My answer to your question: YES!

You can read the full story by clicking here ------->  Are we pussycats when it comes to bad dogs?

Animal control should be allowed to take irresponsible pet owners to the pound.

Absolutely not. A "Zero tolerance" policy for any issue only leads to bad, knee-jerk decisions where the wrong people inevitably get hurt in the process.

How about, "Should Kern County figure out a way to evaluate dog attack cases quickly, and on a case-by-case basis, to insure a thoughtful resolution, possibly through the creation of a panel to oversee cases of this nature?"

And before I hear the inevitable "when it happens to you, you'll change your mind" --- It has happened to me.

given the nature of the beast (pitbulls) i say yes..as for other dogs a case by case should be considered..people know the potential for owning a pit..they accept that responsibilty when they allow them in their home..hopefully a law like this would make a pit owner go that extra mile to ensure that dog is trained properly..or dont own one..

There should be zero tolerance for dog attacks, as well as restrictions on placing dangerous dogs in family neighborhoods.

In Massachusetts there is the case of Nutt v. Florio, the MA Appeals Court has ruled that where the dog at issue was a pit bull, the issue of the landlord's negligence may go to the jury for a determination of whether or not "the dog had dangerous propensities. 

In effect the court is saying that is a pit bull is involved, you don't necessarily have to show the dog attacked in the past. This will be interesting to follow.

Yes. It is irresponsible for anyone to own a dog who has aggressive tendencies. There are plenty of dogs with nice dispositions out there. A dog is not worth a person's well being or the life of another nice dog. I have a golden retriever and a jack russell and if either one of them showed aggressive tendencies off to the pound for an eternal sleep for them.

I also think it should be on a case by case basis.I think it is so sad that so many people and animals have to be injured or killed before SOMETHING is done.One bite shame on you for not controlling your animal. TWO BITES doggie heaven/or hell. I do not, nor will I EVER own a pit bull. But I do own a mastiff. And the key is to socialize them.If you own what is considered to be a "bad" breed,then you darn well better be able to control the "beast".

And the B.S. about animal control having to see the attack .....it is just that B.S., They are NEVER there. And if you call them they will not be there for HOURS.

I had a chow/sheperd mix a while back and she was the best dog in the world. She even jumped in front of me to protect me from a rattle snake. She was 13 when she bite the nextdoor neighbors daughter. A child she had known for years. I do not know if she was going blind or what the problem was. I put her on the backyard and once again she growled at another child she knew. Both were within one week. The next Monday without hesitation my beloved dog was put to sleep in my arms. It is sad but you cannot own a dog that will bite. No matter how much you love them.

Most worthless piece of !@#$ dogs Ive ever seen, The the only thing they are good for is hurting/killing people. Juice ever frickin one of them, no questions asked.

shy-shy~we once had a golden/chow mix who showed aggressive tendencies as a puppy. I worked with him for 2 months to no avail and my dog trainer friend said his disposition would not change. I took him to the pound only to find out that the entire litter had been put down for the same reason. it was very sad~he was an adorable looking dog.

Zero tolerance means zero tolerance, wish they had it in effect when I got bit, put EVERY dog down that bites regardless of breed regardless of circumstance. I can see the fires burning now from burning the bodies of all those dogs that bite, from toy breeds up to the biggest dogs, from the one time biters to the habitual biters. Gotta love the knee-jerk fixes for the problems 

My stepmother's dog bit my child when she was 4~she did nothing until it bit her grandchild~then the dog was put to sleep. dogs are only as mean as the people who own them.

The problem I see with this zero tolerance policy is that it is aimed specifically at pit bulls in the short term due to the high frequency of unprovoked pit bull attacks in Kern County.  But what about the other breeds where there can be cases of aggression where it stems from guarding an object such as food, or stemming from fear?  Banning pit bulls would seem like a more logic solution than the zero tolerance policy.

Even so, this solution is aimed at the wrong side of the system, where the city and county need to do more in enforcing the existing dog laws and helping the public educate about responsible pet ownership.  It would be better to solve the underlying problem of pet overpopulation and letting dogs run wild in neighborhoods: irrresponsible pet ownership. 

BTW, I read some of the responses about putting down a dog if it bit a human.

I'll just add that there more than 5 classifications of aggression and not all of them mean they are malicious or killing machines like pit bulls.  I once knew of a dog who had poor bite inhibition who loves to mouth and at times, will bite out of fear when its human owner was clueless about what he was doing to provoke his dog.  Long story short, the owner taught bite inhibition in keeping the jaw pressure "in check" to decrease chances of breaking the human skin.  And the other avoided situation where dogs would get into the defense mode out of fear.

To those that are dog owners, how many have you have taught bite inhibition when it was a puppy and continued to keep it in check throughout the dog's life? 

The issue is more complex than the comments.  There are more pit bulls being adopted than any other breed, as there are more pit bulls available for adoption.

Many of the stories involving pit bulls, do not state that the dogs were "rescued" and placed.  This is a good starting point.  Talk about rehabilitation, etc., most facilities are not equipped for the intense skill and expense associated with truly rehabilitating a pit bull.

The lives of my children and I were in danger.  If you told me I could suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and lose my job, nearly my house and everything I would have told you "no way".  The dog that attacked Maxx, lived in our upscale neighborhood for one week!  Maxx was dragged over 50 feet, he lost a leg, shoulder, has metal plates implanted in his jaw and his ear was reattached.  My five year old son was inches away from Maxx, when Maxx was torn from the leash I was holding.  I tried to help Maxx and I could not.  Oh my god, these rescued dogs do not belong in family neighborhoods.

The tenants of the house have not offered to help with the 20,000 dollars in Maxx's hospital bills.  We are thankful Maxx survived. I waited 11 months until I went for treatment, so basically I was in shock (freeze for over a year)..... this story should be shared.  Dangerous dogs do not belong in family neighborhoods, period.  

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder  is real, and not just associated with war. 

I think we need to make the distinction between a bite and an attack.

We've all seen dogs, especially excitable young ones, that jump and nip, or turn and bite the hand that feeds them. I'm no expert, but I wouldn't call that aggression. I'd call it lack of control and training.

It's typically a quick, non-serious bite, with no continuing aggression, no tearing or ripping. And if that happens on the dog owner's property, it's not very consequential.

Dog ATTACKS, against people or other pets -- that's another category entirely.

I told this story on another dog blog and I'll tell it again here.

My daughter's cat was killed by two roaming dogs. My grandkids saw it. Animal control and the police did nothing.

Months later, the two dogs died in their yard from eating poisoned meat that someone had thrown over the fence.

Sad.

  I hate it when that sorta thing happens .

--virgil

Bastards !

--virgil

Like Bakoblue, I find "zero tolerance" policies to be too inflexible to circumstances. The case outlined has circumstances where the dog should be declared dangerous since it broke into another yard in order to attack a dog. But saying every time a pit bull bites something, it should be put down is a bit much. What if it bites to protect its owner from a mugger? A zero tolerance policy would still put that animal to sleep. That's the problem with zero tolerance policies, they have no human decision factor.

Our current problem comes from lack of human decisions. They say "the rule is the dog must attack two animals before it's declared dangerous" and they don't evaluate the circumstances. But the response shouldn't be to change the rule to zero tolerance. The response should be "stop thinking by-the-book and start evaluating the circumstances behind each attack". That's why I agree with Bakoblue that we need an Animal Control review panel that evaluates each reported case and applies human reasoning to determine if the dog is dangerous.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."

Saying that one dog species is more violent than the other is the same as saying one human race is more susceptible to crime as another.

Take into consideration that people who have pits in the majority use them for what they are most worth. Fighting!

Same as people who are labeled as minority, take to the life of crime because it was what their situation surrounded them in.

In no means am I labeling one race or the other as minority. I think in this last years count Spanish descents where prominent more than any other. Simply stating that it is circumstance more than breed that marks a soul for what it will do.

Amy, do you know what pits were originally bred for?  Over time people have bred dogs for specific tendencies..that's how they get the breeds they want for specific tasks.

Have you ever watched the herding breed of dogs in action?  From pups they take to it like water.  Have you ever seen a rancher use a Pit for a herding dog?  A Beagle? A Poodle?

There are throwbacks and exceptions in every breed but the generalities are there.  One exception for me was a Blue Heeler who was the laziest dog on the planet.  When we were working cattle he'd jump in the back of the truck and take a nap.  On the other hand, he was a great companion for my dad who was a double amputee and couldn't get around at the ranch.

As for comparing dogs to the human race...that's about as far a stretch as you could possibly make.

In this specific case cited in the article, yes I believe that dog should have been put down immediately. And I agree with Steven that there is a marked difference between "bite" and "attack." I'm not sure how a zero-tolerance policy could be enforced, nor do I think that a panel to review such incidents on a case-by-case basis is realistic. It comes down to the owners, pure and simple. Frankly, I would question the judgment of any dog owner who would continue to harbor a vicious animal.

Somewhat off-topic, but I'm including a link to the Diane Whipple case for those who might be interested. I lived in San Jose when this horrific mauling happened and it was HUGE news up there; not sure to what extent it was covered nationally. It's a long read but definitely worth it. 

www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/Whipple.html

I'm just taking a shot in the dark here but three dogs ripping at a man is a bit more than a "bite."  

The thing that got me, aside form the violence of the attack, was the bozo taking pictures while saying the man needed help.  I guess he thought shooting them with a camera would do the trick.

The dogs are a menace, the man entering the yard with menacing dogs is an idiot and the camera guy was useless.

Where are Apollo and Zeus when you need them?

Another link to the Whipple case ... this one much shorter. www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi

There should be laws against pet owners that can't keep track of their dogs.  Period.

"The dogs are a menace, the man entering the yard with menacing dogs is an idiot and the camera guy was useless."

Wouldn't the IDIOT that went into the yard after being told not to be just as much of an idiot as the cameraman? I mean after all he was told not to go in, same thing as telling someone don't go play on the freeway, if you do it anyway you are an idiot. It's time people take responsibility for their actions.

I can't wait til someone has their dog in a dogrun & it bites someone, the way most are talking here you'd have to say put the dog down REGARDLESS of breed.

As for the example in this thread, if ANY dog gets loose & breaks thru a persons gate & attacks, my vote is kill it, doesn't matter if its a pit or a sheltie. Our dog was attacked thru the fence by a neighbors dog when it was a puppy, ripped out a tooth & punctured it's nose, only reason that Jack Russell isn't dead is because I couldn't find the ammo for the 9mm. My dog was in my backyard & the neighbors jack Russell got it's head thru a hole it dug under the fence, of course the cops wouldn't do anything or even show for that matter. That Jack Russell got chewed up while on a walk by a pit a few months later, karma is GREAT!!!!

what about a ban on certain breeds of dog in heavily populated areas? own a pit bull? not in bakersfield proper. have to move to the boonies for that. seems like a simple enough solution. there's a reason why folks can't keep a bear, mountain lion, wolf, etc at their homes. they're incredibly powerful creatures with the power to kill humans and other animals with ease. so why should pit bulls be allowed?

as a dog attack victim by a pit bull,  my answer would be yes. i shot the dog that attacked me, so animal control didn't have a chance to do nothing. for fairness of dog owners i would say a case by case basisi would be the best answer. if the attacking dog gets into the victims back yard it sould be called dangerous and put down. if both dogs are off the leash it needs to be figuered out by an investigation. any dog that attacks a person while the dog IS NOT IN the owners FENCED yard THAT HAS A LOCKED GATE, the dog needs to be put down.  

I was attacked by a pit as well so i think yes as well. Krkayaker has a good point when a dog attacks a person and its not on a persons yard that has a locked gated fence, the dog should be put down, but if its on the owners property and the owner does have a locked gate but by accidentally the dog gets out and attacks you then the dog should just be put under observation and then let go after it has been observed in case it has rabies or something. Mistakes do sometimes happen so we have to use common sense and be careful. Also sometimes it will be the owners fault as well so if that's the case then the owner should pay a fine because if we want a pet we have to take some responsibility and train our dogs right.

Dogs are not people and the comparison is not relevant.  Dogs can be bred for specific purposes and they do not possess free will. I would much rather be bitten by a Yorkshire Terrier than a pit bull.  Just looking at pit bulls and Jack Russell Terriers, you can see the width of their mouths are very wide. 

Pit bull owners do not necessarily feel a pit bull should be compared to a Presa Carnario........ but yet they are willing to compare a pit bull and a Yorkshire Terrier when discussing dog bites.

Actually in the past Maxx was bitten by a West Highland Terrier (off leash) and by a Border Collie (off leash).  There was no real damage, and the owners were apologetic. 

The statement about an attack and a bite are different, determining zero tolerance may be complex in some cases and in other cases very straight forward.

The ACO did not pick up the dog that attacked Maxx.  Although the State Police contacted the ACO, as the owners wanted the dog removed from the home.  The dog was placed for adoption for the fourth time by the agency.  Through my effort, I contacted the State DEP, the Attorney General, I was committed to ensuring this dog was not placed again. The dog was finally euthanized as he was a threat to society.  Although to this date, the agency stated the story about the attack is not true, they should accept the ultimate responsibility.  In fact they are the responsible party for continuing to place  dangerous dogs.  Placing dangerous dogs at any cost is insane.  People should come first, and the emphasis on placing all dogs in a home is wrong.

There need to be laws to have dog owners responsible for injuries to people, dogs, property, mental anguish etc.  We are working with our State Senator to have a bill passed for this purpose.

Somewhere people have decided to replace human relationships with dogs, and the commitment to their dogs is over the top.  To watch people push dog strollers with dogs in clothing makes me feel something is missing....somewhere, and this is not judgmental, my point is as a society we are placing dogs before people.

Saint Francis of Assisi's prayer says it all.

simple fix for a biting dog

You are right max, i totally agree, a person should never put any animal before any person.

I certainly agree about dressing dogs in clothing (other than something to keep them warm on a walk) and pushing them in strollers.  Is there a point to exercising your dog if it's in a stroller?  I love my dogs too but they are dogs.  Pets. Animals.  They are NOT children.

I also agree that comparing a Westie bite to a Pit bite is insane.  I'd have to see numbers on how many people died from a Chihuahua attack before I buy into that comparison..

I do not post much but I have been in the animal field for all of my adult life and have been around thousands of dogs of all breeds. I have no more fear of a pibull than I do of a cocker spaniel, each and every dog is capable of biting and each dog must be approached with that in mind. I thought I would post a couple of videos and an article from Newsweek to show the other side.

www.thedogfiles.com/2009/11/05/three-pit-bull-vid eos/

www.newsweek.com/id/220497/page/1

No, I do not own an APBT and I also think that the gentleman who was bitten was an adult man who made his own choices that day.

If a dog is a danger, get rid of it, period. It is an animal, nothing more.

Khale, at the rist of repeating myself, I'm goinf to repeat myself.  Note the emphasis on the last sentence.

"I also agree that comparing a Westie bite to a Pit bite is insane.  I'd have to see numbers on how many people died from a Chihuahua attack before I buy into that comparison.."

A dog who attacks once will do it again given the chance.  I say "Yes" --- Zero tolerance.  One attack is enough to prove a dog's inclination.  Especially one that breaks through a fence to attack.  Owners who allow their dogs to run loose in a neighborhood should be fined big dollars.  We had a dog running loose in our La Cresta neighborhood at night a few months ago.  We had 2 cats killed in our front yard, and 2 others mauled.  We never did see the dog, but the Veterinarian verified that a dog's teeth did the damage to their bodies. 

One other thing....there are many cities and counties in the US that have a policy.  Any pit that comes into the shelter is put down.  Period.  No adoptions, no placements.  They base it on the number of attacks and bites related directly to the breed.  Why take chances?  It's beyond me how people take these dogs into their homes with little kids around.  Playing with fire is what I think.

To khale, I am not sure your point is understood.  Looking at the videos, it is easy to see the life of the pit bulls appear to be surrounded by violence, even to see a loving family pet with a huge liked chain to hold him back is not comforting.  The Newsweek article clearly shows pit bulls need special handlers.

People with good intentions are being impacted.  Maxx's leg and shoulder were adventually amputated after he was attacked by a pit bull.  Maxx and his litter sister will be turning 13 years old on November 26th, Maxx is amazing.

I don't have an answer, but there is a problem with placing pit bulls in family neighborhoods.

IMHO, defining what is considered an attack would be difficult.  An attacking dog will still use its sharp teeth to bite. 

What it really boils down to is the severity of the bite inflicted on the victim and the dog's reason for doing so.  Perhaps we should have a zero tolerance on vicious and dangerous dogs.  The www.dogbitelaw.com website provided by Vanity goes into details about the topic discussion.

A small toy dog may use all its strength to attack a human but likely won't break the skin.  But consider a much larger dog, the result can be disastrous.

I found this very enlightening on the subject of agressive dogs

http://www.edgarsnyder.com/...

Blacklisted dogs:  Akitas, Dobermans, pit bulls, Malamutes, shepards, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Boxers, Golden Retrievers, Rotts, Bull Mastiffs, Great Danes, Schipperkes, Chihuahaus, jack russells, shar-peis, chows, labs, huskies, dachshunds, presa canarious & wolf hybrids.  

I'm game to ban all these breeds, if some insurance companies add to the price of insurance over these dogs BAN THEM ALL!

The problem with zero tolerance is exactly one of defintion. How do you define attack? Just where should the line be drawn between nipping and biting? There's too many variables to condense down to a simple zero tolerance rule. Just look at schools with "zero tolerance on weapons" who kick a kid out for bringing a camping utensil to school. Zero tolerance causes as many problems as it solves. There are fare saner and more effective solutions to the problem, some of which have already been posted on this thread.