Danish man kills himself after the state kills his dog because of its breed.

[Deleted]

Well since we are digging up stats here is a report on the dog bites and attacks in Denmark in the year prior to the 2010 ban of the 13 breeds and the year following the ban::

The report focuses on 464 bite episodes from every region of the country, and even breaks down the bites from dog vs human, dog vs dog, dog vs other animal and fatal attack.

Based on their data, the number of dog bites on humans went from 67 in the 12 months prior to the ban to 107 in the 12 months after the ban (a 60% increase), dog bites on other dogs from 75 to 117 (a 56% increase), dog bites on other animals 21 to 24 (14% increase) and fatal attacks from 23 to 30 (30% increase)*. Total dog bites went from 186 to 278 -- a 49% increase.

It goes on to say that they don't believe that the 30 fatalities are just human but likely dog fatalities to because 30 fatalities is too high for humans, given that it is too high even in the USA which has a population over 350 million vs. Denmarks 5 million.

So clearly the ban didn't really do crap, also the highest rate of attacks comes from a dog that isn't even on the banned list and it was the dog responsible for the most attacks prior to the ban as well. They just need to implement criminal punishments for owners of dogs that attack people, it would make owners more responsible because it would be their asses on the line.

Your statistics are useless and don't really show anything. Banned dogs account for roughly half of the bites since 2010.

Here are the statistics.

Numbers fra the Justice department show that of the 157 dogs that have been euthanized for biting, 66 (42%) of those bites have come from dogs that were forbidden in 2010. In comparison the forbidden dogs account for less than 2% of the total amount of dogs in Denmark.
source:http://politiken.dk/forbrugogliv/liv...te-hunderacer/

[Amnaught]

Sad story, but people probably shouldn't keep the wrong animals as pets, if they could pose a serious threat to others.

They don't, though. It's a new prejudice. Pitbulls used to be considered "nanny dogs".


You're more likely to get bit by a chihuahua than a pitbull, pits just have stronger grips. Any dog can get protective of its owner. Fuck, plenty of celebrities own tigers and don't get shit for it.

[Deleted]

They don't, though. It's a new prejudice. Pitbulls used to be considered "nanny dogs".

You're more likely to get bit by a chihuahua than a pitbull, pits just have stronger grips. Any dog can get protective of its owner. Fuck, plenty of celebrities own tigers and don't get shit for it.

I'm quite sure the rules for owning a fucking tiger are ridicolous. You can't just walk that around the neighbourhood like a dog.

[Sole-Warrior]

Your statistics are useless and don't really show anything. Banned dogs account for roughly half of the bites since 2010.

Here are the statistics.

Numbers fra the Justice department show that of the 157 dogs that have been euthanized for biting, 66 (42%) of those bites have come from dogs that were forbidden in 2010. In comparison the forbidden dogs account for less than 2% of the total amount of dogs in Denmark.
source:http://politiken.dk/forbrugogliv/liv...te-hunderacer/

If so it does makes sense that those dogs should be banned from ownership, or at least very heavily restricted.

so if a dog murders someone in a dog attack the owner goes to jail for life - that is a fair punishment, it would make people realize they need to train their dogs properly and not abuse them or they could end up paying.

Also criminal punishments as Harekrsna pointed out like trying dog owners for murder because their dog decided to kill is illogical. Murder means you intent to kill and succeeded. At worst a dog going out and killing someone should be involuntary man slaughter unless the owner intentionally let his dog loose for the purpose of killing/harming others.
As for irresponsible owners who are just irresponsible at training/controlling their animal that results in the dog biting someone else... A dog getting euthanize and the dog owner getting fined or sued for a huge sum of money and banned from ever owning a dog again as a result of a dog attack its a pretty hefty punishment enough to deter lazy owners. I very much doubt there is any need to take it any further.

[Deleted]

If so it does makes sense that those dogs should be banned from ownership, or at least very heavily restricted.



Also criminal punishments as Harekrsna pointed out like trying dog owners for murder because their dog decided to kill is illogical. Murder means you intent to kill and succeeded. At worst a dog going out and killing someone should be involuntary man slaughter unless the owner intentionally let his dog loose for the purpose of killing/harming others.

As for irresponsible owners who are just irresponsible at training/controlling their animal that results in the dog biting someone else... A dog getting euthanize and the dog owner getting fined or sued for a huge sum of money and banned from ever owning a dog again as a result of a dog attack its a pretty hefty punishment enough to deter lazy owners. I very much doubt there is any need to take it any further.

To be fair against the banned dog breeds, the kind of people that own these dogs are usually scumbag idiots, but banning ownership for a certain group of people is a fuck ton harder than banning certain breeds, so yeah.

[Rennadrel]

The law makes perfectly sense. It is much harder to ban idiot owners than banning the most dangerous dogs breeds.

No it isn't. If your dog attacks someone or another pet, your ass should go to prison. It's so much easier for the feds to just ban a dog breed than create punishments for people who have violent animals. Owning a dog is as much of a responsibility as having children, if you treat them like crap, they are going to be aggressive.

[Themius]

The law makes perfectly sense. It is much harder to ban idiot owners than banning the most dangerous dogs breeds.

Um the most dangerous dog breeds aren't banned though, it's a ignorant list born out of ignorance. No actual authority when it comes to animals, animal behavior and dogs says to ban breeds, they all say to focus on owners and then individual dogs because banning breeds won't solve the problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Umm.....no. It's the dog. It's not the breed, it's the line the dog comes from. Watch this video on domesticating the Silver Fox:



Pits were bred to fight originally. It can very well be an individual dog that is aggressive.......and it can also be the breed in general that still carries the trait. But as you can see from the video, aggressiveness can be bred out of a species.

- - - Updated - - -



This site seems to disagree:

There are other dogs that were bred to fight that aren't banned and are more aggressive than pits...

[Haseth]

Banned breeds are generally breeds that were breed SPECIFICALLY for Fighting or Violence related activities. Pit Bulls are called that because they were bred to be pit fighting dogs. They have a genetic predisposition to violence.

Actually, they were originally bred for work and protection, alongside breeds like the Bull Mastiff and other large "dangerous" breeds. It takes hundreds of years of selective breeding to fundamentally change a dog breed from its intended purpose, and yes, while they are more dangerous in the sense that their jaws and body are more powerful, I know several examples of both breeds who either incredible lazy and relaxed, to the point of letting children climb on them and play with their faces, to the happiest, most exuberant dogs I know.

The problem with this, is that they have a terrible reputation because their protective instincts have been perverted by unscrupulous owners who use them for fighting, or protection during illegal activities. In those cases, it's still not even the dog, or it's breed, because any dog subjected to an environment like that would become dangerous. Any dog can be dangerous given the right circumstances, or wrong ones rather, it has nothing to do with the breed. It's like saying that Mongolians are genetically predisposed to violence because Ghengis Khan conquered the largest contiguous land empire in history. It's ridiculous.

[Lodreh]

...I realise that this is purely anecdotal, but I actually knew a child of close family friends who was killed by a Rottie that everyone who ever met it thought was an angel (6 year old boy, at his cousins' house, went into the back yard where the dog was, and presumably went near the food bowl which instigated the attack)...

So it's presumed... how about we presume that the unsupervised six year old boy poked poor Rottie with a stick a few times and the poor animal lashed out in self defense.

[King Shark]

I'm quite sure the rules for owning a fucking tiger are ridicolous. You can't just walk that around the neighbourhood like a dog.

:P

[Daethz]

Lol people who commit suicide after someone destroys their life, its called return the favor before you exit.

[Deleted]

No it isn't. If your dog attacks someone or another pet, your ass should go to prison. It's so much easier for the feds to just ban a dog breed than create punishments for people who have violent animals. Owning a dog is as much of a responsibility as having children, if you treat them like crap, they are going to be aggressive.

So if your kid kills another kid you should also goto jail, because you didn't supervise 24/7?... Way to go logic!