Pit Bull kills its' owner after seizure!?
- Thread starter Tiger Williams
- Start date
- Status
Phat Boy, Sheik is just making that up, try your best to pay attention and clue in......Phat Boy said:
ROTFLMAO!!!KBear said:
Labs and Golden Retrievers are soooo scaaary!!!
The only dogs that should be banned, IMHO of course, are Pit Bulls. They were breed to be "pit" dogs.
The dog with the second greatest jaw strength is a Rottweiler. Rottweilers are very heavy and strong and might be a concern in the hands of an inexperienced or "bad" owner.
Other than that all other issues are issues with the owner of the dog in question and not the "breed".
Always practice due diligence with children around any dog.
Other than that this is all hysteria.
tompeepin said:
they were bred for just that. but they were also bred to stop on a dime when the handlers would have to go in the pits to get them out. that is a fact.
but it is all hysteria. i am more worried about walking down the street at jane and finch or regent park and not getting shot then seeing a pitt bull who wants to come and eat my arm or leg.
i owuld also like to see the stats on the attacks on children. how many of the attacks were prompted by the kids pulling at an ear or kicking at these dogs. i would think it is a few more then none
seeing a pitt bull who wants to come and eat my arm or leg.
i owuld also like to see the stats on the attacks on children. how many of the attacks were prompted by the kids pulling at an ear or kicking at these dogs. i would think it is a few more then none [/B][/QUOTE]
I have to say that any animal will be played with by a child.
Now if you think that should a child grab a dogs ear the dogs has a right to attack? Then please, pull my finger.
i owuld also like to see the stats on the attacks on children. how many of the attacks were prompted by the kids pulling at an ear or kicking at these dogs. i would think it is a few more then none [/B][/QUOTE]
I have to say that any animal will be played with by a child.
Now if you think that should a child grab a dogs ear the dogs has a right to attack? Then please, pull my finger.
As usual your thought process astounds me.papasmerf said:
"Always practice due diligence with children around any dog."/animal. That is common sense.
You are correcttompeepin said:
and should yo decide to allow you animal around children
then you need to realize you are warrenting that the animal is not dangerous.
Now this includes public streets, parks, gatherings and or having guests in your home.
papasmerf said:
so are you going to expalin to ANY dog...that they dont have the right to attack a child when they pull its ears.
what language are you going to expalin this to the dog in? do you think he will listen the first time or will you hve to dock his allowance until he gets it right?
UmmmmmmmmmPhat Boy said:
no
You explian it the first time by NUETURING
The scond time by putting it down
The childs life has far great value then any dog, cat, or even rabbit.
Do you think, no let me rephrasae that, are you of the mind that a dog can bite a child for touching its ears?tompeepin said:Again excellent logic! You are the master!
"NUETURING" is the answer. hahaha
And the dog after biting is not to be suspect?
Animals are animals and can bite, but as a resposible pet owner we need to take steps to make sure the dog, cat, garaffe is less likely to bite or injure children.
If you disagree you have that right, just as I would to snap the neck of your critter if it bit my child or one around me. After all they need to do a frozen section of brain to see if it was rabbid.
No.papasmerf said:
Suspect? What is your mother tongue, smerfie? If the dog bit a child there would be no need for suspicion, it would be a fact.papasmerf said:
Exactly the point in a previous post.papasmerf said:
"Less" likely?
Then "You explian it the first time by snaping the neck of "my" critter." hahaha Et voila no need for "NUETURING"!papasmerf said:
More priceless smerfism!papasmerf said:
Are you rabbid smerfie?
I am just joking around at your expense.
An article I pulled on The failure of Breed Specific Legislation.
The Failure of Breed Specific Legislation
It's easy to see why the average person might think that certain breeds of dogs are inherently dangerous. After all, those are the only breeds we see on the news when a serious dog attack occurs.
But things aren't always as they seem.
Governments that have passed breed specific legislation (BSL) have found out the hard way that these kinds of ordinances do not reduce the incidence of dog bites. Municipalities spend thousands of dollars passing these types of laws, only to find they didn't have the desired effect, and are routinely defeated in legal challenges. In addition, the actual number of serious dog attacks is much smaller than the media would have us believe. The worry is overblown. Not only that, the dogs involved in the majority of biting incidents are not the breeds we see on the evening news.
