Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-25-2017, 07:56 PM
 
2,818 posts, read 1,552,009 times
Reputation: 3608

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
ASPCA Position Statement on Pit Bulls

As I said, by nature they are an aggressive breed. Anybody who denies that is, well, in denial.
Nope. Learn about breeding.

Perhaps folks would like to read the rest of the link that you conveniently left out:

https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca...ment-pit-bulls

In particular:

"Some pit bulls were selected and bred for their fighting ability. That means that they may be more likely than other breeds to fight with dogs. It doesn’t mean that they can’t be around other dogs or that they’re unpredictably aggressive. Other pit bulls were specifically bred for work and companionship. These dogs have long been popular family pets, noted for their gentleness, affection and loyalty. And even those pit bulls bred to fight other animals were not prone to aggressiveness toward people. Dogs used for fighting needed to be routinely handled by people; therefore aggression toward people was not tolerated. Any dog that behaved aggressively toward a person was culled, or killed, to avoid passing on such an undesirable trait. Research on pet dogs confirms that dog aggressive dogs are no more likely to direct aggression toward people than dogs that aren’t aggressive to other dogs."

 
Old 12-25-2017, 07:56 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
20,865 posts, read 9,532,948 times
Reputation: 15579
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrganicSmallHome View Post
No, not all pit bulls are bred to attack other dogs. Simply not true. Legitimate breeders actually lose money, since their reputation depends on the purity of the breed line, so they invest thousands in genetic testing, etc., precisely so as not to breed aggressive dogs.
Yeah, well, too bad most pitbulls probably aren't acquired from "legitimate breeders."
 
Old 12-25-2017, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
20,865 posts, read 9,532,948 times
Reputation: 15579
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrganicSmallHome View Post
Nope. Learn about breeding.
I just did from my link above. Here's a paragraph of interest reinforcing what I just said above:
Quote:
It is likely that that the vast majority of pit bull type dogs in our communities today are the result of random breeding—two dogs being mated without regard to the behavioral traits being passed on to their offspring. The result of random breeding is a population of dogs with a wide range of behavioral predispositions. For this reason it is important to evaluate and treat each dog, no matter its breed, as an individual.
 
Old 12-25-2017, 07:59 PM
 
2,818 posts, read 1,552,009 times
Reputation: 3608
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
I just did from my link above. Here's a paragraph of interest reinforcing what I just said above:
Yep. Which is why I said that backyard breeding and puppy mills should be illegal.
 
Old 12-25-2017, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
20,865 posts, read 9,532,948 times
Reputation: 15579
Statistics are basically impossible to deny that pit bulls and related breeds are violent. No way to get around it:
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-st...ities-2016.php

"31 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2016. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 900 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 71% (22) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population."

When 6% of the dog population is responsible for 71% of dog bite related fatalities, then yes, that my friend is a violent breed, on average.
 
Old 12-25-2017, 08:02 PM
 
Location: Homeless
17,717 posts, read 13,533,813 times
Reputation: 11994
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
That is actually incorrect. Pit bulls were bred to attack other dogs. Thus, by nature they are an aggressive breed.


- Amstaff History



Who bred the dogs? Other dogs? No people did.


The American Staffordshire Terrier's roots date back to the early 19th century when dog fighting was popular. They originated in Staffordshire, England, through the crossing of a popular Terrier of the era and the Bulldog of that day. The desire was to combine the strength of the Bulldog and the tenacity of the Terrier.
It is from the fighting Bulldog and Terrier that dedicated breeders produced a peaceable dog.
]When these dogs (the ancestors of the present day Amstaff) were first taken to USA, in the 1870's, they accompanied pioneer families and served as their pets and as guardians of the family and property. They were known as the American Terrier and as the Yankee Terrier.
 
Old 12-25-2017, 08:04 PM
 
26,639 posts, read 36,717,994 times
Reputation: 29911
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrganicSmallHome View Post
It most certainly is true. That site is somebody's blog, full of misinformation, and with a clear bias against pit bulls.

If backyard breeding and puppy mills were made illegal, a lot of the problem would go away.
I'm aware that the site is someone's blog; but he includes a lot of historical information that can be easily backed up.

There aren't any credible sources that prove that pit bulls were once called "nanny dogs."
 
Old 12-25-2017, 08:06 PM
 
2,818 posts, read 1,552,009 times
Reputation: 3608
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
Statistics are basically impossible to deny that pit bulls and related breeds are violent. No way to get around it:
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-st...ities-2016.php

"31 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2016. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 900 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 71% (22) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population."

When 6% of the dog population is responsible for 71% of dog bite related fatalities, then yes, that my friend is a violent breed, on average.
Your insistence on being obtuse is getting tedious. All those statistics tell us is that there is irresponsible breeding and dog ownership. And that, my friend, is the problem.

Also from the site you provided:

The reality is that dogs of many breeds can be selectively bred or trained to develop aggressive traits. Therefore the responsible ownership of any dog requires a commitment to proper socialization, humane training and conscientious supervision. Despite our best efforts, there will always be dogs of various breeds that are simply too dangerous to live safely in society. We can effectively address the danger posed by these dogs by supporting the passage and vigorous enforcement of laws that focus, not on breed, but on people’s responsibility for their dogs’ behavior, including measures that hold owners of all breeds accountable for properly housing, supervising and controlling their dogs. Breed neutral “dangerous dog” laws, “leash laws” that prohibit dogs from running loose off their owners’ property, and “anti chaining” laws can control the behavior of individual dogs and individual owners and thereby help reduce the risk of harm to people and other animals.
 
Old 12-25-2017, 08:08 PM
 
29,513 posts, read 22,647,873 times
Reputation: 48231
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007 View Post
Statistics are basically impossible to deny that pit bulls and related breeds are violent. No way to get around it:
https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-st...ities-2016.php

"31 U.S. dog bite-related fatalities occurred in 2016. Despite being regulated in Military Housing areas and over 900 U.S. cities, pit bulls contributed to 71% (22) of these deaths. Pit bulls make up about 6% of the total U.S. dog population."

When 6% of the dog population is responsible for 71% of dog bite related fatalities, then yes, that my friend is a violent breed, on average.
I concur.

I've been around gentle pit bulls and don't have any bias against them, but statistics don't lie.

How come you never hear of Chihuahuas killing as many people as bulls?

Some of these cases are scary, where the pit (with no history of aggression) just snapped and mailed to death little kids.

https://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-d...t-bull-faq.php
 
Old 12-25-2017, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
20,865 posts, read 9,532,948 times
Reputation: 15579
Why would pitbulls disproportionately have so many irresponsible owners compared to, say, golden retrievers?

In light of that statistic it's basically impossible to deny that pitbulls tend to be violent, on average. When 6% of the dog population is responsible for 71% of dog attack fatalities, that indicates a violent breed. There is no other logical explanation.
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.


Closed Thread


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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top