Dog owning is a serious responsibility that people are wildly reckless with.
It’s past time for the state to step in. The supply of dogs needs to be controlled, with all animals not intended for breeding being spade or neutered before being adopted.
Down. wild is what you’re looking for. This was a pack of wild dogs. Maybe they were owned by someone but this is wild dog behavior. The owner should not only be charged with manslaughter and multiple assault and endangerment, but also some charges for having dogs in a way to do this.
No dog owner would condone any part of this and it’s irrelevant what breed the dogs were.
These were not wild dogs. They were owned. The breed of dog is important for understanding aggression in dogs. Denying that is literally sticking your head in the sand to avoid factual information you don’t want to hear.
Aggression in any dog breed is 100% on the human responsible for the dog.
Ban Pitts and then scratch your head a few years later when you hear about the German Shepherd attacks, ban the German Shepherds and then wipe the drool from your mouth while you read the article about the uptick in Rottweiler maulings the year after.
You can play wack-a-mole all you want, the rest of us will focus on achievable solutions.
Dog species don’t up their attack trends in response to other species falling behind. If pits are banned the attack rates of other species will remain about the same: much lower than pits.
I see, so all those tough guys that like to get lots of dogs for home protection. Never walk them. Never train them. Forget to feed them. They’re going to move on to the Rottweiler and that dog breed will luckily be uniquely suited to handle those circumstances and will turn out fine, not aggressive at all.
Aggression in any dog breed is 100% on the human responsible for the dog.
Funny how 99% of the people responsible for dog attacks own pitbulls and not another breed of dog. It’s almost like this is a multifaceted issue that you’re being reductive about to fit your narrative.
You don’t have to be obtuse about “blame” here. If you own a dog, and it kills someone, it is your fault, sure. Not all breeds are the same though, since the vast majority of fatal dog attacks come from a single problematic breed that ought to be rightfully blamed for the danger they introduce to the community.
That blame should be used to restrict the right to own Pitbulls as a form of harm reduction. Just as a gun control advocate isn’t trying to absolve gun owners of responsibility for their actions when they lobby to regulate unnecessarily dangerous guns, a pitbull critic isn’t trying to absolve dog owners of responsibility for their dog’s actions when they lobby to regulate unnecessarily dangerous dog breeds. It’s all about minimizing human casualties.
Okay fine, Rottweilers too, the only other significant fatal attack risk.
#3 is German Shepherds, but Pit Bulls and Rottweilers are 18x more deadly, so probably not too much regulation needed for those good boys. They truly are most dangerous in the hands of bad owners, unlike the first 2 which are known for sudden catastrophic violence.
After that things aren’t really a problem outside of Pit Bull and Rottweiler mixes. Some smaller dogs are an even bigger bite risk, but basically a zero death risk so not really the urgency to address that any other way than case-by-case.
The data is pretty open and shut, no game of whack-a-mole is needed. We already know which dogs are lethally dangerous. Other countries around the world have solved this problem successfully. We’re not in uncharted territory, and we would save hundreds of lives annually by unconditionally banning Pit Bulls and Rottweilers.
I think we should compare dogs and cats to good pets to own, rather than pretending the choices are “big powerful dog” and “environment destroyer 3000.”
After all, both are safe in theory, but irresponsible pet owners ruin it. You can’t expect everyone to correctly take care of certain dog breeds, you can’t expect the majority of cat owners to give up the “proud to roll coal” attitude towards their cat + the environment.
Cats that are allowed to go outside are an absolute menace to small wildlife. They hunt and kill to play, so no matter how well fed they are they will still do it, and they are quite good at it. This is why only indoors cats are allowed on some islands with a fragile ecosystem
By roll coal types I mean people who feel indignation when told they’re doing something harmful to the environment. There’s usually a bit of eye rolling involved.
Yeah the comment you replied to is hyperbolic for sure, but even as a cat person I can see where they’re coming from. At the very least a lot of cat owners have a hard time recognizing the (iirc, scientifically proven) fact that the average outdoors cat kills a lot more small wildlife than they would ever require to survive, and by these numbers, it doesn’t take a ton of them to have a noticeable impact on an ecosystem, especially if you take into account the fact that they usually easily outnumber their natural predators since they are such a popular pet.
That’s because they kill in different ways. Cats are more like Rogues - you get a scratch one day and then later you’re dying a slow painful death of Cat Scratch Fever, or silently end your pregnancy with Toxoplasmosis.
Dogs on the other hand are more like Barbarians, they just brute force your death in person as fast as they can.
I know someone mauled by a cat and was there when it happened. It was quite dramatic. My friend had an old lady cat who was an absolute bitch, she was an interesting character if she liked you, would usually hiss and hide if she didn’t. Friend brought home his girlfriend, cat got jealous and attacked her while they (the couple ) were naked in bed. She was quite torn up, and I was in another room when it happened, was hearing loud music then suddenly screeching then screaming then this naked bloody woman comes running out of the bedroom.
So now you have at least one story.
I will say I am a cat person with dogs, much more than a dog person, but if housecats were as big as dogs, they would be more dangerous than dogs.
There were 12 of these angry dogs, though. Not one trusting dog in a cinder pit. I don’t know if Noem would have been able to handle it even with a gun.
Everything has some rate of death. That doesn’t make it reckless. Are you saying anyone who owns another dog or who rides a bikes or who has a tree in his yard or who cooks food or who performs surgery which leads to someone’s death should also get [5–10 years in prison] no matter what?
I’m saying you are responsible for your actions and your property.
If you drive drunk, or negligently shoot someone there are serious consequences.
If you ride a bike recklessly and smoke a pedestrian there are consequences.
If your tree falls on your neighbors house there are consequences.
Edit Surgeons have malpractice insurance and can still have charges brought against them based on their behavior.
Edit They aren’t always the same consequence, because society has determined a responsibility level with each type of action.
I believe if you have a dog capable of killing, and it does so, it should be as if you killed. Same as drunk driving. The specific charge may not be murder, that varies by jurisdiction.
Cox said about a dozen dogs went after Williams' three children....
No one needs to own a dozen dogs, outside of niche cases like service dog training programs. Certainly no one should have a dozen "pet" dogs. Clearly an irresponsible owner situation.
Afaik the max here is 6, if you have more, you need to be registered.
Anyways this incident must be the responsibility of the owner, he has not secured his dogs properly. Obviously they all need to be put down, and the owner should be tried for manslaughter IMO. What the law says however IDK.
Maybe some sort of causing death through negligence.
Edit: just looked it up, the max is 4 adult dogs. More is considered a kennel and requires permission. (Denmark)
I have a golden and she’s awesome and gentle. That said, I had heard because there’s so many goldens, they are the number one dog for total number of dog bites on children. I guess even a golden has their limits and a kid can find that limit unerringly.
We all need to agree that pits are at the very least a very advance dog for an owner, they need extra care and training. They should never be dogs just anyone can get.
I don’t get why people think one breed is worse than another. I have had Rottweilers, bullies, staffies, most of these “dangerous” breeds.
They have all been very good dogs, some I would say were some of the most gentle giant type dogs I’ve had, because I didn’t train them to be aggressive.
Just because a bully dog tends to be owned by a twat that likes to kick it and encourage it to attack other animals doesn’t mean all dogs of that breed are the same.
You can tell me all day that YOUR Pitbulls is sweet and docile and wouldn’t hurt a fly, but I don’t believe you or trust you, keep that animal away from me and any children in sight
About 75% of pit attacks are by dogs with “good” owners and a general docile disposition. They undergo the PBMS (pit bull mental snap). This is why in most cases the owner is gobsmacked that their dog did such a thing.
Attacks by bad pits or pits with shitty owners are actually the minority.
My friends that are pit owners are always freaking out about how the breed is stigmatized.
I don’t personally have a problem with pits, but yo: an aggressive pit is a far bigger problem than some terrier. There are some awful dog owners out there; a fact reinforced by the heaps of dog shit I see on the sidewalk outside of my job. Those same people are supposedly training a powerfully bred canine to not be an asshole by checks notes being neglectful. Cool
Assault Rifles were completely illegal until 2004. Since then mass shootings have skyrocketed, with the majority being committed with Assault Rifles.
If you want to make an argument about something, you should probably know what you’re talking about. I am arguing that we should go back to the way things were in 2003 when you could not legally own an assault rifle without significant credentials.
Assault Rifles are a bad idea, and do more damage than good. Same with Pitbulls. None of this “individual responsibility” bullshit, I want less dead people.
An irresponsible owner of a golden/newfie/GSD/dobie/St. Bernard/whatever can kill you too, it’s not the dog breed’s fault that idiots are attracted to them.
That’s disingenuous, especially with the livestock guardian, rescue, and hunting dogs you listed - precisely because those were the traits selected for when creating those breeds.
Even GSD and Dobermans don’t carry the specific risk that Pitbulls do, because their jobs require behavioral traits that are very different than dog fighting.
Yes, all dogs carry some risk, especially large dogs, and exponentially when combined with a irresponsible owner.
Yes, pitbulls can be extremely sweet and affectionate dogs, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were intentionally bred to be the best in class breed for dog fighting
Do you believe that pitbulls are the only working dog breed whose characteristics and behavior is completely independent of the selective breeding process used to create them?
Again, I like pitbulls, a lot, but that doesn’t mean I can disregard the science of dog breeding.
So…Pitbulls were bred for a purpose, just like all other working dog breeds.
That doesn’t mean they’re all inherently dangerous dogs, but it does mean they carry significantly more risk then other breeds.
Unless you actually believe that they’re the only working breed not created by selectively breeding for specific hereditary behavioral characteristics?
Mind you, I actually like pitbulls, but that doesn’t mean I should disregard what I know about the breed itself and why they were originally created.
Also FYI that article is about personality, not breed specific characteristics.
The article is not conclusive. There are always going to be outliers in a case by case basis.
From the same article:
“Still, after decades of treating, showing, and judging countless breeds, AKC’s chief veterinary officer, Jerry Klein, disputes the study’s conclusions. “I think most dogs conform to the personality standard of their breed,” he says.”
Add comment