Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dogs Bite Humans - even fatally. But they weren't pit bulls so the sheeple never noticed.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:06 AM
Original message
Dogs Bite Humans - even fatally. But they weren't pit bulls so the sheeple never noticed.
http://www.injuryhelpline.com/index.rwl?category=news&s...
A Manhattan man whose upper lip was chomped off by a dog has been cleared to take the owners to a civil trial.
According to the police report, Fredrik Amell, a Columbia University undergraduate student, was pounced on in July 2004, while he was petting Max, an Akita, outside Ana's, the W.103rd St. restaurant where Amell worked.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/no-criminal-charges-expect...
No criminal charges are expected to be filed after an 11-month-old boy was fatally mauled when two Siberian huskies got into his playpen at a home where he was visiting.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/connersville-in/TM9BTJK...
Pet dog kills Connersville woman
A one-year-old chow mix apparently turned on its owner, killing her with bites to her throat and arm, authorities said.

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/13394254/detail.html?rss=elp...
A 95 year-old died after being attacked by her own dogs outside her Lower Valley home.
Family members told KFOX that, throughout Magdalena Silva's life, she always loved animals.
"If she saw animal, you know, on the street... her heart would break and she'd want to feed it or something. She loves animals, so it was completely unexpected," said Sarah Williams, Silva's great-granddaughter.
According to police, Silva was attempting to feed the dogs, a German shepherd and a Doberman pinscher, as she had done every morning.


Well, you get the gist of it. The paranoia about specific breed is just the same as the paranoia about any specific nationality. You know, the ALIENS. Gooks, spics, wops, chinks, whatever. Pure fearmongering and mindless bigotry.

For a little more:

http://caveat.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/12/9/144...

In the first half of the 20th century, 'Pit Bulls' were one of the most common family dogs. Fred Astaire, Helen Keller and President Roosevelt all owned 'pit bulls', which at that time were called Yankee Terriers. Maybe they should have stuck with that name, much less onerous. 'Pit bulls' rarely showed up in dog bite statistics prior to the 1980's, despite their large numbers. Indeed, 'pit bulls' are still very low on most municipal dog bite statistical lists.

The only national bite statistics 'pit bulls' have topped are the dog bite-related fatality statistics between 1979 and 1997*. For this period of time, if one compiles all the incidents, 'pit bulls' (actually a group of five or more recognized breeds, plus mixed breed dogs of very general similarity in appearance) topped the dog bite-related fatality statistics in the United States, but nowhere else in the world. It is important to remember:

- 'pit bulls' didn't top that list before that period of time,

- 'pit bulls' no longer top that list,

- 'pit bulls' didn't top that list for many of the individual years included in that short date
range."


These are the U.S. dog-related fatality statistics from 1975-1980:
German Shepherd (16); Husky (9); St. Bernard (8); Great Dane (6); Malamute (5); Golden Retriever (3); Boxer (2); Dachshund (2); Doberman Pinscher (2); Collie (2); Basenji (1); Labrador Retriever (1); Chow-Chow (1); Yorkshire Terrier (1); Rottweiler (1); mixed and unknown breeds (20).

Nearly 100% of the dog-related fatalities that occurred in the past century did not involved 'pit bulls'. Even during the short time 'pit bulls' topped the dog bite-related fatality statistics in the United States, that still left approximately 70% of the dog bite-related fatality victims killed by non-'pit bull' dogs.

Non-'pit bull' dogs make up the majority of dog bite-related human fatalities and 90-100% of most municipal dog bite statistics.


Here is a sample listing of just a few recent dog attack incidents which may or may not have been publicized by your local news outlet:

●In May of this year, a family's 5-year-old daughter was mauled to death by their two Siberian Huskies.

●While visiting her grandparents, a 3-year-old girl was mauled by their Golden Retriever.

●In Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, a child was bitten severely in the face by a non-descript "small dog" she was petting.

●In Bedford, it took 3 attacks before a Poodle was declared "vicious" by municipal standards.

●A Pomeranian was declared to be a "Dangerous Animal" under municipal statutes, after several incidents of aggression.

●A 2-year-old boy was mauled so viciously by his grandfather's Labrador Retriever, that he required treatment at two Ontario hospitals.

●A 19-month-old toddler was sent to hospital with injuries to the face and head, after being attacked by her grandmother's Pointer.

●An Ontario family's Chesapeake Bay Retriever savagely attacked one of their children, leaving over 140 stitches in the child's head and face.

●Neighbour's Labrador Retriever and Dachshund attacked an elderly woman, leaving her in a coma, in hospital.

●Paris Hilton's Chihuahua was involved in an unprovoked bite that witnesses called, "Not a little nip. It was a very nasty bite."

●The New Mexico politician that called for stricter penalties against the owners of dangerous dogs was mauled by his own dogs, a Boxer and two English Bulldogs.

●A 4-year-old Nevada girl was attacked a few weeks ago by a roaming Labrador Retriever.

●A couple of months ago, in Georgia, a Jack Russell Terrier so severely damaged its owner's 2-month-old infant's foot in an attack, the child's foot had to be amputated.

●A Golden Retriever was finally put down after a second savage attack on a child. In the first case, the victim was the owner's own child. In the second case, the victim was a child visiting the owner's home, leaving wounds to the cheek and back of the head.


(and more)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. All types of dogs can bite, bites can kill.
thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. 32 killed by dogs of all breeds in 2003, 47 by lightning.
Yet all this fear and hate regarding one breed of dogs. Displaced anxiety disorder or something. I don't get it. Whatever is behind this, maybe a treatment of several viewings of Mel Brooks' "High Anxiety" followed by a few sessions of "Blazing Saddles" with a final dose of "Lonesome Cowboys" would help. Or maybe not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. "why don't we hear about (type of dog) biting/killing someone"
Maybe because it isn't reported? Or is reported inaccurately? Don't forget "Men in Tights".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eastsyde Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. A friends has a pitbull, it's the nicest dog.
The bad rap is unscientific and undeserved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RebelOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #12
25. I owned a pit bull and he was a sweetheart.
And my sister had his son who was also a wonderful dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
29. True - it is only the jaw strength of pit bulls (8 to 10 times that of a Golden) that adds a bit to
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 08:06 AM by papau
the fear. They certainly do not do well where a "soft mouth" is required (bird hunting retrieving).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. regarding the myth of mjaw pressure...
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/PitbullInformation/Urb...

Pit Bulls have a 1800 PSI Jaw Pressure. Wrong again. Working with author Karen Delise (Fatal Dog Attacks) we have researched the references used for this data and have found there is no factual research to support this claim. This myth stems from an article published in the 1989 The Journal of Trauma "Mauling by Pit bull Terriers: A Case Report" by Bret R. Baack, M.D., John O. Kucan, M.D., Gerland Demarest, M.D and E. Clyde Smoot, M.D. On Page 519 it states: "Pit Bulls bite with greater force than most dogs (up to 1,800lb/in2) (4).



Reference (4) cited for this fact is: "Dog bites in children: Epidemiology, microbiology, and penicillin prophylactic Therapy but Douglas A. Boenning, M.D., Gary R. Fleisher, M.D., and Joesph M. Campos, PhD.



However, neither the topic of bite pressure nor pit bulls is addressed or even mentioned throughout the entire article.

This case report is promoted by many people as fact, yet it's not substantiated anywhere.

On the other hand, here is scientific evidence proving this myth is an urban legend:

Dr. Brady Barr of National Geographic (Dangerous Encounters: Bite Force, 8pm est 8/18/2005) Dr. Barr measured bite forces of many different creatures. Domestic dogs were included in the test.


Here are the results of all of the animals tested:

Humans: 120 pounds of bite pressure

Domestic dogs: 320 LBS of pressure on avg. A German Shepard, American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT) and Rottweiler were tested using a bite sleeve equipped with a specialized computer instrument. The APBT had the least amount of pressure of the 3 dogs tested.

Wild dogs: 310 lbs

Lions: 600 lbs

White sharks: 600 lbs

Hyenas: 1000 lbs

Snapping turtles: 1000 lbs

Crocodiles: 2500 lbs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #30
44. the lobster main claw does a 200 to 300 lb pinch that can not be removed from a human except by
killing the lobster - so your numbers are impressive.

Personal observation of family pets suggests there is a large difference between Goldens and pit bulls in jaw strength as used to break bones - and indeed the pit bulls are more interested in the game than the Goldens - but my small sample size of course proves nothing.

some Readings even give average jaw strength by breed - so there may be more studies beyond the one you quoted that is giving rise to the idea that pit bulls have a stronger bite than other dogs.

In any case my daughters pit is a loving animal - albeit one that at 3 yrs old works hard to justify its name - "Chewy" :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #44
94. Since when do you have to kill a lobster to remove its claw?
Lobsters lose their claws all the time. You give it a little twist. Pop!

When you buy them like that, by the way, they're called "culls" and if they are missing both claws, they're "bullets".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #94
106. true - I should have noted claw twist off as an option. For the record your hand
would have a hard time registering triple digits - less than half what the lobster is able to do.

Did you know that in the 1890's when lobsters became useful for something other than a Mainers dinner or a fisherman's bait, they were sold in Boston by the Maine fisherman for two cents each? It was the rich with their summer cabins in Bar Harbor that made eating lobster respectable!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. odd how no one else has replied. Need a couple more recommends
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 01:39 AM by uppityperson
Perhaps they are busy reading these links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
3. I had a dog when I was growing up
Into my teens, and his.

Pester.

Pester was a beagle/spaniel cross. He truly exemplified the concept of the 'loyal dog'; when I had chicken pox, that dog was right there by my side, lying on the floor next to the couch, until I was feeling better. When I had appendicitis he was frantic, and he was overjoyed when I came home from the hospital after surgery. When I had the flu, he was right there, by my side, on the floor where I could reach him.

That dog wasn't just a dog- he was also a friend. And he acted like it. And yes, he definitely was protective of me. I don't think that was training- we never bothered to, he was so very well-behaved- it was just instinct. Pester knew his place in our house, and he didn't ever pose a threat to anyone we accepted. It was just The Rule.

Lots and lots of people don't know how to handle dogs anymore, what with landlords disallowing pets of any kind- much less dogs- and insurance companies believing the propaganda about dog breeds and treating all dogs accordingly. I'm fortunate right now to live in a place that allows cats (but not dogs, for the aforementioned reason), but I'd also like a dog again at some point in my life, and it's looking more and more as though I'll have to own a home to have a dog.

In the meantime, more and more people know less and less about dogs and how they behave simply by virtue of not being around them, ever. This is a literally dangerous shame. I think landlords and their insurance companies might be the key to reintroducing people in urban area to dog ownership (!!), but they would see any corrective action in that direction as punitive.

What to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. Problem is that most people
either think of dogs as dumb animals or "kids with funny noses." They don't understand they're a completely different creature than humans, even if they live with us and are involved to some extent in our culture. They have a different culture and most humans don't make any attempt to understand it.

People should never leave a child in the company of all but a few rare individual dogs without supervision. And one should never leave toddlers in the company of ANY dog without supervision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. animals are not humans, though humans are animals.
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 01:36 AM by uppityperson
Pets, food, etc. Wild, domesticated, etc. While humans are animals, they are a breed of their own. While dogs, cats, even camels, can fill social, emotional, physical, economic, etc, needs, they are not humans. Doesn't mean they are worse, or better, but they are different. As are cats. And camels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. I consider them people
just not HUMAN people. Like aliens. :D

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. True, edited to change "people" to "humans". But we are different breeds
we are all beings. Have you ever read Sheri Tepper's "Family Tree"? Good book about ecology, human's place in the world, now and futuristic. Not violent or fantasyland, but good book.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. No, I haven't...
The only thing by her I was ever able to read was her "True Game" series. Something about her writing style just doesn't click for me.

I have a house full of dogs and we fostered for years. Each one of them is a distinct individual and they have their own politics within the pack. Dogs are amazing critters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. This one is not one of her radical feministic books.
Turns out she used to head of Colorado Planned Parenthood, which makes a bunch of her books make more sense, knowing that history about her.

We have 1 big doofus dog, purebred Bronze Retriever, or else we call him a Rotten Retriever (rott and golden). Wants to be on my lap, or wherever we go, but first. Chases deer out of the yard and keeps the 2 hissing cats separated (oh no, they are going to make bad noises, have to get between them). I'm queen dog, and he is a good doofus friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Dogs seem to hate cat fights...
Not sure why.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qdemn7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Well hell Saje
You're practically an alien yourself. Aren't you? :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. The accusation has come up a time or two...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. Quite right. Dogs are just that. But the odds of being killed by a dog are so close to zero
that all the hysteria has to have some other source than real dangers. Here's a good example of how stressed people should be about that "danger."

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050106_odds_of_d...
Odds of dying because of a:

Lightning Strike 1-in-83,930
Dog Attack 1-in-147,717
Asteroid Impact* 1-in-200,000**
(the asterisk says that it may be 1 in 500,000)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EST Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. It won't fly.
Comparing animal attacks to lightning or asteroid strikes can only be done on the numbers of dead people. The mismatch is too great.
Lightning cannot be fenced, leashed or managed. It can be deflected or somewhat prevented, avoided or hidden from, but it cannot be trained, owned, corrected or subjugated.

That guy, The Dog Whisperer, on Nt. Geo. or discovery channel says that pit bulls, as well as some other breeds, no doubt, have a connection, call it a defect or whatever, in their brains so that they are naturally more likely to respond with aggression that is all out of proportion to a perceived threat.
Not only are they more likely to be overly aggressive, but they are difficult to control and to get out of their aggressive attack. They don't "come down" easily.

