Yeah, heaven forbid that we use accurate data in determining which dogs are actually responsible for the attacks in this country. People in this thread are claiming that certain breeds of dog are genetically predisposed to violenece, yet they have no idea what the genetic makeup of the guilty parties are. That’s called stupidity.
I don’t know about the ‘people’ in this thread, but I’m claiming that certain breeds of dogs are responsible for the majority of fatal dog attacks. If you want to ignore that inconvenient little fact, you can go on sticking your head in the sand with your ‘we don’t know what the complete genetic make up is! prove they were pits!’ screeches; go right ahead.
Stupidity, indeed.
You can claim they’re not genetically predisposed to violence all you want - hell, we could even concede you’re right. *You still haven’t explained why they’re responsible for so many of the deaths when kids get chewed to death, or why I shouldn’t continue to go out of my way to give you and your dogs a wide, wide berth. *
Please provide evidence for this claim. Include methodology used to identify the breed of dog.
:rolleyes:
- No that’s not a reasonable ‘first step’ subject to establishing the accuracy of the premise you state, especially defining what is meant by ‘breed’ either in the bite statistics or in any proposed law, since ‘pit bull’ is not a breed. Does it mean pure breed APBT’s, does it mean some ‘blood quantum’ of that breed or the closely related AST? (the SBT often rounds out the three breeds which might legitimately be called, if loosely, ‘pit bulls’ from any knowledgeable standpoint, but are small dogs, often under 30#, which opens up a huge consistency issue in a law which bans SBT’s but doesn’t affect say Akita’s, a completely unrelated dog typically over 100#, highly territorial and pretty commonly involved in bite incidents per dog, but not a common type of dog, but OTOH SBT’s are not a very common breed either).
Or does it mean essentially unrelated dogs which ‘sort of look like pit bulls’? In practice the ‘family’ of relatively related breeds can always be expanded, but then the ‘genetic’ argument becomes more and more far fetched. And in practice some pro BSL ‘statisticians’ will collect and defend stats which say include for example Boxers under the same general category to which they’d expanded ‘pit bull’ (large terrier/mastiff/molosser types). But do any actual BSL’s ban Boxers? No. Because it’s been proved Boxers are not really ‘nasty dogs’ like ‘pit bulls’ (but say Dogo Argentino’s are?, less closely related to ABPT’s more often included)? No. It’s all arbitrary political bullsh*t when it gets to the point of defining the non-breed of ‘pit bull’ in BSL’s.
And then the issue of how dogs are managed is just silly to ignore. 90% of serious dog bite incidents involve unaltered male dogs per the CDC. That’s quite a strange coincidence for such an owner management factor to be so prominent if ‘breed’ is really the main driver of dog bites.
- ‘All I’ve heard’ is not a good substitute for refuting relevant arguments. If certain types of owners are really the problem, there is nothing to stop them creating the same dangers with any type of strong dogs, assuming some law banning the pseudo-breed ‘pit bull’ (as it’s variously defined in places with BSL’s) could actually be enforced, big if. But even if, that’s a very major hole in the effectiveness of BSL’s if owner behavior is really the driver. So I don’t see the logic in dismissing that argument about owner behavior, at all.
And another related strange coincidence is how no animal science, relevant general science (like the CDC) or veterinary science organization supports BSL. On lower grade discussions around the web than this august forum, the pro-BSL comeback to that is usually ‘the animal/veterinary science community is all bought off by the pit bull owners’. But that’s a childishly idiotic argument I’m sure you wouldn’t make. So why is it?
- Yes you said it before but as before it’s kind of juking around now frankly back and forth between this and ‘devil’s advocate’.
As I said before, if you don’t like ‘pit bulls’, I don’t care. You need no proof of anything to have an opinion which ‘breed’ you like, or if you like dogs at all.
But, if it’s a matter of BSL, different story. In that case the burden of proof should be a lot higher as to any of the issues like statistics, underlying scientific evidence of propensity for human aggression. And as in an (overdue) recent federal court challenge to BSL in Alabama, besides the general idiocy and ineffectiveness of BSL, there’s a valid constitutional issue in any law which outlaws something without properly defining it. What’s a ‘pit bull’ for the purpose of such a law? How is one to know if they are violating such a law? And if it’s just up to local bureaucrats to define the non-breed of ‘pit bull’ arbitrarily, that’s a due process issue.
- No that’s not a reasonable ‘first step’ subject to establishing the accuracy of the premise you state, especially defining what is meant by ‘breed’ either in the bite statistics or in any proposed law, since ‘pit bull’ is not a breed. Does it mean pure breed APBT’s, does it mean some ‘blood quantum’ of that breed or the closely related AST? (the SBT often rounds out the three breeds which might legitimately be called, if loosely, ‘pit bulls’ from any knowledgeable standpoint, but are small dogs, often under 30#, which opens up a huge consistency issue in a law which bans SBT’s but doesn’t affect say Akita’s, a completely unrelated dog typically over 100#, highly territorial and pretty commonly involved in bite incidents per dog, but not a common type of dog, but OTOH SBT’s are not a very common breed either).
Or does it mean essentially unrelated dogs which ‘sort of look like pit bulls’? In practice the ‘family’ of relatively related breeds can always be expanded, but then the ‘genetic’ argument becomes more and more far fetched. And in practice some pro BSL ‘statisticians’ will collect and defend stats which say include for example Boxers under the same general category to which they’d expanded ‘pit bull’ (large terrier/mastiff/molosser types). But do any actual BSL’s ban Boxers? No, because it’s been proved they are not really like ‘pit bulls’ (but say Dogo Argentino’s are?, less closely related to ABPT’s more often included) No. It’s all arbitrary political bullsh*t when it gets to the point of defining this non-breed of ‘pit bull’.
And then the issue of how dogs are managed is just silly to ignore. 90% of serious dog bite incidents involve unaltered male dogs per the CDC. That’s quite a strange coincidence for such an owner management factor to be so prominent if ‘breed’ is really the main driver of dog bites.
- ‘All I’ve heard’ is not a good substitute for actually refuting relevant arguments. If certain types of owners are really the problem, there is nothing to stop them creating the same dangers with any type of strong dogs, assuming some law banning the pseudo-breed ‘pit bull’ (as it’s variously defined in places with BSL’s) could actually be enforced, big if. Anyway even assuming so, that’s a very major hole in the effectiveness of BSL’s if owner behavior is really the driver. So I don’t see the logic in dismissing that argument about owner behavior, at all.
And another related strange coincidence is how no animal science, general science (like the CDC) or veterinary science organization supports BSL. On lower grade discussions around the web than this august forum, the pro-BSL comeback to that is usually ‘the animal/veterinary science community is all bought off by the pit bull owners’. But that’s a childishly idiotic argument I’m sure you wouldn’t make. So why is it?
- Yes you said it before but as before it’s kind of juking around now frankly back and forth between this and ‘devil’s advocate’.
As I said before, if you don’t like ‘pit bulls’, I don’t care. You need no proof of anything to have an opinion which ‘breed’ you like, or if you like dogs at all.
But, if it’s a matter of BSL, different story. In that case the burden of proof should be a lot higher as to any of the issues like statistics, underlying scientific evidence of propensity for human aggression. And as in an (overdue) recent federal court challenge to BSL in Alabama, besides the general idiocy and ineffectiveness of BSL, there’s a valid constitutional issue in any law which outlaws something without properly defining it. What’s a ‘pit bull’ for the purpose of such a law? How is one to know if they are violating such a law? And if it’s just up to local bureaucrats to define the non-breed of ‘pit bull’ arbitrarily, that’s a due process issue.
FYI the following Alabama cites ban or regulate pit bulls:
Ban:
Center Point
Clay
Fayette
Fultondale
Gardendale
Irondale
Lanett
Mountain Brook
Declared either “dangerous” or “vicious”
Albertville
Anniston
Boaz
Gadsden
Please cite the “federal court challenge in Alabama”
Note that State supreme courts are completely distinct from any United States federal courts.
Not saying I deny what you are claiming - just asking for a cite
How much is the science from a well educated Animal Expert worth?
Lets examine the resume of one:
http://www.animalbehavior.com/fullcv.html
Peter L. Borchelt, Ph.D.
Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist
Animal Behavior Consultant
Peter’s pit bull ( that he claimed wan’t vicious and in fact he was socializing it for a client) bit another mans peter off, and the victim is awarded exactly $1 million.
"A three-man, three-woman jury in Brooklyn awarded $500,000 for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for future pain and suffering to Gabriel Febbraio for the urological treatment and psychological injuries he suffered when the hefty canine bit him on the groin, removing the end of his penis.
In February 1997, Febbraio had left his mother’s home in Bensonhurst to go jogging, when he realized he forgot his gloves. As he headed back to the house, he encountered Peter Borchelt and the dog on the street. When Febbraio asked him if the dog was friendly, Borchelt assured him it was. But when the ex-fireman, 45, took several more steps, the dog broke free and attacked him.
Source for Science? Expert data?
I will stay with the insurance actuaries data. They pay for these atrocities, not the PhD Animal Experts or their organizations.
Ask the fireman who is now without his hose, how much value he places in science from these “experts”.
PS before anyone cries to the mods that this is another Cougar off-topic anecdotal example of humor, please note that Peter L. Borchelt, Ph.D. Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist, in the above post, testified in both the Denver and Toledo pit bull court hearings.
So it is very relevant to the OP
You just can make this stuff up.
By the way, insurance actuarial data is very much considered a science.
My favorite color is blue.
So is geology. Do you suppose we can use it to determine if pit bulls are neurologically different from other dogs, leading to unpredictable aggression directed at human beings? No? Then how about botany? Meteorology? Physics? Decision theory?
:rolleyes:
Yes, we’ve become familiar with your style of “debate”.
A better question is: Can the science of insurance actuarial data be used to identify which dogs belong to the alleged breed in question?
It doesn’t matter, because so far there has been zero evidence that there is a genetic difference that leads to unpredictable aggression directed at humans.
So long as cougar continues to ignore the difference between genetically determined neurological differences and life experience differences (which is hardly the only gaping flaw in his argument, just the most glaring), his argument is, how you say, ignorant garbage.
That is a good question. And obviously, the answer is “no”.
Amusingly enough, my insurance company doesn’t care whether or not I have a pit bull–all dogs of the same size are adjudged equally actuarially risky. Sorry about your anecdote. Again.
Yes every stat is wrong…because there are so many sweet pit bulls. All those who kill and maim disproportionate to any other breed are just “anecdotes”
And I am getting with your style of “debate”…it is called denial style
Amazingly enough, I am only reporting what I was told by my insurance agent concerning my homeowner’s policy and dog breeds.
Then again, you’re the person who seems to think a conservative-guess estimate of a ~1 in 200,000 risk of a pit bull-type attacking someone fatally makes them a gigantic danger.
I’ll put the same questions to you that I put to cougar: First, how can you possibly tell whether pit bull-types are more dangerous than other dogs when there are literally no statistics whatsoever (beyond estimates with a swing of multiple millions) about how many dogs of any given breed type there are extant as pets?
Second, why do you explain the stats in terms of “pit bull” viciousness when the CDC shows the strongest correlation in their studies with “male, unneutered” dogs being the most responsible for deaths irrespective of breed?
Third, how do you differentiate between a problem in the breed itself and a problem of culture surrounding dog ownership that’s fixed on the breed?