Another pitbull kills, this time a little girl

[PitOnTheProwl]

It's just like when people say a "20 foot python" which probably was more like 11 feet. Maybe the pitbull was 130 lbs, maybe it wasn't. But that's irrelevant. The fact is that it killed an innocent girl unprovoked. I agree that there are too many irresponsible pit bull owners. There need to be laws and regulations. Why is it that harmless snakes face bans all over the US, but there are so few laws for dangerous breeds of dogs?

Nuff read and said.

[sorraia]

I'm a biologist too. For me I look at it this way: a dog is a species, and needs to be treated as such. All dogs, as a species, are potentially dangerous, and need to be handled a certain way. Some dogs, such as those that are larger, have more potential to cause harm. Likewise horses are a species and all are potentially dangerous. Some horses, due to size, have more potential to cause harm. Different snakes are different species, as such have different requirements, different temperament, and different potentials to cause harm. In all of these different species you need to approach them a certain way, to handle and care for them properly.

There are people out there who shouldn't keep ANY dog. Those people can turn ANY breed into a killer. Following what you seem to be suggesting, all dogs should be regulated. Perhaps all species should be regulated for that matter. Cats spread disease, livestock kill people, rodents can kill people through disease.

[MonkeyShuttle]

Ive owned a lot of different breeds even pits. The only aggressive pit ive ever came in contact with belong to a horrible excuse for a human being im sure that helped. That aside, IMO, its reckless to have small children and own animals with the capablity to doing serious harm. I want a retic pretty bad and will more than likely get one but when i have a child the animal will be relocated to a safe home. I know you cant control everything but you can control what risk you allow yourself to take. ORM anyone

[Raven01]

Remember folks: By saying that pitbulls are dangerous I am NOT saying they are evil monsters. I am merely, as a Biologist, stating the facts which means that certain considerations must be taken when dealing with these animals. Not just pitbulls-any dog, any animal that has numerous reported incidents of killing/attacking people.

If you are a biologist I will eat my hat. Your argument scrupulously avoids scientific methodology and empirical evidence.
If you are a biologist, the school that granted the degree school be ashamed.
Pitbulls(besides not actually being a breed) are not the dog most likely to bite.

If you look here:
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil...lation-bsl-faq
you will find:
"All of the following national organizations oppose BSL: American Animal Hospital Association, American Dog Owner's Association, American Humane Association, American Kennel Club, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, American Veterinary Medical Association, Association of Pet Dog Trainers, Best Friends Animal Society, Canadian Kennel Club, Humane Society of the United States, International Association of Canine Professionals, National Animal Control Association, National Animal Interest Alliance, and National Association of Obedience Instructors."
All groups whose opinion I find more reliable than that of a "biologist" that doesn't even adhere to scientific methods and evidence.

"Q. Aren't certain breeds of dogs more likely to injure or bite than others?
No. There is no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely than any other to injure a human being.[1] In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.[2] A recent survey of the controlled study of dog bites covering 40 years and two continents concluded that no group of dogs should be considered disproportionately dangerous.[3]



Q. Does BSL reduce dog bites?
No. BSL has not succeeded in reducing dog bite-related injuries wherever in the world it has been enacted.

• 
  
  • 
    
    • 
      
      • 
        
        • 
          
          • • An analysis published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association explains why BSL does not reduce serious dog bites. The authors calculated the absurdly large numbers of dogs of targeted breeds who would have to be completely removed from a community in order to prevent even one serious dog bite-related injury. For example, in order to prevent a single hospitalization resulting from a dog bite, the authors calculate that a city or town would have to remove more than 100,000 dogs of a targeted group. To prevent a second hospitalization, double that number.[4]
      
      

• Denver, CO enacted a breed ban in 1989. Citizens of Denver continue to suffer a higher rate of hospitalization from dog bite-related injuries after the ban, than the citizens of breed-neutral Colorado counties[5]"

[omnibus2]

I'm a biologist too. For me I look at it this way: a dog is a species, and needs to be treated as such. All dogs, as a species, are potentially dangerous, and need to be handled a certain way. Some dogs, such as those that are larger, have more potential to cause harm. Likewise horses are a species and all are potentially dangerous. Some horses, due to size, have more potential to cause harm. Different snakes are different species, as such have different requirements, different temperament, and different potentials to cause harm. In all of these different species you need to approach them a certain way, to handle and care for them properly.

There are people out there who shouldn't keep ANY dog. Those people can turn ANY breed into a killer. Following what you seem to be suggesting, all dogs should be regulated. Perhaps all species should be regulated for that matter. Cats spread disease, livestock kill people, rodents can kill people through disease.

This is a great post and I thank you for it. Indeed, some dogs pose a threat to humans and some do not. Same thing with snakes.

But you lost me on the latter part of your post. I think that all dangerous animals should be regulated. Cats need to be regulated too. In fact feral cats are a gigantic problem as they not only spread disease but annihilate native bird and reptile populations. Interestingly enough, people don't seem to care about the cats that are ruining Florida's ecosystem-but they go crazy about feral snakes (which as ectotherms eat far less birds). Why? Because some people love their furry friends and hate snakes.

Livestock are regulated-you can't just buy a horse or a cow in an urban neighborhood and keep it in your backyard. But we're getting too off topic-this post is about "pitbulls" and how they should be regulated.

There are people out there who shouldn't keep ANY dog.

You know what sorraia? I agree! But how can we stop terrible owners from messing up these poor innocent dogs? Regulations. Licenses and competency tests, just like those required to keep many hot snakes.

To top that off he now lives with my parents (he respects my father as well as he does me)...the evil pit bull lives with me my wife and my 3 month old daughter...If you need pics the only ones I have are of her cuddling and sleeping beside my daughter....

Every single time I am flooded with people saying they have pitbulls and love them. Great. I've worked with pitbulls, I even had to restrain them, and not once did they give me problems. But that doesn't mean it is not a potentially dangerous breed/breeds.

Let me tell you: Not every lion has attacked humans. There are people who keep lions in captivity and have no problems. Therefore according to such logic, lions are not dangerous.

If you are a biologist I will eat my hat. Your argument scrupulously avoids scientific methodology and empirical evidence.
If you are a biologist, the school that granted the degree school be ashamed.
Pitbulls(besides not actually being a breed) are not the dog most likely to bite.

If you look here:

you will find:
"All of the following national organizations oppose BSL: American Animal Hospital Association, American Dog Owner's Association, American Humane Association, American Kennel Club, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, American Veterinary Medical Association, Association of Pet Dog Trainers, Best Friends Animal Society, Canadian Kennel Club, Humane Society of the United States, International Association of Canine Professionals, National Animal Control Association, National Animal Interest Alliance, and National Association of Obedience Instructors."
All groups whose opinion I find more reliable than that of a "biologist" that doesn't even adhere to scientific methods and evidence.

"Q. Aren't certain breeds of dogs more likely to injure or bite than others?
No. There is no scientific evidence that one kind of dog is more likely than any other to injure a human being.[1] In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.[2] A recent survey of the controlled study of dog bites covering 40 years and two continents concluded that no group of dogs should be considered disproportionately dangerous.[3]



Q. Does BSL reduce dog bites?
No. BSL has not succeeded in reducing dog bite-related injuries wherever in the world it has been enacted.

• 
  
  • 
    
    • 
      
      • 
        
        • 
          
          • • An analysis published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association explains why BSL does not reduce serious dog bites. The authors calculated the absurdly large numbers of dogs of targeted breeds who would have to be completely removed from a community in order to prevent even one serious dog bite-related injury. For example, in order to prevent a single hospitalization resulting from a dog bite, the authors calculate that a city or town would have to remove more than 100,000 dogs of a targeted group. To prevent a second hospitalization, double that number.[4]
      
      
    • 
      
      
    • 
      
      • 
        

• Denver, CO enacted a breed ban in 1989. Citizens of Denver continue to suffer a higher rate of hospitalization from dog bite-related injuries after the ban, than the citizens of breed-neutral Colorado counties[5]"

You know what? There's nothing I can do to change your opinion. You refuse to accept the fact that pitbulls are biologically distinct, and then you say that certain breeds are not more likely to attack then others. You are being ignorant of biology and zoology. You bring up irrelevant articles that aren't even peer reviewed by a reputable source. According to you, a poodle is just as likely to kill someone as is a german shepherd. This scares me.

[KING JAMES]

Any dog can do serious harm to a child...heck a ferret can do serious harm...anything can do harm if the parent is not on their a game

For the record I am not sure how you are taking my statement when you quoted me. My quote is listed under your terrible owners section...

[omnibus2]

Any dog can do serious harm to a child... heck a ferret can do serious harm...anything can do harm if the parent is not on their a game

For the record I am not sure how you are taking my statement when you quoted me. My quote is listed under your terrible owners section...

No! I did not ever call you a terrible owner, in fact you are a fantastic one for having an akc certified lab. The "terrible owners" was directed at nobody here.


All I did was respond to your quote with another one of my previous posts-the lion example.

[GoingPostal]

Pit bulls have been banned and regulated in entire countries, provinces, cities. This has done nothing to stop irresponsible people from acquiring and breeding them and nothing to change dog bite stats. Jack russels, Pomeranians, Dachshunds, etc have all killed small children, it's not a vicious dog issue so much as owner responsibility in most cases. Whatever the popular "bad dog" is, has more attacks and bites because of rampant breeding and poor ownership. Rottweilers, GSDs, Dobermans, Bloodhounds all went through the same thing in various decades, The Pit Bull Placebo has some very interesting info on how registration numbers jumped crazily for those breeds during their vicious dog phase and we all know only a small percentage of dogs bred are registered with a reputable org. anyways. Any dog can cause damage, they have teeth after all but the number of people killed by dogs yearly is extremely low and if you look into such cases, most of them had red flags all over and were preventable. The last child killed by a "pit bull" in my state was an intact dog with a long history of vicious attacks that they had chained up in their basement with no food or water along with their female and litter, the kid went down to pet the puppies. Anyone in their right mind would have taken those pups and euthed them as well but doubt that happened and it's hardly a rarity that people breed their human aggressive or unstable dog, especially the type that want a "guard" dog.

FWIW I have 3 pit bull mutts, all adopted as adults with unknown pasts who love people and children as the breed should. They have a combined weight of 150#, APBT are not a large breed dog. They are fixed, utd on shots, licensed with my city and yet you are saying should be further regulated. Kind of amusing considering in my neighborhood I have one guardy EM, a human aggressive Chi, a doxie mutt who has attacked other dogs, charged me and my friends on multiple occasions barking and growling, a Weim who is never leashed that chases and barks at people besides crapping wherever it wants. I'm the only responsible law abiding dog owner on the block, with friendly dogs but you feel they should be judged on their appearance instead of behavior. Who is going to pay for and enforce such laws exactly? Are the current dog laws enforced where you live?

[sorraia]

This is a great post and I thank you for it. Indeed, some dogs pose a threat to humans and some do not. Same thing with snakes.

But you lost me on the latter part of your post. I think that all dangerous animals should be regulated. Cats need to be regulated too. In fact feral cats are a gigantic problem as they not only spread disease but annihilate native bird and reptile populations. Interestingly enough, people don't seem to care about the cats that are ruining Florida's ecosystem-but they go crazy about feral snakes (which as ectotherms eat far less birds). Why? Because some people love their furry friends and hate snakes.

At least you are consistent in that statement.

Livestock are regulated-you can't just buy a horse or a cow in an urban neighborhood and keep it in your backyard. But we're getting too off topic-this post is about "pitbulls" and how they should be regulated.

Livestock aren't regulated like that. What you are describing are municipal and zoning ordinances. Its not quite the same as licensing or competency testing. Also, municipal ordinances vary across the nation. I live in a urban neighborhood, but the ordinances in my city allow me to keep livestock, within certain limits. In fact I have 2 horses, 2 goats, and chickens living in my urban backyard, legally.

I don't see it exactly as off topic either. There's a slippery slope when it comes to regulations ands policies. Cities have banned or regulated pit bulls in the interest of public safety, but have seen no decrease in the number of hospitalizations due to dog bite incidences. a better set of regulations would be to punish the actual people and dogs responsible, instead of all.

You know what sorraia? I agree! But how can we stop terrible owners from messing up these poor innocent dogs? Regulations. Licenses and competency tests, just like those required to keep many hot snakes.

I'll disagree. One problem with this sort of tactic is it makes a criminal out of everyone. If we require competency tests and licensing of all dogs, how do we make sure everyone is abiding by the laws? Go door to door asking for proof? How do we stop the bad owners from keeping and ruining any dogs? In my state there are leash laws requiring all dogs be kept on a leash. People still take their dogs off leash, and there are not enough enforcement officers to stop them, and not enough funding to hire more. There are laws that require all dogs be licensed, and higher fees for unaltered dogs to encourage people to spay and neuter. Many people still don't spay, neuter, or license their dogs. Even door to door checks don't catch everyone breaking that law. Many times those who violate these laws aren't caught until something happens involving their dog, then its too late. More laws aren't going to stop those people, more laws will just make it harder for us responsible pet owners to keep our pets.

[Expensive hobby]

Ive owned a lot of different breeds even pits. The only aggressive pit ive ever came in contact with belong to a horrible excuse for a human being im sure that helped. That aside, IMO, its reckless to have small children and own animals with the capablity to doing serious harm. I want a retic pretty bad and will more than likely get one but when i have a child the animal will be relocated to a safe home. I know you cant control everything but you can control what risk you allow yourself to take. ORM anyone

Why is having a child and owning a retic not compatible? I have 7 retics, all mainland, most females, and 2 being adults. I also have 3 children. Saying it isn't smart or advisable to have both in the same household implies that you cannot forseeably control the interaction between the two.

Like everything on this planet, we cannot safeguard ourselves from every percievable danger to our lives, but we can however take appropriate measures to limit the chances of any accident from happening. Obviously abstinence from owning a retic would drastically reduce the chances of a retic related accident from occuring. On the same token, I too have virtually eliminated any changes of an accident by putting in place safeguards against let's say for example, my 2 year old daughter coming into contact with any of my snakes capable of dealing any serious damage. Does she handle the BABIES? Absolutely. I want her to be involved in my hobby. However she does not, and will not interact with any snake I have deemed a potential danger to her well being.

For instance my snake room is locked with a keyed lock which only myself and my wife posses a key. On top of that there is a latch lock at the top of the door where the children cannot reach. Inside the room all of the larger snakes are kept in enclosures with locking doors. Even if a snake escapes an enclosure the room is sealed. The Window has been eliminated, the HVAC vent has been eliminated, the attic access door has been locked, and every conceivable access to or from the room has been secured.

Ok so there is a loose snake in the room that can't get out. What then? When I open the door I crack it only enough to peer in to make sure it is clear and safe, my snake hook for the big snakes is kept at the door, and I check to make sure everything is where it should be(the rooms occupants) and then people are allowed to enter.

Virtually everything can be made safe. And virtually everything can kill you. More people die every year in their own showers. I'm all about assessing risk, and mitigating it while being able to keep the things I enjoy. My children, my snakes, and my mustang.

Sorry for the rant. Just had to get that one out there.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 3