Ban the deed not the breed!!

[Chris]

You don't really think its acceptable for a dog attack to be triggered by squealing kids?

What data, where?

Would it really matter where i got data from?
If i trawl online journal databases, and cite data published in peer reviewed journals i cant imagine you would accept that either.

sorry people but IMO anyone that is pro-pit bulls really isn't playing with a full deck. Why people NEED a dog that regularly maims &/or kills other animals or people is beyond any of us that were born with a brain & any sense of logic.

 

[Bec]

I wasent going to comment on this thread because after reading it theres all different facts. The person that started this thread is right on the ball about sharpei's. We are owner's of sharpei's and have seen first hand what they can be capable of. If they want to go ahead and ban pitbulls why not ban sharpei's aswell? Ill post pic's of our sharpei later on. Everyone really needs to do research before buying any breed of dog. Its common sence. Im not saying every breed of dog has some bad in them but no one can say every breed is perfect. No one has even said to us sharpei's are savage untill unfortunently we had to get 2 put down. Sadly molly was only 15 months when she was put to sleep and paige was 2 when she had to be put down. We did our research on this breed and only recently has it been added over in china they fight them. Ive seen some lovely sharpei's and i have to of the most placid dogs ever.

 

[Australis]

I used google to find you had just copy & pasted your post from a webpage...
Fair enough, but maybe make that clearer for everyone.
Anyways.. so ive gone to the same website (Breeders.NET: Dog Breeders Search Directory) and read the same article "Pit Bulls: Vicious or Poorly Bred and Socialized" fairly balanced overview of the situation it would seem.

Now within that very article it clearly asserts (and shows data) pit-bulls are responseable for the majority of dog attacks resulting in fatalities... which is what your arguing against?

With data shown for fatal attack between 1979 & 1997 (Centers for Disease Control Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 46(21): 463-467 . May 30, 1997)

As follows:

Pit Bull = 60
Rottweiler = 29

And the list goes on...
Pit Bulls: Vicious or Poorly Bred and Socialized : Breeders.net – K9 Articles


Now ive used your own source of information, so hopefully you don't denounce it lol

 

[KaotikJezta]

I used google to find you had just copy & pasted that entire thing from a webpage.
Fair enough, but maybe make that clearer for everyone.
Anyways.. so ive gone to the same website (Breeders.NET: Dog Breeders Search Directory) and read the same article "Pit Bulls: Vicious or Poorly Bred and Socialized" fairly balanced overview of the situation it would seem.

Now within that very article it clearly asserts (and shows data) pit-bulls are responseable for the majority of dog attacks resulting in fatalities... which is what your arguing against?

With data shown for fatal attack between 1979 & 1997 (Centers for Disease Control Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 46(21): 463-467 . May 30, 1997)

As follows:

Pit Bull = 60
Rottweiler = 29

And the list goes on...
Pit Bulls: Vicious or Poorly Bred and Socialized : Breeders.net – K9 Articles

The writers personal interpretation of the data:

After doing the research for this article, I ended up with the following conclusions:
1. Any dog can bite, given the proper circumstances. A review of anecdotal news reports shows that even a Pomeranian has been guilty of killing an infant.
2. Certain breeds tend to do more harm than others when they do bite.
3. Pit Bulls are one of a short list of breeds most often associated with fatal attacks.
4. Other breeds, including German Shepherds and Chow Chows are far more likely to bite than Pit Bulls, but bites from these breeds tend to cause less damage than bites from Pit Bulls.
5. People who live with any dog have a responsibility to train their dogs and properly socialize them to reduce the number of dog bites and fatalities.
6. Breed-specific legislation doesn’t work. Banning breeds tends to push them to the black market, which results in poor breeding practices and ultimately leads to an increase in the number of dogs that are abandoned when they don’t meet the guardian’s expectations. In addition, legislation is expensive and difficult to enforce.
7. The best strategies to prevent dog bites from any breed of dog are:

• Buy from a reputable breeder.
• Socialize your dog from an early age.
• Neuter your dog.
• Restrain your dog in a fence rather than on a chain.
• Teach your children how to behave around dogs.

I didn't quote the other article as it has already been quoted earlier and you wanted peer review studies that said otherwise.

 

[Red-Ink]

Do you think this sort of post event punnishment will make the low lifes who are buying a dog because it is awesome and could kill someone think that the risks are too high. Or will they just think that it wont happen to them. If it is the latter then the punishment is not doing anything to protect the poor 4 year old girls who are being mauled to death!

.

Banning is not a preventative measure it's a illogical knee jerk reaction....
Do you think prohabition should be enforced as one day some low life might drink and drive and potentially slaughter a whole family in another car... heck do you think cars should be banned as under irresponsible drivers and hoons they have the potential to kill.. (say a 4 year old girl down the street or in another car the result is a death so what's the difference between the car and the dog when the end result is the same; a dead four year old girl)

Moot argument... but if your talking about what could happen post results alot of things and scenarios out there can cause horrific carnage...Why don't we just ban them all.

 

[Firedrake]

I also noticed that alot of the incidents relate to a 'new addition' or someone looking after the dog for the owners, often it was NOT a person the dogs knew closely. They may be classed as 'family' but it was mostly aunts, uncles, and step-parents looking after these animals as well as new parents. Dogs don't take kindly to a new member of the family taking up their place as second or third in line, they are ALL prone to jealousy.

The majority of attacks were by un neutered/spayed animals as well.

 

[Australis]

You didn't quote anything, you copy/pasted a portion of an internet article (Btw what you posted was not at all a peer reviewed journal article).. and copied some of its references.

Besides im discussing fatal attacks, not people being bitten by dogs?

Either way, you seem to find some value in that article, and the article shows pit-bulls were responsible for more than double the fatalities (U.S)of any other breed between 1979-1996. Do you accept this?

 

[Chris]

I wasent going to comment on this thread because after reading it theres all different facts. The person that started this thread is right on the ball about sharpei's. We are owner's of sharpei's and have seen first hand what they can be capable of. If they want to go ahead and ban pitbulls why not ban sharpei's aswell? Ill post pic's of our sharpei later on. Everyone really needs to do research before buying any breed of dog. Its common sence. Im not saying every breed of dog has some bad in them but no one can say every breed is perfect. No one has even said to us sharpei's are savage untill unfortunently we had to get 2 put down. Sadly molly was only 15 months when she was put to sleep and paige was 2 when she had to be put down. We did our research on this breed and only recently has it been added over in china they fight them. Ive seen some lovely sharpei's and i have to of the most placid dogs ever.

Good point, they don't have the same 'reputation' doen here as the pit bull though. Dunno about in the US.

That's a pretty low comment mate.

Fair point, my apologies.

 

[KaotikJezta]

You didn't quote anything, you copy/pasted a portion of an internet article (Btw what you posted was not at all a peer reviewed journal article).. and copied some of its references.

Besides im discussing fatal attacks, not people being bitten by dogs?

Either way, you seem to find some value in that article, and the article shows pit-bulls were responsible for more than double the fatalities (U.S)of any other breed between 1979-1996. Do you accept this?

As stated dogs are quite often sold to people as pitbulls when they are not, they also don't distinguish between purebred and crossbred. The conclusion drawn was the writers personal conclusion as stated by the author.The article was not peer reviewed and I never said it was but most of the studies posted in the article were so your just nitpicking. If you like, I will go and join the science website that publishes said studies and quote directly from it.

Good point, they don't have the same 'reputation' doen here as the pit bull though. Dunno about in the US.

Exactly right, they don't have the 'reputation'
[h=2]rep·u·ta·tion[/h]   [rep-yuh-tey-shuh

n]noun

1. the estimation in which a person or thing is held, especially by the community or the public generally;

Reputation and truth are two completely different things.

 

[Firedrake]

Have there been any studies in Aus about these sorts of incidences yet? I'd be interested to see what percentage of dogs kept in Australia are these 'dangerous' breeds.

Friends of mine own a Shar-pei bullmastiff cross and I don't trust him as much as I trust my neighbour's Rottie or their pure Bullmastiff, he isn't neutered and to me seems a little 'too' playful. He's only young and very well behaved but in my eyes I wouldn't leave anyone alone with him as he's quite big and very strong. He gets kicked and smacked when he's done something wrong and I think he would hold it against any human in general.

 

[Australis]

kaotikjezta,

Come on, you don't see my point at all?

My argument is that Pitt-bulls are responsible for a disproportionate number of fatalities. You then contest this with an opinion article, and specifically quote mine its comments on dog BITES. Conveniently neglecting to mention the very same article contains a table of dog attack fatalities showing pit-bulls to be responsible for more than double the fatalities of any other breed.

Do you dispute this information??????

 

[browny]

how many breeds will this eventually involve, think about it

wasnt that long ago that rotties were on the worst dog list and spread all over the media at that time i had 2 gorgeous well behaved rotties an omg the abuse i would get simply exercising myself an dogs, no1 cared they would lick anything and nothing more......point of this is as previously noted the treatment they recieve during the upbringing is what makes the majority of the individual dogs attitude towards anything and everything they need to bring in tougher laws on everyone who wants to keep dogs or this will just move onto another breed then another breed


also as was mentioned already about licensing of dogs.....um it is a legal requirement to licence your dog yearly the thing is so many ppl dont because its a big cost and hassle having to show the breed at time of registration, perhaps larger penalties for unlicenced is needed also its simply a case of the government needs to stop and think about it before they try a quick fix.......since they do that with everything else good luck with that one the day the government stops and thinks will be one to remember

 

[Firedrake]

Of course there are more fatalities with Pits or Pit crosses, their jaws are designed for maximum damage as has already been covered. What are the results of overall dog attacks whether resulting in death or not? Discounting any attacks that involve a conflict, change of owner or any unusual circumstance (renovations/constructions/new baby). How many of these are 'out of the blue' and how many of these pitbulls have been 100% positively identified as Pits and what have the crosses been crossed with?

 

[KaotikJezta]

kaotikjezta,

Come on, you don't see my point at all?

My argument is that Pitt-bulls are responsible for a disproportionate number of fatalities. You then contest this with an opinion article, and specifically quote mine its comments on dog BITES. Conveniently neglecting to mention the very same article contains a table of dog attack fatalities showing pit-bulls to be responsible for more than double the fatalities of any other breed.

Do you dispute this information??????

I already answered your question previously. Councils, witnesses, dodgy breeders and the dogs owners frequently misrepresent dogs as pitbulls. This is done for a variety of reason, councils wanting to impose laws, backyard breeders wanting to make money, witnesses not knowing any better but being influenced by media reports and people buying dogs advertised as pit bulls when they are not. As stated earlier, most people wouldn't know a real pitbull if they fell over one. The study you are referring to also concludes that pittbull fatalitys peaked at 12 in 1988 but dropped to 5 in 1994 and 3 in 1996 whereas rottweilers rose to 10 in both 1994 and 1996 so taking the study over the whole span is misrepresenting the findings.

 

[Australis]

Well i give up on you kaotikjezta. You use an article to (i presume) further your argument that actually just cements mine.

 

[FAY]

Please be nice in this thread. Everyone has an opinion and it may be different from yours...please respect that. OR, it will be closed or moved.

 

[KaotikJezta]

Well i give up on you kaotikjezta. You use an article to (i presume) further your argument that actually just cements mine.

As i added before you replied:
The study you are referring to also concludes that pittbull fatalitys peaked at 12 in 1988 but dropped to 5 in 1994 and 3 in 1996 whereas rottweilers rose to 10 in both 1994 and 1996 so taking the study over the whole span is misrepresenting the findings.

 

[Australis]

You don't seem to be grasping the value of data at all. Data collected over a longer period is more meaningful not less so. And again your cherry picking... and worse still you seem to be trying to undermine the very article you brought into the discussion?



But looking at the same table, which is presented in increments of 2 years (which you seem to have missed) . Not one of the 2 year periods is with out a fatality from a Pitt-bull. Where as 4yrs (two increments) have zero fatalities from rottweilers.

If a narrow focus (time-frame) is used the data is LESS meaningful. Look at the 2yr period 1979 & 1980 where the Great Dane (watch out FAY) caused more fatalities than any other single breed, more than either a rottweiler or pit-bull for this period. If we were to narrow the focus this much, with out being able to take into consideration the lack of fatalities caused by Great Danes over the following years, we wouldn't have proper over view.

The below is from: Pit Bulls: Vicious or Poorly Bred and Socialized : Breeders.net – K9 Articles

 

[grimjob]

there is no such thing as a bad dog only a bad dog owner, im all for pittys my mate had a cross and it was the most loyal placid thing in the world

 

[Snake Catcher Victoria]

Havnt read all the posts but I was sent a video today that is relevant...i think
[video=youtube;8VzREzK4hUY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VzREzK4hUY&feature=youtu.be[/video]