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

[SadieMae]

AGAIN...you guys are WRONG....go to the ATTS website...that is where THEY TEST DOGS TEMPERAMENTS...you will see the APBT "pit bull" has a better temperament then the average saint bernard...

the website is atts.org

i cant believe you guys dont go to a source for your information..but would rather get FALSE information off the net.

curlytone...i think they just dont want to actually do proper research...they would rather just do what comes natural, believe the hype...lol

i also found it amusing when i went to a CGC class with my APBT...the old lady that was teaching the class had me stand out in front of the class and said "THIS AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER HAS A BETTER TEMPERAMENT THAN ANY ONE OF YOUR DOGS STANDING HERE TODAY" i was SHOCKED, but however, this woman has done her research and trains dogs for a living, so she had to do proper research.

does anybody here even go to OB classes? do any of your dogs pass CGC tests? or how about TT tests?

And whoever reads it, also read what it says the requriements are for failure...one being AVOIDANCE. Maybe the St Bernard failed for avoidance, not aggression. I already stated in an earlier post, anyone can see THAT report doesn't give a true picture of any dog. The sampling is also very small. Owner pay to have this done. How can you even argue the pit is less aggressive based on that? If every pit showed aggression, and every St. Bernard showed avoidance, each breed would fail per their test. Anyone knows a St Bernard is NOTHING close to the pit in temperament. From the way that test is rigged, if 10 pits failed for aggression and 10 St. Bernards failed for avoidance, they would rank the same. Ridiculous ain't it???

 

[Jeana (DP)]

and THAT is level one training???? i think you need to surf the net some more and try and figure out what are the different modes of training...especially in personal protection...LMAO

and again, read my other posts...they HAVE been trained in many different venues....you just failed to see it.

Dude, I just briefly went over some of the training that my dog went through. I neither have the time nor the inclination to recite our history to you. You may be the world's best dog breeder, but that doesn't make what we did any less because of it, does it? As I said above, I'd put him up against most other "house pets" any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[curlytone]

OMG!!!!!!! :doh: We started at about three months old doing basic obedience training and then went into the drives/prey training/stick training and to bite and hold, fight, blah, blah, blah. My dog has never had guns fired above his head, can't sniff out drugs or find lost children (well maybe), but he's awesome.

Wanna get back on the topic of this thread now? Why do you suppose Pit Bulls are not trained for anything excepting fighting one another? I think its because they're not good for anything else.

In the neighborhoods where dog fighting is prevalent, the majority of the dogs are pit bulls (back yard bred). My friend who lived in one such neighborhood estimated that the population of dogs was 95% pit bulls. When I say neigheborhood, I mean an entire subsection of the city. He said that everyone tried to make their dogs as mean as possible to protect themselves and property. They fed the dogs gun powder because they thought that it makes them "crazy". Is this a breed problem or a people problem? Is it any wonder that some of these dogs attack? Have you ever heard of that happening with a lab?

 

[Juan Martinez]

And whoever reads it, also read what it says the requriements are for failure...one being AVOIDANCE. Maybe the St Bernard failed for avoidance, not aggression. I already stated in an earlier post, anyone can see THAT report doesn't give a true picture of any dog. The sampling is also very small. Owner pay to have this done. How can you even argue the pit is less aggressive based on that? If every pit showed aggression, and every St. Bernard showed avoidance, each breed would fail per their test. Anyone knows a St Bernard is NOTHING close to the pit in temperament. From the way that test is rigged, if 10 pits failed for aggression and 10 St. Bernards failed for avoidance, they would rank the same. Ridiculous ain't it???

what the hell are you saying??? you are making NO SENSE AT ALL...LOL

i suggest to re read that ATTS website and look into detail what the test consist of...

also while you are at it, search on google for CGC tests...

 

[amandab]

Can we PLEASE get back to the original topic of this thread? Pit bulls, like religion or war, are a topic that people will forever disagree on. Everone's reports and opinions can be nitpicked and critiqued to death, and people just cannot find a middle ground about this.

So I ask, how is the injured boy doing, does anyone know?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Because in the neighborhoods where dog fighting is prevalent, the majority of the dogs are pit bulls (back yard bred). My friend who lived in one such neighborhood estimated that the population of dogs was 95% pit bulls. When I say neigheborhood, I mean an entire subsection of the city. He said that everyone tried to make their dogs as mean as possible to protect themselves and property. They fed the dogs gun powder because they thought that it makes them "crazy". Is this a breed problem or a people problem? Is it any wonder that some of these dogs attack? Have you ever heard of that happening with a lab?

Yes, you're right about that. No, I've never heard of it happening with a lab. However, neither can I think of any other breed who would take to it so well as the pit.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

what the hell are you saying??? you are making NO SENSE AT ALL...LOL

i suggest to re read that ATTS website and look into detail what the test consist of...

also while you are at it, search on google for CGC tests...

You've just received your second warning.

 

[Details]

From your study:
21% of 431 deaths = 91 deaths from pit bulls over the 36 year period from 1965 to 2001

91 divided by 36 years = 2.5 pit bull deaths per year on average (between 1965-2001).

The average number of dog death per year (more up to date than the 2001 study) is 17.

So use your basic math skills and tell me what percent 2.5 is of 17. Now figure out what is left. (hint 85.3%).

If you want to use the 2001 study for the number of total deaths per year fine. That is 431 deaths divided by 36 years. That is just under 12 deaths per year. Look at that, we just lowered the number of deaths from dogs by 5 and we didn't have to ban anything.

ROFLMAO! I don't know if you know it, but that is just the best joke I've heard in a long time!

You're taking the number of deaths in one set of years, then deciding that it remains the same in a different set of years to change 21% into 14.7%. It's hysterical! By that logic, since the number of deaths from other dogs would also remain static, there must be a fair number of dog caused deaths that were caused by no dog. Amazing! I think I'll prove that Fords are only involved in .01% of all car crashes by taking the number of car crashes involving a Ford in 1920 (let's say 200), using that number in the total number of car crashes in 2004 (let's say 200,000) - and there we go, Ford only crashes 200 times a year, so they are only in .01% of all crashes - so Ford is the safest car in the whole world!

I'm just curious - was that deliberate, or did you really think you were telling the truth? I think it's too obvious to be accidental, but I am curious.

 

[curlytone]

Juan and Curly, show us where ANY other single breed has KILLED more than 7 people this year. Find me the stories, they aren't out there. Dont' tell me they don't get reported because it's not news unless a pit kills. You two are so into statistics as fact, then find some recent ones. the CDC study is outdated by 7 years, so your agument they're responsible for 2.5 deaths a year might have been but that's history. It' different now.

I won't take a chance being around that breed, and if one ever shows up on my property it automatically be shot.

So what changed? Did the dogs all have a conference and say, "in 2005, lets start our attack"? Aren't there more pit bull bans now then in 2001? SEAMS LIKE THE BANS ARE WORKING GREAT!

 

[amandab]

Details - I know this wasn't directed at me, but your post was incredibly insulting. There *had* to have been a better way to phrase this.

ROFLMAO! I don't know if you know it, but that is just the best joke I've heard in a long time!

You're taking the number of deaths in one set of years, then deciding that it remains the same in a different set of years to change 21% into 14.7%. It's hysterical! By that logic, since the number of deaths from other dogs would also remain static, there must be a fair number of dog caused deaths that were caused by no dog. Amazing! I think I'll prove that Fords are only involved in .01% of all car crashes by taking the number of car crashes involving a Ford in 1920 (let's say 200), using that number in the total number of car crashes in 2004 (let's say 200,000) - and there we go, Ford only crashes 200 times a year, so they are only in .01% of all crashes - so Ford is the safest car in the whole world!

I'm just curious - was that deliberate, or did you really think you were telling the truth? I think it's too obvious to be accidental, but I am curious.

 

[Juan Martinez]

Dude, I just briefly went over some of the training that my dog went through. I neither have the time nor the inclination to recite our history to you. You may be the world's best dog breeder, but that doesn't make what we did any less because of it, does it? As I said above, I'd put him up against most other "house pets" any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

then prove it by competing at such events..."I" do with my APBT's...so "I" know MY "pit bull" measures up to the competition and most of all to other breeds of dogs...such as your own that has NO titles, NO proof (but your own intensive research..LMAO)

now taht i supplied you with information to actually google up on and to actually compare true statistics..not some article displayed by the ASPCA....LMAO maybe...just maybe..which is highly unlikely because your pride tends to get in the way...maybe you will have a better view on different breeds...and WHY you shouldnt support such bans...ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU OWN A GSD....that IS in fact LISTED on the DANGEROUS ANIMAL LIST...LOL YOUR breed of dog will be banned along with the APBT in the state of california...so kudos to you on supporting individuals who OBVIOUSLY are wrong...because YOU just said YOUR dog wouldnt hurt a child if it could save its own life...BUT according to them...he should be banned...

how bright is your logic?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

then prove it by competing at such events..."I" do with my APBT's...so "I" know MY "pit bull" measures up to the competition and most of all to other breeds of dogs...such as your own that has NO titles, NO proof (but your own intensive research..LMAO)

now taht i supplied you with information to actually google up on and to actually compare true statistics..not some article displayed by the ASPCA....LMAO maybe...just maybe..which is highly unlikely because your pride tends to get in the way...maybe you will have a better view on different breeds...and WHY you shouldnt support such bans...ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU OWN A GSD....that IS in fact LISTED on the DANGEROUS ANIMAL LIST...LOL YOUR breed of dog will be banned along with the APBT in the state of california...so kudos to you on supporting individuals who OBVIOUSLY are wrong...because YOU just said YOUR dog wouldnt hurt a child if it could save its own life...BUT according to them...he should be banned...

how bright is your logic?

Sweetheart, you just earned yourself a ban. Have a nice life.

 

[Details]

And whoever reads it, also read what it says the requriements are for failure...one being AVOIDANCE. Maybe the St Bernard failed for avoidance, not aggression. I already stated in an earlier post, anyone can see THAT report doesn't give a true picture of any dog. The sampling is also very small. Owner pay to have this done. How can you even argue the pit is less aggressive based on that? If every pit showed aggression, and every St. Bernard showed avoidance, each breed would fail per their test. Anyone knows a St Bernard is NOTHING close to the pit in temperament. From the way that test is rigged, if 10 pits failed for aggression and 10 St. Bernards failed for avoidance, they would rank the same. Ridiculous ain't it???

Yeah, the test scores are completely meaningless when discussing agression - they just aren't made to measure that.

 

[amandab]

Jeana-

This thread has gotten WAY out of hand. :truce:

Would it be allright to lock it so people can move on?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Jeana-

This thread has gotten WAY out of hand. :truce:

Would it be allright to lock it so people can move on?

Its a done deal.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

then prove it by competing at such events..."I" do with my APBT's...so "I" know MY "pit bull" measures up to the competition and most of all to other breeds of dogs...such as your own

Um, I guess since I CAN do it, might as well slip in one final answer:

Juan, honey, they don't allow lesser dogs to compete with the GSDs, so I'm afraid your Pit Bull wouldn't be invited to Texas. :blowkiss: