VA - Bethany Stephens, 21, mauled to death by her 2 dogs, Dec 2017

[Zelda1010]

I know some folks don't care for this site, but, the recounting of the story, is one of the most horrific, I'd ever read. I stumbled across the attack, shortly after it had happened, and then doing some reading and searching, found the story. This was the story that has haunted me and has caused me to tell my grandchild to stay far away from their neighbor's dog, when playing outside, and have cautioned the parents, more than once, b/c the owners are not responsible at all.

The story of 14 mos. old Daxton Borchardt.

http://blog.dogsbite.org/2013/07/beyond-the-interview-essay-of-a-fatal-pit-bull-mauling.html

Dang. That was powerful. Especially after reading the letter from "My Pitbull Experience" last night. I'm paraphrasing, but "there are no perfect dog owners, just like there are no perfect parents", just about sums it up. Good, yes. Great, yes. But still only human and imperfect.

Dogs are dangerous animals that can bite and need proper care and attention. It seems dogs, like humans, can suffer from mental illness that can be tricky to diagnose because of love and denial and guilt and ignorance (of the you can't know what you don't know sort).

This case definitely has me thinking on the subject. And a paradigm shift in my own convictions may be in the works.

 

[rsd1200]

They drive me nuts! I was not at all surprised to see them at the top of the list. I don't trust my sister's pomeranian either. And frankly, I don't understand little dogs. Give me a big old bear-headed chow or joker of a rottie any day. I prefer calm dogs, which is why those are my two favorite breeds. (Yet somehow I keep ending up with herding dogs, too, even though they are wild and tend to drive me up the wall at times. I must have a thing for them subconsciously.)

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I am a big dog person. Like you, give me a big ole bouncy dog with a big ole head, any day! I have got two ankle biters but they don't bite. I just call them that. Like the big guys, they got their training as pups. One is my cairn/poodle mix (I have a thing for terriers as I'm sure folks have noticed...) and I have a peekapoo. I got her when all our dogs had passed and I was lonely for a dog but didn't have the time to commit to a Rott. She's my oldest and getting on up in years. The peek knows untelling how many human words at this point. I have to spell some things in front of her. The smartest dog I think I've ever had. Chihuahuas? :gaah: My ex brought one home from somewhere and I was like Really?? That dog would sit on his lap and yap at me, growl, liked nothing or no one except him, and would not housebreak. When I told him he had to clean up after it since he brought it home, he took it back to the previous owners and told them it didn't work out...

 

[jamicat]

Pits are not inherently more dangerous than other dogs. And unless we want to also banish German Shepherds, Great Danes, Malamutes, and several other breeds, BSL against pits makes no sense.

Breed risk score from https://www.pitbullinfo.org/statistics.html





One solution I see is to tackle the problems that are clear when you look at the common factors among all dog bite fatalities. This would ultimately mean making stronger laws and ordinances regulating the Humane care of dogs, which would be fine by me. If you have a gun, you should not leave it lying out in your backyard. If you have a dog, you should not leave it chained in the backyard. In either case, a kid who gets hold of it is likely to get hurt.

Other factors are unaltered dogs, and we could require spay and neuter for those who do not have a license to breed. In my view, we need to somehow curb indiscriminate and backyard breeding. This may sound insane to some, as an infringement on rights, but so is BSL and many people are for that.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Pits are statistically more dangerous. They lead the pack beyond their numbers in serious ( medical treatment needed) and death attacks. The numbers under question because we really do not know how many pitbulls and mutts, in general, there are. My town under counts them terribly. Hardly any pitbulls registered and licensed in town, and local vets don’t see a majority of them. Most all purebreds are accounted for, and have regular vet visits. I personally know people, including relatives who do not have their dogs registered, never take them to vets, and are not regular even in required shots (where I get involved pushing the matter with them—we have free vaccine days here) A lot of those dogs are unaccounted for. Back yard Breeders here often don’t bother to report their dogs for any count.

So we have to extrapolate for pit numbers. Even so, looking st them, they dominate in very harmful dog bites. As for reports of dog on dog attacks, they also lead the pack. I am on top of those reports here, and it is very rare, that an attack on dogs is reported that does not involve a pit mix. That’s not counting altercations in parts of town, where dog fights would not be reported due to issues with LE and unregistered uninnoculatef dogs.

What we cannot distinguishfrom stats alone, but can sort of see in Wikipedia and detailed reports of dog attacks that resulted in deaths of human life, is that a large number of pit mix incidents have done very sketchy circumstances in the picture. Like abused and neglected dogs. Dogs that already were known as aggressive and time bombs. Owners who look like they had those dogs to be mean, scary beasts.

You can’t tell for sure but you can get the idea from words here or there. Someone with 14 pitbulls, previous police complaints about dogs, neighbors all attesting dogs running wild and aggressive, etc. Though sometimes the story is the dog just snapped with no signs, and yes, I believe it can happen, that story is often directly contradicted by further reports. Like complsintdcsbout that dog on record, friends, family, neighbors attesting that the dog was aggressive, had bitten before, investigation showing that the shelter source of dogs had records of previous incidents.

Sadly, because so many pit mixes are shelter rescues or from sketchy back yard breeders, and they are the dog of choice in marginal high crime areas, it makes sense that they’d lead in aggression numbers and attacks. If such cases can be filtered out, a truer picture of pit attacks can be seen

However, there is no denying that when many pit type dogs attack, their strength, speed, jaw type, mode of attack make it far more deadly. Also, they have a very strong prey drive and focus that make many of them unsafe to be around other animals. They are seriously underrepresented in dog parks for that reason

 

[Trident]

I know some folks don't care for this site, but, the recounting of the story, is one of the most horrific, I'd ever read. I stumbled across the attack, shortly after it had happened, and then doing some reading and searching, found the story. This was the story that has haunted me and has caused me to tell my grandchild to stay far away from their neighbor's dog, when playing outside, and have cautioned the parents, more than once, b/c the owners are not responsible at all.

The story of 14 mos. old Daxton Borchardt.

http://blog.dogsbite.org/2013/07/beyond-the-interview-essay-of-a-fatal-pit-bull-mauling.html

Thank you for posting this. It is an absolute dose of reality, the horrid reality of what pitbulls can and will do, despite how well loved, cared for, or trained. The fact that these dogs lit into their owner to get at this child tells me more about this breed than I want to know.

I noticed that no one here commented on this particular attack. I wonder why. I can only surmise those defending the breed would just as soon forget about it, pretend it didn't happen, bury it the same way that little boy's mangled body was buried. Every time I find myself falling for the line that all dogs bite and pitbulls are no more dangerous than any other breed, Dax's story brings me back to the reality that pitbulls ARE more dangerous than other breeds, than almost all of them put together.

There are some nice, thoughtful posts on here, but the death of Dax trumps them all in my mind. Below is a video about Dax's case that also goes on to show how the pitbull apologists are dealing/or not with the death of this baby.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...5D8D967B4309B107B8C65D8D967B4309B10&FORM=VIRE

For all those vacilating between fairness for all and safety for the rest of us, watch it and weep. The site is totally safe and not particularly gory.

Thanks again for posting that url.

 

[Deleted member 158085]

Pits are statistically more dangerous. They lead the pack beyond their numbers in serious ( medical treatment needed) and death attacks. The numbers under question because we really do not know how many pitbulls and mutts, in general, there are. My town under counts them terribly. Hardly any pitbulls registered and licensed in town, and local vets don’t see a majority of them. Most all purebreds are accounted for, and have regular vet visits. I personally know people, including relatives who do not have their dogs registered, never take them to vets, and are not regular even in required shots (where I get involved pushing the matter with them—we have free vaccine days here) A lot of those dogs are unaccounted for. Back yard Breeders here often don’t bother to report their dogs for any count.

So we have to extrapolate for pit numbers. Even so, looking st them, they dominate in very harmful dog bites. As for reports of dog on dog attacks, they also lead the pack. I am on top of those reports here, and it is very rare, that an attack on dogs is reported that does not involve a pit mix. That’s not counting altercations in parts of town, where dog fights would not be reported due to issues with LE and unregistered uninnoculatef dogs.

What we cannot distinguishfrom stats alone, but can sort of see in Wikipedia and detailed reports of dog attacks that resulted in deaths of human life, is that a large number of pit mix incidents have done very sketchy circumstances in the picture. Like abused and neglected dogs. Dogs that already were known as aggressive and time bombs. Owners who look like they had those dogs to be mean, scary beasts.

You can’t tell for sure but you can get the idea from words here or there. Someone with 14 pitbulls, previous police complaints about dogs, neighbors all attesting dogs running wild and aggressive, etc. Though sometimes the story is the dog just snapped with no signs, and yes, I believe it can happen, that story is often directly contradicted by further reports. Like complsintdcsbout that dog on record, friends, family, neighbors attesting that the dog was aggressive, had bitten before, investigation showing that the shelter source of dogs had records of previous incidents.

Sadly, because so many pit mixes are shelter rescues or from sketchy back yard breeders, and they are the dog of choice in marginal high crime areas, it makes sense that they’d lead in aggression numbers and attacks. If such cases can be filtered out, a truer picture of pit attacks can be seen

However, there is no denying that when many pit type dogs attack, their strength, speed, jaw type, mode of attack make it far more deadly. Also, they have a very strong prey drive and focus that make many of them unsafe to be around other animals. They are seriously underrepresented in dog parks for that reason

Not according to real scientific studies published on https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

You can find direct links to the government site where these individual studies are published here: https://www.pitbullinfo.org

"Risk: A recent (2017) peer-reviewed study that analyzed 140 dog bite incidents concluded*that there is no difference (in the medical treatment required*following a bite or in the type of bite inflicted) between dog bites by breeds perceived as "dangerous" (legislated breeds such as "pitbull-type" breeds) and breeds that are not perceived as "dangerous" (non-legislated breeds).

Incidents: Data sourced from *advertiser censored*look peer-reviewed study that analyzed 20-years of dog bite-related incidents reveals that the incident statistics for the individual pitbull-type*breeds are in-line with other breeds.

Identification: A recent (2015) peer-reviewed study that assessed the breed of 120 dogs concluded that "pitbull-type" dogs were misidentified 60% of the time (62 were visually identified as "pitbull-type"*but only 25 had DNA signatures from any of the pitbull-type breeds).

Furthermore, the common physical characteristics of "pitbull-type" dogs can be found in over 20 breeds (and in even more mixed breeds); consequently, using visual identification for breed is a common cause of inaccurate, misleading statistics."

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Edited to fix paragraphing.

 

[Deleted member 158085]

Thank you for posting this. It is an absolute dose of reality, the horrid reality of what pitbulls can and will do, despite how well loved, cared for, or trained. The fact that these dogs lit into their owner to get at this child tells me more about this breed than I want to know.

I noticed that no one here commented on this particular attack. I wonder why. I can only surmise those defending the breed would just as soon forget about it, pretend it didn't happen, bury it the same way that little boy's mangled body was buried. Every time I find myself falling for the line that all dogs bite and pitbulls are no more dangerous than any other breed, Dax's story brings me back to the reality that pitbulls ARE more dangerous than other breeds, than almost all of them put together.

There are some nice, thoughtful posts on here, but the death of Dax trumps them all in my mind. Below is a video about Dax's case that also goes on to show how the pitbull apologists are dealing/or not with the death of this baby.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...5D8D967B4309B107B8C65D8D967B4309B10&FORM=VIRE

For all those vacilating between fairness for all and safety for the rest of us, watch it and weep. The site is totally safe and not particularly gory.

Thanks again for posting that url.

Personally, I didn't comment on this story because I am focused on looking at peer reviewed scientific studies. It's all too easy to focus on emotional horror stories rather than overall true statistics. I am looking for facts.

I know it has been said that pit bull advocates are emotional. However, this thread has made it clear to me that those who are adamantly against the breed are as well, and possibly even more so. No one wants to discuss peer reviewed scientific studies that are fit to be on a government website. Instead, they keep referring back to statistics from an anti-pit bull site as well as another one run by Merritt Clifton, who has been kicked to the curb repeatedly by various publications for his "research" and "journalism" being sub part and his lack of qualifications, and so has had to start his own website to disseminate his fraudulent and biased information to the public.

I approach this conversation the same way I approach a decision about whether a particular dog should be euthanized - with as much objectivity and facts as possible, setting aside my general love of dogs and looking at real risk assessment.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Lilibet]

You are absolutely right. Any dog is a bite risk. Though we can minimize the risk with controls, training, size of dog, there is a risk of any dog biting a person despite rigorous controls. Some of the controls increase the risk, as well socialized dogs tend to bite less by far. But regardless of precautions, people mess up, dogs mess up, and yes, the risk of being bitten by any dog is there

So we have to draw lines as to what risks we want to take both as individuals and society. Specifically as a community. We put in stipulations such as the dog’ record. Imo once a dog has aggressively bitten another person with few exceptions and extenuating circumstances, he should be put down. The standards for my personal pets are higher. I would not keep a dog that shows aggressive behavior at all towards any person with even fewer exceptions. Even if the dog were acting towards a perceived threat or protecting me from such, because with all the kids (grown) and company around here, horseplay and arguments, I cannot have a jumpy dog. I don’t tolerate any signs of aggression towards people. Now, that means my dogs are most likely not going to protect me. They’ve watched family members, including me in heated arguments and all kind so physical wrestling and such. No aggression. They look at every visitor as bringing good things to them. So I wouldn’t bet a dime that they’d protect me against an assailabt. Maybe, but given their calm in some turbulent situations, I don’t think so. I believe that they would protect me from other dogs and animals. Again from observing their behavior. We have coyotes in our woods and we have encountered loose dogs, and they immediately close ranks around me and are at attention. They have never attacked another creature however.

But I know plenty of dogs that are more reactive. Includes breeds like golden retriever and labs, known to be gentle and people loving.

Then we come up with size and breed attack records. I’m a lifetime dog lover, and as a rule am not afraid of dogs and my experience has been great with them But some of the huge dogs do get me a bit nervous. We had neighbors who had two St Bernard’s for years; as one died, it would be replaced by another My sons were neighborhood dog walkers, and though all athletes, big and strong, if those two dogs chose to bolt, not one of them could have controlled them. They were attacked by a pit type dog once and easily subdued it. Size does count in some ways. Though these were gentle giants from all I saw, the owners, and few people could physically contain them if they had gone rogue

So where to draw the line is the big question? Most, though not even all agree that dogs that have attacked people should be put down. Even disagreement on that, however. There is a lot of battle regarding breed specific band. If a dog breed shows a record of attacks, should that breed be banned?

Then there is dog environment. I do NOt Walk my dogs in certain neighborhoods of my town. Dogs contained in small fenced yards or tied up that exhibit aggressive behavior. Those barks intermingled with growls and snarls are not friendly. But those people have s right to those dogs too. There is a huge push these days to get older rescue dogs as so many need homes. I hesitate there because IMO there is no telling what those dogs’ histories are and I don’t trust shelter safety evaluations. I know too many that were way off.

So, where does one draw that line as to what dogs are safe enough to own and what precautions to take with ones dogs? It all comes down to judgement and comfort levels. I remove my dog from anyone’s company who is the least bit uncomfortable. Sorry, guys, but into a bedroom you go if a guest feels that way. We have a dear elderly family friend who is unsteady enough on feet that I will not have my dogs loose around her on my premises. They say hello, and have to take a break. I also do not permit my dogs loose around small children. For no other reason than principle. They are probably fine but i am not. No telling what kids will do and what prey drive will be released with kids. So the dogs have to be leashed with a responsible adult holding them when kids are around or they are put into a room for the duration.

But these are my personal breakpoints. Others stricter to point of no dogs or so lax, their dogs run loose.

So, yes, I and all dog owners are taking risks on part of ourselves and others by owning dogs. As we take risks for s lot of things in life. I believe my risks in this area are well within the vast vast majority of people’s comfort zone.

Thank you very much, jamicat, for acknowledging my concerns as something real. I appreciate the efforts you make to keep other people safe to the best of your ability. Obviously, it’s impossible to perfectly avoid risk. But I think the ethical responsibility of dog owners toward others is an important discussion to have, and too often brushed aside. So again, thank you.

 

[jamicat]

Thank you very much, jamicat, for acknowledging my concerns as something real. I appreciate the efforts you make to keep other people safe to the best of your ability. Obviously, it’s impossible to perfectly avoid risk. But I think the ethical responsibility of dog owners toward others is an important discussion to have, and too often brushed aside. So again, thank you.

No one who is a guest on our property has to deal with our dogs if they have any misgivings, and in certain cases even if they are fine with the dogs, we still put them away into a locked bedroom. Children, and elderly, and anyone who appears uncomfortable though saying they are fine, fall into that category. Also I’d the dogs are becoming too much of a distraction or misbehaving ( jumping, sticking nose uninvited, trip factor, etc) But I fully acknowledge that there are still risks

1) Yes, I believe it is possible for any dog to “snap” from any trigger that we often cannot identify
2) if something should happen, I am not physically fast or strong enough to control those dogs
3) things can happen so quickly that damage can be done before any intervention or defense be enacted
4) I have the added risk of 2 dogs. So pack mentality is a wild card factor here. A large number of attacks involve multiple dogs. You don’t just double risks with a second dog. They go up sharply. The dogs compete for attention which can whip them into a frenzy. Though we remove the dogs when we see this, things can happen fast
5) one of the dogs is a mix likely in the higher risk categories for dog bites. He is also stronger and faster than his size warrants.


These factors all carry real risks. I can counter with low risk factors in place; dogs trained, no history of aggression, neutered, know history since 8 weeks old, well socialized, extremely instantly reactive with a tongue click from me—yes, they instantly stop whatever they are doing and immediately come to me and get a treat when they do do. (So far 100% compliance
But.... does that make them 100% safe? No . And even 99% is not good. enough given that means at least three misses in a year with 365 days. Percentages have to be far far lower than that

So fears are real, yes. We get to choose some of them. But if you are out and about, not so much when there are people with dogs that are not completely under owner control out there. Because dogs are allowed, that risk is there for anyone who ventured outside of home

 

[Lilibet]

BBM

I get what you’re saying. I really do. I guess my feeling is that it’s fine if someone wants to take that low risk for themselves. But since the damage can be so great, what about the risk to others in one’s circle...family, friends, delivery people, neighbors and other animals? How does the owner of a low risk but potentially damaging dog make sure that I’m risk free? High fence? Beware of Dog signs? No guests? Personally, I don’t trust an owner’s ability to control a determined dog on a leash.

When a pit (or other large dog) attacks and mauls someone, the owner invariably says that the dog is a sweetie and has never hurt a flea. Probably true, but now it has hurt or killed someone, and it’s often not the owner (like Bethany), but someone who didn’t get to decide if they wanted to take that risk. I’m not sure there’s an answer to this ethical dilemma, but I struggle with the idea of someone owning a dog that can potentially seriously damage or kill an unsuspecting person or animal. Don’t we all have a certain degree of responsibility toward others, even if it involves curtailing our own personal desires for the greater good? How do owners of large, potentially damaging dogs handle the low but real risk to others?

Personally, I didn't comment on this story because I am focused on looking at peer reviewed scientific studies. It's all too easy to focus on emotional horror stories rather than overall true statistics. I am looking for facts.

I know it has been said that pit bull advocates are emotional. However, this thread has made it clear to me that those who are adamantly against the breed are as well, and possibly even more so. No one wants to discuss peer reviewed scientific studies that are fit to be on a government website. Instead, they keep referring back to statistics from an anti-pit bull site as well as another one run by Merritt Clifton, who has been kicked to the curb repeatedly by various publications for his "research" and "journalism" being sub part and his lack of qualifications, and so has had to start his own website to disseminate his fraudulent and biased information to the public.

I approach this conversation the same way I approach a decision about whether a particular dog should be euthanized - with as much objectivity and facts as possible, setting aside my general love of dogs and looking at real risk assessment.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

So statistics and scientific studies aside (and yes, I acknowledge them as valuable), how would you respond to my reasonable question about the obligations of the owner of a large dog of any breed to society in general? I think it’s a very important question. I’m not willing to take the risk of owning a large dog, but I am involuntarily put at risk by many who do.

Honestly, and with all due respect, statistics and scientific studies mean very little in this context. I can take precautions, obviously, and I do. But stats and studies are not the answer to whether an owner has a responsibility to society, any more than anti-Pit propaganda is an answer. Of course, I wouldn’t need to ask this question if I had confidence that all large breed owners realize their responsibility to keep others safe.

IMO People defending large breeds really need to mull over my question, but what I see in general (especially in FB comments on dog mauling news stories) is a very strong defense of their rights over mine. Of course that me-first attitude extends to areas way beyond dog ownership in current society. But dogs are the subject here.
JMO

 

[Deleted member 158085]

So statistics and scientific studies aside (and yes, I acknowledge them as valuable), how would you respond to my reasonable question about the obligations of the owner of a large dog of any breed to society in general? I think it’s a very important question. I’m not willing to take the risk of owning a large dog, but I am involuntarily put at risk by many who do.

Honestly, and with all due respect, statistics and scientific studies mean very little in this context. I can take precautions, obviously, and I do. But stats and studies are not the answer to whether an owner has a responsibility to society, any more than anti-Pit propaganda is an answer. Of course, I wouldn’t need to ask this question if I had confidence that all large breed owners realize their responsibility to keep others safe.

IMO People defending large breeds really need to mull over my question, but what I see in general (especially in FB comments on dog mauling news stories) is a very strong defense of their rights over mine. Of course that me-first attitude extends to areas way beyond dog ownership in current society. But dogs are the subject here.
JMO

I think I have addressed this but it's been overlooked. (I get the sense that many are skimming my posts rather than considering them thoughtfully.) Multiple times throughout this thread I have mentioned real solutions since we cannot control who gets big dogs.

What we can do is address the common factors in dog bites and fatalities and control, to a degree, how people are allowed to keep and care for these dogs. Go back to one of my last posts which links to information on these common factors and you will see that many of them can be addressed through legislation and local ordinances.

This is the only way we can gain any control over irresponsible folks who buy dogs but possibly should not have them. The rest, for the average caring owner, needs to be addressed through more education.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Lilibet]

No one who is a guest on our property has to deal with our dogs if they have any misgivings, and in certain cases even if they are fine with the dogs, we still put them away into a locked bedroom. Children, and elderly, and anyone who appears uncomfortable though saying they are fine, fall into that category. Also I’d the dogs are becoming too much of a distraction or misbehaving ( jumping, sticking nose uninvited, trip factor, etc) But I fully acknowledge that there are still risks

1) Yes, I believe it is possible for any dog to “snap” from any trigger that we often cannot identify
2) if something should happen, I am not physically fast or strong enough to control those dogs
3) things can happen so quickly that damage can be done before any intervention or defense be enacted
4) I have the added risk of 2 dogs. So pack mentality is a wild card factor here. A large number of attacks involve multiple dogs. You don’t just double risks with a second dog. They go up sharply. The dogs compete for attention which can whip them into a frenzy. Though we remove the dogs when we see this, things can happen fast
5) one of the dogs is a mix likely in the higher risk categories for dog bites. He is also stronger and faster than his size warrants.


These factors all carry real risks. I can counter with low risk factors in place; dogs trained, no history of aggression, neutered, know history since 8 weeks old, well socialized, extremely instantly reactive with a tongue click from me—yes, they instantly stop whatever they are doing and immediately come to me and get a treat when they do do. (So far 100% compliance
But.... does that make them 100% safe? No . And even 99% is not good. enough given that means at least three misses in a year with 365 days. Percentages have to be far far lower than that

So fears are real, yes. We get to choose some of them. But if you are out and about, not so much when there are people with dogs that are not completely under owner control out there. Because dogs are allowed, that risk is there for anyone who ventured outside of home

BBM

Thank you for taking such rigorous precautions. You’re my kind of dog owner.

When I’m outside my home and see a large dog, I steer as clear as possible, even if it’s on a leash, unless it’s a dog I’ve gotten to know. But even then, I’m careful not to do anything that would upset it. So I know that I have responsibility in this situation too.

 

[jamicat]

Given our rights in this country, there is not a lot we can do to safeguard ourselves from irresponsible dog owners and dogs that “snap”. A lot of that risk is just part of living. We risk harm in a lot of things we do and don’t do

I have not looked at stats of areas where certain breeds are banned. St hey consistently and definitely cut down on major dog bite injuries and deaths? The death statistics, horrific as this whole subject is, are not high relative to other ways to die. Yes, even one death by mauling is too high. I agree with that. Any interventional death is a danged shame.

I am aware of the case of little Daxton’s mauling death. A tragedy, catastrophic, devastating. I have inadequate words for the parents and the baby sitter involved. Yes, that made me more vigilant about keeping my dogs away from babies and small children. No “but” in any of this. What happened was horrific.

