My dogs and I were attacked by a pitt bull this morning (we're OK)

[gypsymare]

[QUOTE=vacation1;8897996]
If you define ‘problem dogs’ as dogs who bite, you would of course have to ban everything. I’ve seen real jerk dogs of lots of breeds - Labs, Rough Collies, Yorkies, German Shepherds, etc. Dogs that I was hoping wouldn’t get loose or dogs I was actively trying to avoid or dogs I was actively involved with in the boot-to-canine-face sense as it tried to rush my dog for the fortieth time. But it would be ineffective to ban the entire species because a few bad apples in every breed are aggressive and biters. What would NOT be ineffective is strictly controlling - aka, banning - the breeds which have a proven track record of extremely serious and fatal attacks. The hard part would not be figuring out the breeds affected - it would basically be pit bulls and Rottweilers. The hard part would also not be making it clear that ‘pit bull’ includes all the bulldog breeds and the ‘exotic’ mastiffs, as the American Bulldogs, the Cane Corsos, etc. are all highly overrepresented in bad attacks. The hard part would come with the breeds which also have a bad history of being aggressive, but which are also intolerant of bad handling and thus less popular - the Malinois, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Akitas, Chows. These breeds are all very capable of being deadly and there have been some really bad attacks from all of them. But they also seem to be a self-correcting problem in that they don’t put up with the sort of crap handling that the bulldogs will shrug off, and they’ll quickly convince loutish or sentimental owners that no, actually, choke chains and sweet kissy noises will not change my mind that it’s not okay clip my nails and I will nail you good and hard in another - okay, so blood it is.

Myself, I’d be content with simply holding pit owners accountable to a higher standard of ownership. If their pit gets loose, it doesn’t get treated the same as if a Beagle gets loose. If their pit nips a child, it doesn’t get treated the same as if a poodle nips a child. Would that be 100% fair to every single pit bull? Of course not. But the current situation is not even a little bit fair to everyone else.[/QUOTE]

I think you’re onto something here. I watched Champions and I can’t help but think that if that was a yard full of unsocialized GSDs they would have to be handled very differently. Almost without fail they easily leashed every dog on that property with one exception.

[ASBJumper]

[QUOTE=Logical;8898493]

I am 100% for dangerous dog laws. For example, growing up we had a yellow lab mix. I would take him for runs around the neighborhood. One day, the neighbor who hated all animals swung her trash cart at him. He responded by barking at her. I called him and he came immediately. She reported it and our laws declared him potentially dangerous. He couldn’t go on runs anymore. He had to be muzzled when outside. He couldn’t be left loose in the back yard. It was insane, IMO then and now. [/QUOTE]

It was not insane. You had your dog running off leash in the neighbourhood - this was YOUR BAD. You clearly tried to skew your story to make the animal-hater out to be the bad guy, but the way I see it, you had your dog off leash. And something happened. And there were consequences.

This is EXACTLY why you can’t enforce existing laws - every freaking dog owner makes excuses for stupid behaviour, until it escalates, and someone’s dog is maimed, killed, someone’s CHILD is maimed, killed. The idea is not to enforce laws AFTER a victim gets attacked, the idea is to prevent attacks from ever happening in the first place. Putting someone in jail AFTER their dog attacks and kills something/someone doesn’t bring the victim back to life, now does it?

@Logical;8898493

(…) I have never been able to understand other dog lovers who do. Yes, I get some people are scared of big dogs, certain breeds, etc. (Hey I don’t trust little dogs or Chows, but I don’t feel it is my place to tell someone they can’t have them just because I don’t like them.) But that doesn’t justify trying to fix a problem with the wrong solution. The problem is bad dogs with bad owners. The problem is bad owners with dogs that could have been good. Destroy the bad dogs and hit the bad owner’s wallet deep enough that they should pause before getting another animal and hopefully choose not to. 3 strikes your out against bad owners too. Put some jail time in the equation.

Are you sh*tting me right now? THREE strikes? What if my toddler was the “first” strike? Are you saying that dog gets another free pass after disfiguring my kid? Wow, just wow… I.can’t.even…

If I had a nickel for every time I read a story about a dog attack in which the owner claimed “golly gee whiz, he/she’s NEVER done ANYthing like this before, i’m so shocked!” i’d be filthy rich.

Every dog owner claims to be responsible. Virtually every dog owner (with the exception of the ones who live on rural properties with known offenders, apparently) thinks their dogs are safe, and well-trained and would never attack. Until they do, and everyone is shocked.

So… sorry, but the whole “have dangerous dog laws in place because they wouldn’t apply to me” statement is worthless, especially to all of us who have seen/known previously reliable family dogs suddenly attack with no prior history of biting or aggression. The idea is not to punish owners AFTER those attacks, but to PREVENT them.

[skyon]

[QUOTE=sisu27;8898817]
Not saying it isn’t out there but I have yet to hear about an IPO dog mauling someone to death.

An IPO dog that has any titles has had to pass an initial temperament test. They cannot be fearful or aggressive. Those dogs are not suitable to continue on…they wash out. [/QUOTE]

Again, I am pretty ignorant regarding dogs actually trained to attack humans. THis caught my attention gradually because of Internet ad’s and then bam. Child killed in WI from family who ran a training business for protection.

The problem is kind of like pitbulls, Ignorance proliferates it, esp with internet.

Posted from https://dogbitelaw.com/vicious-dogs/
Protection Dogs

" Trained dogs historically have been used in military and police work. The military uses them in combat and as scouts, sentries and trackers. Police use them to detain, pursue, and identify suspects, to detect illegal substances, deter crime, protect officers, and control crowds. (See Dog Bite Law, Police Dogs.) They also have been used historically in the protection of livestock. (Bryce Reece & Bonnie Brown, American Sheep Industry Association’s Recommended Best Management Practices for Livestock Protection Dogs.)

Protection is also a dog sport. The best known protection dogs are referred to as Schutzhund dogs. “Schutzhund” is German for “protection dog.” Schutzhund dogs are trained in tracking, obedience and protection work, and are tested as companions to people as well as for endurance. “The most important criteria for the assessment of protection work are … [w]ell balanced drives[, s]elf-confidence[, a]bility to work under pressure; toughness; resilience[, s]teadfast, sound nerves[, and w]illingness to take direction (commands), responsiveness to the handler.” (United Schutzhund Clubs of America, USCA Working Dog Trial Rule Book, page 47, accessed 2/15/15.) There are three IPO trials and the dogs are rated as to which they pass.

To see a well-done IPO trial: Kingsont Martin vom Bullenfeld - 2014 USRC National IPO Champrionship IPO3 Protection (95 points SG), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSzpE4VmRQk accessed 2/15/15. The rules for Schutzhund dogs are public. (United Schutzhund Clubs of America, USCA Working Dog Trial Rule Book, ibid.)

The protection dog industry has expanded its market to the general public. High-end protection dogs can be purchased for $40,000 to $60,000, with some dogs selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars. (NY Times, For the Executive With Everything, a $230,000 Dog to Protect It.)

Civilians who purchase these dogs expect them to be fierce defenders of the family and household while also being cuddly with the owners and their kids, and friendly to guests. See how the dogs are marketed to the public by doing an Internet search using the term “protection dog.” The dogs are commonly represented as “perfect for families,” “loving companions,” “huggable,” etc.

The presence of protection dogs in private households has been criticized, however, as entirely too risky.

“[The kennels that sell protection dogs to the public] are in fact breeding their dogs for edginess, poor impulse control, a lowered bite threshold, and in some cases an inborn ‘jump in high and bite’ motor pattern. Many of these dogs display what we could best describe as ADHD-like behavior – difficulty with focusing and easily distracted, easily wound up, unable to self-dampen once excited. These are abnormal and sometimes dangerous traits in any dog, but they are certainly dangerous in dogs who are going to be trained for attack purposes. Worse yet if these impulsive, trained dogs are placed in family homes.” (Alexandra Semyonova, The Tragic Fantasy That a Protection Dog Can Make a Reliable Family Pet.)

On October 24, 2014, 7 year-old Logan Meyer of Hustisford, Wisconsin, was mauled to death by his parents’ Rottweiler. They had been training the animal to be a protection dog. The case resembles the killing of a boy in 1997 which led to second-degree murder charges. A woman named Sabine Davidson owned two Rottweilers that she was training in Schutzhund (German for “protection dog”), which includes protection dog training as well as other types of training. Her Rottweilers killed an 11-year-old boy as he was waiting for the school bus. She was convicted of second-degree murder. (Read the case at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ks-supreme-court/1459039.html.)

