Marauding pit bulls attack six - 10 year old boy, Critical

[curlytone]

It's not a big airline, it's a small airline. Pit bulls - not uncommon, but nowhere near, not even close to 1 in 5 dogs. And whether it's the pilots or the planes, unless there's a way to ensure that the bad pilots never get near a plane (and funny how all the bad pilots get the same type of plane... someone might take a look and figure out that it's not that the pilots of this type of plane are all bad, but that the plane itself is the problem), might as well ban the planes.

It's a plane - which even pilots who love it admit is a bit tempermental to fly; which even apparently good pilots who say it's a good plane and they love it can suddenly find themselves crashing in. That means it is the plane, not that all bad pilots prefer one particular plane.

And every breed standard, experts, vets, pit bull advocates - everyone admits they're an agressive breed. It's supposed to be only towards other dogs (not a good thing in itself I think), but there are little switches in doggie brains where they tend to think of people as just other dogs - especially children. So that agression is a problem.


The media isn't the problem - the statistics are there and they too show a huge problem. This is not a media created problem. It is real.

But 85% of dog deaths are from other dogs, and using your method of extrapolating the data 3.852 million bites are from other dogs (85% of 4.5 million bites). So, back to the analogy, it is not just one type of plane. AND, YES this dog does attract a lot of idiots (drug dealers, pimps, dog fighters, macho men who need "tough" dogs).

Pit bulls are way more common than you think.

Very good info from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals:
http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cruelty_pitbull

 

[curlytone]

Pefect point Details!~


As a responsible pet owner many of us have found our dogs loose.
Maybe they slipped the lead or dug under the fence or jumped it.

This type of error is usually ok and it just happens. But when it happens with a potential time bomb well that is a different story.
I bet not all the Fords exploded either. SO did their owners have less error when they got into an accident?

You assume that PBs are time bombs based on what? The media again? Sorry, does't describe 99.99% of the dogs.

I am not sure what you are asking when you say, "SO did their owners have less error when they got into an accident?"

 

[Details]

But 85% of dog deaths are from other dogs, and using your method of extrapolating the data 3.852 million bites are from other dogs (85% of 4.5 million bites). So, back to the analogy, it is not just one type of plane. AND, YES this dog does attract a lot of idiot (drug dealers, pimps, dog fighters, macho men who need "tough" dogs).

Pit bulls are way more common than you think.

Very good info from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals:
http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cruelty_pitbull

85% - no. 21% of all deaths are pit bulls - basic math says 85% cannot be from other dogs. Aussiegran's numbers say higher - more than half from pit bulls and rotweilers combined.

It's not just one type of plane that crashes - it's one type of plane that crashes most often. Then there's the other planes who fly a very strong majority of all of the flights, and are responsible for a minority of the crashes.

Statistics - it's simple, nothing but per capita means anything. So if you have plane type A responsible for 85% of all crashes, and plane type B responsible for the other 15% - that is meaningless. But when you know that plane type A does 99% of all flights, and plane type B does 1% of all flights - then you know that plane type B is 1500% more likely to crash!

 

[Details]

You assume that PBs are time bombs based on what? The media again? Sorry, does't describe 99.99% of the dogs.

I am not sure what you are asking when you say, "SO did their owners have less error when they got into an accident?"

Are you sure? The Fords seemed perfectly fine too - until there was an accident that hit the wrong spot. Sounds to me like a perfect description of a pit bull or any other agressive style strong dog.

 

[SadieMae]

Rare? 44,000 every year. That's not rare enough for me to forget it.

If the owner was the fault, we'd be seeing these attacks spread out over all large dog breeds - we'd have the golden retrievers, black labs, great danes, etc. doing as much damage as the pit bulls and rotweilers. It's not all the owner - as in the car analogy above, it's a dangerous dog. And there are too many reports of a good family dog, well trained, well treated, suddenly turning on a child to decide that every single one of those people is lying, all of their friends and family who say it was a good dog is lying. Everything pretty much says that a dog, any dog, can turn - but some dogs it's more common, and when they turn, they do more damage than others.

:clap: :clap:
Couldn't have said it better, great post. And here an example to back you up. I adopted one Dane as a 3 year old unneutered male, now who in their right mind would adopt a dog that old that big if it had the breed reputation of being aggressive. He had also been beaten, abused and starved,(only weighted 76 lbs). Yet he NEVER has shown any food aggression, any agression towards other animals, or children. And even though he was NOT a well treated animal he's true to a Danes temperament and gentle nature.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Jeana, I posted the fact also that the SPCA and many shelters will put the Pit bull type down because they are unadoptable. Why can't Curly see that an organization that's all about saving dogs, destroy them and won't even try to adopt them out? What more needs to be said. They ARE a dangerous dog and people who's job is save them don't want them around. The same happens at our animal shelter here, even the no kill shelter will not accept pit bulls.

Curly sees what Curly wants to see, that's why. Now we're talking cars and airplanes. Can't be compared, imo. Cars and airplanes don't have brains. The brains on the pits tell them to kill something and they're going to try to do it until they're killed. That's pretty straight forward, IMO.

 

[Details]

Very good info from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals:
http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cruelty_pitbull

Yeah - it points out that pit bulls are such a problem that 1/3rd of all shelters won't adopt them out, that they are known to be agressive dogs who will destroy a cat or other dog, maybe not right away, maybe when they reach maturity. And don't adopt them if you have young kids. Doesn't sound like a glowing recommendation to me - sounds like they know it's a Ford with an exploding gas tank.

You really don't think there's a reason that all these rotten dog owners selected pit bulls rather than golden retrievers to execute their evil plan of breeding bad dogs to destroy the entire pit bull good name?

 

[CyberLaw]

Our Province has legislated a bill that require that all existing pitbulls be fixed, Pitbulls can no longer be bred, imported and that any existing pitbull has to be muzzled in public and on a leash.

Just last week, a pitbull ran through a door that was being opened and terrorized the neighbourhood, ran wild, attacked and killed a small dog and harmed a child.

This was a "well liked" "gentle" family pet that accidently got out the front door.

When he escaped from the house I guess he decided to be "true" to his nature and attack without provocation.

You never know which pitbull is a time bomb waiting to go off. It only takes one attack to scar and injure a child. Only one attack to kill a person......just one time........the other 99.9% of the time the pitbull can be as nice as can be. But it is the .1% that is unknown and a potential danger.........

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Our Province has legislated a bill that require that all existing pitbulls be fixed, Pitbulls can no longer be bred, imported and that any existing pitbull has to be muzzled in public and on a leash.

Just last week, a pitbull ran through a door that was being opened and terrorized the neighbourhood, ran wild, attacked and killed a small dog and harmed a child.

This was a "well liked" "gentle" family pet that accidently got out the front door.

When he escaped from the house I guess he decided to be "true" to his nature and attack without provocation.

You never know which pitbull is a time bomb waiting to go off. It only takes one attack to scar and injure a child. Only one attack to kill a person......just one time........the other 99.9% of the time the pitbull can be as nice as can be. But it is the .1% that is unknown and a potential danger.........

AMEN darlin!

 

[forthekids]

Responsible dog owners - there's the problem.

I totally agree with this. In the city I live there are certain organizations that handle certain breeds so they can hand choose applicants who will be responsible for this breed. The organizations do home visits, temerment testing on the dogs initially, require the dogs to be spayed or neutered, and require the adoptive owner to do training classes with their dog. These orgs. also provide education and continued support for these new owners. Animal Control and other Humane Societies in my area recognize that more has to be done so these dogs don't fall into the wrong hands. I personally have spoken to many of these workers and they agree that it's not the dog (breeds) fault that they are favorites of irresponsible owers, so that is why they only allow dogs to be adopted out through these specific organizations.

If you think having these agressive breeds is OK, then those dog owners need to be licensed and trained because right now anyone can go buy a furry weapon and fail to secure it. Without that happening, these dogs need to be banned.

I think the best solution to the above problem is to do in communities what the above group is doing. I also think harsher penalties for irresponsivle owners will help as well. I do agree with you that "irresponsible dog owners will always exist," but think that if this breed is banned another will replace them as a 'dog of choice'. Then I see a future of having to ban that breed and on and on.....
Are you getting my drift?

The majority of these bites and deaths are the family pet, trusted and a good dog for years and years suddenly snapping and attacking.

I don't agree with this. I think that they might say this family pet has been a trusted and good dog for years, but I believe that they:
1). Were irresponsible in that they did not take the time to see warning signs that their dog was aggressive. OR
2). Did not want to admitt knowing these warning signs or that they are VERY irresponsible (were actually fighting or abusing the dog) due to fear of further criminal charges.
I'm sure there are cases here and there where the dog actually snaps, but I have a feeling that the above two options might be more common. (Note that the above two points are not based on factual statistics, just my thoughts).

I honestly think the best way to combat this problem is hold bad owners more accountable and provide education and safety measures like the organizations in my community. Doesn't that seem like a more humane way to combat this problem?

 

[SadieMae]

:laugh: :laugh:

Yeah - it points out that pit bulls are such a problem that 1/3rd of all shelters won't adopt them out, that they are known to be agressive dogs who will destroy a cat or other dog, maybe not right away, maybe when they reach maturity. And don't adopt them if you have young kids. Doesn't sound like a glowing recommendation to me - sounds like they know it's a Ford with an exploding gas tank.

You really don't think there's a reason that all these rotten dog owners selected pit bulls rather than golden retrievers to execute their evil plan of breeding bad dogs to destroy the entire pit bull good name?

Sure sounds like Ford to me!!!

 

[SadieMae]

Our Province has legislated a bill that require that all existing pitbulls be fixed, Pitbulls can no longer be bred, imported and that any existing pitbull has to be muzzled in public and on a leash.

Just last week, a pitbull ran through a door that was being opened and terrorized the neighbourhood, ran wild, attacked and killed a small dog and harmed a child.

This was a "well liked" "gentle" family pet that accidently got out the front door.

When he escaped from the house I guess he decided to be "true" to his nature and attack without provocation.

You never know which pitbull is a time bomb waiting to go off. It only takes one attack to scar and injure a child. Only one attack to kill a person......just one time........the other 99.9% of the time the pitbull can be as nice as can be. But it is the .1% that is unknown and a potential danger.........

Also, the stats Curly is putting up is dealing the human deaths, how many maulings and deaths of people's beloved pets were done by pits. Those would be interesting numbers.

 

[forthekids]

Jeana, I posted the fact also that the SPCA and many shelters will put the Pit bull type down because they are unadoptable. Why can't Curly see that an organization that's all about saving dogs, destroy them and won't even try to adopt them out? What more needs to be said. They ARE a dangerous dog and people who's job is save them don't want them around. The same happens at our animal shelter here, even the no kill shelter will not accept pit bulls.

Actually SadieMae, and I can just speak for Animal Control in my area....many workers first call an organization that speciallizes in adopting out these animals. They do this mainly because of the nasty people out there who will take this type of dog (and a few other types) and fight them or do other mean and nasty things. So, in this case it's not because the breeds are dangerous, rather it is because it is the 'dog of choice' for mean doggie people.

 

[forthekids]

I wanted to add my posting from the other pit bull tread about what I see as a better solution. I'd definatley like to get some feedback on this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Details
Responsible dog owners - there's the problem.

I totally agree with this. In the city I live there are certain organizations that handle certain breeds so they can hand choose applicants who will be responsible for this breed. The organizations do home visits, temerment testing on the dogs initially, require the dogs to be spayed or neutered, and require the adoptive owner to do training classes with their dog. These orgs. also provide education and continued support for these new owners. Animal Control and other Humane Societies in my area recognize that more has to be done so these dogs don't fall into the wrong hands. I personally have spoken to many of these workers and they agree that it's not the dog (breeds) fault that they are favorites of irresponsible owers, so that is why they only allow dogs to be adopted out through these specific organizations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Details
If you think having these agressive breeds is OK, then those dog owners need to be licensed and trained because right now anyone can go buy a furry weapon and fail to secure it. Without that happening, these dogs need to be banned.

I think the best solution to the above problem is to do in communities what the above group is doing. I also think harsher penalties for irresponsivle owners will help as well. I do agree with you that "irresponsible dog owners will always exist," but think that if this breed is banned another will replace them as a 'dog of choice'. Then I see a future of having to ban that breed and on and on.....
That makes sense, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Details
The majority of these bites and deaths are the family pet, trusted and a good dog for years and years suddenly snapping and attacking.

I don't agree with this. I think that they might say this family pet has been a trusted and good dog for years, but I believe that they:
1). Were irresponsible in that they did not take the time to see warning signs that their dog was aggressive. OR
2). Did not want to admitt knowing these warning signs or that they are VERY irresponsible (were actually fighting or abusing the dog) due to fear of further criminal charges.
I'm sure there are cases here and there where the dog actually snaps, but I have a feeling that the above two options might be more common. (Note that the above two points are not based on factual statistics, just my thoughts).

I honestly think the best way to combat this problem is hold bad owners more accountable and provide education and safety measures like the organizations in my community. Doesn't that seem like a more humane way to combat this problem?

 

[Details]

I think the best solution to the above problem is to do in communities what the above group is doing. I also think harsher penalties for irresponsivle owners will help as well. I do agree with you that "irresponsible dog owners will always exist," but think that if this breed is banned another will replace them as a 'dog of choice'. Then I see a future of having to ban that breed and on and on.....
Are you getting my drift?

I don't agree with this. I think that they might say this family pet has been a trusted and good dog for years, but I believe that they:
1). Were irresponsible in that they did not take the time to see warning signs that their dog was aggressive. OR
2). Did not want to admitt knowing these warning signs or that they are VERY irresponsible (were actually fighting or abusing the dog) due to fear of further criminal charges.
I'm sure there are cases here and there where the dog actually snaps, but I have a feeling that the above two options might be more common. (Note that the above two points are not based on factual statistics, just my thoughts).

I honestly think the best way to combat this problem is hold bad owners more accountable and provide education and safety measures like the organizations in my community. Doesn't that seem like a more humane way to combat this problem?

I don't agree. First - everything I see says this is not about the bad dog owners. Most attacks are family pets, not dogs trained to fight. And the owners say they knew the warning signs, that he was always a good dog. I'm not going to believe they are all lying. I've seen our good family dog go snap suddenly at the mailman - fortunately for all of us, it was a little cockapoo. Penalizing the owners after it happens already does happen - it doesn't mean anything because they either don't think they are bad dog owners (and I think many of them are not - it's a bad dog, not bad owner), or because they want to use the dog to frighten people (by all the statistics, this is actually the minority of dog attacks - dogs trained to fight doing the attack). If the owner doesn't think they are a problem, they aren't going to be frightened by stronger penalties.

Also - there's a reason why the pit bull was selected by the people who want a macho fighting dangerous dog. It's because they are. You can't just turn a golden retriever into a pit bull temperment just because a bad dog owner wants a tough dog. If they don't have pit bulls (and I feel the same about the rottweilers) available, they'll have to settle for a dog that is not as viscious, is not as likely to snap, and is not able to do the same level of damage that a pit bull is.

Come on now - we all know different dog breeds have different temperments. It's what they were bred for over centuries, it's how they act, it's written up with everyone who knows anything about dog breeds. It is not just a matter of how the dog is treated. That's why people prefer some breeds over others.

 

[Details]

I don't agree. First - everything I see says this is not about the bad dog owners. Most attacks are family pets, not dogs trained to fight. And the owners say they knew the warning signs, that he was always a good dog. I'm not going to believe they are all lying. I've seen our good family dog go snap suddenly at the mailman - fortunately for all of us, it was a little cockapoo. Penalizing the owners after it happens already does happen - it doesn't mean anything because they either don't think they are bad dog owners (and I think many of them are not - it's a bad dog, not bad owner), or because they want to use the dog to frighten people (by all the statistics, this is actually the minority of dog attacks - dogs trained to fight doing the attack). If the owner doesn't think they are a problem, they aren't going to be frightened by stronger penalties.

Also - there's a reason why the pit bull was selected by the people who want a macho fighting dangerous dog. It's because they are. You can't just turn a golden retriever into a pit bull temperment just because a bad dog owner wants a tough dog. If they don't have pit bulls (and I feel the same about the rottweilers) available, they'll have to settle for a dog that is not as viscious, is not as likely to snap, and is not able to do the same level of damage that a pit bull is.

Come on now - we all know different dog breeds have different temperments. It's what they were bred for over centuries, it's how they act, it's written up with everyone who knows anything about dog breeds. It is not just a matter of how the dog is treated. That's why people prefer some breeds over others.


*(transferring my reply on the other thread over here)

 

[Amraann]

Curly,

LEts not digress.
There are a few points I would ask you to answer.

Do you dispute that a pitbull, once in attack mode, its more dangerous then another dog??
They do not let go, they try to kill. Most other breeds do not do this.

Are you really of the belief that these dogs are harmless and therfore should be treated just like other dogs?

Also I am confused about your media statements.. You seemingly are trying to say that the media villafies this breed in particular?

But on another thread right here at WS there is a thread about a pb who is a disc catching champ with a media link. I could further point out plenty of examples of plane incidences where the plane was safely landed or car accidents where the occupants survived. All reported in the media.
Plenty of happy dog stories are in the media as well.

This breed is not just some target of the media. This is a dangerous breed that needs to be treated as such for their potential for aggressive behavoir.

Plenty of people own tigers and they must adhere to certain rules because of the POTENTIAL for a wild animal to attack. Do they all?? NO.
SHould precautions be made so that the community at large be protected.. Hell yes. The same is said for pitbulls.
The extreme potential is there. Moreso then other breeds because of there temprament to go for the face and neck.

Most dogs when they bite give a warning bite... they wish to be left alone and they are going to bite you if you do not. I would venture to guess that the majority of dog attacks are of this type... However a pitbull gives no such warning when they bite they keep on until someone manages to stop them.

 

[forthekids]

I don't agree. First - everything I see says this is not about the bad dog owners.

How do you know this? It seems to me that if I had a bad dog, but loved it and didn't want to admit that it was bad, I would make these positive statements about my dog and plead ignorance.

Also, have you thought of all of the good (pit bull type) dog owners out there and the detremental effect banning their dog will have on them? Or don't you care? (Just curious). I just assume that you, like others would be very heartbroken if you were told you have to get rid of your dog. Are there any statistics or facts that tell us how many pit bull type dogs are out there and how many are good vs. bad. I just think a less damning measure should be taken first before we jump to conclusions with little information out there other than media reports.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

JANEB,

I deleted your post because it was a personal attack and I sent you a PM telling you that very thing. We all want you to be able to have your say here, but a sure way to find yourself being shown the door is to ignore the moderators' messages to you and to repost a deleted post. We don't delete them for the practice of it. We delete posts for good reasons and we don't like seeing them back minutes later.

 

[aussiegran]

Curly .once again I will put the statistics here . The dogs responsible for the bulk of the homicides are pit bulls and Rottweilers:

"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he 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."

NOTE that the percentage went up to 67% in 1997 to 1998


In my eyes these speak for themselves .I understand how much you love your dog and sympathise but I believe the risk to be worth letting this breed (and I wish it were rottweillers to) be banned and to die out naturally.
​