Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If you believe Pit Bulls are inherently dangerous animals, & you support BSL to ban them [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)77. Let me throw this out for review.
I have only skimmed it but did find this interesting bit that I think might be destined to rile the discussion even more:
The canine genome
Elaine A. Ostrander1,3 and Robert K. Wayne2
1 Cancer Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA
2 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA
Elaine A. Ostrander1,3 and Robert K. Wayne2
1 Cancer Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA
2 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA
"Common to the origin and development of many breeds is a founder event involving only a few dogs and, thereafter, reproductive dominance by popular sires that conform most closely to the breed standard. These restrictive breeding practices reduce effective population size and increase genetic drift, resulting in the loss of genetic diversity within breeds and allele frequency divergence among them. For example, in a genetic study of 85 breeds, Parker et al. (2004) showed that humans and dogs have similar levels of overall nucleotide diversity, 8 × 10-4, which represent the overall number of nucleotide substitutions per base/pair. However, the variation between dog breeds is much greater than the variation between human populations (27.5% versus 5.4%). Conversely, the degree of genetic homogeneity is much greater within individual dog breeds than within distinct human populations (94.6% versus 72.5%). Furthermore, in some breeds, genetic variation has been additionally reduced by bottlenecks associated with catastrophic events such as war and economic depression, making them analogous to human populations of limited genetic variation used for disease-mapping studies such as the Finns, Icelanders, and Bedouins. As a result, the unique pattern of LD in dogs provides an exceptional opportunity to study complex traits that are relevant to human biology using robust approaches that would not be possible in human populations."
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1706.full
Seems relevant.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
147 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If you believe Pit Bulls are inherently dangerous animals, & you support BSL to ban them [View all]
baldguy
Oct 2016
OP
If you don't "believe" some dogs are more likely to attack and kill than others
ronnie624
Oct 2016
#4
Dogs that are not properly trained & solcialized, or are subject to abuse & neglect can be dangerous
baldguy
Oct 2016
#7
Excellent point, these killer dogs are obviously NOT pit bulls, but have been maligned by the media
Major Nikon
Oct 2016
#14
Your powers of reasoning are definitely overwhelming and you make an excellent argument here
Major Nikon
Oct 2016
#94
Just like any other rational response to an individual posing a threat to public safety.
baldguy
Oct 2016
#9
Ever notice how some anti-gun people use similar arguments to defend pit bulls
LongtimeAZDem
Oct 2016
#10
Every time a pitbull kills a person, you guys say, "it's not the dog, it's the owner"
LongtimeAZDem
Oct 2016
#24
The NRA and their allies advocate policies with exasperate the problem of gun violence.
baldguy
Oct 2016
#25
Pit Bulls do not commit the vast majority of lethal dog attacks. That is a lie.
baldguy
Oct 2016
#34
Nowhere in my comments have I supported breed-specific legislation; you comment is another lie
LongtimeAZDem
Oct 2016
#123
Nope; I merely pointed out that you use the same arguments as those you oppose
LongtimeAZDem
Oct 2016
#128
And now you're denying the thing that you did, that everyone can see that you did.
baldguy
Oct 2016
#129
Indeed; and as long as you take the appropriate care to ensure that neither
LongtimeAZDem
Oct 2016
#42
Hysteria is pretending one type of dog is responsable for the actions of humans who mistreat dogs.
baldguy
Oct 2016
#134
No I am thinking pipe bombs are not something you take the risk with for a reason
Egnever
Oct 2016
#139
And still the people that create aggressive dogs have no responsibility in your eyes.
baldguy
Oct 2016
#140
"Pit Bull" indentified visually - when identifying a breed visually is no better than random chance.
baldguy
Oct 2016
#27
So, you want to kill MY dog b/c the owner of some random dog in your neighborhood is a callous jerk?
baldguy
Oct 2016
#41
The entire intent & rationale for BSLs is to reduce dog bites. They don't do that.
baldguy
Oct 2016
#44
I guess I have little sympathy because I was recently almost attacked by two neighborhood pits
womanofthehills
Oct 2016
#53
If you had been bitten by one of these man killers instead, you would not be posting today
Jim Beard
Oct 2016
#61
The "actual science" says certain breeds are more likely to kill, contrary to your propaganda
Major Nikon
Oct 2016
#97
Good grief! Some of these responses make this thread sound like Free Republic.
hamsterjill
Oct 2016
#56
I am with you 100% - and their apologists are doing a disservice to so many who pay the price
DrDan
Oct 2016
#99
A large lab can't inflict the same kind damage? Tell that to Isabelle Dinoire.
baldguy
Oct 2016
#144