PDA

View Full Version : It's happened again! baby mauled to death by a pit bull.



jonboy
02-11-2014, 01:49 PM
An eleven month old baby girl killed in her parents' home by a an American Pitbull, How many more times will this have to happen ?

This breed, correct me if I am wrong, is on a dangerous and prohibited dog register in the UK.

The dog has been destroyed, the parents are probably facing manslaughter charges.

Good. Set a few pitbulls on them.

I have had dogs all my life...but this and one or two other breeds have no place on this planet.I would love to hear one thoughtful cogent erudite reason for their continued existence.

I have never seen one of these dogs not in the hands of a dimwit limpdick dips..t retard. There's a tree in a park I know which has been shredded by the 'training methods' these scum use.

I advocate arming one's self with a tupperware of tasty bits of meat laced with strychnine to be tossed to said hounds. with a bit of luck the owner will eat it.

Now, got that off my chest, let the intelligent debate start.

ccmanuals
02-11-2014, 01:51 PM
An eleven month old baby girl killed in her parents' home by a an American Pitbull, How many more times will this have to happen ?

This breed, correct me if I am wrong, is on a dangerous and prohibited dog register in the UK.

The dog has been destroyed, the parents are probably facing manslaughter charges.

Good. Set a few pitbulls on them.

I have had dogs all my life...but this and one or two other breeds have no place on this planet.I would love to hear one thoughtful cogent erudite reason for their continued existence.

I have never seen one of these dogs not in the hands of a dimwit limpdick dips..t retard. There's a tree in a park I know which has been shredded by the 'training methods' these scum use.

I advocate arming one's self with a tupperware of tasty bits of meat laced with strychnine to be tossed to said hounds. with a bit of luck the owner will eat it.

Now, got that off my chest, let the intelligent debate start.

Your quite the optimist. :)

Paul Pless
02-11-2014, 01:53 PM
tragic, i haven't heard the details yet, i think i'll wait to comment. . .

slug
02-11-2014, 01:53 PM
Yah...that breed is dangerous. The humans who keep them as pets have personal development issues.

Paul Pless
02-11-2014, 01:54 PM
All I can say is that, in everything I've read, it does appear that, regardless of ownership and training, the breeding of pit bulls makes them more likely to be dangerous, than other breeds... some genetic traits are very hard to selectively breed out.

fundamentally untrue

Chip-skiff
02-11-2014, 01:58 PM
The breed is popular with dope dealers who want to protect their stash, and with macho wannabes who aspire to an outsized image.

People who consider an AK-47 a household accessory are quite likely to favor the breed.

Not the fault of the dogs. I feel very sorry for those poor dogs.

bogdog
02-11-2014, 02:03 PM
I'd want to know a lot more about the owners and the dog before jumping to any conclusions and I doubt we'll get any of that information. I've trained around plenty of pitbull breeds who've had no behavioral problems at all.

Paul Pless
02-11-2014, 02:03 PM
I figured that you, among all folks here, would have the most informed opinion..... ??Probably, but I want to hear the specific details of what happened in this case. Any large dog has the capacity to kill a small child. Dogs don't view children as humans. Especially small children. They think they're some other species. Dogs instinctively respond to flight and the high pitch squeal of child's voice as prey. This instinct and the associated behavior is even more accentuated if there are more than one dog present as a pack mentality sets in. I'm not excusing the behavior of the dog, I'm explaining what likely happened. Although it would be rare for me to ever blame a dog for something like this. Dogs very very rarely just 'snap'. There behavior almost always follows a predictable path.

I see child attacks by dogs as a problem that begins with the breeder. And requires vigilance by the breeder and the owner even after the dog has been sold or placed in a home. Breeders (and pet stores and rescue organizations and shelters) must be the focus for educating the prospective owner on properly housing and training and securing and socializing their pet. Its also up to the breeder to not sell or place some of their dogs to inappropriate home environments.

slug
02-11-2014, 02:14 PM
Pit bulls are dangerous animals and are illegal in many Countries .....Singapore the Netherlands, France, UK, Germany,Puerto Rico ,New Zealand, Italy ,Australia ,Denmark.....and many others i just got tired of typing them out.

not long ago there was a terrible pit bull mauling of a child locally. The child wandered into a yard looking for his football. The pit bull tore him to pieces.

Paul Pless
02-11-2014, 02:18 PM
If so, then answer me this one.....

If you purchased an American Pit Bull as a puppy, and raised it like any other breed, are you suggesting that it would be no more dangerous, in terms of aggressiveness and unpredictability, than, say, a Golden Retriever?If I raised it? Certainly it would be no more dangerous in terms of aggression and unpredictability than any other breed.

As far as dangerous breeds go, I've worked with thousands of dogs. Seriously thousands! I've been bitten many times. I've never been bitten by a large breed dog of any type, nor has any of my employees.

I'm not really in the business of selling dogs. But I think its up to the breeder to interview the prospective owner to see if they are the right fit for their breed and then to insist on certain types of training and socialization after the sale. I'm extremely particular about who gets any dog and even more particular about who gets a rottweiler from me, due to just this kind of story.

Paul Pless
02-11-2014, 02:19 PM
If not, then are you suggesting that incidents like the one described in the OP are inevitably a consequence of an owner who either neglected training of the dog, OR intentionally trained the dog to be aggressive?By far, its most often a consequence of poor socialization.

jonboy
02-11-2014, 02:20 PM
Probably, but I want to hear the specific details of what happened in this case. Any large dog has the capacity to kill a small child. Dogs don't view children as humans. Especially small children. They think they're some other species. Dogs instinctively respond to flight and the high pitch squeal of child's voice as prey. This instinct and the associated behavior is even more accentuated if there are more than one dog present as a pack mentality sets in. I'm not excusing the behavior of the dog, I'm explaining what likely happened. Although it would be rare for me to ever blame a dog for something like this. Dogs very very rarely just 'snap'. There behavior almost always follows a predictable path.

I see child attacks by dogs as a problem that begins with the breeder. And requires vigilance by the breeder and the owner even after the dog has been sold or placed in a home. Breeders (and pet stores and rescue organizations and shelters) must be the focus for educating the prospective owner on properly housing and training and securing and socializing their pet. Its also up to the breeder to not sell or place some of their dogs to inappropriate home environments.

Its been on BBC and Sky most of the afternoon...

Any dog has the capacity to kill a child...when I kept sheep the times I lost animals to dog attacks they were always small terrier or, ironically, sheepdog types.
I don't fundamentally agree with your first paragraph PP, too generalizing...and it's funny that these cases, so tragically common never seem to involve labradors or spaniels or general crossbreed mutts. Its Dobermann, Rottweiller, pitbulls of various race. Or is that what we are fed by the media ?
I used to work for an old showman who claimed the Staffordshire bull terrier was called the nursemaid dog and was deliberately left in charge of infants as protection and guarding duties.
Your second paragraph I mostly agree with, but gets dangerously close to the 'guns don't kill people' argument .....Let's not go down that road here though

bogdog
02-11-2014, 02:27 PM
I'd look out for the westies and the cockers, both are killers.

bogdog
02-11-2014, 02:36 PM
A short report on a long study of dog bite related fatalities in the US.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf (http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf)

Here's a short piece about the study.
http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2000.217.836

Paul Pless
02-11-2014, 02:37 PM
Give me a bit and I'll elaborate Norman.

Mrleft8
02-11-2014, 02:43 PM
How many children will have to die before miniature Schnauzers are eliminated from the face of the earth?
Good god! It's not the breed, it's the humans who put their children in harm's way.

TomF
02-11-2014, 02:53 PM
I have no trouble with the idea that the problem is typically the owner, and the lack of socialization. I also think, though, that genes are hard to overcome.

My brother had a border collie cross that herded anything it could possibly come into contact with. Pointers point; retrievers retrieve. Many of them, anyway, and quite naturally. When we go out in an off-leash area with our cocker cross, she goes about 30-40 feet in front of us and naturally runs from side to side, barrelling through the underbrush and flushing whatever happened to be in there. Despite not having any field-trial bloodlines that we know of. Genes at work.

I think aggressive breeds are probably aggressive, in much the same way - though that can be mitigated to one degree or another. And that a big, heavily muscled dog is more likely to cause severe injury to what they attack than a tiny yappy little thing.

This isn't an argument to never own a big dog, or even an aggressive breed. It is an argument to understand the impact of breeding history.

Ian McColgin
02-11-2014, 02:54 PM
The OP does not say where in the world this happened so I googled and found the story from Lancashire and the story rather casually calls the dog a terrier type pit bull. So much for whatever's legal in Britian.

All the pit bulls of my friends are lovely friendly animals and the danger is they might lick you to death. But on my street we have some tough guy wannabes who have raised their pits abusivly and those dogs are indeed dangerous. Some other tough guys more fancy a rottie and others like other breeds. Almost any dog can be raised to be dangerous, which we really learned when Mom rescued the world's only vicious golden retriever. Clancy took some years for Mom to make anything resembling safe around adults and never around children.

Some dogs will accept what amounts to baby sitting duty as Mom's collie did me when I was born. Others go through serious jealosy problems, as did a friend's shepherd when they had a baby. The dog took to dropping a dump in the kid's crib, which led to his becoming someone else's dog. And it is true that various breeds have various, call it, predispositions. You don't have to train a border collie to herd things. Beagles will follow an interesting scent so naturally that they are legendarily hard to train to stay with you. Shepherds like things in order which is why they are so readily trained as guard dogs. And so on.

Even dog breeds known for their ability to get along with human children need to be trained for it and should not be just left with the kid unsupervised. And even those breeds can be damaged in ways that make them an active hazard. Paul is right, it's on the trainer but also sellers should know their animals and judge people well enough to know when not to permit a sale.

bogdog
02-11-2014, 02:55 PM
How many children will have to die before miniature Schnauzers are eliminated from the face of the earth?
Good god! It's not the breed, it's the humans who put their children in harm's way.

I don't think any of the Schnauzer breeds have been responsible for a dog bite related fatality. The little ones could probably yap ya to death though.

jonboy
02-11-2014, 02:56 PM
How many children will have to die before miniature Schnauzers are eliminated from the face of the earth?
Good god! It's not the breed, it's the humans who put their children in harm's way.


Wrong.
The dog and it seems another belonging to the same family had previously got into a neighbour's garden, and terrorized the children playing there. Luckily no more than that, but the neighbour reported it to the police. He was on TV stating this . Of ethnic asian roots, ...I bet the owner of the dogs was white. Funny the police didn't do anything, don't you think.

bogdog
02-11-2014, 03:00 PM
...
Even dog breeds known for their ability to get along with human children need to be trained for it and should not be just left with the kid unsupervised. And even those breeds can be damaged in ways that make them an active hazard. Paul is right, it's on the trainer but also sellers should know their animals and judge people well enough to know when not to permit a sale.

The Chinooks that are at Westminster this year are fairly decent with children, at least according to a breeder I know. I believe they were selected for low aggression in the first place to improve cooperation in sled pulling.

Too Little Time
02-11-2014, 03:12 PM
Now, got that off my chest, let the intelligent debate start.

The debate is hard. It is impossible to prove that any dog is safe for babies to be around.

People have trained Lions, and Tigers, and Bears. Oh, my. As pets. These trainers have been killed and eaten by their "pets." Full grown people not babies eaten by their pets.

Short of getting rid of all dogs, babies will be killed and eaten by dogs.

So we can all take our risks with dogs. Death of babies being a consequence. I don't think criminal charges should be a consequence.

jonboy
02-11-2014, 03:16 PM
The OP does not say where in the world this happened so I googled and found the story from Lancashire and the story rather casually calls the dog a terrier type pit bull. So much for whatever's legal in Britian.

All the pit bulls of my friends are lovely friendly animals and the danger is they might lick you to death. But on my street we have some tough guy wannabes who have raised their pits abusivly and those dogs are indeed dangerous. Some other tough guys more fancy a rottie and others like other breeds. Almost any dog can be raised to be dangerous, which we really learned when Mom rescued the world's only vicious golden retriever. Clancy took some years for Mom to make anything resembling safe around adults and never around children.

Some dogs will accept what amounts to baby sitting duty as Mom's collie did me when I was born. Others go through serious jealosy problems, as did a friend's shepherd when they had a baby. The dog took to dropping a dump in the kid's crib, which led to his becoming someone else's dog. And it is true that various breeds have various, call it, predispositions. You don't have to train a border collie to herd things. Beagles will follow an interesting scent so naturally that they are legendarily hard to train to stay with you. Shepherds like things in order which is why they are so readily trained as guard dogs. And so on.

Even dog breeds known for their ability to get along with human children need to be trained for it and should not be just left with the kid unsupervised. And even those breeds can be damaged in ways that make them an active hazard. Paul is right, it's on the trainer but also sellers should know their animals and judge people well enough to know when not to permit a sale.

Official its an American pit bull and the baby was licked to death

bogdog
02-11-2014, 03:22 PM
Official its an American pit bull and the baby was licked to deathIs there actually any documentation the dog was an "American pit bull" rather than say one of the many bully breeds from Britain?

Here's something someone or other said regarding families with children and dogs.
Blackburn MP, the former Home Secretary Jack Straw, said families needed to be alert to the dangers of such animals. “What will it take to convince people not to keep dogs like this - and to get across to all dog-owners, of every breed of dog, that no dog should ever be left unsupervised with a baby?”

switters
02-11-2014, 03:26 PM
there should be a law, or more than one. Several actually.

Dogs should be kept locked up, with their food in a separate safe, mandatory registration, insurance, and training.

This should also be applied to teenagers, cats, and those plecostomus fish, because I don't understand them and they scare me.

Moving on, I feel very sad for both families.

When my children were still in their early teens we lived next to two dobermans that were eventually put down for biting a neighbor. I was very anxious about those dogs for years, even paid for materials and provided the labor to remove the low chainlink fence and put up a six foot privacy fence between our properties. The neighbor provided nothing, except two dogs that would go crazy mad every time I went into my own backyard and was within 10-feet of the fence. Hated those dogs. But I still remember the look on his face when he told me the dogs were put to death, and I felt sorry for him.

slug
02-11-2014, 03:34 PM
Evidently pit bull is a wide used name describing dogs that look like pit bulls. One of the reasons the authorities have a hard time controling these beasts is that identification is subjective.

bogdog
02-11-2014, 03:40 PM
Evidently pit bull is a wide used name describing dogs that look like pit bulls. One of the reasons the authorities have a hard time controling these beasts is that identification is subjective.There is much interbreeding among some aficionados. Of course the modern bully breeds really got their start in Britain. I suspect the "American" being used to describe this dog is more for ethnic prejudice purposes than accuracy.

slug
02-11-2014, 03:45 PM
They were bred as fighting dogs...killing machines. Each country imported them and further refined their aggressiveness.

Evidently because of inbreeding American pit bulls are many times deaf.

bogdog
02-11-2014, 03:48 PM
They were bred as fighting dogs...killing machines. Each country imported them and further refined their aggressiveness.

Evidently because of inbreeding American pit bulls are many times deaf.How does that relate to this case?

PS deafness is found in a large number of breeds. Breeders the world over have consistently made poor choices for breeding their dogs, a culture that is unfortunately encouraged by Kennel Clubs.

slug
02-11-2014, 04:05 PM
How does that relate to this case?


Err emm.. .because it may be difficult to identify the breed legally.

In many countries PIT BULLS are illegal. If the mauled child was in one of those countries that prohibits PIT BULLS then identification will become important.

perhaps you should research the subject of pit bulls and fighting dogs.

slug
02-11-2014, 04:07 PM
33 posts of opinions without any pertinent statistics or links to back them up. If anyone does post any studies or links you can bet they will only post those ones that favor their view. Typical bilge crap that's been argued to death many times before. Don't you all get tired of it? Unless yet another forumite gets banned it's just another waste of space, right?


here you go ...these animals are killers.


In an effort to counter the fighting reputation of pit bull-type dogs, in 1996 the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals renamed pit bull terriers to "St. Francis Terriers", so that people might be more likely to adopt them.[19] 60 temperament-screened dogs were adopted until the program was halted, after several of the newly adopted pit bulls killed cats.[20]

bogdog
02-11-2014, 04:16 PM
Err emm.. .because it may be difficult to identify the breed legally.

In many countries PIT BULLS are illegal. If the mauled child was in one of those countries that prohibits PIT BULLS then identification will become important.

perhaps you should research the subject of pit bulls and fighting dogs.I'm sorry, I meant the deafness comment. I'm quite familiar with bully breeds but thanks for the advice.

bogdog
02-11-2014, 04:18 PM
here you go ...these animals are killers.


In an effort to counter the fighting reputation of pit bull-type dogs, in 1996 the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals renamed pit bull terriers to "St. Francis Terriers", so that people might be more likely to adopt them.[19] 60 temperament-screened dogs were adopted until the program was halted, after several of the newly adopted pit bulls killed cats.[20]Did you read the study I linked in post #18?

slug
02-11-2014, 04:22 PM
And ?

bogdog
02-11-2014, 04:30 PM
And ?I suspect the study points out there is difference between the perception of those who think pit bulls are all bad and the reality. Might want to read up on bully breeds and fighting dogs.;)

jonboy
02-11-2014, 04:38 PM
33 posts of opinions without any pertinent statistics or links to back them up. If anyone does post any studies or links you can bet they will only post those ones that favor their view. Typical bilge crap that's been argued to death many times before. Don't you all get tired of it? Unless yet another forumite gets banned it's just another waste of space, right?
Did you not read post 18 's link?


And less facetiously than a previous post of mine, almost immediately genetic tests were performed on the dog to identify the breed (the results of which were announced an hour or so ago and it was stated American Pitbull, a breed prohibited in Britain.

slug
02-11-2014, 04:41 PM
Terriers in particular will go after smaller animals. That is also what they were bred to do. Some dog breeds are more aggressive than others and depending on what they were bred for, and the size of the dog the damage they can do can be devastating. I've had a fair amount of experience with many breeds of dogs including pit bulls, and often you need look no further than the owner to see why they behave the way they do, although that is not always the case. All breeds have a percentage of aggressive or unpredictable dogs, just like humans. They run the gamut. If you take it upon yourself to own a certain type of dog it is your responsibility to care for it and everyone else it comes into contact with. I've met a lot of nasty chihuahuas but they don't do too much damage. My pit bull mix or my rottie were another story. They were not aggressive dogs, but if they were the results would have been awful. However, anybody who leaves any dog alone with a small child is asking for trouble. No dogs should ever be left unsupervised, especially with kids.


Its the size and power of an animal the makes them dangerous. People who keep big powerful aggresive dogs have self image problems.

there is no way that my friends 5 pound pugs will be able to hurt any child...they aren't built for biting and aggression.

Children regularly twist thier ears, step on them and no death occurs.


http://s24.postimg.org/i56e85ymd/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/bepwyqbgh/full/)
subir fotos (http://postimage.org/index.php?lang=spanish)

PhaseLockedLoop
02-11-2014, 04:42 PM
When I was a kid, it was Doberman Pinschers that were supposed to be killers, and there were a lot of them around. I imagine the popularity of the breed has a considerable impact on how many people they kill.

bogdog
02-11-2014, 04:43 PM
Did you not read post 18 's link?


And less facetiously than a previous post of mine, almost immediately genetic tests were performed on the dog to identify the breed (the results of which were announced an hour or so ago and it was stated American Pitbull, a breed prohibited in Britain.An article from the Independant says "Pit Bull Terriers" are illegal in Britain. What breeds exactly does that cover?

TomF
02-11-2014, 04:50 PM
Did you not read post 18 's link?
....I did, actually.

The linked exec summary essentially said that about half of fatal dog attacks studied were from the pitbull type breeds, but that one shouldn't presume that this meant they were more likely to bite people. Buried in the full text it probably says what I've read elsewhere - that most people who get bitten, are bitten by other breeds.

Presumably the big terrier breeds just do it better, as you'd expect ...

bogdog
02-11-2014, 04:52 PM
Did you not read post 18 's link?


And less facetiously than a previous post of mine, almost immediately genetic tests were performed on the dog to identify the breed (the results of which were announced an hour or so ago and it was stated American Pitbull, a breed prohibited in Britain.Is there a citation for this I am unable to locate any update as to the "breed."

Peerie Maa
02-11-2014, 05:03 PM
tragic, i haven't heard the details yet, i think i'll wait to comment. . .


11 February 2014 Last updated at 18:58

Blackburn baby girl killed by 'pit bull terrier-type' pet dog

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72906000/jpg/_72906052_mercury_ava_jayne_corless_08.jpg Ava-Jayne Corless was mauled while her mother Chloe King was downstairs
An 11-month-old baby girl was killed by a "pit bull terrier-type" dog while asleep upstairs in bed, police said.
Ava-Jayne Marie Corless was taken to hospital from Emily Street, Blackburn, at 23:00 GMT on Monday where she died.
The baby's mother Chloe King, 20, and her boyfriend have been arrested on suspicion of manslaughter. They were downstairs when she was attacked.
Ava-Jayne was not at her home address but lived nearby. The pet, classed as a dangerous dog, has been destroyed.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72907000/jpg/_72907250_dog_flowers_bbc.jpg Tributes have been left for baby Ava-Jayne in Emily Street, Blackburn which has been cordoned off
Ms King and her 26-year-old boyfriend Lee Wright, who is not the child's father, are also being questioned on suspicion of child neglect.
'Horrific incident' A post-mortem examination will take place to find out the exact cause of Ava's death.
During a press conference, Ch Supt Chris Bithell said: "This is an absolutely horrific incident in which a baby girl has lost her life."
Police were first alerted by the ambulance service who were called to reports of the girl being mauled by a pet dog.
"I'm told it's quite a large pit bull-type dog," Mr Bithell said.
"As part of the investigation we are making inquiries to see whether there have been previous issues with this particular dog," he added.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72900000/jpg/_72900572_021022064.jpg Forensic officers are examining the house in Emily Street, Blackburn, where 11-month-old Ava-Jayne Marie Corless was killed by the dog
A Lancashire Police spokesman later confirmed that the dog was a "pit bull terrier-type dog prohibited under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991".
The mother and boyfriend remain in custody, he added.
No-one else was injured during the attack.
A neighbour, who did not want to be named, said: "She was a lovely little girl, always smiling, always happy, just like her mum.
"It's sickened me to my stomach."

from the Beeb
From the police website:



Latest news

11/02/2014 - Last updated 07:00
Baby killed by dog in Blackburn


This is an absolutely horrific incident in which a baby girl lost her life and we would like to take this opportunity to express our sympathy to the wider family.
The circumstances of the incident are that at around 11pm on Monday 10th February, police were called by the ambulance service to an address on Emily Street following reports that eleven month old Ava-Jayne Marie Corless had been mauled by a pet dog.
Police officers who attended performed CPR on the baby alongside paramedics before she was taken to Royal Blackburn Hospital. Sadly she passed away at hospital a short time later. A Home Office Post Mortem examination will be carried out tomorrow to establish exactly how she died.
Officers are continuing to carry out enquiries at the scene and investigate the circumstances of what has happened.
A 26 year old man and a 20 year old woman both been arrested on suspicion of child neglect and manslaughter and are currently in police custody. They will be questioned during the course of the day.
Family liaison officers have been put in place to offer support to the wider family of the baby.
Then dog involved was destroyed at the scene - tests will be carried out to establish the exact breed of the dog involved and we are making enquiries into the history of the animal.
Nobody else was injured during the incident.
11/02/2014 - Last updated 17:00

Baby killed by dog in Blackburn - update


In relation to the Ava-Jayne Corless death at Blackburn inquiry we can confirm that the dog involved has been identified by experts as a Pit Bull Terrier type dog. This is a Section 1 prohibited dog under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
The two people arrested remain in custody.



The issue with pit bulls in the UK is the belief that they were selectively bred to be vicious to be kept by scum who need their macho image boosting.

bogdog
02-11-2014, 05:06 PM
Its the size and power of an animal the makes them dangerous. People who keep big powerful aggresive dogs have self image problems.

there is no way that my friends 5 pound pugs will be able to hurt any child...they aren't built for biting and aggression.

Children regularly twist thier ears, step on them and no death occurs.


http://s24.postimg.org/i56e85ymd/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/bepwyqbgh/full/)
subir fotos (http://postimage.org/index.php?lang=spanish)A westie killed a human, 15lbs of death!

bogdog
02-11-2014, 05:08 PM
from the Beeb
From the police website:


The issue with pit bulls in the UK is the belief that they were selectively bred to be viscous to be kept by scum who need their macho image boosting.A lot of dogs have viscous drool.

Peerie Maa
02-11-2014, 06:45 PM
A lot of dogs have viscous drool.

Yep, boxers are notorious for that.

Keith Wilson
02-11-2014, 07:03 PM
The problem with this discussion is that it's very difficult to separate the characteristics of a particular dog breed from the characteristics of their owners. Breeds which have a reputation for being vicious are more often owned by those who want a vicious dog and who train them to be dangerous. Still, it's an awful story, and makes me very glad I don't much like dogs.

Paul Pless
02-11-2014, 07:07 PM
Still, it's an awful story, and makes me very glad I don't much like dogs.i don't understand the relationship between the story and your dislike of dogs

hokiefan
02-11-2014, 07:11 PM
We never had one of the breeds that people seem to fear. Our dogs were a cocker spaniel, several black labs, and now a spaniel mix rescue dog. That said, when the kids were very small the kids and the dogs were never together unsupervised. We trusted the dogs, but that didn't matter. If they were with the kids so were we.

Cheers,

Bobby

Keith Wilson
02-11-2014, 07:14 PM
I don't understand the relationship between the story and your dislike of dogs.'Dislike' is probably too strong - they irritate me a little, that's all. I'm not a pack animal, and dominance-submission hierarchical stuff kind of weirds me out. But I don't have any, and with a new granddaughter, your comment about children as prey makes me glad I don't.

Paul Pless
02-11-2014, 07:20 PM
We trusted the dogs, but that didn't matter. If they were with the kids so were we.

Its a really good attitude to take.

Chip-skiff
02-11-2014, 07:22 PM
One problem that frequently occurs is that dogs (being predators) are genetically disposed to lunge and seize a fleeing animal. Small children will approach a dog, touch it, and then retreat quickly, which triggers that predatory response. Most often the child gets a nip, occasionally a serious bite, before the dog lets go.

But with larger dogs bred to attack and fight to the death, the encounter may be prolonged and deadly. The dog bites, the child screams and strikes the dog, which perceives resistance as an attack, and so on. . .

The police report states that the child was killed while she was asleep in a bed, which (if accurate) points to something seriously wrong with the dog.

Peerie Maa
02-11-2014, 07:25 PM
One problem that frequently occurs is that dogs (being predators) are genetically disposed to lunge and seize a fleeing animal. Small children will approach a dog, touch it, and then retreat quickly, which triggers that predatory response. Most often the child gets a nip, occasionally a serious bite, before the dog lets go.

