Certain dog breeds...I just don't get it.

[phylodog]

I'm not roped in at all, nor do I succumb to prejudice.
The statistics are all over the web..

Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to December 31, 2014
By compiling U.S. and Canadian press accounts between 1982 and 2014, Merritt Clifton, editor of Animals 24-7, shows the dog breeds most responsible for disfiguring injuries and deaths.
The combination of molosser breeds, including pit bulls, rottweilers, presa canarios, cane corsos, mastiffs, dogo argentinos, fila brasieros, sharpeis, boxers, and their mixes, inflict:
86% of attacks that induce bodily harm
81% of attacks to children
89% of attack to adults
76% of attacks that result in fatalities
86% that result in maiming
Embody 9.2%+ of the total dog population

Those statistics show that the dogs listed are powerful and capable of inflicting serious injury or death. They are based on reports of serious injury and/or death, not total bite occurrences, the stats are not all inclusive. If a toy fox terrier nips my ankle I'm not likely to call the police for a report nor am I likely to be maimed. They do not show that these dogs are more prone to attack.

If we're going to take a serious look at the tendency to bite we'd probably better put hamsters, guinea pigs and gerbils at the top of the list.

 

[17 squirrel]

Those statistics show that the dogs listed are powerful and capable of inflicting serious injury or death. They are based on reports of serious injury and/or death, not total bite occurrences, the stats are not all inclusive. If a toy fox terrier nips my ankle I'm not likely to call the police for a report nor am I likely to be maimed. They do not show that these dogs are more prone to attack.

If we're going to take a serious look at the tendency to bite we'd probably better put hamsters, guinea pigs and gerbils at the top of the list.

The data I posted had nothing to do with all Breeds of dogs that have bitten, it had everything to do with,
Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to December 31, 2014

I find it interesting on how a huge amount of Bully Breed dog owners defend the Bully Breeds and always try to shift over to " lookie here at these little ankle biters. They all bite more often, bla,bla ,BLA... Ankle biters tend not to do huge amounts of maiming, disfigurement and killing. Bully Breeds do.
You just don't see that teacup in the news that chewed off some lady's arm or the face of another child with massive disfigurement. It's always a Bully Breed, well at least 85% +- of the time anyway. That's why they are called Bully Breeds.
That in itself should tell a Educated person something right there.
If we took away that 85% +- out of the gene pool maiming, death and disfigurement to humans and other property would almost never happen. Hummmmm now there's a thought.
It's a animal, it doesn't think rational thoughts at all, it knows right then and there.

 

[phylodog]

Ok, I get it. Bully breeds, because of their capabilities are scary and since you are scared of them they should be put down on sight or banned. An educated person can see that their capabilities do not make them more prone to biting, just that if they do they are much more likely to cause damage. This brings us back to responsible ownership which ties us directly to firearms ownership. If you cant see the correlation between the two then you are allowing your prejudice to blind you (I won't attempt to call you uneducated).

If my pit bull should be banned or put down on sight then you should only be allowed to own a bolt action, single shot, .22 short.

 

[Expat]

Ok, I get it. Bully breeds, because of their capabilities are scary and since you are scared of them they should be put down on sight or banned. An educated person can see that their capabilities do not make them more prone to biting, just that if they do they are much more likely to cause damage. This brings us back to responsible ownership which ties us directly to firearms ownership. If you cant see the correlation between the two then you are allowing your prejudice to blind you (I won't attempt to call you uneducated).

If my pit bull should be banned or put down on sight then you should only be allowed to own a bolt action, single shot, .22 short.

That is an interesting analogy. So you have seen a rash of firearms escaping from their confinement when the owner isn't around and attacking other people? I had heard tell of such things but never witnessed it myself.

 

[churchmouse]

 

[Rookie]

SMH

 

[ghuns]

Now, as to the parallel: Breeds of dogs are like "breeds" of people. If you say that there is a single breed of dog you hate on sight, in effect, what you're doing is saying "All White people are haters." or "All Black people are thieves." or "All Jews are penny pinchers."

Yeaaaaaaaah but...

Dogs have been selectively bred by humans for millennia. Bred to do very specific things, to look a very specific way, to exhibit very specific behavior. The idea of dogs as "pets", and to many, as surrogate children to their owners is a relatively new development.

Pits are relative newcomers to the dog world. They were selectively bred to fight for at least the first 100 years of their existence. Their breeders didn't take the weak or timid to the shelter for adoption as family pets, they killed them. Aggression, strength, agility, fearlessness were the attributes they wanted passed on to the next generation.

The pits many in this thread swear are the best dogs ever are those dogs that would have been killed off in previous generations. As the traits that were once considered undesirable become the traits that we want, the breed will become better. The dogs will become more predictable in their behavior. It might take a hundred more years, but someday an aggressive, vicious pit will be as rare as a brindle labrador. But it won't be because the dogs had a change of heart, it will be because humans made them that way.

2) Don't trust your dog with your grandson. Not for an instant. All guns are loaded, even if they aren't. All dogs can hurt/kill a child, even if they haven't.

I'm a little tired of the dog=guns analogies. A dog is a living, thinking animal. A gun, well, a real gun, is just a dumb piece-o-steel.

 

[phylodog]

That is an interesting analogy. So you have seen a rash of firearms escaping from their confinement when the owner isn't around and attacking other people? I had heard tell of such things but never witnessed it myself.

Didn't indicate anything of the sort nor is it relevant. People want things they are scared of banned. Others understand that responsible ownership of those scary things is possible.

"There's no reason to have a dangerous animal like a pit bull as a pet". I like having a potentially dangerous animal which loves my family and would go through hell to protect them and I've seen how difficult they are to stop. Some may not like it but I don't particularly care what they think. We didn't adopt our pit as a protection dog but I'm comforted by the fact that she's quite capable.

 

[Rookie]

Didn't indicate anything of the sort nor is it relevant. People want things they are scared of banned. Others understand that responsible ownership of those scary things is possible.

Exactly. It really irritates me to see these attitudes on this type of forum. Instead of realizing that personal responsibility should be the key, many of you are firmly on the "oh they're scary, no one should own them". Having that attitude on one subject and not every subject is hypocritical.

I own two pit mixes. I know what they are capable of. Because I know, I make sure that they are well behaved at all times. Hell, if they growl at each other while playing, they get in trouble. I also know that, like any other dog I have owned, IF they were to bite, they will be put down without hesitation and I will accept full responsibility for their actions.

 

[Expat]

Let me add, that I don't care what anyone owns and would not advocate any dogs being outlawed. My grandma had two german shepherds that would bite the **** out of anyone that came on her property. But that was back when that was okay, so it was no big deal.

 

[jamil]

I just see too much emotion on both sides of the argument that people don't think it through. You come up with silly analogs like bringing in guns as a comparison. That's just a non sequitur. No gun is aggressive. The rise of the machines has not yet happened. Just drop it.

So my own thoughts are, they're dogs. Some dogs are aggressive, some are not. I don't care for pit bull type dogs, they're just not what I like. I like labs and shepherds. You like pit bulls? Great. Just realize that if you happen to get one that turns aggressive, it's not yours or other people's ankles you have to worry about. These dogs can kill. You are responsible for your dog. That it's powerful doesn't automatically make it aggressive. But if it is powerful, you need to take the kinds of precautions one would take having a powerful animal.

Here's the difference between a little yapper and a powerful dog. I never go walking unarmed. If your little ankle biter comes out at me and nips at my heels, I'll probably just gently shove him away with my boot until the owner comes to get him. If your pit bull comes charging at me, if charges past a certain point, I'm going to have to shoot him. I don't want to shoot anyone's dog. Please don't put me or anyone in that position.

People have been bitten by dogs the owners swore would just lick someone to death. Maybe you think that about your dog. Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong. You are responsible either way. Love your dogs and treat them well, and don't let them impose on other people.

 

[Rookie]

When has it ever been okay? Over thirty years ago, I watched a neighbor's dog jump my little brother. The neighbor (about 75 years old) just about split that dogs skull with a shovel. He calmly walked inside, got his rifle, took the dog behind the barn, and killed him. Then we sat down and had lunch like nothing happened.

 

[17 squirrel]

Bites ?? Bites from non Bully Breeds generally don't maim, cause disfigurement and kill. Yep it happens, but not that often.

Having a pet in noway can it be equated that same as responsible gun ownership. If I poke and tease a firearm it has no disposition that will make it spin around and attack me. It's a inanimate object. A dog with predetermed DNA generally has no issues with biteing the $ hit out of me. You just can't say, my pit / bully dog much less any dog / pet will never attack anyone.
I can poke, prod, yell, and beat any of my gun safes and no matter what I do none of my firearms are going to hurt anyone for me doing so. And one Nothing in any of my safes have a predetermed inventory to attack anyone. It's not going to happen, you can't say that about a family pet, you honestly just don't know what a pet will do with different circumstances.
Personally I could care less what pets people own.
And it's sad that some municipality's have banned Bully dogs. I wonder if the maiming, disfigurement and death by any dog happens where they are banned.

 

[phylodog]

I just see too much emotion on both sides of the argument that people don't think it through. You come up with silly analogs like bringing in guns as a comparison. That's just a non sequitur. No gun is aggressive. The rise of the machines has not yet happened. Just drop it.

I have yet to hear anyone successfully refute the analogy. There is a comparison between the two. You have one side using skewed statistics and ignorance in an attempt to demonize ownership of something and attempting to label anyone who does of inferior intelligence. There are several examples of it in this thread and it is the same tactic used by the liberal gun grabbers.

 

[phylodog]

Bites ?? Bites from non Bully Breeds generally don't maim, cause disfigurement and kill. Yep it happens, but not that often.

I think we can put that squarely into the "No ****" category. So, now what?

You don't want to have one living in your home? Fine by me.

You'll shoot one if it attacks you? Fine by me.

You don't think your neighbor should be allowed to own one? Now we've got an issue.

 

[Rookie]

If you poke and tease my firearm, I'm going to be at the other end telling you to knock it off.

If you poke and tease my dog, I'm going to be at the other end telling you to knock it off.

Both examples show personal responsibility.

I have a six foot tall fence around my back yard. Neither dog has remotely shown me an ability to jump the fence. I still stand outside (regardless of the weather), watch my dogs do their business, and then take them in. I did the same with my stupid bichon frise (HATED that dog) because that is what a responsible owner does.

 

[17 squirrel]

You don't think your neighbor should be allowed to own one? Now we've got an issue.

I dont believe with my conversations with you I have said , my neighbor should not be allowed to have one.

 

[jamil]

If you poke and tease my firearm, I'm going to be at the other end telling you to knock it off.

If you poke and tease my dog, I'm going to be at the other end telling you to knock it off.

Both examples show personal responsibility.

I have a six foot tall fence around my back yard. Neither dog has remotely shown me an ability to jump the fence. I still stand outside (regardless of the weather), watch my dogs do their business, and then take them in. I did the same with my stupid bichon frise (HATED that dog) because that is what a responsible owner does.

If laughter is the best medicine, your hi-point must be curing the world.

There.

I teased your firearm.



Neener neener.

Oh. You don't own a hi-point?

Nevermind.

 

[17 squirrel]

Neener neener ????

It's Nana Nana boo boo
Stick you head in doo doo.

 

[phylodog]

[/COLOR]

I dont believe with my conversations with you I have said , my neighbor should not be allowed to have one.

I wasn't suggesting that you had but that is the entire point of this thread.