Pitbulls

[cougar58]

@DSeid

There is a place for appeals to authority. There are experts and what they say should be seriously considered.

What is entertaining and amusing is that the expert bodies pretty much all do not endorse breed specific laws. Again, when they announce action plans to deal with dog bites, including fatalities, they either do not include BSLs or only mention them in the context of speaking out against them as wrong-heading simplistic approaches that detract from actually addressing the problem. cougar has to resort to politicians posturing quick answers and to lawyers who make their living sueing over dog bites to find his/her “experts” and has to this point in time refused to answer why he/she thinks expert organizations as diverse as the major medical groups (pediatricians, plastic surgeons, the CDC, etc.), animal control expert groups, pet expert groups, legal expert groups, etc., all are nutter about Pit Bulls and deny that simple actions like passing a BSL are the way to go.

In this case cougar denies all authority even as (s)he tries to submit a lawyer whose livelihood is sueing over dog bites as one.

Funny.

I have cited (with links) many educated animal experts that state that pit bulls are hard wired dangerous out of the box, such as Dr Beck, of Purdue, and Alexandra Semyonova

Heritability of Behavior in The Abnormally Aggressive Dog, by A. Semyonova |...

“The heritability of abnormal aggression in certain breeds of dogs can no longer be denied.”

“Research now shows that, through selection for aggressive performance, we have in fact been consistently selecting for very specific abnormalities in the brain. These abnormalities appear in many breeds of dog as an accident or anomaly, which breeders then attempt to breed out of the dogs. In the case of the aggressive breeds, the opposite was true. Rather than excluding abnormally aggressive dogs from their breeding stock, breeders focused on creating lineages in which all the dogs would carry these genes (i.e., dogs which would reliably exhibit the desired impulsive aggressive behavior). They succeeded. Now that we know exactly which brain abnormalities breeders have been selecting, the assertion that this aggression is not heritable is no longer tenable. It is also not tenable to assert that not all the dogs of these breeds will carry these genes. The lack may occur as an accident where selection has failed, just as the golden retriever mayhave the genes due to failing selection against the genes. But the failure to have the gene is, in the aggressive breeds, just that – a failure. It is therefore misleading to assert that the aggressive breeds will only have the selected genes as a matter of accident, or that most of them will befit to interact safely with other animals and humans. We have selected intensively for thesegenes in these breeds, for hundreds of years, and the accident that may incidentally occur is lack of the selected genes”

PETA (People for the ethical treatment of animals) is very clear that they want pit bulls banned.

When I plaster this forum with a ton of these - with cites and links - the pit bull crowd screams fowl to the mods, who fault me for posting too many responses that can’t be addressed in bulk.

[pulykamell]

@cougar58

When I plaster this forum with a ton of these - with cites and links - the pit bull crowd screams fowl to the mods, who fault me for posting too many responses that can’t be addressed in bulk.

How ironic, as you can’t even answer the basic questions posed to you here by several posters. (The biggest one being why large organizations like the CDC, physician groups, and such aren’t calling for BSL. Are they in the hands of “the pit bull crowd”.)

And, while I don’t particularly care for PETA, I have no idea what you mean they’re against pit bulls. Their own web page says quite clearly:

To clarify PETA’s position on pit bulls: We’re for 'em.

By “for 'em,” I mean that we are for pit bull protection, for their happiness, and for treating them like dogs instead of like cheap burglar alarms, punching bags, or gladiators in perverted death matches.

It’s really difficult to take anything you say seriously, and if you really are concerned about the pit bull population (which I believe is a fair position to hold), I feel like you are doing more harm than good to your cause with the way you represent the pro-BSL position. The style comes across very similar to the approach of people like the anti-vax crowd.

