info on pit bulls

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
Just to elaborate yet another crazy theory. Is it the really small size that make them so agressive? I mean, you could easily boot them into orbit. They have to know that [:D]

So they figured a defence mechanism out: make a lot of noise and also bite generously.

Is this crazy or possible?

I think this behavior in chihuahuas is only recently tolerated and is a case of 'owners finding dogs that they deserve'. Owners that accept this sort of behavior from dogs because it's 'cute' or 'funny' deserve the biter that they let their dogs become.

Biting humans is *never* good for a dog's long-term health. There are many places that have zero tolerance for any dog that bites a human. A biting dog that comes into contact with these regulations...well...ends badly. Small dogs that bite humans tend to-as you've pointed out-enter low-Earth orbit.

So, in a sense, owners that allow, tolerate or encourage this biting behavior are jeopardizing the dog's life. Unfortunately, many people don't care about the long-term consequences of their personal behavior in this or any other matter. It's a bit depressing, but animal treatment is a reflection of society.
Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: sulla05
Some breeds like German Shepherds really only listen to one master and as long as he/she is around everything is alright. If you go to the house and the spouse or whoever is there and not the one they consider the 'master', watch out.

Well-trained and bred German Shepherds do not behave like this.

A dog that will only *not* bite in the presence of their singular 'master' is a bona fide danger, regardless of the circumstance. If the answer to why your Shep tore the face off of some little kid that came over is because so-and-so wasn't home, that won't cut it.
Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: sulla05
She was incredibly sweet with humans, but after getting to be 1 1/2 years old could not be around other animals, she would go at them tooth and nail.

I've known several dogs like this-great with people but will go out of their way to tear neighborhood cats, squirrels, voles or whatever to shreds.

Here's what you have to watch though: sometimes-with some of these dogs-that aggression will translate into attacking humans. No-not the big ones that are tall with the deep husky voice. Those are the pack alphas. Not even other larger family members-those are pack mates.

But that 2 year old niece with long hair that giggles a lot, runs around, unpredictably grabs at the dog or his food / toy / bed, chases the dog, etc.?

Sometimes, in a moment of confusion about where his ordinal place is in society (it should ALWAYS be at the bottom rung whenever there are ANY PEOPLE anywhere), he mistakes a person as another animal and may snap. Now, I'm not talking about a 'grab you and kill you' sort of attack so much as a 'get away from me, underling' sort of snap. The distinction is unlikely to matter in a courtroom.

Dogs that have food / toy / bed control issues or kill other animals in their territory are a 'yellow light' in terms of biting humans. They are at greater risk than other dogs without these predilections.
Image
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Curtis Lemay »

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the ... og-breeds/

Excerpt: "Pit bulls are by far the most dangerous and aggressive breed of dog there is. Pit bulls were responsible for 22 deaths so far in the United States this year. "
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Rising-Sun
Posts: 2141
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:27 am
Location: Clifton Park, NY
Contact:

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Rising-Sun »

ORIGINAL: sulla05

Some breeds are just more aggressive than others. it does matter what humans do to them, but in some circumstances not really.

We had a Old English bulldog, it is a breed they are trying to bring back. They are a cross between a Mastiff and a Boxer.

She was incredibly sweet with humans, but after getting to be 1 1/2 years old could not be around other animals, she would go at them tooth and nail.

Because she was a bully breed she had the inborn attack/killer instinct.

Some breeds like German Shepherds really only listen to one master and as long as he/she is around everything is alright. If you go to the house and the spouse or whoever is there and not the one they consider the 'master', watch out.

I have seen some police dogs that have been trained terribly. An attack dog should sit or lay with not a care in the world until given the command or some other action is taken. I have walked down the street and had a shepherd inside a police cruiser snap and smash it's teeth against the window at people who were 10' or more away. My ex lived on a horse farm that had 6-7 really well trained attack dogs. They would not even bark in warning just go after whoever was stupid enough to trespass.

We have had tons of rescue Labradors in my house that have been horribly mistreated, and there was only one that I would not trust and considered to be dangerous.

My wife was dog sitting for a German short haired when she was younger and the dog was fine for two days. She walked out of the bedroom on the third day and was viciously attacked where the flesh was hanging off her arms. it is possible that it was inbred for it's looks etc. who knows

That make sense, guess others didn't realize what they have there and need to take precaution. Yes it is sad, but the owners, there isn't much they can do about it. This is what I was trying to say or discuss and wasn't sure how to put it.
Image
User avatar
Greybriar
Posts: 1158
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:54 am

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Greybriar »

My cousin was mowing the lawn. A pit bull jumped the fence and attacked him for no reason.
This war is not about slavery. --Robert E. Lee
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 3980
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the ... og-breeds/

Excerpt: "Pit bulls are by far the most dangerous and aggressive breed of dog there is. Pit bulls were responsible for 22 deaths so far in the United States this year. "


I'll see your link and raise you a link. [;)]

http://realpitbull.com/myths.html

Excerpt: "Also important to understand is the extreme popularity of the Pit Bull and pit bull-type breeds. By some estimates, numbers-wise they are the most popular of all dog breeds. It is only logical to assume that the breed with the higher number of individual dogs would be represented with a higher number of bites.
Viewing older statistical reports for the Center of Disease Control, one
will see that trends in breed popularity reflect in the number of bites
attributed to a specific breed during a specific period of time."


Jim
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the ... og-breeds/

Excerpt: "Pit bulls are by far the most dangerous and aggressive breed of dog there is. Pit bulls were responsible for 22 deaths so far in the United States this year. "

Yes. "Rob Cramer" of therichest.com is quite the experten in this field. His opinion piece on the matter is followed closely by animal behaviorists everywhere.[8|]

Can we debate application of a (albeit tragic) statistic-deaths by Pit Bull-to the subjective terms 'dangerous' and 'aggressive' in the quote above? While one can't argue facts (deaths)-if they're faithfully reproduced, one can argue that Pit Bulls are *not* the most aggressive or dangerous breed. Merely one of the more popular. And one whose bite is capable of causing more damage a small dog.

Like I said, on a per capita basis, I've seen (and there is a rough consensus around this) other much more aggressive breeds. And I'm just as cognizant about the danger of dog bites from smaller (I listed several earlier) breeds even if I don't think they're as likely to be fatal to the bite recipient.

In a 2011 paper (Annals of Surgery), the authors (medical doctors that were surgeons) reviewed dog bite cases in Texas. They applied trauma scores to dog bites and correlated that to breeds where known. They found that Pit Bull bites were significantly more damaging than other breeds.

(NOTE: DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK IF YOU ARE SQUEAMISH, AS SEVERAL OF THE VICTIMS ARE CHILDREN. THIS PAPER GRAPHICALLY DEPICTS SEVERE TRAUMA)

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... cious_Dogs

This jibes with the majority percentage of numbers of fatalities (34 in 2015) being 'Pit Bulls'.

However, CDC estimates that some 885,000 people require medical attention for dog bites annually in the US. I don't know what percentage of these bites are from Pit Bulls, but I doubt it's the majority. And, like I said before, I would doubt that it's the highest per capita rate.

CDC no longer collects data on dog breeds associated with bites, they've ceded that to the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association). I didn't know that until just now. I would venture that the AVMA (of which I am a member) takes pains to not vilify particular dog breeds, for concern about fear-mongering based on the breed itself.

ETA: This paper is from a trauma 1 hospital, so their 'study population' is likely skewed to the severe cases. This paper makes no effort to categorize (nor could they) other breeds' bites that don't require a trip to a trauma 1 center to treat.
Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Duplicate post.
Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Greybriar

My cousin was mowing the lawn. A pit bull jumped the fence and attacked him for no reason.

That sucks. [:(] How badly injured was your cousin?
Image
User avatar
wodin
Posts: 10709
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by wodin »

Might have been the noise of the mower?

Though I wouldn't trust a pit bull or any dog that was bred for dog fighting..

Some poor 13 year old girl was ripped apart by two pit bull type dogs in her friends living room...horrendous
User avatar
Rising-Sun
Posts: 2141
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:27 am
Location: Clifton Park, NY
Contact:

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Rising-Sun »

Yeah noise will trigger it, they don't like it for some reasons. They can rip your face off or huge amount of flesh off your bones. When other dogs bark, cat meowing, or any distraction, for some reasons they jump in there. But not all of them, depending on their age and breed as well how they were raise.

Even pick up the odors and can attack, depending on what color and their movements. They are very aggressive dogs or beasts.

I have seen so many sad stories, videos and rumors on these pit bulls. Just horrible, not mention polices had to kill em when they arrive there. It not like I don't like or hate them, just how you deal with it.
Image
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the ... og-breeds/

Excerpt: "Pit bulls are by far the most dangerous and aggressive breed of dog there is. Pit bulls were responsible for 22 deaths so far in the United States this year. "

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... cious_Dogs

The above link you provided had this table in it:

Image

Note that Pit Bulls accounted for about 0.8% of the AKC registered dogs, but 71.5% of the fatal attacks.
Attachments
Dogs.gif
Dogs.gif (27.47 KiB) Viewed 86 times
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Chickenboy »

You're missing the point.

I'm not arguing that Pit Bulls are involved in a disproportionate number of fatal cases. There is likely some validity to that. The chart only categorizes dog breeds associated with fatal cases.

I'm arguing that the terms 'dangerous' and 'aggressive' are not the same as capable of killing a human being. When applied more broadly, I believe that there are more dangerous and aggressive breeds out there than Pits. They just are probably not going to kill you.

Lastly, this chart is horribly misleading. Beware the numerator and denominator conflation here. The number in the left column (number of dogs involved in fatal attacks) represents a very different measurement than the middle column (number of dogs Registered AKC). I doubt very much that *any* of the 113 Pit Bull involved in fatal attacks were registered AKC dogs. There is a comparatively small population of Pit Bulls (American Staffordshire Terriers) with their 'papers' versus other official AKC recognized dogs in this country. So this chart is really comparing two distinct populations and conflating the results in a meaningless relative risk in the third column. Frankly, I'm surprised that this got past the peer review. Then again, it's a surgeon journal, so I guess I'm not too surprised.

ETA: It does bring up an interesting point for discussion though.

If we had a proportion of AKC-registered dogs of all breeds to likely numbers of dogs without their 'papers', we could extrapolate relative risk. I would venture that there are more Rottweilers that are AKC-registered as a percentage of their overall population than there are the three 'Pit Bull' breeds. So, maybe only 1 in 50 Pit Bulls are registered AKC but maybe 1 in 5 Rottweilers.

Apply that assumption to the table and voila-Rotties become the greater relative risk.
Image
E
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:14 am

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by E »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Lastly, this chart is horribly misleading.
While entirely correct, you must remember that is the purpose of statistics... to lead you to a certain conclusion (and often, to purposely mislead you away from unprofitable truths).

...I remember when Doberman's were THE "Killer Dog" (and German Shepherds to a lesser degree, before that).

As to Pitbulls in general.. I heard they taste like chicken.
"Lose" is the opposite of "win." "Loose" is the opposite of "tight."

Friends Don't Let Friends Facebook.

Twitter is for... (wait for it!) ...Twits!
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I'm arguing that the terms 'dangerous' and 'aggressive' are not the same as capable of killing a human being. When applied more broadly, I believe that there are more dangerous and aggressive breeds out there than Pits. They just are probably not going to kill you.

I think "dangerous" and "fatal attacks" have pretty good correlation.
Lastly, this chart is horribly misleading. Beware the numerator and denominator conflation here. The number in the left column (number of dogs involved in fatal attacks) represents a very different measurement than the middle column (number of dogs Registered AKC). I doubt very much that *any* of the 113 Pit Bull involved in fatal attacks were registered AKC dogs. There is a comparatively small population of Pit Bulls (American Staffordshire Terriers) with their 'papers' versus other official AKC recognized dogs in this country. So this chart is really comparing two distinct populations and conflating the results in a meaningless relative risk in the third column. Frankly, I'm surprised that this got past the peer review. Then again, it's a surgeon journal, so I guess I'm not too surprised.

It was your own link, you know. It certainly isn't misleading in the first column. Pit Bulls accounted for 71.5% of the fatalities. We don't seem to have any data (other than the above AKC data) on the percent of all dogs that are Pit Bulls, but I feel sure it isn't anywhere near to 71.5%.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Zap
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:13 am
Location: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Zap »

ORIGINAL: E
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Lastly, this chart is horribly misleading.
While entirely correct, you must remember that is the purpose of statistics... to lead you to a certain conclusion (and often, to purposely mislead you away from unprofitable truths).

...I remember when Doberman's were THE "Killer Dog" (and German Shepherds to a lesser degree, before that).

As to Pitbulls in general.. I heard they taste like chicken.


Ah, so your looking to be roasted at the stake![:)] Lot of dog lovers out there although I'm not one of them so I won't be partaking in the lynching
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I think "dangerous" and "fatal attacks" have pretty good correlation.

Not hardly. But that your opinion of what that adjective means compared to my definition. We'll have to agree to disagree on what our interpretations of a 'dangerous' dog is.
It was your own link, you know. It certainly isn't misleading in the first column. Pit Bulls accounted for 71.5% of the fatalities. We don't seem to have any data (other than the above AKC data) on the percent of all dogs that are Pit Bulls, but I feel sure it isn't anywhere near to 71.5%.

Like I've said two or three times, I don't dispute the notion that pit bull attacks have been associated with fatalities more than other breeds. Where we differ is the significance of the 'fatality' data to the overall problem of breed-specific dog bites and behavior.

What we need is a common source of breed-specific injury tabulations. That's big data that's actionable. It would be much more effective to draw conclusions from 885,000 annual cases requiring medical attention than it would be to try to parse 30 or so cases a year.

As there are vested interests in *not* collecting such breed-specific data, it's unlikely to happen. Until then we'll have faulty opinions, poor legislation and emotion-based bias in these rules. But it's much easier to point the finger at a particular breed of dog and vilify it, legislate the problem 'away' and pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. Until the next 'problem breed' arises.
ORIGINAL: E

...I remember when Doberman's were THE "Killer Dog" (and German Shepherds to a lesser degree, before that).

Yup. Dobermans in the 1970s-1980s, Rottweilers in the 1980s-1990s and "Pit Bulls" since then. We have a saying in the Biz: "Popularity has never been good for dog breeds." When combined with human avarice and caprice, animal populations change dramatically-usually not for the better.

By the way. Some 64,000 people were injured riding horses in this country last year. 64,000! 100 were killed. By getting rid of three breeds: thoroughbreds, arabians and quarter horses, we could probably cut that number by 3/4. We oughta pass a law.


Image
E
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:14 am

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by E »

ORIGINAL: Zap
Ah, so your looking to be roasted at the stake! Lot of dog lovers out there although I'm not one of them so I won't be partaking in the lynching
I believe your admission of not being a dog lover is more tantalizing to the hangman than my (vehement dog lover's) warped sense of humour. People who don't love dogs are OBVIOUSLY communists! (And ask the REAL Curtis LeMay about them!)
"Lose" is the opposite of "win." "Loose" is the opposite of "tight."

Friends Don't Let Friends Facebook.

Twitter is for... (wait for it!) ...Twits!
sullafelix
Posts: 1521
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:17 am

RE: info on pit bulls

Post by sullafelix »

I also would not leave a child unattended around a dog. Not because I was worried for the child, but for the dog.

I wonder how many of these bites are because the dog was actually hurt or being teased.

A dog cannot speak so that I don't consider it a bad dog if it snapped at anyone, even a child, that had hurt it. I am talking about snapping at not actually biting.

One of my kids was being grabbed at and wrestled to the ground by a friend. My old English went over and grabbed his arm. She didn't bite or pull, just grabbed it to say enough was enough.

She loved babies and they could pull on her and checkout her teeth really whatever and she would just roll over.

The rescue labs that we have boarded and sometimes become owners were in some cases horribly abused. I only had one problem out of more than a hundred or more. He was so abused he looked brain damaged. His tongue lolled and his head just didn't look correct. I believe his story was that he was beaten about the head with a piece of wood.
Windows 7 home premium 64
Intel quad core I7
16 gig
AMD R9 200 series

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”