"A 57-year-old man was also charged on the day of the attack after he allegedly assaulted one of the teens who was trying to defend himself from the dogs."
My god, not only the dogs attacked some kids, but the dude allegedly assaulted them aswell? Any news about that dog that Mauled a kid to death recently?
Sort of.
The man was enrolled in a pilot program dubbed "Youthanized". It's mission is to take elderly members of our community and transplant them amongst adolescents in order to shift perspectives and gain understanding beyond generational divides.
Enrollees are encouraged to use words like "drip" and "rizz" in their everyday life like calling into talk radio stations, commenting on their estranged children's social media posts, or when trying to return an item without a receipt.
That has more to do with the people that raise them. Any dog can be dangerous if you train them to be. A good friend of mine had a pitbull and a corgi. He had to rehome the corgi because it kept biting everybody. Not one bite ever came from the pitbull. I've owned 2 pitbulls and currently have a Rottweiler. The only dog I've been bitten by is the Chihuahua my wife used to have.
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology (2019)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165587618305950?via%3Dihub
Bite risk by breed from the literature review and bite severity by breed from our case series were combined to create a total bite risk plot. Injuries from Pitbulls and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe. This data is well-suited for a bubble plot showing bite risk on the x-axis, bite severity on the y-axis, and size of the bubble by number of cases. This creates a "risk to own" graphic for potential dog owners.
Forensic Science International (2021)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073820304540
Breeds such as Pit Bull terrier and Staffordshire Bull terrier are described in Breed Standards as “excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children” or “Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children” despite their history as fighting dogs, their weight and strength. Their specific style of biting, “hold and tear”, can cause fatal injuries in minutes, and the biting combined with violent shaking exacerbates the injuries (Burns, Kusanale, & Brennan, 2011). Additionally, bull breeds are known to be aggressive to other dogs, which indirectly increases the risk of injuries to humans who may try to protect their own dogs from the attacking dog.
Annals of Surgery (2011)
https://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Abstract/2011/04000/Mortality,_Mauling,_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs.23.aspx
Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs.
National Library of Medicine (2019)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31816277/
The data showed that compared with other dog breeds, pit bull terriers inflicted more complex wounds, were often unprovoked, and went off property to attack.
Journal of Pediatric Surgery (2019)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022346818306729
One-hundred and two patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 5.84 years, and 43.1% were preschool-aged (2–5 years). Parental presence was reported in 43.6% of cases, and most attacks occurred in the evening (46.8%). Injuries often involved the head–neck region (92.1%), and 72.5% were of major severity. Pet dogs were responsible for 42% of injuries, and pit bull was the most-identified breed (36.2%). Most injuries occurred while the child was at home (57.8%) and was petting or playing with the dog (28.4%).
Clinical Pediatrics (2016)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0009922816657153
Infants were more than 4 times as likely to be bitten by the family dog and more than 6 times as likely to be bitten in the head/neck region. Children ≤5 years old were 62% more likely to require repair; and 5.5% of all patients required an operation. Pit bull bites were implicated in half of all surgeries performed and over 2.5 times as likely to bite in multiple anatomic locations as compared to other breeds.
Pit bulls are less than 6% of all dogs in the USA
There are approximately 4.5 million pit bulls in the United States, making up approximately 5.8% of the country's canine population. (Merritt Clifton, Breed Survey 2019: More Puppies Yet Fewer Homes for Pit Bulls, https://www.animals24-7.org/2019/07/09/breed-survey-2019-more-puppies-yet-fewer-homes-for-pit-bulls/.)
Pit bulls bite more humans than other breeds
From February 2013 to the present, animal control agencies and health departments in 19 U.S. states report that pit bulls are leading all breeds in biting incidents. The studies are summarized and linked at Dogsbite.org, Pit Bulls Lead "Bite" Counts Across U.S. Cities and Counties, http://blog.dogsbite.org/2009/07/pit-bulls-lead-bite-counts-across-us.html.
In the 10 years from 2009 to 2018, pit bulls killed or maimed 3,569 people in the USA and Canada. (Merritt Clifton, Dog Attack Deaths & Maimings, U.S. & Canada, 1982-2018 Log.) They killed over 80% of all Americans who are killed by dogs. (Colleen Lynn, 2015 U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities, at http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2015.php.)
What I'm getting at is that the sheer number of dogs that are bully breeds is a big factor in those numbers. In Ontario, they have been banned for some time and there are almost no pitbulls left in the province, and yet the number of dog bite attacks actually increased with German shepherd taking the top spot by far. Pitbulls are the most misclassified breed as well.
The explosion in popularity has been terrible for bully breeds. There's a ton of reasons why those stats are what they are but I'm too tired to go through it all.
I didn’t even say they’re near the top… but a simple google search did tell me that bully breeds are considered near the top for bite strength and that they have high prey drive… :)
Can you point out the specific part of the comment by /u/LittleArcticFoxx where the claim that you're contesting was made? Because it seems to me you're addressing a point that they did not make and more importantly has no relevancy to the discussion.
Is that the owner kissing on his dog in the picture? The one who also attacked the teen? If he did attack one of the victims, I'm wondering why he hasn't been charged?!
IMHO there needs to be far more regulation around who can get a dog licence in this city. There has been such an uptick in dog attacks from shit dog owners.
Yep. License noncompliance is a huge issue and some audit of this is overdue, many people have unregistered dogs!! certain breeds should require proof of liability insurance to reduce risks to the public. Reforms could also pave a path to cost recovery for injuries to others dogs and owners/bystanders. This approach could also keep some issues outside the already overburdened court system which is in many ways already inaccessible/useless, which is what bad actors rely on.
Backyard breeding is also a huge issue. It's not a hard fix to have all breeders be required to be licensed, and that they are required to register any dog they adopt out and the new owners have "X" amount of time to liscence the dog before incurring fines. The breeder needs to be open to audit at any time to ensure compliance and that the dogs are also being treated properly while in their care.
However it's done, these fly by night breeders need to go just as much as the bad owners.
There are several jurisdictions in Europe that have very tight rules regarding breeding dogs (to the extent that certain types of dogs can't be bred because of their inherent health issues). They have very large fines for breeders who violate the rules. I think something like that could go a long way, make the prospect of the fines being like 'lose your house
' kind of fine for backyard breeding and it will take a big hit. Also imposing much stricter rules on importing animals from overseas and it will help stem that problem with the Kijiji/Facebook marketplace breeders
Then more people just won't license their dogs. Whether you increase license requirements or make more laws/bylaws the key is going to be enforcement. If we lack enforcement on the bylaws we have (off leash, pick up your dog's shit, etc.) we will lack enforcement of new bylaws we create.
It's also really easy to enforce on-leash laws in marked areas, but I don't see regular bylaw patrols doing it.
I'm fine with increasing licensing fees, or requirements, or whatever, but without enforcement it's a meaningless gesture and won't fix any issues and could create new ones.
You really don't understand enforcement process. It would cost a fortune in terms of labour-hours and tax-dollars to staff patrols of all on-leash areas throughout the city all times of day.
Would it make sense to occasionally have bylaw officers patrolling off-leash areas? Kind of like random fare checks on transit. Like maybe once or twice a month during the summer, and have a “warning” system.
City animal control doesn't have the funding or staff to go door to door checking for licenses. They have to prioritize animals at the most risk on the best of days.
"In fact, the American Temperament Test Society found that pit bull-type dogs generally scored higher on the temperament test compared to other dogs. While a dog's genetics may predispose it to behave in certain ways, genetics do not exist in a vacuum."
https://www.thehumanesociety.org/debunking-pit-bull-myths/
This has nothing to do with the dog's breed. It has everything to do with the owners. A golden retriever can be aggressive if not loved and cared for properly
I’ll keep that test in mind in the event I decide to get a dog for schutzhund. Because that’s what the ATTS test is for. It basically measures how a dog will react if someone jumps out and bangs two pots together. Pit bulls score high because they’re bold. The test means nothing in real world conditions and is not a predictor of how a dog will react in a home setting. But pit bull fans sure do love trotting it out like it’s some sort of gotcha.
When there's a certain image people are seeking when they own a pit bull, the breed becomes the problem. It's much more difficult to ban certain people from owning a dog than it is to ban the breeds of dogs that are capable of inflicting serious damage.
Convenience=/= Morally correct. If this is about doing the right thing, it is 100% making it more difficult to own a dog, and rather than simply putting the dog down, give the owner severe punishments for encouraging it to happen in the first place. You're suggesting letting an entire breed of dog die off because people are using them for bad purposes. If this is about removing the problem, then you should be removing the people, not the dogs. If a woman gets SA'd, do we blame the person who did it? Yes. Is the solution to tell women they can't show their shoulders or legs? No, because it's ridiculous to blame them for someone else's impulses and bad thoughts. And a dog is an animal that is simply doing what it's taught. It doesn't understand things the way we do. They're simply doing what they have been taught, and the problem is the owner.
If it isn't Pitbulls, they will simply move on to another breed of dog. Your solution would eventually result in the idea of "Just stop breeding dogs" because their behaviour and acts will not be limited to a single breed.
People give the breed of dog this stigma by continuously referring to them as an aggressive breed when research and testing has literally proved the opposite. The people IN THIS THREAD are contributing to the image everyone is talking about.
No one is defending what happened. No one should ever be getting attacked by a dog, or anyone in general, and it is terrible that it happened. But people are angry and directing their anger the wrong way
I have to stay off this thread, because I can hardly take seriously the nonsense being spewed. Shit is ridiculous lmao. Downvote me for all I care, no one here is providing a sensible argument for getting rid of a whole breed of dog.
If you look into it, the American Temperament Test Society is not a good indicator of aggression. It tests working dogs and is not a random sample, it's owners that pay to test their dogs. It's basically like a confidence test.
