Vicious pitbull attack on small boy (pls watch before rec/unrec)

[uppityperson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvE352m4CLM

Vicious pitbull attack on small boy. Everything you've heard about these savage beasts is true. Boy rendered unconscious. Remember to check your prejudice with reality every once in a while.

[marmar]

1. Although just to the right of that video on the YouTube page was this one....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mef5uvKP_4Q&feature=related

[uppityperson]

2. Thanks for kicking, no "awwwww" for that little kid?

delete edit.

[marmar]

6. Belated awwww. That was cute....

.... and I know lots of people who swear by pit bulls and what great pets they are. Personally, I would never have one....a golden retriever is much more my speed.

[baldguy]

27. Any medium-to-large dog is capable of doing the same thing - and has.

And the story is always "the dog just snapped". And it's always the dog's fault. Bullshit



Note, the neighbor says the dog had attacked the woman before and she obviously did nothing to correct the situation - which points to inadequate or non-existent training done by the owners, before and after.

ALL dogs need training - whether they're 6 lbs or 160 lbs.

[mzteris]

3. guess i should watch first

and comment second.

duh

[musette_sf]

4. You said it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBNC-qtmvfw

[flvegan]

5. Wow.

Great video. Hadn't seen that one before. What a great dog.

[Greyhound]

7. As opposed to a "gentle" attack?

People have been fooled into this absurd belief that this breed is somehow different.

It's not the dog or even the breed, it's the owners. Try to http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html">Pick out the Pitbull

ETA; Got me too.

[pnwmom]

15. Yeah, and guns don't kill people. People kill people.

:sarcasm:

[Greyhound]

17. ?

[varelse]

8. Heh

should have maybe read the thread before unrec'ing this - woops.

[musette_sf]

9. Only one little moment was enough for the following to happen....

[Truth2Tell]

10. Opened this thread ready for the same old dog-bashing bs.

Thanks for the post, you got me. :)

[Chemisse]

11. That was very sweet

You always hear that only some pit bulls are vicious. I'm sure that is true, but I would never own one. Why take the chance?

[uppityperson]

12. Why take a chance on any dog?

Any dog can be vicious. Any body structure, hair length, etc. Anyone who mistreats dogs should be arrested, imho.

Thanks for the kick though.

[PeaceNikki]

35. And here is the problem.

In addition to being pure unadulterated bullshit, the perpetuated myth that a specific breed is bad and others are good creates a very dangerous false sense of security.

[Chemisse]

64. If there is even the slightest chance

That a particular breed of dog would attack a small child, then I won't take it.

Lots of dogs bite. Unfortunately my Mastiff will bite if she feels provoked. But it is a defensive maneuver, not an attack. She snarls, nips and retreats. It is not in her nature to bite down all the way or to hold on and shake the victim.

According to the reports of pit bull attacks I have read, it IS in their nature to engage in a full attack. Now I can certainly believe that there are lots of well-trained pit bulls who will not bite, but I would prefer not to have a breed that has such behavior in their nature.

[PeaceNikki]

71. You live with a ridiculous false sense of security.

The biggest reasons dogs attack are hormonal imbalance due to inbreeding, neglect or abuse, poor training and irresponsible owners.

[baldguy]

73. Then don't get any dogs.

Every dog is liable to bite. And no dog should ever be left alone with a small child. Even if they're in play mode, every dog can cause an injury. And big goofy dogs can inadvertently cause harm just through shear clumsiness.

The breed has nothing to do with this very real concern.

[Tutankhamun]

86. Pit bulls are one of the few breeds that are bred to be nonagressive toward humans.

Yout Mastiff is not bred to be unagressive towards humans. You should get rid of it since you don't want a dog that could bite a small child. According to the reports you've read, it is in pit bulls' nature to engage in a full attack? Pure bullshit. People watch the TV news and become "experts" on subjects such as pit bulls. This is where such "reports" come from. If a pit bull bites someone it makes the news. If a labrador bites someone it's not news.

[EndersDame]

184. dude it is in all dogs nature to bite down all the way and shake

I have caught my little mini pinscher mix doing the very same to an unlucky squirrel. In her defense though the squirrel was taunting her.
My puppy does however not do this with humans as she has been trained

[a la izquierda]

13. that dog has very loving eyes...

what a sweetie.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

14. Awwwww... I'm glad this cute little kid is breathing

hope he makes it to adulthood.

[Bonn1997]

20. Huh?

[TexasObserver]

154. I'd be more worried about the kids who play with that kid.

Thinking one's pack animal somehow understands that rules regarding behaviors toward those inside the pack are to be accorded other young, vulnerable animals from outside the pack is dangerous thinking. Certainly, good training and a smart owner can help that, but even when those are present, a dog can react instinctively and do harm to strange little ones.

The argument is essentially over. The English speaking world is moving to reduce the harm and horror these dogs have caused by acting more forcefully against the breed and its owners.

[uppityperson]

159. awww, does that mean you're gonna quit kicking this thread & insulting us?

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

195. I did not unrec it, but here's your kick

enjoy your pit bull.

12 or 20?

[pnwmom]

16. So someone put his sleeping toddler on a pitbull and took a video of it. That's it?

Most of the attacks I've heard of have involved running children and absent dog owners. The owner here was obviously in charge and the sleeping child wasn't a natural target.

[TexasObserver]

21. True. Dogs tend to snap at little ones who startle them.

The problem with the pit bull is two fold.

1. Its confirmation includes a jaw made for maximum damage, locking the jaw and clinging to the victim while tearing flesh as it twists its head and body. That means the bite that the pit bull inflicts is much worse than that of most dogs.

2. Because of its above described properties, it appeals to many, many owners who have no business owning any dog, muchless one which can become so lethal, so quickly.

So, it's both the dog and owner. One is just doing what he's been built to do. The other is a creep who thinks his identity is wrapped up in his dog.

Even good dogs, well behaved dogs, gentle dogs, can be startled and bite. The problem is that little kids don't realize this until they're bitten. They may play with the dog one day, and the dog is aware and accepting, but then they run up on the dog and blindside it. The dog reacts instinctively. He doesn't intend to harm the child, so much as he intends to fend off his "attacker." This is something people with dogs often seem not to get. The dog doesn't have to want to hurt their kid to do it major damage.

Combine the big, powerful, deadly jaw, an owner who either doesn't know or doesn't care that dogs will bite small children if it thinks it is being attacked from behind, a little one running up on the dog from behind and making contact with it, and you've got a prescription for disfiguration and death.

[pnwmom]

24. I agree, it's the combination.

And the result is that in my county, at least, a disproportionate number of serious dog bites (ones that end up in the hospital) come from pit bulls.

[TexasObserver]

31. The bigger the jaw, the worse the bite.

This ain't Rocket Science.

It's always interesting to watch people try to explain how it's NOT the breed of dog. Right - like it's the same to be shot by 44 magnum as it is to be shot by a .22 or a pellet gun.

There are several breeds of dog which have the most dangerous jaws and the most dangerous bites. Also, pit bulls are often BRED for their fighting abilities, and for their personalities (or lack thereof). Too often, their owners are equally malformed or mean as their in bred dogs.

[uppityperson]

55. Reputable link to that claim rather than disproportionate number of serious dog bites REPORTED

are pit bulls, even when later they end up being golden retrievers or other type of dog.

Actually pnwmom, you make your prejudices known on every pitbull thread and can find no reputable links on that assertion so I expect little now

[pnwmom]

158. I gave you the link to articles from the Seattle Times last time, as you know. n/t

[uppityperson]

161. Still mindreading, eh? How's your puppy working out, or didn't you end up finding one?

[pnwmom]

166. Here's another, this time from the P.I., which reports that 1/3 of deaths related to dog bites

are caused by pit bulls.

http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/378434_pitbulled.html



Yes, we bought a poodle mix, because the mini's are too small and the standards too big. She's a lot of fun, easy to train, and gets along extremely well with the older dog -- thank goodness.

[uppityperson]

167. "we seriously doubt a ban on pit bulls or any other breed would work."

CDC report is posted elsewhere in this topic, in case you want to see it directly rather than through an op-ed article.

Here is the article, still don't see where it supports your assertion "And the result is that in my county, at least, a disproportionate number of serious dog bites (ones that end up in the hospital) come from pit bulls."

Concerns about dangerous dogs cannot be wished away. Consider that on the day a pit bull owners group said in a Seattle P-I article that it was rallying to protect the breed from any city ban, a pair of pit bulls horrifically attacked a 71-year-old woman in SeaTac.

Vicious dogs are a problem that goes beyond Seattle to neighboring areas. King County and its cities ought to form a task force of officials and citizens from a variety of backgrounds to look for ways to reduce the dangers to the public. For all the differences among cities, unincorporated communities and rural areas, there still is a common interest in improving safety. Dog bites will always be a risk, but it's possible to reduce their numbers and severity.

A Seattle P-I computer analysis early this year showed that pit bulls form a disproportionate share of problems, but they are still only about one-fifth of all dogs who bring warnings or citations of owners. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics have found pit bull attacks to be the cause of seven or eight fatalities annually, about a third of all dog-bite deaths in the country. Beyond deaths or serious injuries, though, too many people are both scared and scarred in a nation where 4.7 million people suffer dog bites each year.

We don't know enough to be sure, but we seriously doubt a ban on pit bulls or any other breed would work. The CDC points to what it says are "many practical alternatives" to breed-specific bans. A task force could explore possible improvements in areas such as sanctions on owners for dog attacks, increased enforcement of leash laws, stronger yard-fencing requirements, better education for dog owners and more. A local group could apply what experts have found to King County's communities. Doing so might protect everyone, especially the elderly and the young.

[pnwmom]

190. I didn't suggest having a ban on pit bulls. n/t

[uppityperson]

192. "And the result is that in my county, at least, a disproportionate number of serious dog bites (ones

"And the result is that in my county, at least, a disproportionate number of serious dog bites (ones that end up in the hospital) come from pit bulls."

Where does that article say that?

[Tutankhamun]

168. A poodle mix! Poodles are the breed most likely to attack humans.

Poodles are nasty, vicious dogs.

[pnwmom]

189. yeah, right.

:sarcasm:

[baldguy]

29. There's no such thing as a "locking jaw".

All dogs will hold their prey and shake it. THAT'S HOW DOGS KILL - and it doesn't matter if it's a Chihuahua or a Doberman.

Like I said above - any medium or large doge would be able to inflict the same type of damage. The breed of the animal does not predetermine what the dog's actions will be - the owner does. The temperament of the dog matters somewhat - but the overriding factor is the owners behavior in training and controlling the animal.

[TexasObserver]

30. Nonsense. The dog's jaw plays a critical role in the damage.

Sorry you're uninformed. Today is your chance to become informed. The term is "locking the jaw." The reason the dog is said to lock his jaw is because it seems locked shut, the dog holds the position instinctively. Try to get the mouth of a biting Chihuahua open. Now try to get the mouth of a biting Pit Bull open. Can you see any difference?

Why don't you let a Chihuahua bite you and then let a pit bull bite you, and see if you can learn the difference?

The term "locking the jaw" is merely a phrase that describes how easy it is for that dog to latch on and hold on. If you think all dogs' jaws are exactly the same in their ability to inflict damage, that's just sad.

[PeaceNikki]

34. The APBT is not the worst of breeds

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

http://www.pbrc.net/mediacenter/mediaqa.html#PSI

[TexasObserver]

38. Even using your Pit Bull friendly source, it's in the top three.

Yes, Shepherds and Rottweiler can inflict a nasty bite, but (1) there are a lot of idiot who own Pit Bulls, not those dogs, so the BAD OWNER factors much larger in dealing with Pit Bulls in general, and (2)those two breeds don't have nearly the personality deficit of the Pit Bulls, many of whom have been bred for traits that are useful in fighting, aggressive dogs.

If you want to convince people, use something other than sites that worship these poorly bred, poorly managed animals.

It's not just that they're dangerous. It's that so many of them have stupid owners who have no business owning any dog, muchless one whose breed was designed to fight.

[PeaceNikki]

40. Um... they only tested 3.

And the test was a National Geographic program that was not a "APBT worshiping" source.

[TexasObserver]

43. The study tested three big dogs known for their biting strength

The study tested three big dogs known for their biting strength, and compared them to wild animals whose bite inflicts much damage.

There's also an obvious flaw in the approach used in the study, but I'll save it to use when I feel like it.

[uppityperson]

58. They also compared those 3 dogs to each other. That is what we are discussing

Of the 3 types dog, German Shepherd, Rottweiler and Pit Bull, the Pitbull had the lowest bite pressure.
good grief.

[TexasObserver]

70. All three breeds have a bite as vicious as wild dogs.

I don't argue that the pit bull's biting force is higher than the shepherd or the rottweiler. I argue that for such dogs, many more of the pit bull breed are owned by idiots than are owned by idiots among those who own the other two breeds. There are many more such dangerous dogs in our society by virtue of that. Further, that because pit bulls have an inbred defect - they are bred to be dogs that can attack and fight fiercely - their instincts are more dangerous.

Let an angry pit bull grab your arm, and then see how quickly you can persuade him to loosen his hold on you.

[uppityperson]

84. Pit Bull search and rescue.

http://www.forpitssake.org/
http://www.mprgroup.net/news/ppfeb05.html

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tutankhamun]

93. LMAO. Still in the top three! That's a typically stupid comment

from an anti-pit bull crusader. They see what they want to see. "It's still in the top three!" If you post something that stupid it's time to STFU.

[baldguy]

48. How much actual, first hand experience do you have with Pit Bulls?

Apparently none. There's no physical mechanical difference between the jaws of one breed vs. the jaws of any other breed.

Every dog can "lock their jaw" in the manner you describe. Left to their natural instincts every dog is a killer. (They are carnivores, after all.) And the amount of damage that a dog can do is related only to their physical size, not their breed. No matter how you slice it, an 80-lb German Shepherd is going to be more "deadly" than a 30-lb Pit Bull. Your duty as an owner is to curtail & redirect those instincts so they don't pose a danger to others.

I've owned & been around dogs my entire life, including Pit Bulls, German Shepherds, all kinds of terriers, mutts and others. I can tell you, the most gentle was a Pit bull, the most powerful was a Shepherd mutt (That's her pic in my avatar. When I got her at 1-1/2 yrs old, this 50-lb dog could easily drag my 250-lb body across the ground.), and the only one I was ever really afraid of was a Silky Terrier my mom got after all us kids moved out.

If you don't know, this is a Silky Terrier:



Cute, huh? 8-lbs; 10-in tall. This vicious little thing killed one neighbor's cat, attacked and severely injured another neighbor's 40-lb Akita, and finally bit my 5-yr old niece before we were finally able to convince my mom to get rid of the damn thing. The difference was that SHE NEVER TRAINED THE THING.

The only common denominator in every dog attack is the training the dog has received. They were either untrained, trained inadequately, or they were intentionally trained to react violently. The breed has nothing to do with it anymore than the color of it's nose does.

[Chemisse]

53. "The breed has nothing to do with it anymore than the color of it's nose does."

Dogs have been breed for behavioral characteristics. Their natural tendencies are part of the package. Now you can influence them tremendously with training or with abuse, but you cannot deny that some dog breeds are more aggressive than others.

[baldguy]

65. Some *individuals* are more aggressive than others, certainly.

Individual aggression is almost exclusively a product of poor breeding & irresponsible training. But general breed aggressiveness toward humans is something THAT HAS BEEN BRED OUT OF DOMESTICATED DOGS FOR GENERATIONS. If that wasn't the case, more often than not such dogs would turn on the people who they have the most contact with - their owners - and no amount of training would be able to change that.

But even the most aggressive dogs - those bred & trained to fight other dogs - don't do it just to fight, or for bloodlust, they do it to receive approval & praise from their owners. Again, the responsibility rests with the humans controlling the dogs.

[uppityperson]

67. You do realize that pitbulls have been bred for generations to not be aggressive

towards people, don't you? That they were bred to be solid dogs who could work alongside people and only recently have some been bred by macho assholes or mistreated by others? Checking to see if you knew that.

[Chemisse]

172. You should take lessons from Bald Guy

He made the same exact point without being rude. Checking to see if you noticed that.

[uppityperson]

176. Asking to make sure you know about there breeding, since you didn't seem to, is "rude"?

"I do not think that word means what you think it does" (per Inigo Montoya)

I do notice you didn't answer my questions if you knew that about their breeding.

[uppityperson]

57. They may hold their jaw shut with bigger muscle, but no "locking" is involved

People claim "locking jaw" not "merely a phrase that describes how easy it is for that dog to latch on and hold on" but with the thought that they truly lock their jaw shut and don't just hold on with their jaw muscles.


Of course larger dogs have bigger jaws and muscles. The Chihuahua vs Pit Bull difference is due to size, not some intrinsic structural difference of the jaw. Or do you mean that German Shepherds, Retrievers, Labs, St Bernards, Great Danes also have "locking jaws" since they are also bigger than a chihuahua?

[PeaceNikki]

32. The "locking" is a myth.

[TexasObserver]

42. Your beliefs are a myth.

Get educated.

The term is "locking the jaw," and if you don't understand what it means, reads something because sources designed to bolster the position of desperate, ill informed pit bull owners.

They "lock their jaw" tightly. No one has ever said they literally have a locking mechanism in their jaw which snaps closed. This is just another weak ass argument that the pit bull fans make. We use the term "locking their jaw" to describe how fiercely they hold their jaw shut.

The next time a pit bull is biting a person and won't let go, run up and use your hands to force his jaw open. You won't be able to do it, because you're not strong enough. To you, that jaw is locked, until you get something strong enough to pry it open.

[PeaceNikki]

44. Um, no.

I have one and have owned another. I've done a great deal of research on the matter while you are swayed by the hype, myth and sensationalist media. They are no more aggressive than any other breed and pound for pound no stronger than other breeds.

But you just keep on perpetuating the bullshit if that makes you feel better. Sadly, it's people like you who make BSL possible.

[TexasObserver]

45. You're the typical "well MY dog is great" advocate.

You see the world through your rose colored pet doggie glasses.

You have owned two of them, and suddenly you think you're an expert.

I litigated two horrific dog attack cases for the families of the two children bitten (in separate attacks) by two separate dogs. One was a pit bull. One was a doberman. They were unrelated except for my involvement as their attorney. Both had been bitten by dogs just like yours. And their owners were just like you. "Oh, they're great pets. They'd never hurt anyone! They play around MY kids! They're as gentle as can be!"

Both of the civil defendants in those cases paid dearly for the damage their dog inflicted.

In those two cases, I hired REAL experts - dog vets and doctors - not someone who has owned two dogs. They actually understand the dogs, their breeding, their body structure, and how it comes into play. You're just another sad owner with a need to explain why your dog is not that way.

[PeaceNikki]

46. Is it at ALL possible for you to disagree with someone without resorting to personal attacks?

Look, like I said, I've DONE research. I felt like you when my ex-husband brought home 5-week old a pit-bull puppy when my kid was 5 years old. I was terrified. As a result I did a LOT of research. I talked to several vets, the humane society and read up a great deal. I am not the amateur you wish to paint me as.

Your anecdotal evidence is truly no more "proof" than mine. The experts you hired in your cases were hand-selected to give the results that would benefit your cases.

ANY dog (notably those of larger sizes) can inflict the type of damages that your clients suffered. It's not specific to a breed. In fact, inbreeding of any type is more likely to cause the type of aggression and instability that you describe. A friend of mine was horrifically mauled by a BLACK LAB. He had 9 surgeries on his face. It wasn't because it was a black lab and it wasn't because they were bad owners, it was due to the hormonal imbalances from inbreeding.

I am not a "sad owner", I am an educated and responsible owner of a wonderful dog.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

60. I don't think it is possible, reading through the replies.

[TexasObserver]

95. I've already done so.

Stop attacking me and claiming you're the victim.

Thankfully, people like me far, far outnumber people like you, and as a society we are finally holding pit bull owners responsible to the standard we create, not the one they have in their heads.

[PeaceNikki]

97. Oh poor you. Where have I "attacked" you?

[uppityperson]

59. "No one has ever said they literally have a locking mechanism in their jaw which snaps closed"Wrong

People have and do. That is indeed what many people think. Therein lies the problem between this "locking the jaw" statement.

If they don't truly "lock the jaw", why the hell don't you say "they hold on really really strongly"?

[TexasObserver]

63. The problem is not the term, but that you don't like it.

The term referring to dogs "locking their jaw" has been around a long time. It's not just pit bulls. It's what big dogs do when they bite. They are difficult to force open, and given the strength of humans, those jaws are locked on the victim.

If you want to describe it as "holding on really really strongly" you're free to try to get that phrase entered into the lexicon.

[uppityperson]

68. The problem is the term is taken to mean what it says, the jaws lock, by many

but sure, continue to use a misleading term if it makes you all chipper.

[TexasObserver]

74. You'd better get used to it.

Those who understand the dangers of the breed far outnumber those who are its lap dogs. The laws everywhere are becoming more controlling of the dogs and their owners. There will be more lawsuits, more arrests, more prosecutions, and more prison time served for bad owners of bad dogs.

Cities and counties all over the country are getting involved. Some insurance companies won't even write liability policies for pit bull owners.

But keep yapping like a dog chasing a car, and with the same expectation of success such dog has.

[uppityperson]

82. "Is it at ALL possible for you to disagree with someone without resorting to personal attacks? "

as written elsewhere and as I replied to that person, I don't think so.
Your prejudices are showing highly in this thread.

http://www.forpitssake.org/
http://www.mprgroup.net/news/ppfeb05.html

[TexasObserver]

Is it possible for you to do so?

You haven't shown it in this conversation.

[uppityperson]

102. I guess it isn't possible for you to disagree without resorting to a personal attack

thanks for continuing to kick this so people can see the really cute video in the OP. Hugs to you.

[TexasObserver]

105. It's certainly not possible for YOU to argue without claiming you've been attacked.

You and your dog owner friend seem to have that in common, but then, claiming they're victims seems to the common thread among the pit bull owners who don't accept their inherent dangers.

[uppityperson]

106. Edit as misread.

[PeaceNikki]

108. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7105867&mesg_id=7110747

[uppityperson]

115. "edit" is a wonderful thing, isn't it? It lets someone change what they wrote

[uppityperson]

112. deleted subthread held a lot, why it went away. Here are few more that haven't been deleted, yet

But keep yapping like a dog chasing a car, and with the same expectation of success such dog has.

Thankfully, people like me far, far outnumber people like you, and as a society we are finally holding pit bull owners responsible to the standard we create, not the one they have in their heads.

If you're reduced to playing the "trial lawyer" card, maybe you should consider the GOP.

Too often, their owners are equally malformed or mean as their in bred dogs.

If you think all dogs' jaws are exactly the same in their ability to inflict damage, that's just sad.

Your beliefs are a myth.

Get educated

You see the world through your rose colored pet doggie glasses

[uppityperson]

54. their jaws do NOT lock, urban legend there.

However, because of the current OMGPITBULL macho status bs, they do appeal to some who then mistreat them and/or don't work with them in a positive way.

Any dog bite can be bad, and bigger dogs do have bigger jaws and more weight behind them BUT there is no "locking the jaw" with dogs.

[TexasObserver]

56. I've addressed that in numerous posts in this thread. Read them.

And stop trying to straw man your way out of this.

They're inherently more dangerous dogs, many of which are poorly trained, or not trained at all, and/or owned by idiots who shouldn't own any pet.

Why deny that breeds of dogs have all been created because of their physical and mental attributes? That's the whole point of breeding and buying a particular breed.

We don't have to argue about this. You have your opinion and I have mine. I'm sure you don't want bad owners having such dogs, either, but don't be oblivious to the fact that they are bred to have the traits they have, even the really sweet ones you don't think would ever hurt anyone.

[baldguy]

75. And you should stop looking at this issue like a litigator trying to get the maximum damage award.

You don't have a jury in front of you to con with your selective recitation of the evidence.

[TexasObserver]

79. I'm looking at as an informed citizen.

I don't want to see any civil cases. I want to see the dogs treated as the dangerous animals they are.

I handled two such cases. I don't care to handle any others. I handled those because I knew both families and they wanted me to handle them. One involved the child of a law partner. One involved the child of a firm business client.

If you're reduced to playing the "trial lawyer" card, maybe you should consider the GOP.

[uppityperson]

88. You, sir or ma'am, deserve the respect you get. eom

[baldguy]

98. The most dangerous animals are the ones that train their dogs to fight.

Or don't train them at all. I hope THE OWNERS of the dogs in those two cases were appropriately punished. And having animals living in our society who have the potential to cause harm is certainly a problem.

Unfortunately, the genocide of an entire breed of animal is no solution. (Assholes would just find something else to have fight & kill each other - and millions of lovable family pets would be butchered needlessly because of an unfounded prejudice.)

Considering that YOU HAVE NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with these dogs, and I do, I can say unequivocally that the breed of the dog has less to do with it's behavior than the training the dog receives does. Any dog can be trained to attack; just as any dog can be trained to be a lovable couch potato. What matters is the training - not the dog.

I'm sure there was evidence about dogs that you didn't want to be presented as evidence in those cases. That's what's being presented here.

[Tutankhamun]

89. The pit bull's jaw does not have any special "locking" mechanism.

That is one of the urban myths surrounding the breed. Another is the 60,000 pounds of pressure in its jaw. Another is that they "turn" on their owners without provocation. Another is that they are prone to attack people.

People love to pop off about pit bulls and spread these kinds of urban myths. Self-righteousness.

[TexasObserver]

144. See my signature.

Arguing with dog owners about their dog is like arguing with parents about their children.

They NEVER do anything wrong!

[uppityperson]

147. Thanks for putting your prejudices out there. Women shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

They are sooo emotional and just aren't capable of true understanding by their very nature.

[dana_b]

170. you're ignorance and defiant attitude is much

more dangerous than any pitbull.

[TorchTheWitch]

191. That's bullshit

Pitbulls do not have a "locking" jaw. Their jaws are no different and no stronger than any other dog with the same size jaw. Their jaws are larger in proportion to their body size as their heads are larger in proportion to their body size, but there is nothing unusual or extraordinary about the physicality of a pitbull's jaw. ALL dogs bite by clamping down and twisting their head and body... watch ANY dog play tug with a toy and that's absolutely clear.

Yes, certain breeds of dogs are bred to have a certain level of aggressive strain toward people, animals or both, and for good and logical reasons, and all dogs are inherently protective of their territory and "pack". Proper training and a common sense approach in keeping the dog, people and other animals safe it EVERYTHING.

Dogs are also as different in personality and behavior as are people. Dogs from the same litter, raised and trained in the exact same circumstances will have different personality and behavioral traits just as people do, therefore, how they react in a given circumstance won't be exactly the same and perhaps very different due to the individualism of every dog. The important thing is to know your dog's personality and behavioral traits so you can recognize certain circumstances and how your dog is likely to react to them and to always err on the side of caution.

[Raine]

18. Aw what a sweet dog

I had a friend who had a really big pit bull, she was gentle giant. I know some are vicious but the most she did was jump on me which knocked me down and they she held me down with her paw and licked me.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Fair enough. Still, can you deny the evidence about pitbulls presented in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOU8GIRUd_g

[Onlooker]

22. Pitbulls are Republican

Some of them are quite nice, but others are completely insane.

[TexasObserver]

162. Unfortunately, that's true.

Also, both will crap on the carpet if they're not trained to go outside.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

23. aw the poor dog prob can't expand his lungs with that kids dead weight on him....srsly

[pnwmom]

25. True. This scene was so obviously posed,

by an owner trying to make a point. I'm not impressed.

[LWolf]

26. Typical dog.

Trying to hold still, trying not to disturb the boy. I recognize that look in the eyes. Loving contact, and being careful.

My aussie would not have been that self-disciplined. She would have gotten too excited, and wiggled around trying to lick him.

[Odin2005]

28. AWW!!!

:D

[cliffordu]

33. K&R...Nice!!

:hi:

[walldude]

36. Whatever your intention here

a post that demands I watch a video of a vicious attack on a child pretty much insures that I won't watch it.

Do you even see how you aren't going to get through to people? Even if the video is not what you say it is in your post why in the fuck would I watch it? I don't know your intentions and from my perspective anyone who would post a violent attack on a child and demand that I watch it is a sick individual.

I am assuming you are not a sick individual and this does not show an attack. But I won't watch it in case it does.

[KittyWampus]

39. it's an intentionally misleading thread title. Which is actually against DU rules.

[uppityperson]

61. It is the title of the video, which is DU rules.

[uppityperson]

62. Sometimes reading the text and the replies can help give a clue. For instance "awwwww"

Edited to add: Thanks for the kick anyways.

[mrs_p]

37. that poor dog. nt

[PeaceNikki]

41. Here's one you should watch, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL1trl1FMUw

:)

[baldguy]

51. +1000

[dysfunctional press]

49. why would i want to watch a 'vicious pitbull attack on a small boy'?

and what kind of sick fuck would expect people to want to?

[PeaceNikki]

52. As this video explains

It's curiosity to see stories about vicious pit bull attacks that fuels the media to report about it. The media also get better ratings when the public believes there is some "boogie-man(dog)" to fear. Pit bulls are a big target.

Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL1trl1FMUw

[uppityperson]

66. Many people clicked on this and somehow I thought the "awwww, cute"

might reassure those who clicked later.

Checking now, this thread has 1230 views. Reading the replies, even the first few, would reassure many, for instance: "Belated awwww. That was cute...."

[dysfunctional press]

72. it takes a special kind of moran to expect people to want to click on a 'vicious pit bull attack'

[uppityperson]

83. Are you calling me a "moran"? 1478 clicks on this thread

First, personal insults are against DU rules. Secondly, 1478 hits show that people do click on "vicious pit bull attack" subject line.

[UndertheOcean]

50. I want to see how that dog reacts to a stranger boy , one not of its pack before I make judgement.

[knightinwhitesatin]

77. You cannot be serious

n/t

[baldguy]

113. Can say the same about any dog.

If it doesn't behave appropriately around strangers, I would hope the owners take steps to restrain the dog & are engaged in further training.

[EndersDame]

185. Go to a dog park. My friend takes his pit mix and the dog did not react even when a little brat

kicked her

[janx]

69. Is it too late for you to change the thread title?

I ignored this thread for days because I had no interest in seeing what the title described. :shrug:

[uppityperson]

85. No, editing period is over and this was the title on the video

[flvegan]

76. Somehow, I just knew this thread wouldn't stay ignorant-free.

:eyes:

[PeaceNikki]

78. Which is the whole point of this thread and the video to which it links.

There are 3 types of people:

1) those of us who rushed to read this wondering what horror is being spread about a very misunderstood breed
2) those who rushed to this thread to perpetuate myths and sling shit upon those above
3) those are were not interested in seeing either

[uppityperson]

90. Hi Nikki, here we are again.

Hoping for more "awwwww"s.

[depakid]

80. Some folks are just dumber than a sack of rocks

Having pit bulls is about like having a loaded gun around the house. There's a reason why they're banned in the UK and now restricted (and on their way to extinction) in Australia.

Not that some of you give a shit about the repeated maulings- and more than you care about repeated mass shootings and family murder suicides.

At least not until it happens to you and yours.

[PeaceNikki]

81. I know! MONSTERS!! Check out THIS story of horror:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25214356

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25216940#25216940

[uppityperson]

87. Are these Search and Rescue teams dumber than a sack of rocks?

http://www.forpitssake.org/
http://www.mprgroup.net/news/ppfeb05.html

[depakid]

91. Next you and others who pile on will tell me that there hasn 't been a spate of pit bull maulings

throughout the Portland area over the last several years. If you can handle that FACT -and the FACT that the major dog maulings have damn near ALL been pit bulls- then you'll say "it's the evil owners, not the cute little dogs."

Except for the FACT that in most of these cases, the owners have been described as "normal everyday folks" whose dogs got out. You'd also find out that in many cases, there wasn't ANY previous indication of a problem with the dog.

Like I said dumber than....

[PeaceNikki]

94. Banning one breed gives a false sense of security.

We should throw the book at the bastards who mistreat any dogs.

We should harshly punish those who are irresponsible dog owners and/or breeders.

We should teach all people that ANY dog of decent size has the POTENTIAL of hurting people if mistreated or poorly trained.

We should teach children how to approach strange dogs.

But banning a single breed is a futile and useless reactionary response to media hype.

BSL is bullshit. http://www.thedogpress.com/SideEffects/side_effects_leg_01.asp

Dog Law and Breed Legislation

Why Breed Bans Don’t Work

by Katharine Dokken

Besides the enforcement side of this equation there is also the public health problem. Banning ownership of certain breeds would cause consequences to human safety. A breed ban would not eliminate these breeds. It would not stop individuals from desiring or acquiring the banned breeds. Rather, the owners of such breeds and the public would be placed at greater harm because the dogs would no longer be produced by reputable breeders who breed for good temperament and health but would instead be produced by underground breeders who deliberately breed aggressive dogs.Banned breeds would have no access to vaccinations and proper vet care - rabies vaccinations will not occur, making dog bites much more serious.

The biggest problem that BSL fails to address is that of personal responsibility. Any dog treated harshly, trained to attack, or not properly bred or socialized may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner is most often responsible -- not the breed.

While Pit Bulls are at the forefront of breed banning discussions, it is not limited to Pit Bulls alone. Once you get a law on the books to ban a certain breed, it’s very easy to simply keep adding more breeds to the "outlawed" list. For example, In Cincinnati, Ohio, they banned American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers or their mixes as "pit bulls". In the discussion that followed during the hearings, city council members toyed with including other breeds on the list including: German Shepherds, Dobermans, Rottweilers, and Rhodesian Ridgebacks. Recently the Cincinnati law was overturned due to the huge expense of enforcement and several losses in court, one of which was when an owner of eight purebred American Bulldogs seized and declared to be "pitbull mixes" sued the city over his dogs seizure and won.

In order to cut down on vicious dogs in the community, authorities need to hold the owners responsible for their actions. Animal cruelty, vicious dog, running at large, and many other laws, already exist in most areas. Punish the deed, not the breed!

[depakid]

101. No- it gives one an ACTUAL sense of security

that when they or their family- or pet- are walking down the street that some DUMB FUCK'S dog won't have gotten out and snapped or somehow been provoked. Same for folks who own stock.

The breed is dangerous by nature. It also attracts people who for whatever reason want to look like a bad ass- or own a bad assed dog to "protect them" or sick on others.

That latter is inevitable in any case- but taking away the lethality improves the public safety everyone else who lives in the neighborhood. Same principle as abating a fire hazard.

[uppityperson]

104. Search and Rescue Pitbulls are..."dangerous by nature"? yup, and white men can't jump

[PeaceNikki]

107. Oh, it's false. Other breeds bite, too.

And you're wrong about your by nature comment. Italics don't make it true.

You clearly didn't read my post and the discussion of how BSL is ineffective. Here's some more stuff for you to not read:

http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/dog-fighting/breed-specific-legislation.html

Are Breed-Specific Laws Effective?

There is no evidence that breed-specific laws—which are costly and difficult to enforce—make communities safer for people or companion animals. For example, Prince George’s County, MD, spends more than $250,000 annually to enforce its ban on pit bulls. In 2003, a study conducted by the county on the ban’s effectiveness noted that “public safety is not improved as a result of ,” and that “there is no transgression committed by owner or animal that is not covered by another, non-breed specific portion of the Animal Control Code (i.e., vicious animal, nuisance animal, leash laws).”

Following a thorough study of human fatalities resulting from dog bites, the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) decided not to support BSL. The CDC cited, among other problems, the inaccuracy of dog bite data and the difficulty in identifying dog breeds (especially true of mixed-breed dogs). The CDC also noted the likelihood that as certain breeds are regulated, those who exploit dogs by making them aggressive will replace them with other, unregulated breeds.

[TexasObserver]

126. Quoted For Truth! "The breed is dangerous by nature."

[uppityperson]

131. White men can't jump or dance either. Women shouldn't be allowed to drive or vote since

it is their "nature" to be emotional.

good grief

[baldguy]

133. And what personal experience do you have to indicate this?

[uppityperson]

99. dupe

[uppityperson]

100. We are soooooo bad for "piling" on your prejudices, right.

Many dog attacks reported as "omg pitbull" turn out to not be pit bulls. If a dog attack does include a stout short haired dog, it is much more likely to be reported than one by, say, a retriever.

I guess you think those Search and Rescue people are dumb stupid morons.

[depakid]

114. You probably can't see the irony in that statement

The bias here is yours of course- trying (rather pathetically) to prove that your cuddly dog isn't responsible for repeated maulings that leave people dead or maimed for life in substantial and disproportionate numbers.

[uppityperson]

119. Ironic that I say my cuddly dog hasn't done repeated mauling, left people dead?

Well, it hasn't. I'd like to see you prove my dog has. She has never mauled anyone. It is difficult for me to prove a negative, that she hasn't, but to the best of my knowledge, she's been with us since a pup, she's never mauled anyone, much less repeatedly or left anyone "dead or maimed for life".

I do not think that word means what you think it does. "Irony".

You continue to ignore this:
I guess you think those Search and Rescue people are dumb stupid morons.

[TexasObserver]

140. "responsible for repeated maulings that leave people dead or maimed for life"

Factually accurate.

[uppityperson]

142. Prove my cuddly dog did that. Where are those "facts" that prove it?

[baldguy]

130. Pick out the Pit Bull

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

The FACT is that the intentionally uninformed have hyped the Pit Bull Threat so much that every dog attack is described in the media as being from a "pit bull" - no matter what the breed actually is.

The FACT is, unless you've got AKC papers for the dog, there's no way to know exactly what breeds are in the animals' pedigree.

[PeaceNikki]

134. Media Bias in Reporting Dog Attacks

Interesting study here. Check it out:

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/dog-bites-and-the-media/
Reporters are not specialists. They may report as fact what are really opinions, or cite official statements and/or published studies that experts have called into serious question. Stories completed against deadline pressures may contain errors that the outlet will only correct if later developments generate an interest in a follow up. Reporters will neglect critical factors that contributed to a serious incident involving a dog and assign unjustified significance to a dog’s breed description, while, at the same time printing inaccurate breed identification of dogs which are never corrected later.