No reputable organizations support breed bans.
(http://www.goodpooch.com/bsl.htm#BSLsupport)
As evidence of the failure of BSL, please note:
German states enacted sweeping breed bans, only to have the Federal Administrative Court decree that a state cannot ban ownership of a dog based on breed.
Holland banned pit bulls entirely, yet admits that very few pit bulls have actually been involved in biting incidents.
New York State, Pennsylvania, and Virginia went so far as to pass laws making it illegal for any municipality to pass breed specific ordinances.
The Supreme Court of Alabama ruled there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous than another, simply because of its breed.
Boulder, CO considered banning 'pit bulls' despite these facts (http://www.goodpooch.com/bsl.htm#banlabs).
Where dog biting incidents are concerned, every breed of dog is involved. There is no such thing as a breed of dog that won't bite.
Serious dog attacks, on the other hand, have only involved about 30 or so breeds over the past few decades. In many cases, you will never hear these breeds referred to as "dangerous", even though one member of their breed has actually killed. Breeds that have killed included even toy breeds such as Pomeranian, Cocker Spaniel, West Highland Terrier, Dachshund, Lhasa Apso, and Yorkshire Terrier. Breeds often described as "friendly" have also killed, such as Labrador Retriever, Golden Retriever, and Chesapeake Bay Retriever.
The most serious cases of dog attacks are quite rare, actually. There are approximately 10 fatalities caused by a dog in the U.S. each year, and about 1 per year, on average, in Canada. There are approximately 70 million to 100 million dogs in Canada and the U.S. While any dog-related fatality is one too many, 11 incidents out of as many as 100 million individuals is not exactly an epidemic. Compare the number of dog-related fatalities to the number of murders, negligent homicides, and fatal accidents caused by humans, and the number will pale in comparison.
It is true that some breeds are more commonly involved in serious aggression incidents than are others, but the idea that the dog's breed is responsible is a red herring. It is a way of excusing the dog's owner for his/her negligence. When society believes myths like "aggressive breeds" or even "friendly breeds", we move responsibility away from the dog's owner and towards the dog, itself. Yet, experts agree that breed has nothing to do with inappropriate behaviour. Training is universally agreed to be the cause and the solution to inappropriate dog behaviour.
BSL fails to reduce the number of biting incidents for a number of reasons. The main reason is the basic premise is fatally flawed. It is a dog's upbringing that determines its actions, not its breed. So, when one breed is banned or restricted, the responsible owners of that breed suffer the consequences and abide by the new restrictions, even though they've done nothing wrong. Whereas, the irresponsible owners of those breeds will simply continue operating outside the law, or move on to an unrestricted breed. Statistics show this is the case.
......................
The Failure of Breed Specific Legislation
It's easy to see why the average person might think that certain breeds of dogs are inherently dangerous. After all, those are the only breeds we see on the news when a serious dog attack occurs.
But things aren't always as they seem.
Governments that have passed breed specific legislation (BSL) have found out the hard way that these kinds of ordinances do not reduce the incidence of dog bites. Municipalities spend thousands of dollars passing these types of laws, only to find they didn't have the desired effect, and are routinely defeated in legal challenges. In addition, the actual number of serious dog attacks is much smaller than the media would have us believe. The worry is overblown. Not only that, the dogs involved in the majority of biting incidents are not the breeds we see on the evening news.
No reputable organizations support breed bans.
(http://www.goodpooch.com/bsl.htm#BSLsupport)
As evidence of the failure of BSL, please note:
German states enacted sweeping breed bans, only to have the Federal Administrative Court decree that a state cannot ban ownership of a dog based on breed.
Holland banned pit bulls entirely, yet admits that very few pit bulls have actually been involved in biting incidents.
New York State, Pennsylvania, and Virginia went so far as to pass laws making it illegal for any municipality to pass breed specific ordinances.
The Supreme Court of Alabama ruled there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous than another, simply because of its breed.
Boulder, CO considered banning 'pit bulls' despite these facts (http://www.goodpooch.com/bsl.htm#banlabs).
