Valco
Puppy
I saw something last night that really disturbed me, I will explain at the end of this post so it doesn't overtake my actual question. I also posted this here in the controversial thread because I think this topic has the potential to get heated.
In the purest sense of the law, dog bites are usually viewed as "provoked" - meaning someone/thing caused a reactionary bite, or "unprovoked," - meaning the dog bit for no apparent cause or reason. I want to make this as clean as possible (fingers crossed) so I want to remove the BSL element and the breed trait element, as the law (in theory) typically sees a dog as a dog. Also I was hoping to keep it a general discussion, with the dog being just a dog, not APBT or German Shepard or whatever. Because I realize that breed traits often play into opinions on what is acceptable and what is not.
So when is a "provoked" bite not okay?
In Maryland we have a "one bite law," and AC usually views dog bites as "provoked or unprovoked." Depending on the circumstance is how they deal with the dog, assuming there is no prior bite history a "provoked" bite tends to end in quarantine and that's the end of their involvement. The families are left to sort out all the legalities and cost, the end. So that brings me to why I am asking this question; Cesar 911. I turned on my TV last night and it was on (honestly didn't know he was still on TV) and as I was about to change the channel when something the father said to Cesar caught my attention and I had to watch the train wreck. His bulldog had bitten his son on 3 separate occasions, on the 2nd or 3rd bite - I can't be sure because I was too pissed off and it blurred for me, the dog went for the 3 year-olds THROAT. The father wanted to shoot the dog, the mother said no. Even Cesar agreed that going for the throat was serious and with intent to kill. Of course he did his "rehabilitation" crap anyway. I DO NOT agree with letting the dog live, just to make that clear. But my question stems from the hospital stays that the son had, here we have to report all dog bites, so in theory after the 2nd bite AC would have seized the dog. However these parents kept the dog long enough to bite THREE times. Regardless of "provoked" or not, at what point does someone step in and remove the dog? Obviously I blame the humans a bit more than the dog, if I had it my way the animals and child would be rehomed - except for the bulldog, whom I would euthanize.
This caused many arguments at my work today, so I'm interested in your replies.
In the purest sense of the law, dog bites are usually viewed as "provoked" - meaning someone/thing caused a reactionary bite, or "unprovoked," - meaning the dog bit for no apparent cause or reason. I want to make this as clean as possible (fingers crossed) so I want to remove the BSL element and the breed trait element, as the law (in theory) typically sees a dog as a dog. Also I was hoping to keep it a general discussion, with the dog being just a dog, not APBT or German Shepard or whatever. Because I realize that breed traits often play into opinions on what is acceptable and what is not.
So when is a "provoked" bite not okay?
In Maryland we have a "one bite law," and AC usually views dog bites as "provoked or unprovoked." Depending on the circumstance is how they deal with the dog, assuming there is no prior bite history a "provoked" bite tends to end in quarantine and that's the end of their involvement. The families are left to sort out all the legalities and cost, the end. So that brings me to why I am asking this question; Cesar 911. I turned on my TV last night and it was on (honestly didn't know he was still on TV) and as I was about to change the channel when something the father said to Cesar caught my attention and I had to watch the train wreck. His bulldog had bitten his son on 3 separate occasions, on the 2nd or 3rd bite - I can't be sure because I was too pissed off and it blurred for me, the dog went for the 3 year-olds THROAT. The father wanted to shoot the dog, the mother said no. Even Cesar agreed that going for the throat was serious and with intent to kill. Of course he did his "rehabilitation" crap anyway. I DO NOT agree with letting the dog live, just to make that clear. But my question stems from the hospital stays that the son had, here we have to report all dog bites, so in theory after the 2nd bite AC would have seized the dog. However these parents kept the dog long enough to bite THREE times. Regardless of "provoked" or not, at what point does someone step in and remove the dog? Obviously I blame the humans a bit more than the dog, if I had it my way the animals and child would be rehomed - except for the bulldog, whom I would euthanize.
This caused many arguments at my work today, so I'm interested in your replies.
Last edited by a moderator: