Scratch “solely” in my previous post; change it to “predominantly.” Sorry for the slop.
I’ve bothered to reproduce relevant posts here, please extend the same courtesy. If you’re talking about those PDF’s I don’t know what they’re supposed to prove. Those are gimmicks, not research.
I don’t have a good answer for what the specifics of a policy should be. I think it should be a goal to eradicate the dog aggressive lines. I am open to some fairly harsh methods.
Eh. My mistake then.
ExTank, the site you are linking to is created and maintained by a **shystery dog bite attorney outfit. ** This point has been repeatedly addressed, and the site debunked in every thread that comes along. It’s pure ambulance chasing.
The Clifton report which he spends more or less all of his time referencing is, as was said in the other thread, nothing but a steaming pile of fly-ridden nonsense. The CDC and AVMA agree that there are serious and fundamental flaws in the method of any study which purports to count statistics on dog bites by breed. By far the overwhelmingly common factor is not breed or type, but mishandling.
The AVMA on why the Clifton report isn’t worth the bandwidth it occupies:
The AVMA’s Community approach to dog bite prevention spells it out very clearly. By far the predominant factor in dog bite incidents *is *“human activity”.
I’m doing my best to answer your questions.
I did, in the very same post.
Seriously? Did you… look at them?
Did you notice that they’re photos of dogs, paired with their DNA test results?
If you fail to see how these examples are germane to the discussion, I think we might be at a complete impasse.
Asking sincerely, where in this cite does it say what your purport it says?
These are pretty small sample sizes - so small that, alone, they are meaningless. How can we be sure they haven’t been cherry-picked? These could be the most disparate breed to phenotype instances (though the retriever ones are not that surprising). Then again, they might be representational, but standing on their own, they give me a big meh. Do you honestly think of these two flyers as watertight evidence for your case?
Here:
And here:
…for a start, though I’ll certainly concede it takes a little reading to get to the punchlines.
This is getting tiresome. Do you want to address the issues I raise, or just nitpick over numbers, like in the other thread? I don’t think of them as “watertight”, simply as illustrations to a point I keep trying to make, and which you keep dodging.
Any countless number of breeds and mixes may fit the “canine racial stereotype”. At least one study demonstrates that mixed-breed dogs are misidentified with rates we’d call “gross incompetence” in any other context. What then makes you feel it’s okay to slaughter them wholesale, on such spurious evidence as visual identification? There’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever to indicate a medium-sized, short-coated dog with a broad skull and semi-prick ears is any more dangerous to man or beast than any other dog of comparable size, seeing as how such a description can fit a countless number of dogs with no pit-fighting blood in recent history. The PDFs in question are simply photos and DNA results to illustrate the point, lest you continue to claim that you or anyone else has an infallible ability to ID pit-dogs on sight.
Now, if your argument is just “kill 'em all and let Og sort 'em out” well, then we’re at an impasse there, too. I’m open to fairly harsh methods for population control and public safety, too, but the method of using visual ID to determine which dogs live and die is jut… grossly misinformed.
They were offered as a substantive response (says you) to my criticism of the phenotype ID study. They are not a substantive response. As such, I have received no substantive response. I have already said, I have no good answer as to what should be done, but that is due in part to the fact that I have yet to see a defense to my crticism of the only research on phenotype identification thus far proffered.
What’s your solution to reducing the dog-aggeresive lines?
Let’s try this again. This makes three. Hope springs ever eternal.
Why don’t you try addressing the points I raise, instead of dodging them with “I don’t have a solution”. You clearly have one solution, now why don’t you give a go at defending it?
If you dismiss DNA evidence and peer-reviewed studies as insufficient evidence to support my contentions, then I think we’re arguing from two different worlds. I keep asking you why it makes sense to slaughter dogs en masse and you just keep saying “because pits are dog aggressive”. I keep saying “not all dogs that look like pits are pits” and you keep saying “pits are dog aggressive, kill 'em all”. Where are we to go from here?
We have no idea which “lines” of dog are dog aggressive, and the vast majority of dog aggression issues don’t stem from genetics, anyway. There is no such thing as a “breeding line” in the world of random-source dogs. The only logical route, and the most effective in terms of public safety, is to base the decision on effective temperament-testing conducted by knowledgeable and experienced dog handlers. Period. I have no problem whatsoever euthanizing aggressive dogs of any breed or type rather than offering them to the general public for adoption. I do have a problem with making this determination based solely on phenotype, as it is very simply no indication whatsoever of a dog’s relative safety.
Ok. I am not trying to be contentious, but you must be skipping my posts. There is an implied “no” to your “proposals” when I say I don’t have a solution in response to the question of whether I would adopt those proposals. I am still not convinced (for reasons set forth below) that phenotype ID is as bad as you make it out to be, but that could change.
You’re making stuff up. No exchange like you represent has occured in this thread. Seriously, I’m not trying to be contentious, but here’s what’s happened as I see it.
- Someone linked the phenotype ID study.
- I provided a criticism of the methods as reported.
- Your so-called substantive defense was to link to two flyers with mix breed dogs who’d been DNA tested.
Is this the DNA evidence and peer-reviewed studies you’re referencing, or have I missed someting? I must have. If this is it, then I think you have utterly failed to do what you’ve claimed to do, i.e. prove anything about phenotype ID.
But you are electing to “adopt” those proposals, by stating support for the policy of summarily euthanizing any dog that fits the “canine racial profile”.
I am absolutely not making stuff up. You said you approve of your local shelter’s policy of summarily euthanizing pits, because they are inherently dog aggressive. I said “not all dogs look like pits. Here’s a study showing that shelter workers can’t identify mixed-breed dogs by phenotype. Here are some photographic illustrations of what various mixes may look like pits or labs, yet not be resultant of any such breeding history. Furthermore, here are at least a couple dozen dog breeds which fit the profile, as well as any permutation derived in crossing any number of other breeds.”
Your “criticism” was summed up in the other thread with the following comment:
Which, oddly enough, is the exact point the authors were making, and the exact point I’m trying every way I know how to get you to understand.
Furthermore, did you bother to read post #3 in this thread? It’s not “proof”, but I feel very confident about the conclusions I’ve drawn there, and have yet to see you respond to the points made.
Let’s try this from a different direction.
How about you try proving that all dogs everywhere which fit the general description of a “pit type dog” are, in fact, of pit-dog ancestry. I’ve already offered you several pieces of substantial evidence (and yes, a photo roster of greater than two dozen legitimate dog breeds which fit the profile is, in fact, substantial evidence to support my claim). Now, let’s see you offer some support for your contention: namely that any dog which fits this profile and comes in to your local shelter deserves to be put to death by virtue of external appearance.
Ok. Let me think about this. I am not walking away from this thread, but I will not be able to hammer out a response - I am not trying to win, I am trying to see what the best solution is. I see the inherrent problem in advocating a policy (the local shelter’s no pit policy) when identification is an issue. I will need to read more about issues with phenotype misidentification. Notwithstanding, my opinion remains unchanged on the breed, as established, for the reason conceded by you above.
To be honest, were I to adopt this proposal they all wouldn’t need to; just a substantial portion would justify the policy. However, as I stated above, I am not advocating this until I further educate myslef on this issue.
Just a note: this thread is a little ill-defined, as we’ve drifted from dog-aggression to shelter euthanization policy. To the extent that there is some purported “myth” regarding pit dog-aggression, the “myth” has been confirmed and entered the realm of acknowledged fact. What myth are we talking about now - that mutts that look like pits are in fact pits?
No. This is a gross misrepresentation and a very clearly obvious moving of the goal posts.
Pit bulls’ dog aggressive history was *never * under contention, never at any point. Never once (and I thought we’d already hammered this one out) did I suggest that dog aggression as relates to pit-dogs was a “myth”. That you are still trying to characterize me as having made this claim causes me to wonder: are you doing it on purpose to be deliberately disingenuous, or am I to believe that you are continually naive? You are happy to strongly defend your own choice of words, so I find it hard to accept that these things are accidents on your part.
The myth referred to by the thread title is the concept that pit-type dogs are inherently more prone to attack a human being–a point which you conceded, or at the very least, backpedaled from.
You’ve been given a range of reasons as to why this is not so. I’ll definitely be interested in your conclusions.
If you want to continue the discussion, then I’d certainly appreciate follow-up responses in this line:
Lighten up, it was a poorly broadcast joke.
Sure, I’ll concede it. I never argued otherwise so there’s nothing to backpedal from, but we’ve been over that enough. Still, since we agree they have a history of dog-aggresson, I want to be clear that if there were an effective way to keep pits out of shelters without having a overhwelmingly negative impact on non-aggressive/non-pit mixes, I would advocate it. Why? Because I think responsible breeders and handlers are the best way to rehabilitate a breed.
I’m not sure what this means.
Sorry, I’m tired and that one wooshed right on by.
Simply that I appreciate that you’d rather take some time to chew it over before responding, and that I’ll look forward to your further thoughts on the issue.