> I thought the best thing I could do is approach them in a friendly manner, so I put my head down, showing I was not threatening,
I don’t know if this is, or is not, the best thing to do but what stands out to me here is it seems to be their best guess. As in, they hadn’t been trained on what to do?
first mistake is to approach an animal you know is hostile.
Also that specific owner of the lip-biter should be in prison. If someone actively being bitten in the face can maneuver a door closed on the dog, then so can the owner.
The owner didn’t try hard enough to help. A person in a dire situation figured this out. The owner did not. The owner is not fit for owning this dog if their level of control is less than someone who’s in panic.
There is no way this person is not responsible for buying the dog and then not acting to prevent the attack.
This is a good point. It's a occupational hazard that's been joked about for decades (as Royal Mail acknowledges). The article doesn't say what the postal service is doing to mitigate this.
Is there PPE a worker can use if they're delivering to a house with an animal? Should there be a requirement for mailboxes to be mounted at a certain height so workers don't have to bend over? Is anyone even looking into this?
Not saying it’s good or anything but RM used to provided a kind of peg for pushing mail through the letterbox, not sure if its still supplied. I believe has some sort of record of which addresses have suspect animals on the walk.
> I don’t know if this is, or is not, the best thing to do but .. it seems to be their best guess. As in, they hadn’t been trained on what to do?
I've walked by very aggressive dogs w/o issue - while the people who followed me were charged. I had made some eye contact and otherwise didn't register them. The other folks were more respectful of the animal and their territory. Objectively, their approach has a better track record.
My take: The dogs had been wound up for 3 sec on my approach and 60 sec on theirs.
Risky dogs were common where I grew up, including ferals I knew and ran from every time (they were noisy, I had lead time). In my exp, there isn't a standard template. Reading the dog can help sometimes. Other dogs have fully unpredictable behavior. Known behaviors can change over time.
> Although I've always felt that puts me in a vulnerable position.
If you squat or kneel, you are more stable, facing forward, have your arms in a position where they can manipulate something in front of you (i.e. to defend yourself), and your legs as the forward-most part of your body. If you bow, your torso is off-center of your feet, your center of gravity stays high, your head and face are the most exposed part of your body, and your arms are angled to manipulate something below you.
If an attacking dog gets into a position where your arms can deflect it while bowing, your groin, legs and torso are already in trouble.
The article does not say but I'd bet $20 that breed-specific legislation would help. Most people can't handle a pet tiger ("it's just how you train them!" yeah right) and when 6% of dogs (pit bulls and pit bull breeds) account for 68% of dog attacks and 52% of fatalities [1] it is time to recognize the fact. (edit: add citation)
I would bet more. My home owner’s insurance comes with a section on what dogs I can’t own under the terms of the insurance. It’s a couple dozen specific breeds, not just pit bulls.
I include a similar section in my residential real estate leases. I am simply not willing to accept the unnecessary financial, operational, and reputational risk as a housing provider.
I'm extremely sympathetic to folks who have absolutely delightful pit bulls. But the numbers simply don't lie.
Pass legislation that creates high mandatory minimum fines for dog attacks on postal workers, and require that home insurers are responsible to pay. Allow and encourage communities to pass ordinances that require home insurance for owners of certain breeds. Require breeders to receive certification that buyers have notified their insurer of the purchase of a dog (regardless of whether it's covered).
As soon as there's a financial disincentive to own one of these dogs, the number of owners will drop off dramatically. The first few years will be tough as many people give up their animals, but the are dogs that should never have been bred in the first place. It's heartbreaking but necessary, especially when you look at the consequences of unchecked ownership of dangerous dog breeds.
Edit: Really curious why y'all are downvoting. You don't agree that dangerous dogs are dangerous? Or that you should be financially responsible for the risks associated with your animals? Really, what's the disagreement?
the problem is deciding what is a pitbull. Thers lots of races and dogs that are noit that got thrown in the mix. Is like gun legislation. Everything is an AR for politicians.
If they are going legislate against a dog race is better to weight limit.
Personally I agree with you that the better way is to make owner of aggressive dogs responsible by their pets behavior and make them pay fines or even jail time depending of the gravity of the attack.
Now for breeds that should never been breed in first place, i would put pugs and Bulldogs on the list.
A simple DNA test can decide whether a dog "is" (percentage wise) a breed. A dog that's 30% pit decidedly has the characteristics of a dangerous breed. 5%, probably not.
The goal isn't to be perfect, it's to make ownership complexity reflect the risk. It's inviable to outlaw a breed altogether at this point. If folks don't buy dangerous dogs because they're expensive to own, the market dries up and the breeders stop breeding.
but here it is. dangerous dogs are a relative term. I saw this before. with dobermans, then rotwailers...
I prefer people to be free to get whatever dog they want, as long as they accept the responsability for it.
I have a big dog, a mixed race with more than 40kg. Shes swweet, but when out the house shes always with a chocke colar, because you never know how a dog can react in new situations. This is taking responsability for your dogs actions.
I would also agree to ban big dogs from dog parks. Because theres always fights in dog parks.
> This is taking responsability for your dogs actions.
