Pangloss Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 I think the problem is humans, no dogs. Banning them is ridiculous. Many breeds can be turned vicious. What we need to do is just enforce existing laws better, such as leash laws, breeding regulations, etc. My wife had a pit bull and it never hurt a fly (it's dead of old age now), but she was forced to carry a million-dollar insurance policy and a special license. IMO that's not because the breed is dangerous but because some of its owners are. It did get pretty grouchy near the end of its life, as many dogs sometimes do, but it never attacked anyone. Still every time we took it for a walk people would fear the grouchyness if it appeared, thinking this 17-year-old dog could actually hurt someone. But the real problem when walking it was that other people would fail to use a leash on their own dogs, and this aging dog would get really grouchy around other dogs and bark at them, scaring the hell out of their unattentive owners. If a pit bull is barking, someone's calling the cops, even if the reason for the barking is their own stupidity. It's pretty ridiculous if you ask me.
SkepticLance Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 Pangloss said : "I think the problem is humans, no dogs. Banning them is ridiculous. Many breeds can be turned vicious." The problem is always humans. However, in the case of pit bulls, the humans who began the problem were the original breeders. Pit bulls were originally bred as fighting dogs - to be put into a pit with another dog, and fight it until one was dead. This meant the ability to be highly aggressive, and to carry that aggression through to the final fatality. To argue from individual cases is a bit silly. We all know that humans are capable of violence against other humans. However, I could argue, using my now deceased and gentle old grandmother as an example, that she would not hurt anyone, and therefore humans are not violent. Yeah. Right! Pit bulls kill more people than any other dog. As a breed, they are dangerous. Individual pit bulls might be quite gentle, but that is not what this discussion is about. Sure, in the overall picture, this is a very minor issue. I do not agree, though, that 66 deaths in 19 years is 'OK'. Any human death is one too many, when it is preventable.
Pangloss Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 I totally agree with your point about individual cases not proving wider issues. I'm just concerned that you might be promoting the same flawed approach. 66 > 1, but 66 != a scientifically valid sampling; it may simply reflect 66 cases of breeding dangerous animals. What about the millions of pit bulls during those same 19 years that didn't kill anybody? It's also possible that the perception that pit bulls were bred to be fighting dogs is a misconception -- I've never seen actual evidence supporting that hypothesis. Doesn't mean it's not there, though, and I'd be happy to read over any that might be presented (did I miss that from earlier in the thread? if so I apologize in advance). The fact that more deaths result from pit bull attacks (in itself) doesn't prove that they're more dangerous than other breeds, it just proves that more humans died from pit bull attacks. 66 deaths in 19 years IS "ok" if the reason for the deaths was the specific breeding of the dogs involved in those 66 cases and the result of "ok" is that dogs NOT bred in that manner are not banned.
John Cuthber Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 Unfortunately, what we need and I don't think we have is data on how many pit bulls etc there are. After all if there were only 66 pitbulls in the USA and they were each responsible for a death but 39 million rottweilers were only responsible for an average of a millionth of a death each, then I think we could agree that 66 is statistically signinficant. (incidentally, 66 ! is nearly too big to fit in my calculator). OK we can debate the relative risks of pitbulls and poodles until the cows come home. Perhaps we ought to look at the other side of the equation. What is the benefit in continuing to permit pitbulls to breed? If anyone can come up with a convincing argument in favour of then I'd be interested to hear it.
Pangloss Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 I'm still trying to determine the benefit in continuing to permit televangelists to breed.
SkepticLance Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 Pangloss There is no reason to permit tele-evalgelists to breed. They are a much more dangerous animal than any pit bull. Anyway, back to the topic. http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_2_scared_of_pit.html I quote : "Pit bulls have been bred specifically to be aggressive. They're descended from the now- extinct old English "bulldogge," a big, tenacious breed used in the brutal early- nineteenth-century sport of bull baiting, in which rowdy spectators watched dogs tear apart an enraged bull. Victorian reformers, concerned about the coarsening effect bull baiting had on its devotees, banned it by the early 1830s, but enterprising bull baiters merely migrated to an equally bloody sport: organized dog fighting. As Carl Semencic, author of several informative books on guard dogs, and a big pit-bull fan, describes it, the bulldogge owners made a striking discovery: "a cross between the bulldogge and any of the game [i.e., brave and tenacious] and relatively powerful terriers of the day produced a game, powerful, agile, and smaller, more capable opponent in the dog pits." These bull-and-terrier crosses became renowned for fighting prowess and soon were the only dogs used in organized dog fighting in England and later in the United States. To preserve the bull-and-terrier's pugnacious traits, the dogs were bred only to dogs of the same cross. Thus was born the pit-bull terrier, "the most capable fighting dog known to modern man," Semencic enthuses. Though breeders, realizing the pit bull was an attractive dog when it wasn't scrapping, bred a less feisty version—the American Staffordshire terrier ("Pete" of the old Our Gang comedy series is a well-known representative)—the pit-bull terrier is first and last a fighting dog. Its breeding history separates it from other tough dogs like Doberman pinschers and rottweilers, which have been bred to guard their masters and their property. Pit bulls are genetically wired to kill other dogs. The pit bull's unusual breeding history has produced some bizarre behavioral traits, de- scribed by The Economist's science editor in an article published a few years ago, at the peak of a heated British controversy over dangerous dogs that saw the pit bull banned in England. First, the pit bull is quicker to anger than most dogs, probably due to the breed's unusually high level of the neurotransmitter L-tyrosine. Second, pit bulls are frighteningly tenacious; their attacks frequently last for 15 minutes or longer, and nothing—hoses, violent blows or kicks—can easily stop them. That's because of the third behavioral anomaly: the breed's remarkable insensitivity to pain. Most dogs beaten in a fight will submit the next time they see the victor. Not a defeated pit bull, who will tear into his onetime vanquisher. This, too, has to do with brain chemistry. The body releases endorphins as a natural painkiller. Pit bulls seem extra-sensitive to endorphins and may generate higher levels of the chemical than other dogs. Endorphins are also addictive: "The dogs may be junkies, seeking pain so they can get the endorphin buzz they crave," The Economist suggests. Finally, most dogs warn you before they attack, growling or barking to tell you how angry they are—"so they don't have to fight," ASPCA advisor and animal geneticist Stephen Zawistowski stresses. Not the pit bull, which attacks without warning. Most dogs, too, will bow to signal that they want to frolic. Again, not the pit bull, which may follow an apparently playful bow with a lethal assault. In short, contrary to the writings of Vicki Hearne, a well-known essayist on animals who—in a bizarre but emotionally charged confusion—equates breed-specific laws against pit bulls as a kind of "racist propaganda," the pit bull is a breed apart."
Pangloss Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 Those sound like interesting opinions, but I was looking for something of a more scientific nature. They actually describe things in that treatise that were demonstrably untrue in the specific example I'm familiar with, which suggests that it's again not a matter of geneology but rather training/upbringing. The whole "attack without warning" thing, for example -- if it's demonstrably untrue in specific cases, doesn't that prove that it's not a genetic trait? And even if it IS, doesn't normal training clearly remove that trait even when not specifically intended? In short, I see nothing there that proves that pit bulls, specifically, need to be destroyed, or that any special treatment is required in their upbringing. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for here.
SkepticLance Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 To Pangloss You will never see anything that proves pit bulls must be destroyed, since such a decision is subjective and political. That was not my intention. I am just trying to show that this particular breed was bred as a fighting dog, and consequently carries genetic traits for aggression and the tendency to carry through attacks to serious consequences. Nor am I claiming it causes more attacks than other breeds - just more fatal and seriously mutilating attacks. A chihuahua is a particularly vicious breed, and frequently bites people. However, those nips are not at all serious. The pit bull attacks are truly horrific - leading to serious injury and death rather too often.
Pangloss Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 I don't mean to troll, you just happened to catch me online. Let me just briefly reply to that by saying that if that's true, that it's always subjective and political and no scientific studies have been done, then it seems a bit extreme to suggest that the race should be exterminated. I know from personal example that a normal upbringing can produce a tame household pet of that species. I think your concerns are valid. It just feels "overboard" to me to wipe 'em out. However, the opinions of experts does suggest to me that regulations such as the ones my wife had to comply with are reasonable precautions (insurance policy, special restrictions, breeding rules, etc).
Mr Skeptic Posted October 28, 2007 Posted October 28, 2007 Sure, in the overall picture, this is a very minor issue. I do not agree, though, that 66 deaths in 19 years is 'OK'. Any human death is one too many, when it is preventable. I think this is actually the major point of disagreement here. The only logical thing to do given that a breed of dogs causes "too many" deaths is to restrict ownership, or outright ban, that breed. On the other hand, if the breed causes "an insignificant number" of deaths, then banning them is ridiculous. This is obviously a subjective issue. However, what is not subjective is that there are a lot of things that cause more deaths than pit bulls, and should logically take a higher precedence. By higher precedence, I mean that this subject should be ignored until the others are dealt with. Not that this isn't important, but why exactly are you arguing to ban pit bulls if your motivation really was that they cause death or injury? Are you unaware of other things that cause far more than 3 to 4 deaths a year, or do you have other motives?
iNow Posted October 29, 2007 Author Posted October 29, 2007 J_chop, while we both might disagree with SkepticLance and wish to challenge his points, there's no need to be such a prick about it. Anyway, since this particular thread is about personal experience with pit bulls, have you ever interacted with pit bulls, if so, how many, and have you ever been bitten by one? Cheers.
Pangloss Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 I deleted j-chop's post, iNow, and removed his quote from your post above (I'm letting you know in case you want to change the rest of it).
ydoaPs Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 I have interacted with several pit bulls and I've not met a single one that was hostile to humans. In my experience, they are a very loving breed. I've even met one that adopted some kittens as its own. But, this is just my experience.
SkepticLance Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 To Mr. Skeptic. If you want my agenda, read item 49. I have a bad habit of continuing to argue as long as my opponents are using foolish logic. For example : the personal experience argument. " I have known many pit bulls, and none have attacked me!" I can say in all truth that I have known many criminals (I used to assist an organisation involved in rehabilitation work). Many of those I knew had jail sentences for violent crimes and a couple for murder. However, I know they were all innocent because none of them ever attacked me! This is the kind of silly pseudo-logic that keeps cropping up. 1
lovejunkie02 Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 what aggression towards other animals? i've heard that pit bulls are even more aggressive when it comes to other dogs, etc. http://www.ksat.com/news/14413827/detail.html to me this is just as much an issue as human attacks.
SkepticLance Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 To lovejunkie You are absolutely correct. Pit bulls were bred to fight other dogs. The very name refers to the dog fighting pit. They are much more likely to attack and kill other dogs than people. If 66 people were killed in the USA in 19 years, you can guarantee that the number of other dogs attacked and killed was in the hundreds.
DrDNA Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 Here is a story of my own personal experience with one perverted pit bull. When I was a kid, the people that had a farm down the road had a pit bull. I went over there a few times, but soon stopped in large part because of that dog. He would chase kids down and when he caught them, he would make love long and hard to their leg. Now, I don't think that is unusual behavior by in and of itself for a dog, but what was unusual about it was that every time somebody tried to get away from it or tried to fight him off, he would bite. If you hit him or pushed him, he would get even more aggressive He would clamp his jaws down on a thigh and coninue to increase his grip. The more someone stuggled to get away the harder his grip became. He broke the skin on several kids thighs, including mine, on several occasions. I've had other dogs try to make love to my leg, but that perverted pit bull was the only one that ever bit me when I tried to make it stop or attempted to escape. I think all of my other experiences with pit bulls were also negative, but for many I can't isolate their inate behaviors from negative influences from their owners. It's been my experience that many or most pit bulls owners are messed up. I love most dogs, but in my experience, most pit bulls and their owners seem to worthless.
Pangloss Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 It's too bad they don't stand in the way of a shopping mall or housing development, then eradication would be a matter of course. ;-)
bascule Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 I've had 3 friends who each owned a pit bull that I've known throughout my life. All of them were some of the nicest dogs I've ever encountered.
ghstofmaxwll Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 Just like a global warming enthusiast to miss the point..... Although its more likely than not you will not get attacked by a pit bull. Hospital figures show pit bull attacks are rising in Britain post "dangerous dog act".
Royston Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 Just like a global warming enthusiast to miss the point..... Although its more likely than not you will not get attacked by a pit bull. Hospital figures show pit bull attacks are rising in Britain post "dangerous dog act". From the OP... First, how many distinct pit bull dogs you have encountered in your life time. Second, how many times you have been attacked by different pit bulls. If you'd bothered to follow the 'point' of this discussion, it's to collate accounts of individual experiences with pitbull terriers, so Bascule's post is perfectly on topic. Also, judging somebody’s response due to their views of an unrelated topic such as 'climate change' is logically fallacious, as I'm sure you're aware. Sorry to iNow for going off topic.
iNow Posted October 31, 2007 Author Posted October 31, 2007 Sorry to iNow for going off topic. No worries at all. Your motivation was to steer the thread back on topic. While he's somewhat annoying, I'm enjoying the reminder of middle school I get when reading ghstofmaxwll's posts.
Dak Posted October 31, 2007 Posted October 31, 2007 ghstofmaxwel has earned a 3-day suspention for calling people names
ParanoiA Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 I don't know if this counts, since I didn't "interact" with them, but just weeks after my wife finding a home for a rescued miniature pinscher, it was killed while tied to a tree, by two pit bulls. I believe this took place in a rural area, where folks have a tendency to let their dogs roam. Other than that, I had a buddy that loved "bad ass dogs" and owned several pits through the years and I've since lost touch with him, but his dogs seemed nice enough, although I was quite weary of them. He had two kids and I never heard of an incident.
Marty Posted January 27, 2008 Posted January 27, 2008 I have been involved with over a hundred Pit bulls and have never been bitten by any, I have been into the breed for over 20 yrs and I can tell you now they were never bred for human aggressive only animal aggressiveness... have any of you read the ATTS Breed Statistics? Read it and weep. The APBT is one of the most stablest dogs you will ever encounter, I have not read the whole thread but I'll show you some of my dogs... http://www.atts.org/stats1.html I'm like Arnold Schwarzenegger... "I'll be back" Here's what an APBT actually looks like, just so you know...
Recommended Posts