Thread: Pit Bulls

Originally Posted by TheBaron

Think it is pretty well known by anyone that owns any bully breed that the issue is not the dog. Any dog can be trained poorly, only problem is if you do that with a bully they have enough strength to be dangerous.

Then your dog ends up on the evening news after it mauls something, when it should be the owner that ends up on the news for being negligent to their poor misguided pet.

Unfortunately the whole situation makes responsible bully owners a little touchy about the subject, always having to defend their furry children from the ignorant.

I'll have to disagree with you on that one, this is the same old argument every pit owner makes. While it's true, pits seem to attract a certain type of owner (drug dealers, wanna be tough guys, etc) some types of dogs are I believe if not pre-disposed than more capable to easily kill/hurt kids. It's for this reason some breeds of dogs are outlawed in specific areas and also why your insurance will and should go up if you choose to keep dangerous types of animals.

Originally Posted by ChayesFSS

I'll have to disagree with you on that one, this is the same old argument every pit owner makes. While it's true, pits seem to attract a certain type of owner (drug dealers, wanna be tough guys, etc) some types of dogs are I believe if not pre-disposed than more capable to easily kill/hurt kids. It's for this reason some breeds of dogs are outlawed in specific areas and also why your insurance will and should go up if you choose to keep dangerous types of animals.

The reason some breeds of dogs are outlawed is PURELY misinformation and undue placement of blame. It's this type of misinformation that is the greatest injustice to animal rights. You need to read up on your facts before you stick your neck out on a hot topic like this. I'm sure Brad and others will be along after me to crucify you for this one.

As for attracting a certain type of owner, I adopted my dog because he didn't have a home.

If you want to make a generalization about dogs that are "capable" of hurting someone, then you'd better broaden your scope considerably larger than the "bull" breeds. A golden retriever is just as capable of maiming a child as an ABPT. And if you care to argue that point, go look back at the stats I posted earlier. German shepherds have injured more children/people in recorded history than pitts.

Well I'm sorry to say that not only are you statistically wrong about it being purely misinformation but your talking points are the ones echoed by every pit owner making the argument all the more tiresome.

Originally Posted by ChayesFSS

Well I'm sorry to say that not only are you statistically wrong about it being purely misinformation but your talking points are the ones echoed by every pit owner making the argument all the more tiresome.

Misinformation? You, sir, are misinformed. It's easy to say someone is wrong to save face, especially when you do not back it up with fact. So, here is some fact (ATTS scores are arbitrarily tested and observed, with a sampling of over 200 breeds and 25000 participants).

ATTS Scores by Breed
Afghan: 72%
Australian Shepard: 79.2%
Beagle: 78.2%
Cairn Terrier: 70.7%
Chihuahua: 70.6%
****er Spaniel: 81.5%
German Shepherd: 82.8%
Golden Retriever: 83.6%
Labrador Retriever: 91.1%
Rottweiler: 82.3%
Toy Poodle: 80.9%
Yorkshire Terrier: 80.0%

Now, compare these to the pit bull breeds:
American Pit Bull Terrier: 83.4%
American Staffordshire Terrier: 83.3%
Staffordshire Bull Terrier: 93.2%

The average score is something like 81%, which all pit bull breeds place above. It's an incredible injustice to restrict ownership of a dog breed based upon the misinformation (see above) that these dogs are more dangerous than others.

It's the correlation between dog fighting and breeding for fighting which has put a target on these breeds. It's the fact that these breeds are also highly trainable to whatever the owner wishes. It's what makes the dogs "good" for fighting. If you read the dog bite law, you will see that the blame is squarely placed on both owners AND pets (and I will point out that pit bull breeds and rottweilers have the most deaths attributed to them because of this fact).

So, let me really drive this point home for you. Most people would agree that there is a direct link between poverty and crime (let's say murder, since we are talking about dogs killing people). Statistically speaking, over half of all United States inmates convicted of federal crime are below the poverty line (specifically, 55% earn less than $10,000).

Now, because of this generalization, would you suggest that poor people (pitts and rotts), since they are more prone to criminal activity (are intelligent, hard working, and eager to please), should have certain restrictions placed against them simply because of their social status (breed)?

I know we are talking about people and animals, but if you care about animals like some of us do, then you would think twice about letting the actions of a subset of a population ruin it for the whole. It's unjust.

Check mate.

The statics I'm speaking about are the CDC

Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998

The clifton report which studied cases between 1982 & 2008

The study found reports of 264 people killed by dogs over the 24-year period, of which "pit bull terrier" or mixes thereof were reportedly responsible for killing 137, or about 43 percent, of the 314 people killed by dogs in the attacks identified in the study. The breed with the next-highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 67 fatalities or about 21 percent of the study-identified fatalities; in aggregate, pit bulls, rottweilers, and mixes thereof were involved in about 64% of the study-identified fatalities.

furthermore he touches on the same argument of every disillusioned pit owner in the world

"Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier…has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Again, in plain ol' english

Dog Bite-related Fatalities in the United States
Year Total Involving pit bull-type dogs
2006 30 16 (53%)
2007 35 20 (57%)
2008 23 16 (65%)
2009 16 8 (50%)

Good day sir

Originally Posted by ChayesFSS

The statics I'm speaking about are the CDC



The clifton report which studied cases between 1982 & 2008


furthermore he touches on the same argument of every disillusioned pit owner in the world


Again, in plain ol' english

Dog Bite-related Fatalities in the United States
Year Total Involving pit bull-type dogs
2006 30 16 (53%)
2007 35 20 (57%)
2008 23 16 (65%)
2009 16 8 (50%)

Good day sir

Funny how you don't even address my second point.

And because the author discounts temperament, he can post figures like that based purely on statistics, the same way I did it regarding poor::crime.

This does not solve the problem, and the owners who trained the dogs to attack people are let off the hook. I posted about the statistics in my own previous post (taken from the CDC because I knew that's where you would go for your information), but my argument is and has been that they are generalizing.

It's the same as saying that because in 100,000 homicides in 2005, seven times more black men were the offenders than white, we should then lock up or deport all black men as a preventative measure. It just plain does not make any sense.

So you can take your CDC stats and your plain English and I'll take my dog and if anybody tries to hike my insurance or steal my dog, they better bring hell with them.


P.S. I do not intend to make this a racial conversation - I am making a point about unfair prejudices. I obviously do not think that it's fair/just.

Originally Posted by ChayesFSS

Well I'm sorry to say that not only are you statistically wrong about it being purely misinformation but your talking points are the ones echoed by every pit owner making the argument all the more tiresome.

Chayes,

I certainly don't want to come across as yet another tiresome pit bull owner so I will avoid any discussion regarding your statistics. I will however ask you one question, how many pit bull terriers (or even just bully breeds in general) have you owned or trained or physically examined or simply gotten aquainted with? I am guessing you really don't know anything about bull dogs. You are quoting stats to imply some truth to your argument. Benjamin Franklin (supposedly) said, "A man with one foot on a block of ice and his other on a hot stove is statistically speaking, quite comfortable". Now we all know that anyone rated above imbecile can produce stastics to prove any point in question. However, your choice you defame pit bulls via statistics gives me pause for concern about your morality. Do you also statistically finalize judgemental decisions regarding people you haven't met? How are those other folks doing?

I form my opinions of dogs the same as I do with people, one individual at a time. Thus far, the pit bulls I have met have been much more intelligent, communicative, interesting and have had better senses of humor than any Shetland Sheepdogs, pugs, Italian Greyhounds, ****er spaniels, dalmations, golden retrievers, Irish setters, malamutes, huskies, and many others.

Originally Posted by icedog

Chayes,

I certainly don't want to come across as yet another tiresome pit bull owner so I will avoid any discussion regarding your statistics. I will however ask you one question, how many pit bull terriers (or even just bully breeds in general) have you owned or trained or physically examined or simply gotten aquainted with? I am guessing you really don't know anything about bull dogs. You are quoting stats to imply some truth to your argument. Benjamin Franklin (supposedly) said, "A man with one foot on a block of ice and his other on a hot stove is statistically speaking, quite comfortable". Now we all know that anyone rated above imbecile can produce stastics to prove any point in question. However, your choice you defame pit bulls via statistics gives me pause for concern about your morality. Do you also statistically finalize judgemental decisions regarding people you haven't met? How are those other folks doing?

I form my opinions of dogs the same as I do with people, one individual at a time. Thus far, the pit bulls I have met have been much more intelligent, communicative, interesting and have had better senses of humor than any Shetland Sheepdogs, pugs, Italian Greyhounds, ****er spaniels, dalmations, golden retrievers, Irish setters, malamutes, huskies, and many others.

icedog, you are correct, I've never owned a pit but have grown up with sled dogs up in AK, I've had great danes, poodles, spaniels & currently have a boxer.

I was however unfortunate enough to be friends with a great family back up in Wasilla, AK and as a child had their beloved pit attack me requiring their father to strike it about 3 times with a 2x4 on the head while it was still attached to my thigh.

At any rate, these e-arguments with pit lovers always turn out to be a worthless waste of time. It's almost as bad as the truthers who believe that the government concocted 9/11.

Originally Posted by ChayesFSS

icedog, you are correct, I've never owned a pit but have grown up with sled dogs up in AK, I've had great danes, poodles, spaniels & currently have a boxer.

I was however unfortunate enough to be friends with a great family back up in Wasilla, AK and as a child had their beloved pit attack me requiring their father to strike it about 3 times with a 2x4 on the head while it was still attached to my thigh.

At any rate, these e-arguments with pit lovers always turn out to be a worthless waste of time. It's almost as bad as the truthers who believe that the government concocted 9/11.

Please forgive me, I must be a bit slow on the uptake here.I have looked but can't find the opening shot of this particular "e-argument". I saw where you posted stuff implying that "pit bulls" do more damage when they bite than "other dogs". Well that's no surprise. They were bred to bite hard. I can't find where you came in against bully breeds. Are you holding a grudge because someone's dog bit your little leg? I was bit by a beagle when I was nine or ten. It really mauled my calf and ankle. I don't have anything against beagles.

Originally Posted by icedog

Please forgive me, I must be a bit slow on the uptake here.I have looked but can't find the opening shot of this particular "e-argument". I saw where you posted stuff implying that "pit bulls" do more damage when they bite than "other dogs". Well that's no surprise. They were bred to bite hard. I can't find where you came in against bully breeds. Are you holding a grudge because someone's dog bit your little leg? I was bit by a beagle when I was nine or ten. It really mauled my calf and ankle. I don't have anything against beagles.

icedog, just forget about it already, you're right, beagles are just as dangerous as pits