Why is this thread being left open? To give everyone their change to participate in the smug threadshit circle jerk?
Congrats you’ve silenced the opposition.
This is no longer a place of fighting ignorance. 
How is it you can’t seem to grasp that if the dogs were not mortally dangerous, the owner’s skill or bad actions would not result in. Death and maiming of People?
Not so sure, Shayna. Seems to me that Pibulls are responsible for a huge percentage of the maulings. Certainly way above their tier in popularity in breeds.
You honestly don’t or can’t see that?
Seems the debate is continuing just fine without him. That particular opposing silenced himself by endorsing illegal activities and wishing death on people. In the fight against ignorance I’d call his banning a victory.
As much as I’d like to gloat in an admission that golden retriever owners are all just the bestest owners EVAR…we know it ain’t true.
Goldens, Poodles, shih tzus…all can end up with shitty owners; only one breed is responsible for the majority of fatalities. Wonder why that is.
Repeat after me: 4-5% of the dog population, 60-80% of dog bite deaths. What part of that equation do you not understand?
Well, see, that’s the problem - there is no ‘one breed’ for pitbulls. Do you understand that, that’s the problem? You say its one breed but there are several breeds that would meet the criteria for that ‘one breed’…and even more mixed breeds who would qualify. For all you or I know, if DNA was examined (and even that is not exact for breeds within a species) ‘goldens, poodles, shih tzus’ may or may not constitute a large percentage of the breeding for the mutts generally id’d as ‘pitbulls’.
If ‘it looks like what I think a pitbull would look like’…is not really a good criterium.
There’s no “debate” here - this is a Pit thread, a cougar58 vs SDMB Pit Bull brigade thread.
His “death wish” was fucking tenuous and a pathetic black mark on the mods and posters who used silly ass word games to get a “death wish” out of that post. Why is attaching your pit bull’s leash to your neck an act of suicide, if the dog is safe and controllable? Oops…
Of course you would call it a victory - it favors your side. But nobody won here, its just that the main voice of one side, and the one with the actual dog in the fight, hardy fucking har, got silenced. What a fucking victory for pit bull supporters everywhere!
(Looking at posts on this page post-Cougar58) Nope, there are still lots of “Kill 'Em All” types still in here. Debate is far from stifled. Hell, I’m only here to support the “let’s figure out what a pitbull is and get some real numbers of attacks by actual fucking pitbulls before we go off half-cocked” people because the others are dominating the conversation.
Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
Jesus.
Let’s try this again. Let’s start by defining what we are debating. Are the “pitbulls are Satan’s minions come to maul us all to death” people arguing that pitbulls should be eliminated from existence?
If not, what are you arguing? Just that they are dangerous and you want agreement that they are?
Please be specific, if you would. IMagine that we have all agreed with you that they are dangerous. What exactly do you think the next steps should be?
Thank you for your cooperation.
You haven’t noticed Dragon Ash, RedFury, crucible? Pay closer attention, cougar58 was hardly alone in her ignorance.
(Yes, it has come to my attention that cougar58 is a woman.)
Agreed.
Not for me, I’m no fan of silencing people who are arguing sincerely. (vs. trollage)
She was a little one-note, however, and I think that’s rather frowned upon. I never learned if she had a direct experience to inform her obsession, and I am curious. If you google “cougar58” and “pit bull” you see that she has been all over the web throwing in her nickle on the subject wherever she can.
[QUOTE=cougar58]
Get some ground chuck hamburger. Roll it up with a few grapes, and 3 pcs of Orbit sugarless gum. Perfectly legal. Orbit has Xylitol in it - just 3 grams will take care of a pit. The grapes will work in parallel.
Place it in your yard, where the pit bull enters. Or, better yet, since the pit bull is free to enter your yard, reciprocate by placing the laced patty in the pit bull owners yard. Fair is fair, right?
[/QUOTE]
I fail to see how this person being banned is a loss for the anti-pit bull advocates. I’d never want that person on my side.
Or yours. Isn’t that possible?
Haven’t done it, but I take your word for it – but I do agree she was too “agenda driven”…and not always in a good way. Thre are ways, I think, reason can come into this discussion – short of killing owners or pets.
I think I agree. Reason I say that, is that although she made (very good points) it appears to me her hatred of both breed and owners made her almost impossible to speak/discuss with.
Of course it is. Can you point out the facts that I have demonstrated myself to be ignorant of, since I always want to have all the pertinent information about topics that interest me enough to debate them. I’d be obliged.
Late for me. But sure I’ll do so ASAIC
What precisely do you think should be understood from this? (Can you give the source for these percentages? they don’t really match up with anything I’m reading so I would appreciate a cite.)
Assuming the numbers are accurate, and using the most comprehensive data available for dog breed distribution (the Banfield data discussed earlier), fully 50% of all dogs are under 20 pounds. While such small dogs are capable, under unusual circumstances, of killing very vulnerable, defenseless people, it isn’t reasonable to consider them deadly in the same way that virtually any dog over 50 pounds is physically capable of being deadly.
So that means that instead of 4-5% of the total population, including dogs that couldn’t kill if they wanted to, “pit bulls” are actually more like 8-10% of the total population of dogs that are physically capable of killing human beings. So there’s that.
Secondly, there’s the 60-80%…again, this is based on what? Cites are good. Please share.
Thirdly, there’s everything else that has been talked about in depth that you continue to ignore.
So let me ask **you **about what you understand.
So far, no one has shown any genuine expert in dog behavior who agrees that breed-specific legislation banning certain dogs by breed is an effective strategy for preventing fatal dog attacks.
On the flip side:
The Centers for Disease Control, a completely neutral organization concerned only with health and safety of US citizens, has studied the issue and determined that breed-specific legislation banning certain breeds of dog is** not **an effective strategy for preventing fatal dog attacks.
The Humane Society of the United States has studied the issue and concluded that BSL is not the answer.
The American Humane Association has concluded the same.
The ASPCA has also determined that BSL is not appropriate.
The following professional organizations devoted to animals and dogs, staffed by experts, all agree that breed-specific legislation is wrong, it does not work, and that no breed is inherently more dangerous than any other in terms of breed-based behavior:
**American Kennel Club
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
The National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors
Australian Veterinary Association
Australian National Kennel Council
Canadian Kennel Club
Continental Kennel Club (USA)
The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe
National Animal Interest Alliance
New Zealand Kennel Club
Swedish Kennel Club
Toronto Humane Society
**
Given that, can you explain your basis for your apparent conviction that all of these professionals and experts, representing thousands of people and millions of hours of experience, are all wrong, but that you are right?
(By the way, interesting factoid: the woman who was so badly mauled by a dog that she ended up the recipient of the world’s first face transplant was attacked by a Labrador Retriever.)
Also, let’s not stray too far from the crucial point I made earlier: how does 20 people a year measure up in the grand scheme of Dangerous Things That Must Be Banned to Keep Us All Safe? Pretty weak. If we’re going to ban dangerous things that kill lots of kids disproportionately, I think we need to start with ATVs. Those things are death machines.
Plenty more at source – including links to all stats.
First, I see the names of organizations, but no links to their specific statements that say “Breed specific legislation is not the answer to the problem of pit bulls killing people”
for all I know, every one of those organizations has said precisely that, but I doubt their message is quite so clear as you claim.
Second, my support of taking steps to eliminate the hazard of large dogs killing people STARTS with neutralizing pit bull type animals, sterilizing or banning around people without certification who can properly train and control them.
The reason I say start is, as you, yourself, state, all dogs can kill people, particularly large dogs. But, the 90/10 rule seems to me to apply here, getting 90% of the positive return you seek for 10% of the total effort needed to reach 100%.
Fear of dangerous animals is a human trait, an evolutionary positive trait. Taking dangerous animals and training them to do useful things has also been a positive evolutionary trait, at least a positive development that mankind has used. Many large dogs have specific helpful roles to play.
Perhaps, at one time, the ancestors of pit bulls had important roles to play in helping control other very large, dangerous animals, such as bulls. We don’t need that useful behavior anymore, and thus, don’t need the pit bull type animal anymore.
Hundreds of attacks by, disproportionately, pit bull identified animals have been chronicled in these pages and in other threads. Have the supporters of pit bulls chronicled hundreds of instances where it can be shown that having a pit bull, specifically, prevented harm to its owner?
Seriously?
I mean…fucking seriously?:smack:
Your OWN FUCKING BANFIELD CITE had pit-types accounting for 4-5% of the US dog population.
So are you saying you don’t believe that pit types account for 60-80% of fatal dog attacks?
Why would you doubt it? Have you notivced me misrepresenting things?
American Humane Association:
Is that not clear?
AKC
The AVMA:
Australian National Kennel Council:
Australian Veterinary Association:
Canadian Kennel Club:
Humane Society of the United States:
National ANimal Interest Alliance:
The National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors:
Swedish Kennel Club
Also these aorganizations, not named earlier:
THe Association of Pet Dog Trainers:
NAtional Animal Control Association - the people responsible for dealing with animals that are out of control. They say:
The United Kennel Club:
Also see statements by the Department of Justice and the American Bar Association, as well as, of course the much discussed CDC.
Most of these quotes were taken from these two sources:
http://animalfarmfoundation.org/files/BSL-E-Book-08-13.pdf
And as you can see for yourself, all the organizations are crystal clear, no ambiguity whatsoever: breed banning is bullshit. Targeting any breed or breeds or appearance or type is bullshit. Wrong. Bad. Useless. Unfair. Pointless. Bullshit. Agreed to by virtually all veterinarians, dog trainers, dog CATCHERS, for god’s sake, as well as lawyers, doctors, and a wide variety of research specialists.
So you are certainly entitled to your feelings, but in terms of facts, there is no basis for banning pit bulls or any other kinds of dogs.
Oh and the pdf link had a very interesting bit regarding some other research
So those of you who are insisting that pit bulls are dangerous and must be banned are essentially telling us that this extraordinarily broad and deep list of experts and professionals are all wrong about pit bulls and the usefulness of breed-specific bans, and that you are right. So can you explain to us how that is so?