You must log in or register to comment.

imankiar t1_iy625j7 wrote

If the dog had died from abuse or some other form of neglect and torture there would be uproar. But an elderly woman was attacked and died and not even a misdemeanor charge??


suz_gee t1_iy65mza wrote

Leash. Your. Fucking. Dogs.


10000Didgeridoos t1_iy73xeb wrote

I don't even see why we bother having a leash law on the books if you can get away with walking an unleashed dog which kills someone's grandma.

Like if that doesn't get you a fine and prosecuted then wtf does?


AphidGenocide OP t1_iy5ebup wrote

The RVA Attorney said based on the investigation no further charges are appropriate.

Obviously I don't know any details, but without more explanation, I think this is a bad look for Commonwealth Attorney Colette McEachin.


spaceforcefighter t1_iy5m3sm wrote

Read the article and you will know the details and understand why criminal charges were not pursued, then you won’t need to criticize based on nothing. Maybe you’ll still disagree with the decision, but you’ll have some information.


notnot_athrowaway t1_iy5nxxj wrote

The article doesn't state why criminal charges aren't being pursued, it just says the owner was issued five summonses for civil infractions.


AphidGenocide OP t1_iy5y2sn wrote

Lol Colette is that you? If you didn't want people to criticize you, then you shouldn't have been the Commonwealth Attorney.

I clearly read (and quoted) the article I posted... There were no details of why charges were declined.

The dog was already using a shock collar, and it was unrestrained. That's all the information I really have.

If Commonwealth Attorney Colette McEachin wants to be more transparent, maybe I'd agree it was not appropriate to charge Tracey Hicks. Given the lack of transparency already, I highly doubt it.


EJH-RVA t1_iy5mud9 wrote

I read the article and still do not understand why she declined to charge the dog’s owner. Someone is dead now as a direct result of the owner’s choices and actions. Had she chosen a normal breed of dog, her neighbor would be alive right now. The dangers of pit bulls are statistically predictable, so why should there be no accountability when the consequences are deadly? Mrs. Brooks didn’t choose for her neighbor to bring a pit bull into the neighborhood, yet she paid the ultimate price for it. How is that fair?


rvasatxguy t1_iy5uq73 wrote

Yes I agree. Those are some eye opening statistics. I believe pit bulls make up 7-8% of the total US dog population yet they account for up to 69-70% of fatalities caused by dogs. This owner facing no charges for her dog causing this poor lady’s death is shocking.

Also that shock collar probably agitated that dog more so I’m not sure how that was supposed to act as a deterrent.


stinkemrpink t1_iy8el2z wrote

That’s not true, “pits” are one of the most common dog breeds in America and Labrador Retrievers and German Shepherds are statistically more aggressive than pit bulls.


Diet_Coke t1_iy5nh3x wrote

That's just not how the law works, the owner was summoned, charged with the actual crimes she committed, and the dog was euthanized.

I'm curious when you say that "the dangers of pit bulls are statistically predictable" - what statistics are you referencing?


BurkeyTurger t1_iy5rlqy wrote

Slight pedantic correction: She was charged with what the CA felt like pursuing.

A CA charging or declining to charge someone for something does not mean they did or did not violate a particular section of Code.


EJH-RVA t1_iy5zqqz wrote

I think you know exactly what I mean when I say this was statistically predictable. If the woman had almost any other breed of dog, this wouldn’t have happened. But she had a pit bull and now someone is dead as a result.


Diet_Coke t1_iy62459 wrote

I don't know what you mean, that's why I asked. It just seems like one of those things everyone "just knows" but can't provide any kind of reputable source for. It's not like pitbulls are the only breed of dog capable of killing someone, if she had a mastiff, great Dane, cane Corso, German shepherd, rottweiler, doberman pinscher, etc etc etc with the likely history of trauma this pitbull had, someone would still be dead.


EJH-RVA t1_iy62kqr wrote

Those breeds are why I said almost any other breed. Pit bulls are responsible for more human fatalities and serious injuries from dog attacks than all other breeds combined. When these things happen, it’s almost always a pit bull. They shouldn’t be allowed in neighborhoods.


Diet_Coke t1_iy638w3 wrote

Yeah sure, other than basically any breed of dog that gets to be over 50 lbs, or a particularly ornery 30 lb dog, no other breed of dog than pitbull could have killed someone.

>Pit bulls are responsible for more human fatalities and serious injuries from dog attacks than all other breeds combined.

Where does that information come from?


rvasatxguy t1_iy64nex wrote

This is just one quick snapshot. Otherwise tons of similar info on google. If you see one with Pit Bulls not at the top of the list and at the bottom, it’s probably because its for breeds least likely to not kill a human.


Diet_Coke t1_iy65q3a wrote

Source: dogbites dot org - tells you everything you need to know.

