Alberta Woman Killed By Her Own Dog
 

Breed doesn’t shock me...


https://www.google.ca/amp/s/beta.ctv...1_4095987.html

Oh My, That is sad, Those dogs are banned and listed as dangerous animals in a lot of BC towns

And how many deaths or bites were caused by dogs lumped under the pitbull definition pre and post ban in those towns? Have the overall number of dogs bites gone down since the ban? How do those bans address dangerous dogs or poor ownership practices of other breeds?

How many hair splitting statistical arguments by apologists will it take to change the genetically bred predisposition of various similar breeds so that they stop viciously killing humans? Never mind. It's the owner, not the dog. I get it.

At least the little girl wasn't killed, too bad the owner was killed by her own dog.

Excellent response^^^^^

Humans snap all the time. My spider sense keeps me from trusting animals.
Especially dogs that are cross bred over and over and over. Had a rottie when my daughter was born up until the dog developed hip displaysia 7 years later. I was always on guard and leery with that thing. Lol. And I agree with you TC...

Had a rottie for 10 years. We used to live in the city by a school and the kids used to throw sandwiches just out of his reach. He hated kids after this. But to be honest, he wasnt very friendly to begin with. I ended up getting a husky pup for my brothers kids to play with because they were terrified of the rottie. The husky has been fantastic.

Do you want evidence based policy making in this country or not? Or should that standard only apply to certain things? If asking for evidenced based policy makes one an apologist, I'd be glad to wear that label.

Instead of targeting a specific group of animals that are lumped together based on mostly physical characteristics, why are people not asking for laws and education that address the root causes of aggression and poor ownership practices? The Toronto Humane Society cited Calgary's method of focusing on training and accountability for owners and placing information about dog safety into the public's hands as the model to emulate; in that same paper, the THS said that the legislation seemed to have no effect on the number of serious dog bites.

Which years data should we base a ban on the breeds that fall under the pit bull category? We'll need to exclude years when labs, german shepards and huskies had more bite incidents though. Same goes for the years when breeds classed as working dogs "pit bull's don't fall into this category) had more bite incidents. I'm also sure that the CMVA's position on this type of legislation is based purely based on their long standing record of being pit bull apologists, the same goes for the various humane societies in Canada

For the record, I don't own any of the breeds classed as pit bulls.

Because we all know why pit bulls are like that. It’s not poor ownership practices (though that doesn’t help) it’s in their genes. Herding dogs nip, pointers point, and pit bulls attack.

So what about the classic” the dog never showed any signs of aggression before”. Which by the way is again the case with this dead Alberta woman?

Very sad she lost her life in the attack...

Makes one wonder what actually happened to provoke the attack...

Wouldn't this apply to every dog that never shows aggression and then bites one day? We don't even need to look that far to find a parallel argument where a blanket ban is being pursued based on the poor actions of a small subset of a specific group of individuals.

If banning pit bulls specifically was the cure to severe dog bites, then the statistics would show it. Or groups such as the CMVA or municipal humane societies would be in full support of them. But Ontario's ban hasn't solved dogs biting and those groups support means that promote training, knowledge and owner responsibility (regardless of the breed of the problem dog)

What about the non-pit bull dog that can inflict the same amount of damage as pit bulls and bite? Depending on the year, at the same or higher rate than pit bulls. Are they supposedly genetically predisposed to that as well?

Humane societies and I do not jive. They are antihunting for the most part. Maybe remember what forum this is. The BC SPCA is absolutely against any hunting. The Toronto Humane Society has spoken out against wolf hunting in the past. Research folks....

It is a very sad event for sure but.... I am thankful the 3 year old girl did not pay the price with her own life for the choice the owner made in the dog of her choosing.

How many people here would be comfortable raising a small child in a home with a Pitbull?

Yup blame it on the breed of dogs. Got 3 kids and other pets and they are the best dogs I’ve ever had or seen. All in the way they are raised and treated.

Looks like they are not against all hunting. Even if they were, does one position of an organization invalidate all their positions? Does it invalidate all the stats used to arrive at those positions?

Is the position of the CMVA valid in your eyes?

Dog attack information
 

""In the United States, pit bull-type dogs and rottweilers were involved in more than half of 238 dog-attack deaths; they were followed by German shepherds, husky-type dogs, and malamutes in the number of deaths caused (5).

However, as pit bull-type dogs gradually, and almost singularly, came under legislation in several Canadian jurisdictions, this breed-type’s ranking in the present retrospective study cannot be compared easily with the ranking from the earlier US-based study.

In nonfatal aggressive incidents, the pit bull did rank highest in 2000 and 2001 (2.84 bite incidents per 100 licensed dogs of this breed type) in 1 Canadian municipality (Edmonton, Alberta) (12). Other breeds that followed in this municipality included the rottweiler (1.60 bite incidents per 100 licensed), Akita (1.52), mastiff (1.47), Dalmatian (1.40), and Great Dane (1.21) (12). The rottweiler, by causing 21 of the 72 non-fatal injuries attributed to dogs from known breeds, ranked 1st in a hospital-based summary of dog bites in children (9).


I may be mistaken but I think the Husky and malamute attack and death incidence numbers are skewed largely by reports from the reserves and rural areas where packs are sometimes allowed to roam freely.

In my opinion there's a lot of large dog breeds that just should not be allowed in urban environments.

Breed, as in mutt like the article stated?

I'd be leary about raising a small child in a home with any dog in the home and supervision would be required at all times, regardless of breed. Just because you feel one way or the other, doesn't mean it's bad or wrong though. There are a lot of people out there who are leery about having firearms in homes with young children, doesn't mean it's wrong.

Opinions change
 

I once had the opinion that it was just how the dogs are trained. I came across a bull terrier this year that got loose from someone's yard and was running around our green space in Calgary. Being a dog owner myself, I went out to try and leash the dog to get the dog back to it's rightful owner, it was a beautiful dog and seemed to have good temperament. I got close a couple of times but a few rabbits in the area were significant distractions. On my last attempt I just missed capturing the dog and another small dog from a backyard that backs onto the green space started barking, well...this dog took off like a shot, charged the chain link fence, blew underneath the fence and had the smaller dog's (~50lbs) chest in it's jaws. Myself and two other good sized men pinned the bull terrier and had two guys trying to jump on it's jaw trying to get it to release. I could not believe the power those dogs have. It took nearly two minutes and a lot of blood together the dog to release. It was at that point that my opinions changed, with other other sporting dogs you may get a bite and it is bad, but with certain dogs, that have a genetic disposition to hang on at all costs.

You can have statistics on bites, but it is the difference in damage that should be measured. As with most things in life, the way you collect and analyze statistics can usually get you to an outcome that favours the result you desire.

For future reference, (I thought I would never have to use this, but I did), here is a video...and if you think the video is scary, in real life it's way worse.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TnVsm8Rae0k

Surprising to see gun owners in favor of banning personal property......

Change breed to "assault rifle" see what I mean ?

An understanding of the basic tenets of animal breeding seem to get lost when people talk about dog aggression but not when talking about color, size or other characteristics or when talking about other domesticated species (like horses for example).

Should add that the event is no less tragic. Owner made her decision which she had a right to do. Whether I feel it was right doesn't enter in to the argument. IMHO

Are you trying to imply that many generations of selective breeding to enhance certain fighting traits would make a dog more likely to attack? :snapoutofit:

I agree that the owner has a lot to do with how a dog is but in the end different breeds have focused on different traits. Some things can't be trained out of a dog, they can only be suppressed. I could keep my lab from swimming but that doesn't mean every time he see's water he's not going to wish he was in it.

Again with the straw man argument. Firearms are inanimate objects and do not take any life on their own, that takes human agency.

Dogs have inbred tendencies, and don't need any human agency to direct them, and sometimes they are impossible to direct at all. Heelers herd and nip, chihuahuas yap and nip, pointers point, and some dogs have other more serious tendencies and commensurate abilities to cause grievous harm.

In any case, trying to ban them won't work, because making something illegal doesn't stop it. There will always be people who want them, will have them, and we will continue to see stories like this. Sucks when it happens to you or your family, I can assure you.

So a ban should follow the potential for serious harm from a bite and not breed then, correct?

I didn't mention any breed specifically for that very reason. You will also see that nowhere did I mention banning, as bans are ineffective at changing peoples' behaviors and attitudes imo. I personally feel that people need to be responsible for their own lives, and also have a responsibility towards society and their fellow humans. If your dog kills someone, perhaps you should be charged with manslaughter with minimum jail times, and fines starting in the 6 figure range. Perhaps that would be more effective than 'banning'. Accountability would work for me.

Don't disagree that firearms are different. My point is this is a property rights argument. At least in my mind. Bans' as you have, pointed out are highly ineffectual.

I agree. A ban would do nothing. Accountability would go a long ways.

I do on the other hand disagree with all of the "Its just the owner, not the breed" propaganda being pushed.