Another Town Passes Vicious Dog Ordinance

Actually, no, she did NOT bite just once.  She was in full fight and enraged and she MANGLED his hand badly.  MOST of the dogs you have named don't WANT to kill, they get in full fight are enraged and don't truely know what theya re doing.  I think you need to try to be a tiny bit more open minded...

they should never be in full fight and enraged while attacking a human!  getting in between two dogs fighting is a whole different story than a  dog actually attacking a human.  big big difference.  i think im being pretty openminded by listening to all of your arguments.  im not yelling at anyone or saying i am right, im only stating my opinion.  being openminded does not mean i have to agree it just means listening, taking it all in, and having still my own opinion whether its changed or not.   i hope you are being openminded while reading my posts as well.

i would like to note, because someone mentioned something about petting a dog while its eating.  a dog  should be trained to never bite just because someone pets it while its eating.  thats just bad behavior.  they should also be trained to not bite or  "air snap"  just because someone gets too close in a public area. 

 sillysally, being bitten and being mangled are two different things.  as ive already stated again again, they can all bite.

So then we should never drive cars again.  Because someone might hit us and kill us.  Or we might slide on ice and kill ourselves.   Oh and don't feed your kid anything becuase they might choke on it and die.  You can only do so much prevention and Wubba is right, it's an easy out, a pointing the finger at the result, not the problem.  It's like saying guns are bad because they kill people.  No, guns don't kill people, it's the people BEHIND the guns that kill people.  A gun laying on the ground is not dangerous until it's picked up.  Responsible gun owners keep their guns away from children and use them for legitimate purposes.  Criminals use guns for nefarious purposes, just as criminals use dogs for nefarious purposes.  So you're saying that since we cant' control criminals, we should do what we can to remove anything they can use to harm others.  Well let's get rid of all the steak knives in our houses.  Let's get rid of all cars.  Let's get rid of all saws, drills, nails, etc....  because they all can kill people.    Where would all the mushers be without their huskies and malamutes?

jaye, (sorry for the assumption that you were male, by the way) you don't punish a crime before it is committed.  You don't send someone you THINK is going to be a murderer to jail simply because he's dressed a certain way or of a certain ethnic background.  This is the same kind of situation.  You inact laws that prevent that kind of behavior.  In this situation, you inact laws that let irresponsible owners know that if they screw up and their dog hurts someone they will pay the consequences.  It's really just not fair or logical to ban dogs over a certain weight or of a certain breed.  Surely you can see that from all the other examples given about all the other things that we could ban. 

I am very partial to big dogs.  I love my dog to death.  I was raised with large dogs - boxers and a pit - and they are the most loveable animals.  I just can't wrestle with little dogs or give them huge bear hugs the way I can my big dogs.  If you don't want a big dog for yourself, then don't get one, but taking away that choice for someone else is wrong, I believe.  You definitely have the right to demand that people who own them are responsible for them, though.  And that's what we all want.  []

i think its kind of silly to try and compare a living animal to inanimate objects.  but since someone used guns as an example, there just so happens to be illegal to own the more "dangerous" "bigger" guns, so thats really not the best example for you to be using.  and its not that i wouldnt want to have a big dog.  i LIKE big dogs! (some not all, i dont like all small dogs either).  maybe if i lived in a house with a big yard instead of a small apt i would want a big dog, but i wouldnt get one, because of all the reasons i stated before.        ........ aside of that, im starting to agree with you all, and i would like to thank those of you who were polite and respectful in your posts, it certainly isnt the rude ones who are convincing me.

In Scottland--a small country with more dogs than horses "On average 5 riders are killed each year"--and that is just riding on the road.

In Britian for 2002--"The BHS records show that 11 riders were killed while riding on the road in 2002. BHS figures are collated on a voluntary basis with a form that can be downloaded from the BHS website. Despite hard lobbying, injuries are still not recorded UNLESS the patient attends hospital straight from the scene of the accident. Very few riders, unless killed or seriously injured, will leave their horse if injured, waiting until the horse has been seen to before seeing to themselves."--and those are just riding on the road.

"There were 39 horse related deaths in Ohio from 1990 through 1998. The Information presented in this report was taken from a review of death certificates issued during those nine years."--This is in ONE state.

"Fifty-one horse related deaths were recorded by the Office of the North Carolina Medical Examiner during the years 1990 to 1999." Again, in ONE state.

"The Massachusetts SCIPP study found that horseback riding was the second leading recreational cause of concussions."

The stats for Canada in 1991--"The causes of death were also varied. Total deaths for the five provinces were 83, of which head injuries accounted for 49 deaths (60%). Head injuries generally occurred when the rider was mounted and fell."

"Approximately 20 percent of horse related injuries occur on the ground and not riding."
"A human skull can be shattered by an impact of 7-10 kph. Horses can gallop at 65 kph."
"A fall from two feet (60 cm) can cause permanent brain damage. A horse elevates a rider eight feet (three meters) or more above ground."
"According to the National Electronic Surveillance System 1998 the most likely ages for injury is at 5-14, and 25-44 years with each decade having about 20 percent of the injuries."


So, if Ohio, which is by no means the horsiest state in the union had 39 deaths in 9 years--times that by 49 (for the other staes in the Union--not every state keeps public tabs, but we'll take the lower number of the two states studied)--and you get over a thousand deaths, give or take, in 10 years. Yes, that is many more deaths than are cause by dogs.

Also, I do believe that this is a constitutional issue. We live in a "free" society--that means at some point YOUR rights end and MINE begin. If I am being a responsible owner with a stable dog, there is no reason why my rights should be interfered with because you have "issues" (I don't know what else to call them) with big dogs. If my dog is running loose, showing agression, running around untrained, than yes, I am interfering with your rights--but if I have a well behaved, non-violent dog, then the rest of it really isn't any of your business. I'm not being rude, just honest. I do not believe that discussions involving our rights should be sugar coated.

can you provide any documentation of that?  you still havnt.  you listed how many deaths ocurred in ohio and other places by horses, you didnt list how many deaths were caused by dogs.  you just said more were cuased by horses but still have not posted the documentation.   im not saying you re wrong.  i dont know if you re wrong or right but im not going to just assume its right until i see actual facts.

im not asking you to sugar coat anything, just to not be disrespectful.

Something like 300 from the 60's to the 90's.

Here is the site I got most of the info from--knock yourself out:http://utopia.utexas.edu/explore/equine/amea/amea.htm

Actually, considering the fact that the actions you are suggesting threaten my dog, who my husband and I consider a full fledged member of our family, I think I am being remarkably respectful []

ORIGINAL: jaye

prince_pride, its not that it *might* be a problem.  it IS a problem, and thats why people are concerned.  im talking about prevention, not punishment.  how are you going to stop the bad people from mishandling their dogs?  there is no way because we dont know who will mishandle and who wont.  punishing someone after their dog kills a kid is too late, because the harms already done.  i do agree that there should be much harsher punishments for people like that.  but its not going to bring the kid back.

 
[linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull[/link]  Please read this it is a very interesting page!
 
I agree, dangerous and vicious dogs are a problem in this country. But I can guarentee you that my Doberman is not going to attack and kill a child! So why should my breed of choice be banned b/c people think that he *might* be a problem? Once Pit Bulls are "banned" those irresponsible owners are just going to move on to Dobermans...and then they will be banned. Or Rotties and then they will be banned...Where will it stop if people are not held accountable and the dog is? Its like blaming that you killed someone on the rap song you just listened to 5min before. Does that mean all rap music from that specific artist should be banned?
 
Breed specific legislation is not the answer. Dangerous or vicious dog laws I agree with but not breed specific.

APBT are banned in the UK and now police are finding that gangsters are using Preso Cararios instead.

I have to agree with Christina. I have six german shepherds.  Only my female is reactive.  And the worst she does, if pushed, is to air snap.  My two oldest boys have earned their Canine Good Citizen awards, Sheba is working on hers and we're working hard to make it.  My younger male just earned his as well.  And the two little boys will start as soon as I can finish Sheba up on hers.  My dogs are trained.  Nope not to the point of Mics or Annes dogs, but I'm not a trainer myself and I have to rely on the help I can get from local classes.
 
Will they bark and scare the daylights out of you if you come to my door?  Yep, they sure will, but they also stop when I order them to QUIET.  Do they get excited and "talk" to other dogs that they see?  Yep.  Are they perfect?  Heck no, but they are well behaved, never run loose and bother anyone else.
 
So my absolute RIGHT to own these big dogs does not end because someone is afraid of them.  Not unless I am not being a responsible owner.  And gosh, if you (collective you) see me walking down the street with a couple of my big dogs and they frighten you, YOU have the option of doing an about face and walking in the other direction.  I would if I knew you were terrified of my big babies, but I'm not a mind reader.
 
 

[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/showProfile.asp?memid=18548]Just[/link] to add something...i was looking around on the internet and i discovered that Italy has banned 92 breeds of dogs!!! Some of the breeds include Corgis, Collies, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, German Shepherds and Boxers...