The Ongoing Dog Attack Mega-Thread

[nik-]

Originally Posted by wretched34

I agree, that is a pitbull trait, as that is what baiting was, minus the killing (unfortunately a little poodle is not as big or strong as a bull or bear). It is unfortunate that when they attack that is how it happens. Mind you, some breeds repeatedly bite, or target the throat, or spinal column to get the results they desire.

Right, but there's a serious problem with a breed that strong that can't be controlled once it attacks.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by wretched34

But bulldogs and Pitbulls were not bred to kill, nor were they bred to attack multiple times. They were bred as bait dogs, specifically Bear and Bull baiting. Where their goal was to strike once, quickly, latch on to the targets snout and immobilize it. Which in essence would mean, in the case of a dog on dog, or dog on human attack, by nature, a Bulldog or Pitbull would latch on, and immobilize the target of the attack, not continue to attack to the point of killing. Pitbulls were trained to be pit fighters, they had to be taught to try to kill another animal, it is not natural instinct to them.

As for the defense argument, I'm not near as comfortable putting my families lives in the hands of an electronic device, that signals someone 10 minutes away of an emergency. Nor would I ever want to be in a position where I had to take another persons life, which is why I am not a gun owner. Having a dog that deters people from entering my home is far more comforting, and knowing that if someone did enter my home, the dog is also an alarm system, but also capable of immobilizing the threat until the proper authorities are able to arrive.

You need to extend your history of the dog. The pit bull is no longer the same dog that was used for bear baiting.

According to a 1908 New York Times article,

"The old lovers of the bulldog found to their dismay that sometimes a terrier, with only quickness and a pair of punishing jaws to recommend him, would kill a bulldog while the latter was merely hanging on. The bulldog would be brave to the death of course, and would withstand pain that the terrier would never endure, but that was poor consolation when the terrier had killed the dog.
The dog fighters were, however, as persevering a set of men as were the bull baiters, and they set to work to remodel their favorites for their new occupation. They began to cross their bulldogs with the white English terrier, a breed now practically extinct, but the same in every respect, save color, as the modern Manchester or black-and-tan. The progeny was named the bull terrier, the greatest fighting machine, pound for pound, on four legs. The bull terrier had the courage of the bulldog and the jaws and quickness of the white terrier. Moreover, he has the terrier's way of fighting. He does not simply take a hold and stay there. He takes a hold and begins to eat his way through and tear and worry. If his first hold doesn't suit, he takes another. If he gets his adversary by the throat, he will tear out the throat in a minute or so and end the battle."

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by nik-

Right, but there's a serious problem with a breed that strong that can't be controlled once it attacks.

I don't think the problem lies during or after the attack, the problem is that it attacked in the first place.
Honestly, a 50lb pitbull would be far easier to handle during an attack than a 120lb Rottweiler who's instinct is to bite numerous times. Both however will almost always result in the death of a smaller animal, though Rottweilers are responsible for more human deaths than any other Pitbull breed.

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You need to extend your history of the dog. The pit bull is no longer the same dog that was used for bear baiting.

Your updated information is in regards to Bull Terriers, who yes, are classified as Pitbulls, but again, as I have noted earlier, Pittbull is a type, not a breed, and I have also stated my focus was on the American Pitbull Terrier, not the Bull Terrier. I also believe that when the majority of people speak of Pitbulls and Pitbull attacks, they are thinking of either an American Pitbull Terrier, or American or Staffordshire Bull Terriers, not Bull Terriers. Bull Terriers were not around at the time of bull and bear bating, as your information clearly states, they were bread for an entirely different natural instinct, that once baiting became frowned upon, was more appealing for other activities, mainly dog fighting (as your information clearly states) and killing rodents. Bull Terriers also have an entirely different personality than most Pitbulls types, and are not a suitable family pet.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You need to extend your history of the dog. The pit bull is no longer the same dog that was used for bear baiting.

Modern day "pit bulls" have indeed have become very different due to Humans. Its a shame because in America they use to be used as Catch dogs and Cattle hearding in the Western States.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by wretched34

My argument has, and always will be, that the breeds themselves are not to blame. It is not natural instinct for a pitbull type to just attack a person or other animal, whereas many other dogs, including chihuahuas are far more prone to attacking, at a genetic level.

Are you arguing against yourself here? The breed isn't to blame yet the genetics of the chihuahua breed make it more prone to attacking?

[pylon]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Big deal. I missed a key on the screen or a few grammar points. At least get the breeds right when people are calling for a genocide of a species is kind of more important. Ever typed on a small phone ? Never made a mistake yourself when trying to type?

Go away with that genocide BS. Pitbulls are not a species... they are a breed of Canis familiaris aka, dog. Get that straight first. We aren't talking about a naturally evolved animal like Elephants, Lemurs or Ocean apex predators like sharks. Removing them from the gene pool would have zero effect on ecological balance, in fact it would only be positive, as children wouldn't have their faces torn off anymore.

We are talking about an animal that has been selectively bred by human beings with sinister intentions. Without human intervention, pit bull 'type' dogs, Pomeranians, or pretty much any dog that isn't a wolf type dog simply wouldn't exist. If humans disappeared, within one or two generations, all pure bred dogs would cease to exist. Dogs don't selectively breed with similar looking dogs, they hump anything else that is a dog. In fact nature is funny, there is probably some mechanism or instinct in place that would make the dog search out an unfamiliar type to combat inbreeding, which pure bred dogs are.

I don't know the exact history but by everything I can find, they have been around for less than 200 years as a breed. Removing a highly unpredictable 'breed' of animal from the dog family, is not even close to genocide, and the only thing that would be hurt are the feelings of every Dodge Ram with truck nutz driving, affliction shirt wearing, sleeve tattoo sporting, white Oakley sunglasses on the back of the head resting D-bag that buys one of these things to compensate for his extreme case of medically confirmed Micropenis.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by pylon

Go away with that genocide BS. Pitbulls are not a species... they are a breed of Canis familiaris aka, dog. Get that straight first. We aren't talking about a naturally evolved animal like Elephants, Lemurs or Ocean apex predators like sharks. Removing them from the gene pool would have zero effect on ecological balance, in fact it would only be positive, as children wouldn't have their faces torn off anymore.

We are talking about an animal that has been selectively bred by human beings with sinister intentions. Without human intervention, pit bull 'type' dogs, Pomeranians, or pretty much any dog that isn't a wolf type dog simply wouldn't exist. If humans disappeared, within one or two generations, all pure bred dogs would cease to exist. Dogs don't selectively breed with similar looking dogs, they hump anything else that is a dog. In fact nature is funny, there is probably some mechanism or instinct in place that would make the dog search out an unfamiliar type to combat inbreeding, which pure bred dogs are.

I don't know the exact history but by everything I can find, they have been around for less than 200 years as a breed. Removing a highly unpredictable 'breed' of animal from the og family, is not even close to genocide, and the only thing that would be hurt are the feelings of every Dodge Ram with truck nutz driving, affliction shirt wearing, sleeve tattoo sporting, white Oakley sunglasses on the back of the head resting D-bag that buys one of these things to compensate for his extreme case of medically confirmed Micropenis.

First off I meant breed from a species.
Second Really ? So even small French bulldogs and even Boston terrier's should be destroyed?
And Finally seems that you hate the people more than the dogs. Seems you must of been bullied by those types growing up. Holy cow. Still a pretty funny rant at the end. The only people I know with "pit bulls" are Hippies here.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

First off I meant breed from a species.
Second Really ? So even small French bulldogs and even Boston terrier's should be destroyed?
And Finally seems that you hate the people more than the dogs. Seems you must of been bullied by those types growing up. Holy cow. Still a pretty funny rant at the end. The only people I know with "pit bulls" are Hippies here.

Quit using that lame argument, everyone knows what types of dogs we are talking about here.

There is zero use for this:



Or this:



As a family pet.

And the only reason the smelly hippies on Vancouver Island likely have them, is probably because so many of them are abandoned at the pound, and they are too poor to buy a normal dog.

[combustiblefuel]

Then use the ####ing right names or don't. Whatever. I'm not going to get into it with you on another thread again.

[SportsJunky]

This is a lot like the gun argument. Yes, we understand that it is the psycho shooting the gun that is at fault but take the gun out of the equation and a lot fewer people get hurt by that same psycho.

Keep the killing machine of a dog away from the psycho owner and a lot fewer people get hurt.

