most dangerous dog breeds, least dangerous dog breeds, and why

[Deepak]

So you must also agree that pedestrians should not have to look before crossing a street.

I don't because this is a false analogy for multiple reasons.

Firstly, and most importantly, we've accepted as a society that automobiles are necessary to life in the modern world. If we imagined a world where cars and trucks one day disappeared there would be serious structural changes to our society that would need to be made in order to prevent a host of serious problems. No such case can be made for dogs. One is a necessary evil, and the other is an unnecessary evil.

Secondly, the range of outcomes when crossing the street is smaller. I can either notice that the driver acknowledged me and is slowing down and cross, notice that the driver didn't and wait, or notice that the driver is driving erratically and GTFO. Moreover if I'm a child playing within the confines of my yard, nowhere near a street crossing, the chances I get hit by an errant vehicle are almost nonexistent (and certainly not within a couple of orders of magnitude of dog attacks).

Thirdly, even a metaphysical solipsist wouldn't argue against our ability to effectively communicate with other humans - even if they don't have minds. Because of this there's some degree of framework in which we can expect them to behave, and if they don't we know that we need to be careful (ie GTFO because that driver is drunk or in diabetic shock). The specificity with which many dog owners think they understand a dog's reactions (http://www.bitrebels.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Understand-Dog-Language-Chart-1.jpg) borders on Paul Ekman level absurdity. There's no universal language among dogs, and with the exception of a few things like growling and baring teeth any given dog's body language will be quite personal.

And again, and I can't stress this enough - I go to the street, the street doesn't ever come to me of its own accord.

 

[Metaphor]

So you must also agree that pedestrians should not have to look before crossing a street.

Quite the opposite: roads are designed for cars to be driven on, not for pedestrians to cross. The onus is not on a car driver to crawl along at 5km/hr, eyes glued to either side of the road lest a pedestrian blithely walks into traffic.

By owning a dog, you have introduced risk into the population. The onus ought not to be on the people exposed to that risk to mitigate it. (It might be sensible to mitigate it, but the onus is not on them to mitigate it).

It's funny isn't it. If anyone suggests a way for a woman to mitigate the risk of being raped, the floodgates are opened and torrents of 'stop blaming the victim' are unleashed. But if someone gets bitten by a dog, apparently it isn't blaming the victim to talk about ways they might have mitigated their risk.

- - - Updated - - -

And again, and I can't stress this enough - I go to the street, the street doesn't ever come to me of its own accord.

But if the street did, it's because she likes you!

 

[Toni]

error

Not blood and gore, sure - but the man is purportedly an expert in dogs, and he put out his hand for the dog to sniff.

I did go to school with a kid who was attacked by a dog. We used to sit together on the school bus. One day he wasn't there, and I didn't see him for a week. When I did his whole face was stitched up. One of the neighborhood dogs got out of its owner's yard and nearly chewed his nose off while he was playing in his yard.

IIRC dog attacks are in the top 5 most common reason for kids 15 or younger being admitted to the emergency room. And I know that the CDC actually tracks dog bites as a separate category from bites and stings from all other animals - which should be pretty telling about the risk associated with unruly dogs.

I'm of the opinion that dog people seriously play up their ability to understand these imperfect communicators, and in general our society takes a very cavalier attitude to dog ownership.

Where I think we agree is that the responsibility lies with the dog owner. Where we might not is that I think there should be more controls in who is allowed to own a dog, and there shouldn't be any onus on not-dog-people to learn or take specific safety precautions for dealing with dogs.

Actually, that's not what he did.

He reached for the dog's snout when the dog was looking away. I don't know the clip but given that it is probably a clip from Milan's show, he knew the dog had some serious problems. Provoking a problem for camera is very dramatic, good for ratings, good for the image when Milan can then cure the dog of its issues.

Notice that Milan did not scream, run away, blame the dog, swat at the dog, or attack the dog in response to the dog's aggression. In fact, he seemed to anticipate what would happen. Probably because what happened was what he wanted to happen. We can't see what follows because it's a really short clip.

 

[laughing dog]

Quite the opposite: roads are designed for cars to be driven on, not for pedestrians to cross.

Not in the USA. Pedestrians legally cross roads and streets.

The onus is not on a car driver to crawl along at 5km/hr, eyes glued to either side of the road lest a pedestrian blithely walks into traffic.

In the USA, in most states, drivers are legally required to stop for pedestrians.

By owning a dog, you have introduced risk into the population. The onus ought not to be on the people exposed to that risk to mitigate it. (It might be sensible to mitigate it, but the onus is not on them to mitigate it).

Owing a car introduces risk into the population: the risk of an accident.

It's funny isn't it. If anyone suggests a way for a woman to mitigate the risk of being raped, the floodgates are opened and torrents of 'stop blaming the victim' are unleashed. But if someone gets bitten by a dog, apparently it isn't blaming the victim to talk about ways they might have mitigated their risk.

No, your poor reasoning and straw men are not funny at all.

 

[laughing dog]

So you must also agree that pedestrians should not have to look before crossing a street.

I don't because this is a false analogy for multiple reasons.

Firstly, and most importantly, we've accepted as a society that automobiles are necessary to life in the modern world. If we imagined a world where cars and trucks one day disappeared there would be serious structural changes to our society that would need to be made in order to prevent a host of serious problems. No such case can be made for dogs. One is a necessary evil, and the other is an unnecessary evil.

Nope. For centuries we've accepted as a society that pets and dogs are necessary. The rest of your argument is poor reasoning. If cars and trucks suddenly disappeared with no notice, there would be a costly adjustment period. But if they disappeared because a better technology arose, then there would be a gradual adjust cost but it would be more than offset by the benefit of the better technology.

Secondly, the range of outcomes when crossing the street is smaller. I can either notice that the driver acknowledged me and is slowing down and cross, notice that the driver didn't and wait, or notice that the driver is driving erratically and GTFO. Moreover if I'm a child playing within the confines of my yard, nowhere near a street crossing, the chances I get hit by an errant vehicle are almost nonexistent (and certainly not within a couple of orders of magnitude of dog attacks).

Same thing is true for most dog attacks. You can notice a dog and change directions. Or not try to pet the strange dog. Moreover, the likelihood of death or major injury to a pedestrian from being struck by a car is probably magnitudes larger than that from someone attacked by a dog.

Thirdly, even a metaphysical solipsist wouldn't argue against our ability to effectively communicate with other humans - even if they don't have minds. Because of this there's some degree of framework in which we can expect them to behave, and if they don't we know that we need to be careful (ie GTFO because that driver is drunk or in diabetic shock). The specificity with which many dog owners think they understand a dog's reactions (http://www.bitrebels.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Understand-Dog-Language-Chart-1.jpg) borders on Paul Ekman level absurdity. There's no universal language among dogs, and with the exception of a few things like growling and baring teeth any given dog's body language will be quite personal.

Actually, there is a universal language among dogs. And there is a framework in which we can expect dogs to behave. Moreover, the ability to communicate may mitigate the possibility of an accident but it does not eliminate it.

And again, and I can't stress this enough - I go to the street, the street doesn't ever come to me of its own accord.

I cannot stress this enough - that is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of avoiding an accident.

For some obscure reason, a number of posters seem to under the illusions that
1) any approach by a dog is an attack,
2) it is reasonable for people to remain ignorant about identifying some common everyday imminent threats but not others,
3) it is reasonable to swat or attack an unknown dog that is not an imminent threat but not a person,
4) learning to how to avoid problems with dogs is an acknowledgement about the rights of dogs instead of an obvious personal safety issue.

 

[beero1000]

Not blood and gore, sure - but the man is purportedly an expert in dogs, and he put out his hand for the dog to sniff.

I did go to school with a kid who was attacked by a dog. We used to sit together on the school bus. One day he wasn't there, and I didn't see him for a week. When I did his whole face was stitched up. One of the neighborhood dogs got out of its owner's yard and nearly chewed his nose off while he was playing in his yard.

IIRC dog attacks are in the top 5 most common reason for kids 15 or younger being admitted to the emergency room. And I know that the CDC actually tracks dog bites as a separate category from bites and stings from all other animals - which should be pretty telling about the risk associated with unruly dogs.

I'm of the opinion that dog people seriously play up their ability to understand these imperfect communicators, and in general our society takes a very cavalier attitude to dog ownership.

Where I think we agree is that the responsibility lies with the dog owner. Where we might not is that I think there should be more controls in who is allowed to own a dog, and there shouldn't be any onus on not-dog-people to learn or take specific safety precautions for dealing with dogs.

Actually, that's not what he did.

He reached for the dog's snout when the dog was looking away. I don't know the clip but given that it is probably a clip from Milan's show, he knew the dog had some serious problems. Provoking a problem for camera is very dramatic, good for ratings, good for the image when Milan can then cure the dog of its issues.

Notice that Milan did not scream, run away, blame the dog, swat at the dog, or attack the dog in response to the dog's aggression. In fact, he seemed to anticipate what would happen. Probably because what happened was what he wanted to happen. We can't see what follows because it's a really short clip.

 

[Rhea]

For some obscure reason, a number of posters seem to under the illusions that
1) any approach by a dog is an attack,
2) it is reasonable for people to remain ignorant about identifying some common everyday imminent threats but not others,
3) it is reasonable to swat or attack an unknown dog that is not an imminent threat but not a person,
4) learning to how to avoid problems with dogs is an acknowledgement about the rights of dogs instead of an obvious personal safety issue.

On the contrary, there is no refusal to learn. There really is not, and it hasn't been suggested. But responses have been received as such. And this is the complicated and somewhat frustrating nature of this conversation. The "suggestions" are so glib and the condemnation so broad that a person wonders about the frame of reference.

The fact that some are saying I and others are "refusing to learn" seems based on a discussion where they say, "but you should just do this! And it won't happen!" And I ponder that, and ask, wait, how? For so many of the "suggestions" or "common sense obvious rules" I have a question about how that actually plays out.


Just in the case of my 11yo incident, I'm riding along at 10-15 mph (which I assume that toni was NOT doing since she had her baby sister riding on the bike?) and I'm supposed to somehow slam on my brakes and appear calm and not like prey to a dog and then get behind my bike and... what? How? How many feet do you really think it takes to stop from that speed?

Just let it sniff you. Just stop your run to appease dogs. Just stand there when it comes at you. Just call the owner over and he will cheerfully fix it, Just, just, just. These suggestions are presented also as glib easy obvious fixes that solve all dog problems.

(Well, except for the problems that people's dogs should probably not be permitted to cause these problems in the first place?) And the suggestions for how to stop a dog (even friendly ones) from touching you in the first place have been lacking.

I'm not stupid here, not a "crybaby" not "curled up in a ball" and saying so is one way to avoid addressing the point of my comments which were sparked by the posts by multiple people that it is a correct thing to do to train your dog to grab a person and detain them in a place where the public can be, like a workplace or the street and only a fool would find that fear-inducing.

It's just weird, some of us are discussing what owners should do differently, and others are calling us crybabies for doing so? Why? I don't understand why that is a taboo subject? Why is it wrong to bring that up in my comments? Why does that make me a crybaby curled up in a ball like a little boy? (<== love the gender equality there, btw, that was cheered as it went by)

So there is no illusion that it is reasonable for people to remain ignorant. That was never said. That's your interpretation of the statement, "owners have a responsibility, and I'm talking about it." I think perhaps this interpretation is flawed.



So, this has been interesting. Conversing with people whose company I enjoy about what's normal or assumed or reasonable about dog behavior in society.

 

[laughing dog]

For some obscure reason, a number of posters seem to under the illusions that
1) any approach by a dog is an attack,
2) it is reasonable for people to remain ignorant about identifying some common everyday imminent threats but not others,
3) it is reasonable to swat or attack an unknown dog that is not an imminent threat but not a person,
4) learning to how to avoid problems with dogs is an acknowledgement about the rights of dogs instead of an obvious personal safety issue.

On the contrary, there is no refusal to learn. There really is not, and it hasn't been suggested. But responses have been received as such. And this is the complicated and somewhat frustrating nature of this conversation. The "suggestions" are so glib and the condemnation so broad that a person wonders about the frame of reference.

The fact that some are saying I and others are "refusing to learn" seems based on a discussion where they say, "but you should just do this! And it won't happen!" And I ponder that, and ask, wait, how? For so many of the "suggestions" or "common sense obvious rules" I have a question about how that actually plays out.


Just in the case of my 11yo incident, I'm riding along at 10-15 mph (which I assume that toni was NOT doing since she had her baby sister riding on the bike?) and I'm supposed to somehow slam on my brakes and appear calm and not like prey to a dog and then get behind my bike and... what? How? How many feet do you really think it takes to stop from that speed?

Just let it sniff you. Just stop your run to appease dogs. Just stand there when it comes at you. Just call the owner over and he will cheerfully fix it, Just, just, just. These suggestions are presented also as glib easy obvious fixes that solve all dog problems.

(Well, except for the problems that people's dogs should probably not be permitted to cause these problems in the first place?) And the suggestions for how to stop a dog (even friendly ones) from touching you in the first place have been lacking.

I'm not stupid here, not a "crybaby" not "curled up in a ball" and saying so is one way to avoid addressing the point of my comments which were sparked by the posts by multiple people that it is a correct thing to do to train your dog to grab a person and detain them in a place where the public can be, like a workplace or the street and only a fool would find that fear-inducing.

It's just weird, some of us are discussing what owners should do differently, and others are calling us crybabies for doing so? Why? I don't understand why that is a taboo subject? Why is it wrong to bring that up in my comments? Why does that make me a crybaby curled up in a ball like a little boy? (<== love the gender equality there, btw, that was cheered as it went by)

So there is no illusion that it is reasonable for people to remain ignorant. That was never said. That's your interpretation of the statement, "owners have a responsibility, and I'm talking about it." I think perhaps this interpretation is flawed.



So, this has been interesting. Conversing with people whose company I enjoy about what's normal or assumed or reasonable about dog behavior in society.

You did not write this statement
and there shouldn't be any onus on not-dog-people to learn or take specific safety precautions for dealing with dogs. IMO, it does reflect the stated opinions of some posters in this thread - not all posters.

It seems to me that there are some people who view the issue of potential risk from dogs radically different than other rather common potential risks. I find that baffling and foolish. That does not mean that when someone is the victim of an unprovoked dog attack, that the owner of the dog and the dog are not responsible and that the victim is responsible for the attack. Just like people should learn when to recognize when they may be danger of being hit by a car while crossing the street or run over by a bicycle or attacked by an agitated person, I think people should learn when to recognize some of the more obvious signs of dog aggression. As in life, that would not guarantee absolute safety when faced in a situation with an unknown dog, but it should reduce the potential for injury. Such obvious signs are snarling and growling and barking at you (looking at you while they bark) are not hard to recognize. Just like a head down or relaxed body is usually a sign of non-aggression. Of course, as is true with all forms of communication with animals and with people, the usual signs are not 100% reliable in all cases.

I understand there are plenty of people who have had bad or terrible experiences with dogs. I have had some. In most, I do not think my actions or reactions precipitated anything, but I do know that one, my reaction did make the situation more dangerous. I believe there are lots more ignorant or lax or just bad dog owners than there are people who have good reason to be leery of dogs. IMO, any dog owner who tells an attack victim that "the dog likes you" is clueless and tactless.

 

[Rhea]

You did not write this statement
and there shouldn't be any onus on not-dog-people to learn or take specific safety precautions for dealing with dogs. IMO, it does reflect the stated opinions of some posters in this thread - not all posters.

"onus" No, there should not be. Just as there is no "onus" on women to avoid getting drunk nor on young boys to avoid being along with priests. Yes those safety measures exist, but society does not and should not put the onus on them to be in control of or responsible for the bad behavior of others.

Onus is used in the following context, and it is used, in my opinion, correctly. The onus is entirely on the dog owner to control the behavior of the dog at all times. This is the encumbrance of dog ownership. You disagree?

o·nus
ˈōnəs/Submit
noun
used to refer to something that is one's duty or responsibility.
"the onus is on you to show that you have suffered loss"
synonyms: burden, responsibility, liability, obligation, duty, weight, load, charge, mantle, encumbrance; More

It seems to me that there are some people who view the issue of potential risk from dogs radically different than other rather common potential risks. I find that baffling and foolish.

It may be baffling because you have misinterpreted it.
When someone says that the onus of dog behavior is on the owner of the dog, you interpret that as refusal to protect oneself from illegal/wrong acts, when actually we are discussing the people who have the onus. Each time the conversation is turned to the owner, these cries of "you can't wear short skirts and get drunk or you're asking for it!" seem to come out. Not sure why. Why do you think you have not chosen to discuss the onus of dog owners when others bring it up?

That does not mean that when someone is the victim of an unprovoked dog attack, that the owner of the dog and the dog are not responsible and that the victim is responsible for the attack.

end of any discussion or statement about the responsibilities of dog owners...

I think people should learn when to recognize some of the more obvious signs of dog aggression.

That's not what you said though. What you said was that it was common sense already known by everyone who is not an idiot and that dog owners should have no reason to expect people don't know this already.

As in life, that would not guarantee absolute safety when faced in a situation with an unknown dog, but it should reduce the potential for injury. Such obvious signs are snarling and growling and barking at you (looking at you while they bark) are not hard to recognize. Just like a head down or relaxed body is usually a sign of non-aggression. Of course, as is true with all forms of communication with animals and with people, the usual signs are not 100% reliable in all cases.

but only a fool, you said, would misinterpret the perfectly harmless actions of the well trained dog and feel fear when no skin is being broken. I am not certain which is the correct answer, now.

IMO, any dog owner who tells an attack victim that "the dog likes you" is clueless and tactless.

hence my interest in discussing them.

 

[laughing dog]

"onus" No, there should not be. Just as there is no "onus" on women to avoid getting drunk nor on young boys to avoid being along with priests. Yes those safety measures exist, but society does not and should not put the onus on them to be in control of or responsible for the bad behavior of others...

On the other hand, other accepted definitions or synomyns for "onus" is responsibility or accountability. As for boys avoiding being alone with priests, I know plenty of Catholic parents who disagree with you on that - they teach their children not to be alone with priests. Whether or not society should put the responsibility or onus or ____ on the individual is not the issue in my opinion. The signs of dog aggression are pretty easy to notice. In the specific case that prompted this discussion, there was no reported sign of dog "aggression" in the story until the man swatted at the dog. If the dog was not snarling nor barking at him, there was no rational for swatting at that dog. It was foolish because he would not have a clue how the dog might react.

Of course, if there plenty of situations where there is no time to judge the dog's actions. But in this case, there was.

Onus is used in the following context, and it is used, in my opinion, correctly. The onus is entirely on the dog owner to control the behavior of the dog at all times. This is the encumbrance of dog ownership. You disagree?

No. But that does not absolve anyone else from also controlling their behavior. In this specific situation, the dog behaved in a very responsible fashion: it did not injure an unknown intruder who acted aggressively towards it.

It may be baffling because you have misinterpreted it.
When someone says that the onus of dog behavior is on the owner of the dog, you interpret that as refusal to protect oneself from illegal/wrong acts, when actually we are discussing the people who have the onus.

No, I don't believe I have misinterpreted it, because that is irrelevant to the issue on whether one should be able to recognize clear signs of danger from possible risks. People who drive cars have the onus to drive with alertness and care. That doesn't mean we don't look both ways before we cross the street. From the standpoint of personal safety, it is foolish not to do so.

Each time the conversation is turned to the owner, these cries of "you can't wear short skirts and get drunk or you're asking for it!" seem to come out. Not sure why. Why do you think you have not chosen to discuss the onus of dog owners when others bring it up?

I think you should reread this thread, because I have not refused to do so. The reality is that there are inattentive or stupid or bad dog owners, just like there are bad drivers. It makes sense from the standpoint of personal safety to be able recognize those situations. In fact, it is foolish to be ignorant of easy tell-tale signs of danger in those situations.

end of any discussion or statement about the responsibilities of dog owners...

I have no idea what the point of that is.

That's not what you said though. What you said was that it was common sense already known by everyone who is not an idiot and that dog owners should have no reason to expect people don't know this already.

I did not say what you claim. Common sense is learned. I am sorry, but someone of reasonable intelligence and age cannot figure out that a snarling dog is a potential danger, that person is a fool or an idiot. If the same type of person cannot figure out that a dog that bares its teeth and lunges at you is a danger, that person is a fool or an idiot. If the same type of person cannot figure out that a dog that is simply looking at you silently and not moving is not an imminent threat, that person is a fool or an idiot.

Hell, I have seen people scream that a dog is coming to attack them when is on the other side of the street on leash with no chance of seeing the person, walking in the and obviously not even acknowledging or noticing that person's existence. Of course, once the screaming started. Then the dog wanted to go see what all the ruckus was about but the walker would not let the dog go. But the screamer just got louder and then crossed the street (without looking for traffic) to confront the dog walker. I have witnessed similar reactions on a number of occasions. Does anyone think such reactions even if justified by some terrible incident in the past are reasonable or that they are likely to result in a safer situation?

A real life example. A 11 year old of average intelligence likes to walk through the alley and throw lighted matches at any dog behind a fence. One day, the 11 year old throws lighted matches at a dog behind the fence and inadvertently throws the match book over the fence. While the dog is snarling and lunging at the fence, the little "darling" puts his hand through the fence to get the match book, the dog lunges at him and nips one of his fingers One might conclude from the responses from a number of posters that it would be unreasonable to expect such a child to recognize the potential danger in that action regardless to who one wishes to attach the blame or onus. (As an aside, if my 10 year old brother had reached the fence more quickly, that kid would have had more serious injuries).

but only a fool, you said, would misinterpret the perfectly harmless actions of the well trained dog and feel fear when no skin is being broken. I am not certain which is the correct answer, now.

Why?

 

[Toni]

For some obscure reason, a number of posters seem to under the illusions that
1) any approach by a dog is an attack,
2) it is reasonable for people to remain ignorant about identifying some common everyday imminent threats but not others,
3) it is reasonable to swat or attack an unknown dog that is not an imminent threat but not a person,
4) learning to how to avoid problems with dogs is an acknowledgement about the rights of dogs instead of an obvious personal safety issue.

On the contrary, there is no refusal to learn. There really is not, and it hasn't been suggested. But responses have been received as such. And this is the complicated and somewhat frustrating nature of this conversation. The "suggestions" are so glib and the condemnation so broad that a person wonders about the frame of reference.

The fact that some are saying I and others are "refusing to learn" seems based on a discussion where they say, "but you should just do this! And it won't happen!" And I ponder that, and ask, wait, how? For so many of the "suggestions" or "common sense obvious rules" I have a question about how that actually plays out.


Just in the case of my 11yo incident, I'm riding along at 10-15 mph (which I assume that toni was NOT doing since she had her baby sister riding on the bike?) and I'm supposed to somehow slam on my brakes and appear calm and not like prey to a dog and then get behind my bike and... what? How? How many feet do you really think it takes to stop from that speed?

Just let it sniff you. Just stop your run to appease dogs. Just stand there when it comes at you. Just call the owner over and he will cheerfully fix it, Just, just, just. These suggestions are presented also as glib easy obvious fixes that solve all dog problems.

(Well, except for the problems that people's dogs should probably not be permitted to cause these problems in the first place?) And the suggestions for how to stop a dog (even friendly ones) from touching you in the first place have been lacking.

I'm not stupid here, not a "crybaby" not "curled up in a ball" and saying so is one way to avoid addressing the point of my comments which were sparked by the posts by multiple people that it is a correct thing to do to train your dog to grab a person and detain them in a place where the public can be, like a workplace or the street and only a fool would find that fear-inducing.

It's just weird, some of us are discussing what owners should do differently, and others are calling us crybabies for doing so? Why? I don't understand why that is a taboo subject? Why is it wrong to bring that up in my comments? Why does that make me a crybaby curled up in a ball like a little boy? (<== love the gender equality there, btw, that was cheered as it went by)

So there is no illusion that it is reasonable for people to remain ignorant. That was never said. That's your interpretation of the statement, "owners have a responsibility, and I'm talking about it." I think perhaps this interpretation is flawed.



So, this has been interesting. Conversing with people whose company I enjoy about what's normal or assumed or reasonable about dog behavior in society.

You're rather misrepresenting what I wrote. There was never a 'just do this and all will be fine. ' if that's what you inferred then that is on you.

My impression is that you don't actually care about how/what you can do to help yourself in a bad situation. I find that odd because that's not how I generally think of you. But every single response you made to my suggestions (which you requested) was snark and an attack--passive aggressive, of course.

What you want is for everyone to tell you that dogs and their owners are vicious nasty evil creatures and there is no way you could possibly defend yourself even a little bit.

That's a sad place to be: so certain you have zero control over what happens to you or how you respond.

 

[ronburgundy]

The main solution to the problem of dangerous dogs is to charge owners with criminal assault for any attack. Owners are rarely charged with anything unless the dogs kills or severely mauls someone. More minor bites are many times more common. Thus making owners criminally and financially responsible for any and all attacks would go a long way toward reducing breeding and owning of aggressive animals and dog ownership in general, which would be a good thing. IOW, nealy all bites should lead to jail time for the owner, massive fines, and full responsibility for medical costs plus pain and suffering. All owners should be made to feel like dog ownership entails the risk of ruining their own life, if that dog ever harms someone.
Also, whether the owner took "precautions" should be largely irrelevant. Unless the biting happened as a result of an adult criminally trespassing, the precautions were by definition, recklessly insufficient to prevent an attack.

 

[laughing dog]

The main solution to the problem of dangerous dogs is to charge owners with criminal assault for any attack. Owners are rarely charged with anything unless the dogs kills or severely mauls someone. More minor bites are many times more common. Thus making owners criminally and financially responsible for any and all attacks would go a long way toward reducing breeding and owning of aggressive animals and dog ownership in general, which would be a good thing. IOW, nealy all bites should lead to jail time for the owner, massive fines, and full responsibility for medical costs plus pain and suffering. All owners should be made to feel like dog ownership entails the risk of ruining their own life, if that dog ever harms someone.

Even adults and teenagers and pre-teens (over the age of say 8 or 9) who engage n obvious provocative or downright irresponsible or illegal behavior like beating the child who was walking the dog or climbing over a fence in order to attack a dog on a lead or any number of similiar actions?

Also, whether the owner took "precautions" should be largely irrelevant. Unless the biting happened as a result of an adult criminally trespassing, the precautions were by definition, recklessly insufficient to prevent an attack.

Clearly we disagree, even though the law is many places is closer to your ideal than to a more reasonable one.

 

[Deepak]

Well considering it's my unattributed quote being discussed here - I'll offer that it was meant exactly as Rhea and others have interpreted it.

Being pragmatic doesn't preclude holding the parties who should have the onus to task for abdicating on their responsibilities.

I'm cool with mellow dogs that I know, but I'm not letting some random dog sniff my hand. If it seems threatening it's getting pepper sprayed.

 

[ronburgundy]

Even adults and teenagers and pre-teens (over the age of say 8 or 9) who engage n obvious provocative or downright irresponsible or illegal behavior like beating the child who was walking the dog or climbing over a fence in order to attack a dog on a lead or any number of similiar actions?

If it is treated like a normal cause of assault, then those circumstances would make it self-defense. But just like self-defense cases, the burden would be on the owner to prove that whatever level of violence and harm the dog engaged in was reasonable, warranted, and justified given the actions of the instigators. IOW, it should be treated exactly the same as if the owner had shot the person in that situation. If it would be unjustified for a reasonable adult human to have shot and likely killed the person , then it is a crime for the dog to have bit the person and that crime of assault or even attempted murder or murder should fall on the owner.

Also, whether the owner took "precautions" should be largely irrelevant. Unless the biting happened as a result of an adult criminally trespassing, the precautions were by definition, recklessly insufficient to prevent an attack.

Clearly we disagree, even though the law is many places is closer to your ideal than to a more reasonable one.

It is beyond reasonable to hold someone who chooses to have an animal capable of severely maiming another person criminally responsible for any harm to others caused by that animal. Whether the person tried to but failed to contain the beast does not absolve them of having chosen to even have a non-human carnivorous beast capable of and evolved to rip the throat from animals larger than a human infant.
The law isn't nearly harsh enough. Virtually never is an owner prosecuted when they shouldn't be, but the majority of the almost 1 million dog bites every year should lead to criminal charges but are not prosecuted as such. BTW, that includes criminal charges of child abuse when the dog bites the owner's own child.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The main solution to the problem of dangerous dogs is to charge owners with criminal assault for any attack. Owners are rarely charged with anything unless the dogs kills or severely mauls someone. More minor bites are many times more common. Thus making owners criminally and financially responsible for any and all attacks would go a long way toward reducing breeding and owning of aggressive animals and dog ownership in general, which would be a good thing. IOW, nealy all bites should lead to jail time for the owner, massive fines, and full responsibility for medical costs plus pain and suffering. All owners should be made to feel like dog ownership entails the risk of ruining their own life, if that dog ever harms someone.
Also, whether the owner took "precautions" should be largely irrelevant. Unless the biting happened as a result of an adult criminally trespassing, the precautions were by definition, recklessly insufficient to prevent an attack.

I disagree. I don't think the owner should be responsible for a provoked attack, only for unprovoked attacks.

 

[Toni]

The main solution to the problem of dangerous dogs is to charge owners with criminal assault for any attack. Owners are rarely charged with anything unless the dogs kills or severely mauls someone. More minor bites are many times more common. Thus making owners criminally and financially responsible for any and all attacks would go a long way toward reducing breeding and owning of aggressive animals and dog ownership in general, which would be a good thing. IOW, nealy all bites should lead to jail time for the owner, massive fines, and full responsibility for medical costs plus pain and suffering. All owners should be made to feel like dog ownership entails the risk of ruining their own life, if that dog ever harms someone.
Also, whether the owner took "precautions" should be largely irrelevant. Unless the biting happened as a result of an adult criminally trespassing, the precautions were by definition, recklessly insufficient to prevent an attack.

I disagree. I don't think the owner should be responsible for a provoked attack, only for unprovoked attacks.

In my area, this is the case, at least I'm the single case I know which involved a very much provoked bite and the bite barely broke skin. There was no court case: the victim, once calmed down, admitted to provocation.

 

[Rhea]

I find that odd because that's not how I generally think of you.

trust your instincts, Luke!

 

[Deepak]

The main solution to the problem of dangerous dogs is to charge owners with criminal assault for any attack. Owners are rarely charged with anything unless the dogs kills or severely mauls someone. More minor bites are many times more common. Thus making owners criminally and financially responsible for any and all attacks would go a long way toward reducing breeding and owning of aggressive animals and dog ownership in general, which would be a good thing. IOW, nealy all bites should lead to jail time for the owner, massive fines, and full responsibility for medical costs plus pain and suffering. All owners should be made to feel like dog ownership entails the risk of ruining their own life, if that dog ever harms someone.
Also, whether the owner took "precautions" should be largely irrelevant. Unless the biting happened as a result of an adult criminally trespassing, the precautions were by definition, recklessly insufficient to prevent an attack.

I disagree. I don't think the owner should be responsible for a provoked attack, only for unprovoked attacks.

I think he's saying that provocation needs to be supported, not that provoked attacks should be punished.

 

[laughing dog]

It is beyond reasonable to hold someone who chooses to have an animal capable of severely maiming another person criminally responsible for any harm to others caused by that animal. Whether the person tried to but failed to contain the beast does not absolve them of having chosen to even have a non-human carnivorous beast capable of and evolved to rip the throat from animals larger than a human infant.
The law isn't nearly harsh enough. Virtually never is an owner prosecuted when they shouldn't be, but the majority of the almost 1 million dog bites every year should lead to criminal charges but are not prosecuted as such. BTW, that includes criminal charges of child abuse when the dog bites the owner's own child.

It is good to see you back off a bit from "Also, whether the owner took "precautions" should be largely irrelevant." and that a dog attack might be treated as justifiable self-defense depending on the circumstances.