Wash. appeal scourt says pit bull a deadly weapon - Page 3

Aries_jb · 06-13-2007, 03:27 PM

That's funny, my pitbull looks like number 5, which is a Vizla. He does get mistaken for that breed a lot.

echokitten · 06-13-2007, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000

Quote:

Originally Posted by Springcurl

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000

Quote:

Originally Posted by Springcurl

I wonder how many other people who claim that their dog "just snapped" or "was always such a good dog" was actually a responsible dog owner.

Honestly, my chow mix had violent tendencies and I was a responsible pet owner. I babied my dog; he even slept on my bed. He was fixed, well fed, well exercised, well socialized as a puppy and I had since he was 7 weeks old. Never abused. But he just wasn't a safe dog to have around. I tried to enroll him in obedience school but he was thrown out. And if anyone ever asks my opinion, I will tell them to think twice before getting a chow or chow mix.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there's not doggie abnormalities out there. I do think a dog can be vicious or have violent tendencies. In fact, my pug loves to go after joggers and I've got to keep her on a very tight leash when were on any bike/running trails.

I just don't think all dogs of a certain breed are that way simply because they're that breed.

But chows do have that reputation, generally. And I'm wondering if it's not well deserved (based on my dog and the stories of several other chows I've heard). Some of it is individual. But i think some may be be breed-related.

Just my two cents here, I think that all breeds have some sort of reputation or another really. Some are just more aggressive, even the difference between genders in a single breed. I have a male Boston terrier that would rip you limb from limb should you come to my house, and have heard this to be quite common in this breed. He's been neutered, schooled and is excercised too, sometimes I don't think there is any way to really know this except with ownership, they all have quite distict personalities.
ITA with Spiderlashes5000, I have known several Chow/mixes growing up that were aggressive. I have known Rotties and Pits that were big babies too. And while it is not really right to generalize breeds, there are certain breeds that do have a tendency towards aggression. People need to be informed accordingly. But I disagree with legislation / litigation specificly targeting a breed based on the few bad apples in the lot which are usually the product of irresponsible owners. I can't deny him the excercise but, I would never take my dog for a walk without his pinch collar knowing that he could attack someone, that's just plain reckless.

iris427 · 06-13-2007, 03:40 PM

While I do agree that aggression is a trait that can be bred and may be more common in some breeds than others, I don't think breed specific laws are really fair. And what do they say about when the dog is a mix? If a dog is half pit bull or less, is it still banned?

And yes, my dad's cocker spaniel is the most aggressive dog I've ever met.

Meghuney · 06-13-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey422

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000

In my city, owners of American pit bull terriers have to carry $100,000 of insurance on each dog. But very few actually do (based on a conversation I had w/ a police officer). I wish they'd crack down on that law...a lot of problems would be solved if they did.

I don't think that's fair. What about rottweiler, doberman, chow, german shepherd owners... do they have to pay for insurance? What about cocker spaniel owners? Those dogs can be pretty dang vicious!

Three breeds have been labelled "vicious" here: American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire terriers and American bulldogs (not English or French bulldogs). And the insurance law applies to all three of those. Rotts and the others are not included. However, lots of apartment complexes have rules that ban chows, rotts and a few other breeds. And for 9 years (including while in school) I owned a boxer/chow mix...and my housing choices were severely limited. I accepted that...because the breed (chow) does have a more vicious than average reputation. When I bought a house, they calculated my homeowners' insurance rate based on the breed mix my dog was, too.

Hey, that's life...I should have done more research before I bought him. I was crazy about that dog, but truth be told, he had a tendancy to become violent (and I didn't realize the extent of that tendancy till the end). I treated that dog better than most people treat their kids...and he still turned out half crazy. Sometimes the reputation fits.

But yeah, I did hear the stat that cockers bite more people than another dog in the US. LOL OK, then, maybe throw them into the vicious breed group, too. LOL

ha! I have an American Bulldog and she is just the sweetest thing. That's too funny!! I have seen Chihuahuas more vicious than her! HA!

spiderlashes5000 · 06-13-2007, 03:42 PM

But animal control (animal experts) in certain areas have identified certain breeds as "vicious." Not "likely to snap," "large," "bad apple," etc. But VICIOUS, based on the study of their behavior patterns and physical characteristics. Of course there are some random mean dogs out there of every breed. But there are certain traits in certain dogs that are genetic...and not just random or coincidental. And some of it is not the behavior. it's the physiology, too. The way the jaws clamp and the pressure exerted. Dogs that are twice their size don't have nearly a strong a bite.

Peppy · 06-13-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meghuney

ha! I have an American Bulldog and she is just the sweetest thing. That's too funny!! I have seen Chihuahuas more vicious than her! HA!

My parents have an American Bulldog too. He might lick you to death. Or squish you while trying to be a lapdog.

Aries_jb · 06-13-2007, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peppy

He might lick you to death. Or squish you while trying to be a lapdog.

I live under the constant threat of being squished by my pitbull, lol. He has no clue how large he is and will try to neatly tuck his 75lb body into a ball on my lap.

echokitten · 06-13-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000

But animal control (animal experts) in certain areas have identified certain breeds as "vicious." Not "likely to snap," "large," "bad apple," etc. But VICIOUS, based on the study of their behavior patterns and physical characteristics. Of course there are some random mean dogs out there of every breed. But there are certain traits in certain dogs that are genetic...and not just random or coincidental. And some of it is not the behavior. it's the physiology, too. The way the jaws clamp and the pressure exerted. Dogs that are twice their size don't have nearly a strong a bite.

Oh yeah, I certainly can agree to the bolded, the breed history of all Bull Terrier based breeds is the reason they are like that. It goes back to the days in the 1800s when "bull baiting" was popular. Bull baiting was pitting a dog against a real bovine bull for a fight. The dog would latch on to the bulls nose and not let go. They usually fought to one or the others death. The stronger stouter aggressive ones were bred an so on. When bull baiting became illegal they moved onto dog fighting and security. Some breeds are so ingrained with self preservation at all costs that it is kinda scary. Which is where docking tails and ears came into play (don't get me started...). So I agree that some traits are inherant, but banning the entire breed seems a bit much.

mandyv · 06-13-2007, 04:06 PM

In recent years, the dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." (Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840.)

The Clifton study of attacks from 1982 through 2006 produced similar results. According to Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes were responsible for 65% of the canine homicides that occurred during a period of 24 years in the USA. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.)

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/stat...stlikelytobite

iris427 · 06-13-2007, 04:18 PM

I thought this was interesting:

Quote:

Investigation and examination of over 540 fatal dog attacks over four decades, (1965-present) reveals three critical factors found consistently in cases of fatal canine aggression:

Function of the Dog -

The function for which a dog was obtained by an owner is a vital contributory factor in any future behaviors of the dog(s). Dogs not maintained primarily as a companion animal or household pet, but instead served other functions, such as - guard/protection/fighting dogs, yard dogs or breeding animals are overrepresented in fatal dog attacks.

Owner Management and Control of Dog -

Owners failing to humanely contain, control or maintain their dogs is one of the most frequently found contributing factors in cases of fatal dog attacks. This includes chained dogs, dogs allowed to roam loose, cases of abuse, cases of neglect, dogs with a prior history of aggression that were not adequately managed, and allowing children to be unsupervised with unfamiliar dogs.

Reproductive Status of Dog -

Intact dogs, (not neutered or spayed) are overwhelmingly found in fatal attacks. In addition to being intact other factors related to being unaltered played a role in the display of aggression, including: *****es with puppies, males near females in estrus, and intact dogs kept in multiple dog residences (i.e. development of pack mentality).

In 2005 there were 28 fatal dog attacks in the United States. In over 90% of these cases one or more of the above factors (i.e. dog used in a negative function, mismanagment of dogs, and/or intact dogs) was a contributing factor.

The breed of dog plays only a minor role in cases of fatal dog attacks. This is demonstrated by the following:

In the decade between 1966-1975, less than 2% of all dogs involved in fatal attacks in the United States were of the breeds which today are targeted so frequently as the solution to canine aggression, (Pit Bull or Rottweiler). However, one or more of the three critical factors (listed above) was evidenced in over 90% of the fatal attacks during these years.

(link)

mandyv · 06-13-2007, 04:20 PM

This type of story has been in the news too many times.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004..._184_10_04.txt

"A compilation of statistics by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on fatal dog attacks on human beings shows that American pit bull terriers, or pit bulls, have the worst record of any breed. Between 1979 and 1996, there were 60 fatal attacks across the country by pit bulls on humans. The second-worst record was for rottweilers, with 29 fatal attacks, followed by German shepherds with 19.

"An official with the Humane Society of the United States said Friday that breeds are selectively bred to accentuate specific characteristics. In the case of some retrievers, for example, the dogs were bred over the years to leap into the water at a moment's notice, retrieve downed birds and carry them softly in their mouths back to hunters."

My quandry is why are we still debating this and ignoring the facts?

Aries_jb · 06-13-2007, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iris427

I thought this was interesting:

Quote:

Investigation and examination of over 540 fatal dog attacks over four decades, (1965-present) reveals three critical factors found consistently in cases of fatal canine aggression:

Function of the Dog -

The function for which a dog was obtained by an owner is a vital contributory factor in any future behaviors of the dog(s). Dogs not maintained primarily as a companion animal or household pet, but instead served other functions, such as - guard/protection/fighting dogs, yard dogs or breeding animals are overrepresented in fatal dog attacks.

Owner Management and Control of Dog -

Owners failing to humanely contain, control or maintain their dogs is one of the most frequently found contributing factors in cases of fatal dog attacks. This includes chained dogs, dogs allowed to roam loose, cases of abuse, cases of neglect, dogs with a prior history of aggression that were not adequately managed, and allowing children to be unsupervised with unfamiliar dogs.

Reproductive Status of Dog -

Intact dogs, (not neutered or spayed) are overwhelmingly found in fatal attacks. In addition to being intact other factors related to being unaltered played a role in the display of aggression, including: &%$@#! with puppies, males near females in estrus, and intact dogs kept in multiple dog residences (i.e. development of pack mentality).

In 2005 there were 28 fatal dog attacks in the United States. In over 90% of these cases one or more of the above factors (i.e. dog used in a negative function, mismanagment of dogs, and/or intact dogs) was a contributing factor.

The breed of dog plays only a minor role in cases of fatal dog attacks. This is demonstrated by the following:

In the decade between 1966-1975, less than 2% of all dogs involved in fatal attacks in the United States were of the breeds which today are targeted so frequently as the solution to canine aggression, (Pit Bull or Rottweiler). However, one or more of the three critical factors (listed above) was evidenced in over 90% of the fatal attacks during these years.

(link)

That was interesting. Makes me think that the above are reasons that breeds like pitbulls are targeted. I would think they are also a breed that is most likely to be inhumanely treated in the above ways.

echokitten · 06-13-2007, 04:25 PM

Fascinating Iris, this thread reminds me of that couple in CA that had the presa canario dogs that attacked and killed the woman in the apartment building, while her partner was cornered by the other dog. The dogs owners were held liable in CA court because they did not try to restrain the dogs. I can't remember the specifics because it was several years ago. But I followed the story in the Ny Times...
oh wait here ya go...http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...23/ai_89871710

ETA, I found a better one http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/Whipple.html

iris427 · 06-13-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aries_jb

Quote:

Originally Posted by iris427

I thought this was interesting:

Quote:

Investigation and examination of over 540 fatal dog attacks over four decades, (1965-present) reveals three critical factors found consistently in cases of fatal canine aggression:

Function of the Dog -

The function for which a dog was obtained by an owner is a vital contributory factor in any future behaviors of the dog(s). Dogs not maintained primarily as a companion animal or household pet, but instead served other functions, such as - guard/protection/fighting dogs, yard dogs or breeding animals are overrepresented in fatal dog attacks.

Owner Management and Control of Dog -

Owners failing to humanely contain, control or maintain their dogs is one of the most frequently found contributing factors in cases of fatal dog attacks. This includes chained dogs, dogs allowed to roam loose, cases of abuse, cases of neglect, dogs with a prior history of aggression that were not adequately managed, and allowing children to be unsupervised with unfamiliar dogs.

Reproductive Status of Dog -

Intact dogs, (not neutered or spayed) are overwhelmingly found in fatal attacks. In addition to being intact other factors related to being unaltered played a role in the display of aggression, including: &%$@#! with puppies, males near females in estrus, and intact dogs kept in multiple dog residences (i.e. development of pack mentality).

In 2005 there were 28 fatal dog attacks in the United States. In over 90% of these cases one or more of the above factors (i.e. dog used in a negative function, mismanagment of dogs, and/or intact dogs) was a contributing factor.

The breed of dog plays only a minor role in cases of fatal dog attacks. This is demonstrated by the following:

In the decade between 1966-1975, less than 2% of all dogs involved in fatal attacks in the United States were of the breeds which today are targeted so frequently as the solution to canine aggression, (Pit Bull or Rottweiler). However, one or more of the three critical factors (listed above) was evidenced in over 90% of the fatal attacks during these years.

