Responsible Dog Ownership Declines...

[speedsix]

... http://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-newsro ... imings.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
... http://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-newsro ... bility.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...childrens' safety should come before dogs...so should adults'...case after case shows the dog gets first consideration...

[VMI77]

This is an anti-dog group with an agenda, like the Brady Bunch, and they sound remarkably similar to the Brady Bunch, so I'd take any of their statistics with a grain of salt. Fundamentally, they want to ban a certain type of dog rather than hold owners responsible for the dog's behavior --Brady Bunch tactic. People who want to ban things generally want to control other people and they're not likely to stop when they're successful with their first ban. Here's an example of what they say about banning pit bulls:

Q: I own a German shepherd; will my dog be regulated next?

Pit bull advocates and humane organizations often use scare tactics to help gain support for their cause. They say if pit bulls are banned today, German shepherds and cocker spaniels will be banned tomorrow. The former Dog Warden for Lucas County, Ohio, Tom Skeldon, was the most recognized authority in the U.S. concerning pit bull regulations during his tenure. In a 2005 article, Skeldon highlights this scare tactic:

"Some humane groups have been manipulated by these pit bull factions to where they fight breed-specific legislation using scare tactics like 'your breed will be next.' And for 13 years, their breed hasn't been next."7

Communities that enact breed-specific laws usually do because a single class of dogs -- pit bulls -- constitutes a small percent of the registered dog population but commits a large number of bites. This is further compounded by the fact that many pit bull bites result in severe injury. The rational basis for regulating pit bulls, as opposed to any other breed, is that selective breeding has produced a dog with bite and attack traits unlike any other dog.

Sounds like the talk of any group we know? First, note the sleazy slight of hand....the issue is about a "ban," but they substitute the word "regulation." Substitute "I own a so called assault rifle" for German Shepherd, and a "will my hand gun be regulated next," and "hand gun" for pit bull, and voila, it's virtually interchangeable with what the Brady Bunch says about guns.

Found this after I posted....look at the answer they give above, and this below, posted at another part of their website...talk about sleazy:

Legislating dangerous dogs

Over 650 U.S. cities, the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Army and New York Housing Authority have adopted policies that target pit bulls and several other dog breeds due to the unreasonable risk posed by them.

There isn't 10 cents worth of difference between their terminology and "logic" and the terminology and "logic" of the gun control crowd.

[speedsix]

...the main difference is that their study is documented with facts and newspaper reports and law enforcement statistics...so we're dealing with hard, cold facts...something Brady hasn't bothered to do...so the analogy fails there...

...agenda? for sure...that's the reason the organization was begun...to expose and influence regulation on the effects of citizens not taking proper care of their animals...and the damage/pain/deaths caused when they don't...I'd say they're doing a good job of it...glad MY granddaughter and MY sons haven't made their lists...

...regardless of the site's agenda...the facts are still verifiable facts...for those who want to dig them out...and reach their own conclusions...two more incidents this year already that I know of...one a fatality...one a mauling where parents knew the danger...and are now in jail because they didn't act responsibly and their son got attacked...by their dog...

...here's one more study...looks like they have an agenda, too...maybe to warn us... http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalS ... eeds-a.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[VMI77]

...the main difference is that their study is documented with facts and newspaper reports and law enforcement statistics...so we're dealing with hard, cold facts...something Brady hasn't bothered to do...so the analogy fails there...

...agenda? for sure...that's the reason the organization was begun...to expose and influence regulation on the effects of citizens not taking proper care of their animals...and the damage/pain/deaths caused when they don't...I'd say they're doing a good job of it...glad MY granddaughter and MY sons haven't made their lists...

I think you missed my point --I'm not going to bother to verify the validity of their statistics, because even if they're accurate, they're irrelevant. People abuse dogs and other people are killed or injured (though, by their own data, the number killed is miniscule --52 a year)......no difference in the argument about guns. People abuse guns and other people are killed or injured. The logic you support here that denies someone the ability to responsibly own a certain breed of dog is exactly the same as the logic that would deny someone the ability to own a certain type of gun. And the emotive language is all the same --"reasonable" regulation, but instead of "dangerous weapons" it's "dangerous dogs."

I fully support making owners responsible for their dogs and I am totally against the government telling me what kind of dog I'm allowed to have. To add some perspective, according to the CDC there were 3,443 unintentional drowning deaths in the US in 2007 --66 times the number of people this anti-dog site says were killed by dogs in a year. The Nanny State mentality is a disease in this country....look to the horrid UK for where it leads. It's flat out wrong to punish responsible people for the irresponsibility of others....whether we're talking about guns or dogs.

Wait...I'm wrong.....in a THREE YEAR PERIOD 52 people were killed by dogs.....that's 17 a year. This site says 15 people a year die from falling off ladders --should we ban those too? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.ph ... 76.45.html That's apparently in the UK, so the number is likely higher here.

[speedsix]

...if the government would make the penalties for irresponsible owners high enough, these statistics wouldn't be so high...I don't care WHAT breed of dog does the attacking...the fact that pits, rotties, and shepherds top the CDC list says that more bad things happen when their owners can't/won't/don't restrain them...if concerned citizens would get active and involved...governmental bodies might pass the right laws instead of targeting certain breeds...but they historically take the easy way out of "dealing with" the problem...either the owners or the dogs must be dealt with...for the sake of the people that're being attacked, disfigured, and killed...the citizens of a state or city get to decide which...don't blame the activists who point out the suffering...

...and this: "Wait...I'm wrong.....in a THREE YEAR PERIOD 52 people were killed by dogs.....that's 17 a year. This site says 15 people a year die from falling off ladders --should we ban those too? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.ph ... 76.45.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
VMI77 " ...is from the UK...not the US...and the further we read in the link...the weaker that argument gets...


...this is becoming a classic example of shooting the messenger...it's easier than dealing with the problem presented...that's why the numbers keep rising...

[ajwakeboarder]

Sorry, I don't buy it. I worked for an electric company for two years. I had to deal with multiple dogs on a daily basis. When i first started, i worked in South Oak cliff. There, most everyone has big scary dogs. Most of them were pit bulls or rottweilers. People buy these dogs because they look and sound scary. In reality, most dogs will act like they will rip you apart only as long as there's something between them and you. When i was walking up to fences, most dogs would go nuts. Everything changed when i got on the other side. The loudest most aggressive sounding dogs would run with their tails between their legs when i got in the yard with them. Now i'm not saying all dogs are like that. Some dogs are trained to be mean, and a lot of people buy Pit Bulls to make them that way. But it's not the dogs fault. Its the owners. Some of the worst bites i ever got at that job were from small dogs like terriers and cocker spaniels. Now, as a disclaimer, I don't advocate testing a dog to see if it's mean by jumping in it's yard. Every time i did i had pepper spray and something to swing if it turned mean. But for the most part, the loudest, biggest dogs were the most timid.

[VMI77]

...if the government would make the penalties for irresponsible owners high enough, these statistics wouldn't be so high...I don't care WHAT breed of dog does the attacking...the fact that pits, rotties, and shepherds top the CDC list says that more bad things happen when their owners can't/won't/don't restrain them...if concerned citizens would get active and involved...governmental bodies might pass the right laws instead of targeting certain breeds...but they historically take the easy way out of "dealing with" the problem...either the owners or the dogs must be dealt with...for the sake of the people that're being attacked, disfigured, and killed...the citizens of a state or city get to decide which...don't blame the activists who point out the suffering...

Be careful what you ask for, when you set the bar for "suffering" this low, there is virtually nothing the government can't justify banning or regulating. And again, I question your logic. I assume that you wouldn't support banning hand guns if such a ban could be proven to eliminate the same amount of suffering....in other words, if a ban saved 17 lives a year. Afterall, either the owners or the guns (dogs) must be dealt with. BTW, the US CPSC banned lawn darts due to "3"....that's "three" deaths. Now I personally don't care about lawn darts, but I cite the statistic to show there is no end to the Nanny State.

[VMI77]

...if the government would make the penalties for irresponsible owners high enough, these statistics wouldn't be so high...I don't care WHAT breed of dog does the attacking...the fact that pits, rotties, and shepherds top the CDC list says that more bad things happen when their owners can't/won't/don't restrain them...if concerned citizens would get active and involved...governmental bodies might pass the right laws instead of targeting certain breeds...but they historically take the easy way out of "dealing with" the problem...either the owners or the dogs must be dealt with...for the sake of the people that're being attacked, disfigured, and killed...the citizens of a state or city get to decide which...don't blame the activists who point out the suffering...

...and this: "Wait...I'm wrong.....in a THREE YEAR PERIOD 52 people were killed by dogs.....that's 17 a year. This site says 15 people a year die from falling off ladders --should we ban those too? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.ph ... 76.45.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
VMI77 " ...is from the UK...not the US...and the further we read in the link...the weaker that argument gets...


...this is becoming a classic example of shooting the messenger...it's easier than dealing with the problem presented...that's why the numbers keep rising...

Yep, and I edited it to say it was from the UK.....the numbers are MUCH higher here, I picked picked the first number I found solely for the purpose of perspective. It's easy to find that deaths from falls in the US number in the THOUSANDS, but not so easy to find how many are from falls off ladders (at least not in the time I'm willing to commit) ...but it looks like in the hundreds. Your responses lead me to believe you have an emotional attachment to this issue. I admit to having one myself...first, I love dogs, but even more importantly, I despise the Nanny State mentality that seeks to ban something for everyone because of what is done by those who fail to take responsibility for themselves.

[speedsix]

...what DID I ask for??? for you to become aware of the magnitude of the problem...which has nothing to do with encouraging banning...dogs...guns...or lollipops...and what logic are you questioning? that there is a serious problem causing folks to go through suffering or death because dogowners aren't being responsible? what's wrong with that logic??? are you mad, too, because the government bans some imports or types of toys because of choking hazards or high lead levels??? YOU are the one talking about banning this or that...I'm pointing out that there's a serious problem...and if the 17 lives a year would include someone dear to you...you'd want something to be done, too...WHAT would be determined by those who got involved and made SOMETHING happen...and changed the laws...the government is supposed to enforce laws made to protect us...that's their job...deciding what they'll say and getting them passed...that's our job....

[speedsix]

Sorry, I don't buy it. I worked for an electric company for two years. I had to deal with multiple dogs on a daily basis. When i first started, i worked in South Oak cliff. There, most everyone has big scary dogs. Most of them were pit bulls or rottweilers. People buy these dogs because they look and sound scary. In reality, most dogs will act like they will rip you apart only as long as there's something between them and you. When i was walking up to fences, most dogs would go nuts. Everything changed when i got on the other side. The loudest most aggressive sounding dogs would run with their tails between their legs when i got in the yard with them. Now i'm not saying all dogs are like that. Some dogs are trained to be mean, and a lot of people buy Pit Bulls to make them that way. But it's not the dogs fault. Its the owners. Some of the worst bites i ever got at that job were from small dogs like terriers and cocker spaniels. Now, as a disclaimer, I don't advocate testing a dog to see if it's mean by jumping in it's yard. Every time i did i had pepper spray and something to swing if it turned mean. But for the most part, the loudest, biggest dogs were the most timid.

...what is the "it" that you don't buy? the facts??? the newspaper and police reports??? I'm glad that your experiences are better...maybe you handle dogs better than children and old people do...that's great...you evidently haven't been rendered a quadriplegic by a drunken driver, either...does that mean that others...a lot of others...haven't? of course not...I've never been bitten by a snake, either...but I have no trouble "buying" that others have...and been killed...

[speedsix]

...if the government would make the penalties for irresponsible owners high enough, these statistics wouldn't be so high...I don't care WHAT breed of dog does the attacking...the fact that pits, rotties, and shepherds top the CDC list says that more bad things happen when their owners can't/won't/don't restrain them...if concerned citizens would get active and involved...governmental bodies might pass the right laws instead of targeting certain breeds...but they historically take the easy way out of "dealing with" the problem...either the owners or the dogs must be dealt with...for the sake of the people that're being attacked, disfigured, and killed...the citizens of a state or city get to decide which...don't blame the activists who point out the suffering...

...and this: "Wait...I'm wrong.....in a THREE YEAR PERIOD 52 people were killed by dogs.....that's 17 a year. This site says 15 people a year die from falling off ladders --should we ban those too? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.ph ... 76.45.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
VMI77 " ...is from the UK...not the US...and the further we read in the link...the weaker that argument gets...


...this is becoming a classic example of shooting the messenger...it's easier than dealing with the problem presented...that's why the numbers keep rising...

Yep, and I edited it to say it was from the UK.....the numbers are MUCH higher here, I picked picked the first number I found solely for the purpose of perspective. It's easy to find that deaths from falls in the US number in the THOUSANDS, but not so easy to find how many are from falls off ladders (at least not in the time I'm willing to commit) ...but it looks like in the hundreds. Your responses lead me to believe you have an emotional attachment to this issue. I admit to having one myself...first, I love dogs, but even more importantly, I despise the Nanny State mentality that seeks to ban something for everyone because of what is done by those who fail to take responsibility for themselves.

...I love dogs, too...and my first response to a dog...even to several pits I've met loose, is to drop down and call them to get them to come be petted...and they usually waller all over me...as to "having an emotional attachment"... read my first post...then read yours...who left facts and the subject and took off on a tangent emotionally?...I wasn't addressing the "Nanny state"...merely pointing out that we...parents and grandparents...have a problem that's not being dealt with successfully...if you could quit following your emotions and biases...and just read what I posted...you might agree that we do have a problem...I said not one word about how I thought it should be handled...you chose one way and ran with it...we CAN agree that it's not the best way...but we SHOULD also agree that something needs to change...

[SRH78]

...the main difference is that their study is documented with facts and newspaper reports and law enforcement statistics...so we're dealing with hard, cold facts...something Brady hasn't bothered to do...so the analogy fails there...

Actually, that is not true at all. Their so called facts are anything but. They are merely a collection of hand picked media reports. The media doesn't report every time someone is bitten by a dog. They pick and choose what stories will get a reaction. They also don't even get the facts of those individual stories right. I have looked over their numbers before and they are ridiculously innaccurate. For some of the breeds listed, I personally know of more "attacks" requiring medical attention than what they have listed for the US and Canada over a 25 year period. These are people with an agenda who care nothing about the truth and prey on ignorance. I little time actually spent around dogs will blow huge holes in their lies.

[VMI77]

...what DID I ask for??? for you to become aware of the magnitude of the problem...which has nothing to do with encouraging banning...dogs...guns...or lollipops...and what logic are you questioning? that there is a serious problem causing folks to go through suffering or death because dogowners aren't being responsible? what's wrong with that logic??? are you mad, too, because the government bans some imports or types of toys because of choking hazards or high lead levels??? YOU are the one talking about banning this or that...I'm pointing out that there's a serious problem...and if the 17 lives a year would include someone dear to you...you'd want something to be done, too...WHAT would be determined by those who got involved and made SOMETHING happen...and changed the laws...the government is supposed to enforce laws made to protect us...that's their job...deciding what they'll say and getting them passed...that's our job....

Forgive me....I responded to the website you provided the link for, based on the assumption that given your comment and the link, you support the advocacy found there. They clearly advocate banning various dog breeds, and the logic used to justify it is exactly the same as the logic used to justify banning guns.

As to the rest of it, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Yes, I'm against banning toys for choking hazards....it's the PARENTS responsibility to make sure their children have appropriate toys. Banning something for high lead levels is a little different, since there is no visible or practical way for a parent to know what the lead levels are. Even there, however, I favor clear notice or warnings rather than bans. Furthermore, a lot of these commercial bans are only ostensibly for what they claim....many times they are more favorable to a corporate interest in eliminating competition than they are to safety.

and if the 17 lives a year would include someone dear to you...you'd want something to be done, too

That's exactly the same emotional appeal used by Sarah Brady and the gun banners. I have been bitten by a dog. My son was bitten badly enough to require emergency room treatment. In that particular case I don't really fault the dog owner or the dog...some things just happen. And just as if my son had been shot by some thug I wouldn't be out advocating a gun ban because I wanted "something to be done," I'm not advocating dog bans.

Yes, for those attacked, killed, or mauled, or their loved ones, every attack is a serious problem. However, I don't see it as a social problem on a scale that justifies taking away the rights and freedom of people who own a certain kind of dog, or want to, and otherwise have done nothing wrong. I should have to kill my dog, or get rid of it, because the city I live in bans that particular breed due to some idiot that didn't control HIS dog? Wow.

You well know that the world is a dangerous place. There is no absolute safety. Just as I don't believe the threat posed by "terrorism" justifies the omni-spying National Security State, I don't believe the threat of dog attack justifies taking away the freedoms of thousands or millions of people to responsibly own the kind of dog they want and love.

Edited to add this:

I went back and looked at my post post and I think you've mischaracterized it. I directed all my criticism to the website you posted the link for ....not you personally. I merely pointed out a couple of things: 1) that it's a group with and agenda and people with an agenda tend to play fast and loose with the facts, so I wouldn't take their statistics at face value; and 2) that their use of language and logic is very similar to the logic and language of the Brady Bunch, and 3) that there are obvious indications of dishonesty between their own claims.

[speedsix]

...thinking over what VMI177 said, I do have a certain emotional attachment to the subject, which is why I posted these stats in the first place...all summer and now winter I've heard the hue and cry on the news about poor, mistreated horses and dogs and cats...and watched all the efforts made to care for them...and punish those who mistreated them...enforcing the laws we made to protect the animals stringently and sparing no expense to ease their suffering...I'm not saying that's wrong...or that we shouldn't...

...but shouldn't AT LEAST that much concern be shown to PEOPLE who are harmed by animals...in this case dogs...and something be done to protect them??? if I had the money, I'd buy ads and have Willie sing softly while I showed the pictures of the children...infants, toddlers, teens...and old people...and younger healthy people...who've been torn apart literally by owners not being made to be responsible for their "pets"...there's an "emotional attachment" for you...


...as to your last post... neither did I advocate any such thing...and I've been bitten three times...each one, the fault of the owner...not the dog...

[VMI77]

if I had the money, I'd buy ads and have Willie sing softly while I showed the pictures of the children...infants, toddlers, teens...and old people...and younger healthy people...who've been torn apart literally by owners not being made to be responsible for their "pets"...there's an "emotional attachment" for you....

Think about what you're saying here....you're essentially saying you'd make an appeal to emotion rather than make your case with logic and facts. Isn't that exactly the propaganda tactic used by the Brady Bunch and the anti-gunners?

I went back and looked at my first post. I directed all my criticism to the website you posted the link for ....not you personally. I merely pointed out a couple of things: 1) that it's a group with and agenda and people with an agenda tend to play fast and loose with the facts, so I wouldn't take their statistics at face value; and 2) that their use of language and logic is very similar to the logic and language of the Brady Bunch, and 3) that there are obvious indications of dishonesty between their own claims.