Pit bull dog murder

[Peter Parts]

A pit bull dog ran out of the woods in a neighborhood park two days ago, attacked a border collie being walked by a grandmother and her pre-school grand-daughter. Collie died. Humans horrified. Police still looking for the dog.

 

It has been a leading news story for two days since we haven't had a murder in the region for several days (about an average one murder a week is typical for this region of 3-4 million people).

 

As of about 5 years ago, you can't keep a pit bull in the province of Ontario. If you have an old one, have to get it neutered if you want to keep it.

 

Ben

[g_frey]

Same happened to our dog but she did not die, just lived in pain for the rest of her life. Knew I should have shot the pit bull when they moved into the neighborhood. They spent $2000 for their truck stereo system but had no money for vet bills??? But don't worry they are all "gentle".

[Antimatter]

I carry pepper spray for dealing with unfriendly dogs when I'm taking mine for their walk.

 

I dislike breed-specific laws. In my experience (worked for a vet clinic in high school) hostile dogs come in all shapes and sizes. I'd be all in favor of a 'no stupid owners' law, but since a majority of the population is incapable of checking their tire pressures, I'm not too hopeful that it would work.

[philbytx]

We have a friend who has a neighbour who HAD an aggressive pit bull,

which the neighbour thought was good for her own protection. Any time anyone walked by her property the dog went nutso and charged the fence. Our friend warned the neighbour about the dog's "attitude" towards people and she said tough. Then, the dog got out and charged at our friend, who had her granddaughter with her on her front lawn.

She quickly pulled out her pistol and shot and killed the dog......

 

[Bud]

I carry pepper spray for dealing with unfriendly dogs when I'm taking mine for their walk.

 

I dislike breed-specific laws. In my experience (worked for a vet clinic in high school) hostile dogs come in all shapes and sizes. I'd be all in favor of a 'no stupid owners' law, but since a majority of the population is incapable of checking their tire pressures, I'm not too hopeful that it would work.

 

Whenever there is an attack by a pit bull, the owners always claim the dog was gentle and harmless. BS

 

Dog are bred for certain characteristics. Pit bulls are not bred to be friendly, gentle, harmless pets. If that is what you want, get a lab or collie.

 

I'm completely in favor of breed specific bans, or at the least, if your pit bull kills someone, you face murder charges.

 

If one of them harmed a member of my family, it would be dead.

 

One mans opinion.

[Bud]

We have a friend who has a neighbour who HAD an aggressive pit bull,

which the neighbour thought was good for her own protection. Any time anyone walked by her property the dog went nutso and charged the fence. Our friend warned the neighbour about the dog's "attitude" towards people and she said tough. Then, the dog got out and charged at our friend, who had her granddaughter with her on her front lawn.

She quickly pulled out her pistol and shot and killed the dog......

Hope someone didn't try to have her charged with animal cruelty.

 

I say good on her!

[Bud]

A pit bull dog ran out of the woods in a neighborhood park two days ago, attacked a border collie being walked by a grandmother and her pre-school grand-daughter. Collie died. Humans horrified. Police still looking for the dog.

 

It has been a leading news story for two days since we haven't had a murder in the region for several days (about an average one murder a week is typical for this region of 3-4 million people).

 

As of about 5 years ago, you can't keep a pit bull in the province of Ontario. If you have an old one, have to get it neutered if you want to keep it.

 

Ben

 

+1

[George S.]

We have a friend who has a neighbour who HAD an aggressive pit bull,

which the neighbour thought was good for her own protection. Any time anyone walked by her property the dog went nutso and charged the fence. Our friend warned the neighbour about the dog's "attitude" towards people and she said tough. Then, the dog got out and charged at our friend, who had her granddaughter with her on her front lawn.

She quickly pulled out her pistol and shot and killed the dog......

Hope someone didn't try to have her charged with animal cruelty.

 

I say good on her!

 

The sad part in stories like these is that the dog was just doing what it's owner encouraged/trained it to do, and it pays with it's life.

