Think that's bad,
how about those crazy ancient Minoans and their bull jumping...
Posted on 01/02/2007 8:54:10 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
Good for the bull, I say!
I think it will be....THE COMFY CHAIR!
I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a picture of a pitbull with bread on it's head?
Nicely done.
When they run in the streets in the city of Spain, I always root for the bulls to gore one of those stupid idiots.
Which is why, no matter how many times you insinuate it,
no one here is comparing dogs and guns.
Anyone with intelligence, and Freepers are all above average in intelligence,
knows that guns don't have brains and that dogs can act on their own volition.
What is being pointed out is an analogy between dog and gun ownership
and it hinges solely on the importance of responsible ownership.
Dog and gun owners both must maintain control of their property.
They both must ensure that their enjoyment of their property does not endanger others.
I've asked you in the past what your experience is with "pit bulls"
and have never had a reply.
In this post you state that you've had a "pitt" on a leash
and noted a reaction when "another big dog goes by".
Is it only big dogs that elict a reaction?
Are you saying "pitts" are big dogs? What do you call a big dog?
What are you saying the reaction is?
Are you saying, what no one denies, that "pit bulls" may exhibit dog aggression?
Are you saying a "pit bull" will necessarily be dog aggressive?
Have you attempted to train a "pit bull"?
Are you saying they are untrainable?
Have you never know a people friendly "pit bull"?
Are you saying that "pit bulls" are the only dogs that have a potential to attack a human
or that their propensity to do so is greater than other breed/types?
Where is the data for claiming they are the "#1 dog for attacking people"?
Is there anything in these stats to confirm that "pit bulls" are the #1 killer of children?
When you analysis dog attacks, fatal or otherwise,
do you take into account any other factors or only the breed/type?
What excuses are you talking about?
Think that's bad,
how about those crazy ancient Minoans and their bull jumping...
Bulldogs were bred for bull-baiting, not pit bulls. Any of the bully breeds can trace at least a portion of their breeding back to the bulldogs of yesterday. It is important to note that what you now know as an English Bulldog is a far cry from the animals that were used for bullbaiting, and modern bulldogs are notoriously sweet and loving animals, as are almost all other bully breeds (boxers, bullmastiffs, bull terriers, English bulldogs, etc.)
The reason pit bulls are so vicious is because they are the breed of choice for those who "enjoy" the "sport" of dogfighting. These redneck, white trash a-holes have bred dogs for success in the fighting ring: aggression, viciousness, and a killer instinct which translates into a high prey-drive. That's why this dogs seemingly "snap" from time to time and go after a small child or another dog. If you obtain a pit bull puppy and have every intention of treating it as a family pet, you cannot get pass the fact that these dogs have not been bred for a stable temperament and you may or may not have a ticking time bomb on your hand.
The American Stafforshire terrier is basically the AKC version of a pit bull, and an example what responsible breeding can produce. A formidable dog with a sweet disposition like other bully breeds.
Hi monday,
First off, I hope you didn't take my playing with bread personally.
I agree with most of what you posted just now
and I'm sure your working with "problems" dogs would give you
a certain perspective that I might not be able to share.
I realized early on when I began posting to these dog threads
that we don't all necessarily live in the same environment
or share the same experiences.
Some people live in neighborhoods where gang activity is high,
others might be close to where dog-fighting is an acute problem.
Personally I don't see that sort of problem.
Occasionally I'll see some young person with a dog off leash
and I have a slight awareness of someone in the city
who is breeding dogs in their basement
inspite of the ongoing ban on that activity.
All the owners I know, the large majority of whom are women,
are the epitome of responsible owners.
But as I say some people's experience may differ and I try to keep that in mind.
Some posters I believe really don't have much experience with these dogs
and much of what they know is gleaned from the media
which is notoriously inaccurate and prone to sensationalize.
Some are quick to blame the "breed" of the dog and leave it at that
without investigating the other relevant factors that went into the attack such as...
The sex of the dog
The reproductive status of the dog
Whether the dog had been chained or restrained
What use was the dog being used for..guarding, protection, fighting, image enhancement
Was there multiple dogs and therefore pack mentality involved
Was an unsupervised child involved
Were the owners irresponsible, was there gross neglect...
and thereby fail to learn all that can be done to prevent future dog attacks
I'll leave off with one example of an incident that was characterized in the media as...
