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.
you are stating you opinons as fact without any backup.
here is some info which completely negates your evolution argument. it shows without a doubt that it is the owner and not the dog 97% of the time.
[CENTER] FATAL DOG ATTACKS: THE TRUTH BEHIND THE TRAGEDY[/CENTER]
Extensive research and investigation has conclusively identified the ownership/management practices that are at the root of the rare, but perfect, storm when a dog becomes dangerous. Function of Dog –
Owners obtaining dogs, and maintaining them as resident dogs outside of the household for purposes other than as family pets (i.e. guarding/ protection, fighting, intimidation/status, irresponsible and negligent breeding). Owner Management & Control of Dogs –
Owners failing to humanely contain, control and maintain their dogs (chained dogs, loose roaming dogs, cases of abuse/neglect); owners failing to knowledgably supervise interaction between children and dogs. Reproductive Status of Dog –
Owners failing to spay or neuter animals not used for competition, show, or in a responsible breeding program. In 2006, 97% of the fatal attacks were the result of one or more of these reckless or criminal ownership practices. Karen Delise National Canine Research Council
All statistics can be cited or referenced by the National Canine Research Council upon request.
Okay here we go...you're saying that evolution is a theory and not a fact? It isn't my opinion, but the factual conclusion of Charles Darwin.
often times?
"The average Number of people killed by a Pit Bull each year is 3. It can be estimated that for every Pit Bull who kills, there are 10.5 MILLION that DON'T!"
btw, it is an indication of a weak intellect to resort to name calling to back up your opinion. they should have taught you that on the debate team.
There were 6 fatal pit bull attacks in 2008 in Texas alone!
Quote:
The legal meaning of "dangerous dog" - A dog can be legally classified as "dangerous" or "vicious" based upon its actions, its breed, or the actions of its owner, either before or after an official hearing, pursuant to the law of the jurisdiction where the dog is present. A dog classified as "dangerous" or "vicious" is subject to being confined or kept pursuant to strict rules, and might even be euthanized, and its owner can be fined, jailed, and ordered to refrain from future activities that pertain to animals.
Okay here we go...you're saying that evolution is a theory and not a fact? It isn't my opinion, but the factual conclusion of Charles Darwin.
i fully believe in the theory evolution. it is your application of the theory that is suspect imo. please provide proof that pit bulls have evolved any differently than other breeds of dogs. btw evolution occurs on a large time scale- not the few hundred years or so that pits have been around for.
often times?
"The average Number of people killed by a Pit Bull each year is 3. It can be estimated that for every Pit Bull who kills, there are 10.5 MILLION that DON'T!"
btw, it is an indication of a weak intellect to resort to name calling to back up your opinion. they should have taught you that on the debate team.
I said maul, not just kill.
I wouldn't be speaking of "weak intellect" if I was you. I think your argument here (or lack of) speaks volumes for your intellect, bud!
However, the focus on death cases may leave the public with the false impression that pit bulls and Rottweilers are responsible for the dog bite epidemic. It is a much broader problem than that, involving all dogs and all dog owners.
As a practical matter, the current tide of public outrage should be focused on the enactment of measures that would deal effectively with the entire epidemic, not merely the breeds that kill. It would appear unwise to enact all kinds of controls on one or two breeds, not necessarily because it would be unfair, but because it would produce narrow and therefore unsatisfactory results. The war against crime isn't a war against just the bank robbers, but against all criminals; the war against drugs isn't a war against just the Colombian drug lords, but all drug lords. For the same reason, the dog bite epidemic must not focus on just one or two breeds and stop there. The war on this epidemic must be comprehensive. (See Attorney Kenneth Phillips' 10-point plan for Preventing Dog Bites.)"
Here's an excellent article on pit bulls and I think it just reiterates everything I have been saying regarding knowing how to raise these dogs and the repercussions of not doing so.
The reason these dogs are so damn dangerous is simple: They have the capability and build to EASILY kill other animals and people. Two, they have historically been bread to fight
That article and what you have been saying are two different things. You are making blanket statements that these are dangerous dogs and OFTEN attack and maul people.
The article states that the dogs are naturally human friendly and have a good temperament but cant be POTENTIALLY dangerous, like many breeds.
i fully believe in the theory evolution. it is your application of the theory that is suspect imo. please provide proof that pit bulls have evolved any differently than other breeds of dogs. btw evolution occurs on a large time scale- not the few hundred years or so that pits have been around for.
Natural characteristics can easily evolve over shorter periods of time...I don't need to "prove" that pit bulls have naturally adapted to their environment - the pages and pages of stories about their viciousness and their attacks prove it for me.
I gave an example on the first page about the evolution of weimeraners. It's no different than the evolution of pit bulls.
If they have naturally evolved to be prone to attacks, then a large portion of the dog would be attacking people. This is not the case. A small amount of the dog is doing the bad deeds. This would show that the characteristic has not been evolved into the dog.
That article and what you have been saying are two different things. You are making blanket statements that these are dangerous dogs and OFTEN attack and maul people.
The article states that the dogs are naturally human friendly and have a good temperament but cant be POTENTIALLY dangerous, like many breeds.
HAHA, you insist on splitting hairs? They do OFTEN attack people. I see it almost daily on the news. Once in a year is unacceptable. If my child’s face was bit off I would have a very hard time swallowing the logic "but it’s only a hand full out of 10 million" crap.
I'm simply saying there needs to be very strict regulations on who is fit to own these animals which are potentially and often times dangerous.
Very much the same as a bus driver. They are driving a vehicle which has the potential to easily kill passengers and other motorist so they are required to posses a special license.
How is this even debatable? You pit-bull owners are the most defensive people I have ever met, wow!
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.
