That's very unfortunate. For the owner of those dogs and very sad for the little girl and her family. Why were the other dogs put down when they weren't the dogs who did the attack? Unfortunately I think these laws are in place because although unfair, no one can tell who has a dangerous dog or not. By not letting them run free , etc. No one knows what a dog is capable of until it attacks someone, that's why breeds end up getting such a bad rap. But I don't agree with putting a dog down when it didn't attack anyone, that's wrong.

Here in Ct, during the summer there was a couple that had two little boys and a golden retriever. The dog had attacked there tfour year old son while he was playing outside in the yard for whtever reason. Then the dog two weeks later attacked the two year old. All the reasons that were given were unprovoked. The dog ended up being put down because of the attacks. But it makes you wonder why the dog became aggressive all of a sudden, Supposedly these people had the dog for about five years. But if anything it just proves the point that it doesn't have to do with a breed but maybe with just the individual dog or maybe this dog had been abused. You just never know. But it was a Golden Retriever, how many of those do you hear attacking people?

My sister has two pit bulls and an akita. They're all sweeties. One of her pits is extremely protective of her family, but even when it comes down to it, she's a chicken and would never fight. This is a really sad thing that's going on. It's my firm opinion that it has so much more to do with the owner than the dog in situations like these. Although, in cases like the post above mine, who is to blame? When a dog that has always been so nice and loving that all of the sudden attacks his own family. That certainly is cause for alarm. But it isn't a breed specific occurrence either. I, too, think that people who breed pits for aggressive traits will just turn to other "aggressive" dogs. Really, you can take a dog of a breed with a reputation of being family friendly and turn it into a fighter. Obviously, these laws are being passed by people that are afraid of what they don't understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bizygurl

That's very unfortunate. For the owner of those dogs and very sad for the little girl and her family. Why were the other dogs put down when they weren't the dogs who did the attack? Unfortunately I think these laws are in place because although unfair, no one can tell who has a dangerous dog or not. By not letting them run free , etc. No one knows what a dog is capable of until it attacks someone, that's why breeds end up getting such a bad rap. But I don't agree with putting a dog down when it didn't attack anyone, that's wrong.

---

Apparently, the man who owned the dogs was a next door neighbor, and one of the dogs was pulling a sleigh with the little girl in it (who was 2, I just found out!). The sleigh went by the attacking dog and that's when he bit her in face. She was in the backyard with all 5 dogs, and I assume not much supervision! The other dogs were put down because their shots weren't up to date, and there was a question of rabies. The dog that did attack her was kept alive for rabies testing. When the testing was over and came back negative, the dog was put down too.

I think it was awfully stupid on the part of the owner and the parents of the little girl, allowing such a little child in the backyard with 5 big dogs! Like what were they thinking? :confused:

Quote:

---

But it was a Golden Retriever, how many of those do you hear attacking people?

---

Yes exactly! We have a yellow lab, and we didn't have to get the special licensing for him. However if we mistreated him or let the child we're expecting kick or tease him or be mean, etc, he might attack too. Of course we'd never do that, and I strongly believe in supervision for little kids with dogs, for both the dogs and the child's protection. My dog is also in obedience classes. I don't think any breed should automatically be labeled "dangerous".

Your right Orange, that was really stupid on the parents fault for not keeping an eye on the little girl, and she was 2? Anytime you have a young child with bigger dogs especially more than one dog you need to keep an eye out beecause you don't know what can happen. Being a mother this would have been just common sense since it would be dealing with dogs that were'nt mine.

There was another situation like this that happened here a few weeks ago. The dog didn't attack the child but it was an accident and this is just to prove the point why children need to be supervised with big dogs.

A little girl had been playing with her aunts dog in the backyard of her aunts house, I think the girl was four. She had been wearing a scarf, what happened was the dog had been playing with her and grabbed the end of the scarf and dragged her aroung the yard. She wasn't able to get the scarf off while this was happening and the dog ended up choking her to death. I believe this dog was a German shepard.
But because no one was keeping an eye on the little girl this unfortunate accident happened.

I was browsing www.avma.org and found this: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/da...egislation.asp

''The AVMA supports dangerous animal legislation by state, county, or municipal governments provided that legislation does not refer to specific breeds or classes of animals. This legislation should be directed at fostering safety and protection of the general public from animals classified as dangerous.''

I agree labman... it shouldn't be based on breed! Dogs are like people IMO. There are good and bad in every breed. ;)

OMG though... there was another dog attack in my province. This time a Rottweiler and a 5 year old. The 5 year was supervised, and had played with the dog before, but he and the dog were "fighting" over a ball and he was attacked on his arms, legs and torso. It was just on the evening news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bizygurl

a little girl had been playing with her aunts dog in the backyard of her aunts house, I think the girl was four. She had been wearing a scarf, what happened was the dog had been playing with her and grabbed the end of the scarf and dragged her aroung the yard. She wasn't able to get the scarf off while this was happening and the dog ended up choking her to death. I beleive this dog was a German shepard.
But because no one was keeping an eye on the little girl this unfortunate accident happened.

---

Ugh that's a horrible story... like an episode of CSI almost... blah. And so pointless. If she'd been properly watched, it never would have happened.

You know, this has me thinking... I live in an agricultural area, and I know a lot about cows, pigs and horses. You would NEVER leave your small child alone and unsupervised with those animals... horses, for example, can be very unpredictable, and could kill a child. So what's the difference, with a big dog? Actually parents should be careful of any animal capable of seriously harming or killing a child! I'm even going to supervise my child with our cat, so the cat doesn't hurt the baby, and the baby doesn't torture the cat... my friend's cat scratched her baby so bad that the child has a permanent scar on his cheek. Yet we never hear about a "dangerous cat" bylaw!

Try searching on the internet for all dog attacks and see what the statistics are. People are more likely to report a bite by a pitbull because they are already scared of them because of the people who train them to fight or just don't train them at all. Take a look at how many other types of dogs attack. How come when humans commit crimes we look at how they were raised and how they were treated and we look for reasons they have become a problem as individuals. And then when a dog attacks or bites you all just say they are bread to be hunters or fighters. If the dog is raised to be a family dog it will be a family dog. If a dog is mistreated and abused, chances are that it will be aggressive, no matter what type of breed. There are no bans on white people because some white people are murderers. I just think that all dogs can attack and bite. It depends on how they are raised. And pitbulls are not more likely to attack than any other breed of dog.

Somebody started a thread asking a technical question on the Ontario ban. Unless there is a long term decrease in dog bite cases, I think that law should be repealed. Those that think it will do any good please raise your hands?

What they are are high energy dogs with not enough spent aggression. People think that having a big yard is enough and you don't need to walk a dog, WRONG! Pits as well as other high energy dogs need walks/runs to use up their energy and calm them down. It's even sadder that the breed is taking the heat and not the owners. I've come across meaner pomeranians and poodles and have been scratched and bitten by more cats than the law should allow.

I own a black chow, who is also a breed with a bad rep. I've had her since she was a tiny black ball of fur, she's now 9 years old and she is a powder puff! Never bitten anyone. She gets along beautifully with my Golden Retriever who is 8 and the new puppy who is 2 months old. I have a very young pit bull mix that I'm working with now. The minute she starts to show aggression I take her out to play and then for a run, the aggression or crying is the only way they have of communicating that they need something. Be it a walk, water, food, or to relieve themselves. At this age she may still be missing the comfort of her mother so I snuggle her in a blankie until she's asleep and put her down. I also have a thick rubber Kong especially for puppies that I stuff with treats occasionally and that will keep her busy and help her with her need to chew. Long walks are best. After that I give her a short training session in certain commands I want her to learn like stay, off, come, take it... She's already potty trained.

My brother has had 4 pit bulls since they were pups and they have all been marshmallows. Never bit or jumped on anyone because they were properly trained and are very submissive. My best friend has a pit bull that belonged to a guy who was mean to him. Hit him, fought him, very negligent. My friend took him home (he already had 2 rottweilers) and introduced them on neutral territory, let them do their dog thing (the sniffing) and they got along just fine. They are all submissive dogs.

I think killing an entire breed is ridiculously ignorant and I don't tolerate idiotic ownership by idiotic people. I think it's a stupid bill. Instead, they need to enforce obedience classes to ALL pet owners. No one should be able to adopt or purchase a pet without first going to training and having all the appropriate tools. The owners are the ones who should be required to have licenses not the pets and these licenses should only be given after proof that the owners have no prior records of cruelty to animals and are financially able to afford not just food and shelter but medical necessities as well.

I think that Rep. Weiselhog or whatever the hell his name is is a dumb jackass looking for brownie points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by momincali

What they are are high energy dogs with not enough spent aggression.

---

That's the part that myself and others have a problem with - the high aggression level.

Hi,
Pit Bulls do have a high Aggression Level, being more Aggressive than some other breeds. I really believe in the saying "There are no bad dogs, just untrained owners".
Any breed can be trained, can be taught to not be so aggressive; not to be "boss" all the time. But, the problem is the owner. If owners do not want to take the time to go to training classes with their Pit Bull and work with them, they should not have one.
The key words are "should not". The law will change it to "shall not" be allowed.
It's a pity some dog owners ruin things for all dog owners. However, that's why laws have to be made. Everyone is not going to do what they should; hence, laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

That's the part that myself and others have a problem with - the high aggression level.

---

The aggression only gets high if the energy is not spent, that can apply to any breed. That's why you see psycho poodles(not picking on poodles, just an example) barking like mad when you walk by their house. When you see a calm dog, it's not just that they are low energy, but it also means they are getting adequate amounts of exercise and are submissive to their owners. They understand the order of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by momincali

That's why you see psycho poodles(not picking on poodles, just an example) barking like mad when you walk by their house.

---

Funny though, you rarely hear of psycho poodles ripping an infant to shreds.

*L* there is NOT a complete ban on pitties in Ontario, we can keep our dogs, they have to be registered, spayed/neutured and muzzled when in public.

A pack of chi's attacked a police officer... two labX's just killed a pom, poodles have more aggression than pits do. It's all in the training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melinda

poodles have more aggression than pits do.

---

Can you provide any proof of that? I'd be interested to see that.

In 2003, 13 years after the ban on 'pit bulls' was implemented, Winnipeg reported 166 dog bites caused by the following dog breeds:

Shepherd cross (38), Terrier cross (11), Rottweiler (11), Lab cross (10), German Shepherd (8), Husky cross (7), Border Collie cross (7), Bearded Collie cross (6), Rottweiler cross (5), Chow cross (5), Lab (5), Great Dane cross (3), Golden Retriever (3), Dalmatian (3), Poodle cross (2), Golden Retriever cross (2), Cocker Spaniel cross (2), Boxer cross (2), Australian Shepherd cross (2), Terrier (2), Pomeranian (2), Chow Chow (2), Boxer (2), Border Collie (2), Samoyed cross (1), Mastiff cross (1), Heeler cross (1), Great Pyrennes cross (1), Doberman cross (1), Dachshund cross (1), Dalmatian cross (1), Corgi cross (1), Akita cross (1), Springer Spaniel (1), Siberian Husky (1), Shih Tzu (1), 'Pit bull' type (1), Miniature Schnauzer (1), Irish Setter (1), Great Dane (1), Doberman Pinscher (1), Dachshund (1), Cocker Spaniel (1), Bull Mastiff (1), Brittany Spaniel (1), Bloodhound (1), Bichon Frise (1), Akita (1).
--------------------------------------------
If I were considering a Standard Poodle...


My major concerns would be:


Unstable temperaments. Poodles are a dime a dozen, and most of them are bred and offered for sale by people who don't have the slightest idea of how to breed good-tempered dogs. Obedience instructors and behavioral consultants see LOTS of Poodles with neurotic behaviors, including aggression, extreme fearfulness, and hyperactivity.
If you have small children, or if you or anyone who lives with you is elderly or infirm, I do not recommend Standard Poodle puppies. The temptation to play roughly is too strong in many young Standard Poodles.



And I know my late grandfather is no expert, he had a pom Kennel, and he boarded dogs also, he would not allow poodles in the yard. Our late pitty was the kindest gentlest dog, but our toy poodle, at age 9 yrs, jumped up from sleeping on my brothers lap (age 15) and tore into his nose, for no reason at all, he wasn't even petting her, this was a dog we allowed to sleep with the grandchildren, my brother received 3 stitches. I like poodles, don't get me wrong, I just couldn't own another, I've very mistrustful of them.

Punish the owners, not the breed please.

Melinda, are you trying to confuse people that have their mind made up with a bunch of facts?

It is interesting that most of them are crosses. Is this a matter of the few problem owners taking what they get free? Somebody is going to have to dig up a big bunch of facts to convince me aggression is a mixed breed problem. I wonder how many non typical purebreds are labeled mixes? A ban is going to be easier to enforce against purebreds. How do you know if a mixed breed really is a Pit Bull? How many of you have looked at https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=22504 Who is to say for sure if the 2 month old Puppy he found really is a Pit Bull?

So has the average number of bites gone down with the ban on Pit Bulls? If not, repeal it.

Melinda, it's interesting that bites by shephard crosses far outnumber bites by the rest of the dog breeds. Yet I have never heard of a ban on shepherds... although where I am living we have a "dangerous dog" bylaw, and shepherds are included in the list.

I agree with you about poodles. I've always found them to be nervous and high strung, and thus more apt to nip and bite. Our next door neighbor has a standard poodle and I am afraid of it when it gets out of the yard.