Go back and read the thread over again. At least twice people have objected to your flaming of Maeglin insinuating that he had a desire to see the dog turn into a corpse. This is not obvious from **Maeglin’s ** first post, but very clearly he subsequently explained his objection to your inflamatory charge as false and without merit. Yet you cannot seem to comprehend that Maeglin had no options to consider or influence in this case. In any other context, the quoted question above of yours might have some relevance, I wonder about that as well, but it has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Maeglin who you slandered.
Right back atcha.
Conversation about what?
If there were other options, why not mention them? Is it that the “may” indicates that killing the dog is a matter for the police now (a fact conveniently left out of the first post, and inconveniently* unclarified* in the second post. Is the board an arm of the police? Do the police force the owner to kill the dog, or force the board to kill the dog?) I’ll ask again, if there were other options, why not mention them? Are you familiar with any ordinance that requires a dog to be put down after one bite? Can the dog owner not give the dog away? Move to another residence? Again, why mention the nuclear option if others are equally possible?
You will not that in his “clarification” he did not mention these phantom options you imagine.
“I’m sorry Magellan, as we have found termites in your home, we may have to demolish it. Or, we could just treat the problem.”
Based on this logic, why do we have to draw the line at dogs. Can I get a pet tiger?
Shove your four rules up your ass, you pompous shithead. I’ve had dogs and they were extremely well trained, to the point of me not leading a leash wherever I went. The point is that not everyone is a good dog owner. There will be owners of all breeds who fuck up and the dog will go after someone. If a Chihuhua goes after someone, it’s one thing. A Golden, as those helpful sites have shown, is a bigger deal. But when a pitbull goes after someone, you hope the victim winds up in the hospital and not the morgue. There all attacks, but there not all equal events. Why? Because the size/temperment of the dog, which to a degree, is dependent upon breed. And “fault” is apoor word with moral connotations that makes discussion like this difficult. When I’ve used the word I mean it simply as a “cause”.
Bias? You keep saying stupid shit like this. If I think that a tiger is a more dangerous animal than a horse and shouldn’t be kept as a pet, am I “biased” against tigers? Is that what you mean?
Now go put your nose in one of your AKC books and whack off.
Talk to Magellan. He’s the one with the options.
I asked him if killing the dog was the only response that would satisfy the him, and by extension, the board. He then introduced the police into the equation. Now, if he had said something like “Unfortnately, the authorities have been notified, and they may require that the dog be killed,” that would be a different story. But he did not say that, now did he? He said that the board may have to kill the dog.
I will leave you and Magellan to determine whether, in fact, other options were considered. Nothing in either of his posts suggests there were, but you of course are free to read into what you wish.
If there was any doubt* to both your poor reading comprehension or your assholishness, it has been removed.
Please, by all means, continue.
The point is not what those other options were, it’s that another option(s) existed. Perhaps you should look up the word “may”.
*There wasn’t.
It’s a stupid question, and you know why. Oh, you don’t? I’ll tell you. Dogs are domesticated animals. They have been companions of humans for thousands of years. Tigers are wild animals.
Most localities prohibit the owning of animals such as tigers as pets, so probably you cannot get a pet tiger. Did you not know that?
But in ContrapuntalLand, you can have one. YAY! Just keep him under your control at all times. Say hello to Roy Horn for me.
Hallalulah! He was blind and he can see!
Is it the word ‘rule’ that sticks in your craw? Fell free to think of them as guidlines. Is there anything else about them to which you object? You know, like anything substantive?
Sounds like they were under your control, if that is what “not leading a leash” means. Good onya. Guideline 4.
Fine. The cause is the owner. The cause is not the dog. Is it really such a burden to properly confine a dog, or restrain him when in public?
Declaring that one breed is more dangerous than another, when the responsibility lies with the owner, demonstrates a bias. Or are you saying that pit bulls should not be kept as pets? You have avoided that so far. Are those your true colors revealed with the lifting of the clouds?
It is mildly disturbing that such an image would present itself to you. Might be time for a bit of self-evaluation. A little soul-searching never harmed anyone. Ounce of preventtion and all that, eh?
http://www.atts.org/stats1.html
which of course means that pitbulls are pretty safe, because all testing on pitbulls shows that they are one of the most even tempered dogs out there.
Hell, they use them for service animals for the disabled.
All testing? You linked to one organization that does testing. And as far as I can tell all the dogs tested we’re brought there by their owners .So it seems that they would not a get a representative cross sample of any breed, as the people who bring their pets there probably have pretty well trained/adjusted dogs.
I’ve said repeatedly that pit bulls can be trained to be perfectly gentle, so it doesn’t surprise me that these particular dogs did well on the test—for the things they tested. But even if the test used a representative sampling of pitbulls, they didn’t test for visciousness once provoked, or the ability to stop an attack once it is started. This is when the real damage is done. Like the links about the Golden’s showed, they tend to snap, bite once or twice and it’s over. Pitbulls are known to be more insistent with their agreesion once it’s triggered.
So while I find your cite interesting and thank you for it, I don’t think it shows anyhting we can project to the larger population, which includes dogs that have not been trained well.
Some people do have pet tigers, showing that they can, in fact, be trained. And you’ve been saying all along “it’s not the animal, it’s the owner.” Looks like you want to have it both ways. I’m shocked.
I’ve said this before in the thread, but you digest it just now? Thanks for pointing out another example of your inability to comprehend the shapes on the page.
Again, I’ve stated more than once—once in all caps I believe—that I do not advocate a ban on any breed.
Can’t you get your hands on a reading Primer, or a tutor? This really is annoying.
I appreciate the attempt at snark, but such a weak one is pathetic. You are the one in this thread that has shown such an infatuation with official sanctioning bodies as to confuse their guidelines and professtations with reality. Just thought you might enjoy petting your little doggie with the book open.
Of course. Were talking about temperment, not training, and between the staff and the APBT they tested what, 1000 dogs? Thats a pretty big sample if these dogs have poor temperment then it would have shown in a higher than normal percentage of the animals tested…especially in such a large sample.
And yet you then turn around and say they have a temperment defect. Which is it?
A pretty large one in fact
Yes they did…read the test descritpion. they had to respond to a threatening stranger
Of course not. If they attacked they failed the test flat out. So again, the fact they showed such high marks…
Cite? Because I’ve seen no evidence to that…admittedly I havent read the whole thread but most people base this off of what they hear or read in the papers…and half the time it isnt really even a pitbull.
Large strong dogs that have not been trained well can be dangerous. Thats bad training not temperment. So if we are arguing temperment the only thing that SHOULD be tested is well trained dogs. And this is the most scientific test that has been done to date. Do you have any data to refute this other than anecdotal evidence? We are fighting ignorance here.
For the record…I own a staff/husky/chow mix. he looks like tall thin pit, and I’m sick to death of people freakin out over him…accept when people come to the door asking for money…then its kind of fun to watch them freak out and back off the porch.
I realise that this is a long thread, and that, you have a real life which probably demands attention as well, but this furphy about the bite force of a Pit Bull has been addressed by a couple of different people already in this topic, including myself.
In this post I included some scientific research which has debunked the idea of Pits has having some degree of bite force far beyond that of other dogs.
This reference tells us that it is unlikely that any dog has a bite force of 2000psi:
D. Lindner et al, (1995) “Measurement of Bite Force in Dogs: a Pilot Study” Journal of Veterinary Dentology
Abs. A force transducer was developed to measure bite force in dogs. A total of 101 readings was obtained from 22 pet dogs ranging in size from 7 to 55 kg. Bite forces ranged from 13 to 1394 Newtons with a mean for all dogs of 256 Newtons and a median of 163 Newtons.
This reference suggests that, as would be expected, Pits have a bite force which is in line with their size.
A test done with a bite sleeve on National Geographic program Dangerous Encounters: Bite Force. 8pm est 8/18/2005
The dogs tested were the German Shepherd, the Pit Bull and the Rottweiler. The average bite force for domestic dogs was 320 lbs of pressure, with the Pit scoring the lowest of the three dogs."
And this reference debunks the idea that Pits have any mechanical advantage in their anatomy which might allow them to bite harder than other dogs.
Dr L Brisbin’s (1989) “Mechanical Advantage in the ‘Pit Bull’ Jaw’” Proceedings of the South Carolina Academy of Science.
This scientific investigation proved that there is not only no superior strength to the jaw when compared with other breeds and mixed breeds but that there is absolutely no evidence of a ‘locking’ mechanism.
I think the evidence is clear that Pits are physically no more dangerous than any other dog of similar or even larger size. You might wish to argue that there is something inherent in the temperament of the Pit which makes it more dangerous than other dogs, but there is no evidence to support any idea that their physiology gives them an advantage in creating “mayhem”.
I don’t believe, however, that you have demonstrated that there is anything inherently different in the way in which a Pit might attack someone, as opposed to another kind of dog.
Obviously the size of the dog vs the size of the human under attack, as will have an impact on the outcome, but I’ve never seen any research about the “attack styles” of different breeds of dog.
I think the research is fairly clear that there is nothing particularly different about Pits in terms of physicality or temperament which make them more dangerous than other dogs that to humans. (Many of the bull breeds are dog aggressive, and that’s a different question; dogs may be both human and dog aggressive, but a dog aggressive dog may be perfectly safe with humans).
The thing which is different about Pits is the people who own them. The Collier article in the post referenced above draws this from a survey of the available research, “of 20 deaths caused by pit bulls in one U.S. survey, half the owners were males aged between 20 and 25, and more than half were either involved in dog fighting or had criminal records.” and goes on to say “The United Kennel Club, a registry for APBTs since the 1890s, claims that no registered APBT has ever been involved in a fatality”, which seems to suggest that responsible owners make a difference.
And you might wish to consider this statistic, “334 out of 426 pit bull terriers taken in by the Washington Humane Society from October 1999 to September 2000 were considered cruelty cases.”
http://www.pitbullpress.com/ARTICLES/BSL.ACTION.KIT.html
Good grief. From my very first post on this subject:
I did not expect you to be unable to infer that because the authorities are involved, we may have to have the dog euthanized. I did not suppose that when dealing with reasonably intelligent people, I would have to make my posts idiot-proof. No one else found this reasoning remotely unclear save you.
I have been very sympathetic to everything you have had to say up until now, Contrapuntal. My wife and I share our one bedroom apartment with four rescued cats. I am no longer so sanguine to be on your side of this debate.
Perhaps the most tragic part of this story is that the owner wasn’t even walking the dog at the time. He was snowed in somewhere in the midwest, and had been unable to return to NYC. A friend who thought she was doing them a favor was walking the dog without the owner’s permission when the incident occurred. I have every reason to believe that had the owner been walking his own dog, this lamentable situation would not have occurred. Neither the woman whose dog was bitten nor the woman whose hand was bitten have any desire to see the dog put down. The only people who do want the dog put down are overprotective parents of young children, whose position I have little sympathy for.
To the best of my knowledge so far, this decision is not in our hands but in the city’s. I don’t think I could make this any clearer to you, but I despair nevertheless that you still won’t get it.
My point was not that the sample size was small, but that is was not representative of the spectrum. They were self selected. Do you think that those owners who were poor trainers contributed to the study? That’s not the impression I got from the information that was available in the link. Also, visciousness of attack was not tested for. I find it perfectly sensible to believe that a pit bull or other large dangerous dog can be trained to be sweet and lovable, but that if and when they ever get into attack mode that some very basic hardwiring kicks in and all hell breaks loose.
Now some may say, well even when they are attacking another dog in a fight in a pit, the handlers can pull them off the dog they are fighting. Yes, but the question is how focused and determined they are on the object of their agression. These unfortunate incidents read about usually occur without a handler there to pull the dog off before it’s to late
First, I wouldn’t characterize it as a “defect”. I think any breed has a basic baseline temperment—it’s not good or bad—it’s just what it is. Now some of those temperments might be ill-suited when we ask them to do different things, but that does not equal “bad”, as is implied by “defect”.
Now, to answer your question. Whatever temperment a breed might have, I think it is safe to say that any of them can be trained to be sweet and lovable. I think you can also get most dogs to be protective. But not each breed will be equally suited to what we ask of them. There are some innate characteristics that give breeds their different “personalities”. Contrapuntal thought this not to be the case. Pretty much every expert cite you can go to for guidance in selecting a dog will offert those traits. Now, while a pit might be as well trained as any dog, we they do “go after” some one they do so with a greater degree of determination that most other dogs. The deaths we read about, some in detail, are evidence of that. I thiink the sites about the Goldens support that point , as well. In the seven instances that were found in the past seven years there was not one death. Most of the articles describe the dog biting once or twice. With the pits—and the presa incident in San Francisco—we see a determination to kill.
Again, large, but hardly representative.
They only responded to the approach of a threatening stranger. As far as I could read there, there was no test (which, granted, would be difficult) that showed the ferocity of the actual attack that may follow in the real world, or the determination of attack once started.
So, some of the areas (above) that they seem to be unlike Goldens, for example, were not tested for.
Well, I’m not about to go scouring around for something when you haven’t even read the thread. Come on, give me a break. I think if you read about some of the pit attacks, some of which are probably cited earlier in this thread, you’ll see the type of visciousness I’m talking about. Also, as some other cites show, their history of fighting bulls taught them to be relentless.
Just because a test has been done, even if it’s been done well, doesn’t mean it shows what you want to know. This is not a case of data on one side vs no data on the other. As far as I know, neither side has data. I know of no test that tested for what I have been describing. Barring actual hard data, we look to the real world, and there seems to be significant circumstancial evidence that pit bulls are more dangerous. I really don’t see how this can be doubted. Again, when is the last time you read about a retriever or a setter ripping someone’s throat out.
I went through those cites and looked as others. I mentioned that a couple of posts back. The numbers are all over the place. The only coinsistencey seems to be that these bite force tests are unreliable.
My guess, and it is a guess, is that a pit bull 60-pouund pitbull has a stronger bite than a 60-pound Golden. As you would probably agree from your post regarding head size, if you take dogs of equal weight, a pit bull will have a larger head. In width for sure, but if I recalll your info, in length as well. But I think the larger factor is the baseline temperment. Any good size dog can do serious damage if they go nuts, but they rarely do. Again I think this is a combination of both strength and temperment. A particular chihuaha might go into attack mode and try to kill you, but he won’t have much luck. A Saint Bernard probably could kill you if that was his goal, but we don’t hear about that happening much, do we?
I read that in other sites, as well. I think somewhere posited that it may be a learned behavior from fighting bulls that is not due to physical attributes.
Okay, I think I see where we may not understand one another. I think we would agree that in order for a dog to be a good killer (barring a freak accident), it would have to be of some minimum strength (A) and size (B). Let’s say that most dogs over 50 pounds we have the physical strength to do so. The other component needed would be tenacity. I’d say dogs on the lower end of the scale (50 pounds) would need to have that determination moreso, say, than a 180-pound english Mastiff, who could probably crush your neck with one bite.
[Quick aside: my friend had one such Mastiff. And he had drilled a hole through a bowliing ball, threaded a thick rope through it and tied it so it was like a handle. This was the dogs toy out i9n the yard. Cut to summer party with lots of cars parked on the lawn. All of a sudden we here these REALLY LOUD NOISES. Really lound bangs some isolated, some more like a drumroll. “What the he–?” Were they ashcans, some car accident? As I walk with my friend through the cars out to the road, we both almost have a heart attack. We here the BANGBANGBANGBANG agin but it’s so close we jump. We then walk toward the noise and see Max playing with his “toy” in between my girlfriends Fiat and my brother’s Mustang, the lower sides of both cars pummuled with dents from the bowling ball covered in Mastiff drool.]
Sorry, but it was very funny. Anyway, the amount of “mayhem” a dog may inflict is dependent on some combination of A and B. Probably more of an AxB thing than A+B.
I haven’t either. But given that all dogs freak out and attack (the Golden cites, for example) and we rarely hear about those attacks resulting in death; and that we hear all too often about pit bull attacks resulting in depth, it seems sensible to me to conclude that when pit bulls attack it is more viscious. Their strength comes in to play, sure. But as their are much bigger, stronger dogs, I think it’s more due to their style/intensity of attack. If not, no death—like the Goldens—right?
YIKES! Can I say this too many times: I AGREE and have stated reperatedly that pit bulls can be trained to be sweet and lovable and never bite anyone. Look back, my position has consistently been that it is the fault of the dogs AND the owners.
That said, I would change the first word of your quote above from “The” to “One”
Good statistic. I have no doubt that a dog who has been treated badly is more dangerous than ones that have been treated lovingly. But, unfortunately, dogs of all breeds are abused. And yet we don’t read about any breed killing as many people as pit bulls. Even bigger, stronger dogs.
I hope not, that would skew the results. We are looking for inherit breed defects, not training defects. Idealy all 1000 dogs would be trained by the samed highly skilled trainer. That would give us an idea of the actual temperment of the breed uncorrupted by the skill of the trainer.
Again, if they attack at all…even a slight bit…they fail the test. So there is no need for viciousness of the attack. The object is to have a dog that properly trained and socialized wont attack. Pitbulls score among the highest of all breeds in that regard.
and again you back track. First you say there is a temperment problem inherant in the breed…then say they cant be trained to be lovable. make up your mind…and some facts would be nice as well. I provided a cite from a scientific study…you’ve provided what?
These unfortunate incidents usually occur without an actual pitbull there at all. Its usually another mean looking dog that the press reports as a pitbull.
Thats a contridiction. If the dog has a hostile temperment that means he cannot be trained to be sweet and lovable.
Cite?
They are evidence that a large, poorly trained unsocialized dog that may not be a pitbull will hurt people. We know that. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Thats why anecdotal evidence is worthless.
Thats because, once again, if they attacked at all they failed the test. So MOST of the 1000 dogs they tested did not attack, and most of the other non-pitbull dogs they tested attacked more often than the pitbulls.
No. You are spreading ignorance and this board does not give a break to that. Come up with realiable cites and prove your point.
Again, most of the pit attacks I have read about there was no proof that there were even pits involved, and no proof of the dogs training and abuse history. They are meaningless.
No there is significant anecdotal evidence that big strong dogs that were abused and improperly trained and socialized attacked people. That is not even close to circumstancial evidence.
When was the last time someone tried to train a golden retriever to fight? When was the last time someone beat an irish setter to make it mean to protect their drug lab?
All scientific studies that have ever been done show that pitbulls are no more dangerouss than other dogs of their size and strength. Every dog expert that I have ever heard speak on the subject agrees with this. I’ve never seen one shred of reliable evidence that pitbulls have a temperment problem and the best temperment testing ever done says they dont.
Emphasis mine. I am sorry, I still do not understand why the board must be the ones to euthanize the dog on the order of the police. Additionally, it is still unclear to me why the owner would not be allowed to re-home the dog outside the local jurisdiction, or move with the dog somewhere outside the local jurisdiction.
That is truly regrettable. I urge you to igore my jerkishness, if you can, and consider the more reasonable posters who have argued the same position as I.
That is the part that was unclear from the beginning. Upon reflection, I was wrong to phrase my question in such a provactive and accusatory manner. I was being a jerk. Please accept my apology if you can; if you cannot, I understand, but nevertheless, please don’t let my behavior influence your thoughts about the matter at hand.
You would be right if my position was that pitbulls go into atack mode more often than other breeds. But that is NOT what I’ve been saying. I think one of the tiny breeds would deserve the title. My point is that the that pitbull atttacks more often result in death or near-death horrors. The study you cite did NOT look anything that would shed light on that. If you think so, point to it.
Oh boy, you provided a cite—a scientific one at that—and I didn’t, Score 1-0, You win!!! Well, actually, you’re cite is mum on the issue at hand, so it’s still a tie. :rolleyes:
“Usually”? I hope you’re not making the same mistake Contrapuntal made and think that the only real pit bulls in the world are the ones with papers. Now, I grant that there is confusion with the breed, but that doesn’t mean that pit bulls are innocent victims here. And if other similar breeds are are responsible for similar mayhem, that should be treated similarly. And mind you, I have NOT advocated (and do not) the banning of any breed. A fact you would know if you took the trouble to read the thread that you seem so interested in.
You might be right about dogs with “hostile temperments”, whatever you mean by the term. That’s not been a point I’ve attempted to make.
Tempermament is an important factor in choosing any dog. See here:
Then go to here.
I read the temperament descriptions for Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Saint Bernards, German Shepherds, Mastiffs, and Presas (Canary Dogs), Chows, Boxers, Bulldogs, Akitas, Dobermans, Dogos, and of course the much-feared Golden Retrievers. While the descriptions are all positive, guess which one—and only one—had this as part of it’s breed temperament description?
Hint: It was not the Golden Retriever. The unique thing the Golden had compared to these other dogs was it’s innate love of the water. So they mentioned that.
Lest the suspense kill you, the answer is the Pit Bull. I wonder why these dog lovers, who had terrific things to say about the Pits felt the need to add that?
Anecdotal evidence is not “worthless”. It just is not as good as other types of evidence. But sometiimes it’s all you have. And the mnore anecdotal evidence you have the more meaningful it becomes.
And though they “may not be a pitbull”, they may, right? Unless you’re of the mind that every attack was reported incorrectly, or that you ascribe to **Contrapuntal’s **ridiculously narrow definition of what makes a dog a pit bull.
Again, and I hope for the final time, they did NOT test for the quality of the actual attack, it’s visciousness, intensity or, determination.
Now that’s funny. The guy who mounts his high horse without reading the thread preaching about ignorance. Very funny, in fact. Thanks for the giggle.
Aslo, has it penetrated you cranium yet that your cite does NOT disprove what I’ve been talking about? If not, there is no further point to discussing this.
Well, at least you added the word “significant” this time. So it seems you do think that anecdotal evidence can be more than “worthless” after all. Good. Progress.
Do you have any evidence that all or most of the dogs in question were abused thusly? Or even trained to fight? “But,” you might say, “the breed was bred to fight.” To which I would repond, “Precisely.” The same way Retrievers were bred to retrieve and Portugeuse Water Dogs were bred to swim.
Maybe this will be the final time: The test you keep citiing—the best test done so far or not—does NOT test for what I’ve been describing. If you think it does, show where.
And I’ll just remind you that only one dog in my cite earned this:
That’s right the Pit Bull. Yoy may wasnt to ask yourself why. Is there really no basis in fact and it all is the product of some vast anti-pitbull conspiracy? :eek:
BBBZZZZZZT! Never said that.
Wow. Just Wow. That may be the most egregious case of cherry-picking ever. Just a sampling of what your cite states that you, perhaps, found inconvenient. Emphasis added.
*** By no means are these dogs people-haters or people-eaters.** Their natural aggressive tendencies are toward other dogs and animals, not people. However if they are **properly socialized **they will not even be aggressive with them. *
The American Pit Bull Terrier is a good-natured, amusing, extremely loyal and affectionate family pet, which is good with children and adults.
It is usually very friendly, but has an uncanny ability to know when it needs to protect and when everything is okay.
Excellent with children in the family, they have a high pain tolerance and will happily put up with rough child play. As with any breed, they should not be left alone with unfamiliar children.
*A minimum of training will produce a tranquil, obedient dog. Socialize very thoroughly when young to combat aggressive tendencies and be sure to keep the dog under control when other dogs are present. *
It has given outstanding results as a guardian of property,* but is at the same time esteemed as a companion dog.** When properly trained and socialized, this is a very good dog and a great family companion. Unfortunately, some choose to promote the fighting instinct in the breed, giving it a bad name.*
Any of this sound familiar? Any of this sinking in yet? Did you get the part where it has an uncanny ability to tell the bad guys from the good guys? Why in hell are you citing defending ones family to the death as a bad quality? Do you think that these alleged attacks by pit bulls on random 5 year olds are in defense of family? Or is it more likely that an unproperly socialized dog was not under proper control?
Contrapuntal, didn’t you figure out in post 317 that the best thing you can do for your side of the argument is to shut the fuck up?