TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › What about dangerous/vicious dog ordinances?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What about dangerous/vicious dog ordinances?

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
http://www.registerbee.com/servlet/S...=1031784196684
This article is about a very tough dog ordinance that seems like it would clear up much of the debate about banning certain breeds of dogs. I think it's a good idea, shifting the responsibility to the owners, not the dog. But I think that the insurance requirement is too high, if the ins. companies won't insure the dogs. If you were writing the ordinance, what would you require?

I would give stiff penalties for even first offenses - anyone who owns an animal should already know the potential liabilities involved and accept the responsibility.

I would make the insurance requirement more affordable.

I would reexamine the exemption for hunting dogs. ( I have trouble with certain exemptions, such as the exemption for unrestrained dogs in the back of open vehicles if vehicle is a farm/ranch vehicle - recently, I counted 5 dead dogs on the freeway where this is still common practice. In our area, CHP is very strict, and it's pretty much the only dogs DOR are those running loose in the street. I think that the "hunting dog" exemption would also be subject to abuse)

Any other ideas to promote the protection of community & pets while protecting non-vicious dogs, regardless of breed? (In CA, 2 or 3 years ago, an infant was killed by a Pomeranian)
post #2 of 16
This type of pet owners' liability insurance is now required for all dogs in my area, too, and covers not only bites, but automobile collisions, property damage, and so on. We had it even before it was required, because a dog my brother-in-law had ran out into the street and was hit by a car. The motorist was so upset that he had a massive heart attack, and his health insurance successfully sued my b-in-l. The dog wasn't insured, and my b-i-l had to pay all the medical bills.
We insured our dog and cats. The dog destroyed the door of an apartment we were renting while our house was being renovated, and the insurance co. paid for the damage. Jamie, unfortunately, got out when he was a kitten (leading to the building of a vestibule in our house), found a spot where our street was torn up, and crawled into a water main, where he got stuck. The water company had to use cameras to locate him, tear up the street even more, and cut the water main. The insurance company paid, but canceled our insurance afterwards. Jamie is definitely blacklisted, though we have been able to insure ZsaZsa (indoor/outdoor).
I find the insurance an excellent idea. Although it's not required for cats, we pay €65 a year for coverage of €250,000 for ZsaZsa. That's a $78.65 premium for coverage of $302,500. That's pretty reasonable, IMO.
post #3 of 16
Thread Starter 
I'd never heard of such insurance - that is a great idea! What a harrowing experience with Jamie - was it covered in the news media? I am so glad that all turned out well!
post #4 of 16
I would never suport such an ordinance. Every breed of dog can produce "dangerous dogs". It depends on the dog. My great uncle had a little Yorkie named Prissy the 4th (i think) and she wsa the meanest little thing ever. I have met some very nice dobermins and rotties and german shepards. I have also seen some mean labs and retrevers. Like I said it depends on the dog.
post #5 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburgess
I would never suport such an ordinance. Every breed of dog can produce "dangerous dogs". It depends on the dog. My great uncle had a little Yorkie named Prissy the 4th (i think) and she wsa the meanest little thing ever. I have met some very nice dobermins and rotties and german shepards. I have also seen some mean labs and retrevers. Like I said it depends on the dog.
Actually, this ordinance agrees with you. It requires that animal control officers determine if the dog is "vicious" or "dangerous" according the the incident. If an incident hasn't occurred, the dog won't be investigated. My main concern is that it will take an incident to find out about the dog; that's why I would like plenty of precautions in place prior to any incident occurring with strict penalties for first offenses. Anyone assuming ownership of a dog or other pet should realize any inherent risks and do their best to prevent unfortunate incidents.
I'm not targeting just dogs here. I think that a responsible cat owner ensures that their cats do not poop in other people's flower beds nor hunt at the neighbor's birdfeeders, etc.
post #6 of 16
Some homeowners' policies already charge higher premiums, if you own certain breeds: pit bulls or Rotties, for example. Just to be on the safe side, we have Pearl licensed as a shepherd mix.
post #7 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by catsknowme
I'd never heard of such insurance - that is a great idea! What a harrowing experience with Jamie - was it covered in the news media? I am so glad that all turned out well!
No, it wasn't. He did get in the newspaper when he woke me up after spotting burglars in a tile company located on the street behind us. He insisted I come out on the balcony, and when I saw the flashlights, I called the police.
I first heard of this type of insurance when we moved to Germany with a dog and a cat. Some homeowners' policies cover cats, but not dogs.
post #8 of 16
I just heard on the local news here in Los Angeles, that a baby girl was mauled to death by her Grandparents 4 year old Rotweiler. Apparently, the child and her mother were dog sitting the dog, while the Grandparents were away. The dog was never known for being violent in the past, but last night he grabbed the 1 year old out of her mothers arms and tore the child to pieces. They said the mother faught back, but was no match for the Rotweiler, and by the time she finally got the child free of the dog, and ran to the car it was too late for the little girl. Everyone in the neighborhood said there had never been any problems with the dog in the past.

Obviously this baby was not taunting the dog, because her mother was holding her. Obviously this dog had never shown signs of agression before. However, it's also pretty obvious this dog became vicious.
post #9 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker
I just heard on the local news here in Los Angeles, that a baby girl was mauled to death by her Grandparents 4 year old Rotweiler. Apparently, the child and her mother were dog sitting the dog, while the Grandparents were away. The dog was never known for being violent in the past, but last night he grabbed the 1 year old out of her mothers arms and tore the child to pieces. They said the mother faught back, but was no match for the Rotweiler, and by the time she finally got the child free of the dog, and ran to the car it was too late for the little girl. Everyone in the neighborhood said there had never been any problems with the dog in the past.

Obviously this baby was not taunting the dog, because her mother was holding her. Obviously this dog had never shown signs of agression before. However, it's also pretty obvious this dog became vicious.
That's so sad, Hope. It seems that most of the dogs that do things like this have been "good dogs" all their lives until something like that happens. Dogs are just unpredictable. No amount of legislation or "dog insurance" can help this little girl now. I personally think the legislation stinks. Why wait to see if it is vicious or dangerous when the result could be the death of a child?????
post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker
I just heard on the local news here in Los Angeles, that a baby girl was mauled to death by her Grandparents 4 year old Rotweiler. Apparently, the child and her mother were dog sitting the dog, while the Grandparents were away. The dog was never known for being violent in the past, but last night he grabbed the 1 year old out of her mothers arms and tore the child to pieces. They said the mother faught back, but was no match for the Rotweiler, and by the time she finally got the child free of the dog, and ran to the car it was too late for the little girl. Everyone in the neighborhood said there had never been any problems with the dog in the past.

Obviously this baby was not taunting the dog, because her mother was holding her. Obviously this dog had never shown signs of agression before. However, it's also pretty obvious this dog became vicious.
I am in no way minimizing what happened to the child. But this child is said to be 18 months old while the mother was holding her as she was also watering the lawn..Those of us with children would think it odd to hold a toddler in your arms as you did such a task...Again, I am not saying this is less horrific. I just find it odd that she would be holding her toddler at that age (@18 months, you would generally let them walk and wander as you followed them around while you were doing such a task)...Maybe I am paranoid but I think there is more to this story...

Dogs generally are predictable with certain people. It doesn't seem strange to me that the dog would feel insecure with its leaders of the pack gone..

Again, a sad sad story though..
post #11 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
No, it wasn't. He did get in the newspaper when he woke me up after spotting burglars in a tile company located on the street behind us. He insisted I come out on the balcony, and when I saw the flashlights, I called the police.
.
Hurray for Jamie! What a little hero! - you must be so proud of him! Did the tile company send a treat or too, as a thank-you:
post #12 of 16
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker
I just heard on the local news here in Los Angeles, that a baby girl was mauled to death by her Grandparents 4 year old Rotweiler. .
Here's the story from KTLA5!
http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/ktla-...ll=ktla-news-1
Godspeed, precious little girl and may you be surrounded by all our loving TCS kitties who are over the Bridge. That poor mother, unable to protect her baby girl....And the dog is in 5-day quarantine???? A 150 lb. dog can be as deadly as a mountain lion....
post #13 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveysmummy
I am in no way minimizing what happened to the child. But this child is said to be 18 months old while the mother was holding her as she was also watering the lawn..Those of us with children would think it odd to hold a toddler in your arms as you did such a task...Again, I am not saying this is less horrific. I just find it odd that she would be holding her toddler at that age (@18 months, you would generally let them walk and wander as you followed them around while you were doing such a task)...Maybe I am paranoid but I think there is more to this story...

Dogs generally are predictable with certain people. It doesn't seem strange to me that the dog would feel insecure with its leaders of the pack gone..

Again, a sad sad story though..
In my opinion, there is no excuse for this dogs behavior. The dog became vicious in a moments notice. It's possible that the child was crying, and was upset to be in her mothers arms. However, that would not be an excuse for the dog to attack her the way it did. I've always felt that Rottweilers are a dangerous breed of dog. They are about as powerful as a Pit Bull, and I think bascially, they are meaner than a Pit Bull.

When I was a child, we had a large breed dog called a Weimeriener, and that dog would have died before she bit any of us. My mother was in the kitchen, when she heard our Dutches crying in the living room. When she went in to investigate, she saw my brother on top of her, biting her on the ears.

A dog is usually aware instinctively that a little child is helpless, and a good dog would not hurt a baby like that for any reason. It isn't like the mother and baby were strangers to the dog. This dog new them, probably almost as much as it new it's pack leaders, or owners.

To me, it just goes to show you that some breeds of dogs are unpredictable, no matter how loving of a home they came from. I've always been told that Rottweilers and Dobermans can turn on their owners for no reason. I think Doby's are beautiful animals, but I'm just as leary of a Doby as I am a Rottweiler or a Pitt Bull. There should be some sort of ordinance protecting people from dangerous dogs, although in this situation, I don't know what any ordinance could have done.

By the way, they said on the news here that the child was 16 months old.
post #14 of 16
Thread Starter 
I have Rottie-mixes, adopted from the pound as adults, and they will attack my cats, chickens, etc. If they get out, they will kill any small animals that they can get ahold of, neighbors' pets, etc. ;they also like to stand in the street & chase cars. I have had dogs all my life, and these dogs are the only incorrigible ones I've ever had, except for my daughter's pit bull, who was the epitome of a sweet, gentle, playful dog, until one day, when the dog was 3 years of age, bit my grandson when he climbed onto my daughter's (his mom's) lap (the dog loved my little grandson, slept with him, etc., & my grandson is very gentle with animals - my cats & hens follow him everywhere, and he picks up the hens & cuddles them the same as the cats!), for no reason, except jealousy. I agree that certain breeds are predisposed to certain kinds of behaviors, but the problem with breed-bans is what about the mixed-breeds? My rottie/golden retreiver is named, aptly, Sugar - and is so sweet, that had I not had her attack my own cat, or come home with a neighbor's rabbit in her mouth, I would never have suspected that she had it in her - the cat attack was after almost a year of having this dog. Just before the attacks, I had been giving the dogs treats, which several law-enforcement dog handlers had warned me that this can encourage a dog to challenge it's place in the pack, and they were right. The problem is that dogs go after the perceived "least one" of the pack, the smaller, the younger. So, yeah, a dog may have nothing but respect & devotion for those higher in the pack, such as the adults, older kids, etc. but it's their nature to try to "climb the ladder", and add to facts, in this latest mauling case, that the dog was over 100 lbs. only added to the chances of a tragedy happening. I don't know how these accidents can be avoided; they are so unpredictable!!
post #15 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker
To me, it just goes to show you that some breeds of dogs are unpredictable, no matter how loving of a home they came from. I've always been told that Rottweilers and Dobermans can turn on their owners for no reason. I think Doby's are beautiful animals, but I'm just as leary of a Doby as I am a Rottweiler or a Pitt Bull. There should be some sort of ordinance protecting people from dangerous dogs, although in this situation, I don't know what any ordinance could have done.

By the way, they said on the news here that the child was 16 months old.
Well, the Los Angeles Times stated she was 18 months old. This is mainly why I don't fully trust news reports. The details are often blurry.

However, I do agree. There is no reason this child should have been mauled..
My big but here though is that most of the maulings, and the attacks I hear about are when children are left alone in a yard with 1 or 3 large dogs (whatever breed)...This is often the case in my local news. And this would obviously be really careless on the part of the adult caregivers..

There is also a persistent urban legend that states that dobermans brains grow to big for their heads and their skulls cave in and they turn on their owners one day..This is absolutely ridiculous...and leads to the hype about specific breed bans..As people have stated, there are more bites due to toy poodles turning on children than large breeds. Its simply the large breeds that do the most damage and thus you hear about...So, its not the breed that simply "turns" one day. Its a specific dog reacting to a "specific" perceived situation...

As Rotties and Dobies are inherently guard dogs, you do have to exert alot of leadership. They can be headstrong. I suspect that the woman and child (not his leaders) made him feel that he had to be in control of the situation..
It depends. Some dogs are lovable with the entire family, but really only listen to their "leaders"..When the leaders aren't there, they feel they have to step in and take over the role..
post #16 of 16
I actually was called about this specific ordinance a couple of days ago. My parents and sisters live there, and I'm only an hour away. The county is looking a modifications to the laws that make them more clear and more enforcable. Their intentions are good and they seem to be moving in the right direction, though some changes are in order. I've been asked to provide some input to help get it cleaned up.

As for declaring a dog dangerous: using breed as a criteria demonstrates extreme ignorance. (There's another thread on this that has degenerated so much it's no longer worth posting to.) The only way to determine if a dog is dangerous is by the demonstration of specific behavior by the individual animal. Severe attacks are so rare they often make national news. The reality is, you are more likely to be killed by being struck by lightening or run over by a horse cart than by a dog attack.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › What about dangerous/vicious dog ordinances?