Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 07/27/2005 10:25:34 AM PDT by meandog
Actually, I find that a lot of small dog owners (toy poodles, Min-Pins, chihuahuas, etc.) do not discipline their dogs from growling, threatening, or even attacking -- I guess because they think it's "cute" or something. While I suppose they aren't capable of doing "serious" damage, a bite from even a small dog can be painful and for a small child fairly serious.
There's a poodle in our agility class that has a dog aggression problem. He'll probably never compete because of it. The rest of the class (except for a Jack Russell, who can take care of herself) is big dogs - Labs, two Dobes, a Border Collie. This stupid poodle has attacked them all. The bigger Dobe could bite the Poodle in half in one bite - but has restrained himself. The last time the poodle flew at my Lab, she had had enough and spun around and growled at him. He stopped dead in his tracks and seemed utterly surprised. His owner does very little to stop him - if he were mine he would have stopped this nonsense a long time ago or he would have taken a one-way trip to the vet's office. There's no excuse for aggressive dogs.
Want some truth? Go to: http://www.dogbitelaw.com
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
It doesn't need to be a "conspiracy" - just what I think has been called a "template" - the media types do tend to think alike and follow the leader, because they're all watching each other to see what sells ad time. Add the "if it bleeds it leads" idea, the liberal notion of throwing government regulation at any perceived problem, and the average reporter's pretty thorough ignorance about almost everything, and you get a trend, which reinforces itself.
Never attribute something to a conspiracy when stupidity and ignorance will explain it . . .
And, BTW, your "solid evidence" turned out to be pretty much a bust, even if we don't allow for the stupidity and ignorance (and perhaps mendacity) of the media.
Am I to believe that news organizations across the country have wittingly conspired to rid the country of the Pit Bull?
Credit where credit is due. In this case it is ignorance and laziness.
In this case it is ignorance and laziness.
...and the herd mentality.
The problem is that even in the early 80s, long before pit bulls truly took hold in the 'inner city' population, pit bulls were responsible for a greater share of fatal attacks than other breeds.
Now there are probably more pit bulls and fewer fatal attacks, proportionately speaking.
BTW, I don't think the media is 'beating a drum.' There is no great liberal crusade against pit bulls. Let's try to maintain objectivity and still discuss the facts here. I don't mind saying the ban is wrong, but let's not mischaracterize what is at the heart of the pit bull opponents.
Also, in many cases, the fatal attacks by other dog breeds involve a dog killing a small child IN THE HOUSE(or on the lawn) The fatal and serious bite cases involving pit-like dogs often involve them attacking innocent passers-by.
See post #42. Only takes about 5 minutes to read the whole site.
Attacked by poodle doesn't get covered because most likely a friend or family member was NIPPED by a GD poodle and not mauled in the face by one of the more aggressive, stronger breeds.
Dolt.
From data that I have seen, Rottweilers have always been the 'deadliest' dogs.
Shoot them on sight!
Seriously, wouldn't the smarter approach to this be OK you're free to have one of these dogs, but if "Fluffy" gets out, and turns someone into a super sized happy meal, you, the owner of "Fluffy" is charged at the same level as if it was you, the owner of the "harmless, lovable pet", who went out and treated an innocent as a chew toy?
If "Fluffy" kills someone, then, oh well, you're facing a Murder charge.
Mind you, "Fluffy" still gets the death penalty, but you, the owner faces prison time.
I meant to say this site only takes about 5 minutes. It is the "Statistics" page: http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html
Um, the site also has links to this. It's a guy who handles dog bite cases. Exactly what in the site refers to pit bulls bans specifically or breed bans or anything like that? The only thing I see is the researchers saying the dog owners in bites and fatal cases is the biggest cause. Though I also read of their cases where a dog not known to have bitten anyone killed a child(who knows the truth of the statements, I suppose):
Dogs provide many health and social benefits. Most of the approximately 70 million dogs in the United States never bite or kill humans. However, many people are indeed bitten and even killed by dogs every year. It is an unfortunate fact that some dogs are too dangerous.
From 1979 through 1994, attacks by dogs resulted in 279 deaths of humans in the United States. (Sacks JJ, Sattin RW, Bonzo SE. Dog bite-related fatalities from 1979 through 1988. JAMA 1989;262:1489-92; Sacks JJ, Lockwood R, Hornreich J, Sattin RW. Fatal dog attacks, 1989-1994. Pediatrics 1996; 97:891-5.) In the latter study, which covered six years, the researchers made these findings:
* There were 109 bite-related fatalities.
* 57% of the deaths were in children under 10 years of age.
* 81% of the attacks involved an unrestrained dog.
* 22% of the deaths involved an unrestrained dog OFF the owner's property.
* 59% of the deaths involved an unrestrained dog ON the owner's property.
* 18% of the deaths involved a restrained dog ON the owner's property.
* 10% of the dog bite attacks involved sleeping infants.
* The most commonly reported dog breeds involved were pit bulls (24 deaths), followed by rottweilers (16 deaths), and German shepherds (10 deaths).
That is true. According to the CDC, the deaths number of deaths have maintained at 15-20 per year while the number of annual dog bite incidents has skyrocketed.
I believe the American Kennel Club recognizes the Staffordshire Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Bull Terrier, and the American Bulldog as legitimate breeds. The so-called "pitbull" is most often a variation of some sort (mixed) of these breeds, often with Mastiff, Rotty, Dogo Argentine, etc. tossed in. I recognize the dog in Denver as being an Am-Staff or a big English Staff. If the law is to outlaw the mixed breed of the so-called pitbull, perhaps it could be enacted against particularly vicious animals (but only by experts identifying the animal as mixed-breed and vicious) but, if it is as blanketed a law as written, it is entirely an illegal statute IMHO.
Not sure what you mean by deadliest, if pit bulls are responsible for more fatal attacks. By proportion? Maybe, but then I don't know what the number of Rotts is to pit bulls and Rotts have recently become more popular with a certain crowd and their death numbers have gone up. Pit bulls, were they as popular in 1982 as they are now? Doubtful. Yet they were still responsible for the majority of deaths between 79-88.
Don't know about YOUR inner city, but OUR inner city had PB type dogs back in the 70s. Lots of them. Mean ones. Mostly owned by the drug dealers. (We lived in a bad neighborhood in the 70s.)
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.