I'd ask you, @eoMMan, do you believe certain breeds exhibit and display certain and reliable characteristics?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Yet another Pitt Bull attack (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter pantherclub
- Start date
steelerfan1
Footballguy
We agree on this. And despite 3 plus decades of these dogs getting royally effed over in every way imaginable, approximately only 0.0012% of them are responsible for a human fatality...
I don't know if I would use "certain" or "reliable" as my choice of words but sure, different breeds exhibit different characteristics stronger than other breeds.
Which is why some breeds need more training and discipline than other breeds. Obviously, training is so much more important when it comes to the stronger breeds (all dogs need training to some extent though).
steelerfan1
Footballguy
Thanks. Would you say all dogs need training so that they're not dangerous or a threat to other people or other dogs?
DallasDMac
Footballguy
It's weird that no one has thought to put some sort of restriction on ownership of those types of dog. To hard to enforce? Worried about invasion of rights? To much cost to carry out? Has it ever actually been tried?
Dedfin
Footballguy
Yeah, I hate pitbulls personally. This is only based on my extremely limited exposure to them. Man oh man, there aren't many dogs that frighten me but a medium sized dog with a great amount of strength is pretty intimidating. My first experience I had with a "pit bull": I had a buddy in college that had one. It upon meeting me dug its nose so far into my balls I thought it was a tri delt. I tried to push it off of me and was shocked at how strong it was for its size. It was like not only was it strong, but it didn't give a #### about what I wanted, and I could tell you I've pushed other dogs away from me and they become significantly more docile and let me. I'd never have one because I expect absolutely physical control over a pet and I wouldn't have that over this. That being said, I wouldn't support screwing with this animal just because I don't like them. And while it's fun to do Otis shtick, I'd rather see if people can agree on some stuff.
When I asked if this is actually a problem that needs to be solved, I was serious because the number of people affected by dog attacks is so low, it's practically noise in the signal. I would imagine plotting dog regulation vs safety and we might have already reached an asymptotic part of this line. We require registration, we require dogs to not run free, we require up to date shots preventing spread of disease. If you are right about charging owners with serious crimes upon dog attacks I frankly don't know what else we can do besides taking the impossible step of regulating a particular breed or just banning dogs altogether.
I think BST said military bases ban certain dogs from housing. I don't know if their methods would hold up because whoever calls the shots on military housing probably isn't subject to the same justice system as the rest of us and if someone wanted to, I bet they could make a court case out of a dog that merely looks pitbullish but isn't. So how do we determine the difference between a safe dog and a dangerous dog?
I'm 100% on board with the idea that if it wasn't a "pit bull" then it would be a different dog. So it's not the dog that is totally guilty here. I also want to look at dogs like any other technology humans have developed. We've been customizing dogs for 6000 years or so. We've had explosive fertilizer for hundreds of years but only recently have we had a problem with people turning it into bombs. We have regulated the #### out of that too. I'm sure there are other examples of technology we developed but only recently have we misused them.
I think the next step is to ask ourselves if this is a problem worth solving, and the best solution is to stop making dangerous animals, then is that solution worth reducing our freedom to have these dogs as pets?
whiskey7
Footballguy
[eoMMan]So they killed their owner and ate her. Big deal. You got anything substantial to support your position? You know, a blog or lady on tv or something.[/eoMMan]
Last edited by a moderator:
steelerfan1
Footballguy
Didn't think there was a hidden meaning at all just not sure what you are looking for. My dogs have all been stable even tempered dogs. Some athletic, some not lol. All have lived with smaller dogs and each other.
Thanks Steelerfan,
On a scale for How Likely To Attack or Maul Another Person or Dog among breeds, 1-least to 10-most, where would you rate an average Pit Bull?
On a scale for How Likely To Attack or Maul Another Person or Dog among breeds, 1-least to 10-most, where would you rate an average Golden Retriever?
I'm against flat restrictions on owning certain types of breeds. However, I'm all for education and MANDATORY training....paid by the owner...for certain types of breeds. And definitely bigger penalties/fines for owners when their dogs attack.
Otis
Footballguy
To JB's point, I think this partly about disposition/tendencies, but only partly. Another maybe bigger concerns is the physical capabilities of these animals, and their ability to maim or kill without warning. (As for the "without warning" point, how many times have we seen the reporter interview the neighbor or family member afterwards saying something like "this was so surprising, she was the sweetest dog").
A toy poodle could be really mean spirited, but that's unlikely to end with a tragedy.
A toy poodle could be really mean spirited, but that's unlikely to end with a tragedy.
whiskey7
Footballguy
What big penalty should that 22yo woman from Virginia get? Do we just pin the citation to the bag of her remains?
Otis
Footballguy
We're talking about the big strong mean ones that often kill small children and eat their owners. Those ones.
steelerfan1
Footballguy
I would classify my dogs as average but believe we are probably on the higher side of responsible dog owners. Going with the average of both dogs I would put both at a 1.
I also have no illusion on which would do more damage.
Please remember Joe, we are talking about roughly 5 million pitbulls in the US. I believe there were 23 reported deaths this year. I believe the average pitbull is a 1.
You're not funny.
Also, from that horrible story:
"While some friends said Bethany had a close bond with the dogs that she had raised from birth, she hadn't actually been looking after them for some time before the attack, the Sheriff added.
They had previously lived indoors but had recently been in an outdoor kennel at her father's home with very little human contact."
Sounds like these dogs lacked training and socialization....but let's focus on them being pit bulls, right?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
thats a very wishy-washy statement. not you, the statement.
looks like its trying very hard not to give an honest answer because its goes against the belief -- political to a tee.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
whiskey7
Footballguy
There are a lot of dogs that lack training and socialization and still don't kill and eat their owners.
steelerfan1
Footballguy
Here's where I am fin. Getting rid of a particular breed isn't a long term effective solution IMO.
As far as the issue needing to be corrected...With so many fatalities being female, children and the elderly, an 80 pound dog could be deemed dangerous.
Sorry, but "certain" isn't a great word to use for a lot of things in life....especially a dog's actions.
Not wishy washy, imo....just answering honestly.
steelerfan1
Footballguy
I have owned average pitbulls for 25 years. I've based my grade on my 25 years of owning the breed. What should I base my ranking on?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Not just your animals.
You even said "the average pitbull"... not "my pitbulls".
You just stated that pitt terriers are the absolute least likely to attack or to harm in the entire dog world. that's pure horse manure.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
top dog
Footballguy
Love dogs. All dogs. I've owned many dogs. Have had nothing but great experiences with the Pits I've been exposed to. A buddy of mine has one that is the sweetest girl ever. I am totally comfortable with her. That being said, she is incredibly STRONG. Amazing how hard that dog can pull you on a leash if she wants to, etc. I don't know what the answers are in this debate. All I know is that I would not own a Pit because I have too many small children coming over my house. Why? Because any dog can snap. Any dog can bite. Pits are just too damn strong and there are just too many examples of them doing horrible damage in a short period of time. I've never owned a dog that I wasn't confident I could physically contain if need be. I've owned a 100 lb Shepherd that in the moment would be difficult to subdue, but still I felt confident that if I had to I could handle that dog. I just don't know that I could stop a Pit in the same way.
steelerfan1
Footballguy
Well, I was classifying my pitbulls as probably your average pitbull. With pitbulls scoring among the higher in temperament testing among breeds it would be thought theoretically at least they would be in that range. Would 3 be better? Ok, I will change it to 3 because again I feel I may be at a higher responsible owner level with my average pit bulls
...And posting links from experts in the field along with links from major organizations backing our stance.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
steelerfan1
Footballguy
It's not pointless bud, as it's the people who are generally not for nor against the breed I am trying to show our side to. We aren't all drug dealing gang bangers who keeps a dog chained up outside and wants them to be a viscous animal. My wife was not a fan of the pitbull when we met. After spending time with them, she now was the one responsible for the latest adoption of our last 1 to replace the loss of my almost 15 year old male last year.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
You guys are losing horribly to your own side.
And your fellow citizenry is paying the ultimate price.
Last edited by a moderator:
Our links say otherwise.
Your side is relying on fear and "OMG!!!!!111!!!!!" type reactions....not actual data.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
We aren't all drug dealing gang bangers who keeps a dog chained up outside and wants them to be a viscous animal.
Yeah, youre losing the pit terrier battle to those guys without a doubt. .
Last edited by a moderator:
Dedfin
Footballguy
I think getting rid of a breed could be part of a solution, but we can't even define the breed, so I'm not sure that has much utility. We could ban all "dangerous" dogs and not worry about calling dogs a particular breed; we could just define dangerous as a dog over a particular weight/height/other physical attributes. That runs us into other problems, like people who need guard dogs, people who hunt with larger dogs, people who use larger dogs for service animals for starters. We just don't have any worthwhile definitions that people can agree on, so many people are talking past each other.
steelerfan1
Footballguy
Yes, we absolutely are. Sadly though, even if we could take all of their pit bulls away, they would just start as I believe you said "seriously effing up" the next big ticket.
Thanks @steelerfan1 Is it fair to say you feel the average Pit Bull is no more likely to attack or maul a person or dog than a Golden Retriever is?
steelerfan1
Footballguy
People/Organizations with far more time, money, resources and intelligence than I have come to think that BSL won't/isn't working, so I don't know.
Is the solution to prosecute the owner if there is an attack? That gets into, what if the dog never displayed any signs vs the thug who made sure the dog was a killer... I personally think that the majority of incidents the animal displayed signs but the owner ignored them, but that would be the argument. Should that scenario have both owners held to the same?
If I am a gun owner and have a firearm stolen out of my car and that gun ends up killing someone should I be charged with murder or manslaughter? I'm not sure how that works? Does anyone know the law on that?
Every life is important so I really don't want to sound like it isn't, but in the grand scheme of things to worry about, I just think this is pretty low statistics wise to generate the amount of outrage it does.
There may have been 60 total dog attack fatalities this year. Total, not pitbull.
There were more lawnmower deaths this year to put things in perspective.
steelerfan1
Footballguy
Thanks. That helps me understand where you're coming from. Thanks for the feedback.
steelerfan1
Footballguy
I just looked Joe. From a stats standpoint using a temperament test which I know isn't a be all end all, the Labrador scored a 92%. The pitbull type received an 85.6, while the Golden 85.2. So in theory, stability wise they are identical.
modogg
Footballguy
this is sad. I can only speak for myself, but I do not see this like a sporting event where one side wins and another loses. I know politics in our country has turned many things into this, but do you honestly think that we are striving for a winner and a loser here? My dog, and other people I know who own pit bull mixes, have not come close to attacking or mauling anything their entire lives. I like to think the blind generalizations in this thread are not spoken gospel.
I know some in here feel becauase they have read an article or 2 that they know more then an expert in the field with 20+ years of experience, but hopefully that is only a small portion of the people in here
modogg
Footballguy
I was thinking the same thing. I know when we got our's there was 1 other pit bull in our neighborhood (not hard data, just know from walking the dog all the time and going to dog parks). 9 years later and there are probably over 100 pit bulls now in our neighborhood. I do think the people with pit bulls in our neighborhood are more responsible and conscientious of caring for their dogs. I am pretty sure there has been 0 incidents of a significant attack by a pit bull in my neighborhood, despite a huge increase in the number of them. so on average, around 1 seems like a reasonable number
Thanks @modogg Same question I asked Steelerfan: Is it fair to say you feel the average Pit Bull is no more likely to attack or maul a person or dog than a Golden Retriever is?
steelerfan1
Footballguy
steelerfan1
Footballguy
Yup, I can basically go to the local Walmart 6 months out of the year Mo and there's people out there selling pitbulls.
modogg
Footballguy
it really is hard to say because there are so many variables. if we take the human element out of it, then I would say no, the average pit bull is not more likely to attack. My wife knows this better then I do, but I think pit bulls in particular have been used in dog fighting (and lol, my wife isn't running a dog fighting ring, she has just written papers on this and stuff) because they are more obedient with humans and also more inclined to be aggressive with other dogs. But many breeds have similar characteristics. there is the fury dog breed from China (totally escaping my mind) that really is nasty with other dogs, but they are less likely to be human friendly then pit bulls.
but in reality, I would say they may be mostly due to where they are located in the country and potential owners. I live in Philadelphia, and when we went to look for a dog from the local SPCA they had something like 450 dogs, 440 of them were pit bulls or pit bull mixes. So you likely have less responsible owners, etc. who are more likely to get a pit bull then a golden retriever. but in essence, this isn't the pit bulls fault.
@eeoman pointed out a stat about more Rotty attacks in the 80's and early 90s. I think that clearly shows the breed isn't the issue, it is more so on the owners and who is taking these dogs in.
if we are talking breeds more likely to maul humans, I think German Sheppards would be up there high. now these are police dogs and are great training dogs, but at the same time they are protective and are stronger then most pit bulls.
ETA: my wife cares about this more then i do. here are her thoughts:
" Aggression towards humans and other animals are two completely separate issues and have nothing to do with one another. Terriers, in general, are more prone to aggression toward other animals so I would say they are more likely to have issues with other dogs. However, there are definitely exceptions and you cannot assume that every "pit bull" is going to be dog aggressive. Every dog is an individual. Ours pit has been run up on and gone after by countless little yappy dogs and has never done anything more than bark to correct the other dog. As for aggression to humans, I would say that a pit bull is no more likely to attack a person than any other type of dog. If you look at temperament testing, "pit bulls" test about the same as golden retrievers (actually a little higher). Below are stats from the American Temperament Test Society. " Of course this is statistical information that is collected by people who are actually credentialed and work in the dog behavior field, so I doubt your anti- pit bull people will believe it, but there it is. I'm sure they will point out the lack of golden's in the news, but how many golden's are being kept chained up in someone's backyard or basement, abused, neglected, and under socialized? These are the types of dogs who generally cause harm to people, whatever the breed. ####ty people aren't keeping Golden Retrievers chained in their yards to look tough, otherwise we'd hear about them on the news too."
https://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/
https://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page4/
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
