I don't really oppose pitbull bans inside municipal limits, hell, you don't rreally fully own your property anyways. It is not a city dog. I do have a problem with pitbulls being singled out specifically. Rottweilers, Dobermans, Dalmations, Huskies, German Shepherds, Akitas, none of these should live in human anthills for their own good, and the good of the people who live there. I also don't think hunting dogs like Springer Spaniels, Labs, Beagles and the like should be forced to live in crowded cities, but that's for the dogs sake.
I think any bans should include ALL breeds known to reach an excess of 35lbs.
You are on to something here.
You're previous post, sorry to say, has not been your finest. Pitbulls are vicious and temperamental. Of course there are some gentle ones- there are tigers that have become friendly with chimpanzees in the zoo as well- but the breed is marred with brutal violence towards humans and other people's pets as well. Claiming otherwise is foolish.
Your claim parallels the following very closely: a gun is an inanimate object and no more dangerous than a soup spoon.
Like I said, I am not claiming that pitbpitbulls have no capacity for danger, they certainly do. I simply take offense at the the claim that they are vicious and temperamental and evil and all that. It just isn't based in fact, it's based in emotion. Were they bred to be aggressive? Yes, of course, but they were also bred to take commands and do as instructed. They aren't inherently vicious with a few cuddly ones sprinkled in, they are dogs, and need to be treated and handled appropriately. Just like guns, since we cant trust vicious humans to be responsible, we do have tp enact measures of control.
I don't really oppose pitbull bans inside municipal limits, hell, you don't rreally fully own your property anyways. It is not a city dog. I do have a problem with pitbulls being singled out specifically. Rottweilers, Dobermans, Dalmations, Huskies, German Shepherds, Akitas, none of these should live in human anthills for their own good, and the good of the people who live there. I also don't think hunting dogs like Springer Spaniels, Labs, Beagles and the like should be forced to live in crowded cities, but that's for the dogs sake.
I think any bans should include ALL breeds known to reach an excess of 35lbs.
You are on to something here.
You're previous post, sorry to say, has not been your finest. Pitbulls are vicious and temperamental. Of course there are some gentle ones- there are tigers that have become friendly with chimpanzees in the zoo as well- but the breed is marred with brutal violence towards humans and other people's pets as well. Claiming otherwise is foolish.
Your claim parallels the following very closely: a gun is an inanimate object and no more dangerous than a soup spoon.
Like I said, I am not claiming that pitbpitbulls have no capacity for danger, they certainly do. I simply take offense at the the claim that they are vicious and temperamental and evil and all that. It just isn't based in fact, it's based in emotion. Were they bred to be aggressive? Yes, of course, but they were also bred to take commands and do as instructed. They aren't inherently vicious with a few cuddly ones sprinkled in, they are dogs, and need to be treated and handled appropriately. Just like guns, since we cant trust vicious humans to be responsible, we do have tp enact measures of control.
I read the article, it was a little heavy on dramatic language and way short on details. Does it apply to rural areas? I live in the boonies and I need dogs to protect my home from intruders (unlikely) and my livestock from coyotes (likely). I also need dogs which stand a chance at surviving a coyote attack, dogs which can run/hike 20 miles per day, and will cuddle up at days end. I have dogs which fill these needs. My dogs arent pitbulls, but they are second generation mutts of roughly boxer/bully mixes, and are sometimes mistaken for pits.
I have a serious question for you breed specific haters. is it ok to use that same logic with people or is it just animals? last2exit, can you empathize with me if I said all black people are bad and should be banned or deported because a couple black guys attacked me when I was young. can you empathize with me if I said all Mexicans are drug cartel henchman because I saw Mexicans arrested for drugs in my local paper so we need to deport them all? if not, can someone explain to me why it's ok to judge an entire group of animals on the actions of a small fraction, but we can't do that with people. it really blows my mind that people can say, hey look, I don't care that literally millions of these dogs are living normal lives, I don't care about that, some microscopic fraction of those dogs will attack people so lets contaminate the whole lot. that is just so hard to fathom.
certain breeds of animals are inherently vicious. pitbulls are one of them. some do no harm. others do lots of it. sometimes it can depend on many factors. sometimes it depends on the fact that it was merely 12:03 in the afternoon and the sun shone in its eyes the wrong way so it decided to tear off a kid's nose.
humans were once just as vicious. it's evolution, baby.
you cannot compare animals to humans in any way, shape or form. sorry.
First of all, humans are animals. Fact. The entirety of this post is highly debatable if not just bunk. That pitulls are "vicious" is not a factual truth, as you present it to be, it is just an emotional opinion. That humans are less "vicious" than they used to be is highly debatable as well. There are serious atrocities committed daily by humans that are FAR FAR beyond what any dog has done. Is that relevant? Not really, but it's true.
of course we are animals. I was using that term comparitively speaking for ease of discussion. FACT.
and it's not an emotional opinion. I have no opinion on the matter. i've never been attacked by one. I don't even know anyone that has one. I've only known one person who has been severly attacked by a dog, and it was a german shephard.
but you can't ignore the facts:
A nine-year (1979–88) study of fatal dog attacks in the United States found that dogs characterized as pit bulls were implicated in 42 of the 101 attacks where the breed was known.[29] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[30] A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (29%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.[31]
A 20-year (1979–1998) study by the American Veterinary Medical Association into fatal dog attacks on humans[32] concluded that "fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers)," and that "pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half" (67%) of all the 238 recorded dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States during that period, with pit bulls accounting for 66 deaths. They also wrote that:
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.[32]
and it is not highly debatable that humans are less vicious than they used to be. I'm not talking 50 years ago, I'm talking thousands.
It wouldn't bother me one iota if every pit bull on the planet would die.
It wouldn't bother me one iota if every one of their bad owners on the planet would die.
Odd sentiment.
Odd like saying it wouldn't bother you if many thousands of wonderful, loving creatures would die and leave their families heartbroken.
The many 1000s of people that have been maimed by those wonderful, loving creatures wouldn't be heartbroken.
Timothy Treadwell tried to convince everyone that grizzly bears were gentle creatures before he was eaten by one. Pitbull owners do the same thing- tell everyone their dog is just wonderful... until it bites someone or attacks someone's dog minding its own business. "I don't know what got into her?" says the tool. Hmmm. Try aggressive animal instincts that are triggered through a variety of stimuli and environmental conditions.
Some pitbulls live a long life without ripping their teeth into another creature. Too many don't though with disastrous results and this is where advocating for pitbulls loses ground- big time. It is foolish to sit and try to tell people that pitbulls pose no risk to people as long as owners are awesome for two reasons: 1. We will never be able to ensure pitbulls receive the owners they need. Quite frankly... unrealistic. 2. Even if we did find every pitbull the responsibility they require... that would not pacify them to the degree people think it might: being highly territorial and highly protective are two qualities that lead to aggression.
Ontario has a pitbull laws that mandate conditions for owning one. In 2004, 984 registered pitbulls recorded 168 bites in Toronto prompting rigid laws that pitbull lovers deem oppressive. Whatever they think, in 2014, Toronto experienced 13. 138 fewer trips to emergency for human beings- say nothing of the attacks on other people's pets.
It's not that I disagree with your logic, it's just that basically wishing death on one particular breed of dog because you don't like them is just cruel.
You use such dramatic language in maligning these dogs. "Some pitbulls live a long life without ripping their teeth into another creature." lol You are like a tabloid headline sometimes. I am not arguing that dogs have no potential for danger. You are painting pits with a brush that is more suited to describing dogs in general than one specific breed. What breeds does the Ontario ban specify? There are at least 3 breeds that are considered pitbull by the lay person, and what about mutts? If pitbulls were not bred anymore that would be fine by me, but death for loving creatures that have done no wrong? That's a step too far.
I haven't said I wish death on these dogs. I have said a ban would make our streets safer. As any ban, there is a transition phase that would treat existing animals and owners with a degree of respect.
Sometimes we treat simple terms like 'biting' as footnotes. Every one of those bites are traumatic for the person getting bit and I guess I like to emphasize my feelings on some issues in a less benign manner.
I have come by my strong feelings opposing dangerous dog breeds honestly. My children have not fared well with other people's animals. My son was brutally attacked in an episode that had the entire neighborhood out of their homes followed by a trip to the hospital (German Shepherd). My wife was attacked- by a Cocker Spaniel no less- on her mail route requiring stitches behind her knee.
So... I have no more patience for stupid people with their stupid pets.
And yes, I am not calling for a ban on Cocker Spaniels. I'm not necessarily a fan, however their capacity is what we experienced: I don't think they are capable of injuring so severely to the point of even killing someone such as pitbulls are. Is there a reported Cocker Spaniel killing on record?
Cocker Spaniels are bity fuckers!
Little assholes. No wonder Hugh gets so snarky sometimes.
my spaniel was gentle as fuck. only showed his teeth when he snagged a bone out of the garbage.
I read the article, it was a little heavy on dramatic language and way short on details. Does it apply to rural areas? I live in the boonies and I need dogs to protect my home from intruders (unlikely) and my livestock from coyotes (likely). I also need dogs which stand a chance at surviving a coyote attack, dogs which can run/hike 20 miles per day, and will cuddle up at days end. I have dogs which fill these needs. My dogs arent pitbulls, but they are second generation mutts of roughly boxer/bully mixes, and are sometimes mistaken for pits.
And if you have read one of my first posts in this thread... you would have noted that you are a qualifier for such a dog in my opinion.
It wouldn't bother me one iota if every pit bull on the planet would die.
It wouldn't bother me one iota if every one of their bad owners on the planet would die.
Odd sentiment.
Odd like saying it wouldn't bother you if many thousands of wonderful, loving creatures would die and leave their families heartbroken.
The many 1000s of people that have been maimed by those wonderful, loving creatures wouldn't be heartbroken.
Timothy Treadwell tried to convince everyone that grizzly bears were gentle creatures before he was eaten by one. Pitbull owners do the same thing- tell everyone their dog is just wonderful... until it bites someone or attacks someone's dog minding its own business. "I don't know what got into her?" says the tool. Hmmm. Try aggressive animal instincts that are triggered through a variety of stimuli and environmental conditions.
Some pitbulls live a long life without ripping their teeth into another creature. Too many don't though with disastrous results and this is where advocating for pitbulls loses ground- big time. It is foolish to sit and try to tell people that pitbulls pose no risk to people as long as owners are awesome for two reasons: 1. We will never be able to ensure pitbulls receive the owners they need. Quite frankly... unrealistic. 2. Even if we did find every pitbull the responsibility they require... that would not pacify them to the degree people think it might: being highly territorial and highly protective are two qualities that lead to aggression.
Ontario has a pitbull laws that mandate conditions for owning one. In 2004, 984 registered pitbulls recorded 168 bites in Toronto prompting rigid laws that pitbull lovers deem oppressive. Whatever they think, in 2014, Toronto experienced 13. 138 fewer trips to emergency for human beings- say nothing of the attacks on other people's pets.
It's not that I disagree with your logic, it's just that basically wishing death on one particular breed of dog because you don't like them is just cruel.
You use such dramatic language in maligning these dogs. "Some pitbulls live a long life without ripping their teeth into another creature." lol You are like a tabloid headline sometimes. I am not arguing that dogs have no potential for danger. You are painting pits with a brush that is more suited to describing dogs in general than one specific breed. What breeds does the Ontario ban specify? There are at least 3 breeds that are considered pitbull by the lay person, and what about mutts? If pitbulls were not bred anymore that would be fine by me, but death for loving creatures that have done no wrong? That's a step too far.
I haven't said I wish death on these dogs. I have said a ban would make our streets safer. As any ban, there is a transition phase that would treat existing animals and owners with a degree of respect.
Sometimes we treat simple terms like 'biting' as footnotes. Every one of those bites are traumatic for the person getting bit and I guess I like to emphasize my feelings on some issues in a less benign manner.
I have come by my strong feelings opposing dangerous dog breeds honestly. My children have not fared well with other people's animals. My son was brutally attacked in an episode that had the entire neighborhood out of their homes followed by a trip to the hospital (German Shepherd). My wife was attacked- by a Cocker Spaniel no less- on her mail route requiring stitches behind her knee.
So... I have no more patience for stupid people with their stupid pets.
And yes, I am not calling for a ban on Cocker Spaniels. I'm not necessarily a fan, however their capacity is what we experienced: I don't think they are capable of injuring so severely to the point of even killing someone such as pitbulls are. Is there a reported Cocker Spaniel killing on record?
Cocker Spaniels are bity fuckers!
Little assholes. No wonder Hugh gets so snarky sometimes.
my spaniel was gentle as fuck. only showed his teeth when he snagged a bone out of the garbage.
I had one vicious dog, and it was a beagle.
and I haven't owned a dog in 15 plus years. so my "snarkiness" must be a result of something else.
I read the article, it was a little heavy on dramatic language and way short on details. Does it apply to rural areas? I live in the boonies and I need dogs to protect my home from intruders (unlikely) and my livestock from coyotes (likely). I also need dogs which stand a chance at surviving a coyote attack, dogs which can run/hike 20 miles per day, and will cuddle up at days end. I have dogs which fill these needs. My dogs arent pitbulls, but they are second generation mutts of roughly boxer/bully mixes, and are sometimes mistaken for pits.
And if you have read one of my first posts in this thread... you would have noted that you are a qualifier for such a dog in my opinion.
Yeah I do remember that, and that you recognize pitbulls aren't the only offenders. You listed a few other breed/types that are also potential trouble. I meant to agree with you on that but replied to something else instead. German Shepherds have been mentioned I think 3 times in this thread in reference to personal attack stories...they don't seem to catch as much flak as pitties in tje media
I have a serious question for you breed specific haters. is it ok to use that same logic with people or is it just animals? last2exit, can you empathize with me if I said all black people are bad and should be banned or deported because a couple black guys attacked me when I was young. can you empathize with me if I said all Mexicans are drug cartel henchman because I saw Mexicans arrested for drugs in my local paper so we need to deport them all? if not, can someone explain to me why it's ok to judge an entire group of animals on the actions of a small fraction, but we can't do that with people. it really blows my mind that people can say, hey look, I don't care that literally millions of these dogs are living normal lives, I don't care about that, some microscopic fraction of those dogs will attack people so lets contaminate the whole lot. that is just so hard to fathom.
certain breeds of animals are inherently vicious. pitbulls are one of them. some do no harm. others do lots of it. sometimes it can depend on many factors. sometimes it depends on the fact that it was merely 12:03 in the afternoon and the sun shone in its eyes the wrong way so it decided to tear off a kid's nose.
humans were once just as vicious. it's evolution, baby.
you cannot compare animals to humans in any way, shape or form. sorry.
First of all, humans are animals. Fact. The entirety of this post is highly debatable if not just bunk. That pitulls are "vicious" is not a factual truth, as you present it to be, it is just an emotional opinion. That humans are less "vicious" than they used to be is highly debatable as well. There are serious atrocities committed daily by humans that are FAR FAR beyond what any dog has done. Is that relevant? Not really, but it's true.
of course we are animals. I was using that term comparitively speaking for ease of discussion. FACT.
and it's not an emotional opinion. I have no opinion on the matter. i've never been attacked by one. I don't even know anyone that has one. I've only known one person who has been severly attacked by a dog, and it was a german shephard.
but you can't ignore the facts:
A nine-year (1979–88) study of fatal dog attacks in the United States found that dogs characterized as pit bulls were implicated in 42 of the 101 attacks where the breed was known.[29] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[30] A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (29%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.[31]
A 20-year (1979–1998) study by the American Veterinary Medical Association into fatal dog attacks on humans[32] concluded that "fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers)," and that "pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half" (67%) of all the 238 recorded dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States during that period, with pit bulls accounting for 66 deaths. They also wrote that:
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.[32]
and it is not highly debatable that humans are less vicious than they used to be. I'm not talking 50 years ago, I'm talking thousands.
Since we're using American Veterinary Medical Association data to prove a point, lets look at their position paper on Breed-Specific Legislation:
Dangerous Animal Legislation
(Current as of November 2005)
The AVMA supports dangerous animal legislation by state, county, or municipal governments provided that legislation does not refer to specific breeds or classes of animals. This legislation should be directed at fostering safety and protection of the general public from animals classified as dangerous.
None of them support BSL. The most commonly referenced studies used to provide stats in support of BSL are from the CDC....but proponents of this legislation leave out the fact that these same studies make recommendations against BSL. The only one I've read through in it's entirety is the ASPCA one. http://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-on-breed-specific-legislation There are some overlooked consequences to BSL...things like a rise in dog bites from other breeds as 'bad' owners turn to other breeds. Like the extreme pressure put on shelters when BSL is enacted, and the shelters are forced to care for the dogs during legal proceedings. Insurance companies pounce on BSL to make it impossible to have coverage if you own a 'dangerous breed', therefore forcing 'good' owners to give up 'good' dogs. This fills space needed for ALL breeds, and results in a huge number of other breeds being euthanized over financial concerns.
Regarding temperament......Here is the definitive study on canine temperament: http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/ I'm sure some of you will be surprised to see that Pit Bull Terriers have better temperament than many, many breeds. Many of which possess the ability to inflict severe damage with a bite.
So....do we just discount the fact that virtually every single 'expert' organization has taken a firm stance AGAINST BSL?
I think it's pretty ironic to see people calling owners of a specific breed thugs, irresponsible, or whatever other insult they hurl around to feel like they're taking a responsible, hardline position...while calling for the extermination of an entire breed, with no remorse for the 'good' dogs within that breed. Guilty of the same fuckin psycho macho posturing they're railing against.
I have a serious question for you breed specific haters. is it ok to use that same logic with people or is it just animals? last2exit, can you empathize with me if I said all black people are bad and should be banned or deported because a couple black guys attacked me when I was young. can you empathize with me if I said all Mexicans are drug cartel henchman because I saw Mexicans arrested for drugs in my local paper so we need to deport them all? if not, can someone explain to me why it's ok to judge an entire group of animals on the actions of a small fraction, but we can't do that with people. it really blows my mind that people can say, hey look, I don't care that literally millions of these dogs are living normal lives, I don't care about that, some microscopic fraction of those dogs will attack people so lets contaminate the whole lot. that is just so hard to fathom.
certain breeds of animals are inherently vicious. pitbulls are one of them. some do no harm. others do lots of it. sometimes it can depend on many factors. sometimes it depends on the fact that it was merely 12:03 in the afternoon and the sun shone in its eyes the wrong way so it decided to tear off a kid's nose.
humans were once just as vicious. it's evolution, baby.
you cannot compare animals to humans in any way, shape or form. sorry.
First of all, humans are animals. Fact. The entirety of this post is highly debatable if not just bunk. That pitulls are "vicious" is not a factual truth, as you present it to be, it is just an emotional opinion. That humans are less "vicious" than they used to be is highly debatable as well. There are serious atrocities committed daily by humans that are FAR FAR beyond what any dog has done. Is that relevant? Not really, but it's true.
of course we are animals. I was using that term comparitively speaking for ease of discussion. FACT.
and it's not an emotional opinion. I have no opinion on the matter. i've never been attacked by one. I don't even know anyone that has one. I've only known one person who has been severly attacked by a dog, and it was a german shephard.
but you can't ignore the facts:
A nine-year (1979–88) study of fatal dog attacks in the United States found that dogs characterized as pit bulls were implicated in 42 of the 101 attacks where the breed was known.[29] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[30] A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (29%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.[31]
A 20-year (1979–1998) study by the American Veterinary Medical Association into fatal dog attacks on humans[32] concluded that "fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers)," and that "pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half" (67%) of all the 238 recorded dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States during that period, with pit bulls accounting for 66 deaths. They also wrote that:
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.[32]
and it is not highly debatable that humans are less vicious than they used to be. I'm not talking 50 years ago, I'm talking thousands.
Since we're using American Veterinary Medical Association data to prove a point, lets look at their position paper on Breed-Specific Legislation:
Dangerous Animal Legislation
(Current as of November 2005)
The AVMA supports dangerous animal legislation by state, county, or municipal governments provided that legislation does not refer to specific breeds or classes of animals. This legislation should be directed at fostering safety and protection of the general public from animals classified as dangerous.
None of them support BSL. The most commonly referenced studies used to provide stats in support of BSL are from the CDC....but proponents of this legislation leave out the fact that these same studies make recommendations against BSL. The only one I've read through in it's entirety is the ASPCA one. http://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-on-breed-specific-legislation There are some overlooked consequences to BSL...things like a rise in dog bites from other breeds as 'bad' owners turn to other breeds. Like the extreme pressure put on shelters when BSL is enacted, and the shelters are forced to care for the dogs during legal proceedings. Insurance companies pounce on BSL to make it impossible to have coverage if you own a 'dangerous breed', therefore forcing 'good' owners to give up 'good' dogs. This fills space needed for ALL breeds, and results in a huge number of other breeds being euthanized over financial concerns.
Regarding temperament......Here is the definitive study on canine temperament: http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/ I'm sure some of you will be surprised to see that Pit Bull Terriers have better temperament than many, many breeds. Many of which possess the ability to inflict severe damage with a bite.
So....do we just discount the fact that virtually every single 'expert' organization has taken a firm stance AGAINST BSL?
I think it's pretty ironic to see people calling owners of a specific breed thugs, irresponsible, or whatever other insult they hurl around to feel like they're taking a responsible, hardline position...while calling for the extermination of an entire breed, with no remorse for the 'good' dogs within that breed. Guilty of the same fuckin psycho macho posturing they're railing against.
for the record, I believe it is NEVER the fault of the animal. they are only following instinct, after all. calling for the extinction of something we created is something I find quite ironic.
I have a serious question for you breed specific haters. is it ok to use that same logic with people or is it just animals? last2exit, can you empathize with me if I said all black people are bad and should be banned or deported because a couple black guys attacked me when I was young. can you empathize with me if I said all Mexicans are drug cartel henchman because I saw Mexicans arrested for drugs in my local paper so we need to deport them all? if not, can someone explain to me why it's ok to judge an entire group of animals on the actions of a small fraction, but we can't do that with people. it really blows my mind that people can say, hey look, I don't care that literally millions of these dogs are living normal lives, I don't care about that, some microscopic fraction of those dogs will attack people so lets contaminate the whole lot. that is just so hard to fathom.
certain breeds of animals are inherently vicious. pitbulls are one of them. some do no harm. others do lots of it. sometimes it can depend on many factors. sometimes it depends on the fact that it was merely 12:03 in the afternoon and the sun shone in its eyes the wrong way so it decided to tear off a kid's nose.
humans were once just as vicious. it's evolution, baby.
you cannot compare animals to humans in any way, shape or form. sorry.
First of all, humans are animals. Fact. The entirety of this post is highly debatable if not just bunk. That pitulls are "vicious" is not a factual truth, as you present it to be, it is just an emotional opinion. That humans are less "vicious" than they used to be is highly debatable as well. There are serious atrocities committed daily by humans that are FAR FAR beyond what any dog has done. Is that relevant? Not really, but it's true.
of course we are animals. I was using that term comparitively speaking for ease of discussion. FACT.
and it's not an emotional opinion. I have no opinion on the matter. i've never been attacked by one. I don't even know anyone that has one. I've only known one person who has been severly attacked by a dog, and it was a german shephard.
but you can't ignore the facts:
A nine-year (1979–88) study of fatal dog attacks in the United States found that dogs characterized as pit bulls were implicated in 42 of the 101 attacks where the breed was known.[29] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[30] A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (29%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.[31]
A 20-year (1979–1998) study by the American Veterinary Medical Association into fatal dog attacks on humans[32] concluded that "fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers)," and that "pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half" (67%) of all the 238 recorded dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States during that period, with pit bulls accounting for 66 deaths. They also wrote that:
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.[32]
and it is not highly debatable that humans are less vicious than they used to be. I'm not talking 50 years ago, I'm talking thousands.
Since we're using American Veterinary Medical Association data to prove a point, lets look at their position paper on Breed-Specific Legislation:
Dangerous Animal Legislation
(Current as of November 2005)
The AVMA supports dangerous animal legislation by state, county, or municipal governments provided that legislation does not refer to specific breeds or classes of animals. This legislation should be directed at fostering safety and protection of the general public from animals classified as dangerous.
None of them support BSL. The most commonly referenced studies used to provide stats in support of BSL are from the CDC....but proponents of this legislation leave out the fact that these same studies make recommendations against BSL. The only one I've read through in it's entirety is the ASPCA one. http://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-on-breed-specific-legislation There are some overlooked consequences to BSL...things like a rise in dog bites from other breeds as 'bad' owners turn to other breeds. Like the extreme pressure put on shelters when BSL is enacted, and the shelters are forced to care for the dogs during legal proceedings. Insurance companies pounce on BSL to make it impossible to have coverage if you own a 'dangerous breed', therefore forcing 'good' owners to give up 'good' dogs. This fills space needed for ALL breeds, and results in a huge number of other breeds being euthanized over financial concerns.
Regarding temperament......Here is the definitive study on canine temperament: http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/ I'm sure some of you will be surprised to see that Pit Bull Terriers have better temperament than many, many breeds. Many of which possess the ability to inflict severe damage with a bite.
So....do we just discount the fact that virtually every single 'expert' organization has taken a firm stance AGAINST BSL?
I think it's pretty ironic to see people calling owners of a specific breed thugs, irresponsible, or whatever other insult they hurl around to feel like they're taking a responsible, hardline position...while calling for the extermination of an entire breed, with no remorse for the 'good' dogs within that breed. Guilty of the same fuckin psycho macho posturing they're railing against.
for the record, I believe it is NEVER the fault of the animal. they are only following instinct, after all. calling for the extinction of something we created is something I find quite ironic.
Ya, that comment wasn't directed at you, Paul. No worries. I only quoted you to use the AVMA data to make my point. It is ironic...and scary...and not surprising in the least.
edit: you changed your name again! I'll start calling you Hugh again, then.
It wouldn't bother me one iota if every pit bull on the planet would die.
It wouldn't bother me one iota if every one of their bad owners on the planet would die.
Odd sentiment.
Odd like saying it wouldn't bother you if many thousands of wonderful, loving creatures would die and leave their families heartbroken.
The many 1000s of people that have been maimed by those wonderful, loving creatures wouldn't be heartbroken.
Timothy Treadwell tried to convince everyone that grizzly bears were gentle creatures before he was eaten by one. Pitbull owners do the same thing- tell everyone their dog is just wonderful... until it bites someone or attacks someone's dog minding its own business. "I don't know what got into her?" says the tool. Hmmm. Try aggressive animal instincts that are triggered through a variety of stimuli and environmental conditions.
Some pitbulls live a long life without ripping their teeth into another creature. Too many don't though with disastrous results and this is where advocating for pitbulls loses ground- big time. It is foolish to sit and try to tell people that pitbulls pose no risk to people as long as owners are awesome for two reasons: 1. We will never be able to ensure pitbulls receive the owners they need. Quite frankly... unrealistic. 2. Even if we did find every pitbull the responsibility they require... that would not pacify them to the degree people think it might: being highly territorial and highly protective are two qualities that lead to aggression.
Ontario has a pitbull laws that mandate conditions for owning one. In 2004, 984 registered pitbulls recorded 168 bites in Toronto prompting rigid laws that pitbull lovers deem oppressive. Whatever they think, in 2014, Toronto experienced 13. 138 fewer trips to emergency for human beings- say nothing of the attacks on other people's pets.
It's not that I disagree with your logic, it's just that basically wishing death on one particular breed of dog because you don't like them is just cruel.
You use such dramatic language in maligning these dogs. "Some pitbulls live a long life without ripping their teeth into another creature." lol You are like a tabloid headline sometimes. I am not arguing that dogs have no potential for danger. You are painting pits with a brush that is more suited to describing dogs in general than one specific breed. What breeds does the Ontario ban specify? There are at least 3 breeds that are considered pitbull by the lay person, and what about mutts? If pitbulls were not bred anymore that would be fine by me, but death for loving creatures that have done no wrong? That's a step too far.
I haven't said I wish death on these dogs. I have said a ban would make our streets safer. As any ban, there is a transition phase that would treat existing animals and owners with a degree of respect.
Sometimes we treat simple terms like 'biting' as footnotes. Every one of those bites are traumatic for the person getting bit and I guess I like to emphasize my feelings on some issues in a less benign manner.
I have come by my strong feelings opposing dangerous dog breeds honestly. My children have not fared well with other people's animals. My son was brutally attacked in an episode that had the entire neighborhood out of their homes followed by a trip to the hospital (German Shepherd). My wife was attacked- by a Cocker Spaniel no less- on her mail route requiring stitches behind her knee.
So... I have no more patience for stupid people with their stupid pets.
And yes, I am not calling for a ban on Cocker Spaniels. I'm not necessarily a fan, however their capacity is what we experienced: I don't think they are capable of injuring so severely to the point of even killing someone such as pitbulls are. Is there a reported Cocker Spaniel killing on record?
Cocker Spaniels are bity fuckers!
Little assholes. No wonder Hugh gets so snarky sometimes.
my spaniel was gentle as fuck. only showed his teeth when he snagged a bone out of the garbage.
I had one vicious dog, and it was a beagle.
and I haven't owned a dog in 15 plus years. so my "snarkiness" must be a result of something else.
I have a serious question for you breed specific haters. is it ok to use that same logic with people or is it just animals? last2exit, can you empathize with me if I said all black people are bad and should be banned or deported because a couple black guys attacked me when I was young. can you empathize with me if I said all Mexicans are drug cartel henchman because I saw Mexicans arrested for drugs in my local paper so we need to deport them all? if not, can someone explain to me why it's ok to judge an entire group of animals on the actions of a small fraction, but we can't do that with people. it really blows my mind that people can say, hey look, I don't care that literally millions of these dogs are living normal lives, I don't care about that, some microscopic fraction of those dogs will attack people so lets contaminate the whole lot. that is just so hard to fathom.
certain breeds of animals are inherently vicious. pitbulls are one of them. some do no harm. others do lots of it. sometimes it can depend on many factors. sometimes it depends on the fact that it was merely 12:03 in the afternoon and the sun shone in its eyes the wrong way so it decided to tear off a kid's nose.
humans were once just as vicious. it's evolution, baby.
you cannot compare animals to humans in any way, shape or form. sorry.
First of all, humans are animals. Fact. The entirety of this post is highly debatable if not just bunk. That pitulls are "vicious" is not a factual truth, as you present it to be, it is just an emotional opinion. That humans are less "vicious" than they used to be is highly debatable as well. There are serious atrocities committed daily by humans that are FAR FAR beyond what any dog has done. Is that relevant? Not really, but it's true.
of course we are animals. I was using that term comparitively speaking for ease of discussion. FACT.
and it's not an emotional opinion. I have no opinion on the matter. i've never been attacked by one. I don't even know anyone that has one. I've only known one person who has been severly attacked by a dog, and it was a german shephard.
but you can't ignore the facts:
A nine-year (1979–88) study of fatal dog attacks in the United States found that dogs characterized as pit bulls were implicated in 42 of the 101 attacks where the breed was known.[29] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[30] A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (29%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.[31]
A 20-year (1979–1998) study by the American Veterinary Medical Association into fatal dog attacks on humans[32] concluded that "fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers)," and that "pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half" (67%) of all the 238 recorded dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States during that period, with pit bulls accounting for 66 deaths. They also wrote that:
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.[32]
and it is not highly debatable that humans are less vicious than they used to be. I'm not talking 50 years ago, I'm talking thousands.
Since we're using American Veterinary Medical Association data to prove a point, lets look at their position paper on Breed-Specific Legislation:
Dangerous Animal Legislation
(Current as of November 2005)
The AVMA supports dangerous animal legislation by state, county, or municipal governments provided that legislation does not refer to specific breeds or classes of animals. This legislation should be directed at fostering safety and protection of the general public from animals classified as dangerous.
None of them support BSL. The most commonly referenced studies used to provide stats in support of BSL are from the CDC....but proponents of this legislation leave out the fact that these same studies make recommendations against BSL. The only one I've read through in it's entirety is the ASPCA one. http://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-on-breed-specific-legislation There are some overlooked consequences to BSL...things like a rise in dog bites from other breeds as 'bad' owners turn to other breeds. Like the extreme pressure put on shelters when BSL is enacted, and the shelters are forced to care for the dogs during legal proceedings. Insurance companies pounce on BSL to make it impossible to have coverage if you own a 'dangerous breed', therefore forcing 'good' owners to give up 'good' dogs. This fills space needed for ALL breeds, and results in a huge number of other breeds being euthanized over financial concerns.
Regarding temperament......Here is the definitive study on canine temperament: http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/ I'm sure some of you will be surprised to see that Pit Bull Terriers have better temperament than many, many breeds. Many of which possess the ability to inflict severe damage with a bite.
So....do we just discount the fact that virtually every single 'expert' organization has taken a firm stance AGAINST BSL?
I think it's pretty ironic to see people calling owners of a specific breed thugs, irresponsible, or whatever other insult they hurl around to feel like they're taking a responsible, hardline position...while calling for the extermination of an entire breed, with no remorse for the 'good' dogs within that breed. Guilty of the same fuckin psycho macho posturing they're railing against.
for the record, I believe it is NEVER the fault of the animal. they are only following instinct, after all. calling for the extinction of something we created is something I find quite ironic.
Ya, that comment wasn't directed at you, Paul. No worries. I only quoted you to use the AVMA data to make my point. It is ironic...and scary...and not surprising in the least.
edit: you changed your name again! I'll start calling you Hugh again, then.
lol. when I went to paulonious, it was a result of my failure to renew my membership. and I thought I was choosing paulonious as it is part of my email address, not my forum username. doube EFF up. I recently emailed 10c and asked them if I could be HFD again, and they obliged. call me Paul (real name), or Hugh (fanboy name). doesn't matter to me.
It wouldn't bother me one iota if every pit bull on the planet would die.
It wouldn't bother me one iota if every one of their bad owners on the planet would die.
Odd sentiment.
Odd like saying it wouldn't bother you if many thousands of wonderful, loving creatures would die and leave their families heartbroken.
The many 1000s of people that have been maimed by those wonderful, loving creatures wouldn't be heartbroken.
Timothy Treadwell tried to convince everyone that grizzly bears were gentle creatures before he was eaten by one. Pitbull owners do the same thing- tell everyone their dog is just wonderful... until it bites someone or attacks someone's dog minding its own business. "I don't know what got into her?" says the tool. Hmmm. Try aggressive animal instincts that are triggered through a variety of stimuli and environmental conditions.
Some pitbulls live a long life without ripping their teeth into another creature. Too many don't though with disastrous results and this is where advocating for pitbulls loses ground- big time. It is foolish to sit and try to tell people that pitbulls pose no risk to people as long as owners are awesome for two reasons: 1. We will never be able to ensure pitbulls receive the owners they need. Quite frankly... unrealistic. 2. Even if we did find every pitbull the responsibility they require... that would not pacify them to the degree people think it might: being highly territorial and highly protective are two qualities that lead to aggression.
Ontario has a pitbull laws that mandate conditions for owning one. In 2004, 984 registered pitbulls recorded 168 bites in Toronto prompting rigid laws that pitbull lovers deem oppressive. Whatever they think, in 2014, Toronto experienced 13. 138 fewer trips to emergency for human beings- say nothing of the attacks on other people's pets.
It's not that I disagree with your logic, it's just that basically wishing death on one particular breed of dog because you don't like them is just cruel.
You use such dramatic language in maligning these dogs. "Some pitbulls live a long life without ripping their teeth into another creature." lol You are like a tabloid headline sometimes. I am not arguing that dogs have no potential for danger. You are painting pits with a brush that is more suited to describing dogs in general than one specific breed. What breeds does the Ontario ban specify? There are at least 3 breeds that are considered pitbull by the lay person, and what about mutts? If pitbulls were not bred anymore that would be fine by me, but death for loving creatures that have done no wrong? That's a step too far.
I haven't said I wish death on these dogs. I have said a ban would make our streets safer. As any ban, there is a transition phase that would treat existing animals and owners with a degree of respect.
Sometimes we treat simple terms like 'biting' as footnotes. Every one of those bites are traumatic for the person getting bit and I guess I like to emphasize my feelings on some issues in a less benign manner.
I have come by my strong feelings opposing dangerous dog breeds honestly. My children have not fared well with other people's animals. My son was brutally attacked in an episode that had the entire neighborhood out of their homes followed by a trip to the hospital (German Shepherd). My wife was attacked- by a Cocker Spaniel no less- on her mail route requiring stitches behind her knee.
So... I have no more patience for stupid people with their stupid pets.
And yes, I am not calling for a ban on Cocker Spaniels. I'm not necessarily a fan, however their capacity is what we experienced: I don't think they are capable of injuring so severely to the point of even killing someone such as pitbulls are. Is there a reported Cocker Spaniel killing on record?
Cocker Spaniels are bity fuckers!
Little assholes. No wonder Hugh gets so snarky sometimes.
my spaniel was gentle as fuck. only showed his teeth when he snagged a bone out of the garbage.
I had one vicious dog, and it was a beagle.
and I haven't owned a dog in 15 plus years. so my "snarkiness" must be a result of something else.
Likely the pro-DP idiot in BC!
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
@drowned out, they don't see them as "good" dogs, they see them as bad dogs that haven't done anything bad yet. in their eyes each one of them is a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode.
i shouldn't really bust you anti pit peeps chops because i feel the same way about people that you guys do about pits. i guess it makes me a hypocrite, ahh unless you believe we can't compare animals to humans, in which case i'm not a hypocrite.but i have let a small tiny fraction of people out there contaminate the entire lot of you guys. yeah there's billions of people out there not committing atrocious acts against each other but we all have the potential to skin people alive, light people on fire, rape women and children, kill animals for fun and money. etc etc. that being said, has anyone seen that clive owen and john voight movie where people can't have kids for some reason. i like the idea of that, like thirty said about pits, don't go out and kill them all, just make it so once the ones are alive die, there's none to take their place. ban procreation. some kind of airborne virus that makes it so people can't have kids. a hundred years is still a pretty long time, so we'd still have mad pollution and extinct animal and plant species during that time, but overall i think the planet could recover from what people have done to it, and there'd be no people for other people to commit heinous acts against. utopia.
so i guess what i'm trying to say is, i totally get where you guys are coming from about banning, prohibiting, executing, annihilating, displacing or however you describe it..... pit bulls.
Post edited by goingtoverona on
if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
One time a was on a walk on a country road when a boxer saw me and let out a big roar and started charging down the lane as a little girl screamed "Buttercup, no!!!!".
I was certain my demise would be foreshadowed by a seven year old girl screaming "Buttercup".
The fucking dog charged right towards me, I braced for impact, and the fucker just sprinted past me, over a hill and off into the horizon. I made a silent wish hoping that Buttercup would meet Mr. Semi and continued on my walk.
One time a was on a walk on a country road when a boxer saw me and let out a big roar and started charging down the lane as a little girl screamed "Buttercup, no!!!!".
I was certain my demise would be foreshadowed by a seven year old girl screaming "Buttercup".
The fucking dog charged right towards me, I braced for impact, and the fucker just sprinted past me, over a hill and off into the horizon. I made a silent wish hoping that Buttercup would meet Mr. Semi and continued on my walk.
Funny!
I had two asshole dogs blitz at me once when I was carrying bags out to my vehicle. The stupid woman who was walking them called them back, but the two asshole dogs only turned back when they were about 10 feet from me.
I was in full defense posture- holding my bag in front of me to ward off the initial charge and right leg back ready to kick dogs in the face.
When the dogs ran back to their cow owner, I cursed the fact that I didn't have a universal remote so I could pause life, walk over to the cow and her two beasts, and slap her really hard in the face.
"They're fine. Don't worry. They only snarl and charge cause they're playing with you!"
@drowned out, they don't see them as "good" dogs, they see them as bad dogs that haven't done anything bad yet. in their eyes each one of them is a ticking time bomb just waiting to explode.
i shouldn't really bust you anti pit peeps chops because i feel the same way about people that you guys do about pits. i guess it makes me a hypocrite, ahh unless you believe we can't compare animals to humans, in which case i'm not a hypocrite.but i have let a small tiny fraction of people out there contaminate the entire lot of you guys. yeah there's billions of people out there not committing atrocious acts against each other but we all have the potential to skin people alive, light people on fire, rape women and children, kill animals for fun and money. etc etc. that being said, has anyone seen that clive owen and john voight movie where people can't have kids for some reason. i like the idea of that, like thirty said about pits, don't go out and kill them all, just make it so once the ones are alive die, there's none to take their place. ban procreation. some kind of airborne virus that makes it so people can't have kids. a hundred years is still a pretty long time, so we'd still have mad pollution and extinct animal and plant species during that time, but overall i think the planet could recover from what people have done to it, and there'd be no people for other people to commit heinous acts against. utopia.
so i guess what i'm trying to say is, i totally get where you guys are coming from about banning, prohibiting, executing, annihilating, displacing or however you describe it..... pit bulls.
Children Of Men. the pitbull version, would I guess be called, Puppies of Dogs.
How do people not have their dogs on a leash when they're outside of their home? Again, stupid or negligent owners.
When I was little, one of my aunts had a toy poodle who would "guard" her wallet she kept under her chair during the weekly family card games (poker, rummy - for money). Anyway, I was playing under the table, got too close to that pompous little shit, and sure enough, he bit me.
Even though I don't blame him, I've been leery of poodles ever since.
Tying things together: it's just a sad fact of life that people are morons. They are stupid and irresponsible- generally not capable of raising a potentially dangerous animal to be gentle.
I guess we could say "Screw it" ... everybody raise whatever the hell you want- cougars, wolverines, bears, wolves, dogs, etc. But how about this: if your beast goes and maims someone... you bear the full weight of the law for your animal's actions? If you want to own an animal that has the potential to hurt someone... then take full responsibility for it. Enough, "Gee. It's not my fault. Why did the toddler run by our yard so fast? Why do people even live beside us?"
Person seriously hurt? Assault with a deadly weapon.
Child killed? Murder.
Maybe then the ownership we lament would refine itself somewhat?
Tying things together: it's just a sad fact of life that people are morons. They are stupid and irresponsible- generally not capable of raising a potentially dangerous animal to be gentle.
I guess we could say "Screw it" ... everybody raise whatever the hell you want- cougars, wolverines, bears, wolves, dogs, etc. But how about this: if your beast goes and maims someone... you bear the full weight of the law for your animal's actions? If you want to own an animal that has the potential to hurt someone... then take full responsibility for it. Enough, "Gee. It's not my fault. Why did the toddler run by our yard so fast? Why do people even live beside us?"
Person seriously hurt? Assault with a deadly weapon.
Child killed? Murder.
Maybe then the ownership we lament would refine itself somewhat?
It wouldn't bother me one iota if every pit bull on the planet would die.
You've never had one of these amazing animals for a pet then. They are incredible dogs! The sad thing is, we as humans have criminalized them. We hear or read God awful stories of terrible dog owner responsibility lapses that end up costing precious children, or any other human, or some other diffusive breed of dog their lives.. That's not the dog's fault. It is always the human's fault. We took wolves as pets, transformed them into this crazy patchwork of unique and distinctive breeds, and made them our side borne companions! They didn't go have a pack meeting and say to one another, ' hey, let's go live with those two legged dogs over there..'
I honestly am sickened to know that this is a possible law.. The humans fucked up, the dogs pay the price! I will ALWAYS advocate for this breed! Always because just like a poodle or a Golden Retriever, it is a DOG first, BREED second, and alllllllllll dogs operate the exact same way. If you DON'T lead, they will.. Period!
Tying things together: it's just a sad fact of life that people are morons. They are stupid and irresponsible- generally not capable of raising a potentially dangerous animal to be gentle.
I guess we could say "Screw it" ... everybody raise whatever the hell you want- cougars, wolverines, bears, wolves, dogs, etc. But how about this: if your beast goes and maims someone... you bear the full weight of the law for your animal's actions? If you want to own an animal that has the potential to hurt someone... then take full responsibility for it. Enough, "Gee. It's not my fault. Why did the toddler run by our yard so fast? Why do people even live beside us?"
Person seriously hurt? Assault with a deadly weapon.
Child killed? Murder.
Maybe then the ownership we lament would refine itself somewhat?
sure, this makes sense (well, not the 'wild' animal part, but the rest of it)...and legislation doesn't have to be breed specific to accomplish this. It should be any pet that can inflict serious injury. That would include labs, retrievers, and a lot of breeds that people consider such great family pets. Speaking of family pets...if you google 'best dog breeds for a family'....some of you will probably be surprised to see staffie's and boxers etc on most lists. If raised right, some of the bully breeds are the best to have with kids! It really is about people being morons...or at least careless. We will never cure stupid, and there will always be 'accidents' (ie: dog getting out of the yard or whatever). We can only look at the data and do our best to reduce harm, as with any attempt to legislate stupid. Prohibiting anything has consequences - we can't say they're unforeseen when there are many case studies to examine.
The beautiful solution to humans owning Cougars and such, is that humans are generally dumb... And get eaten or killed by these 'pets'. This, solving one problem. Giving us a few less stupid humans to continue the breeding cycle. Here's the thing. Dogs are very unique in how simplistic they think. It is literally Instinct causes reaction. Unlike us.. We hem and haw and think on things, and an and strategize.. A dog just does. Here's where people start to misunderstand the Pit Bull. These dogs are one of the very few breeds proven to actually think out a situation. ( so far there's them, GS, Malinois, Most of your hinting breeds and working breeds.. But Heelers, Shepards, and Pits ranked highest). So. People go get these dogs, have no clue that they have to keep them Mentally and physically engaged in order to satisfy their instinctive psychological needs. So the dog gets bored.. A bored Pit Bull is dangerous! Just as dangerous as one left untrained. Sadly I see the combination of untrained, unsocialized, and unrestrained... This is where the accidents happen. Smart dogs should never be owned by stupid people. Unfortunately for these magnificent dogs, that is too often the case.
Tying things together: it's just a sad fact of life that people are morons. They are stupid and irresponsible- generally not capable of raising a potentially dangerous animal to be gentle.
I guess we could say "Screw it" ... everybody raise whatever the hell you want- cougars, wolverines, bears, wolves, dogs, etc. But how about this: if your beast goes and maims someone... you bear the full weight of the law for your animal's actions? If you want to own an animal that has the potential to hurt someone... then take full responsibility for it. Enough, "Gee. It's not my fault. Why did the toddler run by our yard so fast? Why do people even live beside us?"
Person seriously hurt? Assault with a deadly weapon.
Child killed? Murder.
Maybe then the ownership we lament would refine itself somewhat?
sure, this makes sense (well, not the 'wild' animal part, but the rest of it)...and legislation doesn't have to be breed specific to accomplish this. It should be any pet that can inflict serious injury. That would include labs, retrievers, and a lot of breeds that people consider such great family pets. Speaking of family pets...if you google 'best dog breeds for a family'....some of you will probably be surprised to see staffie's and boxers etc on most lists. If raised right, some of the bully breeds are the best to have with kids! It really is about people being morons...or at least careless. We will never cure stupid, and there will always be 'accidents' (ie: dog getting out of the yard or whatever). We can only look at the data and do our best to reduce harm, as with any attempt to legislate stupid. Prohibiting anything has consequences - we can't say they're unforeseen when there are many case studies to examine.
And...anyone breeding, raising these or any dogs for purposes of fighting? Same repercussions - even worse, actually.
When I owned and operated my Rescue in KC, 90% of our dogs were fighting ring raid recoveries.. We also worked with The Boys and Girls club up there and had an after school program where these kids got to come help out with the dogs that were handleable. These were kids that were brought up thinking dog fighting was sooooo cool. Then they'd get to my facility, and be crying by the time they left. I wanted as a child to be an animal control officer. But I know o couldn't... I would end up doing to the human what they'd done to the dog.. It's so sad, and says so much about how messed up humans are..
absolutely i'm for accountability. but i'm for genuine accountability, meaning if a guy goes out and rapes a woman, i blame that man. i don't blame his mother for sexually abusing him, i don't blame the woman for wearing sexy clothes or the neighbors for not knowing the guy was a rapist. i like to keep my accountability contained to the immediate vicinity rather than sending out tentacles of blame as far as i can reach. did i make it seem somewhere that i was against accountability?
if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
Comments
I live in the boonies and I need dogs to protect my home from intruders (unlikely) and my livestock from coyotes (likely). I also need dogs which stand a chance at surviving a coyote attack, dogs which can run/hike 20 miles per day, and will cuddle up at days end. I have dogs which fill these needs. My dogs arent pitbulls, but they are second generation mutts of roughly boxer/bully mixes, and are sometimes mistaken for pits.
and it's not an emotional opinion. I have no opinion on the matter. i've never been attacked by one. I don't even know anyone that has one. I've only known one person who has been severly attacked by a dog, and it was a german shephard.
but you can't ignore the facts:
A nine-year (1979–88) study of fatal dog attacks in the United States found that dogs characterized as pit bulls were implicated in 42 of the 101 attacks where the breed was known.[29] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[30] A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (29%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.[31]
A 20-year (1979–1998) study by the American Veterinary Medical Association into fatal dog attacks on humans[32] concluded that "fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers)," and that "pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers were involved in more than half" (67%) of all the 238 recorded dog bite-related fatalities (DBRF) in the United States during that period, with pit bulls accounting for 66 deaths. They also wrote that:
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.[32]
and it is not highly debatable that humans are less vicious than they used to be. I'm not talking 50 years ago, I'm talking thousands.
www.headstonesband.com
I had one vicious dog, and it was a beagle.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Dangerous Animal Legislation
(Current as of November 2005)
The AVMA supports dangerous animal legislation by state, county, or municipal governments provided that legislation does not refer to specific breeds or classes of animals. This legislation should be directed at fostering safety and protection of the general public from animals classified as dangerous.
Here are position papers from 16 different professional canine welfare organizations:
http://stopbsl.org/bsloverview/the-lack-of-professional-support/#avma
None of them support BSL.
The most commonly referenced studies used to provide stats in support of BSL are from the CDC....but proponents of this legislation leave out the fact that these same studies make recommendations against BSL.
The only one I've read through in it's entirety is the ASPCA one. http://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-on-breed-specific-legislation
There are some overlooked consequences to BSL...things like a rise in dog bites from other breeds as 'bad' owners turn to other breeds. Like the extreme pressure put on shelters when BSL is enacted, and the shelters are forced to care for the dogs during legal proceedings. Insurance companies pounce on BSL to make it impossible to have coverage if you own a 'dangerous breed', therefore forcing 'good' owners to give up 'good' dogs. This fills space needed for ALL breeds, and results in a huge number of other breeds being euthanized over financial concerns.
Regarding temperament......Here is the definitive study on canine temperament:
http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/
I'm sure some of you will be surprised to see that Pit Bull Terriers have better temperament than many, many breeds. Many of which possess the ability to inflict severe damage with a bite.
So....do we just discount the fact that virtually every single 'expert' organization has taken a firm stance AGAINST BSL?
I think it's pretty ironic to see people calling owners of a specific breed thugs, irresponsible, or whatever other insult they hurl around to feel like they're taking a responsible, hardline position...while calling for the extermination of an entire breed, with no remorse for the 'good' dogs within that breed. Guilty of the same fuckin psycho macho posturing they're railing against.
www.headstonesband.com
edit: you changed your name again! I'll start calling you Hugh again, then.
www.headstonesband.com
i shouldn't really bust you anti pit peeps chops because i feel the same way about people that you guys do about pits. i guess it makes me a hypocrite, ahh unless you believe we can't compare animals to humans, in which case i'm not a hypocrite.but i have let a small tiny fraction of people out there contaminate the entire lot of you guys. yeah there's billions of people out there not committing atrocious acts against each other but we all have the potential to skin people alive, light people on fire, rape women and children, kill animals for fun and money. etc etc. that being said, has anyone seen that clive owen and john voight movie where people can't have kids for some reason. i like the idea of that, like thirty said about pits, don't go out and kill them all, just make it so once the ones are alive die, there's none to take their place. ban procreation. some kind of airborne virus that makes it so people can't have kids. a hundred years is still a pretty long time, so we'd still have mad pollution and extinct animal and plant species during that time, but overall i think the planet could recover from what people have done to it, and there'd be no people for other people to commit heinous acts against. utopia.
so i guess what i'm trying to say is, i totally get where you guys are coming from about banning, prohibiting, executing, annihilating, displacing or however you describe it..... pit bulls.
I was certain my demise would be foreshadowed by a seven year old girl screaming "Buttercup".
The fucking dog charged right towards me, I braced for impact, and the fucker just sprinted past me, over a hill and off into the horizon. I made a silent wish hoping that Buttercup would meet Mr. Semi and continued on my walk.
I had two asshole dogs blitz at me once when I was carrying bags out to my vehicle. The stupid woman who was walking them called them back, but the two asshole dogs only turned back when they were about 10 feet from me.
I was in full defense posture- holding my bag in front of me to ward off the initial charge and right leg back ready to kick dogs in the face.
When the dogs ran back to their cow owner, I cursed the fact that I didn't have a universal remote so I could pause life, walk over to the cow and her two beasts, and slap her really hard in the face.
"They're fine. Don't worry. They only snarl and charge cause they're playing with you!"
Fuck off. Idiot.
www.headstonesband.com
When I was little, one of my aunts had a toy poodle who would "guard" her wallet she kept under her chair during the weekly family card games (poker, rummy - for money). Anyway, I was playing under the table, got too close to that pompous little shit, and sure enough, he bit me.
Even though I don't blame him, I've been leery of poodles ever since.
(but I don't want them banned or killed!)
I guess we could say "Screw it" ... everybody raise whatever the hell you want- cougars, wolverines, bears, wolves, dogs, etc. But how about this: if your beast goes and maims someone... you bear the full weight of the law for your animal's actions? If you want to own an animal that has the potential to hurt someone... then take full responsibility for it. Enough, "Gee. It's not my fault. Why did the toddler run by our yard so fast? Why do people even live beside us?"
Person seriously hurt? Assault with a deadly weapon.
Child killed? Murder.
Maybe then the ownership we lament would refine itself somewhat?
www.headstonesband.com
I honestly am sickened to know that this is a possible law.. The humans fucked up, the dogs pay the price! I will ALWAYS advocate for this breed! Always because just like a poodle or a Golden Retriever, it is a DOG first, BREED second, and alllllllllll dogs operate the exact same way. If you DON'T lead, they will.. Period!
It really is about people being morons...or at least careless. We will never cure stupid, and there will always be 'accidents' (ie: dog getting out of the yard or whatever). We can only look at the data and do our best to reduce harm, as with any attempt to legislate stupid. Prohibiting anything has consequences - we can't say they're unforeseen when there are many case studies to examine.
Mentally and physically engaged in order to satisfy their instinctive psychological needs. So the dog gets bored.. A bored Pit Bull is dangerous! Just as dangerous as one left untrained. Sadly I see the combination of untrained, unsocialized, and unrestrained... This is where the accidents happen. Smart dogs should never be owned by stupid people. Unfortunately for these magnificent dogs, that is too often the case.
Rescue in KC, 90% of our dogs were fighting ring raid recoveries.. We also worked with The Boys and Girls club up there and had an after school program where these kids got to come help out with the dogs that were handleable. These were kids that were brought up thinking dog fighting was sooooo cool. Then they'd get to my facility, and be crying by the time they left. I wanted as a child to be an animal control officer. But I know o couldn't... I would end up doing to the human what they'd done to the dog.. It's so sad, and says so much about how messed up humans are..
@thirty, i don't think it's fair to compare wild animals with animals that have been domesticated for tens of thousands of years. in my opinion.
Are you in favour of accountability or not?