In her book Pit Bull: The Battle over an American Icon, author Bronwen Dickey writes that accuses several organizations of being "co-opted by the 'pit bull lobby', a shady cabal that supporters of the site imply is financed by dogfighters."[14] In an interview with Psychology Today, Dickey says "The site's founder is also contemptuous of people in the relevant sciences, including those at the AVMA, the CDC, the Animal Behavior Society, etc. She refers to them as 'science whores,' which alone is enough to discredit her claims."[15]

In an article in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, R. Scott Nolen states that "'s claim that pit bull–type dogs were responsible for 65 percent of the deaths during that 12-year period (2005-2016) is disputed by some groups as inaccurate and misleading. The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, for example, says identifying a dog's breed accurately is difficult, even for professionals, and visual recognition is known to not always be reliable."[2]

Radio Canada accused of being critical of scientific experts and of using the term "science whore". Colleen Lynn, the site's founder, responded by saying that the term does not come from her[16] and that it has only been used three times since the creation of the site in 2007.[17] Radio Canada also criticized for counting as a death caused by pit bulls the death of a man who died in 2007 from atherosclerosis and problems with alcohol four months after he was severely injured by pit bulls.[18][17]


rvasatxguy t1_iy67p4r wrote

They do have their detractors, but even still, stats consistently list pit bulls at the top, & sad head lines like this one almost always involve pit bulls. Not always, but most of the time and that correlates with many of the results of the studies that are done.


Diet_Coke t1_iy68uzm wrote

They have their detractors because it's a website run by someone with an axe to grind who has no background in statistics. Do we even have to go over why 'it matches the headlines' is a poor argument and open to so many different sources of bias?

Go to

And look at 2022

And you will see that yes, there are pitbulls and mixes but there are plenty of other breeds as well as dog packs and unknown breeds. You will also see that pitbulls and pitbull mixes aren't the majority, and that is despite there being way more pitbulls than almost any other breed on there.


rvasatxguy t1_iy6af8p wrote

I think they have an axe to grind because of tragedies like this one. And this comes on the heels of those little kids in TN getting mauled to death by the family pit bulls two months ago. So yeah people can always split hairs on these studies but this breed is always doing real damage. Other breeds can nip and bite and they do, but mauling is another story.


Diet_Coke t1_iy6b6vx wrote

They actually have an axe to grind because they were mauled by a pitbull. Their own trauma is being expressed through violence on a mass scale because they advocate breed bans. Kind of ironic in a way.

Please note, you're throwing around the word 'studies' but haven't shared anything except for a website run by someone with no background in statistics. If you wanted to look at statistics on race and crime in humans, would you start on a neo-nazi website?


rvasatxguy t1_iy6emt1 wrote

I mean something tells me you’re gonna keep refuting it. But charts/studies like this are all over. Then the headlines come out. And sometimes it’s a labrador or a german shepherd. They’re also on the chart. I don’t think its even close.


oh_hello_rva t1_iy7y0bs wrote

A+, u/rvasatxguy.

If anybody's genuinely curious about DogsBite and any of the other statistics, simply go to the site and follow the links to local news stories. See if you think they're all a hoax, or just regular local journalism about deaths in their communities. Follow up and send questions to them if you want to.


rvasatxguy t1_iy9fbip wrote

Yeah that site has all the links to dog related maulings. Crazy how many of those are pit bulls. Those dogs do more damage than most other breeds.


Diet_Coke t1_iy87ybb wrote

My dude, I literally handed you a refutation on a silver platter. Look at the wikipedia link. All you have to do is scroll down, there's a column for breed. Anyone with MS Paint can make a bar graph, it is just not a source. The source on yours, Animals 24-7, looks like an alarmist publication, go to their website and the literal first story is "“We can’t live like this in a world where dogs eat children”. Come the fuck on.

Here's one issue with relying on media reports as a source: dog breeds are highly likely to be misclassified. If a boxer attacks someone and a bystander thinks it was a pitbull, that is going to get reported as a pitbull attack. The CDC stopped collecting dog breed information in bite statistics because it is so difficult to accurately classify.


EJH-RVA t1_iy63wcr wrote

If you want to research, is a great place to start.


Diet_Coke t1_iy647zs wrote was started by someone with an axe to grind and frequently publishes misleading and incorrect information, you should look into them more. That's like starting on Breitbart to get an idea of crime statistics.


EJH-RVA t1_iy64z5j wrote

That’s not at all true, but it’s a common claim in the pro-pit bull community. Every instance they report is sourced and includes linked articles. You should check your facts before spreading lies and mis-information. The fact remains, someone is dead because her neighbor owned a pit bull who mauled her. It was a pit bull because it’s almost always a pit bull. Full stop.


Diet_Coke t1_iy65dhm wrote

I'm not the pro-pit bull community, I'm just a person who knows what logical fallacies are. For example, even if is 100% reliable and factual (even though they're not and all you have to do is look at their Wikipedia page) all they're doing is passing on media reports which are rife with their own issues. Do you seriously think they're getting a DNA test on every dog bite they report?


EJH-RVA t1_iy6686p wrote

Your comment speculating about the pit bull’s “likely history of trauma” suggests otherwise.

I judge a site by their content, not their Wikipedia page.


Diet_Coke t1_iy66pjs wrote

Yes, it's a fact that pitbulls and pitbull mixes have been done dirty by humans. There are a ton of them in shelters, and shelters aren't a good environment for dogs to be in. That a dog of any kind that wasn't specifically trained as a guard dog viciously attacks anyone is a sign of trauma.

