Org Mobile Site
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/servl.../National/home
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/servl.../National/home
Originally Posted by :
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.
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.
I hope this thread doesnt degenerate into a call for banning certain breeds.
As Goofball posted.. "there are no bad dogs, only bad owners"
As Goofball posted.. "there are no bad dogs, only bad owners"
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.
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.
Rotts can be sweet, loving dogs when raised correctly, just like all dogs.
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?
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?
Originally Posted by 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.
Agreed.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.
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.
Originally Posted by Goofball:
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 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.
I heard interesting mark about big agressive dogs.
"As bigger dog and bigger car, as smaller d...."
"As bigger dog and bigger car, as smaller d...."
Originally Posted by :
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. 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.
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....
Originally Posted by 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"
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.I hope this thread doesnt degenerate into a call for banning certain breeds.
As Goofball posted.. "there are no bad dogs, only bad owners"
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.
Originally Posted by Goofball:
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?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.
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 case. (I know, I know, it was overturned for a manslaughter conviction, but it still made me happy.)
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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.
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.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.
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.
Originally Posted by Goofball:
I am all in favor of banning certain dog breeds...
I would rather ban certain people breeds. I am all in favor of banning certain dog breeds...
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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.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.
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.
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
).
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.
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
).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.
Originally Posted by :
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? 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
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 ).
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 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
).
) ? Do only cute fuzzy animals deserve protection?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.
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.
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).
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).
Originally Posted by Wakizashi:
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...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.
The dogs should be (and fortunately, are being) euthanized. Sorry. No second chances for dogs like this.
Originally Posted by Wakizashi:
And the owners should get charged the full penalty for negligence.
Yep. But they hardly ever are.And the owners should get charged the full penalty for negligence.
Originally Posted by Slyspy:
A pooly behaved dog is a badly trained dog, and with larger breeds this can clearly pose a danger.
Really? From the article:A pooly behaved dog is a badly trained dog, and with larger breeds this can clearly pose a danger.
"The dogs had food, water and shelter and their owners had attended obedience classes with them"
Originally Posted by Slyspy:
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.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.
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.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
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) ? Do only cute fuzzy animals deserve protection?
Nope, tarantulas deserve protection from the Kewl Kids too. 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
) ? Do only cute fuzzy animals deserve protection?
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.
(A friend has an Oscar - lovely fish!
)Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles:
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.What types of people would those be?
Other than that, I guess the kind of people that won't appreciate cute and fluffy bonzai panda dogs.
(BTW - Can any of you tech wizards here tell me how to embed YouTube videos?)
Originally Posted by :
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...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.
Big dogs themselves are not the problem though, a great Dane or a saint Bernard is usually a gentle creature, a clumsy oversized pet.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by :
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?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.
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.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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. 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.
Breeds get labels that are often completely innaccurate.
Originally Posted by :
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. 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...
Originally Posted by :
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.Big dogs themselves are not the problem though, a great Dane or a saint Bernard is usually a gentle creature, a clumsy oversized pet.
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.
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.
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...
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO