Vicious Pit Bulls and Kitties don't mix...

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by TIGGER

when I really don't care....
.

[HokieDNA01]

Here is a NEUTRAL organization that tests dog breed temperements. Here is how they test...
http://www.atts.org/testdesc.html

And here are the results. There are multiple pages. The "pitbulls" are listed under American Pit Bull Terrier.
http://www.atts.org/stats1.html

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by HokieDNA01

Here is a NEUTRAL organization that tests dog breed temperements. Here is how they test...
http://www.atts.org/testdesc.html

And here are the results. There are multiple pages. The "pitbulls" are listed under American Pit Bull Terrier.
http://www.atts.org/stats1.html

Didn't strike you as "odd" the disproportionate number of Pits and Rots that were tested? it just seems weird. Oh and did you actually read how the test is done and what it takes into account?

http://www.atts.org/testdesc.html

[HokieDNA01]

Originally Posted by TIGGER

Oh and did you actually read how the test is done and what it takes into account?

http://www.atts.org/testdesc.html

Yes...I read it....

[Ninjakel]

They are UKC

[Kerry_129]

I completely agree that the dangers posed by potentially dangerous breeds (all of them, really) are greatly aggravated by the actions/neglect/failure to discipline by their human owners. BUT, I can't help to conclude that that for whatever combination of factors, there's simply no denying that a few breed 'types' are responsible for the vast majority of fatalities. I think it's reasonable to assume a similar correlation with cases of serious injury. Based on the raw fatality stat's, Pits and Rotts are by far the leading breeds in dog-attack deaths, alond with a few others (and yes, I know a lot of bully dogs that aren't APBTs get lumped together as 'pit-bulls', but so what? - we're not debating pedigree, and by that same token lots of Rott-mixes are classified just the same as pure-breds). Of course, the figures aren't correlated to the total # of dogs of a particular type - but it's hard to argue with the raw #'s showing a very strong trend in the types of dogs that attack/kill humans.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

http://www.dogexpert.com/FatalDogAtt...ttackhome.html


I asked my brother to refresh my memory about his good friend, Dominique, who was the guy I knew that was bitten badly - 3rd hand account, but a reliable source (to me) with no reason to lie about it. It was actually his girlfriend's family dog, which was kept as an indoor 'pet' (I know, they're not pets, blah, blah - but that's the reality of how many if not the majority of dogs are kept in this country). He was visiting for X-mas dinner & eating a plate of food while sitting on the hearth, and the dog was pestering him by nosing at his plate while he ate (unacceptable behavior, but the dog was simply being a pest & not 'visciously' aggressive). After pushing him away a couple of times, it snapped onto his face twice & laid him open from the top of his cheekbone to his chin. Was it precipitated by ignorance/negligence on the part of the owners and perhaps an improper/careless reaction from the 'victim'? Sure - but it sure as hell wasn't some chained-up grossly-mistreated curr being unduly provoked by someone blatantly taunting or abusing it.

I'm not at all saying that pit-bulls or Rotts or any other 'dangerous' breed are automatically 'bad' or 'evil'. I think that the vast majority that have good owners & proper treatment/training can be loyal, loving, trusted family-members, and I totally accept that the biggest factor in their propensity to attack is how they are raised, socialized & disciplined. BUT, I also think that without a proper upbringing they (dogs in general, larger/stronger dogs particularly, and a handful of breeds specifically) can be very much like having a loaded gun laying around.

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Kerry_129

I completely agree that the dangers posed by potentially dangerous breeds (all of them, really) are greatly aggravated by the actions/neglect/failure to discipline by their human owners. BUT, I can't help to conclude that that for whatever combination of factors, there's simply no denying that a few breed 'types' are responsible for the vast majority of fatalities. I think it's reasonable to assume a similar correlation with cases of serious injury. Based on the raw fatality stat's, Pits and Rotts are by far the leading breeds in dog-attack deaths, alond with a few others (and yes, I know a lot of bully dogs that aren't APBTs get lumped together as 'pit-bulls', but so what? - we're not debating pedigree, and by that same token lots of Rott-mixes are classified just the same as pure-breds). Of course, the figures aren't correlated to the total # of dogs of a particular type - but it's hard to argue with the raw #'s showing a very strong trend in the types of dogs that attack/kill humans.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

http://www.dogexpert.com/FatalDogAtt...ttackhome.html


I asked my brother to refresh my memory about his good friend, Dominique, who was the guy I knew that was bitten badly - 3rd hand account, but a reliable source (to me) with no reason to lie about it. It was actually his girlfriend's family dog, which was kept as an indoor 'pet' (I know, they're not pets, blah, blah - but that's the reality of how many if not the majority of dogs are kept in this country). He was visiting for X-mas dinner & eating a plate of food while sitting on the hearth, and the dog was pestering him by nosing at his plate while he ate (unacceptable behavior, but the dog was simply being a pest & not 'visciously' aggressive). After pushing him away a couple of times, it snapped onto his face twice & laid him open from the top of his cheekbone to his chin. Was it precipitated by ignorance/negligence on the part of the owners and perhaps an improper/careless reaction from the 'victim'? Sure - but it sure as hell wasn't some chained-up grossly-mistreated curr being unduly provoked by someone blatantly taunting or abusing it.

I'm not at all saying that pit-bulls or Rotts or any other 'dangerous' breed are automatically 'bad' or 'evil'. I think that the vast majority that have good owners & proper treatment/training can be loyal, loving, trusted family-members, and I totally accept that the biggest factor in their propensity to attack is how they are raised, socialized & disciplined. BUT, I also think that without a proper upbringing they (dogs in general, larger/stronger dogs particularly, and a handful of breeds specifically) can be very much like having a loaded gun laying around.

Well put but I'm sure that you know that your numbers are suspect and your information is biased.

[MILK]

Rottweilers have the highest bite strength of any dog. Pits are high on the list too. So yes, if they bite they do damage. That certainly plays in to the statistics AND into incident reports.

If for example if you are bitten by a Poodle you won't be injured as badly, even if the dog bites all the time.. as in my moms poodle that bit me multiple times, or the choc lab down the street that attacked my Rottie twice, or the neighbor's daschund that tried to bite me twice, or my former employers toy poodle who bit numerous people, me included. NONE of those bites or attacks were ever reported because the damage was minimal.

If all dog bites were reported the statistics would show a vastily different result. AND we would be debating breed bans on Poodles right now, no doubt about it..

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by MILK

Rottweilers have the highest bite strength of any dog. Pits are high on the list too. So yes, if they bite they do damage. That certainly plays in to the statistics AND into incident reports.

If for example if you are bitten by a Poodle you won't be injured as badly, even if the dog bites all the time.. as in my moms poodle that bit me multiple times, or the choc lab down the street that attacked my Rottie twice, or the neighbor's daschund that tried to bite me twice, or my former employers toy poodle who bit numerous people, me included. NONE of those bites or attacks were ever reported because the damage was minimal.

If all dog bites were reported the statistics would show a vastily different result. AND we would be debating breed bans on Poodles right now, no doubt about it..

Oh no....Chihuahuas, my friend! They are dogs from fucking HELL!!! I have never seen a more vicious or meaner breed of dog in my life!!!

I see your point but on the other hand almost everyone that has ever owned a hamster has been bitten at least once, would you like to consider a ban on those? Besides, I NEVER even once suggested that the dogs be banned, I think that they are of a more aggressive temperament than the average dog, like say a Golden Retriever, Kaneman does not agree.

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by TIGGER

Besides, I NEVER even once suggested that the dogs be banned, I think that they are of a more aggressive temperament than the average dog, like say a Golden Retriever, Kaneman does not agree.

I agree that dogs of the Molosser ancestry have special requirements and are not for the dog owner that doesn't want to invest the time and effort.

Mainly I just wanted to have a long debate with Tigger to see if he would "get his panties in a wad" as he is so often accused of and he did not. In fact, I thought he held his end of the debate very well.