But with larger dogs bred to attack and fight to the death, the encounter may be prolonged and deadly.

Which is a bit off topic when you recall that this infant was asleep in bed.

Phillip Allen
02-11-2014, 07:40 PM
An eleven month old baby girl killed in her parents' home by a an American Pitbull, How many more times will this have to happen ?

This breed, correct me if I am wrong, is on a dangerous and prohibited dog register in the UK.

The dog has been destroyed, the parents are probably facing manslaughter charges.

Good. Set a few pitbulls on them.

I have had dogs all my life...but this and one or two other breeds have no place on this planet.I would love to hear one thoughtful cogent erudite reason for their continued existence.

I have never seen one of these dogs not in the hands of a dimwit limpdick dips..t retard. There's a tree in a park I know which has been shredded by the 'training methods' these scum use.

I advocate arming one's self with a tupperware of tasty bits of meat laced with strychnine to be tossed to said hounds. with a bit of luck the owner will eat it.

Now, got that off my chest, let the intelligent debate start.

in general, I agree with the uselessness of the breed… but with certain reservations.

The ‘reasoning’ behind the desire for such dogs is often (I believe) because some people feel they fill their personal need for power. They are wrong and the attempt to gain personal power through a surrogate animal is really pitiful.

On the other hand there are pits in my family and to the extent I could be of influence, they were raised just like a boy’s companion dog… this works quite well and these dogs never learn to tap into that lethal aggressiveness… so… it comes down to the owners (I know I speak in broad terms here)

I understand Chows are even more dangerous but lesser known.

Chip-skiff
02-11-2014, 07:41 PM
One problem that frequently occurs is that dogs (being predators) are genetically disposed to lunge and seize a fleeing animal. Small children will approach a dog, touch it, and then retreat quickly, which triggers that predatory response. Most often the child gets a nip, occasionally a serious bite, before the dog lets go.

But with larger dogs bred to attack and fight to the death, the encounter may be prolonged and deadly. The dog bites, the child screams and strikes the dog, which perceives resistance as an attack, and so on. . .

The police report states that the child was killed while she was asleep in a bed, which (if accurate) points to something seriously wrong with the dog.



Which is a bit off topic when you recall that this infant was asleep in bed.

I edited before your post. The statement that the baby was asleep in bed might be inaccurate, particularly if the adults on the premises were absent or high as wee kites at the time.

jack grebe
02-11-2014, 07:52 PM
Come on Paul, give up that expert opinion .....

Pit bulls have been compared with golden retrievers, and
I just called about adopting a goldie tonight......I need to know
if it would be a better lap dog or perhaps train it for the warehouse
district down in Miami

jack grebe
02-11-2014, 07:54 PM
I understand Chows are even more dangerous but lesser known.
OMG Yes the chow I had would attack any available lap it could find.

Paul Pless
02-11-2014, 07:54 PM
the police report states that the child was killed while she was asleep in a bed, which (if accurate) points to something seriously wrong with the dog.

possible scenario: dog jumps into bed with sleeping child, child wakes and cries, dog bites child (think about seeing a dog play with a squeaky toy) child screams even louder, dog increases level of aggression

Points to something wrong with the parents, for being ignorant of dog's behavior in general and for neglecting to supervise their dog's presence with their child. Points to the potential negligence of the breeder for not properly screening these owners.

Phillip Allen
02-11-2014, 07:57 PM
possible scenario: dog jumps into bed with sleeping child, child wakes and cries, dog bites child (think about seeing a dog play with a squeaky toy) child screams even louder, dog increases level of aggression

Points to something wrong with the parents, for being ignorant of dog's behavior in general and for neglecting to supervise their dog's presence with their child. Points to the potential negligence of the breeder for not properly screening these owners.

screening owners may sound like a good idea but will not happen at any useful level... butt-smoke, paul

McMike
02-11-2014, 07:58 PM
Yah...that breed is dangerous. The humans who keep them as pets have personal development issues.

Just got one as a pup, he's 2 months old and better behaved than most of the adult labs I've met. Love the display of ignorance though, A+.

McMike
02-11-2014, 08:01 PM
The breed is popular with dope dealers who want to protect their stash, and with macho wannabes who aspire to an outsized image.

People who consider an AK-47 a household accessory are quite likely to favor the breed.

Not the fault of the dogs. I feel very sorry for those poor dogs.

Untrue now more than ever, they are known as the nanny dog for a great reason. Yes there are bad ones but I'm more scared of the humans, many of which post here, than a breed of dog.

hokiefan
02-11-2014, 08:02 PM
screening owners may sound like a good idea but will not happen at any useful level... butt-smoke, paul

We definitely screened potential owners when our lab had puppies, and strongly discouraged several. The animal rescue group my wife and daughter spent several years volunteering with screened potential adopters quite vigorously, refusing a significant portion of them.

Cheers,

Bobby

Paul Pless
02-11-2014, 08:02 PM
Come on Paul, give up that expert opinion .....

Pit bulls have been compared with golden retrievers, and
I just called about adopting a goldie tonight......I need to know
if it would be a better lap dog or perhaps train it for the warehouse
district down in Miami

I've never seen a single human aggressive golden retriever. Personally I have owned more than a hundred goldens for their entire natural life span.

I should clarify my earlier comments. Its my philosophy that good dog ownership starts with the breeder. As an experienced breeder and trainer myself, I recognize behavioral issues at all life stages of a dog and modify that behavior when necessary. I also test dogs, repeatedly over a period of weeks or months. If I saw any thing from a dog that suggested aggresion would be an issue, I would never adopt that dog out into a home. But I'm in a rarity I have the luxury of being able to keep dogs for as long as necessary. Most rescue organizations end up euthanizing un-adoptable dogs.

Paul Pless
02-11-2014, 08:05 PM
screening owners may sound like a good idea but will not happen at any useful level... butt-smoke, paul

I do it, and most reputable breeders that I know do it as well. So do virtually all rescue organizations, as well as humane societies and scpa's. Myself, as well as my staff, volunteer at my local shelter evaluating both dogs and owners. That's a not a useful level?

Breakaway
02-11-2014, 08:07 PM
So, just what is it about a Pit Bull that people (other than the aforementioned drug dealers, gangsters, and tough-guy wannabes) find appealing enough that they will overlook that reputation? I can't think of a thing.

Nailed, it Fred Z. IMO anyway.

All respect to Paul and others ( and Paul gave me excellent guidance when I was having aggression issues with a rescue we adopted, so I have every respect for his knowledge of dogs) you own a pit bull to be a tough guy; its owned as a weapon not a pet.

Kevin

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
02-11-2014, 08:07 PM
I waited until my boys were older before I got a dog.
It was better for them and the dog.
When the boys were little, I didn't have time for a dog.
It's a big responsibility.

oznabrag
02-11-2014, 08:27 PM
Nailed, it Fred Z. IMO anyway.

All respect to Paul and others ( and Paul gave me excellent guidance when I was having aggression issues with a rescue we adopted, so I have every respect for his knowledge of dogs) you own a pit bull to be a tough guy; its owned as a weapon not a pet.

Kevin

Kevin, you echo an awful lot of posters to this thread, so please don't take this personally, but there are an awful lot of perfectly well-adjusted WOMEN out there who own and dote on perfectly well-adjusted pit bulls (of several varieties, thank you Donn).

IMO, blaming a breed of dog for the shortcomings of its master is a shortcoming in and of itself.

Furthermore, characterizing all owners of pit bulls as ignorant, asinine, posturing , macho nitwits is every bit as enlightened and aware as characterizing all (insert race/color/creed of your choice here) as being ( insert human failing/evil/moral deficiency of your choice here).

bogdog
02-11-2014, 08:41 PM
Had a 75 year old woman in a training class about twenty years ago with a huge Staffordshire. Very sweet dog but his slobber corroded the paint on her car.

Too Little Time
02-11-2014, 08:51 PM
Its the size and power of an animal the makes them dangerous. People who keep big powerful aggresive dogs have self image problems.

there is no way that my friends 5 pound pugs will be able to hurt any child...they aren't built for biting and aggression.

Children regularly twist thier ears, step on them and no death occurs.

from a news story:

"a 6-week-old black lab bit the baby numerous times. It was unclear how long the baby had been dead ... the child was unattended in a baby swing"

and from another

"The baby was in a swing when Lucky, a golden retriever-Labrador mix, bit the child several times and tore off his legs, authorities said. Lucky was "a very gentle dog.""

Puppy. Gentle dog. Tough on the parents.

I don't think size or breed matters.

Nicholas Scheuer
02-11-2014, 09:41 PM
You haven't met enough+ Pit Bull owners, johnboy. I know several serious dog owners who own and have trained Pit Bulls to be decent dogs. Personally, I don't like Pitt Bulls.

MiddleAgesMan
02-11-2014, 10:28 PM
We have plenty of pit bulls here in southeastern Georgia and we read of kids being killed or seriously maimed by them a couple times a year.

On the other hand, I can't recall reading about any kid being killed or seriously maimed by any other breed.

oznabrag
02-11-2014, 10:46 PM
[QUOTE=MiddleAgesMan; I can't recall reading about any kid being killed or seriously maimed by any other breed.[/QUOTE]

See post 79.

Breakaway
02-11-2014, 10:47 PM
Kevin, you echo an awful lot of posters to this thread, so please don't take this personally, but there are an awful lot of perfectly well-adjusted WOMEN out there who own and dote on perfectly well-adjusted pit bulls (of several varieties, thank you Donn).

IMO, blaming a breed of dog for the shortcomings of its master is a shortcoming in and of itself.

Furthermore, characterizing all owners of pit bulls as ignorant, asinine, posturing , macho nitwits is every bit as enlightened and aware as characterizing all (insert race/color/creed of your choice here) as being ( insert human failing/evil/moral deficiency of your choice here).

I don't take it personally, but thanks for considering that.


Now, why does anyone suppose that these dogs are favored by those who would raise them to be vicious do harm? Sure a Golden or Cock-A-Poo or Labradoodle could be abused and become vicious. But of that's so, why does it seem the pits are a favored breed of those who would raise a dog to be deadly and dangerous?
Kevin

MiddleAgesMan
02-11-2014, 11:02 PM
See post 79.

I'm just talking about what I read or hear about in my area. I'm sure there are incidents with different breeds but so far they are in far flung places, not here.

oznabrag
02-11-2014, 11:10 PM
I don't take it personally, but thanks for considering that.


Now, why does anyone suppose that these dogs are favored by those who would raise them to be vicious do harm? Sure a Golden or Cock-A-Poo or Labradoodle could be abused and become vicious. But of that's so, why does it seem the pits are a favored breed of those who would raise a dog to be deadly and dangerous?
Kevin

I understand.

My question for you is why are people who would do that to a dog tolerated? In my opinion , we would be showing signs of evolution as social animals, if the dogs were rescued and the owners were euthanized.

Granted, after the dog has been weaponized there is little to be done but kill it, ...

Actually, weaponized is a poor choice of words. Weaponized connotes that there is absolute control over the animal.
The owners you are talking about simply abuse and antagonize these dogs until they are crazed.

So they can not be said to be 'weaponized' unless one"s idea of a weapon is a live, pinless hand grenade just waiting a chance.

Furthermore, it is as Donn said. There are at least 5 distinct breeds that are called pit bulls. Indiscriminately condemning all of them and branding anyone who owns one as being somehow less than human is the stuff of dystopian nightmares.

Chip-skiff
02-12-2014, 01:22 AM
Indiscriminately condemning all of them and branding anyone who owns one as being somehow less than human is the stuff of dystopian nightmares.

It's not indiscriminate. There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that certain breeds are more likely to initiate attacks against humans and also to pursue them resulting in serious injury or death. When we lived in New Zealand there were several news items about pit bull attacks, so I searched pit bull attacks NZ and found a great many items, some with horrific photos. New Zealand has about the same population as the state of Colorado.

http://e2nz.org/whats-it-like-to-live-in-nz/quality-of-life/new-zealand-where-pit-bulls-roam-free/

Whilst many people may say any dog has the potential to attack if it has been treated badly, questions have quite rightly been asked if tighter restrictions should be placed on people owning and keeping pit-bulls, and other dogs traditionally bred for fighting, in residential areas.

So how bad is the problem in New Zealand? In the last five years dog bites have cost the ACC over $10 million for a little under 50,000 dog bite victims. In 75% of attacks the dog was known to the victim, but not necessarily owned by them. Last year 460 needed to go to hospital because of dog bites and five people have died since 1969.

Whilst many breeds of dog can be considered dangerous only 4 are banned from importation into New Zealand: the American pit-bull terrier, Brazilian fila, Dogo argentino and the Japanese tosa.

A study (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-news/news/3278980/Dog-attacks-What-you-don-t-know) in 13 North Island council districts showed that Pit-bulls inflicted the most attacks, followed by Labradors, Bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers and Alsatians. The reason why Labradors feature so highly is because they are the nation’s most popular dog and there are large numbers of them.

Paul Pless
02-12-2014, 01:28 AM
Now, why does anyone suppose that these dogs are favored by those who would raise them to be vicious do harm? who knows. . .

popularity in dog breeds often follows some sort of hype in film: for instance my mom has been breeding and importing and training and showing rottweiler since the 1950's; they were even in the top 100 breeds in America then in terms of popularity. Then the movie The Omen came out. My mom sold a litter of beautiful rotties a few months later. When she held her puppy class a few weeks later, six of eight of the puppies showed up named Damien.

The remake of 101 Dalmatians led to the a huge increase in dalmatians being abandoned at humane shelters; Dalmatians are great dogs but they often have significant genetically driven health problems and can be expensive dogs to own

German Shepards were once the most popular breed in America - Rin Tin Tin

Collies too, Lassie

Here's a bully breed from the Little Rascals.

http://www.cesarsway.com/sites/default/files/cesarsway-images/features/2012/January/Petey-our-gang-1930.jpg

keyhavenpotterer
02-12-2014, 02:53 AM
Tragic for that Baby.

Indeed dog's deemed fitting Pit Bull type can't be kept.

Similar dogs deemed acceptable are Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

My observations are that SBT are fine if raised normally by responsible people, they can be very good with children but there is a cycle of trouble.

1. Irresponsible people wind dog up to be aggressive. Bites someone, gets lost or abandoned due to finances, ends up in rehoming kennel.

2. Irresponsible parents with to small a house get dog. Go to rehoming kennel for free dog as can't get a 'pedigree'.

3. Lots of abandoned SBT due to sheet numbers of people in phase 1 in inner cities.

4. Pick SBT as they've seen them before.

5. Dog doesn't have enough space or exercise or gets wound up again by irresponsible owner.

6. Bites something. Cycle starts again as it gets abandoned, walked even less and more stressed or destroyed.

7. Irresponsible people let the dog breed irresponsibly and give them to other people in an irresponsible fashion.

The primary issue with most dog attacks is the wrong dog with the wrong owner.

It's unfortunate that SBT are favoured by this irresponsible type. If it were another breed we'd likely have much the same problem. The jaw strength of some of the dogs compounds the problem but any dog has high jaw strength.

I've seen retrievers bite their owners, I have be very careful with some border collies and reckon a little chihuahua on my books the most 'tricky' of all.

On the upside, my dog who I lost last year was the best thing I ever had in 40 years. People with dogs live longer as they take more exercise and have lower stress levels and rates of depression.

The key is to make owners liable for the dogs behaviour on the same level as if say a gun goes off. If your dog kills someone you go to prison as if it's a weapon etc.

This is now becoming the situation in the UK gradually. In the short term it might mean abandoned dogs but should break the cycle somewhat.

Ed

George.
02-12-2014, 03:38 AM
Its Dobermann, Rottweiller, pitbulls of various race.

Now we are extending the hate to other breeds...

varadero
02-12-2014, 04:15 AM
The number one dangerous breed can be brought up in an environment by diligent owners to be a harmless dog. The least dangerous breed can be brought up in an environment which turns it into a killer.
I have owned dogs of all sizes and breeds for most of my life, the most dangerous breeds for small chidren have always been the smaller food aggresive types. This is due to a missplaced belief that they are "safe" with small kids. Two of my dog have nipped kids despite me asking their parents to ensure that the kids keep their distance. A Pommeranian that weighed in at 5g, after a small girl tried to gouge out her eye and a cocker spaniel at feeding time. After those occasions, all the small dogs were penned up when children were present. The big dogs were always wary of small kids and kept their distance.

jonboy
02-12-2014, 05:07 AM
Now we are extending the hate to other breeds...

other breeds with similar characterstics, yes. because mainly, they are the chosen accesory of the wrong kind of person, to put it politely..and they are, through breeding, interbreeding to satisfy high demand levels causing degenerate problems, training and inclination. simply, dangerous.

There was a rottweiller kept loose in a big yard of a factory on the local industrial estate. He would sit in the sun, mooch about in a very pleasant way. If you were a few metres from the fence and went coochy coo he would look up, thump his tail a few times go back to sleep.
I parked my car close to the fence one evening, got out turned to lock up and he launched himself at the fence so hard the fence gave enough to strike me lightly in the back.. it held, thank the stars, and still has a bowed out section. I was about a metre from the fence admittedly and he was doing the job he was trained for I guess.
That dog weighed , what..? 70 kgs maybe more?
There would have been no chance for even a large adult if he'd hit you running full crack...
A few weeks later I read in the local rag he'd been shot. and no it wasn't me, I love most dogs....
But not dangerous ones. Good riddance

George.
02-12-2014, 05:20 AM
So now rottweilers should also be banned or shot. Even when they are just doing their job.

We have a new rottweiler. We raised him ourselves, and he is a gentleman. He even knows not to step on people's towels on the beach, and is good natured with kids, stray dogs, and even drunk Argentines who sometimes open the gate and invade our property. But at night, when the beach is normally empty, he growls at strange noises and looks as if he would attack anyone who came into the house unannounced. He is smart enough to realize that what is normal in the daytime is suspicious at night.

That is precisely why we got a rottweiler. So Sil can sleep alone in the house when I am away with no worries. A Labrador would not do.

jonboy
02-12-2014, 05:33 AM
look at the table in post 18.... rottweilers and pitbulls accounted for 60% of fatalities.

I am very pleased for you that your dog is fine. I sincerely hope you never have a problem but I still think you are walking a thin line.

you want to take the chance, go ahead its a free country, your choice. I don't think its worth the risk.

George.
02-12-2014, 05:52 AM
Take a dog, treat it roughly, don't let it have contact with strangers, and keep it imprisoned behind a chain-link fence in a rough neighborhood, and you have a dog that will attack strangers.

Take the same dog, treat it kindly (but firmly!), let it socialize with all manner of strangers, don't tolerate any aggressive behavior, and you'll have a dog that will not bite anyone without provocation. Instead of keeping our rott confined, we taught him to play with strangers (after asking their permission, of course). And he learned early on that people - even children - are alllowed to pull his tail and ears, but he is not allowed to even growl at anyone who takes away his food. He just sits and waits to get it back.

That said, guess which breeds are preferred by people who intend to treat a dog roughly and keep it behind a chain-link fence?

George.
02-12-2014, 05:59 AM
look at the table in post 18.... rottweilers and pitbulls accounted for 60% of fatalities.



Now look at the rest of your link:


Another concern is that a ban on a specific breedmight cause people who want a dangerous dog to sim-ply turn to another breed for the same qualities theysought in the original dog (eg, large size, aggressioneasily fostered). Breed-specific legislation does notaddress the fact that a dog of any breed can becomedangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive.

Froma scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites.

slug
02-12-2014, 06:26 AM
Now look at the rest of your link:


Stop posting crap. Pit bulls are killers.

32 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2013... pit bulls (25) and rottweilers (1), other (6)

Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population.



Annual data from 2013 shows that 56% of the fatality victims were children 7-years and younger, and 44% were adults, 25-years and older. Of the total children killed by dogs in 2013, 61% were ages 4-years and younger.

From 2005 to 2013, pit bulls killed 176 Americans

bogdog
02-12-2014, 07:53 AM
Stop posting crap. Pit bulls are killers.

So are cockers...

Ian McColgin
02-12-2014, 08:03 AM
slug's faith in the myth of the killer pit bull is not supported by fact. Actually, the 'evidence' of whatever breed may have been involved in documented fatal dog attacks is incredibly suspect. The following from Wikipedia is a fair summary. Pay particular attention to the last sentence.

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association: 2000-2009[edit]
The most recent study of the epidemiology of fatal dog bites in the United States was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in 2013.[8] While earlier studies were based on television and newspaper reports, this was the first study to be based on law-enforcement reports, animal control reports, and investigator statements. It identified preventable factors in the fatal incidents. They found that the most common contributing factors were: absence of an able-bodied person to intervene, no familiar relationship of victims with dogs, owner failure to neuter dogs, compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (e.g. mental disabilities), dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (e.g. dogs kept chained in backyards), owners’ prior mismanagement of dogs, and owners’ history of abuse or neglect of dogs. Furthermore, they found that in 80% of the incidents, 4 or more of the above factors co-occurred.
The authors found that in a significant number of DBRFs there was either a conflict between different media sources reporting breed and/or a conflict between media and animal control reports relative to the reporting of breed. For 401 dogs described in various media accounts of DBRFs, media sources reported conflicting breed attributions for 124 of the dogs (30.9%); and where there were media reports and an animal control report (346 dogs), there were conflicting breed attributions for 139 dogs (40.2%)
According to this study, reliable verification of the breed of dog was only possible in 18% of incidents.

Keith Wilson
02-12-2014, 08:09 AM
One more time; the problem is that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to separate the characteristics of a particular dog breed from the characteristics of their owners. Breeds which have a reputation for being vicious are more often owned by those who want a vicious dog and who train them to be dangerous. OTOH, there's probably always some risk with a large powerful dog trained to be a guard, like George's Rottweiler. Small, but it's an animal with its own ideas and the doggy version of free will. Probably an acceptable risk under the circumstances, but not zero. Few things we do have zero risk.

George.
02-12-2014, 08:17 AM
Correction, Keith: My Rottweiler is trained to be a foolish, gentle dog. He just has to look as if he might have been trained to be a guard.

Ian McColgin
02-12-2014, 08:18 AM
Wikipedia also has a good general article on "pitbulls" which helps disentangle much of the mythos. It is true that variations of tough guy terrior are raised in abuse by evil people and these dogs, regardless of the exact breed, are dangerous. Their genetic equipment of great strong jaws and a short nose that does not get in the way of biting make them more dangerous, especially to small animals like chidren, if they have been taught to attack. The problem with reporting is that any terrior type and many other dogs who are not terriors that kill a child get publicly reported as "pit bull" which is not a breed at all. All that said, different breeds and mixes are more or less suitable to different families. A frail widow in an urban apartment is unlikely to provide a good home for a border collie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

Keith Wilson
02-12-2014, 08:24 AM
Correction, Keith: My Rottweiler is trained to be a foolish, gentle dog. He just has to look as if he might have been trained to be a guard.And I'm sure that's quite good enough; I'd certainly not want to go anywhere with ill intent where a Rottweiler was growling at me, no matter how foolish or gently.

Ian McColgin
02-12-2014, 08:41 AM
I have mentioned this book in other contexts. Every serious animal person should read “Adam’s Task” by Vicki Hearne.

Hearne became famous as a horse and dog trainer, especially for her championing of some “bad” animals. She’s less well known for her work as a philosopher, poet and linguistics scholar but if you follow her in those matters, the basis of her work with animals becomes obvious.

Hearne’s methods have a profoundly non-behaviorist theoretical model, emphasizing relationship which importantly means human responsibility. It’s really the feminist re-understanding of the book of Genesis and I find it deeply compelling. It’s also the way Mother explicitly and Dad (overtly a behaviorist but not really acting that way, not the only person with a practice-theory disconnect) taught us and taught us to work with our dogs and horses.

oznabrag
02-12-2014, 08:50 AM
other breeds with similar characterstics, yes. because mainly, they are the chosen accesory of the wrong kind of person, to put it politely...

Accessory?

I suppose that you are all about banning Harleys, then?

Paul Pless
02-12-2014, 08:58 AM
I have mentioned this book in other contexts. Every serious animal person should read “Adam’s Task” by Vicki Hearne.

Hearne became famous as a horse and dog trainer, especially for her championing of some “bad” animals. She’s less well known for her work as a philosopher, poet and linguistics scholar but if you follow her in those matters, the basis of her work with animals becomes obvious.

Hearne’s methods have a profoundly non-behaviorist theoretical model, emphasizing relationship which importantly means human responsibility. It’s really the feminist re-understanding of the book of Genesis and I find it deeply compelling. It’s also the way Mother explicitly and Dad (overtly a behaviorist but not really acting that way, not the only person with a practice-theory disconnect) taught us and taught us to work with our dogs and horses.

I work and am in contact with 'behaviorist' at least peripherally almost daily. It was perhaps at one time a useful title, but myself and most of my peers with equivalent experience find them among the most useless of all people that work with animals. Most often these days behaviorists have far too much theoretical training and far too little practical hands on work. It seems the various certifications and degrees emphasize book sense over real learning in this case.

Ian McColgin
02-12-2014, 09:03 AM
"I suppose that you are all about banning Harleys, then?" [#107] is not even an honest question much less a legitimate point of argument. Noting that some folk like Jimmy Choo while others wear Chippewa is not about banning anything. It’s not even being a victim of stereotyping.

oznabrag
02-12-2014, 09:11 AM
"I suppose that you are all about banning Harleys, then?" [#107] is not even an honest question much less a legitimate point of argument. Noting that some folk like Jimmy Choo while others wear Chippewa is not about banning anything. It’s not even being a victim of stereotyping.

Oh?

I had no idea that people who chose Jimmy Choo could thus be identified as the wrong kind of people.

On the other hand, for many years, people who chose a Harley were widely regarded as the wrong kind of people. These days, Harleys are chosen mostly by dentists and accountants who want to APPEAR to be the wrong kind of people.

So tell me, Mr. McColgin, what sort of ethics/ behavior/moral failing should I ascribe to a person the next time I see them wearing Jimmy Choo?

jonboy
02-12-2014, 09:17 AM
Accessory?

I suppose that you are all about banning Harleys, then?

