With another little girl killed by violent dog, isn't it about time we started to imprison neglectful owners?

Question

This time it was a pit-bull, in September a baby was killed by two rottweilers. Usual suspects I'm afraid. Whilst the vast majority of owners of these two breeds are probably responsible people, the fact is that both these dog types can become lethally dangerous without ANY provocation. I'd like to see these breeds phased out as pets and no new ones sold. I also insist that ANYONE who has ANY breed of dog that becomes unnecessarily dangerous due to owner neglect should go to prison. Then things might sink into their THICK heads. No disrespect is intended to responsible owners. So should we imprison?, and should we phase out dangerous breeds?

OK guys. I totally accept the consistent argument that the "breed" shouldn't be punished and that good owners tend to rear well-behaved animals. But nearly every serious attack that I have heard of in the UK relates to rottweilers and Pit-Bull terriers. So how about a nationwide psychological anylisis of the situation to determine if these dogs are different than others, or if they just happen to attract a higher proportion of bad owners than other dog types, ie maybe a "macho" factor.

A thought.
Dogs that are mistreated tend (if they become agressive and not depressive) to be agressive towards any stranger.
This, then, you would expect, would result in attacks on a wide range of human types, if these dogs got free.
But I have to say, it always seems to be little girls.
This suggests an innate element at work.

Answer 1

We should not "phase out dangerous breeds" any breed can become dangerous. I have seen dogs from chi's to golden retrievers to st. bernards to pits try to bite. There are no bad dogs, only bad owners who don't take the time to take care of and train their dogs. No child should be left alone with any dog just as no dog should be left alone in a situation where they can get to a child. For every mean pit bull (which, btw, is not actually a breed, I'm going to assume you mean staffies which are commonly called pit-bulls), there are 10 or more that are the sweetest dogs and only want to cuddle.

Answer 2

Yes, I agree that there should be strong consequences for owners of dogs that attack people and children.
However, I do not believe that any dog attacks without provocation or reason - even if we find it difficult to understand. Children should never be left unsupervised with any dog because they are squeaky and jerky and unpredictable and can be unkind even accidently - this can provoke an undesirable reaction in any dog. Even a seeminly innocent baby can provoke jealousy in a badly trained dog.
I don't believe that it is possible to phase out dangerous breeds because people just go underground. This is evident by the fact that outlawed pit bulls are still swarming the streets. They should all be 18 or dead by now under the Dangerous Dogs act.
I would like some practical suggestions on how we can prevent these kinds of attacks in addition to punishing owners of proven dangerous dogs after the damage is done. I believe that we need to tighten up on the rules around reporting dangerous dogs. For example, there is a huge dog (a rescued Rottweiler - that is incidental!) in my area that often attacks other dogs in the park, some have required stitches. He has been reported many times to the Council dog warden - they do nothing. I am so worried that one day his victim will be a child or person. What can I do? This is where I believe the real weakness in the law lies - prevention is needed as there is no cure!

Answer 3

I certainly agree with you in so far as there should be much tougher sentencing for irresponsible dog ownership. As things stand, most dog attacks end with the dog being destroyed but no further punishment for the person who is really at fault - the owner who couldn't be bothered to train the dog. Not knowing how is not a valid excuse. You should find out how to care for your dog, and until then, take all reasonable precautions. Stupidity is used as an excuse to get away with far too much these days (and not just in the world of dog attacks).

How would you classify a dangerous breed? The dangerous dogs act 1991 has already imposed sanctions on the ownership of the 4 breed types most commonly used for dog fighting.

You say it's the usual suspects, but had you ever thought that maybe the "usual suspects" are just the ones that the media make the biggest fanfare about? The ones who have a certain "look". Most dog bites in the UK are from LABRADOR RETRIEVERS. So should we ban the "andrex puppy" too?

So what next? Phase out all breeds that are powerful enough to cause damage? That's pretty much all of them.

Think of all the good things we get from dogs. We'd be banning the breed used as guide dogs, as sniffer dogs. We'd be banning dogs used as PAT dogs. We'd be banning the relaxing companionship of the VAST majority of dogs who are raised properly.

I'm not having a go at you specifically. You have at least put forward some intelligent arguments (unlike some people), but this is not a problem that has a simple solution. If legislation is rushed through it will do more harm than good.

So what's the solution?

My own view is this: To drive a car in the UK you must pass a test to show you are competent to use it. Reason? A car used irresponsibly has potential to be a lethal weapon. Misuse (eg. speeding, driving without due care and attention) leads to legal action against you - a fine or imprisonment.

Can you see the analogy I'm making here? Why not re-introduce licensing for dogs? Have people pass a test to show that they are competent in order to legally own a dog. In the event of an incident such as the one on New Years Day in St Helens, there could be proper punishment for those at fault for not holding the correct license or for not following the rules on that license.

As things stand, police are carrying out tests to determine whether the dog was indeed an APBT. Why? As the law stands, ownership of a banned breed seems to be the only crime that has been committed. Still think breed-specific legislation is the answer?

I'm not saying that it will solve all problems but breed specific legislation has MASSIVE flaws, the dogs that attack are those not properly trained. They are due to bad OWNERS, so why not tackle the problem where the fault lies?

ADD: How would one conduct a psychological analysis of all breeds and types of dog? Would you consider that ALL (eg.) rottweilers were safe/dangerous based on analysis of just a few examples of the breed? What about cross-bred dogs?

Answer 4

I have to go with the others, the dog shouldn't be punished just for being a pit bull. I'm pretty sure they are supposed to arrest the owners who neglect the dogs, but some of the times the case is that no one knows who was the owner of that dog. I think the problem here is that before ever adopting a pit bull you need to look into that person, maybe a background check or something like that. You saying "phasing out the breed" is like saying "phasing out criminals" which is close to impossible, because any one can turn at the split of a second and become dangerous, even a cute little poodle!

Answer 5

PHASED OUT????And to use the term that these breeds should be phased out is kinda disrespectful and has shown that the writer of this has chosen favorites in the canine world as to breeds .Any breed can be lethal from the smallest to the largest dogs,its the owner who choses the life path for the animal.My family for many years has owned American Staffordshire Terriers a.k.a pit-bulls and never once has there been an accident involving one harming a soul. Some of the blood lines just have bad blood bred in but it can all be changed,its like putting a label or stereo type on a human culture or group. I'm sorry for opposing the "phased out"idea but it is the owners responiblity to look after their dog (the dog doesnt know if its behavior is out of line), prevent dangerous situations,and make the proper ajustments to move in a positive direction.I do agree that the abusive or dangerous dog trainers and owners should be punished severly but not the dog breeds themselves. The two breeds have gotten a bad reputation due to the overwhellming amounts of illegal fights and bad owners that is so large that it overweighs the good points of the breeds which most owners see in their dog.

Answer 6

I don't like pit bulls either. I never met a good one. (Just like the old west saying - the only good Indian is a dead Indian). Therefore I agree with you 100% Do away with the entire breed if a few are proven bad.

Put that in human terms to see how stupid that idea is....Let's do away with the entire black race because some are in jail. Or whites, Asians, or those nasty Mexicans! Maybe all Muslims because a few are terrorists (OK so THAT one works never mind.)

Did you mean only the breeds YOU don't like, or the breeds I don't like....and who decides?

Put the dog(s) down as these incidents occur. And definitely put the owners in jail. They are responsible for their animals' behaviour.

The HARD question that should be asked is: What did the little girl do to the dogs to provoke them (IF anything), why was she left unattended and where were HER parents. Did they ever teach her about dogs, and staying away from strange ones. Just like strange adults?

As a kid I was attacked and mauled by 3 dobermans on public property, on two different occassions. The first time I was walking along a sidewalk, and two unleashed dobbies jumped out of the bed of a passing pickup truck and came after me. The second time I walked into a Vets office with my dog, when a dobbie in the lobby suddenly charged and attacked me. In neither case were the dogs destroyed, or the owners cited. Each time I was hospitalized, and yelled at by the cops for inciting the dogs!

Your story is tragic for all concerned but to blame and eradicate an entire breed would be a tragedy too.

Answer 7

First we need to identify which dogs are dangerous all dogs have the potential to harm. We talk about two breed in particular but there are far more which have the potential and we do not include in our argument cross breeds. People who want dogs as guard dogs etc are cross breeding as a cross bred dog is in general a lot cheaper to buy. How do we control this, how do we monitor and manage this? It cannot be done irresponsible breeding and owning of dogs can only be erradicated by banning the ownership of all dogs and as a dog lover that is the last thing I want to see. I own a rottwieller and while I lover her and trust her, she is never allowed off lead or near children without very close supervision. The trust I have is only between me and her. She has been trained to a high level of obedience but even then she is an animal and as such can never ever be trusted 100%. My wife and I have very strict rules for our dogs both in public and in the privacy of our home and garden. People who visit are supervised at all time and are expected whilst in our home or garden to conduct themselves in a manner which does not upset our animals. Our animals are exposed to the general public and are supervised at all times and never in public let off their leads.
Maybe the government should look to people like my wife and I and provide all owners with some form of training course before and during their time as owners of a dog. Those who refuse the training are refused ownership of a dog. The RSPCA could maintain records of all dog owners and anyone found with a dog not on the register will immediately have the dog removed given 7 days to register and attend a training course or their animal is either re-homed or destroyed.

Answer 8

Phasing out dangerous breeds is unpractical and inhumane. Just because Rottweilers or Pit Bulls, or etc. looks means does not necessarily mean it is mean. It is depended on the care of the dog in which determines the dog's behavior. A dog's behavior signifies the care of the dog. I am sad that the baby was killed by two rottweilers, but if those dogs are that violent, the SPCA should capture the dogs, and arrest the owner of the dog leaving a legal paper stating to never own another pet signed by local court. Sadly, the dog would have to be euthanized because the dog will definitely not fit in for adoption due to it terrible, cruel, inexcusable care for those dogs and the death of a young child. If they do own the two rottweilers, report the owners right now because those dog may have another chance of attacking another living animal or another person. That person should go to jail because that has been a law called the DANGEROUS DOG ACT 1991 to ban any dogs for gaming/gambling, weaponry/protection, and to ban sales of certain breed (which are some that are really high tempered). That is why we have the SPCA to protect people from dangerous animals and to protect neglected animals. Cruelty to animal is a huge crime these days because there are so many owner who do not take the proper care of their pets. Believe me, watch Animal Cops: Houston/Detroit/Chicago/Miami on Animal Planet. Those people do their jobs seriously because animals can do as much damage to a person as a person can do to another person. To answer you question, immediately call your local SPCA (Special police for Cruelty to Animals) or 911 to direct yourself to the SPCA. Don't jump to conclusions because not all dog breeds that seems scary are dangerous.

Answer 9

I haven't watched the news today, have only seen references to the latest attck here on yahoo answers, so I do not know the age of the child that was just killed. I do know that a very small child should never be left alone with a dog, whether a rottweiller, pitbull, cocker spaniel, beagle, etc. Dogs and small children need supervision. Anyone who owns a dog that is known to be vicious, should never have their dog unsupervised around anyone other than the owner. And they do so at their own risk. I would never own a killer dog, whether it was a rottie, a pit, or whatever. I fostered a male rottie a few years ago. Only had him about 3 weeks, buit I am sure that dog would have killed for me. He grew that attached to me in a short period of time. I love the rotties. Have never owned a pitbull so I don't know how they are from experience. I do know that a dog's behavior is a reflection of the was the dog was raised.

Answer 10

Ah the debate your question is going to open. I for one do not feel banning certain breeds as pets is the answer. All dogs have the capacity to be vicious. Just down the street from me is a Boxer that growls and snaps at everyone. Should we phase out this breed also? If so, who is going to decide what breeds we can and can't have? If we start prohibiting certain dog breeds I can assure you that it will open up a underground market for unscrupulous breeders and owners.

I also feel punishment should fit the crime. However I can not say mandatory prison sentences are the answer in every case. I would hope the courts would weigh all facts before deciding what type of punishment, if any, should be handed out.

Answer 11

No dog should be trusted and I think it wrong for some people on here to say it is owners fault,maybe in some cases yes,but I had a bearded collie and she was as gentle as a lamb then we had that Hurrican in the eighties and she changed overnight she became very aggressive at the slightest noise and would attack me,for weeks this went on and vet could not help and in the end I had to have her put down,the vet did think that all the noise on that night had caused the problem,and I think this dog that killed the little girl was terrified of the fireworks ,it may have been whining and the little girl tried to comfort it.,that's my theory, I know this dog in question had attacked another dog but the question is was there a bang of some kind that caused it to turn,don't get me wrong I am not defending the dog just stating that there can be explanation for a dog becoming aggressive