Pit bull maulings of 2 kids brings $150 fine [Archive]

Missouri Mule

03-19-2006, 01:55 PM

If it were up to me this breed would be exterminated down to the last one. They are wholly unpredictable. I have a friend who had a pit bull for some 16 years. It never caused any problem. It died of old age. While it was still alive I advised him to be very wary of them. He disagreed -- then. Two years later he and his wife adopted a child. He got a new pit bull. It had never caused any problems. Then one day as he was watching television it came over and nearly bit through his boot while he was wearing it. He promptly took it out in the back and shot it to death. He no longer believes they are safe to be around children. I don't believe they should be around ANYONE and I'm 6'6" and 270 pounds. One came at me one time and my blood ran cold.

I'm a dog lover myself but this breed is nothing but trouble. In Texas the animal shelters automatically put these down by law. No responsible dog owner should have one of these things. They are a loaded weapon waiting to go off.
--------------------------------------
Pit bull maulings of 2 kids brings $150 fine

By Carolyn Starks
Tribune staff reporter
Published March 8, 2006, 8:32 PM CST

Seconds after two neighborhood children selling Girl Scout candy rapped on the door, three pit bulls sleeping on a couch inside Scott Sword's house went crazy, barking madly as they charged outside, Sword said Wednesday.

Two dogs bolted through the open door, but Sword tackled the third dog, a 100-pounder who nearly severed his thumb. The dog dragged him out the door on his abdomen, he said.

Thirty minutes of terror followed as the frenzied dogs repeatedly charged across the neighborhood, mauling four adults and the two children.

"It went from all is quiet to all hell breaking loose," Sword said Wednesday in a tearful account of the attacks near Cary on Nov. 5.

"I am sorry I interrupted their lives over all of this because of the dogs," he said.

Sword spoke outside court after he agreed to pay the maximum $50 fine on each of three petty violations for failing to control his dogs. He also pleaded guilty in McHenry County Circuit Court to felony possession of drugs.

(Snip)

At 6 foot 1 and weighing 300 pounds, Sword said he was shocked that his strength and size were no match for his family's pets: a female pit bull named Good Girl and her two pups, Petey and Stella, both less than a year old....

(Snip)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060308pitbulls,1,3624030.story?coll=chi-news-hed

USA-1

03-19-2006, 02:19 PM

I agree 100% with you on this one.

The_Comedian

03-19-2006, 02:38 PM

Daewoo

03-19-2006, 02:58 PM

That fine is a lousy joke and I agree that Pitbulls and similar species are not the idel dog for a family.
At the same time I think that it is mainly the owner's responsibilty and fault when such dogs are aggressive and start to freak out.

However, a big problem is that these dogs have incredibly strong jaws and therfore a single 'snap' can be cause for severe injuries and not just a scratch as would be the case with a shepard dog (which afaik are responsible for most biting attacks; at least in Germany).

I see your point....and not. In the US, the biggets biters ar chows. A chow is just a dngerous, unpredictable dog. Look at their history and it is pretty easy to see why. The "family tree" of the species is a lodgepole pine.

As far as damage from dog bites, a single bite form a pitt bull generally does less damage than a bite from a shepherd, or a chow or something similar. Pitt bulls naturally have a deep mouth bite. They tend to take what they can get all the way back to the hinge of their jaw and chomp down. tehir powerful jaws make this incredibly painful, but not a lot of real damage is done. When they let go, you are bruised and have some teeth holes in you.

German shepherds, on the other hand, naturally have a shallow bite. They bite with the front of their mouth, and are much more likely to take out a chunk of flesh. This leaves a huge, nasty chunk out of your arm, leg, etc... that never heals.

Statistically speaking, a pitt bull is no more dangerous than any other dog, and less dangerous than most. The reaction that people have to them is purely the result of psychological bias.

Personally, I keep 4 attack dogs. They are all professionally trained and are high $$ animals. We live out in the country where it takes 20-30 minutes for the sheriffs department to reach us in an emergency. We are more or less on our own. They play with the kids, and are generally good animals. When I bought them I asked the guy why they did not use pitt bulls. The answer was that a pitt bull trained as an attack dog is only about 40% as effective as a German Shepherd trained as an attack dog. They are simply not big enough to inflict the damage that a German Shepherd can.

I used to have a pitt bull. It was a stray that wandered into the yard one day and my wfe fed. It was a friendly dog. It was funny to atch, though, becuae peopel would pull up and ond of the attack trained German Shepherds...dogs trained to go for the throat and not stop untilt he person stops moving, would be laying in the yard and they would get out of the car withotu fear. If the pitt bull was in the yard....a wimpy dog that would go and hide under the porch if you yelled at it....they would sit in the car an dhonk the horn until somebody came and got them, or just drive right back out.

USA-1

03-19-2006, 03:23 PM

Every few weeks there is a report of a pit bull killing or maiming someone. I have never seen a report of a golden retriever or springer spanial killing anyone. Pit bulls are dangerous. How many more people have to die before that sinks in?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm
Twice as many people have been killed by pit bulls than by the second place rotweilers. What does that tell you?

Missouri Mule

03-19-2006, 07:54 PM

I see your point....and not. In the US, the biggets biters ar chows. A chow is just a dngerous, unpredictable dog. Look at their history and it is pretty easy to see why. The "family tree" of the species is a lodgepole pine.

As far as damage from dog bites, a single bite form a pitt bull generally does less damage than a bite from a shepherd, or a chow or something similar. Pitt bulls naturally have a deep mouth bite. They tend to take what they can get all the way back to the hinge of their jaw and chomp down. tehir powerful jaws make this incredibly painful, but not a lot of real damage is done. When they let go, you are bruised and have some teeth holes in you.

German shepherds, on the other hand, naturally have a shallow bite. They bite with the front of their mouth, and are much more likely to take out a chunk of flesh. This leaves a huge, nasty chunk out of your arm, leg, etc... that never heals.

Statistically speaking, a pitt bull is no more dangerous than any other dog, and less dangerous than most. The reaction that people have to them is purely the result of psychological bias.

Personally, I keep 4 attack dogs. They are all professionally trained and are high $$ animals. We live out in the country where it takes 20-30 minutes for the sheriffs department to reach us in an emergency. We are more or less on our own. They play with the kids, and are generally good animals. When I bought them I asked the guy why they did not use pitt bulls. The answer was that a pitt bull trained as an attack dog is only about 40% as effective as a German Shepherd trained as an attack dog. They are simply not big enough to inflict the damage that a German Shepherd can.

I used to have a pitt bull. It was a stray that wandered into the yard one day and my wfe fed. It was a friendly dog. It was funny to atch, though, becuae peopel would pull up and ond of the attack trained German Shepherds...dogs trained to go for the throat and not stop untilt he person stops moving, would be laying in the yard and they would get out of the car withotu fear. If the pitt bull was in the yard....a wimpy dog that would go and hide under the porch if you yelled at it....they would sit in the car an dhonk the horn until somebody came and got them, or just drive right back out.

Reading your comments almost made me burst out with laughter. If you actually believe that pit bulls are "no more dangerous" than other breeds I hope you never have an encounter with one. I'm no shrinking violet but I'll tell you what. I have German Shepherds come at me. In fact, one did a week ago. I've been bitten by three of them that I can count -- but fear them? I don't. Compared to a pit bull, the German Shepherd is a mild mannered and innocuous animal. The pit bull is a dangerous animal that has no place in civilized society. And if one comes on my property I will dispatch it immediately, which I might add is perfectly in line with the law where I live.

Missouri Mule

03-19-2006, 08:03 PM

JoeR

03-19-2006, 08:53 PM

I don't think Pit Bulls should be banned necessarily, but you should have to have a special license to own one.

dittohead not!

03-19-2006, 09:51 PM

That $150 fine will be a drop in the ocean once the lawsuit is settled.

I think that there is more difference between individual dogs than between breeds of dogs. I have a German Shepherd who is a total wuss. She loves to leap and bark when a stranger comes to the house, which is a good thing, but will hide around the corner and bark if someone comes in to the yard. My sister used to have a Doberman, one of the largest I've ever seen. It was totally gentle with their small children and no threat at all to strangers. There is a deterrent effect to seeing a dobie weighing 80 or 90 pounds, but it was strictly an illusion. When that dog died, they got another dobie that snapped at one of the children and was quickly given to another home.

I wonder if people don't deliberately make pit bulls mean, thinking that they will protect the home?

chukster8614

03-19-2006, 09:52 PM

I despise those damn dogs and most of the people who own them. There's something about certain dog lovers who somehow think that their dogs really aren't dogs. I have a friend who owns a bull mastiff, and though the beast is deemed to be gentle, I wouldn't trust it for a second around my child -- especially since it's not used to children. People can say, 'oh, it's the owners who should be held responsible.' For what? For a vicious dog that's already mauled somebody? It's quite simple: the sooner people stop breeding these dogs and their relatives, the fewer vicious dog attacks there'll be.

Ophelia

03-19-2006, 10:09 PM

I wonder if people don't deliberately make pit bulls mean, thinking that they will protect the home?

I'm no expert on dog behavior, but I'm sure training has a lot to do with it. But unlike German Shepherds, pit bulls were bred for fighting. I watch those ASPCA shows on Animal Planet, and pit bulls always seem to be the most agressive of the dogs they deal with.

Missouri Mule

03-20-2006, 12:39 AM

I don't think Pit Bulls should be banned necessarily, but you should have to have a special license to own one.

What good does a special license do unless they also have a large bond of about $1,000,000 to pay for the medical care bills? One of these folks was in the hospital for five weeks. I can't imagine how much that would be. Might be more than a million dollars; not to mention the lifetime trauma and physical therapy.

Alvin T. Grey

03-20-2006, 09:57 AM

Alvin T. Grey

03-20-2006, 10:00 AM

The German Shepherds are nothing compared to a pit bull. They are great watch dogs and will scare a lot of people but I wouldn't fear for my life as I would with a pit bull.
You should be. Shepherds are used the world over for security for a reason.

patrickt

03-20-2006, 10:19 AM

I have never seen a report of an attack by a pit bull. It's always a pack of pit bulls. I've known pit bulls who were, individually, quite pleasant. All dogs change when they're in a pack, even adorable Fluffy, but perhaps pit bulls are worse.

Correction: I think I remember one attack by a solitary pit bull.

Missouri Mule

03-20-2006, 11:27 AM

You should be. Shepherds are used the world over for security for a reason.

A neighbor's German Shepherd came at me and my little dog just a couple of weeks ago. I even got slightly bit. But as to abject terror that a pit bull elicited when I happened on one of them -- not even a close call. As I said, my blood ran cold.

The German Shepherds are big, they make a lot of noise and I'm sure they can bite and do damage but if they kill or maim people as these pit bulls do I'm unaware of that. I give the shepherds a wide berth and watch my backside but I don't fear them.

Daewoo

03-20-2006, 11:40 AM

Because the type of owner of a Lab, or a springer, is different from the type of owner of a pitbull.

That is exactly correct, which is why deaths cuased by Pit Bull attacks are down, and dropping, and have been surpassed by rotweillers. During the 80's and continuing into the 90's, a pit bull was an almost fashionable dog to won if you were white trash. People would feed them small amounts of antifreeze to damage their brain, making thme mean (not kidding).

The demographics of pitt bull owners has changed drastically. Now your average pit bull owner is single and middle class. In fact,most pitt bulls are now owned by women.

A pitt bull is a terrier, and like other terriers, they are naturally playful, personable dogs. It is the ones that are fed antifreeze and beat that turn into little monsters. Then again, any dog that you do that too will do the same.

Missouri Mule

03-20-2006, 11:58 AM

http://blog-hrc.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/pitbull.jpg

Daewoo

03-20-2006, 12:06 PM

Reading your comments almost made me burst out with laughter. If you actually believe that pit bulls are "no more dangerous" than other breeds I hope you never have an encounter with one. I'm no shrinking violet but I'll tell you what. I have German Shepherds come at me. In fact, one did a week ago. I've been bitten by three of them that I can count -- but fear them? I don't. Compared to a pit bull, the German Shepherd is a mild mannered and innocuous animal. The pit bull is a dangerous animal that has no place in civilized society. And if one comes on my property I will dispatch it immediately, which I might add is perfectly in line with the law where I live.

Edit Moderator--personal attack>> I used to own a pitt bull. I alredy stated that. He was a good dog. The only down side to him was that he loved peoeple so much that when I would get home at the end of the day, and sometimes if I brought sombody new aournd, he would run up and stand right at your feet to be petted. A lot of tiems he would get so excited he would pee on your feet. That was annoying.

If you want FACTS instead of worthless, feear driven speculation, you can take a look at the ATTS breed statistics. The ATTS gives a temperment test to dogs. Their results can be found at http://www.atts.org/statistics.html

the pitt bull breeds are:

American Pitt Bull
american Staffordshire terrier
Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier

"Pit Bull" is a generic term....there is no breed simply called a "pitt bull"

In all of the pitt bull breeds, over 80% of the dogs passed the temperment test. It is also worth noting that the number of animals tested is MUCH higher than most other breeds. The ATTS openly admits that this is because of unreasonable bias against those breeds and the desire to ensure the largest sample size that they could to ensure reliable results.

Missouri Mule

03-20-2006, 12:16 PM

I used to own a pitt bull. I alredy stated that. He was a good dog. The only down side to him was that he loved peoeple so much that when I would get home at the end of the day, and sometimes if I brought sombody new aournd, he would run up and stand right at your feet to be petted. A lot of tiems he would get so excited he would pee on your feet. That was annoying.

If you want FACTS instead of worthless, feear driven speculation, you can take a look at the ATTS breed statistics. The ATTS gives a temperment test to dogs. Their results can be found at http://www.atts.org/statistics.html

the pitt bull breeds are:

American Pitt Bull
american Staffordshire terrier
Staffordshire Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier

"Pit Bull" is a generic term....there is no breed simply called a "pitt bull"

In all of the pitt bull breeds, over 80% of the dogs passed the temperment test. It is also worth noting that the number of animals tested is MUCH higher than most other breeds. The ATTS openly admits that this is because of unreasonable bias against those breeds and the desire to ensure the largest sample size that they could to ensure reliable results.

I believe most people know what a pit bull is. I posted a photo above if you want to know what they look like. Here it is again. Would you like to do battle with one of those monsters? I think I would rather wrestle an alligator.

http://blog-hrc.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/pitbull.jpg

Daewoo

03-20-2006, 12:34 PM

I believe most people know what a pit bull is. I posted a photo above if you want to know what they look like. Here it is again. Would you like to do battle with one of those monsters? I think I would rather wrestle an alligator.

http://blog-hrc.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/pitbull.jpg

How abotu this one?

http://www.azbettaheads.com/_borders/Killer_Attack_Dog.jpg

Or this one:

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images3/TOPDOGGrowl.JPG

Or this one:

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images5/TopDogTucker.jpg

or this one:

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images4/TopDogCodieGrowl.jpg

Thats right. Any dog can be mean and growl at people.

Did you realize that petey from "the little rascals" was a pitt bull?

http://faculty.ulv.edu/~armstroc/petey.jpg

His real name was "jiggs" and he was cross registered as an Americans Staffordshire terrier and as an American Pitt Bull both. his 4 litter mates were all sold off to a trainer who trained them to fight in pit fights.

Face it, your fear of pitt bulls is irraitonal and founded on ignorance. Maybe a good psychologist could help you with it.

Missouri Mule

03-20-2006, 12:58 PM

How abotu this one?

http://www.azbettaheads.com/_borders/Killer_Attack_Dog.jpg

Or this one:

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images3/TOPDOGGrowl.JPG

Or this one:

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images5/TopDogTucker.jpg

or this one:

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/images4/TopDogCodieGrowl.jpg

Thats right. Any dog can be mean and growl at people.

Did you realize that petey from "the little rascals" was a pitt bull?

http://faculty.ulv.edu/~armstroc/petey.jpg

His real name was "jiggs" and he was cross registered as an Americans Staffordshire terrier and as an American Pitt Bull both. his 4 litter mates were all sold off to a trainer who trained them to fight in pit fights.

Face it, your fear of pitt bulls is irraitonal and founded on ignorance. Maybe a good psychologist could help you with it.

The "Little Rascals" dog was a more of a bull terrier. Commonly this breed is the masthead for the Target department stores. That's not the vicious pit bull that we are talking about. This breed is also famous when Georgie Patton had one; "Willie."

http://www.bullterrier411.com/thumbs/bull9_t.jpg

http://www.pageweb.com/allegro/show.html

dittohead not!

03-20-2006, 01:08 PM

Check out this ferocious German Shepherd. Just imagine how that poor cloth fish must feel right now!

http://img218.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sierraandfish12xs.jpg

Daewoo

03-20-2006, 01:18 PM

The "Little Rascals" dog was a more of a bull terrier. Commonly this breed is the masthead for the Target department stores. That's not the vicious pit bull that we are talking about. This breed is also famous when Georgie Patton had one; "Willie."

http://www.bullterrier411.com/thumbs/bull9_t.jpg

http://www.pageweb.com/allegro/show.html

No, he was a registered pitt bull. You can view his pedigree at http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/pete.html

I don't knwo if you were aware of this or not, but if you go to www.google.com you can type in search terms and it will find you web pages with those terms. This can be really useful. You can use it before you post things to check your facts, and save the embaressment of being proven horribly wrong over and over again. Just a thought :)

SteveO

03-20-2006, 01:52 PM

My brother has a Chesapeake Bay Retriever, and it's mom crushed a Rottweiler's head in it's jaws after the Rottie got too close to her pups. The damage was so great that the Rottie had to be put down.

ANY dog can get mean, especially when puppies are around.

timlea

03-20-2006, 07:01 PM

I'm going to concour with Alvin here. It's not the dog . . . it's the the animal at the other end of the leash. In the case of pittbull breeds, there seems to rarely be a leash apparently.

It is the dog of choice for white trash, drug dealers, gangsters, and thugs. Rarely do you find a responsible owner of a pittbull breed (not saying you ever do . . . but it's rare).

Dogs will do what they are taught to do and behave only in a way that is expected of their owners. They also act on instinct, coupled with years of breeding . . . which dosen't bode well for a dog bred to fight other like sized animals in a pit. Eventually a pittbull type dog will act on instinct (not all) and reveal the colors of it's true family tree. When that happens, someone or something gets hurt.

Daewoo

03-20-2006, 07:23 PM

It is the dog of choice for white trash, drug dealers, gangsters, and thugs. Rarely do you find a responsible owner of a pittbull breed (not saying you ever do . . . but it's rare).

Like I was saying above, the demographic of your average pitt bull owner has changed. Now a pitt bull owner is most likely to be a single middle class female between 23 and 31 yrs of age.

If you look at the death statistics posted above, Pitt Bulls killed far more than Rotweillers until the late 80s/early 90s. Then the numbers started dropping to the floor. A shift in paradigm occured regarding who was buying and raising the dogs. Pitt bulls, for years the preferred dog of drug dealers and ner do wells, have come to be associated more with yuppies playing frisbee. I think a large part of this had to do with the demise of pit fights in the US. In the 80's and very early 90's, there were still organized dog fights for sport here. During the 90s that activity essentially died out.

timlea

03-20-2006, 10:12 PM

Like I was saying above, the demographic of your average pitt bull owner has changed. Now a pitt bull owner is most likely to be a single middle class female between 23 and 31 yrs of age.

If you look at the death statistics posted above, Pitt Bulls killed far more than Rotweillers until the late 80s/early 90s. Then the numbers started dropping to the floor. A shift in paradigm occured regarding who was buying and raising the dogs. Pitt bulls, for years the preferred dog of drug dealers and ner do wells, have come to be associated more with yuppies playing frisbee. I think a large part of this had to do with the demise of pit fights in the US. In the 80's and very early 90's, there were still organized dog fights for sport here. During the 90s that activity essentially died out.

Name one celebrity or popular figure that owns a pitbull breed to play fetch with...?

Bar that . . . name one person in your neighborhood with small children . . .that have a pitt breed just to play with?

23 to 31 years of age also happens to be the average age of your "ner do wells" gangster types these days. It's not 8 year olds toteing guns and dealing crack and meth. . . they can't even own a dog at that age.

Your veil of puritian dog ethics seems to cover the truth of the matter . . .

I would bet the majority of gangsters and thugs are about the age range that you preach wholsome owners would be . . .

But then again . . . pitt fights still exist in the U.S. . . . and nothing has changed. In fact . . . since it has become a underground sport . . . it has become far more appealing to the lot of "ner do wells" which you so joyfully demise.

If they can't do it here . . . they go to Mexico . . .where little regulation exists.

Despite the fact that it is "illegal" in the U.S., in all 50 states, it still a frequent occurence in basements across the land.

Even the lowly Humane Society (with no money and no other resources other than contributers) has a page on their website dedicated to it.

http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/animal_fighting_the_final_round/dogfighting_fact_sheet/

Daewoo

03-20-2006, 10:24 PM

Name one celebrity or popular figure that owns a pitbull breed to play fetch with...?