Where dog biting incidents are concerned, every breed of dog is involved. There is no such thing as a breed of dog that won't bite.
Serious dog attacks, on the other hand, have only involved about 30 or so breeds over the past few decades. In many cases, you will never hear these breeds referred to as "dangerous", even though one member of their breed has actually killed. Breeds that have killed included even toy breeds such as Pomeranian, Cocker Spaniel, West Highland Terrier, Dachshund, Lhasa Apso, and Yorkshire Terrier. Breeds often described as "friendly" have also killed, such as Labrador Retriever, Golden Retriever, and Chesapeake Bay Retriever.
The most serious cases of dog attacks are quite rare, actually. There are approximately 10 fatalities caused by a dog in the U.S. each year, and about 1 per year, on average, in Canada. There are approximately 70 million to 100 million dogs in Canada and the U.S. While any dog-related fatality is one too many, 11 incidents out of as many as 100 million individuals is not exactly an epidemic. Compare the number of dog-related fatalities to the number of murders, negligent homicides, and fatal accidents caused by humans, and the number will pale in comparison.
It is true that some breeds are more commonly involved in serious aggression incidents than are others, but the idea that the dog's breed is responsible is a red herring. It is a way of excusing the dog's owner for his/her negligence. When society believes myths like "aggressive breeds" or even "friendly breeds", we move responsibility away from the dog's owner and towards the dog, itself. Yet, experts agree that breed has nothing to do with inappropriate behaviour. Training is universally agreed to be the cause and the solution to inappropriate dog behaviour.
BSL fails to reduce the number of biting incidents for a number of reasons. The main reason is the basic premise is fatally flawed. It is a dog's upbringing that determines its actions, not its breed. So, when one breed is banned or restricted, the responsible owners of that breed suffer the consequences and abide by the new restrictions, even though they've done nothing wrong. Whereas, the irresponsible owners of those breeds will simply continue operating outside the law, or move on to an unrestricted breed. Statistics show this is the case.
......................
............cont'd
It is a people problem, not a problem with dogs. It is the kinds of people who encourage aggressive behaviours in their dogs who must be stopped. What greater proof is needed than the case of the woman in San Francisco who was killed by two Presa Canario crosses? Two criminals, already in jail, wanted to breed the most menacing dogs imaginable. They found a willing partner to help them, then set about the task of finding large, powerful dogs for their ill-conceived breeding program. Their offers to buy dogs from responsible breeders were turned down. But, eventually, they found irresponsible breeders willing to supply them with breeding stock.
The person raising and breeding the dogs had no knowledge of ethical breeding practices, nor any experience training dogs. Once the dogs had proven they were out of control, the caretaker demanded the criminals re-home them. The two dogs, Presa Canario/Mastiff crosses ultimately killed an innocent woman as she entered her apartment.
That story is bad enough. It demonstrates how irresponsible ownership of a dog large enough to kill an adult human can result in disaster. But here's the important part: When only one of the dogs involved was immediately put down, people called to inquire about buying the other "killer dog". Statements were made, such as "I want a dog who's actually killed a person." When the media routinely referred to the mixed breed dogs as Presa Canarios, sales in these rare dogs increased dramatically. You see, it is the kinds of humans who want a dog as some sort of weapon who are the danger to society, not the dogs themselves. A properly raised dog will be a good canine citizen, regardless of its breed.
BSL is not only ineffective, it is downright preposterous. Even those who feel restricting certain breeds is a reasonable course of action will admit what they're talking about are biting incidents involving mere fractions of a percent of those dog breeds. It's similar to suggesting that, since a handful of people of Arab descent have committed terrorist acts, all Arabs should be eliminated or their liberties severely restricted. Why ban all pit bulls or all Rottweilers when only a tiny percentage of them are a danger? The answer one gives to that question is indicative of his/her level of understanding of genetics, canine behaviour, and dog training.
Isn't it much better to severely punish irresponsible dog owners who allow their dogs to behave inappropriately, regardless of what breed of dog they own? Wouldn't that discourage irresponsible dog ownership, regardless of the dog's breed? Doesn't that kind of legislation make infinitely more sense?
BSL, in its blindly sweeping net, ultimately hopes to remove responsibility for dog biting incidents from dog owners, and place the blame on voiceless dogs who can't legally defend themselves. This is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. As the dog bite statistics demonstrate, every breed of dog will bite. The likelihood of an unwarranted bite is determined by the training that dog has or hasn't received. The dog's breed is not relevant. And this is ultimately why BSL is a failure.
© 2003-2004 GoodPooch.com
It is a people problem, not a problem with dogs. It is the kinds of people who encourage aggressive behaviours in their dogs who must be stopped. What greater proof is needed than the case of the woman in San Francisco who was killed by two Presa Canario crosses? Two criminals, already in jail, wanted to breed the most menacing dogs imaginable. They found a willing partner to help them, then set about the task of finding large, powerful dogs for their ill-conceived breeding program. Their offers to buy dogs from responsible breeders were turned down. But, eventually, they found irresponsible breeders willing to supply them with breeding stock.
The person raising and breeding the dogs had no knowledge of ethical breeding practices, nor any experience training dogs. Once the dogs had proven they were out of control, the caretaker demanded the criminals re-home them. The two dogs, Presa Canario/Mastiff crosses ultimately killed an innocent woman as she entered her apartment.
That story is bad enough. It demonstrates how irresponsible ownership of a dog large enough to kill an adult human can result in disaster. But here's the important part: When only one of the dogs involved was immediately put down, people called to inquire about buying the other "killer dog". Statements were made, such as "I want a dog who's actually killed a person." When the media routinely referred to the mixed breed dogs as Presa Canarios, sales in these rare dogs increased dramatically. You see, it is the kinds of humans who want a dog as some sort of weapon who are the danger to society, not the dogs themselves. A properly raised dog will be a good canine citizen, regardless of its breed.
BSL is not only ineffective, it is downright preposterous. Even those who feel restricting certain breeds is a reasonable course of action will admit what they're talking about are biting incidents involving mere fractions of a percent of those dog breeds. It's similar to suggesting that, since a handful of people of Arab descent have committed terrorist acts, all Arabs should be eliminated or their liberties severely restricted. Why ban all pit bulls or all Rottweilers when only a tiny percentage of them are a danger? The answer one gives to that question is indicative of his/her level of understanding of genetics, canine behaviour, and dog training.
Isn't it much better to severely punish irresponsible dog owners who allow their dogs to behave inappropriately, regardless of what breed of dog they own? Wouldn't that discourage irresponsible dog ownership, regardless of the dog's breed? Doesn't that kind of legislation make infinitely more sense?
BSL, in its blindly sweeping net, ultimately hopes to remove responsibility for dog biting incidents from dog owners, and place the blame on voiceless dogs who can't legally defend themselves. This is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. As the dog bite statistics demonstrate, every breed of dog will bite. The likelihood of an unwarranted bite is determined by the training that dog has or hasn't received. The dog's breed is not relevant. And this is ultimately why BSL is a failure.
© 2003-2004 GoodPooch.com
On the subject of banning breeds
We here in buffalo have banned invisible dogs....The ban took place over a century ago and to this day you will not see an invisible dog in this city.
We here in buffalo have banned invisible dogs....The ban took place over a century ago and to this day you will not see an invisible dog in this city.
People would consider it relative or intelligent for the smae reasons that you think banning ONE breed will put an end to vicious dog attacks.Tiger Williams said:
We all know black people are not responsible for the majority of crime, just as pit bulls are not resposible for the majority of dog attacks. Although if it were up to the media they would have you believing the opposite.
Just trying to point out how flawed the logic is and how ridiculous it sounds. Apparently though, you still don't get it.
Read my previous post on why Breed specific legislation does not work.
Some of these arguments Charlton Heston and the NRA would fully support. Guns (pit bulls) don't kill people (gun users/pit bull owners) do.
If a dog can be trained to be viscious by certain types of individuals (Republicans perhaps) then banning one breed will probably not solve the problem...replacement breeds will be found.
___________________________________________________
Have you hugged your pit bull today?
If a dog can be trained to be viscious by certain types of individuals (Republicans perhaps) then banning one breed will probably not solve the problem...replacement breeds will be found.
___________________________________________________
Have you hugged your pit bull today?
- Status