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/dog-bites-and-the-media/audience-interest/

There are two ways editorial judgment of audience interest can influence reporting about dogs and dog attacks.

Over-reporting because of breed
Sensationalized reporting

Media Bias in Reporting Dog Attacks: June 2006

Attacks by non-pit bull dogs are rarely taken up by national or international news outlets.
• A three-year-old Virginia boy was admitted to the hospital with “extensive injuries”. The child was attacked by a dog described as a Golden Retriever mix. The wounds to the child required 300 stitches. The child was further described as requiring additional surgeries to “functionally repair muscles, nerves and work on scars”. This incident was reported in only two local newspapers.

• A 3-year-old girl was admitted to Children’s Hospital in Denver with serious lacerations to her face and head. The hospital declined to release the child’s name or information on her condition. She had been attacked at her home by a dog believed to be a Labrador Retriever. This attack was reported four times and only in Colorado outlets.

• An Indiana woman was attacked and knocked to the ground by a dog identified as a German Shepherd. The dog she was walking, a small Sheltie mix was also attacked. Neighbors responded and managed to restrain the German Shepherd, but not before the woman was bitten twice in the face. Her small dog was so gravely injured that it was euthanized. This incident was reported in only one local newspaper.

• An 11-year-old California girl was bitten in the leg and received “serious, but not life-threatening injuries”, when she was attacked by two pit bulls. Her injuries required hospitalization. This incident was reported in over ninety national and international newspapers. Forbes, FOX News, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and dozens of other major news organizations headlined this “Pit Bull Attack”.

[flvegan]

92. Oh brother. n/t

[depakid]

96. Unlike Americans- Australians get fed up with preventable tragedies- and do something about them

Ms ALISON MEGARRITY: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. What is the Government's response to community concerns about recent attacks by pit bull terriers and related matters?

Mr BOB CARR: We were all horrified by the pictures of five-year old Jordan Wisby lying in hospital with his head bandaged—the victim of a vicious pit bull terrier attack last Friday. He and his brother were walking home from school in Illawong when a dog, which had already been declared dangerous by the Sutherland shire, bolted out of a window and attacked him. The dog has been destroyed and the police are considering laying charges under the Companion Animals Act. Yesterday in another incident, two unregistered pit bulls escaped from their home in Homebush and turned on a 75 year-old man.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Bligh will come to order.

Mr BOB CARR: Today, a stud operator in Appin, Mr Howard Blight, faces the agonising decision whether to destroy two thoroughbred foals that last month were badly mauled by two American pit bulls. Under New South Wales law, if a dog is declared dangerous, the owner must have the animal desexed, muzzle it in public, and keep it in a childproof enclosure.

Owners face heavy penalties for breaching these rules or if their dog is involved in an attack. If all else fails, councils have the power to seize and destroy animals. Owners of dangerous dogs can face fines of up to $22,000, two years gaol and disqualification from owning a dog for life. These are strong laws, but with pit bull terriers, it is clear that we need to go further. A pit bull is a killing machine on a leash. Too often someone ends up in an emergency ward after an encounter with one of these dogs, to say nothing of damage to stock in rural areas.

This week the Minister for Local Government will meet with local government representatives and rangers to discuss how laws can be strengthened to help councils better control dangerous dogs. The Minister will also take this issue to the Ministerial Council on Local Government where he will push for a national approach. But New South Wales is not prepared to wait and that is why the Government will introduce legislation to ban the breeding of pit bulls and similar breeds.

The ban will be based on successful laws in force in Queensland. Our new laws will make it an offence to breed, sell, give away or acquire those dogs: and the penalties will be severe. We want to see those dangerous creatures bred out of existence. The Government will also give councils the power to ban ownership of a restricted dog unless the owner has obtained council approval. The vast majority of dog owners do the right thing and are keen to always do the right thing, and most dog breeds are a benign addition to human happiness. However, there have been too many vicious, unprovoked attacks and pit bulls no longer have a place in this community.

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20050503014

[flvegan]

103. Unlike New South Wales, most of America isn't subject to kneejerk legislation

passed by ill-informed morons.

[depakid]

109. I guess repeated maulings are your thing

Australians wised up (as they have with so many other things- mass shootings for example). Americans remain dumb and free- like petulant children not caring a lick about the harm- or potential harm they inflict on others. Yep that's the name for it. FreeDUMB.

[PeaceNikki]

110. Show me one study that proves BSL is effective.

[depakid]

117. BSL?

Obviously you have some inside knowledge on the issue.

[PeaceNikki]

118. I do. And you have romaticized ideas of BSL (breed specific legislation)

http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/2009/jul_aug/pitbull.html
Is BSL Effective?
Extensive studies of the effectiveness of BSL in reducing the number of persons harmed by dog attacks were done in Spain and Great Britain. Both studies concluded that their “dangerous animals acts,” which included pit bull bans, had no effect at all on stopping dog attacks. The Spanish study further found that the breeds most responsible for bites—both before and after the breed bans—were those breeds not covered by it, primarily German Shepherds and mixed breeds.

One of the few known instances in which a breed ban’s effectiveness was examined and reported on in the United States occurred in Prince George’s County, Maryland, where a task force was formed in 2003 to look at the effectiveness of its pit bull ban. The task force concluded that the public’s safety had not improved as a result of the ban, despite the fact that the county had spent more than $250,000 per year to round up and destroy banned dogs. Finding that other, non–breed–specific laws already on the books covered vicious animal, nuisance, leash, and other public health and safety concerns, the task force recommended repealing the ban.

In a different study looking at dog bite data, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Humane Society of the United States, and the American Veterinary Medical Association together produced a report titled “Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the US between 1979 and 1998,” which appeared in the September 15, 2000, issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Among its findings, the study reported that during this 20–year period, more than 25 breeds of dogs were involved in 238 human fatalities. Pit bull–type dogs caused 66 of the fatalities, which averages out to just over three fatal attacks per year, and Rottweilers were cited as causing 39 of the fatalities. The rest were caused by other purebreds and mixed breeds. At the time the report was released, Dr. Gail C. Golab, one of the study’s co–authors, was quoted as saying, “Since 1975, dogs belonging to more than 30 breeds—including Dachshunds, Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, and a Yorkshire Terrier—have been responsible for fatal attacks on people.”

The authors noted that the data in the report cannot be used to infer any breed–specific risk for dog bite fatalities, such as for pit bull–type dogs or Rottweilers, because to obtain such risk information it would be necessary to know the total numbers of each breed currently residing in the United States, and that information is unavailable.

A 2008 report on media bias by the National Canine Research Council (available on their website at http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/dog-bites-and-the-media/audience-interest) compared the type of media coverage given for dog attacks that occurred during a four–day period in August 2007 with intriguing results:

* On day one, a Labrador mix attacked an elderly man, sending him to the hospital. News stories of his attack appeared in one article in the local paper.

* On day two, a mixed–breed dog fatally injured a child. The local paper ran two stories.

* On day three, a mixed–breed dog attacked a child, sending him to the hospital. One article ran in the local paper.

* On day four, two pit bulls that broke off their chains attacked a woman trying to protect her small dog. She was hospitalized. Her dog was uninjured. This attack was reported in more than 230 articles in national and international newspapers and on the major cable news networks.

It is not a stretch to see how such news coverage could influence calls for breed bans from the frightened public and its legislators.

[depakid]

124. So one breed accounted for 28% of all deaths? Impressive.

but not surprising.

[PeaceNikki]

127. Show me one study that proves BSL is effective.

You can't because it's not. It's reactionary, ineffective and dangerous. And yes... unAmerican.

[depakid]

137. Since the breed's been banned in the UK for decades, that would trying to prove a negative

We will see as the pit bulls die out in Australia what the effect is. I'm sure someone will do such a study. Maybe I will!

[PeaceNikki]

145. Oh, I would think that would make it much easier.

From 2/2008: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7264620.stm">Hospitals see rise in dog bites. NHS statistics show the number attending A&E after a dog attack has risen by more than 40% in the last four years to nearly 3,800 a year. During the four-year period the number of patients under 18 treated for dog bites in London more than doubled, and in the West Midlands it rose by 80%

Nope...

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7527/1278">Is it time to ban dogs as household pets? Oooohh... interesting.

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/2165/breaking-britains-ban-on-pit-bulls-extended-to-previously-legal-breeds/">Britain’s Ban on Pit Bulls Extended to Previously Legal Breeds Also interesting.

http://baltimorebulldogs.blogspot.com/2009/10/dog-fighting-surges-in-uk-despite-pit.html">Dog Fighting Surges in UK, Despite Pit Bull Ban huh. Not super effective.

[uppityperson]

149. Thank you Nikki. Peace to you.

[depakid]

155. Now, imagine how many more- and more serious maulings there would be if Pit Bulls were legally

in the mix. According to your own stat- somewhere in the range of 30% more deaths. And you can probably add about another 10% to account for the higher population density.

[PeaceNikki]

157. *cough*bullshit*cough*

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7105867&mesg_id=7111297

[depakid]

164. You could actually have made an argument about the substitution effect

A very dangerous breed would replace a less dangerous one for a lot of folks- pit for say a doby or a rot (as they attract many of the same kind of people). That would reduce the additional deaths and maulings somewhat.

Bottom line though is- unlike firearms, there's no "right" of sorts to point to, so eventually progressive problem solving states like Oregon will follow Britain and Australia's lead. There was already a bill this legislative session- and eventually (and unfortunately after many more preventable tragedies) one will pass. And other states will follow suit- as they did with the bottle bill.

[flvegan]

111. Why would you think that was my "thing" as if I like it?

Such a load of ignorant twaddle.

Let me know when NSW bans the automobile, considering fools can get their hands on those and damage can result.

[depakid]

120. Must be your thing, as you're advocating the conditions that unequivocably lead to it!

and playing reductio ad absurdum with folks who actually had enough of the problem and did something about it.

[PeaceNikki]

121. Media Bias in Reporting Dog Attacks

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/dog-bites-and-the-media/audience-interest/

[flvegan]

122. More twaddle.

You'd also be suggesting that because I like and own cars I advocate driving one drunk into a crowd of schoolchildren.

I'm glad I don't live in such a poorly informed community that passes legislation based on personal bias. Sounds too Bush-like to me. Maybe Bush-like is YOUR thing.

[depakid]

125. Just like a child

Deny unpleasant facts and avoid responsibility for the consequences of your actions- in this case repeated maulings by a dangerous breed.

[flvegan]

129. Like a child, you accuse others when you're dead wrong.

My actions have done nothing of the sort. As for facts, I have yet to see you put any forth, other than the fact that NSW seems to have certain legislative practices reminiscent of the Bush admin, which apparently is your thing.

[depakid]

132. You're advocationg ownership of a dangerous dog that- according to the study posted above

Accounts for a substantial and disproportionate number of deaths (and maimings). And once again we have the irony- this time with a Bush analogy juxtaposed with reckless unregulated behavior that harms ordinary folks.

Here's an article about the effects of the law on owners and breeders. I'm sure that they weren't pleased with the prospect of desexing their dogs.


Cassie Fitzsummons with the American pit bull puppies bred by her father.
------------

The price of pit bull terriers has tripled following the State Government's decision to designate them a banned species and desex them out of existence. A pit bull puppy that would have fetched $300 last month was snapped up for $900 by an enthusiast of the breed described by Premier Bob Carr as "a killing machine on a leash".

A dog breeder told The Sun-Herald: "Pit bulls have become a trophy dog since the Government decided to ban them. People are saying, 'I want to own the last pit bull'."

Under the Government's proposed laws, five species of fighting dogs will be banned and it will be an offence to breed, sell, give away or acquire them. When it becomes law later this year, it will be mandatory for owners to have their dogs desexed, which will lead to the extinction of the five breeds in NSW.

There are currently about 3300 dogs of the restricted breeds - pit bull terriers, American pit bulls, Japanese tosas, Argentinian fighting dogs and Brazilian fighting dogs - in the state.

Since Mr Carr announced the drastic law changes, some pit bull owners have been attracted by the higher rewards of selling, while others have decided to start breeding programs to enlarge the number of the species before the desexing regulations are enacted.

More: http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Killing-machine-a-trophy-dog/2005/05/14/1116024405806.html

[PeaceNikki]

136. Show me one study that proves BSL is effective.

Still waiting.

[flvegan]

138. Which study was that posted above?

I don't have the desire to wade through the misc ramblings of the insane and insecure to find what you're referring to.

I hope for the sake of you not looking like a fucking idiot that it's not the Merritt Clifton report.

[depakid]

143. post #118

I took the liberty of calculating the percentage of deaths attributed to pitbulls from the numbers cited.

[PeaceNikki]

146. And 3 deaths per year is a "loaded gun" in your opinon?

Enough to legislate against the breed?

You should take up more effective causes like children who die at the hands of their parents. That number is like 3 per DAY.

[depakid]

151. Hell- there have easily been that many major attacks in the Portland area alone!

Probably double that. People in Portland are also getting fed up- as one can see in newspaper comment sections after each new attack.

Tick Toc.

(lately the cops have taken to shooting them).

[PeaceNikki]

152. Again.... Media Bias in Reporting Dog Attacks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7105867&mesg_id=7111041

[depakid]

165. Now it's the media's fault!

As if the local "leads it bleeds" news isn't going to report a nasty dog mauling of some kid or elderly person! That's their stock in trade.

:thumbsdown:

[baldguy]

174. That's just the point - THEY DON'T!

If it's a Lab or a Golden doing to mauling & killing - it's not news. If it's called a Pit Bull, then all of a sudden it is a story! Even if the dog reported to be a "Pit Bull" isn't a Pit Bill at all. It's a big, scary story even if it's just a single bite where the victim is treated & gets sent home withing hours.

Nearly everything reported in the MSM about Pit Bulls is a lie.

[PeaceNikki]

177. Indeed. Sensationalized.

September 2008
A New Jersey infant was killed by a dog reported to be a Siberian Husky.

The incident was reported only in the local media, in approximately a dozen articles.
All reports described the incident as an unfortunate accident. The infant was reported
to have been simply “bitten” by the dog. The dog was described as “non aggressive.”

One headline read “Dog that killed infant only intended to be playful.”

A Nevada infant was killed by two dogs reported to be pit bulls.

More than 200 outlets around the world reported this incident, most with the words “pit bull” in the
headline. Television news reports and a recording of the 911 call are still available online. Stock photos
of pit bulls baring their teeth illustrated many of the newspaper accounts. All articles reported the
dogs to be “vicious,” and/or “aggressive.” The dogs were reported to have either “burst,” “barged,”
“forced,” or “broke” into the home from the backyard, in order to “maul” the infant. (One month later
officials revealed that the dogs had gained entry into the home after one dog, “used a paw to open
the living room sliding door.”)

[depakid]

180. So the "leads it bleeds" local media is covering up for certain breeds!

:rofl:

These whores NEVER miss a chance at a blood and gore story unless there's something like a police shooting going on. Even then, they'll get back to it.

[uppityperson]

178. Exactly. They KNOW they will get more coverage with OMGPITBULL than "poodle bites man"

That is their stock in trade. Selling papers, selling airtime. Hence they report OMG PITBULL even when it is NOT a pit bull, and they don't report other dog bites since they just aren't as sexy, people won't buy a paper or watch news/ads.

