Page 23 of 38 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 373

Thread: OMG my next door neighbor has bought a red nosed pit bull!!!!

  1. #221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mosh View Post
    Some owners should have more responsibility than other owners because you take on different types of responsibility with different breeds. I would have thought this would be glaringly obvious.

    If a chihuahua somehow manages to kill a 12 year old child, and in the next town over a rottweiler does the same thing. Lets say both dogs were not exercised properly, were poorly socialized, and were not taught bite inhibition. Should both owners be treated the same? Of course they shouldn't, that would be absurd. Although both dogs are known for aggression, one has much more potential for injury and death than the other.
    You are kidding right??? A child had died in both cases due to someones irresponsibility, both should be treated exactly the same! And this is the big problem with little dogs and why they rate at the top of the attack lists, because people have your attitude, "oh, it's small and harmless".

    Not to mention when an out of control little yap yap goes tearing up to a big dog growling and snapping and big dog to tell little yap yap fluff ball off, of course its the big dog's owner who gets in trouble when it was little yap yap's useless owner who let the situation eventuate in the first place

  2. #222
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bayswater, Western Australia
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beloz View Post
    It is an interesting discussion, but I think we are confusing 2 separate issues. There is the perception that pitbulls are more prone to attacking people, which is usually the driver behind people asking for breed restrictions. And that is what that AVA document (which is very interesting indeed) is mainly about. Even though most dangerous dog legislation does include criteria relating to aggression towards other animals.

    But Mosh has been talking primarily about dog to dog aggression. That AVA report kind of glosses over the issue. It does mention that the APTB comes second in relation to dog-dog aggression in some stats I believe, after the Akita. And that 22% of APTB owners in a survey reported that their dog had bitten or tried to bite another dog.

    Now it is very plausible that this is caused by the fact that more APTBs are owned by irresponsible owners, as is mentioned in that report too. But I don't know if any detailed studies have been done on this. Lots of dog attacks go unreported which gives a very distorted view.
    So, I am going to have to research the issue that Beloz describes and find out what the scientific research has found. My gut feeling is that the APBT may be up there with a couple of other breeds but really nothing that a responsible owner cant deal with or prevent.

    This may take a few days but I will get back to you.

    However, in the mean time I'd like to point out that 22% is halfway between 1 in 5 and 1 in 4, and I'd be surprised if more than 75% or 80% of dog owners could put their hand on their heart and state categorically that their dog has never nipped or tried to nip another dog. I guess it comes down to what constitutes a dog bite. My Hobbes has grabbed a dog by the scruff of its neck and held it down on the ground. Hobbes has never ever broken a dogs skin and made it bleed. What constitutes a dog bite? To be considered a 'bite' does harm have to occur? If a Cocker spaniel mouths a child that is tormenting it, but does not break the child's skin or bruise the child, is it a bite?

    Cheers,

    ricey
    Last edited by ricey; 12-20-2012 at 08:38 PM. Reason: spelling as usual LOL
    The APBT is the best of the best dogs (but it is just a dog, like any other breed of dog)

    My avatar? It's a pit bull in a poodle suit (a bit like me really)

  3. #223

    Default

    MMJ has pointed out what I was going to quote already ( thank you )

    And I heartily agree! Of course both owners should be treated exactly the same , 2 dead children were the outcome,doesn't matter what breed . That is one of the most illogical things I have heard.
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  4. #224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mymatejack View Post
    You are kidding right??? A child had died in both cases due to someones irresponsibility, both should be treated exactly the same! And this is the big problem with little dogs and why they rate at the top of the attack lists, because people have your attitude, "oh, it's small and harmless".
    But it is small and harmless. The chance of it killing a human due to an attack are close to 0%. Compare that to the rottweiler, assuming that both dogs have exactly the same level of aggression.

    I'm not saying the owner shouldn't get into trouble, but wanting to treat them both the same is like classifying a bb gun the same as a glock 9mm. They're both projectile weapons, but one clearly has more potential for harm if misused. Both can potentially kill, but one's potential is far, far less than the other.

    Do you think irresponsible behaviour with a bb gun should be subject to the same level of prosecution as a person who is irresponsible with a live handgun? If you accidentally kill someone with a bb gun, should you get into the same amount of trouble as if you accidentally kill someone with a 9mm glock?

    Quote Originally Posted by mymatejack View Post
    Not to mention when an out of control little yap yap goes tearing up to a big dog growling and snapping and big dog to tell little yap yap fluff ball off, of course its the big dog's owner who gets in trouble when it was little yap yap's useless owner who let the situation eventuate in the first place
    Sure. Lots of people are stupid with their dogs and the size and potential for bodily harm makes people complacent. In my job, I've had many more cases of small dogs being needlessly aggressive, but my point is that an aggressive toy breed has such a small potential for harm compared to an aggressive powerful breed, that it's almost like it's a different class of animal.
    Last edited by Mosh; 12-20-2012 at 08:50 PM. Reason: spelling

  5. #225
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    That figure in the AVA report even included "tried to bite" which is definitely open to interpretation too. I had a dog that used to bully other dogs. And I had a few other dog owners shout at me because they claimed she bit or tried to bite their dog. But she never actually bit. She 'air nipped' to get a reaction out of them but she was all noise and threatening body language. Still not ok, but not a danger to other dogs (more to herself and she got beaten up a couple of times too, once with multiple puncture marks in her body).

