Guess what breed?
http://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/fort...tack-1.2141838
Printable View
Guess what breed?
http://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/fort...tack-1.2141838
I wonder who determined they were pit bulls.
Likely the cops that shot them. The man's injuries sound serious enough to cripple him for life,especially,if he looses his arms. This is ghastly.Quote:
Originally Posted by last5oh_302
they were probably Golden Retreivers is my guess. Cops and the media.......sheesh.Quote:
Originally Posted by last5oh_302
Indeed, In your guess they're always pit bulls, even when they're not, just as the Hamilton fatality was first reported as being a pitbull. Lots of false info with these reports I'm sure, and these are the reports used to make up these dog attack stats.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Stray Pit Bulls roaming around during an Alaskan winter? I don't believe this type of dog would survive the cold so they were not likely strays, and quite possibly not even pit bulls.
Tragic story regardless.
Apparently pit bulls can and do survive in that town :ashamed:
http://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/regi...rker-1.1152024
I'm willing to bet they can survive in any town, but not as strays in that kind of cold. :whacked:
Fort St John is in BC not Alaska. Pit Bulls wouldn't be "stray" dogs as they would likely be killed quickly by LEO. Escapees is likely the better term used. Not that any of this helps the guy who had the dogs burst into his home and shred his arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by last5oh_302
Oops, well even Fort St John would be too cold..lol
Here are some interesting points on "the breed" that I took out of your second link:
Here are some POSITIVE stories about the breed and some interesting facts about the breed... Please know both sides to a breed before making your opinion, that way at least it is an informed opinion!!!
http://bslnews.org/pit-bull-he...
According to the Humane Society of the United States, pit bulls are the “most abused, misunderstood dog breed”
Pit bulls have an 86% American Temperament Testing Society passing rate. That’s higher than miniature poodles (77.9%), beagles (80.3%), or collies (79.7%) (Chicago Tribune).
Pit bulls were known in the early 1900’s as “nanny dogs” because they were tolerant and gentle with children. Helen Keller’s dog, “Sir Thomas”, was a pit bull, and so was “Petey”, the canine mascot of the Little Rascals (Yahoo! News).
Pit bulls do not have locking jaws. Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia reports no difference between pit bulls’ jaws and those of other breeds (The Pit Bull Placebo)
A study by Dr. Brady Barr of National Geographic found the bite pressure (PSI) of a pit bull is less than that of a German Shepherd or Rottweiler (The Pit Bull Placebo).
Nearly 50 dogs from Michael Vick’s “Bad Newz Kennels” were released to sanctuaries to be rehabilitated. Despite abuse and torture, some have been successfully adopted (NPR).
Yes of course pit bulls are just misunderstood. Look at the stats in this link. Pitts are less than 7% of the dog population yet are responsible for over 76% of attacks and injuries. Deny all you want but this breed is a product of very specific intentions/breeding and that is to kill. Labs are bred to retrieve, Pointers to point, Shepherds to herd, and Pitts....to kill. Why would anybody who lives among people want to have this risk around? Of course not all pitts are killers but enough of them are to make them a menace.
- 86% of attacks that induce bodily harm
- 81% of attacks to children
- 89% of attack to adults
- 76% of attacks that result in fatalities
- 86% that result in maiming
- Embody 9.2%+ of the total dog population
http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-sta...tt-clifton.php
You're not going to bring up that pile of crap again, are you? Oh, you did.
Stick with the media reports then.
You are consistent. Happy New Year.
Thanks! HNY to you as well! :)
I think that some bad people get Pitt Bulls to intimidate other people, and the dog becomes like it's master.....mean. I don't believe it is the dogs fault but those who train it. My question is , with so many dog breeds out there what is the reason behind why someone would insist on owning that breed? I want one, and it is my right, is not good enough a reason, look beyond that, is the owner someone who does not like to be told to do anything, resists authority, anti social, aggressive?
Training is a very big part of it but you can't remove the genetic traits that are bred into them. Interestingly the owners usually are dumbfounded their gentle family pet "snapped" and attack people and dogs.
In this day and age,most, if not all people, would have that information about breed traits available to them. Why then would anyone insist on getting that particular breed when so many more are available? My point is that you would have to look at the underlying cause , in the owner.
So do you trust a Pitt Bull who doesn't like a person ? In your quote. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Yes, the owner and the people that breed them.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Some people are die hard Pit fans. They've owned them, raised them and found them to be great family companions.
Contrary to what some people believe, they are not bred to kill, unless they're being bred and trained by unscrupulous types.
Quote:
The American Pit Bull Terrier is a companion and family dog breed. Originally bred to "bait" bulls, the breed evolved into all-around farm dogs, and later moved into the house to become "nanny dogs" because they were so gentle around children. Their tenacity, gameness, and courage make them popular competitors in the sports of weight pulling, agility, and obedience competition.
Read more at http://dogtime.com/dog-breeds/americ...ujyCbmwB5LK.99
Then why so many tragic results, when it does not match up % wise with the number of dogs, % wise? Are most Pitt Bulls being bred and trained by those unscrupulous types? Why?
Flavor of the month? There are other breeds that can do a lot more damage than a Pit.
From my post above:
"According to the Humane Society of the United States, pit bulls are the “most abused, misunderstood dog breed”"
When I was a kid all the nasty boys had Dobermans , then the next gen of bad boys had Rottweilers, now it seems the thug wanabees have Pitt Bulls.
Maybe there should be an attitude test before allowing a dog purchase, just sayin. Sure Poodles bite more often, but I would have less fear of a thug with one.
I think there should be, absolutely. Breeding should be clamped down on as well.
Yet in the other article they're apparently Pitbulls.
"Tyreman would not say what breed the animals were."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...dogs-1.3385254
A single hog hunt would likely deter almost anyone from wanting a PB for a pet.
I have had some great ones in my time but I always kept the reality of the viciousness of my hog hunts with them in the back of my mind.
However, I don't agree at all with any government telling anyone what dog they can own.(Ontario)
I like this post the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by last5oh_302
Shame he didn't just have a gun to prevent him from being eaten alive in his own home.
Oh well he would have had to go thru the BS of storage laws, and ammo laws, discharge laws, yada yada.
you might want to read thisQuote:
Originally Posted by terrym
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2387261/
since we are in canada this is better info
and i would also venture to say that alot of the so called pitbull attacks are mistaken identity
i have first hand experience
i was given a ticket and also a warning for owning a pitbull that was not fixed and not muzzeled by bylaw officers and they were trying to sieze my dog
animal control came to my house on another occasion there was a complaint of me walking a pitbull without a muzzle
i told them i did not have a pitbull they said i was lying that they saw it the back yard
to make a long story short i owned a %100 purebred Boxer i had to pay for gentic testing for court
so the people who are in charge of saying what is and isnt a pitbull have no clue
i'll just let you two [terrym and last5oh-302] go at it for awhile. happy new year
There have been many studies on dogs and aggressive behaviour. These studies conducted by universities, dog behaviourists etc. The result being - dog aggression is NOT breed specific. This is a fact, not an opinion.
I'm sorry, what was it you apologists were saying again? I mean what could go wrong with this cross breeding right? These breeds are harmless, really........:ashamed:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...rom-dog-attack
I don't think statistics support your theory, especially in regards to 'fatal' attacks, certain breeds have a greater propensity towards aggression.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Roper
Quote:
Pictured are the two most deadly dog breeds in America: pit bull terriers and rottweilers. Research from DogsBite.org shows that during the 10-year period from 2005 to 2014, these two dog breeds accounted for 74% of the total recorded fatal human attacks. By compiling U.S. and Canadian press accounts between 1982 and 2014, a report by Animals 24-7 shows that pit bulls (307) and rottweilers (89) and their mixes contributed to 67% of the attacks resulting in human death.
- Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to December 31, 2014, by Merritt Clifton, Animals 24-7, December, 31, 2014 (www.animals24-7.org)
Interesting but media reports are where it's at.Quote:
Originally Posted by hunteronwheels
Sorry to hear about having to go through that load of crap, but these people know their breeds from a mile away.
There was probably some wolf and landshark mixed in there as well. Perhaps maybe even a little Grizz and black bear.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Another media report to add to the stats:
"It was a blonde coloured American cocker spaniel looking dog."
Runner mauled in 'nasty' dog attack in Letchworth
http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.u...ail/story.html
Now that's science.
Or maybe they should ban all springers.
Eight-year-old girl left eating through a syringe after being attacked in park by springer spaniel that tore off part of her lip and bit through her cheek
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...bit-cheek.html
Pray tell, why are you so adamant that the numbers are wrong? Vested interest? I went to the site provided by MikePal, seems well researched and straight forward to me.
They're taken from media reports.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
First sentence:
Compiled by the editor of ANIMALS 24-7 from press accounts since 1982
Lots of good reading here.
http://stopbsl.org/fortherecord/scientific-studies/
Where do the numbers come from?
There is no uniform dog bite reporting procedure, nor is there a national agency charged with collecting such data. Dog bite data is collected and reported haphazardly. Animal control departments, hospitals, law enforcement agencies, and state health agencies may all collect different types of data, or none at all.
I'm surprised nobody has posted the fatal dog stats, yet:
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
BREEDS OF DOGS INVOLVED IN FATAL HUMAN ATTACKS IN THE UNITED STATES BETWEEN 1979 AND 1998
This is perhaps the most misused and misunderstood dog bite report. Politicians and the media often quote this report inaccurately.
The main flaw in the CDC study is that it attempts to characterize dog attacks by breed, while ignoring all other possible factors.
Media as a source of data
What about things like , 37% of dogs in shelters at one time are pit bulls or pit bull crosses. Why? What would the editor of animals 24-7, have to gain by misrepresenting dog bite stats? Even if the press reports are off by 50% Pitt Bulls are still way, way, way, over represented in attacks % wise.
Read it, and make that decision for yourself:Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Several studies have attempted to gather dog bite information from news articles and other news media; in fact, Merritt Clifton’s often-referenced dog attack “study” relies entirely on news media. This is a particularly unreliable source of information about dog attacks, as shall be explained next.
http://stopbsl.org/fortherecord/scientific-studies/
Do you not think BSL has an agenda? Of course they do , so why believe them over other 'research' ?
Do you not think the media has an agenda? (Rottweiler rips face off granny makes better headlines than fluffy hyphenated rat dog mauls boys finger) Of course they do, so why believe them over other "reasearch"? Seriously? Do you really have that much faith in media reports being used as "scientific studies"? I guess so since you thought that Clifton report was well researched..LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
the reason the pitbull breed is over represented in shelters is for two reasons i think ( just my opinion )
1.... unfortunately it is the breed of choice for dog fighting and for drug dealers as they get raided and arrested the dogs end up in pounds
2 ..... due to the media hysteria of every dog being a pitbull cross people are afraid to adopt anything remotely looking like a pitbull or pitbull cross
Do you think they sell more papers depending on what breed of dog bites grandma? Yes a ripped off face is more newsworthy than a mauled finger, and should be.
I'm sure data being gleaned from the media reports has a +/- % accuracy...but in general terms it would be valid data that is reliable for the results compiled the report.
Yet in Clifton's report he contradicts that..and he's right;Quote:
Originally Posted by last5oh_302
Quote:
There is also a persistent allegation by pit bull advocates that the use of media accounts as a data source is somehow suspect. Reality is that media coverage incorporates information from police reports, animal control reports, witness accounts, victim accounts in many instances, and hospital reports. Media coverage is, in short, multi-sourced, unlike reports from any single source
Well said and I agree about what you said about the govt. If my JRT had another 30 pounds on him , he would be a dangerous dog.... a breed also highly over - represented in dog shelters.Quote:
Originally Posted by skypilot
Maybe institute a provision in a health care bill ,that says the dog owner is responsible for the hospital bills that are incurred, by the human, in the hospital, because of a dog bite , not the taxpayer. Maybe a 20 or 30 thousand dollar bill to fix that face will dissuade some from owning any dog with a big bite. After all you are responsible for what your dog does, maybe monetarily as well. Poodle bite= $1,000.00 Pit bull bite= $30,000.00 to put that face/hand back on.
Oh no don't give the Liberals more ideas to tax us on !Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Another B.C. dog attack that has left someone ripped apart.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...ured-1.3386075
An interesting correction to the original story is given at the end. Kinda agrees with what an earlier poster had said about breeds beings misreported in the news.
Clarifications
- An earlier version of this story cited police describing the dog as a rottweiler pitbull cross. Police now say the dog is a rottweiler crossbreed.
Dec 31, 2015 2:55 PM PT
Already exists. Dog Owner's Liability Act, Ontario. You are liable for damages related to any injuries caused by your dog. (It's just that OHIP isn't interested in pursuing damages.)Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
The problem with things like this is that everyone thinks it can't happen to them, that their dog won't be a problem.
I remember my Dad having a copy of Life Magazine back in the 60's .... unfortunately I no longer have the copy and it's so long ago, it appears no digital copy is available. I cannot remember who the author of the study was, but the facts from the study were garnered from bite incidents in the NYC area where a hospital visit was needed over a 10 year period. Although not breed specific, the results were tabulated by group. And which group over 10 years had the greatest number of reported dog bites ... dogs that fall into the working group of breeds. (Second greatest number of bites was from the toy group)
IMO ... not a big surprise as any breed where the specific dog's job bred over generations has been to protect (person, animals, property, etc). This is not to generalize and say that these breeds cannot make a wonderful companion BUT in the right hands. It never ceases to amaze me when people who are NOT dog or NOT dog training savy, pick one of these breeds as a house pet and then are surprised when something happens.
Last5oh, there is no reasoning with some people here.Quote:
Originally Posted by last5oh_302
When the media reports facts incorrectly in regards to hunting or firearms everybody goes crazy.
When the government passes poor legislation in regards to hunting or firearms again everybody goes crazy.
Unfortunately we can't pick or choose when it's OK to be misrepresented by the media or have poor legislation passed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The toy breeds do tend to be aggressive both with other dogs and with people. Turns out there is now evidence that this is not a Napoleon thing, but is actually genetic. A large database of dog behaviour (C-BARQ) shows this trend clearly for small breeds, but not (oddly) for the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, which leads to speculation that there is a gene involved. As often happens, when you breed for one trait (small size), other traits come along for the ride.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota Creek
That said, if we look at severity of dog bites, small breeds don't really figure. Severe injuries and deaths correlate with the size of the dog. In other news, recent work suggests the sky is blue....
How often do we read about zu or chihuahuas killing and maiming people. Can somebody find any evidence these nasty little rat dogs have ever killed a person? Is this the best defense they can find to deflect the reality that those breeds are genetic ticking bombs? Most people don't have sheep but go to a dog park and watch the herding breeds. The genetic makup of these pitts is dangerous, they weren't created to be pets.
Google Yorkie kills baby, I can't be bothered. There have been a few hyphenated rat dog attacks/deaths over the years.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
In dog attacks, there is a clear correlation between fatalities, severity of injury, and the size of the dog. It's not worth debating.
Guess Last won't be too happy that last night's news reported an attack by a rotti/husky cross. It turned on the two women that were walking it along with a youngster. Women and an older gentleman were bit trying to protect the child. You just never know what will set a dog off. in this case it may have been a good tug on its leash. Dog is in quarantine, women and gentleman are out of the hospital.
Come on guys .... I only mentioned it due to the bite count and who / where it was coming from .... Not talking fatalities, severity of injuries, etc. although I am sure that was mentioned if appropriately in the article .....
I was reading about that as delmer posted above, and it was first reported as a pitbull. Same with the Hamilton fatality. It was reported as a pitbull as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebenezer
http://www.castanet.net/content/2016...i_p3096158.jpg
http://www.castanet.net/news/BC/1552...-in-dog-attackQuote:
They arrived at a field on the 9200 block of Williams Road to find a female victim covered in blood, being attacked by a Rottweiler/husky cross weighing more than 80 pounds. The dog had incorrectly been identified as a pit bull cross in a previous press release.
And now the truth seems to be coming out, like puss from a wound as stated in one of the comments. The adage, "it's never the dog's fault", or, "when will they blame the people", has merit. There's ALWAYS more to the story, and it usually includes abuse, and this kind of "data" is never included in dog attack/bite stats:Quote:
Originally Posted by ebenezer
Many factors can cause anxiety in dogs, from a medical issue to repeated mistreatment, she said. She said she has seen cases where dogs react badly to someone impaired on alcohol or drugs.
“Substance abuse can be an issue,” she said.
An Instagram account called “Twins that toke THC” shows the Mather sisters drinking, smoking marijuana, and partying. It uses hashtags including #bongbeauties, #stonerbabes and #sisterswhosmoke. THC is the active ingredient in marijuana.
One person moving out of Kati Mather’s Richmond home told CTV news on Saturday the drug use was continuing. He did not want to go on camera, but said the twins would get high on “downers” and yell at the dog and threaten it.
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-couple-tell...toke-1.2721527
Presumably you have data to support your claim, and are not simply making an ideological statement based on selective evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by last5oh_302
Nope, ideological based on selective evidence. If you can't beat them, join them.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
So sad . :(
Yup just like..... guns don't kill people,........ would it be, dogs attack stoned people, or, stoned dogs attack people, or, stoned dogs attack stoned people?...And, since when is threatening ( I am going to give you bath, I am going to take you to the pound), or yelling at your dog abuse? LOL.
It's like those Mom's that refuse to accept their kid is a chithead as the bailiffs take him off to prison..."he's just misunderstood"... HaHa.
Thing is a gun won't break out of your vault and maim or kill a dog or person. Many Pitt attacks are escaped family dogs who snap.
Considering Ontario has a Pitbull ban in effect, it sure is easy to buy one.
http://www.hoobly.com/6360/1689/10/
The pitbull ban is just another useless unenforcable piece of "feel-good" legislation. I see people walking them all over the place,all the time. I've spoken with folks and they all say "Oh,this is a cross with (enter ficticious breed here) so,it's OK." Meanwhile,the dog is acting aggressively. Dumb people,just simply dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by last5oh_302
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
So when the same liberals that banned pit bulls ban semi-auto firearms is everybody going to be ok with it ?Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Bad, ineffective legislation is always the wrong solution.
If someone owns a pit bull and makes it into a vicious dog and it attacks someone then do the hard work and investigate and charge them.
The same for firearms. There are sufficient laws on the books now to prosecute gun crimes but liberal judges keep giving out slaps on the wrists.
Legislation is not always the answer to our problems.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some people should not have dogs, and some people should not have guns, it is not a right. Maybe investigate first, before trouble starts. Some would say it is none of the governments business and then complain when unqualified people access the things they should not. Write a test for a possibly deadly gun, write a test for a possibly deadly dog. And no you can't stop people from having a possibly deadly offspring, no test needed there.
What do Liberals have to do with it ??? Almost every municipality across the board both in Canada and the US has banned pitbullls...there is no political affiliation. Can't blame the Liberals for everything you don't like in life.Quote:
Originally Posted by stragglelake
Yes you need legislation, laws, to prosecute those that don't follow the rules..and you need rules because people are stupid and don't play well with others.
Dalton mcguinty and attorney general Michael Bryant passed that law.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Yes the same Michael Bryant that killed a bike courier in a road rage incident.
In not sure why you mention that municipalities banned them when it was a provincial issue.
Obviously we need legislation for stupid people but knee jerk reactions to keep special interest groups happy does not make good legislation.
The law is poorly written. Hard to enforce and leaves out at least 20 more dogs that are bred for fighting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was reading an article from 2012 I believe it was, and the City of Ottawa admittedly doesn't bother enforcing the ban because they say the DOLA covers it all, and it's not breed specific. That, and as you mentioned the resources needed to enforce such a thing would be astronomical.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
I've seen many pits myself, but I I've never run into an aggressive one. I did meet a Rottie that put a bit of bit of a lump in my shorts once though.
BSL seems to be losing ground in the states and a lot of places have gotten rid of it since it's been ineffective.
I guess I should have added the word 'enforced' by municipalities..as in they won't issue kennel permits for breeding and local shelters won't 'adopt' out the PB variants of the dogs etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by stragglelake
I don't consider the general public to be "special interest groups". The law makers responded to demands to protect the community from specific breeds proven to be the problem of public safety. The province responded, as they should.
Having the laws in place provide the authorities a way to quickly handle the problems when the surface, even if they aren't proactive in enforcing them, they still have the means to prosecute the offenders and remove the dogs when the laws are broken.
http://torontoist.com/2015/09/ontari...ter-breed-ban/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You mean the Michael Bryant that defended himself from an attack by a nut job on a bike? If somebody outside my moving car tried to grab my steering wheel I would squeeze him off onto a post as well. :thumbup:
[QUOTE=
I don't consider the general public to be "special interest groups". The law makers responded to demands to protect the community from specific breeds proven to be the problem of public safety. The province responded, as they should.
.[/QUOTE]
The " general public " is not a big fan of hunting or firearms either.
Are you going to be just as understanding when changes are made to these laws ??
I'm really not for or against pit bulls.
I'm against living in a nanny state
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do you think the outcome of that trial would have been the same if you were driving that car ??Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
now there is a "special interest group" :)Quote:
Originally Posted by stragglelake
I certainly hope so, most people would have done the same thing in those circumstances. Some would say we should have the right to shoot him as soon as he reached in to take control of the steering wheel.
X2 LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Have to agree with you there !Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Hahahaha.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, living in Canada, a 'cradle to grave' society, you will always be unhappy, as they will always be making rules for your own good.Quote:
Originally Posted by stragglelake
imagine if Rob Ford had been at the wheel in that incident. Wasn't Bryant proven to be drinking at the time?Quote:
Originally Posted by stragglelake
Yup !!Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Doesn't mean I have to follow like a sheep. BaaaaaaQuote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Those dammed Liberals,look at the tiny avatar they left me with.He,heQuote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Some men want a real dog that will do a job and others want a pink poodle.A Dogo Argentino attacked a car jacker down in that country and the bad guy,s buddy shot the dog seven times with a 357Mag.The dog later died. But not before the dog bleed the car jacker out in the front seat.Is this dog a villian or a hero,protecting his master and his property,you decide.The Argentinians declared the dog a national hero and its their national symbol.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
http://ferfal.blogspot.ca/2009/02/in...argentino.html