Pit Bulls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Entropy

Yes, it might be reported but as someone stated earlier it could just as likely be ignored since the animal isn't one that would make news sell.

Honestly, people would buy 'PIT BULL KILLS 2'

But the same people would probably walk right by 'GOLDEN RETRIEVER KILLS 2' thinking it was a typo.

They have sensationalized these dogs, why report facts when it doesn't sell?

---

The media isn't profiting from the data sheets in this thread. Sorry.

Besides, "Pit Bull Kills 2" is old news. I'd be way more likely to buy a paper that reads, "Toy Pomeranian (With Papers) Kills 2"

No, they have been stereotyped into the 'vicious dog' by media and misinformed people.

And no, they aren't profiting from them directly but evil pit stories sure sell better because of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

I believe that any death or maiming would probably be reported :) I also believe that there are plenty of minor pit bites that don't get reported. We are talking about how dangerous a dog can be, not which dogs are more likely to nip at your shins.

---

I guarantee you that a pit bite is far more likely to be reported than one from another breed. If all bites were reported, the pit's rankings would drop. Unfortunately, there is a much lower margin of tolerance for pits.
If a Golden Retriever bites somebody, it's assumed he's either acting out of character ("Something must have stressed the poor guy, he's never done that before!") or acting reasonably ("He just sensed something wrong") and life goes on as usual for him. If a pit lifts a lip at somebody, it's "OMGZ!! Vicious brute!!! I knew you couldn't trust them!!!" and off he goes to the pound.

Until people are not acting on stereotypes, the reporting will continue to be biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Entropy

Yes, that's right. I'll remind Ty of that next time he's getting his hiney handed to him by a cat 1/4 his weight. You can see the shifty look of the vicious killer right here. :rolleyes: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...e/IMG_0341.jpg

---

I didn't catch this pro-pit bull propaganda earlier LOL. Try telling tigers that they are "dangerous wild animals" right after this guy finishes getting man-handled... by a GIRL! LMAO.

http://www.inkednation.com/images/us...0710316652.jpg

I honestly would think people that keep reptiles and especially snakes as pets would be less susceptible to stereotypes and stigmas.

Slartibartfast -- I agree with you -- I have been in situations where people defended their dog's (non-pit) behavior and made excuses for it. There should never be an excuse for a dog biting someone without provocation. But I have heard the "stressed out" and the "it's because he doesn't know you". If a dog is that stressed out by a stranger, they shouldn't be sitting in the living room when I come to your house. My grandmother actually laughed when the poodle incident happened and made some comment about how 'feisty the little guy was'. I know play and I know an attack.

Tigers are dangerous! Stop it! :sabduel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slartibartfast

I guarantee you that a pit bite is far more likely to be reported than one from another breed. If all bites were reported, the pit's rankings would drop. Unfortunately, there is a much lower margin of tolerance for pits.
If a Golden Retriever bites somebody, it's assumed he's either acting out of character ("Something must have stressed the poor guy, he's never done that before!") or acting reasonably ("He just sensed something wrong") and life goes on as usual for him. If a pit lifts a lip at somebody, it's "OMGZ!! Vicious brute!!! I knew you couldn't trust them!!!" and off he goes to the pound.

Until people are not acting on stereotypes, the reporting will continue to be biased.

---

That's just like, your opinion, man. Complete speculation. It probably has some merit, but it's almost irrevilant here. The discussion is about public safety, maulings and kills, not dogs that nip at people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkangel

I honestly would think people that keep reptiles and especially snakes as pets would be less susceptible to stereotypes and stigmas.

Slartibartfast -- I agree with you -- I have been in situations where people defended their dog's (non-pit) behavior and made excuses for it. There should never be an excuse for a dog biting someone without provocation. But I have heard the "stressed out" and the "it's because he doesn't know you". If a dog is that stressed out by a stranger, they shouldn't be sitting in the living room when I come to your house. My grandmother actually laughed when the poodle incident happened and made some comment about how 'feisty the little guy was'. I know play and I know an attack.
:sabduel:

---

I fully agree. My dog isn't allowed to mouth or jump up on anyone for any reason ever. No excuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

That's just like, your opinion, man. Complete speculation. It probably has some merit, but it's almost irrevilant here. The discussion is about public safety, maulings and kills, not dogs that nip at people.

---

It's not just an opinion. It's based on years of experience working with dogs in high-stress situations, where my safety and that of my co-workers depends on judging a dog's behavior from the get-go.

You continue to cite the statistics as proof that pits are inherantly dangerous. questioning the validity of that data is not "irrelivant". If the numbers are exagerated, the foundation for your entire argument crumbles.

PS: I'm a woman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slartibartfast

\
PS: I'm a woman.

---

I know. That was a quote from The Big Lebowski. I don't paraphrase when the Dude is involved.

I see a lot of steryotyping going on here. The only reason pits may get those high stats (and I'm not saying they are true) is because they are payed more attention to and are reported more. Yes, pits cause more bodily harm due to thier size and strength, but that doesn't mean they are naturally born aggressive.

You cannot judge an ENTIRE breed based on the actions of some because of neglect and abuse. Pits are not any more aggressive than other dogs. Its just that when they bite, its on a bigger scale.

When I was young, my grandmother's yorkie, who had been with me since birth, suddenly bit me one day. There was no cause behind it. I went to pet her while we were outside and she turned around and bit my hand. She broke the skin slightly but I couldn't understand why she had bitten me. Now if a pit had done the same, even barely breaking skin or even just causing a bruise, my family would have reported it. Why, because pits are thought to be dangerous. If you introduce a child with no previous misconceptions about pits, to a loving family pitbull, that child is probably very unlikely to be afraid. I have NEVER been afraid to approach a large dog as long as the handler said it was ok.

If people would just take the time to train thier dogs, NO MATTER WHAT THE BREED and provide proper fencing, then I think the number of attacks would diminish. And if other attacks by other breeds of dogs were to be reported, that list would equal out I think. All dogs have some instictual aggression. Thats how a pack system works. You dominate or be dominated. So, if a dog is raised to be non-human aggressive and is trained to view ALL humans as dominant, you are less likely to have an aggressive dog.

Our dog Broc, I miss him so much. He could scare the bejeezes out of you by just standing there. He was huge. 165lbs. People never came into our yard when he was outside. He never even had to bark. You would think that this huge rottie with a thick build would be the perfect watchdog and aggressive. Truth is, he was a teddybear and let a cat push him around. (literally, he was submissive to cats.)

This is a people issue, not a breed issue. I'm not saying that all pit owners are bad dog owners, but many of them need to step up to the plate and provide proper training for their dogs.

A while back there was a pit rescue at a local petstore. Not many people were interested and walked on by. But I walked right on over and was greeted by a friendly tail-wagging pit. He was such a cutie.

We need to stop bickering about whether the dogs are naturally aggressive or raised that way (personally I think they are raised that way) and just get to the point. Banning these dogs are wrong. There are too many people out there who have pits that are beloved family members and have done nothing wrong. When they enact the ban, families have 30 days to get rid of thier pitbull (most likely will be sent to shelter and put down). I want you to look at your dog tonight and ask yourself. "Could I give up this important part of my life just because of its breed?" Chances are, you couldn't. I know that if suddenly, I was no longer able to have Zim because she is a snake (and therefore dangerous in the eyes of thousands Americans) I would be devistated. Same goes for my cats and dogs. No dog deserves to be torn from its family because it was born with a certain appearance.

So before you go to bed tonight, look at your dog (or cat for those of you without dogs) and ask yourself. "What would I do if he/she had to leave because he/she was a certain breed?"