So I check out the in-forum this morning to see how the weather looks, and I am greeted by this article.
The basis of the article is:
Steve Candor is getting the chance to put some teeth into Fargo’s animal control ordinance.
Candor, whose dog, Mischief, was badly mauled in an attack by a pit bull near his south Fargo home in September, was given the OK Monday by the City Commission to work with police and other officials to update the city’s animal control laws.
Initially I dismissed this as a pissed off whinny bitch who’s dog got owned by another dog. It’s the price you pay for owning a sissy dog. I read through the article anyway to get a general feel for what he’s looking for and, obviously, I have a few problems with some things.
This:
Candor said he doesn’t want to ban any breeds, but he does want to put the onus on owners of breeds known for aggression to control the animals, train them, and prove they aren’t a danger.
is awfully subjective. The first issue I have is the “breeds known for aggression” comment. This is misleading as all hell. Many little dogs are aggressive, but they don’t fall in to the “known for aggression” category because they are too small to do any real or life threatening damage to an adult. (FYI for this commentary, I will assume it’s an adult being “attacked” by the dog) All owners need to control their animals and train them…but how do you “prove” they are not a danger? Do you take them to someone who tries to piss them off till they bite? How far would that person go to try to induce violent behavior in the dog?
This:
He said higher licensure fees for breeds such as pit bulls, Staffordshire bull terriers, American bulldogs and other breeds often kept for aggressiveness may help.
Owners of some breeds should also be required to have insurance to pay for damages, and the dogs should be tested for aggressiveness, he said. There should also be stiffer fines for violations, Candor said.
is complete and utter bullshit. If anything, all owners should be required to have insurance on their puppies…not just the “known aggressive” breeds. Any dog, at any time can go off on anyone…even their owner.
And his final statement:
“My whole goal is to make the city of Fargo as safe for the people as we can,” Candor said. “That’s my mission.”
Then we need to get rid of all dogs in the city limits.
This dude should not be the person in charge of this initiative, he is far too invested emotionally and will not be able to stay stable and his judgment cannot be trusted.
From here:
While all dogs are potentially dangerous, some are more dangerous than others. Some breeds of dog are significantly larger and stronger than the average person, and it is the duty of their owners to use training and discipline to restrain their pets. Although socialization, training, and care can make an enormous difference, some dogs are by nature aggressive and violent creatures.
According to the Center for Disease Control, the top 10 most dangerous dogs are:
- 1. Pit Bulls
- 2. Rottweilers
- 3. German Shepherds
- 4. Huskies
- 5. Alaskan Malamutes
- 6. Doberman Pinschers
- 7. Chow Chows
- 8. Great Danes
- 9. St. Bernards
- 10. Akitas
It is important to remember that any type of dog is potentially dangerous under the right circumstances. Many people believe that smaller dogs are less ferocious than larger ones, but even friendly dogs such as Dachshunds, Schnauzers, and Beagles can inflict serious damage or even death under the wrong circumstances. Part of the dog bite epidemic in the United States can be attributed to the popularity of larger, stronger breeds such as Pit Bulls and Rottweilers that can cause more damage when they attack, though any type of dog breed is a potentially dangerous dog breed.
I have found some conflicting information on the effectiveness of banning Pit Bulls to reduce the amount of dog bites. One place, that seemed more unbiased than another, said the ban had no effect on the amount of dog bites. Another site said there was a drastic reduction in the number of dog bites. For me, what made one site more unbiased than another is the first site just had statements, the 2nd site had a lot of “!” scattered around and comments about the US catching up the the enlightened UK and comments about how many children would be saved if we adopted such laws.
One site that seems to try to back up it’s information with facts and statistics is Dog Bite Law
Some interesting stuff:
Over 50 percent of the bites occur on the dog owner’s property. (See Insurance Information Institute, Dog Bite Liability, accessed 8/30/07.)
The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim’s family or a friend.
The USA is not the only country with the dog bite problem. In Britain, the number of people being admitted to accident and emergency (A&E, called the “emergency room” or “ER” in the USA) as a result of dog attacks has risen by 43 per cent in the last four years. Hospitalisation of children and young people has risen by a fifth, while 58 per cent more adults are being admitted to A&E due to attacks by dogs. In London there has been a 119 per cent rise in hospitalisation of under-18s as a result of dog attacks. (Read the articles in the Evening Standard and on inthenews.co.uk.)
From the last entry, we can see that dog bites have actually gone up in the last four years in the UK. The UK banned pitbulls with the “dangerous dog act 1991“. From that, it seems fairly safe to say that getting rid of “dangerous dogs” doesn’t cut down on the number of bites.
I don’t usually let people I’m not familiar with play with the Sarge. I certainly don’t let kids play with him unattended. It’s not that he’s so vicious or anything, but he’s so big and gets that puppy playful excited around new people…he would just demolish a child. He kicks Sam’s ass sometimes when she forgets she needs to remain in control. Sometimes I chew the dogs ass…but most of the time it’s Sam’s ass that get’s chewed. How do you expect to play with the dog all rough and tumble…and not expect him to return the favor. Part of that is probably my fault. I play with him a bit rougher than I should…but he’s a big burly dog that needs some rough play.
The biggest concern I have with my dogs does not involve them getting out, but rather someone getting in. I’ve got latches on both of my gates, it is impossible for them to work themselves out…it takes intervention by someone with thumbs to open the gate. The dogs had flipped the latch by themselves a couple of times, so this was necessary. It someone unlocks the gate…walks in and gets bit…is that really my problem? I would imagine the bleeding heart courts would say it is.
Such are the perrils of dog ownership!