Update on Pit Bull that attacked neighbor - Page 5

Lilysmom · ‎03-09-2010

@CrazyDaisy, the point is the dog was off leash, unattended, off the owner's property and aggressive. In our community, that is illegal. LM

CrazyDaisy · ‎03-20-2010

wrote:
@CrazyDaisy, the point is the dog was off leash, unattended, off the owner's property and aggressive. In our community, that is illegal. LM

So are the poodles down the street.

Someday, when scientists discover the center of the Universe....some people will be disappointed it is not them.

Highlands72 · ‎06-04-2016

wrote:
wrote:
@CrazyDaisy, the point is the dog was off leash, unattended, off the owner's property and aggressive. In our community, that is illegal. LM
So are the poodles down the street.

They should be reported to animal control if in violation of local ordinance.

Lilysmom · ‎03-09-2010

@CrazyDaisy, so the choice is yours. Do nothing, speak to the homeowner or report it. We chose to make contact with the homeowner which we felt was a reasonable response in this situation. LM

Rockycoast · ‎03-02-2016

Pit bull, PB mixes...yep one breed of dog i do not trust. and no, it is not just the owner, (altho an irresponsible owner doesn't help) It is the breed itself. It was bred for its' aggression, it is in its' DNA. You do not know if or when it will go off. And there inlies the danger. Would not have this breed for anything. Others can make their own decision on having one, and they can also have the risk.

Isobel Archer · ‎04-04-2015

If the dog has attacked someone previously and has been evaluated and determined to be “dangerous,” authorities can require that it be muzzled and leashed whenever outside - at least that is true here. The fact that the dog was muzzled goes against the owner’s insistence that it is “gentile.”

CrazyDaisy · ‎03-20-2010

wrote:
If the dog has attacked someone previously and has been evaluated and determined to be “dangerous,” authorities can require that it be muzzled and leashed whenever outside - at least that is true here. The fact that the dog was muzzled goes against the owner’s insistence that it is “gentile.”

There are places that a dog is required to wear a muzzle simply because of the breed. There has been no history of "attacks", aggression or an evaluation by anyone. Simply because of the breed.

FYI - A muzzle can be used for a number of reasons. I have one for my dog so she does not eat things she should not be eating while out.

Someday, when scientists discover the center of the Universe....some people will be disappointed it is not them.

maestra · ‎03-09-2010

wrote:
@maestramaestra wrote:
@Isobel Archer The dog may be rehomed to Best Friends Animal Society in Kanab, UT; this organization took in and rehabbed the fighting dogs from the Michael Vick's abuse.

Some of these dogs were able to be adopted, but most have lived out their natural lives being loved and cared for in Dogtown.

I support this animal organization and it's mission to Save Them All.
This would be a 'best scenario' for this canine.
If you read the information on their website, you will see that they do not accept aggressive animals. They have limited resources and these animals must be housed separately. And it is very expensive to rehab them.

in addition, they do not accept every animal who needs to be there. You almost have have to have a referral from one of their partner shelters.

i doubt that the pit who attacked a human being would be able to go there. Vick’s dogs were not aggressive to humans. They were FORCED to fight and they were tortured to do so. Big difference. Some dogs are just aggressive by nature and should not be pets. They cannot be rehabbed as they are too dangerous.

i love dogs and help them anyway I can, but am have a clear mind when it comes to aggression.

Best Friends Animal Society does put dogs down who are sick and those that are aggressive. No Kill means they do not kill adoptable dogs who can live with others and have a good life.

More than likely, a municipality has rules and laws about aggressive dogs and they will Ask the owner to surrender their animal if it bites someone.

check BFAS- they have most clearly adopted the "Vicktory Dogs', a couple have been adopted out to loving homes.

I support BFAS through donations and receive lots of info;the VICKTORY were and are special to this organization.

sunshine45 · ‎03-09-2010

via wikipedia

A "no-kill" shelter is an animal shelter that does not kill healthy or treatable animals even when the shelter is full, reserving euthanasia for terminally ill animals or those considered dangerous to public safety. A no-kill shelter uses many strategies to promote shelter animals; to expanding its resources using volunteers, housing and medical protocols; and to work actively to lower the number of homeless animals entering the shelter system.

A no-kill or limited admit shelter is a shelter that save healthy, treatable and rehabilitatable animals. As a benchmark, at least 90% of the animals entering the shelter are expected to be saved.[3] The save rate must be based on all animals entering the shelter: "It does not matter if the animals are old, blind, deaf, missing limbs, or traumatized. All of these animals are worthy of our compassion, all of them can find homes, and all of them deserve to."[3]

Some shelters claim they are no kill when they save all "adoptable" animals, but continue to kill many healthy, treatable, or rehabilitatable animals, such as feral cats. No kill advocate Nathan Winograd states that a Los Angeles animal shelter "was claiming to be saving almost all 'adoptable' animals even while it was killing half the dogs and 80% of all cats. A shelter does not achieve No Kill by calling animals 'unadoptable' before killing them; it achieves No Kill by actually saving their lives."[3]

No kill advocate Nathan Winograd has developed a set of eleven life-saving practices outlined in the No Kill Equation.

********************************************
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." - Albert Einstein

maestra · ‎03-09-2010

wrote:
via wikipedia

A "no-kill" shelter is an animal shelter that does not kill healthy or treatable animals even when the shelter is full, reserving euthanasia for terminally ill animals or those considered dangerous to public safety. A no-kill shelter uses many strategies to promote shelter animals; to expanding its resources using volunteers, housing and medical protocols; and to work actively to lower the number of homeless animals entering the shelter system.

A no-kill or limited admit shelter is a shelter that save healthy, treatable and rehabilitatable animals. As a benchmark, at least 90% of the animals entering the shelter are expected to be saved.[3] The save rate must be based on all animals entering the shelter: "It does not matter if the animals are old, blind, deaf, missing limbs, or traumatized. All of these animals are worthy of our compassion, all of them can find homes, and all of them deserve to."[3]

Some shelters claim they are no kill when they save all "adoptable" animals, but continue to kill many healthy, treatable, or rehabilitatable animals, such as feral cats. No kill advocate Nathan Winograd states that a Los Angeles animal shelter "was claiming to be saving almost all 'adoptable' animals even while it was killing half the dogs and 80% of all cats. A shelter does not achieve No Kill by calling animals 'unadoptable' before killing them; it achieves No Kill by actually saving their lives."[3]

No kill advocate Nathan Winograd has developed a set of eleven life-saving practices outlined in the No Kill Equation.

The part of this underlined/bold are why I support Best Friends Animal Society. I usually sponsor an animal that no one else wants, especially wild rehabbed fowl or the more aggressive dogs in Dogtown.