Pros and Cons of executing a dog that has bitten someone?

This is a forum to discuss legislation and legal matters pertaining to the rights and welfare of dogs. Please remember to counter ideas and opinions with which you don't agree with friendly and helpful advice and responses.

(Page 4 of 4: Viewing entries 31 to 40)  
1  2  3  4  

Forever in my- heart
Barked: Wed Dec 7, '11 1:40pm PST 
There are many cons and few pros. For one (con) a dog could bite because it is scared, umcomfortable, in pain, being provoked, or being terrtorial. There is also a first bite protection in some states and there are also different types of bites. They range from a nip to a full-blown attack. Pros are if they dog is a repeat offender and it is very aggresive and not able to be rehabilitated, it would be safe to euthanize.

I can run just- as fast with 3- legs
Barked: Wed Dec 7, '11 4:45pm PST 
Executing a dog? Seems the side of the original post is pretty clear!

It is sad that nothing is taken into account when a dog bites someone. Nobody questions if the person that was bit was provoking the dog or how the dog was raised or if there were any medical issues. All things that are looked into in great depth for any human violent acts.

I think it should definitely be a case by case basis, but that is very hard to do as most of the time, you only have somebody's word to go on. And "the dog bit out of nowhere" is a very common phrase, even if the person just misunderstood.

I even knew someone who got bit by their growling dog and said the dog bit out of nowhere. Um, the dog was growling! But since the dog "growls all the time when I do it and never bit before", suddenly the growling is irrelevant because the dog restrained itself numerous times before.

I do agree that not all bite cases are ones of bad upbringings or human stupidity. Sometimes bad genetics or medical issues cause things to happen too.

Psychopaths have been studied to have "different" brains than others. Dementia is a common occurrence with the elderly, where some can get violent.

These are so, so common in our society. It's a shame it's overlooked because "it's just a dog."

How You Doin'?
Barked: Wed Dec 7, '11 5:15pm PST 
As has been pointed out, there are so many variables that would have to be considered.

I grew up in the era of "If you keep doing that you're going to get bit and it'll be your own fault." This applied to anyone who was old enough to understand that "no" means "stop doing what you're doing."

I think I can count the number of dogs I would want to see destroyed on 1 hand and this includes all the cases of dog attacks I see on the news, on the internet and in the paper.
I think many owners are too quick to destroy in these cases.

In the case of my roommate's dog, that dog really needed to be removed by an authoritative body and destroyed.
The owner knew her dog had inflicted some serious bites in the past. Every boyfriend and every roommate she had all had scars from this dog.
She would let the dog out into the backyard and when the screaming would start out front, she'd act like it was the 1st time the dog had ever jumped the 4-ft fence to go after someone walking by on the other side of the street.
And he never gave a warning that he was going to attack. He could be sitting calmly beside someone one second and the next he had a body part between his teeth.
Could he have been made safe with the help of a good behaviorist? Don't know but given his size and history, I never would have trusted him.

Augusta,- CGC, RN

Such a Good Dog!
Barked: Wed Dec 7, '11 7:45pm PST 
Here's a site on animal law you should check out if you haven't already.


It will have some useful objective info on dog bite situations and laws.

I don't know the nature of the essay requirement--is it supposed to be objective or persuasive--you're alerting your audience to the side you're on by calling it "executing"--that's a pretty loaded word.

The only pro I can think of is the public never has to worry about THAT dog biting again . . . . unfortunately that's no safeguard against human stupidity and all the remaining dogs with teeth . . .wink

The cons : Who will be qualified to make a truly educated opinion on whether the dog is a danger to society? A judge, a jury?

All dogs are capable of biting.

Many dogs are provoked into a bite by illness or bad human behavior that are otherwise good dogs.

Many dogs are capable of being safely rehabilitated.
Many dogs can be safely managed.

Not all dog bites are the same. Was it a snap, a nip, slight damage (e.g. broken or bruised skin, but no deep punctures) or a prolonged attack with many deep bites and shaking? Was the dog in it's own home or at large?

Ultimately, it usually comes down to the level of damage, injury or death of a human when the state gets involved. If a human ends up in the emergency room, then most places require the dog bite be reported . . .

Cave canis- vigilo omnis
Barked: Wed Dec 7, '11 9:04pm PST 
Owning a dog that bites is a serious liability. Even if a bite was provoked, the repercussions can be more than many people are prepared to undertake. The financial burden of fines, quarantine, modifications to property (if so ordered), insurance, and potential litigation is a heavy one. I can certainly understand why, in the case of an unprovoked or severe bite, many owners - even those who love their pets very much - opt to put the dog down (or consent to having it put down by the authorities) without going through the entire legal process.

In my area the dog would be quarantined and evaluated for further risk while the circumstances of the bite are investigated. Criminally speaking, even a serious bite delivered to a burglar in my home will be handled differently than a bite delivered to a random passerby... though many of the issues I mentioned above would still stand.

Most jurisdictions DO have a process though, one that allows an owner to appeal decisions and make changes if they're able, should they choose to keep the dog.
Sandy Baby- ♥

I may look- little, but I'm- ALL dog!
Barked: Thu Dec 8, '11 2:33am PST 
Without reading through the entire thread due to being tired and a bit out of it, just wanted to comment with something.

Of course you will always hear I didn't do anything he just attacked - and how often is this statement true?

In my case, it was completely true. When I was attacked by dogs, yes, I said the attack was unprovoked. And no, I wasn't lying. I didn't taunt, I didn't walk into or through their yard, I wasn't anywhere near their yard, didn't try to pet them, didn't even make eye contact with them, didn't even run or walk fast past them. But they attacked me regardless. I did everything by the textbook - as I had always read to do if you encountered dogs that seemed to be threatening. And still, yes, I was attacked. It wasn't the first time the dogs had bit someone, I was just the first that was unable to escape right away, so the first that got bit more than once. The dogs had bit a teenager girl earlier that day, chased an older woman, and bit the pants leg of a teenage boy a week or so prior. Their track record definitely wasn't clean and there was obviously something very wrong with the dogs. Do I love dogs? Of course I do. I wouldn't be here, on a dog social networking site, if I didn't. Do I think those dogs should have been euthanized? Yes. The argument that one cannot decide who dies and who doesn't becomes invalid when you take into account that these dogs very well could have taken lives themselves. They were a danger to the neighborhood and obviously didn't differentiate between age. I can't imagine if those teenagers had been bitten as many times as I had been. Or if it had been a kid. Of course, the owners are to blame, too. The dogs shouldn't have been running loose. But even if the dogs had been confiscated, what kind of future would they really have had? I regret the way that whole situation was handled to this day. Should say, not because of how I handled it. Even afterwards, I did everything textbook. Heck, I was more level-headed than my mother - who started to panic when I walked through the door and said "I was attacked by dogs". Told her I was going to the hospital, told her to call animal control, went to the hospital, got all cleaned up and my first rabies shot, dealt with animal control that night. But I regret the way animal control handled it. My towns animal control isn't the most reliable. They said they'd catch the dogs. Their way of doing so? Leaving out poison. Ended up poisoning the wrong dog. Still kills me to this day. A couple weeks later, the dogs and their owners disappeared. Probably moved, I assume. As much as I love dogs, in this case, yes the dogs should have been put down. Like I said, what if it were someone younger than myself?

Now, if we're talking first strike dogs. Dogs that have only bitten once and were probably provoked, I cannot imagine any pros in putting them down without evaluating them. A provoked attack is called provoked for a reason and in many cases, no, the dog is not at fault. It's all situational. Though, as wrong as it may sound to say it, you can't put the life of a dangerous dog over the safety of a neighborhood/community.

Barked: Thu Dec 8, '11 8:04am PST 
Though, as wrong as it may sound to say it, you can't put the life of a dangerous dog over the safety of a neighborhood/community.

I agree Sandy. Good post.

Vaccine free- -Disease free- goes pawinpaw
Barked: Thu Dec 8, '11 9:19am PST 
There was a news report, going a little whiles back, about a man who couldn't read English who unlocked the latch of the gate of a stranger to solicitate. That gate had a warning sign on it for their dogs. The dogs bit the intruder and were put down. True the gate should have been chain locked, and true that for dogs to be so aggressive I doubt very much they enjoyed life being so stressed, but what claim does a state have over this? But the state politicians determine rabies vaccination and don't have a say in mills or breeding irresponsibly. So a con is basically our own rights. A pro is for the owners who wouldn't care to protect the public from their aggressive dog.

I am the Sock- Bandit!!!
Barked: Thu Dec 8, '11 11:32am PST 
"True the gate should have been chain locked, and true that for dogs to be so aggressive I doubt very much they enjoyed life being so stressed,"

A dog that is a guardian breed or one that has been trained to guard property, isn't necessarily stressed if it's doing what it was bred and/or trained to do. Some dogs enjoy it and take their jobs at their post quite seriously. Dogs have been used for exactly that purpose for thousands of years. It's true that these laws vary significantly by location. Where I live if you have a sign posted that a guard dog is on duty, trespassers enter at their own risk. So technically those dogs bit a trespasser, albeit a clueless one which is probably why they lost their lives. In some areas it's even legal to shoot a trespasser if it's adequately posted and they're warned, and the dogs wouldn't be put down for doing their job. Lawsuits are a whole nuther kettle of fish, however...

Vaccine free- -Disease free- goes pawinpaw
Barked: Thu Dec 8, '11 1:16pm PST 
"Dogs have been used for exactly that purpose for thousands of years"

I wonder Lucille. It was very different when dogs guarded castles I guess. But a dog who is to be aggressive to every person (but their owner) who walks by a yard, I think that's too much stress for most dogs to be a healthy thing handled? And only certain breeds were used as guard dogs right? Pit bulls I don't think used to be guard dogs but rodent catchers and family dogs right?

It makes me think of schutzhund. Those dogs are having fun (most of them!) But a dog guarding a lot or yard is an entirely different thing.thinking I don't know. In the case I wrote about, the dogs mauled the man not just bit. Is that still a healthy guarding? I don't know!

Edited by author Thu Dec 8, '11 1:18pm PST

  (Page 4 of 4: Viewing entries 31 to 40)  
1  2  3  4