So… aside from calling me crazy, do you want to provide any useful data that supports your position that pit bulls are “psychotic” and that banning or killing them results in a safer society, free of or drastically reduced in dog bite incidents?
…I suspect not.
In case you missed it, it doesn’t.
While personally believing them to be naturally, genetically-encoded, psychotic beyond control, and inherently more dangerous to children? My, aren’t we logically inconsistent.
In case you missed it, I never called for banning or killing them, nor did I say that pit bulls are psychotic. If there are particular words I said that confused you, please quote them, and I’ll correct your misapprehension. Meanwhile, I’d appreciate answers to the questions in #5 above. A series of yeses, or some nos with explanations, would be great. As I said, it looks like you’re arguing from a flat-earth-type position, but I hope I’m misunderstanding you.
Afterwards, I’ll address the silly phenotype argument, which is akin to a God of the Gaps argument. But let’s deal with five things at a time, shall we?
There’s absolutely no logical inconsistency between my position in this thread and my position at the humane society; any perceive inconsistency is your own projection onto what I’ve said.
Not that I really expect this to result in any useful contributions from the other side, but… before we continue much further, I’m really going to have to insist on answers to the following points:
-We have no useful data showing “pit bulls” to be more dangerous to society than any other breed.
-We have no way to accurately identify mixed-breed dogs based on phenotype.*
-No one yet has provided me with any sort of argument as to why a 35lb dog bred to fight other dogs is more inherently dangerous than any number of breeds bred for civil (human) aggression work.
What we are seeing in this thread is continual repeats of “everyone knows pit bulls are psychotic and dangerous”. Where’s the data? This is getting absurd.
*V. Voith, E. Ingram, K Mitsouras, et al, "Comparison of Adoption Agency Identification and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, July 2009.
Sigh. I suspect that you know the answers to these questions as well as I do.
What you are trying to get me to say is that behavioral traits can be emphasized by selective breeding, and that different breeds can and do carry different behavioral traits, both of which statements are true, as you full-well know… although I’m beginning to suspect that your knowledge on this topic is limited to the general “shepherds herd, retrievers fetch” level (which still doesn’t explain how dog-fighting equates to “murdering human beings”).
The reason I am not going to get into an in-depth, question-by-question discussion of behavioral traits as they relate to genetics and dog breeding, is that I suspect you don’t really care about the answers. If I’m wrong about this, and you really do want a thoughtful reply to your questions, and how those answers relate to the topic we’re discussing, then I’m game, but before I put out that effort I will need to see some (small) effort from you.
What I will need from you, and what I have been asking for from the beginning of my involvement in this thread is some proof that:
-a genetic background of selective breeding for dog-aggression and tenacity is linked to human-aggressive traits or an increased rate of dog-bite incidents (bonus points for demonstrating any remotely plausible reason that they are particularly more dangerous than any given breed selectively pressured for human-aggressive traits, or, for that matter, any given breed selectively bred for the killing of any other species of animal).
or
-That every dog exhibiting the phenotype commonly associated with pit-type dogs has, in fact, a genetic history of pit bull blood.
or
-That concerted efforts to eradicate dogs with the pit bull phenotype lead to a reduced incidence of dog bites or dog bite related fatalities
I’ll take answers to any one of the three, I’m not picky, although I’m particularly interested in your argument for the first point, since that’s the crux of your belief in the mythical “pit bull psychosis”. This last point is important, because, although you state that you don’t support breed-specific legislation, if your assertion is true: that pit bulls are inherently more dangerous than all other breeds, then certainly legislating against them and killing them by the thousands should do something useful?
It doesn’t. The reason it doesn’t lies in the answers to points one and two, which are extensively addressed in the AVMA’s “dangerous dogs” report. Have you bothered to read it? Or did you, and do you believe you know more about the root causes of and genetic links to human-targeted canine aggression than the American Veterinary Medical Association?
Oh look, LHOD is back … Founder of the infamous “Pit Bulls and Concealed Weapons present the same risk” posting.
Yes, LHOD, we do have MUCH different understandings of risk. Not to get too Reuben Feffer on you, but you’re smart to wear a seat belt considering that 25% of people will be involved in a car accident in their lifetime. Auto accidents are the leading cause of death (excluding health reasons) across all age groups, and the #1 cause of death (including health issues) among the ‘below 35’ crowd. Contrarily, the odds of being attacked by a pit bull (or any dog for that matter) don’t even register on the proverbial radar screen. Can’t cite you a percentage but I’d venture a guess that feeding your daughter hot dogs is statistically more dangerous than her watching TV with my Amstaff at her side.
You’re free to assess risk and conduct life any way you wish – whether it’s attached to reality or not – but when you bring such distortions into the ‘pit bull debate’ (or even worse bring them to a town council meeting about BSL), I suggest you come prepared with something a little more substantive.
And, BTW, if you’re not “for” banning pit bulls as you say, what do you stand for? As NajaNivea points out, your statements don’t seem to reconcile.
I’m one of those to whom it seems that pitbull-type dogs do more harm to people, especially kids, than any other breed type. I’ve gathered this idea from news reports*.
Is the media conspiring to shine an unfair and untrue light on innocent dogs?
*Also from incidents in my own neighborhood, but this sample is too small to consider.
Peace,
mangeorge
“Conspiring” isn’t the right word, but sensationalism sells, and “Killer Pit Bull Horror Show: Baby Shredded” makes a better story than “Neglected Boxer-mix Left Chained in Yard Bites Unsupervised Toddler”.
Previous commentary on the media bias surrounding dog-bite reporting:
Wrong, NajaNivea, "conspiring is exactly the right word.
From m-w:
Sensationalism can be an element of conspiracy, but not all (by a long shot) news reports of pitbull-type dog attacks are sensationalized.
Use of that word implies that all “media” got together and decided to act collectively in concert.
That is absolutely not what I am suggesting, implying, or claiming is occurring. When I said it was the wrong word, that’s what I meant. There is no organized* conspiracy* at work here. What you are claiming, I’m not entirely sure.
To begin with, you need to get over the idea that my question was directed at you. It wasn’t. If it was, I’d have quoted you as I am right now. I’m not sly.
Maybe you skimmed my post and missed something. I don’t know. But I “claimed” nothing, I asked a question, And it wasn’t limited to “all” media.
What the hell is going on here?
You asked a question, I answered it. What are we arguing about?
mangeorge, maybe this scenario will make it more clear to you:
Are you aware that the media tends to disproportionately report on kidnapping or violent crime stories that involve pretty, privileged caucasian children, as opposed to underprivileged black children?
Would you say that disproportionate reporting on this topic indicates that pretty white children are more likely to be victims of kidnapping or violent crime?
Would you say that there is a vast, overarching conspiracy on behalf of The Mediasup[/sup] in regards to this topic?
…or would you say that these sorts of stories are sensationalistic, and that they sell more newspapers than stories about kidnapping and violent crime involving poor, inner city black children?
That is why I said “conspiracy” isn’t the right word. Stories about pit bull attacks sell more papers than stories about “mixed breed of indeterminate origin” attacks, pure and simple.
I’m not confused. I asked a question, without going off-topic.
So, your answer to my original question is “no”?
Like I said the first time:
No, there is not a conspiracy.
Yes, there is a trend toward over-reporting on this topic, fueled by sensationalism.
Based on your odd reaction to NajaNivea, it seems your original question might have been more rhetorical or sarcastic in nature than genuine. Do you have any points to make or shall we all simply agree with you that pit bulls do more harm to people than other breeds and that the media’s portrayal of them is “by a long shot” largely accurate?
I’ll have to go back and read my odd reaction.
My question is genuine. The meaning of “conspiracy” has wandered from the strict dictionary entry. Conservatives started it with claiming “Liberal mass media agenda” and the “Gay agenda” conspiracies, and others. Direct co-operative planning is no longer required.
Ok, fair enough. But if I’m not mistaken, the only one using the word “conspiracy” under this particular topic is you. I think some of us are still wandering what your point is or why you feel the need to explore the meaning of conspiracy on this Board.
Naja, you’re asking me for proof for things I’ve not only not said, but specifically repudiated a couple of weeks ago. My quote about the history of breeding psychosis into pit bulls does not contradict my quote that not all pit bulls are currently psychotic. Please reread my posts about the people who are working to breed the hotness out of pit bulls to see the distinction I’m drawing. If you have trouble finding them, ask mercedes for help: she’s fixated on those posts, since they’re where I mentioned my excellent and insightful analogy between concealed-weapons carriers and pit bulls.
Given that you’re now saying that “behavioral traits can be emphasized by selective breeding, and that different breeds can and do carry different behavioral traits,” my follow-up question is whether behavioral traits that may fairly be characterized as a psychosis may be emphasized by selective breeding. Maybe your view isn’t quite so flat-earth after all.
Yes, what NajaNivea said.
You never saw the huge number of pit bulls in shelters until the 1980s. Their growth in numbers and parallel demonization is due solely to the Humane Society of the United States and the media.
I know it’s going fall on deaf ears but I would urge anyone interestested in this to read Vicki Hearne’s “Bandit.”
Vickie Hearne was a tremendously well-respected dog trainer, author of several books on dogs and dog training and served as an expert witness in, IIRC, several dog bite cases.
She makes a very compelling case for how and why this happened. IMHO, it’s a very similar situation to the satanic panic of the 1980s (see McMartin preschool case).
Also strictly IMHO, I think pit bull fear mongering has continued to this day because for a long time there was very little organized opposition against the media or HSUS.
That and when people did speak out, there was a reluctance to speak about their history in dog-fighting and how common dog aggression can be in the breed.
Also to be noted is that dog-fighting as it exists today with its emphasis on abuse, bait dogs etc. didn’t exist before the 1980s (no matter how one feels about dog fighting, the dogs weren’t treated and raised as they are now).
Again the blame for this is the hysterical stories of the media and the HSUS. They are to blame for the Michael Vicks’s of the world and no one else.