Pit Bull swallows teen's ear!?!

[Tiger Williams]

Yet another story about this harmless, misunderstood breed. lol

Ends with a quote from the father...........
"the family was aware of the publicity surrounding the breed, including the proposed anti-pit bull law, but his uncle had an American Staffordshire terrier "and it never bothered anybody. We thought all the warnings about them being ticking time bombs was exaggeration."
The dog was an angel," he said. "But they can't be trusted ... I realize that now."

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/12/01/750690.html

PS: that sound you hear is the collective 'blah, blah, blah' from the usual suspects telling us it's the owners' fault..........breed specific bans don't work........and with training and licensing (yawn) Pit Bulls actually make wonderful pets.

[Ranger68]

That PS was the only reasonable thing you said.
In what way *isn't* it the owner's fault?
In what way *will* breed specific bans work?
In what way *won't* training and licensing work?

The lack of critical thinking around never fails to astound me.

[red]

if the breed is gone - there won't be anymore pitbull attacks

[Ranger68]

But there will be lots of attacks, and lots MORE attacks by other breeds. Also, there is very little evidence that these breed bans are effective. In most of the places they've been put in place before, they've since been rescinded - they didn't work.

Do you want to stop *pit bull* attacks, or dog attacks in general?

(Sorta like saying "If we kill *everyone* in the Middle East, there won't be any more Islamic terrorists." Uh .... that *may* work. Doesn't make it a good idea - it may be awfully hard to do, and totally immoral.)

[red]

if there are other breeds to be eliminated- so be it. I am in favour of stopping all dog attacks.

your analogy re the middle east is muddled as there are islamic terrorists and non terrorist followers of islam outside of the middle east. and we are talking about dogs and not people.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by red
if the breed is gone - there won't be anymore pitbull attacks

RIGHT no pittbull attacks
WRONG irresponsible owners will switch to rottweilers, bulldogs, mastiffs, german shepherds, boxers etc etc....

Those who train their pittbull to be mean will not be deterred by the ban. those people either train them for dogfights or have a low selfesteem and try to make it up by having a mean dog.

Don't take my word for it. Look to Europe. It started with one breed now they are up to three or four.

Pittbulls in the past have been used for fighting and for bear baiting. By nature a pittbull should be a single dog in a household and needs to be taken to obedience classes right away. Those classes need to be repeated on a regular basis.
If you want an easy dog for yourself or for your family get a poodle.
I would prefer that those who want to have a pittbull should have a license and should be able to proof that they know how to handle that dog.
Most vetenerians are opposed to the ban, because it does not address the real problem.

BTW NO I don't own a pittbull.

[Ranger68]

So, you want to eliminate *all* dog breeds, because they're *all* potentially problematic.
Just so we're clear.

Never gonna happen.
So, you're going to eliminate pit bulls without seriously decreasing dog attacks in general. Congratulations. Wayda solve that problem.

My analogy was trying to point out the difficulty in imposing *heavy-handed* solutions to perceived problems.
:rolleyes: Sorry that wasn't clear. There are of course *much better* solutions to these problems. That doesn't stop people from saying we should ban pit bulls or turn the Middle East to glass every once in a while. Both are unreasonable, emotional arguments.

[Ranger68]

Most people who you would expect would understand the problem - veterinarians, animal control experts - indicate that this is not going to work.

Oh, and poodles have killed people, too.

NO breed is 100% safe. ANY dog can be trained to do SERIOUS DAMAGE, especially to children.

[langeweile]

Is it possible???
Ranger and I are on the same side of an issue? Darn this is getting scary...

[Sheik]

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_819437.html?menu=news.quirkies

92 breeds are on the list in Italy

[Ranger68]

Yeah, this sounds reasonable. LOL
Not long before they ban all dogs, I suppose.
Which is certainly a way to go. It ain't gonna happen here, though, thankfully.

This from a country with 92 political parties. Or is it 192? ;)

[strange1]

From sheik's article
" Ananova:
Italy puts corgis on dangerous dogs list

Italy has put border collies, corgis and St Bernards on a dangerous dogs list that bans children and criminals from owning them."

It seems they don't ban the breed, just impose restrictions on who can own them. Makes sense to me.

[Ranger68]

Maybe criminals and children shouldn't *own* *any* dogs.

[Spode]

I am a dog enthusiast but it has been documented that while the percentage of "Pit Bull" attacks(Staffs, English Bull's, and any other like terrier referred to as a Pit Bull) is not overly disproportionate. However the degree of the attack is severely disproportionate. More Deaths occur from "Pit Bull" attacks than all other breeds combined.

Sure there are those that will maintain it is the owner that is responsible for ensuring the raising of his or her dog, but its the same as having a lethal weapon. Rottweiller = knife, Pit Bull = gun. Both can kill but the latter has a higher efficiency.

These dogs were developed and are predominantly breed for one thing and one thing alone. Fighting!

If you have ever seen a dog fight, you will rarely see any other breed than a staff mix. These fights can go one for over an hour straight and the popping of the teeth and jaws is horrifying and leaves no misconception the these breeds are a perfect killing machine.

[Ranger68]

I've heard this nonsense before - "pit bull" equals this "rottweiler" equals that. That's what it is - nonsense.
No breed is a "perfect killing machine".
It's all rhetoric.

I'll talk about the only fact you've mentioned - that more deaths occur from "pit bull" attacks than all other breeds combined. You can't really find too many sources for this kind of statistic, because they're not generally kept. Of course, then there's the problem of breed identification - a LARGE problem. The obvious problem with the breed ban as a solution to this problem is that those *criminal* owners who are using pit bulls will migrate to some other breed, equally as dangerous.

There are laws to deal with possession and *use* of weapons in crimes - not to mention training and licensing. Why aren't there adequate laws to cover dog ownership, breeding, training, licensing? Isn't that a reasonable first step before you start banning dog breeds all over the place?

[red]

put down the dog and the owner

[baci2004]

Check out this vid.

http://www.deviantart.com/view/11454716/

[wikiwild]

Question becomes, if the dog is really so misunderstood, why? Pros and cons of the dog should be evident enough for the public not to raise an outcry....

I don't understand why so many people could be so opposed to one particular breed of dog if there wasn't an issue... I mean, it's not racism, or terrorism, or anything like that.

What is the motivation for 'wronging' these dogs and their owners?

[Ranger68]

Fact is, most people don't know ANYTHING about the dog - just what they hear in the media, which is only out to sell a story.

Just like most people don't know ANYTHING about the lack of connection between Iraq and 9/11. ;)

The motivation is public hysteria due to ignorance.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Fact is, most people don't know ANYTHING about the dog - just what they hear in the media, which is only out to sell a story.

Just like most people don't know ANYTHING about the lack of connection between Iraq and 9/11. ;)

The motivation is public hysteria due to ignorance.

tring these two together is assinie. But since you did are you saying that breeds that are bred for fighting are all alike?

[Ranger68]

Not assinine at all - shows the power of the modern media.
Not all dogs are alike, no - even at a genetic level. HOWEVER, the fact is that dogs are TRAINED to do all kinds of things. Breeds are selected, for a dog that's going to be *trained* to do something, based on genetic factors.
Does that answer your question?

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Not assinine at all - shows the power of the modern media.
Not all dogs are alike, no - even at a genetic level. HOWEVER, the fact is that dogs are TRAINED to do all kinds of things. Breeds are selected, for a dog that's going to be *trained* to do something, based on genetic factors.
Does that answer your question?

Not at all
Pit Bulls were bred for one reason only. They became all the rage in the late 80's and early 90's because of the fear factor they presented. And during this period Pits were produced by puppy mills with inbreeding is well doccumented, even by the liberal 60 minutes. It is not so much the early breed that made the damgerous as it was the inbreeding caused by the popularity of the breed. I have found that most dog owners are not type A personality and do not present the ALPHA to their dogs. Even those that do are not there 24/7 and that is when attacks can occur.

[Ranger68]

LOL
Of COURSE I answered your question. Don't be obtuse. (If that's possible.)
Pit Bulls were NOT bred for one reason only - you're just showing your ignorance, your buying of the pap that the media has fed you. How about Rottweilers? They used to be all the rage. Of course, you ignore the fact that Pit Bulls have been bred for over a HUNDRED years, and in the past they've been models of quite the OPPOSITE of what they're portrayed as now. This has to do with TRAINING not BREEDING.
Try again.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
LOL
Of COURSE I answered your question. Don't be obtuse. (If that's possible.)
Pit Bulls were NOT bred for one reason only - you're just showing your ignorance, your buying of the pap that the media has fed you. How about Rottweilers? They used to be all the rage. Of course, you ignore the fact that Pit Bulls have been bred for over a HUNDRED years, and in the past they've been models of quite the OPPOSITE of what they're portrayed as now. This has to do with TRAINING not BREEDING.
Try again.


Rottweilers are quite an impressive breed. They are big old pussycats who are prone to hip problems as are many large breeds. While the the breed was bred as working drovers they are now popularized are pets and working dogs.

As for the pitbull: "The breed known as the American Pit Bull Terrier was selectively bred specifically with the idea of it becoming the ultimate canine gladiator." http://www.pitbull411.com/history.html


Hope this helps clarify it for you.

[Ranger68]

Rottweilers used to have EXACTLY the same reputation as Pit Bulls have today.

I could post a hundred or so links that make things clear for you, but there's no point. I've already done so.

Enjoy your witch hunt.

[papasmerf]

I was never speculating based on hysteria. I am simply showing breed defination. Anyone who knows dogs will tell you that a rott is a working dog that has a pleasent disposition and will take to people and children. As with all breeds inbreeding will damage the breed and should be discouraged.

[Ranger68]

Uh, yeah - that's why Rotts, if you believe the stats, are involved in the second-most attacks on people.
:rolleyes:

ALL breeds are inbred.

Seriously, go do some reading on the subject, then come back and talk. You're basing your entire argument on "what people tell you".

Come back when you've got something to back up your rhetoric.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Uh, yeah - that's why Rotts, if you believe the stats, are involved in the second-most attacks on people.
:rolleyes:

ALL breeds are inbred.

Seriously, go do some reading on the subject, then come back and talk. You're basing your entire argument on "what people tell you".

Come back when you've got something to back up your rhetoric.

ok show me the stats.

[Ranger68]

I'll repeat, since you can't read that well:
"Go do some reading on the subject, then come back and talk, when you've got something to back up your rhetoric."

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
I'll repeat, since you can't read that well:
"Go do some reading on the subject, then come back and talk, when you've got something to back up your rhetoric."


You said rotts are cited as the 2nd highest attacker. Show me the stats. Otherwise stand down.

[Ranger68]

If I do, will you shut the fuck up and go away?
:D

[jwmorrice]

Round and round the debate goes. All the same crapola wheeled out for the umpteenth time. All the same personal insults - just different targets. I guess Ontario will be a nice test case for this issue. Perhaps it can be revisited more fruitfully once we have more facts to hang our arguments on.

jwm

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
If I do, will you shut the fuck up and go away?
:D


You imply you had facts
where are they??????????

[Ranger68]

Facts??
I've posted plenty.

Just peruse some of these articles:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbites.htm

NOBODY from the opposing side has posted ANY articles from informed authority arguing that a breed ban is effective.

The only reason we go "round and round" is the inability to think outside the mob.

Oh, and papasmerf, click on practically ANY of the links on that site - they all show that Rott's are the "second-most dangerous breed". (If that statement really has any meaning.)

So SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO AWAY.
LOL
That felt good. :D

[papasmerf]

Found one table siting from 1979 to 1996 there were 60 deaths by pitts and 29 by rotts. Hardly a recent table to support you arguement.

Second refrence was from 1995 and 1996. "During 1995–1996, rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in
fatal attacks (Table 1). Fatal attacks were reported from 14 states (California [four
deaths]; Florida and Pennsylvania [three each]; Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, and
South Dakota [two each]; and Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina,
Ohio, Tennessee, and Washington [one each]).
Reported by: R Lockwood, PhD, Humane Society of the United States, Washington, DC. Div of
Unintentional Injuries Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC."


Another study citing 1979 to 1998 shows 66 to 39 Pittbull still a winner by a mile.


Thanks for the info. And you are right based on older stucies rotts do bite about 1/2 a much as pitts. But the numbers based on this data bear out that rotts are considered #2 in 1998. OBTW did I ever say they were not?

[Ranger68]

I posted my facts, proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, my point - that Rotts are the second-most dangerous breed.
You're still here.
Why?
I guess you're a liar as well as an idiot.

You can be safely Ignored now. Enjoy your fantasies.
I'll revisit your case in a few months, when you've had some time to grow up and learn some things.

Until then, buh-bye. :D

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
I posted my facts, proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, my point - that Rotts are the second-most dangerous breed.
You're still here.
Why?
I guess you're a liar as well as an idiot.

You can be safely Ignored now. Enjoy your fantasies.
I'll revisit your case in a few months, when you've had some time to grow up and learn some things.

Until then, buh-bye. :D


Let me get this straight. You just insult people, call them Liers and idodits because they disagree with you. Were it my place I would verify your age. As you present yourself well untill you get rattled, then you revert to a 4 year old.

[n_v]

Originally posted by papasmerf
Let me get this straight. You just insult people, call them Liers and idodits because they disagree with you. Were it my place I would verify your age. As you present yourself well untill you get rattled, then you revert to a 4 year old.
You hit the nail on the head with this guy papasmerf!

[Ranger68]

Now I've got two guys on Ignore posting together.
:D
Whatta country! LOL

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Now I've got two guys on Ignore posting together.
:D
Whatta country! LOL

Truth a bit too harsh?

[Ranger68]

(One wonders if dude knows what "Ignore" means. LOL Somebody PM him. LOL)

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
(One wonders if dude knows what "Ignore" means. LOL Somebody PM him. LOL)





Better call your mom to stand up for you. What was that? She is busy doing your wash? and playing with your pittbull.

[Ranger68]

LOL
Somebody PM me, or just post, and tell me if he's still nattering at *me*. LOL
I guess this would explain things - a lack of understanding of the english language. LOL

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
LOL
Somebody PM me, or just post, and tell me if he's still nattering at *me*. LOL
I guess this would explain things - a lack of understanding of the english language. LOL




LOL

You are such a cute little fella when you start squirming.

[strange1]

Come on papa. You have to think like ranger. A ban won't work bacause there will always be dogs that "are involved in the second-most attacks on people". We can't ban the most dangerous dog because another dog is not as dangerous. Simple enough. (based on 1984 doublespeak)

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by strange1
Come on papa. You have to think like ranger. A ban won't work bacause there will always be dogs that "are involved in the second-most attacks on people". We can't ban the most dangerous dog because another dog is not as dangerous. Simple enough. (based on 1984 doublespeak)


good point

I forget are we still at war with Oceana?

[Ranger68]

Why is that dog "the most dangerous dog"?

Because assholes train them to be.

Duh.

[strange1]

The majority of opinions on the "nature vs nurture" debate see at as a combination of the two to varying extents. Yes, the pitts can be trained to kill or trained to behave, but it's a hell of a lot easier to "convince" a pitt to be vicious than many other breeds.

[antaeus]

this comment:

Originally posted by Ranger68
...
There are laws to deal with possession and *use* of weapons in crimes - not to mention training and licensing. Why aren't there adequate laws to cover dog ownership, breeding, training, licensing? Isn't that a reasonable first step before you start banning dog breeds all over the place? is the solution. I recant my previous opinion about banning them, mainly because of second thought regarding "the breed" issue. What really got my goat on this issue are those who trumpet the responsible owner issue. Simply, accidents happen.

I say strong laws regarding ownership of all reasonably identifiable animals that can inflict serious harm. i.e. pitbulls, rotweilers, tigers: yes. Beagles, chiuauas, hamsters: no.

I guess also, to be blunt, I don't care that YOUR pitbull chewed off YOUR childs ear. If YOUR pitbull is content only harvesting YOUR families' body parts, hey, no laws required.

[jwmorrice]

Originally posted by antaeus
....I guess also, to be blunt, I don't care that YOUR pitbull chewed off YOUR childs ear. If YOUR pitbull is content only harvesting YOUR families' body parts, hey, no laws required. People as simply chattels?

jwm

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by strange1
The majority of opinions on the "nature vs nurture" debate see at as a combination of the two to varying extents. Yes, the pitts can be trained to kill or trained to behave, but it's a hell of a lot easier to "convince" a pitt to be vicious than many other breeds.

Yep. But dogs of all breeds can be trained to be aggressive towards humans. In fact, it's harder to make Pit Bulls aggressive towards humans, since this was bred out of them - they were a dog-fighting breed.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by antaeus
this comment:
is the solution. I recant my previous opinion about banning them, mainly because of second thought regarding "the breed" issue. What really got my goat on this issue are those who trumpet the responsible owner issue. Simply, accidents happen.

I say strong laws regarding ownership of all reasonably identifiable animals that can inflict serious harm. i.e. pitbulls, rotweilers, tigers: yes. Beagles, chiuauas, hamsters: no.

I guess also, to be blunt, I don't care that YOUR pitbull chewed off YOUR childs ear. If YOUR pitbull is content only harvesting YOUR families' body parts, hey, no laws required.

Because "accidents happen", that's no reason to ban a dog breed. Almost ALL dog attacks are a result of faulty training, or irresponsible or criminal owners.

[jwmorrice]

http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/102504DangerousDogs.htm

jwm

[n_v]

Don't worry jwm, Ranger will eagerly strip your arguments of fact and reason to a level of idiocy and will show the rest of TERB his great wisdom and intelligence is beyond anyone elses comprehesion.

[jwmorrice]

http://www.thenewstribune.com/soundlife/story/4176290p-3954620c.html

jwm

[Ranger68]

From your first link:
"“Although it’s too many, the number of deaths from dog bites is very small, about 10 per year,� the Tufts animal behavior expert told the Globe. “Homicides – people killing people – far exceeded that. If you ask yourself which is more dangerous, the dog or the person, the answer is obvious.�"

Also, Dodman's statement is patently FALSE regarding Pit Bull aggression - at least as it applies to humans. Pit Bulls are genetically predisposed to NOT be aggressive towards humans. This was bred out of them to make them not so difficult to handle. You wouldn't want a dog you were breeding to fight other dogs to be a danger to people around you.

From the second link:
"In 2000, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) teamed up to investigate whether breed-specific legislation (banning individual breeds, such as pit bulls, from communities) is effective. The results of their studies were published in several scientific journals.

“We learned breed-specific legislation is not the way to tackle the issue of dog bites,� says Dr. Julie Gilchrist, of the CDC Injury Center in Atlanta. “Instead, we should look at the people with those dogs responsible for the bites.�

Animal behaviorist Randy Lockwood, vice president for research and education at the HSUS, in Washington, D.C., says nearly 100 percent of dogs involved in fatal attacks have been unaltered males. Also, in the overwhelming majority of instances, someone had complained about the dogs previously but animal control or law enforcement officials failed to take action. Other risk factors: allowing dogs to roam freely or tethering dogs.

“I believe the answer is to strengthen and then enforce laws that encourage responsible ownership for all dogs of all breeds,� says Dr. Bonnie Beaver, a veterinary behaviorist in College Station, Texas, who’s worked on breed-specific issues and is now the president of the AVMA. The thinking is, if dogs of all breeds were spayed or neutered, officials enforced dangerous dog laws already in place, and owners were discouraged from tethering their pets, the number of dog attacks would drop significantly. "

From the CDC, links to about a dozen studies - none of which propose a breed ban:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbites.htm

The scientific, authoritative consensus is that breed bans are NOT a good idea. Sorry.

[jwmorrice]

From the second article I submitted: Beck isn’t swayed by these arguments. He says it’s in the veterinary and animal welfare community’s best interest to protect pit bulls and other pets from all restrictive legislation. “It’s just not politically correct in the animal world to favor breed restrictions,� he says.

"Sorry"? Don't be so condescending, Ranger. Students of animal behaviour may offer up certain facts from their field, scientifically arrived at, but their further judgement on breed bans isn't one of those. It's simply their political judgement. And perhaps an hysterical and mob-like judgement at that. We, in Ontario, will have the chance to see.

jwm

[Ranger68]

I read what Beck said, and what you've said at the end - it's called argumentum ad hominem. Both of you have resorted to attacking those not in favour of a Pit Bull ban as being politically-motivated. That's no argument.

Experts from all kinds of fields, not just animal behaviourists, that the ban is not a good idea.

I agree that the ban is hysterical and mob-like. It serves no rational purpose.

[jwmorrice]

Originally posted by Ranger68 Experts from all kinds of fields, not just animal behaviourists, that the ban is not a good idea.Argumentum ad verecundiam.


Originally posted by Ranger68I agree that the ban is hysterical and mob-like. It serves no rational purpose. You must be agreeing with yourself because that isn't the sense of what I wrote.

jwm

[Ranger68]

Nonsense.
The appeal to authority is called for.
The authorities I've cited are qualified to speak on this topic.
The authorities are unbiased.
The authorities are representative of expert opinion on the topic.

In what way do you think argumentum ad verecundiam applies?

Read some of the links.

Nonsense.

If the sense of what you wrote is that the move to ban Pit Bulls isn't hysterical and mob-like, then I take it back - you were *entirely* wrong.
:)
(Facetiousness being lost on you, I suppose.)

[jwmorrice]

You mean to say that experts from "all kinds of fields" are especially qualified to speak on this topic. Well, what is the field of expertise that qualifies all of them?

jwm

[Ranger68]

You, and others reading this thread, should find it illuminating that all you can post in defense of the breed ban are a smattering of media stories (which I claim are the main culprit) decrying the "dangerousness" of this breed. No offense to the Tacoma News Tribune, or Tufts E-News, of course.

On the other hand, I've presented links to a dozen or so authoritative research papers on the topic.

Where do you think the weight of expert opinion on the topic lies?

If you'd like, I can move to empirical evidence, and point out the variety of places where breed bans have been enforced but then rescinded, and the reasons the bans haven't worked.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by jwmorrice
You mean to say that experts from "all kinds of fields" are especially qualified to speak on this topic. Well, what is the field of expertise that qualifies all of them?

jwm

Don't be an ass. I wasn't talking about chemists or mailmen.
Clearly, you haven't even read any of those links.
Come on. If you want to have this debate, don't be obtuse.

[jwmorrice]

Originally posted by Ranger68 Don't be an ass. I wasn't talking about chemists or mailmen.
Clearly, you haven't even read any of those links.
Come on. Well, logic is now out the window and you're back into name-calling. TTFN.

jwm

[Ranger68]

Logic went out the window when you didn't read any of my argument.
Have a nice day.