I have watched several of his shows, as well as others, and have read several books on the subject of animal training. I've also raised a few animals, myself.

If that guy, with his obvious understanding and capability on the subject says it, I am going to give his opinion great weight.
A pit bull is a breed that requires an involved owner. That person must be willing and able to be the alpha male, take control, and never allow that control to be questioned.
If a defective owner, through negligence, stupidity, or even maliciousness, allows that darling, protective bundle of active energy to become a dangerous liability, that owner has to be held liable. The penalties need to be so stiff that they discourage "casual" owners who believe their own hype and own dogs who are frozen dynamite, touchy and explosive, capable of enormous damage and death.

Owning such a valuable animal is a trust, not to be taken lightly, and, just like the owner of a powerful firearm or a thunderstorm, has to demonstrate responsibility and accountability. In today's society, it really is the owners, not the dogs. Laws regarding that ownership need to reflect reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
52. It's a size thing
People should remember that they are bigger than their dogs, but that many dogs are bigger than their kids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susanna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
67. Your post hit the nail.,the head, and everything in between.
I'm a dog rescuer. I've rescued multiple breeds, including Akitas, German Shepherds, Chows, yada yada yada.

The fact of it is: a dog is a precious (yes, you read it here) animal. They learn from people, when exposed to them. If someone outsources their doggie training, if they think they can get by without being involved in the dog's life, they are fooling themselves and potentially putting their family in danger.

As the previous poster said, dogs are not children. They get more info through their noses than you get through your brain in a good day. If you really think you want a dog, read up some. Understand how they think - it's crucial. One of the best books I ever read with my non-loving-of-any-other-dog-or-kid Akita was: "The Art of Raising a Puppy" by the Monks of New Skete. Blew my mind. I always thought dogs were simple, until I read THAT book.

It served me well. My beautiful, wonderful, amazing, yet sometimes stupidly aggressive Akita died at 12 years old - without harming a soul.

I understood her limitations. I made sure I handled her interactions. I NEVER put that dog in a position to hurt ANYONE or ANYTHING.

Damn I miss her. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
74. Agreed. We tend to anthromorphize everything
But especially pets.

For instance, did you know that a person who points out that a pit bull has been bred for its capacity for violence must be a closet racist? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #74
77. Actually, they were bred NOT to be human aggressive...
Their handlers wanted them aggressive toward other dogs, not people. Safer that way.

And, as a matter of fact, everyone I know of who's involved in any way with canine rescue, or dog training, is opposed to breed bans. Dog experts of all stripes tend to feel that way. That should say something about the matter.

It's knee jerk paranoia and similar, in a distant way, to racism. But it isn't racism. If OUR dogs, on the other hand, held a particular prejudice against certain breeds, THAT might be racism.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
10. Oh for god's sake equating disliking pitbulls with RACISM trivializes racism
For the record I don't have a dog in this fight (pun not intended) about pit bulls... they don't sound like a breed I'd particularly go out of my way to own, but then again, I'm not a dog person in general.

But to say that there is NO difference between dog breeds and to claim that it's pure fiction that pits are aggressive is a fallacy. I noticed that the stories you posted links to were ALL aggressive breeds of dogs: dobermans, German shepherds, akitas, etc. That there are other aggressive breeds doesn't make pit bulls NON-aggressive.

And yeah, no shit, any breed of dog CAN bite and be aggressive. Not rocket science. But to pretend that there's some kind of equal risk with owning a golden retriever as with owning a rottweiler, doberman, pitbull, etc, is ridiculous. Sure golden retrievers CAN be aggressive and pits, rottweilers etc can be as gentle as can be. But to ignore that certain breeds are BRED for certain behaviors is to be ignorant of the history of domesticated dogs, period.

I agree that pit bulls shouldn't be scapegoated as "omg the ONLY vicious breed of dog ever" whose banning will result in a complete cessation of dog attacks. Obviously that's not true. But I don't think pitbull advocates do themselves any favors when they pretend that there is NO track record of aggressiveness associated with the breed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. These are "ALL aggressive breeds of dogs"?
Golden Retriever
Poodle
Pomeranian
Labrador Retriever
Pointer
Chesapeake Bay Retriever
Dachshund
Chihuahua
Boxer
English Bulldogs
Jack Russell Terrier
Golden Retriever
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #13
72. Golden Retriever! Golden Retriever"!"! You've got to be fucking kidding me...
Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 12:36 AM by TankLV
Now I've heard everything...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. Listed in the OP, so I guess that is one that WildEyedLiberal must've meant.
poodles are rather scary too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #73
82. I already replied to you and told you what I meant
And it wasn't "golden retrievers." Why are you so invested in defending this OP?

Don't be disingenous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greylyn58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #13
81. Golden Retrievers are NOT an aggressive breed
I will agree that any dog if it is mistreated, abused can become aggressive, but to suggest that Goldens as a whole are aggressive is ludicrous.

I have lived with a Golden for almost 12 yrs and he is the most loving, friendly boy you'd ever meet. The local kids all love him.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #81
101. I agree with you. The list was in OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #10
19. Not racism (where did you pull that word out of? - Oh, nevermind, I can guess).
Bigotry and mindless labeling. Of course, you didn't bother to read the whole thing. Torturing pits and forcing them to fight for their lives is apparently fashionable in the US, much as is is true with American adolescents in their war training, but not in Europe, so you find more fucked up pits here than there. No surprise. Years ago German Shepherds were treated this way, then Dobermans.

They are trained, not bred, for their dysfunction, and yet they kill far, far, far fewer people than humans who are trained to kill. 32 by all breeds combined in one year, and you are frightened? Give me a break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 03:19 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. YOU compared "pit bull paranoia" to "paranoia against people of a different nationality"
Edited on Mon Aug-20-07 03:20 AM by WildEyedLiberal
Looks like "I" pulled it out of YOUR ass, not mine. Or did you forget your breathless rant in your OP already?

Nice red herring comparing pit bulls to "humans who are trained to kill." Who fucking said pit bulls kill more people than humans? Do you have any more irrelevant straw men?

Also, please point to where I said I was "frightened." Oh wait; I didn't. That's just you making shit up again. What I objected to is the OP's disingenuous implication that pit bulls are NEVER dangerous and your idiotic comparisons to ethnic bigotry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #22
41. lol
"Breathless rant." LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #22
50. Are these all "agressive breeds of dogs"
Golden Retriever
Poodle
Pomeranian
Labrador Retriever
Pointer
Chesapeake Bay Retriever
Dachshund
Chihuahua
Boxer
English Bulldogs
Jack Russell Terrier
Golden Retriever

This is in response to your statement "I noticed that the stories you posted links to were ALL aggressive breeds of dogs: dobermans, German shepherds, akitas, etc." and I just wanted you to clarify, since you seem to feel so strongly about this and I don't want to assume I understand what you mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WildEyedLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #50
66. I'm referring to the first four stories the OP posted links to
The dogs were: an akita, huskies, a chow mix, and a German shepherd and doberman pinshcer. All of those dogs are very physically active and/or aggressive breeds. I just thought it was disingenuous for the OP to post links of OTHER aggressive dogs attacking people to somehow prove that pit bulls never attack people.


Look, I'm not anti-pit bull or anti-dog. I'm sure the vast majority of pit bulls aren't dangerous. I AM anti-misleading OP, however, and this OP triggered my BS alarm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #66
70. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #70
75. I don't get that argument, who is saying "pit bulls never attack people"?
It keeps coming up from a poster or 2 and it seems a not very good argument (someone says "all pitbulls aren't bad", next person says "you said pit bulls never attack people"). It does get old, and is not the argument/discussion at all. Sometimes I don't understand how people think, you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #75
76. It seems to often come from WildEyed whatevers.
People whose beliefs are so fear/CorpMedia-embedded that they cannot deal with anything less than black and white and all or nothing. How they translate "not all" into "none" and then go ballistic is a mystery better solved by a shrink than a logician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #22
64. Well, "paranoia" is different than "racism." That's why we use different words for different ideas.
And what on earth led you to claim that I suggested any one said "pit bulls kill more people than humans." It came from the same source as you usually get things from, apparently.

Oh, well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
45. Golden retrievers are not aggressive dogs.
While it's true that some characteristics are bred in, and some dogs are more prone to be aggressive if not handled correctly, the links were definitely NOT all to "aggressive" breeds.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #10
103. A certain portion of the population uses any excuse to trivialize what they don't think....
.... is a problem in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 03:13 AM
Response to Original message
21. .


Delhi dogs should be 'made in to soup'
By Peter Foster in New Delhi
Last Updated: 3:59am BST 20/08/2007



Packs of stray dogs which roam the streets of New Delhi should be rounded up and sent to Korea for making soup, one of the city's exasperated councillors has suggested.

India's capital is suffering from a 300,000-strong plague of feral dogs who scavenge the city's open rubbish dumps, hunting in packs and terrorising cyclists and pedestrians who venture into the city at night.

At a meeting to canvass measures to curb stray dog numbers ahead of the 2010 Commonwealth Games one local councillor, Mohan Prashad Bharadwaj, ventured the "Korean option" after saying he'd read that nation was fond of dog-meat.

dog-meat soup called boshintang is popular in Korea, especially on the three "dog days" of summer on the lunar calendar. Koreans believe the meat helps boost stamina and virility.

Another councillor wondered if the dogs could be drugged during daylight hours "so that they keep sleeping all day long" while a third suggested rounding up the animals and trucking them into the countryside.

The extreme nature of the suggestions reflects a growing impatience with the city's inability to combat the stray dog menace after it emerged that a three-year sterilisation drive advocated by animal rights activists had failed.

Mindful of Mahatma Gandhi's adage that "a country is known by the way it treats its animals" the city is hoping to avoid the kind of brutal cull that Athens resorted to ahead of the 2004 Olympic Games.

However the dogs are a serious health hazard, with more than 200 Delhi residents dying every year from rabies contracted through dog bites.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 03:33 AM
Response to Original message
23. This is so true
any dog can potentially be dangerous, this is doublely true of med to large breed dogs
(those over 60-70 lbs). Part of the problem is that people do not know how to handle dogs or read a dogs body language. As a kid we had a dog that was quite large over 120lbs i/2 Shepard i/2 Pyrenees and I was taught never ever let a dog think it has the upper hand ie you tell it to get off the couch and it doesn't or worse growls at you, discipline must be applied immediately. Dogs think with a pack mentality and the humans must be alpha. On the body language part pay attention to ears and tail, ears back calm or submissive, ears forward agitated or aggressive. Tail wagging good, tail still held straight out or hanging not good and a barking dog does not mean aggressive, dogs have a limited vocabulary, growling is a different story.
The body language factor may be why some dogs and cats don't get along a cat with it's ears back and tail "wagging" is usually pissed off, the exact opposite of dogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
24. Great Post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philosoraptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 06:53 AM
Response to Original message
26. I was raised by kindly pit bulls & got one for each grandkid!
They're so CUDDLY!!!!!!!!1111111
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cobalt1999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
27. The issue isn't that different breeds can also harm people
The issue is that some dog breeds are more aggressive and get into "fight mode" more quickly than other breeds. Some breeds just require a well trained owner and family.

Most dog attacks are on children who don't understand how to behave around a dog or read it's body language. Some breeds are more forgiving, but that doesn't mean individual dogs of any breed can't bite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Vinyl Ripper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
28. They must be in a calm, submissive state..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
31. We seem to go around and around on this subject so much
I would never own a pit bull and would recommend outlawing them. That said it would be helpful to look at this logically.

Pit bulls' jaws don't "lock". This is not true and physiologically impossible.

Pit bulls are not all killers. The vast, vast majority are not.

Bite strength comes from the width of a dogs head. In general (and of course there are exceptions) the wider the head the stronger the bite. Wider head means more muscle is brought to bear on the teeth.

The standard, show dog type American Bull Terriers (and other breeds -- aka Spuds McKenzie) are absolutely not more likely to attack etc. because they are far, far removed from fighting dogs. The aspects of the dog that would make them good in the pit are not selected for and would no more be likely to appear than in any other dogs.

Why are pit bulls dangerous?

Because they have been bred that way. Dogs have remarkably plastic DNA. Think chihuahua to Great Dane. What makes a good fighting dog is primarily "gameness", the willingness to keep going no matter what. These dogs are called Pit Bull Terriers. A good fighting dog is absolutely a terrier -- a dog that will keep going with the single mindedness of a terrier. Bite strength is also important as well as general fitness. Dog aggressiveness is also important and interestingly human nonaggressiveness is important because trainers don't like getting attacked by their own dogs.

These traits have been selected for ruthlessly. If a dog is not game it is killed (I'm talking to you Ron Mexico) for the good of the blood line.

A bad pit bull (or a poorly trained or ill kept) will have these traits show up against humans. This makes them dangerous.

Many, many people can say that their dog does not posses these traits. I know this to be true and have met pit bulls like that. However unless one is 100% sure of the bloodline then one can never know the danger lurking in a pit bulls' DNA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
32. Pit Bulls Are Some Of The Sweetest And Playful Dogs I Know.
They don't even come close to deserving their reputation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #32
69. Nice to agree with you on something.
Not "all," since that modifier is always likely to be wrong. But of all the dogs that have been a part of my life, it is a pit bull that stands out as the gentlest and most sensitive of the many. She worked a stint as a therapy dog with ex-homeless mentally fucked-up people in a transitional housing facility. Approached those who wanted contact, evaded kicks from those who wanted to cause trouble, stayed a distance from those who were fearful and mistrustful.

