Pit Bulls break in home

I hope the owners of the dogs are held responsible. There needs to be a message sent that aggressive dogs of ANY breed wont be tolerated. If you can not properly contain and control your human aggressive, dog aggressive and animal aggressive dog then you need to face the consequences.
 
You know snakes & raccoons can come in doggy doors too. Have heard stories of both!
 
 

Well the fence they broke through was not much of a fence, I saw pictures of it. The owner is an 18 year old kid.

ORIGINAL: dgriego
Sounds to me like both "owners" were negligent.

I am not blaming anyone,

I'm misunderstanding one of these?

and if you want to discuss bias information then why is it that most stories like this, when you get all the details are found to have been bias in their presentation and faulty in their facts. quote "Massive dogs belonging to "Mission: Impossible" star Ving Rhames attacked and killed a live-in caretaker" end quote! Well we know how that one turned out. I will not be surprised to find there is more to this story than has been released.

Because some media reports get it wrong, we should assume that all media reports are wrong? Isn't that like saying because some pit bulls are agressive, we should assume all pit bulls are aggressive?

Denise
 
 I think if you take the time to read my last couple of posts you might have a clue what I think about it now that I have looked into the entire story for myself.
 
But let me spell it out for you:
 
The first story read is very confusing and brings to mind many questions, IS IT WRONG TO QUESTION EVERY STORY I AM ASKED TO READ? My I thought that was just being smart. The first story posted leads one to ask the question: How did they get in the house? What kind of person leaves their doors open? Did they come through a dog door? If so, was there a fence? It is obvious that the owner of the pit bulls was an idiot and therefore no need to question that. The story says she had a dog they were chasing. If they could get in this means her dog could also have got out (in MHO that is irresponsible) The story says she is disabled and yet she was able to grab a gun and run through the house and shoot at the dogs? That to led me to question the integrity of the story. I do not make a habit out of believing everything I see just because some news reported says it.
 
 I did not once say what you are implying which is: It is totally the fault of the poor handicapped women, the owner has no responsibility and don't blame the dogs!
 
 I said that from the original post both owners could be called negligent. If you have a dog (which the story says she did) and you have an open door (be it a dog door or a patio door) and strange dogs are able to get into your house, then I would assume that would mean that your dog could leave the house and roam the neighborhood. THAT is the negligence (as in bad dog owner) of which I was speaking and was not implying that she in any way deserved to be attacked or that she was responsible for the attack.
 
Now after looking it up for myself and watching the video's and hearing the women#%92s story (which the original post does not cover very well) and seeing that she is handicapped but it is not a mobility handicap, seeing the dogs, seeing the owner and his story then it is obvious that these dogs attacked this woman. I sympathize with her. I would consider any other person negligent if the left their door open where their dog could leave. It is obvious from watching this lady speak that she cannot be held accountable for that.

I was posting at the same time. I understand and we seem to be in agreement. It's a sad story for everyone involved.

I edited just to make sure and clarify my position. Probably while you were posting.

Pit bull and pit mixes account for 21 percent of all human fatalities, while mixed breed dog#%92s account for 16 percent and other nonspecified breeds, 15 percent.
 
431 deaths because of dog attacks in the years from 1965 to 2001. Children 12 younger were the victims in 79 percent of the fatal attacks.
 
In 37 years, dogs killed 342 children, an average of about nine children a year
 
Of the 28 dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000 and 2001, 26 were males and two were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were sexually intact; the reproductive status of the remaining five male dogs could not be determined. The male dog that killed the 12-year-old boy in San Francisco on June 3 was protecting his female dog in heat.
 
  What do these statistics mean and how can they help us solve the current problem. There is a problem. Whether you believe the Pit Bull should be banned and all living ones put to sleep, or whether you believe the Pit Bull is warm and cuddly and would not hurt a fly. Each side may differ on what the problem is, those who are anti pit may feel these dogs cannot be trusted and should be banned as a danger to society. Those on the pro pit side will say the problem is irresponsible owners and that the dog is not to blame. I think that there is truth to both sides. The dogs involved in these attacks cannot be trusted, they were a danger to society, they should be put to sleep, but I also believe that there are far more pit bulls that can be trusted, that play with kids daily, that go to dog parks without issues, that are service dogs and trusted companions.
 
 Before I go on I would like to clarify that I am anti BLS of any kind. I also do not like to see any dog killed unless it has bitten a human and not all cases of biting need to lead to this result. Having said that I will attempt to start a conversation, hoping I will not get flamed but what the hell, someone has to say it. The media hype alone in the past two weeks has probably generated numerous pro BLS calls to politicians. Anti BLS people cannot keep saying that it isn#%92t the breeds fault (even though that is a true statement in my opinion) nor can we say it is irresponsible owners (also true) that are causing the problems. We must have some sort of solution to propose?
 
 If banning the breed is not a solution what is the solution? Have we helped create the problem by making it easy to have one of these dogs? I checked the listings for the local shelters today and found 16 dogs adoptable today that are pit or pit mixes. The problem with the Pit Bull is that it has become the American dog. It is easy to get one, it is popular everywhere, it is very popular with today#%92s youth and it is very popular in the ghetto. All this leads to thousands of pit bulls in shelters being adopted by people who in 9 out of 10 cases probably do not have the experience or knowledge to be responsible for such a breed. Imagine if Cane Corso#%92s Dogo Argentino#%92s Fila Brazilias, or Boerboel#%92s were this obtainable? The dogs that attacked the lady were owned by an 18-year-old boy! I have a 18 year old son. He has been raised around dogs all his life but he is not in any way ready to be solely responsible for the care and upbringing of such a dog! (There may be some 18 year olds who are but not mine)
 
 The answer has to be in controlling the breed and its distribution. Maybe saving every dog that ends up in a shelter is not the answer. Maybe this has led us to the problem we have today. Maybe we need to be much more diligent before placing any bully breed or bully breed mix in an adopted home. Maybe it would be better to put a dog to sleep rather than just adopt it out to anyone. Perhaps there should be counseling sessions needed if you are interested in adopting one, inspections of your home, agreements for training classes.
  I know why you do not see the breeds mentioned above in the news very often. The reason is they are expensive ($1000-5000), you never see them in shelters, if one arrives in a shelter the rescue group for that breed moves quick to get it out and place it with experienced foster owners to evaluate its temperament and make certain it is ready and then they will place it. To adopt one of these rescues you must meet the criteria and you do not get them for free.
 If such a stance is taken with the pit-bull there is no way to avoid the result which will mean more dogs will be put down but it seems as if the only solution is for them to not be as easy to get. If someone had to pay 1000$ or more for a puppy they are less likely to abuse it, less likely to let it roam and more likely to have done some research and preparation before purchasing it. If the same pup costs $50 then it#%92s a bargain, and if I don#%92t like it I can always take it back, or throw it in the back yard or kick it around.
   I don#%92t know if what I have written is even feasible, but I am concerned, I see BLS around the corner, today it#%92s the Pit Bull tomorrow it may be my dog, it may be yours. I do not want the government taking any of my freedoms. I do not want any regulations on what dog I can buy or what I may have to do to purchase it, but I see it coming and if regulations are coming I would rather them be something I can live with than outright bans.

ORIGINAL: chewbecca

Just keep spreading "the word" Bob.
I cannot help but to think that you have some sort of issue or point to prove about pit bulls.

I keep wondering if you are primrose with another ISP.  But, be that as it may, you never seem to post any of the positives about this breed, so I assume that you have an agenda.  Just keep in mind that when people make a one sided argument on this issue, they are also hurting every responsible owner of the breed as well.  I have a student who spends hundreds of dollars with me just so that she can have private lessons to insure that she has her dog under control both on a leash and by virtue of the commands he knows.  I have a friend with a wonderful AmStaff that is a therapy dog at a local nursing home, and another friend with a Rottie that participates in a "Reading to Rover" program in an elementary school.  This is a tough issue, but it is NOT one sided.

Having just watched two of the news clips, I am not surprised to learn that the woman was mauled while trying to save the jack russell.

What happened was terrible and beyond awful, but the pits did NOT sneak up on a sleeping woman and attack her.  This is another clear case of the media going for sensationalism rather than straight facts.

Yes Dog-ma, the original story posted did not have very many of the facts straight. But that is typical for the media.

I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion, but there's one point I didn't see brought up (I may have missed it). Did the owner actually encourage his dogs to be aggressive? It seems like it may not be a case of a person "making them mean" so much as natural dog aggression that a lot of Pit Bulls have. *Edited to add that I'm in no way implying that most Pit Bulls would go on a killing spree. This particular case seems like an extreme example of dog aggression. I find it odd that the dogs broke down the neighbor's fence and then got in her house. It almost seems like they went out of their way to attack them.

Edited to add- I forgot to say that there's no question the owner should be held liable for not keeping the dogs properly contained. But it doesn't sound like he should be blamed for his dogs' temperament. Some dogs do have a genetically bad temperament, so it bothers me that the owner always seems to be blamed when the dog is "mean".

. I have never owned a dog like that, and never would.

I think that says it all.  A)  You've never owned one so you have no idea what they are positively capable of and  B) Since you wouldn't ever own one you want to see them burn in the deepest pits of hell so you feel the need to emphasize the media's biased materials to prove your point.

Hey Bob, I suppose you also think we should also ban "rap music" and graphic movies to prevent violence in the schools, eh?

You struck a nerve here....*Content Removed * TOS Rule 3

ORIGINAL: Luvntzus

Some dogs do have a genetically bad temperament, so it bothers me that the owner always seems to be blamed when the dog is "mean".[/color]

I don't disagree, some dogs do have bad genes and that can manifest as aggression. That doesn't negate the owner's responsibility though, because either:

- the owner "made" the dogs mean somehow

OR

- the owner did not put proper measures in place to contain a dog they knew was inherently "mean".

The only time aggressive dogs are highlighted in the media is when they have done something. Lots of DA and HA dogs are successfully owned and managed by people who know what precautions to take. So, if it gets to the point where a dog makes the news, and thus we actually hear about it, because it has attacked, it is ALWAYS the owner's fault.

ORIGINAL: Benedict

- the owner did not put proper measures in place to contain a dog they knew was inherently "mean".

Very true. That's basically what I'm saying- that the owner is definitely responsible for the dog attack, but that he may or may not have actually caused the dogs to become aggressive.

ORIGINAL: Luvntzus

ORIGINAL: Benedict

- the owner did not put proper measures in place to contain a dog they knew was inherently "mean".

Very true. That's basically what I'm saying- that the owner is definitely responsible for the dog attack, but that he may or may not have actually caused the dogs to become aggressive.

No argument from me there. []