Thanks to AztecRed for the post about a neighbors small breed dog being viciously attacked by a larger breed dog.
Here are a few links for all of you pet
The debate about "dangerous dogs" cannot progress without clarification of the meaning of "dangerous." A thing, activity, dog or person should be considered "dangerous" if it or he presents an unacceptably high risk of serious injury, even before causing harm. This definition uses the word "risk." Cars, plastic bags, electrical cords and other mundane objects are considered dangerous to some degree because of their potential for harm, not their individual history of crashing, suffocating or electrocuting. When discussing whether a dog is "dangerous" in this sense, the issue is not whether that particular dog will ever bite, but whether it presents too great a risk of serious injury -- not because of what it has done, but because of what others of its class have done. The definition also uses the term "serious injury." The bites of teacup-sized dogs and even herding dogs (who use their mouths to seize and guide as opposed to crush and rip) do not present the risk of serious injury inherent in the bites of dogs which were bred for the specific purpose of killing animals. When "dangerous" is defined in this way, many believe that it accurately describes the latter group of dogs. Let us turn exclusively to the legal meaning of "dangerous dog." A dog can be legally classified as "dangerous" or "vicious" based upon its actions, its breed, or the actions of its owner, either before or after an official hearing, pursuant to the law of the jurisdiction where the dog is present. A dog classified as "dangerous" or "vicious" is subject to being confined or kept pursuant to strict rules, and might even be euthanized, and its owner can be fined, jailed and ordered to do or not do things in the future that pertain to animals.
This type of law is referred to generically as the "dangerous dog law," and usually is found in the municipal or county code, but often is part of the state code. Additionally, there may be state court decisions that have become part of the "dangerous dog law." Furthermore, the regulations of the local authorities, such as the city's animal control department, are an essential ingredient to the dangerous dog law, even though they technically may not be part of the law itself.
The law often makes a distinction between the words "dangerous" and "vicious." When both words are used, "dangerous" usually refers to the risk of harm by any action of the dog, whether or not benign, such as biting, jumping, slamming against, grabbing, swiping with its paws, and over-friendliness that is expressed as jumping upon. For example, a dog that has the habit of running to a person and jumping enthusiastically upon him could be considered dangerous because of the risk of harm to an elderly pedestrian. Attorney Kenneth Phillips also has contended that a dog's propensity to chase and fight with other domestic animals should be considered dangerous to people because of the high number of serious injuries to people that occur during such incidents. (See "A propensity to attack other dogs means a dog is dangerous to people," in Dangerous and Vicious Dogs.) The term "vicious" refers to a dog that has done or communicated by its actions an intention, habit, tendency or propensity to do something harmful to people. For example, a dog that has a habit of jumping upon people might be considered dangerous but not vicious.
The basis for classifying a dog as "dangerous" or "vicious" differs from one jurisdiction to the next. All jurisdictions are interested in eliminating that which poses unacceptable risk, but from place to place the focus of the "dangerous dog law" can be the actions of a particular dog, its breed, or the acts or omissions of its owner. In some jurisdictions, for example, a dog that threatens a person but does not inflict actual physical injuries is classified as dangerous, whereas in other places it is not. In some places, a dog is regarded as dangerous if the owner of the dog has violated certain animal control rules more than a given number of times. In a sense, the owner is actually the dangerous one, and the dog's confinement or existence is regulated not because of the dog's behavior but because of its potential to create harm in the hands of that particular owner. Also, as noted above, several nations and American cities classify certain breeds as "dangerous" simply on the basis of breed, and regardless of any particular dog's disposition, temperament or behavior.
In conclusion, although we may feel that we know a dangerous dog when we see one, it turns out that dangerousness is a political and controversial topic, and the laws about it are confusing and contradictory.
A propensity to attack other dogs means a dog is dangerous to people
There has been no published study of the number of dog bites suffered by humans which resulted from an attack or attempted attack by one dog against another dog. Nevertheless, the experience of Attorney Kenneth Phillips suggests that a significant percentage of bites to humans result from such incidents. For that reason, it is his opinion that a dog's propensity to attack other dogs clearly makes that dog dangerous to people.
Approximately one-third of Mr. Phillips' cases started out as a dog attacking another dog, and then turned into a dog attacking a person. For example:
A 14-year-old girl was walking her puppy in a small Texas town. Across the street, a pit bull in the fenced front yard spied the puppy. The pit jumped the fence and raced toward the girl and her pet. Seeing the pit coming, the girl picked up her puppy and held it over her head. The pit bull arrived and began biting the girl on her arms, legs and buttocks, which left her with ugly, permanent scars. The physical injuries and medical expenses resulted in a settlement of $100,000.00.
An eye surgeon took his dog to a dog park. While there, his dog and another began to fight. The other dog was a mastiff; the doctor's dog was a labrador. The mastiff grabbed the labrador by the throat and started shaking it. Neither the mastiff's owner nor the doctor could make the mastiff let go. The doctor had a can of Mace in his pocket. He sprayed Mace into the eyes of the mastiff. It let go of the labrador's throat and began biting the doctor on his hand. As a result of the injuries to his hand, the doctor finds it difficult to engage in his occupation as an eye surgeon who has to do microsurgery -- a job that requires steady hands. The settlement was $50,000.00.
On the basis of cases which he handled or was involved in, Mr. Phillips is of the opinion that one of the things that makes any dog dangerous to people is its propensity to attack other dogs. The reason is that the owner of the other dog is often nearby, either trying to pull the dog away, holding the dog, or breaking up the fight. It is natural for a human being to protect his or her pet. This is a normal human response to a dog fight -- unless the person is a criminal who attends dog fights.
Therefore this is an unpublicized danger worthy of further attention and study. For example, people need to know how to protect their dog (vigilance, keep it on a leash, be familiar with the other dogs in the neighborhood, etc.) and how to break up a dog fight without getting hurt (grabbing a dog by its legs rather than reaching into its mouth). The authorities need to study the issue further.
There is a side of this that is a current hot topic in the dog world: breed specific laws. It is a sad fact of life that the pit bull was created by mankind to kill other small animals. Like it or not, that is what the dog was bred for, and it remains the essence of the dog. Any one pit bull might be sweet to its owner, but is still "hard-wired" to kill other small animals. For that reason, pit bulls are dangerous to people because they have the in-born propensity to attack other people's pets, which often results in a redirected attack against the other people, or a bite to another person.
The debate about "dangerous dogs" cannot progress without clarification of the meaning of "dangerous." A thing, activity, dog or person should be considered "dangerous" if it or he presents an unacceptably high risk of serious injury, even before causing harm. This definition uses the word "risk." Cars, plastic bags, electrical cords and other mundane objects are considered dangerous to some degree because of their potential for harm, not their individual history of crashing, suffocating or electrocuting. When discussing whether a dog is "dangerous" in this sense, the issue is not whether that particular dog will ever bite, but whether it presents too great a risk of serious injury -- not because of what it has done, but because of what others of its class have done. The definition also uses the term "serious injury." The bites of teacup-sized dogs and even herding dogs (who use their mouths to seize and guide as opposed to crush and rip) do not present the risk of serious injury inherent in the bites of dogs which were bred for the specific purpose of killing animals. When "dangerous" is defined in this way, many believe that it accurately describes the latter group of dogs. Let us turn exclusively to the legal meaning of "dangerous dog." A dog can be legally classified as "dangerous" or "vicious" based upon its actions, its breed, or the actions of its owner, either before or after an official hearing, pursuant to the law of the jurisdiction where the dog is present. A dog classified as "dangerous" or "vicious" is subject to being confined or kept pursuant to strict rules, and might even be euthanized, and its owner can be fined, jailed and ordered to do or not do things in the future that pertain to animals.
This type of law is referred to generically as the "dangerous dog law," and usually is found in the municipal or county code, but often is part of the state code. Additionally, there may be state court decisions that have become part of the "dangerous dog law." Furthermore, the regulations of the local authorities, such as the city's animal control department, are an essential ingredient to the dangerous dog law, even though they technically may not be part of the law itself.
The law often makes a distinction between the words "dangerous" and "vicious." When both words are used, "dangerous" usually refers to the risk of harm by any action of the dog, whether or not benign, such as biting, jumping, slamming against, grabbing, swiping with its paws, and over-friendliness that is expressed as jumping upon. For example, a dog that has the habit of running to a person and jumping enthusiastically upon him could be considered dangerous because of the risk of harm to an elderly pedestrian. Attorney Kenneth Phillips also has contended that a dog's propensity to chase and fight with other domestic animals should be considered dangerous to people because of the high number of serious injuries to people that occur during such incidents. (See "A propensity to attack other dogs means a dog is dangerous to people," in Dangerous and Vicious Dogs.) The term "vicious" refers to a dog that has done or communicated by its actions an intention, habit, tendency or propensity to do something harmful to people. For example, a dog that has a habit of jumping upon people might be considered dangerous but not vicious.
The basis for classifying a dog as "dangerous" or "vicious" differs from one jurisdiction to the next. All jurisdictions are interested in eliminating that which poses unacceptable risk, but from place to place the focus of the "dangerous dog law" can be the actions of a particular dog, its breed, or the acts or omissions of its owner. In some jurisdictions, for example, a dog that threatens a person but does not inflict actual physical injuries is classified as dangerous, whereas in other places it is not. In some places, a dog is regarded as dangerous if the owner of the dog has violated certain animal control rules more than a given number of times. In a sense, the owner is actually the dangerous one, and the dog's confinement or existence is regulated not because of the dog's behavior but because of its potential to create harm in the hands of that particular owner. Also, as noted above, several nations and American cities classify certain breeds as "dangerous" simply on the basis of breed, and regardless of any particular dog's disposition, temperament or behavior.
In conclusion, although we may feel that we know a dangerous dog when we see one, it turns out that dangerousness is a political and controversial topic, and the laws about it are confusing and contradictory.
A propensity to attack other dogs means a dog is dangerous to people
There has been no published study of the number of dog bites suffered by humans which resulted from an attack or attempted attack by one dog against another dog. Nevertheless, the experience of Attorney Kenneth Phillips suggests that a significant percentage of bites to humans result from such incidents. For that reason, it is his opinion that a dog's propensity to attack other dogs clearly makes that dog dangerous to people.
Approximately one-third of Mr. Phillips' cases started out as a dog attacking another dog, and then turned into a dog attacking a person. For example:
A 14-year-old girl was walking her puppy in a small Texas town. Across the street, a pit bull in the fenced front yard spied the puppy. The pit jumped the fence and raced toward the girl and her pet. Seeing the pit coming, the girl picked up her puppy and held it over her head. The pit bull arrived and began biting the girl on her arms, legs and buttocks, which left her with ugly, permanent scars. The physical injuries and medical expenses resulted in a settlement of $100,000.00.
An eye surgeon took his dog to a dog park. While there, his dog and another began to fight. The other dog was a mastiff; the doctor's dog was a labrador. The mastiff grabbed the labrador by the throat and started shaking it. Neither the mastiff's owner nor the doctor could make the mastiff let go. The doctor had a can of Mace in his pocket. He sprayed Mace into the eyes of the mastiff. It let go of the labrador's throat and began biting the doctor on his hand. As a result of the injuries to his hand, the doctor finds it difficult to engage in his occupation as an eye surgeon who has to do microsurgery -- a job that requires steady hands. The settlement was $50,000.00.
On the basis of cases which he handled or was involved in, Mr. Phillips is of the opinion that one of the things that makes any dog dangerous to people is its propensity to attack other dogs. The reason is that the owner of the other dog is often nearby, either trying to pull the dog away, holding the dog, or breaking up the fight. It is natural for a human being to protect his or her pet. This is a normal human response to a dog fight -- unless the person is a criminal who attends dog fights.
Therefore this is an unpublicized danger worthy of further attention and study. For example, people need to know how to protect their dog (vigilance, keep it on a leash, be familiar with the other dogs in the neighborhood, etc.) and how to break up a dog fight without getting hurt (grabbing a dog by its legs rather than reaching into its mouth). The authorities need to study the issue further.
There is a side of this that is a current hot topic in the dog world: breed specific laws. It is a sad fact of life that the pit bull was created by mankind to kill other small animals. Like it or not, that is what the dog was bred for, and it remains the essence of the dog. Any one pit bull might be sweet to its owner, but is still "hard-wired" to kill other small animals. For that reason, pit bulls are dangerous to people because they have the in-born propensity to attack other people's pets, which often results in a redirected attack against the other people, or a bite to another person.
So now we're insinuating pit bulls will fight on their own?
It is a sad fact of life that the pit bull was created by mankind to kill other small animals. Like it or not, that is what the dog was bred for, and it remains the essence of the dog.
I was under the assumption that this was a myth. Poodles attack on a larger rate than pitbulls when I last checked (which was LONG ago).
So its true that pitbulls are most dangerous?
__________________
"...At Sunrise, the Morning Papers Reeead, They Found A Booody...In My Beeed..YEAH."
Location: Shacked up with my Iron Man - Robert Downey, Jr.
Posts: 7,330
My Mood:
Re: Dog Bite Law - FYI for all dog owners
Poodles do attack, you are correct.
I don't fully agree with what is written, but many pitbull owners (and you know it's true), do purchase and breed their bitches and studs to FIGHT. That has been proven over and over. Mike Vick proved that to still be a reality in the inner city where you can't walk down the street without seeing 2-3 pits being handled and walked by some young dude slinging dope.
It's sad that they have been breed to be vicious, but that was not the intent when they were created as a breed. The rep they receive today is very much deserved, but did they ask for it? NO. Blame the mindless idiots who have no love of animals and believe killing, maiming and deforming these babies is all in the name of sport.
I don't fully agree with what is written, but many pitbull owners (and you know it's true), do purchase and breed their bitches and studs to FIGHT. That has been proven over and over. Mike Vick proved that to still be a reality in the inner city where you can't walk down the street without seeing 2-3 pits being handled and walked by some young dude slinging dope.
It's sad that they have been breed to be vicious, but that was not the intent when they were created as a breed. The rep they receive today is very much deserved, but did they ask for it? NO. Blame the mindless idiots who have no love of animals and believe killing, maiming and deforming these babies is all in the name of sport.
DOnt get me wrong I wasnt trying to debunk what you said or argue. I dont know much about dogs but what I see on The Dog WHisperer LOL
And yes many people do breed pits to fight. I was chased by one when I was little and had my burners on for about half a block LOL I know all to well about pitbulls.
But I just thought other dogs were more likely to attack. But that may be because people are more likely to own other dogs. :shrug
__________________
"...At Sunrise, the Morning Papers Reeead, They Found A Booody...In My Beeed..YEAH."
Location: Shacked up with my Iron Man - Robert Downey, Jr.
Posts: 7,330
My Mood:
Re: Dog Bite Law - FYI for all dog owners
Oh I know you weren't trying to argue. I saw another poster highlighted that section from my post and I just responded from my gut about pits. It's a shame really.
You need to turn the Dog Whisperer OFF and watch Victoria Stilwell...
Caesar's tactics are old school and I don't agree with a lot of his stuff...but training a dog in positive reinforcement (Victoria) has proven to work over negative (Caesar).
Hello everyone, this will be my first post! Yeah! I am an avid dog lover, dog owner and know a thing or 2 about dogs. Funny I pick this thread first, I have just acquired my 2nd APBT. Had her for 2 weeks, she is almost 6 weeks old and 95% house trained! Very smart, very loyal breed. OK, back to the info..
Can Pit Bulls do well around cats and other smaller animals?
Yes and no. A dog is a predator, and it is nave for any dog owner to think that Rex will get along with cats because Rex gets along with the housecat, Mittens. Yes, Pit Bulls can get along with cats and some can get along with smaller animals. Some Pit Bulls get along with the house cat but not with the neighborhood cats - that is because the dog owners have taught the dog to be accepting of the housecat but no such training occurred for any other cat.
It is not aggression when a dog chases a cat or smaller animal or even a child - it is predatory instinct and should be taken as such. Proper socialization and training will curb that behavior and can create Pit Bulls who may want to chase a cat but has been socialized and trained not to chase a cat. But, as a responsible APBT owner (or dog owner for that matter!), no APBT should be left alone with a smaller animal, especially rabbits and rodents.
Although not recognized as a “breed” and much smaller than the modern APBT, the early “bulldogs” were used as working dogs, controlling unruly bulls for butchers as well as farmers.
My last quote basically dispells the myth that is highlighted and made large above. The terrier was bred for herding...what else but bulls!
I do also want to add something very important. I am very disappointed that I acquired this puppy. My son has the mother and father. For 2 years I have begged him to get one or the other spayed/neutered. Well, he didn't. The alternative is to give them to irresponsible owners, who will do the same thing or worse, fight them. I happen to be in a position to own one. I am able to take her to regular vet visits and have her spade @ 4 months old. She will never reproduce. Hopefully my son has learned his lesson. The breed is so much hated, that the SPCA immediately euthanizes them, from what I understand, not to mention the overcrowding that HSPCA already has.
It kills me to think they will be euthanized, but fighting them hurts worse. OK, enough sad stuff...
OK, enough sad stuff...
Linear Mode
