Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nature doesn't lie. Not all living creatures have the same temperament, abilities, intelligence, etc. To be sure, upbringing can play a significant role in the outcome, but nature isn't exactly sitting quietly in the background, either and just because the general species might be OK, it doesn't mean that variants amongst it can't be identifiably troublesome as a subgroup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dog Bites Man, which isn't even news since according to the CDC it happens over 4.5 million times a year in America.When the terms SUV, Handgun, or Pit Bull are used in the headlines it is not to provide additional details, it is to provoke an emotional reaction to get people to read the story. This is borderline demagoguery.
This is stupid. Pit Bulls are infamous for attacking and have certain laws just for them(in my country anyway) and are known for violence; I see nothing wrong with using "pit bull" in a headline. And they obviously aren't just biting if there is a story about it.
Lead a team of rescuers to a fallen hiker..they forget all about you other than some picture in a thing called a paper you can't read anyway.Keep thieves from stealing your life savings and harming your family, here's some food.But you just maul one kid....
Jake got a medal http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/D...ack_In_Coventry
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nature doesn't lie. Not all living creatures have the same temperament, abilities, intelligence, etc. To be sure, upbringing can play a significant role in the outcome, but nature isn't exactly sitting quietly in the background, either and just because the general species might be OK, it doesn't mean that variants amongst it can't be identifiably troublesome as a subgroup.
who else was waiting for this post?I am just tickled to see it here.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nature doesn't lie. Not all living creatures have the same temperament, abilities, intelligence, etc. To be sure, upbringing can play a significant role in the outcome, but nature isn't exactly sitting quietly in the background, either and just because the general species might be OK, it doesn't mean that variants amongst it can't be identifiably troublesome as a subgroup.
This is not about dogs, and it's awesome. At work a guy was looking at a gun magazine and I said, "Hey, I have been thinking about getting something like that, which ones do you buy to shoot black people?" The look on his face was priceless.Thankfully, people get me, or I would have been fired long ago.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is stupid. Pit Bulls are infamous for attacking and have certain laws just for them(in my country anyway) and are known for violence; I see nothing wrong with using "pit bull" in a headline. And they obviously aren't just biting if there is a story about it.Jake got a medal http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/D...ack_In_Coventry
What is "stupid" is that the breed specific ban in the UK had ZERO effect on the number of reported dog bites. They are "infamous" and "known for violence" because of the over reporting of the breed and ignorance of people who think they know something about the dogs.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What is "stupid" is that the breed specific ban in the UK had ZERO effect on the number of reported dog bites. They are "infamous" and "known for violence" because of the over reporting of the breed and ignorance of people who think they know something about the dogs.
There is certainly over-reporting, but that does not account for the disproportionate amount of violence this class of dogs is responsible for.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah but the research shows that a disproportionate amount of deaths and bites come from pit bulls. A CDC study found that over a 24-year period about 1/3 of all dog-related deaths were from "pit bulls." Pit bulls and rottweilers together account for the majority of fatalities. I don't think there were any poodle-related fatalities in the same time period.
Disproportionate? If you are talking about this data:http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0047723/m0047723.aspI haven't seen any quantitative statistics that can lead to that conclusion. Even the CDC are very careful to not draw that conclusion. They acknowledge that there is a great difference between "frequency of attacks" and "likelihood to attack".The CDC specifically states that their data can't support the conclusion of "Disproportionate" attacks for a specific breed:
To definitively determine whether certain breeds are disproportionately represented, breed-specific fatality rates should be calculated. The numerator for such rates requires complete ascertainment of deaths and an accurate determination of the breed involved, and the denominator requires reliable breed-specific population data (i.e., number of deaths involving a given breed divided by number of dogs of that breed). However, such denominator data are not available, and official registration or licensing data cannot be used because owners of certain breeds may be less likely than those owning other breeds to register or license their animals
Over the period from 1979 thru 1996 there were a total of 279 deaths from dogs. Yes 60 of them were "Pit Bulls" and 10 more from "Pit Bull Crossbreed". In 1993 thru 1996 Rottweilers were involved in more than twice as many fatalities than Pit Bulls.According to the CDC there are over 4.5 million reported dog bites each year in America. Generally the only ones that make headlines are the ones involving "Pit" breeds (H is correct that there is no AKC recognized breed of "Pit Bull", but the UK does recognize the breed "American Pit Bull"). There are 55 million dogs in the US. When you are making sweeping conclusions about millions of dogs based on a VERY small sample, several incidents a year, the numbers don't make me conclude that there is a breed specific issue nor an epidemic level of events.In the US each day there are about as many accidental drownings as there are fatal dog bites in an entire year - over 140 times as many people die in swimming pools (567 in 2000) than from pit bull bites. There were more deaths in 2000 from being bitten or crushed by reptiles (31) than all dog bites combined (26). Let me say that again, there were more deaths by Reptiles than ALL dogs in 2000. I mean there were about as many deaths from hot tap water (55) in a single year as there were deaths from pit bulls over the 18 years of that study.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The CDC study cannot make claims about likelihood of attack because they did not measure the proportion of dog breeds present in the population. But the only way these data do not mean disproportionate involvement of pit bulls is if 30% of dogs in the US are pit bulls. Do you think they are?And really, the swimming pool thing? Don't you think more people come in contact with swimming pools than pit bulls? The number of people who die at some unrelated activity is supposed to make Pitt bulls look docile?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The CDC study cannot make claims about likelihood of attack because they did not measure the proportion of dog breeds present in the population. But the only way these data do not mean disproportionate involvement of pit bulls is if 30% of dogs in the US are pit bulls. Do you think they are?
In highly populated areas where most dog related fatalities occur, there is a large proportion of Pit Breed dogs. This in itself could explain why "Pit" tops the list of Dog Related Fatalities. But again when we are only talking about a dozen or so incidents every year, it is difficult to draw any breed specific conclusions.
Link to post
Share on other sites
In highly populated areas where most dog related fatalities occur, there is a large proportion of Pit Breed dogs. This in itself could explain why "Pit" tops the list of Dog Related Fatalities. But again when we are only talking about a dozen or so incidents every year, it is difficult to draw any breed specific conclusions.
Were talking about hundreds of deaths over a 24 year period, a third of which were from pit bulls. I like to see some evidence that they are safe. Or is your feeling more from personal experience with an individual dog?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Were talking about hundreds of deaths over a 24 year period, a third of which were from pit bulls. I like to see some evidence that they are safe. Or is your feeling more from personal experience with an individual dog?
not so factual but somebodys opinion who deals with this every day. my sister has worked as a vet technician for a few years now. she has said that while some pit bulls are sweet, she has seen them freak out what feels very randomly and does not trust them.but interestingly enough twice animals have sent her to the hospital from there. they were both cats. could be because dogs have her more on guard though.edit: im also not sure why i quoted that to say that.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a place where these dogs pose a persistent danger to me. It's pretty clear that the guys who own them want the most aggressive, violent dogs possible. I don't actually care very much whether they are achieving this through training or through breeding, although I'm sure its both (why would they not use breeding?). I'm curious how RAC and henry would propose we deal with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I live in a place where these dogs pose a persistent danger to me. It's pretty clear that the guys who own them want the most aggressive, violent dogs possible. I don't actually care very much whether they are achieving this through training or through breeding, although I'm sure its both (why would they not use breeding?). I'm curious how RAC and henry would propose we deal with this.
I think you might be over reaching on this conclusion. Do you not go out on the streets because there are pit bulls lurking waiting to maul you ... I think not. There is definitely something wrong with the individuals who own them because they want a tough dog and they go about making the stereotypical "Pitt", but to say they are a persistant danger to you is an interesting way to word it. Maybe you can expand on this a little so we understand what you mean.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Were talking about hundreds of deaths over a 24 year period, a third of which were from pit bulls. I like to see some evidence that they are safe. Or is your feeling more from personal experience with an individual dog?
I'd like to see more evidence that they are not safe. I haven't seen your 24 year study. But in the 18 year CDC study that I linked there were 60 deaths from Pit Bulls. A little over 3 a year. All it takes is a moron owner in Detroit, one in LA, and one in Dallas. There are millions of these dogs. Is 3 incidents statistically significant? Yes, I have personal experience with the dogs I own two......and my wife and I have worked directly with the Humane Society and other experts specifically related to "Pit Bulls". Ms RAC has met multiple times with the organization Bad Rap ("Bay Area Dog-lovers Responsible About Pit-bulls"). the organization that took the Michael Vick dogs and successfully rehabilitated many of them. We have worked with the Humane Society to change their policy of euthanizing every Pit that comes into their shelters. Our Bella was rescued by the Animal Cops and went thru their behavior assessment program......also the relevant facts don't seem to support the conclusion of a breed specific problem...Pit Bulls are less "vicious" or "mean" than many other breeds. The American Temperament Testing Society (ATTS) tested 122 dog breeds. American Pit Bull Terriers scored 86% which was better than Beagles (80.3%) and Golden Retrievers (84.6%) and German Shepherds (84.2%). In the ATTS Test dogs are subjected to a series of confrontational situations. Any sign of panic or aggression leads to failure of the test.http://www.atts.org/Also, aggression towards other animals and aggression towards humans are two different things. I agree that a Pit Bull, or other large dog, that shows dangerous aggression towards humans should probably be euthanized.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you might be over reaching on this conclusion. Do you not go out on the streets because there are pit bulls lurking waiting to maul you ... I think not. There is definitely something wrong with the individuals who own them because they want a tough dog and they go about making the stereotypical "Pitt", but to say they are a persistant danger to you is an interesting way to word it. Maybe you can expand on this a little so we understand what you mean.
Ding Ding DingWhen I was growing up the Doberman was the tough dog to have. Thanks to Hollywood shoving the idea down our throats.So you get some guy who thinks its cool to feed raw meat to a dog and give it praise when it tries to take out a stranger, and you get an aggressive dog.Personally I have known some good pit bulls, but I have never ever ever known a good little dog: mini pincher, chihuahua, toy poodle.We had a 'dangerous Dog' growing up, and she was a sweetheart, until the fat chick in the neighborhood tried to beat me up for reminding her of her weight problems with in leash range of Daiquiri. Then she got protective. Luckily for all of us the fat chick was within waddling range of the leash line.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ding Ding DingWhen I was growing up the Doberman was the tough dog to have. Thanks to Hollywood shoving the idea down our throats.So you get some guy who thinks its cool to feed raw meat to a dog and give it praise when it tries to take out a stranger, and you get an aggressive dog.Personally I have known some good pit bulls, but I have never ever ever known a good little dog: mini pincher, chihuahua, toy poodle.We had a 'dangerous Dog' growing up, and she was a sweetheart, until the fat chick in the neighborhood tried to beat me up for reminding her of her weight problems with in leash range of Daiquiri. Then she got protective. Luckily for all of us the fat chick was within waddling range of the leash line.
I was hoping this was going to be a link to Up.The leader is a doberman, 2nd in charge is a rottweiler. I'm assuming all the soldier dogs are pit bulls.
Not likely, maybe if I said while my grand children were growing up...
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to see more evidence that they are not safe. I haven't seen your 24 year study. But in the 18 year CDC study that I linked there were 60 deaths from Pit Bulls. A little over 3 a year. All it takes is a moron owner in Detroit, one in LA, and one in Dallas. There are millions of these dogs.
They updated the study with a couple more years, the updated report is here: http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafe...dogbreeds-a.pdf
Is 3 incidents statistically significant?
Statistical significance is not just about magnitude, its about magnitude in proportion to variance. If the question is, are 3 deaths per year more than the zero deaths per year caused by labrador retrievers, the answer would certainly be yes. The chances that this list of numbers (grouped by two year periods, deaths by pitbulls) [2 5 10 9 11 8 6 5 4 6] are drawn from the same population as this list (number of deaths attributed to labrador retrievers in the same time period): [0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] is practically zero. As the CDC paper says,Despite these limitations and concerns, the data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.I chose the labrador as comparison because they are by most measures the most common dog in the US by a longshot, and yet they account for no bite-related deaths in the CDC study.More recent studies use newspaper reports instead of humane society figures find the proportion of fatalities attributed to pit bulls to be closer to half. As you've correctly pointed out there is likely some media bias, but I don't think that can fully explain the extent of the disproportion.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you might be over reaching on this conclusion. Do you not go out on the streets because there are pit bulls lurking waiting to maul you ... I think not. There is definitely something wrong with the individuals who own them because they want a tough dog and they go about making the stereotypical "Pitt", but to say they are a persistant danger to you is an interesting way to word it. Maybe you can expand on this a little so we understand what you mean.
On the Venice boardwalk it's a thing now for the hispanic gang members to strut their pit bulls, in a display of toughness. They walk them around in chains, with huge testicles hanging down. It's very dangerous. Since I live very near to the boardwalk and I like to walk my own dogs there, it's something I have to be constantly concerned with. A few weeks ago I spotted one of these beasts ahead of me, and pulled my wife and dogs off onto a sidestreet. A few moments later the pit bull pounced on an innocent dog walking in the other direction. The woman of the victim was screaming her head off as several guys tried to wrestle the pit bull off of her dog. They couldn't get it off. Eventually someone grabbed a chair and whacked the dog on the head. After three full whacks it released and left the other dog seizing on the ground. This is not the first time I have seen this, we have a real safety issue around here with these dogs. I have never seen it happen with a poodle or a beagle. Like I said, I don't really care to what extent the behavior of these dogs is due to their training as opposed to their breeding, but I am sure that they are involved in both. Whether these breeds are being chosen because they are amenable to this lifestyle or vice-versa is a chicken-egg problem.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...