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

Bellykose

Why do you people continue to presume I'm female? I'M NOT. My name is Jared and I am a 30 year old male who lives in Reno, NV.

Probably because the majority of our members are female.  And you never did properly introduce yourself.  It would go like this:

"Hi, I'm Jared.  I live in Reno with my Dobe and I'm looking forward to getting to know fellow dog lovers here on the board!"

Bellykose

Images of one specific animal, regardless of breed OR SPECIES, does NOT apply universally to the breed or species as a whole. It proves NOTHING! That was my point.

 

Please do me a favor and read this and reread this and then read it again.  You yourself said it.  Right there.  Why is it that images of one specific animal does not apply universally to the entire breed, yet what one specific animal does that is BAD (e.g. attacking a human) does apply universally to the entire breed?

You are contradicting yourself and doing nothing but proving our point.

You obviously didn't follow the first link. http://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf As I said previously, follow the link. Yes the host of the online article is dogbite law, but it's not the source. This article was published in the peer reviewed journal "Vet Med Today"

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.

I'm sorry but I'm not. I have quoted the statistics (STATISTICS i.e. more than one animal) countless time to the point of exhaustion as my proof. This guy posted one pit bull licking his face, no stats involved = proves NOTHING!

crysania

Bellykose

Images of one specific animal, regardless of breed OR SPECIES, does NOT apply universally to the breed or species as a whole. It proves NOTHING! That was my point.

 

Please do me a favor and read this and reread this and then read it again.  You yourself said it.  Right there.  Why is it that images of one specific animal does not apply universally to the entire breed, yet what one specific animal does that is BAD (e.g. attacking a human) does apply universally to the entire breed?

You are contradicting yourself and doing nothing but proving our point.

Jared, it's been fun chatting with you and sharing information.   I must confess that I've grown bored and will have to say goodbye.  I need to go study for my GED so I can learn what that big word "analogy" means. 

The parent analogy is not valid. A correlation is missing. I'm not saying dogs kill x amount of kids and therefore should be demonized. I am following a proven correlation that relates breed of dog to a scenario. If the same could be applied for humans (not going there with an example), people would and should give it their attention.

crysania

Bellykose

proof ------> http://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf

 

Nope.  Not proof.  

"We collected data from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and media accounts related to dog bite attacks and fatalities."

The media gets the breed wrong more times than not.  Plus the media doesn't often report on dog bite incidents that are not pit bulls.  And if they do, they call them "dogs."  Or, if the dog is shorthaired it's a "pit bull mix" even if you don't actually have any clue what the heck is in the dog (e.g. many boxer/lab mixes are called "pit mixes" by folks).

The reality is that we DO NOT have any reliable source of information on dog bite fatalities as related to breed, especially so when it comes to mixed breeds that could be any number of breeds, including or not including pit bull.  And even with the half-baked sources we DO have, it's still relatively meaningless.  The number of pit bulls vs. the number of pit bulls who have killed a person is hugely different.  The idea of demonizing an entire breed for what a small handful has done is ridiculous and completely illogical.

As a really "out there" example, far more children are killed by their own parents every year.  Yet I don't see you demonizing parents and saying all parents are bad and aggressive.

 THIS GUY would be me.  Who is female.  I took the pictures, hence the guy in the picture.  I'm amused at your irritation over gender yet screwing up mine.

Anyway, you posted "statistics" based on media reports which is...nothing.  A real scientist would know that those are meaningless.  For instance, if I googled "airplane crash" I would come up with a lot of news on airplanes that crashed and would come to the conclusion that airplanes were dangerous and should be banned.

But that would be illogical.

Because millions of flights happen every year with nothing bad going on.

I would know that just because a handful crashed didn't mean flying was dangerous.

Yet a handful of pit bulls kill someone and so the entire breed is bad/aggressive/whatever.  Why is that logical?

If we go by media reports, in 2010 there were 33 dog bite fatalities.  18 of which were listed as "pit bull types" (not one of them was identified as "pit bull" which means the media was guessing).  Let's pretend that all 18 of those were ACTUALLY pit bulls and not "dogs who the media believed to be pit bull types because they had short hair and looked muscular."

18 deaths.  It's horrible.  No doubt.  Even one person dying from a dog attack is horrible.  Now, if there were, say, 100 "pit bull types" in the USA, 18 would be a pretty high number.  But there aren't 100.  I mean, there are over 20,000 pit bulls looking for homes on petfinder.com (including both American Staffordshire and the rather generic "pit bull";).  How many are in the USA?  It's anyone's guess.  But let's pretend for a moment that the 20,000 on petfinder is about 1/5 of the real population (it's probably less than that) and there are 100,000 pit bulls in the USA (that number is likely to be EXTREMELY low; I've seen estimates of 250,000 to 2 million; no one knows, but they ARE incredibly popular).  That means that approximately .018% of those pit bulls have killed someone.  Far less than one percent.  If the number is closer to 250,000 that drops to .0072?  If it's 2 million (which might be a lot closer to accurate, especially if you factor in all the dogs that MIGHT be considered a pit bull type), that drops to .0009%. 

 So you're condemning an entire breed based on a very small percentage.  I would hope that would be as illogical to you as it is to me.

 I did follow your link.  And noticed that it was published over 10 years ago.  And the data collected in it is even a couple years older.  In the time since that came out there has been numerous policy changes.  If the statistics are now better (which we don't know from your sources) then those policy changes worked and we don't have to be so concerned.  OR if the statistics aren't better now then that mean BSL doesn't work and pushing for it is useless. 

And in addition to that, in the procedure section it just states that they used previously acquired data.  But how was that collected?  There is no way from that article to know if there were flaws or biases in the initial gathering.

Surely as a scientist you wouldn't let 1 experiment decide anything.  Even if a break though was made it would be tested and retested extensively before being taken seriously.  Why then take this 1 study as gospel?  You are clearly very dedicated to this train of thought, but aren't providing much to back it up.  Circular talking, name calling, and insults aren't convincing here any more than they would be in a scientific field.  

You are creating a straw man argument here. You set it up and knock it down. The problem is, people are dying because of this and the notion that we should avoid doing anything proactive in a breed specific way to more efficiently and effectively prevent this type of tragedy from occurring just because it is theorized that the media received false reports of the description of the animal does not cut the mustard in my opinion. As I said previously, I'll grant you the possibility that many "attacks" (but certainly not the majority) are incorrectly reported with respect to the exact breed of the animal. But I do not believe it is likely that this is the case with homicide situations. I think it more likely than not that the authorities would have done their due diligence in assigning and recording the dogs breed.

crysania

Bellykose

proof ------> http://dogbitelaw.com/images/pdf/breeds-causing-DBRFs.pdf

 

Nope.  Not proof.  

"We collected data from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and media accounts related to dog bite attacks and fatalities."

The media gets the breed wrong more times than not.  Plus the media doesn't often report on dog bite incidents that are not pit bulls.  And if they do, they call them "dogs."  Or, if the dog is shorthaired it's a "pit bull mix" even if you don't actually have any clue what the heck is in the dog (e.g. many boxer/lab mixes are called "pit mixes" by folks).

The reality is that we DO NOT have any reliable source of information on dog bite fatalities as related to breed, especially so when it comes to mixed breeds that could be any number of breeds, including or not including pit bull.  And even with the half-baked sources we DO have, it's still relatively meaningless.  The number of pit bulls vs. the number of pit bulls who have killed a person is hugely different.  The idea of demonizing an entire breed for what a small handful has done is ridiculous and completely illogical.

As a really "out there" example, far more children are killed by their own parents every year.  Yet I don't see you demonizing parents and saying all parents are bad and aggressive.

I am not creating ANY straw man argument.  I'm giving you LOGIC.  Which you seem to be blatantly ignoring.  What kind of scientist are you anyway?  I'm a freaking MUSICIAN and I seem to have a more logical mind than you do.

And yes something should be done.  People should be educated.  People who abuse dogs should not be allowed to have them.  Harsher penalties for abuse and neglect should be in place.  People should not be allowed to chain their dogs.  There should be low cost spay/neuter so folks can get their dogs fixed within their budget.  There's a lot that can be done.  But singling out one breed is not helpful.  In cities and countries with BSL in place, dog attacks have not gone down.  Fatalities have not gone down.  In other words, it's not the breed.  It's the PEOPLE.

So what needs to change are the people and the way they treat their dogs.  You do realize if they ban pit bulls and they all disappear, these sorts of people will simply move onto another dog.  Would you want Dobermans to be banned next?  Already some apartment complexes won't allow them and classify them under "dangerous breeds."

Not irritated about gender. I couldn't care less. As for my error, I saw a man in the picture which clearly justifies my presumption whereas no justification for the presumption made against me was obvious. As to YOUR analogy, again, it's not valid. 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.

crysania

 THIS GUY would be me.  Who is female.  I took the pictures, hence the guy in the picture.  I'm amused at your irritation over gender yet screwing up mine.

Anyway, you posted "statistics" based on media reports which is...nothing.  A real scientist would know that those are meaningless.  For instance, if I googled "airplane crash" I would come up with a lot of news on airplanes that crashed and would come to the conclusion that airplanes were dangerous and should be banned.

But that would be illogical.

Because millions of flights happen every year with nothing bad going on.

I would know that just because a handful crashed didn't mean flying was dangerous.

Yet a handful of pit bulls kill someone and so the entire breed is bad/aggressive/whatever.  Why is that logical?

If we go by media reports, in 2010 there were 33 dog bite fatalities.  18 of which were listed as "pit bull types" (not one of them was identified as "pit bull" which means the media was guessing).  Let's pretend that all 18 of those were ACTUALLY pit bulls and not "dogs who the media believed to be pit bull types because they had short hair and looked muscular."

18 deaths.  It's horrible.  No doubt.  Even one person dying from a dog attack is horrible.  Now, if there were, say, 100 "pit bull types" in the USA, 18 would be a pretty high number.  But there aren't 100.  I mean, there are over 20,000 pit bulls looking for homes on petfinder.com (including both American Staffordshire and the rather generic "pit bull";).  How many are in the USA?  It's anyone's guess.  But let's pretend for a moment that the 20,000 on petfinder is about 1/5 of the real population (it's probably less than that) and there are 100,000 pit bulls in the USA (that number is likely to be EXTREMELY low; I've seen estimates of 250,000 to 2 million; no one knows, but they ARE incredibly popular).  That means that approximately .018% of those pit bulls have killed someone.  Far less than one percent.  If the number is closer to 250,000 that drops to .0072?  If it's 2 million (which might be a lot closer to accurate, especially if you factor in all the dogs that MIGHT be considered a pit bull type), that drops to .0009%. 

 So you're condemning an entire breed based on a very small percentage.  I would hope that would be as illogical to you as it is to me.

Are you incapable of reading?  Nowhere did I say they didn't deserve attention.  Of course they do.  But each is an individual situation that was caused by something OTHER than the dog's breed.  Instead of looking to breed, which is just an "easy out" and a quick thing for people to latch onto (you included), people should be looking at the root cause for the attack.  WHY did the dog attack?  Forget worrying about the breed. That doesn't do anything and doesn't change the fact that dogs still attack, regardless of breed.  Focusing breed of SOME dog attacks means that you're trivializing the people killed by Rottweilers and Siberian huskies and the other dogs of other breeds who killed people.  Why aren't those attacks important?  Four Rottweilers killed people and so while you're focusing on banning pit bulls and "doing something" about pit bulls, you're ignoring "doing something" about those other dog attacks.  You're essentially brushing off those people who were killed by some other dog breed as "not important enough to garner attention."

