[QUOTE=Bluey;9036579]
Here, every dog bite the dog has to be impounded for ten days because of rabies regulations.
That may be why they do that there, then decide what to do with the dogs.[/QUOTE]
This. In my area, first, the dogs are held for the rabies quarantine. Second, dogs involved in a court case are held as evidence. Maintaining the dogs in a shelter will require funds. If the owner is identified, care and control fees are usually added to the fines.
First, they are PIT, not PITT. They did not go to Pittsburgh State University. Second, I’m concerned about someone who has owned or still owns more than one dog that has killed other dogs.
Third, nothing said the Pom approached the other dogs.
Fourth, it ISN"T NORMAL for you to own a dog that kills other dogs. If you know that to be true, don’t let your dogs out when other people are out walking their dogs. Perhaps you, as a responsible dog owner, should walk your dog at least with an effing muzzle on so the chance of them killing someone or their pet is minimized. IT IS NOT NORMAL. And people who accept that this is normal are the problem.
[QUOTE=Sswor;9037350]
Then they don’t belong on the city streets unleashed, vineyridge.
Calling small dogs vermin in defense of aggressive pit bulls is a little sick to be honest.[/QUOTE]
Wow yeah. That is beyond words. 
And cite the injured man because his wee dog was off leash? Geezus.
Dog aggression isn’t human aggression. That’s not to say that these dogs weren’t both human and dog agressive. It’s just that having one behaviorial issue doesn’t automatically mean that a dog will have the other. My old shepherd was dog aggressive. He was a total love with people.
Sorry DrBeckett “Pit” because that little tidbit is relevant.
All of the dogs listed were rescues of some sort. Non of my reared from a pup dogs have had these issues. All that came to me with issues have been reformed and then contained. I contain my dogs that I trust if only for their own safety but also because dogs will be dogs. I don’t go to dog parks or anywhere really. My dogs are at my home (rural), my cottage (on an island) and my farm.
My Jagdterrier has worn a muzzle if there was a chance of her encountering strange dogs.
So I do accept some degree of dog on dog aggression as normal, yes. I also limit the possibilities of that being a problem.
The problem is people that own dogs that should not. Regardless of breed. It just happens to have grave results when that breed is big enough and strong enough to kill people.
[QUOTE=Sswor;9036342]
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-pitbull-attack-man-kill-dog-lincoln-heights-20170203-story.html
He should have had his dog on a leash but I honestly doubt that would have made any difference.
I can’t believe we need a “meeting” to decide whether or not to cull these dogs. Outrageous. This is where it all goes wrong.[/QUOTE]
In regard to “cull these dogs,” do you mean cull the ones that were culprits, or the breed altogether? I started to post something then I realized that you may have meant something else.
Unfortunately for this story, there’s little known about the 2 aggressors, other than they killed a dog and turned on the human. Seems like a no-brainer that those 2 dogs need to be euth’ed. But, for the breed in general, I am of different feelings. I’m used to say that I would never have one in my own home (“too many possibilities for someone or another animal to get hurt if the pit snaps”), but there are 2 at the barn where I board, and they are amazing. Kind, funny, happy, goofy, dogs. I’m also a volunteer at our local HS, and I am always the one to take out the bigger, higher energy dogs - which tend to be pit or pit crosses. In working with and handling them, I’ve come to really like them. I’m still not sure I would have one in my own home (I just don’t have the necessary time available for them), but I’ve completely changed my thinking on the breed as a whole.
I never knew that there was a Pittsburg State Univ., and it’s in Kansas. Since we’re being technical, isn’t it Pittsburg State U., not Pittsburgh? And they are the gorillas?
lesson learned, i won’t say pitt bull again.
Two young pitbulls in the age range of two, maybe three. They had to be off leash as well and it doesn’t appear to have happened on anyone’s property.
Again, young dogs, in pairs. People have a romantic notion about having two dogs as siblings, occupy each other, breeding , but if you read, lots of attacks come from that mix.
Lots of people here have had their dogs gone after by other dogs while on leash and off. I have. Difference here is the man was also mauled , and critically inured could mean his arms, legs were shredded.
[QUOTE=Horsegal984;9037007]
Yep, quarantine is to ensure they weren’t harboring rabies and putting the victim at more risk. Rabies testing is very good, but it’s possible to be inconclusive or false negative, so a quarantine is the better option. I would be shocked if these dogs weren’t destroyed at the end of the quarantine. The hearing is simply a matter of legality.[/QUOTE]
That is not completely true. There have been cases of Rabies occurring after the ten day quarantine albeit rare. Cost is still more than likely the issue. One county I worked in got very mouthy about Rabies submissions. I had to argue every one.
[QUOTE=roseymare;9037797]
That is not completely true. There have been cases of Rabies occurring after the ten day quarantine albeit rare. Cost is still more than likely the issue. One county I worked in got very mouthy about Rabies submissions. I had to argue every one.[/QUOTE]
My understanding is that those were state health department regulations we were following.
You don’t “argue” with those.
In the later years, there was a provision for, in certain bite situations, the quarantine could possibly be in the owner’s home, under very strict conditions.
[QUOTE=DrBeckett;9037628]
First, they are PIT, not PITT. They did not go to Pittsburgh State University. Second, I’m concerned about someone who has owned or still owns more than one dog that has killed other dogs.
Third, nothing said the Pom approached the other dogs.
Fourth, it ISN"T NORMAL for you to own a dog that kills other dogs. If you know that to be true, don’t let your dogs out when other people are out walking their dogs. Perhaps you, as a responsible dog owner, should walk your dog at least with an effing muzzle on so the chance of them killing someone or their pet is minimized. IT IS NOT NORMAL. And people who accept that this is normal are the problem.[/QUOTE]
Yup.
You can rescue a dog that isn’t a killer. “It’s a rescue” is a terrible justification for keeping an animal around who is a known threat.
[QUOTE=Sswor;9037313]
I actually doubt that, sincerely. The only leash that would have saved that little dog and his owner was one that should have been on the pit bulls.[/QUOTE]
I don’t doubt it at all. It depends on the actions of the unleashed dog though.
If the unleashed dog was walking obediently alongside his owner, chances are at least somewhat good the pit bulls may not have felt the desire to attack.
Was the unleashed dog was running around, yapping or barking, possibly approaching the fence the pit bulls were behind?..all of these scenarios are quite possible but unproven at this time. If the unleashed dog was active or acting aggressively there was a better chance of the pit bulls getting through the fence somehow and attacking.
I believe a lot of pit bull attacks are started when the pit bull sees sudden movements that are perceived as either a threat of aggression or the target of the game/purpose of their breed.
[QUOTE=sisu27;9037523]
I may not have worded it the same but to a degree I agree with Viney.
I hate to even point it out because I have been completely lambasted in the past here but I own a dog killing dog. A 23lb Jagdterrier. I do not know her full history and she is a fairly solid citizen now but she has and will kill other dogs. Not with me and not in the last 8 years. Her canines were cut off. That did little to diminish her lethality (not a word but you know what I mean). She has issues that were difficult to overcome and if an unleashed Pom approached her it would be over in a split second.
To say they “know” they are killing a member of their own species and that it is not normal is not true. I also had a Fox Terrier that would kill other dogs. I have had a Dobe that would have without hesitation and I have known many other dogs that are not picky about species. Dogs left to their own devices fight and will kill each other. Not all but many.
My dogs would kill coyote along with many other members of this forum. Canines so whats the difference?
Non of that makes this any less of an awful story. Yes the Pom should not have been loose. The Pitts should not have been loose. The one common thing with all of these stories regardless of breed involved is that of people not containing their dogs. That is what makes me irate. Why is it so damn hard for people to just keep their dogs contained?[/QUOTE]
I agree with you 100%.
