19 Pages of this?
Impressive, How can you keep posting this in the face of repeated evidence that you are posting nonsense.
Nevermind, I already tried this with you. Until you have something other than news reports and other anecdotal evidence that even one of these dogs is a Pitbull you are just making stuff up.
For anyone trying to engage in this thread, keep in mind its 19 pages of Cougar58 ignoring every bit of advice and evidence and simply posting more of the same.
And you know these are 100% positive & accurate identifications because…?
Everyone just stop engaging cougar58, and this thread will finally die.
Of course it’s your favorite, because it’s easily refuted. You spend enormous amounts of time and text refuting junk that has zero to do with your argument for banning pit bulls (coconuts, whether there is such a thing as a hypogallergenic dog, references to holes in fences…) But your reply to real data, scientific research, facts… we get drama.
You are obviously extremely concerned about dog attacks. So instead of being attached to the answer that, for whatever reason, you like best, why not open your mind to answers that* actually work *to reduce or eliminate the problem of aggressive dogs? I mean… do you actually care about stopping harm from dogs, or do you just hate pitbulls and want an excuse to ban them? Because your obstinance in the face of facts strongly suggests it is the latter.
Because Calgary has found something that actually works to reduce harm from aggressive dogs, and it has nothing to do with arbitrarily banning dogs that have a particular appearance:
Here’s a chart comparing the population to the incidents of problems with dogs. It went from 600K people and 2,000 dog incidents to 1.2 million people and 600 incidents, and that’s with much higher reporting rates due to changes in the laws. And also with much higher populations of pit bulls, due to bans in the stupid cities.
So if you continue to post drama and bitch that the only solution is banning pit bulls, there’s no other conclusion reasonable people can come to except that for some mysterious reasons, you just hate pit bulls and want them banned and you’ve locked on to what you think is an effective argument for achieving that end.
Comments like this puzzle me… who needs this thread to die? Why would it matter to anyone?
actually I like these threads for a single reason, we can always point someone here to show them what unreasonable, blind devotion to a single, easily disprovable idea looks like.
If pitbulls are so much more dangerous than other breeds then those areas with bans should see a large drop in dog related injuries and fatalities. Do they?
Stoid
I truly appreciate your post about the results from Calgary.
And I truly believe you were unaware that this was information from 2007, and it was in fact accurate in 2007.
I want TomNDeb to know that I am NOT suggesting Stoid or any other poster is lying.
That said, I do feel, since this is a debate forum, that I am dutifully bound to show a more recent update from Calgary and the same person your reference, Mr Bill Bruce, Calgary Animal Services director. It is from 2011, discussing the DRAMATIC turn around in the data:
It is verbatim from the Calgary Sun:
"Last year was a bloody one for dog bites in Calgary, and while the hand that feeds sometimes gets the teeth, the victims are increasingly family and friends of the dog owner.
“It’s a cause for alarm — the most disturbing aspect is the rise of bites happening in the home and with immediate neighbours,” said Bill Bruce, Calgary’s chief Animal Services officer.
" the number of actual bites recorded by Calgary Animal Services has jumped from 58 to 102" (from 2009 to 2010)
“After years with Labrador retrievers at the top of Calgary’s most-likely to bite list, pitbull and pitbull-type terriers have suddenly taken a dubious lead, passing both shepherds and retrievers.”
“Bruce is concerned to see pitbulls as champions of the chomp because the knee-jerk reaction is usually the call for a breed ban.”
Again, I truly believe that you were unaware of the latest data from Calgary, showing Animal Service director Bill Bruce’s idea was a complete and utter failure, as he now admits.
I think its important for the SDMB to have the most recent data, don’t you? Ypur data and correspondence from Mr Bill Bruce references information comparing 1985 to 2007.
In 2010, with pit bulls unchecked for 5 years, the bites by all breeds went thru the ceiling, led by pit bulls, who Bruce now labels “Champions of the chomp”, passing shepherd and labs.
In fact, bites doubled (58 to 102).
Again, admin TomNDeb, I want to stress that I am not suggesting Stoid or anyone is a liar.
I just think that SDMB members should know what the data is from 2011, which negates 180 degrees what Calgary Animal Services director Bill Bruce said then in 2007.
Stoid’s reference to what Bruce said, along with his data, was accurate, IN 2007.
My reference to the current situation (most recent, 2011) from that same city (Calgary) and same person (Bill Bruce) shows the situation is now one where pit bulls are helter skelter.
Which is a more reliable barometer of Calgary’s pit bull situation?
Stoid, you have a pleasant day, now, OK?
???
The numbers went from 612 in 1985 down to 199 in 2006 and 137 in 2007, then fell all the way to 58 in 2009 and you say a bump back to 102 in 2010 “negates 180 degrees” the statements made earlier? That makes no sense. Periodic bumps of crimes in any calendar year often bounce around for many reasons, with the reasons not discovered. A jump to 612 (as in 1985) or to 1,224 (to match the proportional numbers by population), might negate the claims for the city’s current policy. A one year bump of 44 incidents does not.
You have also over-played the claims regarding Pit Bulls. The report says that Pit Bulls and various terrier-like dogs lead the reports, which differs from earlier years when Labs and Shepherds led the reports. That is not any sort of evidence that the Pit Bull situation is “helter skelter.” It just means that the number of Pit Bull incidents in one specific year differs from the rates in previous years. The story did not say that Pit Bull attacks were up by 175%, only that the raw numbers for terriers exceeded the raw numbers for two other breeds for the first time.
That could be due to any number of causes such as a much larger influx of terriers in recent years, a specific terrier breeder turning out a puppy farm of cheap dogs with bad attitudes, or the normal random nature of dog bites.
Your claim that Pit Bulls were “unchecked for five years” is also not supported by the statements in the story. Bruce’s claim was that they had achieved a drop from 621 to 137 (later 58) without ever outlawing specific breeds, so Pit Bulls were “unchecked” in the years that bites dropped from 621 to 58, just as much as they were “unchecked” in the year that bites went up by 44.
You are really not making a case, with this post.
Actually Tom, I have since found the Calgary data from 2013.
It seems your assessment of the spike in Calgary pit bull attacks from 2009 to 2010 was not just a “periodic one year bump”. The data has not since bounced around.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/08/22/barbara-kay-dog-bites-man-again-and-again/
From the Canadian National Post (cite above):
**"The Calgary model is failing. Despite its record licensing rate of 90%, 4x higher than other Canadian cities - Calgary area pit bull attacks have TRIPLED from 58 in 2009 to 201 in 2012 .
Facts are facts. What part of “public safety hazard” does Calgary not understand?
the Calgary model worked for a while because any tightening of AC legislation will produce a decrease in normal, non-serious bites. Now, though, Calgary has a preponderance of pit bulls and a preponderance of pit bull attacks and injuries - Bill Bruce himself admitted that pit bull attacks constitute 13% of all serious bites in Calgary. Please explain how statistics that show that a breed that constitutes 1% of the dog population is responsible for 13% of serious dog bites can be called successful?
Can you understand that pit bulls comprise less than 1% of the dog population in Calgary, yet they were responsible for the same number of bites as the entire “sporting breed” category, which comprises 65% of Calgary’s dog population? Can you appreciate how much more dangerous they are than any single member of that group?
Let’s look at it this way: Let’s say there were only 100 dogs in total in Calgary. 2 of them would be pit bulls and 65 of them would be sporting breeds (say 30 Labs, 30 Retrievers, and 5 Spaniels just for simplicity). To achieve the bite count, one of the pits would have to bite 6 people and one of the pits would have to bite 7 people while 6 Labs, 6 Retrievers, and 1 Spaniel would only have to bite 1 person each. Now do you understand more completely what the numbers are telling us and how much more likely to bite a pit bull is?
Yes. Facts are facts and that opinion piece trashes the facts.
Here is the official City of Calgary report on dog attacks in graph form.
Looking at it, it appears that the 58 attacks in 2010 is the anomaly as the rest of the years are all pretty steady in the range near 200. Then we see Ms. Kay falsely claiming that there were 58 Pit Bull attacks that year, when there were actually 58 attacks from all breeds and mutts. She then claims over 200 Pit Bull attacks for 2012 when that number represents all breeds and mutts again.
It really does the discussion no good to include citations that are worthless.
Sounds like a certain participant in this thread.
When the solution you offer is “take millions of dogs away from their families/owners, at great expense and low specificity (as you’ve been essentially arguing that pit morphology makes a pit bull, not actual breedline or genetics), causing serious emotional trauma to at least some of those owners”, then I’d expect the incidence of attacks to be significantly more than the approximately 1 in 100,000 that’s the absolute worst case we see at present. (that presumes all of your fatalities are in fact “pit bulls”, and that there are about 2mil pit bulls (which is a relatively low estimate–I’ve seen estimates up to 10 million for pit bulls including pit-phenotype mutts) in the country.)
My previous Mod note was not limited to the posters I named.
Try this again, and you will receive a Warning for violating the accusations of lying prohibition and a Warning for failing to follow Moderator instructions.
[ /Moderating ]
While I searched very thoroughly, beyond the quoted article, for any sign of the following:
And can find nothing resembling such a thing. In the article itself, the only use of the word “failure” appeared in the quote that was truncated in the post above. It actually reads:
It seems unlikely that Bruce would say his program was a complete failure in January, and 8 months later hold a webinar describing it as a HUGE success (the caps are in the original)
August 2011 description of a webinar bosted by Bruce:
In March 2012 he was speaking again:
Another quote from Bruce, from 2012:
Bad link. Found it anyway.
Cougar.
I truly appreciate your post about the results from Calgary.
I want TomNDeb to know that I am NOT suggesting cougar58 or any other poster is lying.
That said, I do feel, since this is a debate forum, that I am dutifully bound to give a working linkwith more complete quotes. It is verbatim from the Calgary Sun:
I think its important for the SDMB to have the complete quotes, representing the actual sentiments of the persons being quoted, don’t you?
Again, admin TomNDeb, I want to stress that I am not suggesting cougar58 or anyone is a liar.
I just think that SDMB members should know that there is no sign of Bruce saying that the Calgary system has failed, and in fact he has been speaking all over North America saying exactly the reverse.
cougar58, you have a pleasant day, now, OK?
Actually, I think even one fatality is enough to take action.
Just not the (pointless, ineffective, expensive and wasteful) action of banning any particular type of dog.
When you have a problem…and dogs killing and maiming people is certainly a problem… the smart move is to seek solutions that have proven to work, and reject “solutions” that have completely failed.
Banning has failed. Calgary’s comprehensive model focusing on the human beings who own dogs has worked.
I vote for the one that works. Who’s with me?
Sorry, I was trying to imply that cougar and Ms. Kay are the same person. No more, no less.
I have stated on many occasions, that I side with the majority of modern BSL bans, that allow the owner of an existed canine that is legislated, to have their pet grandfathered in.
No harm done.
I did contact Mrs Kay of the National Post, and I have confirmed with her that her report of pit attacks rising 4 fold to 201, is incorrect.
TomNDeb is correct; that is the number of all canine bites.
Just like the admission made where I was in fact correct, and another poster incorrect , when they referenced President Obama saying he recently adopted another Portuguese Water Dog (within weeks of declaring BSL unjustified and pit bulls wrongly targeted ) because it was hypoallergenic - I made several cites that proved there is no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog.
It doesn’t negate their other posts.
The link from the previous post I made, likewise, is still accurate:
Pit bulls are the leading attackers in Calgary.
I will use Stoids link on post #193 for reference (since mine was not working, even thou they stated the same)
“It’s a cause for alarm - the most disturbing aspect is the rise of bites happening in the home and with immediate neighbours,” said Bill Bruce, Calgary’s chief Animal Services officer.
snip
“While aggressive incidents involving dogs remain virtually the same - 159 in 2009, as compared to 158 in 2010 - the number of actual bites recorded by Calgary Animal Services has jumped from 58 to 102.”
snip
“Bruce is concerned to see pitbulls as champions of the chomp because the knee-jerk reaction is usually the call for a breed ban”
End of reference to cite —
I was the one who added, that based on Bruce’s own admissions, it was a failure.
For bill Bruce to admit that Pit bulls are the “Champion of the Chomp” is neither numerous, nor is it something to be expected from any Animal Control director who is simultaneously claiming his pit bull policy is a success.
While Bruce admits bites did rise (even thou as TomNDeb points out, they are still lower than prior to Bruce’s admin) he also admits pit bulls are the “champion on the chomp”, having passed Labs and shepherds
from that same cite :
““After years with Labrador retrievers at the top of Calgary’s most-likely to bite list, pitbull and pitbull-type terriers have suddenly taken a dubious lead, passing both shepherds and retrievers.””
What we need to factor in, is that Bill Bruce counts bites from all breeds as being created equal.
I.E., if you have 58 bites in 2009, then 102 in 2010, - while even the spike is much lower than Pre-Bruce years, the level of severity of the bites is what counts. In the USA we can easily measure those via closed caskets and amputations.
Calgary has yet to have either recorded tragedy (600,000 people versus 300,000,000).
However, lets look at some of these “bites”
Mothers know best right? Especially after the Calgary family (sisters BF) trusted pit bull almost kills her son - she now calls for a ban on pit bulls. :
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/mother-calls-for-pit-bull-ban-1.548381
Remember, this near death family trusted pit mauling, is counted as just a “bite” by Bill Bruce.
“I honestly thought he was on his death bed. It looked so horrific,” says Angie Pollon, Dakota’s mother.
“Surgeons say the nine-year-old came within an inch of losing his life”.
Bill Bruce counts this as a single “bite” - same as a Shiatsu nip.
Yet another:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/08/15/15035361.html
“Three people were taken to hospital with bite wounds after the family dog attacked them during a brawl Sunday afternoon in Calgary.”
“Paramedics took the three to hospital in stable condition”
“The dog, which Bill Bruce, director of animal and bylaw services said has never been a problem before, will be assessed and the matter investigated.”
(However, this is not true. The same article says :
“Previously, a cop called to the house to break up a fight between him and his brother had to pull a gun on the dog when he became aggressive”, Travadi said.
Counting this as one bite, equal to a poodle nip, is not indicative of risk in Calgary.
another:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/03/30/8935786-sun.html
“CALGARY – The owner of a pit-bull cross that attacked him and his girlfriend during a domestic dispute Friday night has asked bylaw officers to put the dog down.”
“The man and woman received serious bites wounds to their arms, legs, necks, faces and bodies. Bruce said the man was released from hospital on Saturday and the woman remained in hospital yesterday”
This, too, is hidden in the 100+ Calgary generic bites Bruce reported. It is anything but generic.
Another:
Police save a couple from their own “extremely aggressive” pit bull via 3 taser shots (couple were hospitalized) :
http://www.nugget.ca/2009/04/27/pit-bull-attacks-owners-tasered-three-times
Another:
Pit bull tries to pull woman outside house, man tries to pull her back in :
“A fight between a Canadian couple upset their faithful dog so much that he attacked them to end the fight.
But in the process, the dog bloodied the husband and his wife so badly that they had to be rushed to hospital”
"The dog first attacked the man and then the woman.
“The man managed to get the dog off, but the woman could not,” said the police spokesman.
“They were both bitten very seriously, all over their bodies, head, face, neck, arms, everywhere,” he added.
Ed Karout, a neighbour who witnessed the attack, told the newspaper, the dog was “all over” the woman. “The dog was actually bitting at her and pulling at her.
“It was pretty bad.”
He said, “I saw blood all over her shirt. She was trying to get into the house. (The man) was trying to pull her in, and the (dog was) dragging her back out.”
Remember, this is just another bite, to Bill Bruce.
To counter this discrepancy, in October 2011 Calgary Animal Services was told to start using the Dr Ian Dunbar Bite Assessment Scale 6 point scale of severity to rate and record the true risk 2 years ago:
L1= growls
L2= teeth make minor marks on skin
L3= puncture, 1 to 4 holes, not shaking & twisting during bite
L4=Clamp down & shake during bite
L5=Multiple of Level 4
L6=DBRF Dog Bite Resulting in a Fatal
The problem is - I can not find Bill Bruce’s release of these results. Tempting to make the correlation that Bruce is an adviser to the NCRC pit lobby staffed National Canine Research Foundation.
Yet another reason why I say the Bill Bruce pit bull policy in Calgary is a failure, is that Calgary’s shelters are now flooded with 30% pit bulls as of March 2013
cite: http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/pit-bull-influx-at-calgary-humane-society-1.1205905
Oh, so you don’t have me on ignore?
When can I expect replies to posts 939 & 942?