# Dangerous dogs



## don maico

Are there or is it a case of irresponsible owners?  We have one breed which is banned because of its notoriety. It's called the Pit Bull Terrier and it's mega vicious. At least that's what we are led to believe because of some very well publicised dog attacks on people. The last happened this past weekend when a 5 year old child was mauled to death. Some people are asking should not this dog be banned nad  and of course it has been.`This breed has caused more deaths than any other and it attacks without provocation. But then we learn that they were bred for dog fighting and then we learn that those that own them do so because to them they represent a status symbol and a macho one at that. One can imagine how they are trained. I feel that pit Buills  bulls are probably very loving animals who when put in the wrong hands can turm  turn into malevolents beasts, therefdore  therefore it's the owner not the dog that's at fault ..............or is it?

Other banned dogs in the Uk are the  Argentine Dogo, the Japanese Tosa, and  the Fila Braileiro.


----------



## Cintia&Martine

Hi,

I have three dogs and I´ve always have dogs. I love dogs but I wouldn´t have a dog like these. Because I think that to have a dog of these you must have a landed property and the dog can´t go outside it. 

Last year a "dog of Naples" killed a dog of mine without provocation. The morderer dog hasn´t been trained to fight. He´s only used to live with other dogs like him and they naturally have a pack behaviour. "He ´s never done something like that" said to me the owner. Sure, no doubt about, but there is always a first time and I can imagine what could be happen if my dog would be with a child and not with my husband. "By chance" he only killed my dog this time. The dog was free but I know that nobody could deal with a furious dog of 90 kilograms. So I don´t want dog like these.

But despite that I think that´s not the fault of the dog but of the owner.
There are rules and laws (carrying muzzle, dog lead...) but a lot of owners don´t obbey the laws.
And besides the ulimate responsability is from authorities.

Have the authorities to impose the muzzle to all dogs? In Genève, since summer all dogs have to carry a muzzle in the public parks because a poodledog hurted a child. May be, this rule appears ridiculous, sure it´s not so for the parents of that child.

Said that, the dogs are very less dangerous than humans.


----------



## KateNicole

Where I live, I wish Pitbulls would be banned because there are large neighborhoods that are typically very poor and violent, in which animals (as well as children, sadly) get abused and neglected. Abused pitbulls definitely have the potential to become lethal and harm or kill innocent people if they escape. 

One of my best friends owns a pitbull. She is a very responsible dog owner and has her dog well trained and has never been violent or aggressive toward it or taught it to fight or be mean. The dog understands that she is the boss and it has never, ever appeared aggressive to me, nor does it growl or have a food aggression, and it very rarely barks. It's a truly loving dog. I, however, would never choose to own a pitbull, simply because it does have the potential to kill if something goes wrong and it "snaps." Domesticated animals are still animals, and you just never know. Most people could survive a poodle bite or fight off a golden retriever, but the way pitbulls jump and attack is astounding and they can overpower even an adult very quickly. I'm very fond of my friend's dog, but I think the risk--although minimal--is always there. 

Unfortunately, where I live, a lot of people are pitbull-crazed _because_ of their mean reputations and own them because they think it gives them street credibility or makes them look "gangsta." People who own a dog for image as opposed to companionship are, from what I have seen, more likely to abuse or a neglect it, or even worse, fight it. As an animal lover, it breaks my heart.


----------



## danielfranco

In my region of Texas, a pitbull is supposed to be a status symbol, and many people breed them for illegal dog fights. But there can only be so many successful fights before the dog loses. And they are notoriously difficult to maintain ($$$) healthy.
So, more and more in the inner cities, many pitbulls have become stray dogs once they've been abandoned by the owners. Of course, unless the police catches the neglecting owner in the act of abandoning the dog, there's very little they can do about it. Not the dogs' fault, but I think pretty soon it'll be dangerous enough so that they will have to be put down with extreme prejudice.
Poor doggies. They are, after all, just animals.


----------



## don maico

http://www.wikd.org/pitbull/pitflash.swf

This footage convey thats it is man that is the problem and not the dog


----------



## GEmatt

I read a lot of comment on this on the BBC News website. A 'Have Your Say' thread was opened regarding the little girl who was mauled, but I can't find it anymore!

In any case, one of the posts I best remember was how, where dogs attack bystanders, their owners should be charged with GBH, and where a bystander is killed as a result of such an attack, the owner should be charged with manslaughter. The feeling clearly is that the owners are (ir)responsible, and should be held fully accountable.

It's not exactly the dogs' fault that they are bred for aggression by people with possibly less-than-noble motives, and subsequently purchased by people with less-than-sufficient ability to control their charges. All dogs can be aggressive - they are natural predators - but retrospective remarks such as "Oh, but it's never done that before," regarding specific breeds known more for attacks against people (or any breed large enough to do damage, for that matter) remain incomprehensible, to me. Owners are, after all, effectively purchasing a living potential 'weapon', that can "snap", as KateNicole says.

But I'd like to know how the girl's parents managed to obtain an illegal dog, in the first place? If it isn't already clear enough that the dog is illegal for a reason, and that the Dangerous Dogs Act does not protect people within the privacy of their homes... the parents might as well have thrown their daughter to the lions.


----------



## panjandrum

GEmatt said:


> [...]
> But I'd like to know how the girl's parents managed to obtain an illegal dog, in the first place? If it isn't already clear enough that the dog is illegal for a reason, and that the Dangerous Dogs Act does not protect people within the privacy of their homes... the parents might as well have thrown their daughter to the lions.


A small correction - the dog did not belong to Ellie's parents:



> Police said post-mortem tests showed the dog was among the breeds prohibited by the Dangerous Dogs Act. Two previous complaints had been made about the pet, which belonged to Ellie's uncle.


 _Source_

That doesn't, however, detract from the point of GEmatt's question.


----------



## Reina140

Well, this is a very touchy subject.  I am an animal lover and a previous owner of 2 pitbull/shar pei mixes.  They were father and son.  Two very vicious breeds (american/chinese fighting dogs), HOWEVER, sweet as could be.  I used to babysit a friend's baby (less than 6 months old)  and they wouldn't even step on her blanket.  Bishop, my biggest (the son) was 95lbs. and he would give her the itsy bitsyest kisses, just the very tip of his tongue would touch her cheek and Rocky would cry if she cried.  I also had a tiny cat Bacardi, and they loved her.  It is TRULY and PURELY the fault of the owners and breeders.  Many people breed these dogs only for fighting or MONEY and INBREED which causes genetic problems, as it does in people.  We can't blame these animals, they are innocent.  Dogs live to please their owners and if they are taught that violence is awarded, that is how they will be.  It's an unfortunate situation when a breed is banned, not because the breed is so BAD, but because people are taking advantage of their strength and agility.  I don't understand the mind of a person who could raise an animal just to throw it in a ring and watch it fight for it's life.


----------



## GEmatt

panjandrum said:


> A small correction - the dog did not belong to Ellie's parents:
> 
> _Source_
> .


 Thanks Panj, I missed that part!  Keep me in line...


----------



## GEmatt

Hi Reina,



> Two very vicious breeds (american/chinese fighting dogs), HOWEVER, sweet as could be.


Absolutely. Many of the articles I read on "dangerous dogs" stress that they are prized for their loyalty to their owners, their intelligence, etc. etc. I accept this from my own experience with bull terriers. However, I also know that it and its kind are bred to be fighting dogs, to have very high pain thresholds, incredibly strong bites, and to be aggressive towards other dogs. What I don't understand is the optimistic self-confidence that can lead people to believe themselves immune to the violence the animals have been bred for, and act all surprised when the dog snaps, as dogs can and do.





> It is TRULY and PURELY the fault of the owners and breeders. Many people breed these dogs only for fighting or MONEY and INBREED which causes genetic problems, as it does in people.


Quite. But now that these dogs exist, isn't the problem best just nipped in the bud by exterminating them all, or somehow reverse-engineering the aggressive streak?


----------



## danielfranco

No need for fancy genetic therapy: just spay or neuter them. That seems to take out some of their spark, don't know why...


----------



## GEmatt

Well, thank goodness it does!  But I thought in most places with legislation against these dogs, neutering was mandatory anyway?  Clearly the dog in this recent case was still feeling sparky enough to do fatal damage, no?


----------



## Reina140

But now that these dogs exist, isn't the problem best just nipped in the bud by exterminating them all , or somehow reverse-engineering the aggressive streak?

Well, I think that that is quite a harsh proposal. I think it's wrong to "kill" the whole group because of some bad apples and to kill an animal because of the way people have abused their loyalty. Maybe we should just kill all the people. Honestly, you can't just go to people's home and take the family pet (we're not in China, well I'm not anyway  ) and kill them because of their breed. More people are bitten by German Shepherds each year than any other breed there is. And where does it end . . . only pits? Or also Shar peis, Akitas, Rottweilers, German Shepherds(never, police dog), Dalmations(known for being aggressive) and then you could prejudice by size and the CAPABILITY they have of injuring someone. This is not the way to go


----------



## danielfranco

Right. I suppose that no matter how many laws and regulations are imposed on the ownership of those kinds of dogs, unless there is some kind of "dog police", the people attracted to owning that specific breed of canines will continue obtaining them. They'll probably continue getting those kinds of dogs even if there were some kind of "dog police", just to spite them, I guess... which is unfortunate and tragic for all those innocent bystanders like the child who lost his life because a cheeky bastard couldn't possibly comply with the regulations in place EVEN after complaints had been raised and the dangerous nature of the dog was evident...