[pulykamell]

Ah, I see your PETA thing now. It’s another case of not telling the whole story. Here’s the rest of PETA’s position:

Some pit bull fanciers out there seem to think that PETA is “against” pit bulls because we don’t oppose breed-specific measures to address what is obviously a breed-specific crisis. Au contraire. If someone proposed a ban on breeding Labrador retrievers or Chihuahuas or poodles (you get the picture - any dog), we’d be for those too. That’s because we don’t think any dogs should be brought into the world as long as millions are dying for lack of homes in animal shelters and on the streets every year.

Millions, people. Millions of dogs just like the ones you share your homes with have to be euthanized because too many people fail to spay and neuter their animals and choose to buy from breeders and pet stores instead of saving lives by adopting from animal shelters. Wouldn’t we be derelict in our duty if we didn’t support laws that would alleviate suffering and reduce those numbers? If those laws saved just one animal from suffering a miserable life or a painful death, wouldn’t they be worth it?

Convenient how you leave that part out, just like with the airline restrictions you sited before.

[DSeid]

Yes, you have found a few individuals who go against the consensus of a multilicity of expert organizations - similar to how some Creationists have found a few scientists who dispute evolution and how Climate Change Deniers have found a few individual experts who deny that the climate is changing and/or that humans play a role in that, and yes, the “experts” quoted by the anti-vax crowd. No one can dispute that there will always be a few individuals who go against expert consenses.

You take the PETA statement(!) as your one expert organization supporting a BSL? Granting them as an expert organization (a stretch) that is not what they support, and what they do support is not because they are worried about Pit Bull attacks. They want the Pit Bulls in shelters adopted into good homes rather than more Pit Bulls brought into a world by disreputable backyard breeders and sold to inappropriate owners who potentially neglect and abuse them. They are for no breeding of any dog and instead adopting from shelters or other rescue organizations. (Which is my preference as well.)

Pit bulls are the most abused breed of dog, and it is the relentless abuse of these dogs at the hands of cruel people that motivates our efforts to stop people from bringing more pit bulls into the world to be hurt and exploited.

Frankly, when shelters are destroying dogs by the tens of thousands, why breed more pit bulls or more of any kind of dog? There are many wonderful dogs in animal shelters who need homes.

That is your single expert group counter-example? Your response to why so many expert organizations are NOT for BSLs is to quote a few lone wolf “experts” and that PETA position?

Wow.

On preview, pulykamell has made several of the same points. Still worth emphasizing.

[DragonAsh]

@Labrador_Deceiver

In other words, there are tens of thousands of pit bulls that haven’t attacked a soul, and temperment of a dog is still the best way to determine how it is likely to behave? Shocker.

Nobody in this thread has yet to demonstrate that pit pulls are any more dangerous than any other breed. Nothing showing how they are determining what breed these dogs are, and nothing showing how statistically likely they are to attack. On top of that, nobody has demonstrated whether breed is more of a factor than training. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Your argument fails in every conceivable way.

And yet, I still have yet to see a cite for all those dogs that chewed kids to death being tragically ‘mis-identified as pits’. Including, apparently, one horribly mis-identified golden retriever.

[pulykamell]

@DragonAsh

And yet, I still have yet to see a cite for all those dogs that chewed kids to death being tragically ‘mis-identified as pits’. Including, apparently, one horribly mis-identified golden retriever.

Labrador Deceiver never made the golden retriever claim, so why should he defend it? Besides, for sake of argument, I think most of us are just spotting you that all the dogs involved in fatal attacks are identified as “pit bull types,” whatever that means exactly.

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@DragonAsh

And yet, I still have yet to see a cite for all those dogs that chewed kids to death being tragically ‘mis-identified as pits’. Including, apparently, one horribly mis-identified golden retriever.

You have to be kidding me with this.

It is not my obligation to prove they are wrong, it is their obligation to provide evidence for their claims. The burden of proof is on them.

[Zeriel]

@cougar58

If 99.9% Were Good Enough, then…

This is really deeply funny coming from the guy who claims IT engineers don’t know stats. “Six Sigma” (aka, “five nines”) is the LOWEST SLA I’ve delivered in a decade.

