According to several reports, the neighbors said these dogs were “kept away from people” which to me either means they knew the dogs were human aggressive, or they were just extremely under-socialized. I don’t believe the people who owned them were training them to fight or guard, but they weren’t the family dogs they were made out to be.
Apparently, from what police have been reported to say, the dogs were not supposed to be indoors. They were being kept outside, away from people, and how they ended up inside is anyone’s guess. I think the people shouldn’t have had dogs at all if they thought keeping them away from people was the right thing to do. Even if they thought they were protecting people from dogs they knew weren’t right, they were still in the wrong. They should have had the dogs euthanized if they were aggressive towards people. If they were just keeping them away from people because they were lazy or preferred having a lawn ornament, or the dogs got big and they didn’t want to deal with them anymore, they were being extremely irresponsible with them.
Here’s a comment made by a neighbor on one of the news sites:
“These dogs had horrible temperaments. They NEVER should have been bred. This shouldn’t become a pit bull thing. Those dogs were treated like garbage, and acted how they were kept.
Posted by: Leesburg local | August 12, 2009 at 12:21 AM “
Dogs form packs, and if they were a breeding pair, that makes it that much worse that the dogs weren’t cared for properly. The majority of deaths involve intact dogs, and the likelihood that aggressive behavior will be present is multiplied if the female is in heat or the dogs are around the scent.
Dogs don’t have to be trained or bred for aggression to be involved in accidents like this. Other breeds that have killed people have been considered rarities, or people make excuses for them, saying they were somehow provoked. Either way, it is unacceptable, regardless of how the dog views it. The fact is, dog bite related fatalities are extremely rare in the first place. Considering the population of these dogs right now and the fact that the average number of fatalities has not risen since they became popular (some years are worse than others but overall there has not been an increase on average since the numbers have been compiled), it seems likely that if they are banned, the average will continue to stay the same, as it was before they came along.
Calgary’s laws have been the only success in taking down dog attack numbers, and they didn’t ban any breeds. The cities, states, and countries that have banned breeds and bothered to study the results have found that either the numbers stay the same or rise. Calgary works because they address the responsibility of the owners.
Thanks for your reply. But reading the information leaves too much unanswered. The next-to-the-last paragraph is too open to deliver solid information.
What I thought earlier was that these dogs were to be treated like loaded guns. I see more reason for that than not. I have had golden retreivers, a couple of Heinz 57’s, a German Shepherd and many cats; never got the pit bull thing. There are too many other breeds that can be “loveable.” Why take the risk?