Alberta Woman Killed By Her Own Dog

[1899b]

Breed doesn’t shock me...


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

[owlhoot]

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

[whiteout]

Originally Posted by owlhoot

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?

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by whiteout

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.

[M.C. Gusto]

Excellent response^^^^^

[1899b]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

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.

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...

[sgill808]

Originally Posted by 1899b

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.

[whiteout]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

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.

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.

[HowSwedeItIs]

Originally Posted by whiteout

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?

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.

[1899b]

Originally Posted by whiteout

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.

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?

[1899b]

Originally Posted by whiteout

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.

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....

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

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.

This needs to be reread.

[Sledhead71]

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

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

[kw12]

Originally Posted by 1899b

Breed doesn’t shock me...


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

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.

[wildbill]

Originally Posted by kw12

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.

X2, a dog is a mere reflection of his/her owner.

[vcmm]

Soon enough we will have no rights or freedoms because of banning stuff people are scared of. Don't like the looks of, don't like the eye colour of etc etc etc.......... What about accountability

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by vcmm

Soon enough we will have no rights or freedoms because of banning stuff people are scared of. Don't like the looks of, don't like the eye colour of etc etc etc.......... What about accountability

When someone's eye color causes grizzly death or rogue green eyes eats a baby that may be an option yep.

[10aciousB]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

When someone's eye color causes grizzly death or rogue green eyes eats a baby that may be an option yep.

Oversimplification. People who are saying the breed has nothing to do with it are not entirely correct. Terriers in general are active, strong willed, easily excitable, slow to settle, and typically have a very high prey drive. Combine these attributes in a 70 or 80lb dog, and you had better know what you're doing. That's not to say they can't make great, loving and affectionate pets, but implying that a pitbull terrier is no different than a Labrabor Retriever, which is no different than a shih-tzu is just wrong.

[vcmm]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

When someone's eye color causes grizzly death or rogue green eyes eats a baby that may be an option yep.

True.... But. Cars ,drugs, and booze do cause most of the deaths. Are we banning them?

[brendan's dad]

Unfortunately new laws and regulations are created due a change society and the actions or inaction associated to. Some new laws include theft of telecommunication, home invasion, terrorism, and so on. These are new "crimes" and were created because of change in criminal behavior.

In a not too distance past if a dog showed any aggression towards a person and specifically a child, the owner would deal with situation and put the dog down. Human life was much more valued than a dogs life. But there has been a change in that line of thinking in society in general. It has gone so far the other way that if you were seen in the rural area taking the dog to the back field and shooting it, there would be police called and a cry for justice for the dog.

I compare this breed to a mentally ill person. 95% time they are no danger to anyone else. But the first training you receive in dealing with mental health patience is that they are unpredictable and can be prone to violence without reason, rational, or history.

I think that pitbulls and such, have established enough of a documented history that because of the inaction of some owners, unfortunately all owners of this breed should be subject to regulations and mandatory training.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Unfortunately new laws and regulations are created due a change society and the actions or inaction associated to. Some new laws include theft of telecommunication, home invasion, terrorism, and so on. These are new "crimes" and were created because of change in criminal behavior.

In a not too distance past if a dog showed any aggression towards a person and specifically a child, the owner would deal with situation and put the dog down. Human life was much more valued than a dogs life. But there has been a change in that line of thinking in society in general. It has gone so far the other way that if you were seen in the rural area taking the dog to the back field and shooting it, there would be police called and a cry for justice for the dog.

I compare this breed to a mentally ill person. 95% time they are no danger to anyone else. But the first training you receive in dealing with mental health patience is that they are unpredictable and can be prone to violence without reason, rational, or history.

I think that pitbulls and such, have established enough of a documented history that because of the inaction of some owners, unfortunately all owners of this breed should be subject to regulations and mandatory training.

There really is no reason for the breed other than the cool factor, and I would have to wonder about the character of a person that needs a pit bull. There are so many dogs breeds out there that will tickle your fancy if you want a dog for a legitimate reason or just companionship. Just have a look at the typical pit bull owner, most are not much smarter than their dogs.

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by wildbill

X2, a dog is a mere reflection of his/her owner.

Only if the owner contributed DNA to his dog, and he really shouldn't be doing that either, pretty sure there are laws against that sort of behavior.

Dogs are actually a genetic reflection of thousands of years of selective breeding for traits. But if you want to have a dog that is your reflection, go right ahead, just maybe don't post the video on facebook...

[CanadianEh]

When I got home owners insurance for my new place, They asked if I own a dog.

I replied yes, a Yorkie, he is a ferocious guard dog.

I also asked if i would get a discount if I had an actual big guards dog. I was surprised to learn that if you owned a Pitbull, Rotty, German Shepard, Doberman that they would not continue with insurance, or at least pay a MUCH higher premium.

I personally dont discriminate against any dogs, some of the sweetest dogs I know are pitbulls, and a super sweet rotty. yet I have met a owner with a Lab cross that wanted to attack anything it saw.

Unfortunately the kind of people who generally want a pitbull or similar, are stereotypically not great people or owners of dogs, and shouldn't own a hamster let alone a very powerful animal.

[mattthegorby]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Unfortunately new laws and regulations are created due a change society and the actions or inaction associated to. Some new laws include theft of telecommunication, home invasion, terrorism, and so on. These are new "crimes" and were created because of change in criminal behavior.

In a not too distance past if a dog showed any aggression towards a person and specifically a child, the owner would deal with situation and put the dog down. Human life was much more valued than a dogs life. But there has been a change in that line of thinking in society in general. It has gone so far the other way that if you were seen in the rural area taking the dog to the back field and shooting it, there would be police called and a cry for justice for the dog.

I compare this breed to a mentally ill person. 95% time they are no danger to anyone else. But the first training you receive in dealing with mental health patience is that they are unpredictable and can be prone to violence without reason, rational, or history.

I think that pitbulls and such, have established enough of a documented history that because of the inaction of some owners, unfortunately all owners of this breed should be subject to regulations and mandatory training.

I would respectfully suggest you do some research onto the spectrum of mental illness before comparing people with mental illness to pitbulls or any animal for that matter.

[brendan's dad]

Originally Posted by mattthegorby

I would respectfully suggest you do some research onto the spectrum of mental illness before comparing people with mental illness to pitbulls or any animal for that matter.

Relax, I have 21 years experience and training in dealing with mental health.

[Big Grey Wolf]

A few years back a wise old guy that delivered fuel to my bulk tank on farm said " You can always tell the personality of the owners by their dog" people with either a kind scotch collie or a aggressive pit bull.

[bat119]

Back in the 70's when Dobies were the bad dogs the story was they were genetically modified by Nazi's to kill.
During the 80's German Shepherds were the problem then in the 90's the various breeds of the Pits and Mastiffs became the cool dogs to own and their numbers soared.
A once uncommon breed is now quite common and like people some are docile and others psychopathic, painting the whole breed as bad and need to be banned isn't the right way to go.
I've known several Pits some were aggressive and others were very passive just like other breeds.

This is Keisha she makes Pitbulls look bad 11 years old totally nonaggressive towards humans hates coyotes and put a bear on the run that wandered in the acreage.
Hiding from thunder


I would never own a pit or any kind of aggressive breed however I can't paint all pits as bad.

[whiteout]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

I think that pitbulls and such, have established enough of a documented history that because of the inaction of some owners, unfortunately all owners of this breed should be subject to regulations and mandatory training.

I’m sure you have the Canadian stats to back this belief up?

[1899b]

Originally Posted by whiteout

I’m sure you have the Canadian stats to back this belief up?

You just crawl out from under a rock you were under for the past 30 years?

[Trochu]

Originally Posted by 1899b

Breed doesn’t shock me...


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

Breed, as in mutt like the article stated?