Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Yet another Pitt Bull attack (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter pantherclub
- Start date
Zow
Footballguy
Fido has already gotten me. Many times. Never been jumped when running, but been bitten, chased, and barked at on a regular basis.Wow.I was going to ask if you have a ######, but then I realized women aren't even scared of dogs. Watch out for Fido when you're out a run next time. He's gunning for you.
Otis
Footballguy
Not all by themselves.and agreed.
Capella
Footballguy
Barked atFido has already gotten me. Many times. Never been jumped when running, but been bitten, chased, and barked at on a regular basis.Wow.I was going to ask if you have a ######, but then I realized women aren't even scared of dogs. Watch out for Fido when you're out a run next time. He's gunning for you.
Good lord I hope you're kidding. You sound like a first-class ##### here.
Chaka
Footballguy
Dog barkingBarked atFido has already gotten me. Many times. Never been jumped when running, but been bitten, chased, and barked at on a regular basis.Wow.
Watch out for Fido when you're out a run next time. He's gunning for you.
Last edited by a moderator:
What's with the personal attacks? That's two posts in a row.Or is this just you playing a tough guy?Barked atFido has already gotten me. Many times. Never been jumped when running, but been bitten, chased, and barked at on a regular basis.Wow.I was going to ask if you have a ######, but then I realized women aren't even scared of dogs. Watch out for Fido when you're out a run next time. He's gunning for you.
Capella
Footballguy
You don't have to be a tough guy to tell a dude who is scared of a dog barking that he's a #####.What's with the personal attacks? That's two posts in a row.Or is this just you playing a tough guy?Barked atFido has already gotten me. Many times. Never been jumped when running, but been bitten, chased, and barked at on a regular basis.Wow.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
I imagine those who have been shot jump at the sound of a gun shot in their direction.Barked atFido has already gotten me. Many times. Never been jumped when running, but been bitten, chased, and barked at on a regular basis.Wow.
Cleo Taurus
Footballguy
WOOF!!!I imagine those who have been shot jump at the sound of a gun shot in their direction.Barked atFido has already gotten me. Many times. Never been jumped when running, but been bitten, chased, and barked at on a regular basis.Wow.
Watch out for Fido when you're out a run next time. He's gunning for you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Crimson Hawk
Axis of Evel
Chaka
Footballguy
You are making things up. Between 20-30 fatalities are caused by dog attacks in America every year.Not sure how you define rare but 8.3x10-8% chance of a fatal dog attack seems pretty rare to me.
Chairshot
Footballguy
Yes, and the deputy certainly seemed to have a mountain of evidence to back up his claim...The point wasn't to say which dog attacks more, the point was to illustrate that Poms (a breed that I didn't bring into the conversation, by the way) can attack just like any other dog.
Setting aside that "pit bull type" isn't actually a breed of dog and that it's notoriously difficult for the average person to even identify a American Pit Bull Terrier out of a lineup (making *many* of these media stories highly questionable), the point is this: no one has come within a million miles of proving that any dog has a predisposition to randomly attack humans. If someone claims to, I'd be happy to look over the data.
So, absent of that proof, it's absolutely ridiculous for anyone to make the claim that a APBT or any other dog is going to attack a human or that they are like loaded guns or that they are more likely to hurt a kid then any other dog. Virtually every reliable study we have shows that ABPTs are loving, loyal, safe pets.
If your point is that a APBT is a strong dog, ok, fair enough. Then we are looking at a number of strong breeds, because there are plenty of dogs that are just as strong, if not stronger, then APBT.
If you point is that a APBT is a killer and going to eat your neighborhood, then you need to do a lot more than type a post on a message board to make it true.
Facts are, APBTs make great pets, they have for years. There are millions of them in this country. The number of incidents we have compared to the number of dogs is so small it's barely worth discussion.
Don't leave your kid alone with any dog. Use caution around any dog you don't know. Take advantage of the local authorities if any dog is terrorizing your neighborhood. But don't fool yourself into thinking that the solution is banning the breed or wiping them out. It won't make anyone any safer. The communities that have done so haven't proved to be any safer.
Work with your local government to make sure you have a strong dangerous dog law on the books and force any of your neighbors to abide by it, just like you would with any other safe neighborhood initiative. It's really that simple. It's just common sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
Can you find any stats regarding how many people are seriously injured each year by dogs? Merely using "fatalities" ignores the entire travesty of a person being seriously hurt by these vicious animals and is a straw-man argument for showing that dog attacks aren't a serious concern for society. I imagine fatalities are rare not because attacks are rare, but because there are rational humans around to get the dog off, the victim is fighting back and is somewhat successful, and a dog's biting attack to kill would take several moments if it isn't fortunate enough to hit a main artery.
You are of course correct. Just as I was 3 years ago when we had this identical discussion. Sadly, the facts won't change most people's minds, because their ideas aren't rooted in fact. As Woz has so conveniently and consistently pointed out throughout this thread, they're rooted in fear and ignorance. You have people advocating for the elimination of an entire breed based on something that happens far less frequently than death by lightning strike, and it's not even worth their time to investigate places that have gotten rid of the breed to see that their proposed "solution" flatly doesn't work.
You have a curious definition of rare. Would being killed by lightning qualify as being rare, cause that happens about 10x more/year than fatal pit bull attacks do.
Why would it matter to you? I've already provided you with evidence that shows pretty clearly that getting rid of Pit Bulls over the course of a decade doesn't decrease the number of attacks or fatalities. Your hypothesis - that eliminating Pit Bulls would make the world safer - has been tested and it failed. Because exactly what I suggested would happen, did happen. The idiots actually responsible for the attacks just got different big strong dogs. And there are lots of bigger, stronger dogs than Pit Bulls.
TexanFan02
Footballguy
You mean the study done by a company that sells pet insurance to push it's product? That the best you've got?
How many would you like? Breed-Specific Legislation in the United States by Linda S. Weiss, Michigan State University College of Law (2001)
Conclusions: Breed-specific legislation is not an effective approach for regulating dogs' behavior in communities. Although such bans might comfort individuals who have had unpleasant experiences with particular breeds or have heard of attacks by specific dog breeds in the media, the bans do not act to effectively regulate the behavior of any breed or of dogs and their owners collectively.
Practicality Of Breed Specific Legislation In Reducing Or Eliminating Dog Attacks On Humans And Dogs.
Conclusions: Breed specific legislation is not a practicable approach to regulation of dogs...A more direct approach is to regulate the behavior.
ATTACKING THE DOG-BITE EPIDEMIC: WHY BREED-SPECIFIC LEGISLATION WON'T SOLVE THE DANGEROUS-DOG DILEMMA
Conclusions: Aided by strict enforcement and breed-neutral supplemental legislation, dangerous-dog laws can effectively and efficiently provide a solution to the dog-bite epidemic.
The Cost to People, Pets and Veterinarians, and the Damage to the Human-Animal Bond
There is so much behavioral variability within each breed, and even more within breed mixes, that we cannot reliably predict a dog's behavior or suitability based on breed alone.
Why Breed-Specific Legislation Doesn't Work by Jennifer Clark, AKC Government Relations Administrator
If a community truly wants to fix the problem of dangerous dogs, then it needs to abandon the idea of breed-specific legislation.
Position Statement on Breed-Specific Legislation by the ASPCA
Following enactment of a 1990 Pit Bull ban in Winnipeg, Canada, Rottweiler bites increased dramatically (Winnipeg reported bite statistics, 1984-2003). By contrast, following Winnipeg's enactment of a breed-neutral dangerous dog law in 2000, Pit Bull bites remained low and both Rottweiler and total dog bites decreased significantly (Winnipeg reported bite statistics, 1984-2003).
Breed-specific legislation and the pit bull terrier: Are the laws justified? by Stephen Collier, PhD, Journal of Veterinary Behavior (2006) 1, 17-22
The evidence does not sustain the view that the pit bull terrier is a uniquely dangerous breed, and breed-specific laws aimed to control it have not been demonstrated. Legislation directed against the group of breeds with the worst bite records would be unlikely to affect bite frequencies for long, as even with rigorous and effective enforcement, there are many other breeds’ individuals of which irresponsible owners could render dangerous.
Report to the NSW Department of Local Government on breed specific legislation issues relating to control of dangerous dogs
The UK has data on dog attacks and dog bites pre and post implementation of breed specific legislation. There was no difference in the incidence of dog bites with 73% of all bites requiring medical attention being due to dogs both before and after implementation of the legislation.
Those are reports from the UK, Canada, Australia...all reporting the same things. There is no basis in fact, data, or logic for enacting breed specific legislation, and everywhere such legislation has been enacted, it's failed.
Chaka
Footballguy
No you are making a point of trying to get a rise out of people by suggesting something that is blatantly cruel and you would have no part of if given the opportunity. You lack the intestinal fortitude to do the job you claim you want done.With a moral compass like yours it's a wonder you can find your ####### with both hands.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
You can have my Pit Bull when you pry him from that cold, dead, child!
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
O.K., I admit it, that was cheap.
I laughed.
Chaka
Footballguy
Me too.I laughed.
prosopis
Arizona Chupacabra
The above is the exact description I hear when seeing a kid that has been bit. Always ends with we dont understand it he was the best dog. Mean while we are stitching jrs face hope and hoping to save an eye.
Blame people who chain them to trees, antagonize them, neglect them and/or teach them to be aggressive. Pits are the best, most lovable, most well-behaved, loyal dogs around. In the hands of anybody but the worst owners they are ideal pets.
prosopis
Arizona Chupacabra
That 90% will make that statement the day after their creature snapped.
Crimson Hawk
Axis of Evel
We have one known incident of a Pom killing a child. That is rare compared to the number of people killed by "pit bull type" dogs over the years.Eliminating the breed is probably not an answer but there should at least be some strict qualifications for ownership and SEVERE punishment for irresponsible owners.
Chairshot
Footballguy
What is a "pit bull type" dog? People use that term as a catch all for any strong dog with a big head, regardless of breed type. We might as well say "brown type" dog or "toy type" dog. It's not a breed and when you don't use accurate breed information, it's virtually impossible to have accurate data.
This is the part that makes the least sense to me and where the "pit bull type" haters argument completely breaks down. Why wouldn't I want SEVERE punishment for *all* irresponsible owners? Why am I limiting this to "pit bull type" dogs? Why would I hold the owner of one breed or type of dog more accountable then another? If a yellow lab rips my kids face off, why shouldn't *that* owner receive SEVERE punishment?The very, very simple answer is a strong dangerous/vicious dog law that covers *all* dogs that are a danger to the community (including the neighborhood-eating "pit bull type" dog). If you are a crappy owner, if you put others in danger, if you aren't handling your responsibility, I want you held accountable.
For instance: in my neighborhood, there is a pack of dogs that runs the streets. They are some sort of terrier (I can't be sure what breed they are, but my best guess is this). There are 4 of them and they are aggressive to my dogs when I walk them, so much so, in fact, that I have to basically turn around and go home when they are running around, which is often. The owners refuse to keep them on their property, so it's a constant hassle. My community has very weak animal law enforcement, so calling animal control does very little. If this pack decides to one day attack my dogs or myself or some random kid in the street, (all 4 are about the same weight as mine, I'd guess, about 50 lbs each) why should the owners be held less accountable because they *aren't* "pit bull type" dogs?
The last place I lived had very strong animal laws (even having a dangerous cat ordinance) and strong enforcement. They specifically decided not to ban "pit bull type" dogs (even though many, many of the surrounding areas were implementing breed bans) and went with a strong overall law, covering all dangerous animals. The result? No loose dogs, no bites, no problems. People had to respect the law.
If you are afraid of APBTs, fine, that's your right (though I hope you at least understand that this an emotional response, not a logical one). If you have a bad owner in your neighborhood, I feel for you and you don't deserve to have your area terrorized. Regardless, if you have a solid animal control/dangerous dog law on your books, you can be protected - against any kind of harmful animals.
TLEF316
Footballguy
I'm not for the irrational fear of dogs, even pit bulls. I once took a slight bite from a friend's pitt (he was leashed to a park bench and he took a lunge at me while i was chasing a basketball). I also had to deal with listening to constant barking when some guy my mom was dating had a pit. Eventually, i was properly introduced to both dogs and got along fine with them. I tend to be good with animals.
That being said, i believe they are naturally aggressive and i think they are dangerous. I get that they are loyal and all that, but i just dont see why pit owners (even the responsible ones) just HAVE to have them. I'm sure the real jerks would just move onto another breed if they couldnt get pits. But i just dont see why the good owners (like chairshot) cant just pick another breed that is less dangerous. seems to me you'd get all the benefits of dog ownership without the risk.
Every owner who's dog attacks someone always claims that they never saw it coming.
I'm actually hoping to get a Doberman puppy at some point in the next few years. My situation is a little up in the air right now, but i cant wait. love dogs.
That being said, i believe they are naturally aggressive and i think they are dangerous. I get that they are loyal and all that, but i just dont see why pit owners (even the responsible ones) just HAVE to have them. I'm sure the real jerks would just move onto another breed if they couldnt get pits. But i just dont see why the good owners (like chairshot) cant just pick another breed that is less dangerous. seems to me you'd get all the benefits of dog ownership without the risk.
Every owner who's dog attacks someone always claims that they never saw it coming.
I'm actually hoping to get a Doberman puppy at some point in the next few years. My situation is a little up in the air right now, but i cant wait. love dogs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka
Footballguy
It proves that he is not very good at making up stories.
Chaka
Footballguy
Not all of them. Many people like larger dogs for home security.BTW Doberman's are terrific animals, absolutely my favorite breed.
Chaka
Footballguy
I am sorry for your loss.
TLEF316
Footballguy
you can get larger dogs that are less dangerous. My family has a golden retriever. She's the sweetest animal on the planet. she'd never hurt a fly. But she packs one hell of a bark and has scared off many a stranger. (our mail lady is terrified of her). She's very small for the breed, but a large male seems like it would fill the security need quite nicely.
Unless, of course, you're looking for a dog that will literally attack an intrudor. if you have that need, dog selection really isnt your biggest problem. Even Rotweillers (which also have a poor reputation) are much more trainable than pits from my experience. my buddy from HS had a MASSIVE Rot. His paws were the size of catchers mitts. Scared the hell out of strangers. But once you were introduced, you could pretty much stick your head in his mouth without fear.
Michael Fox Fan
Footballguy
I thought someone suggested earlier that pit bulls were terrible home security dogs?
Michael Fox Fan
Footballguy
I can avoid almost all of the causes above through making wise personal choices. I can't prevent some d-bag from owning a vicious dog (pit bull or otherwise) that leaps a fence and shreds my child into pieces.I can, however, either lobby for legislation that reduces the risk of "dangerous breeds" proliferating, or puts penalties in place for irresponsible d-bag owners whose dogs cause harm to others.proninja said:Put down the big mac, tubby, it's more dangerous than your neighbor's "pitt."
Chaka
Footballguy
"Almost all" <> "all"And that is just a list of major contributors to deaths every year, there are easily thousands more items on that list before you reach dog attacks. But every time there is a dog attack it gets splashed all over the news and causes people like Woz to throw a hissy-fit.I can avoid almost all of the causes above through making wise personal choices. I can't prevent some d-bag from owning a vicious dog (pit bull or otherwise) that leaps a fence and shreds my child into pieces.I can, however, either lobby for legislation that reduces the risk of "dangerous breeds" proliferating, or puts penalties in place for irresponsible d-bag owners whose dogs cause harm to others.proninja said:
Can you prevent your child from falling into a swimming pool? Can you prevent your child from being run over by a car? Only through constant vigilance and even then it might not be enough.
Michael Fox Fan
Footballguy
At their current age, yes.
Chairshot
Footballguy
Golden's are very safe.
My point isn't to say that golden's are more aggressive then any other breed. My point is that anecdotal, "in my experience", I-knew-this-dog-once type information has very little value. For every poor anecdotal story or example one person can throw out there, another person can throw out a positive example. We have legit data to look at, actual studies and books that have been written by people who have researched these topics. None, to my knowledge, have shown any dog breed to be more aggressive or predisposed to aggressive behavior then any other.
Furthermore, APBT were historically specifically bred to respond to human commands without exception. Most that did not respect human dominance were culled from breeding lines. It was mentioned that APBT do not make good guard dogs, which is generally true. They generally are submissive to humans.
Crimson Hawk
Axis of Evel
I have known a couple of dog fighters in my life and they said the same thing.Maybe Mike Vick was killing those that were hard headed and showed aggression toward humans?
Ralph Furley
Footballguy
All dogs can be dangerous. Each domesticated dog has been bred for a SPECIFIC purpose. These specific purposes are what each dog owner needs to understand and watch out for, especially when they make a decision on which dog is best for their home. I personally would not recommend any family buy a large breed dominant dog if they have small children (under 5 yrs old).
Additionally and IMO most importantly, all dog owners needs to know WHERE their dog came from. By where, I mean breed stock. Some dogs are over-bred for the purpose of making money, aka puppy mills. These breeders are to me the most responsible and negligent. Many of these breeders have no concern for the animals they breed nor for the welfare of the general public.
Certain dogs have a stronger disposition to aggression and are potentially more dangerous simply due to size. It is ultimately the responsibility of the owner to due their due diligence when they bring any dog into their home. I do not think it is fair to demonize an entire breed because they tend to have bad owners.
The problem with Pits, are that bad owners gravitate towards these dogs for multiple reasons. Then these bad owners do not give the dogs the proper training required. Then these untrained large dominate dogs do something that anybody with half a brain could have seen coming a mile away. They either bite a person or another dog.
The only way to change this cycle IMO is to require breeders to be licensed, and therefore have some form of accountability for the placement of their dogs. Breeders should be required by law to do both temperament and genetic (health) testing to ensure their dogs have been fully vetted. Otherwise, we can be sure this trend will continue.
Additionally and IMO most importantly, all dog owners needs to know WHERE their dog came from. By where, I mean breed stock. Some dogs are over-bred for the purpose of making money, aka puppy mills. These breeders are to me the most responsible and negligent. Many of these breeders have no concern for the animals they breed nor for the welfare of the general public.
Certain dogs have a stronger disposition to aggression and are potentially more dangerous simply due to size. It is ultimately the responsibility of the owner to due their due diligence when they bring any dog into their home. I do not think it is fair to demonize an entire breed because they tend to have bad owners.
The problem with Pits, are that bad owners gravitate towards these dogs for multiple reasons. Then these bad owners do not give the dogs the proper training required. Then these untrained large dominate dogs do something that anybody with half a brain could have seen coming a mile away. They either bite a person or another dog.
The only way to change this cycle IMO is to require breeders to be licensed, and therefore have some form of accountability for the placement of their dogs. Breeders should be required by law to do both temperament and genetic (health) testing to ensure their dogs have been fully vetted. Otherwise, we can be sure this trend will continue.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chairshot
Footballguy
This sounds like a good idea on paper, in many ways, but it would be terribly difficult to enforce. Any owner who had an un-spayed female that had a litter of puppies, even if they weren't a breeder by trade, would be breaking the law.You would basically be requiring everyone who was not a licensed breeder to spay or neuter their animals. I personally believe that any non-breeding pet *should* be spayed or neutered, but it's probably wrong to required people to do so by law.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
That pit-bulls are dangerous menaces?
