Pitting Dog Owner

The BBQ Pit
121

[QUOTE=cowgirl]
We must not be reading the same statistics. In fact I challenge you to provide a single statistic from a reliable source saying that pit bulls are responsible for more bites than any other type of dog, disproportionate to their numbers.
[/quote]

The two links I provided both show that Pit Bulls are responsible for more than double the number of fatal attacks that the next most dangerous breed is.

I never suggested a breed ban, by the way.

The CDC doesn’t want their studies to be used to justify any legislation, which I can’t fault them for. Their statement does NOT imply that they consider their study to have proven that Pit Bulls are not more dangerous than other dogs. So how does them saying “please, don’t use these statistics to justify making any new legislation” get twisted into support for your argument of “Pit Bulls are perfectly safe as any other dog”?

What experts?

Again, the fact that they cause more than double the human fatalaties of any other dog simply doesn’t allow room for that statement.

I haven’t ignored the facts. I agree with a lot of them, like the fact that Pit Bulls have a deserved reputation for tolerating children. Like I said, there’s plenty of misinformation about Pit Bulls out there.

Keep in mind that I have never suggested a breed ban. What annoys me is that people seem to accept or reject information on this subject so arbitrarily. You read the CDC saying “we do not support breed bans” and pretend that it says “we do not think Pit Bulls are more dangerous than other dogs”. Pit Bulls (like other potentially deadly and dangerous things, like guns or poison or motorcycles) are NOT for people who don’t know what the fuck they’re doing, and its people like you who give the average douchebag joe who wants a tough pet all the ammuntion they need to justify making a casual decision that could easily end tragically.

122

[QUOTE=Mosier]
What annoys me is that people seem to accept or reject information on this subject so arbitrarily. You read the CDC saying “we do not support breed bans” and pretend that it says “we do not think Pit Bulls are more dangerous than other dogs”.
[/QUOTE]

No, we read “It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill,” and “There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill,” which is what it says.

You read the same thing, but then claim “both” your links (presumably the CDC study and tghe dogbitelaw site?) say “Pit Bulls are responsible for more than double the number of fatal attacks that the next most dangerous breed is.” Regardless of what the original study appears to have implied, the CDC study has subsequently been specifically disavowed for that purpose by the CDC – how can it show what you claim and still say “It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill”?

The CDC does not say “We do not think Pit Bulls are more dangerous than other dogs,” I’ll grant you. It also does not say the reverse: “We think Pit Bulls ARE more dangerous than other dogs.” It essentially says, if I may attempt exegesis, “at one time ten years ago we thought pit bulls were more dangerous, but we’ve since recognized that the study was unscientific for the following reasons…”

And the dogbitelaw citation I didn’t read through, but it’s not accepted by the scientists at the CDC, since they say there is no accurate way to make a scientific determination of that question.

Yes, pit bulls require skilled, dedicated, thoughtful handling, like any other dog.

Edit: missed this part:

I’m no fan at all of the average douchebag joe who wants a tough pet. But do you really think Douchebag Joe is reading that pit bulls aren’t dangerous and becoming inspired? No, he wants to read that they’re dangerous.

The problem of people buying a pet casually, without making a serious commitment to care for and handle the pet properly, is way, way larger than pit bulls or even dogs.

Sailboat

123

[QUOTE=Sailboat]
The CDC does not say “We do not think Pit Bulls are more dangerous than other dogs,” I’ll grant you. It also does not say the reverse: “We think Pit Bulls ARE more dangerous than other dogs.” It essentially says, if I may attempt exegesis, “at one time ten years ago we thought pit bulls were more dangerous, but we’ve since recognized that the study was unscientific for the following reasons…”

And the dogbitelaw citation I didn’t read through, but it’s not accepted by the scientists at the CDC, since they say there is no accurate way to make a scientific determination of that question.
[/QUOTE]
The problem is that such studies are typically conducted by culling dog bite reports from police blotters and newspaper articles. If the biter’s breed isn’t easily identified and is in the Molosser family, it gets the “pit bull” tag.
[QUOTE=cowgirl]
I still do not understand why a breed that is known for dog aggression and not human aggression is demonized for being dangerous to humans, while others who are known for human aggression (e.g. watchdog breeds) are not.
[/QUOTE]
Those pesky police reports and newspaper articles again.

124

If the argument is that a person who is diligent and mature buys a pit bull and keeps it under control .it is not a problem. I agree. But people who are half crazy buy them. They appeal to my dog can kick your dogs ass types.
In Dearborn heights you have to put up a 500 dollar bond when you buy one. I do not know what that is supposed to do ,other than dissuade people from buying them. But people who rely on voice command over a leash in the park are asking for trouble. I just do not want my beagles torn up by an unleashed pit. I have come close several times.