Among the latter was a woman who eventually became more trusting, and Lucy The Gentle Pit Bull came closer and they became friends. My friend, Lucy's owner, moved jobs to another facility serving the homeless, but after a year or two encountered that woman who had since gotten her shit together enough to live on her own in a regular apartment. The woman explained that after Lucy left she had so wanted to have that kind of companionship as a part of her life, and that she knew for it to be possible she had to have her own apartment (no pets permitted in the facility). So she had turned her life toward that goal and was then living with her small dog (carried it like a baby) in her own place and was very happy with her new life.

Others from that place also often encountered my friend on the streets and typically opened the conversation with "How's Lucy?" as the first words. Even a few who my friend didn't recognize at first because their contact had been so infrequent.

As I said, I've known and owned a number of dogs. This pit bull is the first that, if asked to describe her, "compassionate" would be at the top of the list of adjectives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
33. here's you're big mean
"pitbull"





:rofl:

she's 1/2 pointer according to the folks at the shelter where we adopted her. I have never seen a dangerous streak in her and I've had her for over 8 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StarryNite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
34. There is only one thing worse than a pit bull
and that's a pit bull who smokes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
youthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. and breastfeeds in public..at the Olive garden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StarryNite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Smoking while breastfeeding
at the Olive Garden...that bitch has some nerve!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. or a pitt bull with a stingray strapped to his back.
running around biting and stinging everything in its path. I have nightmares about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mutineer Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
38. Your stats are almost 30 years old.
1975-1980? Pitt Bulls are far more common now than they were then. Yes, you've given an additional list of what you say are recent attacks but I don't see dates attached to that.

ANY dog can and will bite if given the right set of circumstances. It's foolish to insist that they are "safe" dogs. No they aren't all evil but a lot of their owners are irresponsible. I own a "vicious" breed (rottie) and I can tell you he's an absolute baby but that doesn't mean that all of his breed are like my dog. I understand you are a supporter of the breed but the truth is that a hell of a lot of these dogs have irresponsible owners and are being reared for all the wrong reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. The reason the essay provided those 30-year old stats was simply to
illustrate the fact that the breed is not inherently dangerous. As you point out, pit bulls have recently become popular with people who think abusing dogs and trying to make them dangerous somehow improves the owner's status. For the period in question, German Shepherds were used as guard and attack dogs, as you can see from those numbers.

As for the dates, the author could have been more precise and provided links to the full stories, but the article was from 2005 and the list includes phases like a few weeks ago, earlier this summer, a few months ago. It is certainly not research grade writing, but I see no reason to doubt the use of the word "recent." If you have evidence that any of the events described were actually years old, that would of course, be good reason to question the author's integrity or candor.

I never insisted that any type of dog was absolutely "safe." Just that the pop media fear mongering about pit bulls that declares that this particular breed is somehow inherently dangerous is false and misleading, and that people who believe it probably are more prone to fear-based propaganda campaigns than they are willing to admit (hence the sheeple word).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mutineer Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. Actually, there has been an explosion in the number of Pit Bull
ownership and other dogs in the last 10 years. So you can't categorically say that Pit Bulls are most responsible or aren't responsible for fatal dog bites unless you use the most current statistics.

Also, your logic is additionally flawed because if you look at the list of the most popular breeds put out by the AKC each year (based upon registration) you'll see that certain breeds of dogs stay on the Most Poular Breed list and others drop out as their popularity drops or in the case of Pit bulls, gains. But of course, many pit bull owners aren't interested in ownership and set up the type of "backyard breeding" programs some with the same intention that Michael Vick and his co-conspirators apparently had: fighting.

The numbers you cited about the breeds associated with fatal dog bites is also seriously flawed for one other reason: there are simply more dog breeds out there than others. Think about it--how many labs live in your neighborhood? The same could have been said about Collies 30 years ago. Some breeds like Poodles, Dachshunds, etc. stay on that list year-in and year-out. Of course the more of ANY breed there are out there the more likely they are to be involved in a fatality.

But let's make no mistake here, there are certain breeds of dogs that are inherently more dangerous than others. And pits are on that list.

Also, I can pretty much promise you that EVERY fatal dog mauling in this country most certainly does receive its fair share and then some of media coverage. The problem is that Pit Bulls are being used for dog fighting, gambling, etc. and that's what gets the really lurid headlines, but any fatal dog attack does and will get media attention, just as any breed is capable of killing someone given the right set of conditions.

But flawed logic and 30-year old lists don't prove your point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. Uhh, read again, or at least try again.
The point of the 30-year old stats was to show that human choices about what breed to abuse and turn dangerous have changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #43
71. How many is "many"?
"But of course, many pit bull owners aren't interested in ownership and set up the type of "backyard breeding" programs some with the same intention that Michael Vick and his co-conspirators apparently had: fighting."

Let's presume you're right, and this is true. Many, perhaps even most pit bull owners have fighting their dogs in mind. Are you aware of the "training" these animals go through? They're usually weighted down with chains and padlocks to build their already prodigious upper-body strength, usually resulting in chafing, open wounds, and infection. The animals are usually kept half-starved to "toughen them up" often with beatings either with punches and kicks or with sticks and pipes in order to accomplish the same. In order to "make them mean", some dog fighters will wire their dogs to give them jolts to car batteries, or douse them in lighter fluid and set them up. Once in the ring, a recalcitrant dog is goaded to fight by such means as knifing it's hindquarters or taking a butane torch lighter to its testicles.

Given all this, and the fact that pit bulls are, according to you, "inherently dangerous," shouldn't attacks from these dogs against their many owners be absolutely through the roof? You would think that dog fighting rings would be pretty easy to find, simply by following records of mangled hands and limbs as these killer dogs wind up facing off against depraved owners, right? Yet, that's not the case.

A labrador wouldn't put up with that sort of shit. Mine barely tolerated having his paw stepped on - perhaps that was the great dane in him (that was a very large dog...). Yet these injured, hungry, abused, mistreated animals, for all their supposed savagery, can't seem to be able to so much as bite a pinky finger off of someone who would, in all likelihood, have to go into reconstructive surgery if they were to slap a standard poodle across the face.

I've owned and sheltered pit bulls, Mutineer, among many other sorts of dogs. So far I've been bitten by a Boston terrier, a few unidentifiable mutts, an afghan hound, a dalmatian, and someone's "tame" coyote. The only injury I've ever received from the dozens of pit bulls I've taken care of has been scrapes on the top of my feet when one ran across them. I've had family pets as well as pit dogs come through (on both sides - fighters and baits) and to a one, they've all been exceptionally sweet animals.

That said, there is some danger to them, the same sort expressed by most powerful animals.

First off, children. Pit bulls love kids, and will tolerate a lot of abuse from a kid. There's two problems. First, some of the dogs have trouble distinguishing smaller children as "human" and may interpret it as a trespassing dog, which depending on the pit in question, can be no problem, or a big problem. Second, they love to play - For an idea of pit bull play, start with the energy of a Jack Russel terrier, and add to it the muscle power of a St. Bernard. They can hurt smaller children quite accidentally.

Second, other animals. Bull terriers are generally great with humans, but other animals are an entirely different matter. All terriers are pretty aggressive towards other animals, due to their background of being bred for that sort of aggressiveness as independent hunters of vermin and fur-bearers. With the bull terrier breeds, animals with aggression towards other dogs were the prime candidates for breeding for a good chunk of the breed history. There are two "lines" nowadays. The ones you get from a trustworthy kennel are usually going to be no more animal-aggressive than your average terrier, while ones you get from adoption or your neighbors are likely to be "hit or miss" - some will be safe, others won't. As a precaution, do not trust your cats around a pit bull. Or your cattle, I would say.

Third, the owner. Some dogs are more owner-intensive than others. Pit bulls are such a breed. They require frequent exercise for their muscles and their brains, or else they will start destroying furniture, chasing cars and animals, and of course, being real dicks to their owners just to entertain themselves. If you're going to be a pit bull owner, you need to be able to devote a lot of time to the animal.

Just because there are plenty of bad owners doesn't reflect on the animals. All the news reports? Two reasons for it. One, most people have no idea what a pit bull looks like, other than apparently it attacks people - so a lot of dog attacks are listed as "pit bull". Second, it's the flavor of the month, so to speak. It's "in" to report hysterically about pit bulls. The same has been done with dobermans, rottweillers, and german shepards. You'll also note that, shortly after Cujo was released, St. Bernards suddenly became the big news item. Thankfully they don't "look tough" so the dangerous dog fad never caught on with them...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dropkickpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #71
91. Hear hear!
Pit bulls are also VERY sensitive to correction, they WANT to please their owner more than anything. I've found that they are usually ridiculously easy to train in basic commands. Hell, my 12 week old knows sit, drop it, go in your house (crate), her housebreaking is going along swimmingly, and we are now working on lay down. She has typical puppy ADD, but is still able to focus a surprising amount when we are training.

Owning ANY dog is a lot of commitment and responsibility, to training and health and everything else. As with ANY terrier breed, pit bulls are high energy and need a corresponding amount of time to be devoted to them. Take a look at craigslist or the paper sometime, there's a LOT of 1 year old high energy breeds always being offered for rehoming (labs, JRT's, etc) because their owners were ignorant of what owning that type of dog entails.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cetacea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. Good point. It's more of a reflection of the owners than breed,
and some people have questionable motives when they purchase pets. The same can be said for people who have children. All breeds of canines, like children, are born innocent and a majority of times become violent as a result of being abused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
idgiehkt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #38
55. true
there are dogs that are bred for gameness...by idiot backyard fighters. Someone gives someone a puppy and they end up with a genetically more game dog, a dog that probably shouldn't be a pet. They are chained up in a yard and not socialized. On and on. I have watched some of these attacks on children that have been video'd and it's obvious to me that some dogs react to kids as if they are animals, prey, or even a different species than adults. I had a dog who reacted to kids not well at all, I really had to watch her around them (she was part pit). But in really urban, and really rural areas, where there is this casual breeding/fighting I am wondering if some of these game dogs are not being 'given away' to relatives/neighbors whatever and reared as pets...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
40. Dog profiling works for me :-) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
42. There's no denying that some dogs are statistically more dangerous.
Merritt Clifton, of Animal People, conducted a detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the 2006.

The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed.

According to the 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."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #42
47. As was pointed out in the article in the OP, this is a matter of human practice and fashion,
not breed. In earlier years the breed chosen for and warped into the role of "vicious animal" was the German Shepherd and the numbers reflected that human behavior. Today Shepherds are favored as guide and search dogs and such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. The OP is opinion only - but you clearly did not read or understand the Clifton quote.
Try it again.

The point is that all things being equal, an inappropriate bite by certain species is more likely to result in serious injury than others.

That is a matter of physics, not practice or fashion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. There are other studies that contradict the Clifton study.
And the OP is not just opinion, but gives data and facts as well.

The majority of studies and statistics show that there is no evidence that attacks are breed-specific in any way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mutineer Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #53
78. Read again. Studies show:
Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 08:23 AM by Mutineer
There HAS been an increase in the number of fatal dog attacks in the United States in the last decade (http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html ). The average number of fatal dog attacks in the 80's and 90's was 17. In this decade it's risen to an average of 26 per year.

From 2000: Sacks JJ, Sinclair L, Gilchrist J, Golab GC, Lockwood R. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. JAVMA 2000;217:836-840. "Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human DBRF (i.e., dog bite related fatalities) reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through 1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993 through 1996....he data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

Another study, a bit dated, but from the CDC which clearly explains that there are some breeds far more likely to be responsible for fatal dog bites: ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Publications/mmwr/wk/mm4621.pdf . Fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas.

Now I own a Rotti. I've owned Dobies. But I can't deny that they have the potential to be a dangerous breed. ANY dog can be dangerous given the right type of circumstances. I've been bitten twice and both bites were from small dogs, not the big "vicious" breed dogs I've owned. Just because my dogs (well the big ones anyway) were sweeties don't mean that everyone's "dangerous" dog breed is. The media is not at fault for reporting these facts because they are just that, facts. There has been an increase in the number of dogs being raised and trained in this country to fight, i.e., pit bulls and pit bull mixes. That is a problem. It's not the media's fault if they report on it. They will report on ANY death associated with a dog and they will also report on blood sports such as cock fighting. Does that make the media somehow biased against chickens? No. It's called reporting the facts. And the facts clearly show that a) there has been an increase in the number of fatal dog attacks in this decade; b) that certain breeds are overwhelming responsible for those fatal attacks. How is that lurid reporting when it's true? What's the alternative? They don't report it? I don't want to see any breed banned in the U.S., but the media is not at fault for reporting any dog attack. It's their job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #49
54. Bigger dogs have bigger mouths, more potential for injuries.So ban Great Danes,StBernards,Wolfhounds
and the ilk. Most "pitbulls" aren't nearly that big. Newfoundlands also because they are not only large, with big slobbery mouths full of teeth, but have so much fur you just can't defend yourself!! (sarcasm)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. Since I haven't called for banning ANY dogs, I don't see why I should begin there.
But size isn't the only matter - there's the size and strength of the jaws and neck.

