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.
Pit Bull Poll (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
Thorpe
Footballguy
On top of the nature/nurture of the dog, any dog will sense a person's fear, and that can trigger an attack. If the media publicized every time a Golden attacked someone, then over time people would start fearing Golden's more and there would be more Golden attacks.
I am not blaming the victim here. The dog owner is responsible for not letting the dog loose. People have a right to be afraid of a dog without being attacked.
I am not blaming the victim here. The dog owner is responsible for not letting the dog loose. People have a right to be afraid of a dog without being attacked.
DallasDMac
Footballguy
I don't imagine a headline like "Golden attacks woman and nearly breaks the skin" has the same drawing power.
Dedfin
Footballguy
5-ish Finkle
Footballguy
Every time I see him I think to myself, "That guy looks like a substitute middle school P.E. teacher. "Mr. World-Wide", my a$$. Go get the medicine's balls, Coach."
Last edited by a moderator:
rustycolts
Footballguy
No . I am not a hunter and neither is Bo. I have no problem with people who do hunt it's just something I couldn't do.I did train him to track at an early age.It was a fun game for both him and I. He even found a neighbors old Shi Tzu who had gotten out of their backyard took about 45 minutes. He loves it when he hears the word find and you hold something in front of his nose he goes into spaz mode and will just about pull your arm out of its socket trying to get the scent.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Some breeds are just naturally more aggressive than others. Even raised the same, I don't think a retriever would react to danger the same as a pit bull.Amused to Death
Footballguy
Amused to Death
Footballguy
My wife volunteers at a shelter. Recently a family came in with 2 pre-teens and adopted a sweet pit bull that got along great with the kids. Till the drive home from the shelter. It attacked one of the kids and they brought it back before ever getting home. Wife was also there when one of their sweet pits tore up a hand of one of the workers. Kid was only 23 and lost function of a hand.
They are aggressive dogs. Now yeah, I get it. Some are great; some treat them like dirt and make them killers. I've been around some great pits but I've always known that if I did something this dog didn't like, I'd be dead in minutes.
ChainsawU
Footballguy
Merritt Clifton's self-published paper on "dog attack deaths and maimings" has been cited both in the mainstream press and in court cases as evidence for breed-specific legislation. However, Clifton possesses no relevant credentials, and readily admits that his research methods are limited to scanning media reports and classified ads. Clifton's paper has never been peer-reviewed, does not draw upon government sources, public health records, or expert opinion, and contains no citations.
steelerfan1
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
WHACK-A-MOLE.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Different.
In one a South African mastiff kills someone. In the other a pit bull kills someone.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Yes they should be treated differently. In one scenario a woman had 7 dangerous dogs. In the other there was only one. Now both women are dead, so there isn't much to do here, but the woman with 7 dangerous dogs was way more irresponsible.
steelerfan1
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Dodge?
You were getting direct answers and kept changing the question until you could find something you thought you could argue against. You've done this crap in two threads now.
Its such a waste of time that whatever is in your latest links wasnt even looked at.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Could you link to some of the countless studies that show maulings dont get reduced?
steelerfan1
Footballguy
What direct answers were YOU giving me?
I believe the pit bull thread was created because there are fatalities and people want that to stop, including me. I believe you and I both want that.
Your answer to the problem is to get rid of a breed without tackling the main issue IMO.
I try to provide statistics to show why that hasn't worked and provided some data and solutions that have shown effective and where the problem areas are that could be addressed to get a handle on the problem.
Assuming that our concerns are about human life I threw the alcohol question in to see a response. I know that Spock now hates me but I really was impressed with his response on the solution. My point was that as good as that solution is and I do think it will be effective, you are going to have knuckleheads who still get in their car and kill someone.
Then those are the people who you punish. Not the responsible party. We do the best we can is all we can do. I know that alcohol and dogs are not the same.
If you look at statistics of dog attacks there are several key factors that if some decent dangerous dog laws were implemented I think we could eliminate 3/4 of incidents.
steelerfan1
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
gianmarco
Footballguy
What I still have yet to understand is why a pit bull? There are over a hundred breeds of dogs in all kinds of shapes and sizes and colors that should satisfy any dog lover.
What is it about a pit bull that pro-pit folks must have? If we lived in a world where pit bulls don't exist and never existed, would these people have a void that could never be filled by another dog? An indescribable emptiness that only a pit can fill?
What is it about a pit bull that pro-pit folks must have? If we lived in a world where pit bulls don't exist and never existed, would these people have a void that could never be filled by another dog? An indescribable emptiness that only a pit can fill?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Spock was.
He was engaging you directly and thoroughly. And you started another round of whack-a-mole as a retort.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
To be fair, you can say that about almost any breed people keep as pets now. Dogs kept as pets don't work as much as they did years ago (herding, farming, security, etc etc). The "why" aspect is kind of irrelevant now.
gianmarco
Footballguy
Otis
Footballguy
Otis
Footballguy
steelerfan1
Footballguy
Yes, HE was. I honestly appreciate him for doing so. That doesn't have anything to do with you though.
Zow
Footballguy
Yep.
We have two pit bull mixes. My wife had one when I met her and she wanted a second for reasons which aren’t relevant right now.
One of them recently snapped at our two year old. Both dogs will be re-homed this week. Just isn’t worth it.
steelerfan1
Footballguy
Hi marco,
It wasn't always a pit bull for me. Had Labs and beagles growing up. Came across meeting my first pitbull by accident. Had a K9 officer as a friend who did Schutzhund training with his dog and it was something I was going to maybe try, so while looking at a dog at a breeder, I came across one in his yard and it started from there.
We also have Cocker Spaniels, so is there or would there be an indescribable emptiness only a pit bull could fill? I'd say no. We have a geriatric crew now with a 16,14,13,12 and 7 year old. I'm guessing the next couple years won't be great for us on that front. If we do decide to get another dog, will it 100% absolutely must be a pit bull? No. Not at all. I know it will be a rescue, but I would not rule a pit bull out just because it is a pit bull.
Otis
Footballguy
Why not? There are millions of dogs in the world. Why not narrow your options in a sensible way by filtering out the most dangerous ones?
Zow
Footballguy
Dated a chick with one. Nice dog but damn it had the ability to inflict damage. Watched it fight a Great Dane (lasted maybe ten seconds) before the owners broke it up and it was incredibly scary.
Eta: and I’ll use this anecdote as a perfect illustration of the inherent dangerousness of letting people own these dogs. She’d walk it without a leash all the time. I once tried to suggest she comply with leash laws and was immediately met with “the dog would never do anything.” Except nearly every walk it’d get into it with another dog or scare the crap out of some poor passerby. It was essentially some ignorant 25 year old chick walking around spinning a loaded gun on her finger then indignantly shutting anybody down who suggested otherwise
Last edited by a moderator:
steelerfan1
Footballguy
That's another thing to consider....the history of the dog. A lot pit bulls and pit bull mixes come from shelters. You never really know the history of the dog (was he abused before, was he involved in dog fighting, did he attack before, how did he end up in the shelter, etc). It's not fair to the breed overall if a lot of these pits have been abused in some way and now the entire breed is being judged.
Zow, think about it like a foster child. If you adopted a teenage foster kid and didn't know everything about their upbringing, it wouldn't be so surprising to see them act out in some way versus a child you raised from birth. The foster child could have been abused, could have been the abuser, could have......you get the point.
Why don't you understand that if you knock off the "most dangerous ones", tomorrow there will be new "most dangerous ones"? It's not that complicated.
You take out pits, you get rottweilers leading the list.
Take out rottweilers, maybe mastiffs lead the list,
Then maybe German Shephards.
Eliminating breeds is just dumb.
steelerfan1
Footballguy
I know this will have you shaking your head with disbelief Otis and maybe Big Steel Thrill can throw his whack a mole line out there again, but I don't necessarily equate capabilities and dangerous the same all of the time.
Zow
Footballguy
I understand the point. We also know the history of our two dogs. Both have always been docile (except one who is very dog aggressive). We put them through training, treat them well, let them exercise, etc. Neither of us (even me, who doesn’t like dogs) think either would do anything. But it’s just not worth. We view it similar to owning guns with kids in the house. Probably safe, but still not worth it.
That was where I was. it sucks now but for me, it was a no brainer. Totally not worth it. We got a Golden Retriever after the Ridgeback and he was 180 degrees in temperament. Super chill and kids could poke or pull at the dog (you try not to let that happen but it's still possible) and he would just lay there.
Zow
Footballguy
Yeah I feel badly for my wife. She’s had the older one since a puppy. But she said the snap totally changed her view of the dogs (I was at work) and it’s been solely her call to get rid of them.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Sure, but at some point fairly quickly you would get to where the breeds left are ones that don't do incredible damage or you get a fraction of the fatalities.
Yeah, you will always have a #1, but it's not like if you eliminate the top couple the dog at 5 starts killing people at the rate the former #1 did.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
I don't hate you. I'm just not going to engage with someone who relies on stringing someone along on a logical fallacy.
You asked me if i felt the same about pit bulls as a I do about guns. I responded that I feel it's fair to say I feel the same, but they are different. I then gave the reasoning why I feel the same way about them both.
You then asked me if I would ban both. I responded, yep.
You then asked me it I would support a ban on alcohol. Right there is where you made a leap in logic. It assumes that I should feel the same about alcohol that I do about pit bulls and guns. I explained why I don't feel the same about them, but not only do you ignore that my feelings are NOT the same, but you go all in on the logical fallacy by assuming that because people die from other people's irresponsibility is the reason for my feelings about guns and pit bulls. Thus the consistency you think you have is itself a logical fallacy.
The fact that people are being killed by pit bulls and guns is NOT the reasons for my feelings about banning them. If it were, then consistency would require me to feel the need to ban cars altogether, because 30,000+ people a year die in car accidents, the majority of which are NOT drunk drivers.
The fact is pit bulls <> guns <> drunk drivers <> sober drivers, despite all them resulting in deaths due to irresponsibility.
The reason I feel the same about pit bulls and guns, that is to ban them, is because I don't see any other valid approaches to help the situation. On the other hand, things can be done and are being done about drunk driving, and deaths caused by sober drivers too. They're not the same. So please stop with the if we ban one we need to ban them all logical fallacy. No we don't. They're all different situations.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dedfin
Footballguy
I disagree if it means getting rid of dangerous dogs while keeping safe ones. 99% of dogs have no use except to be a companion. We don't need strong athletic dogs any longer.
Last edited by a moderator:
steelerfan1
Footballguy
Need or want?
We can and should have them...as long as they are properly trained and their owners are held responsible for their actions.
steelerfan1
Footballguy
Ok, fair enough.
Getting back to just dogs.
A CDCP Study found reports of 327 people killed by dogs over the 20-year period. Some breed information was available for 238 (73%) of the fatalities. Of 227 incidents with relevant data, 133 (58%) were unrestrained dogs and on the owners' property; 55 (24%) were loose off the owners' property; 38 (17%) were restrained dogs on their owners' property; and only one (less than 1%) was restrained off the owners' property.[10]
The National Canine Research Council has identified the most common factors found in fatal dog attacks occurring in 2006:
97 percent of the dogs involved were not spayed or neutered.
84 percent of the attacks involved owners who had abused or neglected their dogs, failed to contain their dogs, or failed to properly chain their dogs.
78 percent of the dogs were not kept as pets but as guard, breeding, or yard dogs.
Wouldn't it be possible to seek a solution using some of the above study information and implement laws based of some of the above?
If you own a dog it will be spay/neutered.
It must live inside the residence. (Our insurance provider knows we own pit bulls, but because they are housed indoors we are not penalized.)
A fence or kennel must be on your property to contain dog.
A dog will have a leash on at all times when off the property and may be muzzled if it has been deemed a dangerous dog.
If you are a breeder/hunter/etc and your dogs won't be spay/neutered and be housed outside, you must apply for a license and allow quarterly inspections to make sure that proper safety measured are kept up or you will be subject to fines and or animal confiscation. All incidents and infractions will be logged and penalized with progressive discipline and based on the type of incident.
If there is an attack, owner will be held accountable based on prior incidents and of severity of incident and can be held to fines and or prosecution criminally as in the below article:
Michigan Couple Charged For Fatal Dog Attack
Not set in stone obviously, but just looking at possible answers that based on numbers would look to be like a start.
ps...glad to see you don't hate me...
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Or dog owners could just pick another breed.
This is one of the aspects that makes the pit bull issue different than the gun issue. The gun nuts can actually make an argument for the need to own guns, although it's an argument that is weak at best. But there really is no argument for the need to own pit bulls. Just own a different breed of dog.
Dedfin
Footballguy
modogg
Footballguy
ugh, I feel like this has been answered 50+ times. I can only speak for myself, but try living in an urban environment/larger city and getting a dog from a rescue shelter. Philly has a few, and my wife and I went to the SPCA one (I think, this was 9-10 years ago) and they have 450+ dogs, and I would say 98% of them are a pit bull mix.
We can go over again as well that there really isn't a breed of "pit bull". there are American Staffordshire terriers that are often referred to as pit bulls, but it is a bit of a misnomer. that is why lazy/ignorant reporting often reports "pit bull" attacks and you see a picture of a dog and it doesn't look even close to other pit bulls.
modogg
Footballguy
I have had probably close to 15 dogs in my house over the last 8-10 years because my wife and I fostered dogs from the shelters. i would say 12 of those were likely pit bulls, 1 mastiff, 1 corgi, and I am forgetting the other one. Only one that was aggressive with anybody was the Corgi, who went to bite at me, and bit my dog on her nose. my dog did not strike back, but if I didn't intervene that Corgi would have kept attacking.
people can say corgi's are small and whatever, but my dog still has a scar on her face to this day because of it.
and the argument that pit bulls are some kind of lock-jawed superdogs is a bit off. I know multiple breeds that have stronger bites, and there is data out there somewhere that will show it. So if we want to base the danger of the dog by how hard it can potentially bite, you have about 6-7 other breeds to eliminate first before you get to "pit bulls"
people can say corgi's are small and whatever, but my dog still has a scar on her face to this day because of it.
and the argument that pit bulls are some kind of lock-jawed superdogs is a bit off. I know multiple breeds that have stronger bites, and there is data out there somewhere that will show it. So if we want to base the danger of the dog by how hard it can potentially bite, you have about 6-7 other breeds to eliminate first before you get to "pit bulls"
