U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-24-2008, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Columbia, Missouri
25 posts, read 116,899 times
Reputation: 19

Advertisements

Last I heard, the number of bites from pit bulls went down, which makes sense. If the number of individuals in a population goes down, it should follow the number of bites would go down. However, I haven't seen the numbers for any other breeds reported. Unless there is something actually done by owners to control their dogs (or in some cases, control their children), bites and fatal attacks by other breeds will have no reason to have decreased.

Edit: forgot to add...interestingly, if I recall, the numbers had gone down to 2%, not zero, which suggests that the idiot irresponsible owners will still keep them, even illegally. Sounds a bit like extreme gun control. Once again, just hurting the responsible ones....

Last edited by Electrophile; 07-24-2008 at 09:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-24-2008, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Millard (Southwest Omaha)
39 posts, read 108,076 times
Reputation: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen View Post
Looftie,

First, the person was making an ANALOGY!! He wasn't making a direct comparison between humans and dogs.

That said, here is another analogy: I'm willing to bet that guns result in a very large portion of the murders in this country. Should we ban all guns?? Or are we mature enough to recognize that its the idiotic user of that gun which is the problem...not the gun itself.

You ban pitbulls and the morons will simply start training a new breed to be killers. Do you really truly think that getting rid of pitbulls as a breed will stop (or even slow down) violent dogs??

Again, as a disclosure, I do not own a pitbull or have any vested interest in the breed.
I donít think I said they were making a direct comparison, just a comparison in general (one that was a big stretch). Aside from weenies, fuzzy rats and pit bulls all being dogs, therein ends any analogy. Just because under fluke circumstances weenie-shaped and tiny dogs can kill, does not mean they are even in the same danger ballpark as dogs bred to fight. Iíll ask the question again; If you were going to be attacked by one of those three dogs, which would you least prefer? Why?

Ownership of guns is constitutionally protected as recently affirmed by the SCOTUS reviewed of the DC gun ban. Evil SUVs require an operating permit and basic competency test to operate. Guns (and cars) need a human operator to be deadly. Pit Bulls do not.

Most of the stories Iíve read involved Pit Bulls breaking a leash to attack or attacking without the presence/involvement of the owner. SUVs, even as much as the media portray them to do so, do not kill or maim on their own.

If the combination of pit bull aggression, gameness and physical strength is not unique to the breed, why then do we rarely hear these news accounts for other breeds of dogs? Is it a vast mainstream media conspiracy against pit bulls? Are dog bite statisticians in on the conspiracy? Or could it be that pit bulls are a disproportionately more dangerous dog breed (regardless of the reason)?

Even if what our resident vet student said is true regarding the specific breeds that are lumped together as pit bulls, that does not undercut the significance of the fact in my first post, namely that the dog groups lumped together as pit bulls consisted of 3% of registered dogs and accounted for 50% of the reported dog bites. I question the honesty of anyone that does not find that significant.

By their very nature of being animals, even trained ones can attack unprovoked. The banning of private ownership of dangerous animals is widely accepted. I think their history of attacks qualifies pit bulls to be classified and restricted as such. And bans do work. Councils Bluffs is a great example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2008, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Columbia, Missouri
25 posts, read 116,899 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looftie View Post
I donít think I said they were making a direct comparison, just a comparison in general (one that was a big stretch). Aside from weenies, fuzzy rats and pit bulls all being dogs, therein ends any analogy. Just because under fluke circumstances weenie-shaped and tiny dogs can kill, does not mean they are even in the same danger ballpark as dogs bred to fight. Iíll ask the question again; If you were going to be attacked by one of those three dogs, which would you least prefer? Why?
I'd rather not get attacked at all, which is why I give dog bite prevention presentations to kids and adults. This, incidentally, has been shown to reduce dog bites 80%.

But to answer your question, force=mass times acceleration. It's pretty simple physics. The larger the animal, vehicle, whatever, the more damage it can potentially inflict. But as we've seen, small dogs can likewise do a lot of damage and even be fatal. As the one report mentioned that something like 1 in 5 dachshunds has bitten or tried to bite a stranger and 1 in 12 has been reported to have bitten its own owner. That's not a statistical fluke. "Oh, they're just cute little wiener dogs, it's no big deal." Dachshunds were bred to hunt and kill badgers. Their name even means "badger dog" in German. What's the potential there for death, destruction, and general mayhem, especially a small child? Irish wolfhounds and Borzoi (also called Russian wolfhounds) were meant to run down and kill wolves. Rhodesian ridgebacks were used to hunt freakin' lions! MANY terrier and molosser (mastiff type) breeds were bred to be used in pit fights all over the world, not just American pit bull terriers, thanks to man's cruelty.

APBTs were bred from the beginning to be people friendly. Just like you wouldn't want a golden retriever to bite your hand for trying to take away the duck it just retrieved for you, pit men wanted people friendly animals so they could separate the dogs in the pit without getting bitten. Any human aggressive dog was typically shot on site. It's only been in the last 20 years or so where we find people using them as "guard dogs," which is pretty unfortunate for them since there are many, many other breeds that are far less human friendly to strangers and MUCH bigger (the Fila Brasiliero and the Caucasian Ovcharka are two good examples).

So what do we do then? I know, let's ban all dogs over 40 lbs! So a 39 lbs dog is automatically not dangerous and can't/won't bite? But what about my nice 70 lbs golden retriever? Well, the danger exists! Give 'em the pink juice!

Like I said, I've started to teach dog bite prevention classes and almost every person I've talked to either has personally been bitten or knows someone who was bitten by a dog, many of them serious bites that needed medical attention. Cocker spaniels, labs, beagles, dachshunds, German shepherds, rat terriers, you name it. I have volunteered and fostered dogs for the local shelter for years. When you walk into the animal control side, there is a kennel run with a sign that says "BITE CASE: DO NOT PET." Once again, I've personally seen many breeds and mixed breeds represented and they typically only go to animal control if the bite was serious. I've been bitten by a Chihuahua, a Dalmatian, and a Vizsla (my parent's dog...I needed medical attention and a tetanus shot). Both Dalmatians and Vizslas are at least as big as the average pit bull. Ban 'em too, I say!

Quote:
Ownership of guns is constitutionally protected as recently affirmed by the SCOTUS reviewed of the DC gun ban. Evil SUVs require an operating permit and basic competency test to operate. Guns (and cars) need a human operator to be deadly. Pit Bulls do not.

Most of the stories Iíve read involved Pit Bulls breaking a leash to attack or attacking without the presence/involvement of the owner. SUVs, even as much as the media portray them to do so, do not kill or maim on their own.
Are you seriously suggesting that ethically these dogs are morally independent and culpable agents that reason out on their own that it would be a good idea to hurt us? Right....I'm pretty sure they leave that job to the cats.

Seriously though, as I'm a behaviorist, they act on a series of parameters and framework that they understand that is dictated through the interplay of environment acting on genetic background. Unless there is an actual medical problem with the animal, it ALWAYS goes back to the owner and dogs do NOT just "turn on someone." Dog bite statistics have well documented that keeping dogs intact and on chains and dumped in the backyard with little or no socialization or human interaction or keeping them improperly under control (i.e.-a pre-teen walking a strong dog on a flexi leash) is a great recipe for disaster. Not mention letting kids tease dogs, play roughly, etc. Parents MUST be watchful of their kids and dogs at all times.

In all these stories, do you hear about kids getting mauled by dogs with temperament and sport titles, certified therapy/assistance/service dogs, etc that were well taken care of? Nope, same old song and dance. Some idiot let their unvaccinated, unlicensed dog run loose or improperly restrained. The same pit bull who discovered the biggest narcotics bust in Texas history comes from the same breed that is kept in squalid dog yards, chained, and starved so they'll fight. As it stands now, two of the Michael Vick pit bulls are now off being great breed ambassadors. One named Leo is now a certified therapy dog at a cancer hospital and one named Hector (whose chest is covered in scars) is training to be a disc dog with the same guy whose pit bull named Wallace won the 2007 Purina Incredible Dog disc competition. They're from the same breed that makes the press by mauling little kids.

In the end, who loses? The dog who gets euthanized and the bite victims who can be physically and mentally traumatized. The lackadaisical owner half the time doesn't give a crap and isn't severely punished. So yes, toughen up dog bite laws and enforce the laws already on the books, I absolutely agree!! Just don't target my well behaved dogs just because of how they look or how big they are. I'll tell you what. When my next dog dies and I get a rescue pit bull as a therapy dog, I'll let you know next time I come up to Omaha so you can meet them.

You allude to wanting owners have an operating permit of sorts to own dogs. Perhaps with a set of standards to follow (the dog must be vaccinated and receive medical care regularly, have had obedience training, etc). While this is a good idea in theory, many people don't even license their dogs. Heck, I know even my parents don't because they live out by Millard West High School (my alma mater) just outside the city and don't feel compelled to do so. We see this with many of these attacks if you comb through the article that they are unlicensed, unvaccinated, intact animals, etc etc. If they can't be bothered to even bring their dog to a vet to get a rabies vaccine as required by law in all states, I don't think they'd mess with doing extra training or whatever else. Rewarding good behavior and education is the key.

Quote:
If the combination of pit bull aggression, gameness and physical strength is not unique to the breed, why then do we rarely hear these news accounts for other breeds of dogs? Is it a vast mainstream media conspiracy against pit bulls? Are dog bite statisticians in on the conspiracy? Or could it be that pit bulls are a disproportionately more dangerous dog breed (regardless of the reason)?
You're right. We don't typically hear about about it because it is not as interesting to the media. But here's a couple stories about golden retriever attacks.

CityNews: 3-Year-Old Child Mauled By Dog
Max The Dog Put Down After Mauling Another Child - News Story - WVIT | Hartford

The first face transplant patient was on a French woman due to her Labrador chewing her face off while she was ODing on some pills:

Pet dog mauled face-transplant patient to rouse her from sleep | UK news | The Guardian

If you'd like to read some other stories about attacks, both fatal and otherwise, from other breeds, here you are:

Other Breed Attacks

As a note to what our media loves to do, here's an example. A few years ago, a little girl was killed by an Alaskan Malamute after the parents briefly left her alone with the pair of newly acquired dogs out in Colorado (in which Denver and other areas has outlawed pit bulls).

Fruita girl, 7, dies in dog attack : Local News : The Rocky Mountain News (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3763038,00.html - broken link)

There was little news coverage and it faded after a few days. I doubt anyone suggested a breed ban on Malamutes.

A 12 year old boy was killed by a pair of pit bulls (likely the male) when the mother left her son alone with the dogs while the female was in heat and the male was trying to mate with her.

cbs5.com - Hung Jury In SF Dog Maul Case; Mistrial Declared (http://cbs5.com/local/Maureen.Faibish.Nicholas.2.445464.html - broken link)

These happened within a year or so of each other and the media hoopla around the boy who was killed was tremendous, but not the little girl. Why the difference? Both ended in fatality because of parents leaving the kids alone.

Quote:
Even if what our resident vet student said is true regarding the specific breeds that are lumped together as pit bulls, that does not undercut the significance of the fact in my first post, namely that the dog groups lumped together as pit bulls consisted of 3% of registered dogs and accounted for 50% of the reported dog bites. I question the honesty of anyone that does not find that significant.
I don't find that significant. Many people don't register pet dogs with the AKC because they don't want to show them or compete with them in sport. How many of these out of control people with their out of control animals are registering them with AKC? In the case of the American pit bull terrier, you can't register them with the AKC anyways unless they come from the American Staffordshire show lines (APBTs are generally considered working lines, American Staffordshires are generally considered show lines, just like there are show line versus working line border collies and German shepherds and show versus field line Labs and golden retrievers). The number of animals brought into shelters by animal control, which is HUGE, is a better indication of actual population numbers. Does that make sense why those particular "3%" statistics don't hold any water? As a side not, AKC registration is not a sign of a quality dog, by the way.

Quote:
By their very nature of being animals, even trained ones can attack unprovoked. The banning of private ownership of dangerous animals is widely accepted. I think their history of attacks qualifies pit bulls to be classified and restricted as such. And bans do work. Councils Bluffs is a great example.
How do bans work again precisely? The only way we'll have zero dog bites or attacks is to ban ALL dogs. But absolutely. They are indeed animals, as are we. When millions of homeless animals are killed every year because of irresponsibility and greed and kids are something like 1000 times more likely to be killed by their own parents as they are by a dog, who is really the animal?

The Pit Bull Problem
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2008, 05:42 PM
 
Location: West Omaha
1,181 posts, read 3,652,191 times
Reputation: 477
Looftie,

And what about dobermanns, rotweilers, and german shepherds?? How would you like to get attacked by them? Should those animals be banned?

The analogy was actually a decent one. His point is do you ban something simply because its part of a group that statistically is correlated to certain negative behaviors or do you try to ban the things that leads to that behavior! That was his point and anyone who looked at it more than superficially would realize that. However, because of the racial content of the analogy it gave many a simple superficial way out of the argument. By that I mean its easier to call the guy a racist and dismiss his post than actually state why you think an entire breed should be banned. In fact, the poster was making a point that its RIDICULOUS to blame an entire group because of its genetic makeup...he was trying to point out the contradiction in mindsets. While I wish the poster would not have used that analogy because it can come across the wrong way...the actual logical content does have merit.

Second, you are suggesting a ban on pit bulls. I never said there shouldn't be permits or certain sets of laws to help make sure the more physically dominating dogs were owned by responsible owners. In fact, one of my previous posts states that pit bull owners should have accelerated sentences and punishment.

Next, I fully understand the 2nd amendment. The fact that the 2nd amendment exists has NOTHING to do with the analogy I posed. The analogy I posed strictly deals with causation...not whether we have an inalienable right to have a pitbull.

All I have said is its a ridiculously superficial over simplification to think that banning pit bulls is a solution to the problem. My point is you must attack the problem...which is the moronic owners of these attacking dogs. Furthermore, its not about the owners "present involvement" with the animal. Its about how the owner raised the dog and instilled a sense of "kill" and "attack" in it. You can do the exact same thing with a German Shepherd. The difference is most owners of that breed are very responsible and go to great lengths to train it in a responsible manner. Give one of the idiotic owners a German Shepherd and it would be just as deadly as a pit bull.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2008, 12:19 PM
 
42 posts, read 87,422 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looftie View Post
Why are you comparing banning dogs to people? Your analogy is a stretch to say the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looftie View Post

Does the U.S. constitution (or any state one, for that matter) define any rights intrinsic to dogs? Could such an animal exercise any rights? I’m no lawyer, but I think the aforementioned is reason enough to end this portion of the discussion. Forgive me if someone else covered this already. I am not going to read 4 pages of this.

In the case of pit bulls, the breed is the problem. A breed that consists of 3% of the dog population and 50% of reported dog bites is definitely a problem. (source: http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/25672744.html)
to reply to you on many different notes:

The constitution:

First about the constitution ... the first thing you need to relize is you neither have any right to not be bitten ... the constitution only attacks what the fed gov cant do to you. it doesnt in any way protect you from other citizens. Bowers v. DeVito case of 1982 - read about this case: the ruling of this case was “there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.” : this ruling was placed because you have no right to not be murdered by a citizen.
"Official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order"
The constitution only protects you from the goverment - not from the citizens or the citizens property. more over of this fact is the 4th amendment garanteeing "no search and seizure" in a criminal trial a police officer cant submit evidence into trial that was unlawfully obtained - yet if a 3rd party to the police goes in and breaks into someones house and takes the evidence and turns it over to the police it is considered legally obtained because no employee of the goverment broke your 4th amendment right.

as to reply to why I compared african americans to pitbulls:

You hit it on the head - i dont know why you dont see it. but you stated that pitbulls are 3% of the population and are commiting the highest percentage of crime. That is why i compared the 2- african americans are a relatively low population % yet commit a high violent crime %. - we live in such a politically correct society - we could never think of holding a whole race responisble for some of their races actions. So why do we hold a breed responsible for the mistraining by its owners?

I want to clear up a few things - I am not racist, in no way am I or have I stated that black people are bad, inferior or anything like this. I am simply showing that as humans we understand that not all of 1 race is the same. So in turn we should also understand that not all of 1 breed is the same way.
For even more clarification I do not even own a Pitbull. I own a Yellow Lab. I just do not want to see my fellow omahaians ( yeah i made it up damnit!) be punished because of a select few people who are not treating their dogs with love.

Here is an Idea - i buy a APBT - you buy a APBT - we both love our dog. socialize it and treat it well. 1 year from now we meet up at Memorial Park. We get in the pitbull fighting stance ...both let go... and watch our dogs sniff eachother then chase eachother around with big smiles and hanging tongues.

Last edited by Clessers; 07-26-2008 at 01:14 PM.. Reason: clarification
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2008, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Columbia, Missouri
25 posts, read 116,899 times
Reputation: 19
Another interesting story...a 6 week old lab puppy kills an 8 week old infant while they were left, yet again, unattended.

News-Star Blogs Ľ Blog Archive Ľ Puppy kills 8 week old baby

I'm sure it's because it was the dog was black. Or maybe because it was part "pit."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2008, 05:31 AM
 
300 posts, read 1,055,659 times
Reputation: 103
I honestly think we need MUCH harsher punishments for dog fighting (and ANY animal abuse) in this country. If it wasn't so darn hard to lock up the people that fight these dogs, if would be help alittle bit.
Of course they would still do it, but if dog fighting was worth a $100,000 fine PLUS 5 or more years in prison, maybe it would be less appealing. MAYBE.
I mean, most people that fight dogs get a slap on the wrist b/c investigators can't find enough evidence to charge them. They basically need to catch the fight in progress to charge anyone. It's sad really.
I believe and ALWAYS WILL BELIEVE you should punish the deed, NOT THE BREED.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2008, 07:10 PM
 
6 posts, read 11,611 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Adam29 View Post
well CB has a pitbull ban, is there a shortage of dog attacks there?
being honest, I have no clue.
CB is close enough to Omaha where those irresponsible owners just moved to Omaha... There are no proven statistics that banning a breed works, like others have said.... the irresponsible owners will just go to another breed to train and be vicious.

Like I said before, a puppy ISNT born vicious, just like a child isnt born a seriel killer. MAKE THESE OWNERS PAY NOT THE DOG!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2008, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Columbia, Missouri
25 posts, read 116,899 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by kconnor View Post
Like I said before, a puppy ISNT born vicious, just like a child isnt born a seriel killer.
That's actually not strictly true. Some dogs are born with fearful, weak temperaments because of poor breeding practices (the "my dog has a uterus, ergo it needs to have puppies because I can make some cash" practices that plague just about all breeds). These are the shy pups that end up being so fearful in the head, they become fear aggressive. Fear aggressive dogs are much less predictable than dominant aggressive dogs and the bites from both hurt just as bad. They often don't have the stable nerves that tell them when a situation warrants a bite and when it doesn't.

Sometimes these kinds of unstable dogs can be family pets by using good management/socialization, etc, but sometimes not. This isn't the dog's fault, but the breeder's fault for breeding poor stock. Just like some people, some dogs are just medically and mentally "not okay." Either way you slice it, there's a human to blame somewhere along the line (either bad breeding or bad environment) and not the dog, who is just acting in accordance to what it knows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2008, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
2,947 posts, read 1,493,250 times
Reputation: 3458
I did not read through all of the posts on this subject. Please let me tell you what a friend of mine found out. She had a beautiful red doberman, this dog was as sweet tempered as any could be. She asked the veternarian "why is this dog not like other dobermans? And where does the bad reputation come from?". Now please keep in mind this was back in the 80's. She told me the vet told her that some breeders feed the mother gun powder or sulfer while they are pregnant, or when the pups are born they put that into their food which causes them to have the aggresive behaviour. Please ask a veternarian if this is true or not. I do not know for sure myself.
I hate banning an animal because of reputation of the breed. Also there is insurance problems as well all in the name of "A Certain Breed". I had a black Chow Chow several years ago, could not get renters insurance, after searching very long and hard I could have insur. but at a crazy high price.

Owner responsibility should come into play. Folks know if their pet is aggressive or not. We have leash laws. There are other methods available to protect everyone. Owners and the public. I feel so bad for animals, they do not know any better and we condemn them. That is sad. Just my 2 cents of contribution to this thread.

As to electrophile's post. My older brother had bought a german shepard pup. It started to show some scarey aggession from the age of 2, before that he was sweet and plaful. To make the long story short the vet told my brother that the whole litter had eventually been put down. They had brain damage due to the mother being over bred.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska > Omaha
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:50 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top