Poll: What do you think of Pitbulls? (Dogs)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

RhombusHatesYou:

dmase:
http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php

I don't think Pitbulls should be banned but goddamn, why the hell would you wanna own one knowing that 60% of all dog bite fatalities are perpetrated by pitbulls?

Pfffft... Sorry, but when a group uses the term 'Pitbull' as an umbrella term for Am Staffs, Staffies, Bullies, English Bulldogs, American Bulldogs, Amercian Pitbull Terriers, a couple of Mastiff breeds and several breeds of Presa and Dogo their stats aren't worth a piece of piss to me.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-myths.php

Myth number 2, pitbull is the term used for a reason, there from a similar goddamn lineage, and pitbull terriers are the biggest problem.

dmase:

RhombusHatesYou:

dmase:
http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php

I don't think Pitbulls should be banned but goddamn, why the hell would you wanna own one knowing that 60% of all dog bite fatalities are perpetrated by pitbulls?

Pfffft... Sorry, but when a group uses the term 'Pitbull' as an umbrella term for Am Staffs, Staffies, Bullies, English Bulldogs, American Bulldogs, Amercian Pitbull Terriers, a couple of Mastiff breeds and several breeds of Presa and Dogo their stats aren't worth a piece of piss to me.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-myths.php

Myth number 2, pitbull is the term used for a reason, there from a similar goddamn lineage, and pitbull terriers are the biggest problem.

So they admit they're comparing an arbitrary 'type' grouping against individual breeds for their stats.

Here are some Australian stats to chew on, though.

The dogs breeds that are grouped in the US as 'pitbull types' represent just under 9% of the registered dog population of around 4 million.

Since 1979, of the 33 fatal dog attacks in Australia, 2 have involved American Pitbull Terrier crosses (and not crossed with other pitbull-types) and no other pitbull-type has been recorded as being involved in any fatality, making for 6% of all dog attack fatalities.

Feel free to draw some conclusions from that data.

dmase:

http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-myths.php

Myth number 2, pitbull is the term used for a reason, there from a similar goddamn lineage, and pitbull terriers are the biggest problem.

Wow, normally I don't do this, but that screams propaganda.

This may help:
http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-faq.php
Many, many people here in Texas own pit bulls, and due to this, I have had seen quite a bit on the subject. My first experience was with my neighbors pit bull growing up, he attacked his owner and his owner shot him. Pit bull #2, was a friends pit bull jumped straight through a glass window and attacked a rotweiler and his owner while the owner was walking his dog on the leash on the street out front, the police shot it. Pit bulls #3 Children were loading on a school bus 2 pit bulls were going after the children the man from the nearest house came out and put himself between the pit bull and the children and he shot one while it was biting his leg, he was then taken to the hospital and animal control shot the other. Pit Bull #4 My pregnant friend was visiting anothers friends home and the pit bull went after her and the friend luckily subdued the dog and later the police shot his dog for going after his neighbor when it got out of the yard. Pit pulls #5 Ripped my sisters 7yr old nephew to pieces and ate him alive while he was playing in his front yard.
You can read about that here if you wish:
http://blog.dogsbite.org/2008/08/video-joshua-tanner-monks-funeral.html
(EDIT: changed the link due to the last one being a crappy first link I found because it honestly is painful to read about it again.)

Pit bull#6 chased my 9 year old neighbor and he jumped on the roof of his car for safety until men pulled over and scared the dog off by slamming the horn on their truck and yelling angrily at it from inside their truck, they were afraid to get out themselves until the dog ran off. Pit Bull #7 my neighbors, parents of young 2 year old twins brought home an adopted pit bull puppy from the pound, The Pit Bull puppy attacked one of the twins, he was able to recover with only stitches luckily since the pup was young, and the pit went back to the pound. Pit Bull #8, bit my friend in the face while visting a friends, She had known the dog its entire life, given it baths and then suddenly she was looking out the window with the dog, and the dog turned and bit her in the face. She has a permanant very long scar on her face as a result. It could have been worse considering what happened to my sisters nephew.

You should just be very aware of what you are getting yourself in to, and be aware they do not have a bad reputation just because people think they look funny.

Edit2: as for those who say " don't believe the stories" I have seen enough to agree with the laws being made against them, and I am an avid supporter of animal rights, including wild, predatory animals. Certain breeds were not natural breeds, they were animals that were bred unaturally aggressive. Natural breeds are not the issue here, there is nothing natural about what was done to these dogs. It is the selective breeding for aggresive traits that is the issue here. People made these dogs, they didn't develop naturally on their own. I have seen enough to make me sick honestly.

RhombusHatesYou:

dmase:

RhombusHatesYou:

Pfffft... Sorry, but when a group uses the term 'Pitbull' as an umbrella term for Am Staffs, Staffies, Bullies, English Bulldogs, American Bulldogs, Amercian Pitbull Terriers, a couple of Mastiff breeds and several breeds of Presa and Dogo their stats aren't worth a piece of piss to me.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-myths.php

Myth number 2, pitbull is the term used for a reason, there from a similar goddamn lineage, and pitbull terriers are the biggest problem.

So they admit they're comparing an arbitrary 'type' grouping against individual breeds for their stats.

Here are some Australian stats to chew on, though.

The dogs breeds that are grouped in the US as 'pitbull types' represent just under 9% of the registered dog population of around 4 million.

Since 1979, of the 33 fatal dog attacks in Australia, 2 have involved American Pitbull Terrier crosses (and not crossed with other pitbull-types) and no other pitbull-type has been recorded as being involved in any fatality, making for 6% of all dog attack fatalities.

Feel free to draw some conclusions from that data.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61222125/NSW-Australia-Dog-Bite-Reports-2005-2010

Pitbull terrier top of the list in Australian attacks. I also can't find your fatality statistic, there is someone else on another forum that says that statistic but there is still no link given.

Also I'd like to direct your attention back to the numbers which you didn't look over, 60% of all fatal dog bites where done by pitbulls, yet pitbulls represent under 5% of the dogs in America.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-dog-attacks-and-maimings-merritt-clifton.php

You'll notice pitbull mix's are farther down the list. If you where to double the amount of rottweiler's in the us their attacks would still only be less than half the total number of attacks done by pitbulls.

RatherDull:

dmase:

http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-myths.php

Myth number 2, pitbull is the term used for a reason, there from a similar goddamn lineage, and pitbull terriers are the biggest problem.

Wow, normally I don't do this, but that screams propaganda.

http://www.badrap.org/monster-myths

And this isn't? There is far more propaganda towards dispelling "rumors" about pit bulls then websites fighting to get rid of these dogs. Also it's not propaganda if it's true, and all of that data is NOT from the website itself, it's from statistician and scientists.

dmase:

Also it's not propaganda if it's true

Except that those statistics are deliberately misleading. The term "pit bull" refers to a specific breed of dog, not a "dog type". And yes, I realize that they have an explanation for why, at one point, various breeds may have actually been considered pitbulls. But they aren't all pitbulls today, so calling them by that name is dishonest. Additionally even if they were all one breed in the past they clearly aren't one breed now, as can be seen from their different head shapes (heck, if you go by the morphospecies concept they aren't just different breeds, but different species altogether).

Edit: looking at the site a bit more closely, it seems that they alternate between referring to pitbulls as a breed and a type, which makes this issue even more problematic since there are plenty of places where they don't specify how they're using the term.

So they combine the statistics of 4 different breeds (and any mutt that is partially one of those breeds) and then compare those stats to individual breeds. I don't see anything indicating if the comparison is being made only against purebreds, or mixed breeds as well.

As for the first "myth" on that page, at no point do they compare any statistics about pitbull owners to owners of other breeds, which means they can't honestly address the argument. Instead they use a straw man argument(the argument is about the aggressiveness of pitbulls, not the damage they do once they bite someone), argument from authority (the fact that courts have ruled pitbulls dangerous doesn't mean its an inherent problem with the breed and not a result of bad training), and statistics without context (the number of pitbull kills tells us nothing without the number of people killed by other breeds, and even then it still does not address the issue of whether or not there is a difference in training). Edit: they also fail to cite their claim that the problem with pitbulls stems from "the pit bull's genetic "hold and shake" bite style". Instead they give sources showing what a bite victim looks like after the fact--the emphasis is on emotional manipulation, not facts.

BrassButtons:

dmase:

Also it's not propaganda if it's true

Except that those statistics are deliberately misleading. The term "pit bull" refers to a specific breed of dog, not a "dog type". And yes, I realize that they have an explanation for why, at one point, various breeds may have actually been considered pitbulls. But they aren't all pitbulls today, so calling them by that name is dishonest. Additionally even if they were all one breed in the past they clearly aren't one breed now, as can be seen from their different head shapes (heck, if you go by the morphospecies concept they aren't just different breeds, but different species altogether).

So they combine the statistics of 4 different breeds (and any mutt that is partially one of those breeds) and then compare those stats to individual breeds. I don't see anything indicating if the comparison is being made only against purebreds, or mixed breeds as well.

As for the first "myth" on that page, at no point do they compare any statistics about pitbull owners to owners of other breeds, which means they can't honestly address the argument. Instead they use a straw man argument(the argument is about the aggressiveness of pitbulls, not the damage they do once they bite someone), argument from authority (the fact that courts have ruled pitbulls dangerous doesn't mean its an inherent problem with the breed and not a result of bad training), and statistics without context (the number of pitbull kills tells us nothing without the number of people killed by other breeds, and even then it still does not address the issue of whether or not there is a difference in training).

Lets look directly at the data and several breeds Rhombus listed. Because I am not knowledgeable on pitbull breeds so I assume his list is accurate enough to evaluate whether or not all these "fighting dog" breeds are actually grouped together.

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dog-attack-deaths-maimings-merritt-clifton-2011.pdf

Bull dogs and all of their subsets are separate from pitbull. There are several mastiff breeds once again separate from the pitbull breeds. The dogo breeds also separate from pitbulls. Even bull terriers are separate from pitbulls when technically they are a similar mix just not as well breed.

And if these guys where actually grouping all fighting dogs together they would probably include a couple more of these breeds in the mix

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_fighting_breeds

However they don't, so your claim that the stats are bullshit is completely baseless and is based on what you've heard from people that say pitbulls are purposely targed... they are not.

Now besides that the stats i've posted several times now indicate that 60% of the fatal dogs attacks in the US are performed by pitbulls, it then goes on to say that pitbulls make up 5% of the population. So even if they where mashing all the pitbull breeds together that is still 5% of the dog makeup in america causing 60% of the dog related deaths.

So this claim you make

"Except that those statistics are deliberately misleading. The term "pit bull" refers to a specific breed of dog, not a "dog type". And yes, I realize that they have an explanation for why, at one point, various breeds may have actually been considered pitbulls. But they aren't all pitbulls today, so calling them by that name is dishonest. Additionally even if they were all one breed in the past they clearly aren't one breed now, as can be seen from their different head shapes (heck, if you go by the morphospecies concept they aren't just different breeds, but different species altogether)."

Is completely baseless unless you have something substantial to back it up.

I don't think pitbull owners understand what they are implying when they say it was how the dog was trained or lack thereof. That means without proper guidance pitbulls are dangerous, the data indicates that the instance of pitbull aggression is high which means there are a lot of people not training their dogs correctly. This means that pitbulls are hard to train... why are they hard to train? because they are naturally more aggressive than other dogs. So you can go ahead and say it was the owners fault and you'd be right however those owners weren't informed about the dogs natural aggressiveness. If they had would they have gotten a pitbull? I would say probably not. The first step in preventing these dogs from being trained improperly is for the world to understand pitbulls are far more likely to be aggressive than any other breed. By denying that they are more likely to attack people you deny the problem an perpetuate the issue.

dmase:

I don't think pitbull owners understand what they are implying when they say it was how the dog was trained or lack thereof. That means without proper guidance pitbulls are dangerous, the data indicates that the instance of pitbull aggression is high which means there are a lot of people not training their dogs correctly. This means that pitbulls are hard to train... why are they hard to train? because they are naturally more aggressive than other dogs. So you can go ahead and say it was the owners fault and you'd be right however those owners weren't informed about the dogs natural aggressiveness. If they had would they have gotten a pitbull? I would say probably not. The first step in preventing these dogs from being trained improperly is for the world to understand pitbulls are far more likely to be aggressive than any other breed. By denying that they are more likely to attack people you deny the problem an perpetuate the issue.

You're ignoring the fact that many people who get pit bulls get them because of their bad reputation and just allow them to be aggressive as they want. It's not necessarily that they fail to train them but actually that they never try in the first place. Also, the high rates of fatalities have much to do with the fact that their bite is extremely strong rather than simply their aggressive nature.

dmase:

And if these guys where actually grouping all fighting dogs together they would probably include a couple more of these breeds in the mix

I didn't say they were grouping all fighting dogs, but that they were lumping several different dogs (which could all be categorized as the fighting dog type) as pitbulls. They explicity state that they are combining several breeds under one category when they say that [url="http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-faq.php]"A pit bull type dog is a combination of dog breeds that includes the American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American bulldog1 and any other pure bred or mixed breed dog that is a combination of these dogs"[/url] (first sentence under "What is a pit bull type dog").

However they don't, so your claim that the stats are bullshit is completely baseless

It's based on specific statements made by the website.

and is based on what you've heard from people that say pitbulls are purposely targed... they are not.

If you're going to make up arguments to attack then there's not much point in talking to you.

Now besides that the stats i've posted several times now indicate that 60% of the fatal dogs attacks in the US are performed by pitbulls, it then goes on to say that pitbulls make up 5% of the population. So even if they where mashing all the pitbull breeds together that is still 5% of the dog makeup in america causing 60% of the dog related deaths.

Where do those stats come from? I don't see where you got those numbers, so I can't really comment on them.

So this claim you make

"Except that those statistics are deliberately misleading. The term "pit bull" refers to a specific breed of dog, not a "dog type". And yes, I realize that they have an explanation for why, at one point, various breeds may have actually been considered pitbulls. But they aren't all pitbulls today, so calling them by that name is dishonest. Additionally even if they were all one breed in the past they clearly aren't one breed now, as can be seen from their different head shapes (heck, if you go by the morphospecies concept they aren't just different breeds, but different species altogether)."

Is completely baseless unless you have something substantial to back it up.

No, it's pretty soundly based on the website's own admission that they're using the term "pit bull" to refer to several different breeds, and then comparing the combined stats to individual breeds. It doesn't matter if they would get similar results by giving the statistics for each breed that they labeled as "pit bulls"; the fact that they didn't do so makes their statistics misleading. Honestly even if I agreed with your conclusions I would have to denounce this website for their sloppy methodology.

I don't think pitbull owners understand what they are implying when they say it was how the dog was trained or lack thereof. That means without proper guidance pitbulls are dangerous, the data indicates that the instance of pitbull aggression is high which means there are a lot of people not training their dogs correctly. This means that pitbulls are hard to train

First, saying that it's a matter of training doesn't necessarily mean that pitbulls are dangerous unless trained properly; it could mean that pitbulls are more often trained badly and thus become dangerous. Second, if people aren't training them correctly that does not necessarily mean they are more difficult to train than other breeds; it could mean that the people who own pitbulls are statistically less likely to be good at training dogs period, and would have difficulty with any breed.

why are they hard to train? because they are naturally more aggressive than other dogs.

Citation needed. And note that for such a citation to be valid it would have to take training methods into account, so please don't just give the statistics of dog attacks by breed.

So you can go ahead and say it was the owners fault and you'd be right however those owners weren't informed about the dogs natural aggressiveness.

Which owners are we talking about? Or are you making a blanket claim about all pitbull owners? Either way, citation needed.

Double post

Revnak:

You're ignoring the fact that many people who get pit bulls get them because of their bad reputation and just allow them to be aggressive as they want. It's not necessarily that they fail to train them but actually that they never try in the first place. Also, the high rates of fatalities have much to do with the fact that their bite is extremely strong rather than simply their aggressive nature.

That bad reputation is earned, because they are strong, fast, and aggressive. It's not like everyone suddenly decided hey pitbulls are gonna have a bad rep, no it's because they knew that dog was more liable to attack. They where breed to be fighters, and like many fighting dogs they will snap in an instance. That's why a lot of dog attacks strike people by surprise.

The dogs need to be trained or else they will hurt people at a much greater rate then other dogs correct? If so then we need people to understand that and continuing to say the bs that pitbulls are no dangerous then any other dog is just going to keep the problem going.

I've posted several sets of data so far, data on dog bite fatalities and dog attacks that weren't fatal. The two breeds leading in dog attacks in 2011 where rottweilers and pitbulls. Pitbulls had roughly 2250 attacks rottweilers where 850. As a percentage there are half as many rottweilers as pitbulls but even if you double the number of rottweilers they still attack human less often then pitbulls. Pitbulls as fact are more dangerous then almost any other domesticated dog.

BrassButtons:

I didn't say they were grouping all fighting dogs, but that they were lumping several different dogs (which could all be categorized as the fighting dog type) as pitbulls. They explicity state that they are combining several breeds under one category when they say that [url="http://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-faq.php]"A pit bull type dog is a combination of dog breeds that includes the American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, American bulldog1 and any other pure bred or mixed breed dog that is a combination of these dogs"[/url] (first sentence under "What is a pit bull type dog").

That sentence is from the dog bites website NOT the scientific papers they link to. Now look at the goddamn paper I showed you, the paper that that website uses to source it. You will notice bull terriers and bull dogs are separate from pit bulls in their data as are any mixes of pitbulls.

Also the breeders can't even tell the difference between american pit bull terrier, american staffordshire terrier and stffordshire bull terrier. Want proof,

http://www.pbrc.net/faq.html

That's from pit bull rescue a pro pitbull site. It's like your trying to find a difference between a blue tick and red bone hound, there is a little size difference, color difference, and region difference.

It's based on specific statements made by the website.

Statements not made on scientific papers and statements actually agreed by breeders.

Where do those stats come from? I don't see where you got those numbers, so I can't really comment on them.

I don't see the point of having this conversation if you won't even look at the links i've posted. The fatality one i've posted three times now.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php

And those stats are properly sourced.

No, it's pretty soundly based on the website's own admission that they're using the term "pit bull" to refer to several different breeds, and then comparing the combined stats to individual breeds. It doesn't matter if they would get similar results by giving the statistics for each breed that they labeled as "pit bulls"; the fact that they didn't do so makes their statistics misleading. Honestly even if I agreed with your conclusions I would have to denounce this website for their sloppy methodology.

The website did not do the research it's found in this paper which I already linked and i assume you didn't look at.

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dog-attack-deaths-maimings-merritt-clifton-2011.pdf

This list was compiled by the editor of Animal people. The list is all there every dog breed in alphabetical order. The only 2 dog breeds that fall in the pit bull category are agreed by professional dog breeders to be basically the same breed with very little difference that even with genetic differences can't separate.(something I sourced above, the pbrc website specifically)

First, saying that it's a matter of training doesn't necessarily mean that pitbulls are dangerous unless trained properly; it could mean that pitbulls are more often trained badly and thus become dangerous. Second, if people aren't training them correctly that does not necessarily mean they are more difficult to train than other breeds; it could mean that the people who own pitbulls are statistically less likely to be good at training dogs period, and would have difficulty with any breed.

So the pitbull reputation came out of thin air? I look for common denominators when I'm thinking about statistics do you know what a common denominator is between all pitbull owners? Pitbulls.

Citation needed. And note that for such a citation to be valid it would have to take training methods into account, so please don't just give the statistics of dog attacks by breed.

Please explain to me how violent attack and deaths caused by these dogs wouldn't count as a proper citation. All we have is historical data and statistics showing what they've done. Unlike humans dogs are breed for a purpose pitbulls where bread to be strong, fast and aggressive.

Which owners are we talking about? Or are you making a blanket claim about all pitbull owners? Either way, citation needed.

I'm talking about all the owners whose pitbull killed their own children, their neighbors, other dogs, or just maimed people. Pitbulls on average have a MUCH higher rate of attack, and I have proven that pitbulls are not unjustly grouped in one blanket term. So you need to tell me what do you think the problem here is? You say it's how these dog are raised, something I don't refute, if a fucking lion can be trained not bite down on a human when a trainer sticks his head in the lion then a pit bull can certainly be trained. The difference between a lion and a pitbull(besides the obvious) is that everyone knows not anyone can train a fucking lion from birth but everyone thinks a pitbull is just another dog. It's more dangerous than an Akiba, husky, or bull dog and owners need to know that and perpetuated the ignorance of these dogs nature will only add to the pitbulls body count.

BrassButtons:
First, saying that it's a matter of training doesn't necessarily mean that pitbulls are dangerous unless trained properly; it could mean that pitbulls are more often trained badly and thus become dangerous. Second, if people aren't training them correctly that does not necessarily mean they are more difficult to train than other breeds; it could mean that the people who own pitbulls are statistically less likely to be good at training dogs period, and would have difficulty with any breed.

Another thing owners tend to ignore is that 'a backyard' is not enough exercise for a American Pitbull Terrier (APBT), they have to get walked and exercised every day. Without regular exercise the dogs get bored and stressed... and any dog unders stress can become unpredictable.

As for training... not a dog for first time owners. If you're not confident enough to train a dog and be able to just put it back in it's place the first time it bares teeth and growls at you without punishing the dog, you shouldn't get an APBT because you end up teaching it that aggression displays are how it gets it's own way OR that nervous/frightened people will hurt it. That's not a good headspace to put any dog into but it's definitely not one you want for any breed of dog with the jaw strength to crush bone.

Apart from that, they're not that hard to train, especially if you focus on obedience training and the basic Stop, Drop and Heel variety of commands (that's in "stop whatever you're doing", "drop what's in your mouth" and "come here")... they're not so big on learning tricks beyond 'sit', 'stay' and 'shake'.

What a lot of people miss is that dogs pick up their owner's emotions and attitudes really fast, so people should really think about your own headspace before you get yourself a dog from a very protective breed.

Annnnnnnnnnd finally... unless you're experienced with dogs and training, DO NOT GET A MUSCULAR, MEDIUM SIZED OR LARGE/'GIANT' BREED DOG ANYWHERE BUT FROM A REPUTABLE BREEDER (and in this instance reputable means registered with the state/national kennel club or equivalent). Yes, they'll cost a shitload more than some pound or rescue dog but if you don't have experience with dogs it's a massive gamble on whether your skill with dogs is up to the challenge.

dmase:

That sentence is from the dog bites website NOT the scientific papers they link to.

I was criticizing the website. I think I made that pretty clear.

Statements not made on scientific papers and statements actually agreed by breeders.

I was criticizing the website. I think I made that pretty clear.

I don't see the point of having this conversation if you won't even look at the links i've posted. The fatality one i've posted three times now.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php

And those stats are properly sourced.

I don't see a citation for the "61% of deaths" figure.

The website did not do the research it's found in this paper which I already linked and i assume you didn't look at.

I was criticizing how the website listed the information.

So the pitbull reputation came out of thin air? I look for common denominators when I'm thinking about statistics do you know what a common denominator is between all pitbull owners? Pitbulls.

I take it you're not interested in actually dealing with the issue, since you refuse to , y'know, deal with the issue.

Please explain to me how violent attack and deaths caused by these dogs wouldn't count as a proper citation.

Because if all of those dogs were trained to be violent then it would not indicate an inherent aggressiveness, but a learned one.

I'm talking about all the owners whose pitbull killed their own children, their neighbors, other dogs, or just maimed people.

OK, show me evidence that none of those people were knowledgeable about pitbulls ahead of time, and that they would not have owned them had they been better informed.

dmase:
The website did not do the research it's found in this paper which I already linked and i assume you didn't look at.

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dog-attack-deaths-maimings-merritt-clifton-2011.pdf

This list was compiled by the editor of Animal people. The list is all there every dog breed in alphabetical order. The only 2 dog breeds that fall in the pit bull category are agreed by professional dog breeders to be basically the same breed with very little difference that even with genetic differences can't separate.(something I sourced above, the pbrc website specifically)

*snorts*

Only tangentially related but have you looked at what some of the fatalities are? Hip surgery complications, strangulation, heart attack...

Also, they appear to have lumped in American Pitbull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Terriers all together as 'pitbulls'.

Above anything else, pitbulls are stupid. They are stupid to the degree that their entire mentality can be trained rather than specific actions. If you raise them as docile animals, they will be incapable of violence, because they are not intelligent enough to know anything they haven't been taught.

RhombusHatesYou:

dmase:
The website did not do the research it's found in this paper which I already linked and i assume you didn't look at.

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/dog-attack-deaths-maimings-merritt-clifton-2011.pdf

This list was compiled by the editor of Animal people. The list is all there every dog breed in alphabetical order. The only 2 dog breeds that fall in the pit bull category are agreed by professional dog breeders to be basically the same breed with very little difference that even with genetic differences can't separate.(something I sourced above, the pbrc website specifically)

*snorts*

Only tangentially related but have you looked at what some of the fatalities are? Hip surgery complications, strangulation, heart attack...

Also, they appear to have lumped in American Pitbull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Terriers all together as 'pitbulls'.

Brother I'm a little bit unsober, which is why i haven't responded to brass yet but yours is short enough I can. Any ways one of the things i gave a source to was how not even dog breeders could tell the difference between the dogs your talking about. The only difference was barely even genetic testing. Just check out my last response to brass. One of my resonant is from a pitbull rescue website from where breeders can't tell the difference between those dogs the two or three bit bull breeds. It's like me, a virginian(native knwing hunting dogs my entire life) not being able to tell the difference between a blue tick and a redbone hound besides color. And hounds are basically from virginia, almost all of them.

dmase:

Any ways one of the things i gave a source to was how not even dog breeders could tell the difference between the dogs your talking about. The only difference was barely even genetic testing. Just check out my last response to brass. One of my resonant is from a pitbull rescue website from where breeders can't tell the difference between those dogs the two or three bit bull breeds. It's like me, a virginian(native knwing hunting dogs my entire life) not being able to tell the difference between a blue tick and a redbone hound besides color. And hounds are basically from virginia, almost all of them.

I seem to have missed responding to that in my last post, so I'll do so here.

First, that page makes the claim that breeders can't always tell those dogs apart, but I don't see where they offer evidence to back this up. Though it looks like different kennel clubs may have different names for one or two of the same breeds, which would obviously cause issues with nomenclature.

Second, that page also argues against the claim that pitbulls are naturally aggressive. So since you accept their statements about breeders' inability to recognize the breeds does that mean you also accept their statements about the temperament of pitbulls?

dmase:
Any ways one of the things i gave a source to was how not even dog breeders could tell the difference between the dogs your talking about. The only difference was barely even genetic testing.

Your source said 'in some cases not even experts...'

I can tell a purebred Staffy from a purebred Am Staff. Not so good on APBTs unless they're rednosed (other APBTs look like staffy X mastiffs)... Of course here in Oz the breeds are much better defined and there's been way less interbreeding between the 3 (because Staffies are an old established breed while APBTs and Am Staffs have only been here maybe 30 years).

BrassButtons:
snipped

"DogsBite.org contains verifiable information about U.S. citizens killed by dogs including the name and age of each victim, location of attack, dog breed and up to 12 other factors. Information was gathered through media accounts that were available at the time of the attack or found through Internet archives, including: Google News Archive and AccessMyLibrary. Each fatality also lists "source citations," which links to its related citations.
Mable McCallister died on December 31, 2011, but her death was not reported until January 3, 2012. Mable is included in the 2012 dog bite fatality statistical data and excluded from 2011.
The decrease from previous years is due to recompiling the master list in late December to account for the loss of Ohio's pit bull law in 2012."

All of the dog attack fatalities are on dogbite's website, every dog fatality in the year of 2012 is directly below that statistic as far as I can tell so I have no idea why your saying the page isn't sourced. 90% of that page is source. And once again lets remember 5% of the dog population contributes to 60% of the deaths.

Because if all of those dogs were trained to be violent then it would not indicate an inherent aggressiveness, but a learned one.

Why are pitbulls "trained" to be aggressive though? If a guy wants a guard dog he could just as easily buy a rottweiler another popular fighting dog. And from some quick average prices I looked up pure bred rottweilers are actually cheaper than pure bred pitbulls. Hell if your theory is correct they could use any dog however they don't. They use pitbulls because they are a more dangerous breed.

If we where to take same owner(one that does no training on his dog) and get them to train a beagle and a pitbull the bad trainer for the pitbull would have a dog that is violent towards other animals and is defensive about anyone in the house to the point they might nervously bite or attack someone, the beagle on the other hand would keep you awake with barking and shitting on the carpet. These dog attacks aren't performed by dogs trained to fight just dogs that aren't trained, which is my point, if your going to own a pitbull you have to conform to training standards for everyone's safety. Well there are a shit ton of dogs that aren't trained. None of my dogs have ever been trained and yet they have never bitten any human. What your indicating is I gave the same level of training(none) to a pitbull he would be a powder keg waiting to blow because it's the training. And while your technically right your missing the point of why that is right.

OK, show me evidence that none of those people were knowledgeable about pitbulls ahead of time, and that they would not have owned them had they been better informed.

Show me that the theory of evolution exists. Oh wait you can't unless you want to use past evolutionary lines. My point, I've given you evidence that pitbulls are more violent by a large number and you ask me to wave my magic wand and physically show the evolution of a monkey into a man. Your asking for something that can't be proven however it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Most of your arguments amount to getting me to try and explain the things that are unexplainable, good way to win an argument while ignoring the data presented to you.

You gave me the theory that it's all their training or owner, completely denying that the common variable in all of this is a pitbull. Why would all of these people training their pitbulls to be dangerous choose pitbulls over any other dog? You see something you haven't provided me is how often these pitbulls are trained to be violent? How these dogs are trained to be violent? You also don't show any evidence that abused pitbulls are more likely to kill than non abused pitbulls?(kill is important in this instance) Give me some data instead of just stating things.

First, that page makes the claim that breeders can't always tell those dogs apart, but I don't see where they offer evidence to back this up. Though it looks like different kennel clubs may have different names for one or two of the same breeds, which would obviously cause issues with nomenclature.

Second, that page also argues against the claim that pitbulls are naturally aggressive. So since you accept their statements about breeders' inability to recognize the breeds does that mean you also accept their statements about the temperament of pitbulls?

It's good to see your finally reading my sources but still not comprehending them. The webiste says genetic testing is done on them and not even that can always tell them apart. Once again it's like me saying there is a difference between a blue tick and a red bone hound there is almost no discernible difference except for color and lineage. If they where the most dangerous dogs in the world they would be referred to as hounds even though they have different colors and slightly different average size. Also as far as backing up the claim this is a PRO pit bull website that talks to breeders and does genetic testing, is that sufficient evidence.

"How can we tell the difference? We can't, really. We can only try to guess the breed based on subtle characteristics. Note that even experts can't always tell if a pit bull is an APBT, an AST or a SBT. Even with DNA testing, many known purebred dogs come up with results of mixed breed lineage"

Genetic testing is the important part and expert testimony.

Now using that same line of thought why wouldn't a pro pitbull website lie about their temperament? I don't know your political affiliation but just because there is an editor on a media outlet you like that says global climate change is bogus doesn't mean you won't look to the same media outlet for another story that's completely unrelated to global warming.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6080411_difference-between-pit-bull-staffordshire.html

Further information from AKC. So are you now confident enough to take the term pitbull used on the above data sheet(the one relating dog attacks) contains dogs that really are pitbulls? And that that dog type is not UNFAIRLY grouping two separate breeds together.

RhombusHatesYou:

dmase:
Any ways one of the things i gave a source to was how not even dog breeders could tell the difference between the dogs your talking about. The only difference was barely even genetic testing.

Your source said 'in some cases not even experts...'

I can tell a purebred Staffy from a purebred Am Staff. Not so good on APBTs unless they're rednosed (other APBTs look like staffy X mastiffs)... Of course here in Oz the breeds are much better defined and there's been way less interbreeding between the 3 (because Staffies are an old established breed while APBTs and Am Staffs have only been here maybe 30 years).

I can tell a blue tick and a redbone hound apart doesn't mean they are so drastically different breeds that they need to be seperated on the above sheet relating dog attacks. Because remember what you and brass buttons are trying to refute is that two dogs breeds are unfairly grouped together inflating their attack numbers. But I want you to think about that 2200 attacks if we divide that evenly between the two "common" pitbull breeds(the only two that that paper combines from what I can tell) that means these two breeds are responsible for 1100 attacks each still much higher than the rottweiler amount.

So if I revise the numbers and divide that pitbull group into two groups I will have 2.2 percent of the dog population as each form of pitbull, each of these 2.2 percent is responsible for 1100 attack where as the rottweiler is also 2.2 percent of the population and is only responable for 800 attacks. That is a statistically significant difference even when you divide pitbull types up. So even when the paper is changed it stills shows strong ties between two pitbull breeds and violence.

So would you agree that pitbulls are more often the perpetrators of violent attacks and violent attacks that result in death?

Not a fan. Ensure they wear a muzzle and enforce that rule. Too many people, especially kids, get mauled by the more vicious types of dogs. If proper safety regulations are established and infringements punished, then I'm okay with it. You don't have to "put down all pitbulls" or whatever the OP appears to suggest there. While it's true that other types of dogs can also cause severe harm, it's very rare there in comparison to the more aggressive and unpredictable breeds.

I fail to see why you should establish specific rules against types of dogs unless you apply them to ALL dogs with the potential to cause damage when aggressive: aka everything larger than a Scottish Terrier.

Every pit bull I have met has been a real sweetie-pie: the most playful, gentle things possible. By contrast, I have met some really aggressive labs, which are supposed to be "good" dogs. One of my friends owned a lab that wouldn't stop growling at me when I would go to the fridge.

Each dog requires that you teach it to be social. If the dog isn't taught properly and bad things happen, that should be on the owners, and not the types of dogs involved.

dmase:

Snip

Ah, I see where the problem is--I missed that the 60% figure was only for 2012, so I didn't realize that the listed victims for 2012 comprised all of the evidence and sources for that figure.

Why are pitbulls "trained" to be aggressive though?

I didn't say they are. I said that if you want to prove that pitbulls are naturally aggressive you must rule out the possibility that their aggressiveness is learned through training. To be a bit more accurate, you need to rule out that their aggressiveness is the result of any environmental (as opposed to biological) factors.

OK, show me evidence that none of those people were knowledgeable about pitbulls ahead of time, and that they would not have owned them had they been better informed.

Show me that the theory of evolution exists. Oh wait you can't unless you want to use past evolutionary lines.

There are literally mountains of evidence proving evolution. Using this as an analogy for a claim you can't support doesn't work very well.

My point, I've given you evidence that pitbulls are more violent by a large number and you ask me to wave my magic wand and physically show the evolution of a monkey into a man.

No, I'm asking you to support your claims with evidence. It's not my fault if you can't do so, and there's no reason for me to accept them if you can't.

It's good to see your finally reading my sources but still not comprehending them. The webiste says genetic testing is done on them and not even that can always tell them apart.

And the website's source for this is....? They don't say how often the experts get it wrong. They don't say how often DNA testing is done, and how many of those results show mixed lineage (and note that DNA showing a mixed lineage doesn't mean genetic testing can't tell them apart--it means that the dog that was tested isn't a purebred).

Also as far as backing up the claim this is a PRO pit bull website that talks to breeders and does genetic testing, is that sufficient evidence.

Why would it be sufficient just because I agree with some of their conclusions?

Now using that same line of thought why wouldn't a pro pitbull website lie about their temperament?

Ah, I see--when their conclusions agree with your own it's valid, but conclusions that disagree with your own are lies. Even though the conclusions which disagree with your own are backed up by evidence.

Further information from AKC. So are you now confident enough to take the term pitbull used on the above data sheet(the one relating dog attacks) contains dogs that really are pitbulls? And that that dog type is not UNFAIRLY grouping two separate breeds together.

If pitbull is a breed, it should be compared to other breeds. If pitbull is a type, it should be compared to other types. At the very least those who use the term should do so consistently, and that dogbite website doesn't.

Skip all of the controversy. Get a great pyranese. It's a big, fluffy dog, easily taught, great for families, but have a dogbrush handy because they do shed. My parents had one and it was the only dog they would allow to sleep with their chickens. They had a pest problem - every predatory animal you could think of was showing up in their back yard. A couple walks around the property with that dog, even as a puppy, and not one errant animal print, no new wild animals stalking their yard.

Remus:
Skip all of the controversy. Get a great pyranese. It's a big, fluffy dog, easily taught, great for families, but have a dogbrush handy because they do shed. My parents had one and it was the only dog they would allow to sleep with their chickens. They had a pest problem - every predatory animal you could think of was showing up in their back yard. A couple walks around the property with that dog, even as a puppy, and not one errant animal print, no new wild animals stalking their yard.

I heard that Great Pyranese are loud.

BrassButtons:

No, I'm asking you to support your claims with evidence. It's not my fault if you can't do so, and there's no reason for me to accept them if you can't.

And I have provided evidence that pitbulls are violent. You make the claim it's not them it's the way their owner treats them, so prove it, why should I be forced to prove your claim?

And the website's source for this is....? They don't say how often the experts get it wrong. They don't say how often DNA testing is done, and how many of those results show mixed lineage (and note that DNA showing a mixed lineage doesn't mean genetic testing can't tell them apart--it means that the dog that was tested isn't a purebred).

Fine lets go about this a different way since you seem to want the evidence I've presented to be bullshit. Pitbulls, and all groups included as such where they staffordshire or american pitbulls terrier make up less than 5% of the US dog population yet contribute to 60% of the deaths(that figure is accurate from 2005-2012) by dog bites and 5% of all the dogs perform 2200 attacks. Where the next most common breed perpetrates only 800 attacks in change using the dog attack statistics from 2012.

Now read my response to rhombus which phrases it a different way.

So would you agree that pitbulls are more often the perpetrators of violent attacks and violent attacks that result in death?

Ah, I see--when their conclusions agree with your own it's valid, but conclusions that disagree with your own are lies. Even though the conclusions which disagree with your own are backed up by evidence.

Oh please everyone uses the same thought process for organizations that provide information. Rescue pitbull group has no skin in the game for choosing whether breeds are so different they need to be called different on a stat sheet. They do however have a valid interest in getting rescue pitbulls adopted, that is obvious from the website. We discern information based on whether we think is reliable or not based on circumstances, you just assume since I present these two circumstances at the same time that I'm attempting to reflect my bias on that website. One is answer is biased the other is information presented.

I'm also still curious how a slight difference in size, nose type, ear shape, and shoulder direction means that these animals need to be considered separate when looking at a balance sheet. People with shit arguments tend to try and discount evidence in ridiculous ways. Also all dog types that can be grouped together are, I'm looking at this list and Labradors and coonhounds are grouped together even though like pitbulls there are several subtle physical differences. However where would rottweilers be grouped? Not with herding dogs that obviously wouldn't be right, they are there own noticeable different breed and while there are variations in the pitbull group it isn't enough that they should be separate but even if they where split into there two main constituent breeds they'd still more than double the number of victims of any other dog.

I'm not biased against pitbulls I'm biased against dogs that are dangerous And obviously pitbulls are the most dangerous breeds, though I have to wonder why are you advocating for pitbulls? I have no connection with pitbulls I know people that have them I've never been personally involved with a pitbull attack in fact if I hadn't see the numbers I wouldn't give a shit about whether there was a pitbull in every home in America. So my bias is as deep as the numbers go, I have no personal connection for going after the breed.

If pitbull is a breed, it should be compared to other breeds. If pitbull is a type, it should be compared to other types. At the very least those who use the term should do so consistently, and that dogbite website doesn't.

So we shouldn't care that the information regarding dog attacks is there but instead should concentrate how the website dogbites uses the term. And just so we're clear the data on dog attacks linked by dogbites is based on the classic definition of pitbulls which are two breeds from what I can tell, however do not combine pitbull with bull dogs or bull terriers, but that really doesn't matter. We know which percentage of the dog population is considered pitbulls, or fits the type of pitbull. Also from the 2011 report on the subject.

"There is a persistent allegation by pit bull terrier advocates that pit bulls are over-represented
among reported dog attack deaths and maimings because of misidentifications or because "pit bull"
is, according to them, a generic term covering several similar types of dog. However, the frequency
of pit bull attacks among these worst-in-10,000 cases is so disproportionate that even if half of the
attacks in the pit bull category were misattributed, or even if the pit bull category was split three
ways, attacks by pit bulls and their closest relatives would still outnumber attacks by any other breed."

Also I've been overstating rottweiler attacks by accident there is actually about 500 a year so if pitbull attack where split into 4 distinct breeds there would still be responsible for more attacks on average than any other dog breed.

dmase, if you're going to drop context that badly I'm not going to waste any more time trying to talk to you.

BrassButtons:
dmase, if you're going to drop context that badly I'm not going to waste any more time trying to talk to you.

Inform me what context i'm missing.

dmase:

BrassButtons:
dmase, if you're going to drop context that badly I'm not going to waste any more time trying to talk to you.

Inform me what context i'm missing.

With your very first sentence in the previous post you take a statement I made in regard to your inablity to support a statement you made about pitbull owners (that they're all ignorant of pitbulls and would not own them otherwise) and responded by talking about an entirely different claim you made. Same goes for your response to the second bit of mine you quoted--we were talking about your claims about pitbull owners, which is obvious if you read through the discussion. With the middle section of your post you don't drop context, but you do dismiss the data given by that pro-pitbull website without a valid reason (and no, them having a bias is not a valid reason to ignore data). And with your last section you go back to dropping context by once again pretending like I'm being unfair for complaining about how the website reports things instead of dealing with the data sheet, when this entire line of conversation started as a discussion of whether or not the website was propaganda.

That's the last thing I'm going to say on this particular line of discussion.

BrassButtons:

dmase:

BrassButtons:
dmase, if you're going to drop context that badly I'm not going to waste any more time trying to talk to you.

Inform me what context i'm missing.

With your very first sentence in the previous post you take a statement I made in regard to your inablity to support a statement you made about pitbull owners (that they're all ignorant of pitbulls and would not own them otherwise) and responded by talking about an entirely different claim you made. Same goes for your response to the second bit of mine you quoted--we were talking about your claims about pitbull owners, which is obvious if you read through the discussion. With the middle section of your post you don't drop context, but you do dismiss the data given by that pro-pitbull website without a valid reason (and no, them having a bias is not a valid reason to ignore data). And with your last section you go back to dropping context by once again pretending like I'm being unfair for complaining about how the website reports things instead of dealing with the data sheet, when this entire line of conversation started as a discussion of whether or not the website was propaganda.

That's the last thing I'm going to say on this particular line of discussion.

No where did I say all pitbull owners are ignorant I said would they own a pitbull if they knew what came with owning one. And I'm not saying all owners will disown their dogs, just like chimpanzees there will always be someone that will keep one as a pet. You decided to take my words to the extreme and that all pitbull owners would give up their dogs. I also state that the reasons these attacks are so high for pitbulls is that people don't know what it takes to raise one. If your going to suggest that pitbulls are only more violent because of their owners you need to come up with a solution to that problem which happens to be providing them with relevant information regarding pitbull violence.

There was no data on that pitbull website, and i don't deny there are lovable pitbulls I do however know they are more often violent then other dogs which my actual data has shown.

You won't admit their is a problem with pitbull aggression despite obvious evidence otherwise and you choose to ignore valid concerns because of your bias. It's a perpetuation of the problem, keeping people ignorant of the dangers of not socializing your pitbull with other animals and humans often and at a young age and not training their urges to bite and shake out will just lead to more pointless attacks and deaths.

You know, after reading through the debate between dmase and BrassButtons, all I see out of this is "innately aggressive and energetic dog? Make sure the owner can train it. If they can't, or if they fail and the dog injures someone, punish them, not the breed as a whole."

If people buy pit bulls to have an aggressive, angry dog, then they should be stopped from doing so (and punished if they do.) It really doesn't make sense to punish the breed because people don't know how to properly raise them.

The fear of Pitbulls is born out of pure ignorance. Ignorance that the media tends to generate.

I grew up being unaware of Pitbull breeds (yes it is not one breed, it is a variety of different breeds lumped into one), I was told by several people that they are viscous killers, they just turn and "snap" on their owners, they have locking jaws (which is completely false), and other such nonsense that simply turned out to be wrong.

I had my turning moment when I actually met pitbulls. This was when I started volunteering at my local Humane Society and started walking and taking care of these dogs. My fears were completely gone, these dogs are no different than any other. The only danger I ever faced was having my face licked too much!

The problem of aggressive pitbulls is the same problem for any other aggressive dog. Bad owners. That's all it is, like how bad parents raise bad kids, bad owners raise bad dogs. Pitbulls just get the blunt of the blame because the media keeps portraying them as monsters, and unfortunately not everyone knows that the media is often wrong.

Also like I said above, the term "Pitbull" isn't really accurate. It isn't one breed, it is several. You have Staffordshire Terriers, American Bull Terriers etc...the public needs to be educated on this.

RatherDull:

Remus:
Skip all of the controversy. Get a great pyranese. It's a big, fluffy dog, easily taught, great for families, but have a dogbrush handy because they do shed. My parents had one and it was the only dog they would allow to sleep with their chickens. They had a pest problem - every predatory animal you could think of was showing up in their back yard. A couple walks around the property with that dog, even as a puppy, and not one errant animal print, no new wild animals stalking their yard.

I heard that Great Pyranese are loud.

What else can you expect from a dog that was bred to fight among other things; bears?!

Given their overly protective natures, start socializing them with other dogs and people right away (good advice for any dog really).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked