More pit bull attacks (Minneapolis: sales, tax, live)

[Rottie_Grrrl]

And if we're looking at preventable risk, by breed, regarding dog attacks, let's look at the number of fatal dogs attacks, by breed, in relation to the popularity of that breed....statistics show that the percentage of Pit Bulls that attack is much lower than other breeds...

Numbers registered/No. of Fatal Attacks/Breed %
240,000/12/Chow Chow .705%
800,000/67/German Shepherds .008375%
960,000/70/Rottweiler .00729%
128,000/18/Great Dane .01416 %
114,000./14/Doberman .012288%
72,000/10/St. Bernard .0139%
5,000,000/60/American Pit Bull .0012%

And how about all the other things that kill people that could be prevented by making them illegal?

Cigarettes: 440,000 people per year
2nd hand smoke: 35,000 people per year
Cars: 42,336 people per year
Guns: 29,338 people per year

[AVguy]

I don't even care that much, I'm basically letting you know why your dogs will be outlawed. I get so tired of overly pushy dog breeders thinking that the perfect breed of dog has been disgraced.

I don't care that, on average, pit bulls have a better temperment that most other dogs. The average pit bull is not what has caused the death of the seven-year-old boy.

I also don't care much about your thin slice of data. Answer me this, how many maulings have taken place since 1960? How many were severe enough to require surgery or overnight stays at the hospitals? How many pit bulls were in the metro in 1960 versus now? Pit bulls have the reputation of being fierce protectors of land, and have become a popular choice. The numbers could either be skewed or not representative of the problem.

Also, if this is a growing problem, and many would believe that it is, why does it matter that it wasn't a problem in 1960? By way of example, if we have a budget shortfall this year, I don't care that the budget was balanced in 1960. If there is a problem now, we fix the now-present problem. Quoting the Star Tribune today, "The pit bull has become a weapon of choice for intimidation and assault." I bet the owners of these pit bulls are excellent owners.

I also don't care about common dog bites. Aren't we talking about deaths? Or people who are forever crippled? I've been bit a dog, but there wasn't an obituary in the newspaper about me the next day. What kind of spin doctor are you? Would this thread have been started if we were discussing run-of-the-mill dog bites?

I don't see a problem of enforcement. You don't think that a neighbor would turn in another neighbor if he saw a pit bull. I guarantee you that parents would turn in their neighbors without hesitation.

It's a matter of balance, don't you see that? Safety versus individual rights--the classic legal debate. Sometimes safety prevails and sometimes individual rights prevail, and in both cases, it relies on the facts and circumstances of each case. Your slippery slope argument is extremely unpersuasive because we are talking about one breed. If another animal were to become a problem, then, as a society, we would examine that case.

What if I want to be a responsible automatic AK-47 owner? Let's say that I believe that I, as an individual, have the right to own automatic weapons because I have a clean record, I am a gun collector and enthusiast, and I will take all preventative measures to protect the gun. Fine, that's me. If you let me have an AK-47, Mr. Skinhead gets to have an AK-47 too. And same with a would-be terrorist. Yes, I would not kill anyone with my AK-47, but that does not guarantee that this weapon, in the hands of another, would be safe. Me, a responsible AK-47 owner, would suffer. Guess what? Who cares? My interest in owning a deadly weapon is so greatly outweighed by the safety risks that I don't get to have my precious AK-47. So I would suffer too. Your point that good owners may suffer doesn't end the debate.

[AVguy]

If pit bull becomes the weapon of choice, then they will be illegal. It's that easy. And not too many people will care either. I know that I wouldn't. And it could be other breeds as well.

If you think that owning a pit bull is like owning a car, this discussion is over.

[nick is rulz]

Originally Posted by Rottie_Grrrl

And if we're looking at preventable risk, by breed, regarding dog attacks, let's look at the number of fatal dogs attacks, by breed, in relation to the popularity of that breed....statistics show that the percentage of Pit Bulls that attack is much lower than other breeds...

Numbers registered/No. of Fatal Attacks/Breed %
240,000/12/Chow Chow .705%
800,000/67/German Shepherds .008375%
960,000/70/Rottweiler .00729%
128,000/18/Great Dane .01416 %
114,000./14/Doberman .012288%
72,000/10/St. Bernard .0139%
5,000,000/60/American Pit Bull .0012%

where did you get these figures from, exactly?

Also, "numbers registered"...thru whom? AKC doesnt recognize the pit bull.


http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

it would seem that the Center for Disease Control shows otherwise, unless the numbers have somehow drastically changed post 1998.

face it, they're disgusting dogs. End of story.

[Rottie_Grrrl]

Every breed ban enthusiast loves to pull out that old CDC article, however they always fail to point out the following paragraphs (pulled directly from the CDC website):

A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years. 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.

Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 12 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. 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.

Many practical alternatives to breed-specific policies exist and hold promise for preventing dog bites. For prevention ideas and model policies for control of dangerous dogs, please see the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions: A community approach to dog bite prevention.





And here's a comment from the co-authors of the paper, Dr. Gail Golab of the AVMA and Dr. Julie Gilchrist of the CDC:

"It is frustrating for me personally," Golab says, "because people who want to enact breed-specific legislation keep using that paper to try and make a case against pit bulls. But all we did was match breeds with fatalities over a 20-year period. And the numbers show that the breed that goes to the top changes over time, which suggests that something other than breed is responsible for the fatalities. But people try to use just the last few years in the table, which shows pit bulls and Rottweilers on top. The whole point of our summary was to explain why you can't do that. But the media and the people who want to support their case just don't look at that."

The CDC’s Gilchrist argues that “the breeds involved are going to vary. The more encompassing way is to deal with dangerous dogs so that every dog and every owner is covered all the time”



I think it's time to find a new source....but you'll have a hard time doing that as the CDC, the AVMA, and every major animal welfare organization are AGAINST breed specific legislation as answer to dog bite or dog related fatalities...

As to where my statistics come from, you can find them here, in a study done by Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, and while the AKC doesn't recognize APBT, the UKC and ADBA do:

http://network.bestfriends.org/Libra...ad.aspx?d=2124

[AVguy]

At 2:34 p.m. you cited statistics (from who knows where) providing that pit bulls are not the most dangerous dog, and as soon as someone finds credible statistics showing that pit bulls were number one in fatalities, at 4:16 p.m. you suddenly decide that statistics are unfair. You're obviously talking out off both sides of your mouth and it completely compromises your entire argument.

This is proof positive that you cannot reason with someone who insists on being unreasonable.

[Rottie_Grrrl]

I never said the CDC statistics were unfair or inaccurate, I just said that CDC themselves says that they shouldn't be used as a basis for banning a breed of dog. The critisizm I posted are direct quotes from the CDC and the papers authors, not me...

And I just edited my post to include where I got my statistics from.

[Jim Stokes]

First of all, I am NOT a dog lover. And no matter how many TIMES you caution dog owners to control their "pets," there will always be idiots like this family. The parental authorities in this household KNEW the dog was bad. But these people are just plain STUPID. Their IQs have to be in the MORON range. No amount of teaching would have helped.

The parents and the grandfather should be fined and do jail time. And never be allowed to keep ANY pets ever again.

And ALL pit bulls should NOT be held as pets. They should be kept as watch dogs by prisons and junkyards.

[nick is rulz]

So far all the evidence on why Pitbulls arent so bad has been via Pitbull affiliated websites, which isnt a very balanced viewpoint That'd be like countering a political debate with nothing but Rush Limbaugh statements.

Also, lets consider that even though Pitbulls have the highest number of bite related fatalities associated with them, there is no way there are nearly as many pet Pitbulls as there are, say, German Shepherds...for example (which is 3rd on the CDC list).

Also, no deaths from Pitbulls going back to 1960 in Minnesota...thats pretty moot, overall. How many people do you think had Pitbulls 40+ years ago?

[Jim Stokes]

It's the combination of morons who own them and the pit bulls. Don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the deadbeats that had the pit bull in the latest scenario mistreated the animal or scared it into submission.

Give them a stiff fine and mandatory jail time. Only way to stragihtout people like that.