[depakid]

186. If a poodle did the kind of damage that pitbulls routinely inflict that would be an BIGGER story

Rampaging poodle rips one child's face off, then attacks brother 12, who tried to intervene.

They'd be all over that like flies on pile of dogcrap! That sucker would sell a lot of papers, too.

[uppityperson]

187. You get shown the media coverage for different type dogs and yet you say it ain't so.

huh

[depakid]

188. You think that's some sort of bias- but fact is that the local media reports on all of these stories

And the ones that repeatedly come up involve pit bulls. So of course the breed itself becomes a national issue- or where there are a lot of attacks in a row, a state and local issue.

[PeaceNikki]

179. Yes. Consider how the media reported four incidents that happened between August 18th and August 21

• August 18, 2007 - A Labrador mix attacked a 70-year-old man sending him to the hospital
in critical condition. Police officers arrived at the scene and the dog was shot after charging
the officers. This incident was reported in one article and only in the local paper.

• August 19, 2007 - A 16-month old child received fatal head and neck injuries after being attacked
by a mixed breed dog. This attack was reported two times by the local paper only.

• August 20, 2007 - A 6-year-old boy was hospitalized after having his ear torn off and receiving
severe bites to the head by a medium-sized mixed breed dog. This attack was reported in
one article and only in the local paper.

• August 21, 2007 - A 59-year-old woman was attacked in her home by two Pit bulls and
was hospitalized with severe injuries.

This attack was reported in over two hundred and thirty articles in national and
international newspapers, as well as major television news networks, including
CNN, MSNBC and FOX.

“Clearly a fatal dog attack by an unremarkable breed is not as newsworthy as a non-fatal attack by a pit bull”
says Karen Delise, researcher for the National Canine Research Council.

[flvegan]

148. You mean the CDC study referred to in the ABA article on BSL?

The same CDC study that the CDC threw out because, as they admitted, it was rubbish? "Numbers cited" by the media, as PeaceNikki's post showed are a complete waste of time and "data" for anything.

Well, except anything short of knee-jerk overreactionism.

[PeaceNikki]

153. This is a must-see

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-bites/dog-bites-and-the-media/breed-identification/

What do all of these dogs have in common?



* They were all involved in a fatal attack on a human between the years 2002 and 2008
* They were all reported in the media to be “pit bulls”
* They are all counted equally as pit bulls by those tallying fatalities by breed

[flvegan]

156. Apparently, the media doesn't know what a dogo argentino is.

Nor what a lab mix is. Or...nevermind.

Sigh. How sad.

[uppityperson]

160. Short hair, check. Dog, check. Clipped ears, maybe. Big head, sometimes. Bit, check. OMGPITBULL!!!

[baldguy]

181. The K9 article from your post # 145

"Britain’s Ban on Pit Bulls Extended to Previously Legal Breeds"

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/2165/breaking-britains-ban-on-pit-bulls-extended-to-previously-legal-breeds/

Any dog weighing in excess of 20 kgs. (44 lbs)

Any dog in excess of 16” of height to the shoulder.

Dogs carrying liver, black, white or brindle markings.

The bill will not take in to account parentage, breed or DNA profiles


This is Zelda.



When I got her (when she was 1½) she was 24" tall and 50 lbs. She had been returned to the shelter twice already because she was "too much to handle" according to the shelter & she had bitten one child already.

She is exactly the type of dog which this legislation targets. Under this law, she would have been banned. And if I hadn't adopted her she would've been killed.

The thing is, once I got her I was able to train her not to bite. Anyone ... Ever. After a few months, I never had a problem with her. My nieces, nephews & neighbor kids could tackle her, ride her like a horse & pull on her anywhere – and even if she didn't like it, might even have cried out, but over 10 yrs she never once even attempted to bare her teeth at another human being.

I didn't leave her entirely defenseless: A few years ago she was able to catch a squirrel, and last summer she killed a small bird. I wasn't pleased, but she was very proud of herself.

In March she developed a large tumor on her back leg. We got it removed, and she recovered, but she got another one in September on her lung. She died at home, in her own bed, surrounded by her family. (That's the last pic I took of her.)

Now, after a few months, I'm seriously thinking of getting a Pit Bull. (Rescued, of course.)

[PeaceNikki]

182. :)

Yay! I also linked somewhere in this thread to an AMAZING story of one of Micheal Vick's dogs who now works as a therapy dog for cancer patients. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25214356

I am so happy you gave Zelda a second chance. :)

[uppityperson]

183. awwww, what a nice story. Our old dog is getting lumpy and slowing way down.

Zelda looks like a sweety.

[PeaceNikki]

163. See the CDC's statement on that

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbites.htm

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.

This article lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years. It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

[baldguy]

141. So I guess dog attacks have been entirely eliminated in Australia?

[Honeycombe8]

193. The problem is not the breed of dog, but that certain breeds have become popular to be

trained as attackers. The Rottie went through this a few years back. German Shepherds went thru it, too, I think. Dobermans. Now it's the pit bull.

There are certain breeds that have the power to attack, together with the intelligence and the will to please their owners, that all add up to a dog that can be trained (or encouraged) to be aggressive. So testosterone-filled men get those kinds of dogs and train them to do that. It becomes a fad. And the breed suffers.

Other breeds have a propensity to bite and/or attack, but they don't have the power to do any real damage, so they aren't feared like the larger breeds, and it doesn't become a fad among men (usu. young men) to get them. They're seen as sissy dogs. (Yorkies have a tendency to bite, esp. children. But who's afraid of a Yorkie?)

Pit bulls used to be called nanny dogs, because they are so pack oriented that they were used by families to babysit the children. Even then, though, I suppose they could be aggressive to anyone threatening those children. Don't know. Petie in The Little Rascals was a pit bull, for instance. Pit bulls were not feared until the last couple of decades, when it became a fad for young men to get them and train them to fight.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[baldguy]

123. I guess you feel the same about German Shepherds, Rottweilers & Dobermans?

All are large, powerful dogs which have been bred & trained to attack people at one time or another.

[TexasObserver]

135. Good luck dealing with the pit bull lobby here.

They have a very strange view of the world.

[uppityperson]

139. Good luck dealing with the fearful here. Being shown info in lieu of prejudices is so...strange.

Yet you continue to kick a thread with an "awwwww" video of a vicious dog and its sleeping child.

[dustbunnie]

128. That looked excruciatingly uncomfortable for both, but a definite awww moment.

:)

This one is much sadder but a must-see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBNC-qtmvfw&feature=related

[miyazaki]

150. Oh i'm so won over now... not. n/t

[pitohui]

171. sorry i'm not gonna watch a video of a pit bull attacking a small boy

that is just violence pornography and while i accept that you have the right to videotape and publish such things, respect my right to think the person who does this (for any reason except to get a nice lawsuit winning/medical care for the victim) to be an ass

i don't have to see a video of a dog attacking a boy to know that a dog attacking a boy is bad, i still have a brain somewhere on my person...

[baldguy]

173. It's not bad.

Really.

[uppityperson]

175. Do you not read the replies? It is a very sweet vid, that was the title of the video, sarcasm

I didn't videotape it, I didn't publish it, I didn't make up the title. You haven't read the "awwwww, cute" replies I guess.

[Honeycombe8]

194. Awwwww. But that doesn't look like a full PB to me. A mix at most?

I have a Heinz 57 dog that is white with tan markings. She is a jack russell terrier mix (who knows what all else she has in her). It's possible she has some bully breed in her. But she is definitely a jack russell terrier mainly. Her face reminds me a bit of the face in that video. Pits have a distinct looking face that is very broad, their ears are tiny, their eyes are odd looking (somewhat angled or something). The dog in that video doesn't have any of those things.

I think they have a dog that they THINK is a pit bull, but is something else. Or maybe part pit bull.

I've seen pits up close, and a few pit mixes. You know a pit when you see one.