Death by dog

[Michael Romanos]

Sorry to all the members who are fond of the so called fighting breeds and are feeling like they are being attacked. I must take you back to my first inference on this thread - BAD DOG OWNERS who own a fighting breed is a recipe for harbouring a dangerous dog.

I don't agree that gaining a certificate (licence) to say that one is capable of owning dogs and taking good care of them is elitist or impractical. Some people earn a certificate saying they have qualified to handle a dog after they have obtained a dog ( puppy training, good citizen awards etc). I am saying that maybe people should be getting these kinds of qualifications before the puppy arrives.

I don't see that child care and motor cars are relevant or parallel with dog ownership. Which of our members don't think they could gain a licence to own a dog.

[Lovemycorgi]

This is all so interesting....did you know that in the USA (possibly other countries too) that the laws for protecting animals against cruelty (SPCA) were established before the laws to protect children from abuse and neglect.

Edna

[Michael Romanos]

An eight year old boy and a fifteen year old girl were attacked by two Pit Bulls (or Pit Bull like dogs) yesterday in NZ with the boy being hospitalised with several large bites to his legs. The dogs were considered dangerous by the caretaker 'owner' and were usually chained up all day. But apparantly on at least a few occasions they somehow broke away and wandered around and people steered clear of them. It is just another instance of bad owner-mad dog/s.

[Chip's Mom]

I do believe that is a major part of the problem. People get puppies, attach a log chain to a collar and throw them out in the backyard. They get fed if one thinks about it, if not oh well. I am not a fan of tying dogs up continuously. No socialization or any training at all and then people wonder why they get aggressive.

[Lovemycorgi]

Bonnie,
I agree. It is a sad situation. In this state, New Hampshire, if someone keeps a dog tied up continuously it is considered cruelty to the animal and the local SPCA will step in and probably take the dog/s away from the owner and treat them at their facility and find a good home for them.
Edna

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

Sorry to all the members who are fond of the so called fighting breeds and are feeling like they are being attacked. I must take you back to my first inference on this thread - BAD DOG OWNERS who own a fighting breed is a recipe for harbouring a dangerous dog.

IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS who own ANY kind of dog is a recipe for harbouring a dangerous dog. I don't care if it's Auntie Mae's five pound Malti-shi-pekeadoodle or a so-called "fighting" breed. Size doesn't matter, a dangerous dog is a dangerous dog - PERIOD! About 15 years ago in the county north of me an 8 to 10 year old girl was tragically killed by a pack of 3 - 4 dogs as she got off her school bus and was headed home. Headlines predictably read: Pit Bulls kill child." Of the four dogs, only one had ANY remote resemblance to something terrier or bully. I saw the dogs on television and YES, I can recognize bully type and features. Our county decided to try and pass a breed ban. During that time I did some research into the history of "fighting" dogs and learned quite a bit. While it is not a "sport" I condone or support, from a historical perspective it is rather interesting when looking at purpose and temperament of the dogs used. Dogs were fought in a pit, hence the source of the "pit" in the name. Pit bull refers to not one breed, but to a group of dogs used in the pit. Human aggression is not a trait they are supposed to have. When being fought, there were two handlers and a judge in the pit with the dogs and any sign of human aggression, turning on the handlers or the judge would result in the dog being euthanized immediately. Bull dogs, were used for bringing bulls/cattle into the slaughter house. They would latch on to the nose/head of the cow and "lead" it into the slaughter house. The wrinkles on the bulldog's face were selected for as the blood ran down those instead of getting in the eyes.

I don't agree that gaining a certificate (licence) to say that one is capable of owning dogs and taking good care of them is elitist or impractical. Some people earn a certificate saying they have qualified to handle a dog after they have obtained a dog ( puppy training, good citizen awards etc). I am saying that maybe people should be getting these kinds of qualifications before the puppy arrives.

A dog is a life that has basic needs, but it is an animal. Define "good care" - the way *I* do things or the way *YOU* do things or the way a third party defines it. Good citizen awards or graduating puppy training only says the dog/human team has passed the criteria for that class. It does not mean they are "qualified" to handle a dog pre or post ownership - examples of that are abundant, not only on GoCorgi but on every other dog list around. This whole mentality is just a part of the ARista philosophy that animals are equal or above humans. None of this is required for having a child, which I think is just a wee bit greater responsibility than owning a pet.

I'll admit to having a chuckle at the hypocrisy here. The glee, support and encouragement of someone to get a corgi puppy when the current dog in the home was a victim of neglect and near abuse, not to mention there is NO way this particular individual would "pass" such a requirement test is amusing. Then we throw in the blatant support and encouragement of anyone who thinks they just "might" want to have a litter. Now the suggestion is to have a requirement test to own a dog, with the extra bonus of cutting down on the number of disposable pets might be frustrating IF the hypocrisy and suggestion weren't so predictable.

I don't see that child care and motor cars are relevant or parallel with dog ownership.

Both are responsibilities, as is dog ownership. Raising a child is one of the most important thing one can do. The process to drive a car parallel with testing and requirements is very much like your suggestion to gain a license to own a dog. A motor car can be a much more lethal weapon than a dog and just because someone passes all the requirements, it is not going to make them a competent or responsible driver necessarily.

Which of our members don't think they could gain a licence to own a dog.

I can take the requirements in the HEART ordinance, the one in St. Louis, and a part of Italy's dangerous dog requirements and have your license revoked. Off-leash at any time or on anything longer than 4 foot is in violation. Taylor is intact, have to pay your intact licensing fee and he will need to be muzzled in public, fencing is required and signs posted, intact dogs are more dangerous than castrated/spayed ones - that's just a very short list - want to continue?

Debbie

[Michael Romanos]

Debbie - you are in a mindset. There are vast differences between breeds of diogs that makes one breed infinitely more dangerous and damaging than another, especially when under the ownership of the wrong hands. And this is generally recognised by authorities the world over. To say that a toy dog and even a Corgi is just as lethal and inclined towards violence, as much as one of the many fighting breeds, is nonsense - and you know it.

I said earlier in this thread: what to do. Do we just carry on with the status quo, do we enforce current laws more diligently than is the case, do we muzzle all dogs in public ( you might agree with this if you think every dog is a potential danger), do we immediately slaughter every dog that is found on the loose away from their owner's property, do we arrest every owner whose dog is caught on the loose, do we get rid of all the fighting breeds. Do we make it a compulsion that every potential dog owner and current dog owner must be licenced to own a dog and therefore must pass tests. At least this will infer that the owner has some basic qualifications and completed some study in connection to reasonable dog management.

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

Debbie - you are in a mindset.

One of punish the deed, not the breed. Perhaps if more of these irresponsible owners were held harshly accountable for their dog(s)' actions then some might think twice before acquiring these breeds. In the case of the story with which you started this thread, charge and try the owner of those dogs with murder or manslaughter at the very least.

There are vast differences between breeds of diogs that makes one breed infinitely more dangerous and damaging than another, especially when under the ownership of the wrong hands. And this is generally recognised by authorities the world over.

Agreed, and that DOES include corgis and/or any other breed for that matter. It is extremely naive to underestimate the power of a corgi.

To say that a toy dog and even a Corgi is just as lethal and inclined towards violence, as much as one of the many fighting breeds, is nonsense - and you know it.

So explain to me why Staffordshire Terriers have the nickname the "nanny breed." Your "fighting breeds" were bred to fight other dogs - NOT for human aggression.

I said earlier in this thread: what to do. Do we just carry on with the status quo, do we enforce current laws more diligently than is the case,

Enforcing current laws period would be a novel place to begin.

do we muzzle all dogs in public ( you might agree with this if you think every dog is a potential danger), do we immediately slaughter every dog that is found on the loose away from their owner's property, do we arrest every owner whose dog is caught on the loose,

Leash laws properly enforced take care of many problems - such as unwanted, unplanned random breedings, roaming dogs which can lead to attacks.

do we get rid of all the fighting breeds.

That sounds like your solution and the next targeted breed would be????

Do we make it a compulsion that every potential dog owner and current dog owner must be licenced to own a dog and therefore must pass tests. At least this will infer that the owner has some basic qualifications and completed some study in connection to reasonable dog management.

ALL that will really infer is that someone could pass the test. How about people acting with a little common sense and personal responsibility for their animals? And if they don't act responsibly, then hold them accountable for it?

I go back to the list of over 100 breeds that Italy has labeled "dangerous." Precedent has been set. Just need to look there to find the next one to be demonized.

Debbie

[Michael Romanos]

There is a list available which names the fighting breeds ie attacking other animals and/or people - quite a long list as well. Of course, I don't see Pembrokes or Cardigans among this lot nor any breeds you would common sensibly proclaim cannot relate as being a dangerous breed.
What one country (Italy) has mistakenly and stupidly done with Corgis does not compute to other countries following suit. Apart from Catholicism, who has copied anything off the Italians?
NZ has barred the importing of four breeds - we would have banned more but the demand for this kind of action did not occur until only a few years ago. I think following this recent tragedy and the aftermath, more breeds will be barred from importing or breeding - the latter does nothing as what will stop cross breeding?

They are going to take some kind of new action in NZ - what do any other members suggest.

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

What one country (Italy) has mistakenly and stupidly done with Corgis does not compute to other countries following suit. Apart from Catholicism, who has copied anything off the Italians?

One only has to look to the influence of the European Council and its power within the European Union. The latest list of 40 breeds that will be outlawed under the guise of animal "welfare" debuncts that.

NZ has barred the importing of four breeds - we would have banned more but the demand for this kind of action did not occur until only a few years ago.

And why is that? How long have the banned breeds been in NZ? IF they are a problem now, why weren't they a problem years ago?

I think following this recent tragedy and the aftermath, more breeds will be barred form importing or breeding - the latter does nothing as what will stop cross breeding?

Nor will it stop picking another breed and creating the same problems.

They are going to take some kind of new action in NZ - what do any other members suggest.

New for NZ perhaps, but not elsewhere. Need to take a look at Denver, CO and see how "well" they handled it. In some of the breed bans passed one of the identifying characteristics is color. Your "dangerous" pit bulls come in brindle, so do Cardigans. And you will be giving animal control officers and other powers that be way too much credit if you think they are going to have the sense or care to recognize the difference in the dogs. (I'm not making this stuff up.)

Instead of breed bans, another way to approach the dangerous dogs is laws targeting dangerous dogs regardless of breed. What one needs to keep a watch out for in these type legislations is a common sense definition of what is a dangerous dog. Someone who is afraid of dogs is going to see a happy greeting bark as threatening. The Albuquerque and St. Louis ordinances include all an individual has to do is perceive a dog as a threat (regardless of truth or circumstances) and it can be labeled as dangerous. Additionally, in their opinion, intact animals are more inherent to be potentially dangerous than castrated or spayed ones and it has been proposed that all intact animals must be muzzled and on no more than a four foot leash in public. There would go Taylor's lifestyle.

Punish the deed, NOT the breed. If Miz Mimi's fluffydoo greets the postman with nips on the ankle everyday, then Miz Mimi needs to control her dog same as the macho 20 something male needs to control his "fighting" dog by keeping it properly fenced. Both of these type individual owners are examples of irresponsible ownership. Miz Mimi is going to get off, whereas Mr. Macho who's dog may not hurt a fly is going to pay the price.

Debbie

[Michael Romanos]

Debbie has of course made good points. My dilemma is that I come from stance that it is almost always solely the owner who should be prosecuted harshly and not the dog. There are many who say put down the offending dog- I say in many cases, retrain, rehouse the dog but send the owner to prison and lumped with a hefty fine and bar him/her from ever owning an animal, ever again.

Having said that, there are breeds of dogs we as a human race, don't really need. There are at least 332 pure breeds in the world. Why cotton on to breeds who have a comprehensively terrible recorded reputation. These breeds are just adding fuel to the flames when under the thumb of irresponsible and destructive owners.

Of course it is crazy that a person can intimidate a dog but if the same dog then 'intimidates' him/her at the same time, then the dog can be put down (at worse) and the intimidating person who has all the rights, is let off the hook. It is possible for this to happen in NZ. My nasty neighbour complained to both the police and the dog control authorities that Taylor had intimidated them. Of course it was rubbish and trumped up. I asked for an explanation of intimidation but never got a response and the matter was dropped anyway through lack of evidence though the police said they would 'investigate' further. That was about two years ago.

The four breeds banned in NZ are American Pit Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Brazilian Fila and Japanese Tosa. This came into force about four years ago so it was too late to prevent a host of Pit Bulls being imported and bred but we had very few if any of the other three breeds. You'll find that much the same banning applies in Australia.

[ColColt]

Just curious Michael. Do you have Neo or English Mastiffs or perhaps Cane Corsos in NZ? These are a pretty hardy breed here.

[Michael Romanos]

New Zealand has plenty of Mastiffs here which in your country would be termed English Mastiffs, and we have Neopolitan Mastiffs too but not many. I have a near neighbour who had two Mastiffs until a year ago when both died. Mastiffs are generally a better behaved breed of dog in comparison with Bull Mastiffs.
As for Cane Corsos - here in NZ they are known as Italian Corsos and there are perhaps two or three but no breeding pair.
When you say a 'hardy' breed what do you mean. As far as longevity, they are typical of the large breeds and their life expectancy is 8-10 in comparison to a Corgi at 13-15. I would say that Mastiffs and the like have a lot more health problems overall than do Corgis.

[ColColt]

When you say a 'hardy' breed what do you mean.

That's just another way to say robust and in the case of the Cane Corso, I believe is called another member of the "bully breed". To my knowledge, I've never seen a Cane Corso up close but, I've seen videos and photos. They're a lot like the Pit Bull in many respects. I take the stand that most all dogs can be rehabilitated (no, I didn't get that from Cesar Millan) but owners of these breeds need to recognize what they have and train, control them accordingly. There are dogs beyond redemption and that's the sad part but, I don't think it's breed specific.

[PaulaK]

"there are breeds of dogs we as a human race, don't really need"

and who gets to pick which breed is not needed?