Wow. I felt sick to my stomach reading this. Having to shoot a dog that is attacking you/your family/your pets is one thing, an understandable action to protect yourself and others, but still shouldn't be something anyone takes pleasure in. But wanting to
kill an animal for the crime of crapping in your garden is sociopathic and revolting. Genuinely horrified that someone would think that, let alone say it and act as though it's funny.
Completely understand and agree with your actions, and I'm sorry that you (and your poor elderly dog) experienced that. My own dog was attacked and badly injured by another dog years ago, and was fortunate to survive, so I know how traumatic an event like that is.
@Utar, I'm so so sorry about the loss of your little doxie. Have been heartbroken reading through this thread, and it's not right that some people lack all responsibility for their animals, and others end up paying the price.
Having said all that, I see that this has turned into a pitbull debate thread... those rarely go well! People get heated and irrational on both sides of the debate. I'd ask that people try to remain respectful, and to truly consider their stance and how others feel before replying instinctively that "all pit bulls are evil and vicious! They should all be shot!" or "they're angels! Mine would never do that, so pitbull stats are faked! They're nanny dogs!" etc etc. As with most things in life, the truth is really somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, and there's as much misinformation out there regarding dogs/dog-training and pitbulls in particular, as there is about the fish hobby.
Let me preface my next responses by saying that I'm an animal nut. And a warning that this is an essay response, for anyone who doesn't like those and wants to skip.
Have kept and trained dogs (as well as other species) my whole life; I'm a lover of the natural world, science, psychology, biology, debate and natural curiosity. I'm the kind of person who looks for bees to save and takes in rescues; but I'm also the kind of person who thinks that part of being a responsible pet owner includes facing the hard parts, even when you don't like 'em. That if we are choosing to take responsibility by getting a dog, that we have to truly be responsible for them, including euthanising when necessary, and that if another dog attacked mine again and all other options failed, I would do whatever I had to, to stop that dog from hurting mine anymore. I don't relish the thought of that, in fact I dread the thought. But it's a reality that there are "dangerous dogs" out there, and no matter what caused that dog to become aggressive, that my loyalty and responsibility is to my own dogs.
Another part of that responsibility is acknowledging that there is a problem in our societies as a whole with dogs being out of control and harming innocent people and animals - we need to be responsible enough to recognise problems in the dog world and find solutions, because the rest of society that didn't choose to have dogs/that dog/our dog, should not have to pay the price for our choices to keep dogs as pets. That our freedoms as dog owners will be more and more restricted if we fail to step up to the plate. We've certainly seen that in the UK as a result of the Dangerous Dogs Act (which is a miserable failure in terms of banning breeds), and the US doesn't have the same freedoms when it comes to dogs being off-lead that we enjoy in the UK (for now...)
I'm mostly in agreement with you - I do believe however that some dogs are 'born aggressive'. That there is a problem in the genetic make up of the American Pitbull Terrier -and now, often in similar breeds - which has led to much higher levels of aggression in pitbulls than there is in most other dog breeds.
But, I do not blame the dogs, either individually as a breed as a whole, and in an ideal world, I don't want breed specific legislation banning them, or any other breed. This is a man made problem, caused by us both in terms of bad owners abusing dogs and *triggering* their predisposition towards aggressing, and in terms of backyard breeding increasing this propensity. There are bad dog owners on the pro-pit side of the issue too, the ones who refuse to face the issues within the breed and say that they're just the same as a lab - a blank genetic slate and that it all comes down to how you raise them. That because their own dog has never shown aggression, that it proves there's no problems in the breeding lines - and fail to take the proper precautions to ensure the safety of others. With any dog breed, it's important to know and work with the dog that's in front of you, and know the risks and drives that we've bred into them.
Regardless on where you stand on the pitbull debate, nature/nurture etc, we can all agree that these are a very powerful breed of dog, which can do an incredible amount of damage if it does attack, yes? That alone means more caution should be taken, and that they are not a dog for the average first-time pet owner who may not know how to train and handle a dog at all, let alone a powerful one. When you add an increased prey drive (relative to other dogs), terrible backyard breeding which selects for aggression, size, colour and muscle over temperament, and dogs being abused to that powerful breed of dog - you end up with news headlines, mauled children and banned breed lists.
Back to my first paragraph statement about pitties being more at risk for being born aggressive - what I really mean is that there are many genetic components to behaviour and temperament, and as with people and other species, those genetic factors are more complex than we even fully understand yet. That a human or dog may be born with a genetic predisposition towards aggression, but only have that gene "turned on" when the environment trips that switch. Such as when a dog fighter abuses puppies born from fighting lines to increase their aggressive predisposition. Even then, there are individuals from the same lines as his champion fighters that cower and refuse to fight, no matter what they do to them. Those dogs without the 'gameness' won't be bred from - they're either killed, used as bait dogs, or dumped on the side of the road.
We've been selectively breeding such a huge variety of dog breeds for hundreds of years, in order to do certain jobs for us. That breeding has shaped their temperament, instincts and drives, as well as their skeletons, and that was deliberate as well. There are general suggestions/recommendations/guidelines about what sort of general characteristics and behaviour each dog breed is prone to for a reason, and while there are of course, exceptions in every breed - they're generally pretty reliable. This is important, because I've found that people go into denial when it comes to this in pitbulls. They'll scream that chihuahuas are mean little things, while claiming that pits are a blank slate, and their inclinations are solely shaped by nurture, with nature playing no part, and not seeing the contradiction in those two statements. It's madness.
Sighthounds are inclined to be independent thinkers because that is how they did their job, so their eyesight and temperament combined mean they're much more inclined to take off chasing a rabbit or deer they saw from miles away and ignore calls to come back; Akitas tend to be aloof and wary of strangers because they were bred as guard dogs; a St Bernard, no matter how good the trainer and willing the dog - is never going to beat a collie over an obstacle course at competition. They just weren't made for that.
I'll use Border Collies as another example, since I have a Collie/Springer Spaniels now, and gun dogs and working dogs are the breeds I love the most, and are used a lot in the dog training/competition world for good reason, and got me deeper into honing my skills as a (non-professional, this isn't my job) dog trainer.
Collies are ranked number one in terms of dog intelligence, and are also one of the fastest and most agile breeds out there. A triple threat! There's a reason that every dog show agility and obedience competition is composed almost entirely of collies - and it's because they have all three aspects as a part of their genetic make up. This is because they were literally created to work herding sheep, and herding is one of the earliest uses we found for dogs. The collie needs to be agile and have incredible stamina to work all day; think fast on its feet to avoid a kick to the head; and follow a variety of signals from the shepherd to know what's required from him. This makes them excel in obedience and competition, but usually terrible 'couch potato' dogs, with a tendency to become obsessive and neurotic if the owner doesn't know how to channel their smarts and endless energy in healthy ways. They're not really good dogs for the average or first time dog owner precisely because they're so smart and energetic, and most people want a dog that is happy with one or two 20 minute strolls a day, and to chill at home with the family the rest of the time.
I can acknowledge both the pros and cons in the dog breeds I love, so why do so many pitbull owners have such a hard time doing the same? That shows a lack of responsibility and a willful disregard of facts. That lack of responsibility in denying any problems in the breed leads to even worse homes and owners for pitbulls, unchecked backyard breeding of pitbulls with poor temperaments and an inclination to aggress, more attacks and against people and other animals, and even more anti-pitbull feeling and breed bans. It would help people on both sides to face the realities of the pitbull aggression problem, and work to solve it.
This isn't true. Bully breeds are so named precisely because they were bred for bull baiting. To fight, not to guard.
Bully breeds were created, selectively bred and shaped in order to fight and hold bulls. To do the job right, they needed to be strong, fearless, and to hold and not let go no matter how much pain they were in or how badly they got hurt. They needed to hold the bulls head down and keep it there, so the bull was unable to use its horns to fight back or gore the human moving in to kill it. This is why when a pit attacks a horse or other large animal, it will usually jump and try to grab the nose, and why they hold on for dear life. Their jaws don't have some locking mechanism different from other dogs, they've just been selectively bred to bite down and hold that tight grip, and with powerful jaw muscles to go with that tendency.
Also please don't tell people what they are not allowed to say, especially based on your feelings about their views. They have just as much a right to express their opinions as you have.
This is good advice!
I would add that following the attack on my dog by a staffy, I was very traumatised and scared of it happening again, how I could deal with it and save my dogs should the worst happen. Being in the UK, we're also very limited in what we can have and carry outdoors. Guns, tasers, knives - even pepper spray are all illegal to carry in public, even a small knife can't be carried for self defence. So I did a lot of research including talking to other dog people and people used to pitbulls and breaking up fights, and learned some (non-lethal) tips and tricks. I carry a few harmless but potentially useful items such as treats that might distract a dog while I escape with mine, a spare lead and chain, a long stick. But I also was told that the ultimate way to stop a dog, no matter the breed or how locked on it is - is to control the windpipe.
Like with your collar trick, but I wanted to know how to stop a dog if it was mauling mine or a child, no matter if it had a collar or I had a weapon, and control the windpipe makes a lot of sense. Now this would be dangerous, and put the person at high risk for a bite - but if someone were out of options and willing to do anything to stop the attack in progress, you can grab and restrict the windpipe with a bare hand. Dogs, like any animal, need to breathe, and a pitbull isn't any different from a lab in this regard. I hope to never need to use this method, but it's good to know in advance, just in case the worst happens.
No, the most
bites of 2019 were Labs and Goldies (which are also the top two breeds in terms of population numbers), but there is a world of difference between a bite and an
attack, or a bite and a
fatal mauling. The most fatal attacks were attributable to pits and pit mixes (which are far less commonly owned, making that statistic even more alarming).
It's also not as simple as whether a dog is "good or bad". Those are simplistic, childish terms. There are dogs that are unstable, highly reactive, highly aggressive, and a risk to the safety of others. Those individual dogs need to be kept under tight control for the rest of their lives, or they need to be euthanised for the sake of both the dog and public safety. That is what being responsible means. Doing the right thing, even when it's hard and upsetting.
Rotties and Dobermans were the "bad dogs" topping dog attack statistics and news headlines in the 80s and 90s because they were the status symbol dogs of the time. They had the rep that pitties tend to have now in that "thugs and criminals" owned them, and idiots bought them to strut around with, not caring about training or the dogs other than as an object for street cred. There were big issues with backyard bred dogs, and in the professional breeding lines, leading to a more unstable temperament and increased likelihood that they would snap and bite people. The difference is that breeders of the time traced the problem dogs lines, and actively worked to fix the damage. In rotties they stopped breeding from problem dogs and ones that came from a line which was known for being particularly aggressive; traced back to a shared ancestor dog with a poor temperament, but a desired structure, causing behaviour problems in the breeding pool and the breed as a whole. The changes they made improved the general breed temperament hugely, and thus the dogs fell out of favour with the thugs and idiots, only for pitbulls to become the new street cred dog.
You will also rarely hear a Rottie or Dobermann breeder saying that all dogs are a blank slate, and that owning one is exactly the same as owning a terrier or a lab. They're aware and advertise that these are powerful guarding dogs which need experienced, firm handling, and have the potential to be dangerous in the wrong hands. Not a breed for just anyone, and not a breed for beginners or someone who doesn't understand and respect the breed and their capabilities.
The Dodo is also an entertainment site, not a reliable news source or the basis to form opinions on matters of science or debate.
If my dog were out of my control and killed another dog or child, I'd feel terrible, and put the dog down myself.
I work hard to raise my dogs right and train them so that they are always under my control, both on or off lead, and for their safety as much as for others. Putting in that time when they're young to socialise them well and teach them essential commands like a bombproof recall pays off, since I can relax and enjoy them, knowing that they won't hare off and scare strangers, attack another small animal, or run into the road without listening when I yell "FREEZE!" . I've had a reactive dog before too. Not an aggressive dog and he never bit anyone/anything, but he was scared of other dogs and would bark, panic, and shut down, becoming deaf to any commands. meant he couldn't be allowed off lead in public, both because he could scare others with his size/fear barking, and because when scared enough, he would take off, so I didn't have full verbal control of him. Without verbal control, it would have been dangerous and irresponsible to let him off lead.
Giving them a second chance in a new home sounds lovely and wonderful, and for a dog that has bitten someone in a less severe way, or was provoked, I can agree with that. My dad had a terrier that bit my (adult) friends nose once - but the friend was drunk, being an idiot and leaning his head over the dogs head while the dog was in bed, had been asleep, and growling at him to back off for ages. I was telling the friend to back off and leave him alone too, but they were drunk and ignored me, so the dog bit. Since it wasn't a bad injury, and the friend immediately admitted they were wrong and an idiot, nothing else happened, and in his 17 years, that dog never bit again. Any dog can bite under the right (wrong) circumstances.
But if you're talking repeated bite incidents, or a mauling as opposed to a bite, then no, rehoming is often only going to make it worse, not better, and is too much of a risk to take. It's easy to say "rehome them!" but to who? As much as we want to believe that there are endless perfect homes waiting, where the dog can bound through the countryside, with experienced dog trainer owners who turned the dog around - there really isn't. The shelters are rammed full with dogs who've never even had a first chance, let alone a second or third, because there really aren't enough homes able to take any dog, let alone a dangerous one.
Very few people have the capacity, let alone the time and inclination, to handle a dog that risky, and it would need to be kept in a way that the public would never be at risk. That would mean lockdown 24/7, which is no life for a dog either. Better to be painlessly put to sleep than to live in a kennel for the rest of their lives, it would be like prison for a dog, with no hope of release. Many dogs that went on to maul someone fatally had been rehomed many times, because few people have the skills to successfully train a very aggressive dog while also keeping any people it could come into contact with, safe.
Too many people don't want to do the responsible thing, and have a dangerous dog put to sleep. So they dump the problem onto someone else, by selling or rehoming the dog, or abandoning it at a shelter, often without disclosing that the dog has acting aggressively or bitten someone before. That isn't "saving the dog", that's abandoning the responsibility along with the dog, and making it someone else's problem, putting the public at real risk of harm.
Again, it's about taking responsibility, even in the face of unpleasant truths and having to make hard decisions.