125

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
If the argument is that a person who is diligent and mature buys a pit bull and keeps it under control .it is not a problem. I agree. But people who are half crazy buy them. They appeal to my dog can kick your dogs ass types.
In Dearborn heights you have to put up a 500 dollar bond when you buy one. I do not know what that is supposed to do ,other than dissuade people from buying them. But people who rely on voice command over a leash in the park are asking for trouble. I just do not want my beagles torn up by an unleashed pit. I have come close several times.
[/QUOTE]

I do like that idea and wish my county would do something similar. It seems many of the folks that raise and sell pits in my county wouldn’t be able to come up with the fee. For some reason, the breed appeals to the low income areas around here. I was informed by animal control when asked where they picked up all the pits scheduled to be destroyed, that they came from that side of town. As I have mentioned before, there is a disproportionate amount of pits and pit mixes that end up destroyed because they do not get adopted out at Orange County Animal Control.

126

[QUOTE=irishgirl]
Really? curlcoat, I think your analogy would be more precise if we said that after the association between drink and dangerous driving was discovered, we banned drunk drivers.
[/QUOTE]

Did you read the whole post and still not realize you are agreeing with my point? It isn’t the dog or the car that is causing people to get injured or killed, it is the idiot owner/driver of the dog/car.

Banning breeds of dogs, particularly in the case of a “breed” that isn’t really a breed, would be the same as banning cars because a drunk might get behind the wheel. Or even closer, banning say, Fords, because some study shows that more drunks drive Fords. What do you suppose those drunks would do after there were no more Fords - quit driving? I kinda doubt it. Same with trying to do something about idiot owners by banning the loose collection of dogs labeled as “pits”. After you’ve managed to get rid of every dog that anyone might think is a “pit”, the idiots just move on to Rotts or Mastiffs or whatever. Just as they moved from Dobes and Chows to “pits”.

What is that quote? Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it? Something like that.

Kathy

127

[QUOTE=curlcoat]
Did you read the whole post and still not realize you are agreeing with my point? It isn’t the dog or the car that is causing people to get injured or killed, it is the idiot owner/driver of the dog/car.

Banning breeds of dogs, particularly in the case of a “breed” that isn’t really a breed, would be the same as banning cars because a drunk might get behind the wheel. Or even closer, banning say, Fords, because some study shows that more drunks drive Fords. What do you suppose those drunks would do after there were no more Fords - quit driving? I kinda doubt it. Same with trying to do something about idiot owners by banning the loose collection of dogs labeled as “pits”. After you’ve managed to get rid of every dog that anyone might think is a “pit”, the idiots just move on to Rotts or Mastiffs or whatever. Just as they moved from Dobes and Chows to “pits”.

What is that quote? Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it? Something like that.

Kathy
[/QUOTE]

American Staffordshire Terriers are NOT a “loose collection” of dog breeds. It is specific.

128

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Truth is you buy a dog for the characteristics you want. Hunting birds get a beagle. Watchdog get a Doberman. Yappy little lap dog get a peke. You pretty much can predict the attitude ,size and general characteristics of a breed. That would indicate ,if you buy a Pit Bull you are aware of what it entails. So keep them on leashes or in a secure yard. Once they get started ,they are difficult to stop. Some dogs might snap at you . Pits will keep at it even under screaming and hitting.
[/QUOTE]

I wanted to point out this post as a classic example of someone taking information they have overheard or gotten from Fox News and passing it along as “facts”. Gonzo, you were wrong on two of your breeds up there even before you got to “pits”. Unfortunately, your ideas seem to be the norm - its no wonder the general public has no idea what is going on WRT dogs.

Kathy

129

[QUOTE=curlcoat]
I wanted to point out this post as a classic example of someone taking information they have overheard or gotten from Fox News and passing it along as “facts”. Gonzo, you were wrong on two of your breeds up there even before you got to “pits”. Unfortunately, your ideas seem to be the norm - its no wonder the general public has no idea what is going on WRT dogs.

Kathy
[/QUOTE]

how is that false? And WTF does Fox News have to do with it?
Did O’Rielly’s pitbull kill your shit-zoo?

130

[QUOTE=Mosier]
My post was referring to the expansive Mass Media Conspiracy to demonize a dog breed because they (whoever the fuck “they” are) didn’t have any REAL news to sell. That’s just goofy.
[/QUOTE]

Do you honestly believe that the media doesn’t, ahem, stretch the truth to make something more sensational? Such as my local paper running articles on consecutive days about a wildflower currently blooming here in fire areas, that is “a danger to people” and “poisonous” (that last in the headline). Reading further, the plant will make you itch or give you a rash. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Mosier]
I’m not contending the fact that Pit Bulls are known for their tolerance toward children. They deserve that reputation, because it’s true. They also go for years without hurting another dog or person, and then suddenly and unexpectedly rip someone (or their dog) to shreds. They deserve THAT reputation, too.
[/QUOTE]

Do you have any proof at all that any dog of any breed has ever ripped a dog or person to “shreds” suddenly and unexpectedly? Because, in the last 40+ years that I have spent bured in dogs, I have yet to see any dog bite anyone or anything without plenty of warning. “Ripping to shreds” would show even more warning - just because Joe Average is as unconcerned and disconnected from their dogs as they are their children doesn’t mean that any dog is actually going about killing things with warning or cause.

[QUOTE=Mosier]
How can you reasonably argue this? Every dog bite statistic available to us says that Pit Bulls are responsible for more bites than any other type of dog, greatly disproportionate to their numbers. You’re countering my argument of “Pit Bulls are known for their aggression” with “nuh uh! Pit Bulls are known for being a nanny dog!” except my side of the argument has all of the facts.
[/QUOTE]

What facts? It isn’t a fact that “pits” are responsible for more bites, because most people will identify a dog that looks shorthaired and muscular as a “pit”, including purebred Labradors. Yes, there are certain inner city areas where there are far more “pits” than anything else, and they are encouraged to bite anything that moves to protect their drug dealer owners, but I really have to assume that you don’t live in a place like that. How many “pits” are there in your area?

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Other than that, there’s nothing. Who’s the one unable to post rationally when presented with information that contradicts their world view, again?
[/QUOTE]

I dunno about rational but I’d sure like to see something other than Fox News repeated here when folks are calling for breed bans. You know, straight dope and all that…

Kathy

131

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
They usually don’t do DNA on a dog attack. But everybody knows a pit when they see it.
[/QUOTE]

:smack:

It’s been proven over and over that they don’t.

Kathy

132

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
American Staffordshire Terriers are NOT a “loose collection” of dog breeds. It is specific.
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t say anything about Amstaffs, or even the UKC breed called the American Pit Bull Terrier. I am talking about what the general public calls “pits”, which might include an Amstaff or APBT or two, or mixes of those, but are not themselves a breed.

This doesn’t even include the number of times that a Lab mix, a Boxer, a Bulldog or anything else without a drop of Amstaff or APBT blood in it is ID’d as a “pit”.

Kathy

133

[QUOTE=FoieGrasIsEvil]
how is that false? And WTF does Fox News have to do with it?
Did O’Rielly’s pitbull kill your shit-zoo?
[/QUOTE]

How is which one false? The fact that Beagles are bred to hunt rabbits not birds?

“Fox News” (also known as Faux News) is shorthand in many places for bias passing for news - perhaps that hasn’t been used on this board?

I’ve never owned a Shih Tzu, I don’t know O’Rielly or his dog. The only dog I’ve ever had killed by another dog was killed by a Malamute. Shall we demonize that breed as well?

Kathy

134

Malamutes are not bred to fight other dogs. Ever hear of Michael Vick.? He was breeding and training pits to fight. At this moment there are thousands of people doing the same thing. What does that portend for your next encounter on the street. ? Are you more likely to run into a show quality pit bull or one that is poorly bred and trained. to fight and kill.?

They are all in the pit family. On my next pit encounter I will react like he is a killer. I will not attempt to pet him because he is a Staffordshire Terrier and therefore safe.

135

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Malamutes are not bred to fight other dogs.
[/QUOTE]

I am aware of that - I know far more about dogs than you or any other average person does. My point there was that any breed can kill and, in the 40+ years I’ve been in dogs, the only “killer dog” I’ve experienced was of a breed far removed from a “pit”.

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Ever hear of Michael Vick.? He was breeding and training pits to fight. At this moment there are thousands of people doing the same thing. What does that portend for your next encounter on the street. ? Are you more likely to run into a show quality pit bull or one that is poorly bred and trained. to fight and kill.?
[/QUOTE]

I haven’t bothered to read much about Michael Vick but if he was doing what every other jerk is doing, he was breeding them to fight other dogs. I may be a bitch but I am not a dog. Also, since I don’t live anywhere near a place where anyone would be breeding fighting dogs, it isn’t likely I am going to run into anything other than a family pet. OTOH, whenever I go to a show or trial, which is almost every weekend, I see many of the breeds that the general public calls “pits” and they are never any issue.

[QUOTE=gonzomax]

They are all in the pit family.
[/QUOTE]

“They” who are all in the “pit family”? The bully breeds? The ones listed in the Wiki article? Dogs that you have decided fit the bill? Do you assume that any dog that you think is “in the pit family” must be a mankiller?

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
On my next pit encounter I will react like he is a killer. I will not attempt to pet him because he is a Staffordshire Terrier and therefore safe.
[/QUOTE]

Well, beyond the fact that I don’t really care how you react, if you treat any dog like he is a killer, you are likely to get bit. And if you go about petting dogs you don’t know, you are likely to get bit. The more you post, the more obvious it is you don’t know much about dogs of any sort. Unfortunately, you are also a rather average example of the general public, which is why this stupidity towards dogs keeps happening and PETA keeps thriving.

Kathy

136

yeah, well, my Boxer can kick your dog’s ass, so there.
:smiley:

137

[QUOTE=curlcoat]
What facts? It isn’t a fact that “pits” are responsible for more bites, because most people will identify a dog that looks shorthaired and muscular as a “pit”, including purebred Labradors.
[/QUOTE]
Post #123. :slight_smile: