Forget the dog, shoot the owner.

[treeling_75]

So last night, just before bed, I saw this article

It describes how a 71 y/o woman out doing her gardening was mauled to death in her own yard by the neighbor's dog.  The article says pit bull, but now they're saying they aren't sure what breed it is.

Does it MATTER what breed it is (except to good staffordshire owners who are sick to death of these

Comments

[canutius]

Well, I pretty much agree with you. The owner needs to be the one punished. Unfortunately, a dog like that has to be put down because you're never going to find a place that could afford him quality of life while keeping people safe.

As far as punishment for the owner is concerned, every case should be judged individually. Obviously what you're thinking is when the owner either actively teaches his dog to be vicious, or neglects to control the dog if he is a problem. This is where I completely agree. You must take resposibility for your actions, or non-actions as the case may be, and if you don't, punishment must ensue. I would be worried about the odd one in a million case of the dog who suddenly flips due to a brain tumour. Those are the poor people who can do nothing about what happened. Having said that, you should have your dog either on the leash when walking through housing areas like that. I'm all for letting them off in open fields etc., but in urban areas, they belong on the leash. This not just because they could maul someone, but they could chase a ball from a kid into the street and cause an accident. There are a million other such scenarios too; take your pick. Additionally, your dog can be the best behaved on the planet, but given the motivation, any dog will jump over a fence. If you're going to let your dog out in the yard, there needs to be high fencing period. What the hell was this dog doing running outside without a leash?

The last thing I want to say is that unfortunately, pit bulls do have a tendency to have quick tempers. They are usually very lovable, but you do have to be careful and you should have to know what you are doing to be allowed to own one. They want to introduce a "Dog Owners License" here, starting with pit bull owners. I rather think that that is a good idea. You'd at least be able to sort out some of the idiots before something happens. Oh, and there are 13 different breeds here that you are not allowed to own if you have a criminal record, especially one involving weapons or drugs. That was just a bit of random information.

[treeling_75]

Yeah, actually, I was thinking that if you need a license to drive a truck loaded with hazardous materials, and you need a license to own a gun, you should need a license to own certain potentially (very) dangerous breeds. 10 bucks and a written test isn't going to be a dealbreaker for someone who's paid a grand for a puppy. It's true that any dog could suddenly turn on a person for some random reason (i.e. the lady who got her face bitten off by a LAB), but there are certain breeds that are so physically powerful that even a little "mistake" could have terrible consequences. But that's the risk of animal ownership-- you'll always be held responsible for your pet's actions whether it's just financially or legally (I doubt anyone could make much of a legal case against a nonaggressive breed with no history of behavior problems. You'd still get the pants sued off of you, though).

I also think the drug/weapon conviction idea is smart-- like it or not, pitbulls (unneutered, of course) are more or less status symbols in this area of the country. And what they symbolize is something like masculinity, toughness, power-- so these a-holes like to have THEIR phallic extension fight the OTHER guy's phallic extension. To determine whose phallus is bigger, of course. So they make their dogs aggressive. These often seem to be exactly the type of folks with criminal records. Could spare the canine and human worlds a lot of angst to keep them from having pit bulls/rottweilers/presas/mixes of aforementioned etc.

Unfortunately, that's never gonna happen here, I suspect. Hell, they can't even make up their minds to make cockfighting illegal next door in Louisiana. More likely is that you'd see our redneck leader classifying dogs as "arms" and declaring Presa Canario ownership a constitutionally protected right. They'll create a powerful lobby-- the NDA-- and bribe congresspersons. It's probably unenforceable thanks to backyard breeding anyway. Although it wouldn't be a bad idea for breeders to get together and come up with some kind of mini-course or test required of potential buyers-- police themselves, as it were.

It's a pity, though. It makes so much more sense to require licensing or ban certain people than it does to ban a breed in an entire area. Similarly, it's really unfair for someone to be denied home owner's insurance because they own a dog belonging to a certain breed if that particular dog has had NO behavioral incidents. At most the company should have the right to ask that the dog be submitted to a temperament test. Wonder if these same companies cancel your policy if you own a gun?

As far as tempers go, though, according to statistics I've seen, Pit Bull Terriers perform better on temperament test than the average... From the article "Busting the Myth of the 'vicious' Pit bull," by Patty Letwasky and Maryjo Brooks:

"It is reported on temperament tests conducted by the American Temperament Test Society that Pit bulls had a passing rate of 95% -- compared to only 77% of the general dog population. These temperament tests consist of putting a dog through a series of unexpected situations, some involving strangers. Any signs of unprovoked aggression or panic in these situations result in failure of the test."

Which once again points out that it's the people who suck, not the dogs. Interestingly.... if the dog that killed the woman WAS a pitbull, they are banned in the Kansas City area. So the owner is in deep, deep, deep trouble.

[aoife_ife]

Gah, don't even get me started on this - I could go on for hours, the whole thing just makes me so mad on so many different levels.

I will say this though - I don't think it's the breed of dog specifically that's the problem. I think pit bulls are more likely to attack not because they're pitbulls, but because of the people who own and breed them are more likely to breed and train for agression. So yeah - completly agree that it's the people who are the problem here.

I know that even with my sweet dogs, I keep them on a leash in public (minus the dog park). Indy's not likely to attack anyone, but he can just as easily hurt someone by knocking them down in a show of enthusiastic happy wiggles, and when it comes down to it, you can get sued just as easily for your dog hurting a child by jumping on it happily than you can for the dog jumping on the kid angrily.

I think a "dangerous dog" permit is a fairly good idea, but yeah, not much of a chance of that happening any time soon. And really, the owners who have the dogs as a status symbol and train for agression aren't typically people who would follow correct legal channels anyhow, I don't think, so what good would it do?

[canutius]

the owners who have the dogs as a status symbol and train for agression aren't typically people who would follow correct legal channels anyhow, I don't think, so what good would it do?

Well, you're right, but the Swiss not only do beurocracy (sp?) well, but they are natural born policemen, so it works over here. Hell, I've had the police on my doorstep because I put my newspapers out a day early (anal wankers). So over here, it does work. It would also give the police another reason to harrass people who need harrassing. At least if you could go remove a drug dealer's pit bull/dog, you get the satisfaction of removing his dick extension, even if you couldn't jail him for something else.

Tree's comment: Although it wouldn't be a bad idea for breeders to get together and come up with some kind of mini-course or test required of potential buyers-- police themselves, as it were.

That one I do kind of have to snort at. I've been a breader and trust me, they are some of the most untrustworthy people you'll ever meet. They have to be able to sell the puppies, otherwise they get swamped. Thus, they often don't pay as much attention to the potential buyers as they should. Sad, but true. And then there are those who just don't give a damn.

And what Ife said about Indy knocking down/hurting someone with joy is true. I have to be careful about that too. There was also a case here once where a guy sued a woman because his male dog ran across the road to get to her bitch who was in heat. His dog caused an accident and got himself killed. He felt the owner of the bitch in heat should pay for the damages because it was irresponsible of her to have her dog outside when she was in heat. The bitch was on a leash. His wasn't. Need I say more? ;/

I'm glad that they cannot deny you insurance over here. They can exclude things, or refuse to pay damages when they can prove negligence on your part, but they cannot refuse you insurance (health, homeowner, and personal insurances are all mandatory here, car too if you have one, obviosly)

And yeah, the whole pit bull thing is difficult. Everyone says something different about their temperament. It's gotten to the point where I wouldn't own one just because I wouldn't want the hassle. Of course since I'm planning on moving to the boondocks of Alaska where there are no humans around, it shouldn't be a problem anyway :P