Not really, as I have sportster and that would be a bit silly .

but yes as has been pointed out quite a few times on this thread, people are attracted to certain breeds for all sorts of reasons and a great number shouldn't have a dog at all. The fashionable dog changes almost yearly... a few years back it was boxers, then huskies, then dalmatians and although they are all mostly owned and cared for exceptionally well, when the choice of dog is for a trend or fashion reason, then, sorry if you don't like the terminology, it is an accessory, to be seen with on the sunday morning coffee house stroll or the kids want one...or if it's a fighting dog, or war dog, like the anatolian, or the dogue Argentiniana...then it will almost certainly be an accessory to be paraded.

and back to the HD, I don't see it as an accessory, I'd run a mile from one of those appalling Harley rallies. Makes me cringe...its a tool that does the job I want it to, as well as or better than any bike I've ever had..and that includes a shovel superglide, a panhead, a rake of Brit stuff, just got rid of a BMW K100., a couple of Guzzis a small Duke and some highly efficient but oh so boring Jap stuff... Its a bit of fun too obviously.....

bogdog
02-12-2014, 09:32 AM
I had no idea the Anatolian was considered by some to be fighting or war dog.

George.
02-12-2014, 09:44 AM
My last male dog was part war dog, part jaguar killing dog. I picked him up as a stray on the side of the road. He never participated in either warfare or jaguar hunts, and never tore the face off any children, though he was ridden by many, often involuntarely.

jonboy
02-12-2014, 09:54 AM
I had no idea the Anatolian was considered by some to be fighting or war dog.

It wasn't until I just looked it up that I saw it is also called the Anatolian shepherd dog.....I'd always known them as the Turkish dog of war, or the Kangal warrior dog. Incidentally if you google Turkish dog of war you get Turkish god of war...Dogs, gods, don't we just love 'em all!

Ian McColgin
02-12-2014, 10:01 AM
oznabrag, try to pay attention to reality rather than projecting stereotypes.

jonboy
02-12-2014, 10:05 AM
..... jaguar killing dog........ ???


Did you call him Tata or Ford?

bogdog
02-12-2014, 10:07 AM
It wasn't until I just looked it up that I saw it is also called the Anatolian shepherd dog.....I'd always known them as the Turkish dog of war, or the Kangal warrior dog. Incidentally if you google Turkish dog of war you get Turkish god of war...Dogs, gods, don't we just love 'em all!

The Anatolian and the Kangal are separate herding breeds but I don't think that should stop anyone from lumping then together as "war dogs." Just don't forget the Westies.

Breakaway
02-12-2014, 10:45 AM
The difference between a dog and a breed is like the difference between weather and climate. That said, it's reasonable for me to expect it to be hot in the desert and cold on the tundra, the specific weather at any point in time notwithstanding. Deserts are hot, tundras are cold.

And so it is with dog breeds.

Kevin

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

jonboy
02-12-2014, 10:46 AM
Ah.. the west highlanders , the big redheaded geezers in skirts who throw telegraph poles about for fun...

oznabrag
02-12-2014, 10:48 AM
Not really, as I have sportster and that would be a bit silly .

but yes as has been pointed out quite a few times on this thread, people are attracted to certain breeds for all sorts of reasons and a great number shouldn't have a dog at all ...

I would guess that nearly half of dog owners should not have a dog at all.

IMO, if one's dog is primarily a fashion accessory/ego enhancer, then one has problems that should preclude dog ownership.

Unfortunately, our pet shelters in the US are full to overflowing as it is, and if we removed all dogs from unfit owners, we would be forced to euthanize many millions of them.

Once again, if you see some one choosing a pit bulldog, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle or a pair of Jimmy Choo shoes as a fashion statement to be an excuse for destroying shoes bikes or dogs, then you are, IMO, going about things all bass-ackwards.

Same goes for children.

People who bring a child into the world because they think being a parent will be cool, that they will be the envy of their friends... People who abuse/ neglect their children and whose children end up assaulting other children or murdering their robbery victims, should not be allowed to have children, first, and second, should be held accountable to some degree for those assaults/ murders.

All of these behaviors are seated in diseases of the ego, the bane of man's existence.

oznabrag
02-12-2014, 10:51 AM
oznabrag, try to pay attention to reality rather than projecting stereotypes.

That is not bad advice.

bogdog
02-12-2014, 11:05 AM
The difference between a dog and a breed is like the difference between weather and climate. That said, it's reasonable for me to expect it to be hot in the desert and cold on the tundra, the specific weather at any point in time notwithstanding. Deserts are hot, tundras are cold.

And so it is with dog breeds.

Kevin

Sent from my iPhone using Forum RunnerHot in the desert? Sometimes in some deserts, the Antarctic is pretty cold most of the time. Then there's the Gobi −45 to 100 °F.

bobbys
02-12-2014, 11:08 AM
I thought jimmy choo was the Japanese detective on Barney miller.

jonboy
02-12-2014, 11:15 AM
I would guess that nearly half of dog owners should not have a dog at all.

IMO, if one's dog is primarily a fashion accessory/ego enhancer, then one has problems that should preclude dog ownership.

Unfortunately, our pet shelters in the US are full to overflowing as it is, and if we removed all dogs from unfit owners, we would be forced to euthanize many millions of them.

Once again, if you see some one choosing a pit bulldog, a Harley-Davidson motorcycle or a pair of Jimmy Choo shoes as a fashion statement to be an excuse for destroying shoes bikes or dogs, then you are, IMO, going about things all bass-ackwards.

Same goes for children.

People who bring a child into the world because they think being a parent will be cool, that they will be the envy of their friends... People who abuse/ neglect their children and whose children end up assaulting other children or murdering their robbery victims, should not be allowed to have children, first, and second, should be held accountable to some degree for those assaults/ murders.

All of these behaviors are seated in diseases of the ego, the bane of man's existence.

well said, couldn't agree more.

John Smith
02-12-2014, 11:19 AM
I'd want to know a lot more about the owners and the dog before jumping to any conclusions and I doubt we'll get any of that information. I've trained around plenty of pitbull breeds who've had no behavioral problems at all.

The dog in the "our gang" comedies, I believe was a Pit Bull. Pit bulls can make very nice pets. However, from what I've seen and read, they also come with a natural risk. Getting bitten by one of these dogs seems to be much worse than getting bitten by other dogs. The damage done when they do bite can be substantial, even fatal.

I think it's a stupid risk to take.

My wife and I watch a lot of judge shows since one of our friends had another friend who was on one, and assured me they are, in fact, real. Dog bite cases are not infrequent, but are nearly always involved a Pit Bull.

The nature of this dog appears to be that they bite, lock on, and shake whatever they've locked onto, and they "lock on" in a fashion unique to the breed.

It's amazing how many of the people who's dogs are off leash and severely injure or kill some person or some other dog will stand up in court and blame the victim.

George.
02-12-2014, 11:19 AM
???


Did you call him Tata or Ford?

As near as we could tell, he was half Brazilian fila, bred to protect cattle from jaguars, and half Spanish mastiff, bred to knock down and sit on fleeing knights in armour.

Tata would be a jaguar Defender. ;)

John Smith
02-12-2014, 11:20 AM
Probably, but I want to hear the specific details of what happened in this case. Any large dog has the capacity to kill a small child. Dogs don't view children as humans. Especially small children. They think they're some other species. Dogs instinctively respond to flight and the high pitch squeal of child's voice as prey. This instinct and the associated behavior is even more accentuated if there are more than one dog present as a pack mentality sets in. I'm not excusing the behavior of the dog, I'm explaining what likely happened. Although it would be rare for me to ever blame a dog for something like this. Dogs very very rarely just 'snap'. There behavior almost always follows a predictable path.

I see child attacks by dogs as a problem that begins with the breeder. And requires vigilance by the breeder and the owner even after the dog has been sold or placed in a home. Breeders (and pet stores and rescue organizations and shelters) must be the focus for educating the prospective owner on properly housing and training and securing and socializing their pet. Its also up to the breeder to not sell or place some of their dogs to inappropriate home environments.

I've always found our dogs to be quite fond of the infants and children.

bogdog
02-12-2014, 11:32 AM
The dog in the "our gang" comedies, I believe was a Pit Bull. Pit bulls can make very nice pets. However, from what I've seen and read, they also come with a natural risk. Getting bitten by one of these dogs seems to be much worse than getting bitten by other dogs. The damage done when they do bite can be substantial, even fatal.

I think it's a stupid risk to take.

My wife and I watch a lot of judge shows since one of our friends had another friend who was on one, and assured me they are, in fact, real. Dog bite cases are not infrequent, but are nearly always involved a Pit Bull.

The nature of this dog appears to be that they bite, lock on, and shake whatever they've locked onto, and they "lock on" in a fashion unique to the breed.

It's amazing how many of the people who's dogs are off leash and severely injure or kill some person or some other dog will stand up in court and blame the victim.

I've been bitten by a number of dogs, never by any bully breed. BTW they don't "lock on" whatever that means. Had an Australian Shepherd try to take my right arm off in a class one day, twenty stitches, I hate Novocaine.

TomF
02-12-2014, 11:38 AM
I've always found our dogs to be quite fond of the infants and children.Not in Swift's sense though ... :D

Canoeyawl
02-12-2014, 12:24 PM
I have owned several large and "dangerous" dog breeds over the years, but the "bull dogs" required particular vigilance. Mostly because of their remarkable agility and strength. I think dogs are much like people, and some of them are very dangerous indeed.

The business about the locking jaw is interesting. It can be very difficult to convince them (bulldogs) to release. All my dogs are taught an instant "release" command from about 6 weeks (that would be to "let go" of anything they had in their mouth, food, or "toy" - which could be prey) and that was a good thing, but the bulldogs did not reliably obey that command, likely because they were so focused on the prey they could not hear.


This tidbit is interesting and mimics my experience;
"During the Toledo v. Tellings trial (Tellings was convicted of violating the City of Toledo’s pit bull ordinance), Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon showed a videotape of a tranquilized pit bull hanging from a steel cable. The dog is essentially unconscious and still does not release its grip. At the time of the taping, the pit bull was being housed at the Lucas County Animal Shelter."

oznabrag
02-12-2014, 12:29 PM
well said, couldn't agree more.

Thank you very kindly, sir.

Rum_Pirate
02-12-2014, 12:31 PM
I've always found our dogs to be quite fond of the infants and children. To eat or play with?

htom
02-12-2014, 12:42 PM
I've known "good" pit bulls and "bad" pit bulls, and I am not surprised that I would use the same adjectives to describe their owners -- regardless of breed. Imagine, if you want, an abused, people-hating Norwegian elkhound.

bogdog
02-12-2014, 12:44 PM
...This tidbit is interesting and mimics my experience;
"During the Toledo v. Tellings trial (Tellings was convicted of violating the City of Toledo’s pit bull ordinance), Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon showed a videotape of a tranquilized pit bull hanging from a steel cable. The dog is essentially unconscious and still does not release its grip. At the time of the taping, the pit bull was being housed at the Lucas County Animal Shelter."
Here's another tidbit from that case:

AUGUST 02, 2007

Judge O'Connor's Statements in Toledo v Tellings


As noted yesterday, Judge O'Connor voted in favor of the city of Toledo in "judgment only" -- basically agreeing that the law was constitutional, but disagreeing with most of the reasons why. Here are some notes from O'Connor's notes at the end of the ruling:



Breed-specific prohibitions...are justified by labeling dogs as "inherently dangerous" by virtue of a breed's alleged characteristics. Contrary to that assumption, dangerous animal behavior is a function of inherently dangerous dog owners, not inherently dangerous dogs.

The statistics offered at trial in this case may support a correlation between pit bulls and the frequency and severity of injuries they cause to people in urban settings, but they do not establish the conclusion that pit bulls must necessarily pose a danger. Indeed, experts in the canine field who rate the temperament of different breeds of dogs conclude that pit bulls have a better temperament than many other common breeds of dogs used as pets.

A more thorough analysis of the dynamic would demonstrate that the danger posed is the result of some dog owners, including drug dealers, who deliberately increase the dog's aggression and lethalness through abuse or specific methods of training. Other owners simply fail to properly train and supervise the animal, thereby creating dangerous behavior by the dog.

Almost all domestic animals can cause significant injuries to humans, and it is proper to require that all domestic animals be maintained and controlled. Laws to that effect are eminently reasonable for the safety of citizens and of the animal. Because the danger posed by vicious dogs and pit bulls arises from the owner's failure to safely control the animal, rational legislation should focus on the owner of the dog rather than the specific breed that is owned.


Justice O'Connor.

Paul Pless
02-12-2014, 12:46 PM
I've been bitten by a number of dogs. . .Its mostly been corgis and fox terriers for me. . .

hokiefan
02-12-2014, 01:00 PM
Its mostly been corgis and fox terriers for me. . .

I've been bitten twice. Once by a Chihuahua and once by a Golden Retriever. The Chihuahua was a nasty little dog, but their bite can't hurt you too bad. The Golden Retriever was asleep when I walked around the corner and almost stepped on him. He jumped up on me, bit my hand, and was instantly running the other way as was I. At that instant he was just as scared as I was and just wanted away. Didn't break the skin, no harm, no foul.

I was chased once by the mean German Shepherd in the neighborhood. He didn't stop until I threw my bike on him, going back for the bike was a trying experience.

Also got bitten by a feral kitten I was trying to tame, that canine tooth through the fingernail hurt like all get out. He and I eventually became good friends, but it didn't happen that night.

Cheers,

Bobby

bogdog
02-12-2014, 01:04 PM
Its mostly been corgis and fox terriers for me. . .I guess I unconsciously strive for diversity...

htom
02-12-2014, 01:21 PM
I've been bitten by a horse. Very gently. I've had girl friends bite harder. Several dogs have snapped at me, either none bit me or I don't remember it happening. A couple of cats have scratched me. Other than that mare who wanted another carrot, the bites have been from turtles and fish. And snakes. The venomous snakes have all missed my person. Wear good boots in snake country.

