114 replies to this topic

[dapokerbum]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 10:05 AM, said:

I live in a place where these dogs pose a persistent danger to me. It's pretty clear that the guys who own them want the most aggressive, violent dogs possible. I don't actually care very much whether they are achieving this through training or through breeding, although I'm sure its both (why would they not use breeding?). I'm curious how RAC and henry would propose we deal with this.

I think you might be over reaching on this conclusion. Do you not go out on the streets because there are pit bulls lurking waiting to maul you ... I think not. There is definitely something wrong with the individuals who own them because they want a tough dog and they go about making the stereotypical "Pitt", but to say they are a persistant danger to you is an interesting way to word it. Maybe you can expand on this a little so we understand what you mean.

[Pot Odds RAC]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

Were talking about hundreds of deaths over a 24 year period, a third of which were from pit bulls. I like to see some evidence that they are safe. Or is your feeling more from personal experience with an individual dog?

I'd like to see more evidence that they are not safe. I haven't seen your 24 year study. But in the 18 year CDC study that I linked there were 60 deaths from Pit Bulls. A little over 3 a year. All it takes is a moron owner in Detroit, one in LA, and one in Dallas. There are millions of these dogs. Is 3 incidents statistically significant? Yes, I have personal experience with the dogs I own two......and my wife and I have worked directly with the Humane Society and other experts specifically related to "Pit Bulls". Ms RAC has met multiple times with the organization Bad Rap ("Bay Area Dog-lovers Responsible About Pit-bulls"). the organization that took the Michael Vick dogs and successfully rehabilitated many of them. We have worked with the Humane Society to change their policy of euthanizing every Pit that comes into their shelters. Our Bella was rescued by the Animal Cops and went thru their behavior assessment program......also the relevant facts don't seem to support the conclusion of a breed specific problem...Pit Bulls are less "vicious" or "mean" than many other breeds. The American Temperament Testing Society (ATTS) tested 122 dog breeds. American Pit Bull Terriers scored 86% which was better than Beagles (80.3%) and Golden Retrievers (84.6%) and German Shepherds (84.2%). In the ATTS Test dogs are subjected to a series of confrontational situations. Any sign of panic or aggression leads to failure of the test.http://www.atts.org/Also, aggression towards other animals and aggression towards humans are two different things. I agree that a Pit Bull, or other large dog, that shows dangerous aggression towards humans should probably be euthanized.

[Balloon guy]

dapokerbum, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 10:19 AM, said:

I think you might be over reaching on this conclusion. Do you not go out on the streets because there are pit bulls lurking waiting to maul you ... I think not. There is definitely something wrong with the individuals who own them because they want a tough dog and they go about making the stereotypical "Pitt", but to say they are a persistant danger to you is an interesting way to word it. Maybe you can expand on this a little so we understand what you mean.

Ding Ding DingWhen I was growing up the Doberman was the tough dog to have. Thanks to Hollywood shoving the idea down our throats.So you get some guy who thinks its cool to feed raw meat to a dog and give it praise when it tries to take out a stranger, and you get an aggressive dog.Personally I have known some good pit bulls, but I have never ever ever known a good little dog: mini pincher, chihuahua, toy poodle.We had a 'dangerous Dog' growing up, and she was a sweetheart, until the fat chick in the neighborhood tried to beat me up for reminding her of her weight problems with in leash range of Daiquiri. Then she got protective. Luckily for all of us the fat chick was within waddling range of the leash line.

[Skeleton Jelly]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 10:52 AM, said:

When I was growing up the Doberman was the tough dog to have. Thanks to Hollywood shoving the idea down our throats.

I was hoping this was going to be a link to Up.The leader is a doberman, 2nd in charge is a rottweiler. I'm assuming all the soldier dogs are pit bulls.

[Balloon guy]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 10:52 AM, said:

Ding Ding DingWhen I was growing up the Doberman was the tough dog to have. Thanks to Hollywood shoving the idea down our throats.So you get some guy who thinks its cool to feed raw meat to a dog and give it praise when it tries to take out a stranger, and you get an aggressive dog.Personally I have known some good pit bulls, but I have never ever ever known a good little dog: mini pincher, chihuahua, toy poodle.We had a 'dangerous Dog' growing up, and she was a sweetheart, until the fat chick in the neighborhood tried to beat me up for reminding her of her weight problems with in leash range of Daiquiri. Then she got protective. Luckily for all of us the fat chick was within waddling range of the leash line.

Skeleton Jelly, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 10:57 AM, said:

I was hoping this was going to be a link to Up.The leader is a doberman, 2nd in charge is a rottweiler. I'm assuming all the soldier dogs are pit bulls.

Not likely, maybe if I said while my grand children were growing up...

[Skeleton Jelly]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 11:00 AM, said:

Not likely.

I've been having some reading comprehension issues in this thread.

[Balloon guy]

Skeleton Jelly, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

I've been having some reading comprehension issues in this thread.

Its easier to just know that I am usually right.And when wrong, refer to the first point.

[El Guapo]

Skeleton Jelly, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 10:57 AM, said:

I'm assuming all the soldier dogs are pit bulls.

If I recall correctly, I think they were mostly Bull Dogs.

[vbnautilus]

Pot Odds RAC, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

I'd like to see more evidence that they are not safe. I haven't seen your 24 year study. But in the 18 year CDC study that I linked there were 60 deaths from Pit Bulls. A little over 3 a year. All it takes is a moron owner in Detroit, one in LA, and one in Dallas. There are millions of these dogs.

They updated the study with a couple more years, the updated report is here: http://www.cdc.gov/H...dogbreeds-a.pdf

Quote

Is 3 incidents statistically significant?

Statistical significance is not just about magnitude, its about magnitude in proportion to variance. If the question is, are 3 deaths per year more than the zero deaths per year caused by labrador retrievers, the answer would certainly be yes. The chances that this list of numbers (grouped by two year periods, deaths by pitbulls) [2 5 10 9 11 8 6 5 4 6] are drawn from the same population as this list (number of deaths attributed to labrador retrievers in the same time period): [0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] is practically zero. As the CDC paper says,Despite these limitations and concerns, the data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities.I chose the labrador as comparison because they are by most measures the most common dog in the US by a longshot, and yet they account for no bite-related deaths in the CDC study.More recent studies use newspaper reports instead of humane society figures find the proportion of fatalities attributed to pit bulls to be closer to half. As you've correctly pointed out there is likely some media bias, but I don't think that can fully explain the extent of the disproportion.

[vbnautilus]

dapokerbum, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 10:19 AM, said:

I think you might be over reaching on this conclusion. Do you not go out on the streets because there are pit bulls lurking waiting to maul you ... I think not. There is definitely something wrong with the individuals who own them because they want a tough dog and they go about making the stereotypical "Pitt", but to say they are a persistant danger to you is an interesting way to word it. Maybe you can expand on this a little so we understand what you mean.

On the Venice boardwalk it's a thing now for the hispanic gang members to strut their pit bulls, in a display of toughness. They walk them around in chains, with huge testicles hanging down. It's very dangerous. Since I live very near to the boardwalk and I like to walk my own dogs there, it's something I have to be constantly concerned with. A few weeks ago I spotted one of these beasts ahead of me, and pulled my wife and dogs off onto a sidestreet. A few moments later the pit bull pounced on an innocent dog walking in the other direction. The woman of the victim was screaming her head off as several guys tried to wrestle the pit bull off of her dog. They couldn't get it off. Eventually someone grabbed a chair and whacked the dog on the head. After three full whacks it released and left the other dog seizing on the ground. This is not the first time I have seen this, we have a real safety issue around here with these dogs. I have never seen it happen with a poodle or a beagle. Like I said, I don't really care to what extent the behavior of these dogs is due to their training as opposed to their breeding, but I am sure that they are involved in both. Whether these breeds are being chosen because they are amenable to this lifestyle or vice-versa is a chicken-egg problem.

[Pot Odds RAC]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 5:00 PM, said:

On the Venice boardwalk it's a thing now for the hispanic gang members to strut their pit bulls, in a display of toughness. They walk them around in chains, with huge testicles hanging down. It's very dangerous. Since I live very near to the boardwalk and I like to walk my own dogs there, it's something I have to be constantly concerned with. A few weeks ago I spotted one of these beasts ahead of me, and pulled my wife and dogs off onto a sidestreet. A few moments later the pit bull pounced on an innocent dog walking in the other direction. The woman of the victim was screaming her head off as several guys tried to wrestle the pit bull off of her dog. They couldn't get it off. Eventually someone grabbed a chair and whacked the dog on the head. After three full whacks it released and left the other dog seizing on the ground. This is not the first time I have seen this, we have a real safety issue around here with these people. I have never seen it happen with a poodle or a beagle. Like I said, I don't really care to what extent the behavior of these dogs is due to their training as opposed to their breeding, but I am sure that they are involved in both. Whether these breeds are being chosen because they are amenable to this lifestyle or vice-versa is a chicken-egg problem.

FYP

[vbnautilus]

Pot Odds RAC, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 2:32 PM, said:

FYP

clearly its not that simple. Whats your proposed solution?

[dapokerbum]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 2:00 PM, said:

On the Venice boardwalk it's a thing now for the hispanic gang members to strut their pit bulls, in a display of toughness. They walk them around in chains, with huge testicles hanging down. It's very dangerous. Since I live very near to the boardwalk and I like to walk my own dogs there, it's something I have to be constantly concerned with. A few weeks ago I spotted one of these beasts ahead of me, and pulled my wife and dogs off onto a sidestreet. A few moments later the pit bull pounced on an innocent dog walking in the other direction. The woman of the victim was screaming her head off as several guys tried to wrestle the pit bull off of her dog. They couldn't get it off. Eventually someone grabbed a chair and whacked the dog on the head. After three full whacks it released and left the other dog seizing on the ground. This is not the first time I have seen this, we have a real safety issue around here with these dogs. I have never seen it happen with a poodle or a beagle. Like I said, I don't really care to what extent the behavior of these dogs is due to their training as opposed to their breeding, but I am sure that they are involved in both. Whether these breeds are being chosen because they are amenable to this lifestyle or vice-versa is a chicken-egg problem.

Ah. Sorry, you posted that it was a persistant danger to you, which I took to assume you meant that you were in constant danger from Pitbulls attacking you. It seems rather that the persistant danger is to your dog. I can understand that. We have a mini dachshund and anytime I see a meaner looking bigger dog (not just pitbulls mind you) I either switch sides of the street or pick him up as we walk by. Sometimes the other pet owners ask why and I just tell them that our dog has little man syndrome. He doesn't as he is the most cowardly dog in the world, I just wouldn't want anything to ever happen to him because my wife would be heartbroken.Another fun pitbull story. Years ago my friend's cousin (call him FC) had a pitbull. This was the nicest pitbull I had ever met and he was a great dog. Well FC came to visit my friend. At that time my friends roommate had just rescued a female dog who came from a rough past. She was a good dog, just very shy. Well FC came over with his pitt and locked eyes with the roommates dog and lunged out of FC's grip and got the other dog by the neck. We are all screaming and yelling for the dog to let go. FC evenutally found a snow shovel and had to whack the Pitt a handful of times before he broke the grip. The other dog was rushed to the vet and thankfully lived, but FC ponied up the dough for the vet visit (he is a good guy). It was crazy though.

[Balloon guy]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 2:37 PM, said:

clearly its not that simple. Whats your proposed solution?

Talk to them about the love of atheism?

[dapokerbum]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 2:37 PM, said:

clearly its not that simple. Whats your proposed solution?

Give people a license to own certain breeds of dogs?

[Balloon guy]

dapokerbum, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 2:44 PM, said:

Give people a license to own certain breeds of dogs?

But let them have as many children as they want!

[dapokerbum]

Balloon guy, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 2:49 PM, said:

But let them have as many children as they want!

You should be able to prove why you need to have more children if you are going to have more than 5. Unless of course you are going for the 5th child and end up having triplets

[Pot Odds RAC]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 5:37 PM, said:

clearly its not that simple. Whats your proposed solution?

dapokerbum, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 5:44 PM, said:

Give people a license to own certain breeds of dogs?

No.There are alternatives to Breed Specific legislation. You need to focus more on specific behaviors. For example less than 1% of Dog related fatalities were caused by leashed dogs off the owner's property. So enforcement of leash laws, especially in urban areas might be more effective.From the CDC study:

Quote

An alternative to breed-specific legislation is to regulate individual dogs and owners on the basis of their behavior. Although, it is not systematically reported, our reading of the fatal bite reports indicates that problem behaviors (of dogs and owners) have preceded attacks in a great many cases and should be sufficient evidence for preemptive action. Approaches to decreasing dangerous dog and owner behaviors are numerous. The potential importance of strong animal control programs is illustrated by our data; from 1979 through 1998, 24% of human DBRF were caused by owned dogs (typically more than 1) that were roaming off the owners’ property. Some deaths might have been averted through more stringent animal control laws and enforcement (eg, leash laws, fencing requirements). Although the bite prevention effectiveness of such animal control ordinances and programs has not been systematically evaluated, free-roaming dogs and dogs with menacing behavior are problems that need to be addressed even if they do not bite (eg, causing bicycle or car crashes).Generic non–breed-specific, dangerous dog laws can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a dog’s behavior on the owner, regardless of the dog’s breed. In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible dog owners may be effective. If dog owners are required to assume legal liability for the behavior and actions of their pets, they may be encouraged to seek professional help in training and socializing their pets. Other options include enforcing leash laws and laws against dog fighting. We noticed in the fatal cases, that less than one half of 1% of DBRF were caused by leashed animals off the owners’ property. Subdivisions and municipalities that outlaw fences or limit fences to heights insufficient for controlling large dogs may be increasing the probability of children interacting with unsupervised dogs. Scientific evaluations of the effects of such regulations are important.

[vbnautilus]

I don't think that is going to cut it. All of the dog attacks around here have involved "leashed" dogs. There is no way any human can control a the strength of some of these dogs when they attack. The city has opted for a ban of all dogs during daylight hours in summer months, which is equally unfair to all of us. It's a terrible solution. I don't see why species-specific is any different than breed-specific. You can't walk around with a tiger for instance.

[Pot Odds RAC]

vbnautilus, on Tuesday, September 28th, 2010, 6:03 PM, said:

I don't think that is going to cut it. All of the dog attacks around here have involved "leashed" dogs. There is no way any human can control a the strength of some of these dogs when they attack. The city has opted for a ban of all dogs during daylight hours in summer months, which is equally unfair to all of us. It's a terrible solution. I don't see why species-specific is any different than breed-specific. You can't walk around with a tiger for instance.

Because it isn't the breed. I don't know how else to put it. I can walk my Bella and be safe and responsible - so the breed CAN be effectively controlled and walked. Why should I be penalized because of the irresponsible actions of other people?I mean you seem to accept the CDC study as pretty reasonable but can't accept their conclusions?