If I say I think it’s pitbulls will I go up or down.
Down. wild is what you’re looking for. This was a pack of wild dogs. Maybe they were owned by someone but this is wild dog behavior. The owner should not only be charged with manslaughter and multiple assault and endangerment, but also some charges for having dogs in a way to do this.
No dog owner would condone any part of this and it’s irrelevant what breed the dogs were.
These were not wild dogs. They were owned. The breed of dog is important for understanding aggression in dogs. Denying that is literally sticking your head in the sand to avoid factual information you don’t want to hear.
Aggression in any dog breed is 100% on the human responsible for the dog.
Ban Pitts and then scratch your head a few years later when you hear about the German Shepherd attacks, ban the German Shepherds and then wipe the drool from your mouth while you read the article about the uptick in Rottweiler maulings the year after.
You can play wack-a-mole all you want, the rest of us will focus on achievable solutions.
Aggression in any dog breed is 100% on the human responsible for the dog.
Funny how 99% of the people responsible for dog attacks own pitbulls and not another breed of dog. It’s almost like this is a multifaceted issue that you’re being reductive about to fit your narrative.
You don’t have to be obtuse about “blame” here. If you own a dog, and it kills someone, it is your fault, sure. Not all breeds are the same though, since the vast majority of fatal dog attacks come from a single problematic breed that ought to be rightfully blamed for the danger they introduce to the community.
That blame should be used to restrict the right to own Pitbulls as a form of harm reduction. Just as a gun control advocate isn’t trying to absolve gun owners of responsibility for their actions when they lobby to regulate unnecessarily dangerous guns, a pitbull critic isn’t trying to absolve dog owners of responsibility for their dog’s actions when they lobby to regulate unnecessarily dangerous dog breeds. It’s all about minimizing human casualties.
If it’s a good idea to regulate Pitt bulls then it’s a good idea to regulate other dogs as well. Anything else is just playing wack-a-mole
Okay fine, Rottweilers too, the only other significant fatal attack risk.
#3 is German Shepherds, but Pit Bulls and Rottweilers are 18x more deadly, so probably not too much regulation needed for those good boys. They truly are most dangerous in the hands of bad owners, unlike the first 2 which are known for sudden catastrophic violence.
After that things aren’t really a problem outside of Pit Bull and Rottweiler mixes. Some smaller dogs are an even bigger bite risk, but basically a zero death risk so not really the urgency to address that any other way than case-by-case.
The data is pretty open and shut, no game of whack-a-mole is needed. We already know which dogs are lethally dangerous. Other countries around the world have solved this problem successfully. We’re not in uncharted territory, and we would save hundreds of lives annually by unconditionally banning Pit Bulls and Rottweilers.
Dog species don’t up their attack trends in response to other species falling behind. If pits are banned the attack rates of other species will remain about the same: much lower than pits.
I see, so all those tough guys that like to get lots of dogs for home protection. Never walk them. Never train them. Forget to feed them. They’re going to move on to the Rottweiler and that dog breed will luckily be uniquely suited to handle those circumstances and will turn out fine, not aggressive at all.
Excellent evaluation 👌
Someone better be going away for manslaughter.
Oh no, not golden retrievers again /s
I have a golden and she’s awesome and gentle. That said, I had heard because there’s so many goldens, they are the number one dog for total number of dog bites on children. I guess even a golden has their limits and a kid can find that limit unerringly.
This is why per capita stats exist.
We all need to agree that pits are at the very least a very advance dog for an owner, they need extra care and training. They should never be dogs just anyone can get.
My friends that are pit owners are always freaking out about how the breed is stigmatized.
I don’t personally have a problem with pits, but yo: an aggressive pit is a far bigger problem than some terrier. There are some awful dog owners out there; a fact reinforced by the heaps of dog shit I see on the sidewalk outside of my job. Those same people are supposedly training a powerfully bred canine to not be an asshole by checks notes being neglectful. Cool
Technically pit bulls are some terrier.
This was similar to mob behavior in humans. Most dog breeds would act similar in that situation, whether they were Pits or not.
I don’t get why people think one breed is worse than another. I have had Rottweilers, bullies, staffies, most of these “dangerous” breeds.
They have all been very good dogs, some I would say were some of the most gentle giant type dogs I’ve had, because I didn’t train them to be aggressive.
Just because a bully dog tends to be owned by a twat that likes to kick it and encourage it to attack other animals doesn’t mean all dogs of that breed are the same.
You can tell me all day that YOUR Pitbulls is sweet and docile and wouldn’t hurt a fly, but I don’t believe you or trust you, keep that animal away from me and any children in sight
I keep them on leads unless in remote locations. You judge me and these animals based on the worst minority demographic of dog owners.
About 75% of pit attacks are by dogs with “good” owners and a general docile disposition. They undergo the PBMS (pit bull mental snap). This is why in most cases the owner is gobsmacked that their dog did such a thing.
Attacks by bad pits or pits with shitty owners are actually the minority.
And I’ll insist that if there is a problem, fault almost certainly lies in the owner or the victim, more than the dog or breed of dog.
You’re part of the problem
People get mad if you don’t like dogs, but you never read stories about people getting mauled by cats.
To be fair, that’s a big cat.
That’s because they kill in different ways. Cats are more like Rogues - you get a scratch one day and then later you’re dying a slow painful death of Cat Scratch Fever, or silently end your pregnancy with Toxoplasmosis.
Dogs on the other hand are more like Barbarians, they just brute force your death in person as fast as they can.
Edit: Parrots are Bards. That is all I will say.
No, parrots are BIRDS. Honest mistake.
/s
I know someone mauled by a cat and was there when it happened. It was quite dramatic. My friend had an old lady cat who was an absolute bitch, she was an interesting character if she liked you, would usually hiss and hide if she didn’t. Friend brought home his girlfriend, cat got jealous and attacked her while they (the couple ) were naked in bed. She was quite torn up, and I was in another room when it happened, was hearing loud music then suddenly screeching then screaming then this naked bloody woman comes running out of the bedroom.
So now you have at least one story.
I will say I am a cat person with dogs, much more than a dog person, but if housecats were as big as dogs, they would be more dangerous than dogs.
I think we should compare dogs and cats to good pets to own, rather than pretending the choices are “big powerful dog” and “environment destroyer 3000.”
After all, both are safe in theory, but irresponsible pet owners ruin it. You can’t expect everyone to correctly take care of certain dog breeds, you can’t expect the majority of cat owners to give up the “proud to roll coal” attitude towards their cat + the environment.
Let’s just have pet spiders or something.
How are cats bad for the environment? Sorry, first time I’ve ever heard someone claim this.
Cats that are allowed to go outside are an absolute menace to small wildlife. They hunt and kill to play, so no matter how well fed they are they will still do it, and they are quite good at it. This is why only indoors cats are allowed on some islands with a fragile ecosystem
Fair enough, but I would compare someone who owns a fat lazy cat to rollin coal assholes.
Yeah the comment you replied to is hyperbolic for sure, but even as a cat person I can see where they’re coming from. At the very least a lot of cat owners have a hard time recognizing the (iirc, scientifically proven) fact that the average outdoors cat kills a lot more small wildlife than they would ever require to survive, and by these numbers, it doesn’t take a ton of them to have a noticeable impact on an ecosystem, especially if you take into account the fact that they usually easily outnumber their natural predators since they are such a popular pet.
By roll coal types I mean people who feel indignation when told they’re doing something harmful to the environment. There’s usually a bit of eye rolling involved.
Does this count? https://youtu.be/6MoDB7EhBqg?si=4YnM6Kv6O8wgOd-9
Maybe it’s just that they’re Parisians, rather than being cats.
(Sorry. Couldn’t resist.)
Don’t try to the parisians guys!
Parisians are different. Can’t blame anyone for having strong feelings about them.
I bet Kristi Noem wouldn’t have stood for this.
YOU SEE!? YOU SEEEEEE?!
-Kristi Noem
Dog owning is a serious responsibility that people are wildly reckless with.
It’s past time for the state to step in. The supply of dogs needs to be controlled, with all animals not intended for breeding being spade or neutered before being adopted.
The breeds of the dogs weren’t specified according to this article.
What a terrible way to go.
Dollars to donuts that shitbulls were involved.
deleted by creator
ThEy ArE nAnNy DoGs
People:
Bloodhounds are renowned for their sense of smell due to intentional selective-breeding.
Greyhounds are renowned for their incredible speed and agility due to intentional selective-breeding.
Border Collies are renowned as the premium choice of herding dog due to intentional selective-breeding.
The exact same people:
Intentional selective-breeding has ZERO impact on pitbulls!!!
Sure, dude.
Edit: typo
So…Pitbulls were bred for a purpose, just like all other working dog breeds.
That doesn’t mean they’re all inherently dangerous dogs, but it does mean they carry significantly more risk then other breeds.
Unless you actually believe that they’re the only working breed not created by selectively breeding for specific hereditary behavioral characteristics?
Mind you, I actually like pitbulls, but that doesn’t mean I should disregard what I know about the breed itself and why they were originally created.
Also FYI that article is about personality, not breed specific characteristics.
Awww, adorable, you think we’re talking about their personalities and not their bone crushing jaws.
Almost all dogs have that ability. That’s what their molars are for… That’s a trait they retain from their wolf ancestors.
Small breed dogs already outnumber and outlive large breeds with a smaller environmental footprint.
But sure
“AlMoSt AlL”
Where are you getting these statistics?
Awww, adorable, you think other dogs have safe jaws and aren’t an inherently unsafe animal to have around.
Lol I owned a German Shepard. I’m fine with banning all those breeds.
But pitbulls would be The reason it had to happen.
The article is not conclusive. There are always going to be outliers in a case by case basis.
From the same article:
“Still, after decades of treating, showing, and judging countless breeds, AKC’s chief veterinary officer, Jerry Klein, disputes the study’s conclusions. “I think most dogs conform to the personality standard of their breed,” he says.”
When will we hold owners responsible? We have started holding parents responsible for their kids actions we need to do the same for dogs.
Owners are always liable wtf are you talking about???
Should be murder charges.
Edit regardless of breed, your dog is an extension of you.
Edit edit Like as if you killed someone while drunk driving.
Drunk driving has an incomparably higher fatality rate though. (Like 1 in 600 vs pits’ 1 in 500,000)
And you can’t be charged with murder for drunk driving. That’s reckless homicide.
The rate doesn’t matter one fucking bit. Death is death.
Regarding the specific definition, fine, I was speaking colloquially. I’d be excited if vicious dog owners got that charge, at minimum.
Everything has some rate of death. That doesn’t make it reckless. Are you saying anyone who owns another dog or who rides a bikes or who has a tree in his yard or who cooks food or who performs surgery which leads to someone’s death should also get [5–10 years in prison] no matter what?
I’m saying you are responsible for your actions and your property.
If you drive drunk, or negligently shoot someone there are serious consequences.
If you ride a bike recklessly and smoke a pedestrian there are consequences.
If your tree falls on your neighbors house there are consequences.
Edit Surgeons have malpractice insurance and can still have charges brought against them based on their behavior.
Edit They aren’t always the same consequence, because society has determined a responsibility level with each type of action.
I believe if you have a dog capable of killing, and it does so, it should be as if you killed. Same as drunk driving. The specific charge may not be murder, that varies by jurisdiction.
deleted by creator
Too bad it wasn’t a bear
