PITBULL ban is happening today

[gonesnakee]

justinO best post yet! I suggest everyone here views the link pictures definitely speak louder than words Mark

[Shad0w]

U huh....

That video is sad but very one sided...

MANY attacks have been completely unprovoked..
Remember.. I was a victim of such an attack...

If pictures speak louder than words.. would you like to see what a FRIENDLY house pet that was well taken care of did to me?

Until you witness a dog attack... u have no idea...

[gonesnakee]

As stated a few times I have been attacked by plenty both in the City & rurally. I was a paperboy for years & worked exploration for over a decade. Try laying equipment thru a farmyard with 4 or 5 aggressive large breed dogs trying to keep you out of it, been there done that plenty. The dogs could care less about the paper permit & the farmers would rather not have ya there permit or not & the oil company wants its data at any cost. I have seen results of serious unprovoked attacks on others & it ain't pretty, but don't think you are the only one who understands the results of such attacks. You aren't the only one with scars my friend. Video is no more one sided then opinions posted here. Mark
P.S. as always 2 simple words "Controlled & Contained" no matter what the creature. With that said I'm done with this thread.

[RepTylE]

I responded to this topic several times during the past few days. I expressed the social implications of unilateral bans and even posted a humorous comment but refrained from making a comment on the dogs in question until now. I think that there are breeds of dogs that aren't for everyone but are available to anyone that has the cash. The powers that be have responded in the only way that they know how. I am sorry for all the people that are affected by this ban but it was the irresponsble owners that you should be venting your frustration to. They failed you all as pitbull enthusiasts.

I only hope that a rash of reptile "incidents" never happens to provoke the politicians to impose bans on herps as well. I have said it countless times, everyone one of us are ambassadors of our hobby. What the public sees is what they will think.

[pcw_phoenix]

WELL FROM READING ALL THIS STUFF...I HOPE THEY DON'T BANG TURTLE, SNAKE, LIZARD KEEPINGS.....THAT'LL BE BAD...WHT IF SOMEONE WHO WORKS FOR ONE OF THE GOVERNEMENT'S OFFICE HAD A DAUGHTER OR SON...AND THEY GOT THEIR HAND CHEWED OFF A SNAPPING TURTLE OR A BITE FROM A SNAKE OR A BITE FROM A BEARDIE...I HOPE THAT GOVERNMENT PERSON DON'T BANG THE REPTILES...

[crucified]

good post justinO.. i was going to post that but my comp was acting up last night... *thumbs up*

[Ryan23]

I posted this on the other Pittbull thread but as this one seems to be the active one now I'll repost here.

I gave up on trying to argue the points on this issue quite a while ago since I found far too many narrow minded people arguing the points. I posted links to studies by actual temperement testing societies and these same people chose to ignore the facts given by these sites. I will fight any ban and any person or group who thinks they can impose their ban on me and take away my family.........I choose to spend my time with my dog and make him the loving, gentle pet he has become and stop wasting my time on an issue that will never be solved properly.









Can you see the evil in the eyes of my kitten as she savagely attacks my helpless dog.

P.S. Thank you for posting that link justinO, very hard to watch but speaks volumes.

[Invictus]

Isn't it funny how just because someone has a different opinion that is just as educated as anyone else's, they are called "narrow minded"? Sad, really.

[Ryan23]

That's the problem though, I've yet to see an opinion that is fully educated on the subject. I've seen a few stats posted supposedly by the CDC which is the total opposite of stats from actual temperement testing societies.........please tell me which one is more knowledgeable on the subject? Where is the CDC getting these temperement stats from if American temp. testing society and every other testing society gives much much different results. I've been able to provide links to these sites to prove this point and I still had people saying that they simply found the stats hard to believe.......well these people are experts with degrees and vast amounts of knowledge on the issue but since they are just so hard to believe due to the usually overwhelming media hype given to "viscious" Pitt's I guess they can't be true.

Like I said I'm finished on this subject now, the two sides will never agree and unfortunately it is a waste of time and yes it is very sad because once again people will ruin and ultimately wipe out another beautifull animal.

[marisa]

I'd like someone to clear that up for me as well???

The CDC says Puts are terrible and have all these stats against them, but multiple temperment testing agencies have shown Pit BUlls to pass more often than known "lovable" breeds. And many Canadian vets are completly against this dog ban and they are pissed no one listened to their EDUCATED opinion before passing this ban... Who is right and who is wrong? It's confusing.

Marisa

[RepTylE]

In a way both sides are right and both are wrong. People who own pits that wouldn't hurt a fly say that attacks are provoked and rare and people who want the ban say that pits are ticking timebombs. The point that Invictus and a few others made is that even if it is rare for a pit to attack you get manged and if it is a kid that gets mangled then the price is pretty damned high. You look for high ground on this issue and you better pack a lunch because you are going to be awhile.

[chailatte]

Just a couple stats: in a typical year in the US, 25 people are killed by dogs. About 13 would be mixed breed, 6 Rottweiller, 4 Pit Bull-types, 2 other. Also, 15 people will die of snake bites, at least 10 of whom are handling or catching 'pets'. I would estimate that there are a hundred times more pit bull type dogs than venonous snakes as pets, which makes snakes 250 times more dangerous. Add that to the average person's love of dogs and fear of snakes and what is more likely to get banned? Throw in the fact that about every year you hear about somebody's kid getting swallowed by a python, and its understandable that so many cities are banning venonmous and constrictors. I am amazed that people whose pets will probably soon be banned everywhere won't stick up for other people's pets.

[RFB]

Stats are useless without a reliable references to back them up. Chailatte where do you get your numbers from??

The reason the CDC report is so interesting is that the data is factual and quantifiable. Before you criticize the report, actually read it.

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.
Summarizes breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks during a 20-year period and to assess policy implications.

I'm in favor of a Pit Bull ban along with some of the other more aggressive breeds we now have. But the report has some very interesting things to say about the practical problems of such a ban and offers alternate solutions. Check it out. It has points that support the anti dog baning side as well.

One final note. The CDC is one of THE most respected scientific institutions in the world. They are at the forefront on many issues dealing with the health and welfare of citizens world wide and are more likely to err on the side of caution when reporting statistics than not. Like the report or hate it, the data is rock solid.

[RepTylE]

Okay when the statistics come out it's time for me to move on................

[Tim and Julie B]

There are approximately 5 million dogs in Canada, and 70 million dogs in the United States.
The Canadian Kennel Club (CKC) recognizes approximately 160 dog breeds, with over 25,000 members and 700 breed clubs.
A dog's breed can not be proven, not even by DNA.
Dog 'breeds' have no more scientific basis than do human 'races'.
There are Great Danes that can point, a 'pit bull' with a Herding title, retrievers that don't retrieve, Rottweilers that work as Therapy Dogs, and some small breeds (Yorkshire Terrier, Pomeranian, West Highland White Terrier, Lhasa Apso, Dachshund) that have killed people.
Dogs are classified as carnivores, even though they can live healthy lives as vegetarians.
The tallest dog was a Great Dane that stood 42" high at the shoulder.
The heaviest dog was a Mastiff that weighed nearly 350lbs.
The smallest dog was a Yorkshire Terrier that measured 2.5" high.
The oldest living dog (2003) is a 28-year-old, vegan Border Collie.
The family dog is a normal, cherished part of the Canadian family.

So, if a dog's genetics cannot be proven then how can a breed be banned? Who can regulate, with 100% accuracy, the dogs that fall into the category "pitbull"? No one, because it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE. Just because it looks like one, doesn't mean it is. I've seen what I thought were labs, that were 3/4 staffordshire, and only 1/4 lab.

We can't emphasize this enough. "The public" is not involved in the overwhelming majority of dog bite cases. Any attempts to ban dog breeds or enact stiffer leash laws will have little effect, since we know people are bitten by a dog they know (not a stranger walking his/her dog in public) while the dog is on its own property, where leash laws do not apply.

Some might even suggest that those who hide behind a facade of "public safety" are being intentionally misleading. Anyone who implies that the cause for the overwhelming majority of dog bites is predominantly anything other than irresponsible owners leaving their poorly socialized dogs (and usually their children) unsupervised, is just plain wrong. The statistics bear this out.

Leash Laws Cause Dog Bites.

No need to elaborate here.

[QUOTE]Biting Incidents: (The Basics)

There is no such thing as a breed of dog that won't bite.
Supervised dogs in public places rarely bite strangers. The general public has little rational or statistical reason to fear someone lawfully walking his or her dog down a public street.
No breed of dog has more than 0.1% of its members involved in serious biting incidents...meaning...99.9% of all dogs, regardless of breed, never attack anyone. No reasonable person can suggest restricting 99.9% of ANY group based on the actions of such a tiny minority.
The term 'pit bull' generally refers to a group of dog breeds.
We have not yet confirmed an unprovoked dog-related fatality in Canada that has been officially attributed to a 'pit bull'. [QUOTE]

Hmm.......pretty nifty little tid-bit of info eh? All dogs can bite? Whoa, no way!

***Myth: "Some dogs are genetically predisposed to attack."

While we would love to dispute every angle of that kind of erroneous comment, we don't need to. We can easily disprove the misguided notion that some kind of genetic abnormality is what causes dogs to attack, by simply looking at the actual dogs involved in serious biting incidents.

The Lab/Beagle cross and the purebred Doberman involved in biting incidents 5,000 km and 10 years apart do not share relevant genes, other than those that make them both dogs. The purebred Dalmation that killed another dog and the Golden Retriever that killed a child are not genetically related, either. In fact, even the purebred Rottweiler that killed a child in one province and the purebred Rottweiler that attacked a person in another province share no common ancestors in their pedigrees. In short, the dogs involved in biting incidents are no more closely related than dogs in general.

There is no scientific evidence for a genetic cause for aggression, and there is no evidence that the dogs involved in attacks share relevant genetic information, even if there were.

The largest study of its kind, in which many of the dogs involved dog bite-related fatalities were examined by veterinarians, found that the dogs who'd killed people had no physical, mental or physiological abnormalities. All tests came back normal, including bloodwork and brain examination.

Still need more proof?

As a general estimate, let's say that, out of approximately 5 million dogs in Canada, 50 dogs are involved in serious biting incidents each year. (To clarify, that would be 0.001% of all dogs; leaving 99.999% of Canadian dogs not involved in attacks.) If we look at those 50 dogs, individually, we find they represent a wide range of shapes, sizes, breeds, and original breed purposes. Clearly, there is no one breed or size or original breed purpose involved in serious biting incidents.

In fact, no breed of dog has more than 0.1% of it's members involved in serious attacks. It would be absurd to say that 0.1% of the dogs in any breed are 'merely fulfilling their genetic destiny' by attacking someone or something, and that the 99.9% of all dogs who never attack, are behaving somehow "abnormally" by not behaving aggressively. Most dogs never attack anyone, and that includes the often maligned breeds, too! If any breed were 'genetically predisposed to attack', certainly more than 0.1% of them would!

In regards to the theory that aggression can be either inherited or genetically linked, what unique, relevant genetic information could possibly be shared by:

the Labrador/Rottweiler cross (Sporting/Working Group) that killed one of its owner's children,
the Soft-Coated Wheaton Terrier (Terrier Group) that killed a neighbour's dog,
the purebred Golden Retriever (Sporting Group) that killed its owner's child,
the Border Collie (AKC, Herding Group) that viciously attacked a neighbour's dog,
the purebred Pomerananian (Toy Group) that killed the owner's child,
or the purebred Bullmastiff (Working Group) that killed one of its owner's child's friends?
In fact, the ACTUAL dogs involved in attacks do not share any unique genetic information with each other, besides that which makes them dogs.

We need not look any further than the lack of any supporting evidence for shared genetic pathology in dogs that have actually attacked. They simply aren't any more closely related than the dog population in general.

However, just to completely refute the idea that genetics are involved in attacks, we've broken it down further.

If we group those dogs by breed, we find that even the dogs of the same breed are not genetically related in any meaningful way. They don't share any relevant common ancestors on their pedigrees, and therefore have not inherited some kind of aberrant gene that might explain their inappropriate behaviour.

If they're purebred dogs, we can completely refute the notion that those dogs involved in attacks share some kind of genetic cause for their aggression. By definition, purebred dogs are not crossed with other breeds. To explain a shared genetic cause in dogs from two different breeds, the gene would have to have been inherited from the breeds' shared ancestor, decades (even centuries) earlier, before those individual breeds were even created. No reasonable person would suggest that a gene would lie dormant for centuries in all its descendants, then suddenly cause aggressive behaviours in one individual dog, so many years later. It's preposterous!

Next is the issue of original breed purpose as causational. In fact, whether the attack was against a person or another animal, every single breed of dog has been guilty of serious biting incidents of one kind or another. When a Soft-Coated Wheaton Terrier (Terrier group) attacks another dog, it is for the same reason that a German Shepherd Dog (Herding Group), Rottweiler (Working Group), or an American Pit Bull Terrier (UKC, Terrier Group) might attack another dog.

The overwhelming majority of dogs who attack other dogs are from breeds that were NOT originally bred for fighting. That is important enough to repeat: Most of the dogs ACTUALLY involved in unprovoked attacks on other dogs are from breeds that were NOT originally bred for fighting! This thoroughly disproves the notion that breeds originally bred for fighting are somehow destined to attack other dogs.

Guess there's no need to hold back the "calm" ones to produce those "genetically gentle" dogs. Afterall, aggression is NOT GENETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I know that this has been beaten to death, but this is necessary to post. For a lot of other great, non-misleading info, please visit www.goodpooch.com and read everything on the site It has good info for every person, whether you have dogs or not, and even if you don't like dogs much, there are some great tips on avoiding "a dog bite" provoked or not. Thanks to any who choose to read this post/visit the site Hey, it can't hurt, right?

Julie