News, Why Pit Bulls Don't Deserve a Bad Rap (breed, animals, people)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dogsbite.org always manages to come up at the top of google searches, but they vastly under report the population of pit bulls in the US, and over report the number of attacks by pit bulls. If you click on the link I posted above, dog bites decreasing, and then on the tab that says injurious dog bites, there is a wealth of information, including reports of every fatal dog attack each year since 2009. The National Canine Research Council is the source used by the American Veterinary Medical Association in their recent review of dog bites and breed-specific legislation. Apparently they aren't impressed with the statistics provided by dogsbite.org.
Your link only said that overall dog bites were going down. And it just picked out random cities and said thay bites had gone down from 1971-2011. It had nothing to do with addressing the issue of certain dogs having a much higher propensity for causing human deaths. Where are those stats that you referred to?
The National Canine Research Council is far from an objective organization. Good grief.
Still with the Pit Bull conspiracies. The denial continues. Check out the CDC research as well. But I guess that is a hoax also.
Here is the link. Again, why does the American Veterinary Association use the stats from this source rather than dogsbite?
And had you actually read what I said with the other link, you would have seen why I posted it even though it was not specifically related to pit bulls.
I leave to everyone to draw their own conclusions.
That link you posted is similar to the facts and figures I got while fighting BSL in my town a few years ago. If people can find unsubstantiated "facts" to backup their beliefs and agendas then they will..
Here is the link. Again, why does the American Veterinary Association use the stats from this source rather than dogsbite?
And had you actually read what I said with the other link, you would have seen why I posted it even though it was not specifically related to pit bulls.
I leave to everyone to draw their own conclusions.
Once again, I read all of that and it is from a group that is not a neutral or objective organization.
Their motto is "Preserving the Human Canine Bond". Haha, yes, they are real objective.
Suggesting that the breed of dog was not identifiable in 80% of all cases of a human fatality is simply a lie.
For the record, People who are mauled and killed by dogs don't go to Vets, they go to Hospitals and the Morgue.
Anybody who thinks it's ok for an untrained and neglected dog to kill needs their heads examine.
Anybody who thinks Pitt Bull is just like most other dogs also needs the same. If you like Pitt, fine. But this I-know-the-truth-and-you-are-wrong attitude is both insulting and idiotic. If you honestly think that owning a Pitt Bull is no different than owning a Poodle, then you are just stone cold F crazy.
Also insulting and idiotic is the suggestion that the media fabricated the Pitt Bull myth. Really? Probably the same way the media fabricated the myth that serial killers tend to be young white males. When a pattern exists, guess what, it's not a myth, it's a pattern.
Anybody who thinks it's ok for an untrained and neglected dog to kill needs their heads examine.
Anybody who thinks Pitt Bull is just like most other dogs also needs the same. If you like Pitt, fine. But this I-know-the-truth-and-you-are-wrong attitude is both insulting and idiotic. If you honestly think that owning a Pitt Bull is no different than owning a Poodle, then you are just stone cold F crazy.
Also insulting and idiotic is the suggestion that the media fabricated the Pitt Bull myth. Really? Probably the same way the media fabricated the myth that serial killers tend to be young white males. When a pattern exists, guess what, it's not a myth, it's a pattern.
.
Actually, you have no clue what you are talking about and you are just stone cold F crazy.
Because pit bulls are the most abused breed of dogs, they are more likely to be aggressive. If they were raised like most people raise Golden Retrievers, there would be no problem.
Ever hear of a Golden tied up to a tree behind a house and abused by its owner? Never. What about a pit bull? Quite often by human vermin who I would like to lock in a cage in an animal shelter.
Here is the link. Again, why does the American Veterinary Association use the stats from this source rather than dogsbite?
And had you actually read what I said with the other link, you would have seen why I posted it even though it was not specifically related to pit bulls.
I leave to everyone to draw their own conclusions.
I didn't read the entire article, but this jumped out, and is certainly what I've been saying for years:
The authors report that the breed of the dog or dogs could not be reliably identified in more than 80% of cases.
Their mantra is if it bites, it must be a pit bull. The media is clueless about how to identify dog breeds.
Any source that gleans its statistic from media reports isn't a valid resource. The media routinely identifies dogs as "pit bulls" and then when it is found it isn't (I've even seen reports of "pit bull" maulings that have shown the offender in it's cell- a golden retriever, yellow lab, pair of boxers, mastiffs........... ) they rarely, if ever, correct it. If they DO correct it, it's a small byline in a follow up story.
It has also been shown that a bite/mauling suspected to be done by a pit bull makes the news nationwide, but fatalaties have only been reported locally when it is another breed.
Should you feel NCRC is a bad resource, this one is the AVMA
Sample—256 DBRFs (dog bite related fatality) occurring in the United States from 2000 to 2009.
Procedures—DBRFs were identified from media reports and detailed histories were compiled on the basis of reports from homicide detectives, animal control reports, and interviews with investigators for coding and descriptive analysis.
Results—Major co-occurrent factors for the 256 DBRFs included
absence of an able-bodied person to intervene (n = 223 [87.1%]),
incidental or no familiar relationship of victims with dogs (218 [85.2%]),
owner failure to neuter dogs (216 [84.4%]),
compromised ability of victims to interact appropriately with dogs (198 [77.4%]),
dogs kept isolated from regular positive human interactions versus family dogs (195 [76.2%]),
owners’ prior mismanagement of dogs (96 [37.5%]), and
owners’ history of abuse or neglect of dogs (54 [21.1%]).
Four or more of these factors co-occurred in 206 (80.5%) deaths. For 401 dogs described in various media accounts, reported breed differed for 124 (30.9%); for 346 dogs with both media and animal control breed reports, breed differed for 139 (40.2%). Valid breed determination was possible for only 45 (17.6%) DBRFs; 20 breeds, including 2 known mixes, were identified.
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Most DBRFs were characterized by coincident, preventable factors; breed was not one of these. Study results supported previous recommendations for multifactorial approaches, instead of single-factor solutions such as breed-specific legislation, for dog bite prevention.
Without a DNA test or a known lineage, many dogs are lumped in as "pit bulls" when they are just mutts/mixed breeds. There are a lot of breeds that could parent mutts that look like "pit bulls" but actually have no APBT/AmStaff/SBT in them.
I've been staying away from this thread, as I know most in the strongly anti-pit bull crowd are unlikely to change their position because of what someone says on a forum. But for the statement that insurance companies don't insure pits because they know the risk, well the list of pit-friendly insurance companies is bigger than even I thought. So again, I guess the "risk analysis" is not cut and dried by any means.
Actually, you have no clue what you are talking about and you are just stone cold F crazy.
Because pit bulls are the most abused breed of dogs, they are more likely to be aggressive. If they were raised like most people raise Golden Retrievers, there would be no problem.
Ever hear of a Golden tied up to a tree behind a house and abused by its owner? Never. What about a pit bull? Quite often by human vermin who I would like to lock in a cage in an animal shelter.
Open your mind and use a little common sense.
Another Pit Bull defender pulling things out of his/her a**.
Quote:
If they were raised like most people raise Golden Retrievers, there would be no problem.
Ha ha ha. Oh yeah? Google journalist and radio guy Ira Glass's Pit Bull. He trained that dog, loves that dog, buys that dog kangaroo meat, cooks for that dog, and what does he ends up with?
A monster. And he was quite open about his beloved Pit Bull being a danger to society despite every effort to wash away its viciousness.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