TomF
02-12-2014, 01:45 PM
Bitten by a dog only once. A guy who lived with us for a couple of years when I was a teen worked in a local motorcycle and snowmobile dealership. He was working on his car one Sunday afternoon in the shop up there, and invited me to come in and help ... forgetting that the guard dog (good sized German Shepherd) was patrolling. The dog just did its job - grabbed me by the elbow and held me there - but it scared the crap out of me as a 135 pound 15 year old boy.

Once the dog and I were properly introduced, everything was fine.

jonboy
02-12-2014, 01:53 PM
'Breed-specific prohibitions...are justified by labeling dogs as "inherently dangerous" by virtue of a breed's alleged characteristics. Contrary to that assumption, dangerous animal behavior is a function of inherently dangerous dog owners, not inherently dangerous dogs.

The statistics offered at trial in this case may support a correlation between pit bulls and the frequency and severity of injuries they cause to people in urban settings, but they do not establish the conclusion that pit bulls must necessarily pose a danger. Indeed, experts in the canine field who rate the temperament of different breeds of dogs conclude that pit bulls have a better temperament than many other common breeds of dogs used as pets.

A more thorough analysis of the dynamic would demonstrate that the danger posed is the result of some dog owners, including drug dealers, who deliberately increase the dog's aggression and lethalness through abuse or specific methods of training. Other owners simply fail to properly train and supervise the animal, thereby creating dangerous behavior by the dog.

Almost all domestic animals can cause significant injuries to humans, and it is proper to require that all domestic animals be maintained and controlled. Laws to that effect are eminently reasonable for the safety of citizens and of the animal. Because the danger posed by vicious dogs and pit bulls arises from the owner's failure to safely control the animal, rational legislation should focus on the owner of the dog rather than the specific breed that is owned.' Justice O'Connell

.' Contrary to that assumption, dangerous animal behavior is a function of inherently dangerous dog owners, not inherently dangerous dogs.'

Oh ok that must be why all the police use spaniels and golden retrievers and red setters.....

and all the drug and illegal arms dealers too......

'Indeed, experts in the canine field who rate the temperament of different breeds of dogs conclude that pit bulls have a better temperament than many other common breeds of dogs used as pets.'

Experts in the canine field...??? who exactly???

How much did some wealthy pitbull breeders have to pay this dimwit to come out with this garbage.

I repeat, these lovely gentle kindly children loving dogs have been responsible for a proportion of attacks and fatalities far in excess of their percentage occurence in society.
When the 60% statistic was quoted earlier and was refuted by the same source, saying in effect only 18 % of incidences could be guaranteed to be by pitbulls because of the difficulty in classification, does any sane person honestly believe the other 82% was the action of the other 94% of owned dogs....?.just because it was 'difficult' to classify with certainty the race or breed of the other perpertrators do you seriously think they weren't the sort of dogs we are talking about here?

I just did a very unscientific survey via google and news media of the last few months in the UK of dog attacks, including the death of an 82 year old, a 27 year old mother, a four year old girl and a bunch of other stuff, all attributed to 'pit bull type' dogs. I was astonished at the number of instances that hadn't made main stream media. Not a labrador not a jack russel not an alsatian even. 'pit bull types' every one. that could be the media winding us all up of course, but even heavily massaged statistics seem to be pretty conclusive.

John Smith
02-12-2014, 01:54 PM
I've been bitten by a number of dogs, never by any bully breed. BTW they don't "lock on" whatever that means. Had an Australian Shepherd try to take my right arm off in a class one day, twenty stitches, I hate Novocaine.

"locking" on is a claim that their jaw is different and this leads to more severity of injury from a bite. One can seem to find "experts" on both sides, so it's hard to know what is true.

There ARE more and more places where they are illegal to own. I'd like to think it reasonable to assume that these laws are based on some sort of factual studies.

Paul Pless
02-12-2014, 01:55 PM
I'd like to think it reasonable to assume that these laws are based on some sort of factual studies.dude. . .

John Smith
02-12-2014, 01:55 PM
Googled "pit bull statistics" and this came up

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2013.php

John Smith
02-12-2014, 01:56 PM
dude. . .

I said I'D LIKE TO THINK IT REASONABLE.

Bobby of Tulsa
02-12-2014, 02:08 PM
I have a four pound yorkie, He can definatley lock on, I have picked him up many times as he was tryin to kill Manny and he never would let go. I would be holding him in the air and he would be holdin the other guy I had to pry him loose. Soon as I got Manny loose and sat Kirby down, Manny was back on him like stink on a skunk. Terriers big and small are very game.

bogdog
02-12-2014, 02:09 PM
Oh ok that must be why all the police use spaniels and golden retrievers and red setters.....

Red setters? Really? Not Red and White Setters, not Irish Setters, but red setters? Police dogs? Who comes up with this? Some kind of paid expert in the canine field? Did the setter lobby set you up to say this?

htom
02-12-2014, 02:11 PM
"locking" on is a claim that their jaw is different and this leads to more severity of injury from a bite. One can seem to find "experts" on both sides, so it's hard to know what is true.

There ARE more and more places where they are illegal to own. I'd like to think it reasonable to assume that these laws are based on some sort of factual studies.

You've got some good drugs. Share. Please?

Bobby of Tulsa
02-12-2014, 02:17 PM
Check this one out.http://youviewed.com/2014/02/09/woman-stopped-for-speeding-has-face-ripped-open-by-police-dog/

Paul Pless
02-12-2014, 02:43 PM
Now police dogs are something that I do fear; poorly trained, stupid, macho canine officers are the norm. . .

Breakaway
02-12-2014, 02:46 PM
Hot in the desert? Sometimes in some deserts, the Antarctic is pretty cold most of the time. Then there's the Gobi −45 to 100 °F.

Ok Mr Nit Pick..:)

Allow me to rephrase. It's reasonable to expect heat at the equator and cold at the poles regardless of any given day 's specific weather.

Kevin

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

jonboy
02-12-2014, 02:54 PM
Red setters? Really? Not Red and White Setters, not Irish Setters, but red setters? Police dogs? Who comes up with this? Some kind of paid expert in the canine field? ?


yeah, the same kind of paid expert who advised Judge O'Connelly

Its interesting that the defenders of contentious issues tend to be the ones with something to lose.

There would be absolutely no advantage to me in banning euthanisizing forbidding breeding of 'dangerous dogs ' the only possible effect would be the world would by a small increment be a safer place... anyone have a problem with that?

the defenders and proseletizers of the 'there's no such thing as a dangerous dog, it's the owner,' theory almost certainly have something to lose; there's been a number of dog sellers on this thread alone promoting the virtues of a potentially seriously malfunctioning beast that prove that point.

Did you ever hear of a lobby promoting cigarette smoking run by a cancer charity, did you ever hear of someone promoting the abolition of the 2nd amendment who was the parent of a victim of gunfire, did you ever hear of an anti seatbelt campaigner with paraplegia from a road crash, did you ever hear of a brain damaged biker promoting the abolition of compulsory crash helmet laws...?

Paul Pless
02-12-2014, 02:58 PM
I'm uncertain that I've seen a single dog seller post to this thread.

Paul Pless
02-12-2014, 03:05 PM
Show me where aggression towards humans was an attribute that early breeders strove for in bully breeds.

jonboy
02-12-2014, 03:09 PM
Maybe I'm wrong there..but several posts led me to believe a breeder or two had put their tuppence worth in.
Which brings me to I think another misconception... there have been several remarks along the lines of 'breeders vetting potential owners'

You don't seriously think the average retard thug who wants a pitbull, goes to a 'breeder' do you...?

And if the tragedy that started this thread was down to the owner of the killer thinking ' Oooh, I'd like a dog, now let me see, I'll just pop down to the local pitbull breeder and see what he's got that might just not kill my stepdaughter ' wake up and look around you, deniers

Paul Pless
02-12-2014, 03:17 PM
I'm a breeder, but I'm hardly a dog seller.

jonboy
02-12-2014, 03:19 PM
so what do you do , give them all away?

TomF
02-12-2014, 03:19 PM
I'm a breeder, but I'm hardly a ... seller.Breeder? I've only got 3 kids, and haven't sold any of them yet.

Peerie Maa
02-12-2014, 04:00 PM
Wikipedia also has a good general article on "pitbulls" which helps disentangle much of the mythos. It is true that variations of tough guy terrior are raised in abuse by evil people and these dogs, regardless of the exact breed, are dangerous. Their genetic equipment of great strong jaws and a short nose that does not get in the way of biting make them more dangerous, especially to small animals like chidren, if they have been taught to attack. The problem with reporting is that any terrior type and many other dogs who are not terriors that kill a child get publicly reported as "pit bull" which is not a breed at all. All that said, different breeds and mixes are more or less suitable to different families. A frail widow in an urban apartment is unlikely to provide a good home for a border collie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull

Having read this wiki it is apparent that the US breeds are different from the UK breeds.

On bull baiting:

Bull baiting dogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog), referred to today as bulldogs, were bred to bait animals, mainly bulls and bears.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull-baiting#cite_note-2) During bull-baiting the dog would attempt to flatten itself to the ground, creeping as close to the bull as possible, then darting out and attempting to bite the bull in the nose or head area.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull-baiting#cite_note-3) The bull would often be tethered by a collar and rope which was staked into the ground. As the dog darted at the bull, the bull would attempt to catch the dog with his head and horns and throw it into the air. In 1835, the Cruelty to Animals Act was passed in Parliament that outlawed "Blood Sport" in Great Britain.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull-baiting#cite_note-4) The bulldog's work was suddenly over and the bulldog rapidly started dying out. Around 1865 dog fanciers began developing dog clubs which eventually culminated into conformation shows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformation_show). Many fanciers utilized various remnants of the dog utilized for "Blood Sport" to resurrect the "Bull" dog and ultimately developed today's modern English bulldog.

The U K breeders have been breeding bull dogs and bull terriers (Staff and Manchester) for 150 years since baiting was made illegal, in which time they have bread out any vicious behaviour. It is apparent that there are important differences between UK and US Staffy's for when you read the Pit Bull wiki it is apparent that the US dogs are different from this:

The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a medium-sized, stocky, and very muscular dog, with a similar appearance to the much larger American Staffordshire terrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Staffordshire_Terrier) and American pit bull terrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier). [ . . .]

The dogs stand 36 to 41 cm (14 to 16 in) at the withers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withers) and weigh 13 to 17 kg (29 to 37 lb) for males; females are 11 to 15.4 kg (24 to 34 lb).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier#cite_note-3)
[ . . . ]

Although individual differences in personality exist, common traits exist throughout the Staffords. Due to its breeding, and history, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is known for its character of intelligence, fearlessness and loyalty.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier#cite_note-4) This, coupled with its affection for its friends, its off-duty quietness and trustworthy stability, make it a foremost all-purpose dog.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier#cite_note-AKC-5)
The breed is naturally muscular and may appear intimidating; however, because of their natural fondness for people, most Staffords are temperamentally ill-suited for guard or attack-dog training. Staffordshire Bull Terrier puppies are very easy to house train.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staffordshire_Bull_Terrier#cite_note-6)


However the Pit Bull as it is known in the UK is a cross breed featuring the wide head and short muzzle of the Staff crossed with a much taller dog. Aggression was selected for hence the banning of Pit Bulls (the cross breed) in the UK.

Tara http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp164/peerie_maa/Tara/20130515_102826_zpseda973e6.jpg is a Staffy / Jack Russell cross and is as soft as butter.

Paul Pless
02-12-2014, 04:05 PM
so what do you do , give them all away?i tend to keep them their entire natural lives

I develop and test pet foods and perform nutritional research in dogs, always with an eye towards improving the health and quality of life of my own dogs as well as the general pet population. I also consult in the design of animal welfare programs for organizations that use dogs. I do some behavioral studies as well. And, I'm active in breed rescue.

Paul Pless
02-12-2014, 04:10 PM
Show me where I said aggression towards humans. Please don't try to distort what I've posted.What is the topic of the thread concerned with? All dogs regardless of breed, exhibit certain flight, prey drive, pack relationship, protective, and territorial instinctual aggression - all dogs.

bogdog
02-12-2014, 04:12 PM
Ok Mr Nit Pick..:)

Allow me to rephrase. It's reasonable to expect heat at the equator and cold at the poles regardless of any given day 's specific weather.

Kevin

Sent from my iPhone using Forum RunnerDoes that heat include even on the glaciers in equatorial Africa?;)

bogdog
02-12-2014, 04:19 PM
Now police dogs are something that I do fear; poorly trained, stupid, macho canine officers are the norm. . .

I've met some good ones at Schutzhund training meets for US and Canadian law enforcement departments who were willing to spend the time and resources to train officers and dogs to be safe for them and the public. I wonder if dog bites of police officers are counted in the total number of human dog bite encounters, got to be a high number.

Chip-skiff
02-12-2014, 07:32 PM
In reply to the notion that dope dealers, gangsters, and would-be gangsters don't have a thing for pitbulls, a gallery of tattoos (and one cartoon):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AxTkUnqBSRc/THLFEoK7mfI/AAAAAAAADo4/SIQWBhlIsdw/s1600/Pitbull%20Gangsta.jpg


http://waktattoos.com/large/Dogs_tattoo_520.jpg


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Pit_Bull_tattoo_by_Keith_Killingsworth.JPG/800px-Pit_Bull_tattoo_by_Keith_Killingsworth.JPG





http://www.tattoostime.com/images/51/mein-pit-bull-tattoo.jpg



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7w_hUHU1Hu0/Uj96ZzhpMII/AAAAAAAAaRI/EACips0qcnU/s1600/bm-image-714946.jpeg



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-m5N9fI26qnk/Uo1m-0OoEpI/AAAAAAAACvQ/ql6uGU3rjnY/s640/cartoon+3.jpg

bogdog
02-12-2014, 08:00 PM
http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/truth-about-pit-bulls

Boston
02-12-2014, 10:13 PM
There are two great studies to look at concerning this issue, the Clifton study and the Dogsbite study. Dogsbite gives more information and counts more circumstances. Its about ten years into an ongoing study. Clifton is the longest running study, about 30 years, but only counts housepets. No dog trained to fight is counted in the clifton study.

