More Headline Bias

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

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 people. 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.

FYP

[vbnautilus 48]

FYP

clearly its not that simple. Whats your proposed solution?

[dapokerbum 0]

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.

Ah. Sorry, you posted that it was a persistant danger to you, which I took to assume you meant that you were in constant danger from Pitbulls attacking you. It seems rather that the persistant danger is to your dog. I can understand that. We have a mini dachshund and anytime I see a meaner looking bigger dog (not just pitbulls mind you) I either switch sides of the street or pick him up as we walk by. Sometimes the other pet owners ask why and I just tell them that our dog has little man syndrome. He doesn't as he is the most cowardly dog in the world, I just wouldn't want anything to ever happen to him because my wife would be heartbroken.Another fun pitbull story. Years ago my friend's cousin (call him FC) had a pitbull. This was the nicest pitbull I had ever met and he was a great dog. Well FC came to visit my friend. At that time my friends roommate had just rescued a female dog who came from a rough past. She was a good dog, just very shy. Well FC came over with his pitt and locked eyes with the roommates dog and lunged out of FC's grip and got the other dog by the neck. We are all screaming and yelling for the dog to let go. FC evenutally found a snow shovel and had to whack the Pitt a handful of times before he broke the grip. The other dog was rushed to the vet and thankfully lived, but FC ponied up the dough for the vet visit (he is a good guy). It was crazy though.

[Balloon guy 158]

clearly its not that simple. Whats your proposed solution?

Talk to them about the love of atheism?

[dapokerbum 0]

clearly its not that simple. Whats your proposed solution?

Give people a license to own certain breeds of dogs?

[Balloon guy 158]

Give people a license to own certain breeds of dogs?

But let them have as many children as they want!

[dapokerbum 0]

But let them have as many children as they want!

You should be able to prove why you need to have more children if you are going to have more than 5. Unless of course you are going for the 5th child and end up having triplets

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

clearly its not that simple. Whats your proposed solution?

Give people a license to own certain breeds of dogs?

No.There are alternatives to Breed Specific legislation. You need to focus more on specific behaviors. For example less than 1% of Dog related fatalities were caused by leashed dogs off the owner's property. So enforcement of leash laws, especially in urban areas might be more effective.From the CDC study:

An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to regulate individual dogs and owners on the basis of their behavior. Although, it is not systematically reported, our reading of the fatal bite reports indicates that problem behaviors (of dogs and owners) have preceded attacks in a great many cases and should be sufficient evidence for preemptive action. Approaches to decreasing dangerous dog and owner behaviors are numerous. The potential importance of strong animal control programs is illustrated by our data; from 1979 through 1998, 24% of human DBRF were caused by owned dogs (typically more than 1) that were roaming off the owners’ property. Some deaths might have been averted through more stringent animal control laws and enforcement (eg, leash laws, fencing requirements). Although the bite prevention effectiveness of such animal control ordinances and programs has not been systematically evaluated, free-roaming dogs and dogs with menacing behavior are problems that need to be addressed even if they do not bite (eg, causing bicycle or car crashes).Generic non–breed-specific, dangerous dog laws can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a dog’s behavior on the owner, regardless of the dog’s breed. In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible dog owners may be effective. If dog owners are required to assume legal liability for the behavior and actions of their pets, they may be encouraged to seek professional help in training and socializing their pets. Other options include enforcing leash laws and laws against dog fighting. We noticed in the fatal cases, that less than one half of 1% of DBRF were caused by leashed animals off the owners’ property. Subdivisions and municipalities that outlaw fences or limit fences to heights insufficient for controlling large dogs may be increasing the probability of children interacting with unsupervised dogs. Scientific evaluations of the effects of such regulations are important.

[vbnautilus 48]

I don't think that is going to cut it. All of the dog attacks around here have involved "leashed" dogs. There is no way any human can control a the strength of some of these dogs when they attack. The city has opted for a ban of all dogs during daylight hours in summer months, which is equally unfair to all of us. It's a terrible solution. I don't see why species-specific is any different than breed-specific. You can't walk around with a tiger for instance.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I don't think that is going to cut it. All of the dog attacks around here have involved "leashed" dogs. There is no way any human can control a the strength of some of these dogs when they attack. The city has opted for a ban of all dogs during daylight hours in summer months, which is equally unfair to all of us. It's a terrible solution. I don't see why species-specific is any different than breed-specific. You can't walk around with a tiger for instance.

Because it isn't the breed. I don't know how else to put it. I can walk my Bella and be safe and responsible - so the breed CAN be effectively controlled and walked. Why should I be penalized because of the irresponsible actions of other people?I mean you seem to accept the CDC study as pretty reasonable but can't accept their conclusions?

[vbnautilus 48]

Because it isn't the breed. I don't know how else to put it. I can walk my Bella and be safe and responsible - so the breed CAN be effectively controlled and walked. Why should I be penalized because of the irresponsible actions of other people?I mean you seem to accept the CDC study as pretty reasonable but can't accept their conclusions?

Right, but there are some people who can walk around with a tiger and be safe and responsible. It's not just the people -- its the combination of certain people with certain animals that creates the danger. Give me the gang member with a bijon frise and I'll feel safer. ( Regarding the cdc report, I don't see why the data describing the danger and the recommendation of what to do about it need to be accepted or rejected together. )

[dapokerbum 0]

Right, but there are some people who can walk around with a tiger and be safe and responsible. It's not just the people -- its the combination of certain people with certain animals that creates the danger. Give me the gang member with a bijon frise and I'll feel safer. ( Regarding the cdc report, I don't see why the data describing the danger and the recommendation of what to do about it need to be accepted or rejected together. )

I'm pretty sure walking around with a Tiger is neither safe nor responsible for anyone's sake. Yes, they can be reasonably controlled, but that is usually in a controlled environment.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Because it isn't the breed. I don't know how else to put it. I can walk my Bella and be safe and responsible - so the breed CAN be effectively controlled and walked. Why should I be penalized because of the irresponsible actions of other people?I mean you seem to accept the CDC study as pretty reasonable but can't accept their conclusions?

I'll play Devil's Advocate to your position here so please don't take personal offense.What makes Pit like dogs so superior to other breeds when it comes to your pet ownership enjoyment. Why doesn't another breed cut it for you that you have to own a breed that in the hands of others has shown to be a large danger to people and other dogs.I would never advocate that you be forced to give up the current pets that you have but I think it would be totally resonable that minus a ban on the breed that they all should be muzzled and require special licensing and insurance to own and require spaying and neutering.Your personal freedom to own that specific breed shouldn't put others in danger.PS: some of the above I believe in.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I'll play Devil's Advocate to your position there so please don't take personal offense.What makes Pit like dogs so superior to other breeds when it comes to your pet ownership enjoyment. Why doesn't another breed cut it for you that you have to own a breed that in the hands of others has shown to be a large danger to people and other dogs.I would never advocate that you be forced to give up the current pets that you have but I think it would be totally resonable that minus a ban on the breed that they all should be muzzled and require special licensing and insurance to own and require spaying and neutering.Your personal freedom to own that specific breed shouldn't put others in danger.PS: some of the above I believe in.

First of all I still don't accept the premise that the dogs are inherently dangerous as a breed. Just because they are strong doesn't make them dangerous. I believe that the breed specific ban and the question "why do you want to own a Pit Bull?" is a slippery slope. Where do you stop? I think the pits are wonderful animals and pets. Just like some people want to own a Rottweiler or German Shepherd or yappy Pomeranian, I like the loyalty and personality of my Pit Bulls. I don't like Pomeranians. My personal freedom to own my dog - if executed responsibly - DOESN'T put others in danger. Just as me responsibly owning a gun doesn't put anyone in danger (you knew I'd have to bring up gun ownership eventually, didn't you? It is sort of a corollary to Godwin's Law).

[vbnautilus 48]

First of all I still don't accept the premise that the dogs are inherently dangerous as a breed. Just because they are strong doesn't make them dangerous. I believe that the breed specific ban and the question "why do you want to own a Pit Bull?" is a slippery slope. Where do you stop? I think the pits are wonderful animals and pets. Just like some people want to own a Rottweiler or German Shepherd or yappy Pomeranian, I like the loyalty and personality of my Pit Bulls. I don't like Pomeranians. My personal freedom to own my dog - if executed responsibly - DOESN'T put others in danger. Just as me responsibly owning a gun doesn't put anyone in danger (you knew I'd have to bring up gun ownership eventually, didn't you? It is sort of a corollary to Godwin's Law).

So you're OK with me owning a tiger as long as I believe I am responsible?

[dapokerbum 0]

So you're OK with me owning a tiger as long as I believe I am responsible?

Apples and Oranges

[vbnautilus 48]

Apples and Oranges

No, my point is that if we have an animal that has a history of being dangerous, yet someone claims they can own the animal without it being a danger to us, on what basis should we trust them? He's saying: it may be dangerous in their hands, but in mine it is safe. Siegfried and Roy were equally convinced that Manticore was a gentle creature.

[El Guapo 8]

I think BG made a good point about Dobermans being the Guard/Mean dog of choice 20+ years ago. Now it's pit bulls.The reason I like Pit Bulls is because they are actually one of the more mellow mild mannered dogs I have ever been around.Just the opposite of a Lab or Golden Retriever. Hell, my brother has a Rodegian Ridge Back and that dog is on crack, he has hurt my kids numerous times by jumping all over them.If you took any of the above dogs, and trained them to be killers, the would be just as deadly (well maybe not the retriever) to humans. The issue with Pit Bulls is the lock jaw (once they grab on, they tend not to let go), there are actually a lot of dogs with more pounds per square inch of pressure in the strength of their jaws.

[vbnautilus 48]

I think BG made a good point about Dobermans being the Guard/Mean dog of choice 20+ years ago. Now it's pit bulls.

Definitely an interesting cultural change, although I don't think the dobermans served quite the same function the pit bulls are serving now. For instance, Higgins was never going to have pit bulls guarding his Robin Master's estate, even in the 90's. The pit pull is not a guard dog, it's a social dominance dog.There's also a class difference -- doberman was a rich guy dog. Pit bull is a ghetto/gangster dog.

[El Guapo 8]

Both German Shepherds and Rottweilers are stronger and have a much worse temperament than Pitt's, but they are rarely trained to kill/maim. In fact Shepherds are the most common police dog, because of how well they can attack.Should they be banned as well?

[vbnautilus 48]

Both German Shepherds and Rottweilers are stronger and have a much worse temperament than Pitt's, but they are rarely trained to kill/maim. In fact Shepherds are the most common police dog, because of how well they can attack.Should they be banned as well?

I don't think I ever said that pit bulls should be banned. The CDC data find Rotweillers (44 deaths) to be next behind pit bull-types (76 deaths) in terms of fatalities. German Shephards are next on the list (27), but account for about 1/3 of the deaths compared to pit bulls. I am only making the point that there's nothing wrong with evaluating the safety of dogs based on their breeds. The whole reason we breed them is to produce dogs with different traits, and so it makes no sense that they would be equally safe. I think there's enough evidence to be concerned about pit bulls (and rotweillers).

[dapokerbum 0]

No, my point is that if we have an animal that has a history of being dangerous, yet someone claims they can own the animal without it being a danger to us, on what basis should we trust them? He's saying: it may be dangerous in their hands, but in mine it is safe. Siegfried and Roy were equally convinced that Manticore was a gentle creature.

There is a HUGE difference. First of all, I don't think you ever saw Siegfried and Roy cruising around their neighborhood with the Tigers on a leash. As I said before they are in a controlled environment which makes them "controllable" although we saw how well that worked out. Second of all, Tigers are wild animals who have a predatory instinct. No matter how much S&R try to bury that down, it is going to be there.

[El Guapo 8]

I am only making the point that there's nothing wrong with evaluating the safety of dogs based on their breeds. The whole reason we breed them is to produce dogs with different traits, and so it makes no sense that they would be equally safe. I think there's enough evidence to be concerned about pit bulls (and rotweillers).

OK, well maybe I was reading into what you were stating about the boardwalk. Is there any report on actual number of bites, because I recall a while back the full size poodles and chows were by far the two most aggressive dogs by the amount of bites/attacks they get in. They are just not deadly.

[vbnautilus 48]

There is a HUGE difference. First of all, I don't think you ever saw Siegfried and Roy cruising around their neighborhood with the Tigers on a leash. As I said before they are in a controlled environment which makes them "controllable" although we saw how well that worked out. Second of all, Tigers are wild animals who have a predatory instinct. No matter how much S&R try to bury that down, it is going to be there.

The controlled environment is a fair point (although it didn't ultimately protect Roy), but I don't see the difference whether the violent traits were instilled by natural vs. artificial selection.

[hblask 1]

are you thinking those people have no effect on the breeding (and that they are choosing poorly)? the customer demand doesn't affect the product? breeds differ in their temperament, behavior, and physical abilities that's why we breed them.

If you want to ban "mutts that have been crossbred to be particularly violent and are usually owned by violent people", I'm all for it. Good luck identifying them, though.The problem is that an amazingly wonderful breed, the AmStaff, is usually banned under these ridiculous laws, and if you get an AKC certified AmStaff, it will be no more violent than any other breed. In fact, the ones I've met are in general way way better than other breeds, because the breeders are very aware of their image and are actively trying to overturn it.In the hundreds (thousands?) of dogs we've boarded at our place, the worst breed, by far, is German Shepards. It's like they are all brain damaged. Second worst is Boxers. Start there. "Dogs that look like a violent dog we saw on TV one time" is not really a defensible legal category.