The most direct route between my new house and the local Safeway is a multi-use path down the middle of an off-leash area - when I walked home with a freshly roasted chicken one day, every off-leash dog in the area came at me to sniff my dinner. I’m getting some pepper spray, too - off-leash still means under control, but nobody seems to get that.
What about a Taser or a stun gun?
Talk about marking one’s territory. Make sure he has his rabies shots. If you’re invited over for dinner don’t put your hand near his plate.
:):):)
Sounds like a pit bull owners perspective on things. Wikapedia facts (1st on Google search) has a chart that shows fatal dog attacks in the U.S. from 1988 to 2012. Of the over 200 deaths from dog attack (many children), pit bulls were the breed in over 40% of the kills. Rotweillers came in 2nd at around 15% of the reported deaths. Stats don’t lie…sure we can blame the owners but one look at an aggressive pit will tell you that one deep bite could easily end a life. Even if the owner is to blame, I’m extra cautious around this breed.
Man, I have GOT to learn to check the posting dates. I got all the way to page three of this zombie :-/
Sure stats lie…not that you’ve provided a link or anything.
In particular, there are three well-known problems with your supposed stats:
[ol]
[li]The breed identification of dogs involved in biting incidents is notoriously poor. Not only do people have difficulty identifying breeds in general, but also people tend to report a bite as coming from the scariest dog they can think of; nobody wants to admit a miniature poodle mauled them. So there’s “breed inflation.”[/li]
[li]The proportion of breeds in the US is totally unknown, according to the Center for Disease Control, so we can’t tell if a given breed bites “out of proportion to its population” or if there are simply a lot of them and they bite the same as other breeds.[/li]
[QUOTE=Actual Scientists!]
There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.
[/QUOTE]
[li]Lastly, the Wikipedia page on dog bites says “new organizations have reported the following incidents…” Well, news organizations are terribly unscientific about what they report, and notoriously skewed toward alarmism when it comes to pit bulls. There is documented evidence suggesting this – the National Canine Research Council sampled media stories in 2007 [warning: .pdf] and 2008 [.pdf] and found that attacks of similar severity in similar timeframes received vastly different attention if the words “pit bull” appeared in the story than if other breeds of dog were involved:[/li][/ol]
[QUOTE=NCRC 2007]
Consider how the media reported four incidents that happened in 2007 between August 18th and August 21st:
[ul]
[li]August 18, 2007 – A dog reported to be a Labrador mix bit a 70-year-old man sending him to the hospital in critical condition. Police officers arrived at the scene and the dog was shot after charging the officers. This incident was reported in one article and only in the local paper.[/li][li]August 19, 2007 – A 16 month old child received fatal head and neck injuries from a mixed-breed dog. This incident was reported two times by the local paper only[/li][li]August 20, 2007 – A 6-year-old boy was hospitalized after receiving severe bites to the head by a medium-sized mixed-breed dog. This incident was reported in one article and only in the local paper.[/li][li]August 21, 2007 – A 59-year-old woman received severe injuries requiring hospitalization from an incident in her home involving two dogs reported to be “pit bull” dogs. This incident was reported in over two hundred and thirty articles in national and international newspapers, as well as major television news networks, including CNN, MSNBC and FOX.[/li][/ul]
[/QUOTE]
Even if true, your dubious stat that “40% of the bites came from pit bulls” might simply mean that 40% of the dogs in the country are this popular breed.
And why, pray tell, does “Sounds like a pit bull owners perspective on things” seem less credible to you than that of someone who lacks experience with these dogs, or someone who is phobic of them? Why would they have better knowledge?
Is this statistical fact or is it just media-fueled hysteria? I can’t imagine that the suburbs are really so much more dangerous now than they were 40 years ago. The '70s weren’t halcyon days.
You’re right, it is. I love my pit bull and I don’t appreciate it when people talk shit about the breed. Of course, I’ve got facts on my side, which certainly helps.
In 2010 someone deliberately killed dogs with poisoned meatballs in nearby Chantilly.
In 2011 two dogs were deliberately poisoned in nearby Leesburg.
That’s not statistical proof, but that’s enough to keep me from leaving my dogs out unattended.
Does that explain your specification of “nowadays”? Stuff like this didn’t happen “back then”?
Can we get an update on whether the neighbor’s new boyfriend is still peeing in the front yard?
I’m not following your point at all.
In the original post you quoted, I was responding to someone who said he/she doesn’t watch the dogs “any more.” Since that indicated “things have changed,” I included “nowadays” in my response. “You have to supervise nowadays.” I didn’t go on to add, “but hoo boy, you sure didn’t 40 years ago!”
My post was, according to Microsoft Word’s word count function, 532 words long. Of those words, only one was related to when you have to exercise such care – “nowadays.” And it was prompted by the person to whom I was replying.
If that one word is your takeaway, that I’m focused on some sort of cosmic shift in dog safety, so be it.
I have, in fact, shown that danger to dogs is a current issue at least some of the time, very recently, in my immediate area. I didn’t live here 40 years ago, and I don’t have Internet links from 40 years ago, so who knows. I do get the (unscientifically-arrived-at) sense that 40 years ago people weren’t very worried about leaving dogs unattended; I have shown that now it’s a bad idea; if you want to focus on whether the reality has changed over time, make a thread or something.
I’m perfectly willing to spot you that one-in-five-hundred-and-thirty-two word, and agree that it’s always been a bad idea to leave a dog (or a child, for that matter) unsupervised.
That’s plenty of sarcasm when you could have just said “I didn’t really mean nowadays.” But I reject your suggestion that I’m chasing minutiae. One of the persistent and problematic myths in our society is that things are progressively worse now than they used to be in some heralded past. And your use of “nowadays” seemed to me to be a pretty clear implication of that myth. If it’s not what you meant, you’re free to say so.
My pepper spray canister contains an indelible purple dye. Might not stop the pit bull but the result would be hilarious.
Anyway, no TRUE pit bull ever attacks.
“Nowadays” jumped out at me too, back when this thread was fresh. Even if it was not intended, the notion that children or pets are in any significant danger from strangers is ludicrous. It may even be harmful if it distracts from real risks. Reminds me of the parents who are horrified by the idea of unaccompanied children taking public transportation to school, yet they drive their kids to school.
Haven’t you said that before? You appear to be implying pit bull fans use a “no true scotsman” defense to say dogs that bite aren’t pit bulls – but I don’t think anyone has said that on the Dope. Dogs is dogs – that’s the point I (and every recognized dog expert) make. So that’s a classic strawman fallacy, unless you can show someone making that claim.
Can you?
I understand you’ve encountered irrational fears before, and mistaken these concerns for such. But this thread alone should show that, when the animal in question is specifically a pit bull, there is significant fear, misunderstanding, and hatred among the general public. There are plenty of cases of pit bulls – and other dogs idiots mistake for pit bulls – coming to harm from strangers.
I agree that in general cases your statement stands, but this is a specific case.
Now that **Czarcasm **is only a Junior mod, do his old instructions still carry any weight?
I had a dog that was poisoned back in the 70s. In fact, there was a rash of dog poisonings in our neighborhood back then. It was an almost rural subdivision…the developers had just bought up some old farmland and had put a bunch of houses on 1/3 acre lots. It wasn’t really rural, but it sure wasn’t what I think of as a suburb, either. Apparently one of the neighbors could not cope with dogs running around loose, even though the houses were marketed to people who wanted to live in the country. I don’t know WHAT this guy did to the occasional stray cow (we had farms nearby, and occasionally we’d come across a cow ambling along the road).
But of course! And we’ve also learned from these experts that continual reports of horrendous pit bull assaults are virtually never due to real pit bulls, but the vast legion of imitators who are inadvertently or deliberately confused with the breed.
Hence, the obvious conclusion that no true pit bull does these nasty things. Personally, I run screaming from Maltese terriers. Pit bulls are little snuggle bears, the true ones anyway.
And well you should. They will do their best to lick you to death.