If all dogs are properly contained and under proper control at all times…there would be no attacks outside of the home. If a person cannot contain and control their dog…they are an irresponsible owner.
Rubygirl “it’s a rescue” is not my justification for keeping any of my past and current dogs around. My justification is they do not pose a threat to anyone because I ensure it. My justification is that they are well trained, well managed and well loved members of my family. My justification is that because they do not harass, run loose, or in any way bother anyone else it is nobody’s business what their past may be.
“It’s a rescue” was my explanation to whomever implied I create this type of dog. I clearly stated my dogs that I have had since pups do not have any such issues. I have successfully reformed a number of dogs but even so I would never test them in unfair situations.
And if the little dog WAS leashed…but still able to run around his owner yapping and barking and approaching the fence that the pit bulls were behind (maybe the fence was within a 3 or 6 foot reach of the leash) would you still think it was warrented for these dogs to attack?
[QUOTE=vineyridge;9037351]
I agree that the dogs shouldn’t have been running loose, but given that they were, what the terriers did is perfectly normal for a terrier.
Dogs are famous for killing cats and they are no larger than a tiny dog, maybe even smaller. You can’t change nature.[/QUOTE]
Eh? Dogs are the result of people ‘changing nature’ through selective breeding. We can breed dogs that don’t run around killing other dogs and people. Don’t forget that these so-called ‘perfectly normal’ dogs also turned on and nearly killed a human being as well.
There is no need whatsoever for a person to keep dangerous dogs like these, especially in a city. There are literally hundreds of thousands of dogs in the world that don’t maul and kill other dogs and people - those are the ones that should be pets. Frankly, keeping dangerous dogs like that is sociopathic behavior and I hope the owners face some serious charges.
[QUOTE=vineyridge;9037351]
I agree that the dogs shouldn’t have been running loose, but given that they were, what the terriers did is perfectly normal for a terrier.
Dogs are famous for killing cats and they are no larger than a tiny dog, maybe even smaller. You can’t change nature.[/QUOTE]
This is a pretty familiar refrain. Terriers kill. Pit bulls are terriers. Therefore, it isn’t a big deal that pit bulls kill.
Got me thinking though. There are some pretty big terriers out there. Irish Terriers, Airedale Terriers are good examples. For the most part though, terriers don’t kill people (unless they are a pit bull terrier). Looking through the wikipedia* site on fatal dog bites (Yes, I know not definitive) between 1901 and 2016, 6 people were killed by 7 terriers. One of those deaths was indirect. A Manchester terrier bit a child and she died from complications during surgery.
If the reason pits kill is because they are terriers, why is the number of people killed by them so much larger than the number of people killed by all other terriers combined?
6 people killed in 115 years for all other terriers vs 1 death already this year and over 20 last year. It can’t just be because “terriers kill stuff.”
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
Oh that’s an easy one! Terriers, including pitts were origianally bred to kill vermin (or other dogs in the case of the pitt bulls). They were not bred to be human agressive. Unfortunately, irresponsible people decided that pitts would be great guard dogs and selected for dogs that had human aggression in addition to vermin aggression. They also did the same with other large guard breeds, but were not perhaps as successful. If you started selecting for human agressive airdales, you’d see similar problems develop. (Maybe not to the extent as they don’t have the same head shape and jaw strength, but their would be a rash of airdales attacks for sure).
Re the 10 days rabies quarantine - if I understand correctly, the alternatives are to euthanize the aggressive dog immediately and perform a necropsy to determine if rabies is present in the brain; euthanize immediately, assume the dog has rabies and begin very painful rabies treatment on the human victim; or wait the 10 days to see if rabies develop. It is done solely for the protection of the human who was bitten.
In Ontario you have to report any bite or scratch that draws blood.
Good Lord. If I had to report every scratch that drew blood, I’d spend all day on the phone.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