[PeteMoss]

FWIW this is the definition of pitbull in Ontario (they are banned here, although the effectiveness of the law is questionable)

Under the amendments to DOLA, pit bull is defined as:

A pit bull terrier
A Staffordshire bull terrier
An American Staffordshire terrier
An American pit bull terrier
A dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics substantially similar to any of those dogs.

Obviously that last one is a bit of sticking point since it is vague. But bulldogs and little Boston terriers are fine.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

FWIW this is the definition of pitbull in Ontario (they are banned here, although the effectiveness of the law is questionable)

Under the amendments to DOLA, pit bull is defined as:



Obviously that last one is a bit of sticking point since it is vague. But bulldogs and little Boston terriers are fine.

You still see them here all the time.

[undercoverbrother]

confirmed fata

[Regulator75]

^^^ Yup, previous page.

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by pylon

Quit using that lame argument, everyone knows what types of dogs we are talking about here.

There is zero use for this:



Or this:



As a family pet.

And the only reason the smelly hippies on Vancouver Island likely have them, is probably because so many of them are abandoned at the pound, and they are too poor to buy a normal dog.

How about:
http://www.inflexwetrust.com/wp-cont...ottweiller.png
or
http://harmonyxxx.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/dog.jpg
orhttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fOz-Hdyl81...uahuaPhoto.jpg
or
http://www.poodleforum.com/attachmen...9_213666_n.jpg

What was forgotten was these:
http://thebullybreeds.com/wp-content...33772636_n.jpg
http://www.imagepuppy.com/resized/fb...1212601f20.jpg
https://s.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/zg...70_2787420.jpg

Basing an argument off of some pictures of an enraged dog just shows bias. All dogs gnarl and show their teeth when they are angry.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by wretched34

How about:
http://www.inflexwetrust.com/wp-cont...ottweiller.png
or
http://harmonyxxx.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/dog.jpg
orhttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fOz-Hdyl81...uahuaPhoto.jpg
or
http://www.poodleforum.com/attachmen...9_213666_n.jpg

What was forgotten was these:
http://thebullybreeds.com/wp-content...33772636_n.jpg
http://www.imagepuppy.com/resized/fb...1212601f20.jpg
https://s.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/zg...70_2787420.jpg

Basing an argument off of some pictures of an enraged dog just shows bias. All dogs gnarl and show their teeth when they are angry.

soooo ban all dogs.....

[wretched34]

Sorry for double post, original with links shouldn't have been posted.

Originally Posted by pylon

Quit using that lame argument, everyone knows what types of dogs we are talking about here.

There is zero use for this:



Or this:



As a family pet.

And the only reason the smelly hippies on Vancouver Island likely have them, is probably because so many of them are abandoned at the pound, and they are too poor to buy a normal dog.

How about:

or

or



What was forgotten was these:




It's no secret that Pitbulls are sensationalized in the media following attacks, as a supporter I am well aware of this, there is no ignoring it.
Pitbulls, like any other animal are capable of attacking. The outcome can't be ignored either, when they attack, it normally results in severe injuries, or death. They are extremely strong dogs. The issue, again, is the owners, not the dogs. Punishing a dog because of it's physical traits, that have made it so desirable for many reasons other than the fighting that is shown on TV in the news, is not just. It is the owners who are responsible to ensure their pet, no matter what breed, can function properly in society, and to be quite honest, it is harder to train a pitbull to attack and fight, than it is not too. It is not an instinct for pitbulls to attack people, or other animals, it is quite the opposite.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by wretched34

But how is it fair too hold a 1 year old pitbull to a higher standard than a 1 year old Chihuahua?
Again, the responsibility lies on the owner, not the dog. And that is even more prevalent when it is a Pitbull or other large breed capable of causing more severe injuries.

Same reason you can buy a knife from a store without any background or waiting period vs. a gun.

I'd hold the average gun buyer to a higher standard of screening than the average knife buyer.

[fatso]

The fact that put bill apologists invoke language such as 'genocide' and rely on spurious racism analogies shows how utterly clueless they are. In fact, it expressly puts the lie to their goofy position that this issue is merely about responsible ownership.

Seems to me the pit bull apologists/owners/wannabe owners are so delusional the only practical solution to assure the general public's safety from these *things* is to ban them.

And I say this as someone who likes dogs.