What should be done about the "dangerous dog" prob

[gooeydog]

People (not necessarily those who post here) are always talking about how horrible dog bites are, and how something needs to be done to stop it. Often though, when asked what they think should be done, they suddenly have something really important to do :roll: . I'm just wondering what everyone here thinks should be done to decrease the amount of dog bites that occur. For those who don't really have an opinion on the issue, remember that laws can be made which immediately affect all dog owners, or laws can be made which only affect a few dog owners at first, then gradually more laws are made which affect more dog owners, until eventually all dog owners are affected by such laws. If you choose an answer, feel free to explain the reasoning behind your choice.

[Guest Anonymous]

I think owners should be screened before a purchase and home checks should be done from the get go. I also think that every dog should receive some type of training (obedience kindergarden etc.)... As far as attack dog training...it should be hands on if even offered..I feel the owner should be the first to receive classes before a dog even begins. Therefore you know if the owner is of ample intelligence and skill to handle a dog that aquires this training.

There are many laws that would not even be needed if things were handled correctly from the beginning of ownership. Since this will never happen I feel a dog should be assessed before it is put down. Why did it bite?? Was it teased, trained to attacked, was it hurt, what happened????? There is a reason behind every bite. Yes if you are going to have laws uphold them do not let people get by with things. If the law says a 4 ft leash then they should be giving fines to those who don't walk on a 4 ft leash. Although I believe 6 ft is better if you have a big dog... A six ft and if you know your dog is aggressive muzzle for the walk..

[Smooshie]

I think that owners should be made to take accountability for the actions of their dogs, and the consequences for offending OWNERS should be harsher.If more dog owners had to face jail time for their dog getting loose and mauling someone then maybe people would become more responsible,or just not own pets at all (and there are definately some people who shouldn't!)
I also agree totally with Jacsmom....all potential dog owners should be closely screened.That seems to be the problem with most millers and backyard breeders...they don't seem to care where their pups end up,and with who,as long as they get cash in their pocket.
Any responsible breeder would at least QUESTION prospective buyers...and most ask for vet references.
I think the breed rescues have got it right......when I adopted my Boxer, I had to go thru a written application...then a telephone interview...THEN a home visit (plus provide vet references,and info on any current or previous pets I had)..and Loki (my Boxer) had to have a temperament evaluation and socialization with other animals and kids BEFORE I could bring him home.The entire process took about a month from start to finish.
Before we were referred to Boxer Rescue,my husband and I had been looking at local shelters for a dog,and I was SHOCKED at how little screening some of THEM actually do.We inquired about a Boxer/Pit mix at one shelter......they couldn't give me ANY info on his temperament (even though he had been there for three weeks),and their only prerequisite for adopting him was that I had a fenced in yard. The application form was barely a page long ,and asked for no personal references or ownership history at ALL. Apparently they just hand over these dogs to anyone that will take them (scary). I know that a lot of shelters are run by volunteers,but so are most breed rescues, and THEY take the time to screen.Sheesh! If more shelters were required by law to check out the adoption applicants ,there would probably be far fewer dogs ending up BACK in the shelter,or worse....injuring/killing someone.

Just my .02 :-? ........

[Guest Anonymous]

I know it's a very emotional and serious problem, and I guess most folks here wish I'd stop saying the same thing, but I truly believe that cities, states, really all municipalities need to only strictly enforce already in place laws (leash, shelter, food, water, abuse,etc.). I know it sounds too simple, but how many people do you know have been arrested, seriously fined, or jail time for constant violation of these laws. Not many, I'll bet.

[gooeydog]

Jacsmom: I think owners should be screened before a purchase and home checks should be done from the get go. I also think that every dog should receive some type of training (obedience kindergarden etc.)...

The screening idea is good in theory, but how many of the people out there breeding dogs screen prospective homes/owners? Not many, and I don't really see any way to force them. :( Every dog should recieve some sort of training, but again, you can't force people to train their dogs.

Smooshie: I think that owners should be made to take accountability for the actions of their dogs, and the consequences for offending OWNERS should be harsher.

I agree with you on that. I also agree that most shelters don't screen prospective owners carefully enough, but I think that sometimes the workers are so desperate to get the dogs out that they think any home is better than being PTS.

Guest Pat: I truly believe that cities, states, really all municipalities need to only strictly enforce already in place laws

The problem I see with that is that ACOs can only do so much by themselves. In most cases they depend on the public to call and let them know about a dog that is always loose, or acts aggressively. This is a problem, because it seems that most people really don't care about whats going on with the neighbors' dogs, until they bite someone, then they just want them gone. Until people realize that they can (and should) do something about potentially dangerous/annoying dogs before they reach that point, I don't think the number of dog attacks is going to decrease.

[gooeydog]

I really think that the best thing for dog owners to do is to work as a group to educate dog owners as well as the general public. Get together with other dog owners in the area and figure out an education program, then follow through with it. Show the public that no particular breed is bad, and explain to them why some dogs are aggressive and what can be done about it. Start teaching kids at a young age to respect dogs, and how to behave around them. Work with lawmakers to try to solve the problem, and offer solutions, rather than just sitting back and saying "this won't work" when they come up with an idea. Explain to them why it won't work. Most of them have no idea how to deal with the "dog problem", so someone needs to show them that it's not a "dog problem", but a "people problem". Why is educating the public so important? Because in order to enforce regulations (those already in existance, and those that may be implemented in the future), their help is needed. They are the ones who see the people fighting their dogs in abandoned parking lots, the dogs neglected and abused, and the dogs that could cause problems for the neighborhood (ie: running loose, aggressive, etc). The problem with that, is that they have no idea what to look for, and honestly, most of them don't care. They don't know enough to realize that the pit bull next door that tries to "eat them alive" wasn't like that as a pup, and that if they had done something to stop the abuse/poor training before the dog's behavior reached that point, the dog might not be that way. They just assume that the dog is like that because it's a "bad breed", and figure there's nothing they can do about it. Then when the dog gets out and kills someone, it's still a "bad breed", and the breed's name has been damaged even more. That's why it's important to educate the public. I think that there should be a dog safety program implemented into the school systems, to teach young people how to act around dogs, and what to look out for in dogs' behavior. This would serve two purposes, one: since most dog bites are on children, it would maybe help to lower the amount of dog bites, and two: it would educate the children, so that hopefully when they became adults they wouldn't be so completely clueless about dogs in general. Educating people would in no way be a quick solution, but I think it could work.
Another thing that might help, is to have a "graded" lisensing system. Charge a high fee (let's say $50/year) for unaltered dogs. Then, cut the price in half for altered dogs ($25/year). There could also be even more of a discount (of $5-$10) if the dog(s) had been through training or passed a CGC or similar test. This would leave lisense fees at $15-$20/year/dog. Combine the "discount" with harsh penalties for unlisensed dogs, and I bet more people who train/alter their dogs. Maybe not many, but a few is better than none.

[corgilady]

I agree with Mei-Mei....most of the time the dog in question has done something before....remember the lawyer couple whose dog killed the lady in the apartment building hallway? (sorry, can't remember any names) I heard that over 50 people had stories of the same dog's agression.

All in all, though, it's PEOPLE who are at fault -- not dogs!

:) Corgilady

[Guest Anonymous]

[quote name='gooeydog']People (not necessarily those who post here) are always talking about how horrible dog bites are, and how something needs to be done to stop it. Often though, when asked what they think should be done, they suddenly have something really important to do :roll: . I'm just wondering what everyone here thinks should be done to decrease the amount of dog bites that occur. For those who don't really have an opinion on the issue, remember that laws can be made which immediately affect all dog owners, or laws can be made which only affect a few dog owners at first, then gradually more laws are made which affect more dog owners, until eventually all dog owners are affected by such laws. If you choose an answer, feel free to explain the reasoning behind your choice.

The AKC has a wonderful package on making good dangerous dog laws which address the real issue of owners who have dangerous dogs and how to control that situation vs controlling breeds - they are pretty willing to help out anyone with this information and its been used here to great success in creating fair and humane laws.
They also post legislative alerts and have all kinds of good info available from this page http://www.akc.org/love/dip/legislat/index.cfm

[Guest Anonymous]

[quote name='Anonymous']
The AKC has a wonderful package on making good dangerous dog laws which address the real issue of owners who have dangerous dogs and how to control that situation vs controlling breeds - they are pretty willing to help out anyone with this information and its been used here to great success in creating fair and humane laws.
They also post legislative alerts and have all kinds of good info available from this page http://www.akc.org/love/dip/legislat/index.cfm

PS I think the most important bit of legislation for lawmakers to make would be that ALL children must have education on handling, approaching, training, and caring for pets and then maybe we would end up with a generation of educated pet owners!

[science_doc]

As a novice dog owner who recently made a mistake :oops: I would advocate manditory classes before any joe schmoe (like me) walked into the human society and said I'm ready for ANY KIND OF dog now. I think that if they shelters and even breeders forced this kind of education it might save money in the long run by having fewer dogs give up right after the puppy fluff disappears. Well that's my 2 cents anyway :roll:

[mouseatthebusstop]

i agree with training for new owners before they get the dog or puppy. then later with their dog. for heavy fines for owners if their dog attackes anyone.

[Guest Anonymous]

Well I don't agree with banning any breed of dog because the people that abuse them and train them will just pick another breed to do the same thing to. Also it is very hard for most people to identify a "Pitbull" some are big some are small they come in all colors and some are like greyhounds(Tall thin pointy nose)and some are short and stocky.Some have rose ears some have prick ears and some look like dalmations. I also disagree with the stiffer licensing fees for unaltered dogs for the following reasons:
1. The people who are irresponsibly breeding don't usually get their dogs licensed anyways.so it would not affect them.
2.Stiffer fees mean that less people will license their dogs this means that The local Animal control will have evn less mony to care for their shelter animals It happend in Tucson Arizona.
3.Being a breeder I have several unaltered dogs .I rarely make any profit if at all because there are lots of expenses that people don't know about (Kennel name registration with the Registry$200 ,Website,Shots dewormings food ,vet bills ,Shipping expenses when breeding a female,an Ad in a magazine $500 a year not to mention all the traveling expenses involved in showing and competing with them as well as neccessary genetic testing)This means tyhat I would have to either breed more puppies to cover those costs or cut corners on the care that my dogs get. I am not a rich person and $70 for 7 dogs every year is a lot.

[eric]

I really think that the onus is on the owner to be responsible for the actions of their dog. It seems that the sanctions against delinquent owners are insufficient. Often, you hear about a mauling only to later hear that the owners get a slap on the wrist.

However, I think that there are a number of alarmist people out there. When we talk about banning certain breeds, the first thing that comes to mind are pitbulls/rotties/GSDs.

But I believe that the stastics indicate that the majority of dog attacks are by breeds considered to be much more innocuous; collies, dalmations, etc.
Granted, the pitbull attacks tend to be more severe, but they are not the most common.

Finally, non-dog people need to educate themselves about dogs. If I lived in an area with bears, I would find out what I could do to avoid being attacked. Don't get upset when someone's dog bites your kid after your kid ran up out of nowhere and grabbed him by the ears.

[Guest Anonymous]

Well, let's see. My dog DID bite someone. Our neighbor. She let them out for us one day when we went to visit my parents...but brought one of HER dogs with. Kika was defending her territory, went after Snugs (the other dog) and when Sharon (neighbor) went to separate them, got bit.

Sharon required medical attention (over $1000...thank goodness for homeowner's insurance on our end) and of course, it had to be reported. Kika was quarenteened (SP) in our house for 10 days (she could stay at home since we had proof of rabies vaccination.

It was OUR responsibility and we took care of it. Sharon apologized to US since she knew how Kika and Snugs would go at it through the fence. She knew she shouldn't have brought her over but just didn't give it a thought when she did.

Kika was very happy for Sharon's attention right after they were separated and Snugs was in her own yard. She had no vicious emotions twards her, but bit her anyway (not sure if she accidentally did it or if she just was in that frame of mind where THIS IS ENEMY).

Thankfully, there are no hard feelings between us.

Yup. Totally our responsibility.

[eggrolyn1223]

I think there should be a "dog owner test" for anyone that wants to get a dog legally.Then every dog owner would be knowledgeable about dogs and all those issues..you know what I mean.
All dogs need to go to class.
There should be a class in school(all grades) about respecting animals and learning to handle properly..which brings me to tell about this person in school :evil:
Yesterday(friday), I was having first period when I heard this dog whine/yelp combination from downstairs.I was ready to go check it out during break when there were running sounds(people) on the stairs and after a few minutes, a little black puppy came running in our classroom.She had sharp little puppy teeth, looked to be only about 2-3 months old(nails uncut, ears uncleaned).My English teacher(I hate her now :evil: )told me to pick her up, put her outside, and close the door.Which meant leaving her outside.And she could run away at any time.I asked the teacher why she couldn't stay inside..she said, oh, she's sp dirty(without having one look at her), she will poo and pee, she's a dog(what's wrong with that? :roll: )....SO I wait until break.
I found her downstairs(this is all during break), a girl in another class was holding her.I asked if the dog was hers, she said, No, she belonged to a girl in the class next to her.I went and found the girl.I asked her why the dog wasn't with her,and she said cuz she knew her teacher wouldn't allow her to bring the dog in the classroom.I got mad at her then, asking her what she was doing bringing a dog to school when she knew dogs weren't allowed, she said because everybody wanted to pet her dog, and she was sooo cute, and the girl wanted everyone to see her dog..blah blah blah.I told her the dog could've run away and out onto the road where she could have been hurt, somebody could have taken her or hurt her, and all the dozens of other things that could have happened.She didn't believe me, said her dog liked her and wouldn't run away.. :mad:
I told her next time I saw the dog running around, I would bring her home with me.. :-? (I was going to take her home before I found out about the girl, too bad :( )Never saw the poor dog again :x

[dogsgalore]

I think the problem lies in the training and socialization of the dog. Irresponsible owners are the problems not the dogs, also irresponsible breeding sometimes produces unstable pups. I'm a firm believer that the problem is almost all the owner, if not all the owner. Just my opinion :)

I agree that an owner should have a test before they are allowed to own a dog.

[imported_Cassie]

I am just going to go over what is being implemented in New Brunswick, Canada regarding dangerous dogs and attacks. This came up after a child was mauled to death by 3 Rottweilers...they recently had an inquest into the death of the little boy. The Vet who had been looking after these dogs for vaccines etc. explained it best...I can't quote as I do not have the paper... :oops: she stated that this attack was brought on by the dogs high prey drive...a dogs natural prey drive can be directed at a child who may be screaming, flailing arms...trying to run away. Dogs with a high prey drive can kill/maul...it does not mean they are human aggressive...its just that a child which may be frightened, screaming, flailing arms etc can trigger this motor pattern...a running child etc. it is no longer a child...it is now prey. ANY dog breed can have a high prey drive...and it is the most commonly misunderstood behavior of dogs...it is not necessary a form of aggression...just a natural instinct.
The Rottweilers which killed/mauled the little boy were described as being very friendly, easy going dogs prior to the incident.
Any way, what she has suggested and I beleive what they are going to try to lean towards is education. Vets will be strongly suggesting all clients; with pups even adult dogs.... well behaved or not; to attend obedience...not only to train the dog, but, to go as a family to learn together about their dog. They also strongly advised that a child should NEVER be left alone with ANY dog...ever.
They also have a Police officer with the K-9 unit going to schools around the province to educate children...he is armed with videos and his K-9 partner a German Shepherd...he will show children what to do in the case of an attack and how to act accordingly...he has demonstations with his Shepherd to show what a dog is capable of...he is also very familiar with prey drives and motor patterns of dogs and will explain to them so children understand. He is also going to go over how to act accordingly around any dog...body language etc. He is also going over with children how to act appropriately with their own family pet.
They already have laws in place of being able to report dogs which people may feel pose a threat to neighbors. The SPCA in this area is very good and will confiscate dogs which need to be taken...usually due to neglect. In some areas a dog which has been reported as being suspected of being dangerous...the owners are asked to have a muzzle on the dog in public places....not by breed, but, by indivdual dog...they are also having trained animal control officers go to schools to discuss Canine behavior etc.
They feel that banning breeds is not going to solve any dog bite/mauling problems...any breed can be dangerous and they realize that.
Any way, this is some thing which is taking place and the way this province is working towards a solution...I think they have made the right decisions...the Vet who was asked her opinion on this problem has a Pit bull herself and other dogs including German Shepherds.
As far as controlling puppies etc going into homes by screening new owners...this would be impossible..the only people who would go through such a process would be good dog owners... :lol: as long as there are intact males and female dogs out there....there will be people breeding..and alot of times it is not for profit, not because they love their dogs and think they would have perfect puppies...most of the puppies born are from people who just don't care and are too lazy to have their dog spayed or neutered...
In my opinion this province is doing the right thing...there are so many different types of aggression and any dog can display them at any time...how can you control dog bites by banning a few breeds???? :roll: you have Springer Spaniels which are famous for rage syndrome, any breed can be a fear biter, any breed of dog can bite due to dominance..some people are not even aware they have a dominant dog...and the person most likely to be bitten would be the child living in the house hold...I don't think any place is going to have 100% control over dog issues...but, with education for all people even non dog owners there may be fewer incidents.