besides the cost of the pet that they would act more responsibly. Plus it makes a nice tangent charge; I so love tangent charges, even if they tend to get dropped in court.

Or maybe we could just ask if they're happy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3430481.stm)?

[Fragony]

This is sad, Rottweilers usually aren't very aggresive though, they just look tough. Yeah the owners are responsible, poor guy

[Major Robert Dump]

This isn't news. At least for someone who lives in the human trash beltway of the country. Where is Hamilton, anyway, and how many trailer parks are nearby? Anyone want to have some Rot vs pit bull dogfights? I'll bring the frito chili pie.

[Major Robert Dump]

Here's how well your stupid dog banning laws work:

http://network.bestfriends.org/oklahoma/news/10215.html

I hate to laugh. But haha. Strays.

[Redleg]

If one owns a dog one is responsible for what it does. If you own large dogs that are in the Working Dog Breed Classification as an owner you should darn well know what traits are breed into the dog.

The owners were irresponsible in my opinion because the dogs were running free instead of probably secured on their property.

I agree that banning breeds won't work, but holding people responsible for thier animal's behavior does.

[TosaInu]

If one owns a dog one is responsible for what it does. If you own large dogs that are in the Working Dog Breed Classification as an owner you should darn well know what traits are breed into the dog.

The owners were irresponsible in my opinion because the dogs were running free instead of probably secured on their property.

I agree that banning breeds won't work, but holding people responsible for thier animal's behavior does.

I agree.

But this should be expanded: owners of barking, conflict initiating toy dogs should show some responsibility too.

I've seen more than one relaxed big dog gone angry because of those innocent 'toys'.
Look how aggressive that rottweiler is!

[Mikeus Caesar]

A pooly behaved dog is a badly trained dog, and with larger breeds this can clearly pose a danger.
Really? From the article:

"The dogs had food, water and shelter and their owners had attended obedience classes with them"



My dog attended plenty of obedience classes, yet he still pees on the carpet.

Just because they attend classes doesn't mean they'll learn.

[Soulforged]

I disagree.

A dog's personality has much more to do with its upbringing than its breed.

If you disagree you can't say that dogs have a "personality" ~;) .

Talking about bad or good animals by human standards is just silly. To be bad or good one has to be aware first. Animals are usually so stupid that they are not aware. They're pure instinct, a warm place and a pack leader can make them comfortable and a nice piece of meat can make them wild beasts.

About banning certain breeds. That will prove as uneffective as banning certain types of drugs, even more considering what Lemur said about cross-breeding. And I'm against it. I believe that all animals by their nature have the capacity to cause disasters, but they're still not responsable, considering they're only objects and have no conscience. Now taking away certain ANIMALS (not breeds of animals) from their owners because they prove to be dangerous that's another thing, and I see no problem with it, it's easily enforceable too.

[TosaInu]

My dog attended plenty of obedience classes, yet he still pees on the carpet.



Boy attended an obedience class too, and refused to do anything there. It wasn't my plan that he had to learn anything there either, but it seemed like a good idea to meet other dogs. Boy is a Kampf Hund, so some :daisy: wouldn't hurt? Boy was kind and so were the other dogs in his class.

He was 3 months old and assaulted by another dog from the 2nd grade on his first day, while he was just browsing around the field. The other dog, being a toy, must have though: a pitbull! Take him out while I still can. The humans were also thinking: good, show him, that dangerous mammal that will kill our children tomorrow! Take him out!



if (Boy in danger){

if (Boy != underage){


if (Boy = to blame){


echo 'Serves you right.'
}



if (Boy = hurting others){




stopBoy(angry);



}


else{


echo 'You're a big dog.'
}
}

if (Boy = underage){


if (Boy = to blame){


rescueBoy(flowers, smile, compassion, understanding, education, patience);
}


else{


useSize12(lowerbehind);
}

}
}


Just before the code was executed, several other dogs, led by a German Sheppard, nuked the toy. Boy was at the bottom of a pile of dogs then, and not amused at all. I thank the Sheppard for not seeing a pitbull, but a little friendly dog in trouble. I also thank him for not having to waste my boots.

A little, civil, chat with the toyhandler, learned that the dog, who assaulted the 3 months old puppy, was 2.5 years old (adult!) and had the habit of being like that. What!

Several other dogs were coloured by the pitbull trauma, perhaps induced by the tunnelvision of their humans. And Boy got his share during his childhood.

Now, Boy is an adult himself. Solid muscles, mighty stamina, unseen agility, enough courage to face a hungry lion and inspiring muscleyaws. He still has to tear the first dog apart, he has the excuse and the power to do so. Of course he had his one second show off explosions when Bordeauxs, Sheppards or other dogs 'interrupted' his beachwalks (those know a tactical retreat is the best option then). But he hasn't harmed any living being or initiated any hostilities in nine years (except for the swan there, but Boy forgot his sunglasses that day and he almost drowned himself).

Boy could easily be doghating for the rest of his live, happens to many traumatised organisms and also to fighting dogs. A great dog could have been spoiled, because a toyhandler thinks it's ok for the innocent little dog to run wild and do as he pleases. This is not academic spielerei, but happens. :embarassed:

[Caius]

The code doesnt have a end

[Major Robert Dump]

Teachers of "dog obedience" classes are overpaid, lazy mouthpieces of the left. I pulled my dog out when he told me some of the crap they were "teaching."

[TosaInu]

The code doesnt have a end

It's just part of a sub-routine, pseudo-coded to enhance readability.

[Redleg]

I agree.

But this should be expanded: owners of barking, conflict initiating toy dogs should show some responsibility too.

I've seen more than one relaxed big dog gone angry because of those innocent 'toys'.
Look how aggressive that rottweiler is!

Well I tend to drop kick toy dogs. But yes indeed the smaller toy breeds are often more aggressive then some of the working dogs.

[Banquo's Ghost]

This story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6219311.stm) is a rather timely reminder of what can happen when dog breeds are demonised through incidents like that in the original post.

Very sad.

Abandoned Staffies at record high

Dog rehoming centres in Scotland are "full to bursting" with abandoned Staffordshire Bull Terriers, according to the Scottish SPCA.

It said there had been a 20% rise in the breed brought into its centres at this time of year.

The charity appealed to prospective pet owners to consider rehoming the breed, which it said made good family pets.

It claimed the dogs had been "demonised" because they were often associated with violent attacks.

In October, a baby boy was treated in hospital in Glasgow after his uncle's Staffordshire Bull Terrier attacked him in Barrhead, East Renfrewshire.

However, Scottish SPCA spokeswoman Natalie Smart said bad behaviour by the pets could often be attributed to bad owners.

She said the dogs were known as "nanny dogs", because of their great rapport with children.

"We are really careful rehoming them, as we need to make sure they are going to be family pets, rather than a status symbol because they look like tough dogs, or be used in dog fighting," she added.

There are currently 20 Staffordshire Bull Terriers and Staffie crosses in the charity's Glasgow Dog and Cat Home, and a further eight at its Bothwell Bridge centre in Lanarkshire.

Ms Smart said: "One Staffie, called Spike, has been at the dog and cat home since February.

"Another dog, named Elite has been at Bothwell Bridge since August.

"Both of these dogs are extremely friendly and sweet natured, and yet as soon as people see they are Staffies, they just walk right past the kennel."

[KukriKhan]

I am a mailman for 16 years now, and been dog-bitten 3 times (right hand, right knee & left calf; a German Shepherd, a Lab, and a Chow).

Each time it's been the same: we startled each other as I approached a mailbox; the startled dog acted like a dog and bit. I've never blamed the dog, just the negligent owners. Luckily for them they have been contrite and cooperative.

I say 'luckily', because our post office keeps a dog-bite specialist lawyer on retainer, who has a 100% success rate for 20 years. Dog bites can be very expensive, once the doctor, insurance, lawyer, county canine worker, vet, etc, etc bills get totalled up.


...and how many trailer parks are nearby

Hey, I represent dat incineration. :laugh4:

[Lemur]

A tragic New Year's incident (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=UKNews1&storyID=2007-01-01T132344Z_01_L01892128_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-ATTACK.xml&WTmodLoc=HP-C1-TopStories-5) involves a pit bull in Liverpool:

Girl mauled to death by dog

Mon Jan 1, 2007 1:23 PM GMT15

LONDON (Reuters) - A five-year-old girl was mauled to death by a dog at her home near Liverpool on Monday, police said.

The dog, which police described as a "pit-bull terrier type dog" attacked Ellie Lawrenson and her 46-year-old grandmother in the early hours of the morning at a house in St Helens.

The grandmother, named by police as Jackie Simpson, was seriously injured and is being treated in hospital, but the little girl was fatally wounded in the attack.

A spokeswoman for Merseyside police said dog handlers and armed response officers attended the scene and decided the dog should be destroyed immediately.

"This is such a tragic incident. When a child loses her life in such circumstances, it has an effect on the whole community," police superintendent Jon Ward said in a statement.

A police spokeswoman said Lawrenson did not usually live with her grandmother, but was staying there for New Year's Eve.

Last September, 5-month-old Cadey-Lee Deacon died after she was savaged by her family's two Rottweilers in Leicester.

[Slyspy]

The dog had a run in the back garden into which it was eventually dragged, unfortunately too late for the little girl. Needing a run for a dog is never a good sign IMO.

[Hepcat]

well is it the owner's or the dog's fault? I say the owner's fault.

We had a similar incident here where a pit bull was mauling a kid until a passerby managed to beat the dog away with a stick, to my memory the dog was put down but the owners weren't prosecuted. And then this spawned heaps of discussion in parliment about tightening of dog ownership laws and stuff.

My uncle owns a pit bull, I used to be able to go up and pat it since I was 6, but knew to be cautious, however my parents are dog people so I have always been able to deal with dogs. It is also when people go running up to a dog like this expecting to pet it or play with it that can threaten them, I think the public need to be educated on the proper way to deal with dogs too, that they aren't all cuddly adorable creatures.

Now a funny story, my little brother went down a flying fox at a play ground in Auckland in a public park. A small dog was in the path of the flying fox and he hit it with his foot, the dog leaped in the air and grabbed a hold of his behind for few seconds (and left red teeth marks on his buttock). The owner of the dog understandable ran off quite quickly because it was a park which forbad dogs anyway. My parents were furious not at the dog, but at the owner for being stupid enough to ignore the sign saying no dogs allowed.

Had dogs been allowed there they would have accepted that it was really my brother's fault for hitting it with his foot (not that he could help it) and would have been fine with it, but it is the OWNER'S STUPIDITY that was responsible.

I say, a dog will always be a dog, you can't change it's nature, it is the owner's who are responsible for them. If people want to own aggressive dog breeds they should know how to deal with them.

[Major Robert Dump]

If everyone carried revolvers this wouldn't be an issue. Screw you, Guliani

[Adrian II]

If everyone carried revolvers this wouldn't be an issue.If Tyrannosaurus Rex were still around there would be no issues at all, period. :smug:

[Geoffrey S]

Best way to prevent this sort of thing in my view are clear laws making the owners fully responsible for the behaviour of their pets, with strong penalties attached to such negligent behaviour as described in the opening post. Some people can handle 'bad' breeds, some people can't, but at the very least clear responsibility will make people think about what they're buying and what the consequences may be of not being able to handle their pet.

Whether particular breeds are agressive or not is somewhat beside the point, when it comes down to it it is the owners who buy the pet, who should know the laws, and who are responsible for the consequences of the purchase.

[Del Arroyo]

Our former neighbors had a huge rottweiller, she was completely docile.

[caravel]

Our former neighbors had a huge rottweiller, she was completely docile.
I wouldn't be so sure. In this case (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1980981,00.html) the dog was apparently docile also. My neighbours had an old english sheepdog about 15 years ago. One day it just bit their 5 year old daughter's hand quite badly, and that was it. This dog had been docile, quiet and well behaved up until that point.

Also, not far from where I live, a lunatic keeps a rottweiller chained up outside. When you pass by, it goes for you. The only thing stopping it is the chain. This idiot is not a responsible dog owner, but a menace. Anyone that keeps a dog to have it chained up and needlessly harassing passers by should not be allowed to keep a dog at all. It's not as if he has anything to actually guard.

As regards small children, toddlers and babies. It appears that dogs don't know how to differentiate between these and small animals. Their human masters are tall upright beings, the providers, masters and disciplinarians. A dog sees these as the pack leaders and worthy of respect and obedience. A baby or toddler is a much smaller defensless being, lower down than the dog itself. It has no authority at all in the dog's eyes. This could bring out the dogs natural instincts as an opportunist hunter, picking out the seemingly weak animal. It may also be that the dog has suffered taunts and abuse, which is all too common, it will then suddenly snap, and attack when it has the opportunity. I have seen many children that find it funny to blow on the dog, startling it, pulling it's hair, trying to ride on it's back, pulling the tale or putting arms around it's neck. The last is important. When a dog's neck is trapped it struggles to free itself and may panic, yet small children will try to do this when they see a "cute and cuddly" dog.

The simple solution is to keep young children well away from dogs, and certainly not allow them to be alone unsupervised with a dog, but a dog often reacts according to how it's been treated in the past. If kicked, bullied, left chained outside and generally abused it will one day turn on it's owners or others close to them.

[drone]

Leaving a dog tied/chained up is a good way to create a pissed off dog. They do not like it, and it does make them more aggressive.

But all things being equal, no dog should be left around small children unsupervised.

[Slyspy]

Turns out the dog's owner was some kind of drug dealer. Still, I expect it was the ideal household....

Edit:

The incident to which Lemur refers that is, not the OP.