Interesting, if you guys look at the chart on that CDC link I gave you’ll see that the number of pitbull caused fatalities has droppeed while the rottie has risen. Suggestive of John Mace’s comment on the shifting of (un)desirable traits. I have a feeling that the popularity of pits outside the fight world is leading to a breeding out of some of the aggressiveness. Lets talk in 18 years.
I agree with you guys long term- a ban is no solution. I also don’t like how it imposes on “friendly” dogs. Please remember however that this sometimes happens with well loved pitbulls (see many of RickJay’s links) so it’s a matter of real training, not just a good environment. If you are in favour of enforced graduated lisencing depending on current average breed tendencies we have no argument really. Like I said a ban could only be a useful temporary measure.
Also, remember I said I have a Huskie right now. My last dog was a German Shepard cross. The two before that was a different type of husky and a total mix. I’ve also had numerous cats through that whole while and lived with roomates dogs. I love our companion animals. I’m just reasonable to the concerns of the less so inclined.
Can we then infer that you believe that pitbulls pose no greater threat to humans than any other breed? What evidence do you have besides your speculation on the motives of dog fight breeders and the hazy memories of dog bite victims? I mean, what you are saying is perfectly reasonable but you can’t just wave away CDC studies which show they’ve killed twice as many people as their nearest competitor (60 by pitbulls,29 by Rotweilers if memory serves) over the last 18 years. I believe the Centre for Disease Control is a fairly respected institution (someone correct me if I’m wrong).
I doubt you can infer much at all from what I wrote other than that historically pit bulls weren’t bred to be human aggressive, many people can’t identify dog breeds and the media has been known mis-identify the breeds involved in dog attacks.
Since I didn’t mention the CDC I think it’s quite difficult to infer that I “waved them aside”.
However, looking at what the CDC actually has to say:
The CDC notes that over the last two decades the breed of dogs involved in dog bite fatalities has changed, in 1979 - 1980 Great Danes were the most reported cause of dog bite fatalities and they point out that, “Indeed, since 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30 breeds have been responsible for fatal attacks on people, including Dachshunds, a Yorkshire Terrier, and a Labrador Retriever.”
The CDC themselves appear not to be in favour of banning any breed of dog,
“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.”
They point out that, “Although, it is not systematically reported, our reading of the fatal bite reports indicates that problem behaviors (of dogs and owners) have preceded attacks in a great many cases and should be sufficient evidence for preemptive action.” which seems to suggest that current legislation for dealing with dangerous dogs, given adequate support and resourcing could be an effective preventative measure.
The CDC points to a report from the American Veterinary Medical Association called “A Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention” and says of it, “In summary, the report contains everything community leaders should consider when starting a dog bite prevention program. Also included are a model dog control ordinance and model legislation for the control of dangerous dogs.” which would seem to argue that the CDC supports the contents of the report.
The report itself says, "An often-asked question is what breed or breeds of dogs are most “dangerous”? This inquiry can be prompted by a serious attack by a specific dog, or it may be the result of media-driven portrayals of a specific breed as “dangerous.”
Although this is a common concern, singling out 1 or 2 breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment. Doing so ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a com-munity’s citizens."
The article further goes on to argue that:
"Concerns about “dangerous” dogs have caused many local governments to consider supplementing existing animal control laws with ordinances directed toward control of specific breeds or types of dogs. Members of the Task Force believe such ordinances are inappropriate and ineffective. Statistics on fatalities and injuries caused by dogs cannot be responsibly used to document the “dangerousness” of a particular breed, relative to other breeds, for several reasons.
First, a dog’s tendency to bite depends on at least 5 interacting factors: heredity, early experience, later socialization and training, health (medical and behavioral), and victim behavior.
Second, there is no reliable way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed in the canine population at any given time (eg, 10 attacks by Doberman
Pinschers relative to a total population of 10 dogs implies a different risk than 10 attacks by Labrador Retrievers relative to a population of 1,000 dogs).
Third, statistics may be skewed, because often they donot consider multiple incidents caused by a single animal.
Fourth, breed is often identified by individuals who are not familiar with breed characteristics and who commonly identify dogs of mixed ancestry as if they were purebreds.
Fifth, the popularity of breeds changes over time, making comparison of breed-spe-cific bite rates unreliable."
Well, I thought your historical note was somehow meant to refute all the cites of unprovoked pitbull attacks and statistical reports of attacks by breed. My mistake
That’s merely a statement that it hasn’t been studied
Well those are perfectly reasonable scientific objections and similar to those raised by John Mace and others. Also there are correct identifications of how anecdotal and statistical evidence could be twisted to support racist legislation mentioned by others.
But these are dogs and I’m not all that worried about sweeping generalizations if it works. These aren’t immigrants, they are bred for sale. I’m willing to entertain the idea short term.
First off, go and fuck yourself. Secondly who the fuck do you think you are? You and only fucking you are the ultimate arbitor of what animals are dangerous?
Again fuck you, you fucking asshole. Take fucking note, right fucking now, you are not an elected legislator in my state therefore you have no fucking business telling me how to raise my animals.
You think that dog is dangerous? Come to my house talking your fucking crap.
For those members who have never lived or visited Hawaii.
We have a population of hippie liberals here that have some of the biggest mouths in the fucking world.
Every day I have to look at some haole article telling us how fucked up we are and how we could be so much better if we were just like them.
I’ll let you in on a little secret. We are going to keep hunting, we are going to keep breeding pig dogs. We know you dont like it and guess what? we dont fucking care. We take care of our animals and they hurt no one.
Baron, (the dog RickJay states I am an “idiot” to keep is just fine.) Unless you climb a six foot fence. Then you are fucked. Fortunately burgulars seldom tell anyone where they are going.
I guess you support the dog’s right to argue with you. You earlier so graciously equated peoples of colour rights with dog breed rights.
And a question: Were you ever held criminally or financially responsible for those nips on the ass your dog didn’t like?
ps- the fact that they are hunting dogs does make it a different case, I think most would agree. Don’t really wanna get into that as you clearly have a lot of stock in that issue and I don’t.
CarnalK
“I guess you support the dog’s right to argue with you. You earlier so graciously equated peoples of colour rights with dog breed rights”
I did no such thing. Christ I thought I was thick. What I did was equate races of people with breeds of dogs. For those of you who may not realize all dogs are the same species, like their human counterparts they may appear different superficially but at the genetic level they are the same animal.
To answer your question, yes I did buy a guy a pair of pants to replace the one Baron tore when he bit his ass. Lucky for me he was a friend who also owned dogs and didn’t hold it against me. Baron now is the prowd owner of a muzzle that he wears if any one is going into the back yard.
Additional info, baron was neutered (had his olos chopped off) by a vet after he started displaying agressive behavior. That just made him bigger. (Fatter) he now is on hormones to keep his weight down but has the unfortunate effect of making his hair fall out.
He really is a good boy, he is a sweetheart if he knows you. But like I mentioned before, he’s a bit crazy. He has a total distrust of strangers and is aggressive to a frightening degree. He is well trained and would not break out of his yard, in fact I have accidentilly left the gate open and there he is, just sitting there, looking at it.
Baron comes from a good line. all his brothers and sisters are sweet natured animals. He was too, right until he hit puberty. He got into a fight with a stray pit around then and really came out on top, before I managed to break them up. That was back when I would walk him. I think he copped a “baddass” attitude from that but really, WTF do I know?
So what the fuck is the problem? I know he’s dangerous, I take precautions to keep him contained. He is well trained and is no threat to his family. He does not run and is no threat to the neighborhood . Are you suggesting I kill this animal because someone might come into his yard?
Sorry I skipped over this. Baron is NOT a hunting dog. He is far too unstable. Hunting dogs need to be aggressive and loyal yes, both of which he is, but what they really need to be is predictable. Baron is a pet, nothing more.
There are different characteristics between breeds, that is why there are different breeds.
I’m not convinced that certain breeds should be banned but I think that certain breeds should only be available from registered breeders and that prospective owners must have owned dogs in the past and will attend puppy obedience classes (possibly mandatory).
I am a dog lover but it has to be said that some breeds have more risks/dangers attached to them then others. There are breeds that are virtually “bulletproof”. It would take a very bad owner to make a bad Lab for example. There are other breeds that need closer attention.
My mother has an Airedale. She is absolutely bulletproof when it comes to people (mum hosts English language students so the dog is used to new people often). As a breed Airedales are known to have certain level of aggressiveness to other dogs. So when Kate goes for a walk she is always on a lead and mum will avoid meeting strange dogs when she can. Why invite problems?
Many people have pitbulls who are kindhearted softies but as a breed there are risks. It is about being a responsible dog owner.
EvilGhandi, you demonstratively have an anger management problem, and you admittedly have a dangerously aggressive dog. That combination presents a serious problem waiting to happen. Thus my preference:
For three years I lived in the rough end of London, Ontario. Pit bulls and rotties were common, and people with socialization and emotional problems were common. Thus there was the nasty problem of aggressive people with dangerous dogs. Walking along the sidewalk was tens, for you never knew when you would come across these misfits, and when you did, you had to keep out of their way. Of course the disfunctional dog owners did not ensure that their property was always kept contained, so frequently packs of pit bulls and rotties roamed loose. In the three years I was there, several small animals in the neighbourhood were killed by pit bulls and rotties, both on and off leashes. The last year I was there, a young girl, playing in her own back yard, had her arm chewed off by a pack of pit bulls and rotties that was roaming the neighbourhood.
A few years earlier, I lived in the near-by city of Kitchener-Waterloor, where there was a very serious problem with dangerous dogs, including a young girl being scalped by a pit bull; and a father of a four-year-old girl having to beat off with a bat a pit bull who had the girl within its jaws and was throwing her from side to side; a three year old boy having his face chewed off. Here are some points raised in a provincial hearing from that period: http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/committee_debates/36_parl/session1/regsbils/t015.htm
Veternarian and Humane Society Dr Gerhard Hess testified that: “During the past year, we’ve had 16 people severely bitten. We have answered literally hundreds of calls from people threatened by pit bulls. Six dogs were seriously injured or killed by pit bulls, besides a number who escaped. Many people are afraid to report incidents of pit bull bites and so on because of fear of retribution by the people who own the pit bulls.”
Pit bulls are different. They have a much higher level of L tyrosine, leading to a much stronger arousal state than any other breed. They have a higher level of endorphins, which makes these dogs able to withstand a much greater amount of pain than other dogs. They have much greater jaw strength than any other breed. They are able to lock on to the animal they attack and they will not let go until that piece is torn out."
Jim Brando from Toronto animal control testified that: “Pit bulls don’t bite, they maul. They are a time bomb.”
Kathleen Hunter of the Toronto Humane Society testified that: “It’s a truly aggressive dog. It’s bred to attack without provocation.”
At the same hearing, police officer Randy Peacock, who testified concerning pit bulls attacking officers: “15 shots were fired in the direction of the animal. I personally fired nine shots at the animal. Believing that I’m a reasonably good shot, I hit it all nine times. We shot at the head of the animal in the hope of destroying it. However, due to the breeding of the animal and the shape of the head, there’s a tendency that the ammunition we’re using in our service pistols doesn’t penetrate the skull, and we have a concern that we then have to go to the chest portion of the animal to destroy it, the problem being, when the animal is coming at you, you have nothing but the head as a target, to be quite honest with you, and that tends to be a problem with that.”
These attacks present a very serious problems. What is not a serious problem is a few dog owners being permitted to keep non-dangerous dogs rather than dangerous dogs.
Well, it’s Sunday afternoon and we’re in the Pit not GD so I’ll make a crazy admission: If aliens abducted every black man on Earth and bred them for 10 generations to be bezerker warriors then dumped the results back amongst the rest of the population- I might support some racist policies. You got me.
No, but I’m certainly not stupid enough to equate this dicussion to racism and bigotry, which you are. Equating races of people to breeds of dogs equates action against dog breeds to action against races. It’s nothing less than a filthy lie to suggest what people advocating dog breed legislation are equivalent to racists. Either that or you’re just stupid. I’ll let you decide if you’re a liar or a fool. Either way, you seem to have a defective brain.
Insinuating that I’m a racist is disgusting. You’re an idiot.
No, YOU TOLD ME IT WAS, YOU IDIOT!!! According to you, the animal bites and “should probably be put down.” It is “aggressive to a frightening degree” and “a bit crazy.” And by your own admission, you are too stupid to always keep the gate closed. Those are all your words, fool. You’re an idiot to allow such an animal to live in your home. I hope you don’t have children. You’re a disgrace.
It’s idiots like you that cause dog maulings and killings. “Oh, Baron bites people and he’s really aggressive, but he’s a wonderful pet!” Famous last words. That’s what every two-bit jackass says the day before their dog rips some kid apart. When the other posters in this thread talk about bad owners, guess what? They’re talking about you. You’re the #1 example of a Bad Owner. You’re obviously stupid, you’re keeping a dog that should obviously be destroyed as soon as possible, and you’re an aggressive little shithead. You’re exactly the reason people are even TALKING about banning breeds of dogs.
Christ, I take back everything I said to everyone else in the thread about pit bulls. You’re all right. We need to concentrate on punishing bad owners. And EvilGhandi should be #1 on the list. I’d be willing to allow pit bulls if we could prevent this slapnad from ever owning an animal.
Gosh, is a that a threat? What a big man you are, hiding behind the Internet and your big scary dog.
EvilGhandi, I’m on your side when it comes to the idea of banning pit bulls - it’s horseshit.
However, if your dog is as dangerous as you say, and you know him to be this dangerous, then I think the best solution would be for him to be kept inside a nice large yard somewhere out in the countryside [which he may be, I’m not sure where you’re located], with a six foot fence [which he is, as you’ve stated], fencing underground to prevent him from digging out, a padlocked gate that is only used in times of emergency [house catches fire]. Trusting him to “just sit there” when you accidentally leave the gate open is almost asking for him to attack someone. He also shouldn’t be in a home with small children, or even adolescents, who are known for picking at dogs and upsetting them, even if it’s just being overly playful.
It seems to me that the best home for that dog is one of single person or a couple who know dogs very, very well, with all of the aforementioned precautions. He should be played with and given tons of attention to help curb his aggressiveness.
Failing an environment like the one above, it’s possible that the best and kindest solution, for the dog, would be to put him down. If not, there’s always the chance he will escape, some child with idiot parents will go into his pen, the UPS carrier will attempt to enter without realization, and someone will be hurt. When that happens, the state/city/locality animal warden will take him and he will be put down, and not in a nice vet’s office with his family around him.
While I think his posts have been very poorly worded, I would agree with him that when we are talking dog “breeds” we really are talking about something akin to human “races.” Now, the differences in the breeds are more dramatic, of course. But they are all, in the end, just dogs, and the circumstances behind any specialization in pits can be duplicated, very easily.
My position is that the specialization will be duplicated. Not just that it can, but that it will be. I don’t have a solution for people being morons, or vicious.
(And, of course, it does strike me as a little bit weird that we’d say, “No, having a dog is too dangerous for you. Have kids instead!” Obviously I’m exaggerating, but children are far more dangerous than dogs, to society at large, and while we might ridicule idiots for having children, we don’t blame the children for being had. We blame the parents. Why are dogs so different?)
Boy, I’m glad I have cats.