You're not judging the site at all, as a matter of fact. Judging implies some level of critical thinking. You're just accepting it as truth without critical thinking being involved. Here's an obvious question you haven't thought to ask before advocating for the murder of people's pets: what kind of background in statistics does the owner of dogsbite dot org have?


EJH-RVA t1_iy67f62 wrote

So the two pit bulls who were purchased as 8-week old puppies, were raised as family dogs and then mauled and killed their owners two babies recently in Tenn., what trauma caused them to do that?


Diet_Coke t1_iy67how wrote

What's the difference between an anecdote and data?

This 8 year old was severely mauled by a Labrador a couple months ago (source) - are labradors mindless killing machines?


EJH-RVA t1_iy67saw wrote

OK, I’m done here. It was a pit bull. Because it’s almost always a pit bull. Your distraction deflection attempts won’t ever change that.


Diet_Coke t1_iy68au5 wrote

It's like they say, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - and you have not arrived at your conclusions by way of reason.


EJH-RVA t1_iy68sry wrote

Except she was mauled by a pit bull. I’m not sure what you’re debating here. Are you suggesting it was actually a golden doodle?


Diet_Coke t1_iy696fb wrote

Same dog, same circumstances in life, but as a golden doodle instead of a pitbull? Yeah sure, it absolutely could have been. There's nothing about pitbulls as a breed that makes them more likely than any other breed to attack anyone. It comes down to the individual dog.


EJH-RVA t1_iy69c7g wrote

Except it’s almost always a pit bull. Statistics.


Diet_Coke t1_iy6blst wrote

Except it's very clearly not and you've repeatedly failed to provide a decent source on that. I'm glad you know the word statistics, now go learn the words bias and fallacy.


LastCallBee t1_iy8bj4u wrote

Is this not correct?

I’d love to be an apologist for pitbulls but I don’t ever see it happening. They are objectively more dangerous animals to own for both owners and other people. Talk all this game about bias and fallacy and provide 0 sources.

I feel like there are just as many bullshit pit lover studies as there may be skewed pit hater studies regardless. I found a lot of both.


Diet_Coke t1_iy8d4xr wrote

The first one looks like garbage, its first citation is a YouGov online poll and then it has several citations of the publisher of Animals 24-7.

Hard to assess how good the second one is because it is a meta study and so it's not super easy to dig into the methodology. I believe any study that's looking at reported breeds is open to error as pitbulls are the most likely breed to be misidentified.

>Talk all this game about bias and fallacy and provide 0 sources.

I have repeatedly linked this wikipedia list of dog bite fatalities in this thread, you can look at it yourself and see that while there are pitbulls and pitbull mixes, they are not even close to the majority of cases despite being much more prevalent than many of the other dogs on there.


Poopforce1s t1_iy9gijo wrote

"During the 15-year period of 2005 to 2019, canines killed 521 Americans. Two dog breeds, pit bulls (346) and rottweilers (51), contributed to 76% (397) of these deaths. 35 different dog breeds were involved in the remaining fatal dog maulings"


Diet_Coke t1_iy9id1p wrote

Please read the rest of this thread for more information on dogsbite dot org, both other commenters have cited them and the issues with them have been well discussed.

It's not a good source, it's basically the same as referencing Alex Jones to prove that Sandy Hook was a hoax.


ArgoCS t1_iy5esog wrote

I have to admit to knowing next to nothing about the laws surrounding this but how is that possible? If someone’s dog kills a person, I would expect there to be criminal repercussions.


BurkeyTurger t1_iy5pxvt wrote

From what I gather the CA is going along with the story that the dog/owner got startled and was supposedly protecting the owner.

Which to me is bullshit, if you can't control your dog you have out in public off leash from killing someone in their own yard because they said hi to you then you should be getting involuntary manslaughter charges.

Hopefully there will be a civil suit.


LionOver t1_iy5rby1 wrote

Walking a pit off leash is terrifying. What if a runner had turned a corner and "startled" the dog?


BurkeyTurger t1_iy5stkq wrote

Apparently you get an unleashed dog ticket.


LionOver t1_iy5ygej wrote

Also feels like ignorance is a defense here and shouldn't be. Just because she thought her shock collar would disable the dog and was super wrong about that doesn't mean that she isn't criminally negligent.


Antique-Zucchini3250 t1_iy8bl7q wrote

If a dog can be startled by a grandma, they are not safe to be outside. They need to be muzzled and leashed.


szabo22 t1_iy5vq6k wrote

I think at least there should've been something more for not leashing the dog.


heysarahray t1_iy6l2ic wrote

Ummmmm I had a dog that was on a leash, the leash broke, he ran at and mauled and killed another dog, and I got a misdemeanor… what the what


CoffeexCup t1_iy5ih22 wrote

This article is confusing. The title says “no criminal charges” then the first line says “any further charges” it sounds like she was issued five tickets from the incident and her dog was euthanized.

“Hicks was issued five summonses, including having a dog with no current rabies vaccination and having the dog unrestrained. The Commonwealth Attorney said she’s been fully cooperative during the investigation.”

I’m assuming she has to face a judge for these summons and they aren’t being dropped? We love NBC12’s reporting.


TGIIR t1_iy6535n wrote

Wow no rabies vaccination? And walking this dog around without a leash? Shock collars be damned as well as electric fences. A dog trainer to,d me if the dog is motivated enough it’ll take the shock.


Otter_Than_That t1_iy69tns wrote

A family member had an invisible fence around their yard at their farm to keep the dogs from going certain places. Their one lab would just ignore the shock and go wherever they wanted.


AphidGenocide OP t1_iy5j9w6 wrote

I saw another article that said the same thing. I'm guessing those don't count as criminal charges and are more like parking tickets? That's just a guess.

Again I don't know anything about this situation, but small citations do not seem sufficient for a woman being mauled to death.


FlexRVA21984 t1_iy6bcua wrote

This is insane! The dog was not on a leash, and it killed someone! The bed of dog is irrelevant. I don’t give af if this was a fucking chihuahua, there should be criminal charges pressed in this case! What COULD have led to charges? Would the owner have to intentionally sic their pet on someone?! This is truly unacceptable.

I will not be supporting the CA in future elections, if this is how they handle a clear case of negligent homicide. The owner clearly did not have control over their dog, as evidenced by their story that they had to strike the dog to get it off.


Professional-Quiet15 t1_iy5qaja wrote

That dog should have had a muzzle. Pit bulls are unreliable, any large dog can be triggered and owners need to be accountable for it. Pittie breeds have a bad name because statistically they are more prone to attack. What other breed do you hear about with any regularity, attacking and mauling humans and other animals? 88 year old woman lost her life because someone thought they didn't have to make the effort.


AlphaStrike89 t1_iy8clg3 wrote

Not the dogs fault, they get a bad wrap from shitty owners, too many people who get them put this into them. It's not innate to them. Pits are some of the best family and child friendly dogs there are.


PickanickBasket t1_iy5yxt8 wrote

Pit bulls are strong, so when they do attack they cause enough damage to make the news. They are no less or more likely to do so than any other breed. They just happen to be extremely efficient at our when they do attack.

Summary- all dogs need to be trained and leashed in any situation when they could be startled or triggered in some way.


xDocFearx t1_iy6op8q wrote

There are so many dogs that are just as suitable to killing humans as pits yet they don’t. The breed has a tendency towards violence and it’s ridiculous that people keep saying “it’s not the breed”. It definitely is, there are personality traits of different breeds all through the animal kingdom. People like to think their pets are different because they live with and love them.


stinkemrpink t1_iy8ezdg wrote

That’s not true, bully breeds are bred to be docile towards humans and German shepherds, Labrador retrievers, and Dobermans are statistically more likely to be aggressive than a “pit” is


xDocFearx t1_iy8i2du wrote

…….statistically there are more bites from labs…while labs have been the number one breed for 31 years…and pits aren’t even in the top 10…..out of the last 521 fatal dog attacks…346 were from pits. Stop lying to yourself because they’re cute


stinkemrpink t1_iy8javf wrote

I’m not, I’m not even a dog person. Per population, labs are more aggressive than pits. Look at what the the CDC and AKC have to say on it, shelters and police don’t even DNA test the “pits” they do reports on and the guidelines they use in a lot of cities and states would label a dog with clear pug characteristics as a pit bull. Experts also agree that owner behavior is the biggest qualifying factor in dog temperament, and breed bans lead directly to animal mistreatment. The best thing you can do to stop what you seem to think is a pit bull epidemic is to stop spreading anecdotal evidence that is used to gain an emotional response out of people.


xDocFearx t1_iy8k5lt wrote

Anyone who has any experience with dogs knows that badly trained pits are far more dangerous than badly trained labs. Aggressive does not always equate dangerous as well.


stinkemrpink t1_iy8l252 wrote

I’m actually a registered behaviorist who grew up in a vet clinic and working with rescues, that’s why I’m so passionate about breed bans and “pit” misinformation! Just more partial to cats. Labs and pitbulls are equally capable of inflicting equal harm on a human being, they’re big animals that should be treated well to foster good behaviors and a healthier dog population.


xDocFearx t1_iy8ltxc wrote

“Equally capable” is completely irrelevant and I highly doubt it since the pit has a much higher bite force and they’re much more likely to rip/ tear or hold on. You’re grasping at straws and you know it. Would you rather be attacked by a lab or a pit Bull? Be honest.


stinkemrpink t1_iy8mvs0 wrote

Pitbull, the bite strength myth is a… myth and they tend to be submissive. Labs are tenacious, I wouldn’t want to cross an angry one. But tbh what I really wouldn’t want to cross is a human that hates pitbulls


xDocFearx t1_iy8mzf7 wrote

You realize bite strength can be measured…right? In psi?


[deleted] t1_iy8uhk6 wrote



EJH-RVA t1_iye6dbf wrote

AFF is hardly a credible source of information. They will support your narrative though. 🤦‍♀️


stinkemrpink t1_iye854m wrote

Revised, with a pubmed study on the average strength of a dog bite to compare a pitbull’s bite force. They don’t have weak jaws, but they have a comparable bite force to that of a Golden Retriever and one weaker than the American Bulldog’s. They are normal dogs.

Breed bans on dogs lead directly to the mistreatment of animals, which, scientifically, leads to poorly behaved dogs. The anti-pitbull misinformation you’re trying to push gets dogs and people killed, and it is always important to keep that in mind after a tragic accident like this one, because that is when anti-breed legislation tends to get passed.

And the website I’ve seen you cite,, is a misinformation website. The CDC can be an excellent resource that goes into why dog bite reporting isn’t always reliable.


EJH-RVA t1_iyeae1w wrote

This medical study says otherwise:

Or this one:

There are many studies that prove pit bulls pose a greater danger than other breeds. Spreading misinformation that claims they’re just like any other breed is what’s getting people and pets hurt.


stinkemrpink t1_iyee78r wrote

Well that leads back to what the CDC’s study on dog bites found, and what the American Veterinary Medical Association, AKC and ASPCA have to say about it, they do not DNA test the “pitbulls” that are being reported. There are a LOT of flaws with dog bite reporting. A lot of places use guidelines that would identify a pug as a pitbull. Literally. And with the reputation that pitbulls have, a lot of mutts that have bitten people are defacto labeled as pits. The CDC’s own report heavily cautions the use of its own data on pits because of these mitigating factors. They stopped collecting data on dog bites after their most recent report, because of the flaws in reporting and how misleading reports are. The doctors in the study you linked are using the same information the CDC warns about, because it is flawed.

Pits are not born more dangerous than other dogs. Studies have shown that they exhibit less preternatural aggression towards humans than one of the most popular family dogs, Labrador Retrievers. Studies have shown that dog aggression is directly linked to owner behavior. Studies have also shown that breed specific legislation hurts dogs and people. You, by advocating against pitbulls because of flawed, anecdotal evidence, are making the problem worse.

I am using these links to back up what countless of veterinarians, animal rescuers, and behaviorists have told me about pitbulls. I trust the experts, not fearmongerers. I don’t even like pitbulls, they’re too clingy! I get that it’s the internet and anonymous and probably not a big deal to you, but this misinformation kills dogs and people.


EJH-RVA t1_iyefoiz wrote

Where is this study showing animal aggression comes from owner behavior? That contradicts the APBT breed standard, which clearly states that animal aggression should exist in the breed. 🤔


stinkemrpink t1_iyehvmv wrote

Well it was referenced and cited in at least one of the links I provided, but here it is again.

And where did you find the breed standard, because that is straight up false. Some pitbulls were bred to fight dogs, but ALL were bred to be friendly towards humans and aggression towards humans is uncharacteristic of the breed. The dog fighting pits were especially bred to be friendly towards humans so that the aggression from a fight wouldn’t carry over to their handler. Here’s the UK standard for pitbulls:

Since the American Kennel Club doesn’t recognize Pitbull Terrier, I’ll include their breed standard for the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Pitbull’s close relative and a breed that is often confused for a Pitbull. They might be prone to aggression towards other dogs, but they are bred to be docile towards humans.


EJH-RVA t1_iyekji0 wrote

I didn’t say they were bred for human aggression. I said dog aggression is in the breed standard. It’s stated in the UKC standard you linked above. Although, I’ll concede that it doesn’t say they should be dog aggressive, just that they are.


PickanickBasket t1_iy6p9ng wrote

What makes you think pit bulls have a stronger tendency towards violence than, say, a jack Russel terrier?


xDocFearx t1_iy6prsa wrote

Where did I say that? I didn’t.


PickanickBasket t1_iy6q2b4 wrote

"the breed has a tendency towards violence"


xDocFearx t1_iy6rrj8 wrote

Where in that do I say no other breed does? Pits are more prone to violence with results though.


kmblake3 t1_iy6jkyv wrote

Idk why you’re being down voted. This is the most reasonable take I’ve seen from anyone on this post yet.


PickanickBasket t1_iy6lsvh wrote

It's a hot button debate and a lot of people only feel strongly one way or the other and don't want to concede any ground. Guess both sides dislike my stance.


Antique-Zucchini3250 t1_iy8c739 wrote

no, it's a useless and completely unrelated observation. The likelihood that a dog will attack is by far a secondary concern. What matters is the outcome of those attacks, when they happen.

If I tell you that when sharks attack you are likely to die, and you reply YEAH BUT GOLDFISH ATTACK MORE OFTEN! then either you are being obtuse on purpose, or you just don't get it.


J-Colio t1_iy5mfmr wrote


Lady was walking her dog early AM on an e-collar, not a leash.

88yo neighbor called out which startled both the lady and her dog. Dog attacks 88yo.

Lady tries shocking the dog which does not work, pulls her dog off mauled neighbor, and puts the dog inside. Lady returns to help neighbor.

Thoughts and opinions:

If you want an off-leash dog, then you need to occasionally train your dog off leash. Early morning and late at night are prime times to go about this training as there's less chances of running into people.

E-collars are like cell-phones for dogs - you need to train them to answer them. If you use an E-collar as a way to say, "no," to your dog instead of another form of recall, then you're not using the tool correctly. The article uses the term, "shock-collar," which is exactly how I'd expect someone who's using the collar as a preventative would describe it. It's not a taser. If you use the e-collar to say no, the dog will just think it's a piece of shit thing he has to wear that hurts occasionally.

If your dog's recall isn't 100% on point (even and especially in high excitement scenarios, like around other dogs and people), then it should almost never be allowed off leash. I can sympathize with the attempt, but the lack of execution in the training is apparent given the result. I own an e-collar, but I rarely use it because I had to deal with medical issues with my dog before I got the chance to train him with it. It's not a tool you blindly trust live. It takes weeks or months of training in a controlled environment before you take it out live.

Sounds like another example of a trainer giving the pittie breed a bad name.


icecreamfist t1_iy62htg wrote

Sorry, no dog should ever be off leash in public, or non-fenced yard.

I don't know how many times I've walked my dog and owners claim they "have full recall control", and "come through it's alright!", but they don't and their dogs charged my dog. It's taken a lot of money and countless hours trying to rectify the stress that it put on my dog, which manifested as fear aggression.

If a dog is staring toward another dog or person, their heart rate is already rapidly rising, and once they bark their heart rate is already at 130bpm and climbing, and it takes at minimum 30 mins to bring it back down, and no amount of commands, treats, or punishment is going to bring the heart rate down any quicker. This is where a leash helps, you can physically remove the dog away from the trigger.

I've had a certified animal behaviorist ( Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist board certified, grad degree, NIH experience, etc), strongly opine that people should not walk their dogs off leash in public.

Trying to walk around in public with your dog off leash, even if trained, is literally pushing your dog's tolerance to manage stress and the owners training to the edge. It's human ego trying to display dominance. It's unnecessary and risky.


ThrowawayAntelopes t1_iy662xi wrote

I share the frustration with the many many many people who let their completely uncontrollable dogs off leash. But it's just not reasonable to never allow dogs to be off leash in public if they're trained well. If you're not hurting anyone you're not hurting anyone. Why doesn't the quality of life of the dogs enter into the equation at any point? They're supposed to never leave their yard unless they're tied to a rope all the time? Ridiculous and cruel.

My dog is off leash all the time and I never ever have had her run up to other people or dogs because she is actually trained (plus an ecollar back-up just in case). She doesn't get stressed about it, she just knows to ignore others. The real problem is that people are totally clueless about how to train and take care of their dogs. Plus they get breeds they cannot handle, especially pit bulls. I still instinctually don't trust off-leash pit bulls because they've run up to us and attacked my dog so many times.

Edit: yall are such hiveminded retards lol. The downvote button isn't for disagreement


icecreamfist t1_iy6862k wrote

My point is that a dog is never trained well enough to be reasonably let off leash in public. The breed does not matter - I've had golden retrievers, mutts, doodles, golden doodles, chihuahuas, and all manner of purebred dogs of all sorts charge my dog. The only common thing among them - they weren't on a leash.

Do you know what all of them say? "I'm so sorry! They've never done that before!"

Like I mentioned, those who walk their dogs off leash in public are just ego tripping - "look how well I have my dog under control!". It's actually full of human arrogance. Also e-collars are corrective based training, and lead to negative reinforcement or aversive training, which is not as effective as positive reinforcement - even though the study included leading professions within ecollar industry. Study concluded that e-collar did not create greater deterrent for disobedience, and unnecessary for effective recall training. Positive reward training is superior.

Also see my already stated comment about heart rate, and how no amount of correction, treats, or punishment can bring the heart rate back to resting on a dog - only time can.

You can still get a lunge line leash, which gives your dog tons of free space. I know there are lunge line leashes that go up to 100ft! Are you saying your dog needs 100ft? That means you are way too far to pay attention to a command or recall, even if your dog is well trained. With a lunge at least you will have physical control.

Why should I always be stressed out when trying to walk my dog in public around the block? Why can't my dog have a nice walk undisturbed and able to stretch her legs? Leashing your dog doesn't hurt anyone, and in fact it is a net positive to everyone. Walks with leashes are also training / exercise on top of a physical exercise. It also gives people the comfort of not having to walk around with dog spray or a bat around the neighborhood. It sure would allow me to walk my dog more than half a block.

A dog is happy when they are loved, cared for, and stimulated. Not every dog needs to run around in a 5 acre park, untethered. Just 20 minutes of sniffing is the equivalent of an hours walk of enrichment for every dog.

Some dogs like working dogs need "work", and that needs to be simulated and letting them run around isn't the same. The idea that a leash is somehow demeaning to a dog divorces reality that a dog is an animal. The better we can see that, the better we can care for them, and still be responsible to our neighbors.


J-Colio t1_iy6bqnw wrote

>My point is that a dog is never trained well enough to be reasonably let off leash in public.

Police dogs, service dogs, search and rescue dogs, military dogs, etc.... all disagree.

Dogs can 100% be trained off leash. Being truly off-leash trained is one of the epitomes of dog training. It is not easy. It takes like 5 hours a day, every day, for months or even years.

Most people don't have that time, commitment, or training, but it's possible.

>It sure would allow me to walk my dog more than half a block.

Bruh... Do you need help? My dog's extremely well socialized if you need help. I walk him 2-5 hours a day. If you're being literal with that... That's sad for your dog.

>A dog is happy when they are loved, cared for, and stimulated. Not every dog needs to run around in a 5 acre park, untethered. Just 20 minutes of sniffing is the equivalent of an hours walk of enrichment for every dog.

No! A tired dog is a good dog. A tired dog is a happy dog. I have a Bassett hound, a breed known for being chill with being lazy; he lives for going on long adventures! Your statement is purely wrong, and if you try that with any working breed, then you're going to have a neurotic and uncontrollable mess. Dogs bred to work on farms for 12 straight hours a day hearding cattle aren't going to bat an eyelash at 20 minutes of sniffing. Dogs bred to run the Iditarod will literally roll their eyes at that. Dogs bred to hunt lions in the Sahara will end up hunting things they're not supposed to if they're only given 20 minutes of stimulation. A 7 week puppy needs that much stimulation because their body energy is going into growing. A fully grown dog will end up a mess with only 20 minutes. That's so sad. Dogs aren't cats. You can't set it and forget it.


icecreamfist t1_iy6erxd wrote

Point taken about service dogs, rescue dogs, etc. However, disagree with police dogs. Sometimes the police officers themselves cannot control the police dog.

>Bruh... Do you need help? My dog's extremely well socialized if you need help. I walk him 2-5 hours a day. If you're being literal with that... That's sad for your dog.

Yep being literal with that - my neighborhood has a lot of unleashed dogs. It's why I paid for a fence to play with my dog, and have to literally walk her up and down my street and watch for dogs, or walk her in off hours, or take her on Cary St or something that I know will be busy and dogs will be leashed.

It wasn't as bad a few years ago, but a lot of new people have moved into the neighborhood and unleashed dogs have gotten worse. For instance, someone was walking around with an unleashed pit on my block just this past week. My new neighbors literally play with their dogs unleashed in the street, etc.

We worked with a behaviorist and put in hours a day with a for 3 years now with my dog just to boost her confidence and lower her stress and to be somewhat normal like she was when she was a pup, and bad encounters with other dogs or humans sets her back again.

My statement 20 minutes of sniffing wasn't to say that it fully accounts for all of a dogs needs, but that mental stimulation has just as important enrichment as physical stimulation. But yes dogs need all the physical activity they can get, which is why I think if everyone leashed their dogs in public, every dog can get the exercise and be outdoors to enjoy and all that fun stuff.


ThrowawayAntelopes t1_iy69r6o wrote

Lmao what? You ran into a lot of dogs that were not under control and therefore there are no dogs that can be kept under control? And it follows from the fact that dogs are animals that it doesn't substantially diminish their quality of life to be on a leash all the time? You're drawing absurd over-generalizations. I've had a lot of owners say the same thing to me, and they were all idiots that didn't know how to control their dog properly.

It's also pretty stupid to think that a 100ft leash is going to prevent a dog attack. If a dog can't be trusted in public off leash then they can't be trusted in public on a 100ft leash. There's no way you can actually react fast enough and with enough force to pull a dog back 100ft when an incident starts. But using a leash like this is logistically out of the question for so many reasons, it would wrap around everything and probably be more of a safety hazard (tripping, etc.) than just having a dog off-leash. Especially in the woods and in the river. A leash like that only makes sense if you're just trying to keep a dog from running away.

Anyway, I will always prioritize my dog's well-being over the precious and puritanical feelings of paranoids. (And there is no possible world where she meets her exercise and stimulation needs sniffing things on lead all day.)


icecreamfist t1_iy69xvl wrote

I stated dogs should be leashed in public or non fenced in yard. Never said all the time.

But you're just showing you only care about yourself. Got it.


ThrowawayAntelopes t1_iy6a49c wrote

No really, tell me, do you think a 100 foot leash would have saved this elderly woman? Or are you not an idiot?


icecreamfist t1_iy6b72m wrote

I don't believe I've ever prescribed 100ft lunge line leashes as a way to prevent dog attacks. I merely stated lunge lines are an option if you must give your dog more line on a walk. I just pointed out they can even go up to 100ft.

But if the dog was on a leash and under the owner's physical control, certainly the woman would not be dead. Since, the only reason the dog stopped attacking the woman was because the owner physically moved the dog away. That is what a leash is really good for - to physically move your dog if needed.

Unrelated to this conversation, I'm most certainly an idiot. Ask my wife :)


ThrowawayAntelopes t1_iy6bita wrote

In that case, sounds like we're in perfect agreement.


icecreamfist t1_iy6c85y wrote

Yes, I think I hit a nerve here and I apologize. I think we may even be talking about completely different scenarios. You may be taking your dog off leash in a private giant field where no one is probably around, or a dog park designated for dogs running around etc where all participants expect and agree to dogs running off leash together.

Which is the opposite of what I'm talking about, which is trying to walk my dog down the end of the block.


oh_hello_rva t1_iy7u225 wrote

Thank you, u/icecreamfist. You were the hero I needed today.

The entitlement is so strong in these people who want to put their preference / convenience over other human's and pet's ability to simply exist.

The worst part is that they still want to argue about it like it's up for debate, when it's the law and simply part of the social contract when you live in Richmond. If they don't like it, they should move somewhere that doesn't have leash laws.


MalibuFatz t1_iy6a77e wrote

I would argue that this dog wasn’t hurting anyone until it was. Then it was too late, and an old lady was dead. Hell of a price to pay.


ThrowawayAntelopes t1_iy6arty wrote

You didn't say anything that I disagreed with so what are you even trying to do


Antique-Zucchini3250 t1_iy8cev7 wrote

the implication is that *your precious doggo* will not be violent until she is, and then it will be too late.

ergo: you should keep her leashed before we find out how violent she can be.


ThrowawayAntelopes t1_iyan44w wrote

It's a matter of risk. Sure, there's some distant possible world where she hurts somebody. But there's also a distant possible world where my 17 year old son attacks someone in the park. Does this miniscule risk mean I should keep my teenager on a leash in public? Of course not. You guys are just not thinking clearly about the role of risk in public life. There is functionally no risk of my dog, or my teenager, attacking someone in the park. That's sufficient to have them off leash.


3FoxInATrenchcoat t1_iy967e6 wrote

My incredibly friendly, people-loving herding dog mix suddenly and inexplicably nipped a jogger out of nowhere one day. She’s one of the best behaved dogs you’d ever meet-listens immediately, aims to please, very bright and calm. She had never displayed that behavior in her life, and at 7 years old, in a completely random moment, she went out of her way in an instant to nip the thigh of a jogger. She was off leash and I was inexcusably in the wrong. This was the thousandth time we had gone on an off-leash walk and probably the thousandth jogger she had ever passed, and for whatever reason she acted in an unpredictable and unprovoked manner. Thankfully the jogger needed nothing more than a tetanus shot and doxycycline, and even more thankfully he didn’t press any charges against me or call the police. I paid for his clinical care and RACC put her on a two week probation quarantine/house arrest. I’ll never again assume that my dog is not capable of unpredictable behavior again, or that I’m not beholden to the same laws as others.


[deleted] t1_iy5otq2 wrote



CliffordTheBigRedD0G t1_iy5pzj4 wrote

My parents had a Collie that wasnt fixed for the first 5-6 years of his life. One summer he kept escaping the electric fence and we couldnt figure out why he all of the sudden would keep doing it. We checked and knew the collar was still working and even saw him get shocked while escapaing one time. So the last time he escaped my mom had mentioned how he was found hanging around the neighbors dogs. I was like wait are those dogs fixed? Thats probably whats motivating him so much lol. We got him fixed and never had that problem again.


t00oldforthisshit t1_iy67wlm wrote

Thank you! The number of times I've heard "we got him fixed and never had that problem again" for so many issues is huge - thanks for doing the right thing by your boy and keeping him safe...not to mention keeping the neighborhood ladies from getting knocked up and keeping a shit ton of collie mixes out of your local shelter!


ArgoCS t1_iy5qiig wrote

I don’t disagree that a dog has to be trained to be off leash to be able to do it well but even so that dog (and all dogs on walks within the city) should have been on a leash.

To be fair I don’t know how strong the owner is vs how strong the dog was so a leash might not have been enough in this situation but it certainly would have helped.


Dr_Bonejangles t1_iy68xt7 wrote

This is why I carry a knife when I walk...


freetimerva t1_iy7yncr wrote

Knife is my go to as well. Most of my elderly neighbors walk with little baseball bats and stuff like that.

Sucks it is such a rampant issue that the elderly carry weapons to protect themselves from dogs.


Dr_Bonejangles t1_iy8dy1z wrote

I don't want to hurt anything, but fk if I'm gonna let some strange dog rip me up.. lol


OutsideBonz t1_iy6wdhq wrote

I don’t go that far, but I do constantly look around and decide what car or other object I would jump on


someotherguyrva t1_iy8y9kz wrote

At the risk of bringing the wrath of Pitbull owners, I’ll say it again…. Pit bulls (and several other breeds) are dangerous, unpredictable animals that cannot be controlled when they go into attack mode. Ownership of these animals should be restricted to people who are trained and licensed to handle them and severer penalties to the owners should be codified into law for injuries/death caused by owner negligence.

If this poor woman had died, because someone negligently killed her with their car, they would be charged with negligent homicide. I don’t know if there’s a statute that allows that to be charged for an animal attack, but there should be and the owner of this dog should be facing severe penalties .


[deleted] t1_iy6pzdw wrote

Whoa, can't believe a pit bull killed an elderly woman. That just never happens..


tmgieger t1_iy97xgc wrote

Walking an unleashed dog that attacks a person should be treated the same as shooting a gun into a crowd. You took the risk


phocuetu t1_iy6vgmp wrote

I can’t imagine how horrific that body cam footage referenced in the article is.


wrestlingrudy t1_iy8fw4n wrote

Seems like an injustice. I know it was an accident but someone was killed