Solution to Dog Bites

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]I'm not sure if this is an issue in other places, but dog bites have been a major concern in my city.

Certain breeds such as pit bulls have been banned. People who already owned banned breeds may keep them if they are muzzled.

Do you think banning certain breeds of dogs is a reasonable way to prevent dog bites? Not all pit bulls are vicious and dangerous, though the breed is quite powerful, and a natural gaurd dog too. Meanwhile other breeds not considered quite dangerous can be dangerous (killer chiuauas?).

What do you think is the best and most reasonable way to prevent dog bites in our cities?[/COLOR]

[Sandy]

Well for starters, the owners could take better care of their pets. Some are just downright negligent of what their pet is doing. There are also those sadistic types who usher their "best friends" on smaller animals and people who irritate them.

So in my opinion, the main problem isn't the dogs - it's the people who keep them.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]Well, it is obvious the main culprit of dog bites is bad training, and it is because of bad training that certain species have been singled out as dangerous.

But should all pitt-bull owners have to deal with laws that are inforced because of what negligent owners do?

It's not as though owners are under surveilance when they train their pets. And by the time a badly trained dog hurts someone, it's already too late, and only then does the negligent owner face the consequences. See what I'm getting at?

So, should potentially dangerous breeds be banned altogether because of the risk that certain owners will not train them properly? Is this fair to everyone?[/COLOR]

[Panda]

[quote name='Sandy']So in my opinion, the main problem isn't the dogs - it's the people who keep them.[/quote]
Sandy, you so totally rock.

Oh boy, do I ever have my opinions on BSL (Breed Specific Legislation). Let's see if I can gather my thoughts in some coherent manner. This subject is a hot button with me.

Working in veterinary medicine I have seen what BSL can do to families. For many of us our dogs are family members. They play with the kids, they entertain us to no ends and give us a sense of protection and companionship that is equal to none. When these laws are set that outright ban a breed the family has a choice. They can either move to a place that allows them to keep their pet (for many of us, this is not an option due to costs/career), place their pet in a new home in a different town or euthanize the pet. What has the pet done? Nothing, it's just a "dangerous breed".

I think those politicians who pass these laws should have to be in the room with a family as they are forced to give up their pets or worse still, have them euthanized.

This brings up a point Sandy mentioned. Nature over nurture. When you have people who are training dogs to fight they are to blame. Those people who neglect or abuse animals making the animal timid and fearful - they are to blame. They are the ones that the law needs to go after, not just a blanket law that hurts an entire breed.

Both my dogs would be considered "dangerous breeds" since one is a Rott/Chow mix and the other is a German Shepherd. Have they ever hurt anyone? No. But if one of those laws took hold in my hometown I would have to get rid of them. There is already one in a town 1/2 hour away from here. So needless to say this discrimination really pushes my buttons. Why should they suffer for the crimes of another? Would a law like this dealing with human races pass? I should hope not! But since they are only animals I guess some politicians think it's ok to discriminate.

I have know more people bitten by Labradors than one of the "at risk" breeds. Each case of a dog biting someone needs to be examined individually. Many of those who tell you the dog bite stats that come from hospital emergency rooms don't mention that the majority of those numbers come from veterinary clinic employees. Of course vets get bit! When you are working on a frightened and injured animal it will bite. All they see are "X" amount of people have been bitten by dogs this year. They don't say who or what the situation was that caused it.

The worst bite I ever received while working at the vet clinic was from an African Grey. I guess that means we should start a law against large birds. /sarcasm

[b]Ban the deed not the breed!![/b]

Watch the below link that is against BSL. It's really sad so if you are a dog lover it's a real tear jerker.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Qlw3pzWv4][u]BSL awareness.[/url][/u]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']So, should potentially dangerous breeds be banned altogether because of the risk that certain owners will not train them properly? Is this fair to everyone?[/COLOR][/quote]
[size=1]Yes, potentially dangerous breeds should be banned altogether. No, it's not fair to everyone, but eliminating the risk of getting a child mauled is well worth it.

You can take the tiger out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the tiger. I think it's the same way with dogs -- you can tame them all you want, but if you have a naturally aggressive breed, you can never be completely sure its safe.[/size]

[Panda]

Another thought I would like to add. Those who train dogs to fight are already breaking the law. Even if a law is passed to ban a breed they aren't going to stop. All that does is keep law abiding, honest dog owners from the breed they love.

On that note: We should then ban all guns since all guns have the possibility of killing someone. After all isn't that what they were made for...shooting. Not to mention knives..they are pretty sharp and can kill people. Banning all cars will be good too since a drunk might get behind the wheel. While we are at it we better ban all water. Someone might drown. /sarcasm

Banning a breed isn't going to stop people from not being responsible for their pet. All this does is promote the death of an entire breed. Remember: Extinction is forever.

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]Actually the real problem isn?t that some breeds are more aggressive than others. The real problem is the owner of the dog. Too many people get a dog because it?s cute and then don?t bother to learn how to train or properly take care of their dog.

Just as human children have different stages of development, so do dogs. By ignoring this and doing nothing to understand their dog or even socialize their pet the owner is encouraging the aggressive behavior instead of controlling it.

It?s hardly fair to ban an entire breed of dog because people are too lazy to be bothered to learn how to train their dog to prevent it from biting. What we need is to educate people on taking their responsibility as a pet owner more seriously.

Working with your pet takes time and dedication. It?s not like a human child who after a while understands that you don?t hit or do mean things. A pet needs constant and regular reinforcement of the rules. Take my own dog; any time she growls at people I immediately discipline her. In my case I firmly tell her no and if she continues I use a water bottle filled with water and 1/5th vinegar solution and spray it in her eyes. (A trick my vet told me about)

What people don?t understand is that any dog can be aggressive. Bichon?s usually aren?t but I do not want her to ever think that growling is okay since often that does lead to biting others. Since I do this she has never tried to bite anyone. Not even the vet when she is being treated.

And Panda is right, extinction is forever. If a town wants to control breeds that can be more aggressive then it would be a better solution to require owners to take a class before they can get the dog instead of keeping them from ever owning the dog. [/COLOR]

[shinji172]

[QUOTE]On that note: We should then ban all guns since all guns have the possibility of killing someone. After all isn't that what they were made for...shooting. Not to mention knives..they are pretty sharp and can kill people. Banning all cars will be good too since a drunk might get behind the wheel. While we are at it we better ban all water. Someone might drown. /sarcasm[/QUOTE]

Good argument. After all, everything has the potential to be dangerous. Adding rules only tends to push people into breaking them. For example, guns are illegal in the uk but thats not to say we dont get gun crimes now and then. However, for the record, if anyone from this point onwards wants to talk about gun crime, lets [B]open up a new thread[/B] (im only using it as a one off example).

My point is that people, no matter what, will find ways to break these rules. Animal cruelty (arguably the main cause of violent dogs) is already illegal. All we see is more reports on the crime now that the police are actively looking into it.

Another point I'd like to make is that so called "violent breeds" are popular with people who are (more often than not) likely to commit crimes of abuse towards said animal. This is usually because, after hearing a certain dog is a good fighter (or something to that effect) they strive to obtain one and abuse it for their own means. Needless to say, these animals are likely to become fearful, aggresive and/or violent. However, i must point out that, just because someone owns one of these breeds, it [B]doesnt mean that they will abuse it[/B].

If a new law must be enstated, it should be that people with a history of anti social or violent behaviour should be banned from owning animals of any kind. Im sure that would work better than banning a breed from ownership.

[Shwa]

Pitt Bulls are naturally agressive and only some can be tamed or at least trained to be nice. If someone gets bitten by one well what do you expect?? The trainer knows the consequences of having one and some dedicated trainers/owners teach their pets not to bite. Others use the breed for protection or just to show off that they have a Pitt Bull.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]I'd like to add another point. A few years back, I read in the paper that a four year old boy was killed in his backyard when he was playing with his family's four rotweilers. They "ripped into him" (ouch!) as the article stated. These four dogs have never displayed any form of aggression before, and they were not badly trained or neglected. But their sudden vicious attack on the boy could be associated with their breed.

So this apparently suggests, that despite how well an "at risk" breed is trained, there is still a risk of it attacking, becaue aggressiveness is in its nature.

Panda, as a veteranarian, what would you say is indeed the cause of sudden vicious attacks? Is it because of natural aggressiveness or not?[/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Panda]Another thought I would like to add. Those who train dogs to fight are already breaking the law. Even if a law is passed to ban a breed they aren't going to stop. All that does is keep law abiding, honest dog owners from the breed they love.

On that note: We should then ban all guns since all guns have the possibility of killing someone. After all isn't that what they were made for...shooting. Not to mention knives..they are pretty sharp and can kill people. Banning all cars will be good too since a drunk might get behind the wheel. While we are at it we better ban all water. Someone might drown. /sarcasm

Banning a breed isn't going to stop people from not being responsible for their pet. All this does is promote the death of an entire breed. Remember: Extinction is forever.[/QUOTE]
[size=1]I'm sorry, certain breeds of dogs are naturally aggressive, no matter how well you train them. It's nothing personal, it's just instinct -- thousands of years of it -- hardwired into them, and it's not coming out. Rather than take an increased risk in letting these especially potentially dangerous dogs from hurting someone, I'd say ban them.

You give the analogy of cars -- that's why only certain types of cars are street legal. Quite obviously, a car that can achieve speeds of 400 mph has more potential to hurt someone than a car that can achieve speeds of 100 mph. The same goes for guns -- civilians cannot (easily) obtain a rocket launcher, but one could easily get a pistol for the aforementioned reasons. Surely you get my point by now.

Banning a breed won't stop people from being irresponsible with their pet, but it would mimize the damage done to others if that owner is irresponsible. Neglecting a Poodle versus a Pit-Bull; both are wrong and unfair, but one has less potential danger than the other, quite obviously.[/size]

[Panda]

I knew this thread would get under my skin.

I know no matter what I say people will be set in their opinions. They will always have the feeling that banning a breed out right, killing a family pet who has done nothing wrong is the best course of action. The "burn the villiage to save the village" or "shoot first, ask questions later" idea. It's sad, but there are people who will always feel that way.

Law breakers won't care if they break the law. If they want to have a mean dog they will find a way to get one and make sure it has that "junk yard dog" attitude. Banning a breed will only keep these animals out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Not the criminals. So how will banning a breed help dog bites? It won't since now the only people with that breed will be criminals.

This goes for anything. Yeah the everyday person can't get a rocket launcher, but I'm sure if you are willing to break the law you can find someone willing to sell you one. Just because it is not legal it won't stop people from seeking it out.

As for the Rottweiler situation. I have no idea what happend with that since I don't know all the facts. Was the child just sitting there with the dogs around him? Was he playing tug-o-war? Did he have food? Was he play teasing them? Were these dogs spayed/neutered? How old were the dogs? Did the media make more out of the attack? Without knowing all the facts I don't want to just throw a guess out there as to what happend.

As for dogs who are pre-disposed to being aggressive. Cocker Spaniels for many years was listed as the number 1 pure breed biter. Yet Cockers aren't on the danger list. Many of the dogs on the list you will notice made the list due to the "mean dog" image that many people are attracted to. People get dogs without considering their temperments. They just want the cool macho dog. What breed class is that dog a part of? Is it a working dog? Was that dog intended to heard bulls and cattle? Was that dog intended to guard a flock of sheep? When you don't take this into consideration problems arise.

I know my dogs are considered "aggressive breeds". I am a responsible pet owner. They are neutered, they are fully vaccinated, microchipped, licensed with the city and have graduated AKC obedience class. Do I let them get away with bad behavior, no. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to own them anymore? Why should my dogs or I suffer because someone decided they are bad because of their breed.

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v290/Panda_chan_/misc/bun.jpg[/IMG]
Why do you want to kill me? What did I do to you?

I think for my own good I am going to leave this thread. It's been really hard not to take Retri's comments personally. My dogs have never hurt anyone. I am a responsible pet owner and having someone say they should be banned "just in case" upsets me.

Edit: I should also mention that once you ban all the large breeds the new dangerous breeds will be the smaller dogs. After all, they can bite and disfigure a child too. Jack Russell Terriers, Lhasas, Shitzu...your time's up once the big dogs are all banned. Cat bites cause terrible infections and I do know a woman who was bitten by her cat and ended up almost dying. Cats should be banned too. I guess while we are at banning we should just ban all animals since they all have the potential to kill. You can never be too careful right.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]Panda, banning a breed does not neccessarily mean that existing dogs have to be put down. No one in my city is going around killing pitt bulls. Killing animals that have done nothing wrong is just plain cruel.

By 'banning' I would mean not allowing burther breedng of certain breeds, and current owners have to get theirs muzzled when outside, and perhaps cumpulsory training. Of course, I am not suggesting that I agree with this, all I'm saying is that this is what I mean by 'banning'.[/COLOR]

[Lord Rannos]

[COLOR=DarkRed]I have to say, there is almost always nothing inherently wrong with the dog in an "attack". If dogs are properly socialized, they will extremely rarely hurt anyone. Unless provoked.

For the example of the kid who was killed by the pit bulls: Odds are, he was doing something to provoke the dogs. I'm not blaming the child; he was only 4 and wouldn't know better. All the same, would it be the dogs fault if the kid was accidentaly hurting them and the retaliated? When I was about one, I cornered my dog and was poking at her eyes. She then bit me. Is it her fault that she was scared and reacted as such? No, it's mine for provoking her. She wasn't even a "dangerous" breed.

We can't just ban a breed based on what some of them do. The problem is in how people treat the breed, as has been said. A pit bull may not be the best dog to leave with a 4 year old. If you can control the dog, by all means have it; but if you cannot keep your dog under control, it isn't the dog's fault.
[/COLOR]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR=DarkSlateBlue] [quote name='Panda']As for dogs who are pre-disposed to being aggressive. Cocker Spaniels for many years was listed as the number 1 pure breed biter. Yet Cockers aren't on the danger list. Many of the dogs on the list you will notice made the list due to the "mean dog" image that many people are attracted to. People get dogs without considering their temperments. They just want the cool macho dog. What breed class is that dog a part of? Is it a working dog? Was that dog intended to heard bulls and cattle? Was that dog intended to guard a flock of sheep? When you don't take this into consideration problems arise. [/quote]That?s exactly what the problem is. It?s not an issue of they are inherently aggressive but rather people are turning them into something they aren?t. Several breeds are predisposed to having a task, like herding and guarding. Take Dobermans and German Shepard?s. They make excellent police and guard dogs. When you take a dog like that and try to turn it into a pampered pet it?s only natural that the dog is going to have issues since that?s not what it was bred for. Banning them won?t stop them from being bred and sold in secret.

It?s important to make an informed choice when getting a pet. Take my Mom for instance. Our first dog was an American Eskimo. She got it because it was cute. And though it was a good pet, the poor thing shed horribly. It made things difficult since a number of my friends and relatives are allergic to dogs. So when we had to have her put down due to an illness. (she didn?t respond to treatment) My Mom decided to carefully research what type of dog we got the next time.

We made a list of what we wanted and didn?t want. For example, little to no shedding and one that wouldn?t be hyper. In the end we settled on getting a Bichon since the breed fit what we were looking for. We didn?t get one of the other breeds since their temperament and nature did not fit our lifestyle.
[quote name='Panda']Edit: I should also mention that once you ban all the large breeds the new dangerous breeds will be the smaller dogs. After all, they can bite and disfigure a child too. Jack Russell Terriers, Lhasas, Shitzu...your time's up once the big dogs are all banned. Cat bites cause terrible infections and I do know a woman who was bitten by her cat and ended up almost dying. Cats should be banned too. I guess while we are at banning we should just ban all animals since they all have the potential to kill. You can never be too careful right.[/quote]Panda is right; banning is simply a means to sweep the real issue under the carpet so you don?t have to deal with it. The answer is to educate people on how important picking and caring for a pet really is. Try learning about a breed before you decide it needs to be banned. On some levels the whole thing disturbs me since people are willing to kill off a breed of dogs just because they are unwilling to be responsible.
[/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[size=1]Although you're leaving the thread, I still want to rebut a few of your points.[QUOTE=Panda]I knew this thread would get under my skin.

I know no matter what I say people will be set in their opinions. They will always have the feeling that banning a breed out right, killing a family pet who has done nothing wrong is the best course of action. The "burn the villiage to save the village" or "shoot first, ask questions later" idea. It's sad, but there are people who will always feel that way.[/QUOTE]
I'm not burning the village to save the village -- wouldn't that mean that I'd be banning these dogs to save these certain dogs? I'm not shooting first, then asking questions. I'd like to regard myself as having asked the question, gotten the answer, and [i]then[/i] shooting. I completely understanding that there are responsible dog owners, and it's definitely regretable that they'd be hurt, but it's for the greater good. It's for saving children from being mauled or killed, and in my opinion, this overrides a dog-owners happiness.

[QUOTE]Law breakers won't care if they break the law. If they want to have a mean dog they will find a way to get one and make sure it has that "junk yard dog" attitude. Banning a breed will only keep these animals out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Not the criminals. So how will banning a breed help dog bites? It won't since now the only people with that breed will be criminals.

This goes for anything. Yeah the everyday person can't get a rocket launcher, but I'm sure if you are willing to break the law you can find someone willing to sell you one. Just because it is not legal it won't stop people from seeking it out.[/QUOTE]
Banning something seriously decreases its availability. Yes, it's [i]possible[/i] to obtain a rocket launcher, but there are so few people with them that nothing ever happens. It goes for dogs as well -- in my neighborhood there are certain breeds of dogs that are banned. Sure, there are probably a few that are here illegally, but there are far fewer now than there would be if it were a legal practice. Keep in mind that most people are law-abiding citizens.

[QUOTE]As for dogs who are pre-disposed to being aggressive. Cocker Spaniels for many years was listed as the number 1 pure breed biter. Yet Cockers aren't on the danger list. Many of the dogs on the list you will notice made the list due to the "mean dog" image that many people are attracted to. People get dogs without considering their temperments. They just want the cool macho dog. What breed class is that dog a part of? Is it a working dog? Was that dog intended to heard bulls and cattle? Was that dog intended to guard a flock of sheep? When you don't take this into consideration problems arise.[/QUOTE]
This is true, but you cannot deny that there are a great number of aggressive and sometimes dangerous dogs. It's not like people are just giving certain breeds a bad rap -- it's because they actually can be highly dangerous.

[QUOTE]I know my dogs are considered "aggressive breeds". I am a responsible pet owner. They are neutered, they are fully vaccinated, microchipped, licensed with the city and have graduated AKC obedience class. Do I let them get away with bad behavior, no. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to own them anymore? Why should my dogs or I suffer because someone decided they are bad because of their breed.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, many other people are not as responsible as you. Their numbers are so great that this must be considered. It's not like people are pulling out of the blue "Hey, why not ban some big dogs? I mean, they're nice, but they're just big, so let's ban them." There have been attacks, and there needs to be a response.

[QUOTE]I think for my own good I am going to leave this thread. It's been really hard not to take Retri's comments personally. My dogs have never hurt anyone. I am a responsible pet owner and having someone say they should be banned "just in case" upsets me.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry that you've taken personal offense to my comments.

[QUOTE]Edit: I should also mention that once you ban all the large breeds the new dangerous breeds will be the smaller dogs. After all, they can bite and disfigure a child too. Jack Russell Terriers, Lhasas, Shitzu...your time's up once the big dogs are all banned. Cat bites cause terrible infections and I do know a woman who was bitten by her cat and ended up almost dying. Cats should be banned too. I guess while we are at banning we should just ban all animals since they all have the potential to kill. You can never be too careful right.[/QUOTE]
Except small dogs and cats just don't have the record of aggression, attacks, and deaths under their belts. The statistics are heavily stacked against you. When's the last time you've heard of a cat bite killing versus a dog attack? Furthermore, dog attacks have the potential to seriously injure someone.[/size]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR=DarkOliveGreen]I do not agree with banning a specific breed of dog. By focusing on banning a certain breed I think that we are ignoring a much bigger problem. Most of my information comes from this site if you wish to know more: [URL=http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html][COLOR=DarkOliveGreen][B]Dog Bite Law[/B][/COLOR][/URL]

For starters there are around 5 million bite victims annually in the United States alone. Out of all those bites between 15-20 people die each year. The problem with banning a specific breed is it is giving the illusion that the problem is being solved when in reality it doesn?t really do much to solve the real problem. Which in my mind is reducing the epidemic of people being bitten in the first place.

[I]?After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. (Study cited in B. Heady and P. Krause, "Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results," Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999.?[/I]

As it says on the site where I got my information, [I]?it would be unwise to enact all kinds of controls on one breed alone, not necessarily because it would be unfair, but because it would be ineffective.? [/I] Banning a specific breed would set a dangerous mind-set, which would tell the general population that by doing so all the dog problems would then go away. There is another reason why banning a few breeds is ineffective:

[I]Although pit bull mixes and Rottweilers are most likely to kill and seriously maim, fatal attacks since 1975 have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds.

[INDENT]The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)[/INDENT]

In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:

· [B]Any[/B] dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. [B]Any[/B] dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner most often is responsible -- not the breed, and not the dog.

· An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, [b]without the dog itself being dangerous[/b], as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).

· Any [B]individual [/B]dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be likely to bite. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack. [/I]

Personally I think that legislation to ban a specific breed is a waste of time and money. It does nothing to solve the real problem. It?s like assuming that since one dog killed then all other dogs will kill. People tend to overlook the fact that there are thousands of pit bull and rottweilers who never bite anyone. To get rid of the rest just because one is a problem is stupid and wasteful.

Instead we should be focusing on raising public awareness on how to care for pets and the importance of selecting a breed to fit your lifestyle. If you don't have the time for a breed that needs more discipline or training, then the person at fault is the owner and not the dog. By banning specific breeds we would be punishing the dog instead of the person who was not taking their responsibility as a dog owner seriously.
[/COLOR]

[Guest Metal Dragon]

Interesting... aa waay to reduce dog bites might be to [B]not[/B] buy dangerous dogs adn of course, to not be bit in the first place.

[Boo]

[quote name='Panda']On that note: We should then ban all guns since all guns have the possibility of killing someone. [/quote]

[size=1]Yes, you should.

Really, people should be taught how to raise their dog(s).[/size]