Ban stupid owners not breeds

[Sean of the Thread]

This shit is starting to bug me. If you're not familiar with BSL look it up but it's bullshit. If you don't support it let your (most likely now newly elected congressmen know) it's BS.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/P1010011.jpg


Fuck stupid owners (vick) not breeds.

[LMingrone]

I have no clue what kind of dog that is (mut?). I've owned Rots, Dobermans, and Pitbulls. They were the kindest, and most loving dogs EVER. They even got along with my cats and birds. Some people just can't let go of the stigma.

Edit: Dogs love to protect children. Here's Bacon (American Bulldog), and Bam (Pit):

http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/1341/baconndbam.jpg

[4a6c1]

I agree/disagree. Until the last 15 years Pitbulls were carefully bred to exclude members of the species that were violent towards !human beings!. They were show dogs and/or fight dogs. Hurting people made them a giant liability and the ones that were not completely sound of mind have always been exterminated without even a second thought. Because of this service animal breed requirement they were safer around people than most of the smaller breeds (poodles etc) that have been bred for appearances and have in turn developed behavioral issues.

Recently they have become an accessory for the lower element of society and are mostly used as a show of force as they are the cheapest and easiest attainable weapon.

I think people should be required to register for a license to own them in the same way people are required to register to own handguns. I also think the animals that can be attained with a public license should only be spayed and neutered animals. I think to breed them one must be registered with the Staffordshire Terrier AKC and a system of registeries that includes shelters and local police. I also think it should be a misdemeanor to own unregistered puppies.

They are weapons. That is why people are afraid of them and why properties and municipalities ban them. Like any weapons they should only be allowed in the hands of responsible people.

So I agree with you about the safety of the breed but disagree about regulation. I think the breed has been built upon a sound constitution biologically but the current trend towards their use as weapons without regard to the service animal aspect is damaging. Licensing could fix this problem but it wont happen and the breed is set to die out in the U.S. :(

[LMingrone]

I'd rather have a Pitbull than a little annoying snippy dog. Like SotT said, it's not the breed, but the training. If you'd like me to delve deeper into the issue, I will. I grew up in a dog fighting area and thought the same myself. It's not the dogs, it's the owners. I've rescued many dogs that SEEMED like killers and turned out to be like any other animal....someone looking for love.

I will agree with you though, that they are a deadly breed, along with Rots. You just have to teach them love instead of hate, just like us humans. We just don't have as powerful jaws.

[AnticorRifling]

I agree/disagree. Until the last 15 years Pitbulls were carefully bred to exclude members of the species that were violent towards !human beings!. They were show dogs and/or fight dogs. Hurting people made them a giant liability and the ones that were not completely sound of mind have always been exterminated without even a second thought. Because of this service animal breed requirement they were safer around people than most of the smaller breeds (poodles etc) that have been bred for appearances and have in turn developed behavioral issues.

Recently they have become an accessory for the lower element of society and are mostly used as a show of force as they are the cheapest and easiest attainable weapon.

I think people should be required to register for a license to own them in the same way people are required to register to own handguns. I also think the animals that can be attained with a public license should only be spayed and neutered animals. I think to breed them one must be registered with the Staffordshire Terrier AKC and a system of registeries that includes shelters and local police. I also think it should be a misdemeanor to own unregistered puppies.

They are weapons. That is why people are afraid of them and why properties and municipalities ban them. Like any weapons they should only be allowed in the hands of responsible people.

So I agree with you about the safety of the breed but disagree about regulation. I think the breed has been built upon a sound constitution biologically but the current trend towards their use as weapons without regard to the service animal aspect is damaging. Licensing could fix this problem but it wont happen and the breed is set to die out in the U.S. :(

Sure we should also register ink pens, silverware, bricks, sticks, and any other thing that can be a weapon in the hands of someone that wants to do harm. I would love to register for EVERYTHING ON THE PLANET.

Licensing would not fix the problem the same way registering to own a handgun is super effective from keeping someone from getting a handgun if they want it.

Punish the idiots for being idiots, don't punish the rest of us because the idiots are idiots.

[Willington]

I have no clue what kind of dog that is (mut?). I've owned Rots, Dobermans, and Pitbulls. They were the kindest, and most loving dogs EVER. They even got along with my cats and birds. Some people just can't let go of the stigma.

Edit: Dogs love to protect children. Here's Bacon (American Bulldog), and Bam (Pit):

http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/1341/baconndbam.jpg

It happens and it happens more then we think.
A child was just mauled a few weeks ago by the family dog(Pit) not to far from me.The kid was banged up good but lived.

A friend wanted and got 3 Pit pups.As they grew older they killed each other off till just the female was left.I walked in on them fighting once and it was brutal,he had to beat them with a bat to break it up.Strongest dam dogs i ever seen.That female chewed a hole in the back door just to get out.

[AnticorRifling]

It happens and it happens more then we think.
A child was just mauled a few weeks ago by the family dog(Pit) not to far from me.The kid was banged up good but lived.

A friend wanted and got 3 Pit pups.As they grew older they killed each other off till just the female was left.I walked in on them fighting once and it was brutal,he had to beat them with a bat to break it up.Strongest dam dogs i ever seen.That female chewed a hole in the back door just to get out.

A girl here in Indy was bit by a dog (non pit), it happens more than you think.

Your friend sounds like a bad owner.

[Willington]

Naw,he treated them good..I just think he didnt relize what he was getting into.

Just to add: He didnt get them to breed or anything like that

[LMingrone]

When you have kids (Maybe you already do) keep them locked up so they don't get hurt. A dog, or any pet that has been around your family, is more trustworthy than most of your family in most cases.

Don't let your kids go outside! There might be a rabid racocon out there! MY KID HAD DIRT IN HIS/HER MOUTH! BREAK OUT THE BLEACH!

[LMingrone]

That sounded way to assholish (is that a word?). I was just trying to be sarcastic about over protective parents. My bad.

[PoBoy]

I'm an old country boy, raised mostly on a farm. I've been around animals my whole life from cats and dogs to horses and cows.

Any breed of dog can be a good pet. Also any dog of any breed can go bad. I have seen a lab go after his owner and the owner had always treated the dog well. One day it just snapped. Don't know if it was old age or something else.

Only be able to own a dog that has been 'fixed'? Only breed your dogs as somene else sees fit? Do you live in a city? I ask because out here in the country we accept that it is the owners right and repsonsibilty to do what is best for their own situation.

Don't get me started on guns. I held an 03 FFL for years. Do not know about your local laws, but around here you only do paperwork on a gun if you buy it new from a dealer. Not to mention that about 80 percent of homes around here have guns in them. Even my 75 year old mother has a loaded revolver in her night stand.

The biggest problem the USA has is that fewer and fewer people accept personal responsibilty for their own actions. Followed closely by the government trying to play 'parent' to everyone.


Ex-soldier
Husband
Father
Owner of a german sheperd/pit mix
Gun owner
Christian
American
And damn proud of all of it!

[CrystalTears]

Naw,he treated them good..I just think he didnt relize what he was getting into.

Just to add: He didnt get them to breed or anything like that
You don't have to treat your pets badly for them to be bad owners. Not knowing how to properly handle and discipline a dog is an ownership issue. As Cesar Milan says, any dog can be rehabilitated, but the owners are the ones that have to be trained to learn how to handle a dog properly.

[Willington]

This thread is reminding me of a story my mother told us.
When me and my brother were 5-6 years old we made a hole under are wood`n fence bigger and got out.As we were heading towards the road our dog grabbed us by our bottomes 1 at a time and took us to the front door and barked till she came.

I would`nt keep a pit around young kids b/c you just never know.But dogs are great to have around.Hell been try`n to teach mine to get me beer,he`s got the opening the fridge part down.Just he grabs the lunch meat instead of beer

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

You don't have to treat your pets badly for them to be bad owners. Not knowing how to properly handle and discipline a dog is an ownership issue. As Cesar Milan says, any dog can be rehabilitated, but the owners are the ones that have to be trained to learn how to handle a dog properly.

This, this, this.

You don't have to beat your dog to still not be treating it properly. Not establishing your dominance and yourself as the 'pack leader' with any dog is going to lead to psychological and thus behavioral issues with a dog. The reason why bites/attacks from bigger dogs get news coverage is just that- they're bigger dogs and thus the damage is worse. Ask anyone who works (or has worked) with animals regularly and they'll tell you that a way higher percentage of small dogs have crappy behavior and bite, because the owners think it's cute if their 10 pound whatever tries to maul your foot.

[PoBoy]

I would train my dog to fetch beer, but I wouldn't have any left. The blasted thing loves beer.

Went out to get the mail one day and left my beer sitting on the end table. Came back in to find the bottle on its side, beer slowly pouring out, and him steady drinking as fast as he could.

After the initial shock I almost hurt myself laughing.

[Kyra231]

This, this, this.

You don't have to beat your dog to still not be treating it properly. Not establishing your dominance and yourself as the 'pack leader' with any dog is going to lead to psychological and thus behavioral issues with a dog. The reason why bites/attacks from bigger dogs get news coverage is just that- they're bigger dogs and thus the damage is worse. Ask anyone who works (or has worked) with animals regularly and they'll tell you that a way higher percentage of small dogs have crappy behavior and bite, because the owners think it's cute if their 10 pound whatever tries to maul your foot.

^^^^ This^^^^

I worked grooming & in a kennel for ten years, we never EVER saw a bite from a pit/rott/dobie or any other big dog it was always the fucking shih tzus, poodles, bichons and other small ankle biting bastards. Also statistics that are reported(usually to insurance agencies) do NOT(that I've ever found as I delved into them, perhaps there are & I haven't found them yet.) count any bites that happen at the vets, groomers or kennel. I believe that puts a nasty skew on where the actual 'vicious' breeds are.

[PoBoy]

This, this, this.

You don't have to beat your dog to still not be treating it properly. Not establishing your dominance and yourself as the 'pack leader' with any dog is going to lead to psychological and thus behavioral issues with a dog. The reason why bites/attacks from bigger dogs get news coverage is just that- they're bigger dogs and thus the damage is worse. Ask anyone who works (or has worked) with animals regularly and they'll tell you that a way higher percentage of small dogs have crappy behavior and bite, because the owners think it's cute if their 10 pound whatever tries to maul your foot.

I could not agree more. Small terriers seem to be very bad about this. The only dog I ever owned that bit me on purpose was a rat terrier (feist). Let's just say it only happened once.

[Landrion]

You don't have to treat your pets badly for them to be bad owners. Not knowing how to properly handle and discipline a dog is an ownership issue. As Cesar Milan says, any dog can be rehabilitated, but the owners are the ones that have to be trained to learn how to handle a dog properly.

This. If you dont have the expertise to train the dog yourself (and I didnt) you owe it to the dog, yourself, your couch and so on to get a professional involved.

My dog isnt aggressive, but he was noisy and destructive to the furniture. Stealing things, chewing up our stuff, name it.

So we enter obedience class, which cost way less than the couch he ruined, less than the shock collar I was considering at the time, and less than I paid for the dog. 1 three hour session a week over a few months and he is a completely different animal. Im seriously amazed at how his worst traits submerge and his better traits strengthened in that time.

I only wish I had done it sooner.

[Fallen]

I own a pit cross that wasn't "raised right." I took him from a friend whose wife was afraid of the dog, though honestly I don't think he was ever aggressive towards her. That being said, Chunk is an aggressive animal. I don't know if he is that way because of his breed or his (lack of) training.

The only other dogs in my family were brothers and were Chow mixes, which are known to be aggressive breeds. They WERE trained well. They were excellently behaved, but even so one bit my neighbore. In the dog's defense, the kid was bit when he stuck his leg over our fence to retrieve his toy that went into our yard. We also believe a different neighbore's kids used to throw firecrackers into our property.

I dunno. I think there is something to some breeds being more aggressive than others. I do think this can be compensated for by specific aggression training and careful ownership. The problem is people have more room to fail their animals in terms of training when they have these breeds. Saying "Ban stupid owners" doesn't solve any problems before the fact, only afterwards.

I honestly don't know what the solution is. I am not in favor of breed restrictions applied to a town or county. In an apartment complex where you're forced to live in close quarters? Not so cut and dry.

[Drevihyin]

I'm on the fence on this one. I know when I go over to my Nephew's house (who raises Pitt-Bulls) I never turn my back on any of them.


A little insight from an Owner/Breeder:

Q. What do you think has been the most significant reason in causing the negative stereotypes of Pit Bulls as fighting animals, to be perpetuated? And are pit bulls dangerous?
A. Owners themselves are the most significant reason. I believe "bad dogs" are rare. However, I believe bad owners are plentiful. Stereotypes are not stereotypes for no reason. They are based on a little truth. Yes, Pit Bull Terriers attract owners who lack moral character. This is not to say all Pit Bull owners lack moral character.

While socialization is critical, it does not guarantee your dog will be dog friendly as an adult. These dogs were and still are bred for animal aggression with a focus on other dogs.


http://www.dog-names-and-more.com/images/honey-pose.jpg



http://www.dog-names-and-more.com/Are-Pit-Bulls-Dangerous.html

[Gnome Rage]

I've met quite a few pit bulls in my life, and none of them have been vicious in anyway. I've met them on the streets (With their owners) and in homes of friends and they have all been extremely sweet and gentle.

Cassie was super loving, she's been my friend's family dog for years, beautiful stark white pit bull. She was RAISED as a fighting dog, and then adopted later by their family. She is the most gentle creature out there. She's nicer than my cat (which isn't hard but whatever)

[AnticorRifling]

My brother's pitbull, Chili Pancake, was an awesome dog. It's just too bad she had a horrible owner (my brother). He admits it and regrets but hey you're not going to be that great of a pet owner when you're coked out of your skull. Now he's cleaned up and his new dog, Chicken Eyeball, is awesome.

[Sean of the Thread]

I have no clue what kind of dog that is (mut?).





It was a rescue pit clearly old and emancipated that we adopted. She was used purely for breeding and selling pups.

[Rinualdo]

The plural of anecdote is not data.

[AnticorRifling]

Mothers of America won't fund a study of "Is your dog that we hate because we're retarded really a good pet?" because it doesn't fit their agenda.

[Sean of the Thread]

It happens and it happens more then we think.
A child was just mauled a few weeks ago by the family dog(Pit) not to far from me.The kid was banged up good but lived.

A friend wanted and got 3 Pit pups.As they grew older they killed each other off till just the female was left.I walked in on them fighting once and it was brutal,he had to beat them with a bat to break it up.Strongest dam dogs i ever seen.That female chewed a hole in the back door just to get out.


A lab or retriever is just as likely to have done that as a pit but the media will throw the pit mauling all over the place.

They're dogs. All dogs are pack animals. If they're trying for alpha a baby/child is most certainly in the pack and every pack has a leader it just has to be the owner.

[AnticorRifling]

A lab or retriever is just as likely to have done that as a pit but the media will throw the pit mauling all over the place.

They're dogs. All dogs are pack animals. If they're trying for alpha a baby/child is most certainly in the pack and every pack has a leader it just has to be the owner.

You guys might not know this, but I consider myself a bit of a loner. I tend to think of myself as a one-man wolf pack. But when my sister brought Doug home, I knew he was one of my own. And my wolf pack... it grew by one. So there... there were two of us in the wolf pack... I was alone first in the pack, and then Doug joined in later. And six months ago, when Doug introduced me to you guys, I thought, "Wait a second, could it be?" And now I know for sure, I just added two more guys to my wolf pack. Four of us wolves, running around the desert together, in Las Vegas, looking for strippers and cocaine. So tonight, I make a toast!

[Sean of the Thread]

When you have kids (Maybe you already do) keep them locked up so they don't get hurt. A dog, or any pet that has been around your family, is more trustworthy than most of your family in most cases.

Don't let your kids go outside! There might be a rabid racocon out there! MY KID HAD DIRT IN HIS/HER MOUTH! BREAK OUT THE BLEACH!


My red nose pit/hound hunting dog is an old man now and he just attacked a mule that tried to get my daughter's peach. Nobody can touch the girls around him.

[Rinualdo]

Mothers of America won't fund a study of "Is your dog that we hate because we're retarded really a good pet?" because it doesn't fit their agenda.

You are right.

What you will find, however, is studies which show pit bulls and rottweilers responsible for a vast majority of serious injuries and deaths. In 2008, 65% of fatilities resulting from dog attacks were by a single breed. Care to guess which one?

A vast majority of dog bites occur to the owners or the owner's friends.

I'm not advocating the law or similar ones around the country, but the statistics are pretty self-evident and attempting to treat all pit pulls as co-equal with other breeds in terms of danger to their families and those around them is shockingly naive.

[Rinualdo]

Source material (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html) for anyone interested.

[AnticorRifling]

Why didn't you copy:

■Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.
■An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).
■Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.


From your source. Source only mentions pits in the fatalities not as the dogs doing the most bitings.....

[Sean of the Thread]

Source material (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html) for anyone interested.


I did not check your source material but I will.

Last I checked the stats German Shepard are on the top of the list followed by chows.

It's been awhile since I checked so I'll do it again soon.

I'm currently about to be homeless at the beginning of a shitty winter in upstate NY. Collecting my campsite shit later today in fact.

My view is BSL is stupid. Might as well ban pencils at schools. I mean what's next?

[Sean of the Thread]

Why didn't you copy:

■Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.
■An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).
■Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.


From your source. Source only mentions pits in the fatalities not as the dogs doing the most bitings.....

ANY DOG
and
IRRESPONSIBLE OWNER

are the key words in that quote.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Source material (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html) for anyone interested.

Gee, do you suppose your source is biased at all?

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/dogbite-factsheet.html


Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

Bold is my emphasis.

[Fallen]

To deny that dogs whose breeds were tailored around promoting aggression are more likely to be aggressive than breeds which were not sort of flies in the face of (micro)evolution. No one here is making the stance that a purebred pit isn't any more likely to be aggressive than a Pug, right? It would be like saying Great Danes aren't any more likely to weigh more than teacup chiwawas. The question is, does this increased chance for aggression inherent in the breed substantiate enough of a risk to condone breed specific bans/rules/legislation?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

To deny that dogs whose breeds were tailored around promoting aggression are more likely to be aggressive than breeds which were not sort of flies in the face of (micro)evolution. No one here is making the stance that a purebred pit isn't any more likely to be aggressive than a Pug, right? The question is, does this increased chance for aggression inherent in the breed substantiate enough of a risk to condone breed specific bans/rules/legislation?

According to the CDC, you cannot identify a specific bread as being more aggressive.

[Rinualdo]

Why didn't you copy:

■Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.
■An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).
■Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.


From your source. Source only mentions pits in the fatalities not as the dogs doing the most bitings.....

Of course. I never said they did the most biting. I said they were responsible for the most serious injuries and deaths.

Don't forget this section, particularly the last paragraph:



The deadliest dogs

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf) to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.
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."

[AnticorRifling]

I like this part:


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

So what about the ones that weren't included in his study? Like the "tons" (ZOMG speculation based on common sense and life experience) of little dog bites. Angry toy breeds, sleeping dogs that get startled, dogs with a bone, etc.

[Rinualdo]

Gee, do you suppose your source is biased at all?

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/dogbite-factsheet.html



Bold is my emphasis.

Well, no, as the source I provided referenced several other sources and references. Unless you're attacking the methodology, you can't really deny the facts presented. Do you have some competing statistics about dog attack results?

Also, the two statements are incongruant. Your bolded statements talks about predictive, I simply highlighted some facts about incidents that have already occurred.

[Fallen]

According to the CDC, you cannot identify a specific bread as being more aggressive.

Only an assumption, but I imagine that is largely due to the manner of testing it would take to test that theory being considered inhumane.