Others killed by dogs intended specifically for protection include Kayla Marie Lee (5 years old killed by Rottweiler “on loan” for protection in Northglenn, CO), Sasha Brown, 4 month old killed by Rottweiler purchased for protection in Chicago, IL), and Louise Cooper Gantt (65 year old killed by own Rottweiler for protection in Richland County, SC).

At least one protection dog was a pit bull that was trained as a protection dog AND as a service dog. Owned by a wheelchair-bound, handicapped woman, the dog had to be euthanized after it attacked a third party who did not provoke it in any manner. (Dog Bite Law, Can a Service Dog Also Be a Protection Dog?.)

Police dogs have been known to misread the behavior of humans and inflict severe injuries without provocation. Attorney Kenneth M. Phillips represented a tourist who was invited into a police car but attacked by the police dog, incurring injuries that resulted in a 5-figure settlement against the police department. A “retired” police dog inflicted such severe wounds on the officer’s 4-year-old son that his leg had to be amputated. (NECN.com, 4-Year-Old Loses Leg In Attack By Officer Dad’s K-9.)

Injuries inflicted by a dog that is trained to attack can result in a conviction for second-degree murder or other felonies such as that set forth in California’s Penal Code section 399. It also will result in civil liability in every American state as well as other countries that follow English common law. (See generally, Dog Bite Law, Plain English Overview of Dog Bite Law.)

The use of protection dogs to do double-duty as guard dogs and family companions therefore is fraught with risk."

[JanM]

I remember the TV news stories about the 1997 case of that poor child killed while waiting for the school bus. As I recall the woman belonged to a schutzhund group, and had been warned repeatedly that she was not training the dogs properly, and she was also allowing them to roam.

I think another issue with the 2014 case is, who was training the dog? When anyone can put out a shingle as a trainer, or buy training manuals or DVDs, then it’s not surprising there are poorly trained animals, that attack.

Not all military animals, or police trained animals are reliable. I personally witnessed a military working dog being used for detection going nuts, and trying to go after a highly trained service dog. The MWD had to be dragged away by the handler, but I still saw the animal around post on detection duty, so I was never comfortable when he was around.

Training a protection animal isn’t for amateurs. That’s the reason shows like Dog Whisperer have disclaimers about training isn’t for amateurs, and can be dangerous. I think some of the problem is the denial of owners, just as with other dangerous animals, when they simply refuse to believe their fluffy dog could be dangerous.

[Houndhill]

[QUOTE=rugbygirl;8897662]
Chows are also notorious. Martha Stewart has always impressed me (awed?) and I always thought it completely fitting that she favoured Chows. Unless you are a Martha Stewart in terms of sheer dominant personality, I doubt you should own a Chow.

So far, this list is looking like (in Urban areas) requiring leashes, muzzles and mandatory spay/neuter except by special license, and requiring owners to purchase at least $1M in liability :

1. Pitbulls and dogs that look like pitbulls
2. Shar Peis
3. Chow Chow
4. Cane Corso
5. Mastiffs exceeding 15lbs
6. Presa Canario
7. Rottweiler
8. Trained Hog Dog
9. Trained Schutzhund dog
10. GSD (?? Did we decide here? They might be self limiting due to the en vogue breeding practices)
11. Akita
12. Wolfhound (I added that, I lived in a city with a feral wolfhound problem. They were the
    worst crossed with malamutes.)

I’d be ok with this controlled legislation. But it needs to include some method of assessing “vicious” that doesn’t rely on waiting until a human is seriously injured. I feel like veterinarians could be involved here. And mandatory checkups for licensing. I also feel like off leash areas should be accessible only to people with licensed dogs, and fines for unlicensed dogs should exceed the purchase price of the animal.

Of course, people will be non compliant. Hopefully the crippling fines associated with violation will provide a deterrent.[/QUOTE]

I have been resisting contributing to this thread, but finally I cannot rest without knowing- what city did you live in that had a “feral wolfhound problem”?

Do you know whether these “feral wolfhounds” were AKC registered Irish Wolfhounds? Or we’re they big grey sighthound-looking dogs?

