Treatment of Livestock

[SkepticLance]

lucaspa said

 

Now you said: "They are not especially trained for intelligence. Just aggressive fighting tendency."

 

Whoops. I made a slip of the keyboard. I should have written : "not especially bred for intelligence." That changes the whole point.

 

German shepherds etc are intelligent, and trainable to a degree that some breeds are not. Pit bulls are bred to be aggressive. In other words, it is in their genes. This makes them dangerous. Sure, some can be good family dogs. However, it takes only one in a hundred to attack and kill a baby to make the whole damn breed too dangerous to have around.

 

Here in NZ, pit bulls have attacked and killed several people (mostly infants, but at least two adults) in the last decade. Does not sound much, but as a percentage of the number of pit bulls around, it makes them many times more dangerous than a Rottweiler.

 

The experts who advise the government said pit bulls, and several other breeds, were too dangerous to permit to breed. I trust their expert opinions far more than yours.

[Paralith]

I don't think the problem is necessarily with the pit bulls themselves. They are bred for aggression but they, like all other dogs, are also bred to listen to people. In the hands of the right owner, any pit bull can be as safe as a kitten. But the real problem is that not every owner has the desire or knowledge to safely control their dog. So if a country or state wants to ban a certain kind of dog because they can't trust that their owners will be responsible, then that's their decision to make.

[lovejunkie02]

ANY pit bull can be as safe as a kitten? are you sure about that?

[iNow]

ANY pit bull can be as safe as a kitten? are you sure about that?

 

If the pit bull hasn't already been raised NOT to be safe, then (I'll answer on Paralith's behalf) absolutely yes. Why do you think it would be otherwise? It's all about how they are raised.

 

 

I wonder how good a trainer you'd have to be to make a wolverine a safe pet?

[Paralith]

Thanks, INow. But I would go even farther and say that even a pit bull that has previously been raised badly can potentially be trained away from that behavior. I know I'll probably get snarked at for citing a tv show here, but if you ever get a chance to watch the Dog Whisperer on the national geographic channel, you'll see what I mean. Cesar Milan has a reputation for being able to rehabilitate even highly aggressive dogs. Like I keep saying, there's that 10000 years of selective breeding of dogs for obedience that is in every breed, no matter how aggressive, which enables dogs to be controlled and trained by humans unlike few other animals.

[iNow]

I rehabilitate dogs. I train people.

[DrDNA]

But the data is that Pit Bulls are just like German Shepherds or Rotweilers. Many of them are gently family pets! As I keep saying, the dog on Little Rascals was a pit bull! Check the testimonial at this site: http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/americanpitbull.htm

Oh tey Buckwheat. Hollywood is not reality.

 

And I hardly think that a group of individuals with a website devoted to maintaining and advancing the american pit bull breed is an unbiased source of info regarding pit bulls.

 

 

Since modern dogs are descended from domesticated wolves, wolves MUST be domesticable. In fact, the website you posted says this explicitly!

 

Nor does it say that wolves cannot make pets, but that the owner has to have experience!

"A wolf knocking around, or being knocked around, by human society only rarely finds an adequate owner. These owners are at least fairly knowledgeable, have already been dog owners, are prepared for a wolf, and are conscientious of their obligation. Are you one?"

 

So, DrDNA, you apparently didn't even do your own reading! This article does not say what you say it does. It says that wolves are "domesticable" but that it takes a very special person to do so.

 

Actually, it does say that wolves do not make good pets. It states: "Wolves are wild animals and geared to their last fibre to survive in the wild. Wild animals do not make good pets in people's homes. Wolves are not wild pet dogs."

The assumption is we are talking about a pet in the standard sense. Not a pet as in the wild bear in Grizzly Adams or the dolphine in Flipper.

 

Modern dogs have been deliberately selected for thousands of generations (by artificial selection) to deal with humans, so the behavior of modern dogs and modern wild wolves is going to be different.

 

 

That is a value judgement and is very different from whether it CAN be done. You are saying it SHOULD not be done. Apples and oranges.

 

As you noted, there is at least 10,000 years of evolution between wolves and modern dogs. And dogs have suffered severe artificial selection so that they will "look to humans for guidance". Any of the early domesticated wolves that didn't were killed by their human owners!

 

The issues isn't whether there are differences. Of course there are: those 10,000 years of different evolution. The issue was whether wolves COULD BE domesticated. The answer is "Yes".

 

You are obviously nit picking. We are discussing first generation wolves. An issue came up whether or not wolves make good pets or not. A wolf is no more a domestic dog than we are the primates that we evolved from. The key here is many generations of selective breeding separates dogs from wolves. I think you know what I meant by "domesticable" in the sense of taking a wolf pup and trying to make a pet out of it.....not selective breeding over generations.

[lucaspa]

lucaspa said

 

Now you said: "They are not especially trained for intelligence. Just aggressive fighting tendency."

 

Whoops. I made a slip of the keyboard. I should have written : "not especially bred for intelligence." That changes the whole point.

 

German shepherds etc are intelligent, and trainable to a degree that some breeds are not. Pit bulls are bred to be aggressive. In other words, it is in their genes. This makes them dangerous. Sure, some can be good family dogs. However, it takes only one in a hundred to attack and kill a baby to make the whole damn breed too dangerous to have around.

 

Here in NZ, pit bulls have attacked and killed several people (mostly infants, but at least two adults) in the last decade. Does not sound much, but as a percentage of the number of pit bulls around, it makes them many times more dangerous than a Rottweiler.

 

As I said, a political reaction. Based on a value judgement: "only one in a hundred to attack and kill a bably to make the whole damn breed too dangerous to have around." However, for that value judgement to be valid, do you have statistics on humans attacked by German shepherds or Rottweiler's?

 

The experts who advise the government said pit bulls, and several other breeds, were too dangerous to permit to breed. I trust their expert opinions far more than yours.

 

Argument from authority. Not data. I presented data that pit bulls make good family dogs IF they are not trained for fighting but treated like family dogs. You don't have data, just what you heard that experts said. Do you really have the transcripts of the testimony? Perhaps not all the experts actually said that. Perhaps the politicians simply took the easiest course. Wouldn't be the first time politicians did that and did an injustice.

 

Oh tey Buckwheat. Hollywood is not reality.

 

But the set IS! They couldn't keep an animal on the set if it wasn't gentle and kept attacking the child actors!

 

And I hardly think that a group of individuals with a website devoted to maintaining and advancing the american pit bull breed is an unbiased source of info regarding pit bulls.

 

Is the data wrong? That's the issue: is the data correct or not? Saying "bias" is making a strawman.

 

Actually, it does say that wolves do not make good pets.

 

Your original statement was not about "good pets". It was

"I suggest you do some reading. Wolves are not domesticable.

http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/petwolves.html "

 

So now you are moving the goalposts. No, wolves are "not wild pet dogs". BUT they ARE domesticable and, under an owner who understands what the situation is, can be a "pet" as in domesticated.

 

The assumption is we are talking about a pet in the standard sense. Not a pet as in the wild bear in Grizzly Adams or the dolphine in Flipper.

 

No, you originally set the goalpost at "domesticable" which does put you in the category of "pet" as in Grizzly Adams.

 

You are obviously nit picking. We are discussing first generation wolves.

 

You quoted out of context. Paralith said:

Wolves can be domesticated to a degree, but there will still be some key differences between them and dogs that will make them inherently more dangerous.

 

My post was elaborating on the differences between a first generation domesticated wolf and dogs.

 

An issue came up whether or not wolves make good pets or not.

 

No, that wasn't the issue. INow made a post that a wolf raised by humans would not be as aggressive as a wild wolf, since aggressiveness is partly the result of training. You responded that wolves were not "domesticable". Which is obviously false. Having been caught at that, you are now trying to move the goalposts to whether wolves made "good pets" as in modern dogs.

[SkepticLance]

To lucaspa

 

Re your repeated assertions that pit bulls are good family pet dogs.

 

May I ask what your emotional bent is? You sound like a dog owner who happens to have a pit bull, and must defend its reputation. While I admit not having the data at my finger tips, I remember enough news reports of attacks to know that pit bulls are unusually aggressive and can be very nasty. The descriptions of those attacks are of an animal that does not give up. In other words, it carries through the attack until the victim is either rescued or dead.

 

German shepherds may bite, but that is not the same as a lethal attack. They are much more likely to take a chunk out of the victim and then back off. I can remember several occasions here in NZ where pit bulls have killed people. I can not remember a single case of a German shepherd doing that, though many where a German shepherd bites. And there are a lot more German shepherds here than pit bulls.

[iNow]

To lucaspa

 

Re your repeated assertions that pit bulls are good family pet dogs.

 

May I ask what your emotional bent is? You sound like a dog owner who happens to have a pit bull, and must defend its reputation. While I admit not having the data at my finger tips, I remember enough news reports of attacks to know that pit bulls are unusually aggressive and can be very nasty. The descriptions of those attacks are of an animal that does not give up. In other words, it carries through the attack until the victim is either rescued or dead.

 

German shepherds may bite, but that is not the same as a lethal attack. They are much more likely to take a chunk out of the victim and then back off. I can remember several occasions here in NZ where pit bulls have killed people. I can not remember a single case of a German shepherd doing that, though many where a German shepherd bites. And there are a lot more German shepherds here than pit bulls.

 

I think his "bent" is that your assertion that pitbulls are inherently dangerous is bunk, and that you're stating things as fact with zero evidence to confirm.

 

If you want to continuing holding the position you are, present evidence. Otherwise, you're full of crap.

 

Pit bulls are wonderfuly sweet animals, and have earned a bad reputation because a few backward ass non-evolved morons who get their jollies watching animals kill each other have used pit bulls to do so. Because the pit bull happens to be stronger than many other breeds, we retarded humans have encouraged them to kill for our own entertainment.

 

I'd trust a pit bull I'd raised with an infant. It's all about how they're raised, and I feel like I'm beating a dead horse because this has been stated so clearly so many times already.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

Your response appears to me to be extremely emotional. Here in New Zealand, laws were passed against the breeding of pit bulls because of a number of attacks including several fatalities, with people being killed. As I said before, if the majority of pit bulls are docile, but one in a hundred is a killer, that is one too many.

 

I did a belated googe search under "pit bull"+"fatal attack" and came up with 4300 hits. A typical item is below.

 

http://www.dogiee.com/blog/family-pet-pit-bull-killed-young-boy/

 

In spite of the purely emotional response from pit bull loving people, pit bulls are dangerous.

[iNow]

Your response appears to me to be extremely emotional. Here in New Zealand, laws were passed against the breeding of pit bulls because of a number of attacks including several fatalities, with people being killed. As I said before, if the majority of pit bulls are docile, but one in a hundred is a killer, that is one too many.

 

<...>

 

In spite of the purely emotional response from pit bull loving people, pit bulls are dangerous.

 

Hey mate, the emotion you sensed in my response was not grounded in any desire to protect the dog (although, that is a nice side benefit). My passions were enflamed due to the consistency with which you assert their danger with no proof. And now, you've done it again above.

 

There are a lot of laws that are stupid, and just because something has been passed as law does not add any validity to the claim that something is dangerous. For example, here in Texas, sodomy is illegal. That means that some idiot in power decided that what two people do in the privacy of their homes should be illegal because this person gave it the subjective label of "wrong" or "dangerous." Again, the fact that it was passed as law has zero bearing on it's danger or correctness.

 

You searched google for examples of pitbulls killing. I appreciate it, and send my deepest sympathies to this family, but your link to a blog isn't quite what we're after when we ask for evidence. Further, I'd place money on the fact that there are significantly more pit bulls in the world which are NOT dangerous and which are perfectly safe, than there are that are dangerous and not safe.

 

Have pitbulls killed? Yes. Have german shepherds killed? Yes. Have horses killed? Yes. Have all manner of other animals we keep as pets killed? Yes... Why is the pit bull being singled out? WTF? Cars are dangerous too. Why doesn't NZ outlaw those? What about smoking or alcohol? Come on... At least be consistent in your reasoning.

 

 

 

BTW - This still has nothing to do with the treatment of livestock and the activities of slaughter house personnel.

[Paralith]

Have pitbulls killed? Yes. Have german shepherds killed? Yes. Have horses killed? Yes. Have all manner of other animals we keep as pets killed? Yes... Why is the pit bull being singled out?

 

Agreed. Just as any pit bull can be gentle, so can any other breed of dog become dangerously aggressive outside of proper ownership. However, because a pit bull is a large, strong dog that has been bred to be able to lock it's jaw on things it's been told to bite, then perhaps a pit bull's aggression may be more likely to fatally hurt someone than, say, a chihuahua's aggression. I can accept that. But other big dogs like rotties and german shepherds are probably just as able to seriously hurt someone.

 

I think another reason that pit bulls seem so dangerous compared to other dogs is in fact their reputation. And because they have a reputation, ignorant people who want nasty fighting or guard dogs get pit bulls more than other dogs and then train them that way, further reinforcing the bad reputation. I think it's also very likely that people get bit more by pit bulls because they are more likely to be afraid of a pit bull. If your first reaction to a dog is that of fear and running away, the dog is going to pick up on that and is more likely to respond in a dominant, aggressive manner.

 

And yes, this is very much off the topic of livestock treatment. But hey, at least we're talking about pit bulls and fighting dogs, which relates to the ultimate origin of the thread, the Vick case. *shrugs*

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

Yes, I admit this is not a field in which I am expert. However, I began the 'pit bull' discussion by mentioning the NZ situation in which a number of experts advised the government to ban breeding of 5 breeds of dogs, because they were bred to be aggressive and were thus dangerous. I am kinda forced to continue.

 

You claim I have not supplied data to show pit blls are dangerous. You are correct, since I have not seen such data - just items in the newspaper on pit bull attacks and fatalities coming from such attacks, and comments by experts. Of course, you have not quoted any data either - making you equally culpable.

 

There is no doubt that pit bulls have been behind many attacks, and many human fatalities. The example I quoted was a previously docile family pet that inexplicably attacked and killed a child. This appears to be quite typical. The newspaper accounts I have read often mention how it appears to be that an attack is the result of a totally unpredictable change of dog behaviour, from friendly to murderous.

 

There have been more human fatalities in NZ from pit bull attacks than from any other breed, and the pit bull is a minority breed (newspaper account). Assuming the newspaper is right, then that makes them dangerous.

 

Personally, I think that any breeder who selects for aggressive behaviour is a total asshole and, if their dogs kill someone, that person should be considered to be the equivalent of someone guilty of manslaughter. Such breeding is wrong, and the results should not be permitted to produce progeny.

[DrDNA]

Why have the arguments in this thread become so heated?

[SkepticLance]

Not being heated here - just factual.

 

Following the demand by lucaspa and iNow for data, I checked google again. A study of dog attack related fatalities in the United States between 1979 and 1998 reveals pit bulls the worst at 66 deaths, and rottweilers second at 39.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

[iNow]

Not being heated here - just factual.

 

Following the demand by lucaspa and iNow for data, I checked google again. A study of dog attack related fatalities in the United States between 1979 and 1998 reveals pit bulls the worst at 66 deaths, and rottweilers second at 39.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

 

66 deaths across 19 years... That's three and a half people per year. I think more people than that die from soda machines falling on them. Tell me again for the first time why pit bulls are being singled out?

 

 

Btw Lance, it's not my intent to be heated with you. I actually laughed a bit when I read DrDNAs comment. I am trying to see if you can support your position, not attack your character. I just happen to disagree with your position, and also hope to illustrate why. All the best mate.

 

 

We must protect those that cannot protect themselves.

[Mr Skeptic]

Perhaps we should just outlaw the breeding of people genetically predisposed to breed aggressive tendencies into dogs for their own amusement? I'm all for improving the human race!

 

----

 

Of course animals on a ranch are treated "badly" we eat them. We stuff them full of hormones so they grow quick, and keep them mostly confined so they stay tender. We kill them humanely so that they are more tender and taste better. We keep them clean and healthy for various reasons too. I guess they would be bored. How do you measure the "quality of life" for your next meal?

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

In spite of DrDNA's comment, there is no hard feeling either side of this discussion. Obviously I disagree with you, but I quite enjoy a good argument, so that just leaves me feeling the pleasure of the discussion.

 

3.5 deaths per year? Yes, but even one preventable death is too many. And that ignores the much larger numbers of people maimed and traumatized by dog attacks. There are so many lovely breeds of dog available. Why do we need one proven to be aggressive and an occasional killer?

[iNow]

Steering this back toward livestock (pun intended), why don't we outlaw red meat by your reasoning? Heart disease, per your own numbers on deaths caused by dog attacks, causes far more deaths. You might respond that "people want red meat, people enjoy red meat," so I'd ask, what makes pit bulls any different? Why are they singled out and the target of our concern?

 

 

They are animals, and we are their alpha pack leader. If they do something like rip off an arm, it's the alpha pack leaders fault for failing to properly train and control their subordinate pack member.

 

Too often, the owners, with an inherent insecurity and desire for physical protection from neighbors, breed the dogs to protect them, to attack others, and it's not the dog which is at fault.

 

The New Zealand law makers copped out with this decision, appealing to the frenzy of the uninformed rumor machine, and the miniscule death numbers and psychosocial literature on canines confirm this. Have you completely closed your eyes on the issue, and are set in your decision that pit bulls are inerently untrustworhy?

[lucaspa]

To lucaspa

 

May I ask what your emotional bent is? You sound like a dog owner who happens to have a pit bull, and must defend its reputation. While I admit not having the data at my finger tips, I remember enough news reports of attacks to know that pit bulls are unusually aggressive and can be very nasty.

 

No emotional bent. Just testing the assertion and looking at data that falsifies the hypothesis. Remember, if you only look for data to support a hypothesis, you can ALWAYS find it. Have pit bulls attacked humans? Yes. Have other breeds attacked humans -- from postmen to babies? Yes. So, to test the claim of "unusually agressive", you would have to compare attacks by other breeds vs pit bulls to see if pit bulls have more. The only statistics are by people that, by your criteria, are "biased" -- because they are advocating a particular position.

 

So, one of the "biased" sites is here: http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf you will find that pit bulls do havethe most attacks resulting in serious injury of all the breeds. They are closely followed by Rottweiler's and Presa Canarios. Were these breeds included in the NZ ban?

 

The descriptions of those attacks are of an animal that does not give up. In other words, it carries through the attack until the victim is either rescued or dead.

 

What descriptions? You didn't provide a source. This is a bare assertion.

 

German shepherds may bite, but that is not the same as a lethal attack. They are much more likely to take a chunk out of the victim and then back off.

 

Not according to to the webpage.

 

So I have to ask: what is YOUR emotional attachment? Bitten by a pit bull during your life?

 

Following the demand by lucaspa and iNow for data, I checked google again. A study of dog attack related fatalities in the United States between 1979 and 1998 reveals pit bulls the worst at 66 deaths, and rottweilers second at 39.http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf

 

Nice of you to finally present some data. And a .gov source as well! Cool!

 

Now, let me point out something when you analyze data. Again, the idea is to look for data that is COUNTER to your hypothesis, not just in support. YOU have to be the harshest critic of your position.

 

So let's look at the last line: number of deaths for which the breed is unknown. The total there for the entire time period is 238. That is 6 more than the total for the breeds listed (232). This can obviously skew the data away from pit bulls to #2 -5 in the list. So you have to take the conclusion with a healthy bit of skepticism because the unknown breed can change the picture.

[DrDNA]

"For every fatal dog bite in the United States, there are 230,000 bites that are not treated by a physician.

................

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author's observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

 

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

 

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

 

Clifton's opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, "Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all."

The financial impact of dog bites

Dog attack victims in the US suffer over $1 billion in monetary losses every year. ("Take the bite out of man's best friend." State Farm Times, 1998;3(5):2.) That $1 billion estimate might be low -- an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that, in 1995, State Farm paid $70 million on 11,000 claims and estimated that the total annual insurance cost for dog bites was about $2 billion. (Voelker R. "Dog bites recognized as public health problem." JAMA 1997;277:278,280.)

 

According to the Insurance Information Institute, dog bites cost insurers $345.5 million in 2002, $321.6 million in 2003, $317.2 million in 2005, and $351.4 in 2006. The number of claims paid by insurers was 20,800 in 2002, but fell to 15,000 in 2005. The insurance payment for the average dog bite claim was $16,600 in 2002, but rose to $21,200 in 2005. Liability claims accounted for approximately 4 percent of homeowners claims. Dog bite claims in 2005 accounted for about 15 percent of liability claims dollars paid under homeowners insurance policies."

 

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

[SkepticLance]

iNow said

 

If they do something like rip off an arm, it's the alpha pack leaders fault for failing to properly train and control their subordinate pack member.

 

Does this explain why statistics show they are by far the biggest killer?

 

To lucaspa

 

I have no emotional bent in relation to pit bulls, except for the emotional desire to reveal the truth. I have never been bitten by a pit bull, and in fact, hardly ever touched one. I have an emotional bent towards German Shepherds, who are attractive looking, highly intelligent and highly loyal animals. I was a bit distressed to see them as number 3 on the list of breeds killing humans.

 

You said

 

So let's look at the last line: number of deaths for which the breed is unknown. The total there for the entire time period is 238. That is 6 more than the total for the breeds listed (232). This can obviously skew the data away from pit bulls to #2 -5 in the list. So you have to take the conclusion with a healthy bit of skepticism because the unknown breed can change the picture.

 

Tut tut lucaspa. For someone who claims to be a good scientist, you are being very naughty. Look at the data again and think about it. The highest probability is that the unknown breeds are represented in a proportion that reflects the known breeds, at least to some degree. This cannot be guaranteed, but simple logic suggests that it is most probable. The reason some breeds are 'unknown' is simply that they were not identified. This will not very likely change the overall picture, and you know it.

 

Of the known breeds, pit bulls were by far the worst. They are not strictly, a single breed, but represent a group of very similar dogs, bred for fighting. It is this breeding that makes them dangerous.

 

Incidentally, for dog lovers, it may be worth noting that, for every human attacked and killed by pit bulls, many dogs are attacked and killed. If you love dogs, you should resist the breeding and widespread ownership of pit bulls.

[DrDNA]

The advocates for pitbulls might want to read this report. I found it enlightening:

 

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks%201982%20to%202006%20Clifton.pdf

 

To summarize, of 2209 dog attacks doing bodily harm, 1110 were by pit bull terriers. This is not counting pit bull mixes.

 

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

 

Regarding German Sheps and Wolf Hybrids (Sorry, I can't find similar data on pure wolves):

" German shepherds and German shepherd mixes in which the German shepherd line predominates together amount to 16% of the entire U.S. and Canadian dog population, according to the data we have on breed-specific licensing, or just about nine million total dogs. There are by contrast only about 300,000 recognized wolf hybrids: about one for every 30 German shepherds.Relative to their overall numbers, wolf hybrids are accordingly 60 times more likely to kill or maim a child than a German shepherd--and that is before even beginning to consider the critical behavioral distinctions."

 

"In the German shepherd mauling, killing, and maiming cases I have

recorded, there have almost always been circumstances of duress: the dog was deranged from being kept alone on a chain for prolonged periods without human contract, was starving, was otherwise severely abused, was

protecting puppies, or was part of a pack including other dangerous dogs.

None of the German shepherd attacks have involved predatory behavior on the part of an otherwise healthy dog.Every one of the wolf hybrid attacks, however, seems to have been predatory. Only four of the fatality victims were older than age seven, and all three were of small stature. The first adult fatality was killed in the presence of her two young sons, whom she was apparently trying to protect. The second was killed while apparently trying to protect her dog.

Most of the victims were killed very quickly. Some never knew the wolf

hybrid was present. Some may never have known what hit them. Some were

killed right in front of parents, who had no time to react.

Unlike German shepherds, wolf hybrids are usually kept well apart from

children, and from any people other than their owners. Yet they have still

found more opportunity to kill and maim than members of any other breeds

except pit bull terriers and Rottweilers, each of whom may outnumber wolf

hybrids by about 10 to 1."

 

Unless you don't believe these numbers, I personally don't see a case for Pit bulls or wolve hybrids. Again, that is my opinion, but I think you will agree that the data does support it.

[iNow]

Does this explain why statistics show they are by far the biggest killer?

 

Statistics show correlation, not causation. However, I'd say yes. All 3.5 of those annual deaths are the fault of the owners.

 

 

Anyhow, I feel like a dog chasing my tail in this thread. I know what I've presented is accurate, and I'd hoped to point out the flaws in your reasoning. I believe I've been successful at this.

 

How many times per day do you see a pit bull? How often is your life threatened by a member of this breed? Again, using your logic, there are a plethora of other things to be outlawed with a far greater impact and detriment to our lives. Why not focus on those with such vigor?

 

Nobody has yet answered my question, so I'll ask it a third time. Why are pit bulls being singled out?

 

 

It's like pit bulls are the new non-human black people of the 1960s, and the white Alabama police have decided to turn their hoses on them blindly because they are all equally dumb and aggressive.