Treatment of Livestock

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

I suggest you read the excellent posts that DrDNA has put up.

 

Pit bulls are being selected because they are much more aggressive and worse killers than other dog breeds. The data shows this. If you are a good enough scientist, you will accept the data and agree.

[Paralith]

There is an alternative explanation for the increased number of pit bull attacks other than their being innately more dangerous than other dogs, which I mentioned before but no one seemed to pay attention to, haha. Probably because it's not much more than my own conjecture, but I'll say it again. Once pit bulls had an established reputation as being good fighting/guard dogs, people who want mean aggressive dogs get pit bulls and raise them that way; people are afraid of pit bulls before they even get a chance to know the individual animal, and immediately show signs of fear and/or running away, inciting dominant aggressive behavior in the dog. Even well behaved dogs can go a little bonkers when they see something running away from them, and may react "seemingly without warning." Predators react to prey-like behavior. And as DrDNA said, reading the signs of this behavior ahead of time are hampered by the cutting of the dogs' tails, which most certainly isn't the dog's fault. Combine this with ignorant owners who aren't careful with their dogs and you get pit bulls being the center of more dog attacks than other breeds. I wold say that until you can show that this alternative possibility is false, then you can't be sure that innate aggression is the sole cause of the increase in statistics. Like INow said, correlation is not necessarily causation.

[iNow]

Let's be scientific about this then. I've opened a poll and thread for discussion here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28741

[lucaspa]

lucaspa: 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.

 

I love how you always go to ad hominem! Instead of just addressing the point, you try to belittle me as a scientist. Sorry, SkepticLance, but you are being "naughty". You are applying a new hypothesis: that the distribution of the unkowns will follow the knowns. That is what you call "probability". But you don't know this. So you can't try to pass your hypothesis off as supported and as "fact".

 

As you said: "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."

 

Right, the breed was unidentified. That's the whole point! You have no idea whether there is bias in identifying breeds or that people are more likely to recognize certain breeds over others. So your statmeent "This will not very likely change the overall picture" is completely unsupported!

 

Now, you would have been justified IF the "unknowns" had been much less than the knowns. Say the unknowns had been only 20. Even IF all the unknowns had turned out to be Rottweiler's, that would not have changed the data. However, with the total unknowns outnumbering the knowns, this is not the case. The percentage of known attacks that are pit bulls is about 25% and the percentage for rottweilers is 17%. So, if those percentages are simply reversed for the unknowns, then rottweiler's become #1. That's not a big change.

 

Do some thinking, SkepticLance, and please stop being dogmatic about your position. LOOK at the data skeptically. Scientists do. You don't. Live up to your name.

 

Of the known breeds, pit bulls were by far the worst.

 

They do have more attacks.

 

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.

 

No, that is what we are discussing. Is it the breeding or the training? The statistics don't tell you which hypothesis is correct. The data doesn't tell you whether the dogs that did the attacking had been trained for violence.

 

One thing we would need to look at is number of dogs vs number of attacks. IOW, what percentage of pit bulls participate in attacks. If you are correct and it is breeding, that percentage should be fairly high. If training is more correct, the percentage will be low.

 

So, do we have any data on total number of pit bulls during that time period?

[fattyjwoods]

Com'on at least the ranchmaster or whatever was'nt making his sheep fight each other. I mean com'on! If his sheep was abused he wasn't gonna get a good price if he sold it.

[DrDNA]

Since out of 2209 dog attacks doing bodily harm, 1110 were by Pitbull terriers..... not counting pit bull mixes,

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Atta...%20Clifton.pdf

it is clear that the pro Pitbull camp must make an assumption if they are to have ANY hope to claim that Pitbulls are nice by nature (breeding) and only dangerous because of bad nurturing (abuse or mishandling). The assumption that would have to be made is the majority of Pitbull owners (most?) are sadistic jerks that participate in acts of animal cruelity (as compared to owners of various other breeds). Otherwise, all the Pitbulls would be friendly and there would be very few Pitbull attacks. Are you willing to make that assumption?

[lucaspa]

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

 

This was the report I posted. What you posted was selective data. What you have is Clifton's data.

 

However, on the main site we find this:

 

"The disagreement among experts, and the dearth of recent statistics, were two of the reasons why an appellate court for the State of Ohio ruled in 2006 that a pair of breed-based dangerous dog laws were unconstitutional. City of Toledo v. Tellings, 5th Dist. No. L-04-1224, 2006-Ohio-975 (Ohio App. 2006). The supreme court of the state accepted this case for review in August 2006 (110 Ohio St.3d 1435). The court of appeals began its analysis by noting:

 

Breed-specific laws were enacted because, in the past, courts and legislatures considered it to be a "well-known fact" that pit bulls are "unpredictable," "vicious" creatures owned only by "drug dealers, dog fighters, gang members," or other undesirable members of society. [Citing State v. Anderson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 168.] ... As scientific information advances and becomes available, courts have a duty to reconsider issues and make decisions which are supported by the actual evidence presented, instead of relying on "common knowledge" and opinion generated by newspaper sensationalism and hearsay, rather than accurate, scientific evidence. [Par.] As the evidence presented in this case demonstrates, previous cases involving "vicious dog" laws, especially from the late 1980's and early 1990's, relied on what is now outdated information which perpetuated a stereotypical image of pit bulls. ... The trial court noted that all the animal behaviorists from both parties testified that a pit bull, trained and properly socialized like other dogs, would not exhibit any more dangerous characteristics than any other breed of dog. After considering all the evidence before it, the trial court agreed, finding that pit bulls, as a breed, are not more dangerous than other breeds."

 

The court then stated that,

 

Our review of the record reveals no current statistics since 1996 were presented to support the notion that pit bulls have continued to be involved in a "disproportionate number" of attacks or fatalities. In our view, despite its own factual finding to the contrary, the trial court improperly relied on an outdated, irrelevant, and inadmissible source of factual information to revive the "vicious" pit bull sentiment and justify the finding that the statutes and ordinance are constitutional."

 

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

 

Now, we have some trouble with the data. From the paper: "Compiled by the editor of ANIMAL PEOPLE from press accounts since 1982, this table covers only attacks by dogs of clearly identified breed type or ancestry, as designated by animal control officers or others with evident expertise, who have been kept as pets. Due to the exclusion of dogs whose breed type whose breed type may be uncertain, this is by no means a complete list of fatal and otherwise serious dog attacks."

 

Again, we aren't given the total number of attacks to determine how many unknowns there are.

 

The statistics are skewed toward "bodily harm" and thus the larger breeds of dogs. As Clifton notes:

"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"

 

So, other breeds may attack humans more, but they don't do as much damage and aren't reflected in the Clifton study. Selective data.

 

Since out of 2209 dog attacks doing bodily harm, 1110 were by Pitbull terriers..... not counting pit bull mixes,

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Atta...%20Clifton.pdf

it is clear that the pro Pitbull camp must make an assumption if they are to have ANY hope to claim that Pitbulls are nice by nature (breeding) and only dangerous because of bad nurturing (abuse or mishandling). The assumption that would have to be made is the majority of Pitbull owners (most?) are sadistic jerks that participate in acts of animal cruelity (as compared to owners of various other breeds).

 

Actually, the assumption that the majority of pitbull owners train their dogs to fight is not necessary. Yes, you have 2209 attacks doing bodily harm. How many dogs are there? How many pit bulls?

 

If there are 100,000 pit bulls (at one per owner), then only 1% of the owners would be training them to attack to satisfy the hypothesis that the danger from pit bulls comes mostly from training rather than breeding.

 

Now, since pit bulls ARE used in dog fighting and now have a reputation for fighting, having 1% of owners train them for fighting is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

 

As it turns out there are 4.8 million pit bulls. So, to have 1,000 pit bull attacks, you only have to have 0.02% if owners to be bad. That's a very small percentage.

[DrDNA]

This was the report I posted. What you posted was selective data. What you have is Clifton's data.

So you I posted the same link you did. So what?

"Selective data"????? That's why I copied the reference. Did you expect me to cut and paste the whole thing? I believe that you selectively exerpted info.

However, on the main site we find this:

"The disagreement among experts, and the dearth of recent statistics, were two of the reasons why an appellate court for the State of Ohio ruled in 2006 that a pair of breed-based dangerous dog laws were unconstitutional. City of Toledo v. Tellings, 5th Dist. No. L-04-1224, 2006-Ohio-975 (Ohio App. 2006). The supreme court of the state accepted this case for review in August 2006 (110 Ohio St.3d 1435). The court of appeals began its analysis by noting:

 

Breed-specific laws were enacted because, in the past, courts and legislatures considered it to be a "well-known fact" that pit bulls are "unpredictable," "vicious" creatures owned only by "drug dealers, dog fighters, gang members," or other undesirable members of society. [Citing State v. Anderson (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 168.] ... As scientific information advances and becomes available, .......bla bla bla.......

In our view, despite its own factual finding to the contrary, the trial court improperly relied on an outdated, irrelevant, and inadmissible source of factual information to revive the "vicious" pit bull sentiment and justify the finding that the statutes and ordinance are constitutional."

So what? A court ruling means nothing scientifically or practically (except in a legal sense). Courts make rulings all the time. And they are NOT always (hardly ever in fact) scientific. That is why I used the actual data about dog attacks from the study. A study that you also referenced I might add. Now that it doesn;t support your position, you say that it is wrong?

 

Again, we aren't given the total number of attacks to determine how many unknowns there are.

 

The statistics are skewed toward "bodily harm" and thus the larger breeds of dogs. As Clifton notes:

"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"

 

So, other breeds may attack humans more, but they don't do as much damage and aren't reflected in the Clifton study. Selective data.

.

Selective data?

According to your position, we shouldn't believe any data because it could be selective. It's not perfect, I'll admit, but you shouldn't dismiss it.

 

A wise man once said that "seriously maimed or killed" is bad. I REALLY don't understand how including maimed or killed discounts the validity of the data.

 

In a previous post I list a stat on the number of bites that go unreported.....for every dog bite death 230,000 go unreported.

 

So if there are unknowns, the data is flawed? There are unknowns in EVERY data set. This is no more skewed than any

other large set of data. It is the largest set of data I have seen so far...not that I claim to have seen them all or that many for that matter....I'm no expert in this field. Have you seen a larger one? If so, please post it. I would definitely like to read it.

 

Actually, the assumption that the majority of pitbull owners train their dogs to fight is not necessary. Yes, you have 2209 attacks doing bodily harm. How many dogs are there? How many pit bulls?

 

If there are 100,000 pit bulls (at one per owner), then only 1% of the owners would be training them to attack to satisfy the hypothesis that the danger from pit bulls comes mostly from training rather than breeding.

 

Now, since pit bulls ARE used in dog fighting and now have a reputation for fighting, having 1% of owners train them for fighting is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

 

As it turns out there are 4.8 million pit bulls. So, to have 1,000 pit bull attacks, you only have to have 0.02% if owners to be bad. That's a very small percentage.

 

You are assuming that 100% of that 1% trained should have viscously attacked humans? I seriously doubt that ALL Pitbulls trained to fight would attack humans.

And you are assuming that none of the non-trained Pitbulls would attack?

Also, you are leaving out other forms of animal abuse and mishandling that can bring out dogs' agressive natures.....

I speculate that an important number we don't see is number of attacks on other dogs. That number should be seriously misrepresented.

 

I think a key flaw in your reasoning is that we should discount the data because they were only serious attacks and death. Conversely, I think that this information is important. How would you suppose to get the remaining data: including attacks where people were not maimed sufficiently to be admitted to hospital or killed?

[iNow]

...

[Paralith]

The statistics are skewed toward "bodily harm" and thus the larger breeds of dogs. As Clifton notes:

"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"

 

So, other breeds may attack humans more, but they don't do as much damage and aren't reflected in the Clifton study. Selective data.

 

The "bodily harm" bias definitely skews the data if you're trying to accurately represent dog aggression towards humans; but the issue at hand is not dog aggression in general, but dog aggression that significantly endangers human safety. As an analogy, let's compare ping pong and baseball. Both sports involve balls coming straight at you at high speeds. But only baseball players are required to wear helmets. The overall number of ball-person collisions is probably very similar, but a baseball can really injure you, so action has to be taken to prevent that injury. Going back to dogs, if you're trying to decide what dogs are more likely to seriously hurt a person, then it makes sense to only look at instances of dog attacks where serious harm was incurred.

[SkepticLance]

lucaspa said :

 

Sorry, SkepticLance, but you are being "naughty". You are applying a new hypothesis: that the distribution of the unkowns will follow the knowns. That is what you call "probability". But you don't know this. So you can't try to pass your hypothesis off as supported and as "fact".

 

As you said: "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."

 

It would appear that I have injured your pride. This was not my intent - just making a point.

 

Let me argue from analogy. Imagine you, as a scientist, are required to interpret data on human mortality. Data from a bunch of deaths are collected. Half of the causes of death are clearly defined by autopsy, and the other half are not. Of the half identified, 40% are cardiovascular events, 25% cancers, and the rest a mix of other causes.

 

Do you now conclude that cardiovascular events are not major causes of deaths, since identified cardiovascular events make up only 20% of the total? No, you would probably tend to assume that they made up around 40% of the undiagnosed deaths as well as the diagnosed, though you would be careful how you worded that interpretation.

 

In the case of the dog attacks, half of the breeds were not identified. You cannot argue that the numbers of unidentified breeds show pit bulls were not major offenders. The pit bulls were by far the biggest offenders in the identified breeds, and it is very likely that they were also the largest offenders in the unidentified breeds, though this is not certain - just very likely. To argue the way you do is very poor logic.

 

Probably the best way to look at it is to exclude the unidentified group, and concentrate on those that were identified.

[lovejunkie02]

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?

 

is this something you have researched or are you just stating your opinion on the matter? do you not think genetics has anything to do with disposition and personality? and in wild animals, there's so much more natural instinct. i don't think you can "train" that out of an animal.

 

How do you measure the "quality of life" for your next meal?

 

choose a vegetable for your next meal.

[iNow]

is this something you have researched or are you just stating your opinion on the matter? do you not think genetics has anything to do with disposition and personality? and in wild animals, there's so much more natural instinct. i don't think you can "train" that out of an animal.

I can see how I may be perceived that way, but this is not my position. I absolutely concede that genetics will serve to increase or decrease certain tendencies. With pit bulls, they do seem to have a higher tendency toward aggression when viewed relative to other dogs. My stance is more that, regardless of this tendency, they easily make good pets with quality care and attention, and I sense that they are unecessarily demonized. Further, I suggest that there are far more healthy and safe interactions that occur between pit bulls and humans than there are attacks and/or bites.

 

If I were to guess, I believe the numbers would state that at least 97% of all interactions with pit bulls are safe and harmless, and only 3% or less result in pain/suffering. I don't have the data (yet) to validate this guess, but I feel strongly that the data we do have is not enough to warrant an all out ban on the breed.

 

Does that help clarify? Please don't hesitate to ask further questions or request clarification where appropriate. Thanks.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

If I were to guess, I would say that 99.99% of interactions would pit bulls would result in no physical harm to any human. However, 0.01% is still too much. 66 deaths in 20 years is 66 deaths too many.

[iNow]

If I were to guess, I would say that 99.99% of interactions would pit bulls would result in no physical harm to any human.

Wow. I actually quite agree, but I was trying to be conservative.

 

However, 0.01% is still too much. 66 deaths in 20 years is 66 deaths too many.

That's a bit too conservative for me. Why ban pit bulls? Why not something with greater impact... like bathtubs?

 

 

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07316.html

...data from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) released today [september 28, 2007] indicates 311 reported non-pool drownings from 2002 through 2004 of children younger than five years of age.

<...>

Bathtubs were involved in most (71 percent [or, 221 total] ) of the non-pool drowning deaths from 2002-2004.

 

 

:confused:

[Mr Skeptic]

To iNow

 

If I were to guess, I would say that 99.99% of interactions would pit bulls would result in no physical harm to any human. However, 0.01% is still too much. 66 deaths in 20 years is 66 deaths too many.

 

Careful now, there are lots of things that cause waaaaaaaay more than 66 deaths a year. Here, in no particular order, is a list of things that cause hundreds or thousands of deaths a year but are not banned: cars, alcohol, peanuts, cars, guns, knives, cars, stairs, unhealthy food, cars, obesity, smoking, swimming pools. Did I repeat myself a bit? Cars cause about half a million deaths a year. After all, 66 deaths in (oh, I just noticed you said 20) in 20 years is 66 too many.

[iNow]

Careful now, there are lots of things that cause waaaaaaaay more than 66 deaths a year.

Agreed, but to be clear, SkepticLance's post discussed 66 deaths across 20 years, or more specifically, 3.3 deaths per year on average.

 

 

EDIT: Never mind. You caught that.

[fattyjwoods]

lucaspa said :

 

Sorry, SkepticLance, but you are being "naughty".

 

 

 

in what way?

[SkepticLance]

Agreed that there are lots of things that cause more than 66 deaths in 20 years. Smoking is number one, killing 500,000 people in the USA each year. I have been anti-smoking ever since, at age 14, 44 years ago, I saw a documentary on smoking and lung cancer. I would love to find a way to eliminate 'red mans revenge' and would gladly accept 1000 breeds as bad as pit bulls to achieve that.

 

Having said that, what has that to do with the price of fish? The discussion was about pit bulls. They are, admittedly, a minor evil, but an evil nevertheless.

 

Incidentally, Mr. Skeptic

I believe you added one zero too many to the road toll, which is about 50,000per year in the United States - one tenth of the smoking toll.

[iNow]

The discussion was about pit bulls. They are, admittedly, a minor evil, but an evil nevertheless.

Evil is a bit extreme. I suppose we've finally arrived at the source of our fundamental disagreement.

[Mr Skeptic]

Agreed that there are lots of things that cause more than 66 deaths in 20 years. Smoking is number one, killing 500,000 people in the USA each year. I have been anti-smoking ever since, at age 14, 44 years ago, I saw a documentary on smoking and lung cancer. I would love to find a way to eliminate 'red mans revenge' and would gladly accept 1000 breeds as bad as pit bulls to achieve that.

 

Having said that, what has that to do with the price of fish? The discussion was about pit bulls. They are, admittedly, a minor evil, but an evil nevertheless.

 

Incidentally, Mr. Skeptic

I believe you added one zero too many to the road toll, which is about 50,000per year in the United States - one tenth of the smoking toll.

 

We're both right. 50,000 in the US; about 1/2 million worldwide. I didn't know smoking deaths were so high, but I checked and you are right (the figures I saw were about 400,000 in the US).

 

There are much bigger fish to fry than pit bulls, especially if their tendency toward violence is a result of owners who want a violent dog choosing a pit bull. I disagree that we should try to get them banned because that would serve as a distraction from other more dangerous things (you know how politicians, media, and average people are), not because I particularly care one way or the other about pit bulls (but others do).

[SkepticLance]

Mr Skeptic said :

 

There are much bigger fish to fry than pit bulls

 

Hey, what have we got to lose, apart from some politicians time? And is there anything of less value?

[DrDNA]

Why ban pit bulls? Why not something with greater impact... like bathtubs?

 

I think this is a matter of active vs passive assualt.

 

As soon a bathtub chases someone down the street and mauls them, we should consider a ban on bathtubs.

[Mr Skeptic]

Mr Skeptic said :

 

There are much bigger fish to fry than pit bulls

 

Hey, what have we got to lose, apart from some politicians time? And is there anything of less value?

 

Actually, I am worried about the politician's and public attention, not their time. I don't particularly like politicians either, though that might be an artifact of the "first past the post" system of voting. But that's a whole different issue.

[ParanoiA]

I'm quite the dog lover, and I'll never own a "bad ass" dog. Spyman is right on the money on this one in that it always seems like bad dudes want to own bad dogs. Yeah, it's anecdotal I guess, but oddly prolific.

 

The thing is, I believe it's the pack behavior that keeps Rots and Pits on the black list. I've had several friends with these two breeds and I have several neighbors with Pits. The problem with aggressive breeds raised correctly and responsibly is that they still seem to be drawn to competition for rank. Hence, attacks are usually on children, or others lower in the pack. I don't believe they turn on their alpha owners nears as much, but I could be wrong.

 

This is a big reason why the argument about "how they're raised" is largely irrelevant to me. The best, most humane dog owners and trainers even have problems with aggressive breeds.

 

They're animals - not products manufactured to our specs. Of course they're not going to "work right" all of the time. Dogs misunderstand and make mistakes on human intent as well, and it doesn't always indicate that they're mean or bad dogs - but if the end result is an injuried human, we have little sympathy.

 

So, to me, it all boils down to accepting that "bad ass" dogs are not perfect, no matter how well raised and trained. So, who's going to get it when one of these "bad ass" dogs makes a mistake or gives in to the temptation to raise their position in the pack? Your kids? Your spouse? A neighbor? You?

 

They should not be banned, that's an outright violation of our rights. Banning, requiring licenses, and so forth - all blatant majority bullying.

 

Instead, punish the owners for their dog's actions. I know most states do this, but in any case I've followed, it's always been treated as minimal offense. That's what needs to change. An attack from an aggressive animal like a Pit should be considered attempted murder, with the charge directed at the owner in most cases.