This is maybe one of the most bizarre requests I have ever seen on a debate forum. I don't know what kind of dog any celebrety owns, or what their intended purpose is. The only celebrity I can say anything about at all regarding their pets is Michael Jackson. It seems like he had some kin dof monkey or chimp or somethign similar.

Just out of curiosity, how is a discussion on celebrity pets at all related here?

timlea

03-20-2006, 10:51 PM

This is maybe one of the most bizarre requests I have ever seen on a debate forum. I don't know what kind of dog any celebrety owns, or what their intended purpose is. The only celebrity I can say anything about at all regarding their pets is Michael Jackson. It seems like he had some kin dof monkey or chimp or somethign similar.

Just out of curiosity, how is a discussion on celebrity pets at all related here?

Reread the post . . .that was only the first part. If pittbull type breeds are so onoxioius . . . you could at least think of one popular figure (politics . . entertainmet . . . etc . . ) that would have a pitt just to play fetch with? Right??? They are a non-violent and fun dog? Correct? Pitt bull breeds are for everyone?

I believe the majority of my post was based on age and demographic. . .

Ophelia

03-20-2006, 10:52 PM

You should be. Shepherds are used the world over for security for a reason.

Sheherds are used for all kinds of police and military work because they are smart, trainable, agile, and large enough for the job. They also tend to be one-person dogs and have a great work ethic. Pit bulls were bred as fighting dogs. That makes them dangerous in a way a shepherd is unlikely to be. Like I said, they seem to be the most agressive of the dogs I've seen them dealing with on those ASPCA shows on Animal Planet. All too often, they end up being destroyed because they are just too agressive to be adopted, and many shelters won't adopt them out at all.

Daewoo

03-20-2006, 10:57 PM

Name one celebrity or popular figure that owns a pitbull breed to play fetch with...?

Ok, found some, though I do not know what they do with their dogs.

Alicis Siverstone has a half pitt bull, half rot named "sampson". Maybe she secretly frequents pit fights. Somehow I doubt it.

Theodore Roosevelt-had a bull terrier- which was the first "pt bull" breed

Bar that . . . name one person in your neighborhood with small children . . .that have a pitt breed just to play with?

There are no people in my nieborghood. My nearest neiborgh is 5 miles away and I have no idea what kind of dogs he owns. I used to let our kids play with our pitt bull.

23 to 31 years of age also happens to be the average age of your "ner do wells" gangster types these days. It's not 8 year olds toteing guns and dealing crack and meth. . . they can't even own a dog at that age.

They do not tend to be middle class single women

Your veil of puritian dog ethics seems to cover the truth of the matter . . .

You have not shown any truth or facts yet, just ignorance based rhetoric.

I would bet the majority of gangsters and thugs are about the age range that you preach wholsome owners would be . . .

I don't know how old people should be to own dogs. I just know that your average pit bull owner is most likely to be a single, middle class woman.

But then again . . . pitt fights still exist in the U.S. . . . and nothing has changed. In fact . . . since it has become a underground sport . . . it has become far more appealing to the lot of "ner do wells" which you so joyfully demise.

If they can't do it here . . . they go to Mexico . . .where little regulation exists.

Any evidence for this? Back int he 80's, I knew where there were a dozenw pit fights held regularly. today I know about none. They were frequent enough that nobody, the police included cared.

Despite the fact that it is "illegal" in the U.S., in all 50 states, it still a frequent occurence in basements across the land.

Again, any evidence that pit fights aare more prevelant today than they were 20 years ago? I can only find 3 arrests in the entire country last year for organized pit fights. Maybe you can do better?

Even the lowly Humane Society (with no money and no other resources other than contributers) has a page on their website dedicated to it.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_financials.cfm/oid/136

With only 78 million per year to spend, I would hope they can foot the bill fo the bandwidth to put up a page about dog fights. Conspicously absent is any numbers.

Why is that? Becuase the FBI and the DOJ do not leep statistics for dog fights. SO, your argument is essentially hot air.

timlea

03-20-2006, 11:11 PM

What hot air exactly? Do you have proof that hogdog and pit fights don't exitst in the U.S. today? If the FBI dosen't keep stats . . why?

And why would "single" women own pitt breeds . . .protection maybe? Maybe . . I'll give you that.

You can't cannot go to the BJS to find out what happens when people are not caught for illegal activities. Underground activities are just that. Looking at the Beurau of Justice Statistics for ganja usage is pointless because most of it is not seen. In my view . . . its basicly the same thing. You can site polls, posts, and websites all day . . . fact is. . underground is underground . . .

People whom fight dogs don't want to get caught fighting dogs . .

They are not going to post it on a website (some do)! They are not going to make it apparent to any authority. Arrests drop? Hmmmm. I wonder why? It's illegal and therefore its underground.

Daewoo

03-20-2006, 11:14 PM

Here is a group that takes pits and teaches them to be rescue dogs and therapy dogs:

http://www.forpitssake.org/

More folks using them as therapy dogs:

http://www.pitbulllovers.com/training-articles/therapy-dogs-pit-bulls.html

Pits would be idealy suited for both positions. They would be good rescue dogs due to their tenacity and physical endurance, and would be good therapy dogs due to their natural gregariousness and even temperment.

Here is a ruling form the court of appeals in Ohio, striking down Toledos vicious dogs ordinance:

http://www.forpitssake.org/Ohio_Ruling.pdf

dozens of experts testified, and there was absolutly no proof presented that pit bulls were any more likely to be agressive than any other breed.

I know it is more fun to base your opinions on absolute ignorance, but you are much less likely to look foolish if you mix a LITTLE fact in there.

Daewoo

03-20-2006, 11:20 PM

What hot air exactly? Do you have proof that hogdog and pit fights don't exitst in the U.S. today? If the FBI dosen't keep stats . . why?

Because it is rare enough that there is no point

And why would "single" women own pitt breeds . . .protection maybe? Maybe . . I'll give you that.

Or maybe they just like big, friendly, goofy dogs. I really don't know. Young, single, middle class women do a lot of things I don't understand.

You can't cannot go to the BJS to find out what happens when people are not caught for illegal activities. Underground activities are just that. Looking at the Beurau of Justice Statistics for ganja usage is pointless because most of it is not seen. In my view . . . its basicly the same thing. You can site polls, posts, and websites all day . . . fact is. . underground is underground . . .

We generally base estimates of the frequency on illegal activities on the number of people caught. the FBI used ot keep statistics for animal fights. I know it peaked in 1988, when over 3100 people were arrested. Now there are not enough to make it worthwhile to even bother tracking. That should tell you something. The fact that it is essentially big news when they do arrest somebody for dog fighting is another good indicator that it is pretty rare.

Your argument is illogical.

Daewoo

03-20-2006, 11:23 PM

Play "find the pitbull":

http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html

timlea

03-20-2006, 11:29 PM

Because it is rare enough that there is no point

Or maybe they just like big, friendly, goofy dogs. I really don't know. Young, single, middle class women do a lot of things I don't understand.

We generally base estimates of the frequency on illegal activities on the number of people caught. the FBI used ot keep statistics for animal fights. I know it peaked in 1988, when over 3100 people were arrested. Now there are not enough to make it worthwhile to even bother tracking. That should tell you something. The fact that it is essentially big news when they do arrest somebody for dog fighting is another good indicator that it is pretty rare.

Your argument is illogical.

Like I said . . . it's an undrground activity. Sober people have more fun that wasted people in this regards.

Wasted people get caught. . . .'cause they're wasted dude!!! Sober people are more asstute in hiding their missgivings. Ask the Italian Mafia . . . I don't think to this day the Government actually believes they exist.

Ophelia

03-20-2006, 11:43 PM

On those ASPCA shows I watch, the officers certainly seem to run into signs of illegal dog fighting often enough, especially in Detroit.

Missouri Mule

03-20-2006, 11:57 PM

Daewoo

03-21-2006, 12:51 AM

It is no mystery why the State of Texas outlaws the adoption of pit bulls at animal shelters (AKA Humane Society). They are, by law, put down immediately. I received this message today from a former pit bull owner. He knows whereof he speaks. No jibber jabber here. All of this bulloney about what constitutes a "pit bull" is beside the point. Everyone knows what they are.[I]

Review the above links. Inject some fact into your argument as opposed to some highly questionable anecdotal evidence.

Look at the list of experts in the court ruling above. Take a look at some of the pitt bull pages on the web that present FACTS as opposed to ignorant rhetoric.

This is my problem, MM. I LOATHE ignorance. Stupidity is understandable. Some people are just stupid. Ignorance is not.

In this, like so many other subjects that you choose to debate, you HAVE NO FACTS. Your position is based soley on ignorance and personal bias.

If pit bulls are really the aggressive monsters that you claim they are, why do all the pit bull breeds score above 80% on the temperment test cited above? Not only do they score above 80%, they are some fo the most rigorously tested breeds (large sample base). the average for the test overall is only 77%, which means that pits are actually above average.

Why did all the experts in the above cited case testify that they are no more likely to be vicious than any other breed?

Here is my theory. You could not find ANYTHING to support your ignorant cowardice when it comes to thesedogs, which most people describe as frinedly and playful, so you invented your phantom friend to try to make your point, despite the fact that it flys iun the face of every fact presented here.

Your alleged frined fels that these dogs were SO agressive and SO mean that you should have to have a special license and special trianing to own one, yet he has had 2 of them? Why would he get a second dog that is so agressive and mean? Is he one of those underground pit fighters?

In this thread, expert testimony has been presented in the links, as well as in the above cited court case. We actually have an appelate court ruling which declares that there is no evidence to suggest that pit bulls are any meaner than other dogs or any more prone to be vicious. We actually have SCIENTIFIC TESTS in the form of internationally recognized temperment tests. All of these are in direct contradiction of your argument. Yet you persist. WHY? What could possibly be gained at this point. FACTUAL EVIDENCE has been presented. Your ignorance based personal prejudices are meaningless in the face of facts, expert testimony, and scientific testing, yet you continue on the same course.

Personally, I don't care what texas law says in regards to pit bulls at shelters. It is irrelevant to the debate unless you can actually cite some information that shows that the law is acting on a justifiable threat. If not, it is just another unconstitutional law, much like the one that the Ohio court just struck down.

Missouri Mule

03-21-2006, 12:14 PM

Review the above links. Inject some fact into your argument as opposed to some highly questionable anecdotal evidence.

Look at the list of experts in the court ruling above. Take a look at some of the pitt bull pages on the web that present FACTS as opposed to ignorant rhetoric.

This is my problem, MM. I LOATHE ignorance. Stupidity is understandable. Some people are just stupid. Ignorance is not.

In this, like so many other subjects that you choose to debate, you HAVE NO FACTS. Your position is based soley on ignorance and personal bias.

If pit bulls are really the aggressive monsters that you claim they are, why do all the pit bull breeds score above 80% on the temperment test cited above? Not only do they score above 80%, they are some fo the most rigorously tested breeds (large sample base). the average for the test overall is only 77%, which means that pits are actually above average.

Why did all the experts in the above cited case testify that they are no more likely to be vicious than any other breed?

Here is my theory. You could not find ANYTHING to support your ignorant cowardice when it comes to thesedogs, which most people describe as frinedly and playful, so you invented your phantom friend to try to make your point, despite the fact that it flys iun the face of every fact presented here.

Your alleged frined fels that these dogs were SO agressive and SO mean that you should have to have a special license and special trianing to own one, yet he has had 2 of them? Why would he get a second dog that is so agressive and mean? Is he one of those underground pit fighters?

In this thread, expert testimony has been presented in the links, as well as in the above cited court case. We actually have an appelate court ruling which declares that there is no evidence to suggest that pit bulls are any meaner than other dogs or any more prone to be vicious. We actually have SCIENTIFIC TESTS in the form of internationally recognized temperment tests. All of these are in direct contradiction of your argument. Yet you persist. WHY? What could possibly be gained at this point. FACTUAL EVIDENCE has been presented. Your ignorance based personal prejudices are meaningless in the face of facts, expert testimony, and scientific testing, yet you continue on the same course.

Personally, I don't care what texas law says in regards to pit bulls at shelters. It is irrelevant to the debate unless you can actually cite some information that shows that the law is acting on a justifiable threat. If not, it is just another unconstitutional law, much like the one that the Ohio court just struck down.

You would be well advised to be more circumspect in your remarks although I am not complaining to the "authorities" here. You won't last long otherwise.

As to your assertion that "most people" regard these monsters as friendly, etc., that is nonsensical. And I didn't make up the e-mail message. He is a long time acquaintance who responded to my mass e-mail that I sent. At one time he too was hard headed about this subject until his "pet" pit bull nearly bit through his boot while he was peacefully watching TV at home for no reason whatsoever. Not wanting to put his two year old daughter in danger he took the animal in the woods and shot it to death.

And it is a fact that it is illegal for Texas animal shelters/humane societies to adopt these things to adoptive prospects. They are immediately euthanized.

As I recall, where I used to live in Missouri, a similar law was in effect. There are some "no-kill" shelters that will adopt these dogs but I think they are wrong-headed and playing with a loaded gun.

Strel

03-21-2006, 12:30 PM

You would be well advised to be more circumspect in your remarks although I am not complaining to the "authorities" here. You won't last long otherwise.

As to your assertion that "most people" regard these monsters as friendly, etc., that is nonsensical. And I didn't make up the e-mail message. He is a long time acquaintance who responded to my mass e-mail that I sent. At one time he too was hard headed about this subject until his "pet" pit bull nearly bit through his boot while he was peacefully watching TV at home for no reason whatsoever. Not wanting to put his two year old daughter in danger he took the animal in the woods and shot it to death.

And it is a fact that it is illegal for Texas animal shelters/humane societies to adopt these things to adoptive prospects. They are immediately euthanized.

As I recall, where I used to live in Missouri, a similar law was in effect. There are some "no-kill" shelters that will adopt these dogs but I think they are wrong-headed and playing with a loaded gun.

I owned a pit bull when I was younger. It was the sweetest, nicest, most loyal and obedient dog we ever owned. It wouldn't hurt a fly.

But it was raised that way, and not to be a monster. He did look awfully scary and quite a few visitors ran away or jumped back in their cars when he ran toward them to give a friendly welcome.

Alvin T. Grey

03-21-2006, 12:44 PM

A neighbor's German Shepherd came at me and my little dog just a couple of weeks ago. I even got slightly bit. But as to abject terror that a pit bull elicited when I happened on one of them -- not even a close call. As I said, my blood ran cold.

The German Shepherds are big, they make a lot of noise and I'm sure they can bite and do damage but if they kill or maim people as these pit bulls do I'm unaware of that. I give the shepherds a wide berth and watch my backside but I don't fear them.
I own two. My family have been involved in training them for three generations now. There is one thing that your missing. Shepherds are very loyal, and even more territorial. They easily become attached to a handler, or a family (I figure that they consider it to be their 'pack' and the handler their 'alpha'.) There are no problems with the family. But the moment a stranger enters the territory, the chances are they are going to get bit.

I love shepherds. I wouldn't have any other dog. But there are rules. Shepherds are easier to train, and the rules are more obvious, but even a shepherd isn't immune to having an idiot for an owner.
We've all seen it, sometimes the real animal is on the other end of the leash.

Missouri Mule

03-21-2006, 02:01 PM

I owned a pit bull when I was younger. It was the sweetest, nicest, most loyal and obedient dog we ever owned. It wouldn't hurt a fly.

But it was raised that way, and not to be a monster. He did look awfully scary and quite a few visitors ran away or jumped back in their cars when he ran toward them to give a friendly welcome.

Knowing you as I believe I do, I'm sure your pet dog was what you say it was. But I would ask you this. How does one know when one is being friendly or is a true menace? My friend back in Missouri, who is no stranger to dogs being in law enforcement, had his own experience where his own pit, some two years old, attacked him in his own living room for no apparent reason.

That's the conundrum that owners of these dogs must face. We read over and over how gentle and sweet these dogs are but then we continue to read over and over in the newspapers of these horrible attacks.

Speaking from personal experience I only know that I faced one a number of years ago and as I say, my blood ran cold. I had my life pass in front of me and I'm 6'6" tall and 270 pounds and fairly able to defend myself. But how does one defend oneself against a dog with their visciousness and unpredictability? This is not a problem that is going away. I have had dogs all my life. One is laying on the couch right now sleeping away. She's a pet. No one needs to fear her that they will wind up in a hospital bed for six weeks like one of these victims. I would never feel safe around a pit bull nor would feel safe in allowing anyone else near it.

This is not unlike owing a gun. I own a few. But I know as sure as I type this that they can easily kill a person. And as safe as I try to be, I never entirely feel safe with one; that the safety is on, or that a round is not chambered or that just a careless mistake won't be made. I feel the same way about chain saws. I've been "bitten" by one of those things as well.

Dogs are said to be "man's best friend." I believe that. At the same time I won't bury my head in the sand as some would and claim that all breeds are the same.

But your points are well taken. I'm sure you would be a responsible dog owner. I cannot say with assurance that everyone else will be.

Daewoo

03-21-2006, 08:02 PM

You would be well advised to be more circumspect in your remarks although I am not complaining to the "authorities" here. You won't last long otherwise.

Not sure what you men by this.

As to your assertion that "most people" regard these monsters as friendly, etc., that is nonsensical. And I didn't make up the e-mail message. He is a long time acquaintance who responded to my mass e-mail that I sent. At one time he too was hard headed about this subject until his "pet" pit bull nearly bit through his boot while he was peacefully watching TV at home for no reason whatsoever. Not wanting to put his two year old daughter in danger he took the animal in the woods and shot it to death.

Then why didn't his email say that as opposed to a broad generalization abotu the breed which ahs lready been proven wrong?

And it is a fact that it is illegal for Texas animal shelters/humane societies to adopt these things to adoptive prospects. They are immediately euthanized.

Whihc has already been shown here to be at best an ignorant law written by ignorant people who acted without access to facts, and at worse, unconsititutional stupidity.

As I recall, where I used to live in Missouri, a similar law was in effect. There are some "no-kill" shelters that will adopt these dogs but I think they are wrong-headed and playing with a loaded gun.

YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG. Unless you actually have some facts, there is little point in continuing this. Every bit of factual and scientific evidence presented here has been counter to your point. At this point, to continue to hold your view is simply a further sign of an irrational phobia. No amount of debating is going to cure an irrational phobia. Only intensive mental help is likely to do that.

Daewoo

03-21-2006, 08:28 PM

I own two. My family have been involved in training them for three generations now. There is one thing that your missing. Shepherds are very loyal, and even more territorial. They easily become attached to a handler, or a family (I figure that they consider it to be their 'pack' and the handler their 'alpha'.) There are no problems with the family. But the moment a stranger enters the territory, the chances are they are going to get bit.

I love shepherds. I wouldn't have any other dog. But there are rules. Shepherds are easier to train, and the rules are more obvious, but even a shepherd isn't immune to having an idiot for an owner.
We've all seen it, sometimes the real animal is on the other end of the leash.

This was the other reason given by the trainer that I bought my shepherds from that they use shepherds. Shepherds come to view their family as their pack, and their home as their territory. Even Shepherds not trained for protection frequently will fight to the death to protect a family member.

There is a gut on our local fire departmetn who holds a completely irrational fear of German Shepherds almost on par with MMs irrational fear of pit bulls. Several years ago he went on a fire call and there was a young girl (14-16) still on the second story of the house. She was still conscious and responsive, but had suffered from some smoke inhalation ad was unable to get out. He and another guy went in and upt he stairs and got her. He was carrying her out and about 20 ft from the front door got blind sided by the families german shepherd who hit him with 80lbs of flying fur and teeth. The guys bunker gear got the worst of it and he was uninjured, just knocked to his butt and badly scared. The guy who was following beaned the dog with his flashlight, knocking it unconscious, and carried it out while the first guy gathered the kid up and got her on outside.

Everybody knew that dog, and it was generally considered a friendly animal. Put in a scary situation, and uncertain of what exactly was going on, the dog responded naturally (and violently) to protect its sheeple from a percieved threat. It was not the dogs fault. 90% of the time its behavior would have been desirable. It was just unlucky enough to be in that 10% of times when it was in impediment, so instead of being praised as a hero, it got knocked silly with a flashlight.

USA-1

03-21-2006, 09:08 PM

Pit bull kills 91-year-old Detroit woman

Joel Kurth / The Detroit News

Advertisement

Printer friendly version
Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery
DETROIT --Neighbors called her Mother Stiles, an elderly gentle woman with a generous spirit, bad hip and hulking pit bull, Butch.

Today, they're both dead, and shocked friends are wondering why the dog turned on her.

Neighbors found the white dog coated in the blood of its 91-year-old owner, Mary Stiles, about 3:30 p.m. Monday in the kitchen of her brick bungalow on Tyler near Linwood on Detroit's west side.

The woman who was known as a neighborhood matriarch was pronounced dead on arrival at Henry Ford Hospital, and animal control officers are testing the dog -- which was shot at least twice -- for rabies.

"I can't understand what would make him go off like that, but in the end, he went after everyone," said Charles Wilson, 72, a neighbor who shot the dog with a hunting rifle before police officers finished it off.

"He was going nuts."

At least one other Detroit area person has been killed this year by pit bulls. A 6-year-old Hamtramck girl was killed in April on Belmont Street when she was attacked by two of the dogs.

Stiles was a house cleaner whose health limited her movement and caused members at her church, New Greater First Baptist, to bring services and communion to her on Sundays, said Wilson's daughter, Diane Lyons.

The dog, which was about 90 pounds and 10 years old, belonged to Stiles' grandson, Mike Bykes, who died earlier this year. The dog frightened some children, barked, but seemed close to Stiles, Wilson said.

Stiles was alone in the house when the dog attacked. Wilson said his grandson, Terrell Lyons, who lived with Stiles to look after her, called him after the incident. When Wilson entered the house, the sight was agonizing, he said.

"It was a mess. I came back and got my gun. There were kids in the street. I yelled 'Don't run. Don't run.' They were scared, then the dog came out with blood all over its face -- just nasty."

Wilson said the dog was between two small groups of children in the street and seemed ready to attack. That's when Wilson fired. Moments later, police arrived and shot the dog after it started to attack them.

"That dog never did anything like this," said Dell Watt, 46, who lives across the street from Stiles.

Watt and others described Stiles as a sweet woman who was a great cook. Wilson remembered her Thanksgiving stuffing. He moved into the neighborhood off Davison in 1966. Stiles was already a longtime resident.

"She was the best," Wilson said. "You will not find a woman in the last 50 years who carried herself better or cared so much about the community. You had something to talk about or needed advice, you went to Mother Stiles."

Watt said Stiles was a fixture on the front porch of the neighborhood, which is riddled with vacant lots and dilapidated buildings.

"She was so sweet," Watt said. "Anything you needed, Mother Stiles was there for you

Alvin T. Grey

03-21-2006, 09:08 PM

This was the other reason given by the trainer that I bought my shepherds from that they use shepherds. Shepherds come to view their family as their pack, and their home as their territory. Even Shepherds not trained for protection frequently will fight to the death to protect a family member.

Which is the reason that I'm getting at. Shepherds, as a rule, are smart. If a handler or owner is not around, or worse, incapacitated, a Shepherd will revert to it's nature, and defend it's handler, or territory. Regardless. It's that independance that makes them dangerous. - Yes, it can also make them unpleasent.
There are bigger, more impresive dogs, from a Rottweiler, or a Mastiff, to an Irish Wolfhound.
Forget them, I'd feel safer with a Shepherd any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Daewoo

03-21-2006, 09:36 PM

Pit bull kills 91-year-old Detroit woman

Joel Kurth / The Detroit News

This is too bad. Fortunatly, as the overwhelming evidence here hs shown, this was an isolated incident and certainly not indicitive of the breed as a whole

Daewoo

03-21-2006, 09:51 PM

Which is the reason that I'm getting at. Shepherds, as a rule, are smart. If a handler or owner is not around, or worse, incapacitated, a Shepherd will revert to it's nature, and defend it's handler, or territory. Regardless. It's that independance that makes them dangerous. - Yes, it can also make them unpleasent.
There are bigger, more impresive dogs, from a Rottweiler, or a Mastiff, to an Irish Wolfhound.
Forget them, I'd feel safer with a Shepherd any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Absolutly. What most impressed me when Ibought my dogs was their attack demonstration. they ahd been trained for a vectored attack. One dog confronts the intruder/soon to be bleeding individual, while the other flanks them quietly. In the event that an attack is warranted, they both strike from opposite directions.

Any dog that you can teach military strategy to is OK in my book.

I also like the fact that I can leave them with the kids, and I know that if a situation arises that they are not specifically trained to deal with, they will improvise and generally make the right decision, or at least an acceptable one.

there has been one time that the dogs scared me. It was over a year ago, when I only had 3 of them. I was in the living room, and my wife and daugter, then still in diapers, were outside. The wife was working in a planter and the daughter was playing in the yard, I heard the dogs start barking and my wife screaming blody murder. I looked out the window to see one of the german shepherd dragging my daughter across the yard by her butt. I grabbed a pistol out of my desk and ran outside. By the itme I got off the porch and started looking for a shot at that dog (which I was convinced had gone crazy), he had dropped my daughter and run back to join the other 2 dogs in killing a large (for this area) rattle snake that had come out from under a large stone (decorative) that our daughter had been leaning against. From what I could tell, the snake must have come out about 2 ft from her.

Barring any real posibility of killing the snake with the toddler sitting there, the dog moved the toddler. Honestly, I was so shaken up that if there had been one mark on that little girl, that dog would have died that day regardless. There was not, though. He dragged her by her pnats and diaper and there was not a mark on her, outside a little grass stain.

From a realistic standpoint, if theyhad left the snake alone it would probably have just slithered away. Snakes do not generally stalk and attack small children. On the other hand, if I hd been standing there, I would not have taken that chance, either, so I can hardly blame the dog for not taking the chance.

I have said on many occasions, and probably will on many more, as long as I have a family, I will have German Shepherds to watch over them.

USA-1

03-21-2006, 10:31 PM

This is too bad. Fortunatly, as the overwhelming evidence here hs shown, this was an isolated incident and certainly not indicitive of the breed as a whole
This happens every couple of months.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/MNGRODDG2S1.DTL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pit bull attacks girl in her Santa Rosa yard
Third mauling in Bay Area in a month amid calls to crack down on the breed
Jim Doyle, Leslie Fulbright, Chronicle Staff Writers

Thursday, June 23, 2005

------------------------------------------------

A pit bull that escaped from a Santa Rosa home mauled an 8-year-old girl who had been playing next door in her yard on Wednesday, deeply gashing her face, and then turned on the girl's mother when she rushed to help.

The attack was the third serious mauling by a pit bull in the Bay Area this month and coincides with actions by some local and state officials to crack down on aggressive canines and their owners.

On Tuesday, state Sen. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, introduced a bill that would allow cities and counties to enact breed-specific laws affecting dogs after the mauling death in San Francisco of 12-year-old Nicholas Faibish by his family's pit bulls.

Sonoma County sheriff's deputies say the pit bull attacked Annette Rojas in the yard of her cottage home on Santa Barbara Avenue around 11:35 a.m. Deputies said the dog ran into the yard and clamped onto Annette's face. Her mother, Norma Flores, who was inside the house, and two male neighbors working on a car nearby heard the girl's screams and ran into the yard. The men, Hector Preciado, 24, and Jesse Revas, 20, hit the dog numerous times with a crowbar and a pool cue and used their bare hands to pry him from the girl, deputies said.

The dog then went after the girl's mother, biting her arm and legs, deputies said.

After pulling the dog off the 37-year-old mother, the men trapped the pit bull in a garage on the property, and they and Annette and Flores took refuge inside the house. But the dog managed to escape the garage and enter the house through an open door, at which point the four locked themselves in the bathroom and called police.

The girl and her mother were taken to Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital.

Flores was treated and released after doctors cleaned and bandaged wounds to her right forearm, middle finger and both of her legs, said Kevin Andrus, a hospital spokesman.

Her daughter was listed in fair condition with deep lacerations to the right side of her face and injuries to her arms and neck.

"The doctors said that some of these injuries will likely result in permanent scarring," Andrus said. "She has definitely been traumatized by this situation, and she has undergone several procedures in the last few hours."

Annette is expected to be hospitalized for two or three days so doctors can monitor her injuries to prevent infection.

Daewoo

03-21-2006, 10:47 PM

This happens every couple of months.

No, actually that happens several times a day. Review the statistic in some of the links earlier inthe thread. Dog attacks are a frequent thing in this country, including attacks that reult in hospitalization. They happen millions of times per year.

Luckily, as has been laid out clearly and unquestionably in this thread, pit bulls are not more likely to initiate these attacks than any other type of dog, and according to the scientific testing done (temperment tests), the likelyhood of them attacking a person is below average when compared to dogs as a species.

Isolated anecdotal evidence is not an effective counter to factual evidence.

deltabtry

03-21-2006, 11:08 PM

Can anyone explain to me, why they would want to own a pit bull?

dittohead not!

03-22-2006, 12:45 AM

Absolutly. What most impressed me when Ibought my dogs was their attack demonstration. they ahd been trained for a vectored attack. One dog confronts the intruder/soon to be bleeding individual, while the other flanks them quietly. In the event that an attack is warranted, they both strike from opposite directions.

Any dog that you can teach military strategy to is OK in my book.

I also like the fact that I can leave them with the kids, and I know that if a situation arises that they are not specifically trained to deal with, they will improvise and generally make the right decision, or at least an acceptable one.

there has been one time that the dogs scared me. It was over a year ago, when I only had 3 of them. I was in the living room, and my wife and daugter, then still in diapers, were outside. The wife was working in a planter and the daughter was playing in the yard, I heard the dogs start barking and my wife screaming blody murder. I looked out the window to see one of the german shepherd dragging my daughter across the yard by her butt. I grabbed a pistol out of my desk and ran outside. By the itme I got off the porch and started looking for a shot at that dog (which I was convinced had gone crazy), he had dropped my daughter and run back to join the other 2 dogs in killing a large (for this area) rattle snake that had come out from under a large stone (decorative) that our daughter had been leaning against. From what I could tell, the snake must have come out about 2 ft from her.

Barring any real posibility of killing the snake with the toddler sitting there, the dog moved the toddler. Honestly, I was so shaken up that if there had been one mark on that little girl, that dog would have died that day regardless. There was not, though. He dragged her by her pnats and diaper and there was not a mark on her, outside a little grass stain.

From a realistic standpoint, if theyhad left the snake alone it would probably have just slithered away. Snakes do not generally stalk and attack small children. On the other hand, if I hd been standing there, I would not have taken that chance, either, so I can hardly blame the dog for not taking the chance.

I have said on many occasions, and probably will on many more, as long as I have a family, I will have German Shepherds to watch over them.

Wow! What a story. It sounds like the dog actually saved, or thought he saved the little girl from a rattlesnake. I wonder how he knew a snake could be dangerous? I'm always afraid mine will come up to one and sniff it in curiosity, as she has done to harmless snakes.

German shepherds are intelligent animals, no doubt about it. I'm not so sure about this dog, however:

http://madmanjokes.com/Movies/CatDoor.html

Missouri Mule

03-22-2006, 01:30 AM

Not sure what you men by this.

Then why didn't his email say that as opposed to a broad generalization abotu the breed which ahs lready been proven wrong?

Whihc has already been shown here to be at best an ignorant law written by ignorant people who acted without access to facts, and at worse, unconsititutional stupidity.

YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG. Unless you actually have some facts, there is little point in continuing this. Every bit of factual and scientific evidence presented here has been counter to your point. At this point, to continue to hold your view is simply a further sign of an irrational phobia. No amount of debating is going to cure an irrational phobia. Only intensive mental help is likely to do that.

Would you kindly knock off the personal stuff? If you continue this the moderators will eventually ban you. That's what I meant earlier. I'm not going to report you but trust me on this. It won't be tolerated forever.

My friend is in law enforcement in Missouri and has been for about 20 years. He knows whereof he speaks. He knows about dogs. If he says what he said (and I gave the full quote), then I am inclined to take him at his word. And he has his own personal experience with this breed as I do mine. That is sufficient evidence for me.

You can own whatever breed you want but if a pit bull finds its way on my property, the law gives me the right to kill it. This is what the sheriff's office has told me personally. If threatened in any way I fully intend to do exactly that. I will not tolerate this animal near me, my family or my own pets. I don't allow my pets to run loose, even though they pose no danger to anyone. If I walk them, they are on a leash at all times. No responsible dog owner should ever allow their animals to run loose. Unfortunately some do. If an owner will not keep their dogs contained in a confined area or safely leased, they have no business owning such animals. None whatsoever.

And as far as I am concerned this is the end of this discussion. I've said my piece. You have said yours. It's over.

Alvin T. Grey

03-22-2006, 06:38 AM

Would you kindly knock off the personal stuff? If you continue this the moderators will eventually ban you. That's what I meant earlier. I'm not going to report you but trust me on this. It won't be tolerated forever.

My friend is in law enforcement in Missouri and has been for about 20 years. He knows whereof he speaks. He knows about dogs. If he says what he said (and I gave the full quote), then I am inclined to take him at his word. And he has his own personal experience with this breed as I do mine. That is sufficient evidence for me.

You can own whatever breed you want but if a pit bull finds its way on my property, the law gives me the right to kill it. This is what the sheriff's office has told me personally. If threatened in any way I fully intend to do exactly that. I will not tolerate this animal near me, my family or my own pets. I don't allow my pets to run loose, even though they pose no danger to anyone. If I walk them, they are on a leash at all times. No responsible dog owner should ever allow their animals to run loose. Unfortunately some do. If an owner will not keep their dogs contained in a confined area or safely leased, they have no business owning such animals. None whatsoever.

And as far as I am concerned this is the end of this discussion. I've said my piece. You have said yours. It's over.
MM, you are exactly right. :thumbsup:
Hows Dori settling in?

USA-1

03-22-2006, 07:23 AM

No, actually that happens several times a day. Review the statistic in some of the links earlier inthe thread. Dog attacks are a frequent thing in this country, including attacks that reult in hospitalization. They happen millions of times per year.

Luckily, as has been laid out clearly and unquestionably in this thread, pit bulls are not more likely to initiate these attacks than any other type of dog, and according to the scientific testing done (temperment tests), the likelyhood of them attacking a person is below average when compared to dogs as a species.

Isolated anecdotal evidence is not an effective counter to factual evidence.
I did look at the evidence. Look at one of my previous post. There were 60 people killed by pit bulls during the period studied. The second highest was 29 people killed by Rotweilers. Pit bulls are more likely to kill when they do attack. That is the point. A dog bite is usually no big deal unless it's a pit bull thats doing the biting. You seem to ignore the facts that do point to the fact that Pit bulls are indeed dangerous animals. They were bred to be.

Missouri Mule

03-22-2006, 12:06 PM

MM, you are exactly right. :thumbsup:
Hows Dori settling in?

Dory is doing great. She is smart as a whip. According to what I have read about the breed they have an IQ of a 5 year old. I don't know if is actually true or not but she is a joy to have. Thanks for asking. If I had some way to post her photo I would do so. I'm thinking of taking her on our upcoming vacation since she travels so well. I don't know if that can be arranged but I'm going to look into it.

Daewoo

03-22-2006, 12:23 PM

Wow! What a story. It sounds like the dog actually saved, or thought he saved the little girl from a rattlesnake. I wonder how he knew a snake could be dangerous? I'm always afraid mine will come up to one and sniff it in curiosity, as she has done to harmless snakes.

German shepherds are intelligent animals, no doubt about it. I'm not so sure about this dog, however:

http://madmanjokes.com/Movies/CatDoor.html

I doubt that the dog knew the snake was dangerous. BUT, it was different and too close for comfort, so it did away with it.

We got some chinchillas a while back. The kids love to sit on the floor and watch them run around the room. When we forst got them, there were 3. About a week after we got them, the kids were sitting on the floor int he living room, and one fo the dogs was laying next to the counch. I let the chinchillas out. They ran around the room fine, with the dog watching, until one took a run right at the kids. Dog jumped up. Now we have 2 chinchillas.

A chinchilla is not a threat, but the dog didn't know, and they are not going to take that chance.

Daewoo

03-22-2006, 12:30 PM

I did look at the evidence. Look at one of my previous post. There were 60 people killed by pit bulls during the period studied. The second highest was 29 people killed by Rotweilers. Pit bulls are more likely to kill when they do attack. That is the point. A dog bite is usually no big deal unless it's a pit bull thats doing the biting. You seem to ignore the facts that do point to the fact that Pit bulls are indeed dangerous animals. They were bred to be.

Until 1990, and rots have surpassed pitt bulls, by an increasing margin, ever since. Further, if you red the court decision, the CDC confirms that those Numbers are simply raw data and do not support any conclusions at all. They also confirm that there is a high likelihood that the number of pit bull deaths is almost certainly overstated. If you follow the links all the way back tot heir original testimony, they state clearly that in a test sampling of 10 cases that they fully investigated, only 3 out of the 10 dogs in those cases actually ended up being pit bulls. The other 7 were NOT. If this sampling is indicative of the data as a whole, then it is likely that pits only killed about 18 people in that time period. This is a large part of the reason that the court in Ohio overturned the ban. Read the conclusion. They could find NO evidence that pits were disproportionaly dangerous.

Daewoo

03-22-2006, 12:39 PM

Would you kindly knock off the personal stuff? If you continue this the moderators will eventually ban you. That's what I meant earlier. I'm not going to report you but trust me on this. It won't be tolerated forever.

There is nothign personal there, nor anythign particularly insulting. If you feel compelled to report it, by all means do so.

My friend is in law enforcement in Missouri and has been for about 20 years. He knows whereof he speaks. He knows about dogs. If he says what he said (and I gave the full quote), then I am inclined to take him at his word. And he has his own personal experience with this breed as I do mine. That is sufficient evidence for me.

Yes.....would not want to be bothered with pesky things like facts when they get in the way of personal bias.

You can own whatever breed you want but if a pit bull finds its way on my property, the law gives me the right to kill it. This is what the sheriff's office has told me personally. If threatened in any way I fully intend to do exactly that. I will not tolerate this animal near me, my family or my own pets. I don't allow my pets to run loose, even though they pose no danger to anyone. If I walk them, they are on a leash at all times. No responsible dog owner should ever allow their animals to run loose. Unfortunately some do. If an owner will not keep their dogs contained in a confined area or safely leased, they have no business owning such animals. None whatsoever.

I have no problem with this. I shoot every stray I see on my property. City folks seem to think that when they are tired of an animal, or they realize that they cannot take care of it, or realize that the cute little malamute puppy grows up to be a great big malamute dog, that it is appropriate to take the animal out in the country adn dump it.

There are really only 4 things that happen to the majority of those animals:

1. They starve to death
2. They get killed by coyotes, racoons, badgers or beavers
3. They form packs and kill stock
4. Somebody shoots them.

Domestic dogs that have gone wild are dangerous. Unlike a coyote or a wolf, most domestic dogs do not fear man. AFIK, an animal with the instincts to hunt and kill, but with no fear of man, is a bad thing.

::Major_Baker::

03-22-2006, 01:39 PM

There is nothign personal there, nor anythign particularly insulting. If you feel compelled to report it, by all means do so.

Yes.....would not want to be bothered with pesky things like facts when they get in the way of personal bias.

I have no problem with this. I shoot every stray I see on my property. City folks seem to think that when they are tired of an animal, or they realize that they cannot take care of it, or realize that the cute little malamute puppy grows up to be a great big malamute dog, that it is appropriate to take the animal out in the country adn dump it.

There are really only 4 things that happen to the majority of those animals:

1. They starve to death
2. They get killed by coyotes, racoons, badgers or beavers
3. They form packs and kill stock
4. Somebody shoots them.

Domestic dogs that have gone wild are dangerous. Unlike a coyote or a wolf, most domestic dogs do not fear man. AFIK, an animal with the instincts to hunt and kill, but with no fear of man, is a bad thing.
self edited--inspiration vanished.

Strel

03-22-2006, 02:17 PM

Knowing you as I believe I do, I'm sure your pet dog was what you say it was. But I would ask you this. How does one know when one is being friendly or is a true menace? My friend back in Missouri, who is no stranger to dogs being in law enforcement, had his own experience where his own pit, some two years old, attacked him in his own living room for no apparent reason.

There was a reason though...some dogs (not breeds necessarily) are just plain bad. I'd be willing to accept, with some data to back it up (which I'm sure can be easily found) that pit bulls may have an increased propensity for that. It's hard for me to believe that their training as puppies isn't the most significant factor, though, and such traits can be "bred out" over time.

That's the conundrum that owners of these dogs must face. We read over and over how gentle and sweet these dogs are but then we continue to read over and over in the newspapers of these horrible attacks.

Speaking from personal experience I only know that I faced one a number of years ago and as I say, my blood ran cold. I had my life pass in front of me and I'm 6'6" tall and 270 pounds and fairly able to defend myself. But how does one defend oneself against a dog with their visciousness and unpredictability? This is not a problem that is going away. I have had dogs all my life. One is laying on the couch right now sleeping away. She's a pet. No one needs to fear her that they will wind up in a hospital bed for six weeks like one of these victims. I would never feel safe around a pit bull nor would feel safe in allowing anyone else near it.

Boogiedog still around?

I used to be terrified of dogs - in fact, until I owned that pit bull I mentioned. I was attacked at age three and nearly killed by a doberman. I still don't like them very much (dobermans, not dogs in general).

This is not unlike owing a gun. I own a few. But I know as sure as I type this that they can easily kill a person. And as safe as I try to be, I never entirely feel safe with one; that the safety is on, or that a round is not chambered or that just a careless mistake won't be made. I feel the same way about chain saws. I've been "bitten" by one of those things as well.

Dogs are said to be "man's best friend." I believe that. At the same time I won't bury my head in the sand as some would and claim that all breeds are the same.

But your points are well taken. I'm sure you would be a responsible dog owner. I cannot say with assurance that everyone else will be.

We took him to a real obedience school. He got a C+ and passed LOL.

I totally agree with you that bad dog owners should get jail time, not just some ****ty $150 fine.

USA-1

03-22-2006, 05:04 PM

Until 1990, and rots have surpassed pitt bulls, by an increasing margin, ever since. Further, if you red the court decision, the CDC confirms that those Numbers are simply raw data and do not support any conclusions at all. They also confirm that there is a high likelihood that the number of pit bull deaths is almost certainly overstated. If you follow the links all the way back tot heir original testimony, they state clearly that in a test sampling of 10 cases that they fully investigated, only 3 out of the 10 dogs in those cases actually ended up being pit bulls. The other 7 were NOT. If this sampling is indicative of the data as a whole, then it is likely that pits only killed about 18 people in that time period. This is a large part of the reason that the court in Ohio overturned the ban. Read the conclusion. They could find NO evidence that pits were disproportionaly dangerous.
So pit bulls only killed 18 people? What does that tell you? That they are dangerous. Dogs bite all the time, but when pit bulls bite, the person bit ends up in the emergency room or the morgue. Why would anyone want a breed that has killed 18 people? Is it some kind of ego thing? I despise rotweilers too.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11812403/

Pit bull attack leaves five people injured in Richmond

By From NBC12 News
WWBT-TV
March 13, 2006
Charges were filed Monday against the owner of a pit bull who attacked five people. It happened Sunday in Monroe Park on the VCU campus in Richmond. The charges were filed by VCU Police against the owner of the dog, Rodney Douglas of Richmond.

He's accused of not having the dog properly licensed, vaccinated or restrained – all misdemeanors. The commonwealth's attorney is exploring additional charges against Douglas.

The attacks took place Sunday afternoon in the park. The dog apparently broke away from its owner and began biting people.

A VCU officer on patrol in the park had noticed the dog just minutes before the attacks took place. VCU Police Lt. Lorenza Watson says, “During her patrols in the park, she had seen a gentleman walking this dog with just a rope on, not a leash."

Authorities say the dog kept attacking people, even his owner, until a bystander managed to pin the animal to the ground and held him there until animal control officers arrived.

The most seriously injured person was a woman lying on the ground. She has been released from the hospital.

The dog will be quarantined for ten days to see if he shows signs of rabies.

The arresting officer conferred Monday with the lawyers at the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office but so far, no decision has been made on filing additional charges.

Daewoo

03-22-2006, 05:49 PM

So pit bulls only killed 18 people? What does that tell you? That they are dangerous. Dogs bite all the time, but when pit bulls bite, the person bit ends up in the emergency room or the morgue. Why would anyone want a breed that has killed 18 people? Is it some kind of ego thing? I despise rotweilers too.

That is 18 people in TWENTY YEARS.

142 people are killed by cattle EACH YEAR

95 people are killed by horses EACH YEAR *(and I would bet there are a lot less horses than pit bulls in this country)

15 people are killed by DEER EACH YEAR

What kind of monster would own a horse? Is it some kind of ego thing?

COME ON. GET A CLUE. Step into reality for a minute and take a look around.

Missouri Mule

03-22-2006, 06:04 PM

There was a reason though...some dogs (not breeds necessarily) are just plain bad. I'd be willing to accept, with some data to back it up (which I'm sure can be easily found) that pit bulls may have an increased propensity for that. It's hard for me to believe that their training as puppies isn't the most significant factor, though, and such traits can be "bred out" over time.

Boogiedog still around?

I used to be terrified of dogs - in fact, until I owned that pit bull I mentioned. I was attacked at age three and nearly killed by a doberman. I still don't like them very much (dobermans, not dogs in general).

We took him to a real obedience school. He got a C+ and passed LOL.

I totally agree with you that bad dog owners should get jail time, not just some ****ty $150 fine.

Boogiedog has passed on to the big doghouse in the sky. She was a sweet and wonderful pet but she was at the end of her life with numerous problems (arthritis, nearly blind, nearly deaf and diabetes) and felt it best to put her down. I had to carry her outside in the morning and evening. I buried her in the back yard and planted a hickory tree on her grave to be nourished by her remains. I call it the "Boogie Tree." She gave us a good six years. She was a "senior" dog when we adopted her in Missouri. I did that to help my wife recover from a serious health problem and I believe she came through like a champion.

"Dory" is our new doggy. She is a sweetheart although she is still much of a pup with lots of piss and vinegar in her. We rescued her from one of the local animal shelters. Found her on "Petfinder.com. What I wanted was a purebred "lapdog" and she fills the bill quite nicely. She also likes to sleep in the bed too. Spoiled rotten.

USA-1

03-22-2006, 06:20 PM

That is 18 people in TWENTY YEARS.

142 people are killed by cattle EACH YEAR

95 people are killed by horses EACH YEAR *(and I would bet there are a lot less horses than pit bulls in this country)

15 people are killed by DEER EACH YEAR

What kind of monster would own a horse? Is it some kind of ego thing?

COME ON. GET A CLUE. Step into reality for a minute and take a look around.
You seem to be the one ignoring reality. Pit Bulls were bred to kill, period. That is the sole reason for their existance. They were not bred to be loving pets or to be good with children. They were bred to fight to the death and they are very good at it. Comparing cattle and horses to pit bulls shows how out of touch you really are.

238 deaths from 1979-1998 for which the breed of dog is known, 66 were due to pit bull-type breeds (along with 10 people killed by part-pit bull mixed breed dogs). Pure-bred Rottweilers were far back in second place with 39 kills and pure-bred German Shepherds in third with 17. Unfortunately, we don't have terribly good data on the number of dogs by breed, but certainly the Labrador retriever is vastly more common than all the various pit bull breeds combined, yet only one person in those two decades was killed by a pure bred Labrador (and four by part Labradors).

Moreover, the danger to children (who comprise about 70% of dog fatalities) from pit bulls relative to Labradors is even worse than these numbers suggest because sensible dog owners buy dog breeds based on likely exposure to children. If you have a small child, you are much more likely to buy a Labrador to be his pet rather than a pit bull

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/11/BAG5UDLOAC1.DTL

Pit bull and pit bull mixes accounted for 27 percent of dog bites reported to the city's Animal Care and Control department since 2003, even though pit bulls account for just 6 percent of licensed dogs in the city, records show.
"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

Daewoo

03-22-2006, 06:57 PM

You seem to be the one ignoring reality. Pit Bulls were bred to kill, period. That is the sole reason for their existance. They were not bred to be loving pets or to be good with children. They were bred to fight to the death and they are very good at it. Comparing cattle and horses to pit bulls shows how out of touch you really are.

No, it shows that if you really want to stop animal related deaths, you are looking in entirely the wrong place.

238 deaths from 1979-1998 for which the breed of dog is known, 66 were due to pit bull-type breeds (along with 10 people killed by part-pit bull mixed breed dogs). Pure-bred Rottweilers were far back in second place with 39 kills and pure-bred German Shepherds in third with 17. Unfortunately, we don't have terribly good data on the number of dogs by breed, but certainly the Labrador retriever is vastly more common than all the various pit bull breeds combined, yet only one person in those two decades was killed by a pure bred Labrador (and four by part Labradors).

This is fromt eh CDC report cited above, the same one that representatives form the CDC testified IN COURT, was inaccurate and that the CDC KNEW the number of pit bulls reported was overstated.

None of this is anythign new, and all has already beed refuted. There is ONE statement by an expert in your entire article, and it is this:

"They are wonderful dogs but you have to have a responsible person on the other end of the leash,'' said Megan Alexander, an animal behavior consultant and president of the Sacramento Area Animal Coalition.

You can argue this all you want. I have already presented scientific studies, testimony, including testimony under oath, from multiple animal behavior experts, and even a supprting appelate court decision.

The evidence against your position is absolutly overwhelming. There is no other word for it. Any further attempt to persue your point without ground breaking evidence that refutes all the scientific evidence and expert testimony offered here is at best illogical, and at worst delusional.

Why can't you just look at the OVERWHELMING evidence and say to yourself "Hmmmm, obvioulsy I was wrogn about these digs. GREAT! One less thing to worry about".

I have never understood how peopel can be faced with facts, especially facts as clearly alid out as these, and still make illogical decisions.

USA-1

03-22-2006, 07:11 PM

No, it shows that if you really want to stop animal related deaths, you are looking in entirely the wrong place.

This is fromt eh CDC report cited above, the same one that representatives form the CDC testified IN COURT, was inaccurate and that the CDC KNEW the number of pit bulls reported was overstated.

None of this is anythign new, and all has already beed refuted. There is ONE statement by an expert in your entire article, and it is this:

You can argue this all you want. I have already presented scientific studies, testimony, including testimony under oath, from multiple animal behavior experts, and even a supprting appelate court decision.

The evidence against your position is absolutly overwhelming. There is no other word for it. Any further attempt to persue your point without ground breaking evidence that refutes all the scientific evidence and expert testimony offered here is at best illogical, and at worst delusional.

Why can't you just look at the OVERWHELMING evidence and say to yourself "Hmmmm, obvioulsy I was wrogn about these digs. GREAT! One less thing to worry about".

I have never understood how peopel can be faced with facts, especially facts as clearly alid out as these, and still make illogical decisions.
You are the one that ignores facts. The fact that pit bulls were bred to kill.
The fact that pit bulls are responsible for most attacks yet only represent a small percentage of dog breeds. The fact that when they do attack the injuries are severe and sometimes fatal. And the owners always say " it was such a sweet dog and never did anything like that before."

Pit Bulls were bred to kill. Period. The evidence supporting my position is overwhelming. You just ignore it.

Pit bulls are responsible for more dog bites in Cook County than any other breed, according to recent figures. Those figures along with a rash of recent pit bull attacks in the metropolitan area is sparking a crackdown that includes a new city council ordinance banning pit bulls in Chicago. Current owners would be exempt, but they would have to get their dogs spayed or neutered, implanted with an ID chip and kept on a leash with a muzzle whenever they are off the owner's property.

USA-1

03-22-2006, 07:16 PM

http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/pit_bull_kills_child.html
TYLER, Texas (AP) -- A 3-year-old girl was mauled to death by her family's pit bull Tuesday after her mother fell asleep and the child wandered into the back yard, police said.

Investigators said Bevelon Austin apparently fell asleep and never noticed that her daughter, Ahleah, had wandered into the yard where 13 pit bulls were chained.

Daewoo

03-22-2006, 07:16 PM

You are the one that ignores facts. The fact that pit bulls were bred to kill.
The fact that pit bulls are responsible for most attacks yet only represent a small percentage of dog breeds. The fact that when they do attack the injuries are severe and sometimes fatal. And the owners always say " it was such a sweet dog and never did anything like that before."

Pit Bulls were bred to kill. Period. The evidence supporting my position is overwhelming. You just ignore it.

Pit bulls are responsible for more dog bites in Cook County than any other breed, according to recent figures. Those figures along with a rash of recent pit bull attacks in the metropolitan area is sparking a crackdown that includes a new city council ordinance banning pit bulls in Chicago. Current owners would be exempt, but they would have to get their dogs spayed or neutered, implanted with an ID chip and kept on a leash with a muzzle whenever they are off the owner's property.

Wll you have offered is a bunch of anecdotal quasi evidence. If your contention was true that pit bulls were simply born and bred killers, why do over 80% of them pass the generally accepted temperment test???

USA-1

03-22-2006, 07:18 PM

Wll you have offered is a bunch of anecdotal quasi evidence. If your contention was true that pit bulls were simply born and bred killers, why do over 80% of them pass the generally accepted temperment test???
So only 20 out of 100 will bite your arm off? Ok you win.

Seven pit bulls attack, kill 82-year-old woman
Saturday, December 13, 2003 Posted: 9:46 AM EST (1446 GMT)

CITRA, Florida (AP) -- Seven pit bulls escaped from their owner's home and mauled an 82-year-old neighbor to death Friday.

Alice Broom died at Munroe Regional Medical Center in Ocala, officials told the Ocala Star-Banner for its Saturday editions.

Broom was found by the dogs' owner, Robert Freeman, 67. He said the dogs were attacking the woman when he arrived, and speculated that the attack had gone on for at least 10 minutes.

Daewoo

03-22-2006, 08:34 PM

So only 20 out of 100 will bite your arm off? Ok you win.

Odds are none will bite your arm off. Nor are they any more likely to do serious damage than other dogs who attack (note the testimony from both the biologist who says that there is NO physical diffrence in the pittbulls, and the testimony from the anumal behavior specialist who notes that if anything pit bulls tend to be friendlier than other breeds and naturally LESS vicious in their attacks).

You are wasting your time coming up with the worthless anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence does not trup scientific fact or expert testimony.

As far as I can see, unless you actually have some facts to go off of here, besides those already discredited (and by the very people who compiled the numbers no less), the issue is essentailly closed. You haev presented not one shred of evidence to back your claims.

USA-1

03-22-2006, 09:21 PM

Odds are none will bite your arm off. Nor are they any more likely to do serious damage than other dogs who attack (note the testimony from both the biologist who says that there is NO physical diffrence in the pittbulls, and the testimony from the anumal behavior specialist who notes that if anything pit bulls tend to be friendlier than other breeds and naturally LESS vicious in their attacks).

You are wasting your time coming up with the worthless anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence does not trup scientific fact or expert testimony.

As far as I can see, unless you actually have some facts to go off of here, besides those already discredited (and by the very people who compiled the numbers no less), the issue is essentailly closed. You haev presented not one shred of evidence to back your claims.
I am just looking at the real world. Pit bulls and rottweilers have killed more people than any other breed. They do more damage than other dogs. In some citys they are reponsible for many of the attacks yet are a small percentage of total dogs. The numbers speak for themselves.
Lets forget about this for now. In a couple weeks there will be another pit bull attack and we can go through this all over again.
Your "scientific fact" is completely flawed.
Anecdotal evidence is the real world.

USA-1

03-22-2006, 10:13 PM

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/s8983.html

dittohead not!

03-22-2006, 11:32 PM

USA-1

03-23-2006, 07:19 AM

This from yesterday:
http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S15030.html?cat=1

Pit bulls are such a sweet loving, breed.

Strel

03-23-2006, 10:36 AM

Boogiedog has passed on to the big doghouse in the sky. She was a sweet and wonderful pet but she was at the end of her life with numerous problems (arthritis, nearly blind, nearly deaf and diabetes) and felt it best to put her down. I had to carry her outside in the morning and evening. I buried her in the back yard and planted a hickory tree on her grave to be nourished by her remains. I call it the "Boogie Tree." She gave us a good six years. She was a "senior" dog when we adopted her in Missouri. I did that to help my wife recover from a serious health problem and I believe she came through like a champion.

"Dory" is our new doggy. She is a sweetheart although she is still much of a pup with lots of piss and vinegar in her. We rescued her from one of the local animal shelters. Found her on "Petfinder.com. What I wanted was a purebred "lapdog" and she fills the bill quite nicely. She also likes to sleep in the bed too. Spoiled rotten.

Sorry to hear that. I hadn't realized she was already an old dog.

Pets can be a great help when you are down or sick. I got a kitten when I was suffering from a painful (but not life-threatening) health problem a few years ago and it was better than any drug. He's still around, but now he is a pain in the *** because he got so much attention and was spoiled as a kitten.

Missouri Mule

03-23-2006, 12:36 PM

This from yesterday:
http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S15030.html?cat=1

Pit bulls are such a sweet loving, breed.

From the article:

"The pit bull’s handler came running up to the scene and took his dog away."

The victim doesn't know if the dog has rabies and the "handler" of the pit bull got away scott free.

I'm thinking that one ought to carry mace when out walking. I do that and carry a club as well when I walk my dog.

What we could all do would be to contact our representatives and congress critter to take action over these beasts. And if the news organizations wanted to do some good they should make this story a front page item so people know the full story. It is an outrage that this breed even exists. We don't allow lions and tigers to roam the streets. These killer dogs are everywhere and the bodies continue to stack up.

Daewoo

03-23-2006, 01:19 PM

What we could all do would be to contact our representatives and congress critter to take action over these beasts. And if the news organizations wanted to do some good they should make this story a front page item so people know the full story. It is an outrage that this breed even exists. We don't allow lions and tigers to roam the streets. These killer dogs are everywhere and the bodies continue to stack up.

So, ALL the facts point against this, and yet you continue on your idiotic course. You just love wallowing in ignorance, dont you?

As far as congress outlawing pit bulls, exactly which portion of congressional power do you feel covers this?

Missouri Mule

03-23-2006, 01:53 PM

So, ALL the facts point against this, and yet you continue on your idiotic course. You just love wallowing in ignorance, dont you?

As far as congress outlawing pit bulls, exactly which portion of congressional power do you feel covers this?

Doesn't the Constitution provide for the common defense of the citizens? If we don't allow lions and tigers to roam the streets and countryside of America why should we allow these predators to do so? The truth of the matter is that most citizens are in more danger from these beasts than all the terrorists in the world. This is an everyday hazard everywhere.

If there is a disease that threatens our citizens, the Congress can get involved. We have a plague of these beasts that roam America and almost daily bring death and life threatening injuries. This is real. This is today. Americans and visitors should be free to conduct their daily affairs without undue fear of these monsters.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It is implicit in the preamble to our Constitution that the people have a right to be secure in their homes and persons. I see nothing in the Contitution or its various amendments that allow people to have wild beasts that prey on other citizens. That's not in the Second Amendment which I vigorously support.

In any event, the congressmen and women can advise, if they cannot help, show the way to get this ever continuing and burgeoning problem under control. No one should be terrorised walking the streets and parks of our nation. Perhaps Homeland Security should be involved. After all our citizens are being terrorized by these irresponsible owners and their predator beasts. I hereby propose the 2006 Pit Bull Control Act.
-------------------------------
Just to remind everyone what we are talking about, here is a photo of one of these land alligators.

http://blog-hrc.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/pitbull.jpg

Daewoo

03-23-2006, 02:45 PM

USA-1

03-23-2006, 05:20 PM

.
"Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....[T]he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

Pit bull and pit bull mixes accounted for 27 percent of dog bites reported to the city's Animal Care and Control department since 2003, even though pit bulls account for just 6 percent of licensed dogs in the city, records show.Pit bulls are responsible for more dog bites in Cook County than any other breed, according to recent figures. Those figures along with a rash of recent pit bull attacks in the metropolitan area is sparking a crackdown that includes a new city council ordinance banning pit bulls in Chicago. Current owners would be exempt, but they would have to get their dogs spayed or neutered, implanted with an ID chip and kept on a leash with a muzzle whenever they are off the owner's property.

Ignore the facts.

Missouri Mule

03-24-2006, 12:55 PM

Luckily, idiotic laws usually do not make it through the legal process. Also, we have the courts to protect us from stupid people. Every time the constitutionality of a pit bull ban has been examined in court, it has been declared unconstitutional. The first state supreme court on this was in alabama:

http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/September2002/News060902/bsl.htm

The court found that the breed was not genetically danfgerous (which seems to be your opinion) and that the breed specific ban was unconstitutional (due process and equl protection).

The WAF is pretty much leading the fight. They are directly responsible for such bans being made illegal in Alabama and Ohio. Colorado seems to be the next on ein theri sites. The colorado legislature actually passed a law that sities and counties could not ban pit bulls. Denver fought back and got their ban upheld. They are already considering dropping the ban in the face of a constitutional challenge. After all, since the bans have been ruled unconsittutional everywhere lese that they have been tried in court, why would colorado be any differernt. Taxpayers generally take a dim view of cities blowing thns or hundreds of thousands of dollars to push for an unconstitutional law.

Go ahead and push for the ban. Good luck. Luckily, we live in a society where there are processes in place to keep ignorant fools in check. Unfortunatly, in order to get your ban in palce and make it constitutional, you would have to amend the constitution so that people can be denied due process and equal protection based on the kind fo dog they own. Seems pretty unlikely to me.

I just hope that one of these four legged alligators never chews your arm or leg off or that one of your children never dies because these beasts are running loose. I think you are defending the indefensible.

Although I am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms it is also a fact that the federal government has banned machine guns. No one seems much to mind that fact. I would put the pit bulls in the category of a machine gun. In fact it is more dangerous because they are found everywhere while machine guns are generally only found in museums. I would like the last pit bull mounted and put in a museum to show that we as a society put an end to this needless threat.

The only alternative for citizens to protect themselves, their family and pets is to shoot these predators to death if the courts won't give us redress. I fully intend to push this agenda until they are outlawed. I'm sick and tired of reading almost daily of the carnage in our own land.