Yet another Pitt Bull attack (1 Viewer)

[Chaka]

Ban the breed and all you do is change the name of the breed in the headline.Mission accomplished?

I don't really care what freaking breed it is, the day a dog meaningfully harms either of my kids is the day I go Charles Bronson on irresponsible dog owners.

 

[simey]

Pit Bull Leads Good Samaritan To Stricken Owner In Double Trouble State Park

CENTRAL NJ -- Frank Delarosa thought it was strange to see a pit bull running down a sugar sand path near the cranberry bogs at Double Trouble State Park on Friday, her leash dragging behind her.

Delarosa coaxed the one-year-old pit bull mix over to him, picked her up and started to head up the path to the park office.

But "Lilly"was restless. Delarosa decided to put her down. She began pulling and tugging him down the path, back towards the cranberry bogs.

It was there he found Lilly's owner unconscious about 150 yards down on the path. Dona Timoney, 51, of Beachwood, had suffered some kind of "medical event" while on a walk with her dog, Berkeley Township Detective Sgt. James J. Smith said.

"She was unconscious, but breathing," he said.

Detective Will Cullen and Patrolman Jon Sperber responded to the scene. Timoney was first taken to Community Medical Center in Toms River by members of the Bayville First Aid Squad and MONOC paramedics. She was later airlifted to St. Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, Cullen said.

Her condition is unavailable at this time, Smith said.

Lilly is now with Timoney's daughter. Timoney had previously rescued the dog from a "drug house" in North Carolina, Cullen said.

"The back of her car was filled with treats and bones," Cullen said. "She's obviously an avid animal lover."

 

[Chaka]

I am still confused as to why some think the media hates pit bulls...

What are you talking about? The media loves pit bulls, they drive page views.

 

[beavers]

Their View: Pit bulls more dangerous than other breeds

By Dr. Gary Roemer / For the Sun-News

Posted: 06/03/2012 04:04:04 AM MDT

Humans have been selectively breeding dogs for particular behavioral and morphological traits for millennia, and the pit bull is no exception. It was originally bred as a "catch" or "bait" dog for large prey. As such, it needed to be strong and muscular, fearless and aggressive, and have powerful jaws.

It is still used for this role today, and is prized by those who hunt feral hogs — I have personally used such dogs in feral animal eradication programs on the California Channel Islands. I wouldn't take a pit bull to hunt quail, retrieve a duck or herd sheep; I would use a brittany spaniel, a labrador retriever and a border collie, respectively. But if I wanted an aggressive dog to tackle a hog, I'd pick a pit bull.

Pit bulls are aggressive because they were bred to be. To suggest that they are not vicious is to recognize that they are most likely not sentient enough to exhibit such a behavior; but they were bred to be aggressive and to fearlessly attack animals larger than themselves.



Pit bulls are the number-one breed in the United States responsible for human fatalities by dog attack. Over a 20-year period (1979-1998), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) compiled 238 human mortalities due to dog attack committed by 20 breeds and crossbreeds.

Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed. The CDC makes a point to write "There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill." That is, without better data we cannot say that pit bulls are more dangerous than any other breed. But if I were going to be bitten by a dog, I would rather an irate Chihuahua bite me than an irate pit bull.

To imply that human error is the only reason that dogs' kill is to place your safety in the hands of another. Common sense suggests that to keep yourself and your loved ones safe, always approach a dog you do not know with caution, at least until you get to know its personality, but be especially cautious with large breeds that were bred to be aggressive, like pit bulls. I personally never trust this breed, by doing so I would be ignoring the power of hundreds of years of selective breeding.

Dr. Gary Roemer is an associate professor for the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Ecology at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces

http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_20771597/their-view-pit-bulls-more-dangerous-than-other

 

[3C's]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

 

[beavers]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

 

[The Commish]

I think this thread has officially jumped the shark

I have no idea what you guys are arguing. Now it's the media's fault that these animals are attacking people? I think we can all agree that all animals are instinctual animals. As such, there is always an element of uncertainty with regards to their behavior. Add on top of that the fact that some animals are more aggressive by nature thus less predictable than others and there you have it. Is it really that big of a deal?

Yeah, that's exactly what people here are saying. I actually have a solution to the problem but it'll never happen. The numbers overwhelmingly show that "resident" dogs (dogs left outside/chained) are responsible for ~80% of bites/attacks. If every state enacts anti-tethering laws (along with not allowing tiny "chicken coop" kennels) you remove dogs from most of the irresponsible owners. That would be way more effective than banning breeds.

Can you show me your data? I don't know who's right/wrong here so I'd like to see where you're coming from. Your data shows that the attacks come from dogs left outside/chained, but does it show that them being left outside/chained is the reason they're attacking? I guess what I'm getting at is that there are many of animals that are left outside that DON'T bite/attack people so it's not necessarily about them being left outside/chained. It's probably more about how they are treated. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. HOWEVER, it's also foolish to suggest that everything else is equal when it comes to these animals. If we ignore the reality that certain breeds are simply more aggressive than others then the discussion is over. As I said before, these are animals. They are instinctual. No matter how well they are trained, their instincts aren't completely lost and thus always part of the equation in cases like this.

 

[3C's]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

In their research and subsequent report they said: The CDC says that studies that indict particular breeds are unreliable.CDC used media reports for dog identification. media has already been shown to be incorrect in dog identification. The Voith study showed that even experts were only correct 25% of the time in identifying breeds.http://stubbydog.org/2011/03/misjudging-mixed-breeds/The CDC study, if read in its entirety, explains in detail the inherent problems in attemptingto calculate breed involvement in fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a majorflaw in their study was the inability to factor in total breed populations relative to breedrelated fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to be statisticallyinsignificant in addressing canine aggression.

 

[3C's]

I think this thread has officially jumped the shark

I have no idea what you guys are arguing. Now it's the media's fault that these animals are attacking people? I think we can all agree that all animals are instinctual animals. As such, there is always an element of uncertainty with regards to their behavior. Add on top of that the fact that some animals are more aggressive by nature thus less predictable than others and there you have it. Is it really that big of a deal?

Yeah, that's exactly what people here are saying. I actually have a solution to the problem but it'll never happen. The numbers overwhelmingly show that "resident" dogs (dogs left outside/chained) are responsible for ~80% of bites/attacks. If every state enacts anti-tethering laws (along with not allowing tiny "chicken coop" kennels) you remove dogs from most of the irresponsible owners. That would be way more effective than banning breeds.

Can you show me your data? I don't know who's right/wrong here so I'd like to see where you're coming from. Your data shows that the attacks come from dogs left outside/chained, but does it show that them being left outside/chained is the reason they're attacking? I guess what I'm getting at is that there are many of animals that are left outside that DON'T bite/attack people so it's not necessarily about them being left outside/chained. It's probably more about how they are treated. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. HOWEVER, it's also foolish to suggest that everything else is equal when it comes to these animals. If we ignore the reality that certain breeds are simply more aggressive than others then the discussion is over. As I said before, these are animals. They are instinctual. No matter how well they are trained, their instincts aren't completely lost and thus always part of the equation in cases like this.

Good info of properly researched dog bite fatalities.http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Each Breed should account for 1.49%. If even. But they aren't. Undeniably.Removing the Pit Bulls leaves the other breeds accounting for 1.0% on average for each breed.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I think this thread has officially jumped the shark

I have no idea what you guys are arguing. Now it's the media's fault that these animals are attacking people? I think we can all agree that all animals are instinctual animals. As such, there is always an element of uncertainty with regards to their behavior. Add on top of that the fact that some animals are more aggressive by nature thus less predictable than others and there you have it. Is it really that big of a deal?

Yeah, that's exactly what people here are saying. I actually have a solution to the problem but it'll never happen. The numbers overwhelmingly show that "resident" dogs (dogs left outside/chained) are responsible for ~80% of bites/attacks. If every state enacts anti-tethering laws (along with not allowing tiny "chicken coop" kennels) you remove dogs from most of the irresponsible owners. That would be way more effective than banning breeds.

Can you show me your data? I don't know who's right/wrong here so I'd like to see where you're coming from. Your data shows that the attacks come from dogs left outside/chained, but does it show that them being left outside/chained is the reason they're attacking? I guess what I'm getting at is that there are many of animals that are left outside that DON'T bite/attack people so it's not necessarily about them being left outside/chained. It's probably more about how they are treated. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. HOWEVER, it's also foolish to suggest that everything else is equal when it comes to these animals. If we ignore the reality that certain breeds are simply more aggressive than others then the discussion is over. As I said before, these are animals. They are instinctual. No matter how well they are trained, their instincts aren't completely lost and thus always part of the equation in cases like this.

Good info of properly researched dog bite fatalities.http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/

Dog bite?

 

[eoMMan]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Each Breed should account for 1.49%. If even. But they aren't. Undeniably.Removing the Pit Bulls leaves the other breeds accounting for 1.0% on average for each breed.

You mean until another dog breed replaces the pitbull as the most abused dog in the US and becomes the new leader in dog bites, right?

 

[beavers]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

In their research and subsequent report they said: The CDC says that studies that indict particular breeds are unreliable.CDC used media reports for dog identification. media has already been shown to be incorrect in dog identification. The Voith study showed that even experts were only correct 25% of the time in identifying breeds.http://stubbydog.org/2011/03/misjudging-mixed-breeds/The CDC study, if read in its entirety, explains in detail the inherent problems in attemptingto calculate breed involvement in fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a majorflaw in their study was the inability to factor in total breed populations relative to breedrelated fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to be statisticallyinsignificant in addressing canine aggression.

Media is now in the business of identifying dogs? Or is it the individuals involved in investigating the case? See my post earlier of the sheriff correctly identifying the dog as a pit mix. The dog warden confirmed by stating it was definitely a pit mix. But yet, many in this thread automatically assumed that the identification of a pit mix was incorrect.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Each Breed should account for 1.49%. If even. But they aren't. Undeniably.Removing the Pit Bulls leaves the other breeds accounting for 1.0% on average for each breed.

You mean until another dog breed replaces the pitbull as the most abused dog in the US and becomes the new leader in dog bites, right?

Not at all. Wont happen. Pure myth.And it was fatalities. All dogs bite. pit bulls were bred to kill, though.And you cant simply train it out of them. It doesnt work that way.

 

[The Commish]

I think this thread has officially jumped the shark

I have no idea what you guys are arguing. Now it's the media's fault that these animals are attacking people? I think we can all agree that all animals are instinctual animals. As such, there is always an element of uncertainty with regards to their behavior. Add on top of that the fact that some animals are more aggressive by nature thus less predictable than others and there you have it. Is it really that big of a deal?

Yeah, that's exactly what people here are saying. I actually have a solution to the problem but it'll never happen. The numbers overwhelmingly show that "resident" dogs (dogs left outside/chained) are responsible for ~80% of bites/attacks. If every state enacts anti-tethering laws (along with not allowing tiny "chicken coop" kennels) you remove dogs from most of the irresponsible owners. That would be way more effective than banning breeds.

Can you show me your data? I don't know who's right/wrong here so I'd like to see where you're coming from. Your data shows that the attacks come from dogs left outside/chained, but does it show that them being left outside/chained is the reason they're attacking? I guess what I'm getting at is that there are many of animals that are left outside that DON'T bite/attack people so it's not necessarily about them being left outside/chained. It's probably more about how they are treated. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. HOWEVER, it's also foolish to suggest that everything else is equal when it comes to these animals. If we ignore the reality that certain breeds are simply more aggressive than others then the discussion is over. As I said before, these are animals. They are instinctual. No matter how well they are trained, their instincts aren't completely lost and thus always part of the equation in cases like this.

Good info of properly researched dog bite fatalities.http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/

This really doesn't answer any of my questions other than to establish they were chained up outside and how they differentiate between "resident" and "family"

Resident dogs are those isolated by the owner from regular, positive human interactions.

Owners often keep resident dogs isolated on chains or in junk-yards, or allow their dogs to

roam unattended. Owners of resident dogs often fail to provide basic humane care for their

dogs, resulting in animals that suffer from malnutrition or chronic disease or illness.

This is the problem I have with this group right out of the box. They assume that since the animal's "space" is away from the family that they are also isolated from positive human interactions and that they fail to provide humane care for their dogs. I've seen dogs who were greatly loved by their families and were awesome pets who had their space outside or in the garage. So my question to these folks would be "are they observing the interactions between the animals and the families or are they seeing them outside and assuming they are mistreated?" If it's the latter then this group is really no better than the people not taking time to correctly identify the breeds.

 

[simey]

I think this thread has officially jumped the shark I have no idea what you guys are arguing. Now it's the media's fault that these animals are attacking people? I think we can all agree that all animals are instinctual animals. As such, there is always an element of uncertainty with regards to their behavior. Add on top of that the fact that some animals are more aggressive by nature thus less predictable than others and there you have it. Is it really that big of a deal?

but you're right. it has jumped the shark. no matter what amount of data or how many experts opinions are shared people are not changing their minds. they're either pro or against and it will always be that way.

I agree with you, and I also share your view on Pit Bulls.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

In their research and subsequent report they said: The CDC says that studies that indict particular breeds are unreliable.CDC used media reports for dog identification. media has already been shown to be incorrect in dog identification. The Voith study showed that even experts were only correct 25% of the time in identifying breeds.http://stubbydog.org/2011/03/misjudging-mixed-breeds/The CDC study, if read in its entirety, explains in detail the inherent problems in attemptingto calculate breed involvement in fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a majorflaw in their study was the inability to factor in total breed populations relative to breedrelated fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to be statisticallyinsignificant in addressing canine aggression.

Media is now in the business of identifying dogs? Or is it the individuals involved in investigating the case? See my post earlier of the sheriff correctly identifying the dog as a pit mix. The dog warden confirmed by stating it was definitely a pit mix. But yet, many in this thread automatically assumed that the identification of a pit mix was incorrect.

 

[eoMMan]

I think this thread has officially jumped the shark I have no idea what you guys are arguing. Now it's the media's fault that these animals are attacking people? I think we can all agree that all animals are instinctual animals. As such, there is always an element of uncertainty with regards to their behavior. Add on top of that the fact that some animals are more aggressive by nature thus less predictable than others and there you have it. Is it really that big of a deal?

but you're right. it has jumped the shark. no matter what amount of data or how many experts opinions are shared people are not changing their minds. they're either pro or against and it will always be that way.

I agree with you, and I also share your view on Pit Bulls.

Lock it up. There's really no use debating this topic anymore.

 

[3C's]

I think this thread has officially jumped the shark

I have no idea what you guys are arguing. Now it's the media's fault that these animals are attacking people? I think we can all agree that all animals are instinctual animals. As such, there is always an element of uncertainty with regards to their behavior. Add on top of that the fact that some animals are more aggressive by nature thus less predictable than others and there you have it. Is it really that big of a deal?

Yeah, that's exactly what people here are saying. I actually have a solution to the problem but it'll never happen. The numbers overwhelmingly show that "resident" dogs (dogs left outside/chained) are responsible for ~80% of bites/attacks. If every state enacts anti-tethering laws (along with not allowing tiny "chicken coop" kennels) you remove dogs from most of the irresponsible owners. That would be way more effective than banning breeds.

Can you show me your data? I don't know who's right/wrong here so I'd like to see where you're coming from. Your data shows that the attacks come from dogs left outside/chained, but does it show that them being left outside/chained is the reason they're attacking? I guess what I'm getting at is that there are many of animals that are left outside that DON'T bite/attack people so it's not necessarily about them being left outside/chained. It's probably more about how they are treated. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. HOWEVER, it's also foolish to suggest that everything else is equal when it comes to these animals. If we ignore the reality that certain breeds are simply more aggressive than others then the discussion is over. As I said before, these are animals. They are instinctual. No matter how well they are trained, their instincts aren't completely lost and thus always part of the equation in cases like this.

Good info of properly researched dog bite fatalities.http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/

This really doesn't answer any of my questions other than to establish they were chained up outside and how they differentiate between "resident" and "family"

Resident dogs are those isolated by the owner from regular, positive human interactions.

Owners often keep resident dogs isolated on chains or in junk-yards, or allow their dogs to

roam unattended. Owners of resident dogs often fail to provide basic humane care for their

dogs, resulting in animals that suffer from malnutrition or chronic disease or illness.

This is the problem I have with this group right out of the box. They assume that since the animal's "space" is away from the family that they are also isolated from positive human interactions and that they fail to provide humane care for their dogs. I've seen dogs who were greatly loved by their families and were awesome pets who had their space outside or in the garage. So my question to these folks would be "are they observing the interactions between the animals and the families or are they seeing them outside and assuming they are mistreated?" If it's the latter then this group is really no better than the people not taking time to correctly identify the breeds.

If you read through each of the yearly final reports each event is studied and as much info is provided as possible. I'm thinking they've made a good determination of resident versus family dog.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Good info of properly researched dog bite fatalities.

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/

Straight from that organization...

3.1 Genetic influence on behavior

Everyone acknowledges that the likelihood of animal expressing a a particular behavior can be influenced by genetic selection. People have been selectively breeding animals for several centuries at least. And the literature of biology is replete with examples of geneticist taking a single closed population and dividing the offspring into more and more divergent lines in terms of a single characteristic.

Exactly.Thats how you have the PitBull with its bred characteristic to kill. (Not hunt, guard, chase, fight, herd)

They even go on to talk about they even made fish extremely aggressive. Freakin fish.

And Greyhounds chase. And Rats that attack humans. Which includes changes to these creatures physiology.

/thread

 

[joffer]

I think this thread has officially jumped the shark I have no idea what you guys are arguing. Now it's the media's fault that these animals are attacking people? I think we can all agree that all animals are instinctual animals. As such, there is always an element of uncertainty with regards to their behavior. Add on top of that the fact that some animals are more aggressive by nature thus less predictable than others and there you have it. Is it really that big of a deal?

but you're right. it has jumped the shark. no matter what amount of data or how many experts opinions are shared people are not changing their minds. they're either pro or against and it will always be that way.

I agree with you, and I also share your view on Pit Bulls.

Lock it up. There's really no use debating this topic anymore.

please don't. this has become my daily humor thread

 

[3C's]

I think this thread has officially jumped the shark I have no idea what you guys are arguing. Now it's the media's fault that these animals are attacking people? I think we can all agree that all animals are instinctual animals. As such, there is always an element of uncertainty with regards to their behavior. Add on top of that the fact that some animals are more aggressive by nature thus less predictable than others and there you have it. Is it really that big of a deal?

but you're right. it has jumped the shark. no matter what amount of data or how many experts opinions are shared people are not changing their minds. they're either pro or against and it will always be that way.

I agree with you, and I also share your view on Pit Bulls.

Lock it up. There's really no use debating this topic anymore.

please don't. this has become my daily humor thread

it's like a four legged political thread.

 

[Exit 1]

Good info of properly researched dog bite fatalities.

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/

Straight from that organization...

3.1 Genetic influence on behavior

Everyone acknowledges that the likelihood of animal expressing a a particular behavior can be influenced by genetic selection. People have been selectively breeding animals for several centuries at least. And the literature of biology is replete with examples of geneticist taking a single closed population and dividing the offspring into more and more divergent lines in terms of a single characteristic.

Exactly.Thats how you have the PitBull with its bred characteristic to kill. (Not hunt, guard, chase, fight, herd)

They even go on to talk about they even made fish extremely aggressive. Freakin fish.

And Greyhounds chase. And Rats that attack humans. Which includes changes to these creatures physiology.

/thread

They must be pretty bad at killing then since there were only 50 something fatalities over that 3 year span, huh?Besides, who gives a #### what dog breeds were bred to do originally? Most of them don't do what they were originally bred to do several years ago.

You know what's really a killer....peanuts. Put me in a room full of pitbulls and I'd have a great chance of living than if you put me in a room full of peanuts.

Estimates say that in the United States, thousands of people visit the emergency room annually because of allergic reactions to food. Somewhere around 150 to 200 people die in the U.S. each year because of food allergies. It's estimated that around 50 percent to 62 percent of those fatal cases of anaphylaxis were caused by peanut allergies. Meanwhile, around 10 people in the United Kingdom die each year because of food allergies. However, these figures are not completely reliable, in part because allergic deaths aren't considered reportable events.

Although the number of people who die annually from peanut allergies is in the low hundreds at most, peanuts have gotten a reputation for being particularly deadly. While some people call peanut allergies an epidemic, others say the situation has been blown out of proportion. For example, Professor Nicolas Christakis of Harvard Medical School told the BBC that there was "a gross overreaction to the magnitude of the threat." He even said that the fear of peanuts had led to a situation resembling mass psychogenic illness -- once known as epidemic hysteria. Meanwhile, the "Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology" notes that the "epidemic" of peanut allergies only applies to the U.S. In France, the rate of peanut allergy is somewhere between .3 percent and .75 percent; Denmark is lower at .2 to .4 percent; and in Israel the rate of peanut allergy is around .04 percent.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

That is your line of argumentation?

 

[3C's]

Saw this the other day which led me back to this thread.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/292099_10150808881822161_735493149_n.jpg

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Seriously, it was deny deny deny deny deny deny deny... the breeding and the outcome of a characteristic... then your (pro pitbull) own link shows it in fact to be true. Now the goal post is moved to "who cares".Brilliant.And that peanut argument is hilariously pathetic.

 

[3C's]

Good info of properly researched dog bite fatalities.

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/

Straight from that organization...

3.1 Genetic influence on behavior

Everyone acknowledges that the likelihood of animal expressing a a particular behavior can be influenced by genetic selection. People have been selectively breeding animals for several centuries at least. And the literature of biology is replete with examples of geneticist taking a single closed population and dividing the offspring into more and more divergent lines in terms of a single characteristic.

Exactly.Thats how you have the PitBull with its bred characteristic to kill. (Not hunt, guard, chase, fight, herd)

They even go on to talk about they even made fish extremely aggressive. Freakin fish.

And Greyhounds chase. And Rats that attack humans. Which includes changes to these creatures physiology.

/thread

"ConclusionThere is no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely to injure a human being than another kind of dog."

 

[TexanFan02]

Good info of properly researched dog bite fatalities.

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/

Straight from that organization...

3.1 Genetic influence on behavior

Everyone acknowledges that the likelihood of animal expressing a a particular behavior can be influenced by genetic selection. People have been selectively breeding animals for several centuries at least. And the literature of biology is replete with examples of geneticist taking a single closed population and dividing the offspring into more and more divergent lines in terms of a single characteristic.

Exactly.Thats how you have the PitBull with its bred characteristic to kill. (Not hunt, guard, chase, fight, herd)

They even go on to talk about they even made fish extremely aggressive. Freakin fish.

And Greyhounds chase. And Rats that attack humans. Which includes changes to these creatures physiology.

/thread

"ConclusionThere is no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely to injure a human being than another kind of dog."

That sounds just like the "pit bull research site" Genedoc used to cite that was funded by a pet liability company. "Enjoy your little killing machines, then when they snap you're protected!"

 

[Exit 1]

Seriously, it was deny deny deny deny deny deny deny... the breeding and the outcome of a characteristic... then your (pro pitbull) own link shows it in fact to be true. Now the goal post is moved to "who cares".Brilliant.And that peanut argument is hilariously pathetic.

Did you know that the Rhodesian Ridgeback dog was bred to hunt lions? Yeah, that's right....####### LIONS!!!I don't know about you but I haven't heard any stories lately about Rhodesian Ridgeback dogs breaking into zoos looking for lions. But why? Isn't this what they were bred to do? Why aren't they out looking for lions?THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE BRED TO DO! OMG!!!!

 

[Chaka]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

 

[3C's]

Good info of properly researched dog bite fatalities.

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/

Straight from that organization...

3.1 Genetic influence on behavior

Everyone acknowledges that the likelihood of animal expressing a a particular behavior can be influenced by genetic selection. People have been selectively breeding animals for several centuries at least. And the literature of biology is replete with examples of geneticist taking a single closed population and dividing the offspring into more and more divergent lines in terms of a single characteristic.

Exactly.Thats how you have the PitBull with its bred characteristic to kill. (Not hunt, guard, chase, fight, herd)

They even go on to talk about they even made fish extremely aggressive. Freakin fish.

And Greyhounds chase. And Rats that attack humans. Which includes changes to these creatures physiology.

/thread

"ConclusionThere is no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely to injure a human being than another kind of dog."

That sounds just like the "pit bull research site" Genedoc used to cite that was funded by a pet liability company. "Enjoy your little killing machines, then when they snap you're protected!"

Why do you hate science?

 

[TexanFan02]

Good info of properly researched dog bite fatalities.

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/

Straight from that organization...

3.1 Genetic influence on behavior

Everyone acknowledges that the likelihood of animal expressing a a particular behavior can be influenced by genetic selection. People have been selectively breeding animals for several centuries at least. And the literature of biology is replete with examples of geneticist taking a single closed population and dividing the offspring into more and more divergent lines in terms of a single characteristic.

Exactly.Thats how you have the PitBull with its bred characteristic to kill. (Not hunt, guard, chase, fight, herd)

They even go on to talk about they even made fish extremely aggressive. Freakin fish.

And Greyhounds chase. And Rats that attack humans. Which includes changes to these creatures physiology.

/thread

"ConclusionThere is no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely to injure a human being than another kind of dog."

That sounds just like the "pit bull research site" Genedoc used to cite that was funded by a pet liability company. "Enjoy your little killing machines, then when they snap you're protected!"

Why do you hate science?

"Science".

 

[Chaka]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Each Breed should account for 1.49%. If even. But they aren't. Undeniably.

Removing the Pit Bulls leaves the other breeds accounting for 1.0% on average for each breed.

You mean until another dog breed replaces the pitbull as the most abused dog in the US and becomes the new leader in dog bites, right?

Not at all. Wont happen. Pure myth.And it was fatalities.

All dogs bite. pit bulls were bred to kill, though.

And you cant simply train it out of them. It doesnt work that way.

Oh well with certainty like that let's start the purification program. It absolutely will happen and I will take it a step further and tell you that it will be Rottweilers that end up making up the difference.

 

[3C's]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

And add in the fact that CDC says breed ID is unreliable and "pit bull" or "pit bull crossbreed" can include up to 40 actual breeds.

 

[Chaka]

I think BST needs to just come out and admit that he wants to kill all dogs.

 

[3C's]

Good info of properly researched dog bite fatalities.

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/

Straight from that organization...

3.1 Genetic influence on behavior

Everyone acknowledges that the likelihood of animal expressing a a particular behavior can be influenced by genetic selection. People have been selectively breeding animals for several centuries at least. And the literature of biology is replete with examples of geneticist taking a single closed population and dividing the offspring into more and more divergent lines in terms of a single characteristic.

Exactly.Thats how you have the PitBull with its bred characteristic to kill. (Not hunt, guard, chase, fight, herd)

They even go on to talk about they even made fish extremely aggressive. Freakin fish.

And Greyhounds chase. And Rats that attack humans. Which includes changes to these creatures physiology.

/thread

"ConclusionThere is no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely to injure a human being than another kind of dog."

That sounds just like the "pit bull research site" Genedoc used to cite that was funded by a pet liability company. "Enjoy your little killing machines, then when they snap you're protected!"

Why do you hate science?

"Science".

 

[Chaka]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

And add in the fact that CDC says breed ID is unreliable and "pit bull" or "pit bull crossbreed" can include up to 40 actual breeds.

I gotta say that the 3.8/year number seems low to me. I have seen data that suggests otherwise but ultimately it's all completely unreliable. And even if it were it wouldn't change the mind of people who are scared of dogs.

 

[joffer]

i mistreated/abused pitbull is no more dangerous than a similarly mistreated/abused poodle

 

[TexanFan02]

i mistreated/abused pitbull is no more dangerous than a similarly mistreated/abused poodle

BS.

 

[The Commish]

I think this thread has officially jumped the shark

I have no idea what you guys are arguing. Now it's the media's fault that these animals are attacking people? I think we can all agree that all animals are instinctual animals. As such, there is always an element of uncertainty with regards to their behavior. Add on top of that the fact that some animals are more aggressive by nature thus less predictable than others and there you have it. Is it really that big of a deal?

Yeah, that's exactly what people here are saying. I actually have a solution to the problem but it'll never happen. The numbers overwhelmingly show that "resident" dogs (dogs left outside/chained) are responsible for ~80% of bites/attacks. If every state enacts anti-tethering laws (along with not allowing tiny "chicken coop" kennels) you remove dogs from most of the irresponsible owners. That would be way more effective than banning breeds.

Can you show me your data? I don't know who's right/wrong here so I'd like to see where you're coming from. Your data shows that the attacks come from dogs left outside/chained, but does it show that them being left outside/chained is the reason they're attacking? I guess what I'm getting at is that there are many of animals that are left outside that DON'T bite/attack people so it's not necessarily about them being left outside/chained. It's probably more about how they are treated. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. HOWEVER, it's also foolish to suggest that everything else is equal when it comes to these animals. If we ignore the reality that certain breeds are simply more aggressive than others then the discussion is over. As I said before, these are animals. They are instinctual. No matter how well they are trained, their instincts aren't completely lost and thus always part of the equation in cases like this.

Good info of properly researched dog bite fatalities.http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites/dog-bite-related-fatalities/

This really doesn't answer any of my questions other than to establish they were chained up outside and how they differentiate between "resident" and "family"

Resident dogs are those isolated by the owner from regular, positive human interactions.

Owners often keep resident dogs isolated on chains or in junk-yards, or allow their dogs to

roam unattended. Owners of resident dogs often fail to provide basic humane care for their

dogs, resulting in animals that suffer from malnutrition or chronic disease or illness.

This is the problem I have with this group right out of the box. They assume that since the animal's "space" is away from the family that they are also isolated from positive human interactions and that they fail to provide humane care for their dogs. I've seen dogs who were greatly loved by their families and were awesome pets who had their space outside or in the garage. So my question to these folks would be "are they observing the interactions between the animals and the families or are they seeing them outside and assuming they are mistreated?" If it's the latter then this group is really no better than the people not taking time to correctly identify the breeds.

If you read through each of the yearly final reports each event is studied and as much info is provided as possible. I'm thinking they've made a good determination of resident versus family dog.

Everything there is anecdotal IMO. That's not to say they aren't right, but there is plenty to question there. We can move on.

 

[beavers]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

 

[Mister CIA]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

I declare you world dictator for a day. Tell us how you would eliminate the 12 deaths per year?

 

[TexanFan02]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

I declare you world dictator for a day. Tell us how you would eliminate the 12 deaths per year?

Duh, eliminate Pit Bulls. And I love the "They only eat 12 kids a year so it's ok" defense.

 

[Exit 1]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

Ditto. You pitbull haters are absolutely insane and really don't understand statistics.You're so focused on headlines....it's sad. :(

 

[beavers]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

Ditto. You pitbull haters are absolutely insane and really don't understand statistics.You're so focused on headlines....it's sad. :(

Um, ditto what? Please don't group me with you ... I am not the one saying that only 12 deaths a year are okay. What's not to understand about the stat 12 deaths a year? Your statement is incorrect. I understand stats but obviously interpret them differently -- you say "only 12 deaths" and I say "12 deaths is way too many."

 

[Exit 1]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

Ditto. You pitbull haters are absolutely insane and really don't understand statistics.You're so focused on headlines....it's sad. :(

Um, ditto what? Please don't group me with you ... I am not the one saying that only 12 deaths a year are okay. What's not to understand about the stat 12 deaths a year? Your statement is incorrect. I understand stats but obviously interpret them differently -- you say "only 12 deaths" and I say "12 deaths is way too many."

Do you realize how many people live in the USA?Do you realize how many MORE people die from other things that don't make the headlines like "horrible pitbull attack"?My point is that although any death is tragic, you really need to look at the big picture and realize that 12 deaths due to pitbulls really isn't something getting worked up over. You're better off getting worked over more worthwhile causes that could tragically affect far greater people.

 

[Chaka]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

It's 3.8 deaths/year, not 12, attributed to Pit Bulls according to BST's article.I didn't say it is no big deal but it's a country of 310+ million people. All I suggested is that the hysteria is completely disproportionate to the problem. And I'm correct.

 

[Chaka]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

Ditto. You pitbull haters are absolutely insane and really don't understand statistics.You're so focused on headlines....it's sad. :(

Um, ditto what? Please don't group me with you ... I am not the one saying that only 12 deaths a year are okay. What's not to understand about the stat 12 deaths a year? Your statement is incorrect. I understand stats but obviously interpret them differently -- you say "only 12 deaths" and I say "12 deaths is way too many."

12 deaths per year across all breeds (according to data BST provided, I think that number is low). And no one says that is okay, I said that the level of hysteria is completely out of whack with the scope of the problem.

 

[beavers]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

It's 3.8 deaths/year, not 12, attributed to Pit Bulls according to BST's article.I didn't say it is no big deal but it's a country of 310+ million people. All I suggested is that the hysteria is completely disproportionate to the problem. And I'm correct.

If your child or wife was the victim, I am correct in saying that you would be speaking differently on this subject.

 

[Chaka]

So now fish and wildlife guys are experts in dog behavior? More of an expert than actual dog behavior experts?

You must have missed this section from the CDC research. Conspiracy, I tell you!Pit bull and pit bull crossbreeds accounted for 32 percent of all fatalities (76 of 238) — more than any other breed.

Over a 20 year period.The hysteria associated with 12 deaths a year (3.8 allegedly by Pit Bulls) is mind blowing.

Wow. You're taking the "well, only 12 deaths a year" approach. Really? I can promise you, that 1 death by an animal that is supposed to be pet is 1 too many. These breed advocates have lost their mind.

I declare you world dictator for a day. Tell us how you would eliminate the 12 deaths per year?

Duh, eliminate Pit Bulls. And I love the "They only eat 12 kids a year so it's ok" defense.

No. BST's data did not specify age of victims. Nice try applying the "We gotta save the children" line of reasoning.