Other Resources My Cup of Joe » A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 3
 
 
2011-01-26 2:26 PM
in reply to: #3322869

User image

Master
1430
100010010010010025
Calgary, AB
Silver member
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
bullyboy - 2011-01-26 11:58 AM
The deaths caused from dog attacks are as likely as the Columbine & Arizona shootings. Horrific and unfortunate yet rare occurrences that stand out in ones mind and that the media can exploit to an extreme to earn ratings.


Deaths might be rare, but attacks in general are not:

According to the Centers for Disease Control, dogs bite 4 million to 5 million Americans every year. Few attacks are fatal (25 in 1996), but serious injuries—everything from a gash in the arm requiring a few stitches to severed hands and fractured skulls—continue to rise and now stand at more than 750,000 annually, up nearly 40 percent from 1986. Dog bites are one of the top causes of non-fatal injuries in the nation.

Children are the most frequent victims, accounting for 60 percent of the dog bites and 20 of the 25 dog-bite fatalities in 1996. Dog attacks are now the No. 1 reason that children wind up in hospital emergency rooms. Incredibly, nearly half of all American kids have been bitten by the age of 12. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that more than $100 million gets spent yearly treating dog bites in the nation's emergency rooms, and U.S. insurance companies paid out $250 million in dog-bite liability claims in 1996.

Why do people keep rattlesnakes or cobras as pets?



2011-01-26 2:32 PM
in reply to: #3318911

User image

Alpharetta, Georgia
Bronze member
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
2 years ago my city passed a new ordinance - here are the highlights just for discussion. I thought they were fair.

The major provisions of the new ordinance:

* Require pit bull owners to sterilize their dogs.

* Require a breeder's license if an owner wants to keep more than two pit bulls.

* Require pit bulls to be implanted with an identifying electronic microchip.

The council carved out an exemption to the sterilization requirement for current pit bull owners who show their dogs in legitimate dog shows.

Out of 9,546 dog complaints so far this year, 2,267 have involved pit bulls, city statistics show.

Of the cases the city investigated, 40 percent of dog attack complaints involved pit bulls. Eighty-four percent of the dogs deemed by the city to be dangerous are pit bulls, the records show.

2011-01-26 3:17 PM
in reply to: #3323050

User image

Pro
6191
50001000100252525
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
Khyron - 2011-01-26 3:13 PM
ratherbeswimming - 2011-01-26 12:13 PM
Really? Wikipedia? Because that's a really reliable source of information... 


Sources are at the bottom, and if you can show it's inaccurate at all, petition it to be edited or removed. Seeing as all the pro-PB people have that ability, and the chart is still there, means I'm not going to waste a ton of time repeating the work.

Wiki bashing is nice if you're an actual scientist proving a theory or someone writing a thesis, but for some white collar guys chatting around the water cooler, it's fine in my book. Certainly more valid than anecdotal evidence about ones own pets or crap you saw on Fox News.




I am an actual scientist.

Most sources cited are new articles... which goes back to the whole inaccuracy of using news articles to compile those sort of statistics.  
2011-01-26 3:20 PM
in reply to: #3323086

User image

Pro
6191
50001000100252525
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
lisac957 - 2011-01-26 3:32 PM 2 years ago my city passed a new ordinance - here are the highlights just for discussion. I thought they were fair.

The major provisions of the new ordinance:

* Require pit bull owners to sterilize their dogs.

* Require a breeder's license if an owner wants to keep more than two pit bulls.

* Require pit bulls to be implanted with an identifying electronic microchip.

The council carved out an exemption to the sterilization requirement for current pit bull owners who show their dogs in legitimate dog shows.

Out of 9,546 dog complaints so far this year, 2,267 have involved pit bulls, city statistics show.

Of the cases the city investigated, 40 percent of dog attack complaints involved pit bulls. Eighty-four percent of the dogs deemed by the city to be dangerous are pit bulls, the records show.



My dog fits the ordinance without being told I had to do so... as I think anyone's dog should.

They are trying to force responsible ownership. While it is Breed-Specific Legislation right now, they should apply that to all dog breeds!
2011-01-26 3:22 PM
in reply to: #3323172

User image

Champion
14571
50005000200020005002525
the alamo city, Texas
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
ratherbeswimming - 2011-01-26 4:20 PM
lisac957 - 2011-01-26 3:32 PM 2 years ago my city passed a new ordinance - here are the highlights just for discussion. I thought they were fair.

The major provisions of the new ordinance:

* Require pit bull owners to sterilize their dogs.

* Require a breeder's license if an owner wants to keep more than two pit bulls.

* Require pit bulls to be implanted with an identifying electronic microchip.

The council carved out an exemption to the sterilization requirement for current pit bull owners who show their dogs in legitimate dog shows.

Out of 9,546 dog complaints so far this year, 2,267 have involved pit bulls, city statistics show.

Of the cases the city investigated, 40 percent of dog attack complaints involved pit bulls. Eighty-four percent of the dogs deemed by the city to be dangerous are pit bulls, the records show.



My dog fits the ordinance without being told I had to do so... as I think anyone's dog should.

They are trying to force responsible ownership. While it is Breed-Specific Legislation right now, they should apply that to all dog breeds!


agreed!!
2011-01-26 4:07 PM
in reply to: #3323086

User image

Pro
5011
5000
Twin Cities
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
I think those laws should be applied to ALL dogs, in general (although for theone it would be more like "vet/obedience trainer certfication for more than two dogs" (since some folks have mixes).

Basically, it's asking for:
Your dog to be neutered--which it should (unless you show).
Your dog to be identified--which it should.
You to have a reputable source (ostensibly an expert) testifying you will make a good owner.

Edited by mmrocker13 2011-01-26 4:08 PM


2011-01-26 4:17 PM
in reply to: #3323264

User image

Pro
6767
500010005001001002525
the Alabama part of Pennsylvania
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
Locally certain breeds get labelled if there is a threshold of attacks by that breed over the course of the previous year.  I don't have the details at hand, but I believe that the restrictions are valid for one year at a time.  It makes a kind of sense - if a given breed is seen as a "good attack dog", and becomes popular for that purpose, then there are a lot more attacks by that breed (due to bad owners).  Once restricted (I believe higher licensing fees are part of that), they become less common, attacks drop off, and the breed drops off the "bad dog" list.
2011-01-26 4:34 PM
in reply to: #3323045

User image

Extreme Veteran
392
100100100252525
Raleigh
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
danielc - 2011-01-26 2:11 PM
bullyboy - 2011-01-26 10:58 AM 
In regards to the graph... why will you not go there... you seem to think APBT's are running amok killing everyone and need to be culled from existence. That chart shows it needs to be humans being culled not dogs.
The deaths caused from dog attacks are as likely as the Columbine & Arizona shootings. Horrific and unfortunate yet rare occurrences that stand out in ones mind and that the media can exploit to an extreme to earn ratings.



I'm not sure where you're going with the pit bull vs. human comparison... I don't think you'll find anyone who argues that pit bulls are more dangerous than humans.

The point that some people are trying to make is that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds of dog.


The link I am making between people and dogs: 1) people want legislation to prohibit the dogs but will not go for legislation on guns that would have a far greater influence on our safety. 2) the classic demonizing story is a "fear" tactic to push the legislation through and sell papers/ boost ratings.

And simply put it PISSES me off to no end that someone is telling me my dog should be killed or is prejudiced against my perfectly stable happy go lucky four legged child because some moron has no idea how to train/ raise a dog.

It's like a African American male walks towards you and freak out because you think they are going to rob or kill you.


BTW.. my dog is spayed, chipped, and well trained.

Edited by bullyboy 2011-01-26 4:56 PM
2011-01-26 4:42 PM
in reply to: #3318911

User image

Extreme Veteran
392
100100100252525
Raleigh
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
the following link is a fun test for all... can you pick the pit bull.

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Findthebull/findpitbull_v3.html

This simple test gives a glimpse of how hard it is to identify a specific breed as dangerous when people can't tell if the dog is mixed, pure, or even an APBT, Staffordshire Terrier, etc.

I think this shows a flaw in the data collection when someone pulls up a chart on attacks. So, was it REAALLY a pit bull?  
2011-01-26 9:58 PM
in reply to: #3323315

User image

Extreme Veteran
799
500100100252525
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
bullyboy - 2011-01-26 4:34 PM

It's like a African American male walks towards you and freak out because you think they are going to rob or kill you.


It is a dog, not a human being.  It is not like this situation in the least.
2011-01-26 10:00 PM
in reply to: #3323807

User image

Extreme Veteran
392
100100100252525
Raleigh
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
jmcconne - 2011-01-26 9:58 PM
bullyboy - 2011-01-26 4:34 PM

It's like a African American male walks towards you and freak out because you think they are going to rob or kill you.


It is a dog, not a human being.  It is not like this situation in the least.


prejudice against animals is ok... against people is bad... mkay


2011-01-27 10:07 AM
in reply to: #3322426

User image

Champion
4835
2000200050010010010025
Eat Cheese or Die
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
Khyron - 2011-01-26 10:25 AM

Re: Snapping:

The pit bull's unusual breeding history has produced some bizarre behavioral traits, de- scribed by The Economist's science editor in an article published a few years ago, at the peak of a heated British controversy over dangerous dogs that saw the pit bull banned in England. First, the pit bull is quicker to anger than most dogs, probably due to the breed's unusually high level of the neurotransmitter L-tyrosine. Second, pit bulls are frighteningly tenacious; their attacks frequently last for 15 minutes or longer, and nothing—hoses, violent blows or kicks—can easily stop them. That's because of the third behavioral anomaly: the breed's remarkable insensitivity to pain. Most dogs beaten in a fight will submit the next time they see the victor. Not a defeated pit bull, who will tear into his onetime vanquisher. This, too, has to do with brain chemistry. The body releases endorphins as a natural painkiller. Pit bulls seem extra-sensitive to endorphins and may generate higher levels of the chemical than other dogs. Endorphins are also addictive: "The dogs may be junkies, seeking pain so they can get the endorphin buzz they crave," The Economist suggests.

Finally, most dogs warn you before they attack, growling or barking to tell you how angry they are—"so they don't have to fight," ASPCA advisor and animal geneticist Stephen Zawistowski stresses. Not the pit bull, which attacks without warning. Most dogs, too, will bow to signal that they want to frolic. Again, not the pit bull, which may follow an apparently playful bow with a lethal assault.



My whole argument from the beginning was that you didn't back up your statement. If you had supplied something to this effect then you would have at least partly backed up your statement. I say partly because it still doesn't say anywhere that many owners have had their pit bulls snap on them. Second, you still didn't give the source. I don't like reading what other people claim is the original work. I like to see the original work, and the data that was used to come to those conclusions.
2011-01-27 10:58 AM
in reply to: #3323315

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
bullyboy - 2011-01-26 3:34 PM
danielc - 2011-01-26 2:11 PM
bullyboy - 2011-01-26 10:58 AM 
In regards to the graph... why will you not go there... you seem to think APBT's are running amok killing everyone and need to be culled from existence. That chart shows it needs to be humans being culled not dogs.
The deaths caused from dog attacks are as likely as the Columbine & Arizona shootings. Horrific and unfortunate yet rare occurrences that stand out in ones mind and that the media can exploit to an extreme to earn ratings.



I'm not sure where you're going with the pit bull vs. human comparison... I don't think you'll find anyone who argues that pit bulls are more dangerous than humans.

The point that some people are trying to make is that pit bulls are more dangerous than other breeds of dog.


The link I am making between people and dogs: 1) people want legislation to prohibit the dogs but will not go for legislation on guns that would have a far greater influence on our safety. 2) the classic demonizing story is a "fear" tactic to push the legislation through and sell papers/ boost ratings.

And simply put it PISSES me off to no end that someone is telling me my dog should be killed or is prejudiced against my perfectly stable happy go lucky four legged child because some moron has no idea how to train/ raise a dog.

It's like a African American male walks towards you and freak out because you think they are going to rob or kill you.


BTW.. my dog is spayed, chipped, and well trained.


Sorry but guns don't kill people, people (and dogs) kill people. Teeth don't kill people, dogs do.

You have to seperate the tool from the user.

Perhaps we should ban guns and yank every dog's teeth out.

Personally I will carry a gun to protect myself, my dog, and my family from anyone or anything that attempts to seriously harm them. That includes shooting a dog of any breed who attacks.

For the record, I don't trust pit bulls, that is my choice and I am entitled to it just as you are entitled to trust them. That doesn't require me to trust your pit bull.

2011-01-27 11:26 AM
in reply to: #3324466

User image

Pro
5011
5000
Twin Cities
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
I googled for a while, and could never find a copy of it--I found lots of quotes FROM the economist article on other blogs/forums/websites...but not the original study (or the Economist article--and a search on the Economist;s web site didn'yt turn up any with the phrase "L-tyrosine" in it--nor did I see it under the "pets" or "dog" tagged selections).
2011-01-27 1:20 PM
in reply to: #3323810

User image

Extreme Veteran
799
500100100252525
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
bullyboy - 2011-01-26 10:00 PM

prejudice against animals is ok... against people is bad... mkay


So a bear that wanders near your camp site should not be assumed to be a threat? Or do you just think it is wrong to be prejudicial against dogs?
2011-01-27 1:25 PM
in reply to: #3323315

User image

Extreme Veteran
799
500100100252525
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
bullyboy - 2011-01-26 4:34 PM

And simply put it PISSES me off to no end that someone is telling me my dog should be killed or is prejudiced against my perfectly stable happy go lucky four legged child


*Emphasis mine. 

This is exactly the point of disagreement between you and I.  I believe the dog is your property and no one should be able to damage while under your control.  It sounds like you are a very responsible owner, and I wish you all the luck in the world with that.


2011-01-27 1:56 PM
in reply to: #3324617

User image

Extreme Veteran
392
100100100252525
Raleigh
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans


Sorry but guns don't kill people, people (and dogs) kill people. Teeth don't kill people, dogs do.

You have to seperate [it's spelled "separate" by the way]  the tool from the user.

Perhaps we should ban guns and yank every dog's teeth out.

Personally I will carry a gun to protect myself, my dog, and my family from anyone or anything that attempts to seriously harm them. That includes shooting a dog of any breed who attacks.

For the record, I don't trust pit bulls, that is my choice and I am entitled to it just as you are entitled to trust them. That doesn't require me to trust your pit bull.



I don't trust SOME people with guns. There are a number of individuals who have no sense of responsibility or ability to properly use one.

I don't trust SOME people with APBT's for the same reasons.

I don't trust SOME people to raise a child for the same reasons too.

Now, because I don't trust a minority of people does that mean ALL of society has to comply with my personal ideal of a no guns, no pit bulls, no children law?
2011-01-27 2:02 PM
in reply to: #3325029

User image

Extreme Veteran
392
100100100252525
Raleigh
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
So a bear that wanders near your camp site should not be assumed to be a threat? Or do you just think it is wrong to be prejudicial against dogs?


I don't ASSUME anything.

I have dove and come across a bull shark in the area. I have been hiking and come across a brown bear and her cub VERY close by.

I ASSESSED those situations and acted accordingly. I do what I can to remove myself from a possible bad situation... not go in Rambo style and kill everything.
2011-01-27 10:28 PM
in reply to: #3325168

User image

Extreme Veteran
799
500100100252525
Subject: RE: A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans
bullyboy - 2011-01-27 2:02 PM
I ASSESSED those situations and acted accordingly. I do what I can to remove myself from a possible bad situation... not go in Rambo style and kill everything.


And you should be allowed to the situation as you see fit based on any information you view as relevant.  If you feel you must kill the animal, that should be perfectly legal.  In the few seconds you get to make a decision, killing an animal is acceptable to mitigate the risk of getting killed.
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » A Modest Proposal: Pit Bulls and Humans Rss Feed  
 
 
of 3