So whats the outcome.

If you combine all pit types Clifton shows about 90% of all fatalities are cuased by pits. The Dogsbite study comes up with about 70%. In either case its a huge number.

My assessment of the nurture over nature argument, its pure bunk.

There should be a total ban.

bogdog
02-13-2014, 07:27 AM
There are two great studies to look at concerning this issue, the Clifton study and the Dogsbite study. Dogsbite gives more information and counts more circumstances. Its about ten years into an ongoing study. Clifton is the longest running study, about 30 years, but only counts housepets. No dog trained to fight is counted in the clifton study.

So whats the outcome.

If you combine all pit types Clifton shows about 90% of all fatalities are cuased by pits. The Dogsbite study comes up with about 70%. In either case its a huge number.

My assessment of the nurture over nature argument, its pure bunk.

There should be a total ban.Yeah, the Cilfton "study." I'm betting they had no agenda. What publication was it published in? Maybe a publication owned by Clifton? In either case it's a huge failure. My assessment, it's pure bunk

Ian McColgin
02-13-2014, 09:00 AM
Some dogs are certainly dangerous in certain circumstances. A pack of foxhounds in full cry will kill pretty much anything in their path, which is why whiley foxes run past chicken coops and houses with dogs and cats (or children at play) and why fox hunts maintain a fund to compensate angry farmers.

Since I'm against capital punishment, I don't really favor putting a dog owner down for creating a dangerous animal, but I absolutely favor laws that prevent an owner whose dog had to be put down due to the owner's training from ever lawfully having contact with a dog ever again and paying a hefty fine to help defray animal control expenses.

Since there's not a specific genetic thing we can isolate as a "pit bull" and since so many breeds and mixes can be turned dangerous by bad guys, the idea of outlawing a 'breed' is not just stupid, it won't reduce dangerous dog attacks.

oznabrag
02-13-2014, 10:15 AM
...
Since there's not a specific genetic thing we can isolate as a "pit bull" and since so many breeds and mixes can be turned dangerous by bad guys, the idea of outlawing a 'breed' is not just stupid, it won't reduce dangerous dog attacks.

It is easy to envision that such laws could be broadly written and more broadly interpreted, with terribly cruel results.

Boston
02-13-2014, 10:25 AM
Yeah, the Cilfton "study." I'm betting they had no agenda. What publication was it published in? Maybe a publication owned by Clifton? In either case it's a huge failure. My assessment, it's pure bunk

Merit Clifton, The guy who invented the entire service dog animal companion industry, editor and founder of animal people magazine. Pretty much the most rock solid animal advocate you could ever possibly find.

Oh and yah, its probably the most published study out there, has countless citations and has never to my knowledge been successfully challenged in the hundreds of related court cases. IE either breed specific ban challenges or dog attack cases. Buddy of mine is a lawyer, his "other" pit bull case was some little girl who got her arm ripped off by the neighbors "nice doggy" Pretty sure I got a handle on the clifton study.

slug
02-13-2014, 10:26 AM
Some dogs are certainly dangerous in certain circumstances. A pack of foxhounds in full cry will kill pretty much anything in their path, which is why whiley foxes run past chicken coops and houses with dogs and cats (or children at play) and why fox hunts maintain a fund to compensate angry farmers.

Since I'm against capital punishment, I don't really favor putting a dog owner down for creating a dangerous animal, but I absolutely favor laws that prevent an owner whose dog had to be put down due to the owner's training from ever lawfully having contact with a dog ever again and paying a hefty fine to help defray animal control expenses.

Since there's not a specific genetic thing we can isolate as a "pit bull" and since so many breeds and mixes can be turned dangerous by bad guys, the idea of outlawing a 'breed' is not just stupid, it won't reduce dangerous dog attacks.


Maybe you should get a job with the NRA !!!!!! Reducing gun circulation wont reduce gun deaths !!!!!!!!!!!!

Boston
02-13-2014, 10:31 AM
Since there's not a specific genetic thing we can isolate as a "pit bull" and since so many breeds and mixes can be turned dangerous by bad guys, the idea of outlawing a 'breed' is not just stupid, it won't reduce dangerous dog attacks.

Pit bull is a type not a specific breed, although there are breeds that match the type. If thats not confusing enough, from what I recall, there are five breeds within the pit type. Add them up and they constitute somewhere between 70 and 90% of all fatalities, I haven't looked at the statistics in a while but something like one person ever 16 or 17 days in the US and canada is killed by a pitbull. All other dogs combined, is about 2 every 3 years or so. Although I remember reading something about last year being a huge year for pitbull attacks

IMHO they should all be immediately banned and all animals within the description humanely and immediately euthanized. From what I've seen they are a ticking time bomb and there's no telling when they go off. You'd have to muzzle them at all times and keep them behind at least two chain linked fences over concrete before I'd call it safely kept.

Ian McColgin
02-13-2014, 11:02 AM
I doubt the NRA would accept my ideas of firearms registration, gun user licensing and strict liabiity. Which is not far from what is supposed to happen with dogs except we don't (yet) require dog owners to be licensed. Most states and towns, however, do have some regulation of kennels. As the Vick case showed most of the nation, illegal and immoral use of dogs is all too easily gotten away with.

Just as I am not in favor of a simple ban on specific firearms, but would rather have all firearms registered and gun users and owners licensed for specific weapons suitable for specific lawful purposes, so with dogs. I honestly don't know how one might develop criteria for dog ownership. Perhaps it might start with better regulation of breeders and dealers and trainers. There's already an issue with certified training of service dogs (beyond the generally well trained "seeing eye" dogs), guard dogs and various levels of law enforcement dogs. I'd say start with those issues and criminalize amateur tough guy dog 'training' as a form of animal abuse.

It's not a simple issue and will not be solved by simply banning "pits", which if banned will simply be replaces, perhaps with a return to one of the traditional mastiffs as the killer dog of choise.

But then, I am trying to attack the very real issue seriously and that might not fit the simplistic notions of folk who don't spend time with dogs.

bogdog
02-13-2014, 12:23 PM
Pretty sure I got a handle on the clifton study.Ya may have handle on it, but it's still without merit.

Chip-skiff
02-13-2014, 12:31 PM
Ya may have handle on it, but it's still without merit.

The author's first name is Merit. Giving it Merit in at least one respect. Probably more.

When the aggressive tendencies and killing ability of the dog are combined with the aggressive tendencies and negligence of the owner, the result can be lethal. Same deal with guns.

Boston
02-13-2014, 12:50 PM
I don't see any semblance between guns and dogs. The dog has a mind of its own, the gun will never chew through a door, run outside and kill the first child it sees.

The pit issue is pretty cut and dry. Eliminate the pit types, eliminate 70~90% of the fatalities.

End of problem

People who argue the nurture over nature angle simply haven't read enough dog attack studies. There was a couple who ran a pit rescue in Cali recently. Probably safe to say they had a love for the dogs and treated there dogs well, kept them responsibly and all in all took precautions. His own dogs, aside from the rescues out back in the kennels, raised in this atmosphere of love and affection. Decided one day to rip his pregnant wife to shreds.

Nice doggy

oh and the clifton study only considered house pets, no dog trained to fight was included. it came up with ~90+% of all fatalities being attributed to pits

The dogs bite study which included all dog bites except police and military. Came up with ~70+%

You figure it out.

The nurture over nature argument doesn't hold one drop of water

This ones like climate change, a no brainer. Immediate and total ban

bogdog
02-13-2014, 12:59 PM
The "Clifton Study" was an article by a magazine publisher in his magazine, why does it carry more weight than multiple year studies done by veterinary researchers who have published in peer review journals?

Boston
02-13-2014, 01:35 PM
The "Clifton Study" was an article by a magazine publisher in his magazine, why does it carry more weight than multiple year studies done by veterinary researchers who have published in peer review journals?

The clifton study is the longest ongoing dog attack study out there. Its been cited and published countless times. It is not simply an article published once in some magazine.

It has the same validity as any other published work except for one thing, it doesn't have a predetermined policy, like the humane society does when conducting these studies.

The clifton study only considered dogs who's breeding could be determined, the last humane society study I read failed to even try and simply stated that it was difficult to identify pit bulls because pits are a type and not a specific breed. IE they white washed it cause there policy is against breed specific bans. IE they don't feel like having to enforce it.

Its always interesting to see when pit advocates rather than acknowledge the wild disparity between pit related deaths and all other dogs combined statistics, simply cry foul over minutia. The simple truth is that somewhere between 7 and 9 out of every 10 people killed by dogs in the last 30 years or so, where killed by pits.

Your argument amounts to was it 7 or 9 out of those ten who died, where killed by a pit bull, either way they are killing more people by far, than all other dogs combined

Its an absolute no brainer

bogdog
02-13-2014, 01:47 PM
The clifton study is the longest ongoing dog attack study out there. Its been cited and published countless times. It is not simply an article published once in some magazine.

So you're saying this report, which is not a study, is more valid than multiple studies done over a period of decades by veterinary researchers. How was the information for this report gathered? Was it gathered from medical cases, police reports? Was it gathered from newspapers, TV?

Boston
02-13-2014, 02:00 PM
No, thats what your saying, what I'm saying is


It has the same validity as any other published work except for one thing, it doesn't have a predetermined policy, like the humane society does when conducting these studies.

The clifton study only considered dogs who's breeding could be determined, the last humane society study I read failed to even try and simply stated that it was difficult to identify pit bulls because pits are a type and not a specific breed. IE they white washed it cause there policy is against breed specific bans. IE they don't feel like having to enforce it.

and once again your just arguing minutia rather than addressing the wildly disproportional number of deaths attributed to pit bulls in every study which designated breed or type.

bogdog
02-13-2014, 02:07 PM
and once again your just arguing minutia rather than addressing the wildly disproportional number of deaths attributed to pit bulls in every study which designated breed or type.I'm not arguing minutia at all, I'm arguing validity of data used in valid studies by methodical researchers, not a collection of reports from newspaper clippings and television.

Boston
02-13-2014, 02:08 PM
The nurture over nature argument simply doesn't wash


Dog bite studies ::

The following dog bite studies are often cited in media reports following fatal and serious dog attacks. Notably, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has no recent data.
December 31, 2013
Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to December 31, 2013 (http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-dog-attacks-and-maimings-merritt-clifton.php)
By compiling U.S. and Canadian press accounts between 1982 and 2013, Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, shows the breeds most responsible for serious injury and death.
November, 2010
Emergency Department Visits and Inpatient Stays Involving Dog Bites, 2008 (http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-emergency-visits-involving-dog-bites-ahrq-2008.php)
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality published a study in 2010 showing that the number of Americans hospitalized for dog bites almost doubled over a 15-year period.
April 22, 2009
Report: U.S. Dog Bite Fatalities January 2006 to December 2008 (http://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-newsroom-2009-dogsbite-three-year-fatality-study.php)
A 2009 report issued by DogsBite.org shows that 19 dog breeds contributed to 88 deaths in a recent 3-year period. Pit bulls accounted for 59% followed by rottweilers with 14%. <----- you can actually add those together cause Rotty's are a pit type. Bringing the number up to 73%.
July 4, 2003
Nonfatal Dog Bite-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments - United States, 2001 (http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-nonfatal-dog-bite-related-injuries-cdc-2001.php)
In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a study that examines the frequency of dog bite-related injuries treated in U.S. emergency departments.
September 15, 2000
Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States Between 1979 and 1998 (http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-breeds-involved-in-fatal-human-attacks-cdc-2000.php)
A 2000 report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reviewed a 20-year period to determine the types of dog breeds most responsible for U.S. dog bite fatalities.
June 6, 1994
Which Dogs Bite? A Case-Control Study of Risk Factors (1991) (http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-which-dogs-bite-gershman-1991.php)
In 1994, researchers released a study of "which dogs bite" based on 1991 Denver County dog bite data. Pit bulls are not included in the study. In 1989, Denver banned pit bulls.

Dog bite studies index ::Many dog bite injury and behavioral reports are available online. We've gathered a core group of the best studies and categorized them below. Some materials may require purchase.
Dog Bite Death and Injury Studies (http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-bibliographies-injury-studies.php)
Studies and articles examining fatal and nonfatal dog bite injuries.
Dog Bite Fatality Studies (http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-bibliographies-fatality-studies.php)
Studies and articles examining dog bite fatality statistics.
Emotional Injury Studies (http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-bibliographies-emotional-studies.php)
Studies and articles examining emotional injuries after a dog bite.
Dog Behavior Studies (http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-bibliographies-behavior-studies.php)
Studies and articles examining aggressive dog behavior.
Pit Bull Ownership Studies (http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-bibliographies-ownership-studies.php)
Studies and articles examining owners of high risk dog breeds.
Dangerous Dog Law Studies (http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-bibliographies-law-studies.php)
Studies and articles examining dangerous dog laws.
Historical Articles (http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-bibliographies-historical-articles.php)
Historical articles examining pit bulls and their victims.

Boston
02-13-2014, 02:12 PM
I'm not arguing minutia at all, I'm arguing validity of data used in valid studies by methodical researchers, not a collection of reports from newspaper clippings and television.

Then feel free to argue the validity of the rest of these studies that all found basically the same results as Clifton did when breed and type was considered :d

You'll find a "short" list of additional studies for your consideration listed in post 177

Boston
02-13-2014, 02:18 PM
I'll help you out a little by noting some of the more relevant sections


A 2000 report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)1 reviewed a 20-year period to determine the types of dog breeds most responsible for U.S. dog bite fatalities.
Download Study (http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/1979-1998-breeds-dogs-involved-in-fatal-human-attacks-us.pdf)
Study highlights



Data for human dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) identified previously for the period of 1979 through 1996 were combined with human DBRF newly identified for 1997 and 1998. Human DBRF were identified by searching news accounts and by use of The Humane Society of the United States' registry databank.
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 were involved in 238 human dog bite related fatalities during the past 20 years. Pit bulls and rottweilers were involved in over half of these fatalities and from 1997 to 1998 were involved in 67%.
During 1997 to 1998, fatal attacks were reported from 17 states; California 4; Georgia and North Carolina 3 each; Kansas, Texas, and Wisconsin 2 each; and Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, South Dakota, and Tennessee 1 each.
Of 227 reports with relevant data, 55 (24%) human deaths involved unrestrained dogs off their owners' property, 133 (58%) involved unrestrained dogs on their owners' property, 38 (17%) involved restrained dogs on their owners' property, and 1 (< 1%) involved a restrained dog off its owner's property.
Four hundred and three dogs contributed to these attacks. In 160 deaths, only 1 dog was involved; in 49 deaths, 2 dogs were involved; and in 15 deaths, 3 dogs. Four and 7 dogs were involved in 3 deaths each; 5, 6, and 10 dogs were involved in 2 deaths each; and 11 and 14 dogs were responsible for 1 death each.



IS the CDC good enough for you

67% of all deaths attributed to put bulls

its a no brainer

75% of deaths involved a dog at home on the owners property, that should tell you something right there.

Immediate and total ban

bogdog
02-13-2014, 02:19 PM
Then feel free to argue the validity of the rest of these studies that all found basically the same results as Clifton did when breed and type was considered :d

You'll find a "short" list of additional studies for your consideration listed in post 177So you're saying a press account published by Clifton is a study? Apparently DogsBite .org does. Thank goodness for an impartial group like them.

Chip-skiff
02-13-2014, 02:19 PM
So you're saying this report, which is not a study, is more valid than multiple studies done over a period of decades by veterinary researchers. How was the information for this report gathered? Was it gathered from medical cases, police reports? Was it gathered from newspapers, TV?

Did I miss your post citing those studies by veterinary researchers?

bogdog
02-13-2014, 02:20 PM
I'll help you out a little by noting some of the more relevant sections



IS the CDC good enough for you

67%

its a no brainer

Immediate and total banWow, did you get this from post #18?

Boston
02-13-2014, 02:24 PM
If you can find a study that considers breed or type that shows pits responsible for less deaths than all other dogs combined. I'd really like to see it. IE less than 50% of all fatalities.

There may be one out there, but I've never seen it

Boston
02-13-2014, 02:25 PM
Wow, did you get this from post #18?

Nah, its in post 177

Boston
02-13-2014, 02:28 PM
Your still arguing minutia Dog, might want to step it up some and actually address the real issue. The CDC has determined that pits alone are responsible for roughly 3 out of every 4 fatal dog attacks.

I couldn't care less if you'd prefer we not consider the clifton study. There is no study that I've ever seen that breaks it down by breed or type that doesn't show pits ( which make up what something like 3% of all dogs ) being responsible for at least 50 and more like 70 to 90% of all fatalities

bogdog
02-13-2014, 02:33 PM
Your still arguing minutia Dog, might want to step it up some and actually address the real issue. The CDC has determined that pits alone are responsible for roughly 3 out of every 4 fatal dog attacks.

I couldn't care less if you'd prefer we not consider the clifton study. There is no study that I've ever seen that breaks it down by breed or type that doesn't show pits ( which make up what something like 3% of all dogs ) being responsible for at least 50 and more like 70 to 90% of all fatalitiesI addressed the issue in post #18, perhaps you've read it?

Chip-skiff
02-13-2014, 02:38 PM
I don't see any semblance between guns and dogs.



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0d-P8w8HeiE/Th_UaYdjitI/AAAAAAAAG50/7-tXTgkoJjc/s400/foreshadow.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yJjNjiQSLf0/UbkE70Y4p6I/AAAAAAAAAno/oxcaAs3FG2U/s400/american_pit_bull_2.jpg


http://img0.etsystatic.com/017/0/6365494/il_340x270.521682952_kc2g.jpg http://img1.etsystatic.com/027/0/6365494/il_340x270.521735501_1nwl.jpg


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Va_b56jtFhI/UrN8L0V2KbI/AAAAAAAADZw/8OFDiI2mK98/s1600/gun%2B2.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-akwusGQmYGM/UrN8SpYFEsI/AAAAAAAADaE/KyMa8ibdYYU/s1600/stun%2Bgun.jpg

Yeah, right. . .

slug
02-13-2014, 02:38 PM
I addressed the issue in post #18, perhaps you've read it?

Dog bite statistics.

http://mainphrame.com/media/Dog_attack_stats_w_breed_June_2012.pdf

Boston
02-13-2014, 02:51 PM
I addressed the issue in post #18, perhaps you've read it?

Distractions and minutia is all I'm seeing in your argument Dog

My computers 11 years old, that PDF won't open.

But whats the point. The CDC reported its findings and I quoted them. Nearly 3 out of every 4 fatalities, and their numbers are a bit on the low side compared to other studies.

Thats roughly 3% of dogs responsible for roughly 70% of fatalities.

Its a no brainer

bogdog
02-13-2014, 03:08 PM
Distractions and minutia is all I'm seeing in your argument Dog

My computers 11 years old, that PDF won't open.

But whats the point. The CDC reported its findings and I quoted them. Nearly 3 out of every 4 fatalities, and their numbers are a bit on the low side compared to other studies.

Thats roughly 3% of dogs responsible for roughly 70% of fatalities.

Its a no brainer

Did you read the CDC report and their discussion about breed specific legislation?

When a specific breed of dog has been selected for stringent control, 2 constitutional questions concerning dog owners’ fourteenth amendment rights have been raised: first, because all types of dogs may inflict injuryto people and property, ordinances addressing only 1 breed of dog are argued to be under inclusive and, there-fore, violate owners’ equal protection rights; and second,because identification of a dog’s breed with the certainty necessary to impose sanctions on the dog’s owner is pro-hibitively difficult, such ordinances have been argued as unconstitutionally vague, and, therefore, violate due process. Despite such concerns, a number of breed-specific ordinances have been upheld by the courts. Another concern is that a ban on a specific breed might cause people who want a dangerous dog to simply turn to another breed for the same qualities they sought in the original dog (eg, large size, aggression easily fostered). Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive. From a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites.
The article goes on to suggest alternatives.

Boston
02-13-2014, 08:13 PM
Don't care. I'm not really all that interested in their opinion, but I will consider their facts. 3 out of every 4 people killed by dogs is killed by a pitbull. <-------- that last little dot there is a period.

Just because they go on to discuss some vague constitutional issue which the courts do not adhere to. IE read the paragraph you yourself quoted. doesn't make the facts any less obvious.


Did you read the CDC report and their discussion about breed specific legislation?

When a specific breed of dog has been selected for stringent control, 2 constitutional questions concerning dog owners’ fourteenth amendment rights have been raised: first, because all types of dogs may inflict injuryto people and property, ordinances addressing only 1 breed of dog are argued to be under inclusive and, there-fore, violate owners’ equal protection rights; and second,because identification of a dog’s breed with the certainty necessary to impose sanctions on the dog’s owner is pro-hibitively difficult, such ordinances have been argued as unconstitutionally vague, and, therefore, violate due process. Despite such concerns, a number of breed-specific ordinances have been upheld by the courts. Another concern is that a ban on a specific breed might cause people who want a dangerous dog to simply turn to another breed for the same qualities they sought in the original dog (eg, large size, aggression easily fostered). Breed-specific legislation does not address the fact that a dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive. From a scientific point of view, we are unaware of any formal evaluation of the effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in preventing fatal or nonfatal dog bites.


The article goes on to suggest alternatives.

The hard reality is that where breed specific bans are enacted the death rates due to dog attacks drop dramatically. Just because the CDC thinks "maybe" people will just breed some other type of dog into the same killing machine pit bulls have been, doesn't mean that banning the 3% of dogs responsible for 70~90% of the fatalities isn't a great idea.

Its a no brainer

Immediate and total ban. = dramatic drop in fatalities

Chip-skiff
02-13-2014, 09:33 PM
That's several times you've used that line in this thread.

Is this your area of expertise?

Your area seems to be unfounded scorn and an unwarranted assumption of superiority.

Boston
02-13-2014, 09:54 PM
That's several times you've used that line in this thread.

Is this your area of expertise?

I sat through the court case when my friend Jennifer and her horse where killed by the neighbors pit bulls, Her husband was permanently injured, learned a lot in that one. I also was attacked by a pit bull a while ago and ended up getting a lawyer to force that jerk owner to pay restitution. He could have just paid and everything would have been cool, but he wanted to be a jerk about it so I ended up with a lawyer, and he ended up having to put all three of his pits down. So yah, I've seen two cases through the system and heard every silly argument there is trying to ignore the simple truth

about 3% of the dogs ( pits to be specific ) are responsible for about 70~90% of the fatalities

its a no brainer

Ban those things as fast as you can.

Oh and my lawyers other pit bull case was some poor kid who for zero reason got her arm ripped off by the neighbors "nice doggy" a pit bull of course.

So yah, I have read a considerable amount of information concerning this issue and really, once you loose the emotion out of it you can only come to one possible conclusion. Which I call a no brainer.

Boston
02-13-2014, 10:25 PM
actually ~25 per year means one every 14 days or so. Which is just a tad more than we had in the last few years. It also depends on how many breeds you put in the pit category. The CDC didn't include rotty's in the pit group, which then isn't really taking all the pit types into consideration. So there numbers are actually a bit low, by something like another 15%.

Ian McColgin
02-13-2014, 10:27 PM
While in a genetic sense there's no such thing as a "pit bull", there are a number of breeds and mixes that have the stereotypical look and that are disporportionatly chosen by bad people to be turned into viscious attack animals. Other breeds have been more popular in the past and in other nations but the "pit bull" look is the mean dog of choise among some of our more disgusting citizens. So of course dogs that have that look will be disporportionatly represented among the dogs that attack and kill. On top of that Boston has shared the fact that he's had more direct experience with the products of animal abuse. I believe there are better ways to deal with the problem, especially because if "pit bulls" are banned, the people who abuse them into becoming viscious will just pick another type, but there is no disrespecting the basis of Boston's point of view.

Just to take the example of the owner of the "pit bulls" whom Boston had to sue, the basic training and handling of those dogs should be crimes and beyond liability that owner should have faced criminal punishment. That's what's lacking and only evolution of such laws will prevent viscious people from raising and abusing large dogs to turn them into viscious dogs. Our tolerance of this form of animal abuse and our tendency to punish the animal rather than the owner make us as a society complicit in this continuing problem.

Boston
02-14-2014, 04:19 AM
While in a genetic sense there's no such thing as a "pit bull", there are a number of breeds and mixes that have the stereotypical look and that are disporportionatly chosen by bad people to be turned into viscious attack animals. And that is the fundamental logic error right there, they are not being chosen by bad people to be turned into bad animals, they are already bad animals breed over generations, just like any other dog is breed conditioned to perform certain behaviors. A healer will heal well, a retriever will retrieve well, a hound dog will hound well. The simple truth is a dog breed to kill, will kill, well, and that is exactly what we see in the statistics concerning war dogs. Other breeds have been more popular in the past and in other nations but the "pit bull" look is the mean dog of choise among some of our more disgusting citizens. So of course dogs that have that look will be disporportionatly represented among the dogs that attack and kill. On top of that Boston has shared the fact that he's had more direct experience with the products of animal abuse. I believe there are better ways to deal with the problem, especially because if "pit bulls" are banned, the people who abuse them into becoming viscious will just pick another type, but there is no disrespecting the basis of Boston's point of view.

Just to take the example of the owner of the "pit bulls" whom Boston had to sue, the basic training and handling of those dogs should be crimes and beyond liability that owner should have faced criminal punishment. That's what's lacking and only evolution of such laws will prevent viscious people from raising and abusing large dogs to turn them into viscious dogs. Our tolerance of this form of animal abuse and our tendency to punish the animal rather than the owner make us as a society complicit in this continuing problem.

actually I tried to avoid legal action. I'd no inclination of punishing the animal at all. I actually really struggled with that one cause I own a dog myself and he's awesome. A rescue from the road. Little guy was a mess when I first found him. Also of a breed that is supposedly untrainable but damn if he's not an incredibly well behaved dog. Long story short I'd have been much happier just gaining restitution. But for whatever reason that jerk decided to try and screw me for the expenses. Made no sense at all. I warned him multiple times but to no avail. Even had my lawyer call him several times. I suppose it didn't help that his dogs also attacked a customer at his business. I guess they got sued for that as well

Long story short, I've personal experience with this one, both from a victims point of view and from the observers point of view

in the end its still a no brainer