Pit Bulls (continued)

The BBQ Pit
881

All the arguments made by the pro-pit bull crowd, whether or not they are sound and based on scientific study, make the case clearer that dangerous dogs are not just one breed, but can be from many breeds…but that doesn’t make them less dangerous. The point is well made that there are many many dangerous dogs ‘out there’. That the overall chance of a particular person being bitten is fairly low, the overall chance that many people will be bitten in a given time frame is very very high.

Some of us here have a mindset that any hazard facing the general population should be studied and minimized, even those that don’t effect a high percentage of people. And, even though only a small percent of people are killed or injured by aggressive dogs each year, surely you have to agree that a far higher percent of the people have a fear of these animals such that it changes the way they choose to live, the things they ‘risk’ doing.

Anyway, aggressive dogs do represent a hazard to the community. Big or small, the hazard is actual and serious when it occurs. Agree? Serious requirements for dog ownership and maintenance would also reduce that hazard. agree? No one here seriously believes that ‘just anyone’ should own a pit bull, or other dog, when they are shown to be aggressive in nature. Some folks claim that aggression can be trained out of a dog. While I’m not so sure of that, there may be some good data from places like Denver where, apparently, programs to try to insure that owners have the proper tools and state of mind to own certain kinds of dogs have had positive results. Denver’s overall dog bite problem is tremendously reduced over the past 23 years, and that reduction was only partially caused by killing a big number of pit bull type dogs. They have many other parallel programs in place that have certainly brought their rate of dog bite admissions to emergency rooms, etc., down to a rate lower than other comparable metropolitan areas in Colorado.

So, who should pay for this desire of people to own dogs? I say, both the dog owner, primarily, and the community, secondarily. Dog licenses should cost an amount that supports the anti-aggression programs, and enforcement of dog care and dog ownership regulations.

How could anyone disagree with these propositions? Look out for dangerous and aggressive dogs, retrain them if possible, make sure that all dogs are treated properly (and cats and horses and pet snakes, too) and evaluate over time how well this fixes the problem of a certain number of people being killed and maimed and injured every year, not to mention the number of smaller pets and farm animals being killed every year.

882

Hey! Stop it with the calm, reasonable debate. We’re trying to shout at each other here. :wink:

883

As it happens, no, but not because of an oxygen argument.

It doesn’t mean you didn’t also make a stupid argument. And the worse one, from where I’m sitting.

From the lesser of two stupids viewpoint, you’re not winning.

884

Then why would you defend it?

Yes, oxygen is just one reason of thousands that we do in fact need trees. It’s so unbelievably short sighted and foolish to think that we don’t need trees that I can’t believe I even need to come up with any reason to justify their existence to you or anyone.

So, my “argument” is stupid? My argument being “we don’t need trees” is a dumb thing to think?

I could have mentioned soil erosion, or the vast animal and plant life that depends on trees existing, or the rain forests, or lumber products, or any number of things. It doesn’t fucking matter. Why would you defend this?

This cuts to the heart of it. Where you are sitting. You are sitting on the same side of the Pit Bull debate as boytyperanma. In your zeal to argue in favor of anyone on your side of the debate you are reaching way too far.

Let’s talk about trees and oxygen, then. Yes, algae create more oxygen than trees do. But they still create a lot. It’s about 20% of the oxygen we breathe. You think it would be a good idea to give that up?

885

The vast majority of tree deaths occur in populated areas, where they fall on houses, roads, and people. I don’t think the hypothetical was to remove all trees from all areas, just that trees in urban areas serve only minor aesthetic purpose, and those could be removed with absolutely no change to the oxygen content of the air. (of the 20% of oxygen generated by plants (not just trees), most of that comes from the tropical forests, which are all being cut and burnt down anyway.)

Not advocating for wholesale urban/suburban tree banning and removal myself, but from a cost benefit standpoint of saving lives and property, you’d get alot farther down that route than you would with banning dogs or breeds of dogs.

Going to the Japanese style of bed, of removing the frame would save more lives than getting rid of every dog in the country. While I would dislike the change and I like having a bed frame, I cannot come up with a compelling argument as to why I should have one other than just preference.

Forgetting trees and beds… Rather than a ban on dogs, or specific breeds of dogs, why not have a more mandatory and comprehensive licencing and registration system. Where I am, I pay $20 a year for my dog’s license, with no requirements of training on my part, or inquiries into her well being. Even if I don’t licensee, the fine is an additional $20 on top of registering. I know many dog owners that consider it fine to go unlicensed because as long as they don’t get caught more than once a year, they are ahead, and while my dog has always been licensed, no one has ever asked to see it. I imagine they only get checked if there is an incident or it gets out and picked up by AC.

I see dogs all the time that are mistreated due to ignorance of their otherwise good owners, rather than maliciousness. When educated on the discomfort they are giving to their pet, they immediately stop, but would have continued the detrimental behavior had they not been called on it.

The bottom line is that there are many people out there that should not be in charge of the welfare of another living being. Focusing on denying the spectrum of unqualified owners from a sadist wanting a creature to torture to well meaning people that don’t understand the requirements of the creature they are looking after (with the idea that the latter can be largely educated into being good owners) would prevent far more dog attacks than any sort of BSL. Would also have the happy side effect of preventing abuse to dogs that doesn’t lead to an attack as well.

886

This sounds great in theory, but it’s impossible to put into practice.

Who’s going to tell people they aren’t responsible enough to be dog owners? Good luck with that.

People want to own dogs, and they don’t want to pay high fees and get mandatory training or go through red tape to get what they want. It might be possible, but what you are describing is very tough.

Back to the trees: I don’t know that somehow magically eliminating just the trees near houses, roads and people is more or less plausible than somehow eliminating all of them. One might be more silly than the other, but both are sufficiently silly that it’s not worth seriously discussing.

Regarding beds, how are bed frames dangerous? Serious question, if anyone can help fight ignorance with a cite or two.

887

crucible, you are the reason I am still Dopey after all these years… :smiley:

888

The shelter that refuses to give a dog to an unlicensed owner, or the shop that requires a license for purchase would be a good start. If all reputable place to get a dog require licensing, then that cuts down dogs going out to unqualified owners by a large margin.

You would still have puppy mills and backyard breeders that may not honor licensing, but I am not a big fan of those operation in the first place, wouldn’t mind them being licensed and regulated as well. (even if that means they are licensed out of business.)

Having a few different licenses for toy dogs versus large dogs, as well as neutered/spayed dogs versus intact wouldn’t complicate things much, and allow people that just want a Maltese or shih-tzu to get a license with little effort, but larger dogs do require more training both for their own safety and that of their owners and people around would require a more comprehensive education of the owner. Desiring an intact dog would be the only level that would have more onerous requirements. (Both because of unwanted reproduction and because intact males do tend to be much more aggressive and hard to control.)

A “wellness check” that in most cases would just be a copy of a vet’s bill for that year would be required for annual licensing, and having a steeper fine for not registering would be easy to implement, and ensure that more dogs are visiting a vet at least once a year.

Far more plausible than all of them. When I moved into my current house, there were two trees that would have fallen on my house at some point (probably not for 5-10 years or more), so I took a day off and removed them. I increased my safety substantially, as well as neighbors (they may have fallen in other directions, and were dropping large limbs occasionally.) There are well over 2 billion ash trees alone in Ohio, it would take me a bit longer to clear them all out, and most of them fall in a forest, away from people and property.

You are missing the point of the trees anyway. No one is actually advocating for removal of trees, whether it be urban or all of them, only pointing out that it would be more plausible and more beneficial to society to remove trees than to implement BSL.

You’ve never fallen out of a bed? I don’t often, but there have been a few times in my life (mostly when I was much younger) that I woke up on the floor next to my bed. Falling that 2 feet isn’t likely to seriously harm or kill, but it could, and according to a cite way upthread, does. Once again, something that is highly unlikely to happen, but is still much more likely than being killed by a dog of any breed.

889

Whoa, nelly. Talk about misrepresentation. You consider it irrational to include data on unregistered pit bulls? That is, in so many horrible ways, identical to rejecting data on gun deaths that include unregistered guns.

A dog attack is a dog attack. I have been attacked by a pit bull owned by a junk yard manager ( talk about your stereotypes abounding ) and by a German Shepard raised, trained and owned by the Philadelphia Police Department.

Your accusation of irrationality for using valid data points generated by unregistered Pit Bulls is itself deeply irrational.

890

I see no reason to question the detail offered in this site.

891

Trees add to the ambience of a neighborhood or a property, and do provide economic benefit of shade when they are close enough to the house to do so. Yes, trees sometimes come down unexpectedly and great care should be used to spot weak rooted trees before they cause harm.

We have a fairly new home in an area previously heavily wooded, with some trees at least 50 years old. When we moved in, I went around and removed all trees with viability issues, rotten in the core, etc. If a tree had dead branches, and those branches would not fall on the house, I let them be, pending the next good wind that would prune them. It just happened, 80 mph winds or more than ripped up some trees in the neighborhood, dozens on one particular property. But no damage to any homes because we all were cautious about what was close to our homes.

892

‘We’ve secretly replaced these pit bull owners dogs with another breed lets see if they notice’

I’m willing to bet they will notice and will be rather distressed at the situation. Who are you to determine what dog another person will be happy with?

For a breed ‘bred to kill’ they are doing a rather poor job of it. The vast majority of dogs will never kill a human. It is not reasonable or practical to execute animals based on actions they never committed and are unlikely to ever do.

893

Did you really just quote me out of context to claim I’m misrepresenting something?
I said

You quoted

Can you see the difference?

I never said ‘it is irrational to include data on unregistered pit bulls?’ so I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion.

894

Once again, I don’t think it’s relevant to the BSL debate, but I wouldn’t be confindent in the assertion that public perception has always been and increasingly is for the banning of pit bulls. The only general public poll that I could find from late 2010/early 2011 says 53% of people say pit bull are safe for residential neighborhoods, also with younger folks – 76% of under 30s – saying they’re safe.

That one data point, to me, suggest that the overall public assessment of pit bulls may not be as negative as you’d like to think. The fact that younger people have a more positive perception than older people might also suggest (but not necessarily) that there is a trend toward a rehabilitation of their image. Plus you’ve got high profile celebrities with pit bulls (John Stewart, Jessica Biel, Dr. Phil, Jessica Alba), TV programs that portray pit bulls in a positive light (Pit Bulls and Parolees, and The Dog Whisperer, to some extent), the Chicago Blackhawks 2014 calendar is made up exclusively of pit bulls, national magazine and newspaper articles about the rehabilitation of the pit bull image like this Time article, etc., I think it’s more than presumptive to say that the public image of pit bulls has always been and is increasingly negative. I personally am seeing it going the other way, and I think that is part of the reason why the dogsbites.org type of folk are getting louder and louder.

895

But the detail offered doesn’t support the assertion that you made.

Because Labs and “pit bulls” are indistinguishable? Then why the hell are we having this debate in the first place?

I’ve only had my pibble for less than a year, and she has increased my quality of life (and that of my much-adored Rotty/Border Collie) beyond anything I could have hoped for, for many reasons having specifically to do with the fact that she is a pibble, and pibbles have characteristics, both physical and temperamentally, that are fresh to me as a lifelong dog guardian, and utterly delightful.

Got that right.

896

Sure, tell that to the family of the 4 year old girl the family pits killed on the 17th, in Bloomington, IL.

someone must have told mom and dad that pit bulls were wonderful with kids. No one should have any compunctions about letting them play together. Great family pet, lovable, affectionate…

Until it wasn’t.

897

The child was left alone with 2 unneutered males and one female. The males appear to be the ones who attacked.

It never fails to amaze me how reckless people can be. Leaving a child alone with any animal that outweighs them is an accident waiting to happen.

898

Sorry, remind me again - how many kids have been killed by golden retrievers in the last few years?

899

What does that have to do with my post? What is your point?

Don’t you ever get tired of being so dishonest in your participation? I can’t imagine why that would satisfy…

900

you are so happy with your dog. Your dog is affectionate, improves your life beyond belief, etc. etc…

My point is that so many other people have thought the same thing until that tragic day when the dog or dogs kill their kid.

If pit bulls were a commercial product, like a toy, or drug, or food item, the number of deaths associated with them would have been far more than enough to issue a complete recall. We should not accept that risk just because we love dogs.