Forum Index
»
Pets
Two dogs killed & two women injured
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
You are advocating for stricter licensing for dog owners than we have for gun owners? Not sure if you are serious and just clueless or if this is a way for you to absolve yourself of this issue. |
Anonymous
You must be new to dogs. Lassie made everyone thing a collie was a great family dog. Cop shows made a bunch of people buy GSDs and Malinois in the mid-to-late 80s. Snoop Dogg made rotties and dobies popular in the early 90s. There was the taco bell chihuahua and Paris Hilton's purse pooch in the late 90s/early aughts (and if you don't know, chihuahuas are the breed most likely to bite, especially when you carry them everywhere and don't teach them how to be proper dogs). Not sure when GoT came on the scene, but that started the husky/malamute/akita boom, and now it's pits. All dogs bite. No dog should be purchased because it's "trendy". The rescues have been trying to clean up the mess this whole time. If you want fewer rescue dogs, make breeder licenses a requirement, with stiff penalties for breeders who make dogs without one, and allow rescues greater permission to euthanize unwanted dogs (you can't have it both ways here; those dogs need to go somewhere). |
Anonymous
I'm pointing out the actual solution. But you make a valid point: it'll hit the same "but my freedumbs!!!" arguments tighter gun restrictions so often do. Can't help stupid, but you can't really live with stupid either. Ultimately, while they may help the pit-bull paranoid feel better, breed bans at the county level do not prevent dog bites the way they'd need to in order to eliminate the problem. The solutions I mentioned might, but, you know, y'all would have to stop keyboard warrioring and actually do something useful with your vitriol. |
Anonymous
No shit. |
Anonymous
Pit bulls are banned in PG County. It's not enforced strictly - but it does mean that the shelters that are full of pit mixes do not adopt them out and euthanize a large number of them. Since pitties are not sterilized and are bred by backyard breeders, there are always more coming in to the shelters. But at least they aren't coming out of the shelters. |
Anonymous
They're going to DC and MoCo shelters and breed-specific rescues. If you want to stop them from flooding shelters, push for backyard breeder licensing and higher fees for fines, then pay for more animal control officers and better enforcement. There's a solution, and it isn't breed bans. If they worked, they would've worked by now. |
Anonymous
Sure, some of them end up somewhere outside of PG County. But they are not no kill shelters. |
Anonymous
Short answer, no. And that's one of the most annoying things about it. Other dogs (generally) have some level of inbred traits, but the bloodsport dogs are apparently all blank slates or particularly successful at being "nanny" dogs. There are a whole bunch of dogs that have a tendency towards aggression and some significant bit force, but they don't have a whole PR arm telling the public they're just misunderstood and are actually just the sweetest because genetics means nothing. Malinois/Chow/Rott/GSD/Kangal/Corso/Akita etc. owners aren't nearly as insistent their dogs are harmless and great for everyone. |
Anonymous
Again, not a single person on this thread has alleged that "pit bulls" are "harmless and great for everyone". There's a vocal pushback against the crazy hyperbole, nonsensical clickbait, absolute madness of calling them "bloodsport dogs". Maybe if the haters could express their concerns intelligently instead of constantly starting drama, there'd be less pushback? But when you say deliberately inflammatory, patently false nonsense, smart people with thinking skills do tend to speak up to counter your bullshit. Sorry that bothers you, except that I'm not. At all. Stop making idiotic arguments based in appeals to emotion. Use facts and logic instead of citing clickbait and manipulating stats. Your side is the reason my side needs to exist. |
Anonymous
|
Some dogs are harder to train than others.
Some dogs are more reactive than others. It's not easy being a responsible pet owner. It's not for everyone. The fault lies with the attacking dogs' owners. I hope they are charged. I hope they are sued. |
Anonymous
Some dogs are breed to attack. If you foster a dog and it's a blood thirsty beast the organization that gave the dog to you is responsible. |
Anonymous
Responsible rescue organizations do not adopt out aggressive dogs. "Bloodthirsty beasts" are super rare. But there is a place for humane behavioral euthanasia. And the professionals recognize that. But ultimately, the person who takes a dog into their home is responsible for that dog's behavior. |
Anonymous
No some bleeding heart that takes in a foster from a "responsible organization" is not responsible when it literally is eating a dog it attacked. |
Anonymous
If it happens the week they bring the dog home, okay, not responsible. Especially if the foster organization did not in any way prepare them for this kind of dog and didn't make sure it was a foster family that could handle a dog with aggression issues. But after that grace period, yes, they are responsible. This is something people should think about before fostering and it should be part of the conversation when they take in a dog. If you have limited experience with dogs in general and no qualifications for dealing with aggressive dogs, then you should exercise common sense and not agree to foster a 100 lb, untrained dog with aggression issues. You should be offering to take in elderly dogs with no history of aggression, or maybe puppies with no history of abuse from breeds known not to be aggressive (and yes, pits are known to be more aggressive than other breeds, that doesn't mean they can't be good dogs but do NOT give them to novice, naive foster families!). That choice is on you. |
Anonymous
Maybe in adoption but foster is only temporary and there is not time to properly train. Clearly this dog had serious issues. |