Letting off some steam

[hheldorfer]

Idaho makes an excellent point. Standard issue for a drug house in my neck of the woods is a pitbull or rott or combination of the two, usually inside a badly-fenced yard and usually with owners who do nothing but fulfill the basic requirements for keeping their dogs alive. The owner may have a minimal amount of control over the dogs but wouldn't lift a finger to stop them from lunging and snarling at any passersby. After all, that's the whole point - to keep people away from the house. It's usually these dogs who jump the fence or somehow manage to escape and wreak havoc on some poor person who happens to be in the vicinity.

I drive through a not-so-nice area every morning on my way to work and there's always a sign or two posted on telephone poles advertising pitbull pups for sale. I've seen pits wandering around loose and, although I normally would stop and make an effort to catch a stray dog and return him or her to the owner, I won't go anywhere near these dogs because I don't know what kind of life they've had. I applaud the animal control people who go out and catch them day after day, exposing themselves to these more-likely-than-not vicious dogs. I also have the utmost respect for the city workers who are called upon to dispose of dead pitbulls, casually tossed into an alley after losing a dogfight.

Just as responsible dog breeders carefully select dogs with desirable characteristics for breeding purposes, I imagine backyard pitbull breeders select dogs for their aggressiveness and fighting prowess, turning what can be a wonderful breed into monsters.

[Tuesday]

I work for a hospice organization. You ask any home health aide/nurse in our organization that the dogs they fear the most when doing a home visit are the small, little, coddled dogs. And as risk manager, I see more incident reports of staff going into the home and being bitten (and since I've worked there, it's been about 4 times) by small dogs. Not one of our staff have been bitten by any large breed dog, and we live in an extremely rural county where pit bulls are bred and used for hunting purposes (and other stuff, too, I am sure knowing the demographics here).

I went looking on the humane society website some time back, and there were a lot of terrier mixes, cairn mixes, zhu mixes - and every single picture they dog looked like a pit bull.

[Lynn in TN]

The difference between the small dogs and the pit bull though is their size and strength. Pits have amazing strength. I would be terrified to see one mad at me. At least a little dog can be dealt. I have never seen a pit bull attack anyone and I never want to.

You know Kelly only weighs 13 pounds and I am amazed at how strong she is. I can't imagine what damage she could do if she was like a demon. As of yet I haven't seen her mad at anything. I have however seen what she can do to a sturdy stuffed toy and it makes me thankful that she is a little sweetie with a soft mouth where humans are concerned.

I don't know what could be done about these bad people who harbor these bad dogs but I wouldn't want them to start a ban on any breed as it could eventually become a ban on all breeds.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Lynn in TN

[Idaho Cairns]

I'm also not sure what can be done with or to careless Pit owners--there are a whole bunch of factors in play that simply prevent any specific answer--many if not most of these people aren't the most responsible members of society. However, just because we can't find easy answers in dealing with these owners does not mean we should try to deny the serious danger these dogs represent by trying to minimize with statements like "It isn't the pit bull but the owner!" Well, yeah your right but does not mean we shouldn't, when a clear danger exist, pass ordinances outlawing these dogs in our communities--if we cannot and will not deal with the bad and careless owners we can at least create a blanket condemnation of the breed(s) most likely to be a problem. That is not illegal discrimination--breeds do not have "rights" in our communities. Further the argument that we will open the floodgates to other breed restrictions if we restrict the most dangerous breeds is simply nonsense--I know of no community, following bans on dangerous breeds, that have gone beyond those few breeds. I think most citizens understand there is a real difference between toy breed nipping and Pit Bull ripping--I'm sure somewhere in the long history of man's

relationship with dogs that a Jack Russel has killed a human but that is not a fear we should reasonably have. Yes little dogs bite humans with more frequency simply because there are more of them and they are much more likely to interact with visitors in our homes--most big dogs with any history of biting humans rarely come in contact with strangers because big dogs with a bad history are isolated--for all the right reasons.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Idaho Cairns

[josie&holly]

Pit Bull Terriers are illegal in the UK.

Though this story highlights the issue here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/pets/9391766/Lennox-the-dog-humanely-put-to-sleep.html

[hheldorfer]

Yes little dogs bite humans with more frequency simply because there are more of them and they are much more likely to interact with visitors in our homes--most big dogs with any history of biting humans rarely come in contact with strangers because big dogs with a bad history are isolated--for all the right reasons.

Very true. The perception is that small dogs are cute little cuddly toys and people tend to think they don't pose a threat. I understand why the hospice nurses (mentioned in a previous post) may have been bitten more often by small dogs. The dog is already on edge, aware that something is gravely wrong with his or her master. Then a complete stranger comes into the house and "accosts" the master. I'm not defending the dog for biting but, looking at it from the dog's point of view, it's understandable.

[remltr]

I know several pit bulls and their owners. These particular dogs are the sweetest dogs you could ever know, huge and playful as any puppy could be. I know a rotti who is also the same way. And it is all due to the owner being responsible in training the dog on how to act properly. If anybody should be banned it is the irresponsible owners who allow their dogs to be aggressive, regardless of breed. Unfortunately that is not going to be an option.

On a side note, yesterday I took Sassy up to the dog park. It was practically empty, 80 degrees around here and people think it is too hot. Anyway on the way in, I met a women on her way out and she reported to me that there were two dogs, a pitbull and german shepherd without tags or owners, running around loose, although not supposedly aggressive and she had not seen them for awhile. Within about 10 minutes we left the park based on my own inate fear of loose dogs that I don't know and not under owner control. I am a big guy who candle most anything, but I was not going to risk Sassy's well being or my own on the remote possibility that something could happen. Had this lady said that these dogs were labs or beagles, I would not have given it another thought. I allowed the reputation of a small percentage of pitt bulls to affect my thinking and actions.

[Hillscreek]

http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/dog-fighting/breed-specific-legislation.aspx

Here's what the ASPCA thinks about the legislation suggestions.

Many cities and municipalities have bans on owning pit bulls. Anecdotally I have heard that where there is a ban some have begun to use the Dogue de Bordeax or the Dogo Argentino for dog fighting. Using these hugedogs is a very scary escalation of the problem.

[Idaho Cairns]

I agree with the ASPCA's "solution" to breed specific legislation that all the below is true and solution should be implemented.

"

What’s the Alternative to Breed-Specific Laws?

In the aforementioned study, the CDC noted that many other factors beyond breed may affect a dog’s tendency toward aggression—things such as heredity, sex, early experience, reproductive status, socialization and training. These last two concerns are well-founded, given that:

• More than 70 percent of all dog bite cases involve unneutered male dogs.
  
• An unneutered male dog is 2.6 times more likely to bite than is a neutered dog.
  
• A chained or tethered dog is 2.8 times more likely to bite than a dog who is not chained or tethered.
  
• 97 percent of dogs involved in fatal dog attacks in 2006 were not spayed/neutered:
  
• 78 percent were maintained not as pets, but rather for guarding, image enhancement, fighting or breeding.
  
• 84 percent were maintained by reckless owners—these dogs were abused or neglected, not humanely controlled or contained, or allowed to interact with children unsupervised.
  

Recognizing that the problem of dangerous dogs requires serious attention, the ASPCA seeks effective enforcement of breed-neutral laws that hold dog owners accountable for the actions of their animals."

Now all the ASPCA and the Centers for Disease Control needs to do to make a really effective argument here is to tell us exactly how they propose we "hold dog owners accountable for the action of their animals" when most of these people aren't responsible for anyone or anything in their lives. Few "responsible" people can own Pit Bull or other dangerous breeds because most insurance companies will not issue homeowner's policies to people with these dogs--so if you own a pit bull, chances are you don't own a home and there is no insurance that will cover any tort you commit resulting from the ownership of one of these breeds.

Everytime I read these "Bad On Breed Specific Legislation" articles the argument always goes the same--"Doesn't Work!" (yes, as a matter of fact "it" does work--fatalities from dog bites are down in communities that have legislated these ordinances) "We Should 'Get' the Irresponsible Owner!" Yep--good luck with that! "We Need to Neuter All Dogs!" Go ahead and try to pass that ordinance in your town and see what happens!

The problem with trying to protect the breeds while going after the "bad owners" is that we really don't do either because we don't go after the bad owner(s) in any effective way, they continue to own and abuse these vicious breeds, and the vicious breeds continue to maim and kill and that creates more mealy mouthed babble about "It's not the dog's fault!" which even if true, saves no life and the reputation of the pit bull and other vicious breeds continue to spiral downward.

All the ASPCA does in making "profound" pronouncements like the above is make us feel better about ourselves--we have someone human to blame, the dog remains the innocent aggrieved party, and we really don't have to do a thing! When was the last time you saw any ordinance or law that punished a dog owner enough for harboring a dog that killed a child?

[hheldorfer]

The problem is that you can't punish someone for owning a dog who "might" hurt someone; you have to wait until that dog maims or kills and then punish them. In effect, "closing the barn door after the cows are gone" as my dad used to say.

We're very big on individual rights and homeowners rights in this county which, overall, is a good thing. But sometimes these rights offer too much protection, in my opinion. We had an incident involving a pitbull a few years ago in our neighborhood. The owners would leave the dog tied up in the front yard for hours on end, with the dog barking and lunging at anyone who passed by. One day another neighbor's Schnauzer got loose and wandered into the pit's yard and the pitbull killed the Schnauzer. There was much uproar about it but nothing was done because it was the Schnauzer's "fault" for trespassing. The pitbull still lives in the neighborhood but is no longer tied up out front and I've noticed that the dog is always muzzled on walks now. Muzzle or not, I go the other way when I'm walking Buffy and Ziggy and I see this dog in the vicinity. I shudder to think what would have happened if it had been a child who wandered into the yard.

[Lynn in TN]

We haven't had a bad problem with dog attacks in our area, but we do have leash laws that are not enforced. It would be no different if we had a dog ban. The people that are good to their animals obeys the laws the ones that aren't good to their animals don't. The little girl that was attacked by the Lab is doing well, the dog was put down as I believe it should have been, the owner is waiting for trial I hope he has to do time.

This is the first dog attack that I know of in our area. Maybe we haven't had much of a problem because we have the authority to put down any animal that comes into our yard or one that makes us feel threatened. We can also call 911 if we see a dog in distress or being mistreated in any way. 4 people are waiting trial for leaving a Pomeranian tied to a tree with no water. By the time the neighbor saw it and animal control got there it was to late it died. I hope they do time.

I do think it would help if we could do something about the dangerous dogs before they hurt someone.

A dog ban in our area would not be a good idea. The people in our area very stubborn and set in our ways and don't like being told we can't have something on our own land. I would be afraid that people who would never think of having a pit bull would get one just because they were told they couldn't.

[volvoblue]

I am new here. I have a pit bull mix living next door to me and he is a total scaredy cat. His bark sounds nasty but, in reality he hides or shakes when new people come around.

I think the breed themselves are nice dogs if brought up properly. The problem seems to be that Pit Bulls were for a very long time hyper bred and trained as nasty dogs. They got a bad rep and are still being over bred and trained as killers.

Our local animal shelter has tons of pit bulls and hardly any other dogs for adoption. It's overflowing with pit bulls.

I personally am not attracted to them so I would never adopt them. Plus which ones were taught at some point to be killers? I have a two year old and a two month old granddaughters. I am leery because of what people have been doing to this breed as well.

Its sad because these dogs were not bad, they were taught to be.

[cairnsby3]

Remltr, I'm not a fan of dog parks, but I wouldn't let my dogs loose in a park where there were any breed of dog loose without owners present. Here in Illinois the solution seems to be since they can't enforce the laws on the books, make new ones that they also can't enforce but would hurt responsible people if they could. The cost in my county to register an intact dog is outrageous, and the vet has to charge it when you get your Rabies shot. This is supposed to stop, intact dogs from running loose and breeding. So now not only is the dog running loose, not fixed, it isn't registered and hasn't had a current Rabies shot! Just saw where a neighboring town passed an ordinance that you could only have 3 pets because people were complaining about loose cats. Why were the cats allowed to run loose? Were they ferrel? Who knows, but a responsible person can't have more than 3 indoor pets. Ok off my soapbox.

[hheldorfer]

Cairnsby, you'd think there would be some allowances made for people like you who have show dogs and/or are responsible breeders. I understand the reasoning behind the law in your county but it isn't having the intended effect.

Our city ordinance allows only 2 dogs per household; I'm not sure what it says about cats. Conversely, though, here was the solution to the colony of feral cats living in our neighborhood: They were all humanely trapped one weekend, taken off to be neutered/spayed, and then re-released into our neighborhood. Huh??? They are a menace, digging in people's gardens to poo, screeching in the middle of the night and killing the birds that we feed (not to mention driving the dogs crazy).