It is also clear that you are at this point uninterested in doing anything other than using this as your personal anti-Pit Bull blog and have no interest in actually engaging in debate, as shown by your lack of response to several questions asked regarding your positions, sometimes the same question posed by more than one poster.
Should I ask yet again? What do you attribute this apparent epidemic to? Did the breed suddenly mutate? Are they newly infected with a virus that only attacks Pits that will cause them to suddenly turn violent without warning? Actually invading aliens? Are there suddenly 10 times more Pit Bulls? Is it because of vaccines? Gluten?
Nevermind. Your lack of response to any of a number of questions is the answer.
You’ve commented already that Spain has repealed their BSL. So have other countries, like the Netherlands and Italy. Offset perhaps by Denmark outlawing 25 (!) breeds, Ecuador and Venuzala. So no, not more nations, net zero sum. And more passing stupid laws aimed as quick fixes that do more for public relations than actually addressing the issue of dog bites with proven effective approaches does not inform at all on the issue of a true increase in bites let alone serious ones. As the “deniers” at the American Bar Association put it (pdf):
Here is both a list of nations that ban pit bulls, with the effective date, followed by a list of nations that restrict them, with the effective date.
The 3 that removed their bans, are in the minority.
Bavaria banned (breeding & importing)
Brazil – banned in Rio 2005
Bermuda banned
Denmark banned 1991
Ecuador banned 2010
France banned illegal to import, breed or sell pit bulls
Guyana banned – importation in 2008
Iceland banned 1995
Ireland – banned in 2007
Malaysia banned
Malta Banned 2008
New Zealand banned importation 2003
Norway banned 1991
Puerto Rico banned – ban renewed in 2010
Serbia banned 2001
St Kitts and Nevis banned 2009
Trinidad and Tobago banned import and breeding
UAE banned
Ukraine (Kiev bans pit bull breeding)
UK banned
Venezuela banned
Parts of:
Australia banned 2006
Belgium banned importation
Brazil banned
Canada banned 2005 Ontario
Germany banned – importation 2001
China banned 20 breeds in Feb 2011 in Shanghai
Argentina restricted
Israel restricted
Italy – restricted – must be muzzled, leashed, and huge fee
Poland restricted
Portugal restricted
Romania restricted
Singapore restricted
Spain restricted
Switzerland restricted
Turkey restricted
Austria restricted
Ireland restricted
Japan- restricted
This coincides with the definition of pandemic. Many, many, more nations are banning and/or restricting pit bulls as of recent, than dropping bans.
Pit bulls and pit-bull mixes officially became fully entrenched as the essential hip-hop accessory
Michael Vick. Look how many kids chew tobacco because Pro Baseball players do.
The very biased ATTS temperament test organization, whose web page says they are against BSL. According to the ATTS, pit bulls, despite having been responsible for every fatal attack in the USA in the first 4 months of 2013, projected to be 32 by years end, which is more than all other breeds combined average per year the past 20 years…the same ATTS that claims pits are more docile than Golden Retriever, and that public enemy number 1 is the Skye Terrior – despite it had never mauled a human to death in the 34 years of record keeping, nor caused a single amputation.
The untrue “Nanny Dog” myth, spread by pit bull deniers, finally debunked by BADRAP last month on FaceBook as a myth that is causing many maulings of children). Just yesterday, an Animal Uncontrol officer used this myth.
Cite:
“Pit bulls get a bad rap. I love pit bulls,” Animal Uncontrol Officer Amanda Uthoff of the Hanford Police Department told You and the Law. “There is no scientific evidence that any one breed of dog is more likely to injure a human being than another kind of dog. Any dog has the potential of being dangerous, but the media tends to exaggerate and blow things out of proportion when a pit bull is involved.
“While they were bred for fighting, the breed appears to be reverting to where it was in the 1700s, as a nanny dog, watching over children and protecting families
Okay! One question addressed! Let’s explore this one. Your explanation for the apparent rise in Pit Bull (like) related serious bites (the rest seems a bit unrelated ranting, or if related I can’t follow the thought) is that Pit Bulls are being used as an fashion accessory in a crowd that wants to look gansta. (Unless you are trying to claim that the rise is reflective of an increase number of Pits to 10 times their previous popularity, driven by those wanting to be like Vick, and the “misinformation” of professional groups (like the American Academy of Pediarics and the AMVA and others) that claim that Pits are not, on a matched environment dog for dog basis, “more likely to bite,” or “disproportionately dangerous.” (Of course, since these organizations have concluded that BSLs are ineffectual or even counterproductive they are, by definition, biased.)
There you are in agreement with the major “denier” organizations (such as the American Bar Association, the American Veterinary Medicine Association, the National Animal Control Organization, and others) that, as the AMVA put it:
Pits are disproportionately represented in the “not socialized pets” group. Some of these owners encourage aggression. Dogs that look like Pits are disproportionately popular in lower SES, less educated households that unfortunately sometimes leave kids and dogs together without adequate supervision. Got it.
Thank you. Still curious as to why, in your mind, all those professional organization are so biased against BSLs and in such “denial” that BSLs are a quick fix.
I believe its more important what the American Assoc of Plastic Surgeons say:
“A ten-year, two-institution review of pediatric dog attacks: Advocating for a nationwide prohibition of dangerous dogs”
“CONCLUSION:
Dog attacks in the pediatric population produce significant costs including physical morbidity, psychological disability, and
financial strains. A majority of attacks were by a known dog, in the facial region, by dogs which we define as of a
dangerous breed. Much of the injury patterns are unique to children and these injuries and associated costs can be
significantly diminished, as the problem is often preventable. Our cases present the ‘tip of the iceberg’ as our cases only
represented consultations directed to Plastic Surgery. The Province of Ontario, Canada has banned Pit Bulls since 2004, as
have several American cities. We describe the scope of the problem, preventative guidelines, and outline why
organizational advocacy in plastic surgery should be directed towards a national prohibition of dangerous dogs”
I also cited previously, similar studies authored by dozens of surgeons in the “Annals of Surgery” that state you are thousands of times more likely to be maimed or killed by pit bulls. Independent surgeons were cited from hospitals in TX, KY and MD as well.
Here is a suggestion:
When buying a boat, and evaluating its safety record, don’t ask the people in the boat industry. Ask the coast guard.
Kenneth M. Phillips is the only attorney in the USA who does nothing other than represent people who have been seriously injured by dogs. Widely recognized as the nation’s leading authority on dog bite law, he has earned tens of millions of dollars for dog bite victims all over the USA. He has been a frequent guest on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MS-NBC, and Fox News, and has been called “the dog bite king” (Today Show and Lawyers Weekly), “a leading expert in dog bite law” (Good Housekeeping), and “the nation’s best known practitioner of terrier torts” (Los Angeles Times).
Ken was a die hard “ban the deed; not the breed” advocate. He believed the problem was at the other end of the leash. I know this for fact, because I locked horns with him in a forum similar to this in 2006- 2007. His kept using the phrase “expression of the owner.”
That came to a screeching halt when pit bulls finally scored 100% of all fatal attacks in the 1st four months of this year, and now with the year half over, they are at 16, or 95%.
17 people killed; pit bulls killed 16, the remaining 299 breeds killed one, combined and total. Just one.
Ken, on his web page, now says Pit Bulls should be recalled just like the Chrysler’s of current with exploding gas tanks.
I’m no lawyer, but that sounds breed specific to me.
Ken:
“On June 18, 2013, Chrysler agreed to recall 2.7 million Jeeps because in 14 years there have been at least 37 Jeep accidents that caused at least 51 deaths. (Chris Isidore, Chrysler relents, agrees to recall 2.7 million Jeeps, clickorlando.com, June 18, 2013.) Compare those numbers with deaths caused by pit bulls: in 7 years (half the number of years), pit bulls have killed 151 Americans (three times as many as those killed in Jeeps).”
“pit bull lovers have neglected the problem for too long. Worse, they have alienated the general public by failing to denounce the “nutters” who spread misinformation about the members of this breed, which generally are not “nanny dogs,” service dogs, or rescue dogs. The general perception about the pit bull is quite negative: it is regarded as the dog of choice among criminals, gang-bangers and others who cannot be relied upon to breed a better, gentler pit bull. And generalizations about the dog’s owners are just as bad: a study published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence confirmed a link between ownership of high- risk dog breeds and deviant behaviors, crimes against children and domestic violence. (Jaclyn E. Barnes et al., Ownership of High-Risk (“Vicious”) Dogs As a Marker for Deviant Behaviors, J. Interpersonal Violence, Volume 21 Number 12, December 2006 1616-1634.)”
“Like Chrysler agreed to fix the Jeep, the pit bull community should have decided to fix the pit bull. But that did not happen, and the sharp rise in mayhem and the number of these dogs seems to have ended the opportunity. At this point, states, cities and counties should enact breed specific laws that, at the very least, will prevent the breeding of pit bulls and thereby eliminate this clearly defective and destructive breed of dog over the course of time.”
Now as to your claim that there is a pandemic of Pit Bull attacks.
You really do not know what pandemic means.
There is not even a pandemic of Pit Bull specific laws. In the last few years a few nations have passed breed specific laws and a couple have repealed them. Your uncited list is noted. As is the observation that many on that list are not nations, that many do not ban the breed, and that some are just false claims - China for example does not have any nationwide dog breed ban - they have individual cities that ban all dogs and othersthat ban all dogs over a certain size, including guide dogs and including Labs, Goldens, and Dalmatians. The Danish law btw bans a whole long list of dogs - neutered females have been killed under it.) Could there possibly be more countries deciding to place bans on dog breeds than repealing them or at least recognizing that the breed ban is ineffectual and changing the focus? I am not going to fact check every claim in that list of yours so I’ll concede that it is possible more countries have passed BSLs than repealed them. Not quite a pandemic to have one or two more countries passing laws than repealing.
If it was it would be a pandemic of pandering and stupidity; it in no way informs about the frequency of dog bites or even of Pit Bulls.
Now on to your most recent response. NO, that is not what the American College of Plastic Surgeons states. Do you and your fellow dogbites.orgers really not understand that an article published in a journal run by an organization (or in this case an abstract presented at a conference hosted by a group, that was not published, now five years later) does not constitute the policy or recommendations of the organization?!? Yes, that was an abstract that represented the opinion of the several people who wrote it. It was not what the organization signed on to.
In fact the American College of Plastic Surgeons is signed on along with the American Academy of Pediatrics in their approach to reducing dogs bite injuries - not an approach based on breed but on education, endorsing the same brochure that the AAP and AMVA developed.
Yes, that’s the one that said:
Here’s another statement from the American College of Plastic Surgeons:
Note what is missing from their list: banning specific breeds. Choosing the right dog for your family, yes. Socializing, training, neutering, all yes. Banning breeds? Not there.
Why are they, the “coast guard” in your mind, deniers too?
On preview, yes, the American Bar Association. Not the “honest” opinion of one individual who makes a living representing dog bite victims full time to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. :rolleyes:
(I bet that you are someone who hears of a single scientist who does not think human CO2 production is at all a factor and concludes that science doubts it.)
And yes, your explanation comports to that provided by them - an explanation that explains the number as a function of who owns the dogs and in what communities more than other dogs.
I clearly listed China under the list of Nations that in **part of **the country, ban pit bulls:
"Parts of:
Australia banned 2006
Belgium banned importation
Brazil banned
Canada banned 2005 Ontario
Germany banned – importation 2001
China banned 20 breeds in Feb 2011 in Shanghai "
here is a cite for most of the pit bull bans & restrictions:
another
(click on the countries list in blue hyperlink) - it will go to that countries ban
Here’s another statement from the American College of Plastic Surgeons:
Quote:
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has joined with the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), The American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery (ASRM), and The American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons (ASMS) to celebrate National Dog Bite Prevention Week … Teaching people how to communicate with and properly behave around dogs is the best cure for dog bites. …
I read that entire cite. It is good, generic advice for dogs in general. It has no reference at all to pit bulls or their position on bans. I went to their web page and used their internal search engine to find “pit bulls” “breed specific” and BSL - they offer no comment one way or the other.
With a reach like that, you should be in the NBA.
Enlighten me how educating people “how to communicate with and properly behave around dogs is the best cure for dog bites” is in any way helpful when I can provide cites of pit bulls that leap from a 2nd story window to maul a passerby, or break into a front door to attack the unsuspecting humans inside?
How would educating this mother and 4 yr old girl walking in the Bronx “how to communicate with and properly behave around dogs”, when a pit bull, without any warning signals, darts diagonally across a busy intersection to maul a girl?
Video:
the land shark only stopped when a hero drove a hammer into the pits head
here is a compilation of about 20 plus pit bull attacks. Look how many were unprovoked and gave no warning sign. Count the ones where actual police shootings save a persons life.
Caution, very graphic - viewer discretion is advised
No Skye Terrier ever born has mauled anything like this, yet the ATTS claims Skye Terriers (#1 most aggressive breed, they claim) are more aggressive than pit bulls. Laughable. Simply laughable.
video of a Chinese pit bull owner being murdered by his family pet:
note at 0:30 thru 0:50 the Chinese pit bull owner is actually being neutered by his pit bull. It then goes in for the kill - despite 3 hero’s bashing its skull in with heavy metal objects.
the above videos show no amount of “education” would have helped these victims. In most cases they were blind-sighted by the land shark- 2 seconds prior they had no idea it even existed.
Pit bull deniers insist that these victims just need more “education on how to communicate with and properly behave around dogs” to reduce these attacks.
the evidence that links large “pit bull and pit bull like” dogs to completely senseless and needless savage attacks on humans, evidence cited countless times in this thread, is overwhelming and convincing.
Every other source of fatalities cited by opponents are for mechanisms that have a benefit overall attached to them. Cars? Can’t live without them, and other things, etc.
Dogs, though, are divisable into two groups – working and not working. Guard dogs are sort of on the fence. Mostly, the dogs shown to kill are either running wild, loose or are family ‘pets’. Police dogs, dogs for the handicapped, drug sniffers, sheep herders, bird dogs, fox hounds, etc. etc. are not associated with any attacks on humans that I’m aware of. So rare as to be almost impossible to document. Pit bull like dogs and other large dogs living with and around ordinary humans, the young and the elderly, are orders of magnitude more dangerous than all the rest of the dogs combined.
In other words, we don’t ‘need’ large dogs as ‘family dogs’.
get rid of them, the needless deaths and horrible maimings will go away. What can you possibly say to refute that?
Dogs have killed people. Absolutely no one has denied this.
Sometimes this is captured on film or videotape.
If this video does depict the killing of the owner, what exactly would be your point?
As it happens, I have no reason to think the pitbull succeeded in killing the man, since I do not speak whatever language is being spoken in the video, nor do I read it, and the last view of him shows him alive, and I can’t even see any blood, though I don’t doubt he is bleeding.
Even if the man is not dead, the video certain depicts the dog attacking the man in a horribly violent and terrifying manner. Indeed some dogs do that, for a variety of reasons, and it’s certainly terrible.
I have no reason to know or believe that the dog in question is a pitbull, a pitbiull mix, or a different dog entirely. It is clearly a powerful dog, making its attack much more dangerous and terrifying, as attacks from powerful dogs always do.
We also have aboslutely no idea of any kind what the relationship is between the man and the dog, he may have found it earlier in the day or raised it from a pup. We have no way of knowing if the man sleeps with the dog or beats it three times a day. Is it an intact male? Who knows. Is it sick? No clue.
So you posted a video of a dog attack. Since we do not know anything at all other than that it is a man being attacked by a dog, I am finding it impossible to imagine what you hoped to accomplish or prove, particularly at this stage of the thread. Can you enlighten me?
If this video was included in your remarks here:
You are obviously very much mistaken, given the facts I’ve just laid out: we know nothing at all about that Asian dog attack video, so we cannot possibly know what would have prevented it.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I only watched the first minute and I already know that the very first attack was absolutely provoked: BY THE OWNER, because I’ve seen the original, and she’s a crazy woman who told her dogs to attack. So, in this single example, your “cure” would have done nothing, because if that woman could not get her hands on a pit (and of course we don’t know her dogs are pits to begin with), she would do the same as so many others who are like her do: gotten a German Shepherd, or a Rottweiler, or a number of other powerful dogs, and trained them to be violent.
And that’s just the very first attack.
Cougar, your means of making your point completely and totally suck! The more you throw out unsupported, dishonest, wholly invented and easily disproved junk, the less persuasive you become. If you hope to truly advocate for some kind of change and convince people to agree with you, then take a debate class or something…
You really don’t understand what an abstract or a poster presentation is do you?
The AAPS held their 2008 annual meeting. During medical meetings there are poster presentations displayed in a hall. At that meeting there were 35 of them and those who were interested had an hour and a half to look at the posters and talk to whichever of the authors went to display it. These are abstracts of articles that members are hoping to get published if they pass through the peer review process at some journal. Some do (picking at random,poster 5 did, for example). Some, like this one, never do.
None of them represent the opinion of the organization. The conclusions in any of the posters are the conclusions of the authors alone. They may represent a majority perspective or be the only physicians in the entire organization who concludes similarly.
I have been published in the Jornal of the AMA pediatric journal then called “Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine”, in the AAP flagship journal “Pediatrics”, and in “Psychologic Review” a journal of the American Psychology Association; in none of those cases did what I write represent the thoughts of the organizations. The closest I came to that was when I wrote an article for the continuing education journal, “Pediatrics in Review”. Journals are vehicles for conflicting data, analysis, and conclusions to get hashed out - assuming they can meet the muster of passing peer review. (Posters don’t need to do that. Which does not mean that good information is not sometimes found in them.)
The AAPS has no position on dog bites. The ACPS does.