I'm quite certain my mother's pit bull, if it attacked with the same intensity, would do more damage than my larger dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Talking of banning, just expanding on the whole conversation/topic
not meaning you are talking about banning, just expanding in general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #49
56. Here ya go, here's a whole page of links to studies and opinions
Including the American Vertinary Medicine Association, the ASPCA, The National Animal Control Association, The Humane Society, etc., etc., etc.

http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/topic.php?id=4&topi...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. On the one hand, Mr. Clifton; on the other, the ASPCA, Humane Society, American Veterinary
Medical Association, American Humane Association, National Animal Control Association, AKC, and so on.

Great link. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. Yes, the natinal Animal CONTROL Association, the NY Supreme Court,
and many other EXPERTS. Who exactly is this Mr. Clifton and why should anyone believe him when so many EXPPERTS disagree with him? Oh, he's a magazine editor. Looking to improve circulation, obviously.
This reminds me of the Global Warming "controversy" when the overwhelming majority of experts all agreed but people still pointed to the handful of dissenters as "proof".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #62
68. OK, here's another link analyzing Clifton's report.
http://lassiegethelp.blogspot.com/2007/08/dangerous-bre...

For those convinced that pit bulls send more people to the hospital than all other breeds combined because "you never read about Lab attacks in the paper" -- the Clifton report is the go-to reference.

Im embarrassed for people who cite it. Its that bad.

Merritt Cliftons study is actually a list of severe dog bites. The title itself ("Dog attack deaths and maimings") is misleading, since the list is a compilation of "dog attacks doing bodily harm," including some that are fatal or disabling. Cliftons only source is the press: specifically, press accounts of dog bites requiring extensive hospitalization (never defined, so this might include anything from treatment of sepsis to multiple surgeries) and caused by clearly identified animals. (his 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.)...

...Cliftons report never mentions that there is a huge discrepancy between actual hospital records and press accounts of dog attacks --- between relatively objective data, in other words, and highly subjective reporting and editing with an eye to selling papers. The report fails to acknowledge that a number of factors are involved whenever any dog bites. The report includes statements about dog behavior which have no basis in science, and statements about breed-specific traits which bear no relation to the actual history, behavior or modern development of the breed being discussed . Cliftons concluding statements regarding the inevitability of attacks by certain dogs are impossible to substantiate, and as a result seem simply prejudiced and inflammatory. ...

...As proof of media bias, the Clifton report has value. The media have done a bang-up job convincing the public that only "dangerous breeds" hurt people. Editors in a shrinking market know that it's more lucrative to rail against pit bulls than talk about the importance of puppy socialization and parent supervision and how to prevent resource guarding. Cliftons list illustrates perfectly what the AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression calls media-driven portrayals of a specific breed as dangerous.


Of course, there's much more at the link giving more details of the errors in the report. Yeah, good study.

Sorry, but the facts are against you. Face it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #49
57. Whether a bite occurs in the first place is a matter of human choices in dog training, not breed.
That is the point. The fact is that pit bulls are now a favored victim for animal abusers, when German Shepherd once were the preferred breed for those who wanted to create a dangerous unsocialized dog for whatever purpose. This is what has changed over time and why the numbers have changed. I'm astounded that people are so easily deceived into thinking it is an issue of breed rather than social practice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. Exactly. Rotts were the chosen "omg" dog for a while, so of course there were more
issues with them since people got them and trained them to be neurotic. Now people are gathering other big headed dogs, some are and some aren't pitbulls but they get that label, and training them to be badass dogs. Of course there are individual variations in dogs, any breed, any category, but the issue is training, not breed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
idgiehkt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #49
83. I think this is very important.
When you step back from "fatalities" and include serious injury it changes things. ANY dog can be made into a biter, but some bites have more impact than others. And I think to deny this simple fact does a bit of harm to a cause that people are trying to help. It's wrong to be irrational by denying this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. I remember after "Omen", rotts gained popularity as a "vicious" dog, until
people finally realized that they were, as a group since of course there are always individual variations, wusses. There were a bunch of Rott attacks, but I blame that more on owners, same as now, who buy/breed a dog to emphasize aggressive qualities by training. Shame on those people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #47
87. Its also a matter of breeding and training
Unfortunately, not only are people training pits to be agressive, but some (and note I say some, not even most) are breeding to get agressive pits. I agree that pits can be very loving and friendly, but some people have set about ruining the breed.

I could compare it to the dogs that are bred to pull dog sleds. They would make terrible pets, not because of agressiveness, but because they are bred for their energy level. Most people would not be able to provide the amount of exercise necessary for these dogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Longhorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
61. Find the pit bull!
"Only one of the pictures below features the real American PitBull Terrier. Take the test to see if you can find it. To find the breed of a dog, click on image. Note there are no mixes or rescue dogs of unknown background who's breed could be debated. All dogs have been picked from breeders' websites and should be good representatives of their breed.

When you are done, ask your family and friends to take to test and watch the results. For many people, a Pit Bull is a a big headed dog, or a dog with cropped ears. For some it's a brindle dog, a big, stocky dog, or one with an eye patch.

Quite often dogs that attack are identified as pit bulls when they are not. There are 20+ breeds that are commonly incorrectly identified as pit bulls. Visit Understand-a-bull for more information. "

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

My daughter had to leave Denver because pit bulls (or any dog that even looks like a pit bull) are banned. She has a pit bull/Chinese Sharpei mix. And yes, he's a very sweet dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaJudy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-20-07 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
63. I was bitten - badly - twice as a child
The first was a cocker spaniel, the second a border collie - neither a breed considered "dangerous". Both these dogs were animals my uncle had rescued from abusive owners, and responded to my awkward attempts to pet them by trying to rip my arms off. After the second bite my mother made it clear that while my uncle was welcome, his dogs were definitely not.

So any breed can turn vicious if mishandled. That said, some breeds are more difficult to handle than others: dogs bred for fighting - like pits, akitas and chows - really need a kind but firm hand if they're not to be public menaces. BTW, both the dogs that attacked me were un-altered males, which figure prominently in bite statistics. People who keep dogs as companion animals really should do both their dogs and themselves a favor and have their pets neutered.

During my childhood boxers were considered the perilous breed, but I have yet to meet one that lived up to their fearsome reputation. And despite my early experiences, I still love dogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dropkickpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #63
92. Ask any vet tech
about what breeds they feel are most likely to bite and Cocker Spaniels are always at the top of the list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #92
95. How many people have been killed by cockerspaniels?
that's possibly the silliest argument I've read in this miserable thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dropkickpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #95
97. ...


I'm a vet tech, and I've worked in shelters and clinics. Speaking with VT's from across the country, our experience tells us to be more wary of a cocker than a pit bull when it's brought in. I have yet to meet one tech that works in a shelter that dislikes pit bulls as a breed (and shelter techs see the worst case dogs), but I know plenty who are not fond of cocker spaniels AT ALL. My point wasn't up for argument. Go ahead, go to a vet tech board or veterinary conference and post the question "Which is more likely to bite you when brought in, a cocker spaniel or a pit bull?" and see the responses you get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #97
98. Ask dead people who died of being bitten by dogs
what kind of dog killed you:

a) pitbull
b) cocker spaniel

I hate pitbulls and would like to see the breed exterminated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dropkickpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #98
99. You hate pit bulls?
Nooooooo, I'd never have guessed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zandor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
79. Doggie Racism?
Are you actually comparing recognizing differences in dog breeds to racism?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-21-07 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 05:57 AM
Response to Original message
84. Pitbulls shouldn't exist
Edited on Wed Aug-22-07 06:02 AM by cgrindley
I volunteered at the SPCA for a couple of years and most of the dogs that came in and were destroyed after evaluation were pitbulls. The breed is inherently nasty even before being warped by fucked up owners. Diligent owners can only put a veneer of civility on these brutes. There's no reason why pitbulls should exist. Kill them all. Kill all the Presa Canarias and all the other fighting breeds too. We don't need them.

Here' s one from today:

http://www.kirotv.com/news/13943140/detail.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. And neither should the wrong people with guns, knives and other forms
of murdering type weapons!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. Guns don't randomly go off all by themselves
neither do knives get all stabby... even if they've been used in a million crimes, they never do it all by themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mutineer Donating Member (659 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #84
88. I own a Rottweiller.
They are considered a vicious breed. Mine is a complete pussy-cat. Hell, he's afraid OF cats, among other things (and almost everything.) Yet, there are those that would also seek to ban his entire breed too. While I agree that perhaps limiting the number of pitt bulls that people own might be a good idea (to safeguard against fighting rings) I don't want to see a breed exterminated wholesale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #88
93. I don't trust your dog
and I hope that its muzzled in public and never let off the lead. Yes, I'd also ban your dog's breed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #93
102. Ban any dog big enough to hurt/kill if it were to attack?
That would solve things. Just shoot them all. Anything bigger than an ankle biter since that only hurts but no one has ever ever died from getting their ankles bitten. Spaniels. Airedales. Setters. Any herding dog. Also ban anything that could jump high enough to bite someone on the face too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flying_monkeys Donating Member (519 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #93
108. Please. One can't ban breeds for the actions of a small %....
It is probably a good thing you no longer work at the SPCA if you are so set on being scared of certain breeds by virtue of their breed instead of by virtue of their behavior....


So, should we ban every dog bigger in height than say, your knee?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #84
100. Great idea!
...Except I bet you couldn't pick a pit bull out of a lineup.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

So. Which one is the animal that needs to be exterminated?
All of them?
#3 is an Irish staffordshire terrier. No attacks reported, and certainly none likely. #4 is a Argentine Dogo. Also no attacks. #5 is an american bull dog. Also no attacks.
Should we exterminate them all based on appearance being similar to #1 and #2, being an american pit bull terrier and a presa canario, respectively? Along with, I would presume, every mutt and mongrel that has a broad head, "just in case"?

And then what? Once we've exterminated the pit bulls and all their relatives, another dog will top the charts, get the media attention, and we'll have to exterminate again! Geeze, what a busy schedule! Given current statistics, the next on our doggy genocide list will no doubt be among the spitz types.

Alaskan malamutes are one of the most dangerous breeds, statistically. They're big, strong, and dumb as a fence post. We don't need sleds pulled anymore, so let's kill 'em all!
And of course all the dogs that resemble them!
Siberian husky? Kill it, looks like a malamute!
Akita Inu? So long!
Canaan dog? Canned!
Mackinzie river husky? Just plain needs killin'!

Okay so now we've killed off all the bull dogs, and we've exterminated most of the spitz types. So... Now another dog is going to cause a lot of attacks! Dobermans! We'll have to kill off the entire pinscher family, along with probably a bunch of hound and terrier types. So long, manchester terrier, so long Weimaraner. After that I suppose it'll be Rottweilers? I guess we'll have to get rid of boxers and bullmastifs, just to be safe. German shepherds? Oh, shit... That'll take away all our collies, but just think of how much safer Timmy will be once we've squicked all those goddamn shepherding savages!

I guess we'll keep killing off whatever god tops the charts for attacks, along with all the dogs that look like it, until all we're left with is the pug. And we'll have to kill off all those monkey-faced freaks when they inevitably rise to the top, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #100
104. Fantastic post. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flying_monkeys Donating Member (519 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #84
107. "inherently nasty"?
I disagree.


I think, as puppies, they are all just as capable of forming loving bonds with people as a poodle, or a spaniel, or a mutt, etc. Perhaps the dogs you saw had been exposed to Really Bad Owners or crappy treatment - - but no, I don't think they are "inherently nasty".


Ex-Rott breeder and handler, here :)


(I have never met a Presa Canaria, so I can't chime in on their behalf. But I know scores of pitbulls, almost all of them dolls (even the two I found abandoned a month agositting in my driveway that I sent to Animal Control - - pussycat dogs (intact males) that will get bailed out by the local Pit Rescue here). Exterminating all of a breed is not the answer, IMO)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noonwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
89. I've met some pretty nice pit bulls, but some vicious chows
my brother had a shepard/chow mix that was a really nice dog. We had a neighbor in Kentwood that had a vicious pure-bred chow. It broke off it's leash and attacked my dog one time-I kicked that dog repeatedly in the head before it's owner came out to get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #89
105. me too i'm terribly afraid of chows
all other dogs like me, not chows, and they don't like my pets or dogs (as a kid before i had allergies i had dogs and cats) -- one particular chow was really vicious and dangerous, i can talk to other dogs using body language, but not chows

they just don't care

i've known some pit bulls who were cool tho
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilber_Stool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
90. Here's a relatively neutral
Edited on Wed Aug-22-07 09:03 AM by Wilber_Stool
breed history of the Pit Bull here.



In the early part of the 19th century, the Bulldog was bred in England for the purpose of bull baiting. Bull baiting is a sport in which a tethered bull, brought to market for slaughter, would be attacked by bulldogs. The supposed purpose of the bull baiting was to help tenderize the meet of the bull prior to slaughter. It was thought that the dog attacks would help to tenderize the meat. While there was no scientific proof that the bull baiting actually tenderized the meat, its purpose was most likely to profit those who trained dogs.

The bull baiting was cruel to both the dog and the bull. During these matches the dog would assault the bull, while trying to avoid the stomping hooves and slashing horns of the bull. The dog would attempt to grab on to a nose or ear, and hang on until the bull collapsed from exhaustion or lack of oxygen. Many dogs were crushed underneath the bull's hooves, disemboweled by slashing horns, and tossed through the air causing broken legs, backs, and skulls when they hit the ground. On the whole, both the dogs and the bulls suffered greatly. Every class of person from commoners to royalty enjoyed this sport until mass public outcry finally forced Parliament to take a stand and ban the practice of bull baiting in 1835.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dernitt Donating Member (30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-22-07 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
96. Damn
Thought thread title was Dogs Bite Hume.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC