Doberman attacks family - Pit Bull defends them and kills the attacker

One last thing Stephanie, with respect to the comment below, I'm not sure what university you attended but pretty much all 4 year degrees require core classes including english and writing. In fact, before declaring my major I actually went fairly high in English as it was one of my favorite subjects and only changed to science for obvious monetarily related reasons. It's a moot point though because I will tell you, in science (biology and biochemistry especially) one is required perhaps more-so than any other subject area to learn to discern and recognize reliable sources over those that might be considered less reliable. Just a little tid-bit for you.

TheDogHouseBCMPD

 Wikipedia, blogspot, and youtube are not reliable sources of information.  Any college writing class would tell you this, which as a scientist you still would have to have taken.  If you want to convince anyone try giving credible, citable sources for your information.  Otherwise everything you post is a much opinion and emotions as any of the other posts you've criticized.

Show us the studies that you continue to refer to.  If the numbers truly don't lie then give us access to them, not just your summary of them.  With out any sources you pretty much ask us to trust your interpretation, w/o giving us any reason to.

Bellykose

It's about reasonable anticipation of probable dangers to the public and this is where BSL becomes an ideal solution.

I am disturbed that you think BSL will account for a resolution to keeping the public from any perceived or potential danger of pit bull attacks.  Law-abiding people follow that oh-so-critical piece of public safety related to SAFE SECURE CONTAINMENT and LEASH LAWS.  Work on enforcing and enhancing THOSE laws, and the consequences for not abiding by those laws, for ANY breed... and we'd be able to mitigate some of these attacks.

This debate could go on ad nauseum, as to how much damage pit bulls can or cannot do.  There's truth and myth on both sides.  However, take a look at some of the molossar breeds and what THEY can do and you might be even more frightened to think if we ban pit bulls, THOSE dogs are next.  It was my breed (Dobes) in the 70s-80, Rotts in the 80s-90s, pit bulls 90s-00s.  Neither Dobes nor Rotts are banned - the bites and attacks persist in OTHER breeds... that's the way it goes. 

BSL is not the answer.

Dangerous DOG laws are.

Bellykose

What BSL has been enacted and in which states/counties? I have yet to see any.

 

Wow, you just let the cat out of the bag there.  You don't know about which you speak.

Google pit bull and Denver.  Even a quick look at wiki under "Breed-specific legislation" will give you the references to BSL enacted in areas around the US.  (No, Wiki is not a reliable source, but the links will allow you to start with the right states.)

I lived in Denver, so if you want to talk about pit bull bans working, you've got do better than not even knowing where they've been enacted in the US alone. 

Bellykose

However, if we were to determine that 78.9% of the, let's say, private plane crashes were single engine Cessnas, then a CORRELATION would be made and attention would be warranted even if the overall crash number was low as you say. It's not just dog homicides, it's one breed vs others, hence the correlation. And again, regardless of how infrequent it is, if the correlation is valid and could somehow be used to prevent deaths or serious injurious, then who are you to say it is inconsequential. Tell that to the family of the five year old girl viciously and painfully slaughtered by their next door neighbor's dog. Think about what I'm saying here and if you still feel the number of attacks to be too infrequent to garner attention, than I would say I have nothing more to say to you. 

 

Jared,

While using correlations to establish causality is a trap many fall into, I am astonished that you ,as a scientist, did so. To perhaps refresh your memory on the difference, see the following Georgetown University article : http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/causation_correlation.htm.

Moreover, while you use the article published in JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000 as your main source of numbers, you also disregard completely its conclusion which states and I quote : " Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)".

From the same article (since you seem to like it) a tidbit (I love the word) that sustains Miranadobe's position : "However, breeds responsible for human
DBRF have varied over time. Pinckney and Kennedy13 studied human DBRF from May 1975 through April 1980 and listed the following breeds as responsible for the indicated number of deaths: German Shepherd Dog (n = 16); Husky-type dog (9); Saint Bernard (8); Bull Terrier (6); Great Dane (6); Malamute (5); Golden Retriever (3); Boxer (2); Dachshund (2); Doberman Pinscher (2); Collie (2); Rottweiler (1); Basenji (1); Chow Chow (1); Labrador Retriever (1); Yorkshire Terrier (1); and mixed and unknown breed (15)."

Having both a Golden and a Lab, I will keep my eyes open when I sleep.

I apologize for any language mistakes that could hurt your sensibilities in this post, English is not my native language.

 

There is BSL here in RI too.  Pit Bulls have been banned in a few cities and chows (my dog) are not allowed in Newport, RI.

Also, in some of the cities that they are not banned in, the town requires you to carry so much in liability insurance on them to license them.  I believe that is mostly for pit bulls at this point.  But, I'm sure its coming for chows and the other breeds on the "list".

How's this for prey?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=477_1296278090

Bellykose

In regards to your question about my occupation. I am a biochemist. I received my Ph.D. from a major university (the specifics would be TMI) and work in the field of cell biology and physiology. As to your critique of MY logic. I can't even believe someone who'd make the post below could have any criticism of anyone else's aptitude for logic. Quite frankly, I'd be very disappointed if I happen to be the only one on this forum who takes issue with the claims you are making. Somehow in you (calling it like I see it) warped sense of reality (and logic) a canine slaughtering an innocent horse (a massive animal in comparison mind you) is no cause for concern or justification to warrant a perceived likelihood that the animal (or breed of animal based on the stats) is likely to also attack and kill a small child. Full grown adult horse equals prey, but a child does not in your logic? This is the logic I am suppose to model and aspire to? Give me a break! I only used the horse example to reply (in a morbidly humorous fashion) to the "beating a dead horse" tongue and cheek comment. If you want to see a plethora of examples of humans being slaughtered by these animals, please refer to me previous posts. Wow, each time I read your comment, the level at which I am appalled continues to increase.

crysania

Bellykose

Here's one you can use: This innocent "dead horse" was violently slaughtered by two vicious pitbulls with NO ATTACK training whatsoever!!!

 

As horrible a thing as it is, I don't think you can really compare dogs attacking what is, essentially, a prey animal to attacking humans.  Would you also condemn dogs for taking down a deer?  How about for killing a squirrel?  Horses, as much as we love them, are prey animals and dogs ARE predators.

Really?!?! That's GREAT NEWS! You just made my day. Maybe there's hope here in Nevada as well.

miranadobe

Bellykose

What BSL has been enacted and in which states/counties? I have yet to see any.

 

Wow, you just let the cat out of the bag there.  You don't know about which you speak.

Google pit bull and Denver.  Even a quick look at wiki under "Breed-specific legislation" will give you the references to BSL enacted in areas around the US.  (No, Wiki is not a reliable source, but the links will allow you to start with the right states.)

I lived in Denver, so if you want to talk about pit bull bans working, you've got do better than not even knowing where they've been enacted in the US alone. 

Trust me, I am INTIMATELY familiar with the difference between correlation and causation. All too often I see the former used as proof of the latter. For example, one stat I saw said that children who get home-cooked dinners routinely perform much better in school (correlation). The reporter then went on to say this proves why it's important to cook for your children (causation). But the study proved NOTHING of causation. Likely, the real causation for better performance in school has more to do with the fact that parent(s) who take the time to prepare meals for their children also take the time to share other activities with them as while such as reading, conversation, games, etc. Yet another example is the litany of cancer stats we often see on the news. people who do this or eat or don't that have a increased/decreased risk of X type of cancer. What people too often fail to realize is the stats show just one correlation but don't necessarily represent the cause or primary cause. There may be other correlations not shown in the study. At any rate, my point is, I fully understand what you are saying but I think it has been sufficiently addressed in this particular topic. We have discussed at length other possible correlations/causations, the most popular being poor owners, e.g. mistreatment or attack training. What I have shown is that many of these cases of pitbulls killing humans or other animals come from homes where the pitbull is the family pet with NO obvious signs of mistreatment and certainly not fighting or attack training history. At the end of the day, I believe the idea that the correlation of breed and likelihood of attack is just that a correlation that does in fact stand alone and represents the most likely causation. Why that is so hard for people to wrap their heads around is beyond me. If someone were to own a purebread wolf raised from a pup which on one particular day decided to attack and kill their newborn baby I don't think there would be such hesitance from the public, even pit bull defenders from assigning the most obvious correlation (its breed) with the cause of the attack. If you think I'm wrong, I invite you (though it IS illegal in pretty much all 50 states) to seek out and obtain a purbread timber-wolf or maybe even an Australian dingo... and leave it unattended with your young children, heck even with you. No matter how long your history is with this animal it most certainly can't be trusted. Do I think pits have a far less tendency to operate on these primal instincts than the aforementioned examples? Of course I do! But that doesn't mean awareness and care should still be taken given the stats and correlations I have discussed at length.

P.S. - I think your English is impeccable. You express yourself better than many on this forum who are likely lifelong US citizens.

Thalie

Bellykose

However, if we were to determine that 78.9% of the, let's say, private plane crashes were single engine Cessnas, then a CORRELATION would be made and attention would be warranted even if the overall crash number was low as you say. It's not just dog homicides, it's one breed vs others, hence the correlation. And again, regardless of how infrequent it is, if the correlation is valid and could somehow be used to prevent deaths or serious injurious, then who are you to say it is inconsequential. Tell that to the family of the five year old girl viciously and painfully slaughtered by their next door neighbor's dog. Think about what I'm saying here and if you still feel the number of attacks to be too infrequent to garner attention, than I would say I have nothing more to say to you. 

 

Jared,

While using correlations to establish causality is a trap many fall into, I am astonished that you ,as a scientist, did so. To perhaps refresh your memory on the difference, see the following Georgetown University article : http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/causation_correlation.htm.

Moreover, while you use the article published in JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000 as your main source of numbers, you also disregard completely its conclusion which states and I quote : " Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)".

From the same article (since you seem to like it) a tidbit (I love the word) that sustains Miranadobe's position : "However, breeds responsible for human
DBRF have varied over time. Pinckney and Kennedy13 studied human DBRF from May 1975 through April 1980 and listed the following breeds as responsible for the indicated number of deaths: German Shepherd Dog (n = 16); Husky-type dog (9); Saint Bernard (8); Bull Terrier (6); Great Dane (6); Malamute (5); Golden Retriever (3); Boxer (2); Dachshund (2); Doberman Pinscher (2); Collie (2); Rottweiler (1); Basenji (1); Chow Chow (1); Labrador Retriever (1); Yorkshire Terrier (1); and mixed and unknown breed (15)."

Having both a Golden and a Lab, I will keep my eyes open when I sleep.

I apologize for any language mistakes that could hurt your sensibilities in this post, English is not my native language.

 

Also, the quote you gave from the article represents a CYA (cover your ass) for these authors. They're job was to do the study and present the data in an objective manner. It was up to the CDC (center for disease control) to follow suit with suitable policy should they have deemed it necessary. The authors statement that "other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates" does not imply higher rates than the breeds mentioned perse, but rather higher than what the study reported. I think you may have taken it to be the former maybe? Otherwise, there is no disagreement there as there is always a degree of variability in studies such as this. They then go on to address the problems and pitfalls that may exist when municipalities attempt to institute BSL. Again, no disagreement there as this is blatantly obvious. But like I said, this is the challenge that lawmakers must and should face when making these types of policies in the interest of public health.

Thalie

Bellykose

However, if we were to determine that 78.9% of the, let's say, private plane crashes were single engine Cessnas, then a CORRELATION would be made and attention would be warranted even if the overall crash number was low as you say. It's not just dog homicides, it's one breed vs others, hence the correlation. And again, regardless of how infrequent it is, if the correlation is valid and could somehow be used to prevent deaths or serious injurious, then who are you to say it is inconsequential. Tell that to the family of the five year old girl viciously and painfully slaughtered by their next door neighbor's dog. Think about what I'm saying here and if you still feel the number of attacks to be too infrequent to garner attention, than I would say I have nothing more to say to you. 

 

Jared,

While using correlations to establish causality is a trap many fall into, I am astonished that you ,as a scientist, did so. To perhaps refresh your memory on the difference, see the following Georgetown University article : http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/causation_correlation.htm.

Moreover, while you use the article published in JAVMA, Vol 217, No. 6, September 15, 2000 as your main source of numbers, you also disregard completely its conclusion which states and I quote : " Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of difficulties inherent in determining a dog’s breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefore, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promise for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836–840)".

From the same article (since you seem to like it) a tidbit (I love the word) that sustains Miranadobe's position : "However, breeds responsible for human
DBRF have varied over time. Pinckney and Kennedy13 studied human DBRF from May 1975 through April 1980 and listed the following breeds as responsible for the indicated number of deaths: German Shepherd Dog (n = 16); Husky-type dog (9); Saint Bernard (8); Bull Terrier (6); Great Dane (6); Malamute (5); Golden Retriever (3); Boxer (2); Dachshund (2); Doberman Pinscher (2); Collie (2); Rottweiler (1); Basenji (1); Chow Chow (1); Labrador Retriever (1); Yorkshire Terrier (1); and mixed and unknown breed (15)."

Having both a Golden and a Lab, I will keep my eyes open when I sleep.

I apologize for any language mistakes that could hurt your sensibilities in this post, English is not my native language.

 

This story sounds like a load of crap to me, you say this doberman was "oversized" and the pitbull a little over standard.  That doberman would have ran straight through that pitbull as if it was nothing, the momentum alone if the doberman was indeed viciously charging wouldnt have been stopped by a pitbull a little over standard weight especially if the doberman was "oversized"  this story sounds completely made up and exaggerated