The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[woob]

Let me preface this by saying, I don't math well, so I may have nothing here and welcome correction of my perception.

Fact: When it comes to dog bites, it very often is the breed. Each year, about one PB in 100,000 kills someone, compared with one non-PB in about 10 million. About one adopted PB in 30,000 kills or disfigures someone after passing behavioral screening. (Other dangerous breeds, like Rottweilers and Huskies do plenty of damage too; more on them another time).

Isn't that a bad statistic? Are they not singling out PB in it's own breed count numbers but then clumping all other breeds into the 10 million number? To be a correct stat, wouldn't they need to identify the breed of the one non-PB, give us it's breed count, and then we'd have an accurate comparison?

Or am I reading the stat wrong?

[Minnie]

This section requires expansion.

Sorry. Makes me laugh now. Carry on.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Classy.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by zamler

Classy.

Take it up with Dr. Malathi Raghavan.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by zamler

People just don't get it. With a pit bull, it doesn't matter how they were brought up, trained, loved, cared for, coddled. They can and do lose it anyway, causing severe damage or even death. I know this for certain because I have seen it first hand, it completely changes your perspective. When a pit bull that has been loved all of its life attacks its owner and has to be shot to death, you start to realize that the breed has the potential to go off the rails for no apparent reason.

Now with many other breeds, it doesn't matter so much, with a pit bull it easily has the ability to kill you. I firmly believe a person should never own a pet that has the ability to kill you, but if you do own such an animal, at least make it one that doesn't have a history of losing its mind and reverting to some sort of instinctual rage.

Then explain why husky/sled dogs have caused more fatalities in Canada since 1990? Up until 2007 only 1 was attributed to a pitbull?

According to the canadian veterinary journal huskies, Rottweilers and sled dogs had each caused 3 to 4 times the number of fatalities in Canada since 1990.

[woob]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Then explain why husky/sled dogs have caused more fatalities in Canada since 1990? Up until 2007 only 1 was attributed to a pitbull?

According to the canadian veterinary journal huskies, Rottweilers and sled dogs had each caused 3 to 4 times the number of fatalities in Canada since 1990.

But PITBULLS!!! BITE!! HARD!! DANGER!!

PITTTBULLSSS!!

[Sliver]

Then clearly huskies and rottweilers need to be added to the "ban" list. I'm not even kidding - I think all the vicious breeds should be banned as that makes complete logical sense as the best solution to the problem. There are hundreds of breeds to choose from - people do not need one of these dangerous dogs.

[Zevo]

People don't need to ride motorbikes either and they kill and maim far more people than all breeds combined. How about drinking and driving? If they banned alcohol consumption in bars and restaurants it would greatly cut down on the the number of injuries and deaths due to d-bag drunk drivers.

I don't like pitbulls, and part of me understands why people want a ban on the breed, but it's a slippery slope. What breed goes next? Who decides? I would rather see the city try other methods first.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Zevo

People don't need to ride motorbikes either and they kill and maim far more people than all breeds combined. How about drinking and driving? If they banned alcohol consumption in bars and restaurants it would greatly cut down on the the number of injuries and deaths due to d-bag drunk drivers.

I don't like pitbulls, and part of me understands why people want a ban on the breed, but it's a slippery slope. What breed goes next? Who decides? I would rather see the city try other methods first.

It would be encouraging to see the city do something. Muzzles would be a great first step.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Sliver

It would be encouraging to see the city do something. Muzzles would be a great first step.

Still haven't heard why muzzles are a great first step besides some knee-jerk blanket policy.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Then explain why husky/sled dogs have caused more fatalities in Canada since 1990? Up until 2007 only 1 was attributed to a pitbull?

According to the canadian veterinary journal huskies, Rottweilers and sled dogs had each caused 3 to 4 times the number of fatalities in Canada since 1990.

Citations needed, thanks.

I am just going on personal experience, and there is no other dog I trust less than a pit bull, I've seen first hand the unpredictability. Not to mention how powerful they are. And as I've said before I'm a dog lover.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Still haven't heard why muzzles are a great first step besides some knee-jerk blanket policy.

That and muzzles are no good for easing dog social meetings. It automatically puts their backs against the wall and does nothing for aggression.

[Sliver]

Not sure if you are serious, but who cares about dogs socializing with other dogs... Muzzles would prevent these animals from biting people, which is way more important.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Still haven't heard why muzzles are a great first step besides some knee-jerk blanket policy.

The same reason trigger locks are good for guns.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Back to back stupid.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Back to back stupid.

Thank you for that useful post.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Still haven't heard why muzzles are a great first step besides some knee-jerk blanket policy.

1. It has been shown to be effective in preventing aggressive dogs from injuring other dogs or people.

2. It would ease the apprehension for people at dogwalks who have non aggressive dogs.

3. It would avoid the difficulties associated with banning dogs.

4. It could be easily regulated by having owners declare, on their dog licence, whether their dog has any pitbull in them or not.

5. It could be done in conjunction with stiff fines for non compliance.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

1. It has been shown to be effective in preventing aggressive dogs from injuring other dogs or people.

2. It would ease the apprehension for people at dogwalks who have non aggressive dogs.

3. It would avoid the difficulties associated with banning dogs.

4. It could be easily regulated by having owners declare, on their dog licence, whether their dog has any pitbull in them or not.

5. It could be done in conjunction with stiff fines for non compliance.

6: If it prevented one kid a year from being mauled, or bit. Whether or not some 6 or 7 year old accidentally antagonized the dog or not, it would be worth every penny, as the only cost is to the owner of the animal.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Thank you, finally an answer that has some reasoning to it.

[flamesfever]

7.The inconveniece may discourage people from owning dogs of pitbull heritage, and thereby reduce their numbers in society.