[Rinualdo]

I like this part:



So what about the ones that weren't included in his study? Like the "tons" (ZOMG speculation based on common sense and life experience) of little dog bites. Angry toy breeds, sleeping dogs that get startled, dogs with a bone, etc.

I believe the distinction here is that those tiny dogs are much less likely to be deadly or cause serious injury.

[Fallen]

I believe the distinction here is that those tiny dogs are much less likely to be deadly or cause serious injury.

Which is why many locations have a flat weight restriction on dogs. Any dog over 100 pounds regardless of breed is a serious risk in terms of the severity of injury should an attack occur.

[AnticorRifling]

Curious as to how this guy can back up this statement:


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

So you're telling me of that in 2008 the 23 people killed (and let's assume that all of them were killed by pits) it means that pit bulls had, let's assume often to mean a 1 in four chance, 92 "bad" moments resulting in killings. 92....I'm pretty sure if we took the number of pits divided by 92 this would be one gentle breed.

I don't like these types of "facts".

[AnticorRifling]

I believe the distinction here is that those tiny dogs are much less likely to be deadly or cause serious injury.

But it doesn't mean that a pit is any more aggressive than my weiner dog (who's a jackass to kids and other dogs without proper supervision by the way).

[Sean of the Thread]

My "pomchi" or wtf ever they want to call them is more aggressive than any dog I've owned.

He's all of * four pounds and a great family pet but he has jumped up on my pit's neck swinging biting and growling while the pit did nothing just because the pit was too close to my daughter.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/Doc.jpg

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/angelmicky.jpg

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/mydogs.jpg

[Rinualdo]

Curious as to how this guy can back up this statement:



So you're telling me of that in 2008 the 23 people killed (and let's assume that all of them were killed by pits) it means that pit bulls had, let's assume often to mean a 1 in four chance, 92 "bad" moments resulting in killings. 92....I'm pretty sure if we took the number of pits divided by 92 this would be one gentle breed.

I don't like these types of "facts".

Agree. I can only assume that its either 1). Very poor statistical analysis, or 2) He took the numbers for all dog attacks reported by a pit bull and then derived from them how many lead to hospitalization/death.
I hope the latter.


But it doesn't mean that a pit is any more aggressive than my weiner dog (who's a jackass to kids and other dogs without proper supervision by the way).

In and of itself, no, it doesn't. I didn't claim that it did. The term aggressive is so difficult to quantify that I'm not sure you could develop any sort of objective criteria to prove or disprove.

At best, you'd have to take the total number of dogs in the country, segregate by breed, and then take the total number of attacks per breed and weigh that on a per capita basis. I don't believe there is even a consensus on the approximate number of dogs in the country, much less a breakdown by breed.

[Fallen]

At best, you'd have to take the total number of dogs in the country, segregate by breed, and then take the total number of attacks per breed and weigh that on a per capita basis. I don't believe there is even a consensus on the approximate number of dogs in the country, much less a breakdown by breed.

Or take a statistically relevant sample of each popular breed of dogs, apply the standard in aggression training to each breed and judge the results based on criteria such as how fast it took the dog to strike, how long the animal continued to strike, etc. Again, this would be considered very inhumane due to the fact you just made a bunch of dogs aggressive and therefor unlikely to be adoptable by anyone.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Well, no, as the source I provided referenced several other sources and references. Unless you're attacking the methodology, you can't really deny the facts presented. Do you have some competing statistics about dog attack results?

Also, the two statements are incongruant. Your bolded statements talks about predictive, I simply highlighted some facts about incidents that have already occurred.

Oh, so because the website advocating dog bite laws and restrictions references other sources, it can't be biased?

The "facts" from your biased website are compiled by the website using google and the internet to record dog "homocides" reported to the media. Certainly you concede that Pit Bull attacks/fatalities are more sensationalist than say, death by poodle?

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com This site has many informative reports, viewpoints and opinion you may want to read, since you clearly believe everything from dogbitelaw, I'm sure you'll find this just as informative.

Here's an interesting chart.

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/bite-numbers-chart.jpg

[Rinualdo]

Oh, so because the website advocating dog bite laws and restrictions references other sources, it can't be biased?

The "facts" from your biased website are compiled by the website using google and the internet to record dog "homocides" reported to the media. Certainly you concede that Pit Bull attacks/fatalities are more sensationalist than say, death by poodle?

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com This site has many informative reports, viewpoints and opinion you may want to read, since you clearly believe everything from dogbitelaw, I'm sure you'll find this just as informative.

Here's an interesting chart.

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/bite-numbers-chart.jpg


I'm sorry you're upset that pit bulls kill more people then shi-tzu's. Even independent any facts or figures, doesn't it seem logical that a larger, strong dog is more likely to cause death and serious injury then a small, weak dog?

Your chart shows dog bites. The statistics I showed referenced serious injury and fatality. No where did I or anyone in this thread suggest that pit bulls are more likely to bite then another breed. As has been pointed out, I don't think there is any real way to know that without knowing the total number of dogs by breed in a given area. I'm not sure the relevance you're showing as well.

[AnticorRifling]

According to the study from your source in a 24 year period dogs (all types) caused 264 deaths.

In 4 states (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska), in 5 years (2003 - 2008) COWS caused 108 deaths.

This is why we eat beef and pet dogs. Cows are the enemy.

[Sean of the Thread]

EAT MOR CHIKIN

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm sorry you're upset that pit bulls kill more people then shi-tzu's. Even independent any facts or figures, doesn't it seem logical that a larger, strong dog is more likely to cause death and serious injury then a small, weak dog?

Your chart shows dog bites. The statistics I showed referenced serious injury and fatality. No where did I or anyone in this thread suggest that pit bulls are more likely to bite then another breed. As has been pointed out, I don't think there is any real way to know that without knowing the total number of dogs by breed in a given area. I'm not sure the relevance you're showing as well.

First, I understand why you so easily believe what you do, because your powers of observation are nil. I'm not upset about anything. I provided true scientific studies contrary to your fear mongering website sponsored by an ambulance chaser.

Do a google search for "pit bull chews toes off baby" and let me know what you conclude. Was it a case of a vicious pit bull attack, or something else?

[Sean of the Thread]

Between 1990 and 2000, 147 children ages 14 and younger died from playground-related injuries. Of them, 82 (56%) died from strangulation and 31 (20%) died from falls to the playground surface. Most of these deaths (70%) occurred on home playgrounds (Tinsworth 2001).


*POINT being BSL is a bunch of shit. BAN PLAY GROUNDS TOO!

[Sean of the Thread]

Old man Mick. He's not got much time left gonna miss em.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/mickey.jpg

[Sean of the Thread]

Samson when young. He was only aggressive to black people for some reason. He's about to kick the bucket too. Can barely walk.


http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/exwife.jpg

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

To deny that dogs whose breeds were tailored around promoting aggression are more likely to be aggressive than breeds which were not sort of flies in the face of (micro)evolution. No one here is making the stance that a purebred pit isn't any more likely to be aggressive than a Pug, right? It would be like saying Great Danes aren't any more likely to weigh more than teacup chiwawas. The question is, does this increased chance for aggression inherent in the breed substantiate enough of a risk to condone breed specific bans/rules/legislation?

Some dogs also unwittingly were bred to have weird anomalies that can make them aggressive.

Rage Syndrome seems to be most common with cocker spaniels but it's been reported in a lot of other dogs too, like golden retrievers and bernese mountain dogs.

A bmd attacking you due to rage syndrome will fuck your shit up as much as a pitbull would. They're huge dogs. It's possible for ANY dog to have Rage Syndrome, especially pure breds. Should we outlaw purebreds? Should we outlaw pure-breds that are over a certain size?

To go off what Fallen said, how much increased risk for aggression justifies legislation?

[Rinualdo]

First, I understand why you so easily believe what you do, because your powers of observation are nil. I'm not upset about anything. I provided true scientific studies contrary to your fear mongering website sponsored by an ambulance chaser.

Do a google search for "pit bull chews toes off baby" and let me know what you conclude. Was it a case of a vicious pit bull attack, or something else?

You're right, those statistics you showed about human deaths and which animal breed caused them totally refute anything I posted.

Good thing you're here to shed light on me and the rest of the world that has apparently been snowballed by a single ambulance chaster.

:beer:

[Rinualdo]

To go off what Fallen said, how much increased risk for aggression justifies legislation?

Interesting point and highly subjective.

To apply a slippery slope argument, though, what animals if any should be banned? If there's no legislation and your animal kills, mames, or harms another, what should the owner's legal and financial responsibility be?

[Fallen]

A bmd attacking you due to rage syndrome will fuck your shit up as much as a pitbull would. They're huge dogs. It's possible for ANY dog to have Rage Syndrome, especially pure breds. Should we outlaw purebreds? Should we outlaw pure-breds that are over a certain size?

The question is what is likely to be more aggressive, a purebred with the assumed risk of rage symdrome or a Pit Bull? All dogs are dangerous, though I again cannot stand by the argument that dogs bred for fighting are not any more dangerous than dogs not purposefully bred for fighting.

That being said, I do not like BSL. As has been pointed out, any large breed is potentially dangerous. Just because some breeds are responsible for more serious/fatal attacks than others doesn't change that fact that all dogs are on some level dangerous, especially large breed dogs. One solution would be to mandate training if you own an animal over X pounds, or worse, if you own an animal of Y breed. Neither of those sound like good solutions either.

[AnticorRifling]

Interesting point and highly subjective.

To apply a slippery slope argument, though, what animals if any should be banned? If there's no legislation and your animal kills, mames, or harms another, what should the owner's legal and financial responsibility be? Depends on the situation. Was it unprovoked? Can you prove it was unprovoked? I don't go up and kick a moving car (a potentially dangerous object) and then sue the owner when my foot is broken, my leg is ripped off, or I'm killed.

[Fallen]

A counter-argument to BSL would be to point out how silly it is to say something along the lines of: "Studies have shown that African Americans are responsible for preportionally more violent crimes and destruction of property than any other race. Studies have also proven that this type of behavior is inherent to African Americans due to their culture and upbringing. Therefor, we are passing legislation to ban African Americans from our future Housing Developments."

Obviously, I do not believe in the above statement and it is largely an issue of apples to oranges. There are enough paralleles to be drawn though to have BSL leave a bad taste in one's mouth.

[CrystalTears]

You're probably not going to get good statistical data on dog biting and/or fatalities as they're not all reported. People are less likely to report a bite from a poodle than they are from a pit bull.

I just don't believe in punishing the animal for an owner's bad dog training. Put the dog in a kennel and punish the owner.

[Tgo01]

You're probably not going to get good statistical data on dog biting and/or fatalities as they're not all reported. People are less likely to report a bite from a poodle than they are from a pit bull.

A fatality caused by a poodle would go unreported?

[CrystalTears]

A fatality caused by a poodle would go unreported?
Mostly the dog biting. If it was fatal, I would hope that it would be reported for the lulz. Again, would you want to go down in history as the guy who died from a poodle attack? I'd rather my family say I fell down the stairs or something.

[Atlanteax]

It will stop being anti-pit-bulls when the typical dog-biting news story changes to be a golden retriever, or a labrador, or a st bernard, or german shepard...

But that would seem rather unlikely, no? Other than german shepards and dobermans, no other breed comes remotely close to the pit bull's notoriety.

This is similar to the "nature vs nurture" debate, IMO ... while in most cases, the owners (nurture, or lack of) are surely to blame ... it does seem that breed type (nature) plays a large role in the frequency of incidents.

[CrystalTears]

Some dog breeds have instinctual natures to them. Working dogs needs to stay busy or they'll get bored and chew on things if left indoors too long. Toy dogs are yippy, bouncing, annoying little fuckers. And there are breeds that tend to be more protective, defensive, and/or aggressive. That doesn't mean that those negative temperaments can't be tamed through proper training. If someone has a seriously aggressive pit bull, it's because they allowed it, just as owners allow the little yippy dogs to be little assholes because they think it's cute.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'd train a giant poodle to kill on sight. To add insult to injury. Plus if you give it one of those ghey trims, it could be very ninja-y and no one would know until it was too late. Also, the basis of Avalanche of Rage syndrome is ridiculous (i.e.) assuming cockers are gold and not spotted black and white they have a statistical odd for rage syndrome? They're the same sub-species. Suck my chode.

I think Simon & Schulster's best had it narrowed down in their "Dogs" book regarding aggressive breeds and even then, it's 99.9-repeating-% the owner + surroundings.

[AnticorRifling]

It will stop being anti-pit-bulls when the typical dog-biting news story changes to be a golden retriever, or a labrador, or a st bernard, or german shepard...

But that would seem rather unlikely, no? Other than german shepards and dobermans, no other breed comes remotely close to the pit bull's notoriety.

This is similar to the "nature vs nurture" debate, IMO ... while in most cases, the owners (nurture, or lack of) are surely to blame ... it does seem that breed type (nature) plays a large role in the frequency of incidents.

It's not the pit bull's fault the news likes to use scare tactics for ratings. If they reported every bite with equal time maybe...

[Sean of the Thread]

It's not the pit bull's fault the news likes to use scare tactics for ratings. If they reported every bite with equal time maybe...


Exactly

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It will stop being anti-pit-bulls when the typical dog-biting news story changes to be a golden retriever, or a labrador, or a st bernard, or german shepard...

But that would seem rather unlikely, no? Other than german shepards and dobermans, no other breed comes remotely close to the pit bull's notoriety.

This is similar to the "nature vs nurture" debate, IMO ... while in most cases, the owners (nurture, or lack of) are surely to blame ... it does seem that breed type (nature) plays a large role in the frequency of incidents.


It's not the pit bull's fault the news likes to use scare tactics for ratings. If they reported every bite with equal time maybe...

Like I said above to Heraldo who totally ignored it and then said the whole world believes pitbulls are vicious animals...

Do a google search for "pit bull chews toes off baby" and let me know if you think that's a vicious pit bull, or something else.

[Rinualdo]

Like I said above to Heraldo who totally ignored it and then said the whole world believes pitbulls are vicious animals...

Do a google search for "pit bull chews toes off baby" and let me know if you think that's a vicious pit bull, or something else.

As stated before, the plural of anecdote is not data.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

As stated before, the plural of anecdote is not data.

You mean like the CDC website with contrary points, and the National Canine Research Council information I posted with contrary points - those are all anecdotal right? Only your (and the rest of the world as you stated above) opinion is not anecdotal but scientific?

Ok Heraldo.

[CrystalTears]

Who the hell is Heraldo?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

My bad, Geraldo.

[Rinualdo]

You mean like the CDC website with contrary points, and the National Canine Research Council information I posted with contrary points - those are all anecdotal right? Only your (and the rest of the world as you stated above) opinion is not anecdotal but scientific?

Ok Heraldo.

The only point I've made is that pit bulls kill more people, by far, then any other breed.

Please explain, very slowly, where you've refuted or posted a contrary point?

I'll help you out a bit, however. That CDC site you linked has another link, here (http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf) and that had this little tid-bit of data in it


During 1997 and 1998, at least 27 people died of dog bite attacks (18 in 1997 and 9 in 1998). At least 25 breeds of dogs have been involved in 238 human DBRF during the past 20 years. Pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half of these deaths
I also direct your attention to Table-1 of said document, covering all dog bite related fatality (DBRF) from '77-98.

The entire discussion section is interesting


Despite these limitations and concerns, the data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogsaccounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The only point I've made is that pit bulls kill more people, by far, then any other breed.

Please explain, very slowly, where you've refuted or posted a contrary point?

I'll help you out a bit, however. That CDC site you linked has another link, here (http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf) and that had this little tid-bit of data in it

I also direct your attention to Table-1 of said document, covering all dog bite related fatality (DBRF) from '77-98.

The entire discussion section is interesting

Oh, you linked me back to the document on the CDC website with these EXACT words immediately after it?


It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic.

Gotcha.

[Sean]

I'm not really sure how you can census dog bites to legistlate against any particular breed. Especially since the term pittbull applies to several breeds and is basically lumped on any dog you find at a pound that people don't know the background for. I'm against pound dogs with big square heads! They might eat my children! .. if I had any.

[Rinualdo]

Oh, you linked me back to the document on the CDC website with these EXACT words immediately after it?



Gotcha.


I guess I'm confused.

You read the source article then, I presume? Do you disagree that pits are vastly more responsible for deaths caused by dogs then any other breed?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Or their toes Sean... or their toes.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I guess I'm confused.

You read the source article then, I presume? Do you disagree that pits are vastly more responsible for deaths caused by dogs then any other breed?

I bet you get confused a lot.

Yes, for all the reasons you can read through in that article, as well as the other website I provided for your education.

[Rinualdo]

I bet you get confused a lot.

Yes, for all the reasons you can read through in that article, as well as the other website I provided for your education.

So then the only point that I've made, which is that pit bulls are responsible for more deaths then any other breed, is one you agree with?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Reread your question, and my answer.

[Rinualdo]

Let me rephrase that:

You agree then, that the only point I've made is that the pit bull is responsible for more deaths then any other breed?

[diethx]

http://ihasahotdog.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/loldog-funny-dog-pictures-omg-getitoff.jpg

[Sean]

Let me rephrase that:

You agree then, that the only point I've made is that the pit bull is responsible for more deaths then any other breed?

Do you know how the data was gathered on what breed the dog actually was?

[CrystalTears]

But you keep spouting about anecdote does not mean data. We have no clue in that report which of those deaths could have been prevented with proper dog training by the owner because they do not mention the situations involved.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Did you eat paint chips as a child?


Do you disagree that pits are vastly more responsible for deaths caused by dogs then any other breed?


Yes, for all the reasons you can read through in that article, as well as the other website I provided for your education.

By stating yes, I thought it was obvious that I DISAGREE. As in, Yes, I disagree. Or, I could say, No, I don't agree. Can I put it any other way for you?

[Kyra231]

Do you know how the data was gathered on what breed the dog actually was?

That's a definite point that needs to be evaluated. So many people think that lab mixes are pit bulls. There's nothing sadder than a cute lab puppy sentenced to death because the animal control officers deemed it part pit bull.

[Rinualdo]

Do you know how the data was gathered on what breed the dog actually was?

The source material for the CDC report lists how the data was gathered.


But you keep spouting about anecdote does not mean data. We have no clue in that report which of those deaths could have been prevented with proper dog training by the owner because they do not mention the situations involved.

Of course not. I've only presented data; not drawn any conclusions. That's up to the individual to decide. As I stated in the first post, I do not agree with legislation in the matter nor in banning any particular breed.

Although SHM is trying his hardest, its very difficult to looked past the vast disparity between deaths caused by a pit/rot and every other breed.

Do you really feel that all those deaths are a by-product of bad training/ownership?

[Warriorbird]

Certainly not the fault of pit bulls.

Often tough to do anything relative to certain incidents though, so people try to find something they can blame.

[Rinualdo]

Certainly not the fault of pit bulls.

Often tough to do anything relative to certain incidents though, so people try to find something they can blame.

True, but what then do you do when you start to see a theme on those incidents? What threshold would you have to apply before you started looking at one specific thing as the possible cause?

Its subjective of course, but it sounds like for these legislators, they have reached their saturation point.

[Sean of the Thread]

Certainly not the fault of pit bulls.

Often tough to do anything relative to certain incidents though, so people try to find something they can blame.


Media man... fucking media sensation.

[Warriorbird]

True, but what then do you do when you start to see a theme on those incidents? What threshold would you have to apply before you started looking at one specific thing as the possible cause?

Its subjective of course, but it sounds like for these legislators, they have reached their saturation point.

There's a legion of breeds that will aggress just as much or more. Personally, I'd prefer to see people charged if their dogs seriously fuck up in more locales over some bullshit make people feel better ban of a breed.