This pisses me off soo much

BrewSwag 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Bike N Brew said:
Interesting. Source?
Click to expand...

I appears as though the source is ... well made up. Gee, a website for the positive spin of pitbulls wouldn't be at all unbiased. I don't really believe anything on that website because they can't get readily available, irrelevant, facts straight. They list the bit pressure of a white shark at 600lbs., when in fact it's actually closer to 6,000lbs. (3 tons)
 
Any dog that is inbred, or chained up, or beaten, or any combination, is likely to be aggressive.

Unfortunately for pit bulls, F()ck holes like Michael Vick do those very things to pit bulls, very commonly.
 
MikeFlynn74 said:
Wrong-


So they have been specifically bread not to bite humans.
Golden retrievers and Labs are just as likely to bite. They dont make for a good story though as the evil Pit/Rottie/Doberman.

Most of the stories its not even a Pit- People have been trained to say pitbull even if its a Husky.

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
Click to expand...

You know, if you're going to try to prove your point with facts and references, you shouldn't use a website that is clearly biased. The Clifton Study, a fairly extensive study, on dog bites, attacks and fatalities in North America from 1982 to 2006 has attacks by Pit Bull Terrier (not mixed) at 1110. That doesn't include the most common mixes with the pit bull terrier such as lab and rottweiler. The next nearest number of attacks is significanly less than half at 409 by Rottweilers. And, both deaths and maimings by Pit Bull Terriers were at least double, with maimings being tripled at more than 600.

It makes for a fairly interesting read, you should check it out. Clifton Study
 
You know, if you're going to try to prove your point with facts and references, you shouldn't use a website that is clearly biased. The Clifton Study, a fairly extensive study, on dog bites, attacks and fatalities in North America from 1982 to 2006 has attacks by Pit Bull Terrier (not mixed) at 1110. That doesn't include the most common mixes with the pit bull terrier such as lab and rottweiler. The next nearest number of attacks is significanly less than half at 409 by Rottweilers. And, both deaths and maimings by Pit Bull Terriers were at least double, with maimings being tripled at more than 600.
Click to expand...

While this may be true- the study defines that its the enviornment that causes these issues. Put ANY dog in the same situations that pits often find themselves in and you have a timebomb. Pits happen to be a med size dog with strong muscularity. A Rottie or specifically a Brazillian Mastif is a much more powerful dog.

Because stupid *****bags do stupid things- That should be cause to outlaw something? Lets start at Alcohol then. Wait Alcohol is not the cause of someone beating their wife or driving drunk?

Breed specific legislation misses the very core of the problem- The people who are ultimately responsible.
 
MikeFlynn74 said:
While this may be true- the study defines that its the enviornment that causes these issues. Put ANY dog in the same situations that pits often find themselves in and you have a timebomb. Pits happen to be a med size dog with strong muscularity. A Rottie or specifically a Brazillian Mastif is a much more powerful dog.
Click to expand...

Ummm, no. No it doesn't, in fact it's quite the opposite.

Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are. They are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls' tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized. Thus the adult victim of a pit bull attack may have had little or no opportunity to read the warning signals that would avert an attack from any other dog.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much the opposite of it being environment related. In fact, the study further says:
Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all.
Click to expand...

Like the author, I'm not necesarily in favor of breed-specific bans or regulations, but to ignore and turn a blind-eye to the very real dangers of a specific breed, the breed you love, of dog to the public is, at the least, unwise.
 
all 4 yes 4 of my dogs are rescue animals... And they are by far the best dogs I have ever had.

I have a 6 year old Beagle named Bailey that is the boss and runs the show

a 4 year old lab mix Harlequin, A 10 month old Newfoundland hound lab mix (120lbs)aptly named Bear.

and then Remington who is a pit / lab mix who is by far the most mellow of them all

sorry for the crappy picture was taken with a cell phone but that bailey and harlequin in their bed

bailey.jpg


bear1.jpg
 
MikeFlynn74 said:
Breed specific legislation misses the very core of the problem- The people who are ultimately responsible.
Click to expand...

I would change that to read:

"{insert object here} specific legislation misses the very core of the problem- The people who are ultimately responsible."

Feel free to substitute guns, alcohol, dogs, marijuana, welfare, etc in place of {insert object here}

Own your s**t people....
 
Unfortunately for pit bulls, F()ck holes like Michael Vick do those very things to pit bulls, very commonly
Click to expand...

And half of his werent even Pits-

Pits- No more vicious than golden retrievers, beagles or other popular dogs. In a recent study of 122 dog breeds by the American Temperament Testing Society (ATTS), pit bulls achieved a passing rate of 83.9%. That's as good or better than beagles ... 78.2%, and golden retrievers ... 83.2%. ATTS.org
 
MikeFlynn74 said:
And half of his werent even Pits-

Pits- No more vicious than golden retrievers, beagles or other popular dogs. In a recent study of 122 dog breeds by the American Temperament Testing Society (ATTS), pit bulls achieved a passing rate of 83.9%. That's as good or better than beagles ... 78.2%, and golden retrievers ... 83.2%. ATTS.org
Click to expand...

Interesting, but I thought srm cleared this up in Post #45 regarding the Clifton study?

Post#45 said:
Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.
Click to expand...

E.g. - the beagle has a "bad moment" it barks, snarls, growls, or maybe even bites, it never maims or kills. the APBT has a "bad moment", much worse is likely to occur. even the lab which you claim has a worse temperament compared to the APBT has less tendency to do more than bite. You don't see articles (or definitely not many) about labaradors maiming or killing - you just don't. Not b/c the news wouldn't make that a big issue (b/c they would), but b/c it rarely happens.

I understand you feeling the need to "back your breed", but the fact that APBT, Rotty, etc. are more dangerous (based on ACTUAL HISTORICAL DATA/OCCURRENCES) than your "average dog" is so blatantly obvious, it's almost humorous how far you go to defend them.

EDIT - I should add the disclaimer that I'm not petitioning for the banning of any breeds or anything like that either. I honestly don't really care. I say hold the owner responsible. But, I am saying that there is clear-cut, unignorable, blatant evidence that the APBT is more dangerous than the average dog. You can quote study after study that put the pit in the same category as a lab or beagle or pug, but it is just... wrong.
 
I should add the disclaimer that I'm not petitioning for the banning of any breeds or anything like that either. I honestly don't really care. I say hold the owner responsible. But, I am saying that there is clear-cut, unignorable, blatant evidence that the APBT is more dangerous than the average dog. You can quote study after study that put the pit in the same category as a lab or beagle or pug, but it is just... wrong
Click to expand...

The clifton study also puts Pit bulls, Presa Canarios and Pitt mixes as a single number. Can you look at a Presa and and APBT and tell the difference? I bet not. But totally different dogs.

One attack that was classified as an pitt attack- Was a 6-year-old girl who was caught and strangled by a pit bull's chain. So an accident counts as an attack. I know this insnt the norm, but it shows a flaw in the data.

"Compiled by the editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE from press accounts
since 1982" Press accounts- How many dogs were mistaken identities? Or how many people didnt even see the dog? How many people who cant even read give the info that the dog was a dreaded pitt bull? How often has the press been wrong?

The study is fundmentally flawed.


Or maybe the fact is a lot more people good owners and *****bags have Pits because they are not 1200$ a dog. Availability gets these dogs into the wrong hands and people make these dogs into ticking timebombs. If rotties were just as cheap and easy to obtain then they would be in the news as much. The breeders of Rotties have gone to great lenghts to restore their name. There was a time that they were on the cusp of being banned too.
 
MikeFlynn74 said:
The clifton study also puts Pit bulls, Presa Canarios and Pitt mixes as a single number. Can you look at a Presa and and APBT and tell the difference? I bet not. But totally different dogs.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but just like in your other posts, it appears as though you didn't even bother looking at the data. It clearly broke out Pit Bull Terrier seperate from PBT mixes.

MikeFlynn74 said:
One attack that was classified as an pitt attack- Was a 6-year-old girl who was caught and strangled by a pit bull's chain. So an accident counts as an attack. I know this insnt the norm, but it shows a flaw in the data.
Click to expand...

Those weren't included as attacks with a victim under the fatalities and maimings, just like the other occassions where it was deemed more of an accident, or when there were multiple dogs included in the attack


MikeFlynn74 said:
"Compiled by the editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE from press accounts
since 1982"
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure if you're serious, or trying to be deceptive, but the report is right here and everyone can read the rest of what you tried quoting but left of the blarringly obvious.

Compiled by the editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE from press accounts since 1982, this table covers only attacks by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, who have been kept as pets.
Click to expand...

MikeFlynn74 said:
Press accounts- How many dogs were mistaken identities? Or how many people didnt even see the dog? How many people who cant even read give the info that the dog was a dreaded pitt bull? How often has the press been wrong?

The study is fundmentally flawed.
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps your position is fundamentally flawed.

MikeFlynn74 said:
Or maybe the fact is a lot more people good owners and *****bags have Pits because they are not 1200$ a dog. Availability gets these dogs into the wrong hands and people make these dogs into ticking timebombs. If rotties were just as cheap and easy to obtain then they would be in the news as much. The breeders of Rotties have gone to great lenghts to restore their name. There was a time that they were on the cusp of being banned too.
Click to expand...

Well, according the the AKC and about a dozen other websites, the most popular breed in the US is the Lab, Yorkshire Terrier, Retriever and 55 other breeds of dog before you get to the Bull Terrier, yet the PBT has a much higher rate of attack, based of of population, than any other breed, it would appear as though your hypothesis isn't supported by the facts.
 
this table covers only attacks by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, who have been kept as pets.
Click to expand...

Most Animal control officers dont know the difference between an APBT and a Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino etc etc. So yes the experts usually arent.

Well, according the the AKC and about a dozen other websites, the most popular breed in the US is the Lab, Yorkshire Terrier, Retriever and 55 other breeds of dog before you get to the Bull Terrier, yet the PBT has a much higher rate of attack, based of of population, than any other breed, it would appear as though your hypothesis isn't supported by the facts.
Click to expand...

the most popular REGISTERED dogs-

However, animal shelters in many parts of the United States report that the most-commonly available dog for adoption is the American Pit Bull Terrier or pit bull-type mixes, making up as much as 20% of dogs available for adoption, none of which would be registered with the AKC
Click to expand...
 
Horrible Facts About Pit Bulls.
1 in 600 shelter Pit Bulls will find a home.
Pit Bulls are the number one bred dog in the United States.
There are currently more Pit Bulls in America than there are Labrador Retrievers or Golden Retrievers.
200 Pit Bulls are killed per DAY in Los Angeles County. Imagine other municipalities.

75% of shelters nationwide euthanize all Pit Bulls without even trying to adopt them out.
 
AmStaff and Staffordshire Terriers are almost indistingusable from APBTs bit genetically and physically. I dont see their name on the list of dogs on the Clifton study.
 
As for the Clifton Study

Mr. Clifton's "study" can be found on a prominent dog-bite attorney website and is being used as "statistical evidence" of breed behaviors by those who seem unable or unwilling to recognize the critical errors in data collection and the damaging and erroneous conclusions drawn from a biased and flawed sample.
Click to expand...

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dogbites1.asp

The critical flaw in the CDC's study was the attempt to isolate a factor (breed) which could not be isolated and was impossible to verify.



Of all the more tangible circumstances surrounding a dog attack (sex of dog, reproductive status of dog, location of dog, relationship of dog to victim), the CDC chose, for unknown reasons, the most problematic and least reliable aspect on which to base their study.



Without any legitimate way to identify or verify breeds of dogs, and while knowing that mixed breed dogs make up a significant portion of dogs in the U.S.; the CDC, nevertheless, sought out and attempted to acquire breed information. Since there was, and still is, no national recording system that keeps track of the events surrounding dogs bites, the CDC scanned newspaper articles for breed identifications in cases of fatal dog attacks.



In addition to using newspaper articles, the CDC excluded nearly 1/4 of the small sample population (n=320) due to the fact their source (i.e., newspapers) either failed to report the incident altogether or reported the incident but failed to "identify" a breed.



However, unlike the Clifton study listed above, the CDC recognized the flaws in their study and clearly stated that no conclusions on breed behaviors could be drawn from their data.



The CDC no longer keeps track of dog bite fatalities by breed.
 
As for the Clifton Study
Quote:
Mr. Clifton's "study" can be found on a prominent dog-bite attorney website and is being used as "statistical evidence" of breed behaviors by those who seem unable or unwilling to recognize the critical errors in data collection and the damaging and erroneous conclusions drawn from a biased and flawed sample.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so? You can also see studies linking asbestos to mesothelioma all over lawyers specializing in mesothelioma related lawsuits. Does that mean that the data is wrong? Just because someone uses data from a study for their own purposes, doesn't refute the data from that study.


MikeFlynn74 said:
Most Animal control officers dont know the difference between an APBT and a Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino etc etc. So yes the experts usually arent.
Click to expand...

But because you own one, you are an expert? I would trust the opinion of an animal control officer over nearly all other laymen. Not to mention, it also stated experts.

the most popular REGISTERED dogs-[/QUOTE]

Well, since the AKC's statistics are the only definitive statistics to go on, then yes. Even still, the percentage of those dogs that are pure bred and not registered for APT compared to other breeds would have to be more than ten-fifteen times that of labs in order for it to be the most common dog in the US.

I bet, if you did a random sampling of dog-owning HBTers, you would find that the APT isn't the most common breed ... and more likely it would be either a lab, retriever, hound (of some sort), shepherd or a mix thereof.

MikeFlynn74 said:
Randomstatistics about pit bulls
Click to expand...

Source?

Again, I'm not advocating a breed specific ban, but because you have a sweet and cuddly pit bull, doesn't mean that all of them are. And, it certainly doesn't refute the fact that they can be very dangerous animals or are statistically more dangerous than other breeds.

Just using common-sense, you should see there is a reason why these dogs are much more frequently used in dog fighting or owned by those "*****bags." There is something in their nature and make-up that makes them more easily trained as a weapon and capable of inflicting more damage than other breeds. It really doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that out. That's why you see pit bulls or mixes of in the dog-fighting ring and not cocker spaniels, basset hounds or golden retrievers. Just like you don't see people taking their pit bulls duck hunting or running rabbits.
 
Just like you don't see people taking their pit bulls duck hunting or running rabbits
Click to expand...

Ok- Your point is well met. The breed gets such a bad rap its infuriating to me. I have met more good pits than not and now that I own one I cant understand why anyone would want to make a mean dog out them. I socialize my dogs, I exercise them a lot at least an hour and on the weekends we usually spend the good part of the day with them and the kids.

The dog itself has a lot of heart and makes for a great, great dog. Hell our cat wont leave his side!

But then again I am totally against chaining dogs and people who have a dog bigger than 10lbs with no place for them to run or exercise, and those who spend less than an hour playing, exercising with them.

Lol as you can see our dogs are a part of our family. Ill protect them with the same loyalty too. Hence the fact that i cannot seem to stay away from this arguement.
 
pldoolittle said:
Sorry Pete, but anyone who boasts they are not afraid of something that poses a significant risk of causing serious injury (or death) is either a fool or a liar.
Click to expand...

Dude, Let's not make this personal. Calling me an "Idiot or a Liar" is pretty uncool. I can take, but you shouldn't do it. Once you digress to name calling, and making it personal, you instantly lose a debate. OK? :mug:

Oh, and if I were going to be afraid of "something that poses a significant risk of causing serious injury (or death)" I would never drive a car, or cross the street, as I am MUCH more likely to be injured or killed in an auto accident than I am to be attacked by a dog.

pldoolittle said:
Now, let's talk about reality: Would I stand my ground and fight? Yes. Would I afraid? Yes. Could I win? Yes. Could I lose? Yes. What would be the determining factor(s)? A whole lot of what-ifs. (count the "ifs" in your post)



You should print this off and keep a copy on hand. You could intimidate the crap out of the dog by letting him read it while you go find a rock, pipe, or hammer.
Click to expand...

If I come up against a dog that can read.. well then I am probably not only outmuscled, be outwitted as well.

pldoolittle said:
That is definitely true. But you could also tell by watching the officers behavior (during and after) that they were not as in control of the situation as they wished to be and had taken some pretty good licks in the process. And that's with safety gear... I'm not going to say you would lose, but if you want even odds, I'm still good for $20 and a 30yrds head start...



For a trained service dog, it's not just about the bite & hold. It's about the intensity of the hit and throwing your opponent off balance so you can get them to the ground. Watch how hard this dog hits his target:
Click to expand...

Officers act in a certain way to train dogs. They are not acting in the same manner as someone who would actually be fighting for their life.

I'm not talking about movie clips or training videos, I am speaking from experience. Obviously the dog that attacked me wasn't a trained attack dog, but he did take me straight down, and wouldn't let me get back up. He held a VERY tight grip and continued to pull and jerk and shake his head. However, I outwieghed him by 150 lbs, and I wasn't afraid, I was MAD.

There are only two "IFS" that I would be concerned about.

If he got ahold of my throat
If there were more than one dog.

Should you be afriad of a dog? Your instict tells you "yes". Your brain should tell you "no".


See how you can make a point and disgree without name calling? :)
 
PeteOz77 said:
Dude, Let's not make this personal. Calling me an "Idiot or a Liar" is pretty uncool. I can take, but you shouldn't do it. Once you digress to name calling, and making it personal, you instantly lose a debate.
Click to expand...

While you and I disagree on this issue, I actually think you're a cool guy and wasn't hurling an insult/taking it personal. More than likely, the apparent venom is resulting from a medium (text), language (slang), and a cross-cultural issue. Allow me to try and elaborate;

While the words "fool or a liar" are used somewhat literally, the phrase "either an fool or a liar" as a whole is an old euphemism used to describe someone who displays seemingly inappropriate bravado in the face of certain disaster. The underlying premise being that the person either is incapable of recognizing the danger (fool), or is using outward bravery to hide his inner fear (liar).

Anyway, I do truly apologize that what I said was insulting. It was meant like "I call bull****" , not a "you are a liar" kind of way. I hope that makes sense.
 
pldoolittle said:
While you and I disagree on this issue, I actually think you're a cool guy and wasn't hurling an insult/taking it personal. More than likely, the apparent venom is resulting from a medium (text), language (slang), and a cross-cultural issue. Allow me to try and elaborate;

While the words "fool or a liar" are used somewhat literally, the phrase "either an fool or a liar" as a whole is an old euphemism used to describe someone who displays seemingly inappropriate bravado in the face of certain disaster. The underlying premise being that the person either is incapable of recognizing the danger (fool), or is using outward bravery to hide his inner fear (liar).

Anyway, I do truly apologize that what I said was insulting. It was meant like "I call bull****" , not a "you are a liar" kind of way. I hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...


No worries mate! It's all good, I just took exception, which happens from time to time when trying to express one's self via typing only, and trying to guess how another person's comments were meant to be delivered.:mug:
 

Similar threads

Skåldy
A Hobby Obsessed Vet
Replies
6
Views
893
IslandLizard
IslandLizard
JINKS
When Animals Attack People Who Make questionable Decisions
Replies
19
Views
2K
grainbill
grainbill
H
  • Article
Adventures at Beer Camp!
Replies
20
Views
1K
BrewsterFish
BrewsterFish
Laurel
Roping a deer
Replies
2
Views
1K
MikeFlynn74
MikeFlynn74
Evan!
Awesome Craigslist Rant from an ACO
2
Replies
53
Views
2K
bethlehembrewer
bethlehembrewer

Latest posts

Back
Top