Another pitbull kills, this time a little girl

[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.