Here, in my region of the States, it is not mandatory to spay or neuter a dog, but it is "highly recommended" for the sake of the animal's health... Since it is a bit pricey (over a hundred bucks) I guess the same bastard-coated, bastard-filled bastards who buy these breeds of dogs for shady purposes also bypass such elementary precautions.

They are bastards... did I mention that already?


----------



## GEmatt

Reina140 said:


> Honestly, you can't just go to people's home and take the family pet (we're not in China, well I'm not anyway  ) and kill them because of their breed. More people are bitten by German Shepherds each year than any other breed there is. And where does it end . . . only pits? Or also Shar peis, Akitas, Rottweilers, German Shepherds(never, police dog), Dalmations(known for being aggressive) and then you could prejudice by size and the CAPABILITY they have of injuring someone. This is not the way to go


Well, I wouldn't march up to someone's house and abduct and kill the family pet. I'd hope they surrender the pet voluntarily, since they're illegal. Like I said, all dogs can be aggressive, and yes, it is our fault, not theirs, that some of them have been deliberately bred that way, of course.

But there is a relatively restricted list of dogs deemed to be dangerous, and that seems to be generally accepted, so I don't see it as particularly prejudiced or broad-reaching. I imagine Ellie's family said their dog was as sweet as pie, too. Until it savaged her to death, that is. What would the way to go have been, in such a case? I can't help thinking that a little bit of "prejudice" could have saved that family a lifetime of heartache.


----------



## GEmatt

> I suppose that no matter how many laws and regulations are imposed on the ownership of those kinds of dogs, unless there is some kind of "dog police", the people attracted to owning that specific breed of canines will continue obtaining them.


Totally. I still see it happening, now, over here.





> Here, in my region of the States, it is not mandatory to spay or neuter a dog, but it is "highly recommended" for the sake of the animal's health...


I didn't know that.. so what are the protective measures? Muzzle and leash?



> They are bastards... did I mention that already?


Hm, rings a bell


----------



## Reina140

Here, in my region of the States, it is not mandatory to spay or neuter a dog, but it is "highly recommended" for the sake of the animal's health... Since it is a bit pricey (over a hundred bucks) I guess the same bastard-coated, bastard-filled bastards who buy these breeds of dogs for shady purposes also bypass such elementary precautions.

They are bastards... did I mention that already?[/quote]

I agree with you. As soon as my dog (Reina) was old enough to spay, I had it done. They say it decreases the chances of uterine and mammary cancer by 50%--WOW!! But that's a bit off topic. We do have "animal cops," however, the officer to pet ratio is not good. It should be required that breeders fix animals before they sell them, especially "aggressive breeds" . . . BUT we can all keep dreaming, people will always find a way around the system. A good law that would be easier to enforce is the leash law . . . it drives me insane when I see people walking their dogs off the leash, it's dangerous for the people on the street and for the dog.


----------



## don maico

Reina140 said:


> I don't understand the mind of a person who could raise an animal just to throw it in a ring and watch it fight for it's life.



unfortunately there are people in this world who enjoy watching animals tear each other apart. If not dogs, they'd watch cocks fight or take part in badger or bear baiting activities. I dont understand the mentality of such people any more than  understand those that delight in watching a fox being persecuted by baying hounds intent on tearing it apart. I guess its part of man's inhumanity


----------



## Etcetera

My God-mother keeps a pitbull. Well... he's pretty nice and clever, but I wouldn't stay in the same room with him. 
It happened several times that pitbulls (and other dangerous dogs) attacked people. I've heard on TV about a pitbull who attacked his owner's daughter - the girl died, and she was only 2 months! Unfortunately, there's still no laws regarding keeping dangerous dogs in Russia. What are they waiting for?


----------



## maxiogee

Reina140 said:


> owner of 2 pitbull/shar pei mixes.


Why?
What is the appeal of owning a dangerous breed of animal?


----------



## ziu

maxiogee said:


> Why?
> What is the appeal of owning a dangerous breed of animal?


I wonder the same thing. Why have an animal in your house that could potentially (and easily) kill or seriously injure your kids if it "snaps" one day? If it's to protect your property then you must think that your property is more important than your family.
When I'm walking down the street where I live (relatively nice, suburban housing estate) there are about 5 different dogs that go insane barking and jumping against the gates of their respective houses every time someone walks past. Maybe they are cuddly and loving with their owners but I'm sure if they could get through those gates they would rip me to shreds.
I just don't understand the mentality of people who own such dogs as pets, maybe they'd keep lions and tigers too if it were legal?
I think it's a power thing.


----------



## TRG

I am personally terrified of agressive dogs and I am definitely in favor of restrictions on the ownership of said animals and severe punishment for the owners who allow their dogs to kill or injure an innocent person. I have heard numerous news reports during my lifetime of children and sometimes adults being attacked and mauled, in some cases fatally, by agressive dogs. People own these animals because it gives them some kind of perverted psychological boost. I had a friend who had a dog which whose predominant breed was wolf. To him it was definitely a macho image thing. Evidently these dogs are not dangerous, but the way it would slink around when strangers (me) were near was creepy.

I might also mention that our family dog, a female springer spaniel, once bit a visiting child in the face sufficiently to draw blood. In this case, she was defending her food against a small child, but she was very agressive (bitchy) towards any strangers even though she was just a pet. Fortunately, there was no permanent harm and we did not have to destroy the dog. Regrettably, I had to do that myself, a very sad day indeed.

I would also note that there are many other dangerous animals that people for one reason or another insist on having; lions, tigers, bears, apes, large snakes, and so on. I just don't get it.


----------



## Etcetera

maxiogee said:


> Why?
> What is the appeal of owning a dangerous breed of animal?


Feeling oneself in safety, I suppose. 
When my Mum saw that pitbull of my God-mother, she said, "Well, but now Lena can walk in parks absolutely safely. She has such a bodyguard!"


----------



## Kajjo

It does not make sense to discuss whether it is the dog or the owner that is dangerous -- such a discussion has been already lost a long time ago: Both is true to a certain degree.

The reason for breeding such a variety of dogs is not only to gain special bodily characteristics but also to enhance special character traits of the dogs, e.g. playful or suited for hunting. There is no doubt left that different breeds of dogs do have different traits. Some breeds are particularly aggressive and immune to pain -- they just do not feel pain as strong as other breeds and attack the more viciously and unstoppable.

On the other side, of course an aggressive owner can turn a kind dog into a _relatively_ vicous animal and to a certain degree a kind owner can keep a aggressive breed _relatively_ kind.

From my personal point of view, it is justified to ban some dog breeds from public places. What people do on their ground should be their personal freedom, but what the public is exposed to should be part of regulation.

Kajjo


----------



## Etcetera

Kajjo said:


> From my personal point of view, it is justified to ban some dog breeds from public places. What people do on their ground should be their personal freedom, but what the public is exposed to should be part of regulation.


I can't help thinking of that poor baby killed by her mother's pitbull...


----------



## maxiogee

maxiogee said:


> Why?
> What is the appeal of owning a dangerous breed of animal?


 


Etcetera said:


> Feeling oneself in safety, I suppose.
> When my Mum saw that pitbull of my God-mother, she said, "Well, but now Lena can walk in parks absolutely safely. She has such a bodyguard!"


 
As long as the dog knows that Lena is in charge! 
This can be a difficult thing to instil into even 'cute' dogs.

How does the dog always know when a stranger in the park comes rushing at Lena that this person is a threat to Lena, and not a friend who hasn't seen her for a while?


----------



## GEmatt

> What people do on their ground should be their personal freedom, but what the public is exposed to should be part of regulation.


I'm going to get flack for this, but where the breeds listed as dangerous are concerned, I don't believe that what people do on their ground should be their personal freedom, where there is a risk that others can come to grievous personal harm.

People in public spaces (I'm only *somewhat* familiar with the situation in England and Switzerland) _are_ protected, to a greater extent, by existing legislation. My understanding is that Ellie died precisely because public legislation doesn't extend to the private sphere - and since it is still possible in some circumstances to obtain the so-called dangerous breeds, images come to mind of people, be it with Pollyannaish complacency or gross irresponsibility, potentially having their sweet-as-pie fighting dogs at home with their children, with neither leash nor muzzle, nor the relative protection they would be afforded in public. Seems like asking for trouble, to me.

Maybe I was extreme in suggesting that all the dangerous ones be put down. A friend of mine here somehow managed to acquire an Amstaff puppy (American Staffordshire Terrier, related to the pitbulls). It was friendly enough, and had a fortune spent on its education ... but it was subject to breed-specific legislation, and was finally 'confiscated' by the authorities. It is now in a good kennel, until a responsible owner, in an area where the breed is legal, can be located. Maybe that's a more humane way forward?


----------



## Etcetera

maxiogee said:


> As long as the dog knows that Lena is in charge!
> This can be a difficult thing to instil into even 'cute' dogs.
> 
> How does the dog always know when a stranger in the park comes rushing at Lena that this person is a threat to Lena, and not a friend who hasn't seen her for a while?


That's it!
It happened once that the dog bit Lena's own son (he's one or two years my junior). The pitbull thought he was attacking her, whereas he only tried to help his mother with something!


----------



## Bonjules

Hola,
I wasn't aware of this thread when I started the
'racism in animals' one.
One of the points I tried to make there was that among
the 'mixes' we collected off the street or that were left at our house we never encountered an unstable or unfriendly dog, even though undoubtedly there was some abuse before in some of them. This also appears to be the experience of friends.
I think it is largely due to the mixing/lack of inbreeding in this situation. Ironically, folks still seem to think there is something magically 'superior' about a dog of 'pure blood'.


----------



## winklepicker

GEmatt said:


> But there is a relatively restricted list of dogs deemed to be dangerous, and that seems to be generally accepted


 Well, the latest advice applies to all dogs. All dogs bite apparently. 

"NHS figures show that 4,133 people were admitted to hospital last year suffering dog bites, almost double the number in 1996. More than a fifth were children under nine."

I hate dogs personally. They smell, they slobber all over you, they nuzzle embarassingly into your genitals, they have no self-respect, they bark loudly at nothing - and they're dim. Mind you I've never eaten one (oh - no - that's another thread ).

Give me cats any time!


----------



## Bonjules

winklepicker said:


> Well, the latest advice applies to all dogs. All dogs bite apparently.
> 
> Give me cats any time!


You are quite right, WP.
The potential is always there, even if nothing has happened in 10 years (all dogs CAN bite, I'd say).
Same with cats, by the way? Or a human striking you, for sometimes no apparent reason.
Always good to err on the side of caution. There are few things in life where one can truly say 'never'.


----------



## xrayspex

_Give me cats any time!_ 
I have dogs and cats and love them both. 

In defense of dogs, however, my one trip to the emergency room from an animal attack was due to a cat bite.


----------



## GEmatt

winklepicker said:


> I hate dogs personally. They smell, they slobber all over you, they nuzzle embarassingly into your genitals, they have no self-respect, they bark loudly at nothing - and they're dim. Mind you I've never eaten one (oh - no - that's another thread ).
> 
> Give me cats any time!


I suppose dogs and cats perceive threats differently. They are both predators, but dogs are more of the chummy 'pack' sort, so a dog-owner is a friend, adored master, and reluctant recipient of slobber, whereas a cat is a lone predator, and will generally regard the owner as a clueless, lumbering, over-grown kitten, except when it comes to operating a tin-opener at dinner time. If a dog gets aggressive, it's likely to be through fear and an instinct to defend. If a cat gets aggressive, it's more likely to be through sheer annoyance at you.


----------



## moura

I hear freguently owners or breeders of rotweilers, pitbulls and doberman saying that dogs are only violent provided that are treated to act that way. With the right care and discipline, that some of these animals demand, they can be non dangerous. Once I went to the vet with my cat and saw this lovely female pitbull puppy who only wanted to be caressed. While I was making her some feasts I indirectly commented criminal acts regarding these dogs, as putting them in a dog fight, unhappily already happening in Portugal. The owners apaprently did not have that purpose. Hope so!
Pick a dog, bit him, attach him to small chain, give him less food or water, or even treat him without any discipline at you may transform a good animal into a beast.
By other hand there are geneticl malformations, which have to be foreseen. I also heard that cocker spaniels, one of the more massacred dogs in what refers crossing them with brothers and cousin sometimes may present that malformations. Once again is the "human" hand to distort nature.
I am to believe that dogs, as all the animals are born "good" and may react perversely as a re-act to external stimulus. 
Of course I would not jump to a halligator pool to test the indulgence of a crocodile 

(sorry about possible mistakes - for when a WRF spelling, Mike? )


----------



## Bonjules

GEmatt said:


> Very true. That cat can whack you (or the dog!) without much warning when it gets annoyed with unwanted attention (dogs learn that lesson better than us, it seems). Cats are just so wonderfully independent, that is part of their charm. But they invite you to play also, we've got one of those.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

This thread has wandered along various paths and by-ways, and has arrived at a discussion of cats versus dogs.

As the topic of dangerous dogs seems to have been discussed and exhausted, it is time to put this particular puppy up for adoption.

Thank you for your understanding.


----------