I ask because if this is true, I am sure the Irish Wolfhound Club of America (I am a former Board member) would be very concerned. We would also be concerned that someone has called for all Irish Wolfhounds to be muzzled in public and have mandatory spay/neutering.

I have never heard of such a recommendation and it would be strongly opposed by many.

Because of the resurgence of coyote populations in many areas, there have been some mixed breed sighthounds that are sometimes crossed with other breeds that are sometimes used to hunt coyotes. Might it be possible that this is what you were seeing?

If so, would you still recommend that all Irish Wolfhounds should be muzzled in public and subjected to mandatory spay/neuter?

As an AKC judge of Irish Wolfhounds, and having been an Irish Wolfhound owner for 45 years, and having had a breeding program where temperament is paramount, as it is for most Irish Wolfhound breeders, I strongly object to this characterization of the breed.

Any legal proceeding that attempted to implement this would be very strongly opposed by quite a number of Irish Wolfhound fanciers worldwide.

[pezk]

[QUOTE=rugbygirl;8898594]
If you want to have an attack dog club, where one of the skills you get the dog to learn is to attack a person. Ok. I’ll play along. The first time you fail to impress upon a member how potentially dangerous this is, and that member’s dog hurts a human…you all lose my respect and tolerance.

The only Schutzhund people I’ve ever met, again, we’re the ones who seemed excited that I was afraid of their dog, and blamed the person their dog attacked. Fun. I do agree that this is a locally solved problem though. No reason somewhere with a well run, well behaved Schutzhund club that polices their own members should be punished. In my area, where they have proven to fail in this area, I’d support a mandatory muzzle and leash policy.

You can have obedience without training attacks.[/QUOTE]

Then you know nothing about well trained Schuzhund dogs, or police dogs, since the training is very very similiar. You do know that police dogs go home with their handlers and are a part of the family much of the time. Military dogs are being returned with their handlers to live in families and communities. The difference between Schuzhund dogs and police dogs are that the Schuzhund dogs are doing it for fun. Its a game. Police dogs arent playing a game. Are you going to forbid all police dogs and military dogs from living in residential communities just because something could happen? Or are you just going to discriminate against everyone else instead?

[JanM]

I know of a lot of very nice, retired K-9 dogs. In fact where I used to live, a huge GSD lived behind me, and was really sweet. When my 25 lb. Schnauzer barked at him, Sammy would get up, stick his nose in the air, and march away (I told my little fool to leave him alone, because Sammy could have swallowed my boy whole, my dog was jealous of other dogs around me). Sammy could have cleared the 4 ft fence very easily, but he stayed in his yard. I never worried about that dog for a second, but I’ve seen some so-called guard dogs that I wouldn’t turn my back on.

Where I used to live, two states ago, the local sheriff and police bought trained dogs from a civilian source, and some were not safe to leave around other dogs in the group kennel at night. That dog lived with his handler, who was single. That dog made me very nervous. That was definitely not a dog to take out with Officer Friendly to see school kids.

Retired Military dogs are either given to former handlers, or other experienced owners. Remember, not all working dogs are protection or guard animals, but some are drug or bomb detectors, and not trained for protection. If unsuitable for family life, then they live in a controlled environment for retired dogs, with hired personnel.

[Sswor]

[QUOTE=pezk;8899122]
Then you know nothing about well trained Schuzhund dogs, or police dogs, since the training is very very similiar. You do know that police dogs go home with their handlers and are a part of the family much of the time. Military dogs are being returned with their handlers to live in families and communities. The difference between Schuzhund dogs and police dogs are that the Schuzhund dogs are doing it for fun. Its a game. Police dogs arent playing a game. Are you going to forbid all police dogs and military dogs from living in residential communities just because something could happen? Or are you just going to discriminate against everyone else instead?[/QUOTE]

I’ll bite. Sure, I would be in favor of “forbidding” it. The topic is in regards to a residential community, not a libertarian paradise. What benefit is there to the community to have trained attack dogs; police or military, ex or currently serving, living next door? How is this a good thing for people? Other pets? Conversely, could this be a detriment? How big of a detriment and how much damage could occur to the community; people or property, if something goes wrong? Also conversely, who is inconvenienced and what damages might the community incur if the ownership of trained attack dogs in a residential neighborhood is heavily regulated and/or restricted?