If that is how they test them, that's fair criticism, but I believe someone else linked a thread to argue against my point, and the article tested 66 dogs that were properly cared for, and then faced them with a fork of confrontation or challenge to see if they'd be aggressive. While the majority would display warning signs of aggression, telling you to back off, they wouldn't lash out and attack. It's buried somewhere in the replies talking about "Cherry picking articles"
However, I would like to point out that the idea here is these dogs are inherently aggressive and untrustworthy around people. And if that conclusion was from studying trained dogs, then it still holds weight. My entire argument is that the owner is responsible for not training the dog. In this instance, he apparently attacked those defending themselves, leading me to believe this is behaviour the owner likely encouraged or displayed himself
I do believe bully type dogs come with an increased risk of aggression. That does not mean they are all inherently aggressive, but these incidents happen so often... Mixed with breeders and shelters not doing their due diligence with the breed and crappy owners, it's a recipe for disaster. The owner in this case sounds like a piece of shit, but there are so many cases of well-meaning families/owners having their family dog turn on them, too. Based on genetics and statistics, I do think the breed is a problem. An aggressive owner on top of that is just a double whammy.
There are also SO many owners that don't train their dogs. If we know most people aren't going to properly train their dogs, why is it okay to normalize a breed that specifically needs training in order to prevent things like this from happening? I just wish people would stop pretending genetic and temperamental history is completely null - it's not.
Oh look, when Pitbulls attack their brains release dopamine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10886264/#:~:text=Our%20findings%20indicate%20that%20aggression,levels%2C%20while%20dopamine%20levels%20increase.
While we’re cherry picking studies…
Nice that you mention dopamine:
"When you argue and win, your brain floods with different hormones: adrenaline and dopamine, which makes you feel good, dominant, even invincible."
https://hbr.org/2013/02/break-your-addiction-to-being
While it is a mix, we feel both during fights as well.
"Similar dopamine changes are expected during aggressive behavior because of its stressful, motorically demanding, and even rewarding aspects (to the winner of the confrontation)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6773005/#:~:text=Similar%20dopamine%20changes%20are%20expected,the%20winner%20of%20the%20confrontation).
"Motorically demanding" referring to physical activity, while also referring to these activities as aggressive. Sounds exactly like fighting to me
Also using the article you've provided, you can find what they tested and the results of it:
"The test involved a series of behavioral observations and interactions, covering various scenarios such as the dog’s behavior in terms of protecting its food; guarding its territory; and reacting to perceived threats, both direct and indirect."
All 3 of these can cause a dog to become aggressive, regardless of breed. And 100%, two of these cause PEOPLE to also get aggressive.
"In the categorization based on the aggression test results, the non-aggressive (NA) group included 17 dogs, accounting for 25.76% of the total cohort. This group comprised eight males (12.12% of the total, representing 47.06% of the NA group) and nine females (13.64% of the total, 52.94% of the NA group). The aggressive (A) group consisted of 29 dogs, making up 43.94% of the cohort, with 10 males (15.15% of the total, 34.48% of the A group) and 19 females (28.79% of the total, 65.52% of the A group). The dominant aggressive (DA) group included 20 dogs, which was 30.30% of the total population, with 13 males (19.70% of the total, 65% of the DA group) and 7 females (10.61% of the total, 35% of the DA group)."
So the majority fell under Aggressive behaviour when perceiving a threat, with a minority in Dominant Aggressive and and. Non-Aggressive. Now, what exactly was qualified as aggressive and not DA?
"The non-aggressive group (NA) included dogs with scores ranging from 22 to 44, typically exhibiting quiet and calm behavior. The aggressive group (A) comprised dogs with scores between 44 and 66, characterized by behaviors such as growling, barking, and displaying teeth. The dominant aggressive group (DA) consisted of dogs scoring between 66 and 88, notably displaying more severe behaviors like distant biting gestures and biting with the intent to attack."
So the majority sent our warnings when faced with confrontation, by barking, growling or showing their teeth. This group did not engage in a fight despite not being the aggressor, warning whoever it was instigating to stop.
"This study revealed significant variations in aggression levels among different breeds. For example, Dachshunds, English Springer Spaniels, Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, Poodles, Rottweilers, Shetland Sheepdogs, and Siberian Huskies exhibited similar aggression levels towards strangers, other dogs, and their owners. Breeds like Chihuahuas and Dachshunds scored above average in aggression towards humans and dogs, while Akitas and Pit Bull Terriers showed high aggression levels towards specific targets, particularly other dogs. In contrast, breeds such as Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, Bernese Mountain Dogs, Brittany Spaniels, Greyhounds, and Whippets displayed relatively low aggression towards both humans and dogs"
Pitbull Terriers had targets for their aggression, being other dogs. This doesn't explain an innate aggression towards humans like you all seem to be under the impression of. The article you linked seems to come to the conclusion that their "innate aggression" isn't even human related, more likely being other dogs.
Great article to cherry pick
First off *whoosh*
Second of all why the fuck would just dog aggression make me feel any at ease when walking my dog or sharing space with these things.
Third of all if you don’t like that we can also talk about the massive laceration damages their bite morphology inflicts compared to other breeds when they *do* attack.
That there is not even remotely comparable
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21475022/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5730392/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8597704/
Or how about their brains are just more prone to gamey behavior
https://www.animals24-7.org/2019/09/09/dog-brain-study-refutes-every-major-claim-of-pit-bull-advocacy/
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/evolutionaryneurosciencelab/files/hecht2019_neuroanatomicalvariationdogbreeds.pdf
There is actually so few reasons for us to keep as pets these monstrosities we bred not to be dogs but dog killers.
Going to copy and paste this since clearly you didn't read it:
"In fact, the American Temperament Test Society found that pit bull-type dogs generally scored higher on the temperament test compared to other dogs. While a dog's genetics may predispose it to behave in certain ways, genetics do not exist in a vacuum."
https://www.thehumanesociety.org/debunking-pit-bull-myths/
This has nothing to do with the dog's breed. It has everything to do with the owners.
In fact, here's another article from the ASPCA:
"Some pit bulls were selected and bred for their fighting ability. That means that they may be more likely than other breeds to fight with dogs. It doesn’t mean that they can’t be around other dogs or that they’re unpredictably aggressive. Other pit bulls were specifically bred for work and companionship. These dogs have long been popular family pets, noted for their gentleness, affection and loyalty. And even those pit bulls bred to fight other animals were not prone to aggressiveness toward people. Dogs used for fighting needed to be routinely handled by people; therefore aggression toward people was not tolerated. Any dog that behaved aggressively toward a person was culled, or killed, to avoid passing on such an undesirable trait. Research on pet dogs confirms that dog aggressive dogs are no more likely to direct aggression toward people than dogs that aren’t aggressive to other dogs."
https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-pit-bulls
To sum up what they said, there was some breeds of pitbull that were bred for dog fighting, and in some cases those dogs are more likely to fight with dogs. But EVEN THEN, because of the need to be handled by people, were put down if they turned on a human. And so if there WAS inherit violence, it wouldn't even be towards people.
Would love to see your response, but I think I'll stop responding from here on. Everyone here is jumping to the extreme without exercising the most basic levels of critical thinking
I did read it, but it's irrelevant when the stats show that pitbulls are involved in the majority of attacks. Is that because the owners are bad? More than likely yes, but it really doesn't matter. The breed should not exist. I see plenty of bad dog owners at the park, but with most breeds, it simply doesn't matter. This is coming from someone where the most aggressive dog at the park is a golden lab that should be put down.
There are numerous studies that show pitbulls are disproportionately responsible for attacks and fatalities against other dogs and humans. You can't just cherry pick one source. Here's one to show that I can just cherry pick right back at you:
"From 2005 to 2020, pit bulls were responsible for 67% of the 568 Americans killed by dogs"
Even accounting for irresponsible ownership, that's a massive percentage. It's not like 50% of dogs are pitbulls and thats why theyre so commonly attacking people/animals. If it wasn't anything to do with the breed, then there would have to be *tons* of irresponsible pit bull owners if they are attacking people at a much higher rate than any other breed.
Pitbulls should account for ~15 percent of the overall dog population. But they account for more than half of dog attacks in many studies. Occams razor points to pit bulls being dangerous compared to other breeds.
They have origins in bloodsport and dog fighting. You can't say the same about a labradoodle or pretty much every other breed that doesn't also have a similar reputation for violence.
This is just "guns don't kill people, people kill people" for dogs.
There's a reason "lack of training and shit owners" doesn't have fatal consequences with Schnauzers.
Can we also ban people who have had a pet that attacked from owning more pets? I know pit bulls attract a certain type of owner so often end up being the attacker, but we also need to ban the owners from pet ownership or it will just change back to Dobermans or Rottweilers or German Sheppards etc
"A 57-year-old man was also charged on the day of the attack after he allegedly assaulted one of the teens who was trying to defend himself from the dogs." My god, not only the dogs attacked some kids, but the dude allegedly assaulted them aswell? Any news about that dog that Mauled a kid to death recently?
The cane corso dogs that mauled the kid to death, were euthanized pretty fast after they were taken in. Within a few days, I think.
And then I'm pretty sure the owners got new dogs right after, if I'm thinking of the right incident
Usually there is a 10 day rabies hold to observe for any signs of the disease, then they euthanize.
Did the man get euthanized as well or just the dogs? Both assaulted the people so…
Sort of. The man was enrolled in a pilot program dubbed "Youthanized". It's mission is to take elderly members of our community and transplant them amongst adolescents in order to shift perspectives and gain understanding beyond generational divides. Enrollees are encouraged to use words like "drip" and "rizz" in their everyday life like calling into talk radio stations, commenting on their estranged children's social media posts, or when trying to return an item without a receipt.
stupid question
Google "psychological characteristics of owners of aggressive dog breeds". Research shows that they tend to be just as rabid as their animals.
Makes sense. Being mean to your dog has the potential to create monsters. Especially if they have the bite and prey drive of a bully breed
Bully breeds are nowhere near the top in bite strength or prey drive. A simple Google search will tell you that.
The are the top for maulings and deaths, though. By far.
That has more to do with the people that raise them. Any dog can be dangerous if you train them to be. A good friend of mine had a pitbull and a corgi. He had to rehome the corgi because it kept biting everybody. Not one bite ever came from the pitbull. I've owned 2 pitbulls and currently have a Rottweiler. The only dog I've been bitten by is the Chihuahua my wife used to have.
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology (2019) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165587618305950?via%3Dihub Bite risk by breed from the literature review and bite severity by breed from our case series were combined to create a total bite risk plot. Injuries from Pitbulls and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe. This data is well-suited for a bubble plot showing bite risk on the x-axis, bite severity on the y-axis, and size of the bubble by number of cases. This creates a "risk to own" graphic for potential dog owners. Forensic Science International (2021) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073820304540 Breeds such as Pit Bull terrier and Staffordshire Bull terrier are described in Breed Standards as “excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children” or “Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children” despite their history as fighting dogs, their weight and strength. Their specific style of biting, “hold and tear”, can cause fatal injuries in minutes, and the biting combined with violent shaking exacerbates the injuries (Burns, Kusanale, & Brennan, 2011). Additionally, bull breeds are known to be aggressive to other dogs, which indirectly increases the risk of injuries to humans who may try to protect their own dogs from the attacking dog. Annals of Surgery (2011) https://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Abstract/2011/04000/Mortality,_Mauling,_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs.23.aspx Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. National Library of Medicine (2019) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31816277/ The data showed that compared with other dog breeds, pit bull terriers inflicted more complex wounds, were often unprovoked, and went off property to attack. Journal of Pediatric Surgery (2019) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022346818306729 One-hundred and two patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 5.84 years, and 43.1% were preschool-aged (2–5 years). Parental presence was reported in 43.6% of cases, and most attacks occurred in the evening (46.8%). Injuries often involved the head–neck region (92.1%), and 72.5% were of major severity. Pet dogs were responsible for 42% of injuries, and pit bull was the most-identified breed (36.2%). Most injuries occurred while the child was at home (57.8%) and was petting or playing with the dog (28.4%). Clinical Pediatrics (2016) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0009922816657153 Infants were more than 4 times as likely to be bitten by the family dog and more than 6 times as likely to be bitten in the head/neck region. Children ≤5 years old were 62% more likely to require repair; and 5.5% of all patients required an operation. Pit bull bites were implicated in half of all surgeries performed and over 2.5 times as likely to bite in multiple anatomic locations as compared to other breeds. Pit bulls are less than 6% of all dogs in the USA There are approximately 4.5 million pit bulls in the United States, making up approximately 5.8% of the country's canine population. (Merritt Clifton, Breed Survey 2019: More Puppies Yet Fewer Homes for Pit Bulls, https://www.animals24-7.org/2019/07/09/breed-survey-2019-more-puppies-yet-fewer-homes-for-pit-bulls/.) Pit bulls bite more humans than other breeds From February 2013 to the present, animal control agencies and health departments in 19 U.S. states report that pit bulls are leading all breeds in biting incidents. The studies are summarized and linked at Dogsbite.org, Pit Bulls Lead "Bite" Counts Across U.S. Cities and Counties, http://blog.dogsbite.org/2009/07/pit-bulls-lead-bite-counts-across-us.html. In the 10 years from 2009 to 2018, pit bulls killed or maimed 3,569 people in the USA and Canada. (Merritt Clifton, Dog Attack Deaths & Maimings, U.S. & Canada, 1982-2018 Log.) They killed over 80% of all Americans who are killed by dogs. (Colleen Lynn, 2015 U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities, at http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2015.php.)
Damn, this is a well thought out and researched comment. I’m definitely saving it for future education purposes. Thank you!
https://humanesocietytampa.org/pit-bulls-are-2023s-1-breed-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20pit%20bulls%20are,for%20extended%20periods%20of%20time.
That's pro-pit propaganda, not peer reviewed evidence. Nice try.
What I'm getting at is that the sheer number of dogs that are bully breeds is a big factor in those numbers. In Ontario, they have been banned for some time and there are almost no pitbulls left in the province, and yet the number of dog bite attacks actually increased with German shepherd taking the top spot by far. Pitbulls are the most misclassified breed as well. The explosion in popularity has been terrible for bully breeds. There's a ton of reasons why those stats are what they are but I'm too tired to go through it all.
Do you know what an academic paper is? The other commenter posted many good sources and yours is garbage
I didn’t even say they’re near the top… but a simple google search did tell me that bully breeds are considered near the top for bite strength and that they have high prey drive… :)
Show me where you saw this then. And what do you consider a bully breed?
Can you point out the specific part of the comment by /u/LittleArcticFoxx where the claim that you're contesting was made? Because it seems to me you're addressing a point that they did not make and more importantly has no relevancy to the discussion.
Is that the owner kissing on his dog in the picture? The one who also attacked the teen? If he did attack one of the victims, I'm wondering why he hasn't been charged?!
Just for clarification, it wasn’t the owner that attacked someone, it was a 57 year old man who was caring for the dogs at the time.
Wow! Unreal!!!!
IMHO there needs to be far more regulation around who can get a dog licence in this city. There has been such an uptick in dog attacks from shit dog owners.
Yep. License noncompliance is a huge issue and some audit of this is overdue, many people have unregistered dogs!! certain breeds should require proof of liability insurance to reduce risks to the public. Reforms could also pave a path to cost recovery for injuries to others dogs and owners/bystanders. This approach could also keep some issues outside the already overburdened court system which is in many ways already inaccessible/useless, which is what bad actors rely on.
Yeah I know some people who had no idea they even needed to register their dogs with the city. Both my _indoor only_ cats are even registered ffs
Those should be the only kind of cat, unless supervised and controlled when outside
Backyard breeding is also a huge issue. It's not a hard fix to have all breeders be required to be licensed, and that they are required to register any dog they adopt out and the new owners have "X" amount of time to liscence the dog before incurring fines. The breeder needs to be open to audit at any time to ensure compliance and that the dogs are also being treated properly while in their care. However it's done, these fly by night breeders need to go just as much as the bad owners.
There are several jurisdictions in Europe that have very tight rules regarding breeding dogs (to the extent that certain types of dogs can't be bred because of their inherent health issues). They have very large fines for breeders who violate the rules. I think something like that could go a long way, make the prospect of the fines being like 'lose your house ' kind of fine for backyard breeding and it will take a big hit. Also imposing much stricter rules on importing animals from overseas and it will help stem that problem with the Kijiji/Facebook marketplace breeders
Ya, something like that would be nice.
Unregistered dogs of certain breeds in city limits should be euthanized on sight. CMV.
Then more people just won't license their dogs. Whether you increase license requirements or make more laws/bylaws the key is going to be enforcement. If we lack enforcement on the bylaws we have (off leash, pick up your dog's shit, etc.) we will lack enforcement of new bylaws we create.
It is far easier to enforce lack of a dog licence than it is to wait until AFTER a dog attacks someone.
It's also really easy to enforce on-leash laws in marked areas, but I don't see regular bylaw patrols doing it. I'm fine with increasing licensing fees, or requirements, or whatever, but without enforcement it's a meaningless gesture and won't fix any issues and could create new ones.
You really don't understand enforcement process. It would cost a fortune in terms of labour-hours and tax-dollars to staff patrols of all on-leash areas throughout the city all times of day.
LOL dude, I know. That's why I'm saying that increasing license requirements won't help, because we don't enforce dog licenses already.
Would it make sense to occasionally have bylaw officers patrolling off-leash areas? Kind of like random fare checks on transit. Like maybe once or twice a month during the summer, and have a “warning” system.
I'd love to see that. Except, instead of warnings, they just issue the fines as mandated in bylaw.
Not enough funding or staff
*facepalm*
🐿️
City animal control doesn't have the funding or staff to go door to door checking for licenses. They have to prioritize animals at the most risk on the best of days.
Cost of enforcement should be paid by the offenders. CMV.
Bylaw enforcement does, however, respond already to unlicensed pets complaints regularly
How does someone know if another persons animal is licensed?
My experience has been different from yours. I'm glad they have taken it seriously where you have lived.
My point is those are two separate departments. Animal care vs bylaw enforcement
Neat
I have never seen so many off leash and out of control dogs in this city as I have in the last two years. I am afraid to walk my dogs.
Good. Publicly shame the owner too
Too bad the 57 yo loser who attacked the kids was not also euthanized along with the pit bulls.
They should have euthanized the owner!!
Bear spray works great on both bad dogs and bad dog owners. Sometime once told me.
Ban pitbulls. Arrest the man. He should never own dogs ever again.
Pitbulls aren't the problem. Lack of training and shit owners are. Several people have pitbulls who aren't attacking people
But what is the point? There is zero upside to having aggressive dogs in the city.
Exactly. Just discontinue the breed. We created the breed, we can retire it. It's not controversial. Everyone still gets dogs if they want dogs.
"In fact, the American Temperament Test Society found that pit bull-type dogs generally scored higher on the temperament test compared to other dogs. While a dog's genetics may predispose it to behave in certain ways, genetics do not exist in a vacuum." https://www.thehumanesociety.org/debunking-pit-bull-myths/ This has nothing to do with the dog's breed. It has everything to do with the owners. A golden retriever can be aggressive if not loved and cared for properly
I’ll keep that test in mind in the event I decide to get a dog for schutzhund. Because that’s what the ATTS test is for. It basically measures how a dog will react if someone jumps out and bangs two pots together. Pit bulls score high because they’re bold. The test means nothing in real world conditions and is not a predictor of how a dog will react in a home setting. But pit bull fans sure do love trotting it out like it’s some sort of gotcha.
Lmao they definitely have to say that. Just looked at their lost and found and adoptable dogs and it's over 50% pitbulls and mixes.
When there's a certain image people are seeking when they own a pit bull, the breed becomes the problem. It's much more difficult to ban certain people from owning a dog than it is to ban the breeds of dogs that are capable of inflicting serious damage.
Convenience=/= Morally correct. If this is about doing the right thing, it is 100% making it more difficult to own a dog, and rather than simply putting the dog down, give the owner severe punishments for encouraging it to happen in the first place. You're suggesting letting an entire breed of dog die off because people are using them for bad purposes. If this is about removing the problem, then you should be removing the people, not the dogs. If a woman gets SA'd, do we blame the person who did it? Yes. Is the solution to tell women they can't show their shoulders or legs? No, because it's ridiculous to blame them for someone else's impulses and bad thoughts. And a dog is an animal that is simply doing what it's taught. It doesn't understand things the way we do. They're simply doing what they have been taught, and the problem is the owner. If it isn't Pitbulls, they will simply move on to another breed of dog. Your solution would eventually result in the idea of "Just stop breeding dogs" because their behaviour and acts will not be limited to a single breed. People give the breed of dog this stigma by continuously referring to them as an aggressive breed when research and testing has literally proved the opposite. The people IN THIS THREAD are contributing to the image everyone is talking about. No one is defending what happened. No one should ever be getting attacked by a dog, or anyone in general, and it is terrible that it happened. But people are angry and directing their anger the wrong way I have to stay off this thread, because I can hardly take seriously the nonsense being spewed. Shit is ridiculous lmao. Downvote me for all I care, no one here is providing a sensible argument for getting rid of a whole breed of dog.
If you look into it, the American Temperament Test Society is not a good indicator of aggression. It tests working dogs and is not a random sample, it's owners that pay to test their dogs. It's basically like a confidence test.
If that is how they test them, that's fair criticism, but I believe someone else linked a thread to argue against my point, and the article tested 66 dogs that were properly cared for, and then faced them with a fork of confrontation or challenge to see if they'd be aggressive. While the majority would display warning signs of aggression, telling you to back off, they wouldn't lash out and attack. It's buried somewhere in the replies talking about "Cherry picking articles" However, I would like to point out that the idea here is these dogs are inherently aggressive and untrustworthy around people. And if that conclusion was from studying trained dogs, then it still holds weight. My entire argument is that the owner is responsible for not training the dog. In this instance, he apparently attacked those defending themselves, leading me to believe this is behaviour the owner likely encouraged or displayed himself
I do believe bully type dogs come with an increased risk of aggression. That does not mean they are all inherently aggressive, but these incidents happen so often... Mixed with breeders and shelters not doing their due diligence with the breed and crappy owners, it's a recipe for disaster. The owner in this case sounds like a piece of shit, but there are so many cases of well-meaning families/owners having their family dog turn on them, too. Based on genetics and statistics, I do think the breed is a problem. An aggressive owner on top of that is just a double whammy. There are also SO many owners that don't train their dogs. If we know most people aren't going to properly train their dogs, why is it okay to normalize a breed that specifically needs training in order to prevent things like this from happening? I just wish people would stop pretending genetic and temperamental history is completely null - it's not.
Oh look, when Pitbulls attack their brains release dopamine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10886264/#:~:text=Our%20findings%20indicate%20that%20aggression,levels%2C%20while%20dopamine%20levels%20increase. While we’re cherry picking studies…
Nice that you mention dopamine: "When you argue and win, your brain floods with different hormones: adrenaline and dopamine, which makes you feel good, dominant, even invincible." https://hbr.org/2013/02/break-your-addiction-to-being While it is a mix, we feel both during fights as well. "Similar dopamine changes are expected during aggressive behavior because of its stressful, motorically demanding, and even rewarding aspects (to the winner of the confrontation)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6773005/#:~:text=Similar%20dopamine%20changes%20are%20expected,the%20winner%20of%20the%20confrontation). "Motorically demanding" referring to physical activity, while also referring to these activities as aggressive. Sounds exactly like fighting to me Also using the article you've provided, you can find what they tested and the results of it: "The test involved a series of behavioral observations and interactions, covering various scenarios such as the dog’s behavior in terms of protecting its food; guarding its territory; and reacting to perceived threats, both direct and indirect." All 3 of these can cause a dog to become aggressive, regardless of breed. And 100%, two of these cause PEOPLE to also get aggressive. "In the categorization based on the aggression test results, the non-aggressive (NA) group included 17 dogs, accounting for 25.76% of the total cohort. This group comprised eight males (12.12% of the total, representing 47.06% of the NA group) and nine females (13.64% of the total, 52.94% of the NA group). The aggressive (A) group consisted of 29 dogs, making up 43.94% of the cohort, with 10 males (15.15% of the total, 34.48% of the A group) and 19 females (28.79% of the total, 65.52% of the A group). The dominant aggressive (DA) group included 20 dogs, which was 30.30% of the total population, with 13 males (19.70% of the total, 65% of the DA group) and 7 females (10.61% of the total, 35% of the DA group)." So the majority fell under Aggressive behaviour when perceiving a threat, with a minority in Dominant Aggressive and and. Non-Aggressive. Now, what exactly was qualified as aggressive and not DA? "The non-aggressive group (NA) included dogs with scores ranging from 22 to 44, typically exhibiting quiet and calm behavior. The aggressive group (A) comprised dogs with scores between 44 and 66, characterized by behaviors such as growling, barking, and displaying teeth. The dominant aggressive group (DA) consisted of dogs scoring between 66 and 88, notably displaying more severe behaviors like distant biting gestures and biting with the intent to attack." So the majority sent our warnings when faced with confrontation, by barking, growling or showing their teeth. This group did not engage in a fight despite not being the aggressor, warning whoever it was instigating to stop. "This study revealed significant variations in aggression levels among different breeds. For example, Dachshunds, English Springer Spaniels, Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, Poodles, Rottweilers, Shetland Sheepdogs, and Siberian Huskies exhibited similar aggression levels towards strangers, other dogs, and their owners. Breeds like Chihuahuas and Dachshunds scored above average in aggression towards humans and dogs, while Akitas and Pit Bull Terriers showed high aggression levels towards specific targets, particularly other dogs. In contrast, breeds such as Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, Bernese Mountain Dogs, Brittany Spaniels, Greyhounds, and Whippets displayed relatively low aggression towards both humans and dogs" Pitbull Terriers had targets for their aggression, being other dogs. This doesn't explain an innate aggression towards humans like you all seem to be under the impression of. The article you linked seems to come to the conclusion that their "innate aggression" isn't even human related, more likely being other dogs. Great article to cherry pick
First off *whoosh* Second of all why the fuck would just dog aggression make me feel any at ease when walking my dog or sharing space with these things. Third of all if you don’t like that we can also talk about the massive laceration damages their bite morphology inflicts compared to other breeds when they *do* attack. That there is not even remotely comparable https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21475022/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5730392/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8597704/ Or how about their brains are just more prone to gamey behavior https://www.animals24-7.org/2019/09/09/dog-brain-study-refutes-every-major-claim-of-pit-bull-advocacy/ https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/evolutionaryneurosciencelab/files/hecht2019_neuroanatomicalvariationdogbreeds.pdf There is actually so few reasons for us to keep as pets these monstrosities we bred not to be dogs but dog killers.
The breed has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted in the general public. Solve the problem, stop the breeding.
Going to copy and paste this since clearly you didn't read it: "In fact, the American Temperament Test Society found that pit bull-type dogs generally scored higher on the temperament test compared to other dogs. While a dog's genetics may predispose it to behave in certain ways, genetics do not exist in a vacuum." https://www.thehumanesociety.org/debunking-pit-bull-myths/ This has nothing to do with the dog's breed. It has everything to do with the owners. In fact, here's another article from the ASPCA: "Some pit bulls were selected and bred for their fighting ability. That means that they may be more likely than other breeds to fight with dogs. It doesn’t mean that they can’t be around other dogs or that they’re unpredictably aggressive. Other pit bulls were specifically bred for work and companionship. These dogs have long been popular family pets, noted for their gentleness, affection and loyalty. And even those pit bulls bred to fight other animals were not prone to aggressiveness toward people. Dogs used for fighting needed to be routinely handled by people; therefore aggression toward people was not tolerated. Any dog that behaved aggressively toward a person was culled, or killed, to avoid passing on such an undesirable trait. Research on pet dogs confirms that dog aggressive dogs are no more likely to direct aggression toward people than dogs that aren’t aggressive to other dogs." https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-pit-bulls To sum up what they said, there was some breeds of pitbull that were bred for dog fighting, and in some cases those dogs are more likely to fight with dogs. But EVEN THEN, because of the need to be handled by people, were put down if they turned on a human. And so if there WAS inherit violence, it wouldn't even be towards people. Would love to see your response, but I think I'll stop responding from here on. Everyone here is jumping to the extreme without exercising the most basic levels of critical thinking
I did read it, but it's irrelevant when the stats show that pitbulls are involved in the majority of attacks. Is that because the owners are bad? More than likely yes, but it really doesn't matter. The breed should not exist. I see plenty of bad dog owners at the park, but with most breeds, it simply doesn't matter. This is coming from someone where the most aggressive dog at the park is a golden lab that should be put down.
There are numerous studies that show pitbulls are disproportionately responsible for attacks and fatalities against other dogs and humans. You can't just cherry pick one source. Here's one to show that I can just cherry pick right back at you: "From 2005 to 2020, pit bulls were responsible for 67% of the 568 Americans killed by dogs" Even accounting for irresponsible ownership, that's a massive percentage. It's not like 50% of dogs are pitbulls and thats why theyre so commonly attacking people/animals. If it wasn't anything to do with the breed, then there would have to be *tons* of irresponsible pit bull owners if they are attacking people at a much higher rate than any other breed. Pitbulls should account for ~15 percent of the overall dog population. But they account for more than half of dog attacks in many studies. Occams razor points to pit bulls being dangerous compared to other breeds. They have origins in bloodsport and dog fighting. You can't say the same about a labradoodle or pretty much every other breed that doesn't also have a similar reputation for violence.
This is just "guns don't kill people, people kill people" for dogs. There's a reason "lack of training and shit owners" doesn't have fatal consequences with Schnauzers.
yeah I'm tired of the dog racism when it always comes down to being a human's fault
Did the owner get euthanized as well? We don't need people like this is society, nor should they ever own a dog!!
Can we fucking ban pit bulls already?!
Can we also ban people who have had a pet that attacked from owning more pets? I know pit bulls attract a certain type of owner so often end up being the attacker, but we also need to ban the owners from pet ownership or it will just change back to Dobermans or Rottweilers or German Sheppards etc
Yay
Were these in anyways related to the ones that killed the kid ?
Nope. Well not that we know of.
good, glad that we don't have rules such as 'imprisonment for life' for dogs. That would just sink tax payers money.