Thank you Marley, for shortening this post, but keeping the content. I am OK with that.
Er, it’s been cited in this thread that even animal professionals have a hard time accurately identifying mixed-breed dogs (compared to the DNA analysis). I’m not going to dig it out.
The UK also has approximately 10% as many dogs as the US dogs, so that’s 1 vs. 3.5? Yeah, I’m actually kinda comfortable with that difference being explained fully by my theory on the relatively increasing amount of “pit bull” violence.
Do you drive the absolute safest model of car possible, and as little as possible? If not, your accumulated risk is far greater than if you owned a pit bull.
I’ll sleep better tonight knowing that.
If only the content actually reflected what the cite (s)he offered said:
So apparently the UK BSL was associated with going from zero (possibly an exaggeration, but likely less than one a year) to averaging 3 to 4 dog bite fatalities a year (still rare) and a massive increase in serious dog bite injuries that increased rapidly specifically during the period that the numbers of Pit Bulls went down most dramatically. (The claim that “serious mauling” went down during 1991 to 1997 is 100% false.)
The ban did not work at any period time. Period.
Well maybe from Lord Baker’s POV it did … in his mind the goal was apparenbtly not to reduce dog bites, but “to eliminate breeds like pit bulls.” It did make huge progress in that sense for a period of time - while serious bites increased.
Since 1997, the UK has no ban. It had one in 1991, (and remember, it excluded Staff Bull Terriors, which ARE pit bulls in the USA, so right out of the gate 1/3rd of what the USA calls pit bulls, were excluded) with the objective of gradually phasing out all pit bulls, after the ones grandfathered in, died off.
Then, “under pressure from animal charities, in 1997 Parliament watered down the Act by introducing an amendment giving magistrates discretionary powers to give illegal breeds back to their owners, subject to certain restrictions, if the owners are deemed responsible enough to keep the dogs under control. (Magistrates decide on the basis of evidence given in reports by the police, defendants’ evidence, and supporting documents such as letters from vets or neighbours.)”
That’s not a ban, in any stretch of the imagination. In fact the article states
“Unsurprisingly, pit bull numbers immediately started to rise again, and the population is now thought to have passed the 1991 figure of 10,000.”
And yes, the above quotes are verbatim.
All you need to own a pit bull in the UK today, is a note from your neighbor, police reports (oh wait, pit bull apologia in the USA state that the police are not reliable sources for canine information)…
Or…or…or…you can provide a letter from a vet, vouching for your pit bull.
Let me provide just one of many cites, why that is a colossal mistake.
In 2010, a police officer in Indianapolis, adopted a pit bull from the Indianapolis Humane Society.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/dog-that-attacked-man-adopted-from-humane-society
4 short days (96 hours) after the policeman adopted the pit bull, the police were called due to an aggressive pit bull. Weeks later, it mauled the next door neighbor. In true typical pit bull mauling fashion, the mauling only ended when an unrelated cop responding to a 911 call, shot the pit bull.
Here is verbatim the very telling interview, with John Aleshire, of the Humane Society of Indianapolis, defending pit bulls as well as the temperament test the pit bull passed (but became amazingly aggressive just 4 days later, and would have killed the neighbor if IPD had not administered a dirt nap via a 9mm chunk of hot lead).
John Aleshire: “We do not adopt out aggressive dogs, period.”
Joanna Massee: “Obviously this dog was aggressive.”
John Aleshire: “Well, something happened after the dog left, yes, but the dog showed no signs of aggression --”
Joanna Massee: “Four days after it left, because police were called 4 days.”
John Aleshire: “Could be, the point is that we saw no signs of aggression that would cause to be concerned here.”
Joanna Massee: “Does this cause you to re-evaluate your policies?”
John Aleshire: “Uh, our policies have been thorough and we have, we are very satisfied with the policies that we have.”
News Narrator: Humane Society Director Aleshire said some dogs in the shelter require mandatory obedience training, which the owner promises to do after adoption. Such is the case with Middleton’s pit bull.
John Aleshire: “Mandatory obedience is not because the dog is aggressive; it’s just a handful and an energetic dog”…
Joanna Massee: “Does the humane society take any responsibly about what happened?”
John Aleshire: “The humane society can never guarantee a dog or a cat.”
News Narrator: Aleshire said no guarantees and no proof on paper. Aleshire could not provide any paperwork on the dog’s testing results, but he assured us the dog passed everything.
Indy Councilman Mike Speedy believes the dog should have never been adopted out. He said the attack is a wake-up call that Indianapolis needs a pit bull ordinance. Speedy spent much of 2009 trying to pass his At Risk Dog proposal, but through the urging of Indy Humane Society Director John Aleshire, his fellow councilors tabled the issue.
According to Aleshire, before a dog can be adopted from the society, it must undergo “thorough behavior testing,” including putting a hand-shaped instrument near the animal’s food bowl to see if it growls or bites.
Apparently, a neighbors leg, arm and neck are not tested, while they are going to that pesky mailbox.
And as far as whether or not pit bulls are hard wired born grippers, lets see what noted pit bull breeder Diane Jessup, and owner of
http://www.workingpitbull.com/ has to say:
“It is all how you raise them” and “Dog aggression can be “rehabilitated”” are “misinformation”…and “will be cleared up here by someone with 30 years experience with REAL American pit bulls”
Here she states:
Jessup believes that much of dog behavior comes from their genes. “I truly believe that a dog is about 90% genetics,” says Jessup.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82527015/PAWS-Magazine-Diane-Jessup-Interview
Jessup:
"This difference in “sheepdog versus bulldog” mentality in a trainer is best understood when training the "out!” or release command. It is common practice for those training shepherds and sheepdog types to use force such as hard leash corrections or electric shock to get the dog to release the sleeve. Sadly, I had one young man come to me because a club trainer was slugging his little Am Staff bitch in the nose, till she bled, trying to get her to release the sleeve. She would not! And of course she would not! She was a good little bulldog, hanging on for dear life, just as her bull and bear baiting ancestors of old did. She was a super little gripping dog, who took the pain she experienced as just “part of the job” once her owner set her upon the sleeve. And this is the response from well bred pit bulldogs—to ignore pain while gripping. It is, after all, what they are bred for! Give me a bulldog like her, rather than one which will allow itself to be yanked off the sleeve due to pain. "
Cougar note: Note that Jessup refers to pit bulls as “bulldogs”.
I rest my case, with cites and evidence, why the UK non-pit bull ban, line item, is failing. It is not a ban. Call it whatever you want, but when the pit bull population in the UK exceeds the population prior to the 1991 ban, it is not a ban.
Jessup is an idiot, and anyone that thinks that punching any dog in the nose is the proper way to train them release is an idiot. Both of my pitbulls received positive reinforcement and learned the release command very quickly.
My little baby already has her command down pat “gimmee”.
I need a little help searching the thread. Have ANY of cougar58’s cites to statistics or studies actually demonstrated what he claimed they demonstrated?
Who knows? I don’t think even he’s read everything in his posts.
Again, the period of time that even cougar now considers a true “ban” was associated with no decrease in dog bite fatalities (an increase according to the cite provided by cougar anyway) and a documented massive increase in serious bite injuries.
Oddly the amended law keeping the dogs illegal and breeding of them illegal but allowing some fraction to be returned to their owners homes IF the courts, (with full consideration of veternarian, police, neighbor, and animal control experts input) deem them safe AND IF the owners complied with having the dog “neutered,
microchipped, tattooed and insured against injuring a third party [and obeyed] … certain post-release requirements including being muzzled and kept on a lead in the charge of someone over 16 when in public” does not count as a true BSL now … although his/her list of localities that had BSLs included many that merely restricted breeding and sale or importation of listed breeds. Note, from that same link, the number of dogs that get returned each year having met those criteria is about 400. Hard to blame the increase in Pit Bulls or the 210,000 dog attacks annually in England on those 400 … they must be getitng busy!
I do believe that cougar is batting 1000.
Actually, I can do better than that.
I can cite 20 US court decisions / rulings that each specifically state pit bulls are viscous from birth, and/or are a clear and present danger to society. These same courtws heard all the data the pit bull apologias best had to offer, and they had hardcore facts.
Each of these cites, with links, can be found at the single reference I provided below. So as to not get anyones undergarments in a knot, each quote is verbatim. And I don’t dare list all 20, for fear of starting a “gish gallop.” How many are too many?
Marley, feel free to trim this listing down as needed.
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
Hardwick v. Town of Ceredo (2013)
“That each Defendant’s dogs are of the breed that is typically referred to generically as pit bull dogs which are aggressive by nature, have been known as attack animals with strong massive heads and jaws, and have been found to represent a public health hazard”…“a propensity to be aggressive and attack without provocation and it is well established that such dogs have gotten a lot of notoriety of being dangerous to public health and safety.”
Tracey v. Solesky (2012)
Court of Appeals of Maryland
“Because of its aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflict serious and sometimes fatal injuries, pit bulls and cross-bred pit bulls are inherently dangerous.”
McNeely v. U.S. (2005)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
"The temperament of pit bulls, particularly their volatile capacity for hostility and violent behavior, is sufficiently well-known that these dogs are “proper subject[s] of regulatory measures adopted in the exercise of a state’s 'police power.”
Matthews v. Amberwood (1998)
Court of Appeals of Maryland
"(“pit bull dogs represent a unique public health hazard … [possessing] both the capacity for extraordinarily savage behavior … [a] capacity for uniquely vicious attacks … coupled with an unpredictable nature”
Ohio v. Anderson (1991)
Supreme Court of Ohio
“During the past ten years, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of fatalities and severe maulings caused by pit bull dogs”…“The American Kennel Club does not recognize the breed and publishes no conformation standards on the pit bull dog. In the pretrial hearings in the case at bar, it was established that the American Kennel Club does not register pit bulls because of their unsavory tendencies. Therefore, the pit bull is not a recognized breed for the very reason that it must be regulated: it poses a grave and inordinate danger to human health and safety.”
There are 11 more court rulings from across the USA to this effect. This places me in a dilemma, of typical pit bull deniers circular logic: they hound me for proof, documented proof, then when I present it, they flag the SDMB mods complaining that I am flooding the forum with too many proofs.
Here are the links to each of the above, with the full text, as well as 11 more court rulings that I don’t dare list, for fear of being banned from SDMB.
There are no opinions on this page (linked above) so the mantra that the cite is run by a crazy woman who has an agenda because she was mauled by a pit bull that gave her two compound fractures - while jogging - is moot and biased. Just like Zeriels post that Dr Beck, PhD of Purdue is “retarded”. How rich is that?
Simple fact: more cities in the USA ban or regulate pit bulls via BSL, than those that have reversed them. More nations as well. More insurance companies will not insure homes with pit bulls than those that do. And most of the few that do, actually practice BSL by requiring the pit bull pass the ATTS or “good citizen” test ( see post above how the Humane Society of Indy had a pit bull go beserk 4 days after it passed the test & was adopted by an Indy cop - and would only stop mauling the cops neighbor when another cop shot it). The same HSUS Indy manager single handedly shot down Indy’s attempt at BSL.
Yet we have people here on SDMB that reference the HSUS as proudly being anti BSL.
SDMB members: would you want your child playing in your yard, separated by a 4 foot fence, from a neighbor that just adopted a pit bull that passed the Indy Humane Society temperament tests 4 days prior? Wouldn’t you get that warm and fuzzy knowing the neighbor was a police officer ( “to serve and protect”) , so surely nothing could go wrong?
Science, cougar. Science, not court rulings. Science.
Court decisions are statistics, studies, or expert opinions in what way, again?
I have no doubt every one of your ANECDOTES is lovingly hand-crafted, but you don’t actually have any DATA to back anything you say up.
I would not give one solitary fuck. My child is at significantly more statistical risk (12x as much, in fact, in terms of fatalities per ostensibly dangerous possession) from my neighbor’s car.
That’s the one statistic you can’t escape here, cougar: even taking very conservative positions on which dog bite fatalities are on “pit bulls” and how many “pit bulls” there are in the US, there are twelve times as many fatalities per car per year in this country as per pit bull per year.
Actually, screw data as well. Because data doesn’t tell you anything about why. Cougars position is that pit bulls are fundamentally different in some biological way that requires the breed to be banned, steadfastly ignoring the issue of the human beings involved. Therefore, in order to make his argument rational at all, He must demonstrate the biological and neurological difference, scientifically determined, that makes pit bulls genuinely different than other dogs in terms of their behavior, making them unpredictably aggressive towards human beings for reasons that have nothing to do with the way they were raised.
I don’t believe cougar has ever acknowledged my existence in this thread, so perhaps he has me on ignore. Perhaps you should ask him my questions, pointing out the fact that he has no science to back up his assertion therefore no amount of data, of court rulings, and no number of opinions will ever make what he’s saying true. Without scientifically determined proof that pit bulls are genuinely different than other dogs in their behavior by nature, there is no valid reason for banning the breed.
Then again maybe he does not have me on ignore, he just has absolutely no way to answer my query or prove his position legitimately, so he just keep spewing and ignoring everybody who makes that point.
Interesting though.
The consenses from the various medical groups and societies, from the various veterinary, dog, and animal control organizations … all those can be dismissed out of hand. But the opinions of a few individual judges and politicians with no expertise in science, animal behavior, or epidemiology? Ah! That matters!
Again, why do all those expert groups NOT believe in BSLs as the rational effective approach to serious dog bites?
BTW that Ohio v. Anderson one is quite entertaining. The AKC registers Amstaffs, have since 1936. What crap that judge spouted off.
Stoid … cougar just ignores any point or question that (s)he has no response to. I’d say good response but so far none of them have met that standard, but (s)he has felt a few were. How many of my questions, asked multiple times, have been ignored as well?
So, in other words - no, you can’t provide any cite for dogs chewing kids to death being mis-identified? Thanks, that’s what I thought.
Not necessarily saying I disagree (I recall reading that there were more dogs in the US than any other country) but - cite? Second of all - you’re ignoring an important side of the equation, which is odd coming from the side that insisted that you couldn’t look at absolute numbers in looking at how dangerous (or not) pits were.
Yes and yes. What’s your point?
Oh, that was your point? Actually my accumulated risk is even lower, since I don’t own a pit bull.
I’ve given those cites already, the wiki article gave several example of dogs mis-identified and 70 to 78 million dogs in the US and 8 in the UK (roughly).
What car do you drive? How many miles a year?
BMW 3 / approx. 500 miles.
I see you ignored my comment earlier on, and persisit in asking stupid questions.
Breed identification of dogs that have attacked a human need to be supported by the people who make the identification. It is not our obligation to prove them wrong. It’s called burden of proof.
Despite that, cites have been given to you anyway. You’ve also ignored those.