breeds people make threads about

If owners dont raise their dogs properly, there are measures to take. Animal control, legal action if damages occur, whatever. But you cant just go around banning anything that you think might be dangerous unless you want to live in a bubble.

try again

Yeah this. We don't live in a society of equity law.

The only times i had bad experience with dogs were german sheperds. I was maybe 10 - 12 y/o. The first time one of them cames out of the entry of a farm, snapped at my kneecap, and ran back to where he came from. I was bleeding, but only a little. Another one belonged to a friend and attacked my cocker spaniel when i came to visit. The last incident was when i was walking the same cocker, i was on my bike, turned around a corner, and there was this 90 y/o lady with a huge huge german sheperd on the leash. Never seen one of this breed this big, and almost completely black. He immediatly attacked and got ahold of my poor cocker ladies leg. She started screaming, and without thinking i entered the fight grabbing the sheperds snout and trying to open it with my hands (unsuccesful). This attack was so violent that the old lady fell flat on the ground b/c she was trying to still hold the leash. Eventually she stood up and managed to calm down her dog, and he let go. I carried my bleeding dog to the next houseowners who were gardening and had watched the whole incident and begged them to give asylum to my dog behind their fence, b/c i was afraid the sheperd would attack again. They refused so i just had to carry her the kilometer to my home, blood all over my arms. Still think i should have sued those *******s (the houseowners who refused to help me).

All times, no warning before the attack.

Pretty sure I don't need to. Haven't seen a 'ban french poodles' thread yet, but I'd need more fingers and toes than I was genetically blessed to count all the ones about pitbulls.

cplo - no matter how much you try it's not a simple issue with an obvious answer that you can prove.

Suzzer doesn't think they are dangerous. They are dangerous.

Your "logic" that you have to ban either no dogs or all dogs could just as well be no pets or all pets. Otherwise you have to deal with the fuzzy issue of a threshold of what is considered too dangerous.

Seriously, the idea that if you ban pitbulls, you absolutely have to ban chihuahuas is ludicrous.

I voted yes. Like john voight, I own a female pit/lab mix. She is very sweet and extremely smart.

She's also built like a tank, 60 lbs of pure muscle. She has jaws of steel. At 10 months, it is now very difficult for me to separate her jaws if she has something she shouldn't.

My wife and I do not let small children <~7 yo pet her without her leash and prong-collar on. Although, I'm 100% certain that I wouldn't let a small child pet any sized dog I owned without at least a leash on.

My brother was attacked and bit three times by a golden retriever. He has scars on his legs now. The most aggressive dog I've ever encountered was a daschund who attacked my pup and bit my hand. I couldn't get the dog off me until I picked it up by the scruff and shook it. Owner says, "But, he's such a sweetheart."

Just be careful out there, folks. The reality is that the breed matters far less than its training, disposition, and general exposure to the outside world.

I don't think pitbulls should be banned, and I also don't think there should be special rules involved just for them. The penalties should be based on damage done not the breed (although the damage will be much worse with a pitbull over the average dog). I'm surprised you didn't gut that dog Citanul. If someone's dog attacked mine and wouldn't let go I'd be looking for the nearest sharp object or if that wasn't an option I'd start gouging it's eyes.

Or even easier, no felines or all felines.

Never had bad experience with goldfish, i think those should be allowed. My parrots were vicious, though, and immediatly attacked everything in sight. Those should definetly get banned.

What about cats? Should all cats be permissible, with penalties based on damage done, not the breed?

The fact that you could pick the dog up by the scruff and shake it is a huge reason why daschunds are not a threat. Any dog <20lb isn't going to be a huge problem because it just doesn't have the power of big dogs. Hell you could step on the daschund if absolutely necessary.

Generally all damage done by pets should be treated the same, unless the owner has malicious intent or something like he purposely trained the dog to go after children then let it roam around a school zone.

I had an acquaintance who knew someone whose uncle were castrated by a dachshound, so be careful with those statements.

[x] libel?

And henceforth the term wiener dog was coined.

hehe

CommanderCorm - yeah, I believe everything you, your acquaintances, and your acquaintance's uncles say.

There should definitely be a huge difference in liability between the off-chance someone's housecat claws a toddler to death than when someone's pet tiger does.

Now before someone asks why - It's a hypothetical. We've already banned tigers from casual ownership to avoid all that stickiness in the first place. And most rational people understand why.

No doubt, and my intent was to show that any breed could potentially be dangerous, not necessarily the threat of the individual breed to a full-grown (possibly overgrown ) adult male.

But, what if that had been a four year old? Or a six-week old infant? http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/anim...omeranian.html

All dogs can be unpredictable. There is something like 35 deaths per year caused by dogs, and a third of those by pits and pit-mixes. The other two-thirds by other large-breed dogs. It's asinine to believe that pit-bulls are inherently dangerous when there is absolutely no way to prove the circumstances of those deaths. Were those animals family pets or trained for protection or neglected or abandoned or trained to kill each other in underground fighting pits? Impossible to answer.

What about rottweilers, dobermans, and German shepherds? They are also very high on the damage lists.

What about known super-aggressive dogs? The little yappers that could easily take off a child's fingers leaving them maimed for life?

Missed one degree of separation. It's acquaintances uncle's acquaintances theoretical ****.

i cant believe you morons dont believe me.

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

According the study cited 74% of all dog attacks on humans that were deadly or life threatening are from pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes.

It's not just "large breeds" it's fighting/attack bred dogs.

I'm not really for the ban, but I don't think it's unreasonable and I'd never own a fighting breed.

Yes, it's asinine to think that a dog that is the #55 most common dog according to AKC registration statistics and makes up 33% of ALL DEATHS FROM DOGS, is inherently dangerous . Are you serious?