Python kills children in New Brunswick

[jbg]

Like the government of Ontario people?

Dogs were bred for certain purposes. Some are bred to look like faceless gargoyles ei the Pug, French Bulldog, English Bulldog and the Pekingese. I'm opposed to these dogs because they were bred for their look, not for their health. It's genetic mutation.

Too funny.

And some are bred for functions like fighting, guarding or killing large game. Now here's where it gets complicated and contentious. I'll concede that good responsible dog owners can breed and raise these "fighting" breeds to be great dogs. But just like people who feel they need to own an assault rifle, people buy these dogs not because they're good companions, they buy them precisely because of their heritage as violent dogs. Is it manly for an adult male to own a Yorkie or a Pug? How bout a Rottie or a Pit Bull?

Do no it's not a problem with the dog as much as the owner, but you have to ask what type of person wants a dog that has violence bred into them.

The violent breeds are the ones I listed, especially:

Labrador Retrievers;

Golden Retrievers; and

Newfoundlands

Even their tails are violent.

At least when you are trying to make a comparison .. make a decent comparison.

My neighbor has an animal that has 98% of the chromosomes of a wolf. It's a (presumably vicious) black lab.

The retrievers even look mean. Edited August 7, 2013 by jbg

[jbg]

Oh and they're always nice family dogs before they kill. Every single pit bull story has the same disbelief from the owner about what a good dog the pit bull was before the attack. Every single one.

As was that pet chimp, Travis (link).

[Boges]

Too funny.The violent breeds are the ones I listed, especially:Labrador Retrievers;Golden Retrievers; andNewfoundlandsEven their tails are violent.

OK provide some statistics that indicate that those dogs, especially the first 2 attack at a far greater percentage than other dogs. Total numbers don't count because retrievers are one of the most common dogs you'll find, so of course the instances of attacks will be high.

[jbg]

OK provide some statistics that indicate that those dogs, especially the first 2 attack at a far greater percentage than other dogs. Total numbers don't count because retrievers are one of the most common dogs you'll find, so of course the instances of attacks will be high.

Even their tails do a lot of damage.

[Black Dog]

This is undeniably false. I've known many people with pitbulls and my family had one growing up. No one that I know who had a pitbull had one for the reason you say. They're intelligent and affectionate animals that make great companions. What you've said is unequivocally false. There are some a******s that buy dogs to fight and train them to be aggressive (F*** You, Michael Vick), but in my personal experience I've known many people who've had these dogs and not a single one had it for those reasons.

Your anecdotes aside, studies have shown that high risk dogs tend to be owned by high-risk humans.

Personally I don't see much difference between your arguments for dogs and arguments for ownership of assault weapons.

[Boges]

Breaking News on the radio says the cause of death for both children was asphyxiation according to the autopsy performed.

No word on whether the children had bite marks on them.

[cybercoma]

I've never said I support banning any breed. In fact recently I've seen people near me that have puppies that look suspiciously like Pit Bulls. Pit Bulls aren't a specific pedigree breed so that makes it more complicated.

I fully concede that smaller breeds are neurotic and people gloss over their problems because they are small.

It's anecdotal but in my experience with my own dog I do notice far more aggression towards my dog from these so called "power breeds". And I'm also more weary of them because I know the potential damage they can cause. Then again there's also a Jack Russell near me when I see the owner walking by, I avoid because that dog has tried to bite my dog.

It's all about the owner and never the dog's fault, but I do think you're minimizing the appeal that a menacing looking dog has to a person that's only really interested in owning the dog because of fact it's a power breed.

There are no rules and people should be allowed to purchase any dog they wish, it's my job as a dog owner to be aware of my dog's surroundings and take the needed precautions.

In all honestly, I'm more opposed to breeds that are bred for a "look" that's unhealthy than I am, weary about power breeds.

I don't support banning dogs, but going back to the OP, I support banning people owning wild animals that are apex predators.

I think I maybe misunderstood your posts then. I stand corrected. I also concede that I was minimizing the fact that some people will buy pits because they're aggressive looking dogs. It seemed as though you were saying that's the only or even the primary reason people buy them and that's the point that I really don't agree with.

[cybercoma]

CC, I'm for banning pitbulls and it really makes no difference to me whether they're less likely to attack than a chihuahua or whether it's bad ownership/training that makes them act out. The only relevant fact for me is the amount of damage that they inflict when they do attack.

They kill more than any other dog. Coupled with your argument that they're less likely to strike, that means they kill in exponentially higher ratios than any other dog.

Oh and they're always nice family dogs before they kill. Every single pit bull story has the same disbelief from the owner about what a good dog the pit bull was before the attack. Every single one.

Please learn about these breeds. The statistics about them killing more than any other dog give absolutely no context to the dogs that do kill and the reasons pitbulls have higher numbers. To illustrate, a human being that grows up in poor socioeconomic conditions is far more likely to kill than anyone else. Pitbulls are often used in illegal dog-fighting rings and are otherwise raised in poor conditions, moreso than any other breed. It's always about the individual dog and how it has been treated and the context of its life. There is nothing particular about the breed that will make it cause any more damage than other similar sized dogs, like everyone's beloved Golden Retriever for instance. There's all kinds of myths about them having locking jaws and other things of the sort which simply are not scientifically true. So, please, take the time to read the links that I provided a few posts ago because there's some great information in there, especially the ASPCA article. Edited August 7, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Your anecdotes aside, studies have shown that high risk dogs tend to be owned by high-risk humans.

Personally I don't see much difference between your arguments for dogs and arguments for ownership of assault weapons.

I don't, since I never once advocated that high-risk individuals should own dogs or assault weapons. There's also a considerable difference between inanimate firearms and a family pet.

[Guest Derek L]

I don't, since I never once advocated that high-risk individuals should own dogs or assault weapons. There's also a considerable difference between inanimate firearms and a family pet.

I feel your infuriation on the subject, I’d hope in future more people wouldn’t cast blanket generalizations on a given subject, due in part to a horrible outlier of an incident…I won‘t hold my breath…..For the record, I agree with you on dogs and though I don’t own a pit-bull, I do have both a Rottweiler and a Boxer (and have had the same breeds in the past) and from my personal experience, both are great family dogs and both breeds exude a gentle temperament and obedient personality……

As to “exotic pets”, outside of my daughters Chinchilla, things like snakes, spiders, lizards etc have never really appealed to me, but that (in my view) or this recent tragic accident, shouldn’t be a precursor to their banning…….How many people own various types of snakes in Canada? I dunno, but I’d guess most snake owners care for them as much as others care for their various pets, as such, for some to suggest that due to a horrible incident, our laws should be changed is the very definition of hysteria……..not a good thing for our society to partake in.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh god...you're one of those misinformed dangerous breed people? There's no such thing as a more dangerous breed of dog. It all comes down to the individual animal and how it's raised, trained, and treated by its owners.

The way a pit bull's jaw locks down on it's 'prey' - ie: "it possess a lethal bite style" - does make it more dangerous.

[Guest Derek L]

The way a pit bull's jaw locks down on it's 'prey' - ie: "it possess a lethal bite style" - does make it more dangerous.

It doesn't lock though....

A link from your neck of the woods:

http://www.pbrc.net/mediacenter/mediaqa.html#LockJaws

We all agree that the power of the bite is proportional to the size of the jaws and the jaw muscles. There is no anatomical structure that could be a locking mechanism in any dog." As a Professor Emeritus from the College of Veterinary Medicine at Michigan State University, I agree completely with their conclusion.

[Boges]

I feel your infuriation on the subject, Id hope in future more people wouldnt cast blanket generalizations on a given subject, due in part to a horrible outlier of an incidentI wont hold my breath..For the record, I agree with you on dogs and though I dont own a pit-bull, I do have both a Rottweiler and a Boxer (and have had the same breeds in the past) and from my personal experience, both are great family dogs and both breeds exude a gentle temperament and obedient personality

As to exotic pets, outside of my daughters Chinchilla, things like snakes, spiders, lizards etc have never really appealed to me, but that (in my view) or this recent tragic accident, shouldnt be a precursor to their banning.How many people own various types of snakes in Canada? I dunno, but Id guess most snake owners care for them as much as others care for their various pets, as such, for some to suggest that due to a horrible incident, our laws should be changed is the very definition of hysteria..not a good thing for our society to partake in.

Owning a 14 foot snake in a private residence is illegal.

African Rock Pythons aren't companion animals, they're solitary predators. People that want to own them likely get off on owning a dangerous wild animal.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Boges

[Guest American Woman]

It doesn't lock though....

A link from your neck of the woods:

http://www.pbrc.net/mediacenter/mediaqa.html#LockJaws

That's true - it's "lethal bite style" is actually "hold and shake," so it's still considered a more dangerous breed because of it.

[Guest Derek L]

Owning a 14 foot snake in a private residence is illegal.

African Rock Pythons aren't companion animals, they're solitary predators. People that want to own them likely get off on owning a dangerous wild animal.

And in this case, from the posted CBC link a few pages back, local and Provincial government were aware.....

As to getting off on owning one.....so what? I mean, if it's kept safely in it's cage or tank and is a no threat to the public, what concern is it of yours?

[Boges]

And in this case, from the posted CBC link a few pages back, local and Provincial government were aware.....

As to getting off on owning one.....so what? I mean, if it's kept safely in it's cage or tank and is a no threat to the public, what concern is it of yours?

I posted a link earlier today that reported that this snake was not being kept in the zoo, I mean store it was in the man's adjacent apartment. Also that this wasn't the first time this snake had escaped it's enclosure.

If it's determined these boys were killed by this snake I'd be shocked if he doesn't dace criminal changes.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Boges

[Guest Derek L]

That's true - it's "lethal bite style" is actually "hold and shake," so it's still considered a more dangerous breed because of it.

Now that the lock jaw myth is dispelled, is there any data that shows what percent of pit-bulls actually attack a person or animal?

And as mentioned by Cybercoma, of pit bulls that do attack, how many of their owners method of raising them likely attributed to said attack?

[Guest Derek L]

I posted a link earlier today that reported that this snake was not being kept in the zoo, I mean store it was in the man's adjacent apartment. Also that this wasn't the first time this snake had escaped it's enclosure.

If it's determined these boys were killed by this snake I'd be shocked if he doesn't dace criminal changes.

If that's the case, I agree fully, that he should face some form of charges...........but should all other python owners across Canada be punished? I think not.....

[Boges]

If that's the case, I agree fully, that he should face some form of charges...........but should all other python owners across Canada be punished? I think not.....

Well it's a moral argument. I don't believe private citizens should be allowed to own any dangerous predators from the wild. They aren't looking for companionship like dogs.

Why ban people from owning their own polar bear or silver back gorilla?

If you disagree it's hard to debate on stats or facts as so few people own such animals. But it's my opinion.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Boges

[Guest Derek L]

Well it's a moral argument. I don't believe private citizens should be allowed to own any dangerous predators from the wild. They aren't looking for companionship like dogs.

Why ban people from owning their own polar bear or silver back gorilla?

If you disagree it's hard to debate on stats or facts as so few people own such animals. But it's my opinion.

I understand that it’s a moral argument for some, I just don’t understand why, why they wish to dictate their views of morality onto others…..In my view, if someone can reasonably prevent their “desire” from negatively effecting the public, small children and the feeble minded, and in the case of animals, well ensuring the animals own welfare, I really don’t give two shits………Snakes, guns, smoking pot/cigarettes, sports cars, pit-bulls, homosexuality, religion, face tattoos and piercing, big trucks, McDonalds, swingers parties, booze, red meat, cheating at cards etc………

It certainly isn’t the Government’s business, and sure as shit isn’t mine….

[ReeferMadness]

…..In my view, if someone can reasonably prevent their “desire” from negatively effecting the public, small children ,,,

well, that's a mighty big "if", isn't it?

There have been plenty of guys where were "responsible gun owners" until one day they lost it and their wives and/or kids wind up dead.

No doubt the snake owner in New Brunswick would have been characterized as a responsible animal owner until this week. Now, I'm guessing not that many people would characterize him that way.

And how many guys have been "responsible dog owners" until their pride and joy got loose and killed the neighbor's kids?

It's pretty difficult to define who is responsible, much less legislate that only those people can own dangerous weapons or animals. It's much simpler and safer to simply outlaw the animals or weapons that are likely to cause the most damage.

And yes, the state does, acting on behalf of the citizens, have the right to impose restrictions on what you can and can't own. Sorry.

[Guest Derek L]

well, that's a mighty big "if", isn't it?

There have been plenty of guys where were "responsible gun owners" until one day they lost it and their wives and/or kids wind up dead.

No doubt the snake owner in New Brunswick would have been characterized as a responsible animal owner until this week. Now, I'm guessing not that many people would characterize him that way.

And how many guys have been "responsible dog owners" until their pride and joy got loose and killed the neighbor's kids?

It's pretty difficult to define who is responsible, much less legislate that only those people can own dangerous weapons or animals. It's much simpler and safer to simply outlaw the animals or weapons that are likely to cause the most damage.

But therein lies the difference……in all those examples, malfeasance of an individual is the culprit, not society as a whole, yet you purport to punish or regulate everybody…….That is a slippery slope.

And yes, the state does, acting on behalf of the citizens, have the right to impose restrictions on what you can and can't own. Sorry.

I know this very well, hence why I spend both time and money in attempt to change this. I’m sorry if other people’s things or ways they live their lives make you uncomfortable.

[dre]

I think its ok for people to own dangerous animals if they are criminally responsible. If your pitbull kills a child you get a manslaughter charge. Same if your snake does. If your dog bites someone its an assault charge.

That would sort this stuff out pretty quick.

[Guest Derek L]

I think its ok for people to own dangerous animals if they are criminally responsible. If your pitbull kills a child you get a manslaughter charge. Same if your snake does. If your dog bites someone its an assault charge.

That would sort this stuff out pretty quick.

Exactly, personal accountability…….I would suggest that a more effective deterrence to be punitive fiscal consequences……..You want a Python, AR-15 or backyard pool, you need “x” amount of liability insurance….

[BC_chick]

I really dont give two shitsSnakes, guns, smoking pot/cigarettes, sports cars, pit-bulls, homosexuality, religion, face tattoos and piercing, big trucks, McDonalds, swingers parties, booze, red meat, cheating at cards etc

.

Knock yourself out with the homosexuality, face tattoos, piercings, McDonald's, swinger parties, red meat, cards because they don't make a difference in my life.

But put away your guns, snakes, pit bulls, big trucks because now your freedom is trampling on my safety. Therein lies the difference.

Cigarettes and religion... grey areas.

Edited August 8, 2013 by BC_chick