    But I'd be really interested in seeing any research relating to this. I don't know any APBTs, I am against BSL because I know it doesn't work and I know they aren't more human aggressive than other dogs, but I am not 100% sure on where I stand on the dog aggression issue with this. I'd love for you to find some report or stats that show that they aren't more prone to being aggressive to dogs. It might be hard to find though because of the issue with some deadbeat owners getting these types of dogs purely to boost their tough image and therefor most likely encouraging this kind of behaviour in their dogs.

  6. #226
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bayswater, Western Australia
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mymatejack View Post
    You are kidding right??? A child had died in both cases due to someones irresponsibility, both should be treated exactly the same! And this is the big problem with little dogs and why they rate at the top of the attack lists, because people have your attitude, "oh, it's small and harmless".

    Not to mention when an out of control little yap yap goes tearing up to a big dog growling and snapping and big dog to tell little yap yap fluff ball off, of course its the big dog's owner who gets in trouble when it was little yap yap's useless owner who let the situation eventuate in the first place
    Sheesh, Mosh surely you can accept that the owner of a dog that kills a child has the same legal responsibilities no matter what the size or breed of dog?

    Please say yes.

    "Oh, my jack russell killed a child, but I get off scott free because my dog is a jack russell. I'm really sad your child is dead, but my dog is a jack russell so everything is OK."

    "Oh fwark, my akita killed you child so my dog will get euthanased and I am going to gaol for a really long time."

    Are you for real? What drugs are you on? You can't possibly believe what you said! I am totally gobsmacked; you are off the planet.

    You continue to say "But it is small and harmless. The chance of it killing a human due to an attack are close to 0%. Compare that to the rottweiler."

    The child is still dead; you are an idiot (and that is a kind description; actually, you are a dangerous moron).

    ricey
    The APBT is the best of the best dogs (but it is just a dog, like any other breed of dog)

    My avatar? It's a pit bull in a poodle suit (a bit like me really)

  7. #227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ricey View Post
    Sheesh, Mosh surely you can accept that the owner of a dog that kills a child has the same legal responsibilities no matter what the size or breed of dog?

    Please say yes.

    "Oh, my jack russell killed a child, but I get off scott free because my dog is a jack russell. I'm really sad your child is dead, but my dog is a jack russell so everything is OK."

    "Oh fwark, my akita killed you child so my dog will get euthanased and I am going to gaol for a really long time."

    Are you for real? What drugs are you on? You can't possibly believe what you said! I am totally gobsmacked; you are off the planet.

    You continue to say "But it is small and harmless. The chance of it killing a human due to an attack are close to 0%. Compare that to the rottweiler."
    Can you refute this? Can you offer some reasons as to why an owner should treat a chihuahua with the same potential for harm as a rottweiler?

    Also, can you PLEASE quit being dishonest and putting words in my mouth? It's starting to annoy the hell out of me.

    The child is still dead; you are an idiot (and that is a kind description; actually, you are a dangerous moron).

    ricey
    Jesus you just can't leave well enough alone, can you. Everyone has to agree with ricey or be subject to strawmen, insults and abuse.
    Last edited by Mosh; 12-20-2012 at 09:05 PM.

  8. #228

    Default

    I believe that if someone kills another person with a BB gun then yes, they should be dealt with the same! Why should they not be ? People are still dead.
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  9. #229

    Default

    Let's say an old lady keeps her chihuahua in the back yard most of the time and doesn't socialize it or discipline it when it barks or nips at people. She got it because it's small and cutesy, and she named it mr fluffypants. One day, the chihuahua digs under the fence and makes an impossible 1 in a billion feat of strength, flies at the neck of a passer by, latching onto their neck and killing them.

    Let's also say a 30 year old guy in the next town keeps a rottweiler in his back yard most of the time and doesn't socialize it or discipline it when it barks or nips at people. He got it because he wanted to look tough, and he named it Killer. One day the rottweiler digs under the fence and bites a passerby on the throat, killing them.

    Am I to understand that these people should be treated exactly the same in the legal system? I'd like to see how that would go down in court.

  10. #230

    Default

    Have been reading this particular thread with a great deal of interest.

    Making excuses for the size of a breed of dog that bites - really is nonsensical !

    The SWF may only concentrate on what they can reach - but they can cause huge damage !

    What I would like to see is that the owners of all dogs are held responsible for their dogs behaviour - regardless !

    A bit like - parents being responsible for their off-spring !

    Will it happen ?- probably not in my lifetime !

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •