I agree with everything meghane said.
I also believe that every owner should be held responsible for the behavior of their animal. If a dog gets loose, attacks and kills. I think owner should be charged with Homicide.

Eandhl - Yikes! First, I truly hope you did not get this idea off the Law and Order they ran a few weeks ago. While this show is entertaining, they have few accuracies when it comes to the legal system.

Charging a human with homicide for an act commited by their animal while out of their contral has far to many variables. This is not to mention that "homicide" is defined as "the willful killing of one human being by another."

The variables could be many, I will list a few:

1) Many aggressive animals are rescued and then worked with to be made into non aggressive animals. I have seen many "miracle" cases regarding this. What if there is a natural disaster (i.e. tornado, etc.) and the dog escapes and kills someone. Should we really lock up the owner.

2) What if your pet dog escapes and kills someone because it is provoked? Should you then go to jail?

3) What if your pet dog escapes and is wounded, in turn becoming frightened and aggressive. It kills someone who is trying to help it because it knows no better. Should you go to jail.

4) What if my Jack Russell gets loose and becomes frightened. When an elderly women tries to help her, she bites her hand. The hand becomes infected and she dies. Should I now go to jail?

I have to agree with its the PEOPLE not the Dogs!
Owners MUST take responsibility for thier pets Chihuahuas or Mastiffs! And as far as strays go that is the responsibility of the area residents to contact Animal Control and Animal controls resposibility to contain the animals and seek and persue the people responsible for thier release.

Personally I have a Black Lab ...Black Lab...notably a friendly breed..great with kids...and mine is Friendly..but only if I've introduced you and said you are ok! If you just walked into my house uninvited I truely believe she would bite you! I am very very concious of her property and family protectiveness and have adjusted my household to protect her and unknowing strangers. She is in a strongly fenced yard when outside and trained that that is where she must stay when outside, she is under leash control when out on a walk. There are Beware of Dog signs on my property and I carry one in my car too!

Our dog is well trained...when I saw the tendency to become protective in her when she was just six months old I actively persued giving her good command training and she is very very well trained ...but it would be foolish of me to think that that cured her protectiveness...the tendency will always be there...and to some extent that is good...when alone I never have to worry about someone breaking in or attacking me in the wee hours of the night...I have a very good secureity alarm.

Now Annie, a 10 year old and weighs in at 75# and she plays and romps with my 4# chihuahua, she cuddles my 1year old great grandson, she romps and wrestles with my 16 year old grandson.

She will bark like crazy if you come to the door...she will growl she will bare teeth ...a stranger is at the door..as I approach the door I tell her sit then Leave it...and she will sit and watch me answer the door...still on alert...If your someone I want to invite in ...I say GREET and introduce you to Annie...then you might have to beware that she is going to lick your face or try to sit on your lap!!

Truely I feel that I was meant to have Annie...who contrary to popular belief is a Lab that isn't real friendly until I the leader of the house or my husband or any other person who is welcome in my home tells her it is okay.

That is part of RESPONSIBLE pet ownership!
Knowing your pet, properly controling and Training your pet.

People should also train thier children not to run up to, touch or pet animals without permission. Just as you would train your child not to run up and grab a strangers hand or take candy or talk to a stranger without talking to you first ...children should be taught not to approach or touch dogs or cats without first asking permission.

Okay thats my thoughts about it..do what you will with it!

another thought ...git rid of all Dogs large enough to kill????
Then the blind and disabled could seek chihuahuas as service dogs.

Police could trap criminals with min pins.

Alaskans could have sleds pulled by beagles

and hey ...maybe we should just get rid of all dogs...after all a 4# chihuahua could do a lot of harm to a 6# newborn baby!!

I hope you not the sarcasm in my typing!

Now seeing as more people are killed in cars than by dogs I think we should out law motor vehicles too...

And now about that bird flu...lets wipe out the birds on the planet..and there are alligator attacks...lets get rid of them and there have been people trampled by horses..
yeah yeah they got to go too!

Oh the list goes on and on...I think we should get rid of all creatures and technology that kills...oh..darn guess I'll have to get off the computer because its operated via electricity...and ya know there have been people killed by that..electrocuted. Yep gotta go ..see ya!

Plastic, you can't ensure anyone propery raises their children not to become murderers. Do you think the human race should be eradicated then, because we're all capable of doing absolutely horrible things to eachother?

Zeroing in on something incredibly minor in the whole scheme of all the horrible things in the world that happen to people, is rediculous.

Lets just cripple everybody, so they're incapable of murdering. And we'll pull out every animals teeth. And all wear masks, god forbid we get any viruses or diseases. And stop procreating. And eventually we'll all die naturally and happilly and the world will be saved from our horrible selves.

Dogs are not a real issue in the world. Theres much more important things for people to concern themselves with.

"However, you believe since this cannot be ensured that the breed of Pit Bull should be eradicated. "

No,I didnt say they should be eradicated.
But we need a liscense to drive.
Maybe people who want breeds known to be vicious should
have to go through more training and then get some sort
of liscense?
I dont think they should be allowed in places where people must be in close contact with each other though.
For instance,I live in a apartment.While my apartment doesnt allow dogs,the one next to us does,and often these breeds are walked right in front of where I live.That isnt fair to me because I cant sit on my porch and not be scared.

So, you are scared when a person walks a dog on a leash on the sidewalk in front of your apartment. And you say those people should have to go through some training.

It seems to me you also need some training, then. I have several friends and relatives who are scared of big or aggressive breed dogs. I have two, a Rottwelier/German Shepherd mix and a Lab/pit bull mix. All those friends or relatives, except one, have little problem coming to my house and sitting in my living room---with the dogs in the room.

I would be scared of loose, unsupervised dogs that exhibit unsocialized behavior. I have participated in hunting feral dog packs, worked for a vet, and had numerous jobs entailing meeting dogs in yards/on the street. I do not understand being scared of a dog on a leash----especially when that dog does not even acknowledge me.

Well, agreed, it would be good for ANY dog owner to be required to have a license, regardless of breed. Any dog can become a monster, at the hands of a bad owner.
Just as people should have to go through some sort of formality before they can have children.

There are some sick and twisted people out there.

Getting rid of the breed will not solve the problem. Thats ignoring the problem and taking the easy way out. And it will just turn into another breed, and then another, and then another. Until 4 pound fluffy down the street is your next worst enemy.

Banning the breed is good for nobody, and if anything in my opinion only exasperates the problem. You ban the breed, and then guess what? The only ones that still exist are the ones that are trained to fight and be viscious because people are illegally obtaining them. And then the entire breed will be completely ruined forever.

These dogs are NOT the problem. It's just far easier to take away the tools people use to be monsters themselves, than deal with the actual problem. And probably a lot easier to say the dogs are the problem, than admit that our own kind is the worst thing on the planet.

You have a far better chance of being shot, hit by lightning, falling out of/struck by a car (depending on the level) and on and on and on, on your porch, than being attacked by a pit with it's owner.

I suggest everyone here search out pitbull videos on youtube, and see if you still believe the breed is the problem?

Humans use little PUPPIES as bait dogs, to train adult pits to fight. They set them on fire, for their own amusement. They starve them. Fight them young. Chop their ears off themselves. Abandon them. If the dog is too kind/laid back/gentle to fight, they KILL them.

Can you blame the dogs treated like that, for turning on humans??

Pitbulls went from being war heroes, to what they are today. Guaranteed it didn't happen by it's own devices.

Reports on dog attacks rarely clarify or even mention the dogs upbringing, level of obedience, health condition, owners etc etc. Guaranteed these dogs are NOT the dogs winning agility trials, serving as the TOP narcotics dogs in the country, faithfully serving as service dogs. Saving their families from break ins, fires, alerting people when their owners go into shock. It's the ones who are mistreated, or neglected.

Punishing pitbulls (or any breed) for what WE have done to them, is not fair. We are capable of many more horrible things than any breed of dog could ever be. We need to pull our heads out of the clouds and face the REAL problem. This would has a 'people' problem.

Ignorance is bliss.

"So, you are scared when a person walks a dog on a leash on the sidewalk in front of your apartment. And you say those people should have to go through some training. "

I do not have a fear of all dogs,I love dogs. Some of the dogs being walked are not on leashes,and some exhibit aggressive behavior.When they see me or my child they look at us as though they would attack. So I tell my child to never approach them.
I mentioned in another post the awful exprience I had once when my daughter was just a baby.3 large pit bulls not on a leash spotted us getting out of the car and chased us full speed to my front door. My mom had the door open and just as I got in she had to slam it on their faces.I shudder to think what could have happend to my child had we not made it in time. The apartment complex in fact had a "NO pitbulls allowed" rule,but many people blantly broke this rule anyways.
All I'm saying is,a lot of the wrong kinds of people are getting these kinds of dogs. A law should be made so that one must obtain a liscense to have them~and then ENFORCE IT.At least that is one idea that could be helpful in the situation. I'm not saying kill them all.I dont think they are all bad. But I know what I see on a everday basis~which is the wrong kinds of people owning them.Something should be done.

Plasticgarden - You did, however, say that, "I dont think they should be allowed in places where people must be in close contact with each other though."

What I take from this quote, as it was slightly unclear, is that you believe that Pit Bulls should not be allowed in areas where they may come into close contact with other humans, such as an apartment complex. You mentioned you ar afraid to sit on your front porch because of these dogs being walked by. Really? Do you really believe this? Do I truly live in a society that where there are people that want to resort to Doggie Segration?!?!

Second, do you ever travel in or around an automobile. You have a far greater chance of being injured or killed an auto related accident vs. injury or death caused by a dog.

Also, do you ever go out during a storm? You also have a greater chance of being injured or killed from a lightening strike then a dog!!

It is to become heated about a topic and form uneducated opinions based in personal experience. It is far more difficult and demanding to research said topic and form your opinion on actual facts. However, I believe, it is far more important to do so.

"Really? Do you really believe this? Do I truly live in a society that where there are people that want to resort to Doggie Segration?!?! "

Yes,in apartments I do believe this. Smokers who want to take the risk of smoking now can no longer do it in public places.Because of the "possible" risk to non smokers. Is it too much to ask that people who choose to take the risk of having dogs known for aggression also not have them around people who would rather not have that risk?

Why is it I cant have my opinion that people with those dogs should get a liscense for them? I think that is more than fair.I never said they should be killed.I should get some credit for at least thinking up another option besides one way or the other! I'm not saying my way is the way~but this is how I feel,and your darned right personal exprience is a big factor.
Secondly,you dont know where I live. It is not a great area to begin with.Then we have these people who shouldnt have these dogs runnng rampant to prove how tough they are.
I'm sure there are many responsible owners who do have these dogs~unfortunately,where I live is not one of those places.

So you are suggesting placing a law on all people that stating that they cannot not take these aggressive breeds out in public. You are suggesting this based on your individual limited experience & your geographic location. You really don't see that this is a little extreme. Especially since the facts show the risk of injury/death is not that great in comparision.

It really dissapoints me when I see people in our society suggesting laws without actually thinking them through. Yes, in theory licensing for breeding is a great idea. However, I am guessing most would not support the local tax hike that would be needed to fund this program. It would be counter productive to have the licensing fees steep enough to totally fund said program. Most would not be able to afford it.

In either scenario, the responible breeders will pay their fee and obtain their license. And the backyard breeders will continue to do just that! Then those who purchase these animals for less then desirable causes will not care if they are being obtained ilegally.

As far as the Doggie Segregation law. Again, this is a situation where there are far too many variables. You don't want them allowed to even be walked through apartment complexes. How about subdivisions, parks, public streets, etc, etc.

I understand you have a fear from your personal experience. However, you have to realize, that this is not the general consensus. To place a restiction on all based on a handful of humans fear & a small actual risk factor is certainly not fair and just!

What about all the people that are on foot and hit by an auto. Surely they have a fear of that reaccuring. However, they do not have the right to demand that all people should not be allowed to drive cars in the areas they are. Even, if they live in an area that is known for a high rate of dog accidents.

Also, lets not forget the more heated issue of gun control. I am sure we can all agree that it is not the gun that causes injury/death, but the person controlling it. This is the same when it comes to aggressive dogs. So, I assume all in favor of erradicting the breed are also in favor of a firearms ban considering the risk!

As for plasticgardens suggestion of licensing dog breeders. Yes, guns must be licensed. However, that certainly does not stop those who are not allowed to have guns from obtaining them. Why would this be any different?

Btw, if you let me know your state I can check the stats of dog injuries/killings vs. population and let you know what your risk actualy is...

Like I said, it is only fair to base laws on fact and not personal experience as that can be very biased. When a scociety starts placing laws on it's people based on undocumented fears we become no better then those who supported slavery.

I think it is unfair to say only potentially agressive dog breeds, should be banned from apartment buildings and the like. If you're going to ban one, ban them all.

I do not believe ANY pets should be allowed in small apartment complexes. This for me is a mixture of things. A) too many animals in a small building can cause complications. Smells. Allergies, in small buildings. And of course, just your general if someone hates dogs or cats, it hard to get away if your 8 complex building has 6 in it.

As for people chosing to take the risk of having agressive dogs, not being around others who chose not to have that risk. That is YOUR issue. Their apartment is their home. They can do whatever they would like, in their own home, it is NOT public property.

And what about people who are afraid of all dogs. Should we cater to their fears too, and just ban dogs all over the place?? Or what about someone who had a nasty run in with a border collie, is it fair to ask no one have border collies in public areas anymore?

I have a hatred for red vehicles. Almost every accident my friends and family have ever been in, have in some way involved a red car. Whether it be their own, or the other persons. Would you think I would be justified in saying anyone owning a red vehicle should need extra licensing? Or they should be banned on heavily used roads?

I know for a fact in all those accidents, it was caused by irresponsible driving, and certainly not the colour of the car. I have my silly superstitions and will not buy a red vehicle. But does that mean no one else should either??

You're more likely to be killed by a red car, than a dog.

Oh, another point is this:

When training a dog there is one sure thing that can be done to help ensure that your dog is not aggressive or overly scared of the public.

Socialize, Socialize, Socialize.
And then socialize some more!

If dogs (espicially those that are aggressive or have aggressive tendencies) are not allowed in public areas that means less socialization. Which, of course, only exasberates the situation.

It is important for dogs to not only be socialized with friends/family, but in a variety of situations.

Plasticgarden, you had a bad experience with dogs that were not leashed. So now lets take an aggressive breed dog that has escaped from it confines. It has never seen a truly public situation because of your new regulation. This dog is now terrified and going to act out like most dogs will when frightened.

Not only do I own an "aggressive breed" (Doberman), I also own a Jack Russell Terrier. If my JRT had not been socialized as a puppy she would be far more likely to bite. This breed has a very strong personality and is not for the novice dog handler. The more frightened she is, the more likely she is to bite. By socializing her I created a dog that is calm and comfortable is public situations. I took this puppy everywhere I could and now I have the luxury of doing so whenever I want without fear of her biting.

As I said, if you take away the ability of the dog handler to introduce their dog to a variety of public situations you will most certainly only make the problem worse.

I think that Plasticgarden should be able to sit on her own patio and not fear a passing aggressive-looking dog. Solutions may involve landlords allowing fencing around individual patios, stricter enforcement of leash laws (I would bet where she lives they would laugh if she called the police to report a dog being walked off its leash), or the practice of having pepper spray on hand to use if she needs to snatch up her child and make a hasty retreat into the house.

It seems that more education (for Plasticgarden to increase her earning potential) and work to overcome whatever barriers to advancing economically keep her in this neighborhood are the only things she can count on to stay safer. It is a shame that in some areas residents have to hope for this kind of advancement (get rich and leave) in order to feel safe from attack. I do not for a minute think that she is exagerating the situation. I know that big, aggressive dogs are prized by some people who feel powerless in other ways. I am not sure that there are any solutions for this in a capitalistic society. I don't know what can be done and understand her desperate stand of wanting to "outlaw" these dogs that make her neighborhood unsafe.

"So you are suggesting placing a law on all people that stating that they cannot not take these aggressive breeds out in public."
No,that is not what I'am saying.I dont care if people take their dogs in other public places.I just would rather not have to deal with it in my own space. For all the reasons
munkos listed about their shouldnt be ANY dogs allowed in apartments.Currently,no dogs are allowed in my building,but that doesnt stop others who live nearby from bringing them on the property.
Nancyinmich~thank you for trying to see where I'm coming from. I live right between Baltimore and Washington DC. The crime here is very bad.The only reason I havent tried to move is beacuse I have family here,but my husband and I want to move and take our daughter somewhere nicer to grow up at.Of course that takes planning and money.
I'm sure the problem isnt nearly as bad in less citified areas.

I'm not sure if a liscense law would be expensive or not.It depends how they go about it. It is just a suggestion. Either way,something has to be done or these dogs COULD be banned in the future. I dont want that because some are nice and the owners are responsible. That is why I think it is important to not see it as a black and white problem,but grey.
I'am an animal lover,I always have been.But I strongly feel that if something isnt done,it hurts the dogs as well because they are being mistreated by these owners. I know it is not their fault.

I know someone who owned a pit.It was kept in a fenced in doghouse outside almost 24 hours a day.The dog became severely hyper because it was never allowed to run and be free.then it became mean and aggressive. One day it got out and killed the other dog that also lived there...
very sad.But I know it was not the dogs fault.Still,this person who owned the dog had no business having it to begin with.
Anyways,the pit was killed because of what it did to the other dog.
The dog didnt deserve it,but no laws to protect it from a bad owner,or to help screen the owner and what could be done? The animal humane society cant really do much in these cases unless obvious abuse or neglect is present.

So instead of pointing fingers,which I'am not doing,why not try to think up a way that will help both the animal and the people being attacked by them?

Plasticgarden, remember that the elderly man and the woman jogger were in a rural area when they were attcked and killed by the American Bulldogs. I read that the woman was alive when found, and died at the hospital. I can only imagine the searing pain she felt and the fear she suffered before she died. Stupid people neglecting dogs that need a lot of work can be anywhere.

I have an acquaintence who works to help people in a poor nearby city by giving them help with their animals. She will try to explain to people that a dog needs vet attention, or needs the area around their doghouse shoveled out. She also does the shoveling when that is all she can do. Thing is, she will sneak back at night and steal the most abused and neglected animals. I feel this is wrong, but there is nothing else to do. No law enforcement is available. She is helpless to change the neglected dogs' lives any other way at times.

Well,although many would say that is wrong,it is certainly valiant to try to save the animals.

If only the laws were harsher for people who didnt take care of their dogs than maybe they wouldnt even have to consider this ban.

Yes, I agree it is ideal to try to create soluctions for this problem. However, posting ideas on the GardenWeb Forums does not do much. If you feel truly passionate about your ideas you should start a ballet to have your proposition on your next election. Until then...

In my eyes the risk of being injured/killed by a dog is so minimal (as I've stated, you are more likely to be struck by lightening) I find it far more important to sink my time and money into more real issues. Gun Control, Medical Research, Health Insurance Programs, Environmental Conservation and (of course) abused and neglected pets.

The reality is, Plasticgarden, that you fear being attacked by a dog on your front porch because of your personal experience. However, again, you & your child are far more likely to be struck by lightening. Considering your geographic location, as you are aware, you are far more likely to be hurt by another human while sitting on your front porch then a dog. Lets not forget, if you travel by any auto you are far, far, far more likely to be injured or killed then by a dog.

Life is about calculated risk. Why are you willing to take these other risks that are far greater, yet remain stuburn in the belief that these dogs should not be allowed in public areas no matter how minimal the statistical risk?

Nancy, I think your friend is right to take those dogs. If the owners won't listen and still mistreat and abuse the animals, and there is no agency to remove them from the situation, it would be wrong to leave them to their fate.

Yes, I agree it is ideal to try to create soluctions for this problem. However, posting ideas on the GardenWeb Forums does not do much. If you feel truly passionate about your ideas you should start a ballet to have your proposition on your next election. Until then...

In my eyes the risk of being injured/killed by a dog is so minimal (as I've stated, you are more likely to be struck by lightening) I find it far more important to sink my time and money into more real issues. Gun Control, Medical Research, Health Insurance Programs, Environmental Conservation and (of course) abused and neglected pets.

The reality is, Plasticgarden, that you fear being attacked by a dog on your front porch because of your personal experience. However, again, you & your child are far more likely to be struck by lightening. Considering your geographic location, as you are aware, you are far more likely to be hurt by another human while sitting on your front porch then a dog. Lets not forget, if you travel by any auto you are far, far, far more likely to be injured or killed then by a dog.

Life is about calculated risk. Why are you willing to take these other risks that are far greater, yet remain stuburn in the belief that these dogs should not be allowed in public areas no matter how minimal the statistical risk?

Huh, I wonder why my message posted twice?

Plasticgarden - How about this for a law:

The owner of an aggressive dog must keep the dog in a secure fenced area. When out in public the dog must have a muzzle on and be restrained.

This doesn't unfairly place laws on an entire breed and allows for aggresssive dogs to be socalized (as they most certainly need to be) without placing the public at risk.

How do you feel about that?

Who determines what constitutes an aggressive dog? If a chihuahua bites at peoples ankles---does that law apply?

Who enforces that law?

Point is this---there are enough laws currently on the books---making more does little if anything to ameliorate the problem.

I have two aggressive dogs---both aggressive breed mixes and aggressive acting---because their first job is property protection. I socialize them to a point---any person invited into my house is safe---as long as those persons follow a set of rules. The dogs will bark at kids running along the sidewalks and screaming---but not if they just run---or just scream. Reason---the neighborhood kids teased the dogs by running and screaming. If I invite the same kid(s) who were just getting barked at into my yard, they are safe---as long as they follow that set of rules.

More laws will not force people to do that kind of training or exercise that amount of control---but getting law enforcement to apply the existing laws can make those problem better.

"Huh, I wonder why my message posted twice?
Plasticgarden - How about this for a law:

The owner of an aggressive dog must keep the dog in a secure fenced area. When out in public the dog must have a muzzle on and be restrained.

This doesn't unfairly place laws on an entire breed and allows for aggresssive dogs to be socalized (as they most certainly need to be) without placing the public at risk.

How do you feel about that?"

Actually,that does sound like a very good idea.

Handymac - Thanks for starting to make my point! :-) In many situations we don't need new laws because better enforcement of the current laws could help resolve the problem. Although, I do have to disagree with you about not needing new laws. Certainly as the times change we need our laws to grow too. 50 years ago we didn't need laws regarding the internet or identity theft. Obviously today we do.

In Maryland (which I believe Plasticgarden lives) the law I mentioned is already on the books. I think the law answers all your questions Handymac. If you would like, for further clarification, I can post the definitions.

"Title 10. Crimes Against Public Health, Conduct, and Sensibilities. Subtitle 6. Crimes Relating to Animals (Refs & Annos). § 10-619. Dangerous dog

Summary: This Maryland statute outlines what is a "Dangerous dog." As defined by statute, it is a dog that, without provocation, has killed or inflicted severe injury on a person, or it is a potentially dangerous dog that bites a person, when not on its owner's real property, kills or inflicts severe injury on a domestic animal, or attacks without provocation. An owner of a dangerous dog must keep the dog securely enclosed on his or her property or must muzzle and restrain the dog. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $2,500."

Personally, I like this law. It seems fair. It targets dogs that are known to be agressive and leaves the rest alone. It protects the public from danger, while protecting their citizens freedom. However, it appears that this law is not enforced (as most animal laws are not). And the $2500 fine is laughable. You can't get water from a rock.

Plasticgarden, the main reason I have a hard time with your original proposition is that I have an "aggressive breed." I own a Doberman Pinscher. I obtained him through rescue, he was abused. As unexpected as it may be, when Dobermans are abused they do not become mean. They become frightened and submissive. In general, Dobermans are a very sensitive breed. They do not like loud noises or yelling and tend to leave the room when these are taking place.

I am so grateful to have my Doberman. He is the sweetest, most gentle dog I have ever known. I am glad that we were able to rescue him and provide him with happiness and love for the rest of his life. He loves people and going for walks and rides in the car. He loves being in public areas and meeting people.

It saddens me that some would not want him to have this happiness. He hasn't done anything wrong and is a perfect angel in public.

I believe that there will always be bad people in this world. I don't think any amount of laws or education will change that, only restrict it. Unfortunatly, people always have and probably always will use animals for deviant purposes.

There are two great books about dog bite fatalities for anyone interested in reading them. I believe both are by Karen Delise. Fatal Dog Bites and The Pitbull Placebo.

Sadly Platicgarden living in a less citified area does not end having problem dogs. We have several neighbors that let their dogs run loose. One pair of them charge you while walking and have frequently tried to bite my leashed dog. The other pair has put another neighborhood German Shepherd in the vet clinic for a week. We also had to fence our property, over five acres,with chain link fencing to keep them from chasing our horses when we first moved in. The breeds involved? Boxer, Australian Shepherd and Rat Terrier.

Most of my jobs have been working with animals in some capacity and I can tell you that most people are very ignorant of dogs and dog behavior. It really speaks volumes for dogs that the vast majority go thru their lives never causing any problems at all. There are laws on the books that if enforced would be fair to owners of all breeds. If as some people want tho, Pit Bulls are banned there are othere breeds on the horizon to take their place. Cane Corso, Fila, Dogo Argentino and others. Then we're right back to where we are now.

Lisa

The Adams,
You have an interesting understanding of statistics. Does say, a nursing home resident who never goes outside have the same risk of death by lightening as an avid golfer? Of course not! Did Diane Whipple have the same risk of death by Cane Corso as someone in a San Francisco apartment building who did not live on the same floor as the two Cane Corsos? If someone lives in a community with a high incidence of undisciplined, large, bully-breed dogs, they DO have a higher risk of dog attacks. It is just common sense. Berating someone for having a justifiable fear is not at all helpful.

A big problem I have with all of the vicious dog stories is that the actual breed is often mis-identified.

Just as an example.... Diane Whipple was killed by Presa Canario, not Cane Corso

The neighbor's pug was loose last week and bit a child - thre times. Three people stopped me on my daily walk to warn about the "big black pit bull" At least they got the color right!
If someone lives in a community with a high incidence of undisciplined dogs, they DO have a higher risk of dog attacks. Your two extra words/phrases ....Large and bully-breed... don't have nearly the impact on statistics as loose and un-trained.

I don't own bullies myself because they're too small (short) and ANYTHING with terrier in the name from JRT to staffies and APBT is not my first choice. I prefer the taller breeds from the working group- in particular the livestock guardians - many can be "dangerous" or "vicious", but no more so than any other dog who is not under the complete control of its owner.

Now, if you'd like to talk about banning cocker spaniels ................

This what I'm dealing with here. A 17 month old baby was attacked by a puppy pitbull in the face while holding a cookie. The dad had to fight the dog off and was also bitten. The family had just adopted the pet a few months earlier.
Here is the link:
http://www.foxbaltimore.com/newsroom/md/topstory/topstory4.shtml

But this example isn't a pit bull problem. It's a dog problem, irregardless of breed. The headline could have easily read Weimaraner attack - I have aquaintances with a 3 year old bit in the face because the Weim went for the PB&J being waved around. Dad was bit when he went to rescue the child as well. Are Weimaraners next on a banned breed list? Sorry, I blamed the parents for this one and still think it's a shame they euthanized him because they couldn't be bothered to neuter and/or train the dog and CLOSELY supervise interactions between the dog and children. Lassie is a fantasy; dogs are living, breathing creatures with teeth and people have no business owning dogs if they can't come to terms with this.

Unsupervised child + food + ANY dog not under control= a bad thing happening

When a bad thing fails to materialize, it is not because the dog is a golden instead of a pit. It's because the humans got lucky.

I am not disagreeing about banning dogs. It will not help to ban any breeds of dogs. I just can't understand why plasticgarden is expected to not be afraid of dogs that appear to her to be out of control in her apartment complex.

I could not remember the name of the lady in San Francisco who was killed by the dogs (or the breed, obviously), did a search, and found a site that gave the wrong breed name. It really does not matter. As people have repeatedly said, it is the behavior of individual dogs that causes problems, not the existance of one breed or another.

Nancy,

First off, a Statistic is a set of possible values for a random variable together with a probability measure defining the likelihood of said values. Anotherwords, statistics don't take into account individual variables as you mentioned.

Don't be silly. I don't have an "interesting" view on statistics. I simply stated them as they were, a national AVERAGE. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet, considering Plastic's location in Maryland, she certainly does have a greater risk of being injured by an automobile then by a dog. Also, keep in mind, a person that never goes outside is not an "average" person and is certainly an individual variable.

Also, I never belittled Plastic's fear, not once. However, I think it is unfair to expect new laws and/or regulations to be created based on one persons fear. I take that back... It is unfair to create laws based on fear alone, PERIOD. It is this type of mindset that leads to segregration, etc.

I'm not sure if you have read all my posts on this thread, but I introduced my statistics long before Plastic entered the debate. Yet, since you want me to be fair and address her geographic location:

Maryland 2004 Statistics:

Persons killed by dogs: 0
Fatal hunting accidents: 1
ATV-related fatalities: 9
Bicycle-related fatalities: 10
Persons drowned in tub or swimming pool: 19

I would also like to address the People v. Knoller case regarding the mauling and death of Diane Whipple in which you state that she was more likely to have been killed by a dog then others because she lived on the same floor as the 2 Perro de Presa Canario's that killed her.

I have to disagree. I believe she was more likely to be killed then others because she lived on the same floor asa couple of sicko's! People who obtained their dog from a kennel named Dogs 'O War, which was shut down in 2000 by prison authorities! Not only that, their adopted son is a convicted killer and a reputed leader of a prison gang called the Aryan Brotherhood. Upon a search of his cell they found pictures of his adopted mom, Marjorie Knoller, posing nude.

Dale Bretches, former cell mate of Knoller's adopted son, was a participant in the Dog 'o War Kennel. When his kennel was shut down in 2000 by the authorities the remainder of the dogs were distributed to family members & friends of prison inamates.

Regarding the 1 of the 2 dogs that Knoller obtained, Bretches stated during an interview with Sgt. Akins, "We were going to rid of that dog.... He never showed any signs of what we wanted out of the dogs.... We didn't think he responded to the training"

In addition, Sgt. Akins testified by affidavit that he had seen letters to Knollers adopted son that described sexual acts between Knoller, Noel and 1 of the 2 dogs (Bane).

This is not to mention that these dogs had bitten before. and that Knoller/Noel were both warned by their veterinarian that the dogs were dangerous.

It is painfully obvious that these dogs were breed for agression and then abused.

Perhaps a parapraxis on your behalf, you stated "Did Diane Whipple have the same risk of death by Cane Corso as someone in a San Francisco apartment building who did not live on the same floor as the two Cane Corsos?" This statement leads the reader to believe that it is the dog and furthermore the breed that is to blame for the death of Whipple.

Rephrased (more appropriately so, IMO), did Diane Whipple have the same risk of death by irrespnsible pet ownership as someone in a San Francisco apartment building who did not live on the same floor as Knoller & Noel?"

Sorry to drag this on, but considering the number of actual dog attack fatalities per year it is a rare occurence. It is just our sensationalist media that makes it seem like a much greater risk then it actually is! Too many people in our society believe everything they read or see on the news and form strong opinions without actually researching the facts.

Plastic stated she didn't think bully breeds should be allowed in public. As I have stated, I own a bully breed who is sweet as bug and does not deserve this unjust regulation to be executed on him. As the majority of bully breed dogs don't!

As Handymac said, what then constitutes and bully breed dog. Would you consider a Labrador, German Shepard, Great Dane, Husky, Akita a bully breed? All of which have been involved in more attacks against humans causing bodily harm then the Doberman!

I agree that we something needs to be done. However, not the eradication of a breed or large breeds. Nor do I believe in creating laws to restrict these breeds.

We need better enforecement of our laws and harsher consequenses for the ABUSE of these animals!

You don't seem to understand that I am not arguing with you about whether the dogs or the people were at fault. I am just saying that in a discussion of a certain circumstance (ie: an apartment in Maryland where threatening dogs are walked past a patio, or an apartment in San Francisco, living next door to threatening dogs), it is a misuse of statistics to say that the person's chance of injury is equal to the national average risk of that type of injury. Not even if you use that city's statistics, or that county's statistics. I contend that quoting statistics at people in these situations is unhelpful and sends the message that they are wrong in their perception of their risk.

The adams, I agreed with you that all bully breeds should not be killed. I thought the muzzle idea in public was a good idea,in fact it is a law being considered here in Maryland (at least that is what they said on the news.)However,first the dog must be addressed as dangerous,and I'm not sure how they go about doing that.

I believe you are right with your statistics,however,death is not what concerns me the most. It is just like what happend to that baby...who is now probably going to have scars and be disfigured for life.Do you have a statistic for how many are attacked and have serious injury?

And I'm not all to concerned with dobermans myself. As it may be wrong, what I dont care for is PITBULLS. At least in Maryland,everytime you turn on the news it is another pitbull problem. I have also had my own encounters with pitbulls that made me not like or trust them as a breed.

"Also, keep in mind, a person that never goes outside is not an "average" person and is certainly an individual variable. "
I'm not sure if this is directed at me,but I'am outside all the time.

Nancy,

You must be misunderstanding my arguement. I do not have a problem with Platic's fear. I myself am afraid of heights. No amount of statistics or reasoning is going to change that.

However, what I am against, is the fact that Plastic thinks laws should be created that restrict the freedom of certain breeds. She wants this law created based only on her fear and not that of fact.

This is where statistics have a very prudent place in this debate. Laws should never be based on fear, especially not one persons fear. Laws should be based on fact. The fact is fatal dog attacks are extremely rare and dog maimings are not that common either.

Restricting these breeds from socialization only perpetuates the problem.

Furhtermore, Plastic went on to say that she did not necessarily want these breeds banned from all public areas, just her own space. However, she lives in a apartment complex. Plastic's solution was to have a law to ban dogs from all public places to eliminate the problem in her apartment complex.

This is a fear based conclusion she has come to and is hardly fair.

Cheers - Sarah

Plastic -

The comment regarding not going outdoors was directed to Nancy who stated that a person in a nursing home who does not go outdoor does not have the same risk of being struck by lightening as someone who goes outdoors, etc., etc.

Actually, as I already posted, my "idea" is already a law in Maryland. It can be found under, "Title 10. Crimes Against Public Health, Conduct, and Sensibilities. Subtitle 6. Crimes Relating to Animals (Refs & Annos). § 10-619. Dangerous dog." You can reference my above post for more info on this law.

And yes, the dog would first need to be deemed dangerous, that is only fair. It is not just to punish those that have not commited a crime. Human or Animal.

To answer your other question, from 1982 - 2006 their were a total of 1323 maimings against humans caused by dogs in the US. That is an average of 55 per year.

On the contrast their are 6.5 million car accidents in the US per year.

Again, you mentioned what you see on the news. The news is about sensationalism. Do you hear about each individual 6.5 million car accidents on the news. No way, that's old news. But dog maimings, now that's exciting, that gets a response. It certainly has from you. However, dog attack fatalities and dog maimings are RARE!

I understand your fear and I understand that you live an area that has aggressive dogs on the loose. However, I do not believe the answer is more laws. We need stronger enforcement of our animal cruelty laws and stricter consequences. We need to protect these poor pups from getting into the hands of sicko's like Knoller & Noel. (Knoller and Noel, by the way, were only banned from owning a dog for 3 years after their release from prison. THREE YEARS?!?! They should be banned from owning a dog for the rest of their lives) We need to protect them from being beaten, tethered, starved and then beaten some more.

Only to have those who should be protecting them, turn on them and say that we hate them and they should be gotten rid of and not allowed in my area. Well, my friends, in my opinion we are the ones that have failed them.

On a side note: Plastic, it looks like you are not actually reading all of my responses to you. Please (and I mean no disrespect by this) if you are going to take the time to respond, please take the time to read the posts you are responding to thoroughly. I know this is not a formal debate forum, but it is the nice thing to do.
:-)

Cheers - Sarah

Wow,I have read all of your responses to me.Not sure how you came to the conclusion I dont. So I dont type like I'm a reporter and am often tired when posting here so I forget some stuff.
From what I heard on the news,the muzzle law IS NOT YET A LAW. They said that when they mentioned the child being attacked. So I dont know where you got your info,but everything on the internet isnt always true either! Unlike some people,I never claimed to know it all.
In fact,I think I'm done debating here. You seem to continue to want to twist my words to your liking when I have changed my opinion on the matter and thought I made that clear. So maybe YOU are the one who isnt reading what I post.Have a nice day.I'm done.

I'm sorry Plastic, that you have taken offense. That was not my intention, I also was not trying to twist your words. If I misunderstood something you said, then it is your responsibility to set me straight. At this point I am not sure what you are referring to. Apparently if you have changed your mind on a matter and I was still adressing it inappropiatly it needs to be adressed. Again, I understand this is not a formal debate forum so non of this can be truly expected.

I received my impression that you were not reading the posts based on the fact that you thought I was speaking to you about the not going outside issue when it was clear I was speaking to Nancy. It was clear because I specifficaly addressed her. In addition, you also stated that the "muzzle law" was being considered in Maryland. I thought I had made it fairly clear that it was already a law based on the fact that I listed the Title and Code of the law!

I am usually the first to say you can't believe everything you read on the internet. However, you must recognize that you cannot believe everything you see or hear on the news either!

I am not sure how to make it more clear then posting the actual Title & Code that cites this a law. If it is found in the Maryland Codes it is most certainly already a law. It can be found under:

Maryland Code, Chapter 10: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, CONDUCT, AND SENSIBILITIES

Subtitle 6: CRIMES RELATING TO ANIMALS

Code § 10-619: DANGEROUS DOG

I do realize that you said you were through, but if you have a moment please address what it is that I have misinterperted. I would love to know your actual thoughts on the matter espicailly if they reflect anything I have posted.

Thank you - Sarah

The following opinion is not directed at any one person specifically.

Most people form opinions and beliefs based on information they recieve. Many times the information is incorrect, biased, slanted, flat wrong, or intended to decieve.

Therefore, when a person forms an opinion or belief based on that kind of information, they cannot formulate an opinion that is feasible.

All of us have opinions based on incorrect facts. That is an unfortunant fact of life.

The problem intensifies when we are presented with better facts and we do not modify the opinion/belief to accept those facts. Scientists often have the same dilemma---they were taught the speed of light cannot be overcome---and are faced with facts indicating that is untrue---and they refuse to even consider the new facts.

Emotional issues---like animal attacks---are seldom reported with all the facts---leading to incorrect opinions on every report. I know a person who is so convinced pit bulls should all be done away with, thay will no longer discuss the issue. They are right---and EVERYONE who disagrees is wrong. Period. I also have known people who beilived Rottweilers were the same----30 years ago when that breed was being blamed much like pits are now.

And Dobermans before that-----.

I know some dogs are dangerous---in my live I have dealt with two dogs who attacked me. I killed one---as it was on the sidewalk and I had no other recourse----- and the vet for whom I worked and I managed to handle the other with only superficial bites. The breed???? Cocker Spaniels.

Rationality seldom enters into it.

The adams~
Ok,I will try to explain my position here. I DO NOT THINK "DANGEROUS DOGS" or rather ones the media claims are dangerous(pits,rots,dobermans~what have you) should be banned from all public places based on my fear. Maybe that is what I first posted, it was more my feeling they not be allowed in apartment complexes. Many are not already. I feel this way for all the reasons that MUNKOS posted about ALL DOGS in apartment buildings.

If you re-read post number 44,which is by me,I tried to say I do not think these dogs should be banned in public anymore.I got offended because you kept posting to Nancy that is what I wanted,when I said I didnt.I was just throwing around ideas about what could be a possible solution (like having a liscense to get these dogs)

I dont doubt you believe that the muzzle thing is already a law. I was just telling what they just said on the news though,when that baby was attacked.They said,that the law was being considered.I paid close attention because while I was watching I was thinking of what you said on this forum.
What they said about the law was not listed in the link for the article about the attack I provided,but on the actual news at 5:30pm. So you see,it is not that I dont believe you,I'am just confused as to what is really true.Why would the news say that if it was already a law? Unless it is a law in some parts of Maryland but not all???

I honestly did not come here to really debate,because I dont claim to know what is best.I came to post my opinion,which has changed,and to gain information.I certainly NEVER expected a law to be made about banning these dogs in public based on just my fear alone.That would be ridiculous.However,I'am quite sure I'm not the only one with the fear or this would not even be a discussion.

Perhaps people with criminal backrounds should not be allowed to own these dogs. I say this regarding what you have posted about the Diane whipple case...which I do remember hearing about a few years ago.Surely that would not be a bad idea for a law.I think most would agree that convicted murderers not be allowed a dangerous dog..or ANY for that matter.

Plastic,

Thank you for clarifying and I apologize that I offended you and misunderstood what you were saying. That certainly was not my intentions.

In post #44 you said, "I just would rather not have to deal with it in my own space." Since you live in an apartment which is not your own private property & had already stated that dogs are not permitted residence in your complex I thought you were saying that you wanted people banned from walking their dogs through the apartment complex. This seemed off to me since I own my home and still can not ban people from waling their dogs down my street.

Now I see that you just meant they should not be allowed to live their. This I agree with, very few people have the time needed to devote to a dog that is deprived of a yard, especially a large dog.

I also totally agree with the idea that convicted felons should not be allowed these large breeds. These people are not allowed to carry a gun and to many deviants these dogs are just another form of weaponry.

I watch the news regularly and I watch it give inaccurate information almost daily. The news is part politics and part human, therefore it is only reasonible to expect inaccuricies. To the contrary of what most believe, the news is very biased.

The law I found in Chapter 10, Subtitle 6 is found under the Maryland State Code for the entire state.

Again, I never tried to belittle your fear and I know that you are not the only one with this fear. I was only trying to shed some light on the topic. With the media and all its sensationalism it is easy to have the impression the a problem is much larger then it actually is.

Again, Plastic, I truly did not mean to offend you. I see now that you were not here to debate. However, at the time, I took your position as part of the debate.

Thanks for reading!

Cheers - Sarah

No problem,I'm glad we cleared that up. :)

Sometimes it's hard to communicate exactly what I'm trying to say just by typing.Forums leave a lot of room for error.

"These people are not allowed to carry a gun and to many deviants these dogs are just another form of weaponry."

This was exactly the point I was trying to get at the whole time.And I will even take it a step further and say drug felons shouldnt have these dogs either.
While a normal person who owns these dogs still may have an accident with them (like with any dog) it is much more likely to happen with someone who is a criminal who shows no compassion about the dog at all.Also because many of these criminals are known for being cruel to animals as well.
I dont live in Baltimore,which is the worst (do a search on it,it makes New York look like it's for kids)However,because I live close to it,a lot of these felons have been moving in here lately. That is when I noticed the sudden trend of spike wearing pitbulls coming around.

This is slightly OT.

I think the best thing we ever did was get our big guy a spiked collar for going outdoors with. You'd be amazed with how much it deters strangers from approaching him without asking. And especially parents from allowing their kids from approaching.

Thats the specific reason we did it. It unfortunately probably gives the wrong idea about us, and especially about him. But Peoples safety and the happiness of my dog is more important than what people think of us, and him.

They don't need to know that he'd probably just lick them silly, and isn't at all viscious. Because if he ever one day decides to turn, hopefully it won't be on an unsuspecting stranger who approached him because he "Didn't look mean".

Little girl on the other hand, has her very own big girl, spiked collar, as well. But being she's so small and happy and cute, people think its funny and adorable.

It's amazing the preconceptions people have. An already 'cute' dog becomes cuter when looking 'tough' and a scary dog becomes scarier, when looking 'tough'.

I do however think owners of possibly deadly dogs, have the responsibility of making their dog the least approachable in strange, public areas. Even, if like our big guy, it would probably be fine. I'd rather minimise the risk of anything devastating happening, even if it's already a very small risk. There are just too many niave people out there, who don't realise the risk of petting strange dogs.

And I know, while big guys probably less likely to turn than our beagle would be, should he ever, he could do considerably more damage than she can. And its my responsibility to control that risk by making sure people don't approach him uninvited and controlling him and his behaviour in unfamilliar surroundings.

You'd be amazed at how many kids ran up to him, eyelevel, full speed ahead, before we put the collar on him. And how many parents were unphased. And now its "Oh honey, don't pet him, he might be mean". Any and all dogs should be treated like they could possibly be mean, until proven otherwise, or given the A OK. But especially dogs that are capable of really doing damage.

The adams a clarification

A Doberman isnt a bully breed. Neither would Labrador, German Shepard, Husky, Akita be considered a bull breed. Danes have mastiff in them so could be considered a bull(y) breed.

Bully (bull) breeds refer to dogs of bull and mastiff descent. They have a similar look. Muscular, powerful square build, short muzzles, big head type of look. As in bull dog, bull mastiff , bull terrier, mastiff, staffies, pit bull terriers, cane corso, dogo argentino, boxer, etc.

Munkos,I dont think all dogs wearing spikes look mean. However,I think it is easy to tell which people WANT their dogs to look mean as a source of weaponry as The Adams and I were discussing.
Here it would be the guys who walk with an attitude and stare you down like saying,"Mess with me and my dog will tear you up". They dont even look like they care about their dogs.
I'm sure you care about your dogs very much.I think it is smart of you to deter kids from running up on them.A lot of kids just dont get it.

Plastic,

I have to partially agree with you that no criminals should be allowed dogs. At least on the surface. Yet, I am one who start to think of all the variables. The first thing that came to my mind is that their is a local program that works with dogs and inmates as a part of the inmates & dogs rehabilitation. (See Link Below)

Also, what about people who were only convicted of a crime once and were not repeat offenders. Like someone who was convicted of a crime when they were 18 and are now 30 and haven't acted out again. Thee are so many variables I even hate to speculate. Like I said, though, on the surface it sounds like a wise idea!

Cheers - Sarah

cjhwillis,

First off, I would like to point out that while a Doberman or a Rottie may not be a "Bully Dog" most people certainly consider them one. I work with a local Bully Breed rescue and trust me, any large mean looking dog is considered a Bully Breed by the general public. Point made since you are the first one to dispute this classification! :-)

Also, when I was naming all the large breeds you mentioned I was doing so because the OP had stated that all dogs large enough to kill should be eradicated!!!!!!

In addition, the Doberman also comes from Great Dane descent. There are also many, many dogs that have these different descents. I don't agree that because a breed has a bully breed in its descent that makes it a bully breed.

Which brings me to my next point, (since we are getting down to specifics) you are misinformed on what technically is a Bully Breed. Mastiffs are one of the oldest breeds of dog dating back to Aristotle, Philip the Second, Alexander the Great, etc. / 400 - 300 B.C. Too many breeds to list have Mastiff in their ancestry. The only Mastiff that is considered a Bully Breed is the Bull Mastiff coming from a Mastiff and Bulldog descent. A bully breed has all to do with being of Bulldog descent, not Mastiff.

Bulldogs were originally bred to fight Bulls in the Arena (hence their name) and was developed in the 13th century. Yes, they are of Asiatic Mastiff descent yet, as I mentioned, Mastiffs are one of the oldest breeds and there are too many dogs to list that are of their descent.

Also, in your list of bully breeds you seemed partial to large breeds. You forgot to list the Boston Terrier which was originally called the Boston Bull and is from English White Terrier & English Bulldog descent. Avg. size 15 - 20 lbs. Also, the French Bulldog whose descent is from the Chincha Bulldog. Avg size is 22-28 pounds.

Breeds that are classified as Bulldog Breeds (Bully Breeds) are as follows:

Boxer, English Bulldog, Old Englishe Bulldogge, Amercian Bulldog, French Bulldog, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, Valley Bulldog, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, Boston Terrier, Bull Mastiff, and Banter Bulldogge.

You had listed the Cane Corso Itailiano as a Bully Breed, this breed is of direct descent of the Canis Pugnax (Roman Mollosian), no Bulldog in this breed.

A great website for researching breeds is linked below. I recommend it to anyone looking to obtain a new pet dog, the information is invaluable.

Cheers Sarah

Opps, I forgot to add the link. Here it is:

Interesting to me that this happened in Detroit:
When you live in an area where Dog Fighting is huge...the owners of such animals are the case. Even if you try to buy a pittie or a rottie there, you are likely going to get a damaged dog! come on...it was not the fault of the breed, but the owners and breeders of such animals. And leaving that baby on the floor like that.. what the heck..what were the parents doing at this party that they baby was left on the floor unattended, strapped in a car seat? I can only imagine!

"The Michigan Humane Society's Detroit office investigated 159 dogfighting complaints in 2006, up from 119 in 2005. This year, it investigated 74 through August, with 38 of those occurring since June.

John Goodwin, an expert on animal fighting who assisted in the Vick investigation in his job with the U.S. Humane Society in Washington, D.C., said the Detroit area is a hotbed for dogfighting.

"That's based on our surveillance into the world of organized dogfighting," he said.

Porteous estimates she investigates 200 dogfighting complaints a year in Oakland County, mainly in Pontiac.

But turning suspicions into arrests can be difficult. No one is in custody in the Pontiac case. In Wayne County, the Prosecutor's Office has charged only 12 people with dogfighting or dogfighting-related crimes this year, including nine from a single case in late August."