[4wheeldog]

The town that is my mailing address (Tijeras New Mexico.....I live in an unincorporated area) has an ordinance banning Pit Bulls. When they are reported, and confirmed, Sheriff's deputies are dispatched, and dispatch the Pit Bulls with a hunting rifle. Seems the wrong kid got killed 27 years ago.

[Bud]

We have a friend who has a neighbour who HAD an aggressive pit bull,

which the neighbour thought was good for her own protection. Any time anyone walked by her property the dog went nutso and charged the fence. Our friend warned the neighbour about the dog's "attitude" towards people and she said tough. Then, the dog got out and charged at our friend, who had her granddaughter with her on her front lawn.

She quickly pulled out her pistol and shot and killed the dog......

Hope someone didn't try to have her charged with animal cruelty.

 

I say good on her!

 

The sad part in stories like these is that the dog was just doing what it's owner encouraged/trained it to do, and it pays with it's life.

 

I agree it is sad. What is more sad is that some human being trained them to do it.

[Peter Parts]

Is there an analogy between keeping dangerous pets and keeping dangerous weapons?

 

Ben

[TyTass]

Is there an analogy between keeping dangerous pets and keeping dangerous weapons?

 

Ben

I don't know ... what not do the study?

[Dave McReynolds]

Is there an analogy between keeping dangerous pets and keeping dangerous weapons?

 

Ben

 

I think the analogy is that 100% of the people who have potentially dangerous pets and potentially dangerous weapons believe they can keep them under control, and only use them for purposes for which they determine they should be used. Well, not quite. There are some insane people and some evil people who have bad dogs and guns, and will use them for all sorts of purposes the rest of us wouldn't agree with. But of the sane, nice people who have bad dogs and guns, we know that fairly often some of them will lose control of them, and innocent people will get hurt or killed.

 

Those sane, nice people who have bad dogs and guns and have never lost control of them don't believe their rights should be restricted because of those who have lost control of them. Other sane, nice people who don't have bad dogs or guns would probably agree if there were any way to tell the difference in advance.

[Marty Hill]

If only the dogs owner was armed. Problem solved.

[LBump]

 

... I'd be all in favor of a 'no stupid owners' law, but since a majority of the population is incapable of checking their tire pressures, I'm not too hopeful that it would work.

 

Whenever there is an attack by a pit bull, the owners always claim the dog was gentle and harmless. BS This remark is a gross generalization.

 

Dog are bred for certain characteristics. Pit bulls are not bred to be friendly, gentle, harmless pets. Another gross generalization made without looking into the history of the breed. It was the number one 'family dog' at one time and now people make statements like this... Wow! I've seen nasty ass Labs and Collie's... why... it's the owner, or lack of training. If that is what you want, get a lab or collie.

 

I'm completely in favor of breed specific bans...

If one of them harmed a member of my family, it would be dead.

 

After reading your response I feel, that you have a few 'dog breed' issues and that you might consider talking to a specialist that deals with dog behavior, psychology and the history before making blanket statements. Your statements bespeaks your mind-set.

 

One mans opinion.

[beemerman2k]

I'm completely in favor of breed specific bans, or at the least, if your pit bull kills someone, you face murder charges.

 

I'd be all for this policy. You are held responsible for the acts of your pet. Murder, assault, whatever.

[taters]

good thing that she did not live in new jersey they would have put her in jail for at least 2 years for carrying a handgun, maybe more since she used it!!!!

[ericfoerster]

I rescued a pit bull many years ago and she was a fine dog. She was a bit nervous at times due to her abusive past, but she was not an aggressive dog. She was protective of family members and she was a brilliant dog who could learn anything in minutes. I was a responsible pit owner and she was never out of my control.

 

This topic, as with others are usually emotionally driven. Wiki posts a study that shows 327 people have died from all dog bites in the past 20 years.

 

I submitt that millions have died because of their diet, smoking, reckless driving, and my favorite...DWI's.

 

Why should a government that can't control their spending, sexual habits, foreign policy, education, or anything that has a meaningful impact on society, be allowed to mandate which kind of dog I can own.

 

I too am disturbed by people who can't control their animals. But I am also disturbed by boom box radios at red lights, people who swerve in an out of traffic, people who don't pay taxes, and so on. I still don't want my legislative branch trying to fix it.

 

Sorry, I don't buy into government knows best in all cases.

 

About 4000 people a year die in motorcycle crashes. I guess big brother should ban those darn things as well. We obviously are not riding them correctly to end up with numbers like those.

 

I am all for the government working on digging us out of this deficit spending trend and raising our education and medical standards a touch before they tackle dog ownership issues.

 

Just another opinion from a pit owner.

 

Ps....if we pit owners get to be held responsible for our dogs actions, shouldn't we hold others responsible for their kids actions too? An interesting concept since the cognitive ability of humans should be a bit higher.

 

 

[Peter Parts]

Ericfoerster's post is very nicely written and argued. But I feel the only conclusion you can come to is the opposite of what he intended: you need some government regulation. The challenge is to recognize that and then proceed to find where to draw the line.

 

There clearly are areas that require government attention (say, food labeling, side airbags in cars, traffic control, always-on headlights on bikes, gun control) and areas that do not benefit from government meddling (in his view, choosing what breeds of dog are dangerous). And there's a gray zone in the middle (say, ABS on bikes, medical insurance).

 

Would anybody say governments always act wisely? Hardly. But why do some people say governments never act wisely?

 

Sure, it's a shame some people can't own the pit bull of their dreams in Ontario. On the other hand, when it comes to useless toys like hand guns and pit bulls, I'm prepared to say, "Too bad. Tough luck."

 

BTW, I think ericfoerster understates how much the character and build of pit bulls contributes to their being dangerous. And, like guns owned by even the most conscientious owner, how easy it is for things to get out of control on just one sad day too many.

 

Ben

[Quinn]

Are there other breeds that are banned as well? And is it only the full breed that is banned, as opposed to mongrels?

 

------

 

 

[Gregori]

Are there other breeds that are banned as well? And is it only the full breed that is banned, as opposed to mongrels?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-specific_legislation

 

Pit bulls can certainly be sweet dogs. They can ALSO be temperamental and unpredictable - even the loving and gentle ones. Almost ANY breed can be raised in an environment to create a vicious specimen, but some breeds are more likely to get 'weird' even when brought up in a loving environment. Sadly, the pit bull (and related breeds) is one of the better known examples.

 

We had a Wolf-hybrid, which also shows up regularly on the 'banned' list. She was one of the most timid and gentle dogs we've ever had, and we rescued her from an abusive environment. In the 16 years she was with us, she never showed aggression of any kind - and had NO sense of territoriality whatsoever. But we had issues with home owners insurance nevertheless. We also had a Rottweiler/Boxer mix, also a very sweet disposition.

The only dogs that we've owned that concerned me with regard to other peoples safety was a lab mix - who did NOT like strangers or other dogs at all; and a Australian Cattle Dog that did not adjust well to our son when he was a baby. (We euthanized the lab mix after a couple of unprovoked attacks on other dogs in our household, and the ACD went to a new home where there were no babies.)

 

 

[Mike]

I'm crazy about dogs. Back in my early career I worked with a variety of military working dogs and, more recently, I spent several years working with our golden retriever as a hospital therapy dog. As Greg notes, there is no doubt that certain breeds have much different characteristics. That is, after all, how we ended up with the wide variety of dogs who do everything from herding sheep intuitively to homing in on a downed duck to retrieve it.

 

I've known some might fine pit bulls in my life, but they are clearly among the breeds that require a level of mindfulness with respect to possible aggression. No doubt, though, that the numbers are also skewed by the fact that any number of dumbasses raise their pit bulls to be aggressive.

 

The problem that I see with breed-specific regulation is that the government tends to get these things wrong, generally targeting entire breeds without regard to the fact that the vast majority of those animals are not aggressive. This is also complicated by the fact that decisions such as these--as with any number of issues (gun control, for instance)--tend to be driven emotionally as the press relentlessly pursues a "disturbing trend," no matter how hard they have to dig, and sometimes fabricate, evidence to support their agenda. Weak-minded legislators happily trip down the path of excessive, and often utterly illogical, legislation that "fixes" problems.

 

I tend to think that the better approach is to ensure that owners remain legally accountable and that individuals who abuse their animals pay a heavy price. I guess it comes down to a philosophical viewpoint; in my case, I think individual accountability is generally the best approach, as opposed to relying on the wisdom of legislators and bureaucrats to fix what are, ultimately, isolated incidents with a broad shotgun approach.

[tallman]

I wonder if there is a corellation. between those who don't. own weapons and being a victim?

Last time we had the bad dogs thread

much data and info on various breeds and bites and deaths.

more than Pitts involved.

I've owned all the listed breeds

dobies, shepherds, rotties, wolf hybrid,

et al.

but not a pit.

decades ago they were a popular family pet.

now breeding and training have created some bad dogs.

unfortunate. outcome and the good ones

are treated the same as the bad ones.

many insurance companies Will react negatively to owning certain breeds due to enormous costs of each claim

trying to remember but I think in the area of $40000 and billions every year

 

going home to play with my Anatolian...

[Peter Parts]

Are there other breeds that are banned as well? And is it only the full breed that is banned, as opposed to mongrels?

------

My poor recollection is full or part pit bull. No other breeds named but then I suppose owners of all dogs are liable for harm with or without a specific law.

 

For example, if a thief broke into your house and took a gun that you left unsecured, should you be liable for consequences of its use?

 

It's complicated with dogs... but that is no reason for the government to shy away from doing its blunt best to address the hazard.

 

Here's the rest of the public information on the bill:

 

Ontario dangerous dog legislation summary

 

Ben

[4wheeldog]

Is there an analogy between keeping dangerous pets and keeping dangerous weapons?

 

Ben

 

One difference is that a dog can go "Off" all by itself. This can be both a good thing, and a bad thing. I never felt the need for a firearm in the house when I had my first dog, a Giant Shnauzer mix. He was more than the equal of any man, and was smarter than many people. I never had to worry about intruders, while he was alive and present. He was wise enough not to bother anyone that he shouldn't.

 

Now I have Jack Russells.......They give more than adequate warning, but are not physically intimidating. So I back them up with a 12 gauge.

[Quinn]

Looking at the legislation, one thing stood out for me:

 

"•There are no exceptions made for:

•Tourists

•People moving to Ontario, or

•Military personnel being transferred to Ontario postings."

 

Tourists? So I drive up from middle America for my Canadian vaction in my mobile home and suddenly see a sign "Welcome to Ontario, no Pitbulls beyond this point." and I have to turn back? Or, as is more likely, there is no sign and I just get arrested for violating a local restriction?

 

Just seems like a gotcha unless it's well publicized or restricted at the border before entering---like guns.

 

 

-----

 

 

 

[LBump]

 

going home to play with my Anatolian...

 

Have fun with that big boy...

 

 

[DaveTheAffable]

I think the analogy is that 100% of the people who have potentially dangerous pets and potentially dangerous weapons believe they can keep them under control, and only use them for purposes for which they determine they should be used. Well, not quite. There are some insane people and some evil people who have bad dogs and guns, and will use them for all sorts of purposes the rest of us wouldn't agree with. But of the sane, nice people who have bad dogs and guns, we know that fairly often some of them will lose control of them, and innocent people will get hurt or killed.

 

Those sane, nice people who have bad dogs and guns and have never lost control of them don't believe their rights should be restricted because of those who have lost control of them. Other sane, nice people who don't have bad dogs or guns would probably agree if there were any way to tell the difference in advance.

 

"Bad" gun? Bad Gun! No Milk Bones for you tonight!

 

There is NO way you can compare this to a gun...

Have you ever seen a gun tear thru a screen door, run into the street, and shoot a child... ALL ON IT'S OWN?

I love the discussion, but there is no comparison.

 

Let's talk about dogs.

[Husker Red]

 

Caption: The "tall athletic blonde" Fred met through an online dating service wasn't quite what he expected, but she was a fantastic dancer!"

 

[Gregori]

I had a friend some years ago with an Anatolian - she named him Amok.

 

So every night when she took him on her jog she was...

 

Running Amok.

 

(Seriously!)

 

 

[taters]

Well ,you have to tell me where I am going wrong

Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the country. They also have the highest murder rate , by guns .in the country. Wash dc just as stringent gun laws. Also a N

out of control murder rate. And I live in new jersey , but I would be very circumspect while traveling through Newark or Delaware.

A Chicago man had to take his case to the supreme court,because he was not allowed to own a handgun and was tired of being burgulariized. gun laws don't work. But tell me what I'm missing. I'm open to see where I'm going wrong

[Kathy R]

....and that relates to dogs, how?

[taters]

Sorry Kathy you mistunderstood my reply. my point was banning breed specific dogs are a waste of time. If a community bans pit bulls , people will purchase fila brasileiros , a much more dangerous breed, ban filas and people will get cane corsos, ban them and people will get American mastiffs. And on and on. Banning breeds does not work.

I mentioned gun laws as it is a valid analogy ..banning them does not make a community safer. E,g. Wash dc ,Chicago etc

I only drew the gun analogy because other people contributing to this thread mentioned guns in their posts.

Now your response to my post was not caustic , but it certainly was not conducive to a dialogue. So I can only say I won't post on this subject anymore and I would appreciate your not removing my response so other people can see I was only trying to make a point and not trying to be antagonistic in the least

[Kathy R]

Now your response to my post was not caustic , but it certainly was not conducive to a dialogue.

 

taters, I seemed to have hit a nerve, and while that was not a goal, the outcome evidently was conductive to dialogue.

 

 

[SunHunter]

This may cause some to disagree, but here goes. Dogs, regardless of breed, are animals like horses, cats, mountains lions, water buffalo, etc.. Some would argue man, but we can discuss the supposed presence of a soul and conscience in humans in a different topic. As a child I learned animals are not here to be abused or mistreated, but then again they are not HUMAN BEINGS. They are similar to weapons or tools, much like a mule would have been during the early 20th century. Nor do they enjoy the same protections afforded to the species Homo sapiens (mankind). They are like a hammer or shovel, only as good as the hands they are placed into, and just as replaceable.

 

If a tool proves itself to be too dangerous to be used, except in the hands of an individual properly trained in its use, it may be outlawed provided it is not covered by the US or state constitutions (such as 2nd amendment).

 

Remove the emotional attachment to "Fido" and it truly becomes a non-argument except for the freedom to own issue. If a car/dog is known to be, or a reasonable person would expect it to be, faulty/dangerous and causes the death of another the manufacturer/owner of the car/dog can be held liable for the death (ford pinto anyone).

 

The person at the end of the dangerous product/animal MUST be held accountable AND accept ALL responsibility for its use and or abuse. Excuses are just that and have no place in adult conversations about human life and death.

 

I have had far too many encounters with those who wish to "show me" how cute and adorable their "baby" is. Thanks but no, not interested, and by the way a 20 foot retractable leash is not an acceptable means of control.

 

I carry a "baby" during all my jogs, hikes and outings as there are those who do not wish to treat others as they wish to be treated. Funny, most dog owners never find my "baby" cute either and would find it even less so at the end of a 20 foot retention device. I don't allow my "baby" into their personal space uninvited, so don't let a dog get in mine uninvited. It is their animal not mine and I do not appreciate it trying to smell me, jump on me or even approach me (no I don't find your Yorkie cute). It is called COMMON COURTESY(something rare today), it can be learned the easy way or the hard way while they try to figure a way to stop the rapid leakage.