[pezk]

[QUOTE=JanM;8899160]
I know of a lot of very nice, retired K-9 dogs. In fact where I used to live, a huge GSD lived behind me, and was really sweet. When my 25 lb. Schnauzer barked at him, Sammy would get up, stick his nose in the air, and march away (I told my little fool to leave him alone, because Sammy could have swallowed my boy whole, my dog was jealous of other dogs around me). Sammy could have cleared the 4 ft fence very easily, but he stayed in his yard. I never worried about that dog for a second, but I’ve seen some so-called guard dogs that I wouldn’t turn my back on.

Where I used to live, two states ago, the local sheriff and police bought trained dogs from a civilian source, and some were not safe to leave around other dogs in the group kennel at night. That dog lived with his handler, who was single. That dog made me very nervous. That was definitely not a dog to take out with Officer Friendly to see school kids.

Retired Military dogs are either given to former handlers, or other experienced owners. Remember, not all working dogs are protection or guard animals, but some are drug or bomb detectors, and not trained for protection. If unsuitable for family life, then they live in a controlled environment for retired dogs, with hired personnel.[/QUOTE]

I was just asking since there are seem to be many complaints about schuzhund dogs living among us. That just because bite work is part of training it doesnt mean the dog is going to bite everyone. So I took it one step further to police and military dogs. Ive known nice retired K 9 dogs, and Ive known very nice retired championship Schuzhund dogs who wouldnt bite a burglar if you wanted them too. (Nice story about the dog next dog and yours)

[RaeHughes]

Angela Freda - my friend got her first English Mastiff after two home invasions. She really emphasised that she wanted a scary looking friendly big dog :). The breeder of her mastiffs was adamant that it is her responsibility to ensure that the dogs are well trained and obedient.

Of course, the 3rd home invasion was a lot different - the two guys who broke into her house … well, shat their pants even tho’ Bruno was just sitting there panting at them .

[Perfect10]

[QUOTE=ASBJumper;8898368]
Exactly. The responsible people, the ones who are physically strong enough to restrain the dog, the ones who are smart enough and well-off enough to put the dog into intensive obedience classes, the ones who have enough time to dedicate to carefully and methodically socializing these dogs, make up a tiny percentage of pit/bully breed owners.

You can’t fix stupid. You can’t legislate stupid. You can’t “demographically profile” potential pitbull/mastiff owners and point to the tall, educated white male lawyer and say “yes, you can have one” and then point to the tattooed, overweight, chain-smoking hispanic janitor and say “ermm… no you can’t have one”.
That will NEVER happen. We cannot weed out the bad owners (even less when we’re talking potential owners) from the good, so a blanket ban is all that’s left to feasibly try. It might not work perfectly, but it’s darn well better than nothing.[/QUOTE]

A blanket ban won’t work. The people who want a pit to “look mean” and protect them are the kinds of people who don’t care if it’s illegal. In fact, they may be more likely to have a pit bull if it is illegal. And then where are we? Yes, you’ll be right, the pit bulls will be dangerous dogs, because the only ones around are bred to hurt people.

We can’t fix stupid, and we can’t determine who can have a pit bull based on what they look like. All we can do is pass dangerous dog laws that have nothing to do with breed, and punish the actually aggressive dogs, not the entire breed for the actions of a few. You can call them a ticking time bomb all you like, but there are many more pit bulls in the world who have never hurt anyone than ones that have.

[Perfect10]

[QUOTE=skyon;8898733]
If a dog has been trained to attack a human through any kind of organization then it needs to be reported. Period.[/QUOTE]

That’s ridiculous. What about police dogs? A well run schutzhund club is very aware of what the dog is able to do and installs commands to stop an attack well before they get to the point of bitework.

[Perfect10]

[QUOTE=Houndhill;8899081]
I have been resisting contributing to this thread, but finally I cannot rest without knowing- what city did you live in that had a “feral wolfhound problem”?

Do you know whether these “feral wolfhounds” were AKC registered Irish Wolfhounds? Or we’re they big grey sighthound-looking dogs?

I ask because if this is true, I am sure the Irish Wolfhound Club of America (I am a former Board member) would be very concerned. We would also be concerned that someone has called for all Irish Wolfhounds to be muzzled in public and have mandatory spay/neutering.

I have never heard of such a recommendation and it would be strongly opposed by many.

Because of the resurgence of coyote populations in many areas, there have been some mixed breed sighthounds that are sometimes crossed with other breeds that are sometimes used to hunt coyotes. Might it be possible that this is what you were seeing?

If so, would you still recommend that all Irish Wolfhounds should be muzzled in public and subjected to mandatory spay/neuter?

As an AKC judge of Irish Wolfhounds, and having been an Irish Wolfhound owner for 45 years, and having had a breeding program where temperament is paramount, as it is for most Irish Wolfhound breeders, I strongly object to this characterization of the breed.

Any legal proceeding that attempted to implement this would be very strongly opposed by quite a number of Irish Wolfhound fanciers worldwide.[/QUOTE]

As a fancier of the breed, it makes sense that you would feel this way. It also makes sense that any fancier of a large dog breed would feel opposed to a law that requires muzzling in public and mandatory spay/neuter, such as many are suggesting for pit bulls and large dogs like GSDs, Rottweilers, etc. This attitude is exactly why that kind of law will never pass. A wolfhound can do as much, if not more damage than a pit bull so all laws relating to the amount of damage a dog can do should apply to them equally.

[rugbygirl]

[QUOTE=Houndhill;8899081]
I have been resisting contributing to this thread, but finally I cannot rest without knowing- what city did you live in that had a “feral wolfhound problem”?

Do you know whether these “feral wolfhounds” were AKC registered Irish Wolfhounds? Or we’re they big grey sighthound-looking dogs?

I ask because if this is true, I am sure the Irish Wolfhound Club of America (I am a former Board member) would be very concerned. We would also be concerned that someone has called for all Irish Wolfhounds to be muzzled in public and have mandatory spay/neutering.

I have never heard of such a recommendation and it would be strongly opposed by many.

Because of the resurgence of coyote populations in many areas, there have been some mixed breed sighthounds that are sometimes crossed with other breeds that are sometimes used to hunt coyotes. Might it be possible that this is what you were seeing?

If so, would you still recommend that all Irish Wolfhounds should be muzzled in public and subjected to mandatory spay/neuter?

As an AKC judge of Irish Wolfhounds, and having been an Irish Wolfhound owner for 45 years, and having had a breeding program where temperament is paramount, as it is for most Irish Wolfhound breeders, I strongly object to this characterization of the breed.

Any legal proceeding that attempted to implement this would be very strongly opposed by quite a number of Irish Wolfhound fanciers worldwide.[/QUOTE]

It was in Fort McMurray, the dogs were part of a massive seizure (250 or something) and I strongly doubt they were AKC registered. The case was in litigation when I became aware of it, and I have no idea what happened. There were at least three generations of dogs seized, with a minimum of three looking like purebred wolfhounds, although you are right, they may not have been. Extremely large, wire coated dogs that looked like wolfhounds. The husky looking ones looked like malamutes, and a while bunch had traits of both. There were also random looking smaller dogs, and coyotes being crossed in there is eminently likely. Oh. You said to HUNT coyotes. Yeah, these could do that too. I’ve never seen a crossbreed as tall as a real wolfhound, which is why I saw pretty sure a few of these were purebreds. I put them on there strictly thinking of the popular breeds in the last city i lived in, whose byline could EASILY be “small dog hell”

If the wolfhounds in my new area are owned by people who call themselves fanciers and have ever actually corresponded with a kennel club, I’ll withdraw them from my list of muzzle/leash.

[rugbygirl]

[QUOTE=pezk;8899122]
Then you know nothing about well trained Schuzhund dogs, or police dogs, since the training is very very similiar. You do know that police dogs go home with their handlers and are a part of the family much of the time. Military dogs are being returned with their handlers to live in families and communities. The difference between Schuzhund dogs and police dogs are that the Schuzhund dogs are doing it for fun. Its a game. Police dogs arent playing a game. Are you going to forbid all police dogs and military dogs from living in residential communities just because something could happen? Or are you just going to discriminate against everyone else instead?[/QUOTE]

I actually think it’s fine for police and military dogs to not live in cities, or to be subject to the same leash/muzzle/speuter laws as other large breeds. Not all retired police dogs are great pets, my brother had a friend growing up whose retired police dog had eaten at least three neighborhood cats and bitten two people. I began to suspect that sometimes the dogs were turned over not to the most qualified families, but sometimes due to emotional attachment.

I don’t get how you think bite/attack training large dogs is going to sell as a “fun game.” Most people aren’t going to get on board with that. I thin you might have more luck with the whole “It’s an important skill, the night is dark and full of terrors” thing. Again, have your fun. Hope your club’s non attack record stays clean! When I think of “fun” with dogs, I tend to gravitate towards flyball, or those fun Frisbee dogs, or even sheep herding. Agility, even that dancing dog thing. Racing dachshunds. But we’re all different.

*eaten is hyperbole. He really just attacked and killed them. I can’t say for sure they were eaten. He DID eat the family hamster, but that was just a series of unfortunate events.

[Houndhill]

[QUOTE=Perfect10;8899569]
As a fancier of the breed, it makes sense that you would feel this way. It also makes sense that any fancier of a large dog breed would feel opposed to a law that requires muzzling in public and mandatory spay/neuter, such as many are suggesting for pit bulls and large dogs like GSDs, Rottweilers, etc. This attitude is exactly why that kind of law will never pass. A wolfhound can do as much, if not more damage than a pit bull so all laws relating to the amount of damage a dog can do should apply to them equally.[/QUOTE]

Yes, an Irish Wolfhound could do a great deal of damage to a person.

That is why they have been selected for generations to have a great deal of inhibition of aggression towards humans, specifically because, they might hunt large prey animals, but we don’t want them to be remotely aggressive to humans.

In the rare cases of it, it is most often a brain tumor and universally within the breed, euthanasia is called for.

This breed, and Newfoundlands, are about the least likely to show aggression to humans of any breed of dogs. It is simply not tolerated.

[Houndhill]

[QUOTE=rugbygirl;8899584]
It was in Fort McMurray, the dogs were part of a massive seizure (250 or something) and I strongly doubt they were AKC registered. The case was in litigation when I became aware of it, and I have no idea what happened. There were at least three generations of dogs seized, with a minimum of three looking like purebred wolfhounds, although you are right, they may not have been. Extremely large, wire coated dogs that looked like wolfhounds. The husky looking ones looked like malamutes, and a while bunch had traits of both. There were also random looking smaller dogs, and coyotes being crossed in there is eminently likely. Oh. You said to HUNT coyotes. Yeah, these could do that too. I’ve never seen a crossbreed as tall as a real wolfhound, which is why I saw pretty sure a few of these were purebreds. I put them on there strictly thinking of the popular breeds in the last city i lived in, whose byline could EASILY be “small dog hell”

If the wolfhounds in my new area are owned by people who call themselves fanciers and have ever actually corresponded with a kennel club, I’ll withdraw them from my list of muzzle/leash.[/QUOTE]

I am not familiar with this seizure.

Please do withdraw Irish Wolfhounds from your list of breeds which may require the measures you have suggested.

[rugbygirl]

You can probably look up the decisions in the Alberta courts files, between 2010 and 2012 ( not sure when the actual decision came through. )

It is VERY unlikely that breed organizations would have been involved. This was not a rescue, it was a seizure to protect the public, an actual feral dog pack and ownership dispute. If the dogs were not returned to the, uh, “owner” I am almost certain they would have been destroyed.

[Houndhill]

[QUOTE=rugbygirl;8899637]
You can probably look up the decisions in the Alberta courts files, between 2010 and 2012 ( not sure when the actual decision came through. )

It is VERY unlikely that breed organizations would have been involved. This was not a rescue, it was a seizure to protect the public, an actual feral dog pack and ownership dispute. If the dogs were not returned to the, uh, “owner” I am almost certain they would have been destroyed.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I see that this was in Alberta, Canada .

I have contacted the Irish Wofhound Club of Canada.

[rugbygirl]

I’ll be interested if they have any details on it, I’m very curious what those dogs were, if not Irish Wolfhounds. I always thought the Irish Wolfhound had kind of an unmistakable silhouette, but I’m not a serious dog fancier. I know that some “tough guys” at work had discussed them as being the “biggest” breed of dog, which engendered a lively debate with someone who clearly favored the mastiff for sheer size. I believe they settled on the Wolfhound being the TALLEST.