Animal Racism Rears its Ugly Head in College Park

[Geoff]

All dogs and therefore owners should be registered ! Nationally .

At a minimal fee to cover initial costs, for paperwork.

Up until 1987, that was the case here. Used to cost about 40p, IIRC.

[Coito ergo sum]

The only problem I can see is that there aren't enough breeds on that list. It should be that every breed of dog is on it, and it's up to the dog people to prove that their breed should be taken off.

And life bans on keeping dogs for people who's dog bites someone.
If you can't train a dog not to bite, you shouldn't be keeping one.
.

And how do you propose to deal with mongrels ? and as you are giving no second chances to the owner what are you going to do with the dog ?

What's wrong with private litigation? If some dog bites you, sue the owner. Or, impose a fine on owners whose dogs bite, and require that dogs that bite get put down.

[Feck]

All dogs and therefore owners should be registered ! Nationally .

At a minimal fee to cover initial costs, for paperwork.

Up until 1987, that was the case here. Used to cost about 40p, IIRC.

I'm all in favour of a larger cost if it includes identichips and the profits made going to the RSPCA /PDSA If you are too poor to raise a one off payment of £100 for a dog then you don't have the financial resources to own one . I've re-homed 3 dogs in the last year from one neighbour who should never have been allowed another after the emotional mess they made of it ! a £100 fee would have stopped this .

I'm not in favour of putting any dog down automatically without any other consideration because it bit someone .

[Svartalf]

A law against carrying concealed Chihuahuas?

Concealed, I don't have a problem with....it's the ones we have to look at that are the problem.

If I carried one on my shoulder like a rat, maybe that would be enough to strike a conversation and possibly endup staying the night in Paris.

[Gallstones]

Well, the statistics don't lie about the breeds that are more dangerous. Yes, any dog can bite, but not all dog breeds are as aggressive (or strong) as every other breed. I.e. - there are differences in temperaments in the various breeds.

However, it seems really silly to "register" them beyond the normal dog license (which is basically just a method to make sure people get the dogs their rabies shots, etc.). And, a dog license is a one time fee - you don't have to pay some annual fee to the county.

I don't see as this makes anyone safer, and it just sets up another revenue stream for the local government. If a breed of dog is considered statistically more dangerous than other breeds, then make statute increasing liability on the part of the owner if it bites someone. Making people register the thing doesn't mean the dog isn't going to bite anyone.

LA County and Deer Lodge county require the license be renewed every year. It's only five bucks here.

The breeds that are dangerous are often trained to be by idiots.
Every dog can bite if conditions are right.

In my experience working emergency veterinary, the breed we most expected to get bit by were Cocker Spaniels and most of the toy breeds. It was my work there that gave me an affinity for rottweilers. The animal most likely to be aggressive and cause injury is a cat.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Geoff]

Yep!

And it was mainly funny because dog licences were in force at the time (but no other pets needed them)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I loved it when the Lord Mayor showed up just to sign off on the license. That's some serious service there.

[Coito ergo sum]

LA County and Deer Lodge county require the license be renewed every year. It's only five bucks here.

The breeds that are dangerous are often trained to be by idiots.
Every dog can bite if conditions are right.

Is it your position that all breeds of dogs are of equal temperament, and no breed of dog is more apt to bite?

In the 3-year period from 2006 to 2008, pit bull type dogs killed 52 Americans and accounted for 59% of all fatal attacks. Combined, pit bulls and rottweilers accounted for 73% of these deaths.

http://www.dogsbite.org/newsroom-releas ... 042209.htm

That seems fairly significant, statistically. All dogs are not the same.

In my experience working emergency veterinary, the breed we most expected to get bit by were Cocker Spaniels and most of the toy breeds. It was my work there that gave me an affinity for rottweilers. The animal most likely to be aggressive and cause injury is a cat.

It is not merely the propensity to be bite, but the capacity to do damage. I'll take my chances with a Cocker Spaniel over a Rottweiler any day of the week. Rottweilers are smart and powerful, and yes they are good dogs, but there is no way that a Rottweiler doesn't have a greater aptitude to bite and when it bites it does significant damage. In other words, it can rip your face off.

Dogs do have temperaments that differ by breeds. That is why dog breeders can tell you which breeds are better to have with children, and which not. Which are better for fighting, and which not.

[Geoff]

LA County and Deer Lodge county require the license be renewed every year. It's only five bucks here.

The breeds that are dangerous are often trained to be by idiots.
Every dog can bite if conditions are right.

Is it your position that all breeds of dogs are of equal temperament, and no breed of dog is more apt to bite?

In the 3-year period from 2006 to 2008, pit bull type dogs killed 52 Americans and accounted for 59% of all fatal attacks. Combined, pit bulls and rottweilers accounted for 73% of these deaths.

http://www.dogsbite.org/newsroom-releas ... 042209.htm

That seems fairly significant, statistically. All dogs are not the same.

That doesn't take the owners into account. People who want vicious dogs (for whatever reason) are likely to choose those types of breeds because of their fighting/biting ability, but it's the training (ie the owner) that makes most of the difference...otherwise you'd expect similar dogs (German Shepherds, Dobermans, Mastiffs, Bulldogs, etc) to figure similarly in the stats.

In my experience working emergency veterinary, the breed we most expected to get bit by were Cocker Spaniels and most of the toy breeds. It was my work there that gave me an affinity for rottweilers. The animal most likely to be aggressive and cause injury is a cat.

It is not merely the propensity to be bite, but the capacity to do damage. I'll take my chances with a Cocker Spaniel over a Rottweiler any day of the week. Rottweilers are smart and powerful, and yes they are good dogs, but there is no way that a Rottweiler doesn't have a greater aptitude to bite and when it bites it does significant damage. In other words, it can rip your face off.

agreed

Dogs do have temperaments that differ by breeds. That is why dog breeders can tell you which breeds are better to have with children, and which not. Which are better for fighting, and which not.

True to some extent, but temperament is more to do with training than simply with the breed. Just as a normally playful breed like a Doberman can be taught to be a guard dog, so a pit bull can be trained to be a pet.
Much like human sportsmen, certain physical characteristics are better for certain sports, but within those limits it's the training (both mental and physical) that makes the difference.

[Gallstones]

LA County and Deer Lodge county require the license be renewed every year. It's only five bucks here.

The breeds that are dangerous are often trained to be by idiots.
Every dog can bite if conditions are right.

Is it your position that all breeds of dogs are of equal temperament, and no breed of dog is more apt to bite?

In the 3-year period from 2006 to 2008, pit bull type dogs killed 52 Americans and accounted for 59% of all fatal attacks. Combined, pit bulls and rottweilers accounted for 73% of these deaths.

http://www.dogsbite.org/newsroom-releas ... 042209.htm

That seems fairly significant, statistically. All dogs are not the same.

In my experience working emergency veterinary, the breed we most expected to get bit by were Cocker Spaniels and most of the toy breeds. It was my work there that gave me an affinity for rottweilers. The animal most likely to be aggressive and cause injury is a cat.

It is not merely the propensity to be bite, but the capacity to do damage. I'll take my chances with a Cocker Spaniel over a Rottweiler any day of the week. Rottweilers are smart and powerful, and yes they are good dogs, but there is no way that a Rottweiler doesn't have a greater aptitude to bite and when it bites it does significant damage. In other words, it can rip your face off.

Dogs do have temperaments that differ by breeds. That is why dog breeders can tell you which breeds are better to have with children, and which not. Which are better for fighting, and which not.

Every dog can bite.

Terriers are the ones with the inbred propensity for biting and aggression.
Just because you can bring statistics that say that rottweilers and pit bull types are responsible for most of the maulings does not mean it is attributable to the breed. I attribute it to the people who breed and train and improperly socialize them. The rottweiler and the pit bull type and the doberman are chosen by such persons because of their intimidating appearance, their "reputation" and their power or size.

Coming from reputable breeders and properly socialized and properly trained they are not more likely to bite than other breeds. There are going to be greater temperament differences within a litter than there will be within a breed. It is the responsibility of the person acquiring any dog to do it knowledgeably.

Other than disreputable persons who keep any of the "scary" breeds and intentionally train aggression into them; the other large group who create dangerous dogs are your average ignorant, over indulgent pet owners who don't know what they are doing and create insecure, untrained and dangerous pets because they think that doting on them like they are surrogate infants is love.

[Coito ergo sum]

LA County and Deer Lodge county require the license be renewed every year. It's only five bucks here.

The breeds that are dangerous are often trained to be by idiots.
Every dog can bite if conditions are right.

Is it your position that all breeds of dogs are of equal temperament, and no breed of dog is more apt to bite?

In the 3-year period from 2006 to 2008, pit bull type dogs killed 52 Americans and accounted for 59% of all fatal attacks. Combined, pit bulls and rottweilers accounted for 73% of these deaths.

http://www.dogsbite.org/newsroom-releas ... 042209.htm

That seems fairly significant, statistically. All dogs are not the same.

That doesn't take the owners into account. People who want vicious dogs (for whatever reason) are likely to choose those types of breeds because of their fighting/biting ability, but it's the training (ie the owner) that makes most of the difference...otherwise you'd expect similar dogs (German Shepherds, Dobermans, Mastiffs, Bulldogs, etc) to figure similarly in the stats.

No, actually. If the ability of a dog to do damage was what caused owners who want vicious dogs to buy them, then you would expect German Shepherds and Dobermans to be just as likely to be involved in these fatal attacks as Pit Bulls (Pits Bull?) and Rottweillers are. German Shepherds are certainly capable of doing damage, that's why they are police dogs and army dogs. The people who want vicious dogs buy dogs that are easier to make vicious. If all dogs had the same propensity, then yes, you would expect Mastiffs and St. Bernards to be among the most vicious, because they are huge and can kill people with their sheer weight and strength and giant jaws. The reality is that those breeds just don't have the same breeding as Pit Bulls and Rottweilers and don't have the same propensity.

Dogs have different temperaments.

In my experience working emergency veterinary, the breed we most expected to get bit by were Cocker Spaniels and most of the toy breeds. It was my work there that gave me an affinity for rottweilers. The animal most likely to be aggressive and cause injury is a cat.

It is not merely the propensity to be bite, but the capacity to do damage. I'll take my chances with a Cocker Spaniel over a Rottweiler any day of the week. Rottweilers are smart and powerful, and yes they are good dogs, but there is no way that a Rottweiler doesn't have a greater aptitude to bite and when it bites it does significant damage. In other words, it can rip your face off.

agreed

Dogs do have temperaments that differ by breeds. That is why dog breeders can tell you which breeds are better to have with children, and which not. Which are better for fighting, and which not.

True to some extent, but temperament is more to do with training than simply with the breed. Just as a normally playful breed like a Doberman can be taught to be a guard dog, so a pit bull can be trained to be a pet.

But, Pit Bulls that have been trained to be pets have a greater propensity to all of a sudden kill your toddler.

It simply strains credulity to suggest that a Pit Bull and a Golden Lab under equal circumstances/training are equally dangerous or equally prone to react inappropriately violently. The numbers don't show it.

[Coito ergo sum]

LA County and Deer Lodge county require the license be renewed every year. It's only five bucks here.

The breeds that are dangerous are often trained to be by idiots.
Every dog can bite if conditions are right.

Is it your position that all breeds of dogs are of equal temperament, and no breed of dog is more apt to bite?

In the 3-year period from 2006 to 2008, pit bull type dogs killed 52 Americans and accounted for 59% of all fatal attacks. Combined, pit bulls and rottweilers accounted for 73% of these deaths.

http://www.dogsbite.org/newsroom-releas ... 042209.htm

That seems fairly significant, statistically. All dogs are not the same.

In my experience working emergency veterinary, the breed we most expected to get bit by were Cocker Spaniels and most of the toy breeds. It was my work there that gave me an affinity for rottweilers. The animal most likely to be aggressive and cause injury is a cat.

It is not merely the propensity to be bite, but the capacity to do damage. I'll take my chances with a Cocker Spaniel over a Rottweiler any day of the week. Rottweilers are smart and powerful, and yes they are good dogs, but there is no way that a Rottweiler doesn't have a greater aptitude to bite and when it bites it does significant damage. In other words, it can rip your face off.

Dogs do have temperaments that differ by breeds. That is why dog breeders can tell you which breeds are better to have with children, and which not. Which are better for fighting, and which not.

Every dog can bite.

True, but not every dog has the same propensity to bite and dog breeds have different temperaments.

Terriers are the ones with the inbred propensity for biting and aggression.

They aren't responsible for many fatalities.

Just because you can bring statistics that say that rottweilers and pit bull types are responsible for most of the maulings does not mean it is attributable to the breed.

It is more of an indication of that than the opposite. It's some evidence that something at least MAY be attributable to the breed. It's certainly NOT evidence that all dogs are equal.

I attribute it to the people who breed and train and improperly socialize them.

Any objective evidence for that?

The rottweiler and the pit bull type and the doberman are chosen by such persons because of their intimidating appearance, their "reputation" and their power or size.

And, their temperament and propensities. Just like a retriever is easier to train to retrieve, so to are Pit Bulls and Rottweilers easier to train for other purposes.

Coming from reputable breeders and properly socialized and properly trained they are not more likely to bite than other breeds.

Most people who own dogs don't properly train their dogs. An improperly trained golden retriever will shit and piss in the wrong place and jump on you and lick you to death. An improperly trained Pit Bull might eat your four year old.

There are going to be greater temperament differences within a litter than there will be within a breed. It is the responsibility of the person acquiring any dog to do it knowledgeably.

To suggest that certain breeds of dog are not more aggressive is counter-factual. It just is.

Other than disreputable persons who keep any of the "scary" breeds and intentionally train aggression into them; the other large group who create dangerous dogs are your average ignorant, over indulgent pet owners who don't know what they are doing and create insecure, untrained and dangerous pets because they think that doting on them like they are surrogate infants is love.

The attacks seem to come not from Pit Bulls that are trained for the purpose of fighting, but rather from a Pit Bull that someone thought was peaceful and friendly which one day just ate their son's face.

And, you make my point -most people own a golden retriever and dote on it like surrogate infants and it's insecure and untrained - but, the result of that generally is that it is hard to control without a leash, jumps and won't calm down easily, licks people, sniffs their ass and aren't well potty trained. Not properly training a Pit Bull means it is more likely to bite someone and do serious damage.

And, the objective evidence seems to stack up badly for the Pit Bull - http://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery ... gs.23.aspx

Objective: Maiming and death due to dog bites are uncommon but preventable tragedies. We postulated that patients admitted to a level I trauma center with dog bites would have severe injuries and that the gravest injuries would be those caused by pit bulls.

Design: We reviewed the medical records of patients admitted to our level I trauma center with dog bites during a 15-year period. We determined the demographic characteristics of the patients, their outcomes, and the breed and characteristics of the dogs that caused the injuries.

Results: Our Trauma and Emergency Surgery Services treated 228 patients with dog bite injuries; for 82 of those patients, the breed of dog involved was recorded (29 were injured by pit bulls). Compared with attacks by other breeds of dogs, attacks by pit bulls were associated with a higher median Injury Severity Scale score (4 vs. 1; P = 0.002), a higher risk of an admission Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or lower (17.2% vs. 0%; P = 0.006), higher median hospital charges ($10,500 vs. $7200; P = 0.003), and a higher risk of death (10.3% vs. 0%; P = 0.041).

Conclusions: Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites.

Another study showed that 94 percent of pit bull attacks on kids were unprovoked, as opposed to only 43 percent of attacks by other breeds.

I'm not saying we should ban the dogs. If someone wants a Pit Bull, fine. But, anyone owning any pet ought to be responsible for training and keeping the pet leashed, and if it gets out, they ought to be liable.

[Geoff]

I attribute it to the people who breed and train and improperly socialize them.

Any objective evidence for that?

The same website you quoted earlier:

"Owners of vicious dogs who have been cited for failing to register a dog (or) failing to keep a dog confined on the premises ... are more than nine times more likely to have been convicted for a crime involving children, three times more likely to have been convicted of domestic violence ... and nearly eight times more likely to be charged with drug (crimes) than owners of low-risk licensed dogs."

There is no denying that dangerous people are attracted to dangerous dogs. These same people also have a higher likelihood of being irresponsible owners. Pit bulls are the dog of choice for criminals and are often used in drug and gang-related activities. Police officers are frequently forced to shoot dangerous pit bulls22 when serving search warrants as well. The combination of criminals and pit bulls exponentially increases the danger these dogs pose to communities.

[Gallstones]

It was a yellow lab that bit my niece on the face and resulted in emergency surgery.
The owners of the dog were successfully sued.

Golden retrievers are now showing increasing incidence of epilepsy resulting rage syndrome. (48,300 results)
http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2009/ ... ggressive/

According to this blog post, the golden retriever is now the Number 4 biter in Canada. This should make anyone who has ever had a golden retriever extremely angry.

Breeders have been breeding out aggression in rottweilers and dobermans and some of the pit bull breeds and shepherds for some years now. It is considered a fault.

Coito, either you are in this to stimulate discussion or your knowledge of dogs and dog behavior is naive.