patrick.net

I feel a pitbull is a loaded weapon and owning a dog with 1/2 or more pit should require an owners license. There is a mulled kid in the valley at least twice per year from these drug-thug dogs. They are the gangster dog of choice and are as common as a skin headed mexican teenager gangster wearing a hooded sweatshirt at noon on a 100* day, here in the valley.

I hate em. both.

I hold the extremist position. The breed should be stamped out. Sterilize all living animals in public hands. If we really need an animal like that we can breed for it again.

Nomograph says

I think pit bull owners and breeders should be forced to carry (expensive) liability insurance, and be held criminally responsible for their dogs in the event of a mauling

When I got my homeowner's policy, they advised me that they charge more for German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Pit bulls, and Dobermans. While I disagree with the Shepherd & Rottweiler charges, I don't own any of them any more nor can I afford to due to the increased cost.

These are popular breeds - but there should also be a ban on the Preso Canario breed, which were originally bred for fighting, guarding and some herding in Spain's Canary Islands. These are the dogs who killed Diane Whipple in San Francisco.

But it's the policing of of such laws - it's difficult to do so for renters or homeowners who don't self-report. Neighbors are often afraid to report vicious dogs because the owners retaliate - so anonymous reporting would be helpful.

The pounds are full of pit bulls that no one wants to adopt. I'm a dog and (many other animals) pet owner - but I believe that pits should be put down humanely the day they hit the pound.

I have seen both Marilyn Millyan on People's Court and Judge Judy sit behind their benches and lecture defendants whose pit bull has either killed or mained another animal and instruct them on how dangerous they are and should absolutely be removed from a house with small or any children. The owners will inevitably stand there shaking their heads in obtuse denial and insist that their dog is the exception, that it would never hurt anyone or anything.

elliemae says

I've also spent time around rottweilers and they're good dogs, albeit protective. Neither of these breeds is bred to fight & kill.

Lots of dog breeds put bull, rottweiler and german shepard included were originally bred as work dogs. Those are also breeds that have been bred to attack and kill... Yes, shepards and rottwilers are bred to attack.

Here is a conclusion from a CDC study on fatal dog attacks on humans-

Conclusions—Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and ractical issues. Fatal attacks represent
a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf

Yes, they mention rottweilers as a "problem" breed.

I feel that problem dogs are much more closely related to responsible ownership than breed. Robert Noel and Marjorie Knoller (owners of the dogs that killed Diane Whipple) are text book examples of irresponsible dog ownership. I would be much more in favor of requiring licensing and training in order to own any dog, rather than breed specific bans.

On a personal note I have known and loved both german shepards and pit bulls (never been close with a rottwiler). I have witnessed in my life three dog attacks that drew lots of blood. One was a child bit in the leg, one was another dog bit and survived, another was a cat that was killed. All these attacks were done by german shepards.

I only had one german shepherd - she was awesome, but she was a rescue dog that was beaten & starved before I got her. She was sweet and didn't want anything more than to play with the kids & hang out with us. Never even snapped at anyone.

I was bitten by a white gs when I was about 3. I was terrified of them. And I'd forgotten about a pretty mean one of my friend's when I was 16, I wouldn't go in their house. I see your point. I had some great experiences with rottweilers, never had a problem. I know that some people do.

But I won't own one because of the insurance thing, my insurance is high enough. I'm happy with the aussie who herds my critters and plays endless ball. If someone breaks into my house carrying tennis balls, I can't be responsible for the damage she'll cause (to the tennis balls).

Maybe the breeders could take a little more care not to mate psycho Pit Bulls. I feel sort of bad for the breed, because humans are the ones who decide which dogs breed. IT's probably the dog fighting (and gambling that goes with it) more than anything that contributes that dog's psychotic aggressive behavior.

I'm not defending, and I would never choose a pit bull. It's just sad what humans do with breeding.

Is anyone wondering whether it has been confirmed that the dog did it? As we know, humans are occasionally psycho too. (I don't even want to remember who that guy was that was so big in the news years back, for killing his pregnant wife and dumping her in the lake. Man, the media blew that up and drew it out into a never ending saga.)

marcus says

Maybe the breeders could take a little more care not to mate psycho Pit Bulls.

Actually there are pit bull breeders that do just that, but unfortunately it has become popular with some to breed and train pit bulls to maximize their aggressiveness.

Don't get me started on breeders though. While it has it's place there are already way too many unwanted dogs/cats to be making more, and animal abuse is all too common.

I just moved from Pacifica and I'm not surprised at all. People seem to have an unnatural attachment to dogs there and trailer trash values. This is horrible and just yet another example of how many more have to die before the state acts. The state has every goddamn right to considering half the times its a bystander not attached to the owner in any way who gets killed on PUBLIC LAND!

elliemae says

I only had one german shepherd - she was awesome, but she was a rescue dog that was beaten & starved before I got her.

That goes to show just how silly the proposed ban is. The German Sheperd was very much bred to be an attack dog . . . not just attacking against weak opponents, but attacking other equally mean predators! Talk about a dog bred for fighting . . . not just prize fighting like boxing as an Olympic sport event, but fighting for real kills like what we call wars!

Abused and beaten dogs are especially prone to be vicious attack dogs, so the animal psychologists tell us.

Yet, Elliemae felt empathic to her beaten and abused German Sheperd . . . would she have written an article advocating a ban on all German Sheperds instead if she had never had one and only seen photos and video of police abuse and concentration camp guard abuses using the German Sheperds?

If not for the horrendous record of government forcibly sterizing human beings, it might be appealing to consider a proposal to sterilize all silly over-generalizing people who advocate more government violence because of their own small minds. LOL. Oh, wait, the "Progressives"/Regressives of the early 20th century did just that! A bunch of small-minded tyrants sterilizing other people they consider stupid/retards.

Be responsible for your own pets, and leave other people's pets alone!

marcus says

Is anyone wondering whether it has been confirmed that the dog did it?

I didn't even go there, but I'm fairly sure they'll confirm the dog did it. Ironically, she belonged to "Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit bulls" aka "Bad Rap," a group that tries to convince people the breed isn't all bad.

They're trying to get their other pit bull back - she was removed from the home at the time of the attack. While I understand their love for the dog, I don't believe that I'd ever trust the breed again.

Here is an interesting list of all dog fatalities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

Kind if a depressing read so I did not spend too much time looking at it, but:

-Most fatalities are kids under 10
-The next "large" group people over 60
-A lot are their own dog
-In all there are about 30ish dog attack deaths a year

Here is what the American Veterinary Medical Association has to say about dog attacks:

"There is no such thing as a bad breed of dog. All dogs can bite if provoked. Responsible dog ownership is key....

...Never leave a baby or small child alone with a dog."

http://www.avma.org/press/publichealth/dogbite/messpoints.asp

elliemae says

They're trying to get their other pit bull back - she was removed from the home at the time of the attack. While I understand their love for the dog, I don't believe that I'd ever trust the breed again.

I think that people are too often blind to what their dog is capable of and do not see the warning signs of a dangerous dog. I don't know if the second dog is dangerous or not, but clearly the family is not able to judge how dangerous a dog is.

elliemae says

marcus says

Is anyone wondering whether it has been confirmed that the dog did it?

I didn't even go there, but I'm fairly sure they'll confirm the dog did it.

Yeah, that is a good point you do never know about these things, but I agree that it is unlikely that the dog is innocent.

My neighbor has a Yorkie that's mean as hell. I was pleased to see that Yorkies aren't on that list.

I'm gonna sleep with one eye open so far as my Aussie is concerned - an Australian Shepherd cross participated in two of the murders. In my heart I do believe that the people that the Aussies murdered were hoarding tennis balls.

This very moment she's trying to catch my eye - if I give in I'll have to play with her. Never make eye contact with an Aussie.

elliemae says

I'm gonna sleep with one eye open so far as my Aussie is concerned - an Australian Shepherd cross participated in two of the murders.

Have a good rest, no need to be alarmed. Put the numbers into perspective: about 35 people die in a year in this country due to dog attacks, compared to about 35,000 people dying each year in car accidents! There are comparable numbers of dogs and cars in this country. Death from dog attack is one of those proverbial "man bite dog" stories that get the sensationalistic press worked up to a frenzy precisely because they are so unusual. Sometimes I think people need to pass a statistics exam before they can vote (then I remember just how corrupt the government bureaucrats' administration of voter eligibility tests were back when "literacy test" requirement was legal).

leoj707 says

Yeah, that is a good point you do never know about these things, but I agree that it is unlikely that the dog is innocent.

The real question is whether the dog was instructed to do it (either murder or desecration of body). Statistically speaking, women are far more likely to be murdered by their husbands and boyfriends than by their dogs. I'm not saying the hubby should be officially declared a suspect (yet), but looking for some confirmation regarding his story and time line is a good idea.

No, not advocating banning hubbies and BF's either, in case anyone's wondering.

Nomograph says

There was a recent vicious attack in San Diego too. I think pit bull owners and breeders should be forced to carry (expensive) liability insurance, and be held criminally responsible for their dogs in the event of a mauling.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jun/20/pit-bulls-mauling-woman-under-investigation/

Let other pens dwell on guilt and misery -- Jane Austen

Is Nomo getting upset and jealous about things he's finding on the internet, things which don't impact him?

Regardless about how much I totally agree with the sentiment of this remark, your countless posts in other threads where you lecture others to ignore things that they disapprove of apparently doesn't apply to you.

Reality says

Have a good rest, no need to be alarmed. Put the numbers into perspective: about 35 people die in a year in this country due to dog attacks, compared to about 35,000 people dying each year in car accidents! There are comparable numbers of dogs and cars in this country. Death from dog attack is one of those proverbial "man bite dog" stories that get the sensationalistic press worked up to a frenzy precisely because they are so unusual. Sometimes I think people need to pass a statistics exam before they can vote (then I remember just how corrupt the government bureaucrats' administration of voter eligibility tests were back when "literacy test" requirement was legal).

I'm pretty well versed in statistics, but guess what? I still consider 1 human death to be a tragedy.

Is there some magic line where you think it's no longer OK? 50 people? 500 people? 5000? I must have missed that stats lesson....

I was bitten on the face by an English Bullie---but I don't want them eliminated. It seems that the strength and the volatility of the Pit Bull warrants special consideration---no?

I know Pugs well...I've never met a single one who would hurt you intentionally (even if they could). It would appear to me that there are good breeds and "more likely to be bad" breeds. Pit Bulls are in the latter category.

tatupu70 says

I'm pretty well versed in statistics, but guess what? I still consider 1 human death to be a tragedy.

Is there some magic line where you think it's no longer OK? 50 people? 500 people? 5000? I must have missed that stats lesson....

So, have you given up driving yet? The annual death toll from driving is not 1, or 50, or 500, or 5000, but around 35,000! and that's down steadily from what used to be 50,000 per year on less aggregate miles driven.

By asking for a the magic line at all, it shows that you are ill versed in statistics and economics. The deciding factor is not some magic number or any magic number, but relative value between trade-off's. Life is about trade-off's and taking chances. Having sex is even more dangerous than driving. I suppose you should abstain from that too. LOL.

"There are comparable numbers of dogs and cars in this country. "

Where did you get THAT?

Reality says

So, have you given up driving yet?

Nope. And I find driving to be a poor analogy with owning one of the very few overly aggressive dog breeds.

I do agree that it is a relative value between trade-offs. And my question about the number was obviously rhetroical--I would hope you could see that...

Again--my point is: just because something is safer than driving doesn't mean we shouldn't look at making it even more safe.

Reality says

leoj707 says

Yeah, that is a good point you do never know about these things, but I agree that it is unlikely that the dog is innocent.

The real question is whether the dog was instructed to do it (either murder or desecration of body). Statistically speaking, women are far more likely to be murdered by their husbands and boyfriends than by their dogs. I'm not saying the hubby should be officially declared a suspect (yet), but looking for some confirmation regarding his story and time line is a good idea.

Well, looks like the confirmation is in:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/15/BAO81KNJEK.DTL&tsp=1

A necropsy of the unneutered, 2-year-old male pit bull, Gunner, confirmed that the 125-pound animal was responsible for the attack, said police Capt. Dave Bertini.

Also, the husband was getting home from work, so my guess it that if time of death/alibi did not add up there would be more story here.

Note that the dog was unneutered, neutered dogs are three times less likely to bite.

tatupu70 says

Nope. And I find driving to be a poor analogy with owning one of the very few overly aggressive dog breeds.

The difference being that driving is roughly 1000 times as dangerous as owning dogs . . . that's before even normalizing for the actual number of hours of minutes spent with car vs. with dogs. That normalization would make the ratio even higher, probably by another order of magnitude as people drive only 1-2hrs a day on average (or less), whereas spend anywhere between 12-24hrs with their dogs every day.

Again--my point is: just because something is safer than driving doesn't mean we shouldn't look at making it even more safe.

There is no "we" there . . . dog owners derive happiness from owning their dogs, just like people own cars to drive to work in order to pursue their own happiness (or to shopping trips, once again in pursuit of their own happiness). You are advocating outright banning something that is none of your beeswax.

Reality says

There is no "we" there . . . dog owners derive happiness from owning their dogs, just like people own cars to drive to work in order to pursue their own happiness (or to shopping trips, once again in pursuit of their own happiness). You are advocating outright banning something that is none of your beeswax.

Really? Is it my beeswax when your pitbull mauls and kills my kid while he's walking home from school one afternoon?

Reality says

The difference being that driving is roughly 1000 times as dangerous as owning dogs . . . that's before even normalizing for the actual number of hours of minutes spent with car vs. with dogs. That normalization would make the ratio even higher, probably by another order of magnitude as people drive only 1-2hrs a day on average (or less), whereas spend anywhere between 12-24hrs with their dogs every day.

Again--so what? Why do I care how much more dangerous driving is?

klarek says

Is Nomo getting upset and jealous about things he's finding on the internet, things which don't impact him?
Regardless about how much I totally agree with the sentiment of this remark, your countless posts in other threads where you lecture others to ignore things that they disapprove of apparently doesn't apply to you.

If indeed, Nomo is a doctor and not some guy sitting on a bench waiting for Jenny to come back, I dare say he's had an experience with a child who was damaged by a pet. Just about every doctor I've ever met has. It's hard not to get emotional when a little kid comes into your ER with his face torn up.

Mine was in 1999, he was four and had been playing with a neighbor's dog in the back yard. It was a younger dog who got pissed when the child got too close to his food dish. The kid was strangely silent until they approached him with a needle, then his cries filled the room.

But I digress. The child is scarred for life, and the bill was in the $30,000 range. The owners of the dog took it to the vet immediately and had it put down (and tested for rabies); then they went to the ER. The little kids was upset when he found out that the dog was dead and felt like it was his fault. It's one of those sucky days that sticks with you forever.

But I can see the point about cars, too. No one should drive, ever. Cars are unpredictable and just when you think you have control, you find out that you don't. They'll blow up on you for no reason (other than, like, not adding oil) and can really hurt you. Especially muscle cars. :)

tatupu70 says

Really? Is it my beeswax when your pitbull mauls and kills my kid while he's walking home from school one afternoon?

Which part of "owners take responsibility for their own dogs" don't you understand? If your kid is mauled by a pitbull or a German Shepard, or for that matter by someone's kid (which is a far far more likely scenario than either dog breed being responsible), it's the owners and the parents' responsibility. Don't try to ban pitbulls or shepards or kids. For the record, I do not own a Pit Bull at all.

Again--so what? Why do I care how much more dangerous driving is?

Because you are presumed to be capable of being logically consistent until proven otherwise.

Reality says

Which part of "owners take responsibility for their own dogs" don't you understand? If your kid is mauled by a pitbull or a German Shepard, or for that matter by someone's kid (which is a far far more likely scenario than either dog breed being responsible), it's the owners and the parents' responsibility. Don't try to ban pitbulls or shepards or kids. For the record, I do not own a Pit Bull at all.

I understand that phrase perfectly. I think it's simplistic but it probably appeals to the tea party crowd. I'm not part of that crowd.

Reality says

Because you are presumed to be capable of being logically consistent until proven otherwise.

I am logical. Here's some logic for you--just because you are more likely to die from heart disease than you are from AIDS doesn't mean we shouldn't try to cure AIDS, right?

If you want to argue about someone's right to own a dangerous animal, that's a discussion about individual rights. At least you have an argument there. Your BS about driving risk is just illogical.

They have so much media teaching you what to do if you were to encounter a lion, a bear, and etc. Why don't they have educational material on what to do when you encounter a pitbull; and how to kill it if it attacks you?

vain says

They have so much media teaching you what to do if you were to encounter a lion, a bear, and etc. Why don't they have educational material on what to do when you encounter a pitbull; and how to kill it if it attacks you?

Arm all children. We know that works because, growing up in a small town, we all had guns on us and in our gun rack. No one I knew was attacked by a pit bull, either.

'course, I'd never heard of a pit bull then. It appears that our method was so effective we scared 'em all out of the entire county.

One could make an analogy to gun rights. The individual may choose this or that breed based on preference.

In this analogy, a Pit Bull is a cannon that fires randomly, and doesn't stop until you have been shredded.

Through unnatural selection, it has been deliberately bred to be tenacious, strong, aggressive and a fighter. I expect a herding dog to herd, a retriever to retrieve and a pit bull to generally do what the genetic manipulators intended---kill and fight well.

Conversely, if you wanted a dog to help protect your drug ring would you select a lap dog?

CL says

One could make an analogy to gun rights.

One could do that, but pets and guns are very different. That said, in the state of CA you need to pass (a very easy) test in order to buy a gun, but anyone can own a few 100lb. aggressive breed dogs with no training on how to properly handle them.

CL says

In this analogy, a Pit Bull is a cannon that fires randomly, and doesn't stop until you have been shredded.

Well, usually there are indicators that a dog is going to be a problem long before it actually kills someone, but owners often are either unwilling or unable to see the warning signs.

"Well, usually there are indicators that a dog is going to be a problem long before it actually kills someone, but owners often are either unwilling or unable to see the warning signs."

And we ignore those signs even when they're obvious. In my case, the dog had snarled at me several times as I disrupted his sleep. The cliche applies, "let sleeping dogs lie". It was stupid on my part and I told everyone that even while meat hung from my face.

I love dogs and continue to have them. But I think I come down on this particular breed as being a dangerous invention, made worse through neglect and abusive training.

CL says

But I think I come down on this particular breed as being a dangerous invention, made worse through neglect and abusive training.

There are quite a few breeds that fit into that category, and I agree with you that the strength and volatility of some breeds should require "special consideration".

Anyone owning a potentially aggressive breed should be required to know the signs of aggressive behavior, and what to do when they are exhibited.

leoj707 says

CL says

But I think I come down on this particular breed as being a dangerous invention, made worse through neglect and abusive training.

There are quite a few breeds that fit into that category, and I agree with you that the strength and volatility of some breeds should require "special consideration".

Anyone owning a potentially aggressive breed should be required to know the signs of aggressive behavior, and what to do when they are exhibited.

But forcing people to be responsible with their instruments of death would be------Socialism!!! :)

OK, so I found an interesting data source on this topic.

From The American Temperament Test Society, Inc.

They test dogs for, "...stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness as well as the dog’s instinct for protectiveness towards its handler and/or self-preservation in the face of a threat."

The description of their test can be found here:
http://atts.org/tt-test-description/

Looking at their data they have tested 31038 dogs across 233 breed categories, and they give a % rank on how many dogs pass the testing.

The average across all breeds is 82.61% pass rate.

Now to look at some of the dogs discussed in this thread:

"Pit bulls" - all do better than the average
Breed Name / Number Tested / Percent Pass
American Staffordshire Terrier 627 84.20%
American Pit Bull Terrier 804 86.40%
Staffordshire Bull Terrier 117 89.70%

Other "large" dogs - only the Shepherd is in the range of the "Pit bulls" all others do worse than average
Breed Name / Number Tested / Percent Pass
Doberman Pinscher 1,592 77.70%
German Shepherd Dog 3,078 84.40%
Yorkshire Terrier 40 82.50%
Australian Shepherd 641 81.60%
Rottweiler 5446 83.70%

And of course the adorable pug
Breed Name / Number Tested / Percent Pass
Pug 45 91.10%