English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

After doing some research I found out the dog was purebed and the owner bred and trained the dogs. According to the owner the dog showed no signs of agression before putting the kid in the hospital, and had been to obediance schoo.

So there you have it, a well trained pitbull randomly attacking a child. I considering starting a petition to ban the dogs in my town, is that a good idea?

2007-05-24 05:50:29 · 43 answers · asked by Anonymous in Pets Dogs

The dog had jumped a fence and was roaming the neighborhood. The children were playing in a yard when the dog ran up, all the children did was try to run away. It took 2 adults to get the pitbull off the child.

2007-05-24 06:29:53 · update #1

43 answers

Well here in Australia they are already banned and your right they are one dog you cant trust

2007-05-24 05:56:31 · answer #1 · answered by Boxer girl 4 · 3 19

Do you think someone who was doing things to a dog that caused it to attack a child would admit that they are at fault? What makes you think that the dogs owner would fess up to being the cause of an attack on a child? especially a breeder.. do you really think that if the person bred bad lines of dogs, inbred, failed to socialize or supervise their dog would admit they had done those things??? I think not.. therefore it is illogical to assume that a person who's dog just attacked a child would admit the dog had shown signs of aggression, was bred from dogs who should not have been bred due to disease, defect or temperment flaw, and they certainly wouldnt admit they failed in training, or socialization. Since the person is also a breeder, do you think that they would compromise their image by saying that the dog had problems from the start? or that it was badly bred? had aggressive tendencies? No its is easier by far to blame the dog that cannot defend itself nor speak to explain the circumstances that led to it attacking a child. There are so many reasons why a dog would attack a child, to pass judgement on an entire breed because of one dog without knowing the 3 sides to the story is foolhardy. There is the owners story, the victims story and the truth. People lie, dogs dont lie, if we could ask the dog we would know the truth. We cant ask and the dog cant answer.. we will never know the truth except as far as what we are told by people who are trying to further their own agendas.. like you using a tragedy to gain support for BSL. I could just as easily turn it around and use the tragedy to support mandatory canine education in schools, or a more stringent dog owners licence with emphasis on determining the capability of certain people to responsibly breed large dogs. The point is another dog bit a child, it doesnt matter the breed... GSD's, Akitas, Cocker Spaniels, Huskies, Labs, mutts and hundreds of other breeds of dogs attack, bite maim and kill people every day. If the breed was the problem then only certain breeds would be guilty of biting but they ALL have been known to bite, even the most benevolent of dog breeds such as Newfs. The problem is people, ignorance and lack of responsibility. I know that it would be literally impossible for any of my 3 dogs to ever bite a child not because they wouldnt do it but because I never leave them alone with children, I train them and i supervise them constantly. Accidents can happen regardless of breed my 3 dogs are mutts, but they would have NO chance to bite a child I am always there, always between always watching because I love my dogs and I love kids and I dont want either of them to get hurt. If the dog had an opportunity to bite this child it means the people were not doing their job and fulfilling their obligation to make sure the dog and child were either supervised or seperated. Bottom line.

2007-05-24 06:20:55 · answer #2 · answered by Kelly + Eternal Universal Energy 7 · 1 0

That dog was NOT trained properly. But then, any dog can be provoked if the child was mean to them. So there are two sides to the story. But the bottom line is the kid is in the hospital, which is sad. I am also questioning the breeding lines of the dog. How closely related are it's parents? that causes problems physically and mentally in dogs. So that may be a factor, not merely because it's a pitbull. So it's up to you if you still want the ban. I see your side, for sure, but you should know about the dog side as well. Hope this helps and good luck. My thoughts and prayers are with the child.

2007-05-24 06:05:31 · answer #3 · answered by The Cat 7 · 4 0

There's training and then there's training.

Pitbull type dogs should never be trained with force. This is suppression and teaches the dogs to use force to get what they want.

Also, how did that pit get access to a child?

Plus, people lie. Of course the owner said the dog showed no signs of aggression. He'd be liable and likely to go to jail if he admitted the dog had been aggressive and still had access to a child.

I bet the dog was an intact male, not being neutered is the biggest risk factor in every dog attack.

2007-05-24 09:07:24 · answer #4 · answered by renodogmom 5 · 0 0

There are no positives that have come from BSL. Not a single place that has put it into effect has seen a drop in bite statistics. And some places it has actually risen.
Most of the people causing problems with pit bull types dont care about the laws and will either keep their pit bull types or move on to another breed and the same problems will follow. If we ban one type of dog, others are bound to follow.
Boulder Colorado put a ban on pit bull types even though labs were (and still are) the breed that has caused the most bites/attacks in their community.

Also, pit bull is a term used to lump several different breeds, as well as any mutt or dog that even resembles one of those breeds, together. There are no other types that are grouped like that. If we grouped all hunting dogs together, or all herding dogs together, or all lap dogs together we would see that pit bull types do not bite/attack any more than any of the other types of dogs.
Check out the American Temperament Society's website. They have actually TRUE statistics.

If a ban is put in place on pit bull type dogs just know that sooner or later your breed could be next.

Edit: I would just like to add that pit bull types are the most misidentified breeds. There are several reports that go down as pit bull attacks while it wasnt a pit bull at all. The attack gets front page attention "Pit Bull Attack," while the correction, after it has been found out it wasnt a pit bull at all is never seen.

2007-05-24 06:36:35 · answer #5 · answered by Abby_Normal 4 · 3 1

You haven't given all the facts. Where were the dog and child located? What was the child doing? If the dog was being properly kept in the owner's fenced backyard and the kid hopped the fence, then it is the child's fault. We don't blame a homeowner who harms a burglar. We say the burglar was trespassing. It is the same idea here. Was the child tormenting the dog? If so then the child is again at fault. It is very, very rare to hear of a dog biting where the supposed victim hadn't actually prompted the bite. Maybe instead of calling for a ban on pits or other dogs you should call for a ban on children. They are usually the ones at fault. Just as we expect dogs to be trained, it is perfectly reasonable to expect parents to teach their children how to behave. Maybe that kid got what he deserved.

2007-05-24 06:08:52 · answer #6 · answered by rosekm 3 · 1 1

Not really. While pit bull attacks get a lot of attention, but the reality is that lots of breeds can and do attack and breed-specific bans don't get at the root of the problem.

Breed is actually not the biggest risk factor for attacks. According to the US Center for Disease Control, the biggest risk factors for fatal dog bites are unneutered males, and chaining dogs out (they become afraid because people and other animals can approach them but they can't escape). Children (and in particular boys) are bitten more frequently because they tend to bother and tease dogs, run away from dogs causing loose dogs to chase and kick into prey drive, or play with high squealing voices that can also trigger prey drive. I'm not blaming the child, but certain conditions are more related to bites than just breed. If a dog is loose and certain conditions exist, a dog with high prey drive may bite. I'm betting the bite was not random - I'm willing to bet that there were certain signs that this dog had the potential to bite that were either not recognized or ignored by the owner and certain conditions came together that caused it to happen.

The owner needs to take responsibility for what happened. It's his responsibility to keep his dog under control and avoid situations where this can happen. A breed ban on pit bulls won't deal with the problem of owners not being responsible for their dogs regardless of breed.

2007-05-24 06:00:23 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 5 0

In my opinion banning any breed is canine discrimination. But then again I'm one who treats her animals like furry little people. They go everywhere I go, sleep in their own bed, etc... It's tough though. I do know pits can turn even when being raised right. The majority that are treated right though, don't. Any breed can attack a child. Do you know if that child provoked the dog? The news very likely left that detail out. They just want to bring down the breed. In my town a child was attacked by a black lab and that's supposed to be one of the friendliest breeds. My daughter was chased down by a golden retriever, again, a friendly breed.

It doesn't depend on the breed. It depends on the owner. How do you know the owner is telling the truth. Do you know him personally? Do you really think he is going to tell the news crew that he beat the dog or neglected it? No, he'd go to jail. He's probably trying to make himself out to be a good guy. Either that or he is telling the truth but the dog had aggressive parents or he got the dog as an adult and didn't know its history.

You have to think of all sides before jumping to conclusions. Banning the breed is just going to cause the local shelter to become overwhelmed with dogs. Some of those dogs would have never attacked anyone and didn't ask to be locked up. I'm sure someone of your nationality has murdered someone but we don't lock everyone up for what someone else did.

2007-05-24 06:00:03 · answer #8 · answered by fourzenuff 2 · 5 1

I don't think you need to ban pit bulls. They are a great breed. However, I think there should be some way of monitoring who is allowed to have them. A lot of dogs don't like children. They make them nervous and edgy. If this child did not belong to the owner of the dog, than what was that dog doing near that child. My dogs don't like children either. You know what, I keep them away from children. My dogs aren't pit bulls either, they just don't like kids. A pit bull is an awesome breed. They are strong, good looking, and very smart. You have to take responsibility and ALL proper precautions when owning one. You wouldn't want to ban a zoo or a circus, but they have dangerous animals that have been known to kill people. I don't think we should get rid of the breed, I just think you should have to be licensed or something to own one. You wouldn't let some Tom, Dick, or Joe own a Tiger would you? Let the breed exist just limit who can own and care for them.

2007-05-24 06:21:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Your idea to start a breed specific ban due to a dog attack is not a wise move. All breeds of dogs have been known to bite at one time or another--especially children. Banning children in your town would be just as unwise.

Of course, any owner is responsible to control his dog at all times. Strict leash laws that are actually enforced are the best way for any community to protect citizens and dogs alike. Flexileads, if permitted by local ordinance, are a dangerous form of compliance to leash laws simply because owners seldom have satisfactory control of their dog during elimnation or during a high threat situation.If your town does not enforce leash laws, that is something that must be addressed by your local police.

2007-05-24 06:31:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If i was u i would read up on the statistics of dog bits and attacks. you would be surprised that the pit bull is about third from last on the list. This meaning that they don't bite or attacks as often as people think. Check how many labs bite people in one day and then check for pits.....The things is when a pit attacks is powerful jaw does so much more damage..And I dont think its the dogs fault its the lazy disrespectful owner....If you own a pit you have twice as much responsibility than if you had a lab.....Pits should always be on a chain leash and if possible keep a muzzle on the mouth until he or she is well aware of his whole environment.....It's never just the dogs fault, its mainly the owner...so if your goin to do a petition then do it to ban pit bulls from dumb *** owners, and then you might have a chance.

2007-05-24 06:07:08 · answer #11 · answered by dnj4ever12 2 · 4 0

fedest.com, questions and answers