As an aside, I have noticed that a lot of dogs that otherwise do not do so, jump up on their owners or anyone, holding another live creature. That can be a baby, a cat, another dog, most anything. For whatever reason, that sets off some dogs’ prey drive. I had a very well trained English bulldog whose only transgression was that he jumped on me when I was carrying my niece. No harm done, but it shook me up as he had perfect behavior and obedience. I’ve noticed this trigger a number of times with other dogs as well.

The response of some Pitbull advocates in that Wisconsin death was unsupportable and despicable. Any discussion of defending banning the dog breed involved did not belong in the same discussion. In forums where this Breed Specific bans are a subject, the question of whether like episodes have happened with other breeds as well is open to discussion but not in the condolences and direct conversation with those mourning the loss of their beloved.

 

[jamicat]

I think I have addressed this but it's been overlooked. (I get the sense that many are skimming my posts rather than considering them thoughtfully.) Multiple times throughout this thread I have mentioned real solutions since we cannot control who gets big dogs.

What we can do is address the common factors in dog bites and fatalities and control, to a degree, how people are allowed to keep and care for these dogs. Go back to one of my last posts which links to information on these common factors and you will see that many of them can be addressed through legislation and local ordinances.

This is the only way we can gain any control over irresponsible folks who buy dogs but possibly should not have them. The rest, for the average caring owner, needs to be addressed through more education.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Sadly, in my area, and I don’t think it’s atypical in this country, there are too many people that have dogs in high risk situations. Often tantamount to dog abuse. And dogs get loose. 100% isn’t gonna happen.

Many of those who do not give their dogs the care they should minimally have, take precautions that all dog owners should, have far more serious problems in their lives. That need to be addressed before greater harms occur.

 

[Deleted member 158085]

Given our rights in this country, there is not a lot we can do to safeguard ourselves from irresponsible dog owners and dogs that “snap”. A lot of that risk is just part of living. We risk harm in a lot of things we do and don’t do

I have not looked at stats of areas where certain breeds are banned. St hey consistently and definitely cut down on major dog bite injuries and deaths? The death statistics, horrific as this whole subject is, are not high relative to other ways to die. Yes, even one death by mauling is too high. I agree with that. Any interventional death is a danged shame.

I am aware of the case of little Daxton’s mauling death. A tragedy, catastrophic, devastating. I have inadequate words for the parents and the baby sitter involved. Yes, that made me more vigilant about keeping my dogs away from babies and small children. No “but” in any of this. What happened was horrific.

As an aside, I have noticed that a lot of dogs that otherwise do not do so, jump up on their owners or anyone, holding another live creature. That can be a baby, a cat, another dog, most anything. For whatever reason, that sets off some dogs’ prey drive. I had a very well trained English bulldog whose only transgression was that he jumped on me when I was carrying my niece. No harm done, but it shook me up as he had perfect behavior and obedience. I’ve noticed this trigger a number of times with other dogs as well.

The response of some Pitbull advocates in that Wisconsin death was unsupportable and despicable. Any discussion of defending banning the dog breed involved did not belong in the same discussion. In forums where this Breed Specific bans are a subject, the question of whether like episodes have happened with other breeds as well is open to discussion but not in the condolences and direct conversation with those mourning the loss of their beloved.

All of the studies I've seen so far show that not only has BSL not reduced dog bites, but in some cases, they have gone up.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pit-bull-ban-toronto-dog-bites_us_56c8cd2ce4b0928f5a6c218e

Charts on the results are on the second page of this one.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...6AGAQFghbMAg&usg=AOvVaw3BMOf0EE3hF3ntbb6pOQIg

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[jamicat]

So statistics and scientific studies aside (and yes, I acknowledge them as valuable), how would you respond to my reasonable question about the obligations of the owner of a large dog of any breed to society in general? I think it’s a very important question. I’m not willing to take the risk of owning a large dog, but I am involuntarily put at risk by many who do.

Honestly, and with all due respect, statistics and scientific studies mean very little in this context. I can take precautions, obviously, and I do. But stats and studies are not the answer to whether an owner has a responsibility to society, any more than anti-Pit propaganda is an answer. Of course, I wouldn’t need to ask this question if I had confidence that all large breed owners realize their responsibility to keep others safe.

IMO People defending large breeds really need to mull over my question, but what I see in general (especially in FB comments on dog mauling news stories) is a very strong defense of their rights over mine. Of course that me-first attitude extends to areas way beyond dog ownership in current society. But dogs are the subject here.
JMO

Big dogs, less physical control by owners, bigger bites. Those are the facts. Some big dogs have dispositions that reduce their dangers, but yes, there are risks in being around a large creature. As our society is today, if you want to go out and about, can’t eliminate being caught in the vicinity of them. You can reduce those risks by finding “no big dogs” or no pets facilities but, we are s culture that has s lot of dog lovers in them, so it’s not 100% avoidable.

I wish I could eliminate encountering stray, loose dogs. It’s a risk I take around here when I just go out my door. I keep my dogs leashed but others do not. I time my neighborhood walks with them accordingly. Also at issue are those whose dogs are leashed but clearly not leash trained. I contribute to the risk in that I truly cannot physically control both of my dogs if I am walking them together. I depend on their training, obedience, track record, type of collar, and their track record, but if they should decide to bolt, I weigh 110 with my boots and am not a physical strong woman in my 60s. The dogs combined weight is close to mine. Yes, I’ve passed people with ill behaved dogs straining at the leash and my dogs have so far stayed the line. I stay alert and cross the street or turn around to avoid all sorts of situations like kids running around, dogs on leash, etc etc. But, yes, I’m taking a chance and risking others in doing so. My right to take that risk

You are correct in that those of us who walk dogs we cannot control if things go bad are creating risks to others. And inconveniencing people like you who have to take a detour to avoid us.

I carry pepper spray and a bite stick as well as treats in my waist pack when I walk my dogs. To defend if I come across an aggressive dog on the loose. Which I suppose could be used on my own dogs if it came to that. I’ve never had to use anything other than the treats that I use liberally. But I’ve been lucky not having come across loose dogs, I realize.

 

[Deleted member 158085]

Sadly, in my area, and I don’t think it’s atypical in this country, there are too many people that have dogs in high risk situations. Often tantamount to dog abuse. And dogs get loose. 100% isn’t gonna happen.

Many of those who do not give their dogs the care they should minimally have, take precautions that all dog owners should, have far more serious problems in their lives. That need to be addressed before greater harms occur.

This right here. I can't tell you how many times I wished I could track people's ownership and what eventually happened with their dog like CPS can with kids.

On a related note, there is a strong correlation between child abuse/domestic violence and animal abuse. Many have suggested that CPS and animal care personnel ought to be cross-trained to recognize both because it would result in catching abuse more quickly, especially if the lines of communication between child and animal protective agencies were opened up.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[jamicat]

All of the studies I've seen so far show that not only has BSL not reduced dog bites, but in some cases, they have gone up.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pit-bull-ban-toronto-dog-bites_us_56c8cd2ce4b0928f5a6c218e

Charts on the results are on the second page of this one.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...6AGAQFghbMAg&usg=AOvVaw3BMOf0EE3hF3ntbb6pOQIg

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I know areas in Denver and Miami have BSL. The military does in their housing laws. I have not analyzed the data and am ambivalent about the situation

There have been studies which you may know about the rise in serious bites and deaths from bites as the Pitbull mixes have not only gained in numbers but literally exploded as dog of choice in marginalized neighborhoods. Most common shelter dog in my area by far.

My husband who grew up here said that there always were loose dogs, neglected, abused dogs, dogs in problem areas but they were not pitbull types when he was a child. I assume that people are going to get dogs regardless and if a pit ban happens here, some other dogs will take their place. The question is whether the damages will as bad. Pit bites are worse than many breeds’.

The other problem in areas like mine is that there is dog fighting. The vets and authorities know its happening here and in areas around here. That is part of the reason for so many Pit type dogs. That is something that should be completely wiped out.

The other problem with pit bulls are the jerks who get them and deliberately make them mean for certain persona and tough look.

But no dog attack deaths reported in 30 years of data. And one mauling some years ago despite the high density of pit bulls here.

 

[Lilibet]

I think I have addressed this but it's been overlooked. (I get the sense that many are skimming my posts rather than considering them thoughtfully.) Multiple times throughout this thread I have mentioned real solutions since we cannot control who gets big dogs.

What we can do is address the common factors in dog bites and fatalities and control, to a degree, how people are allowed to keep and care for these dogs. Go back to one of my last posts which links to information on these common factors and you will see that many of them can be addressed through legislation and local ordinances.

This is the only way we can gain any control over irresponsible folks who buy dogs but possibly should not have them. The rest, for the average caring owner, needs to be addressed through more education.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

BBM

Thanks for responding. Actually, I have read your posts carefully, but it’s not always easy to remember specific points people make. So thanks for the recap. I was addressing the individual responsibility of large breed owners. But you make a very good point that legislation and local ordinances need to take up the slack when it comes to irresponsible owners.

Enforcing those local ordinances is problematic though, in my experience. For example, my community has a leash law. When my husband retired, he volunteered at the local police department to patrol the local bike path on his bike and radio in if there were problems. Many people walk their dogs there off-leash, claiming they are “under their control.” My husband sought clarification from police, and they waffled on the meaning of the ordinance, so it was not enforced, and was useless.

You make a very important point in your last sentence about education. I think ignorance is just as much a factor as the me-ism I mentioned in my previous post. I will confess to being a young and dumb first-time dog owner in 1969. We were moving to our newly purchased 10 acres in the redwoods, friends had adorable registered Samoyed puppies, and we impulsively took one with us. Both of us came from extended families with either no pets or cats, so we were clueless about dogs. We didn’t know what we didn’t know, although we did try to do research and train her a little. We never gave much thought about our responsibility toward others. Did I mention we were young and dumb (about dogs, anyway)? Fortunately, Heather was a wonderful dog, so our ignorance did not cause damage (except to furniture!). We decided later to stick to cats.

I think many well-meaning people like us go into dog ownership uneducated and unprepared. If they have a large breed, the results can be terrible. And, as the horror story posted above shows, even the most conscientious dog owner can have a catastrophe.

So this is a valuable conversation, even though there is no way to completely erase risk, with legislation or education. But it’s a start.

 

[rsd1200]

Personally, I didn't comment on this story because I am focused on looking at peer reviewed scientific studies. It's all too easy to focus on emotional horror stories rather than overall true statistics. I am looking for facts.

I know it has been said that pit bull advocates are emotional. However, this thread has made it clear to me that those who are adamantly against the breed are as well, and possibly even more so. No one wants to discuss peer reviewed scientific studies that are fit to be on a government website. Instead, they keep referring back to statistics from an anti-pit bull site as well as another one run by Merritt Clifton, who has been kicked to the curb repeatedly by various publications for his "research" and "journalism" being sub part and his lack of qualifications, and so has had to start his own website to disseminate his fraudulent and biased information to the public.

I approach this conversation the same way I approach a decision about whether a particular dog should be euthanized - with as much objectivity and facts as possible, setting aside my general love of dogs and looking at real risk assessment.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I posted the story from Dogbites about little Dax. I realize they are an anti-pit, anti-Rott, site and almost an anti-dog site. My main reason for posting the story is because this is what can happen when one has large dogs whose lineage come directly from being bred to chase, and hold bear, and bulls, etc., then were further destructed by humans thinking it was cool to fight them in pits against one another.

I didn't post it for stats, I posted it as a realistic view of what can happen to a child up against a pit whose never bitten anyone, and was raised from pups, by the same owner. I, unlike dogbites, agree with the sheriff, in the story, that it was a "perfect storm" that day. Three years ago this Christmas, a woman left to see family, and upon her return, her husband had been mauled to death by one, of their two pits. She said there'd been signs of food aggression in the past and she'd asked him to euth the one responsible for killing him. He wouldn't. Apparently that Christmas Day, the perfect storm happened. She saw the signs, he didn't think the dog would do that. If your Yorkie goes ballistic on you, you aren't likely to die, not so with these big dogs. Signs of aggression need to be taken seriously. The woman who babysat Dax, may not have noticed signs in her own dogs, or dismissed them.

I agree, all dogs can bite. I had a couple Beagles when I was very young, 4-5, that became protective of me, and would snap at folks who came around me. My parents gave them back to my grandpa, who'd given them to me,as pups, to use as hunting dogs. My Malamute, I had, years ago,bit a guy who was at our home. I'd told him to not touch her, that she was hurt, and didn't know him, and could bite. I was calling a vet to come out (they used to do that here, that was over 30 years ago), but he went right ahead and messed with her, and she bit him. Four perfect punctures in his arm. A couple stitches in each puncture and that was it, my dog had been hurt badly, and had to be put down.

Even though they may not bite any more, than other dogs, my point is, that when they do bite, it is usually extremely severe, and many times fatal, for a small child, or an elderly person. Cane Corsos are getting a rep now too. Do I think that all Cane Corsos are bad dogs? No. But the AKC even states the type of temperament the dog has, and type of owner that the dog should have. I think a lot of folks don't take these things seriously when getting a dog. They get a dog that's too much for them. I don't ride and train horses anymore b/c I know my limitations now, after some rather bad injuries. I've had a couple of very temperamental walking horses but that doesn't mean all walkers are bad. For the most part they are a wonderful breed that has suffered much abuse. However, I've never sold a temperamental horse to a person who was a beginning rider and I've been up front about their history. We have a little pony mule for the grandkids to learn to ride on and that's it now.

The article below is from the Christmas Day death, and has a quote from a certified dog trainer and dog behaviour consultant. While I agree with her, I have to admit that we don't usually see these types of wounds, from other breeds. That's my concern about the pit bull terrier lines, when they do go aggressive.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_ada25297-f706-5674-b4f5-e1f16ad882b7.html

 

[Deleted member 158085]

Just a note before I get on with my day. Each of you has the power to make change if you are really passionate about protecting people and animals. I know for some it may seem daunting, but it's really not that hard to affect change at the local level, or at least instigate a community conversation about it. And you can find support with local animal groups. And yes, I am talking about the dangerous dog issue.

Your local animal groups need the support and voices of average citizens to help instigate change. Local politicians don't want to enact laws that infringe on people's rights. So you go at it from the angle of protecting children and the community. Gather the statistics from the CDC and AVMA and take it to your city council or county board and ask them to pass common sense ordinances against chaining and small kennels. Ask that they enact a variable dog registration license that makes it more expensive to keep unaltered animals. As that they pass a non breed specific dangerous dog law. Ask that they enact or enforce leash laws. Look at the common factors that scientific studies have shown with these attacks and tackle those problems. Because if you just try to get BSL, you won't reduce fatal attacks in the long run. Studies have shown that a different breed will simply fill that vacuum and you'll be right back where you started.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk