[QUOTE=valleyofthedolls]
It amazes me that on board “dedicated to fighting ignorance” people can get on their moral soapbox about PETA but in the same breath expect a pat on the back for saying they support the HSUS. The two organizations are pretty much the same, the HSUS just invests in a better advertising campaign.
[/quote]
Nonsense. Utter and complete and total nonsense. Vicious nonsense.
Are you a physician? Have you taken a look at that rash on yourself?
No, I don’t believe you, and no, I’m not going to go search out some book whose content you can’t be arsed to quote. If you want to convince me that the HSUS is responsible for pitbull “fear mongering,” it’s your job to find and cite the evidence, not to wave a book at me and declare it gospel. What are your specific facts to support this ludicrous allegation?
You’d bet wrong, unless by “and on” you’re including this decade.
So what? Are you familiar with the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? The fact that there’s a correlation between HSUS campaigns against dogfighting and shelter intakes of pit bulls does not in any way suggest that one causes the other; the obvious conclusion is that a single cause (an increase in the use of pit bulls by dogfighters and a subsequent increase in the dog’s street cachet) caused both. And then there’s the influence of the Bud pit bull.
Okay, I’ll go with that, with the stipulation that most people are not sufficiently aware of their dogs to detect such warning signs, and perceive it as a “freak out.” Of course such freakouts have cause; we live in a cosmos with causes and effects. Don’t be pedantic, please.
Before I dig up statistics, are you suggesting that pit bull attacks (especially fatal attacks) against children are in line with those of other dogs, when compared to attacks against adults?
[Quote=LeftHandofDorkness]
No, I don’t believe you, and no, I’m not going to go search out some book whose content you can’t be arsed to quote. If you want to convince me that the HSUS is responsible for pitbull “fear mongering,” it’s your job to find and cite the evidence, not to wave a book at me and declare it gospel. What are your specific facts to support this ludicrous allegation?
[/Quote]
I don’t have Vicki Hearne’s book on hand to quote directly. If you wish to dismiss something out of hand because I’m not quoting from it, that’s your choice. I have read it. I have never seen, read or heard (from people involved in pitbull rescue) anything that contradicts what she wrote.
[Quote=LeftHandofDorkness]
You’d bet wrong, unless by “and on” you’re including this decade.
[/Quote]
Yes, 80’s and on would include this decade. If you worked in a shelter prior to the mid-80’s, you wouldn’t have seen a problem with pit bulls and dog fighting.
[Quote=LeftHandofDorkness]
So what? Are you familiar with the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? The fact that there’s a correlation between HSUS campaigns against dogfighting and shelter intakes of pit bulls does not in any way suggest that one causes the other; the obvious conclusion is that a single cause (an increase in the use of pit bulls by dogfighters and a subsequent increase in the dog’s street cachet) caused both. And then there’s the influence of the Bud pit bull.
[/Quote]
In this case, there is a causal relation. HSUS orchestrated a smear campaign which in turn caused covers like these:
which in turn caused an explosion in the pit bull population and dog fighting in general.
And the Bud pit bull wasn’t a pit bull, it was a Bull terrier. The two breeds look nothing alike.
[Quote=LeftHandofDarkness]
Okay, I’ll go with that, with the stipulation that most people are not sufficiently aware of their dogs to detect such warning signs, and perceive it as a “freak out.” Of course such freakouts have cause; we live in a cosmos with causes and effects. Don’t be pedantic, please.
[/Quote]
I’ll take being pedantic over being ignorant any day of the week.
[Quote=LeftHandofDorkness]
Before I dig up statistics, are you suggesting that pit bull attacks (especially fatal attacks) against children are in line with those of other dogs, when compared to attacks against adults?
[/Quote]
No, what I said is what I meant. To wit: Across the board for ANY breed, children are far more likely to be bitten than adults.
[QUOTE=valleyofthedolls]
I don’t have Vicki Hearne’s book on hand to quote directly. If you wish to dismiss something out of hand because I’m not quoting from it, that’s your choice. I have read it. I have never seen, read or heard (from people involved in pitbull rescue) anything that contradicts what she wrote.
[/quote]
It’s my choice not to be persuaded, thanks for noticing. Your choice is whether to present a persuasive argument.
True and irrelevant to your spurious claim about HSUS.
Repeating the spurious claim, with irrelevant links, does nothing to support the claim.
Ah, I think I’m seeing where you’re coming from. There is no scientific taxonomy as applies to dog breeds; “pit bull” is a term in common use, not governed by any body. The bud pit bull was a pit bull indeed. I’m well aware of how AKC et al attempt to define it, but they have no authority to do so; I use the word as it’s commonly used, to refer to a few different breeds sharing similar characteristics and histories.
You’re making it clear that the choices are not mutually exclusive.
Then what you said is, once more, as true as it is completely irrelevant. Pit bulls, by virtue of their breeding to attack child-sized animals, are more likely to attack children (and more likely to attack them fatally) than most other breeds; they are also disproportionately likely to choose children over adults as targets when compared to other breeds.
Daniel
Edit: Does your abandonment of the absurd claim that HSUS and PETA are similar organizations indicate that you read and understood the links I provided? Let’s hope that the thread can serve the board’s purpose in some small way…
[Quote=LeftHandofDorkness]
It’s my choice not to be persuaded, thanks for noticing. Your choice is whether to present a persuasive argument.
[/Quote]
As I said before, Vicki Hearne’s book explains, in great detail, what the HSUS did to destroy the Pit Bull terrier’s reputation in this country.
I have pointed you to a reputable source of information. That you reject it out of hand because I am not able to directly quote from it is your loss.
[Quote=LeftHandofDorkness]
True and irrelevant to your spurious claim about HSUS.
[/Quote]
So you do agree that prior to the mid-80’s, pitbulls and dog fighting weren’t hugely popular in this country?
[Quote=LeftHandofDorkness]
Repeating the spurious claim, with irrelevant links, does nothing to support the claim.
[/Quote]
It is not a spurious claim. I have given you a reference to a very good source of information. You have decided to reject it on the basis that I am not quoting it word for word. As I said, your loss not mine.
[Quote=LeftHandofDorkness]
Ah, I think I’m seeing where you’re coming from. There is no scientific taxonomy as applies to dog breeds; “pit bull” is a term in
common use, not governed by any body. The bud pit bull was a pit bull indeed. I’m well aware of how AKC et al attempt to define it, but they have no authority to do so; I use the word as it’s commonly used, to refer to a few different breeds sharing similar characteristics and histories.
[/Quote]
This is just a weird statement
I’m going to repeat this once again. The “Bud pit bull” was not a pit bull it was a Bull Terrier.
Yes, there are a few breeds that share similar characteristics. They are the:
American Pit Bull Terrier (not recognized by the AKC)
The American Staffordshire Terrier (recognized by the AKC)
Do you actually think Bull Terriers look anything like the other 3? A Bull Terrier’s face is completely different from the others.
[Quote=LeftHandofDorkness]
You’re making it clear that the choices are not mutually exclusive.
[/Quote]
No, I’m just making it clear that I prefer real information and facts as opposed to throwing out fear mongering terms like “freak out”
[Quote=LeftHandofDorkness]
Then what you said is, once more, as true as it is completely irrelevant. Pit bulls, by virtue of their breeding to attack
child-sized animals, are more likely to attack children (and more likely to attack them fatally) than most other breeds; they are also disproportionately
likely to choose children over adults as targets when compared to other breeds.
[/Quote]
I don’t even understand how a study could quantify what you’re saying because there are so many factors that come into play when and how a dog bites
someone.
That said, I would like to see a cite for this. I don’t need you to regurgitate a bunch of facts though. If you could just give me the name of the study,
I’m sure I can find it myself.
[Quote=LeftHandofDorkness]
Edit: Does your abandonment of the absurd claim that HSUS and PETA are similar organizations indicate that you read and
understood the links I provided? Let’s hope that the thread can serve the board’s purpose in some small way…
[/Quote]
Nope. Not at all. It just indicates that I’m really not interested in discussing the subject anymore (and this is going to be my last post in this thread). It’s just a
google away to find out what a gutter organization the HSUS is. If you need every piece of information hand fed to you, as I said you’re loss not mine.
[QUOTE=valleyofthedolls]
And what of Great Danes, St. Bernard’s, Great Pyrenees, Old English Mastiffs, Bull Mastiffs, Irish wolfhounds etc. If it’s a matter of musculature, then they’re shouldn’t be any large breeds at all.
And Pomeranians, evil dogs that they are:
[/QUOTE]
Why stop at dogs? What about horses? A lot of people still ride horses all over the world for recreation, sport, some even do it for practical purposes in some parts of the world, or for their job.
Pretty much any horse can kill a human. Horse gets scared, you get thrown off, neck gets broken you = dead.
The musculature of a horse is much, much more impressive than a dog. I’ve ridden horses my entire life and had dogs my entire life, it’s a no brainer that a horse is a much bigger and stronger beast and definitely one you have to know exactly how to handle or you can be seriously injured.
Animals aren’t in general the safest things in the world. But there are clear benefits to our lives and our lifestyle in having them, whether they be pets, livestock, beats of burden, or recreational animals like horses and et cetera. Virtually nothing is risk free, especially the things which are most worth enjoying in life.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Incidentally, ActivistCash is a website run by a lobbyist for the restaurant industry; he also runs a website that demonizes Mothers Against Drunk Driving. He is, to put it mildly, not a reliable source for anything. Do some research on him before you rely on his research about HSUS.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
Not to get this off track, but I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with demonizing MADD. I think MADD is an organization that started with its heart in the right place, but has more or less taken the approach of “screw personal liberties in our quest to eradicate drunk driving.” That’s just not the way to do things in America, you don’t get to take away essential liberty just because it can help decrease the frequency that people commit certain crimes. Our most essential liberties (right against self incrimination, right to an attorney, presumption of innocence, and our right to have meaningful access to evidence against us) just can’t be abridged simply because it will help fight crime. There are some things you DO NOT abridge in this country no matter what benefits there might be, MADD has long ago crossed the line from benevolent advocates of change to law and order thugs who would love to see DUI defendants have no legal rights whatsoever.
If scumbag Vick’s dogs were trained to be fighters…if they were trained to be fighers than I think it’s a unnecessary risk to try and place those dogs in homes.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Not to get this off track, but I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with demonizing MADD.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. There is certainly nothing wrong with disagreeing with MADD, but pretty much by definition, demonizing a group is a bad idea. ActivistCash is in the business of demonizing groups by playing fast and loose with the facts. Here’s a good article (admittedly from a biased source) about their tactics.
[QUOTE=Aitara]
This is an oversimplification of the process used to determine the fate of these dogs. A special advocate was appointed to ensure the best outcome for all involved. Two organizations that I have quite a bit of respect for took the majority of dogs(Best Friends in Kenab UT and Bad Rap of San Francisco), the remainder sent to organizations willing to find appropriate homes for them.
From the Bad Rap site
I do encourage you to read more about the Vick dogs before deciding.
[QUOTE=j666]
I still think it’s a bad idea. Fighting dogs aren’t dangerous just because of their temperment or training. It’s a matter of musculature.
If a bird dog gets angry, s/he might break the skin, while a happy Rottweiller who’s just playing too rough might break your arm. Well, ok, that’s a cruel exaggeration.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=j666]
Still, dogs trained for fighting usually have really strong jaws,
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Diane Jessup]
After 30 years as a canine aggression expert, schutzhund trial decoy, expert witness on dog bites for the Seattle and Tacoma police departments, I concur with the conclusions reached by Dr. Brady Barr working with the National Geographic Society’s bite study which showed the pit bull’s bite to be unremarkable when compared to other breeds.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=j666]
(And, yeah, it does annoy me that people are flying all over the country for ‘celebrity’ dogs, instead of helping all the local ones in trouble.)
[/QUOTE]
With all due respect to your history in the field, I think you’re beyond short-sighted in this argument. I know you have a real hate on for pit dogs, but the the book valley’s recommending is one anyone working in rescue ought to read.
I’d also like to see a cite for this statement:
Out of curiosity, does this “breeding to attack child-sized animals” which causes pit dogs to attack small children in disproportionate numbers hold true for, say, foxhounds? What about coonhounds with their monstrous prey drive, are they just as likely to attack small children (and attack them fatally) as pit dogs? A big coon is about the same size as a game-bred pit, so it seems logical. What about breeds designed to hunt pigs, like the various cur dogs, Catahoula Leopard Dogs, and Dogos Argentinos? Feral hogs and Russian boars are both roughly human-sized, does this mean my boar hunting dog can’t differentiate between a wild pig and an adult human? Should he be more likely to indiscriminately attack adults than children because his prey is adult-sized?
How about wolfhounds? Deerhounds? Can they tell the difference between their prey and people? 'Roo dogs in Australia?
These are all dogs bred to attack and kill other animals. Do you think all of these breeds untrustworthy around people and particularly children? If not, why not?
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Pit bulls, by virtue of their breeding to attack child-sized animals, are more likely to attack children (and more likely to attack them fatally) than most other breeds; they are also disproportionately likely to choose children over adults as targets when compared to other breeds.
[/QUOTE]
But they’re NOT bred to attack “child-sized animals.”
They were bred from bulldog stock, bred to attack bulls, for the first two-thousand-or-so years…then bred to fight other dogs. Do you seriously imagine that dogs which can identify parts-per-million of drugs and explosives (the all-time largest US drug seizure found by a dog was found by an American Pit Bull Terrier) can’t tell the diffference between a child and a dog?
Pit bulls were ruthlessly selected not only for their friendliness toward human handlers, but for their ability to distinguish between humans and dogs when in great pain and the frenzy of the fighting ring – handlers had to be able to pull them apart without getting injured. It is common advice among pit bull owners that breaking up a dog fight between two pit bulls is much safer for the human than a fight involving a non-pit-bull-breed, which is regarded as more likely to snap at the interfering human.
Pit bulls are famously human-friendly. They can be made into man-haters, with effort, but most people who raise them keep different, “guarding” breeds to guard their kennels, because the pit bulls won’t normally attack strangers, even thieves.
Pit bulls were known as “the nanny dog” in America years ago because of their great reputation with children. The fact that the news demonizes them today makes it easy to lose sight of the truth, if you do not look closely.
One explanation I’ve seen for the supposed prevalence of pit bull attacks on children is that it’s an error of assumptions: it’s not a specific breed so much as it is chained dogs that attack disproportionately, and children are much more likely than adults to approach a chained dog. Pit bulls, of course, are wildly popular right now, especially among the sort of idiots who chain a dog and neglect him or her.
If you look into this, I think you might change your mind; I see a LOT of dumb press stories implicating pit bulls unfairly. The Jack Russel story I posted above is a classic example: Jack Russell indoors kills baby, police take him away – AND they take the pit bull who was out in the yard and never touched the baby. The news story dwells on the pit bull, who had* nothing whatsoever to do with the killing* according to both police and the family. Why not dwell on the family car, the bottle of bleach, the razor upstairs, the gas stove, or any of a thousand other things in the house that did not kill the baby? Because “pit bull” is the Red Menace of the headlines.
Doll, I am a dog person. I really like dogs. But, I’m older, cynical, and very well aware that resources are limited. So, my first reaction was that this is just anoother example of celebrity obsessed culture.
And, yeah, dogs trained to fight are at the bottom of my [completely theoretical] list of whom to save first. Is it fair? No. Is life? No.
I am not a knee-jerk hater of any breed of dog over twenty pounds, including any of those refered to a ‘pit-bulls’. I just think that sometimes the right thing to do is the hard thing.
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
If you look into this, I think you might change your mind; I see a LOT of dumb press stories implicating pit bulls unfairly. The Jack Russel story I posted above is a classic example: Jack Russell indoors kills baby, police take him away – AND they take the pit bull who was out in the yard and never touched the baby. The news story dwells on the pit bull, who had* nothing whatsoever to do with the killing* according to both police and the family. Why not dwell on the family car, the bottle of bleach, the razor upstairs, the gas stove, or any of a thousand other things in the house that did not kill the baby? Because “pit bull” is the Red Menace of the headlines.
Sailboat
[/QUOTE]
No kidding. Understand-a-Bull has an interesting collection of stories regarding media bias surrounding pit dogs, including a whole page devoted to articles which misidentify dogs as pits, to hype up the story.
My favorite is a story from Kansas City, MO March 6, 2006 . Headlines on the news report “Pit Bulls attack KC girl walking to school”. The story really isn’t all that remarkable, the girl suffered one small bite on the arm and fended the dogs off with her backpack. The dog photographed appears to be a yellow lab. When complaints were lodged with KMBC-TV about the egregious error, they responded by pulling the photos and continuing to run a “vicious pit bull attacks defenseless child” story.
Another story, widely reported in news outlets across the country, involved a report about a six-week old pit bull puppy gnawing off a baby’s toes. Turns out it was a pet ferret that did the gnawing, not the puppy, but that detail wasn’t important enough to issue a follow-up report. Vicious killer-dogs, born with murderous instincts exhibited even as early as six weeks old make a much more exciting story. :rolleyes:
Oh, and about that Jack Russell, the headlines call it a “freakish accident”. If the dog involved had been the pit dog, anyone want to take a guess at what that headline might say?
Okay. First, I have nothing remotely resembling a “hate-on” for pits; as I said in my first post, I agree with a policy of dealing with individual dogs and not breeds. My objection is to the idea that individual dogs who were bred for the anti-small-animal psychosis that characterizes pit bulls, such as the specific fighting pit puppies I dealt with at the shelter, are not going to exhibit dangerous traits.
That said, Naja has provided what the thread lacked before: subtantive cites to support the idea that pit bulls may not be as dangerous as the media portrays them. I’ve just finished working a 14-hour day, so I’m off to kill some folks in Team Fortress and then to bed, but I’ll take a look at the cites tomorrow. I appreciate folks who argue with substance rather than insults or an insistence that a particular book will change my life.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Okay. First, I have nothing remotely resembling a “hate-on” for pits; as I said in my first post, I agree with a policy of dealing with individual dogs and not breeds. My objection is to the idea that individual dogs who were bred for the anti-small-animal psychosis that characterizes pit bulls, such as the specific fighting pit puppies I dealt with at the shelter, are not going to exhibit dangerous traits.
That said, Naja has provided what the thread lacked before: subtantive cites to support the idea that pit bulls may not be as dangerous as the media portrays them. I’ve just finished working a 14-hour day, so I’m off to kill some folks in Team Fortress and then to bed, but I’ll take a look at the cites tomorrow. I appreciate folks who argue with substance rather than insults or an insistence that a particular book will change my life.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the nod, and sorry for the suggestion that you hate all pits–I get that impression from the words and phrases that slip into your discussion of pit dogs, phrases like “anti-small-animal psychosis” and “freak out” and “psychotic qualities”. Those don’t sound to me like words that come from a neutral observer.
And Sailboat, it’s not just chained dogs, but intact males that make up a significant percentage of fatal dog attacks.
In Karen Delise’s excellent treatise on the subject, entitled (helpfully enough) Fatal Dog Attacks, she states:
[QUOTE=Karen Delise]
It is necessary to emphasize that a fatal dog attack is an exceptionally rare event, yet many communities and cities believe that the solution to prevent severe and fatal dog attacks is to label, restrict or ban certain breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous. If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20-25 human fatalities per year. Since only an infinitesimal number of any breed is implicated in a human fatality, it is not only unreasonable to characterize this as a specific breed behavior by which judge an entire population of dogs, it also does little to prevent fatal or severe dog attacks as the real causes and events that contribute to a fatal attack are masked by the issue of breed and not seriously addressed.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Karen Delise]
In December 2002 an elderly woman was found dead inside her daughter’s home in New Jersey. There were two dogs in the home at the time the woman was found. The incident was widely covered in the media and reported as:
* "Killer Pit bulls Rip Granny to Shreds" (New York Post)
* "Grandmother Mauled to Death by Family's Pit bulls" (Newsday)
So here again is more “proof” of the “unpredictable and vicious” nature of Pit bulls and thus began renewed discussion about controlling dangerous breeds of dogs in New Jersey.
There was only one problem with this “fatal Pit bull attack.” The woman was not killed by the dogs. An autopsy eventually revealed that her death was due to natural causes and the dogs were found not to have contributed to her death.
This is not so uncommon as one may imagine. Since 2002 there have been at least six (6) cases of deaths reported in the news as “fatal dog attacks” but which were later determined (through an autopsy) to be from natural causes (unrelated to dog bites) or natural causes with a non-lethal dog bite as a contributing factor.
Not surprisingly all these erroneous reports of fatal dog attacks were attributed to Pit bulls or Rottweilers, (in one case the media alternately identified the dogs involved in the “attack” to be either; Fila Brasileiro, Mastiff, Bulldog, Am. Bulldog and/or Pit bull).
[/quote]
This reminds me of that quote from Socrates about “kids these days”:
“The dog in Saturday’s horrible killing was, yes as almost always, a German Shepherd, commonly called a police dog…Yet, we go on permitting this dangerous, slinky breed to multiply and to run at large. Think twice before buying a police dog. Keep a rattlesanke instead. It will give a warning at least.” (The Progress, February 11, 1947)
Every decade needs a breed to villanize.
[QUOTE=NajaNivea]
Thanks for the nod, and sorry for the suggestion that you hate all pits–I get that impression from the words and phrases that slip into your discussion of pit dogs, phrases like “anti-small-animal psychosis” and “freak out” and “psychotic qualities”. Those don’t sound to me like words that come from a neutral observer.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I’m not a neutral observer. I’ve got very strong opinions on the subject, informed by my experiences working at a shelter. Please read the distinction I’ve made repeatedly, though:
I stand by that. I’ve met specific dogs that were bred for “game,” and I’ve met pits that were not bred for “game,” and there’s a world of difference there.
As for the statistics: I misremembered the studies I’d read before regarding pit bull incidents of attacking children, and I am unable to find another source that breaks down attacks by both total attacks and attacks against children. I withdraw the claim that pit bulls attack children disproportionately, although I suspect it is true, because I have no evidence to support my suspicion.
Not specifically directed at anyone in this thread, I’d like to bring this article to the attention of anyone interested in public policy and pit bull bans:
