Tweet
A no vote from me.
-
-
From a man's perspective; I don't think dogs should be in the daycare environment. While all dogs can snap for whatever reason, a pit bull's bite can be dangerous. Why take the chance of liability? Some stats:
A 9-year (1979–88) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks in which breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (42%). A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds. A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (29%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.
I'm a certified diver. Changes are, I am not going to get bit by a shark. That being said, I make sure I don't swim with sharks.Last edited by Michael; 11-04-2013, 04:26 PM.Comment
-
I have dogs in my daycare home and don't have a problem if my kids daycare home had a dog.
HOWEVER, and a huge however, I have a problem with my daycare home or my kids being around a FOSTER ADOG INA. DAYCARE HOME. there is too much question as to the dogs history.
I know any dog can do any thing, but my dogs are 5 and 6 and I've had them since they were six weeks. Foster dogs have a questionable past. Their behavior and temperament aren't well known,
Seems to me a dog fostering agency has no business being in a daycare home,Comment
-
........
NO THANK YOU TO PITBULLS AROUND DAYCARE KIDS!
Comment
-
First, I never let my dogs around the dck even though they were great dogs and loved kids. The truth is that they are dogs and as such, they are unpredictable.
Second, fostering dogs of any kind can be dangerous. I was active in rescue, and I've seen some scary things, even in dogs we thought were perfect.
Third, my sister has a pit bull that she raised from a tiny puppy. Over the weekend, she attacked the other family dog (one that she has known since puppyhood) and bit my sister (that was an accident, she was aiming for the other dog and my sister got in the way). Sis had to go to the ER, they reported the bite, and now the dog is in quarantine. Since they have no children in the house and had proof of shots, they let her stay on in-home quarantine. They looked through the house and selected a room in the back of the house and said she had to stay in there. She can't be out in the rest of the house and can't go on walks, and she can only go in the backyard supervised on a leash. The animal control has already made one surprise visit to be sure she wasn't out of the room. As much as they love the dog, they may have to have her put down to protect the other dogs in the family. So unpredictable.Comment
-
Owning a dog in a daycare home - fine (and I do)
Fostering dogs in a daycare home within reason - fine (and I do)
Restricting access 100% - necessary (and I do)
All of my fosters are assessed and have far better temperaments than your average house pet.
I'd rather take a "pit bull" foster over most other breeds (if my insurance allowed it). Although they were bred to be aggressive towards other animals their inherent tendency to be marshmallows with people preceeds them. They aren't declared "nanny dogs" for no reason. Their bite force being sky high is a myth. Some studies place them at the bottom of the top 5 or 10, others have declared their psi (pounds per square inch) bearly matches that of a human. The reason they have the notorious reputation they do is because they tend to draw shady owners. It's certainly undeserved. Put any breed of a dog with an unscrupulous human being and there is no doubt the dog will land itself in trouble.
I've stepped into many a shelter dogs kennels. Small breeds are typically the nastiest. Large breeds are the most unpredictable, putting on a good show until you're in strike range. Pulling "pit bulls" from that group they are by far the most honest and predictable in my experience.
I don't care what the breed of dog is, if someone takes a lacksidasical attitude towards dog ownership I wouldn't be leaving my children in that situation. They are super savvy when it comes to animals, but not savvy enough to handle someone elses dog in it's home environment.
No child is.
I don't care how "nice" the owners say it is.
OP - Hopefully the provider is smart enough to keep the dog separated. Aside from that I'm not sure why you think licensing should have a problem with it?Comment
-
No matter what type of dog, it shouldn't be out an about with the kids unless it is a service dog of course. I don't really care what breed it is. One of my best friends lost her son due to a dog attack. He was 4 years old. Our sons were a month apart in age. this was 7 years ago. They were staying with friends and the owners assured her that the dogs were safe and they love kids. One of the dogs just attacked the little boy very quickly. They operated on him overnight, but he died of internal injuries. It was not a Pit Bull. I'm not going to even say what type of dog it was because I don't want to put that breed down, but it was a large dog.
I have a Rat Terrier that I rescued and I LOVE my dog. I sleep with her every night (she likes to be under the covers) and she is like my 3rd child. She has never ever shown any agression but I keep her seperated from the kids at all times because I cannot predict the babies behavior and how she will react to them.
I would be very leary of a daycare that let the dogs just roam around freely with the kids like that. Your friend has every right to be concerned. If it were me, I would pull my child immediately!Comment
-
From a man's perspective; I don't think dogs should be in the daycare environment. While all dogs can snap for whatever reason, a pit bull's bite can be dangerous. Why take the chance of liability? Some stats:
A 9-year (1979–88) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks in which breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (42%). A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds. A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (29%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.
I'm a certified diver. Changes are, I am not going to get bit by a shark. That being said, I make sure I don't swim with sharks.
I understand your concern is a common one, but to compare apples to apples it's only fair to compare those numbers against all breeds.
"Pit bull" is not a breed. It's a lump term to describe a number of breeds and mixed breeds. It's hard to sort out what exactly constitutes a "pit bull" when most people can't correctly identify any breed they're looking at.
Just as Labradors are the number one dog implicated in dog bite incidents, you have to keep that in perspective. It certainly doesn't mean Labradors are disproportionately dangerious, it's just the way the cards fall because more people own Labradors than any other breed.
More information:
Comment
-
Can you provide information supporting your notion that the bite force of a Pit Bull is not dangerous and a myth?
What would you attribute almost 50% of all fatal dog attacks by Pit Bull? That's a very high percentage.
The number one killer is a Rottweiler. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/16/us...tudy-says.html
I would take on a Labrador any day.Last edited by Michael; 11-04-2013, 07:31 PM.Comment
-
Again, "pit bulls" are not a breed. There truly is no such thing. That's why on any credible study done they'll list "pit bull type".....because the breed of dog merely looked like one of any number of breeds people easily associate with the term.
It would be like saying every large black dog is a Labrador. Not an accurate assessment by a long shot of most.
As far as Rottweiler's or "pit bull type" dogs being the number one killers you can't just look at that one piece of the puzzle. Who owns them and why matters just as much as breed does. One could argue that *human beings* as a whole are dangerous if you only consider the stats compiled in inner city Chicago. Does that actually mean we all are? That we could pick it apart further and blame an entire minority? Or are there extenuating circumstances that leads that cluster to end up in more dire straights than others?
All of human kind cannot and should not be judged by a small extremist sampling any more than all of a particular dog breed can or should be judged by a small extremist sampling.
The media has a lot to do with current perceptions. Just as a young, blonde haired, blue eyed, fair skinned missing child will always get more media coverage than a young, black haired, brown eyed dark skinned child - a "pit bull type" dog attacking someone will always get more media coverage than a poodle doing the exact same thing.
"Friendly" breeds attack far more than "pit bull type" dogs do, and most people don't have a clue that that's fact.
Just for fun:
Comment
-
The term 'pit bull' can mean any of the 'bull terrier' type breeds.
I used to work for a pet sitting service and took dogs into my home for pet sitting. This was before my daycare days. I was bitten twice; once by a Staffordshire Terrier-Mix (a bully breed) and once by a Rottweiler.
Because of the structure of the jaws and bodies of these breeds of dogs, they are more dangerous if and when they do attack. That is why we hear more about them, they can cause SERIOUS damage, even kill, if they do attack. Even though other breeds can bite, we rarely hear about a serious 'Dachshund' attack.
Also, there are many good breeders out there that breed 'pit bulls', but there are just as many bad ones. They are often bred to fight, and to be intimidating. It does not mean there are not sweet, loving 'pit bulls' out there, but the odds are too high that something could go wrong IMO.
I personally would not take a chance on owning one and running a daycare. Not worth the risk.
Here is some good info http://www.ask.com/wiki/Pit_bull?o=2...apn&ap=ask.comComment
-
It is total myth that "pit bull type" dogs and Rottweillers have jaws that work any differently than any other breed of dog does and there are loads of breeds who are stronger......which is why you won't see them guarding livestock, doing water and mountain rescue or going in before a law enforcement officer to pursue a suspect.
Idiot owners get them *thinking* they are brutes in mind and body, and the media perpetuates that stereotype. In no way shape or form is it true. Yes they are terriers and along with that comes tenacity, and they were originally bred to do a pretty intense job, but that doesn't have anything to do with their inherent tendency to be GENTLE AS HECK with people.
Most that try to turn "pit bull type" dogs nasty towards humans - fail. And they are no more aggressive towards other animals than any other terrier or guardian type breed is.
That a dog has a tendency to be animal aggressive has nothing to do with a tendency to be aggressive towards people.
The only reason we don't hear about serious Dachshund attacks is because the media would never report such a thing. "Pit bull type" dogs have become like literal monsters. More times than not a dog initially identified in an attack as a "pit bull type" is disproven once the dust settles and you actually get an expert pair of eyes on the animal. I've personally seen it happen near hundreds of times and all of the animal rescue associated people I network with will tell anyone the same.
I have a friend near Seattle who got called to assess a purported "pit bull" dog after an attack. She got there and was shocked to discover it was actually a Briard.........A BRIARD for crimineys sake!!!!!!
Did the media print a retraction or follow up story???
Nope.
And they never do.
Breed mis-identification, misinformation and even politics come into play in regards to the current plight of bully breeds in general.Comment
Comment