What's new
By:

Where is that pit bull thread when I need it?

there are 2 heads to every coin
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=27211423
https://www.examiner.com/article/stray-pit-bull-saves-a-woman-and-child-from-attacker

It’s also important to note which types of dogs are listed as responsible for bites or fatalities changes over time, depending on which types of dogs are popular for negative functions, such as guarding, at that time. The CDC report also discusses this: “reeds responsible for DBRF have varied over time. … As ascertained from our data, between 1979 and 1980, Great Danes caused the most reported human DBRF. … ince 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30 breeds have been responsible for fatal attacks on people, including Dachshunds, a Yorkshire Terrier, and a Labrador Retriever.” (It’s also key to point out that you are more likely to be killed by lightening than a dog, and dog bites are at historic lows.)
Click to expand...

https://stubbydog.org/2012/05/pit-bulls-by-the-numbers/
 
heyhey said:
the facts simply don't show that pit bulls have a worse temperament than other dogs.

I understand that they are different scenarios but a ban on pits or removing bears from our canyons is (imo) motivated by over blown fears. I already stated that I am ok with a registry and testing of all large dogs I just feel that a ban is way too far. If pit bulls were proven to be inherently much more dangerous than other dogs you may have an argument for a ban, but they are not.
Click to expand...

You know these are 2 different things. Yes, the facts of that study show that pitbulls are not more aggressive than other breeds. But the stats of fatal dog attacks show they are actually far more dangerous than other breeds. Something in the neighborhood of 70-80% of all fatal dog attacks are from pitbulls, while the breed makes up only 5% of the dog population in the US. They really are more dangerous than other breeds, even while their temperament is not much different than other breeds. What does that say?
 
heyhey said:
there are 2 heads to every coin
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=27211423
https://www.examiner.com/article/stray-pit-bull-saves-a-woman-and-child-from-attacker


https://stubbydog.org/2012/05/pit-bulls-by-the-numbers/
Click to expand...

Nice stories, good to see. I would argue that the second dog was responding instinctively to the man's aggression as pits have been bred to do, with aggression of their own, rather than from the higher moral plain of defending a helpless woman from an attacker. But nice stories nonetheless.
 
LogGrad98 said:
So what is the cost of banning pitbulls vs the benefit? Benefit, potentially 23 people will not die. Cost? Thousands of people cannot own them as pets. The same, reversed, is the cost/benefit of not banning them. Put another way, is it reasonable to sacrifice 23 people a year so someone can have a particular breed as a pet? Is the need or right of thousands of people to keep a pet more important than the lives of those 23 individuals? Now it is out of the realm of stats and into the realm of philosophy and morals. How do you put a value on a human life? The government does it monetarily, can we apply the same logic here? Does it change if that life is one close to you, or even your own? If you knew that someone you knew would die this year from a pitbull attack, and let's say just for gits and shiggles every year after, just so other people can own them as pets, would you be just fine with that? Tough questions to answer IMO. It is much easier to answer when the number is nameless and faceless. Put a name and a face to it and the answers will tend to change as well. They did for me.
Click to expand...
No 23 people will still die because douchebags will start buying rotties or danes or malamutes or labs, etc.

according to “The Pit Bull Placebo,” pit bulls were nowhere to be found on bite lists. “In a 10-year span, from 1966 – 1975, there is only one documented case of a fatal dog attack in the United States by a dog which could even remotely be identified as a ‘Pit bull,’ ” writes the book’s author, Karen Delise. (And there are no incidents to date of a spayed/neutered indoor family pit bull ever having killed anyone.)
Click to expand...
We had a wonderful malamute growing up that my stepfather was approached to stud out. They were sloppy and the man was bitten pretty severely in his face. The mistake was that he was taken to the females territory to breed and instead of removing her from the room first they removed him. He obviously did not want to leave. The breeder realized his mistake and our dog was immediately neutered. I was a young child and never was fearful and he was never aggressive towards me or my siblings. I do believe that owners need a better understanding of the animals they are caring for but I would not have wanted to grow up without that loving beautiful dog.
 
(Waaay delayed response to heyhey...)

Your post claims that people in general have equal parts exposure to both violent crime and pitbulls, heyhey. You can't statistically assess and compare those two risk levels until you can quantify how many people live in areas of violent crime, how many people live in the vicinity of a pitbull, and then weight and compare them. By your logic, we should also not be concerned about convicted murderers because, statistically speaking, humans are far less likely to die from violent crime at the hands of murderers than at the hands of someone from the general populace. Which is correct, but... you know, not really useful information. You know what is? Comparing dogs to dogs:

"In the first 5 months of 2013, pit bulls inflicted 93 percent of all dog bite fatalities. This is well above the average of 60 percent from 2005 to 2012. As the pit bull population rises, more human fatalities ensue. During the last eight-year period (1991-98) that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied fatal attacks by breed, pit bulls were estimated at 1 percent of the U.S. dog population. Pit bulls killed an average of three people per year. The pit bull population has since grown to 4 percent. During the most recent eight-year period (2005-12), pit bulls killed an average of 19 people per year. If the current rate of fatalities inflicted by pit bulls continues, 33 Americans will lose their lives to pit bulls by the end of 2013." https://www.causes.com/actions/1753697-fatal-pit-bull-attacks-sharply-rise-in-2013

"Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites." https://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2011&issue=04000&article=00023&type=abstract

Yes, I had read the entire thread when I replied, actually, but you nailed me on a couple of points. Are these dogs "inherently violent"? It depends on your definition of inherent violence. The only thing I derived from that National Geographic article about the inherent nature of pitbulls to maim/kill people is that they weren't bred for that purpose. They weren't even bred to fight each other-- I get that. Something in their breeding has made them uniquely capable of such, though. Nonetheless, believe it or not, I don't personally believe pitbulls should be banned. What I do think is they need to be regarded with a higher degree of caution, and I agree with franklin's and someone else's suggestion earlier in the thread that different licensing, etc. be considered not only due to the pitbull's physical prowess in inflicting damage/death, but also its relatively recent and growing documented history of violence against humans. I suppose this argument is as difficult as the gun control issue, and in no small part because we people are complete morons, and cause so much harm to ourselves; but the rest of us have the right to identify the problems caused by the minority and-- even if it is viewed as an inconvenience by some-- create safeguards.

Something interesting, btw... In Canada, they evidently don't have this problem with pitbulls. Instead, they have this problem with sled dogs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/
 
olden_undercover said:
(Waaay delayed response to heyhey...)

Your post claims that people in general have equal parts exposure to both violent crime and pitbulls, heyhey. You can't statistically assess and compare those two risk levels until you can quantify how many people live in areas of violent crime, how many people live in the vicinity of a pitbull, and then weight and compare them. By your logic, we should also not be concerned about convicted murderers because, statistically speaking, humans are far less likely to die from violent crime at the hands of murderers than at the hands of someone from the general populace. Which is correct, but... you know, not really useful information. You know what is? Comparing dogs to dogs:

"In the first 5 months of 2013, pit bulls inflicted 93 percent of all dog bite fatalities. This is well above the average of 60 percent from 2005 to 2012. As the pit bull population rises, more human fatalities ensue. During the last eight-year period (1991-98) that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied fatal attacks by breed, pit bulls were estimated at 1 percent of the U.S. dog population. Pit bulls killed an average of three people per year. The pit bull population has since grown to 4 percent. During the most recent eight-year period (2005-12), pit bulls killed an average of 19 people per year. If the current rate of fatalities inflicted by pit bulls continues, 33 Americans will lose their lives to pit bulls by the end of 2013." https://www.causes.com/actions/1753697-fatal-pit-bull-attacks-sharply-rise-in-2013

"Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites." https://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2011&issue=04000&article=00023&type=abstract

Yes, I had read the entire thread when I replied, actually, but you nailed me on a couple of points. Are these dogs "inherently violent"? It depends on your definition of inherent violence. The only thing I derived from that National Geographic article about the inherent nature of pitbulls to maim/kill people is that they weren't bred for that purpose. They weren't even bred to fight each other-- I get that. Something in their breeding has made them uniquely capable of such, though. Nonetheless, believe it or not, I don't personally believe pitbulls should be banned. What I do think is they need to be regarded with a higher degree of caution, and I agree with franklin's and someone else's suggestion earlier in the thread that different licensing, etc. be considered not only due to the pitbull's physical prowess in inflicting damage/death, but also its relatively recent and growing documented history of violence against humans. I suppose this argument is as difficult as the gun control issue, and in no small part because we people are complete morons, and cause so much harm to ourselves; but the rest of us have the right to identify the problems caused by the minority and-- even if it is viewed as an inconvenience by some-- create safeguards.

Something interesting, btw... In Canada, they evidently don't have this problem with pitbulls. Instead, they have this problem with sled dogs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/
Click to expand...

Actually believe it or not that was my suggestion with the licensing. I am not going to champion the cause but I am not opposed to it either.(once again post #54)

AS far as making comparisons in terms of fatalities the only statistics of a decent enough sample size are national.(if I used the state of Utah the number of pit bull deaths in 2012 would have been zero) The comparison is useful to see just how few incidents there really are. 23 deaths from a population of 4 million pit bulls imo(given what thugs do with these dogs) is remarkably low for such a violent breed. The comparison is for no other reason than to put the problem into perspective.
 
franklin said:
Your leaps in logic have been too large for me to follow. Engrish mother ****er, do you speak it?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what I said in my post that wasn't clear? If anything my English was completely on point. Please advise.
 
My daughter was playing with a beautiful bluenose pit yesterday. Of all the shocking developments...the dog loved her and they both went their seperate ways unharmed.
 
HighlandHomie said:
I signed a petition hoping our town bans ownership of pitbulls. Does anyone think these dogs should be allowed in neighborhoods where other humans live? I can't believe anyone even owns these wild animals.
Click to expand...

not sure if serious.


but mostly it is the dogs owners who turn the dogs into assholes.

pitbulls are the most lovable dogs ever.
the most loyal and protecting dogs ever.

shame on you for having them band.

they should ban you from having kids.

i dont want you and your kin;s in neighbourhoods where humans live. i cant beleive there are humans with these dangerous and wild uninformed opinions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top