When it comes to dog attacks there are many things to take into consideration and most of it involves the owners of the dog.  One dog who attacked two people (I think severely injuring one, but not killing either) was found to have been kept alone in a dark basement and starved.  The dog (who was then euthanized) was found to have rubberbands and other inedible things in his stomach.  He was kept in a horrible situation.  The fault is completely at the feet of the humans who kept the dog in that way.

Other dogs were kept chained.  And sadly, in a lot of those chained cases it involves a parent who is paying NO attention to their child, the child crawling under a fence or approaching the dog, and getting attacked by the dog.  It's not the child's fault.  It's the fault of the owner of the dog for keeping their dog in a horrible way AND for the parent who should be watching their child around such a dog.

It's SITUATIONAL and brushing that off and simply trying to blame the breed helps no one.  It makes people feel justified to ban the breed that maybe attacked someone in their area, but then what happens when another breed attacks?  "But we banned aggressive dogs!!!"  No.  They didn't.  Because aggression is not usually innate.  It's situational.

I just cannot even fathom how you lack the logic to see that.

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.

I give up.  I should have continued with the "not feeding the trolls."  You lack any sort of logic and are starting to turn to insults.  I think it's time to leave this thread.  I have said my peace and you have consistently twisted my words and showed a complete lack of any sort of knowledge or logic.

Have a nice day, SIR.

What BSL has been enacted and in which states/counties? I have yet to see any. Look, I think most would agree I have had ample opportunity to say my piece here. I'm not suggesting all pits bulls should be banned. I don't know what the answer is. My only interest is clarity and clarity is something I feel is completely lacking from this issue, perhaps from both sides but certainly on the part of the anti-BSL crowd. As long as people refuse to acknowledge the real problem here in ALL of its facets, NOTHING will be accomplished and the issue will continue to be polarizing. No middle ground solution will EVER be achieved and either pitbull lovers will lose their rights to own pitbulls and/or innocent lives will continue to be lost where reasonable measures could have been taken to prevent the tragedy in the first place. I understand not only pit bulls are responsible here and certainly not for attacks alone. I believe ANY breed of dog can and will attack if given the right set of circumstances. That's not the issue. The issue is again propensity from a given breed and also the extent of injuries that one breeds attack routinely results in over another. A lab and a pitbull are often of equal size and, aside from the disparity in bite strength, a "typical" attack from a lab will result in one or more minor to moderate lacerations. Obviously there are exceptions but again, we're talking numbers here and I can assure you, the numbers will reinforce this point. On the other hand, a pitbull attack, EVEN FROM AN UNTRAINED PITBULL, is often far more sever. The attack does not stop with one or two bites. It's an instinct that get's triggered and once in attack mode, the pitbulls breeding comes out. They attack to kill and it's a known fact whether you admit it or not. This is where legislation comes into play. No laws will ever stop every accident or tragedy from happening. It's about reasonable anticipation of probable dangers to the public and this is where BSL becomes an ideal solution. As far as your critiques of the article I can certainly see your point of view. Thanks by the way for at least taking the time to read it. Yes, it was published ten years ago. Watson and Crick published the structure of DNA in 1953 and we still ascribe to it for the most part. A study can be relevant for long periods of time unless other studies come out that call the initial findings into question. This was just one article, the seminal article on the topic and I can assure you that the vast majority of trustworthy analyses on the topic have only reinforced their findings. As to their data collection methods and reliability of the data, you'd have to take it up with the editors and reviewers of the peer reviewed journal. The authors address this issue at length even in their prominently displayed one paragraph conclusion section. As far as I can tell, the discrepancies in breed reporting were in fact taken into account and the breed specific nature of FATAL dog attacks was still observed even over other breeds of larger size and bite force. As for later reports, look into them if you like. I can assure you that 99.9% of those reported fatalities were in fact accurate with respect to breed reporting. I'm not going to delve into each one and show you a picture of the euthanized animal to prove it to you though because as I said, I think my contribution to this thread has been more than enough already. Thanks for the debate folks. It's been lively to say the least.