'Emotional support animal' mauls 5 year old at Portland Airport, lawsuit claims - Sensationalist Headlines

Here's a hot take by some one who was actualy mauled by a pit bull as a child. They are neither monsters, nor or they cute harmless critters either. They are large breed, have territory issues, can easily be taught aggressive behavior through benign play (get the squirrel, tug of war) ect. These dogs do very well until they don't. I was mauled by a neighbors pit in a nice middle class neighborhood. What was the reason? Their kid liked to play tug of war and watch it jump. He certainly wasn't doing it to train aggression. He inedverdatly taught It to jump and bite as hard as possible. As result, the only reason I am alive, is because I looked down at the moment I did, because it was aiming at my neck with accuracy. At the same rate my friend has a pitbull that's now around 11 years old, it is pushover sensitive dog, but that's a result of being well socialized every day of its life, not just a little training. From the moment it was brought into the home it was broke of any aggressive behavior, and made comfortable with strangers, children, and small animals. The difference in the two storys wasn't neglect, or beatings. It was the first expected a regular dog not a pitbull, and the second accepted a lifelong training regiment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmyXiOdZgvA

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/qvypq5/emotional-support-gator-wally-pennsylvania-vgtrn Pennsylvania man says emotional support alligator helps his depr.. Reality is a strange place

While an alligator is pretty exotic it doesn’t really strike me the same way. Probably the same reason that’s a d’aaw article and this is a post-attack article

The poor bite control thing actually makes a lot of sense. My brother had a female pitbull he adopted from the local animal shelter. She was energetic as shit, and ended up chasing a cat up and over my mom. She ended up chomping her on the arm, and it looked pretty bad but wasn't at all. 10-15 deep teeth holes, bleeding like crazy, but not anywhere near as bad as it could've been in an actual attack. She was fine after some disinfectant and bandages. I've had something similar happen with another dog of similar size, and it's teeth never broke the skin on my arm. So it seems pits can't control bite force very well as you say. I've even been bitten in the face by another dog and it barely scratched me. But regularly, you hear of pits biting someone that pissed them off and they rip chunks out and generally fuck them up. Most bites in general, I think, are just like that, a pissed dog doing a one-off bite to get the source of annoyance to fuck off. It just happens that pits are really strong and can't control their strength that well. Part of the overwhelming number of reports of bites from pits is probably due to the increased severity of their bites. I've been bitten quite a few times by other dogs as a kid, and it was never bad enough to need any attention, let alone a police report. If my brother's pit bull bit a stranger like she bit my mom, I'm certain it would be reported to the police. The dog would be taken away and put under observation for violent behavior, and possibly even killed. I know they can kill a child and shred an adult, and I absolutely believe that some breeds should be classed as possibly dangerous. They should require certification and training to own them, which would also help shutdown dog fighting rings. They're the type of dog that needs to be raised and trained the right way by a disciplined person, like my brother. That incident was a one-off accident that never happened again.

As far as I know it's rather well established that dog races have been bred for certain qualities and behaviour, while humans have not. I don't know much about dog breeds but it puzzles me when people say that certain dogs are bred to be good for certain things, good with people and/or friendly, but when a dog breed is purpotedly unfriendly or dangerous they turn around and say it has nothing to do with the breed and is all about upbringing. Which one is it? Even if the violence would be entirely acquired behaviour, if you could eliminate 68% of dog attacks by banning 6% of dogs from your premises, why would you not? Racially profiling dogs doesn't violate human rights or human dignity.

I don't really get the "oh i bet it was a pitbull" thing. They're one of the stockiest dogs for their size. Any dog could've lashed out at the girls face but It just so happened to be a breed that would do the most damage due to how they're built. Also happens to be one of the breeds that can actually do some damage if harassed whereas some dogs can't even fit an arm in their mouth. I'm not against the banning of them for things like this especially emotional support animals as the animals aren't trained in any shape or form and if a person is vulnerable or in a position to require an emotional support animals. Do they even have the capabilities to have a dog of this build? Heck should they be allowed anything bigger than a ferret? Also an airport is probably a stressful place for any animal be it cat, dog or hamster. Animals have more strength than people think. My small ass cat dislikes nail clipping and doesn't like it being done so have to somewhat hold him down while someone else does it and the strength is honestly something you wouldn't expect. Now put this on a dog 5x the size and muscles that's stressed and possibly pissed off at the same time and nothing good is going to come of it no matter the breed. Shame for the girl but looks like she got off with nothing compared to what it could've been.

Because the UK banned pits and the amount of dog attacks has actually increased: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dangerous-dogs-law-killed-banned-breeds-mps-efra-committee-neil-parish-a8588111.html Dogs are dogs, the only reason a pitbull makes headlines is because they can cause serious damage when attacking someone vs a chiwawa.

If I'm reading this right, the DEFRA's report investigating the issue doesn't blame the breed ban on increased attacks, and in fact recommends to keep the ban “Prohibiting breeds of dogs that are bred for fighting is critical to tackling the heightened risk they pose. However, any dog can become dangerous if it is kept by irresponsible owners in the wrong environment, which is why the Act covers any type of dog that is dangerously out of control.

But the ban has had 0 effect on the rate of attacks, thats the issue. Banning did absolutely nothing to affect WHY dogs are attacking people. A golden retriever can legit fuck you up when it snaps, source is my normally peaceful dog attacking a stray that wandered into the yard, and me having to wrestle back control with my hand getting sliced open from how hard i had to pull the rope back to make him relent for even a second in a 2 minute fight. The dog ban is as retarded as banning some guns but not all. All guns can cause severe injury or death when used improperly, so why not look at a training/bahavior issue rather than blaming a type of dog.

I'm 100% open to that possibility but I don't think we can conclude that from this statistic alone. Something caused dog attacks to almost double, and it doesn't sound reasonable to me to suggest that banning violent breeds did that. The absence of these breeds somehow made the remaining dogs extra violent? If we are to believe that breeding dogs for aggression doesn't itself cause them to attack people then yes. Anyway I would never suggest a ban as a final solution to this problem. As a starting point band-aid? Worth a try perhaps.

Your argument was banning pitbulls would lower dog attack rates, I posted an article that shows a study that the rate wasn't affected by banning pitbulls, so the problem isnt tied to the dog its shitty owners. Why are you pulling this weird argument that im saying dogs have gotten more aggressive due to pitbulls being banned? I just showed it has gotten worse with the ban, not that its tied to it. Pitbulls are a breed of dog, agression is instilled by bad ownership, but all dogs snap occasionally. Pitbulls are just higher risk because how muscular they are vs other breeds. Again, its not inately tied to the dog to be mean, its their upbrining and nature. Also if its shown that a band is literally doing nothing, its not a band aid solution, its a pointless feel good one like partial weapon bans.

Lol fuck dude, I guess we should ignore statistics to paint pictures informed solely by our feelings and anecdotal experiences, as if that was valuable? If the dog is 6% of the population, and 68% of dog attacks, maybe you can see what's happening here isn't as black and white as claimed? The pitbull has gotten a bad rap for about 40 years. That bad rap informed a culture of people seeking to have violent dogs, they went with what was publicly considered to be a "Dangerous" dog, and trained it to be, guess what, fucking dangerous. This leads to a knock on feed back loop effect of the violence statistic increasing as people seeking violent dogs, create dogs that are violent. Pitbulls raised outside of that environment are as dangerous as any other dog of similar size and build, which is to say, dangerous. Dogs can kill, even more "friendly" dogs like big shepards, chow chows, or previously "Violent" breeds like Doberman's are capable of that. it's always going to come down to the owner and how the dog is socialized, trained, and treated.

And yet that doesn't explain why other dogs that have similar reputations, such as dobermans, don't have similar attack rates.

Yeah, it kinda does. No other dog has even close to the reputation of a pitbull, and the majority of dog breeds are poorly understood by most people. Most people are idiots.

