The Denver story is very interesting. Reading all the detail from Denver, I’m struck that Denver never had much of a a specific pit bull biting problem…they didn’t bite out of the proportion of their numbers, apparently, in Denver. Yet, they banned and have killed thousands or pit bulls…guess what? They still don’t have a pit bull biting problem…
But, and this I really don’t understand as well, the number of biting incidents has decreased over the past 23 years by an astounding number. Perhaps 15% of the number 23 years ago. The article attributes that overall decrease to strong enforcement of laws making owners responsible for the behavior of their dogs, and, likely, rounding up all strays, neutering, etc. to reduce the total population of dogs not under control.
More study needed. Right now a stray dog is in and out of my property, looking for a handout, I guess. Friendly, no collar, smart enough to run the other way when he sees and sheriff’s car coming and to run toward me when I drive up to the house. I want to put that dog into the hands of experts who can evaluate it, try to find it’s owner or a good home, and kill it kindly if they can’t. What other choice do I have?
Yes, real hard-hitting fact-based statements there! :rolleyes:
Why is anyone surprised that professional dog organizations oppose…laws against dogs?
The Denver story is a bit hard to follow. They state that ‘more people in Denver go to hospitals for dog bites than other cities without bans’, but conveniently, they don’t control for hospital access rates: In Denver, the nearest clinic might be down the street. In Broomfield it might be 10 miles. Even worse, they don’t even attempt to control for doggie population numbers. You can’t claim that Japanese are better at gun safety because of how few people are hospitalized for gun shot wounds…
And this chartis just ridiculous. Tries to show Denver with its breed ban, as having double the number of average dog bites per year as other cities without the ban such as Boulder and Lakewood.
Population of Boulder: 100,00
Population of Lakewood: 145,000
Population of Denver: 630,000
Hmm - 5 times the population but only 2 times the number of dog bites. Hmmmm…maybe the breed ban is working?
I’m not sure that’s a logical conclusion. If the breed ban is working, you should see a lower ratio of pit bull bites to dog bites in general. I don’t see that in the Denver or Aurora numbers. I see approximately the same ratio, if not possibly slightly higher in the Aurora case.
Denver does seem to have a lower incidence of dog bites by human population than the other cities. (If we knew overall dog population numbers, that would give us a better idea of what’s happening.) Let’s pretend BSL eliminated all the pit bull bites. We then have 450 non-pit bites per 630,000 or 71 bites per 100,000 population in Denver. In Boulder, we have about 140 per 100,000. In Lakewood, about 120 per 100,000. In Aurora and Broomfield, about 80 per 100,000. These are numbers for the non-pit bull bites.
So, when I look at those numbers, I do see that Denver, Aurora, and Broomfield stand out with low numbers, with Denver and Boulder both having BSL. But why would BSL affect dog bite statistics on non-BSL breeds? And the overall proportion of pit-bull to general dog population bites is about the same if not higher in the BSL cities? If BSL worked, I would expect the pit bull numbers to be lower in proportion to the general dog population. This doesn’t seem to be the case. Denver and Aurora just overall seem to have fewer dog bites in general respective to their population than some other Colorado cities. Is there anything else that Denver and Aurora are doing that would explain the overall numbers, or are there simply fewer dogs for the human population there?
The only statements that can be asserted with absolute certainty are those declaring matters proven to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. (thank you Stephen Jay Gould) Given the messy state of the data when it comes to dog bites, and the questionable reliability of reporters, witnesses and participants, it would be imprudent to declare anything with unqualified certainty.
As it stands, the vast weight of the evidence is that BSL is worse than useless, and no breed of dog can be reliably said to be so likely to turn against people that it must not be allowed among them. What few controlled studies exist confirm this, and controlled, peer-reviewed studies are the most reliable test of any hypothesis. Following that is the data, sifted, filtered, tested to get the most accurate results possible. Finally the direct experience of individuals in positions to know, such as the Animal Control Association. You know, the dog catchers. Seems pretty likely that if “pit bulls” were really such a menace, they would be on the front lines saying so, and they are on the front lines saying that breed profiling is bogus.
Then of course you have the CDC, DOJ, ABA, etc.
Having explained what I would hope you actually already know full well, being a longtime member of the Dope, can you offer up any experts and professionals of the calibre listed previously who have said that they know, without doubt, that BSL is the answer to dog bite related fatalities? The only one you’ve scrounged up so far is a court whore with zero expertise in the area of dog behavior. Can you find one known, respected, established organization having some kind of experience with dogs / dog aggression (that is not specifically devoted to promoting BSL) that supports BSL?
Good luck with that.
The above is, I believe, an intentional misstatement of the facts. Follow the two links I gave previously. Virtually every single organization wholeheartedly supports strong laws against dangerous dogs and rigorous enforcement of those laws, and virtually all of them spell out exactly what they mean and how such laws should be designed. They only oppose laws based on bogus, meaningless, unenforceable criteria.
You haven’t answered my question. Given the position of pretty much every imaginable expert and professional organization (No BSL), even beyond US borders, based on so much research and experience, what is the reason you believe that your opinion about “pit bulls” and the value of BSL is the correct one? If you have a reason beyond “I just do”, I would genuinely like to know what it is, since pretty much all your arguments thus far have been shown to be faulty at best.
And a reminder that no one has made any attempt to address the point I made several days ago regarding the basis for banning. Even if every fatality were attributable to “pit bulls”, it still would not be a serious enough threat to warrant laws banning them.
If we are going to ban things to make people safer, we need to start with ATVs. In the same period that all ddogs together have killed around 300 people, ATVS have killed nearly 12,000, almost 3,000 of whom were children under 16 years old. Let’s get our priorities in order, peeps.
I think we should ban trees taller than 8 feet first. After we take that ridiculous step I think it would make sense to start banning things that are even less likely to kill people, like dogs. I’d never support a breed ban. An all out ban on dogs based on size makes more sense.
Just anecdotal evidence, but at my local dog park, nearly every fight that occurs involves a pit bull or pit bull mix. That said, some of the sweetest dogs there are pit mixes. It does come down to the owners to some degree.
No, why would I be? I don’t have a hard on against ATVs, if people want to ride 'em and put their kids in 'em and kill a few hundred a year, what’s it to me? I bring them up to point out the irrationality and inconsistency of obsessing over “pit bulls”. If you aren’t up in arms over hundreds of deaths every year from ATV’s, why are you so concerned about “pit bulls”? So long as you don’t hang out with people who have them, the chances of you being harmed by one hover very near zero, so why all the energy? What’s it to you if other people make the choice to have them? What else are you concerned about banning to keep you safer, or is it just “pit bulls”? And if so, can you explain that?
Banning based on size is certainly more rational than based on someone’s perception that it is a “pit bull”, as we have extensively covered. But banning dogs to prevent the harm they do is not worth it, it’s an overreaction to the danger they pose. Read the stats. Read the big section in my long post above about what the researchers determined.
Dogs do thousands of times more good than harm. Nothing in life is perfectly safe. Instead of banning, teach. Regulate. Respond and deal with dogs that have demonstrated that they are potentially dangerous, no matter what they look like.
That makes sense, because “pit bulls” have been bred for dog/animal aggression. No honest advocate for the breed(s) will deny it. But what is also true is that animal aggression does not translate into human aggression. they are desperate and distinct types of aggression that do not travel together, so reacting to a dog-aggressive dog as though it is human-aggressive is an error. I know several total wooby-wooby “pit bulls” that melt like buttah around people, but that cannot be let anywhere near other dogs.
So why don’t we ban all breeds of dog that we don’t “need”…that don’t exhibit “useful behavior”.
We can start with all toy breeds. They have no utilitarian function at all.
Dalmatians were bred to be carriage dogs. Nobody drives carriages anymore, so they can all go.
Poodles were originally bred as a retriever, but are rarely used as such these days, so we don’t need them.
In fact, anyone who doesn’t hunt has no need for their Golden Retriever or Labrador Retriever, so we should take their dogs away from them. Ditto for most owners of terrier breeds, herding dogs, shepherds, etc. Because if a dog doesn’t serve a “useful” behavior, it shouldn’t exist.
My dogs’ “function” as my companions is just about the most valuable thing in my life. Preston is the dog of my heart, but my pibble brings something else entirely, something I very much needed. She is my cuddlemonkey… so tactile, so cuddly, so delicious, and she’s inspired Preston to greater heights of physical contact as well. Going to bed with one of my kids on each side is nothing less than bliss, especially Zusje. (The pibble. “baby sister” in Dutch, cuz she’s Preston’s baby sister and it sounds like a good dog name. Gotta love Google Translate! Sounds like “sushi” with a z.)
I guess you lack the mental capacity to understand the difference between a teenager *riding the *ATV vs the small helpless kid attacked by the land shark.
On the other hand, I have absolute certainty about your lack of sound arguments or valid data to support your position, whcih is why you are reduced to making weak little swipes instead. (A very common behavior under such circumstances, and one I’ve always found intriguing. I understand that it satisfies some very primitive part of the mind, but surely the cerebral cortex is fully aware of how impotent and empty it plainly is, making it a particularly paradoxical choice: driven by ego, it is actually so weak and so revealing that it is far worse than any concession or simple silence would ever be. A very curious thing…)
You still haven’t explained ‘4-5% of dog population, 60-80% of fatal dog bites’, my little porkchop.
The only ‘valid data’ involved in this debate are on my side; you’re the one who’s entire argument appears to boil down to, ‘it’s all everyone else’s fault, because *my *dogs are just lovey-dovey cutie liddle doggies they’d never hurt anyone’.
Dogs rule, indeed. Must suck for you being the shitty owner with a shitty dog.
Every possible aspect of this subject has been thoroughly covered, as everyone reading this thread well knows. Even you. Especially you, judging from this.
You are a dishonest and tiresome “opponent” - and that is a generous description of your role in this thread. You have been consistent, I guess that can be spun in your favor if we skip what you have been consistent about.
I have responded in good faith with copious citations to reliable support for every aspect of my position, which, as we’ve seen, matches the position of every reputable organization with any reason to consider the issue. You have nothing, you have offered nothing more than vivid illustrations of your process for embracing ignorance: ignore everything.
You have made it clear that you don’t have the slightest interest having your ignorance fought. Fair enough, at least other peoples’ have been. That’s what matters.
I don’t think you should think anyone has been convinced of anything. People, in general, fear aggressive dogs; they read stories about pit bull attacks and draw their own conclusions. They see (as I have) a bunch of half-grown littermates circling a man pushing a kid in a stroller, growling and grunting…and know that the world would be better off without dogs of that sort.
Public perception is now, and always has been, and is increasingly, on the side of banning pit bulls. A consistent resistance to BSL simply means a consistent support of banning all large dogs or any dog shown to be dangerous to humans.
sorry, it is true, most people distrust your logic because most people have already formed their conclusions from absorbing all the reports from their community and the world, now, about pit bull attacks. Your best course really would be to push hard for programs all over the US and elsewhere to retrain and reprogram any dog that shows the slightest learned or instinctual tendency to attack other animals or humans. By finding that way of reducing dog attacks, BSL might be avoided.
Well, here’s the interesting thing. In my circle of friends and acquaintances, I’ve seen pit bulls explode in popularity. I would say about a third to half of my dog-owning friends own at least one pit bull or pit mix. And this is everyone from blue collar folks to couples with several children making well into the six figures, if not seven. These are certainly not the “shitty owner” crowd. I’m actually seeing public perception of pit bulls turn more positive, overall. While pit bulls were not foreign to me when I was a child in the 80s, I’ve never seen them as popular as they are now. This can very much be location-dependent, though, but it’s an observation I’ve made. So I wouldn’t out-of-hand say public perception is increasingly on the side of banning pit bulls. In my circles (which is not a crazy dog-loving circle, just generally family dog people), it seems to be going the other way, with the pit bull image being rehabilitated. Ten years ago, I would not have expected any except for maybe one or two of those friends to own pit bulls.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. The fact is that pit bulls are more popular than they have ever been, more accepted, etc. The ignorance is being cleared away.
crucible and DA seem to have a problem looking past their personal mindset and perceptions, as we’ve seen, and assume that what they think is what is most popularly thought.
And it’s particularly puzzling in this instance, given that we’ve gone over the exploding popularity of pit bulls several times. So on what planet would this statement
and we have already seen the AKC numbers and the Banfield numbers, etc. etc. - and my experience in LA in my neighborhood and among people I know is the same: they are all over the place and people are changing their attitudes.
All of which could very well be making people like DA and crucible, (who are apparently stubbornly holding on to their conviction that what they know from some googling of news stories makes their perception and understanding superior to that of all the many experts) more alarmed than ever, and that’s no doubt fueling the belief and the desire for banning among people like themselves. Oh well. Can’t always get what you want.
You know what they say about the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’?
It’s also quite possible you’re now more aware of pits vs other types of dogs, so you notice 'em more, and it ‘feels’ like they’ve both grown in popularity and make up a far larger proportion of overall dogs than they really do.
shrug or maybe you live in a place where pit lovers tend to congregate.
Either way, do feel free to chime in again when you have data suggesting pits account for ‘a third to half’ of all dogs in the US.
You know, you can’t have ‘exploding’ popularity’ on one hand, and ‘evil media blames everything on pits!’ on the other…