Incidentally, with pit bulls, even if we take a very conservative set of estimates (35 pit fatalities per year (assume every fatality MUST be a pit), 3 million pit bull type dogs in the US (actual estimates are closer to 6mil)), Pit Bulls are safe at a better than five sigma level, to put it in the language of quality engineers. ~99.9998% of pit bulls will not kill someone this year.

[Zeriel]

@DragonAsh

And yet, I still have yet to see a cite for all those dogs that chewed kids to death being tragically ‘mis-identified as pits’.

All those dogs being, conservatively, less than a thousandth of a percent of the estimated pit bull and pit mix population. Completely aside from the fact that no one has proposed a good method either of typing individual dogs that attacked (beyond the demonstrably inaccurate phenotype) or of producing solid population numbers for any given breed of dog (essential for determining how dangerous breeds are relative to each other).

35 deaths a year might be a lot, but against a likely population of six million animals, it barely registers as a danger. One would literally be causing more risk to oneself and others by choosing to drive an extra few miles to a different grocery store a few times a week.

[DragonAsh]

@Zeriel

Completely aside from the fact that no one has proposed a good method either of typing individual dogs that attacked (beyond the demonstrably inaccurate phenotype) or of producing solid population numbers for any given breed of dog (essential for determining how dangerous breeds are relative to each other).

Again, we have what boils down to the ‘dogs are mis-identified’ claim. And again, I ask: cite for dogs involved in fatal attacks being mis-identified?

In the UK, they barely have one death a year from dog bites. Guess what type of dog is banned in the UK?

@Zeriel

35 deaths a year might be a lot, but against a likely population of six million animals, it barely registers as a danger.

Hey, if you want to go out of your way to live on the ‘35 dead kids a year’ side, knock yourself out. I’ll happily stay on the ‘essentially zero’ side.

[DSeid]

Have not paid much attention to this thread have you? See this post.

The UK has about three to four deaths a year from dog bites, not barely one, and per dog owned (8 vs. 70 million) the same rate of fatal dog bites. Since their “dangerous dog ban” serious bites have increased over 5 fold.

Yes, the UK ban has had no impact on fatality rate, and has been associated with a massive increase in the serious dog bite injury rate.

Guess what type of dog is banned in the UK?

[cougar58]

@DSeid

Have not paid much attention to this thread have you? See this post.

The UK has about three to four deaths a year from dog bites, not barely one, and per dog owned (8 vs. 70 million) the same rate of fatal dog bites. Since their “dangerous dog ban” serious bites have increased over 5 fold.

Yes, the UK ban has had no impact on fatality rate, and has been associated with a massive increase in the serious dog bite injury rate.

Guess what type of dog is banned in the UK?

Pull up a chair, folks. I will now explain, with a cite and link, why there are more serious maulings in the UK, despite their Ban in 1991.

The UK ban on pit bulls in 1991 actually did work. It worked very well, for 6 years. Then, in 1997, a funny thing happened. Just as we are seeing in the USA, pit bull lobbyists petitioned the UK government to ease up on the ban on pit bulls. The UK did, and it was in 1997 that the pit bull population rocketed, as did serious mauling (like the video I posted of a recent pit bull mauling 5 UK police officers, 2 seriously ).

In essence, pit bull deniers convinced the UK government that the problem was at the other end of the leash. They assured the UK that if they would just allow owners that were “responsible” to own pit bulls again. In fact, there are now more pit bulls in the UK, than prior to the 1991 ban !!
One of the owners the UK agreed was "responsible " and awarded a pit bull, used it to murder an innocent human (details below).

Armed to the teeth: the problem with pit bulls

10 years after the UK allowed “responsible” owners to own pit bulls, Ellie Lawrenson, was mauled to death by her uncle’s pit bull in St Helens, Merseyside, in 2007. No UK citizens were killed in the years 1991 thru 1997, when the ban was actually a ban.

In closing, I want to repeat this quote:

Kenneth (now Lord) Baker believes the 1997 amendment was a mistake. ‘The intention of the Dangerous Dogs Act was to eliminate breeds like pit bulls in this country,’ he says. ‘For the first five years it worked very well, but as soon as the Government gave in to animal charities the whole thing was doomed. There is no need for anyone to have these dogs, and to suggest that you can somehow educate the owners – well, I just don’t think that’s realistic if you look at who the owners are.’

[Labrador_Deceiver]

Oh look, another wall of shit from coug.

[Stoid]

Cougar, are you the impression that the people in this thread think that you are the only person on planet earth who holds the opinion that you do? I’m pretty confident that absolutely nobody believes that. So trotting out examples of others who believe as you do means nothing. What actually means something (and I noticed that you have completely ignored this from me and from others) is
science!

Your problem with pit bulls is their behavior.

Behavior in all mammals is a function of two things: Biology, and experience. Nature and nurture. The balance of the two is different in different mammals. It’s widely agreed that sheep, for instance, are driven in their behavior primarily by their biology, as they have shown no great ability to learn very much. Human beings, on the other hand are probably the mammals most shaped by experience over biology. Canines are recognized as extremely intelligent. Predators in general are very intelligent because it takes a certain amount of intelligence to figure out how to kill other animals, whereas it doesn’t take very much to know how to run: vegetarian prey animals know how to run from birth.

In addition to being very intelligent, meaning very much influenced by life experience and training, science has learned a great deal about the nature of dogs specifically in relation to human beings. For instance: did you know that dogs are the only animal which naturally understands what ahuman being means when they point? Technically, chimpanzees are supposed to be more intelligent than a dog, but they do not understand pointing. And it is extremely difficult to teach them what pointing means. But many dogs have shown an ability to understand pointing even as puppies.

Dogs also understand where human beings are looking, and whether their eyes are opened or closed and what they can then see. And human beings show a strong preference for looking at each other’s right eyes, (it is speculated that this is the side that more accurately reflects a persons true feelings). In tests with dogs, showing them in animate objects, the faces of other dogs, and the faces of human beings, the dogs showed no preference for right or left with inanimate objects, no preference for right or left with other dogs, but a very strong preference for the right when looking at human faces.

In other words, canis familiaris has actually evolved over the past 30,000 years to be in tune with homo sapiens in a way not seen in any other animal on earth. For this reason, they can be said to be closer to the family of humanity than apes can.

[ul]
[li]Pitbulls are dogs, which means they have the same high-level connection with human beings that other dogs do. [/li]
[li]Dog behavior is biologically driven and experience driven. [/li]
[li]It is your contention that pitbulls, unlike other dogs, are unpredictable and vicious towards human beings.[/li]
[li]You reject the explanation that the pitbulls who have hurt people have done so as a result of life experiences. (training, abuse, etc.) [/li]
[li]That leaves the only explanation for such behavior being biological. Hard-wired.[/li][/ul]

Setting aside the impossibility of biologically introducing behavior so antithetical to dog norms in such a small time span as the last few decades, what is your scientifically proven evidence for the contention that pitbulls are biologically different in their behavior from other dogs? What controlled studies have proven this?

Now I’m not saying it can’t be done. What I’m saying is that it takes a very long time AND it would require a focused and highly controlled effort to achieve, it could never be done accidentally through random backyard breeders. (In Russia foxeshave been bred to be doglike over half a century by selectively breeding for tameness, and certainly the same could be done with pitbulls, but it would have to be as tightly controlled as the fox experiment. And who is selectively breeding for unpredictable human aggression? That’s suicidally insane.) But instead of arguing over what is possible, just show me the science that proves it is true.

Let me say it with more emphasis:

Show us the peer-reviewed scientific experiments demonstrating that pit bulls are biologically different from other dogs and this difference results in unpredictable violence directed at people.

[ul]
[li]Because if no such evidence exists, no bad math, no hysterical headlines, no amount of BSL legislation demonstrates that your contention about the special nature of pit bull brain anatomy is true.[/li]
[li]And if it is not true that pit bulls are actually different from other dogs, then the only other explanation is that many people who choose to own pit bulls are responsible for the behavior of these very powerful dogs. [/li]
[li]And if THAT is the case, BSL legislation changes nothing about the problem of vicious, uncontrolled dogs, because the people who would create problem dogs out of pitbulls will create problem dogs out of some other powerful breed.[/li][/ul]
So… can you reply to what I’ve said here directly with the science? Can you reply directly at all? Or will you trot out some more anecdotal evidence and call it proof that pitbulls are inherently unpredictably violent, thereby proving that your contention about pitbulls is false to anyone who is considering the issue rationally?

(They say that people show you what they will do with what they have done, so my money is on B.)

[DSeid]

Well let’s look at the case that cougar is trying to make … it’s an interesting attempt to try to spin the dismal counterproductive failure of BSL in the UK

To summarize - Pit Bull numbers dropped down way low over the 90s and then, according to a claim in that cite, rose again. The article pegs that rise on the numbers of Pits returned to owners. It makes the point that the dogs, being illegal and bad-ass and all, are popular with an unseemly set, who abuse them and encourage aggression in an attempt to create weapons.

Please note, during that time, as shown in the graph in the cite I provided above, serious dog bites resulting in hospitalization increased nearly linearly. No drop-off in the 90s. In fact the only flat portion of that graph was the early 00s when, according to that article, Pit Bull numbers started to rise again. Fatalities in the UK have stayed rare, 3 to 4 a year.

If decreasing the number of Pit Bulls was an effective option to decrese serious dog attacks then the 90s, when Pit Bull numbers declined so dramatically, would have been associated with a drop in both fatalities and in serious bite rates. Again, the opposite was seen. The rate of serious dog bites has been independent of the numbers of Pit Bulls. Pit Bull numbers down or up the rate has increased. The key factors have been aiming at the wrong target and the increase of gang culture in the UK.

Interesting bits in cougar’s cite that (s)he did not include. The expert’s opinion:

‘Ninety per cent of the problem is with the owners, not the dogs,’ McParland says. ‘Most of these kids genuinely love their dogs, but they don’t understand the dogs enough to be able to look after them properly. If someone carries a knife or a gun, you have to aim that gun at someone for it to be dangerous. Dogs don’t have to be aimed at anyone. Pit bulls can be well-socialised animals, just like any other breed, if they are well treated and trained correctly, but all too often they’re not.’

And this expert conclusion:

‘Breed legislation isn’t working,’ says RSPCA chief inspector Jan Eachus, a dangerous dog project officer assigned to the Status Dog Unit. ‘No human beings were killed by pit bulls before 1991, but since then we’ve had one death after another, mostly caused by cross-breeds. Dangerous dogs are not born, dangerous dogs are made, through abuse and neglect, and they can be any breed.’
In the US, an alternative approach adopted in some states has produced such dramatic results that the RSPCA will lobby the next Government to borrow heavily from it and overhaul the Dangerous Dogs Act. Pioneered in Multnomah County, Oregon, the US-style legislation, which covers dangerous dogs of all breeds, led to a 72 per cent reduction in the number of repeat attacks by dogs within a year of its being introduced.
‘We decided that the answer was to target behaviour, rather than breeds,’ Mike Oswald, the head of Multnomah County Animal Services, says. 'Our system has three categories of offence, ranging from low-level behaviour, when a dog menaces someone without causing injury, to the most serious offences when someone is attacked. If someone allows their dog to commit a minor offence, we classify the dog as potentially dangerous and the owner has to pay an annual premium for a dog licence. We might also require the owner to muzzle the dog when it is off their property or build a secure enclosure for it, and obviously in the most serious cases we can destroy the animal.
‘We found that the public were much more willing to report incidents as a result, and owners were more willing to co-operate. We went from a position where 25 per cent of dogs would be involved in a second incident after we had been made aware of them, to just seven per cent causing any more problems.’ Even though Multnomah, which includes Portland, a city of 550,000 people, has an expanding dog population, there has been no increase in the number of injuries caused by dogs since the programme began in 1986.

(Bolding mine.)

Funny those were left out in that wall of Multi-colored text.

The recent UK House of Commons Review of the state of the Dangerous Dog Act came to the same conclusion:

the current ban on certain dog types in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has not prevented attacks by dogs either of a banned type or those of types not banned. It is not helpful for policy to focus on the breed type since any dog may become aggressive in the hands of an irresponsible owner. Rather, the policy focus should be on preventing attacks through improving the behaviour of breeders and owners.

That’s the lesson of the UK experiment with BSL.

You may move the chair now.

[DSeid]

By the way - cougar you present a wall of text as a quote and most of it is quoted but some of it seems to changed. Note this from the article:

Critics say one of the major failings of the Act is that it targets one type of dog while allowing others that are equally dangerous to slip through the net because they are other breeds. Tellingly, in the same period that two children have been killed by fighting dogs, three others have been killed by dogs that are not covered by the Act, **including three-month-old Jaden Mack, who was killed by a Staffordshire bull terrier and a Jack Russell **at his grandmother’s home in Ystrad Mynach, south Wales, in February last year.

Bolding mine.

And your presentation of it:

Critics say one of the major failings of the Act is that it targets one type of dog while allowing others that are equally dangerous to slip through the net because they are other breeds. Tellingly, in the same period that two children have been killed by fighting dogs, three others have been killed by dogs that are not covered by the Act, including three-month-old Jaden Mack, who was killed by a Staffordshire bull terrier, which in the USA is a pit bull.

Misrepresenting and changing quotes is a bit of a no-no donchaknow?

[Marley23]

@DSeid

Misrepresenting and changing quotes is a bit of a no-no donchaknow?

Changing a poster’s words inside a quote box is against the rules; changing text in a cite isn’t against the rules but it can be deceptive. I think cougar was just adding a clarification but didn’t make it obvious enough. That said, I’ve deleted most of the text he quoted. It was too long, and anyway it was confusing because cougar copied and pasted large portions of the article out of their original order.

[Stoid]

@DSeid

By the way - cougar you present a wall of text as a quote and most of it is quoted but some of it seems to changed. Note this from the article:Bolding mine.

And your presentation of it:Misrepresenting and changing quotes is a bit of a no-no donchaknow?

That it is, but it is highly instructive for revealing how cougar’s mind works.

[Stoid]

@Marley23

I think cougar was just adding a clarification but didn’t make it obvious enough.

Very generous interpretation, Mr. Mod.

[pulykamell]

@Marley23

Changing a poster’s words inside a quote box is against the rules; changing text in a cite isn’t against the rules but it can be deceptive.

It might not be against the rules, but if it was presented as a quotation (I didn’t see the original post), then it’s really intellectually dishonest, especially as it completely elides a piece of information. I mean, many posters here even if they bold or italicize or underline bits of original text will put something like “emphasis mine” to show that the original text was altered in some way. (Or put a note in parentheses or brackets if they are editorializing on the text.) If something is presented as a quote, the expectation is that the quote is verbatim.

At any rate, at least it shows any lurkers reading this thread the intellectual honesty of cougar’s methods of “debate.” I mean, how can you post something like that about airlines banning pit bulls or PETA being pro-BSL without including the most salient reasons for those positions? Airlines don’t give a shit about pit bulls (and why would they? They’re crated up, anyway), but have a worry about the safety and health of brachycephalic breeds, and PETA is simply anti-dog breeding of ANY kind.

I knew having an honest discussion here was pointless a few pages back, but I really give up now.