"Family's two Pit bulls kill Hamtramck Girl"
"Family Pit bulls maul girl, 6, to death"
Reported as two "family" Pit bulls, with "no history of aggressive behavior"
and that the child had "known the dog since they were puppies".
Here's what following thorough investigation found...
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/studies.asp
Actually, the #1 dog for attacking people is not anywhere near the pit bull. The spot is shared by German Shepherds, Labs, and Cocker Spaniels. The "pit bull type" may be responsible for many deaths compared to other breeds, but it is also the most popular dog right now, right at about ten percent. Its bite stats, however, are at about one to three percent, making it one of the least likely to bite.
There is no arguing that many pit bulls are dog aggressive, but so are many other breeds, namely pretty much any terrier. But there is a huge difference between dog aggression and human aggression. Unlike people, dogs do not graduate from hurting pets to hurting people. Dog aggression is something that can easily be controlled with any breed, as long as the owner is educated on how to do so.
According to the standard for the breed, both from the AKC and UKC, the "courage is proverbial" and human aggression is unacceptable and not indicative of a well-bred pit bull. Occasionally in the past, dogmen have kept a human aggressive dog because it won many fights, but overall, the ones that showed aggression to people were quickly culled, even if they showed much promise in the fight ring.
Unfortunately, there are some breeders now trying to use other breeds to turn pit bulls into more of a guard dog, and there are also many people who have them and don't take care of them, which seem to be the only ones making news. You never hear about a pit bull from a veterinarian or animal behaviorist running amok. Mostly the ones doing the damage seem to have free run of the neighborhood, or are chained up their entire lives. Nearly all of them are intact.
There are many, many other large breeds that have had a similar "working history" as the pit bull, so the old debate about breeding for fighting means nothing. Most people who have poodles do not use them to retrieve in water, as was their original purpose and reason for the ridiculous grooming. Most people don't use their Rottweilers to pull carts, as was one of their original reasons for existence. And lastly, all the restaurants I have recently frequented have not had Chihuahua or Xoloitzcuintle on the menu, either. Most of these dogs are now pets, long having lost their duties to technology and more tasty animals.
You may have trained quite a few dogs, and from personal experience is probably where your opinion comes. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, the stats you spoke of are way off. It is much better to look at numbers and expert opinions from unbiased sources than it is to follow the media. The media is great at making money on tragedy, and they have a way of getting away with delivering the public misinformation when it comes to this subject because so few people actually know the truth, and rumors and myths are all you ever hear about.
Sorry..the link should be...http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/casestudies.asp
"A Lab is a big dog and well-armed."
Between 1982 and 2000 there were no deaths attributed to Labs in the US or Canada.
The same cannot be said for Pitts.
"Actually, the #1 dog for attacking people is not anywhere near the pit bull. The spot is shared by German Shepherds, Labs, and Cocker Spaniels. The "pit bull type" may be responsible for many deaths compared to other breeds, but it is also the most popular dog right now, right at about ten percent. Its bite stats, however, are at about one to three percent, making it one of the least likely to bite. "
Of 431 dog bite deaths between 1965 and 2001:
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).
The pitts are by far the most dangerous breed.
From http://www.fataldogattacks.com/statistics.html
Notice the "pit bull AND pit bull type" on this list. Notice also that this list is of deaths caused by breeds of dogs, and has nothing to do with bite statistics.
The worst fact is that "pit bull type" can mean anything even slightly resembling a pit bull, bull mastiff, am staff, american bulldog, boxer, shar pei, rhodesian ridgeback, ca de bou, catahoula bulldog, presa canario, cane corso, boerbel, thai ridgeback, labrador (yes, many, many times this has been the case), dogo argentino, dogue de bordeaux, bull terrier, staffordshire bull terrier, patterdale terrier, jack russell terrier, or any mix of any of these or anything else.
If the study had grouped all other breeds this way, no doubt "retriever type", "spitz type" and "herding type" would tie the "pit bull type" for nasty dog of the decade. Speaking of, in decades past, this was the case for many other powerful breeds, such as Rottweilers, Dobies, German Shepherds, Great Danes, and Chows. They have all had their time in the spotlight as the most vicious dog. None of them have bitten, attacked, or killed with any less frequency, but they have become less popular.
The information for these statistics has been gleaned from news articles, not from agencies with experts on hand to identify breeds. The CDC, who originally published the most comprehensive study done on deaths caused by dogs, doesn't anymore. Their reason is because there is no way to know which breed of dog is to blame on any case without registration papers, and since the media was their source, and they don't have any qualifications for identifying breed, nor do any witnesses, officers (including animal control), or paramedics, the entire study was extremely inaccurate.
The CDC published some words that no one reads alongside the numbers. They basically said that although it would appear that breed has something to do with the problem, the real, undeniable problem is with owner and child education and action. Dogs that aren't given the care they should have, including socialization and sterilization, tend to become aggressive, no matter what the breed. So if you have dogs that are strong being put on chains and becoming lawn trophies, or being kept intact for profit, you have a problem, no matter the breed.
Having said that, let's go back to the numbers that really matter: the percentage of dogs in a specific breed category that attack compared to dogs of the same breed that do not. In this case, pit bulls attack at exactly the same percentage as every other breed, which is roughly 0.000002%. That means that of the four to six million pit bulls alive today, only two one hundredths of a percent of them ever attack anyone. Why, that is the same percentage for Labs and Poodles.
When I was visiting that vet (female, btw), I had a great dane and a mastiff. We muzzled both. Not necessarily due to their attitude but mostly because if they bit it would be a major bite. We've had to put down both dogs now, but neither ever bit anyone.
Thanks for quote from Karen Delise, she has done some outstanding work.
While your quote does confirm solosmokes contention
that pit bull types are responsible for more fatal attacks than other breeds,
it would have been helpful if you had confirmed/disputed her other contention
that the type is one of the least likely to bite.
To argue that these stats prove that the "pitts"
are by far "the most dangerous breed"
is to draw an unwarranted conclusion.
That stats only prove that a "pit bull" is capable of killing a person
and that the nebulous "Pit bull and Pit bull type"
is associated with the greater number of fatalities over the time period studied.
Other factors such as the percentage of the total dog population
the type represents must be taken into account
before claiming any particular breed/type is the "most dangerous".
It is common sense that the larger a dog is the greater potential damage it can cause.
If you look at Karen Delise's listing of dogs involved in fatal attacks between 1995-99....
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/fatalattackstatistics.asp
or at the stats in your post
you will see that majority of fatal dog attacks were by dogs larger than "pit bulls".
Personally when I decide which dog is most dangerous
I ask myself which dog would I least like to be attack by.
A 50 or 60 pound pit bull" doesn't rank very high up
when I compare it to some of the 100-150 pound dogs out there.
It seems that any accurate determination of the inherent danger
of any dog must take into account its size.
Of course the size factor becomes less relevant as the size of the person decreases.
79% of all fatal attacks were on children under the age of 12
and 19% on children under 1 year of age.
Amazing that the age when the child is its most vulnerable
and should never be left unattended accounts for nearly a fifth of all fatalities.
btw, Just for sake of discussion Delise also lists a Lab and a Lab cross
as being involved in fatal attacks during 1997.
Her statement from your link is worth keeping in mind...
"While at times informative, statistics on fatal dog attacks can also be misleading. For example, a number of cases were a Pit Bull, Rottweiler or GSD were counted as causing a human fatality were in reality the direct result of gross human negligence or criminal intent (i.e. discarding a newborn in the yard where the dogs were kept, or cases of extremely emaciated animals, or cases were the dog was ordered or encouraged to attack the victim).
This study was conducted not to determine which breeds of dogs caused fatalities, but rather to examine the circumstances and events that precipitated an attack. Knowing how many Pit Bulls or Rottweilers caused a human fatality has little applicable value, only when examining each case individually can we hope to gain insight into the HUMAN and CANINE behaviors that contributed to these tragic events"
"To argue that these stats prove that the "pitts"
are by far "the most dangerous breed"
is to draw an unwarranted conclusion."
I made no conclusions, but if you want some, here are my conclusions:
Pit bulls are responsible for injuries and deaths far in excess of their numbers. When Pit bulls attack, the results are usually more severe than other breeds. Pit bulls are the deadliest breed.
All of my conclusions are supported by the facts over a long period of time.
On the anecdotal side, one of those, "wouldn't hurt a fly, never bit anybody" pit bulls suddenly, and without warning, decided that I looked like a threat while I was teaching a class in my computer lab. Its owner was sitting at one of the computers in the second row of the lab. The dog was under the desk, apparently sleeping. Fortunately for me, the owner was able to pull the dog back with the leash and drag the snarling dog out of the building.
The only other time I've had a problem with an animal in our building (we have an animal science department) was when a goat ripped my shirt with his horn in my office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.