Wearing a choke collar isn't a fix in the slightest. Dogs can dig, they can bust out windows, they can slip out the door. Hell, they can rip their leash out of your hands. My uncle's dog pulled my grandmother down some concrete steps, resulting in a hospital stay. Taking responsibility is paying a real, material cost up front when you get the dog and being held responsible for taking the necessary precautions (e.g., by your insurance company).
If you want a dog that's risky, taking responsibility should be a sobering ongoing burden that's non-optional. If you don't want that burden, pick a smaller dog.
Pitbulls are more likely to be socialized to be aggressive than other dog breeds. Either for fighting or duty as guard dogs. (Both terrible - you do not have to breed an animal or abuse it to make it a good guard dog)
The numbers for how many pits involved in attacks this is true for, I have not been able to find.
That socialization may account for some of the cases, but there are too many "gentle" family dogs that may be fine until they jump over the fence and kill a child.
I can assure you that the casualties of dog attacks are not uniformly distributed across dog breeds. A Chihuahua bite and a pit bull bite are not even close when you consider the possible outcomes.
Hell, every "guard dog", in my opinion, should need to be insured for the possible outcomes it can cause. Dogs aren't infallible. Why should you be able to keep a guard dog and not pay money to mitigate the extremely real risks of that dog attacking someone?
I am not a fan of pitbulls, neither the breed nor the artist with the similar name. However the proposed solution here doesn't work in reality because most of these owners aren't owners who have gone through any sort of proper process anyways. It's criminal activity all the way down, to put it bluntly. Illegal backyard breeders, illegal purchases, illegal actions. There's already financial disincentive there, and yet they persist.
Therefore if any solutions are to arise, it has to be more thorough than gentle nudges as that's only effective on those who likely wouldn't have bought a pitbull in the first place anyways due to the social stigma.
> It's criminal activity all the way down, to put it bluntly. Illegal backyard breeders, illegal purchases, illegal actions. There's already financial disincentive there, and yet they persist.
This is outright false on almost all counts.
- Only 30 states have licensing requirements on breeding dogs. Most of those set thresholds for getting licenses, usually 5-10 dogs (often just females).
- It's not illegal to buy a pitbull. I searched pretty hard and I can't find any regulation in the US that says that anyone can't buy a pitbull.
So no, there's not disincentive. There's no disincentive at all for anyone.
Civil liability doesn't stop a dog from jumping a fence and eating a kid's face. You can already be held liable for the actions of your animal. No amount of scaring people with consequences is going to decrease the population of these animals.
Maybe the downvotes are coming from the solution's reliance on insurance and financial penalties. Lots of problems with this: 1. Insurance is not going to make the victim whole and restore a child's face that was bitten off. 2. People who are irresponsible enough to have a dangerous, untrained pitbull as a pet, are probably also not responsible enough to have insurance or insure properly. People already drive without "mandatory" car insurance. 3. They may also not have the money to pay the fines and/or may be judgment proof. 4. "Require breeders" to do anything is hopeless due to the amount of unlicensed breeders and puppy mills that don't care about the law.
In short, the solution would probably only work if the majority of the pet owning population and breeders were well-off, financially responsible, and responded to insurance-related incentives.
> Insurance is not going to make the victim whole and restore a child's face that was bitten off.
That's not the intention. The intent is prevention, not justice.
> People who are irresponsible enough to have a dangerous, untrained pitbull as a pet, are probably also not responsible enough to have insurance or insure properly. People already drive without "mandatory" car insurance.
Which is why I specified that breeders should be required to certify that insurers have been informed. It's easier to shut down ten bad breeders than fine a hundred dog owners.
> They may also not have the money to pay the fines
If I get fined for not having insurance and I don't pay the fine, I go to jail. Is that controversial?
> "Require breeders" to do anything is hopeless due to the amount of unlicensed breeders and puppy mills that don't care about the law.
I'll ignore the fact that in many cases you don't need a license to breed dogs. The government does an awfully good job of making sure there aren't unlicensed [insert your favorite regulated profession here]. If you regulate it and enforce it, you can effectively achieve success, even if you don't get to 100%.
Civil liability doesn't stop a dog from jumping a fence and eating a kid's face. You can already be held liable for the actions of your animal. No amount of scaring people with [insurance premiums] is going to decrease the population of these animals.
The attack specifically mentioned in the article was an Alsation (in the US called a German Shepherd). Though not typically included in breed-specific legislation I think there is good data to suggest that they are in the top five for dog attacks resulting in serious injury.
EDIT: the linked report from the postal workers union [1] cites specifically the underenforcement of the Dangerous Dog Act [2], which does not affect German Shepherds in its current form, so would not help this case.
German Shepherds are a great example of a good dog breed that is taken up by people that "just love them" who don't give the dog what it needs to be happy.
GSDs must have their daily exercise and stimulation. If they don't get it, they get restless and anxious and begin to freak out and get aggressive. They're not meant to sit in a terrace house in England or American apartment.
This is a common refrain from fans of all breeds. I’m not sure that I buy it. The null hypothesis is that the “proper stimulation” correlation with “propensity to attack” is a function of population prevalence. There are simply more dogs that don’t receive the “proper stimulation” than dogs that do (especially with True Scotsman-style goalpost moving) so they are overrepresented in attacks. But anecdotally we’ve seen the testimony across all breeds - “my dog is so gentle and likes to play with children, I can’t imagine where this attack came from”.
I’d have to have some serious data on non-attack-involved dogs before I’d consider rejecting the null hypothesis.
In any sort of analytic consideration here the first thing to look at is whether the breed is capable of causing grievous harm. Temperament second, and treatment/training third. And of course overall prevalence. But in terms of the policy decision around breed-specific legislation all that really matters is the number of attacks.
I'd see a license for breeding and owning GSDs. They're not ill-socialized like a lot of other attack-prone breeds are, but they do need to herd and run around and be stimulated. It's literally in them at an atomic level to do so, and you can't simply train it out of them.
So many dogs are just ill-suited for the modern concept of having a dog. This thing where we just have a dog around a <1500sqft home where they eat and sleep and occasionally go for a walk is less than 100 years old. For the other 20,000+ years of hominid-canine interaction, they had an actual job to do that was typically physically and mentally demanding. They were warding off wolves or enemy tribes, or helping us hunt, or pulling loads. Now they just sit around all day in this tiny little slice of territory. People get in love with the aesthetics of the breed instead of what they were actually bred to do, and it has consequences.
The fact that the German Shepherd and the Rottweiler are not on that list tells that dog bites are an owner problem. On the other side of the spectrum are excessively territorial Chihuahas and toy poodles, and there are far too many members of the public failing to control their rats-on-strings.
One factor which also needs to be taken into account is the potential damage. What damage can do a Chihuahua let loose, and what a German shepherd? It's quite a difference. And even in training and handling - I own a toy poodle and if he wants to get nasty I can pull him away with one finger. While if a shepherd wanted to jump at somebody, well, paying constant attention and the right footwork are essential.
Once can see how situations with pocketbook dogs can escalate - the aggressive creature has a go at someone's dog who then sees the need to defend himself or latches onto a pedestrian's ankle. No one wants that.
And when you express concern at the irresponsible owner it's you who is the bad guy. Not the neglectful owner, because in America intent counts. You could have restrained your anger, but look at the poor little dog, it doesn't know what it is doing. (No, it doesn't, it never learned and it never occurred to anyone around it that it should learn.)
Everyone immediately perceives that large dogs require constant attention and handling skills, but the less immediate but very real dangers from small dogs are downplayed.
I see your argument but is this (biting around) really happening or it's your worry? My experience (one data point!) with dogs I've seen is that they're totally concerned with their quarrel, not bothered at all with passersby...
My concern is that the overterritorial Chihuahua comes busting out of a door while I am walking my 100-pound Labrador and then gets a hold of his leg. He has a peaceful demeanor, but there are limits. Or the unsocialized creature gets a hold of my ankle while walking to the park without dog.
There's nothing good that can come out of this. The likely outcome is a dead small dog and a vet/physician bill. I'm not risking a hand injury over someone else's animal, hand injuries can be disabling.
As the owner of two pit mixes, I'm biased, but I acknowledge statistics, and recognize that mine may be atypically gentle. The issue of course is a lot of BSL is too wide in scope. There's a big difference between a 70 pound Staffy and a 35 pound APBT-lab mix, and that's not just limited to size and strength.
dog genetics are probabilities. Your dogs are likely able to suppress their instinct but find the right trigger and your dogs are very likely to be ripping out an animal’s throat, including a human’s.
BSL works because it is also based on probabilities, specifically the probability that a group of closely related dog breeds are all likely to exhibit the same behaviour.
The problem with pit bull type dogs is the breeding that makes them attack a target’s most sensitive region - the neck. Better to have all related breeds removed that run the risk of yet another child dying because someone could not be arsed to contrôle their dog.
Ditto for German Shepherds and Dachshunds (I have 3 dogs; the one in addition to the 2 pits is a Dachshund, and he's bitten pretty much everyone he's gotten close enough to)
There is a categorical difference between the two. While dachsunds may have a propensity for violence, it is verging on comical to compare them to a German Shepherd, just because of the comparative physical capability of the dogs. A dachsund could get it in its head to attack me for days and I would never require anything more than a bandaid, while a German Shepherd could seriously injure me even were I trying to defend myself.
As I've said elsewhere on this thread, the first-order consideration for breeds is just the physical capability; temperament and training are second-order considerations that may mitigate some of the capabilities, but rarely will increase the danger of a breed.
I'm curious- is the Dachshund a rescue or did you raise it from a puppy? And if you raised it from a puppy, when was the first time you first socialized it? Did you begin immediately after weaning at 8 weeks or did a month or two pass before you brought it into the world? Those first couple months after the 8 week mark are critical for to reduce reactivity and encourage proper socialization. So many people I've come across just hear than you can't bring your dog out into the world before all their vaccinations and in doing so, they royally screw over their dog by lack of proper socialization and that's why you see so many poorly behaved dogs.
We raised him from a puppy. I probably am guilty of putting less effort into him than I did our pit-lab (She was also raised from a puppy; I was worried about everything I heard about pits, and fell into the trap of "cute wiener dog" thinking for the little one). To this day (10+ years later) he's still a dominant dog, and the pit-mix is actually super passive, loving on every person, kitten, and dog that's ever come into our home. (though perhaps her lab influence plays a large role in that)
Sort of. I think the high-order bit here is whether the dog is capable of causing grievous harm. Chihuahuas can be aggressive and can attack without warning, but they will rarely require more than basic first aid to treat, and the possibility of death is practically zero.
At a minimum you are talking about dogs that are capable of killing a child and seriously injuring an adult, and when we talk about the larger breeds in the pit bull family, clearly capable of killing an adult.
Some larger breeds, like golden retrievers, can be ferocious when provoked, and can be dangerous in this regard, but in terms of brute strength are more limited. This is even putting aside differences in temperament.
They're no more aggressive than other breeds. Pit bulls, specifically, are among the calmest and most temperamentally stable breeds across many studies, and from what I can tell, nearly always in the top 20 of ~200 other breeds considered.
Dog breeding for fighting has very little to do with temperament and a whole lot to do with physiology and intelligence. They have very strong neck and jaw muscles, and are very large. That means the stakes for aggression are much higher. Smaller dogs are more likely to be aggressive and neurotic, and can legitimately take more work to train and socialize. Larger dogs, across the board, regardless of specific breed, cause more damage when they attack.
The lockjaw myth and killer instinct myth are just that - myths. The statistics of dog attacks and fatalities are woven into a complex tapestry of human behaviors and circumstances - demonizing a particular breed is about as stupid and kneejerk an argument as can be made.
The Acura NSX has the most DUIs associated with it. That's probably due to the culture around people who want those cars, their socio-economic conditions, the level of enforcement on that demographic, the overall number of cars made available for purchase, the level of marketing, how the marketing was targeted, and so on, and so forth.
DUIs being associated with that particular car has nothing to do with Acura NSX being more or less likely to cause the driver to be drunk. More attacks associated with pit bulls have nothing to do with the breed except at a superficial level. All sorts of cultural baggage and irresponsible human behavior underpins every dog attack, and banning a breed of dog isn't going to impact the rate of dog attacks in the slightest.
Weight limits tied to graduated licensing such that someone has to demonstrate they can be responsible before owning a potentially dangerous animal might be reasonable. If you want a Saint Bernard, you have to demonstrate the resources and capacity to handle it responsibly, etc. If someone doesn't have the resources or time, they've got no business owning the animal.
Pit bulls are "calm" because they've been bred to not announce their attacks beforehand, which is an advantage when dogfighting. That is not an animal you should have in your home. There will be no warning before the baby's face is ripped off.
Breed specific legislation isn't a real solution. Pit bulls are one entry on a long list of strong dogs that require good training and a careful owner. There's plenty of other breeds antisocial assholes or uneducated owners can't and/or won't control to replace them. Dog attacks need to be treated like a negligent discharge. When that happens, you will immediately see a massive drop in the number of people with poorly trained dogs they can't handle.
This is about the UK, where pit bulls have been banned for 30 years. Either the BSL isn't helping, or the breeds at fault aren't banned. Reading the article itself, the breeds mentioned are: alsatians, greyhounds, bull mastiffs, and chihuahuas.
>I'd bet $20 that breed-specific legislation would help. Most people can't handle a pet tiger
The most dangerous animal is humans, yet we allow people to freely breed them in any number they like and unleash them upon the world when they reach high capability to make damage, ie. upon adulthood.
mosquitos aren't threatening the whole planet. Humans do. And humans do push mosquitos out in many areas while i don't know any area where mosquitos had been able to push humans out. Humans decimate uncountable other species.
Mosquitos kill 700K humans in year. That is about yearly toll of just the war in Ukraine. Humans directly kill 475K of other humans yearly, ie. homicides, and 1.35M by cars, and multitude of other indirect ways. And it is very easy to defend yourself against mosquitos - just apply repellent. There is no such easy way to defend yourself against humans.
down in the article, basically the 2 well known key things - socialization and a "well tired dog is a well behaved dog" - got broken as an effect of the pandemic lockdowns:
"The phenomenon of behavioural problems in dogs who missed out on socialisation and training opportunities during lockdowns has been well documented, too.
Added to this, Lloyd says, the return to hybrid or full-time, on-site work now means that “a lot of those dogs are spending more time in isolation and they’re not used to that. The doorbell goes and it’s the most exciting thing that’s happened to them all day. They’re increasingly territorial when they protect the home.”"
Also it sounds like a UK specific thing - postal deliveries deep into private frontyards. In US the postal boxes are on the edge of the property.
Where I grew up (old neighborhood, mostly multi unit housing) the most common configuration was all mail for the entire building was pushed through a mail slot in the front door.
People got more dogs. Dogs were unsocialised. Return to office left dogs alone. People shopped online so there are more deliveries (and more biting opportunities).
Yep, but also people kept their dogs inside during COVID. Then they put their dogs outside so that they wouldn't make a mess of the house when they RTO, and the dogs are unsocialized to strangers in a territory they're marking as their own.
My neighbours got a dog during lockdown and when they finally started to RTO last year, surprise! The dog has separation anxiety and barks non-stop when they leave home.
> In which case you are more dangerous than most dogs. We invented society and law enforcement to stop behaviour like yours.
Both of these claims sound
counterfactual and ridiculous, but setting that aside: "society and law enforcement" clearly has failed to stop the bad behavior which is the root cause here: that of the dog and the owner.
