Dog Attack, Carroll County

[billmyn]

Part of the problem with some pet owners is, they treat and think there pets are human.

Every dog I have ever owned has been treated as part of my family and I've never had an issue. Dogs need attention they need a purpose they are pack animals and truth be told, that is why these 2 women where attacked because of pack mentality. The Alpha was not the owner it was the dog that initiated the attack. Most dogs do not want to be Alpha they are perfectly content being a submissive within the pack. They do need to have structure and a strong Alpha that not only loves them but also corrects them (Appropriately)when needed. I have 2 Dobermans and they are both part of my family but they both know their place within the pack. That's the difference! Also Dogs don't attack for no reason its just that most of the time we don't understand their reason, smell or even body language can set them in motion and if the
Alpha goes the pack will follow. My dogs will never act unless they feel that me or my family (their pack) is threatened unless I show aggression towards another person. You may not even realize that you are showing it but if you are defensive or even afraid of an individual they will know and will stay close to you and ready to defend. Rouge Alphas will need to be put downbut that doesn't mean eliminate they entire breed.

 

[Libertarian01]

First, I have no "dog" in this discussion.

However, as an animal attack could occur anywhere at anytime I will chime in.

Certain dogs have been bred over the decades and sometimes centuries to promote certain traits. These traits then become much more dominant and much more pronounced. This doesn't mean that unique outliers cannot occur, nor does it mean that handlers cannot affect the animals behavior - to a point. What it does mean is that IN SPITE OF training and handling those traits that were bred for are more likely to be near the top of the dogs behavioral responses.

Just as with cars or guns certain breeds were designed to perform certain tasks. There are cars that have been designed for comfort, or speed, or hauling capacity. This doesn't mean that you can't put a tow hitch on a luxury car like a Lexus or make a large work truck comfortable, but the fact is the pickup truck will NEVER be as comfortable as the Lexus and the Lexus will NEVER be able to do the work of the pickup. Not happening.

The same goes for guns. Some were made to be used militarily. Some for hunting. But even the hunting guns differ. A firearm designed for small game is different than a firearm designed for large game. A pistol designed for target shooting could of course be used for home defense, but an M1911A1 that was designed to drop people would be a far better choice.

Looking at the ASPCA's official view on Pit Bulls https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-pit-bulls they seem to acknowledge all of the facts but appear to avoid wanting to discriminate against the animals. I can understand this from an organization that wants to help all animals, but let us look at some of their acknowledgements of these (and other) animals.

"While a dog’s genetics may predispose it to behave in certain ways, genetics do not exist in a vacuum."

True, genetics do NOT exist in a vacuum. However, just because a dog is trained well and taught well and socialized well does not exclude from it the basic genetic trait it was designed for!!

"Today’s pit bull is a descendant of the original English bull-baiting dog—a dog that was bred to bite and hold bulls, bears and other large animals around the face and head. When baiting large animals was outlawed in the 1800s, people turned instead to fighting their dogs against each other. These larger, slower bull-baiting dogs were crossed with smaller, quicker terriers to produce a more agile and athletic dog for fighting other dogs."

This IS the foundation of the traits that were desired - biting, holding, fighting, aggression! This makes for a powerful, more dangerous and aggressive animal.

"The reality is that dogs of many breeds can be selectively bred or trained to develop aggressive traits."

And THIS ^^^ is exactly what happened in the case of the pit bull.

"Early positive experiences, most notably socialization, are considered key in preventing aggressive tendencies in dogs. Puppies that learn how to interact, play and communicate with both people and members of their own and other species are less likely to show aggressive behavior as adults."

Note the probability changers of "preventing" (not stopping) and "less likely" (not removing).

Let us look at real numbers, shall we. In a study of all dog attack fatalities from 2005 - 2014 there were 326 Americans KILLED by dog attacks. http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/10-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf

Here is the breakdown of numbers and statistics:

Breed.................. Number Killed................... Percentage

Pit Bull..................203....................................62.3%
Rottweiler.............38......................................11.7%
Mastiff/BMastiff....13......................................4%
German Shep......12......................................3.7%
Husky..................11.......................................3.4%
Mixed Breed........10......................................3.1%
American BDog...9........................................2.8%
Unknown.............8........................................2.5%
Combination........6 and less..........................6.5%

So, if we were to eliminate the top five (5) breeds you would have reduced deaths from dog attacks by 85.1%. In other words, there would be 277 out of 326 Americans alive today. So the next top (5) in dog attack fatalities is significantly lower than the first top (5). If the top five (5) dog attacking breeds had been removed there would still be 49 people dead, but that is a lot lower than 326.

I am NOT advocating for this! I am just not willing to ignore it either. Some people NEED aggressive, dangerous dogs. They need them for security and protection. I just don't want anyone being fooled into thinking that all dogs are the same and the differences are minor, petty, or insignificant. Just like I don't want fast cars, fully automatic weapons, or dangerous sports banned, neither do I want dangerous dogs banned. But I DO want us to look at the facts straight on.

There are many stories, not even of fatalities that show pit bulls suddenly attacking someone, usually a child, without any provocation.

I think these numbers need to be thought of before allowing emotion into the discussion. Of course many pit bulls will never attack anyone and will show nothing but love and kindness toward their owners, their owners families and others. They will provide much joy and happiness to their human families. But they WILL pose a significantly (62.3%) higher risk than other breeds.

Regards,

Doug

 

[OutdoorDad]

Here is the breakdown of numbers and statistics:

Breed.................. Number Killed................... Percentage

Pit Bull..................203......................... ...........62.3%
Rottweiler.............38......................... .............11.7%
Mastiff/BMastiff....13.................................... ..4%
German Shep......12...................................... 3.7%
Husky..................11......................... ..............3.4%
Mixed Breed........10................................... ...3.1%
American BDog...9........................................2. 8%
Unknown.............8............................. ...........2.5%
Combination........6 and less..........................6.5%




If you got rid of the top 9, you'd eliminate dog attacks entirely!!!

 

[snowwalker]

First, I have no "dog" in this discussion.

However, as an animal attack could occur anywhere at anytime I will chime in.

Certain dogs have been bred over the decades and sometimes centuries to promote certain traits. These traits then become much more dominant and much more pronounced. This doesn't mean that unique outliers cannot occur, nor does it mean that handlers cannot affect the animals behavior - to a point. What it does mean is that IN SPITE OF training and handling those traits that were bred for are more likely to be near the top of the dogs behavioral responses.

Just as with cars or guns certain breeds were designed to perform certain tasks. There are cars that have been designed for comfort, or speed, or hauling capacity. This doesn't mean that you can't put a tow hitch on a luxury car like a Lexus or make a large work truck comfortable, but the fact is the pickup truck will NEVER be as comfortable as the Lexus and the Lexus will NEVER be able to do the work of the pickup. Not happening.

The same goes for guns. Some were made to be used militarily. Some for hunting. But even the hunting guns differ. A firearm designed for small game is different than a firearm designed for large game. A pistol designed for target shooting could of course be used for home defense, but an M1911A1 that was designed to drop people would be a far better choice.

Looking at the ASPCA's official view on Pit Bulls https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-pit-bulls they seem to acknowledge all of the facts but appear to avoid wanting to discriminate against the animals. I can understand this from an organization that wants to help all animals, but let us look at some of their acknowledgements of these (and other) animals.

"While a dog’s genetics may predispose it to behave in certain ways, genetics do not exist in a vacuum."

True, genetics do NOT exist in a vacuum. However, just because a dog is trained well and taught well and socialized well does not exclude from it the basic genetic trait it was designed for!!

"Today’s pit bull is a descendant of the original English bull-baiting dog—a dog that was bred to bite and hold bulls, bears and other large animals around the face and head. When baiting large animals was outlawed in the 1800s, people turned instead to fighting their dogs against each other. These larger, slower bull-baiting dogs were crossed with smaller, quicker terriers to produce a more agile and athletic dog for fighting other dogs."

This IS the foundation of the traits that were desired - biting, holding, fighting, aggression! This makes for a powerful, more dangerous and aggressive animal.

"The reality is that dogs of many breeds can be selectively bred or trained to develop aggressive traits."

And THIS ^^^ is exactly what happened in the case of the pit bull.

"Early positive experiences, most notably socialization, are considered key in preventing aggressive tendencies in dogs. Puppies that learn how to interact, play and communicate with both people and members of their own and other species are less likely to show aggressive behavior as adults."

Note the probability changers of "preventing" (not stopping) and "less likely" (not removing).

Let us look at real numbers, shall we. In a study of all dog attack fatalities from 2005 - 2014 there were 326 Americans KILLED by dog attacks. http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/10-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf

Here is the breakdown of numbers and statistics:

Breed.................. Number Killed................... Percentage

Pit Bull..................203....................................62.3%
Rottweiler.............38......................................11.7%
Mastiff/BMastiff....13......................................4%
German Shep......12......................................3.7%
Husky..................11.......................................3.4%
Mixed Breed........10......................................3.1%
American BDog...9........................................2.8%
Unknown.............8........................................2.5%
Combination........6 and less..........................6.5%

So, if we were to eliminate the top five (5) breeds you would have reduced deaths from dog attacks by 85.1%. In other words, there would be 277 out of 326 Americans alive today. So the next top (5) in dog attack fatalities is significantly lower than the first top (5). If the top five (5) dog attacking breeds had been removed there would still be 49 people dead, but that is a lot lower than 326.

I am NOT advocating for this! I am just not willing to ignore it either. Some people NEED aggressive, dangerous dogs. They need them for security and protection. I just don't want anyone being fooled into thinking that all dogs are the same and the differences are minor, petty, or insignificant. Just like I don't want fast cars, fully automatic weapons, or dangerous sports banned, neither do I want dangerous dogs banned. But I DO want us to look at the facts straight on.

There are many stories, not even of fatalities that show pit bulls suddenly attacking someone, usually a child, without any provocation.

I think these numbers need to be thought of before allowing emotion into the discussion. Of course many pit bulls will never attack anyone and will show nothing but love and kindness toward their owners, their owners families and others. They will provide much joy and happiness to their human families. But they WILL pose a significantly (62.3%) higher risk than other breeds.

Regards,

Doug

Dogs don't attack 'without provocation'. Something always provokes the attack and often it is something very simple that does not appear obvious to outsiders or never reported by the media (yeah I think the media reeks of yellow journalism). I grew up on a farm and there is an art to reading animals. I'm in my upper fifties and have never been bit, though a few have told me I should have, and only two dogs (Shepherds) had me convinced that they would bite me. There are a lot of people who should not own dogs.

 

[billmyn]

First, I have no "dog" in this discussion.

However, as an animal attack could occur anywhere at anytime I will chime in.

Certain dogs have been bred over the decades and sometimes centuries to promote certain traits. These traits then become much more dominant and much more pronounced. This doesn't mean that unique outliers cannot occur, nor does it mean that handlers cannot affect the animals behavior - to a point. What it does mean is that IN SPITE OF training and handling those traits that were bred for are more likely to be near the top of the dogs behavioral responses.

Just as with cars or guns certain breeds were designed to perform certain tasks. There are cars that have been designed for comfort, or speed, or hauling capacity. This doesn't mean that you can't put a tow hitch on a luxury car like a Lexus or make a large work truck comfortable, but the fact is the pickup truck will NEVER be as comfortable as the Lexus and the Lexus will NEVER be able to do the work of the pickup. Not happening.

The same goes for guns. Some were made to be used militarily. Some for hunting. But even the hunting guns differ. A firearm designed for small game is different than a firearm designed for large game. A pistol designed for target shooting could of course be used for home defense, but an M1911A1 that was designed to drop people would be a far better choice.

Looking at the ASPCA's official view on Pit Bulls https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-pit-bulls they seem to acknowledge all of the facts but appear to avoid wanting to discriminate against the animals. I can understand this from an organization that wants to help all animals, but let us look at some of their acknowledgements of these (and other) animals.

"While a dog’s genetics may predispose it to behave in certain ways, genetics do not exist in a vacuum."

True, genetics do NOT exist in a vacuum. However, just because a dog is trained well and taught well and socialized well does not exclude from it the basic genetic trait it was designed for!!

"Today’s pit bull is a descendant of the original English bull-baiting dog—a dog that was bred to bite and hold bulls, bears and other large animals around the face and head. When baiting large animals was outlawed in the 1800s, people turned instead to fighting their dogs against each other. These larger, slower bull-baiting dogs were crossed with smaller, quicker terriers to produce a more agile and athletic dog for fighting other dogs."

This IS the foundation of the traits that were desired - biting, holding, fighting, aggression! This makes for a powerful, more dangerous and aggressive animal.

"The reality is that dogs of many breeds can be selectively bred or trained to develop aggressive traits."

And THIS ^^^ is exactly what happened in the case of the pit bull.

"Early positive experiences, most notably socialization, are considered key in preventing aggressive tendencies in dogs. Puppies that learn how to interact, play and communicate with both people and members of their own and other species are less likely to show aggressive behavior as adults."

Note the probability changers of "preventing" (not stopping) and "less likely" (not removing).

Let us look at real numbers, shall we. In a study of all dog attack fatalities from 2005 - 2014 there were 326 Americans KILLED by dog attacks. http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/10-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf

Here is the breakdown of numbers and statistics:

Breed.................. Number Killed................... Percentage

Pit Bull..................203....................................62.3%
Rottweiler.............38......................................11.7%
Mastiff/BMastiff....13......................................4%
German Shep......12......................................3.7%
Husky..................11.......................................3.4%
Mixed Breed........10......................................3.1%
American BDog...9........................................2.8%
Unknown.............8........................................2.5%
Combination........6 and less..........................6.5%

So, if we were to eliminate the top five (5) breeds you would have reduced deaths from dog attacks by 85.1%. In other words, there would be 277 out of 326 Americans alive today. So the next top (5) in dog attack fatalities is significantly lower than the first top (5). If the top five (5) dog attacking breeds had been removed there would still be 49 people dead, but that is a lot lower than 326.

I am NOT advocating for this! I am just not willing to ignore it either. Some people NEED aggressive, dangerous dogs. They need them for security and protection. I just don't want anyone being fooled into thinking that all dogs are the same and the differences are minor, petty, or insignificant. Just like I don't want fast cars, fully automatic weapons, or dangerous sports banned, neither do I want dangerous dogs banned. But I DO want us to look at the facts straight on.

There are many stories, not even of fatalities that show pit bulls suddenly attacking someone, usually a child, without any provocation.

I think these numbers need to be thought of before allowing emotion into the discussion. Of course many pit bulls will never attack anyone and will show nothing but love and kindness toward their owners, their owners families and others. They will provide much joy and happiness to their human families. But they WILL pose a significantly (62.3%) higher risk than other breeds.

Regards,

Doug

I would be curious to see how many of these attacks in defense of their families or property?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Dogs don't attack 'without provocation'.

I'm going to have to, sort of, disagree with you on that.

My neighbors across the street had a pitbull, a female, and every once in awhile, they would let her loose. When they did that, she would charge anyone she saw, sometimes coming way up into my driveway to come at me. More than once, I had my gun drawn on her and she finally backed off. After several calls to the sheriff, they finally came and took her.

 

[17 squirrel]

Dogs don't attack 'without provocation'. Something always provokes the attack and often it is something very simple that does not appear obvious to outsiders or never reported by the media (yeah I think the media reeks of yellow journalism). I grew up on a farm and there is an art to reading animals. I'm in my upper fifties and have never been bit, though a few have told me I should have, and only two dogs (Shepherds) had me convinced that they would bite me. There are a lot of people who should not own dogs.

You have got to be kidding,.,., sure some bites are caused by provacation, but the simple act of working in your yard,delivering mail or packages, jogging, going for a walk, riding a bicycle, pulling a wagon with your kid, going out for Holloween and on and on. Is certainly is not provacation.

 

[churchmouse]

Dogs don't attack 'without provocation'. Something always provokes the attack and often it is something very simple that does not appear obvious to outsiders or never reported by the media (yeah I think the media reeks of yellow journalism). I grew up on a farm and there is an art to reading animals. I'm in my upper fifties and have never been bit, though a few have told me I should have, and only two dogs (Shepherds) had me convinced that they would bite me. There are a lot of people who should not own dogs.

That is just not true. I have seen dogs divert and get aggressive with no more reason than they see somebody. They are dogs fellas. They are just dogs. They are not people, they do not think like people. They are dogs. They will revert in a heartbeat if dumped off in the woods.

I have had some really neat pets through the years. I have seen all aspects of their behavior. It is interesting to watch.

They are just dogs.

 

[Paul30]

I'm afraid I am going to be seeing this issue up close. I have a couple who rented the house next to a friend who have a doberman and a pit bull. My friends grandson comes over weekly, and I am there often too. The neighbor put up a beware of dog sign that was orange. I told the neighbor that she might want to look it up but I have heard that if you have a beware of dog sign up it is an admission that you knew the dog was dangerous if they harm someone. She said she put them up to protect her legally. I spoke to her son who said the doberman was a puppy dog but the pit bull would hurt you. He was out putting what looked like refrigerator wire racks up against the white 1 x 8 fence because they had a gap large enough to drive a truck through and he knew the dog would leave the yard. There is no way the fence they have will keep those dogs in if they want to leave. The grandson was in her yard looking at the dogs and they were barking and growling like they wanted a piece of him, and I read dogs pretty well. Some bark for entertainment, some bark because they are tortured that they can't reach you. These dogs meant business. I warned him not to stare at them or tease them , because the day they do get out they will go strait for whatever they have developed a hatred of. Fast forward today I look out the window because their doberman is barking a lot, and I see 2 children, about 4 years old with the bicycle and scooter they were riding in the grass up against the fence the dogs are in. Both of them up against the fence teasing the dog and getting dangerously close to it. The neighbors were nowhere to be found so although it's really not my place, I went out and had a chat with the kids. I told them to stay out of that yard and don't go near the dogs. They kept trying to explain that they only wanted to see the dogs up close. I told him the dogs could hurt them bad, maybe even kill them. Don't go near those dogs. But, but, but we just were ......... I finally convinced them to leave, but they had no fear or understanding of the danger they were in, and the pit bull wasn't even outside at the time. You can bet, sooner or later they will come by when the pit bull is out, and I'm not there. It will not be pretty. The fence is not going to keep the kids from putting arms inside the fence or the dog getting out if he finds a real desire to do so.

 

[scott delaney]

being a service worker that goes into customers home while not at home....I often encounter dogs of all breeds. I have been bitten over 50 times, only the first time did it require medical attention. of the other attacks it was the dog needing attention. mostly the ankle biters that caused the most trouble for me, but for the bigger dogs a hammer does a good trick.....I have been told many times that the dog is all bark only to be bite.........every dog have the bite in them, trust none

 

[churchmouse]

being a service worker that goes into customers home while not at home....I often encounter dogs of all breeds. I have been bitten over 50 times, only the first time did it require medical attention. of the other attacks it was the dog needing attention. mostly the ankle biters that caused the most trouble for me, but for the bigger dogs a hammer does a good trick.....I have been told many times that the dog is all bark only to be bite.........every dog have the bite in them, trust none

Just dogs folks. They are just dogs.

 

[Libertarian01]

Dogs don't attack 'without provocation'. Something always provokes the attack and often it is something very simple that does not appear obvious to outsiders or never reported by the media (yeah I think the media reeks of yellow journalism). I grew up on a farm and there is an art to reading animals. I'm in my upper fifties and have never been bit, though a few have told me I should have, and only two dogs (Shepherds) had me convinced that they would bite me. There are a lot of people who should not own dogs.

So when I was a young kid (about 10 - 12) just walking down the sidewalk past a german shepherd and it lunged at me to bite (it hit straight on and didn't sink its teeth) I provoked it. I may have looked at it. I don't recall. As its owner was right there unloading the car I certain didn't tease it in any way, and the owner quickly got it under control and apologized profusely to me. My friend and I even walked around it to avoid it. All the alleged "provocation" the dog may need is that I walked past his tree that he peed on last week and claimed as his own. Or, dogs are at their core hunters. A small child running = dinner for four.

Or, the time I was house sitting for friends with two (2) huskies. They knew me. They slept in the bed with me. After several days of sleeping with me (no comments here ) one night in the middle of the night one of them moved and woke me up. I patted both of them, as I had done many times before. However, this particular time one of them didn't like it and ran of the bed - with my hand in his mouth! It was in the middle of the night early in December that I was in the ER getting four (4) stitches in my hand. Yes, patting the dog that was in bed with me surely "provoked" the bite in the dogs mind, but not my own.

I will agree that a dog will probably not attack without some sort of reason. However, their reasoning is vastly different from our own.

I would be curious to see how many of these attacks in defense of their families or property?

I am presuming you mean "justified" defense? In some cases there may well be justification, but I wouldn't bet that is anywhere near a majority. And what is "justified?" A five (5) year old runs up to another five (5) year old that lives in the dogs house. So now a little boy is severely maimed or killed because he was perceived in the dogs eyes as attacking his owner, maybe? I will presume that a small percentage are justified, but certainly not a majority.

...If you got rid of the top 9, you'd eliminate dog attacks entirely!!!

You will never, ever reduce dog attacks entirely. But looking at those numbers IF you got rid of the top seven (7) you would reduce them by 91%! The bottom two (2) are an unidentified species or multiple dogs attacking someone, so clearly there is a wide range of dogs that do attack, but their power is vastly lower than the dogs above them.

To All,

As I said before, I am neither advocating for nor supporting the idea that any breed of dog should be "gotten rid of."

What I am saying is that for those who are in massive denial about the proclivity of pit bulls to attack - please pull your head out of the sand! With almost two thirds of all fatalities performed by pit bulls, it is clear that this animal performs exactly as it was bred to. That isn't its fault, but it is what it is. To deny such is to deny reason. To attempt to throw out a red herring of "poor owners" denies the reality that ALL dog species suffer from bad owners, but pit bulls do the most damage on the lethality scale irregardless of whether there were good owners or bad.

Having a powerful and aggressive dog for protection is sometimes a very necessary thing. They can become a loving and caring bodyguard that is a part of the family. But what they are NOT is a human being who can use logic and self discipline when they see something that hits a certain nerve in their very complex and designed neural pathways. They were bred to be strong, aggressive and tenacious. It is the "aggressive" part that sometimes gets way out of control, and to ignore that is to stick ones head in the sand.

Regards,

Doug

 

[halfmileharry]

An old man mentioned to me one day an outlook about dogs after I told him my shop dog wouldn't bite him with me around.
He said something that's stuck with me all these years.
"You know the dog won't bite me....now I know the dog won't bite me...but does the dog know he won't bite me?""
I'm a dog person and have always had dogs of all different breeds. Guard dogs, house dogs, show dogs, hunting dogs, etc.
Dogs is dogs and still an animal. Unpredictable behavior not unlike some humans.

 

[churchmouse]

An old man mentioned to me one day an outlook about dogs after I told him my shop dog wouldn't bite him with me around.
He said something that's stuck with me all these years.
"You know the dog won't bite me....now I know the dog won't bite me...but does the dog know he won't bite me?""
I'm a dog person and have always had dogs of all different breeds. Guard dogs, house dogs, show dogs, hunting dogs, etc.
Dogs is dogs and still an animal. Unpredictable behavior not unlike some humans.

They are just dogs. People tend to put human values on them. Family pets can be part of the human equation but they are at best just friendly dogs.
I guess growing up around farm folks we put different values on these things.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Many moons ago in high school I worked for a veterinarian, working with many different breeds of dog. Except for one vet's golden retriever the "pitbulls" (meaning dogs physically similar to what is called a pitbull) were the most docile. That's not to say they couldn't be aggressive, because any dog can suddenly become aggressive. Most of the animals were there for boarding so it wasn't just a one and done interaction, it could be daily interaction for however long the owner was out of town. The worst dog I dealt with was a mutt names Moses. That sucker was flat out mean.

Pitbulls are just the evil dog of the day. In the '70s and '80s the evil dogs were dobermans and German shepherds. It's all on how they are trained by the owner. Some dogs are inherently more territorial, some are more protective of their "family", others are easy going.

 

[rhino]

This is not directed at any individual, just a general question.

Why is it that when a type of dog is bred for specific positive traits, no one questions that those traits are innate to the breed. Yet, when a type of dog is bred for what some deem negative traits, the same people insist that it's 100% how the dog was raised/trained/conditioned/treated?

 

[jerrob]

I believe they believe that line of thought (I'm not saying they're wrong). I think they see the good in a breed that others only deem or see as negative(s).
I don't believe these breeds should be eradicated or outlawed even though I would never own one. I do believe that any animal owner should be held 100% responsible for their pet's behavior/actions.

 

[shibumiseeker]

I believe they believe that line of thought (I'm not saying they're wrong). I think they see the good in a breed that others only deem or see as negative(s).
I don't believe these breeds should be eradicated or outlawed even though I would never own one. I do believe that any animal owner should be held 100% responsible for their pet's behavior/actions.

And yet very very few owners will ever take responsibility for their animal. Kind of like families of the bad guy who was killed breaking into a house suing the homeowner because their little thug didn't deserve to die.

 

[Birds Away]

This is not directed at any individual, just a general question.

Why is it that when a type of dog is bred for specific positive traits, no one questions that those traits are innate to the breed. Yet, when a type of dog is bred for what some deem negative traits, the same people insist that it's 100% how the dog was raised/trained/conditioned/treated?

Why is it that when someone commits murder with a knife it is all about the heinous crime and person who committed it. But, when the same crime is committed with a gun then it is all about the gun?

 

[jerrob]

And yet very very few owners will ever take responsibility for their animal. Kind of like families of the bad guy who was killed breaking into a house suing the homeowner because their little thug didn't deserve to die.

I certainly cannot argue your logic.