Remember that woman in rural LA county who was killed by a pack of dogs last week?

[baldguy]

All the lying, disingenuous dog-haters on DU want you to lay blame the entire incident on all the Pit Bulls in the world, which are all "violent", "dangerous", "aggressive", whose owners "don't give a damn", are all "obsessive compulsive" and we should just "ban the breed"? :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022824583

The woman's husband? Not so much:

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=9098297

per Ben Devitt (@1:36): "I have no animosity toward Pit Bulls. And my wife had no animosity. We realize it's people that are responsible for their animals."

Of course, the dog haters don't want you to know this. Just as they don't want you to know the truth. They're more interested in spreading their lies via their bi-weekly posts full of blood porn.

[CBGLuthier]

1. Correct me if I am wrong but she is still dead and was killed by pits

Just because her husband says something STUPID does not change these facts one fucking bit.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

2. Yep

The dogs that killed her were certainly violent, agressive, and dangerous, and those dog's owner "didn't give a damn".

[uppityperson]

23. Whoosh.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

103. What?

You disagree?

[Floyd_Gondolli]

21. Way to pile on the poor bastard

Wife is dead, but he's "stupid".

[ladjf]

207. Because he allowed his dogs to kill someone. nt

[baldguy]

210. The guy who owned the dogs was a drug dealer, who was arrested.

The guy in the OP is the victims husband. Two different people.

[ladjf]

214. I was referring to the dogs owner of course. His occupation is irrelevant to what I would

classify as "manslaughter".

[baldguy]

27. She was killed by a drug dealer.

This is a people problem, not a dog problem.

[hughee99]

60. Exactly. The same if the drug dealer had shot her. It would be a people problem,

not a gun problem.

[oldhippie]

127. No, that would be a gun problem ...

... according to most here.

[bowens43]

81. really the dogs were drug dealers as well as vicious animals?

she was killed by dogs

[baldguy]

88. Who were owned, trained, abused **AND ALLOWED TO ROAM THE NEIGHBORHOOD** by a drug dealer.

This is a PEOPLE problem, not a dog problem.

[Orrex]

92. IMO a dog attack should be considered to have been inflicted by the owner

That is, if a dog injures a person, the dog's owner should face criminal penalty as though she had inflicted the injuries herself.



Consider this, though: if the problem is people and not dogs, then how should we treat attacks by stray dogs? And if we have one response for an attack by a stray dog, why should we not respond the same way to the same attack by a non-stray dog?

[Mr. X]

170. It differs because...

One has a owner and one doesn't. A stray dog lacks the guidance provided by a human being - Without this guidance they revert to more base instincts.

Part of the reason we have issues with dog attacks is because of differing ideals based on the animals size. Toy poodle growls and tries biting you? "Oh look at the doggie! he's so cute!". Pitt Bull growls and tries biting you? "Monster! Monster! Put it down!"

The first thing that needs to be done is to get rid of the widely varying gap between responses. Any dog, no matter the breed, should be treated the same if they try attacking a person. Be they a toy poodle, or a pitt bull, they should be treated the same.

But yes, dog owners need to be held responsible for their dogs actions.

[Orrex]

179. Well...

One has a owner and one doesn't. A stray dog lacks the guidance provided by a human being - Without this guidance they revert to more base instincts.

So it's a matter of the dog being owned or not owned, rather than committing a brutal attack?

I still don't see the difference, except that the attack is arguably worse when an owned dog commits it.


What should the penalty be for the dog? What should it be for the owner?

Be they a toy poodle, or a pitt bull, they should be treated the same.

That makes no sense to me at all. It's like arguing that an assault with a wiffle bat is the same as an assault with a Louisville slugger with nails driven through it.

Others have suggested that we base the restrictions, at least in part, upon jaw strength. Does a toy poodle have the same bite power as a pit bull?

[GeorgeGist]

3. Like guns ...

Don't kill people.

[Drale]

56. No they don't

irresponsible owners do but we need to take guns our of the hands of the irresponsible owners. We also need to make sure that irresponsible owners can't own dogs or any animals for that matter. These are living beings and deserve to live in good loving homes with responsible owners and not in the hands of criminals who could care less about the dogs. Pitbulls are not anymore dangerous than any other dog unless they are trained to attack and kill.

[kwassa]

192. Guns and pit bulls kill people.

Deal with it.

[bunnies]

4. Another pitbull post.

Whats up with the pitbull obsession lately? Every day on DU... pits, "pibbles", whatever. What gives?

[Nine]

6. edit - never mind (nt)

[PeaceNikki]

76. we can read your edits. plenty are started by those looking to stir shit.

[Nine]

101. Does shit stirring mean replying to a self-deleted post?

Since you're bringing me back into, I'll mention that Baldguy has started five pro- pit bull threads in as many days. Has anyone else been starting multiple threads on this topic? If you want to call replying to his threads with an opposing viewpoint "shit-stirring," go ahead, but I thought that was the point of a discussion board. If he just wanted to show off cute doggies instead of making a political statement, he would be posting in the lounge.

[PeaceNikki]

102. you didn't delete, you edited.

[uppityperson]

108. You can't reply to a self deleted post.

Can you reply to this linked self deleted post?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2872103

Your Edited post however, is readable by clicking on "edit" which gets us this:

Take a look at who is posting all the threads.
Some people feel so persecuted they have to make post after post preemptively defending their position.

When legislation on any topic is discussed, there are often thread after thread about it.

[Nine]

120. I personally think 5 threads in 5 days by 1 person on 1 topic is excessive. (nt)

[PeaceNikki]

124. I personally think re-posting something the jury hid should be bannable. By those measures, you'd be

toast.

[uppityperson]

129. Did they really do that?

[PeaceNikki]

131. Yes, a few times, in fact.

[uppityperson]

133. DU is such a place.

When I left MIRT, I left my MIRT memory behind, assuming those were tos checked ones, thanks PeaceNikki.

[Nine]

143. No I did not.

I started this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2828843 I hadn't included much text in that thread because I thought the photos should speak for themselves. The thread was hidden by a jury vote of 4-2, and the only person who gave a detailed reason for hiding it said,

"I've seen dog attacks on kids. They're often brutal and really disfigure the child. I can only assume that this post is part of a discussion AND that it would make better sense as part of that discussion. But there's no discussion to be seen. It's free-standing. It doesn't contribute to any discussion I can see. I'd almost certainly vote to let it stand if it were part of a discussion. As it is, I tend to think it's just for shock and to be offensive and insensitive."

So I reposted it in an existing pit bull thread started by, who else, baldguy, and I added additional text criticizing his use of the term "genocide" for breed-specific legislation of dogs. That post was also hidden, and the jury members gave three different reasons for doing so. I did not post the photos again.

However, this thread by baldguy was allowed to let stand, even though it contained graphic photos too. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2855854 So you can hardly blame me for having trouble figuring out what is and is not allowed around here.

[PeaceNikki]

145. If the jury hides your post and you repost it elsewhere, that's poor form. Any idiot can figure that

out.

[baldguy]

28. Because ther are a small minority of people on DU who want to eradicate Pit Bulls.

And to support their cause they lie, & they bully people.

They even get freaked out & offended when people are shown being being responsible dog owners being affectionate to their dogs.

[randome]

31. Where were you when these breeds went extinct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extinct_dog_breeds

I keep pointing out that pit bulls, as a domesticated animal, contribute nothing to the ecosystem. If they went extinct, neither the Earth nor humanity would be affected in the slightest way.

No one is trying to take your pets away from you so why do you care what others want? Do you think pit bulls are capable of such deep thinking that they want their breed to continue?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[uppityperson]

110. I looked at the first few on that list and I wasn't around in the 1800s.

Personally I think it is idiotic to ban 1 body type. No large headed short haired dogs is what BSL is about and doesn't address the problem of bad owners and a few bad dogs of every body type.

[randome]

155. Then how do you address bad owners?

Answer: Absent having an SPCA representative inside every house, you can't.

So let the breed die out. No one will be effected if no one's pets are taken away from them.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Shankapotomus]

38. How about a compromise?

Don't eradicate pit bulls. Just slowly introduce them into the wild and out of society as pets. It seems to me the breed seems to be an experiment in reverse domestication. We seem to be trying to reintroduce all the traits - like muscularity, jaw strength, etc - that we originally breed out of dogs when we first domesticated wolves to make them more docile and less dangerous.

Perhaps pit bulls can be useful in repopulating former wolf territories and in controlling prey animal populations? So, at the very least, the breed doesn't have to be eradicated.

[Marr]

75. I don't think those traits were ever intentionally bred *out*.

They just sort of came along with a more docile attitude. Mottled fur, floppy ears-- these are (completely superficial) juvenile, puppy traits that just happened to be paired with whatever else made a particular dog more friendly. A few generations of that and a wolf becomes a dog.

[Shankapotomus]

78. Okay, intentionally or not

it made the species more acceptable to us for social interaction. We seem to be going in the reverse with pit bulls. If it looks menacing and is equipped to be menacing maybe we should conclude it wasn't a breed to be a lap dog? Maybe it should be used by only the police and military and ownership by the general public highly regulated like advanced weapons?

[baldguy]

141. That presupposes these dogs are different from any other dogs.

They're not. There are just a few crazies who try to make other people think they are.

Cows kill more people that Pit Bulls do; they kill more people that all dogs do. Should they be abandoned too?

[Shankapotomus]

175. That being your position

let me take one more shot at this, without trying to step on your toes and provided you are open to debate. If not, feel free to let me know and I'll abandon the debate.

Briefly addressing the cow analogy, the difference between a cow and a pit bull is cows, like automobiles, are largely a necessity in today's society as they provide food. Cars kills thousands more than dogs and cows combined but, for the moment, we seem to be stuck with them out of necessity. But I don't rule out that some day technology may solve the dilemmas of car and cow deaths in the future, nor do I scoff at those who have chosen to abstain from both cows and cars. Pit Bulls seem to be more a luxury and comfort to their owners than a necessity.

But beyond the cow statistic, can't it be said that some breeds of dogs can be differentiated from other breeds based on size and/or power? Not just pit bulls - I don't want to single them out - but any large powerful dog that can't be easily restrained physically by an adult? It seems there are some breeds adult humans have an easier time restraining physically or fending off an attack when things get out of hand than other breeds. Would you grant that much? That it's easier to restrain and fend off an out of control beagle or golden retriever than it is, say, a mastiff, all other things, including temperament being equal? You do grant that some adult breed dogs, no matter how vicious, are just no match for an adult human physically, right?

All breeds are capable of attacking, and I grant you there that, based solely on that criteria, there is little difference between one breed of dog from another. But if you acknowledge there is a difference in the amount of power and muscular capability some breeds can bring to an attack versus other breeds, and that some breeds have a better physical ability to avoid physical restraint by adult humans during an attack, then a case can maybe be made that large, muscular dogs are indeed different and occupy a special category that perhaps should make them eligible for special regulation.

Is that an idea you are open to considering based on those physical differences or would you still maintain there is no fundamental difference between any breed of dog?

Thanks.

[baldguy]

177. You're making the same assumption: that Pit Bulls are different. They're not.

Are Pit Bulls strong? Yes.
Are they unusually stronger than other dog similarly sized? No, they are not.

Do Pit Bulls have a powerful bite? Yes.
Do they have an unusually stronger bite than other dog similarly sized? No, they do not.

Can Pit Bulls be aggressive? Yes.
Are they unusually more bite than other dogs? No, they are not.

THIS IS WHAT THE REAL PROBLEM IS:
Are Pit Bulls more likely to suffer abuse than other dogs? Yes, they are.
Are Pit Bulls more likely to not have been trained & socialized than other dogs? Yes, they are.
Are Pit Bulls more likely to not have been spayed/neutered & be part of illegal activities than other dogs? Yes, they are.

And those problems are unlikely to be present in dogs obtained from reputable rescue orgs. But the crazies would like to ban them & kill them anyway.

[maxsolomon]

180. Why does one dog look any different than another?

A corgi's conformation is due to it's historic use. So too, the Dachshund, or the Ground Dog. So is the Hungarian Puli or Komondor, bred to blend in with herds of sheep and fight off wolves. There are historic fighting breeds - dogs that were selectively bred for success in fighting, or bull baiting, or ratting. It ain't pretty but it's the way things were.

Is the Pit Bull Terrier a fighting breed or not? If not, what was it's historic function? Don't say babysitting.

I agree with what you say is the real problem, BTW.

[Shankapotomus]

181. I have no reason to presume

those aren't valid facts in the "more likely" category you've presented. So given that is all true, you are saying pit bulls are not different but they are being treated differently, right? And that gives us an unfortunate result that is different than most other dogs?

But let's set that aside and consider a moderately well socialized pit bull. If it ever does bite, is it more likely to inflict serious injuries than most other breeds?

[cui bono]

195. No, no, no. Pit bulls do not belong in the wild. They need love and family.

It's a tragedy that even responsible breeders are breeding in the muscular look, but it's mostly backyard breeders that are breeding in aggression out of ignorance and the desire to be macho. If they could crack down more on that sort of thing it would help. And if the news wouldn't sensationalize every story about a pit bull attack. I saw a story about a death by dog and funny how they never mentioned the breed of the dog. So I'm sure that one was NOT a pit. But no fun to mention the breed if you can't make it about another pit bull attack. News outlets and people's hysteria only make the a-holes want and breed pits more which only exacerbates the problem.

Pit bulls are loving and affectionate. Oh, I could go on and on. After having had a couple pits and hanging out with my neighbor's pit a lot, they're the only breed I'm interested in owning. Have had dogs all my life and my loving, devoted and goofy pits have spoiled me for every other breed. They just are so connected and in tune, unlike any other dog I've ever known or had. They get it.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Excellent point. And, the truth lies in the trends of deadly dog attacks, right?

It's never been the case the pit bulls have killed or maimed anyone, so what's the big deal?

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Well, that settles that. The dogs did no harm, after all.

This is getting to be like the gungeon.

[uppityperson]

10. I was mugged by an Algerian man. All Algerian men are dangerous. See?

Yes, dangerous dogs and mugging people are harmful, but to extend it to a whole group is ludicrous.

[randome]

13. I'd say that dogs have a lot more invested in instinct than people do. Not a good analogy, IMO.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[uppityperson]

17. Of course you don't think it is a good analogy. Try:Black people needed to be kept as slaves because

they were childish and unable to learn to take care of themselves.They were bred to be subsurvient so it should surprise no one that they need to be carefully watched over. Of course there will be exceptions to the rule, but overall, they just aren't the same as "us". Everyone KNEW that was how they were and some still agree that is how they are. That is a much better analogy.

(SEVERE SARCASM to prove the point)

[baldguy]

90. Racist analogies are bad when they're applied to people.

But racist analogies are perfectly OK when they're applied to anything else.

[XemaSab]

182. Dog breeds were created for specific purposes

Jack Russells, border collies, and bloodhounds are all very different dogs that were created for different purposes. You could try to send a Jack Russell out after the cows, and a border collie out to search for humans, and a bloodhound out on a fox hunt, but these dogs wouldn't work for those purposes.

Pit bulls were bred to fight much larger animals, and they were bred to have gameness, that is to keep on attacking no matter what.

Or are you really going to try to claim that they were bred to look after small children?

Either way, after we spend 500 years breeding a small group of humans for viciousness, then we might be able to make a comparison, but right now, we've got animals that were created for killing and maiming, and it's not racist to claim that.

[baldguy]

187. And the oldest & **MOST IMPORTANT** purpose all dogs were bred for, starting from 30,000 yrs ago

Is to please their human guardians, and be a part of a human family.

[Shankapotomus]

14. Right

Not all lions are going to kill somebody so why can't I have a pet lion?

[TalkingDog]

18. Because lions have never been domesticated. Dogs... (ALL dogs) come from domesticated stock.

Your analogy is flawed.

[Shankapotomus]

24. Then maybe pitulls should be

reintroduced to the wild.

[PeaceNikki]

42. Oh, yes... that seems to work out very well. Roaming packs of dogs.

[Shankapotomus]

46. What do you think wolves are?

Roaming packs of dogs.

[uppityperson]

22. A dog is not a lion or a submarine. Marriage equality means people will marry their dogs so let's be

against marriage equality.

[Shankapotomus]

26. So can I have a pet lion? nt

[uppityperson]

49. Purple. eom

[Shankapotomus]

73. Okay so

You get to have a pet pill bull but I can't have a pet lion? Not trying to be argumentative. Just like debating this - if you're open to debate? What does "domesticated" even mean in this context if both pit bulls and lions have given us examples which have shown to be both deadly and rewarding experiences? Shouldn't domestication not be the issue but, statistically, what breed or species is killing and maiming the more? For instance, poisonous snakes can never be domesticated but, statistically, deaths from them are very low.

[uppityperson]

105. Personally, I prefer cheesecake over pie. nt

[randome]

8. And since there is no way to force people to be more responsible...

...the solution is to ban the breed. Through attrition, not by taking anyone's pet away from them.

There are at least 40 breeds that have gone extinct already.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[baldguy]

32. You've never heard of licensing & registration?

You've never heard of requiring dogs to be spayed or neutered? You've never heard of communities requiring that dogs be either fenced in on the owners property or leashed at all times?

And I've always supported licensing & training requirements for the owners as well.

Breed bans don't work and never have worked.

[randome]

37. None of that has worked so far, has it?

What do you mean breed bans don't work? If a breed isn't allowed in the country, that sure as hell would cut down on the number in the country!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Bake]

9. I could be the most irresponsible dog owner in the world (I'm not, by the way)

And my Shih-Tzus won't kill you.

Bake

[rustydog]

11. Your venting against people who have the right to their opinion

just like the husband of the victim has his right to his opinion.
You will never and he will never convince me that Pit bulls are cuddly, loving puppies to love. They were bread for fighting and killing. Once those jaws close on your face...pretty much you can kiss your ass goodbye when the rest of the pack go for the throat.

Those are my beliefs and I will change them when I have proof that Pit Bulls are not more prone to violence than my dachshund. So, since I don't like killer Pit Bulls I am a dog hater? Nice way to further your cause and legitimize your point of view! Name-call those who do not agree with you.

[baldguy]

36. The dog haters "opinion" includes offering "solutions" to a problem which won't solve the problem.

Which will make the problem they're worried about worse - and create a whole lot of unnecessary suffering in the mean time.

[randome]

40. Okay. Define 'suffering'. Who will suffer if pit bulls are banned?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Shankapotomus]

12. Then can I have a pet tiger now? Nt

[randome]

16. Only if you let it play with Baldguy's pit bulls on Wednesdays!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Sheldon Cooper]

15. Your obsession with this topic is pretty strange.

People are allowed to disagree with you. If you learn to accept that, it'll do wonders for your blood pressure.

[uppityperson]

20. People can disagree, but passing breed specific legislation is wrong. Like being anti-choice on DU

Advocating anti-choice legislation is not allowed. Trying to educate people about BSL is right.

[Sheldon Cooper]

25. Yes, you have a point about passing legislation. I understand the concern.

However, I happen to think that it would be okay to pass BSL for pit bulls and other dangerous dogs. Not necessarily to outlaw them altogether, but to make ownership much more difficult to get and maintain.

[uppityperson]

30. What is the definitions of "dangerous dog"?

Friend had 2 dogs. 1 pit mix, 1 taller, long hair mix. Neighbor said the second one bit him, though he had no bite marks, so the animal control people confiscated the fuzzy dog under their no-bite policy. The pit-mix later disappeared (live out in country in CA) and we hoped a mt lion got it or she got shot rather than grabbed by someone and used in a nasty way.

Should "dangerous dog" be due to their actions, their size, how they look, if are AKC registered or mutt? This is a serious question.

[99Forever]

157. That's your opinion.

Not some infallible statement of fact. Other people think you are wrong. That's their opinion.

You aren't the final arbitrator of anything, just another poster with an opinion.

Sorry that upsets you so much, but it's called Reality.

[uppityperson]

161. Advocating anti-choice legislation is not allowed. Trying to educate people about BSL is right

[99Forever]

166. Oh please.

That's about the silliest argument I have ever heard. Pure unmitigated 100% nonsense.

[baldguy]

44. There are people on this board who want to kill a member of my family.

Because they believe lies & refuse to acknowledge facts.

Should I just accept that?

[randome]

50. Absolutely no one wants to take your pets away from you.

To assert that is hyperbole.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[baldguy]

85. Yes they do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022471172

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2473379

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022471172#post4

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022471172#post35

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022471172#post66

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022471172#post70

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022855854#post69

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022855854#post107

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022855854#post125

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022855854#post213

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022855854#post224

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022749786#post80

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022489260#post1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002106656#post50

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002109142#post3

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002109142#post36

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7113041#7117659

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7113041#7117914

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022312618#post52

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022312618#post124

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5088573#5088764

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022824583#post42

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022824583#post3

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022824583#post148

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022824583#post105


Just as you yourself have:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002109142#post74

And you're a fool or a liar if you think a ban won't lead to wholesale confiscation. It would certainly lead to an increased amount of abuse. Wouldn't you like that?

[randome]

99. 'Ban', to me, is not the same thing as 'confiscate'.

You can ban the importation of the breed and allow the ones that already exist to die out. Why isn't that a compromise worth pursuing?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[TheCowsCameHome]

84. Then keep it leashed and don't let it roam.

or is that not good enough for Pookums?

[HappyMe]

87. I don't want anything to do

with your damn dogs.

Keep them leashed or tied up.

[99Forever]

160. In the eyes of the law...

.. they are chattel, not "family members." If the law says you are not allowed to own something, yes, you should accept that. It's called being a law abiding, responsible citizen.

[PeaceNikki]

47. Do you make this same comment to all of the threads on the topic with which you agree?

God fucking knows there's enough of that obsession.

[HappyMe]

19. Dog haters?

What a crock.

Just because I don't like pit bulls doesn't make me a dog hater. But I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. And if I'm not mistaken, you posted a nasty thread full of dog blood porn yourself.

You aren't going to change anybody's mind by berating them.

[clarice]

43. + 1,000,000

[clarice]

29. This is actually one of my "pet" peeves.

We can go on and on about anti/pro pit bulls (and other aggressive breeds,) but here are the facts. Certain animals have an inbred propensity for violence. Here's what gets me, of ALL the choices available in dog breeds, why would someone who obviously can't handle this type of dog get one. IMHO there are
2 reasons (with exception of course) 1. Teenage wanna be gangstas who think it's cool to own one. 2. Rednecks who wanna show their friends that they are tough. Please , pit bull lovers, no hate mail.

[uppityperson]

33. Where does Jon Stewart fit into your 2 categories? I am curious.

[clarice]

39. Why ? did he bite someone?. nt

[uppityperson]

45. He owns several. Or were you just talking those who can't handle the dog, in which case it fits

owners of every type or category of dog.

[Rex]

52. No he owns 3 pit bulls. So now what?

nt.

[randome]

53. I think many equate 'ban' with 'confiscation'.

A ban where the breed is eliminated through attrition is something I think we could all live with.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Rex]

59. Sure ya do, you hate the breed.

Why? I could really care less.

[randome]

63. Way to not address the point I made.

There is definitely some hate on this thread but it's not from me!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Rex]

66. Right keep telling yourself that.

You ain't fooling no one here.

[clarice]

68. Me either, I think we are barking up the wrong tree. nt

[clarice]

65. Please don't report Randome to the PBDL. Pit Bull Defense league.

[randome]

70. Thank you!

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[clarice]

74. lol. You're welcome. that looks like a vicious cat. nt

[clarice]

54. So now you should chill......jeeesh. nt

[Rex]

61. All I did was call you out for your asinine post.

Way to stereotype, how sad for you.

[clarice]

69. Oh !!! now I get it. Your handle is "Rex". lol. nt

[jmg257]

41. (with exception of course) nt

[clarice]

57. Thanks for the back up. Do you ever get the feeling....

that some people just LIVE to be offended?

[Rex]

64. Why all you did was make an embarrassing post that shows your vast

ignorance of dog owners. Nothing offensive about that, just sad really.

[Rex]

67. That has to be the saddest post I've seen yet about this subject.

The wealth of ignorance is astounding on this topic.

[randome]

35. A back window sticker on a pickup truck I saw a couple of weeks ago.

Pit Bull Inside

Everyone has the expectation that they are dangerous and to deny that is ridiculous.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[baldguy]

51. Your "facts" aren't facts at all.

And they're a little offensive.

[clarice]

55. offensive to pit bulls ?!!??. nt

[baldguy]

93. "Gangstas"? "Rednecks"?

Just a little racist there?

[clarice]

97. OMG ! Gimme a break!. too funny.

[boomer55]

34. I dont think a pack of dachsunds would have created the same situation.

of course breed matters.

[uppityperson]

114. Sounds like you mean size matters. Not breed but size.

[maxsolomon]

48. There's a subset of "banners", just like there's a subset of "the breed is innocenters"

It's both, just like it is with guns.

yes, negligent owners fail to train and control thier pitbulls/pitbull mixes/staffs/amstaffs, etc.

but there's also a reason these dogs are used for dog fights. it's their conformation. they were bred to fight in pits.

when you combine negligence and physical attributes, and let them run in packs, that's a dangerous dog.

personally, i don't want the breed destroyed. but i would like to see far fewer pit bulls in general, particularly in urban areas, and particularly in the hands of negligent male youth. i hope that pitbull rescue people share that goal.

[Rex]

58. The people that want to exterminate the pit bull breed are no better than

these guys...

[Drale]

62. I'd trust a Dalek before a pit-bull hater

Daleks are up front about their reasons they want to exterminate everyone, pitty haters lie and bully because their reasons are complete bullshit and they try and hide the real reason, their fear and the fact that they have been duped by the MSM.

[Rex]

71. Hmmm...good point.

It is sad to watch people try and criminalize a breed of dog.

[Orrex]

86. A Dalek is only 27% as dangerous as a pit bull. True fact.

[DrDan]

72. so the husband saying this make it "the truth" - perhaps someone is a bit too close to this issue

and is allowing emotion to rule

[PeaceNikki]

77. how about the ASPCA opinion on BSL?

Surely they have facts, data and evidence.

[DrDan]

83. they do - and state that pits are more agressive than other breeds

[PeaceNikki]

91. They do not.

http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/breed-specific-legislation-1.aspx

[DrDan]

94. from the ASPCA

"When provoked, they may become aggressive more readily than another breed might. Sometimes they don’t inhibit their bites, so they may cause injury more often than other dogs."

http://www.aspca.org/Pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-articles/the-truth-about-pit-bulls

[PeaceNikki]

98. You understand that is in context to fighting OTHER DOGS, not people, right?

And that there's a difference.

[DrDan]

164. I see - so that aggression is never directed toward people - got it . . .

[uppityperson]

115. Lots of qualifiers undermine your "are more" statement.

"pits are "
vs
"may"
"sometimes"
"may"

[DrDan]

165. NO ONE was implying pits are ALWAYS more agressive

[Progressive dog]

79. no breed bans

The ASPCA evaluated the pit bulls seized from Michael Vick, evaluated them, and put many up for adoption. These dogs were bred to fight and owned by vicious people.There is nothing inherently dangerous about pit bulls. The people breeding them for pets far outnumber those breeding for aggression.

[wercal]

80. You know what...

Sixty percent of dog bite death is due to pit bulls:

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/8-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf

I don't particularly care why, or whose fault it is.

All I know is I use great caution when around a pit bull, and I don't trust them around small children.

You will never understand this, but that doesn't make me a 'dog-hater'.

My city got rid of bsl, to the delight of people Just Like You.

Here's the story about a toddler killed 6 months ago: http://cjonline.com/news/2012-12-13/2-year-old-topeka-girl-dies-dog-attack

Do you get it? We've had bsl since 1985, with NO deaths. Then on Nov 28, 2010, bsl is removed...and 23 months later a toddler is dead. Hows that for 'blood porn'.

[PeaceNikki]

82. Shocked that it took this long for someone to post a link to that bullshit site whose data has been

debunked ad nauseum.

Do you also want to ban golden retrievers, German Shepherds, Labradors , and Rottweilers.

[wercal]

104. Ok...I'll Bite (see what I did there)

What from the site has been debunked, who debunked it, and where can I find said debunking?

The very site and graph I linked to counted dog bites from the breeds you listed, so that's not earthshattering information...but which breed accounts for most of the bites? I wonder...

[PeaceNikki]

119. Did you lose your Google CD ROM?

[wercal]

125. So you've got nuthin'

You say this site is biased, but have absolutely nothing to back that up.

Do you dispute that half of dog bite deaths in this country are from Pit Bulls?...

..which, btw make up 2% of the dog population.

[PeaceNikki]

130. It's all been posted here on DU... again AD NAUSEUM. I am not your fucking research bitch.

[wercal]

134. So you've got nothing

You concede that pit bulls, which constitute 2% of the population, account for 50% of the fatal dog bites.

I don't hate pitbulls (just fear them)...but (ironic considering your avatar) I think my position makes you hate me.

[PeaceNikki]

135. Keep telling yourself that, chief.

[wercal]

140. Geez, you act like I made it up or its black magic

Its simple stats...the CDC did a study and came up with the same answer.

You dispute it, yet are unable to produce any contrary study.

Methinks one of us is in denial...can you guess which one?

[PeaceNikki]

142. Here you go, go back to the gungeon.

"There is currently NO ACCURATE WAY to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill."
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/biteprevention.htm

"Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog's breed with certainty, enforcement of breed specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues...Many practical alternatives to breed specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites." Source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

They also found that, "...to the extent that attacks by 1 breed ["pit bulls"] are more newsworthy than those by other breeds, our methods may have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities by breed"
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

Since these CDC statistics were based largely on newspaper reports about "pit bull" attacks, which we know are inaccurate simply because they refer to the non-existent "breed" "pit bull," the CDC's findings are skewed and therefore worthless. Yet these statistics, and statistics like them, are repeatedly used to pass breed-specific laws.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998.” http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf


The CDC study on dog bites has been quoted, misquoted, cited, misread, and misunderstood on a regular basis by politicians, the public, attorneys, and the media. Very few people bother to actually read the report in its entirety or are truly willing to acknowledge the severe limitations and flawed means that were used to gather the information that was presented in the study.

So given that, how do you think that the CDC feels about the dog bite statistics and reports that are floating around, when they feel that most of them are semi-based on their own, which they clearly state are flawed?

Well, for the most part, you'll find that they find their conclusions are inaccurate in regards to dog behaviors, in regards to using newspaper articles as "evidence" or "predictors" for the nature and behavior of all other dogs in the U.S. They'll even tell you that the statistics that are currently available for the public in regards to breeds that are prone to biting and attacking humans and other animals is highly flawed and variable. When you only test a small portion of dogs from a particular breed, you just can't estimate the approximate bites caused by that breed in a given year.


The most critical flaw in the CDC's study of dog attacks was the attempt to isolate one factor in all attacks- the dog breed- but it was impossible to verify. Of all the more tangible circumstances surrounding a dog attack the CDC chose, for unknown reasons, the most problematic and least reliable aspect to base their study on- the dog's breed. They could have easily studied the sex of the dog, reproductive status of the dog, location, relationship of the dog to victim, age of the dog, etc.

Without having any legitimate way to identify or verify breeds of dogs, and while knowing that mixed breed dogs make up a significant portion of the dog population in the U.S., the CDC still opted to search for and attempt to acquire any breed information in dog attacks.

Since there was, and still is, no national recording system that keeps track of the events that surround dog bites, the CDC scanned newspaper articles for any breed identification in cases of fatal dog attacks.

In addition to using newspaper articles, the CDC excluded nearly 1/4 of the small sample population (n=320) because the source either failed to report the incident altogether or reported the incident by failed to "identify" the breed.

However, like other studies, the CDC recognized the flaws in the study and clearly states that there is NO CONCLUSION on breed behaviors in relation to the data that was drawn. The scanned newspaper articles just weren't, and still aren't accurate enough to provide substantial evidence that a dog's breed is the root cause to a bite or attack.

The CDC No longer keeps track of dog bite fatalities by breed and has posted the following statement on their website:

A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic.

[wercal]

151. You know

The first three links don't work...

And the last one is a study that I myself linked in this thread.

So this post you copied ankle bites the study...and a decade after the study, current CDC staff put a disclaimer on it (probably because they are tired of answering questions every time a city or county uses it as justification for a bsl law)...but no explosive counter-study, which refutes it. Heck, the study would have to be off by a factor of 2,500% (a factor of 25), before its conclusions would point to anything other than the notion that Pit Bulls are dangerous (that 2% of dogs accounting for 50% of deaths thing).

Do you reaaalllly think the study is off by 2,500%?

Now here's a recent story...this is where people put their money where their mouths are. Farmers Insurance no longer covers Pit Bulls:

http://www.kcra.com/news/Farmers-Insurance-no-longer-covering-dog-bites-for-certain-breeds/-/11797728/18506972/-/fpvdpn/-/index.html

Do you think they just hate pit bulls?

Do you think they mis-counted their dog bite claims, or made some statistical error?

Or perhaps, just maybe, they've been paying alot of money out for pitbulls.

Now I have a sincere question - Where is this Gungeon? Is it a feature that has been eliminated at DU? Or is there really a Gungeon forum? Honestly, if it exists, I have no idea how to get there.

[PeaceNikki]

159. The gungeon is your favorite group, per your profile

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=297518

[wercal]

167. Ok, these are threads I've found in 'Latest Threads'

I had no idea that the 'Gun Control' forum was actually the Gungeon.

[baldguy]

96. DogBite.org is an anti-Pit Bull propaganda site. Anything from it is full of shit.

If you're using that site for you info, then everything you have to say on the subject is worthless.

[wercal]

109. You dispute their data

Show me where their data is wrong. Show me they're wrong.

Just calling them BS is well...BS.

Here's a study by the CDC (probably BS I'm sure)...once again, Pit Bulls top the list:

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf

BTW, is my newspaper article about the 2 year old girl in my town mauled to death really 'worthless'?

You are obviously too emotional to understand. I don't hate pitbulls. Same way I don't hate tigers. But neither should be kept as pets in an urban area....for fairly obvious reasons.

Alas, our town hasn't even considered reverting back to bsl, even after the mauling. Maybe they will after the next mauling...and I think we both know with great certainty that there will be another one sooner or later.

[LostOne4Ever]

184. Go to that sites fatatlities stats

Now read their disclaimer at the top. They admit they are combining 4 breeds into pitbulls and not taking it on a breed by breed basis as they are with the other dogs.

Now notice they give population data on those breeds but don't actually take population into account.

Now divide the number on attacks, or fatalities, or whatever while adjusting for breed (divide by 4) and population (divide by the percentage). Now note that the pits are no where near the top by the sites own data...data they cite again and again to say how horrible pits are. Then they have the gall to say they have no intention of banning German shepards only pits...when the adjusted numbers show that pits are closers to shepards than almost every other dog on their list! So fair and balanced.

Or how about their critique of the pitbull test. The purpose of the test was to show how they could be confused with other dogs. They do nothing to dispute that but rather claim the test doesn't work because they didnt include dogs that are vastly different from pits...and even then their test has a few dogs that can get confused for pits.

Or how about reading the broad generalizations they give on all pitbull owners?

That site is full of bologna.

[Nine]

188. Can you link to the dogsbite.org page with the disclaimer you're talking about?

Or post the text of the disclaimer?

The "divide by four" thing is something I've seen posted here repeatedly, but it seems to make no sense mathematically. I'd like to see it in the context of what you mean.

[LostOne4Ever]

190. Here you go

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


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-study-dog-attacks-and-maimings-merritt-clifton.php[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Even if the pit bull category was "split four ways," attacks by pit bulls and their closest relatives would still outnumber attacks by any other breed.

The reason for the pitbull four way split is because Pitbull is not a breed. Its a group of four breeds of dog (some people will add more):

American Pit Bull Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
American Bulldog

As for the quote, of course that is the case...because they outnumber all the other dogs by 2-100x.

[Nine]

202. You're claiming that pit bulls "outnumber all the other dogs by 2-100x"?

You seem to be saying that of course the most dog bite related fatalities are attributable to pit bulls because the four breeds that make up the pit bull category constitute the vast majority of the dog population - by a factor between two and a hundred? Am I understanding you? The Clifton report appears to estimate pit bulls as comprising 4.4% of the dog population. I take it you dispute this number and have a different number to provide?

I would agree that dog bite related fatalities per breed is not the most meaningful statistic since some breeds are more populous than others. However, when a breed (or category of four breeds - it doesn't really matter) makes up 4.4% of dogs and is responsible for 45% of the deaths (233) and 57% of the maimings (1,268) over a thirty year period, that's difficult to "hand wave" away.

The text you quoted was not actually a disclaimer but a preemptive counter-argument for the very argument you are making. It's an abridgment from the Clifton Report, and you can find a fuller version of it in the last two paragraphs on the first page of the report along with another preemptive argument addressing claims that these dogs are simply being misidentified by the media. (Short answer: media coverage is typically multi-sourced).

[LostOne4Ever]

204. OF THE DOGS LISTED

The 2-100x is based on the websites own numbers in that table. Specifically I said "all the other dogs by 2-100x." the "the" kinda refers to the table. Otherwise I would have said "all other dogs by 2-100x."

Of the dog populations listed off that table they are from 2-100x as numerous. Pitbulls are listed at 4.4% which is 2x bigger than Rotweilers (2.2%) and is over 100x greater than the chow population(0.01%). Again, the tables own numbers.

Further, I question the methods used by the website to get those numbers. This is the same website claiming that pits committed 22 of the 31 fatal dog attacks in 2011...when only 2 of the dogs were ever confirmed as pits. So much for multi sourced media huh?

That is recording the number of pit attacks at 1100% of their actual number. So, yeah, I dont give that websites data much credence.

But again, account for breed and population for any of those statistics and tell me where pits come close to first place?

You want a better way to tell if a dog is dangerous? Try checking out the number of spayed/neutered dogs that attack people compared to those that are intact. In the 2011 case 23 of the dog attacks involved dogs with their reproductive organs intact, and a few of them were unknown (compared to 2 pits). Not only would getting these dogs fixed reduce the number of attacks it would reduce the number of unwanted pets at the same time!

Just a few more statistics. According to wikipedia pitbull population is 1-2million. Lets use the lower number and say its 1million. Lets also say that in 2011 that all 31 attacks were by pits (they werent but lets say they were). What is the population of pits NOT involved in any attacks?

100%*(10^6-31)/10^6=99.9969%

This means 1 in 32200pits were responsible for a death. How about SUPPOSED maimings per year using again that sites numbers.

1268/20=64

100%*(10^6-64)/10^6=99.9936% of pits were not involved! Or 1 in 15000!

Lets use the whole 20 year data (though how many pits live to be 20 years old?):

100%*(10^6-1268)/10^6=99.8732% meaning 1 in 789 pits...again how many pits live for 20 years?

Final statistic. Total fatal dog attacks in the US average around 20 per year. Total average number of lighting strike fatalities in the US per year? 55!!!

So we are talking about banning something that is rarer than getting struck by lighting.

[Nine]

217. Still not following your math.

Yes, the Clifton report estimates the chow population as .01%, the rottweiler population as 2.2%, and the pit bull population as 4.4%.

The report also lists the number of chows involved in dog attacks over the 30-year period as 55 (1.4% of the total number of dogs involved in the attacks), the number of rottweilers involved in attacks as 495 (12.7% of the total) and the number of pit bulls involved as 2235 (57.5% of the total). That doesn't include any mixes.

So saying that the numbers only seem bad because people aren't taking dog population into account makes no sense.

It also makes no sense to argue that because "pit bull" is a category that encompasses four similar breeds, the pit bull numbers should be "divided by four." If you did that, you would also have to divide the population percentage by four. The only case in which dividing by four would make sense at all would be if you looked at "attacks per breed," but no one is using an "attacks per breed" statistic, and I've already said such a statistic would be meaningless.

The report only mentions splitting the pit bull category four ways to make the point that even if this were done, the numbers would still look very bad for pit bulls:

There is a persistent allegation by pit bull terrier advocated that pit bulls are overrepresented 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 four ways, attack by pit bulls and their closest relatives would still outnumber attacks by any other breed.

There is also a persistent allegation by pit bull terrier advocates that the use of media accounts as a data source is somehow suspect. Reality is that media coverage incorporates information from police reports, animal control reports, witness accounts, victim accounts in many instances, and hospital reports. Media coverage is, in short, multi-sourced, unlike reports from any single source.

I agree with you that breed is not the only risk factor for predicting dog attacks.

I agree with you that the majority of pit bulls are not involved in dog attacks. I still feel that the number of them that are is too high. I have a baby stroller sitting in my garage that was recalled along with 1.5 million others because 5 children amputated their fingers on part of it.

The link you provide is to National Canine Research Council, a pit bull advocacy group. The fact that they claim to have been unable to corroborate the breeds of dogs involved in specific attacks doesn't impress me.

[wercal]

220. He doesn't understand statistics

And is trying to twist and cherry pick everything to his liking....its emotional for him.

[LostOne4Ever]

224. Considering

That I now have enough credits for a major in Math and will get my degree for my bachelors in Engineering (double major) I think I have a pretty good understanding of statistics. Or are you going to accuse the University of Texas system of being a diploma mill?

As for CHERRY picking....I USED THE DATA FROM THE WEBSITE ALL OF YOU ARE TOTING AS BEING SO GREAT!!!! So technically you picked the cherry and I used it to make my point.

So I guess I should thank you for proving my point?

Thanks!

[wercal]

225. Color me not impressed

If you're in school right now, I'd guess I've been a practicing engineer since you were a toddler.

And sorry, the University of Texas really doesn't impress me either.

Yes you are going to the website we linked to...and taking quotes out of context, and deliberately splitting the baby 4 ways in one metric but not the other.

But, since you are apparently a math genius, I recant my statement.

You obviously must understand statistics, and are deliberately trying to mis-use them.

Better?

[LostOne4Ever]

231. I guess facts dont impress you at all

And you called me emotional. Yes I the one using math and statistics (FROM YOUR SITE) to prove my point, am the emotional one. I the one who has never had a pitbull am the one who is emotional. I the one who is emotional

Not you, not the one who in one posts talks about the victims (while this whole thread is about victims who dont want people to blame the dog).

You say I deliberately mis-use them? I have given out all my reasoning and my math right here. Plain to see. Its simple algebra. I who have at every calculations used the numbers that were least helpful to my position. Yes Im manipulating the math. Obviously by taking the set of numbers most opposed to my position that magically makes the numbers line up in my favor.

But you can't impeach the math so it must be the math itself. Im evil for using statistics! Those are just statistics! Statistics from a site you gave out. There is something wrong with the statistics YOU gave....the sample size is small. Probably too small. So to remedy this you want everyone to go to a shelter and look at the dogs to be euthanized (even smaller sample size). Sure. Everyone do that.

While you are at that, go talk to a vet too. You know the people who actually study these animals, and read the stats on his site and then go to some pro-pit dog sites. Get all the info you can and then make an informed decision.

And while your at it ask yourselves how much is too much? Dog bites fatalities are less frequent than lighting strikes. Yet they want to ban an entire breed. A breed that when given a fair chance is less likely to attack or kill as those other dogs listed. A dog that only 1 in 33k dogs will kill a person (usually with extenuating circumstances).

When is enough? 1 in 100k? 1 in 200k? When its 1/100 the likelihood of getting hit by lighting? When every dog has gone extinct? I think these are important questions. Why do they keep focusing on Pits? I showed the problems with their site before and the person responded all the breeds should be banned. At least that person was consistant.

Where are the calls for Chows? They are the worst by their table.
Where are the calls for German Shepard bans? They are ALMOST as bad as pitbulls.
Where?

This has nothing to do with facts. Its people hating a type of dog without reason. Nothing more to see here.

Thanks for the podium wercal! But this is the end of the debate between us. You asked what was wrong with the site and I showed it. I showed that pits were not the most dangerous dog on the list from the site you gave us. I showed my numbers and how to get them. You have resorted to attacks on me calling me emotional and now accusing me of dishonesty in my math.

You dont care about facts so Im gonna take Mark Twain's advise and stop responding to you. Thank you for the excellent vehicle to prove my points. I could not have been nearly as convincing without you!



EDIT: Saw the other post (#230). You apparently don't understand what an example for easy math means! Thats your issue not mine.

[wercal]

234. Yes I called you emotional

'Rant off' and angry emoticons, along with manifesto type screeds give it away. I catch on to things like that.

You haven't proved anything (see post 230 for real math). And, this has not been a debate at all. Rather, you are trying to manipulate data to get the result you want...poorly (again see post 230 for a small sample of math).

Now one thing has me gravely concerned. Your quote:

"Its simple algebra"

What in the heck are they teaching you at Texas? You are supposedly a math major, and you think multiplication and division are Algebra? I hate to tell you, but no Algebra has been performed on this thread today.

Seriously. A refund. You deserve it.

And I challenge you to answer my question in post 230. How would you interpret the data? What would be the best way to reduce dog bites?

I know you won't answer.

[LostOne4Ever]

222. Here is the math

Last edited Tue May 21, 2013, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)

4.4%=2.2% x 2
4.4%=0.01% x 440

As you can see the pits population is 2x that of rotweilers and over 100x that of chows.

Population is important because when there are more dogs there will be more attacks by that breed. Lets say there were only 100 dogs in all the world. 80% of them pits 15% of them dobermans, 4% chows and 1% all other breeds. Now you look at a chart showing that pitbulls did 55% of the attacks. Now lets say the other 43% were chows, 1 % dobermans, and 1% other.

EDIT: BECAUSE SOMEONE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT AN EXAMPLE IS-Not directed at you Nine-THIS IS AN EXAMPLE FOR EASY MATH.

Pitbulls=55/80=0.6875
Chows=43/4=10.75
Dobermans=0.6667
Other=1/1=1

Now what is the dog most likely to attack? The chow! Its far more aggressive than the others!

Separating it by breed is important as you are artificially inflating it with other dogs. Except for pits the table is already separated by breed. Lets say that it was divide into pits vs nonpits. Then it says that 42.5% of all non-pits are dangerous. Is this fair to the German Shepard?

Also mathematically you would not need to divide the population by four. Think about it this way.1000 attacks, pits are 10% and lets say 5 breeds for easy numbers

1000attacks/(10%)=10,000
Now that for all pits. Divide by four to get the number per population and breed

10,000/4=2,500

Not hard math really. You now know the average number of attacks adjusted for breed and population. Since its multiplication division it works even if you do breed first

1000attacks/4breeds=250

250/10%=2500

Its called the associative property of multiplication

From what I can see of the NCRC they are a dog research group. However, if you can show me how their research is fraudulent ill stop using them.


Here is an older post were i did the math on the attacks section if you want the actual number (rather than easy math):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2800966

[Nine]

226. That's complete gibberish.

Simple question. What is the metric that you find most appropriate to use in this discussion?

[LostOne4Ever]

228. What is gibberish

A dataset taking breed and population into account so that all the dogs are on equal footing?

Are are trying to ban an entire breed, I think the two biggest metrics would be total attacks (to try and figure out how likely they are to attack) and fatalities. Take either one of them that you want and adjust for breed and population and you will find that pitbulls are neither the most likely dog to attack or kill...or close to the top in either category.

[wercal]

233. See post 230 to learn how to do math

[wercal]

230. All the math in the world doesn't fix bad initial assumptions

In what universe do pit bulls constitute 80% of the dog population?

Look at the chart and compare Bodily Harm vs % Population

It shows that Pit Bulls are 44 times more likely to cause bodily harm than a doberman:

15 attacks/1.3 dobermans = 11.53 attacks per doberman

2235 attacks/4.4 pit bulls = 507.95 attacks per pit bull

How on earth could your convoluted math come up with them being equal?

Chows:

55 attacks/0.01 chows = 5,500 attacks per chow

So the chow is 10.8 times more likely to attack than a pit bull....not the factor of 15 shown in your 0.6875 vs 10.75 comparison. (BTW, I support BSL...which includes Chows).

You mentioned a German Shepherd

96 attacks/2.3 German Shepherd = 41.7 attacks per German Shepherd...or 12.18 times less likely to attack than a Pit Bull.

So first of all, get a refund from UT. Seriously.

Next, forget about all the equivalencies. Look at the chart just as it is. If you were a policymaker, interested in reducing the number of dog bites, what would the chart tell you? Would you conclude that the Chow is the big problem - having cause 55 atttacks? Of course not. If you were sincerely interested in reducing attacks, the obvious choice would be, drumroll please...the Pit Bull.

Can you see why? Can you understand the chart? The Chows aren't the problem. Maybe that level of understanding is graduate level at Texas.

[wercal]

203. This misidentification BS makes my blood boil

Twenty years ago, I was at Fort Riley, Kansas...and there was an underground subculture of people who owned large and dangerous dogs (those living off post in nearby cities such as Junction City, Ogden, and Milford). They would brag about how they would confound code enforcement/law enforcement, since nobody could positively id their dog as a pit bull (banned by breed in these cities).

An interesting aside was there was a substantial overlap between this group and the Amway salesmen in the area.

Anyway, they thought they were so slick, would laugh about it, and have a good old time. People would call and complain about the dangerous dog, and they would brazenly tell the inspector 'this isn't a pit bull'...'this isn't even a breed'....'you need a DNA sample'.

One morning a young boy waiting at the bus stop in Milford was mauled to death by one of their dogs. Real funny, huh? Alot of dog 'lovers' got to see their dogs get seized and detroyed - suddenly the police quit buying into this line of crap, and figured out that they could tell a Pit Bull fro a Poodle. Dozens of dogs euthanized...because only a 'dog hater' would spay a pit bull, right?

The woman who owned the dog went to prison. Her husband lost his job on post managing the all ranks club, and went to work for McDonalds.

Your explainaton that the police and media are mis-identifying dogs is offensive, speculative, and non-sensical. Its one of the most tedious and delicately constructed defenses I have ever seen to a very clear cut issue. It is absolutely insane to dismiss the radically high number of dog bites from Pit Bulls as a statistical anomaly. I have seen this with my own eyes, working at the dog shelter - where the vast majority of dogs on hold, waiting to be euthanized by court order, are Pit Bulls (because they BIT SOMEONE) And I can freaking tell the difference between a pit bull and a collie.

These are dangerous animals. Keep them out of the city limits and quit trying to rationalize that they aren't dangerous.

[LostOne4Ever]

206. Nice story

Too bad the source I linked has the dogs checked out by an expert.

And I think that this unscientific and broad generalization of an entire breed is just as offensive, speculative, and non-nonsensical. And AGAIN by the very NUMBERS listed in the link pits are not even in the top three in any category unless you don't take population into account...not to mention breed!

1 in 33k animals does not represent the entire breed. Quit trying to scapegoat the breed.

Hell there are more people dying in car accidents every year by around 3 orders of magnitude. Go try and ban cars with your non-scientific anecdotal stories, leave these poor animals out of your witch hunt.

[randome]

211. Where is the 'offense'? Are pit bulls offended?

Are owners of pit bulls offended? Why? We're not talking about taking away anyone's pets. Ban the breed and let those already here die out. What's the big deal? What's the offense?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[LostOne4Ever]

216. We are talking about getting rid of a breed of dog that many people love

What is not to get offended by? If this was about cocker spaniels (the breed of my first dog) i would be furious. Why does the breed need to die? There are people who love the breed, some people have been saved from death by the breed, who raised that breed when they were kids and now are having their own kids raise it.

If this was about banning collies don't you think Lassie fans would be up in arms?

I mainly used offense because i was throwing the poster's own words back at him/her, but I think this is absurd. People are unfairly demonizing this breed and getting out of shape over one of the most rare events imaginable. Again, more lighting strike deaths than fatal dog attacks.

Again using the stats off an anti-pitbull site it comes out to 1 in 33k pits are involved. How is that in any way shape or form fair to the breed? People die in car crashes by around 3 orders of magnitude more than by pitbulls.

Again, using the very stats off that site chows/huskies/etc are all far more likely to attack and kill. Yet I have seen no ban chows or husky threads?

This whole thing smacks of authoritarianism, unfair stereotypes, irrational reaction, and some of the things some posters have said, animal abuse. This whole thing upsets almost every fiber in my being.

[randome]

223. I don't understand how you can 'love' a breed. I do understand loving a dog.

I have had 2 in my lifetime. And if I had one now and someone told me the breed was dangerous and I would not be allowed to have another, I would be fine with that. If I wanted another dog, I would find another breed.

You cannot force owners to be responsible so if people are fearful of a certain breed, where is the harm is banning them if those who already have them are allowed to keep them?

Loving a breed instead of a dog means you take things personally when someone speaks ill of the breed. I don't understand that.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[wercal]

221. Wow, fairly dismissive of my 'nice story' about a kid being

mauled to death.

To all pit bull lovers, I have a simple challenge.

Forget worrying about statistics, and 4 breeds and whatever other nonsense, and see with your own two eyes.

1) Go to the local animal shelter

2) Ask where they keep the dogs on administrative hold, while their court ordered euthanization is appealled.

3) Identify the breed of these dogs.

No stats...no comparison to car accidents (WTF?) Just your own two eyes. Get back to me, and tell me if you don't see a couple dozen Pit Bulls, scheduled to be killed, because they bit someone.

And after you finish crying for the dogs, harness some of the anger you show here for the owners who persist in keeping these dogs in urban areas, and set them up for their own destruction, out of 'love'.

Then, and this is the tough one I know - ponder the life changing event that each one of these dogs represents. People with permanent scars on their bodies, and certainly a permanent fear of dogs, after the terrifying experience of going through a dog bite. And these aren't poodles - I have seen these bites in the hospital (every fucking time I go in there, there seems to be some guy with a dog bit), and the pit bull goes for the thigh/genital area, and latches on tight. It turns the entire thigh purple and black. Have some compassion for the poor people who get bit. Have some compassion for the poor people who alter their lifestyle, to avoid these dogs in their daily life. have some compassion for the other dogs that are killed by Pit Bulls.....you know, don't be so dismissive of 'nice stories' about deadly maulings.

Will you take the challenge? Will you go to the shelter and witness the dogs on death row?

Or are we going to hear more parsing of statistics?

Hint: Anyone who works anywhere near a shelter instantly understands that pit bulls bite more than any other breed. Its terribly obvious.

[baldguy]

185. From the CDC Dog Bite Fact Sheet, referencing **YOUR LINK**:

It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. ... There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Dog-Bites/dogbite-factsheet.html

[baldguy]

189. And why are they wrong? Why is DogsBite a propaganda website?

Because they deliberately use misleading & inaccurate news reports and surveys based on visual identification only. That doesn't work, and here's the proof:

UF College of Veterinary Medicine Dog Breed Identification survey: What kind of dog is that?

http://sheltermedicine.vetmed.ufl.edu/library/research-studies/current-studies/dog-breeds/

We conducted a national survey of dog experts to compare their best guesses for the breeds of dogs in a series of photographs. These visual assessments were compared to DNA breed profiles for the dogs.

More than 5,000 dog experts, including breeders, trainers, groomers, veterinarians, shelter staff, rescuers, and others completed the survey.

Dog 02

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-Labrador Retriever, 2-American Staffordshire Terrier, 3-No Predominant Breed, 4-Border Collie, 5-Pointer (includes English Pointer).
DNA Results: 50% Catahoula Leopard Dog, 25% Siberian Husky, 9.94% Briard, 5.07% Airedale Terrier

Dog 07

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-Labrador Retriever, 2-American Staffordshire Terrier, 3-No Predominant Breed, 4-German Shepherd Dog, 5-Staffordshire Bull Terrier
DNA Results: 25% Irish Water Spaniel, 25% Siberian Husky, 25% Boston Terrier, 8.33% Bull Mastiff

Dog 08

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-Boxer, 2-American Staffordshire Terrier, 3-Staffordshire Bull Terrier, 4-Greyhound, 5-No Predominant Breed
DNA Results: 25% Boxer, 25% Alaskan Malamute, 21.95% Sealyham Terrier, 19.67% Pointer

Dog 17

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-American Bulldog, 2-Dalmatian, 3-Labrador Retriever, 4-Boxer, 5-American Staffordshire Terrier
DNA Results: 25% Rottweiler, 12.5% Boxer, 12.5% German Shorthaired Pointer, 11.09% Manchester Terrier

Dog 22

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-No Predominant Breed, 2-German Shepherd Dog, 3-Boxer, 4-Catahoula Leopard Dog, 5-American Staffordshire Terrier
DNA Results: 25% Chow Chow, 12.5% German Shepherd, 12.5% Alaskan Malamute, 14.22% Cairn Terrier

Dog 33

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-Border Collie, 2-No Predominant Breed, 3-Great Dane, 4-American Staffordshire Terrier, 5-Boston Terrier
DNA Results: 37.5% German Shepherd, 12.5% Rottweiler, 12.5% Weimeraner, 11.44% Irish terrier

Dog 36

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-American Staffordshire Terrier, 2-Labrador Retriever, 3-No Predominant Breed, 4-Beagle, 5-Staffordshire Bull Terrier
DNA Results: 25% Labrador Retriever, 25% Manchester Terrier, 25% Belgian Sheepdog, 12.5% Boston Terrier

Dog 47

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-Rottweiler, 2-No Predominant Breed, 3-American Staffordshire Terrier, 4-Plott Hound, 5-Labrador Retriever
DNA Results: 50% American Bulldog, 25% Rottweiler, 12.43% Neopolitan Mastiff, 8.11% Akita

Dog 54

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-American Staffordshire Terrier, 2-Boxer, 3-American Bulldog, 4-Staffordshire Bull Terrier, 5-No Predominant Breed
DNA Results: 25% Bulldog, 12.5% Mastiff, 12.5% Boxer, 10.42% Tibetan Mastiff

Dog 58

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-Boxer, 2-Great Dane, 3-American Staffordshire Terrier, 4-American Bulldog, 5-Staffordshire Bull Terrier
DNA Results: 25% Boxer, 25% Entlebucher Mountain Dog, 25% German Spitz, 9.14% Golden Retriever

Dog 63

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-No Predominant Breed, 2-Boxer, 3-Foxhound (including American, English, Treeing Walker Coonhound), 4-Labrador Retriever, 5-American Staffordshire Terrier
DNA Results: 25% Bulldog, 12.5% Bullmastiff, 7.35% Basset Hound, 7.2% Keeshond

Dog 72

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-No Predominant Breed, 2-Vizsla, 3-Rhodesian Ridgeback, 4-Redbone Coonhound, 5-American Staffordshire Terrier
DNA Results: 25% American Bulldog, 25% Portuguese Water Dog, 25% Saluki, 1.99% Bichon Frise

Dog 79

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-No Predominant Breed, 2-American Staffordshire Terrier, 3-Boxer, 4-Beagle, 5-Collie
DNA Results: 25% Doberman Pinscher, 25% Wire Haired Dachshund, 12.5% Samoyed, 12.5% Miniature Schnauzer

Dog 88

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-American Bulldog, 2-American Staffordshire Terrier, 3-Boxer, 4-Dalmatian, 5-Argentine Dogo
DNA Results: 25% Plott Hound, 25% Boston Terrier, 25% German Spitz, 11.68% Saluki

Dog 89

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-American Staffordshire Terrier, 2-Rottweiler, 3-Staffordshire Bull Terrier, 4-American Bulldog, 5-Labrador Retriever
DNA Results: 25% Bulldog, 25% Boxer, 12.98% Blue Tick Coonhound, 10.9% Weimeraner

Dog 98

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-No Predominant Breed, 2-German Shepherd Dog, 3-Plott Hound, 4-Black and Tan Coonhound, 5-American Staffordshire Terrier
DNA Results: 25% Norwegian Elkhound, 25% Miniature Short Haired Dachshund, 14.38% Sealyham Terrier, 10.35% Dogue de Bordeaux

Dog 116

Survey Results, Top Responses:1-No Predominant Breed, 2-Chow Chow, 3-Basenji, 4-American Staffordshire Terrier, 5-Akita
DNA Results: 25% Chow Chow, 25% Catahoula Leopard Dog, 25% Dalmatian, 25% Scottish Terrier

You think there might be a problem with relying on visual identifications?

And if you think that pretty little puppy you got is safe from BSL laws, because there's no way in hell you'd get a Pit Bull, here's a bunch of Pit Bulls the professionals missed:

Dog 11

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-Australian Cattle Dog, 2-Border Collie, 3-Corgi (including Cardigan, Pembroke), 4-No Predominant Breed, 5-Boston Terrier
DNA Results: 25% Australian Cattle Dog, 25% American Staffordshire Terrier, 3.56% Bull Mastiff, 2.89% Newfoundland

Dog 13

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-Border Collie, 2-German Shepherd Dog, 3-Basenji, 4-Great Dane, 5-Boston Terrier
DNA Results: 25% German Shepherd, 25% Staffordshire Bull Terrier, 13.36% Weimeraner, 7.29% German Wirehaired Pointer

Dog 57

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-Labrador Retriever, 2-German Shepherd Dog, 3-No Predominant Breed, 4-Golden Retriever, 5-Anatolian Shepherd Dog
DNA Results: 5% Beauceron, 25% Siberian Husky, 25% American Staffordshire Terrier, 12.73% Schipperke

Dog 62

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-Schipperke, 2-No Predominant Breed, 3-Corgi (including Cardigan, Pembroke), 4-Basenji, 5-Australian Kelpie
DNA Results: 25% Chow Chow, 25% American Staffordshire Terrier, 25% Siberian Husky, 13.71% Australian Terrier

Dog 68

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-German Shepherd Dog, 2-No Predominant Breed, 3-Rhodesian Ridgeback, 4-Anatolian Shepherd Dog, 5-Belgian Malinois
DNA Results: 25% American Staffordshire Terrier, 25% French Bulldog, 25% American Foxhound, 22.13% Belgian Tervuren

Dog 83

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-German Shepherd Dog, 2-No Predominant Breed, 3-Catahoula Leopard Dog, 4-Greyhound, 5-Plott Hound
DNA Results: 25% Boxer, 25% Italian Greyhound, 25% Miniature Short Haired Dachshund, 8.41% Staffordshire Bull Terrier

Dog 99

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-Labrador Retriever, 2-No Predominant Breed, 3-Pointer (includes English Pointer), 4-Brittany, 5-Foxhound (including American, English, Treeing Walker Coonhound)
DNA Results: 25% American Staffordshire Terrier, 25% Collie, 21.41% Black Russian Terrier, 19.86% Norwegian Buhund

Dog 110

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-Labrador Retriever, 2-No Predominant Breed, 3-Rhodesian Ridgeback, 4-Boxer, 5-German Shepherd Dog
DNA Results: 50% Staffordshire Bull Terrier, 25% Collie, 25% Small Munsterlander

Dog 111

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-Basset Hound, 2-Clumber Spaniel, 3-Bulldog (English), 4-No Predominant Breed, 5-Beagle
DNA Results: 25% Basset Hound, 25% American Staffordshire Terrier, 25% Chow Chow, 25% English Cocker Spanie

Dog 117

Survey Results, Top Responses: 1-Pharaoh Hound, 2-Ibizan Hound, 3-No Predominant Breed, 4-Basenji, 5-Great Dane
DNA Results: 50% American Bulldog, 25% American Staffordshire Terrier, 9.28% Pembroke Welsh Corgi, 7.97% Irish Wolfhound

Visual breed identification is 50-50 at best. (In the survey, the professionals got 43/100 wrong.) So, unless your BSL relies exclusively on DNA testing, it's going to make a lot of dogs illegal erroneously, it's going to miss a lot of Pit Bulls, and it's mostly going to do nothing to solve the problem with dog bites.

[Nine]

200. You should realize that is not real research.

1. I looked up the authors' names and the terms dog and identification to find the actual study. I found this, which I believe is the pilot study: http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.sociology.20130302.02.html#Sec3

That publisher has been identified as a fake academic journal: http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/02/05/new-publisher-scientific-academic-publishing/

2. The study is being sponsored by the National Canine Research Council, a pit bull advocacy group.

Even if the study were valid, the implications you want to draw from it seem questionable.

1. Even in the pilot study, the 20 mixed breed dogs used were correctly identified as mixes over 90% of the time. The Clifton report, which documents reports of dog bite fatalities, lists 2235 dogs that were identified as pit bulls and only 148 that were identified as pit bull mixes. The study did not demonstrate that mixed breed dogs were being erroneously identified as purebred, much less that they were being erroneously identified as purebreds of the pit bull variety.

2. The two dogs that had the highest misidentification rate as purebreds (25% and 21%) were not pit bull mixes. One was a predominantly dalmation mix that had a dalmation type coat and was correctly identified as predominantly dalmation by 95% of the respondents who recognized the dog as a mix. The other was predominantly shih tzu with some other small breeds mixed in. This dog was also correctly identified as predominantly shih tzu.

3. Your premise that the dogs involved in DBRFs are mostly identified by visual inspection is incorrect. Information is gathered from a variety of sources including statements from the very owners of these dogs. Do you really think that most people have no idea what kind of dog they have?

[baldguy]

208. You're not even reading your own links.

These are two different studies. The first was conducted by Julie K. Levy, DVM, PhD, Diplomate ACVIM from the University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine. The second was conducted by Victoria Voith, DVM, MSc,MA, PhD, DACVB from Western University of Health Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine, Rosalie Trevejo, DVM, Phd, MPVM from Oregon State University, Seana Dowling-Guyer from the Animal Rescue League of Boston Center for Shelter Dogs, Colette Chadik, DVM from Western University of Health Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine, Amy Marder, VMD, CAAB from the Animal Rescue League of Boston Center for Shelter Dogs, Vanessa Johnson, DVM from Western University of Health Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine and Kristopher Irizarry, Phd from Western University of Health Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine. These aren't the same people. Anyone can tell that BECAUSE THE AUTHORS HAVE DIFFERENT NAMES. If you're accusing all these veterinary professionals of academic fraud, you'll need a little more than one reference to one blog entry (about one unrelated paper authored by someone else entirely) from a guy who trolls for unscrupulous publishers, and has been repeatedly sued for libel.

The NCRC is an advocate for dogs and is involved in canine research. And it's not just because it says so right on the label. They publish, underwrite, and reprint accurate, documented, reliable research about dogs - and tell the truth when they do it. The fact that they don't single out Pit Bulls is the only thing that makes them suspect in your eyes. You're showing your blind prejudice & unsupported biases by dismissing them.

"The two dogs that had the highest misidentification rate as purebreds..." This proves you haven't even bothered to read the surveys. In Dr. Voith's study:

We were interested in how often visual identification of dogs by people, assumed to be knowledgeable about dogs, matched DNA breed identification and how often these people agreed with each other (inter-observer reliability). Over 900 participants who engaged in dog related professions and activities viewed one-minute, color video-clips of 20 dogs of unknown parentage and were asked to identify the dogs’ predominant breeds.

In Dr. Levy's study:

We conducted a national survey of dog experts to compare their best guesses for the breeds of dogs in a series of photographs. These visual assessments were compared to DNA breed profiles for the dogs. More than 5,000 dog experts, including breeders, trainers, groomers, veterinarians, shelter staff, rescuers, and others completed the survey.

None of these dogs in either study were represented to the participants as purebreds. The researchers didn't ask the participants to identify them as such. They were simply requested to ID the most predominant breeds. The fact that they were not able to do so in 43/100 of the dogs is proof that visual ID doesn't work. Yet this is the only form of ID required by the dog haters of the world looking to stigmatize Pit Bulls.

Please tell me: What happens under the draconian BSL laws when a dog is visually ID'd as a Pit Bull when it isn't? What happens to a Pit Bull when it isn't ID'd?

"Do you really think that most people have no idea what kind of dog they have?" No, I don't. This statement is one of the most idiotic I've seen on DU. Do you understand that dogs don't check for registration papers when they want to fuck? Unless there's documentation from a professional AKC registered breeder, or DNA evidence available, there's no way to tell what breeds make up the parentage of any individual dog. And that goes double for strays - which are 90% of the dogs people get from shelters.

[Nine]

219. you read the links

2.5. The Survey and Quiz Questions

Participants were asked to indicate: their current and past professional activities; if they now or ever have been asked what breed a dog appears to be; if their opinions have ever been used to assign possible breed identities for the purposeof records (e.g. shelters, medical, licensing, other businesses); and personal descriptive questions such as their age and sex, how many dogs they have, and if they have ever competed in any dog related activities, such as showing, agility, hunting, etc.

For each dog, the respondents were asked:

-“Do you think this dog is probably a purebred?”
□ YES □ NO

-“If YES, (you think this IS probably a purebred)
What breed do you think it is?”

-“If NO, (you do NOT think this a purebred)
What do you think is the most predominant breed?”

-“What do you think is the second most predominant breed. (If you are unable to determine a second breed, write
“Mix” here. Otherwise, name a breed.)”

[baldguy]

232. Your reading comprehension skills are .... lacking.

You're implying the researchers told the participants: "This dog is a purebred. What breed is it?" They did not do that. ID'ing the dog as a purebred was just one of a range of responses available to the participants, and the participants weren't required to try to shoehorn any dog into any single breed.

[baldguy]

191. And here's another study debunking visual breed ID:

http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.sociology.20130302.02.html

Comparison of Visual and DNA Breed Identification of Dogs and Inter-Observer Reliability

...

For 14 of the dogs, fewer than 50% of the respondents visually identified breeds of dogs that matched DNA identification. Agreement among respondents was also very poor.

...

For only 7 of the 20 dogs was there agreement among more than 50% of the respondents regarding the most predominant breed of a mixed breed and in 3 of these cases the most commonly agreed upon visual identification was not identified by DNA analysis.

...

5. Conclusions

The disparities between visual and DNA identification of the breed composition of dogs and the low agreement among people who identify dogs raise questions concerning the accuracy of databases which supply demographic data on dog breeds, as well as the justification and ability to implement laws and private restrictions pertaining to dogs based on breed composition.

[Nine]

201. Ah yes, cross posted. That's the very study I discuss above. (nt)

[DainBramaged]

89. No matter which side of the argument you're on, haters gonna hate

sorry for all of you.


DB


PS

I am involved in rescue, I DO see what man does to his 'pets' and I'm surprised how much hatred there is here about this subject.



Maybe all of you would learn from these guys


http://pittiesincity.blogspot.com/

[aikoaiko]

95. Wow. You're actually using NRA strategies now.

Nicely played, baldguy.

[TheCowsCameHome]

100. Hahahaha. Gungeon II.

*fill in the blank* is gonna come and take all my *fill in the blank* away.

[BainsBane]

107. a gun is an inanimate object

a dog a living being. There is no equivalence.

[aikoaiko]

112. Yes, imagine the danger if guns were animated.

[BainsBane]

116. Yes, well if the guys who unloaded their

guns in front of my house yesterday, taking out four cars including mine, had a pit bull instead, I'd be a lot happier right now.

It also speaks poorly of people seeking to wipe an entire species off the planet. It's only a life, or actually many thousands of lives.

[aikoaiko]

117. I was just teasing.

But you should know that pit bulls (or any modern breed) are artificially created. They are not even a subspecies. Pit bulls only exist because many "almost pit bull puppies" were destroyed.

[BainsBane]

118. that is true for any dog breed

Pits aren't an actual AKC recognized breed. The closest is the American Staffordshire terrier. Not sure what you mean about almost pit bull puppies being destroyed. That's not how dog breeding works, not that I'm a fan of it. My girl is a mix and rescue. She's not a pit but is sometimes mistaken for one.

[wercal]

126. Species?

A swing and a miss.

[BainsBane]

128. breed

I am truly touched by your compassion.

[wercal]

132. You are starting to babble

When did your mistaken belief that pit bulls constituted a species have anything to do with...anything other than your own ignorance of what a species is?

But I'm glad you used the 'b' word. Next time a pit bull enthusiast tells me there is no identifiable pit bull breed, I'll refer them to you.

[BainsBane]

136. Oh, FFS

[wercal]

146. Wow - I suppose that's directed at me?

More love for the dogs I guess....sadly not atypical.

You learned something today (pit bulls don't constitute a species). I'm a completely random person on the interwebs, whom you will never meet...and I've saved you from the potential embarassment of making that mistake in front of your circle of dog friends. You should count that as a small victory.

[BainsBane]

147. Yes, you truly are the smartest person on earth

I stand truly humbled in the presence of such a towering intellect.
I do find it somewhat odd that it wouldn't occur to your colossal sized brain that people might inadvertently write the wrong word on occasion, or that you might express concern for someone recently caught in a shoot out. I understand, however, feeling important is far more important than actual conversation, and you succeeded brilliantly in demonstrating that point.

God bless your guns. It is truly evil of me to value dogs and human beings above murder machines. I can see why you've taken such a visceral dislike to "dog people."

[wercal]

154. Towering Intellect

Hardly - everybody knows dog breeds aren't seperate species.

Well - almost everyone.

No, I really don't think your involvement in a shoot out has one single thing to do with dogs and pit bulls. Sorry.

And you should re-evaluate your statement that I hate 'dog people'...since you made it up out of thin air. I am a 'dog person'. I used to volunteer at the shelter....and frankly I quit when the bsl in our community was repealled and the shelter started adopting pit bulls out to gangbangers (but I digress). Anyway, the shelter was full of unwanted pit bulls...spawned because, somewhere along the way, some pit bull lover thought it was immoral to neuter their dog. Fully 80% of the dogs on administrative hold (death row for dogs involved in a bite) were pit bulls. Awesome right? The worst thing for the pit bull species (sic) happens to be the pit bull lovers, IMHO.

And what does guns have to do with anything. Yes I happen to own some, just like many past Democratic presidents and party leaders...but that disturbs you enough to bring into a dog thread?

BTW, do you savor the irony of your chastising my not engaging in conversation...when I wasn't the one who posted a pic of a flame thrower. I will give you a bit of advice, which I have tried to hold true to myself. Don't make or imply physical threats on the internet. Its just bad form. Either one of us could be a muscle bounds MMA fighter...and the other can hide behind a keyboard. So please, no more illustrations of violence directed towards me...ok?

[wercal]

111. And the two issues collide

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/19/dc-man-wont-face-gun-charges-shooting-pit-bull-att/?page=1&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=RSS_Feed

[aikoaiko]

113. Woohoo. Score a win for gun culture over pit-bull culture.

[BainsBane]

122. We already had a thread on that

Or on the actual shooting. You knew it had to happen.

[ileus]

186. pit bulls kill people...

no wait that's guns that kill people....irresponsible guns that is.

[rrneck]

121. Yeah well

they're all responsible dog owners until they aren't. How can you defend all those yahoos that get waaay more dog than they need and don't properly control it?

We don't need dig control. We need people control.

[BainsBane]

123. No, they aren't

If they have bred or raised a highly aggressive dog, they are decidedly irresponsible.

[rrneck]

137. A large powerful dog regardless of breed

is perfectly capable of killing a child. Why are we even concerned with breed details? They're all dangerous. Anybody that owns a dog that weighs more than fifteen pounds should have a licence that includes a psychological evaluation and liability insurance. They should conform to safe storage standards periodically inspected by the authorities. And anybody that has control of the dog, even for a minute, should be required to have the same licence. There should be severe penalties for anybody that allows access to dangerous dogs by prohibited persons and each dog should have a dna sample on file to track down the owner on the event of an attack.

[BainsBane]

138. You obviously don't know anything about dogs

You're missing out on something truly wonderful in life.

[rrneck]

148. If you treat any animal with cruelty and aggression

they will become cruel and aggressive. The process is the same for a pit as a lab. Why do I have to know anything about the excruciating details of dog breeds to know that a vicious animal is dangerous?

I've met two dogs in my life that didn't like me. One was golden retriever and the other was a shi Tzu. Only one of them was dangerous.

[BainsBane]

152. It's simply false

that large dogs are by nature more dangerous. Yes, any animal can react hostilely if mistreated. In general, however, larger dogs are calmer and bite less than smaller dogs. They certainly bark a lot less. Certain breeds do tend to be more aggressive. German Shepherds in particular are bred for aggression because they are used by police and military forces. A Great Dane, however, is big wuss, as is my 65 lb boxer mix. So to assume automatically that larger dogs are more dangerous or aggressive is simply false. Dogs are not guns. They are living creatures. It's like assuming a big person is more aggressive than a small one. A big person might be stronger, but there is no reason to assume she or he is more dangerous than someone smaller.

Most importantly, if you ever find yourself in danger from a dog, the owner has behaved negligently and should be penalized for it, even prosecuted and jailed (unless of course you have trespassed on to someone's property).

You know what you said about not being able to go on without garlic, good tequila and tabasco? Multiply that by a trillion and you might have a sense of how I feel about dogs. Guns, tequila, and garlic don't provide love. Dogs do.

On a more practical level, scientists have argued that human civilization would never have come to exist without dogs. It was dogs that made agriculture and raising live stock possible. Dog remains have been found among some of the oldest skeletons of sedentary human populations. And Chihuahuas and Shitzus weren't the dogs that they used with livestock.

[rrneck]

158. I like dogs and with a couple of rare exceptions

dogs like me. I actually dog sit for friends a fair bit. Since i live in the boones there's plenty of space for tennis ball chasing and poop rolling. It's like they're going to camp.

It's true guns are not dogs. Anyone that becomes as attached to gun as a dog has something wrong with them. It's natural to bond with other living things that can reciprocate. And of course dogs have aided us as a species. Of course, without weapons we wouldn't have gotten this far either.

We just had a gungeon conversation. My proposals regarding licensing etc. are unworkable and absurd not because I'm trying to apply them to dogs, but because I'm trying to apply them to people based on what I think they might do. Laws like that don't work.

Here's something to think about. If only Republicans only liked dogs and owned them, would my proposals sound like a good idea?

[BainsBane]

163. I have no problem with licensing dogs

I have an issue with this constant false equivalency between dogs and guns. They are separate issues.

One more point in support of my argument about large dogs is homeowners insurance. They will increase your rates for certain breeds, but not for all dogs over a certain size.

The partisan point is silly. My views on dogs come from my own relationship with them, not party ideology.

By the way, I did not used to like dogs. I never feared them, I just didn't like their constant sniffing of my crotch. But even when I didn't think I liked dogs, they always liked me. I would invariably be the first person they came up to. Gradually they won me over.

[rrneck]

173. No analogy is perfect.

Both guns and dogs (and cars) have benefits and liabilities unique to them. Much of the gun debate is driven by partisan spite and ideological extremism. You may not feel that way, but lots of people do. It keeps the lobbyists in business.

[BainsBane]

174. no question there is ideological extremism

but if we took that away, I think we would discover it was mainly an urban/ rural, exurban issue. There is of course a high correlation between where one lives and voting behavior.

[rrneck]

194. Y'know, I'll bet

that if I went over to baldguy's house that I wouldn't have to worry about his dog at all. Know why? Because I can tell he just loves that dog to death. There is no way he could be mean enough her to make her into a mean dog.

This is an interesting thread because the idea of "bad dogs" and "bad guns" dovetails so nicely. The common denominator is, of course, the way people feel about those things; not only the people who don't like them, but also the people who own them. We can't make people, through legislation, feel the right way about their pets. Nor can we mandate the right attitude toward guns. You just can't legislate feelings, and if we try too hard we become the authoritarian assholes we hate.

[BainsBane]

196. We can and should legislate behavior

People need to be responsible for both dogs and guns and should be prosecuted when irresponsibility leads to the injury or death of another person.

Baldguy's dog is almost certainly a pussycat, as I suspect you probably keep your guns locked up in a safe. But for those who don't, the law needs to step in for the protection of the public.

[rrneck]

197. Can't do it.

It would be nice I guess if we could, but imagine if it were possible and the fundy Republicans ran the show? There are of course criminal negligence statutes on the books, but how do you establish a standard to prosecute somebody for having a bad relationship with a dog? It's fine to expect the law to step up and protect the public, but it needs something to stand on.

We humans are imperfect critters. We make mistakes. Sometimes our mistakes hurt others, even when we don't mean for them to. Our laws have to applicable to the reality of people's lives, not to an ideology. I think we should always ask ourselves, when we want to prosecute some malefactor, if we are defending the public good or our own ideology.

[BainsBane]

199. laws already exist

criminal negligence and involuntary manslaughter. Many jurisdictions already have laws making it a crime for a gun to be negligently handled and used to kill someone (kids getting a hold of the gun and killing someone, for example). They just need to be enforced.

[rrneck]

213. That's the problem.

They are difficult or impossible to enforce. If, for example, you want to have a safe storage law, you have to have certain criteria to make it work. Types and methods of storage have to be defined. Authorized users have to be defined. Due diligence has to be verified. If an accident occurs the district attorney has to be able to prove in court that the law was broken. Residents have to be able to abide by the law and the law has to work within the reality of their lives. It's simple enough to mandate safe storage, but that mandate extends into people's homes and personal relationships which are considered sacrosanct for obvious reasons.

Laws regulating personal behavior, even if that behavior can result injury or death, are very dangerous. For every liberal that wants to regulate how people handle guns, there is a conservative that wants to regulate how people have sex. Safe sex and firearms safety have one thing in common - they occur in the context of people's private lives.

I don't see how we can effectively fight the erosion of the commons when we are simultaneously working to blur the line between public and private space. Surely, if there were any space that should be considered private, it's people's homes.

[BainsBane]

227. look at drug laws

If someone supplies someone who ODs from drugs, they are prosecuted. Laws absolutely regulate human behavior. That is the very purpose of criminal law. There are all kinds of ways negligent homicide cases are made. If something as basic as responsibility for a homicide can't be enforced, there really is no hope for civilization.

[rrneck]

229. The drug wars have been a failure.

I don't advocate legalizing drugs, but punitive enforcement of substance abuse certainly doesn't work. Not to mention prohibition.

[BainsBane]

168. Another point

If I lived in the boones, I'd have a gun too. I have no interest in taking your guns away. I live in the city, however, and just yesterday had a shooting in front of my house that riddled four cars, including my own, with bullets. Fortunately, no one was hurt. Guns mean something very different in the city from in rural area. I wish you rural folk would let us deal with guns as we see fit rather than imposing values derived from your surroundings on the rest of us. The circumstances of our lives and the roles guns play are completely different.

[rrneck]

171. Yeah, I heard about that car thing. That sucks.

But cities are not islands. If people in cities want guns they will get them. And they will mostly be bad guys. I've lived in both and I can't tell much difference.

[BainsBane]

172. It is true that cities are not islands

and people can still find ways to get guns. Your right to bear arms, however, does not hinge on ready access to weapons for urban criminals. You could let up on us a bit.

There quite obviously is a big difference between a city and a rural area simply because of the density of the population. And guns in a city are more lethal because there are more innocent bystanders. Insurance rates again demonstrate the relative risk.

[uppityperson]

139. Excellent! Finally someone addresses the size of a dog, thank you. I do not know how to enforce your

guidelines but they go along the right lines of any dog of a certain size is more dangerous than a smaller dog, or can be that it.

[BainsBane]

149. only it's completely false

as anyone who has spent times around dogs knows. Smaller dogs are typically more aggressive and bite more than larger ones. Larger dogs tend to be far calmer.

[uppityperson]

150. Larger dogs can potentially cause more damage more quickly.

[BainsBane]

153. Potentially is not probably

or even likely. Most large dog breeds are gentle. They are specifically bred to be gentle. A large person might potentially be more harmful than a smaller one, but there is no reason to assume he or she is more likely to assault you.

[LanternWaste]

144. how does this validate or invalidate either side of the argument?

Not really giving either side any more credibility than the other, and not really caring too much about the topic either way, I am compelled to ask: precisely how does this validate or invalidate either side of the argument?

[TheCowsCameHome]

156. See? See? First it was my guns, now they want my pit bulls.

Everyone hates me, nobody loves me.

Give. Me. A. Damn. Break.

[hollysmom]

162. more people killed by guns than dogs

Now if you want a background check for dog owners (I have no problem with this - too many dogs suffer under bad owners, and I was checked out pretty carefully when I rescued a dog a while ago - 1/2 hour interview with trick questions and a home inspection) i think there should also be background checks for guns.

[BainsBane]

176. Way more

I believe it's 3 dog deaths a year to 38,000 gun homicides and another few thousand accidental gun deaths.

[Turbineguy]

169. Note to Admins:

DU needs a Doggeon.

[Logical]

178. More of this? Wow. n-t

[whatchamacallit]

183. Since you're on about this again

how 'bout you answer my question from this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2866811

[baldguy]

193. Is your only solution for every problem you face to kill it?

Those dogs need to be rehabilitated (and have been), not killed.

[whatchamacallit]

218. I don't buy it

There's no correlation, let alone causation, in your claim that abuse turns these dogs violent. It's an excuse masquerading as a theory, a wish.

[ecstatic]

198. um... I really thought you were going to say that the dogs were not pit bulls

But after such a dramatic intro, you leave us with a quote made by her (braindead) husband, who ironically is one of the irresponsible owners that he refers to? Was this meant to be satire? lol

[The Link]

205. Ban the breed.

[baldguy]

209. Ban the breed banners.

[krispos42]

212. We have to ban "assault dogs".

Let's face it, even though pit bulls are just canine quadrapeds, the fact this that they have certain physical appearances and cosmetic features that make them somewhat more able to cause carnage than other breeds.

But the real problem is the owners. The kind of people that want to buy "assault dogs" are far more likely to have fantasies of those dogs saving them or their families from the attack. The are far more likely to train those dogs to be vicious, as well as have "assault dogs" to compensate for having tiny, tiny penises and/or general cowardice.


There is no "need" to have assault dogs. A shepherd or a retriever is functionally equivalent, but will not feed into the sick and dangerous fantasies of people who really just want the opportunity to legally kill somebody.

And banning "assault dogs" does not infringe upon your right to own dogs, and it certainly doesn't trump the right of children to live free from dog violence.

[Nimajneb Nilknarf]

215. Splendid piece of satire, baldguy! You're giving graham4anything a run for his money.

http://www.cesarsway.com/dog-training/leadership/13-Virtues-of-Dog-Ownership