Why ragebait comment? Pitbulls are large dogs. When large dogs are untrained and attack, they do much more harm than smaller dogs. They are more dangerous than smaller dogs. They're not more dangerous than other large dogs. Mastiffs and german shepherds and scottish wolfhounds are also just as lethal and terrifying when untrained, and that is a people problem, not a breed problem. Stop trying to demonize dog breeds and direct whatever angst and anger you have at the real issue - people need to be better at training and socializing their animals. People need to be held accountable for animals that harm other people.
In general, pitbulls and bully breeds make up around 6% of the population of dogs and account for 22% of attacks. This isn't inherent to the breed, it's inherent to shitty dog owners wanting a badass looking big dog and not investing the necessary time and effort in training and socializing their pet. This leads to batshit breed restrictions and a perpetual ignorant narrative that demonizes different breeds of dogs. Demonize ignorant pet owners who purchase the animal for appearance or status without putting in the work and taking responsibility for the dog.
Essentially, dog breed doesn't impact behavior directly. It impacts their physiology, which impacts how they can behave. A well trained pitbull, or poodle, or shepherd, or collie, or malinois are equally unlikely to attack unprovoked. The point is the training, of which socialization is a big part.
Untrained, unsocialized dog attacks are about as antisocial as drunk driving. It doesn't make sense to focus on the model of car the drunk was driving. It doesn't make sense to focus on the breed of the dog shitty owners allowed to attack.
Not to mention burdening your in-laws with some feckless poop-everywhere dimwit of a canine, which we've been dealing with in this house for the past two weeks while said in-laws are in the Caribbean.
"But, but Nellie would hate the kennels, the noise of other dogs distracts her...".
Side note: dog feces can be processed by municipal water treatment, but cat feces cannot, as it has too many bacteria and diseases that are dangerous to humans. Those who are pregnant shouldn't even clean the litter box. As such, we should probably include cats in any ban.
Cats usually shit in a box, and don't make noises. Most of my problem is really the noise. Dogs make up a significant amount of all nose pollution. They're the reason I can't open the windows in the summer. They offer no benefit to society (only to their owners).
Cat waste doesn't stay in the box, but goes into public landfills.
I have three cats, and while they don't bark, the amount of damage and noise they make running and jumping around, not to mention the damage they do with their claws, is as annoying as the noise my dogs make (of course, the cat-sized dog is the noisiest one)
As for the claim that dogs make up a significant amount of noise pollution, on most lists that I can find, traffic, music, construction, aviation, and other sources seem to be far more predominant than dogs. Again, if we were to start banning sources of noise, I'd start with cars, loudspeakers, and fireworks.
You can ban pet dogs and still have dogs be a critical part of humanity (as watch dogs, guard dogs, guide dogs, herding dogs, hunting dogs, sled dog, military dog, detection dog, the list goes on).
Controversial opinion, but I believe the pandemic basically ruined pet dog ownership, with a whole lot of disrespectful lazy animal 'lovers' taking on the responsibility of having a dog and making a mess of it. In the context of leash laws, scoop laws, noise ordinances, etc.. being at the lowest tier of enforcement from authorities, I definitely see why some people would want to outright ban dog ownership.
> They're incredibly loud and leave their crap in the worst places.
This is mostly an owner issue and somewhat a socitial issue. Chronically problem dogs usually have an owner who is under-engaged.
Some breeds are more high strung and require a lot of attention. An owner may find themselves overwhelmed and under-equipped - likely because they didn't fully understand the animal they were committing to. They may become better owners with help and guidance.
And there are also owners who just suck. They won't pick up droppings and are content to leave the dog to bark for hours on end. A good local politician makes sure there are services available to help rectify those situations.
I'll gladly take your word for it. But it doesn't really matter. A loud barking dog can harm hundreds to thousands of people at the same time. And there's no effective way to combat that. It's even illegal to hurt them.
My issue is with the word brandish, its making it read dramatic. You can't wave a dog around in an angry way.
You should also have your daughter walk on the non-street side of the sidewalk in case a car jumps the curb. Is that something your should need to do? Its life.
> I'd like if we could have an honest discussion about if we just want to ban pet dogs altogether.
We can discuss, but the answer is going to be "No".
Humans and dogs have had a shared society for thousands of years. People are socially bonded with their pets like family members. Dogs aren't going anywhere any time soon.
Indeed. In a free society, some people will use their freedom to be irresponsible or jerks. That is a problem that must be dealt with, but "take away freedom" is rarely (if ever) an acceptable solution.
Carrying a stick would give a post worker a significant amount of protection. Not complete protection of course but dogs give people with sticks a lot of respect. In a conflict with a dog a stick is an effective weapon. Whenever I go hiking in rural areas near farms I always carry a stick (or tripod) - aggressive farmyard dogs bark a lot but don't attack because I have a stick weapon.
Nobody in the comments section considering that it might be the humans who are more distracted and narcissistic and incapable of training a dog these days.
111 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 184 ms ] threadI don’t know if this is, or is not, the best thing to do but what stands out to me here is it seems to be their best guess. As in, they hadn’t been trained on what to do?
first mistake is to approach an animal you know is hostile.
Also that specific owner of the lip-biter should be in prison. If someone actively being bitten in the face can maneuver a door closed on the dog, then so can the owner.
The owner didn’t try hard enough to help. A person in a dire situation figured this out. The owner did not. The owner is not fit for owning this dog if their level of control is less than someone who’s in panic.
There is no way this person is not responsible for buying the dog and then not acting to prevent the attack.
Is there PPE a worker can use if they're delivering to a house with an animal? Should there be a requirement for mailboxes to be mounted at a certain height so workers don't have to bend over? Is anyone even looking into this?
I've walked by very aggressive dogs w/o issue - while the people who followed me were charged. I had made some eye contact and otherwise didn't register them. The other folks were more respectful of the animal and their territory. Objectively, their approach has a better track record.
My take: The dogs had been wound up for 3 sec on my approach and 60 sec on theirs.
Risky dogs were common where I grew up, including ferals I knew and ran from every time (they were noisy, I had lead time). In my exp, there isn't a standard template. Reading the dog can help sometimes. Other dogs have fully unpredictable behavior. Known behaviors can change over time.
I tell people to do that with my dog and it works (he's not aggressive in any way, just a bit skittish with new people).
If you squat or kneel, you are more stable, facing forward, have your arms in a position where they can manipulate something in front of you (i.e. to defend yourself), and your legs as the forward-most part of your body. If you bow, your torso is off-center of your feet, your center of gravity stays high, your head and face are the most exposed part of your body, and your arms are angled to manipulate something below you.
If an attacking dog gets into a position where your arms can deflect it while bowing, your groin, legs and torso are already in trouble.
[1] https://time.com/2891180/kfc-and-the-pit-bull-attack-of-a-li...
Pass legislation that creates high mandatory minimum fines for dog attacks on postal workers, and require that home insurers are responsible to pay. Allow and encourage communities to pass ordinances that require home insurance for owners of certain breeds. Require breeders to receive certification that buyers have notified their insurer of the purchase of a dog (regardless of whether it's covered).
As soon as there's a financial disincentive to own one of these dogs, the number of owners will drop off dramatically. The first few years will be tough as many people give up their animals, but the are dogs that should never have been bred in the first place. It's heartbreaking but necessary, especially when you look at the consequences of unchecked ownership of dangerous dog breeds.
Edit: Really curious why y'all are downvoting. You don't agree that dangerous dogs are dangerous? Or that you should be financially responsible for the risks associated with your animals? Really, what's the disagreement?
If they are going legislate against a dog race is better to weight limit.
Personally I agree with you that the better way is to make owner of aggressive dogs responsible by their pets behavior and make them pay fines or even jail time depending of the gravity of the attack.
Now for breeds that should never been breed in first place, i would put pugs and Bulldogs on the list.
The goal isn't to be perfect, it's to make ownership complexity reflect the risk. It's inviable to outlaw a breed altogether at this point. If folks don't buy dangerous dogs because they're expensive to own, the market dries up and the breeders stop breeding.
I prefer people to be free to get whatever dog they want, as long as they accept the responsability for it.
I have a big dog, a mixed race with more than 40kg. Shes swweet, but when out the house shes always with a chocke colar, because you never know how a dog can react in new situations. This is taking responsability for your dogs actions.
I would also agree to ban big dogs from dog parks. Because theres always fights in dog parks.
Wearing a choke collar isn't a fix in the slightest. Dogs can dig, they can bust out windows, they can slip out the door. Hell, they can rip their leash out of your hands. My uncle's dog pulled my grandmother down some concrete steps, resulting in a hospital stay. Taking responsibility is paying a real, material cost up front when you get the dog and being held responsible for taking the necessary precautions (e.g., by your insurance company).
If you want a dog that's risky, taking responsibility should be a sobering ongoing burden that's non-optional. If you don't want that burden, pick a smaller dog.
Pitbulls are more likely to be socialized to be aggressive than other dog breeds. Either for fighting or duty as guard dogs. (Both terrible - you do not have to breed an animal or abuse it to make it a good guard dog)
The numbers for how many pits involved in attacks this is true for, I have not been able to find.
Aren’t there breeding programs for service dog traits?
Hell, every "guard dog", in my opinion, should need to be insured for the possible outcomes it can cause. Dogs aren't infallible. Why should you be able to keep a guard dog and not pay money to mitigate the extremely real risks of that dog attacking someone?
Therefore if any solutions are to arise, it has to be more thorough than gentle nudges as that's only effective on those who likely wouldn't have bought a pitbull in the first place anyways due to the social stigma.
This is outright false on almost all counts.
- Only 30 states have licensing requirements on breeding dogs. Most of those set thresholds for getting licenses, usually 5-10 dogs (often just females).
- It's not illegal to buy a pitbull. I searched pretty hard and I can't find any regulation in the US that says that anyone can't buy a pitbull.
So no, there's not disincentive. There's no disincentive at all for anyone.
If deterrence is ineffective, turn around and look at the dog owners again. Why do people get aggressive dogs?
The fraction of people who:
- get an aggressive dog (because they’re afraid of something)
- but feel no fear of repercussions (for their aggressive dog’s behavior)
has to be very small.
———
Also, might I suggest indeed “decreasing the population of these animals”?
In short, the solution would probably only work if the majority of the pet owning population and breeders were well-off, financially responsible, and responded to insurance-related incentives.
That's not the intention. The intent is prevention, not justice.
> People who are irresponsible enough to have a dangerous, untrained pitbull as a pet, are probably also not responsible enough to have insurance or insure properly. People already drive without "mandatory" car insurance.
Which is why I specified that breeders should be required to certify that insurers have been informed. It's easier to shut down ten bad breeders than fine a hundred dog owners.
> They may also not have the money to pay the fines
If I get fined for not having insurance and I don't pay the fine, I go to jail. Is that controversial?
> "Require breeders" to do anything is hopeless due to the amount of unlicensed breeders and puppy mills that don't care about the law.
I'll ignore the fact that in many cases you don't need a license to breed dogs. The government does an awfully good job of making sure there aren't unlicensed [insert your favorite regulated profession here]. If you regulate it and enforce it, you can effectively achieve success, even if you don't get to 100%.
Civil liability doesn't stop a dog from jumping a fence and eating a kid's face. You can already be held liable for the actions of your animal. No amount of scaring people with [insurance premiums] is going to decrease the population of these animals.
EDIT: the linked report from the postal workers union [1] cites specifically the underenforcement of the Dangerous Dog Act [2], which does not affect German Shepherds in its current form, so would not help this case.
[1] https://cwue5.org/2024/07/12/rm-cwu-national-dog-awareness-w...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Dogs_Act_1991
GSDs must have their daily exercise and stimulation. If they don't get it, they get restless and anxious and begin to freak out and get aggressive. They're not meant to sit in a terrace house in England or American apartment.
I’d have to have some serious data on non-attack-involved dogs before I’d consider rejecting the null hypothesis.
In any sort of analytic consideration here the first thing to look at is whether the breed is capable of causing grievous harm. Temperament second, and treatment/training third. And of course overall prevalence. But in terms of the policy decision around breed-specific legislation all that really matters is the number of attacks.
So many dogs are just ill-suited for the modern concept of having a dog. This thing where we just have a dog around a <1500sqft home where they eat and sleep and occasionally go for a walk is less than 100 years old. For the other 20,000+ years of hominid-canine interaction, they had an actual job to do that was typically physically and mentally demanding. They were warding off wolves or enemy tribes, or helping us hunt, or pulling loads. Now they just sit around all day in this tiny little slice of territory. People get in love with the aesthetics of the breed instead of what they were actually bred to do, and it has consequences.
And when you express concern at the irresponsible owner it's you who is the bad guy. Not the neglectful owner, because in America intent counts. You could have restrained your anger, but look at the poor little dog, it doesn't know what it is doing. (No, it doesn't, it never learned and it never occurred to anyone around it that it should learn.)
Everyone immediately perceives that large dogs require constant attention and handling skills, but the less immediate but very real dangers from small dogs are downplayed.
There's nothing good that can come out of this. The likely outcome is a dead small dog and a vet/physician bill. I'm not risking a hand injury over someone else's animal, hand injuries can be disabling.
BSL works because it is also based on probabilities, specifically the probability that a group of closely related dog breeds are all likely to exhibit the same behaviour.
The problem with pit bull type dogs is the breeding that makes them attack a target’s most sensitive region - the neck. Better to have all related breeds removed that run the risk of yet another child dying because someone could not be arsed to contrôle their dog.
A threatening person I have little doubt she would have a go at.
As I've said elsewhere on this thread, the first-order consideration for breeds is just the physical capability; temperament and training are second-order considerations that may mitigate some of the capabilities, but rarely will increase the danger of a breed.
Wot?
Here's a quick google result to the contrary: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...
They can absolutely kill a small child.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2002/12/27/dach...
At a minimum you are talking about dogs that are capable of killing a child and seriously injuring an adult, and when we talk about the larger breeds in the pit bull family, clearly capable of killing an adult.
Some larger breeds, like golden retrievers, can be ferocious when provoked, and can be dangerous in this regard, but in terms of brute strength are more limited. This is even putting aside differences in temperament.
Sometimes it's not a "pitbull" because it's a "staffy" or a "bully" or a various mix with presa canario/dogo argentino.
It is pretty much always a fighting breed/mix, with the general strong-jaw/short-hair/large-head look.
I don't think it's a mistake that the vast majority of dogs in my local humane society are now these types of dogs.
Dog breeding for fighting has very little to do with temperament and a whole lot to do with physiology and intelligence. They have very strong neck and jaw muscles, and are very large. That means the stakes for aggression are much higher. Smaller dogs are more likely to be aggressive and neurotic, and can legitimately take more work to train and socialize. Larger dogs, across the board, regardless of specific breed, cause more damage when they attack.
The lockjaw myth and killer instinct myth are just that - myths. The statistics of dog attacks and fatalities are woven into a complex tapestry of human behaviors and circumstances - demonizing a particular breed is about as stupid and kneejerk an argument as can be made.
https://spartacuslawfirm.com/top-car-models-with-the-most-du...
The Acura NSX has the most DUIs associated with it. That's probably due to the culture around people who want those cars, their socio-economic conditions, the level of enforcement on that demographic, the overall number of cars made available for purchase, the level of marketing, how the marketing was targeted, and so on, and so forth.
DUIs being associated with that particular car has nothing to do with Acura NSX being more or less likely to cause the driver to be drunk. More attacks associated with pit bulls have nothing to do with the breed except at a superficial level. All sorts of cultural baggage and irresponsible human behavior underpins every dog attack, and banning a breed of dog isn't going to impact the rate of dog attacks in the slightest.
Weight limits tied to graduated licensing such that someone has to demonstrate they can be responsible before owning a potentially dangerous animal might be reasonable. If you want a Saint Bernard, you have to demonstrate the resources and capacity to handle it responsibly, etc. If someone doesn't have the resources or time, they've got no business owning the animal.
> They have very strong neck and jaw muscles, and are very large. That means the stakes for aggression are much higher.
They are fighting dogs, just like a herding dog is a herding dog.
The most dangerous animal is humans, yet we allow people to freely breed them in any number they like and unleash them upon the world when they reach high capability to make damage, ie. upon adulthood.
Mosquitos kill 700K humans in year. That is about yearly toll of just the war in Ukraine. Humans directly kill 475K of other humans yearly, ie. homicides, and 1.35M by cars, and multitude of other indirect ways. And it is very easy to defend yourself against mosquitos - just apply repellent. There is no such easy way to defend yourself against humans.
"The phenomenon of behavioural problems in dogs who missed out on socialisation and training opportunities during lockdowns has been well documented, too.
Added to this, Lloyd says, the return to hybrid or full-time, on-site work now means that “a lot of those dogs are spending more time in isolation and they’re not used to that. The doorbell goes and it’s the most exciting thing that’s happened to them all day. They’re increasingly territorial when they protect the home.”"
Also it sounds like a UK specific thing - postal deliveries deep into private frontyards. In US the postal boxes are on the edge of the property.
People got more dogs. Dogs were unsocialised. Return to office left dogs alone. People shopped online so there are more deliveries (and more biting opportunities).
In which case you are more dangerous than most dogs. We invented society and law enforcement to stop behaviour like yours.
Both of these claims sound counterfactual and ridiculous, but setting that aside: "society and law enforcement" clearly has failed to stop the bad behavior which is the root cause here: that of the dog and the owner.
In general, pitbulls and bully breeds make up around 6% of the population of dogs and account for 22% of attacks. This isn't inherent to the breed, it's inherent to shitty dog owners wanting a badass looking big dog and not investing the necessary time and effort in training and socializing their pet. This leads to batshit breed restrictions and a perpetual ignorant narrative that demonizes different breeds of dogs. Demonize ignorant pet owners who purchase the animal for appearance or status without putting in the work and taking responsibility for the dog.
Essentially, dog breed doesn't impact behavior directly. It impacts their physiology, which impacts how they can behave. A well trained pitbull, or poodle, or shepherd, or collie, or malinois are equally unlikely to attack unprovoked. The point is the training, of which socialization is a big part.
Untrained, unsocialized dog attacks are about as antisocial as drunk driving. It doesn't make sense to focus on the model of car the drunk was driving. It doesn't make sense to focus on the breed of the dog shitty owners allowed to attack.
"But, but Nellie would hate the kennels, the noise of other dogs distracts her...".
Banned is right!
Side note: dog feces can be processed by municipal water treatment, but cat feces cannot, as it has too many bacteria and diseases that are dangerous to humans. Those who are pregnant shouldn't even clean the litter box. As such, we should probably include cats in any ban.
I have three cats, and while they don't bark, the amount of damage and noise they make running and jumping around, not to mention the damage they do with their claws, is as annoying as the noise my dogs make (of course, the cat-sized dog is the noisiest one)
As for the claim that dogs make up a significant amount of noise pollution, on most lists that I can find, traffic, music, construction, aviation, and other sources seem to be far more predominant than dogs. Again, if we were to start banning sources of noise, I'd start with cars, loudspeakers, and fireworks.
Controversial opinion, but I believe the pandemic basically ruined pet dog ownership, with a whole lot of disrespectful lazy animal 'lovers' taking on the responsibility of having a dog and making a mess of it. In the context of leash laws, scoop laws, noise ordinances, etc.. being at the lowest tier of enforcement from authorities, I definitely see why some people would want to outright ban dog ownership.
This is mostly an owner issue and somewhat a socitial issue. Chronically problem dogs usually have an owner who is under-engaged.
Some breeds are more high strung and require a lot of attention. An owner may find themselves overwhelmed and under-equipped - likely because they didn't fully understand the animal they were committing to. They may become better owners with help and guidance.
And there are also owners who just suck. They won't pick up droppings and are content to leave the dog to bark for hours on end. A good local politician makes sure there are services available to help rectify those situations.
It usually won’t hurt anyone!
It shocks me that dog owners think it’s OK to brandish their barely constrained, dangerous weapon around me and my young daughter…
How is that something I should need to do?
If I walked around brandishing a weapon and you had to put yourself between me and your daughter, you'd be OK with that?
You should also have your daughter walk on the non-street side of the sidewalk in case a car jumps the curb. Is that something your should need to do? Its life.
Ok, lets!
> if we just want to ban pet dogs altogether.
No. Next question.
We can discuss, but the answer is going to be "No".
Humans and dogs have had a shared society for thousands of years. People are socially bonded with their pets like family members. Dogs aren't going anywhere any time soon.
That's an argument against unrespectful and uncivilized dog owners, not against dogs.