<!--quoteo(post=1660067:date=Nov 9 2007, 05:33 PM:name=pardzh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pardzh @ Nov 9 2007, 05:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660067"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Edit:</b> Also, Occam's Razor is LOL. The simplest answer is that God made pitbulls to be angry. Is that correct?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If by simplicity, you mean the least amount of words then yes. When you consider all the other reaches of logic that must be made to even consider god exists, it no longer becomes the simplest answer.
<!--quoteo(post=1653616:date=Oct 2 2007, 05:43 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Oct 2 2007, 05:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1653616"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This woman raised these dogs since puppies, and they slept in bed with her every single night.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that kind of delusion (personifying animals) reminds me of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427312/" target="_blank">Timothy Treadwell</a>. This woman was prone to (I at first wanted to say "allowed herself to") the same delusions and suffered the same fate.
my sister imagines herself to have a special bond with our family dogs. When I see her projecting love and empathy onto the blank expressions of the dogs I feel sad for her.
in 'Grizzly Man' Herzog expressed a very sober, cold view of our relationship with animals, similar to my own; this line from the film stuck with me and is applicable to the story of this woman
<blockquote>“What haunts me is that in all the faces of all the bears that Treadwell ever filmed, I discover no kinship, no understanding, no mercy, I see only the overwhelming indifference of nature. To me there’s not such a thing as the secret world of the bears. And this blank stare speaks only of a half-bored interest in food"</blockquote>
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1653866:date=Oct 3 2007, 05:51 PM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Oct 3 2007, 05:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1653866"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I wasn't trying to say that we should be putting down pitbulls left and right, it just came off that you were saying it's wasn't the dogs fault at all, and that only a bad owner would cause a dog to be dangerous. That's what I was trying to prove otherwise, I stand in the middle of the fence here. Pitbulls are more dangerous then your ordinary dog, but this doesn't justify their eradication that some people seem so keen on. Since in a proper environment they can be just like any other trained animal, that environment is just out of reach for the average person who will buy one. <b>Personally I think pitbulls should be added to the "dangerous animal" registry, and thus require a dangerous animal license (This is the license you need to keep things like poisonous snakes/lions/etc). If somebody really wants one, they can get one.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> QFT. <!--quoteo(post=1654093:date=Oct 4 2007, 03:12 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Align @ Oct 4 2007, 03:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654093"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They are more communicative than any other animal though, what with being bred for so long. For example, a dog confronted with a problem will look at its owner for assistance. Probably because the people who analyzed and studied the animals aren't the ones who end up in the media.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is only true if the owner actually has control over the dog. If the dog feels like it's in control it will do what it wants. <!--quoteo(post=1654339:date=Oct 6 2007, 03:16 AM:name=kyliegirl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kyliegirl @ Oct 6 2007, 03:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654339"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->sure we may have bred them into this world, but <b>if someone told you your most loved pet is on the most dangerous list.. would you kill your own loved pet, or take the chance..</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you want to own a dangerous that's your prerogative, but you should be informed of the danger ahead of time. I don't see what the problem is here. <!--quoteo(post=1654339:date=Oct 6 2007, 03:16 AM:name=kyliegirl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kyliegirl @ Oct 6 2007, 03:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654339"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->myself i would take the damned chance because i think every animal has the right to live like we do, and we dont have any right to say who can or cant live on this earth.. <b>no matter how the hell they came to be on this stupid planet.. </b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ignoring how pitbulls came to be on this planet is the problem. They were not bred to be pets and trying to put them in this role is where people run into problems. <!--quoteo(post=1654339:date=Oct 6 2007, 03:16 AM:name=kyliegirl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kyliegirl @ Oct 6 2007, 03:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654339"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>anyone who thinks they have any right to demolish a species on this planet is selfish and ignorant..</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The pitbull may or may not be a breed but it's certainly not a species unto itself. <!--quoteo(post=1660067:date=Nov 9 2007, 04:33 PM:name=pardzh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pardzh @ Nov 9 2007, 04:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660067"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You clearly have no idea as to the complexity of eukaryotic genetics.
I'm not arguing this one way or another, but don't try to dumb down something so infinitely complex to support your own side.
<b>Edit:</b> Also, Occam's Razor is LOL. The simplest answer is that God made pitbulls to be angry. Is that correct?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You don't have to know eukaryotic genetics to say a breed of dog that was bred for aggression is predisposed to aggression. There are always exceptions to the rule, but they are just that, exceptions.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
Wait, has that "pit bulls, as a specific breed, have maimed and killed more people than any other dog in the past __ years" study been posted in this thread yet?
I mean...
What more evidence do you need? I thought the fact that pit bulls have always f*d up more people, are currently f*ing up more people, and will continue to f* up more people than other breeds, was just that - a fact. An uncontested fact. Is it not?
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1660501:date=Nov 13 2007, 06:33 PM:name=Zig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zig @ Nov 13 2007, 06:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660501"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wait, has that "pit bulls, as a specific breed, have maimed and killed more people than any other dog in the past __ years" study been posted in this thread yet?
I mean...
What more evidence do you need? I thought the fact that pit bulls have always f*d up more people, are currently f*ing up more people, and will continue to f* up more people than other breeds, was just that - a fact. An uncontested fact. Is it not?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That "study" is flawed <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
It was done by one person going through newspapers for reports of dog attacks, so the study shows that Pits are the most commonly reported on (by the news) dog attacks, nothing more, nothing less.
To continue that, look at the link depot first posted, the news report says "Red boned pit bull", aka something that doesn't exist. Yes, the video correctly states "Red Nosed" But this is just to give you a very quick explanation for why the study is only as good as it is.
Said it before, I will say it again: I have yet to see anything that SHOWS pits are more dangerous then any other breed (assuming we are calling pits a breed, which they really are not. They are more like 3 or 4 very closely related breeds).
However, I still believe that We should have dog licenses, much like we have car licenses. Different types for different breeds/types of dogs. They require you to pass a test, and can be revoked.
For a toy dog you only have to prove that you know how to care for a dog.
For a medium sized dog license you have to show that you know how to properly train, handle, and control such a dog.
For a Large/Dangerous license you must show the same as medium, but with more so.
I also believe that ALL people should go through basic animal handling classes in school, much like we all have to get sex ed/gym/whatever, we should also know HOW to interact with animals (be they domestic or wild).
Note, I own a a Husk mut (we are rather sure Husky is her dominant, though it could be a different Spitz). Huskies have the label of dangerous, and quasi well earned. They look like wolves, sometimes look rather dangerous and DO have a genetic disposition to irrational violence (much like Cocker Spaniels).
I received, and was put in charge of training Lucy, at age 13 (she is now going on 11 or 12). When we first got her I went through obedience training with her (not my first dog, but the first dog I trained). She was also rather psychotic (I assume she was mistreated before we got her from the pound), and repeatedly attempted to attack me (who massed about the same as her at the time) as well as other people.
She has never bitten a single person or dog (or anything for that matter).
why?
Because my family can control her, because we know wth we are doing. At this point I trust her with small children.
It isn't the breed. It is the owner.
Unfortunately, there are obviously exceptions, and there are dogs that have to be Killed (I hate the term destroyed or put down) because they ARE ill. A dog with rage is no different from a dog with rabies, and both must be killed.
It was done by one person going through newspapers for reports of dog attacks, so the study shows that Pits are the most commonly reported on (by the news) dog attacks, nothing more, nothing less.
To continue that, look at the link depot first posted, the news report says "Red boned pit bull", aka something that doesn't exist. Yes, the video correctly states "Red Nosed" But this is just to give you a very quick explanation for why the study is only as good as it is.
It isn't the breed. It is the owner.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that is the only "flaw <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />" of the study, then I don't see how it supports your view at all. It's a no brainer that the press won't report nips/single non-serious bites, but those hardly matter since it just makes the study show that pitbulls have a much higher chance to do press-worthy damage in an attack. Unless you are implying that pitbull attacks, even minor ones (ones we assumed if committed by another dog would go un-noticed) are over 100x more likely to get reported... Well if that's the case then using logic for this argument seems to be a waste on my part.
What does the news report messing up a single word have to do with anything?
I won't argue that the owner has nothing to do with how the dog acts, but to say that a breed of dog has nothing to do with its agression is just... well it's idiotic. There are so many factors controlled by the genetics of the animal, to imply that none of them could affect it's capacity for violence is just ridiculous.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
red bone is a different breed of dog entirely <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
It was just an example to show how a study that simply uses newspaper clippings can be easily flawed.
Basically, I approve of the scientific method, and this shows a correlation between pits and attacks, but not an actual causation as the study does NOT take into account a good number of other variables, such as:
People who BUY pits are often the exact type of people that should NOT be allowed to own dogs. Often people buy a pit because it 'looks mean' and they expect it to be vicious, and often train it to be. Continuing on that line: it is often thought, by this type of person, that they should not spay/neuter the dogs. Now we have a possibility for an increase in strays (unwanted puppies often end up as strays). Strays form packs, packs have no human alpha, and thus no control on basic instincts, thus stray packs are more dangerous.
Again, these are just some quick ways to punch holes in the study. (This is a pet peeve of mine, as this study is not real science, it is simply collecting some numbers from newspaper clippings).
Again, I am not saying that Pits are necessarily NOT more dangerous, I don't know, I am just saying that there is no proof.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited November 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1660537:date=Nov 14 2007, 07:52 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Nov 14 2007, 07:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660537"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Again, I am not saying that Pits are necessarily NOT more dangerous, I don't know, I am just saying that there is no proof.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There certainly is proof, you just choose to reject that proof on what you feel to be valid discrepancies in the report and I happen to view as semantic differences. Also, I think your logic is a bit circular. Yes owners looking to buy an aggressive dog will train it as such. Pits and Rotts are selected by these owners not out of chance, but because they are easier to train this way.
I have to agree that newspaper clippings are not the best source material for a 'scientific' study on pit bull attacks. I could run a 'scientific' study that proves the most common causes of death in the US are cops getting shot and home invasions, because that's practically all they print in the news. They might not report a golden retriever mauling someone to death, but they might report a pit bull, because then they can tie the story into public fear of pit bulls, and fear = ratings.
I actually agree that pit bulls are probably more genetically predisposed to violence; just doesn't sound like this is a good way to prove it.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
edited November 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1660552:date=Nov 14 2007, 10:09 AM:name=DiscoZombie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DiscoZombie @ Nov 14 2007, 10:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660552"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->grats on 1000 =p
I have to agree that newspaper clippings are not the best source material for a 'scientific' study on pit bull attacks. I could run a 'scientific' study that proves the most common causes of death in the US are cops getting shot and home invasions, because that's practically all they print in the news. They might not report a golden retriever mauling someone to death, but they might report a pit bull, because then they can tie the story into public fear of pit bulls, and fear = ratings.
I actually agree that pit bulls are probably more genetically predisposed to violence; just doesn't sound like this is a good way to prove it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I see your point, but I think they would print a golden mauling something for the same reason. "You're Kids Aren't Safe! Golden Retriever Rampage! EVERYBODY PANIC!". I suspect that would get a lot more attention than a pit bull attack. This one was notable because "she raised them from pups and slept in the same bed as them". Basically, I don't believe there is a bias in newspaper articles regarding dog attacks. You're entitled to your opinion of course.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1660553:date=Nov 14 2007, 10:44 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Nov 14 2007, 10:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660553"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I see your point, but I think they would print a golden mauling something for the same reason. "You're Kids Aren't Safe! Golden Retriever Rampage! EVERYBODY PANIC!". I suspect that would get a lot more attention than a pit bull attack. This one was notable because "she raised them from pups and slept in the same bed as them". Basically, I don't believe there is a bias in newspaper articles regarding dog attacks. You're entitled to your opinion of course.
edit: Typo<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What I am trying to show is that it is a flawed study and only shows what it shows (that the largest number of news reports on dog attacks have to do with Pits).
I am not saying that pits are no more violent then any other 'breed', but I am also not saying that they are more violent. There is a study that correlates pits to violent attacks, but then again, I can scrounge up a study that shows a correlation between food prices and gas prices, in REVERSE (a rise in food prices dictates that there will shortly be a rise in gasoline price). Or to quote one of my favorite lines: Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics.
The study shows that "Pit bulls" are likely more aggressive then other 'breeds', but then again, define Pit bull for me (hint, you can't). There is obviously the "American Pit Bull Terrier", but that only exists in the UKC (AKC does not admit that it is a breed). However "Pit Bull" covers a good number of other breeds and mutts as well.
All I am really arguing is that every one who is going off on the "Kill all pits" is going off half cocked with out the facts (or bad ones).
and trust me, I could turn a Golden into a killing machine, far more dangerous then a Pit bull simply by dint of size.
I agree that somethign SHOULD be done, and I listed out my idea: registration and licensing, just like any other dangerous item.
A revised version would include somethign on Mutts along the lines of "Mixed breed dogs fall under the Large/Dangerous category unless their parents are identified, in which case the animal is classified as the greater of the 2". This isn't 100% correct as there should be some stipulation for dogs that are not likely to show aggressive tendencies (say one that looks like a chihuahua mixed with a miniature wiener dog).
Again, Killing off a breed of dogs with no real reason is silly. Legislation that basically does the same thing (make them illegal)? Still silly. Legislation that makes sure that owners are prepared and competent to care for a dog (any dog)? Makes sense to me.
Honestly I think that Animal licenses in general are a good idea. Some one wants to own something strange and possibly dangerous? Why not, so long as the can prove the are capable of caring for and controlling it.
The killing off was retracted some time ago, why are you still arguing against that?
I'm not really interested in studies but that doesn't matter, since no accurate ones exist. People act / react on perception, which is why there is now three times as many pit bulls in the local humane societies as there was before this lady died. Warranted or not the public is becoming less tolerant of this "breed".
the tone of the argument here is closer to an acrimonious Thanksgiving get-together (each attempt at making a point is laced with personal attack) than it is a rational debate
trying to read this reminds me of what it's like being around people who don't belong around each other
Comments
I'm not arguing this one way or another, but don't try to dumb down something so infinitely complex to support your own side.
<b>Edit:</b> Also, Occam's Razor is LOL. The simplest answer is that God made pitbulls to be angry. Is that correct?
If by simplicity, you mean the least amount of words then yes. When you consider all the other reaches of logic that must be made to even consider god exists, it no longer becomes the simplest answer.
that kind of delusion (personifying animals) reminds me of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427312/" target="_blank">Timothy Treadwell</a>. This woman was prone to (I at first wanted to say "allowed herself to") the same delusions and suffered the same fate.
my sister imagines herself to have a special bond with our family dogs. When I see her projecting love and empathy onto the blank expressions of the dogs I feel sad for her.
in 'Grizzly Man' Herzog expressed a very sober, cold view of our relationship with animals, similar to my own; this line from the film stuck with me and is applicable to the story of this woman
<blockquote>“What haunts me is that in all the faces of all the bears that Treadwell ever filmed, I discover no kinship, no understanding, no mercy, I see only the overwhelming indifference of nature. To me there’s not such a thing as the secret world of the bears. And this blank stare speaks only of a half-bored interest in food"</blockquote>
QFT.
<!--quoteo(post=1654093:date=Oct 4 2007, 03:12 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Align @ Oct 4 2007, 03:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654093"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They are more communicative than any other animal though, what with being bred for so long. For example, a dog confronted with a problem will look at its owner for assistance.
Probably because the people who analyzed and studied the animals aren't the ones who end up in the media.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is only true if the owner actually has control over the dog. If the dog feels like it's in control it will do what it wants.
<!--quoteo(post=1654339:date=Oct 6 2007, 03:16 AM:name=kyliegirl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kyliegirl @ Oct 6 2007, 03:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654339"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->sure we may have bred them into this world, but <b>if someone told you your most loved pet is on the most dangerous list.. would you kill your own loved pet, or take the chance..</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you want to own a dangerous that's your prerogative, but you should be informed of the danger ahead of time. I don't see what the problem is here.
<!--quoteo(post=1654339:date=Oct 6 2007, 03:16 AM:name=kyliegirl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kyliegirl @ Oct 6 2007, 03:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654339"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->myself i would take the damned chance because i think every animal has the right to live like we do, and we dont have any right to say who can or cant live on this earth.. <b>no matter how the hell they came to be on this stupid planet.. </b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ignoring how pitbulls came to be on this planet is the problem. They were not bred to be pets and trying to put them in this role is where people run into problems.
<!--quoteo(post=1654339:date=Oct 6 2007, 03:16 AM:name=kyliegirl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kyliegirl @ Oct 6 2007, 03:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1654339"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>anyone who thinks they have any right to demolish a species on this planet is selfish and ignorant..</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The pitbull may or may not be a breed but it's certainly not a species unto itself.
<!--quoteo(post=1660067:date=Nov 9 2007, 04:33 PM:name=pardzh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pardzh @ Nov 9 2007, 04:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660067"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You clearly have no idea as to the complexity of eukaryotic genetics.
I'm not arguing this one way or another, but don't try to dumb down something so infinitely complex to support your own side.
<b>Edit:</b> Also, Occam's Razor is LOL. The simplest answer is that God made pitbulls to be angry. Is that correct?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't have to know eukaryotic genetics to say a breed of dog that was bred for aggression is predisposed to aggression. There are always exceptions to the rule, but they are just that, exceptions.
I mean...
What more evidence do you need? I thought the fact that pit bulls have always f*d up more people, are currently f*ing up more people, and will continue to f* up more people than other breeds, was just that - a fact. An uncontested fact. Is it not?
I mean...
What more evidence do you need? I thought the fact that pit bulls have always f*d up more people, are currently f*ing up more people, and will continue to f* up more people than other breeds, was just that - a fact. An uncontested fact. Is it not?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That "study" is flawed <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
It was done by one person going through newspapers for reports of dog attacks, so the study shows that Pits are the most commonly reported on (by the news) dog attacks, nothing more, nothing less.
To continue that, look at the link depot first posted, the news report says "Red boned pit bull", aka something that doesn't exist. Yes, the video correctly states "Red Nosed" But this is just to give you a very quick explanation for why the study is only as good as it is.
Said it before, I will say it again:
I have yet to see anything that SHOWS pits are more dangerous then any other breed (assuming we are calling pits a breed, which they really are not. They are more like 3 or 4 very closely related breeds).
However, I still believe that We should have dog licenses, much like we have car licenses. Different types for different breeds/types of dogs. They require you to pass a test, and can be revoked.
For a toy dog you only have to prove that you know how to care for a dog.
For a medium sized dog license you have to show that you know how to properly train, handle, and control such a dog.
For a Large/Dangerous license you must show the same as medium, but with more so.
I also believe that ALL people should go through basic animal handling classes in school, much like we all have to get sex ed/gym/whatever, we should also know HOW to interact with animals (be they domestic or wild).
Note, I own a a Husk mut (we are rather sure Husky is her dominant, though it could be a different Spitz). Huskies have the label of dangerous, and quasi well earned. They look like wolves, sometimes look rather dangerous and DO have a genetic disposition to irrational violence (much like Cocker Spaniels).
I received, and was put in charge of training Lucy, at age 13 (she is now going on 11 or 12). When we first got her I went through obedience training with her (not my first dog, but the first dog I trained). She was also rather psychotic (I assume she was mistreated before we got her from the pound), and repeatedly attempted to attack me (who massed about the same as her at the time) as well as other people.
She has never bitten a single person or dog (or anything for that matter).
why?
Because my family can control her, because we know wth we are doing. At this point I trust her with small children.
It isn't the breed. It is the owner.
Unfortunately, there are obviously exceptions, and there are dogs that have to be Killed (I hate the term destroyed or put down) because they ARE ill. A dog with rage is no different from a dog with rabies, and both must be killed.
bah.
My 2 cp.
It was done by one person going through newspapers for reports of dog attacks, so the study shows that Pits are the most commonly reported on (by the news) dog attacks, nothing more, nothing less.
To continue that, look at the link depot first posted, the news report says "Red boned pit bull", aka something that doesn't exist. Yes, the video correctly states "Red Nosed" But this is just to give you a very quick explanation for why the study is only as good as it is.
It isn't the breed. It is the owner.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that is the only "flaw <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />" of the study, then I don't see how it supports your view at all. It's a no brainer that the press won't report nips/single non-serious bites, but those hardly matter since it just makes the study show that pitbulls have a much higher chance to do press-worthy damage in an attack. Unless you are implying that pitbull attacks, even minor ones (ones we assumed if committed by another dog would go un-noticed) are over 100x more likely to get reported... Well if that's the case then using logic for this argument seems to be a waste on my part.
What does the news report messing up a single word have to do with anything?
I won't argue that the owner has nothing to do with how the dog acts, but to say that a breed of dog has nothing to do with its agression is just... well it's idiotic. There are so many factors controlled by the genetics of the animal, to imply that none of them could affect it's capacity for violence is just ridiculous.
It was just an example to show how a study that simply uses newspaper clippings can be easily flawed.
Basically, I approve of the scientific method, and this shows a correlation between pits and attacks, but not an actual causation as the study does NOT take into account a good number of other variables, such as:
People who BUY pits are often the exact type of people that should NOT be allowed to own dogs.
Often people buy a pit because it 'looks mean' and they expect it to be vicious, and often train it to be.
Continuing on that line: it is often thought, by this type of person, that they should not spay/neuter the dogs. Now we have a possibility for an increase in strays (unwanted puppies often end up as strays).
Strays form packs, packs have no human alpha, and thus no control on basic instincts, thus stray packs are more dangerous.
Again, these are just some quick ways to punch holes in the study. (This is a pet peeve of mine, as this study is not real science, it is simply collecting some numbers from newspaper clippings).
Again, I am not saying that Pits are necessarily NOT more dangerous, I don't know, I am just saying that there is no proof.
There certainly is proof, you just choose to reject that proof on what you feel to be valid discrepancies in the report and I happen to view as semantic differences.
Also, I think your logic is a bit circular. Yes owners looking to buy an aggressive dog will train it as such. Pits and Rotts are selected by these owners not out of chance, but because they are easier to train this way.
Edit: 1,000th post
I have to agree that newspaper clippings are not the best source material for a 'scientific' study on pit bull attacks. I could run a 'scientific' study that proves the most common causes of death in the US are cops getting shot and home invasions, because that's practically all they print in the news. They might not report a golden retriever mauling someone to death, but they might report a pit bull, because then they can tie the story into public fear of pit bulls, and fear = ratings.
I actually agree that pit bulls are probably more genetically predisposed to violence; just doesn't sound like this is a good way to prove it.
I have to agree that newspaper clippings are not the best source material for a 'scientific' study on pit bull attacks. I could run a 'scientific' study that proves the most common causes of death in the US are cops getting shot and home invasions, because that's practically all they print in the news. They might not report a golden retriever mauling someone to death, but they might report a pit bull, because then they can tie the story into public fear of pit bulls, and fear = ratings.
I actually agree that pit bulls are probably more genetically predisposed to violence; just doesn't sound like this is a good way to prove it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see your point, but I think they would print a golden mauling something for the same reason. "You're Kids Aren't Safe! Golden Retriever Rampage! EVERYBODY PANIC!". I suspect that would get a lot more attention than a pit bull attack. This one was notable because "she raised them from pups and slept in the same bed as them". Basically, I don't believe there is a bias in newspaper articles regarding dog attacks. You're entitled to your opinion of course.
edit: Typo
edit: Typo<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I am trying to show is that it is a flawed study and only shows what it shows (that the largest number of news reports on dog attacks have to do with Pits).
I am not saying that pits are no more violent then any other 'breed', but I am also not saying that they are more violent. There is a study that correlates pits to violent attacks, but then again, I can scrounge up a study that shows a correlation between food prices and gas prices, in REVERSE (a rise in food prices dictates that there will shortly be a rise in gasoline price). Or to quote one of my favorite lines: Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics.
The study shows that "Pit bulls" are likely more aggressive then other 'breeds', but then again, define Pit bull for me (hint, you can't). There is obviously the "American Pit Bull Terrier", but that only exists in the UKC (AKC does not admit that it is a breed). However "Pit Bull" covers a good number of other breeds and mutts as well.
All I am really arguing is that every one who is going off on the "Kill all pits" is going off half cocked with out the facts (or bad ones).
and trust me, I could turn a Golden into a killing machine, far more dangerous then a Pit bull simply by dint of size.
I agree that somethign SHOULD be done, and I listed out my idea: registration and licensing, just like any other dangerous item.
A revised version would include somethign on Mutts along the lines of "Mixed breed dogs fall under the Large/Dangerous category unless their parents are identified, in which case the animal is classified as the greater of the 2". This isn't 100% correct as there should be some stipulation for dogs that are not likely to show aggressive tendencies (say one that looks like a chihuahua mixed with a miniature wiener dog).
Again, Killing off a breed of dogs with no real reason is silly. Legislation that basically does the same thing (make them illegal)? Still silly.
Legislation that makes sure that owners are prepared and competent to care for a dog (any dog)? Makes sense to me.
Honestly I think that Animal licenses in general are a good idea. Some one wants to own something strange and possibly dangerous? Why not, so long as the can prove the are capable of caring for and controlling it.
I'm not really interested in studies but that doesn't matter, since no accurate ones exist. People act / react on perception, which is why there is now three times as many pit bulls in the local humane societies as there was before this lady died. Warranted or not the public is becoming less tolerant of this "breed".
trying to read this reminds me of what it's like being around people who don't belong around each other