Because people who want dogs as essentially weapons, tend to pick pitbulls

Except it's well acknowledged that they have a higher tendency to attack other dogs regardless of owner, not even the ASPCA will deny that much. It's not all just the owner.

They banned Pitbulls but you can still get Staffordshire Bull Terriers which aren't that much different.

white knighters for the pibbles! too bad they were literally bred for biting. their entire reason for existence is to bite. that being said, i'd still never let my dog around people without a muzzle because you can't predict their behavior 100% of the time nor the dogs.

Couldn't think of any other explanation how banning a breed of dogs known for attacks would lead to more attacks. Point was, what causation could there be? Anyway, we agree that UK handled the whole thing very poorly. Owner responsibility should've been #1 thing to focus on.

i mean, aggressiveness aside, isn't it entirely reasonable to take into account that pitbulls are more physically capable of causing severe or fatal injury like, if there were a species of incredibly tame and nonviolent grizzly bears, I still probably wouldn't feel comfortable having people keep them as pets at what point is the line drawn where an animal is too dangerous to take into public spaces

So ban all dogs bigger than say a spaniel? My spaniel put a hole in my hand as a kid, so maybe they’re too dangerous too?

Yes but did it rip a third of the flesh from your jaw in one swift bite? The only reason I'm not a deformed monster today is the woman who performed the surgery on my face in the E.R also was also a talented cosmetic surgeon. So hows that hole in your hand feel? Because my face still hurts when it's cold.

So what is the implication of this argument? No, of course it didn't. But using your anecdote to appeal to have a whole sale ban/destruction of a breed of animal isn't in my opinion, rational.

It was counter to your anecdote Your spaniel bit you. I'd argue that your spaniel has considerably less bite force and considerably more controll over the force it applys then a pitbull. That you comparing the two breeds is unfair comparison. Had you had read my previous posts im towing a pretty neutral position. I'm actualy only in favor for mandatory aggression and bite training, and even that is only in spirt, I have no idea how you'd faithfully execute that my only hope is that only competent people chose to own these dogs. Even with that were digressing. We're arguing in this thread about a child mauled by an emotional support animal, the subject of the conversation should be asking if their additional considerations make them suitable service animals not about their eradication which I haven't ever suggested.

Ok so I dont think im gonna add much to this discussion but I see it like this: Pitbulls were trained for biting and to some extend killing. However, that doesnt mean they are predisposed to being agressive As mentioned before, many dog attack statistics are only based on the reported & fatal incidents. Mixed with the aformentioned (in this thread) poor bite control and generally being bred for biting its pretty easy to see how pitbull attacks could amount in a considerable higher fatality rate, especially with smaller animals or children (also fatalities or serious injuries are more often reported, logically speaking. If I got bit by the neighbors poodle id have a much better chance of getting away with light injuries than when a pitbull bit me, due to poor bite control and just having a stronger jaw. Naturally if I am severly injured im more likely to report it) Pitbulls get a bad rep. If this is justified is not really up for discussion since statistics are skewed due to the aforementioned problems. However, I think its pretty logical to assume that if someone wants a dog as a weapon, they are more likely gonna go for the breed that they know (if they already know a pitbull is gonna be great, why look up more breeds? and even if they do is it really unreasonable to assume they are gonna pick the one thats most well known?) Even if every argument against pitbulls in this thread is true, it is still the owners responsibility to know their dog. I dont think that the breed necessarily constitutes to bad behaviour (it CAN however directly influence fatality and strength of injury) but even if it did, the owner should make sure it never comes to an attack period. If you got a pitbull and you KNOW its agressive, whether trained like that on purpose or not, you should try to not make it jump at people. Idk why we blame the animals for not conforming with human society ( after all, thats what the humans should do. ). In case of the UK, banning pitbulls didnt do anything. People who want their dogs to be agressive or are abusive will just do the same on a different breed. And there are a lot more breeds that have the same lock-jaw approach to biting and can inflict just as much, if not more, damage than pitbulls (just that they are lesser known and dangerous owners who used to have a pitbull, which is far from ideal, now possibly have even larger and stronger dogs, which would explain the RISE in dog injuries)