Sept 25, 2009: Dead Dogs Barking

[Shawnee123]

Hahahhaaaa...the thought of Zeke or Jack being a killer is laughable.

No, there are breeding issues, as you said. The fact is people HAVEN'T bred goldens for violence.

Hey, throw your children into a barrel of pitbulls, I don't care. It's not a risk I would be willing to take. I'd throw them into a barrel of retrievers, though.

Nope, not a risk worth taking, when considering the life of a child over "but he's such a good widdle goggie."

[Coign]

Pit bulls were bred to attack dogs not people. In fact if a pit master threw his arm into a pit of two fighting dogs (to end the fight or break them up) and one of the dogs bit him, that dog would be put down.

Pit bulls are not people aggressive until trained/beaten to be. You little girl is more likely to get bit by your chihuahua than bit by a pit.

And as for pits natural aggression towards other dogs, that can be trained out of them very easily.

The American Pit Bull Terrier has a strong pleasure to please. The APBT has evoked more human emotional, rational, and irrational response than any other breed that exists today. By no means are these dogs people-haters or people-eaters. Their natural aggressive tendencies are toward other dogs and animals, not people. However if they are properly socialized with a firm, but calm, confident, consistent pack leader, they will not even be aggressive with them.

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanpitbull.htm

Their sordid past of being man killers is the cop-killer attitude of the 80's out of southern California when all the gangs and wannba bangers started training dogs to protect their property. The pit bull just happened to already a trained fighting dog (against other dogs) and was bred to fight. It was a natural to pick that breed.

That stupid decade destroyed the name of one of the most human friendly bred dogs ever.

[Shawnee123]

Pit bulls are not people aggressive until trained/beaten to be. You little girl is more likely to get bit by your chihuahua than bit by a pit.

Hahaa...I wouldn't want the girls around one of those, either.

[jinx]

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

However, while banning the pit bull might lower the number of human deaths, such a ban would probably not reduce the number dog bites in any significant manner. After the United Kingdom banned pit bulls in the 1990s, a study showed that the number of dog bites remained the same even though the number of pit bulls had steeply declined. (Study cited in B. Heady and P. Krause, "Health Benefits and Potential Public Savings Due to Pets: Australian and German Survey Results," Australian Social Monitor, Vol.2, No.2, May 1999.)

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)

link

[asmithrn]

I worked as a nurse in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit when I graduated from nursing school. Would you like to know how many kids I took care of that were attacked by dogs? One. And the dog was a Labradoodle. Would you like to know how many kids I took care of that were hit by drunk drivers? Abused by their parents? Disfigured from being dipped into a turkey deep-fryer by Mom's boyfriend? Born in gas station bathrooms and discarded like rotten leftovers?

WAKE UP!!! We have bigger problems in the United States than pit bulls.

[Shawnee123]

Get a cat. They'll just steal your breath in your sleep. Far less painful.

[rasafrasit]

There is no evidence that pits are any more prone violence than any other breed. In fact, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a piece for the New Yorker about how, statistically, they are less likely to be involved in bite incidents. This a clear instance of irrational, negiligent over-reaction to spurious BS and fear-mongering. And for the record, I'm with capnhowdy...fuck the government and the presumption to tell people what kind of dog they can own. It does exactly NOTHING to address the root problem, assholes who can't or won't train their dogs.

[Shawnee123]

bark bark bark

Gogs cause more people to log in to scream NO than gods do.

Less educated people tend to be less educated about choices in dog ownership, and the responsibility for training that comes with various breeds.

Think big loud sound system in car: status symbol.

And, much as I hate little dogs, a pitbulls vise-like jaws that won't let go would do considerably more damage than a tiny ankle-bitin' POS dog.

But the govt telling people about which dogs to own, I agree, shouldn't happen. If I had small children and an asshole dog lived next to me, I'd just shoot its head off.

[classicman]

You cannot legislate morality, responsibility nor intelligence. Get used to it.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by rasafrasit

It does exactly NOTHING to address the root problem, assholes who can't or won't train their dogs.

Sure it does. It takes their dogs away from them. They may get new breeds of dogs, but the simple fact is that when those other breeds inevitably bite after being abused, it causes less damage.

Originally Posted by Shawne123

If I had small children and an asshole dog lived next to me, I'd just shoot its head off.

My mother-in-law has assholes next door to her, who have three different violent dogs--one's a pit, the other two are mixed pits-and-something-else. They are very violent with each other, and constantly try to break through the wooden fence separating the yards. The other week, they succeeded. My mother-in-law reports that the neighbors have sort of half-assed repaired it.

I have already made it quite clear my children will not be going in the back yard for even a moment when we visit this holiday season. And I'm very much of a mind to bring a little dish of antifreeze with us, to just casually leave out by the fence for them. Dogs like antifreeze, you know. It tastes sweet.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by classicman

You cannot legislate morality, responsibility nor intelligence. Get used to it.

But if we could, think what we could do for YOU.

[kerosene]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

I think Colorado has enough problems, what with terrorists and such, they should just start impounding their citizens instead of the dogs.

ahem.

[Shawnee123]

case, will that include state illegal alien employees, like me and Cic?

[DanaC]

Staffs are banned? Damn that's harsh.

[Tawny]

Everyone is still missing something:

Although Denver has this law against pits, it would make no difference if they didn't. Pits would still die at their shelter(s) in the thousands.

City pounds look for any reason to put an animal to death because they have to kill something.

Better to kill a dog like a pit or Rott that has little chance of being adopted over say, a Chihuahua --- since a choice has to be made.