seebs

I don't think "fault" enters into it.

There's two possibilites. We can assign some level of moral culpability to dogs, in which case, they are by definition responsible for their actions, or we can treat them as things incapable of such decisions.

In the latter case, there's no "fault" involved; it's just a question of whether or not the animal is dangerous.

If the dog attacks under inappropriate circumstances, then we know it is the kind of dog which will attack under inappropriate circumstances, and that is a bad kind of dog to have running around.

three4jump

If the dog attacks under inappropriate circumstances, it is not simply a dog that attacks under inappropriate circumstances. There was a reason for the attack, such as poor training, improper supervision, health problems, or having been bred to be aggressive, or a combination of factors. Eliminating the dog may not solve the problem.

Someone on one of these threads told of a neighbor who keeps getting pit bulls and does not train them or restrain them, so people keep calling the police who keep coming and shooting the dogs. The problem is the owner, not the dog, in this case.

Farren

Another problem is often the "victims" themselves.

I had my upper lip bitten off (not entirely, but it was dangling from my face) by a Rotweiler and had to have it sewed back on when I was a teenager.

My friend had a party, I was blind drunk and I was holding the rotty by the ears and attempting to kiss it on the nose. It got spooked, snapped and ran off.

The next day I went to vist him and his folks asked if I wanted the dog put down. Huh? I was the one at fault. The dog and I eyeballed each other wearily for a short time after that but soon got along famously again.

Over the years I've gathered from a number of conversations about dog attacks that a sizeable number of them resulted from obvious human stupidity or insensitivity. But, of course, as far as most people are concerned the dog is always wrong.

godfry n. glad

three4jump:

Do you know of a law that prevents such a person from obtaining another dog? I am unaware of such.

I've heard of abusers being restrained from owning _any_ animals, and I've heard of specific regulations against specific breeds in some municpalities, but I've not heard of a municipal, county or state ordinance or law which would prevent such a person from obtaining yet another inappropriate animal.

I'd certainly _like_ to hear of one.

I suspect that given that it's nigh on impossible to prevent such microcephalic dipwits from repeating their (intended) mistake, the default answer has been to remove the weapon from the wielder and destroy the weapon while admonishing the miscreant wielder(fines, community service, short jail stays).....probably often poorly enforced, as animal control traditionally ranks low on priorities of most civic agendas and budgets.

Then... Once the poorly trained, poorly controlled, and probably abused dogs are removed from the toxic environment which helped create their undesireable behavior (after an attack), can they then be turned over to a loving caregiver who will change the behavior to a more acceptable one?

If it's possible, are there enough dog shrinks and responsible dog foster-caregivers out there to provide for all of the messed up dogs?

godfry

three4jump

Godfry, I hesitate to respond to you because I doubt that you'll be satisfied with anything I say, short of "You are ablolutely right, godfry, and I apologize for my offensive remarks," which, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. From the tone of your posts, I gather that you are prejudiced against me; that is to say, you view me as an unreasonable and offensive person, so it follows that things I say must be wrong. (I don't know this for a fact--it's just the impression I get from your posts.) Even though we agree on many things, and I have stated so in my previous posts, you are bound to find some error in my arguements.

In the same vein, judging from your posts, you are prejudiced against certain dogs that might fall into the category of "dangerous" and dog owners who are irresponsible, to the extent that you are lumping a variety of dogs and dog owners into one group without caring to make any distinctions as to history, motivations, causes, or tailored solutions. You've had bad experiences with dogs and dog owners, and this is one basis for the arguements you've made. You are not unbiased. (Nor am I.)

Regarding your questions about laws, the law in my state, if I read it correctly, says that a dog owner who has had two consecutive "dangerous dogs" can be put in jail for up to five years. I would say that's great, except for the fact that a dog can be defined as dangerous just for barking at someone to the point that they feel menaced. You, godfry, are going to feel menaced by a dog at a much lower threshold than I would. Recently, a couple moved to a different county because Seattle ordinances allowed for their dogs to be euthanized just because they barked at the mail carrier one day when they accidentally got loose. The mailman's bias against dogs chased two relatively benign dogs out of the neighborhood, but did nothing to protect him from the really dangerous dog that he hasn't met yet, but will eventually.

The American Vet association has a Model Dog Law, I've heard, but I'll be damned if I can find the thing. I would be interested to see it if anyone finds it. I did find their literature on a community solution to reducing dog bites. It seemed like a lot of work to me, even though I agree that it is probably the solution most likely to succeed. Judging from your posts, godfry, you will decide that it is not the responsibility of the entire community to accomodate dog owners; if a dog attacks, euthanizing the dog will prevent it from doing so again. But here's their approach for anyone who's interested. link

As for my bias towards dogs, it is because I am a loser. As mentioned by someone else on another thread, the nice thing about dogs is that they don't know what a loser you are, so they treat you like a god. My dogs don't know that I have not been successful in any of my attempts at a carreer. My dogs don't care that I find getting along with people to be extremely tedious. Although I have failed to live up to everyone's expectations, including my own, I rate high with them just for having opposable thumbs. Dogs are losers too, being viewed as disposable by most people. Both of my dogs were unwanted by their previous owners. My loser dogs and I are kindred spirits, and when I treat my dogs as nicely as I know how, it is an act of rebellion against a system where everyone dumps their shit on those below them. I tilt at windmills by not passing those injuries and insults on to my dogs. It's a good arrangement for all of us.

You seem like kind of a loser yourself, godfry. You would have to be to waste your time trying to wring an apology out of me. I suggest that you get a dog for yourself. Not a rottweiller or a pit bull, but a gentle mutt from the pound. You would have a lifelong friend, you could learn more about what wonderful creatures dogs really are, and it might help you to shed some of the biases that would otherwise prevent you from ever finding a resolution to your conflicts with dogs and beligerent dog owners.

three4jump

I did find the model dog law in the appendix of the document, linked above, about reducing dog bites. It is vague and inadequate and doesn't address those cases that pit dog owners against dog haters.

livius drusus

three4jump, ff you refuse to apologize for saying godfry was acting like a theist, then so be it, but kindly spare us the speculation over his putative bias and "loser" nature. It adds nothing to your argument and certainly does nothing to improve the level of discourse of this thread. Address the argument, please, not the person.

seebs

Listen to yourself! EVERY ONE OF THOSE IS NOW A PART OF THAT DOG. That dog *was trained badly*, or *is of an aggressive breed*, or whatever.

The dog may bear no moral culpability at all, but it is still a dog which is known to be willing and able to attack under inappropriate circumstances. That makes it too dangerous to keep around.

Eliminating the dog will not keep more people from training similar dogs, but it will keep *that* dog from attacking again. And, given the impracticality of completely retraining a dog, or giving it gene therapy, there's not much else we can do to keep it from attacking again should an opportunity arise, and we know that opportunities tend to arise.

Each of those dogs, through no fault of its own, was a hazard. That doesn't mean the owner isn't a hazard, but each of those dogs, left alive, would have posed a real risk to the people living in that neighborhood.

You seem to be trying to turn this into a question of moral culpability. It isn't. It's about whether or not a given dog can be reasonably known to be a threat *now*. Hypothetical questions such as "would this dog have turned out this way with a better owner" are *irrelevant*.

If a dog rips a kid's face off, I don't really give a flying fuck at the moon whose fault it is; that dog should not exist near humans.

I don't hate dogs. I just don't think they have a special right to exist that trumps our right to be safe, and my default opinion of all animals is that, if they are a threat to humans, we should probably kill them.

three4jump

The bias of people like godfry is my argument. How else would I make it? Beligerent dog owners create a problem, people like godfry overreact with sweeping generalizations because of their fear and frustration. Calling him a loser was the nicest thing I've said to him.

On the other hand, he has said, and repeated, that if it were up to him, he would shoot my dog if he found it wandering loose in public. There is no more offensive thing you could possible say to me. Did I demand an apology? Did I whine about it?

livius drusus

I'm as uninterested in your sweeping generalizations as I was in his.

Yes. I know. And I find it eminently distasteful.

He never once said he would shoot your dog. Never once. Even if he had, I find it hard to believe that is the most offensive thing one could possibly say to you.

In any case, since making his first broad-brush condemnation of dog owners godfry has refined his argument to irresponsible ones and made a perfectly cogent point that the threat of a fine is an entirely toothless (if you'll pardon the term) means to ensure obedience to leash laws.

Now, do I think that the death penalty is a reasonable solution to the problem of off-leash dogs? No. But I do believe there should be some legal provisions to control the vast panoply of dangerously negligent behaviors ranging from allowing their dogs to run loose in public to the deranged practice of breeding generations of attack/fight animals evinced by some dog owners.