(link)

That was interesting. Makes me think that the above are reasons that breeds like pitbulls are targeted. I would think they are also a breed that is most likely to be inhumanely treated in the above ways.

I agree.

iris427 · 06-13-2007, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by echokitten

Fascinating Iris, this thread reminds me of that couple in CA that had the presa canario dogs that attacked and killed the woman in the apartment building, while her partner was cornered by the other dog. The dogs owners were held liable in CA court because they did not try to restrain the dogs. I can't remember the specifics because it was several years ago. But I followed the story in the Ny Times...
oh wait here ya go...http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...23/ai_89871710

ETA, I found a better one http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/Whipple.html

I remember that case. It did seem kind of sketchy. Rolling Stone wrote a good article on it.

echokitten · 06-13-2007, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iris427

Quote:

Originally Posted by echokitten

Fascinating Iris, this thread reminds me of that couple in CA that had the presa canario dogs that attacked and killed the woman in the apartment building, while her partner was cornered by the other dog. The dogs owners were held liable in CA court because they did not try to restrain the dogs. I can't remember the specifics because it was several years ago. But I followed the story in the Ny Times...
oh wait here ya go...http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...23/ai_89871710

ETA, I found a better one http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/Whipple.html

I remember that case. It did seem kind of sketchy. Rolling Stone wrote a good article on it.

Yep, I just read the entire dogbitlaw link and there was alot going on there that was creepy and weird.

mandyv · 06-13-2007, 05:00 PM

This was covered by Court TV. The creepiest thing I found was that the woman who was killed was afraid of the dogs because they had exhibited aggression before. The owners were convicted because they had reason to know the dog was dangerous and would attack because it tried to previously. The owners were creepy and blamed the woman for wearing the wrong perfume.

echokitten · 06-13-2007, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandyv

This was covered by Court TV. The creepiest thing I found was that the woman who was killed was afraid of the dogs because they had exhibited aggression before. The owners were convicted because they had reason to know the dog was dangerous and would attack because it tried to previously. The owners were creepy and blamed the woman for wearing the wrong perfume.

Yeah, I remember reading that quote in the NYTimes. I found the creepiest thing to be that this woman owner had ties to the Aryan Brotherhood by a prison inmate that was their "adopted" son, that also was found to have naked pics of the Woman owner in his cell when it was tossed by the guards...EEEWWWW....

geeky · 06-13-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandyv

This type of story has been in the news too many times.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004..._184_10_04.txt

"A compilation of statistics by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on fatal dog attacks on human beings shows that American pit bull terriers, or pit bulls, have the worst record of any breed. Between 1979 and 1996, there were 60 fatal attacks across the country by pit bulls on humans. The second-worst record was for rottweilers, with 29 fatal attacks, followed by German shepherds with 19.

"An official with the Humane Society of the United States said Friday that breeds are selectively bred to accentuate specific characteristics. In the case of some retrievers, for example, the dogs were bred over the years to leap into the water at a moment's notice, retrieve downed birds and carry them softly in their mouths back to hunters."

My quandry is why are we still debating this and ignoring the facts?

From the same article cited above

Quote:

In some parts of the world and this country, certain breeds of dog ---- including pit bulls ---- have been outlawed.

Denver County, Colo., for example, has an ordinance prohibiting the breed. If someone is caught with a pit bull there, they are issued a citation and required to sign an affidavit promising to remove the dog from the county and not bring it back. Animal-control officers later return to the owners' residence to make sure they have gotten rid of the dog.

Sakach [director of the West Coast regional office of the Humane Society of the United States] said that such laws are shortsighted, however. When communities outlaw pit bulls, the first people targeted are the ones that obey the law and have their dogs licensed. Since their names and addresses are on record, they are easy to find, he said. As a result, it's the unlicensed dogs that are left in the community.

"If you outlaw pit bulls, only the outlaws will have them," he said, adding that the real solution to the problem boils down to owner responsibility.

"These laws fail to acknowledge that there are many well-behaved, responsibly kept pit bulls out there," Sakach said.

It's pretty clear to me that you have an irrational hatred of the breed, and facts, logic and good legislation won't sway you, so this debate is rather pointless.

mandyv · 06-13-2007, 05:29 PM

Irrational hatred? How many stories do you have to read before you believe that pit bulls are dangerous in and of themselves? Given story after story I've read and given what I've seen of their behavior, I'd hardly call that irrational. I am heartened that some cities and countries in fact have outlawed the breed.