Two dogs killed & two women injured

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like attacking dog was off-leash? Or not under control? Poor women and poor dead doggie.

We've been jumped by dogs on leash that owners cannot control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pitbulls and their owners are a menace. I hope the victims press charges.

Look at you, assuming facts not in evidence and using them to judge whole groups of people. Bet you sort by color too, eh?

Typical deranged pit defender, trying to deny the facts in front of your face.

Right up until her pit eats her face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe in adoption but foster is only temporary and there is not time to properly train.

Clearly this dog had serious issues.

There is always an option to re-home a dog for more appropriate foster. That's what responsible fosters do and rescues expect that. If I bring foster home and cannot manage it - I just put a request for a move. Had to do it couple of times - foster dog just wasn't playing nice with my dog and cat (resource guarding, aggressive chasing, etc). Rescue found different foster, dogs had an appropriate note on file (the only dog, or no cats/small dogs, etc). That information is always disclosed for potential adopters and fosters, and I do pay attention to those noted when deciding what dog i can take in.

PS funny enough - had several pit mixes in my care, none of them I requested to re-home. The problem ones were shepherd mixes (resource guarding, leash reactivity) and husky mix (hunting my cat)

[Anonymous]

Did they identify the breed of the dog that was killed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Here is the most common canine evaluation used by the local MoCo shelters: https://aspcapro.org/sites/default/files/safer-guide-and-forms.pdf

No rescue is putting "blood thirsty beasts" into foster or adoptive homes.

You need to drink some tea, touch grass, pet your dog and calm your life down. You sound unwell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did they identify the breed of the dog that was killed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Here is the most common canine evaluation used by the local MoCo shelters: https://aspcapro.org/sites/default/files/safer-guide-and-forms.pdf

No rescue is putting "blood thirsty beasts" into foster or adoptive homes.

You need to drink some tea, touch grass, pet your dog and calm your life down. You sound unwell.

Except for this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

Indeed. Eliminating pitbulls and put mixes would only reduce maulings and fatal dog attacks by 25-75%, depending upon which statistics you prefer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

It's a dog eat dog world. Deal therewith.

Carry a gun to defend your dog. The bleeding heart liberals clearly want this outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

Indeed. Eliminating pitbulls and put mixes would only reduce maulings and fatal dog attacks by 25-75%, depending upon which statistics you prefer.

Oh, only 25-75% from just one breed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

Indeed. Eliminating pitbulls and put mixes would only reduce maulings and fatal dog attacks by 25-75%, depending upon which statistics you prefer.

Oh, only 25-75% from just one breed?

Yes. Technically four/five breeds, the term is usually considered to include the American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bully, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and sometimes the American Bulldog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

Indeed. Eliminating pitbulls and put mixes would only reduce maulings and fatal dog attacks by 25-75%, depending upon which statistics you prefer.

Actual statistics. I'd prefer actual statistics. But you don't have them, as has been proven repeatedly throughout this thread. Yet you keep pulling statistics from... somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please, we all know what breed the attacking dog was. BAN PIT BULLS NOW.

No. Deal with it. Breed bans don't stop dog bites. All dogs can bite. If you want an actual solution, push for stricter licensing in a dual-tier system, with higher licensing requirements (and fees) for breeders, increase the penalties for code violations and pay for more animal control officers, and do some community outreach to train some of the clueless idiots (retractable leash users, off-leash dog owners, I'm taking about you).

Breed bans don't eliminate dog bites because all dogs bite. Period. Deal therewith.

No one is taking about dog bites. We’re talking about fatal attacks. Maulings. Disfiguring mutilations.

But you know that.

Honestly, it's kinda hard to tell what the "royal you" is talking about, since most of the messaging from your side just sounds like deranged non-sequiters and ranting.

Breed bans will not eliminate maulings, disfiguring mutilations, or fatal attacks. Just google "fatal dog attack ________" and put anything BUT pit bull in the blank. You will find proof that completely eliminating "pit bulls" (which seems to be a target of the anti-pit bullies' agenda) will not eliminate the incidents you list.

But you know that.

Indeed. Eliminating pitbulls and put mixes would only reduce maulings and fatal dog attacks by 25-75%, depending upon which statistics you prefer.

Oh, only 25-75% from just one breed?

No, not from one breed. Not even from 5 breeds. From PP's backside. That's where that "statistic" came from. It is wholly unsubstantiated by any study, which is why it was provided without citation (like all the other "statistics" the anti-pit bullies like to make up).