how to fix pitbull problem
#91
01-03-2007 | 10:53 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 1997
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
From: Littleton, CO USA
I'd like to hear the exact stat for the amount of TOTAL (not considering serious or non-serious) bites by dogs that get reported. As mentioned, most SERIOUS dog bites are rotweillers and pit bulls, duh, these dogs are bred to protect and unfortunately in the case of pit bulls, fight. Of the thousands of dog bites reported in Colorado, I know only a very small percentage are rotweiller or pit bull related. The problem is, when a pit bull or rotty attacks, very rarely is it a "mild" attack.
The lead vet at the shelter I volunteer at, the found of the shelter loves working with pit bulls but says there are other breeds he is often afraid to go near if they are not muzzled.
The lead vet at the shelter I volunteer at, the found of the shelter loves working with pit bulls but says there are other breeds he is often afraid to go near if they are not muzzled.
#92
01-03-2007 | 10:54 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 891
Likes: 1
From: Lost some where in the middle of the Ozark Mountains!
#93
01-03-2007 | 10:59 PM
Senior Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
From: Rain Pit, Oregon
American Canine Association--
From Jan. 1, 1965 through Jun.30, 2005 there have been at least
513 fatal dog attacks in the United States. Often times, when the subject of fatal dog attacks is addressed, the breed of dog is viewed as the primary driving force behind these incidents and little recognition is given to other factors that directly contributed to these tragic events. Investigation into 513 fatal attacks in the United States from Jan.1965 through Jun. 2005 reveal the following circumstances and situations to figure predominantly in fatal dog attacks:
Sex of dog -
Though not possible to determine the sex of all the dogs involved in fatalities from 1965, a survey of the sex of the dogs involved in the last 6 years (Jun.30 1999- Jun.30, 2005) reveal that overwhelmingly the dogs involved in fatal attacks are males. Of the 134 fatal attacks from Jun.30, 1999 - Jun. 30, 2005, in over 92% of these cases a male dog was involved, (i.e. either a single male dog or a male dog accompanied by other males and/or female dogs).
Reproductive status of dog (intact vs. altered)- As with the sex of the dog, it was not possible to determine the reproductive status of all the dogs
involved in fatal attacks dating back to 1965, but an examination of the dogs involved in fatal attacks (Jun. 30, 1999 - Jun. 30, 2005) reveal that the overwhelming majority of dogs involved were unaltered. Of the 134 fatalities in the past 6 years, 94% of the dogs involved were unaltered.
Chained or restrained dogs- Statistically, chained dogs pose a much greater danger than free roaming dogs. 25% of all fatal attacks are inflicted by a dog that was kept chained. Dogs that are kept chained may be more
protective of their restricted space and their resources (i.e. food/water bowls). Additionally, the natural "fight or flight" response afforded to most animals in stressful situations is denied to a chained dog. Removing the option of flight for any animal will always increase the chance of a
physical encounter (or fight response) to a perceived threat.
Dogs obtained for protection, guarding, fighting or image enhancement-
The behavior of a dog is directly influenced by the use or function he/she plays in the life of the owner. Dogs acquired to protect, guard, fight or project an image of danger are obliged or duty-bound to behave aggressively. Not surprisingly, a substantial number of fatal dog attacks
involved dogs that were either directly encouraged or indirectly permitted to behave aggressively.
From Jan. 1, 1965 through Jun.30, 2005 there have been at least
513 fatal dog attacks in the United States. Often times, when the subject of fatal dog attacks is addressed, the breed of dog is viewed as the primary driving force behind these incidents and little recognition is given to other factors that directly contributed to these tragic events. Investigation into 513 fatal attacks in the United States from Jan.1965 through Jun. 2005 reveal the following circumstances and situations to figure predominantly in fatal dog attacks:
Sex of dog -
Though not possible to determine the sex of all the dogs involved in fatalities from 1965, a survey of the sex of the dogs involved in the last 6 years (Jun.30 1999- Jun.30, 2005) reveal that overwhelmingly the dogs involved in fatal attacks are males. Of the 134 fatal attacks from Jun.30, 1999 - Jun. 30, 2005, in over 92% of these cases a male dog was involved, (i.e. either a single male dog or a male dog accompanied by other males and/or female dogs).
Reproductive status of dog (intact vs. altered)- As with the sex of the dog, it was not possible to determine the reproductive status of all the dogs
involved in fatal attacks dating back to 1965, but an examination of the dogs involved in fatal attacks (Jun. 30, 1999 - Jun. 30, 2005) reveal that the overwhelming majority of dogs involved were unaltered. Of the 134 fatalities in the past 6 years, 94% of the dogs involved were unaltered.
Chained or restrained dogs- Statistically, chained dogs pose a much greater danger than free roaming dogs. 25% of all fatal attacks are inflicted by a dog that was kept chained. Dogs that are kept chained may be more
protective of their restricted space and their resources (i.e. food/water bowls). Additionally, the natural "fight or flight" response afforded to most animals in stressful situations is denied to a chained dog. Removing the option of flight for any animal will always increase the chance of a
physical encounter (or fight response) to a perceived threat.
Dogs obtained for protection, guarding, fighting or image enhancement-
The behavior of a dog is directly influenced by the use or function he/she plays in the life of the owner. Dogs acquired to protect, guard, fight or project an image of danger are obliged or duty-bound to behave aggressively. Not surprisingly, a substantial number of fatal dog attacks
involved dogs that were either directly encouraged or indirectly permitted to behave aggressively.
#94
01-03-2007 | 11:04 PM
Senior Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
From: Rain Pit, Oregon
#96
01-04-2007 | 03:55 AM
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
From: Kentucky
Originally Posted by GIJoeCam
Getting back to the topic here....
There are numerous legal avenues for you to take, none of which involve dealing with the dogs at all. The fact of the matter is that the owners are responsible for their dogs and their dogs' behavior at all times. Vigilante justice is only asking for trouble.
Now, the dogs are out, animal control comes out, and the dogs go back in for a while. Then, the dogs come back out and run free again: Why not call animal control again? Keep calling animal control again and again, take pics of the dogs on your property, when animal control refuses to do anything, contact the PD and file reports for trespassing, negligence, or whatever other complaints you can register. Document the hell out of everything. Pictures, video, dates, times, everything you cna possibly document. Then, one day, when you're sitting out there enjoying a mimosa, and Shaggle and Ruffian come running towards you, and you drop 'em in self-defense, you have a documented history of troubled dogs, and clearly acted in self-defense.
Odds are, however, that it'll never make it that far. The neighbors will respond to the pressure from the city. I'd also look into the local laws/ordinances regarding dogs. Most municipalities have something to govern what you can and can't let your dogs get away with.
Good luck!
For the record, I'm not breed-prejudiced myself... They can all be good or bad just like kids can. It depends on the owners and the dog's up-bringing. Good owners breed good dogs just like good parents breed good kids.
-Joe
There are numerous legal avenues for you to take, none of which involve dealing with the dogs at all. The fact of the matter is that the owners are responsible for their dogs and their dogs' behavior at all times. Vigilante justice is only asking for trouble.
Now, the dogs are out, animal control comes out, and the dogs go back in for a while. Then, the dogs come back out and run free again: Why not call animal control again? Keep calling animal control again and again, take pics of the dogs on your property, when animal control refuses to do anything, contact the PD and file reports for trespassing, negligence, or whatever other complaints you can register. Document the hell out of everything. Pictures, video, dates, times, everything you cna possibly document. Then, one day, when you're sitting out there enjoying a mimosa, and Shaggle and Ruffian come running towards you, and you drop 'em in self-defense, you have a documented history of troubled dogs, and clearly acted in self-defense.
Odds are, however, that it'll never make it that far. The neighbors will respond to the pressure from the city. I'd also look into the local laws/ordinances regarding dogs. Most municipalities have something to govern what you can and can't let your dogs get away with.
Good luck!
For the record, I'm not breed-prejudiced myself... They can all be good or bad just like kids can. It depends on the owners and the dog's up-bringing. Good owners breed good dogs just like good parents breed good kids.
-Joe
#97
01-04-2007 | 07:04 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
From: Houston
I have sat here and read the different responses and some of them are down right funny/stupid. Yes there are good dogs and bad dogs. I agree that the biggest percent of bad dogs are due to owners the others never saw it coming. We all here about the dog attacks on the news and yes for the most part you here about Pit Bulls.
There was a case in Houston, I do not remember the date but it was several years ago. The dog was a family pet of 13 yrs and never bit any one or showed aggresion towards people, kids or animals. One day there 5 yr old grandchild was playing with the dog like always. Then the dog snapped and killed the child. So whos fault is this. The owner or the dog.
Another case. Neighbors dogs (Bullmastiff's) these two dogs are the most lazy to dogs you ever want to see. They play with the neighbors cats/kittens they have not shown any type of aggresion to other animals. But one night they managed to get out of the yard by PUSHING fence boards out. They came on my porch and killed one of my cats. Whos fault is it the owners or the dogs.
The biggest problem I see with these kind of animals and owners is the responsibility of knowing what you have and what it is capable of and learning to recognize the signs.
There was a case in Houston, I do not remember the date but it was several years ago. The dog was a family pet of 13 yrs and never bit any one or showed aggresion towards people, kids or animals. One day there 5 yr old grandchild was playing with the dog like always. Then the dog snapped and killed the child. So whos fault is this. The owner or the dog.
Another case. Neighbors dogs (Bullmastiff's) these two dogs are the most lazy to dogs you ever want to see. They play with the neighbors cats/kittens they have not shown any type of aggresion to other animals. But one night they managed to get out of the yard by PUSHING fence boards out. They came on my porch and killed one of my cats. Whos fault is it the owners or the dogs.
The biggest problem I see with these kind of animals and owners is the responsibility of knowing what you have and what it is capable of and learning to recognize the signs.
#98
01-04-2007 | 07:11 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 411
Likes: 1
From: Lansdale, PA
[QUOTE=mattadams] The problem is, when a pit bull or rotty attacks, very rarely is it a "mild" attack.QUOTE]
Exactly. So when the owners of these breeds expose improperly restrain their dogs, they are exposing their neighbors to a greater risk than other breeds, hence the need for laws. It is the same for many dangerous items that require special safety precautions, and so there is legislation to protect the public from unsafe owners, such as guns, cars, hazardous substances, etc. We've all heard it: "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Likewise, one could say that "pits don't kill people, pit owners kill people" - either way, laws are required to protect the 5 year old girl in the neighbor's back yard.
Exactly. So when the owners of these breeds expose improperly restrain their dogs, they are exposing their neighbors to a greater risk than other breeds, hence the need for laws. It is the same for many dangerous items that require special safety precautions, and so there is legislation to protect the public from unsafe owners, such as guns, cars, hazardous substances, etc. We've all heard it: "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Likewise, one could say that "pits don't kill people, pit owners kill people" - either way, laws are required to protect the 5 year old girl in the neighbor's back yard.
#102
01-04-2007 | 08:14 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
[QUOTE=1muddytruck]
I kinda agree,I'm not real sure what you were trying to say. If your saying that the owner of the dog should be held lilable for the actions of his dog with no investagation of the facts of the attack then I do not agree. Why is it my dogs fault if some kid pokes a stick or throws a rock at my dog over and over again. Any dog would become aggravetded(sp). There are to many variables in a dog bit situation to make a broad statment like that. I have been lucky to see both types of pit bulls one that is very agressive to strangers and one that is just a big ****y-cat. If you have never had a pti bull for a pet you have no idea what you are missing thye are the most loving dogs I have ever had the pleasure of having as a compaian.
Ban the Deed not the Breed
Originally Posted by mattadams
The problem is, when a pit bull or rotty attacks, very rarely is it a "mild" attack.QUOTE]
Exactly. So when the owners of these breeds expose improperly restrain their dogs, they are exposing their neighbors to a greater risk than other breeds, hence the need for laws. It is the same for many dangerous items that require special safety precautions, and so there is legislation to protect the public from unsafe owners, such as guns, cars, hazardous substances, etc. We've all heard it: "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Likewise, one could say that "pits don't kill people, pit owners kill people" - either way, laws are required to protect the 5 year old girl in the neighbor's back yard.
Exactly. So when the owners of these breeds expose improperly restrain their dogs, they are exposing their neighbors to a greater risk than other breeds, hence the need for laws. It is the same for many dangerous items that require special safety precautions, and so there is legislation to protect the public from unsafe owners, such as guns, cars, hazardous substances, etc. We've all heard it: "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Likewise, one could say that "pits don't kill people, pit owners kill people" - either way, laws are required to protect the 5 year old girl in the neighbor's back yard.
Ban the Deed not the Breed
#103
01-04-2007 | 09:02 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 1997
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
From: Littleton, CO USA
Sorry I guess I didn't really explain what I thought the solution to the problem is. Personally, I wouldn't own a pit bull because of the danger of a potential attack. Like many have said, sometimes they can be the nicest dog and then snap in an instant. In fact a few years ago I was walking my dog Maggie in our neighborhood, minding our own business, when a guy pulling into the complex with is "bad ***" pit (it had a pinch collar on it so obviously had some issues) jumped out of the guys moving Jeep, landed on its head and came straight for us in full attack mode. It scared the living crap out of me, luckily my girl Maggie kept this dog at bay until the owner got there, what seemed like eternity. My girl can hold her own, and I'm entirely confident that if the owner hadn't shown up, she would have risked her own life to protect mine. The guy used everything "shes never done anything like this... shes usually a nice girl..." well whatever, fact is I'm calling the police and animal control. Which I did. He was kicked out of the complex because the lease said no pit bulls. On the other hand, there was another tenant with a pit bull, and his dog would constantly play with mine, they were friends... neither barked at each other, always wagging tails, playfully wrestling, sniffing each others butts, etc. I know many families who have pits as dogs and think the world of them. The chances htey will attack are very slim, and these dogs are really great companions.
They say you should ban stupid owners, not the dogs, but of course thats not an option. I personally think they should do like other cities have done, and ban breeding pit bulls. If you have a pit bull, it must be spayed or neutered after like 4 months. Anyone caught trying to sell the puppies faces jail time. But at the same time, don't take someones pet of 10 years away from them and kill it, just because its of a breed that has a bad reputation. I think they should "grandfather" in the ones that are already there, make sure they are all spayed or neutered, and give them a one-strike your out policy, you attack once, even mildly, and you are done.
They say you should ban stupid owners, not the dogs, but of course thats not an option. I personally think they should do like other cities have done, and ban breeding pit bulls. If you have a pit bull, it must be spayed or neutered after like 4 months. Anyone caught trying to sell the puppies faces jail time. But at the same time, don't take someones pet of 10 years away from them and kill it, just because its of a breed that has a bad reputation. I think they should "grandfather" in the ones that are already there, make sure they are all spayed or neutered, and give them a one-strike your out policy, you attack once, even mildly, and you are done.
#104
01-04-2007 | 09:59 AM
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: Lewisville, TX
Originally Posted by mattadams
Sorry I guess I didn't really explain what I thought the solution to the problem is. Personally, I wouldn't own a pit bull because of the danger of a potential attack. Like many have said, sometimes they can be the nicest dog and then snap in an instant. In fact a few years ago I was walking my dog Maggie in our neighborhood, minding our own business, when a guy pulling into the complex with is "bad ***" pit (it had a pinch collar on it so obviously had some issues) jumped out of the guys moving Jeep, landed on its head and came straight for us in full attack mode. It scared the living crap out of me, luckily my girl Maggie kept this dog at bay until the owner got there, what seemed like eternity. My girl can hold her own, and I'm entirely confident that if the owner hadn't shown up, she would have risked her own life to protect mine. The guy used everything "shes never done anything like this... shes usually a nice girl..." well whatever, fact is I'm calling the police and animal control. Which I did. He was kicked out of the complex because the lease said no pit bulls. On the other hand, there was another tenant with a pit bull, and his dog would constantly play with mine, they were friends... neither barked at each other, always wagging tails, playfully wrestling, sniffing each others butts, etc. I know many families who have pits as dogs and think the world of them. The chances htey will attack are very slim, and these dogs are really great companions.
They say you should ban stupid owners, not the dogs, but of course thats not an option. I personally think they should do like other cities have done, and ban breeding pit bulls. If you have a pit bull, it must be spayed or neutered after like 4 months. Anyone caught trying to sell the puppies faces jail time. But at the same time, don't take someones pet of 10 years away from them and kill it, just because its of a breed that has a bad reputation. I think they should "grandfather" in the ones that are already there, make sure they are all spayed or neutered, and give them a one-strike your out policy, you attack once, even mildly, and you are done.
They say you should ban stupid owners, not the dogs, but of course thats not an option. I personally think they should do like other cities have done, and ban breeding pit bulls. If you have a pit bull, it must be spayed or neutered after like 4 months. Anyone caught trying to sell the puppies faces jail time. But at the same time, don't take someones pet of 10 years away from them and kill it, just because its of a breed that has a bad reputation. I think they should "grandfather" in the ones that are already there, make sure they are all spayed or neutered, and give them a one-strike your out policy, you attack once, even mildly, and you are done.
