Quote:

Absolutely. Dogs have no concept of "manly" and the boyfriend is substituting his own chestnuts for his dog's.

Also, male dogs have a lower incidence of cancer when neutered. My own pointer is neutered, and his "edgy" behavior didn't change much, but other dogs tend to leave him alone.

I've fostered dozens of pit bulls and the only really tough fosters that I've had were Shih tzu, but let's face it, we can tolerate a Shih tzu bite. Likewise, there are higher incidences of bites from Dachshunds, labs, and shepherds, but a bully breed's physical strength and potential for harm means that exactly what you stated, "some people should never be trusted with them." I love the breed and couldn't agree with you more.

LHS, along with some at Animal Control, have gone a long way to bring pet health care and services to areas where most of the bullies are bred. Moreover, the majority of strays and surrendered pets are concentrated in a few parts of the city. Enforced neuter/spay regulations have had little support and mixed success in other parts of the country, but it's worth trying. At least the education component of spay/neuter programs should be instituted.

I've met several people in town that breed dogs in their yards or basements, and of course, they claim that their dogs are "great bloodlines" and bred to be docile. They just don't realized that 75% of the dogs that they sell will be dead or given away to a stranger in 5 years. Bottom line is that most of those untrained, unsocialized, and unneutered/unspayed pit bulls are in the hands of people who "should never be trusted with them."

I would like to know about n.j. gun laws.I live in N.j. but I had a Ny drivers licence.In N.Y.it is almost impossible to get a pistol permit,but to get a shotgun or rifle is very easy,at least it was a few years ago.all I needed to buy a shotgun in new york was some type of I.D..like a state issued drivers licence.that was it I walked out of the store with a shotgun,it was all legal.this is only possible if you live outside of New york city.my licence was in ulster county N.Y.,The walmart near there had gunns,rifles and shotguns ,not pistols on display,the only requirements were to be 18 and have an official picture ID.Now my shotgun is at my moms house,my point is ,does anyone know if you can buy a shotgun in new york as easily as it used to be?also how about new jersey?can anyone buy a shotgun easily?use your imagination in connection with the pit bull story.I would hate to have to pay the 12 bucks to the GW Bridge go eat dinner at mommys house,I usually take the train,but it might appear suspicious to carry a shotgun on metro north train,anyway just thinking out loud boom boom bye bye poochie

Not a good argument against the breed, GrovePath. I'm no fan of pit bulls, but anyone who gets all up in a strange dog's face like that anchorwoman did is just asking to be bitten.

Rescued dog bites NBC anchor in the face during feel-good segment gone wrong By Dylan Stableford | The Cutline ? 11 hrs ago Dyer moments before Max bit her. (KUSA) It was supposed to be one of those feel-good segments on a local television newscast: A rescued dog. A grateful owner. The hero firefighter who pulled the dog from the ice. But that's not how it turned out. The dog, an Argentine mastiff named Gladiator Maximus, attacked Kyle Dyer, anchorwoman at NBC's KUSA Denver affiliate, during a live, in-studio segment on Wednesday that was meant to celebrate the dog's rescue from an icy lake the day before. Dyer was shown petting the mastiff during the segment, then kneeling on the floor to get closer, when the 85-pound pooch bit her in the face. Paramedics and animal control were called to the studio. Dyer was rushed to a Denver hospital where she had reconstructive surgery overnight. The 3-year-old dog was taken to a Denver animal shelter where it is being "quarantined." Video of the attack, as you might imagine, has gone viral, but KUSA has been issuing take-down notices, trying to get the clip off the Internet. (The "Today" show won't even show it.)

Quote:

Which dog breed are you referring to that has been bred to attack both people and other dogs?

I realize that all my credibility has been shot by remarking that a dog bred to attack both people and other dogs might be considered more dangerous than a dog bred to not attack humans.

However, how about this, how about using actual statistics such as dangerous dog licenses issued by municipalities.

Currently there are 5 in Jersey City, 3 of those are for German Shepherds and 0 for pitbulls. The number was 7 until the Boerbels were moved out of JC. With such a large dog population why aren't any of them given to the breed that you feel is so dangerous especially since they make up such a huge percentage of the population.

Even in the documents provided by the CDC they admit at the very beginning that they source newspaper articles for key words as if news reporters are experts at identifying these breeds. The proof is pretty clear that it is very hard to clearly identify many of these breeds and most are mixed breeds. It is clear that the media loves to sensationalize since it brings in readership and therefore sponsorship.

Again, there are many dangerous dogs out there and I don't think the backlash is that people are insisting on keeping their cute cuddly fluffy murderous pets (it's a wonder anyone in the city has limbs left), it is the incredibly flawed logic you insist on spouting out using your own prejudices and then pushing off everything on the internet as scientific fact. I'm not a pro-pitbull crazy person, I'm a community member that believes in actually solving issues using the facts at hand, not knee jerk reactions. And I use my real name, I don't hide behind a handle.

This argument is old and stupid, it does nothing to protect the public against dangerous dogs and negligent owners. Again, give it a rest because banning pit bulls, if you could actually identify them, isn't going to solve the dangerous dog problem.

And for the record, I have a home security system, but maybe it doesn't occur to you that that system doesn't wander around through the yard or neighborhood with my kids and nor does it stop a home invader from pushing their way into my home should my children or myself accidentally open the front door to a stranger.

This is the last I have to say on the subject. Luckily we have enough smart and hard working people in the community being proactive about the situation we face with the over population and abuse of animals in this City.

Bottom line is that if you have a dog no matter how sweet that has the strength to inflict real harm on a human or another person's pet then you must have this animal incredibly well trained. They must be able to drop on command from a distance. The safety of the community must always come first.

Quote:
I don't have a dog, and know nothing about dogs, however, if - as althea and moobycow attest - the public well being depends on this, we are in serious trouble!

Living in the Heights, un-spayed pit-bulls seem to be the dog of choice. I often see them off-leash, or being teased by their owners to jump up and grab their leashes in their mouths and shake the hell out of it. How this fits into training them I don't know, I suspect its more to burnish the owners 'street cred'...

I'll ask the pit-bull afficianados what do you recommend (kevlar leg-warmers?) we start wearing, to protect us from the 99% of pit-bull owners who don't appear to be remotely responsible?

One of the problems too is that people refuse to neuter their dogs. Neutering is not only important for the dog's attitude and health but un-neutered dogs tend to attract problems from other male dogs. I met a woman recently who said her boyfriend felt that neutering a dog was unmanly blah, blah, blah. All I could think was that she was dating a really stupid guy. I agree that owning a pitbull requires special attention and perhaps should have requirements like spaying and neutering and muzzling. If you have ever been to LHS you will see dozens of Pits and Pit mixes. It's tme to nip that population in the bud instead of having to destroy dog after dog because they are popular with some of our dumbest residents. To that same extent there are plenty of people who are dedicated and responsible and have done yeoman's work in saving and rehabilitating Pits who have been abused and neglected. Dogs are like cars or guns or a child in that some people should never be trusted with them as they cannot handle the responsibility.

i've referred only to statements made by the CDC

You really got to stop getting all your "hearsay facts" from pro pitbull groups -- here again are real facts from the CDC (click link):

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... g2=zfLEcj20krkEaWqYGil2VA

since people are interested, I do indeed dismiss any media reference regardless of which side of the argument it supports.

also, the example of me using "anecdotal evidence" is nothing more than my expectation, as noted in the first half of my sentence.

will the intelligence test include reading comprehension?

grovepath, i agree that dog bites are a terrible terrible thing that do a tremendous amount of harm and i further agree that something should be done about it.

The CDC has openly admitted that they use no formalized process or even trained individuals to track these statistics and have even gone so far as to completely retract the dog bite study they put out about 10 years ago.

It is terrible that this little girl was attacked, and I hope she heals quickly, both emotionally and physically.

Banning specific breeds is not an answer to dog bites. This very unfortunate incident happened because the owner could not control his dog. I've seen people with out of control golden retrievers, basset hounds and even chihuahuas. I know someone who suffered a bad bite on the leg from a Jack Russell terrier who escaped from the person walking it -- nearly the same situation as presented here.

On the contrary, I think de-stigmatizing the breed as a "tough guy" dog is the way to go. Pit Bulls, like Jack Russells or goldens, can be and are great family dogs. They are loving animals, but like any dog require a huge commitment in terms of obedience training. NOT training for fighting, "protecting", or training that encourages aggression, which is what sadly often occurs with these dogs.

Finally, a note on the actual application of a breed ban. How would you enforce such a thing? Most of the dogs people label as pit bulls that I see walking around town are not pure bred pits. (Go to a dog show and see a pure bred pit, and you'll see what I mean.) So, what are we talking about? What would constitute a pit bull? Most of these dogs don't have any kind of papers saying what they are, and most are a mix of rottie, staffordshire, shepherd and dozens of other breeds. (And don't say DNA testing, because they are ineffective at determining breeds). Would you ban any dog with a wide jaw? Well, then you would have to include American and French bulldogs, Boston terriers, rotties, pugs...the list goes on.

Demanding a breed ban is a knee jerk reaction to a terrible story like this. I understand the sentiment, but legislation needs to be a thought out, viable and pertinent-to-the-facts action, not an emotional response.

I can understand why some would want a ban on pit bulls, it seems to make sense on the surface. But how about putting a ban on bad owners? Of ALL breeds. You have to have a license and be properly trained to drive a car, otherwise it could be a potentially dangerous weapon, the same could be said for "dangerous" dog breeds. There are good dogs and bad dogs of EVERY breed. 99% of the time you can trace that back to the owners.

Of course, seeing the terrible public behavior of most children, and thier parents inability to give a shit, it would be doubtful most would be able to pass any test/class required to own a dog.

How do you feel about the CDC?

How big is the problem?

About 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year.

Almost one in five of those who are bitten :a total of 885,000: require medical attention for dog bite-related injuries.

In 2006, more than 31,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationa ... bites/biteprevention.html

This is anecdotal evidence.

Quote:

Quote:

So you don't accept references that link to the online archives of newspapers and tv stations detailing the 23 fatal dog attacks in the United States in 2008, all of which can be clicked on and read, yet you expect us to accept the references in a book almost none of us have read based on a blurb on Amazon.
By the way, thanks to Amazon's click to look inside feature, I was able to view the references in that book which include the San Francisco Chronicle (3 times) and, er, Bay Area News in Brief (3 times). I suppose you dismissed those as unreliable.

You have given me an idea though, perhaps there should be a basic intelligence test for pit bull owners.
Don't worry, you can always get a poodle or a cat.

i cited no evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) and personally do not consider "sourced from media reports" to be sufficiently reliable to be used as factual evidence. The sources cited by the book that catsanddogs posted include mostly scientific/academic studies that have been published.

also, an opinion of yours, whether i agree with it or not, does not show that you know what you are talking about. I'm not necessarily saying you don't but so far we have no real reason to believe you do.

Quote:

Says the man who cites anecdotal evidence.

The wikipedia articles I quote and link too are all sourced from media reports - the promo blurb for a book on Amazon that Cats'nDogs quotes is not.
Sounds to me like you're throwing in the towel when confronted with actual evidence.

To prove I am not biased and that I know what I am talking about, I do believe the UK's Dangerous Dogs act to be draconian and it was enacted in response to a frenzy whipped up by the tabloid press. That isn't to say that pit bulls aren't dangerous, most of the fatalities caused by dogs are by pit bulls.
The answer may not be breeding them out of existence but it certainly isn't burying your head in the sand and sulking when confronted with statistics that show that pit bulls can be dangerous.

ok people are using wikipedia and yahoo answers as sources to support thier arguments so I'll just wish this little girl the best of luck in her recovery and refrain from engaging in any back and forth here.

This straw argument comparing death tolls of pit bulls to lighting is just more crazy logic -- it is the huge number of dog attacks (well over 500,000 per year) that needs to be addressed!

Check out this website:

http://www.dog-bite-law-center.com/pit_bull_attacks.html

More enlightened countries such as England have already acted against cultural trends that led to widespread private ownership of pit bulls, a phenomenon we now have entrenched in the US. The Dangerous Dogs Act has been law in the UK since 1991! The law was introduced in response to numerous high profile incidents of serious injury or death resulting from attacks by aggressive and uncontrolled dogs, usually on children. These incidents received heavy media attention, which resulted in widespread public outrage over the keeping of dangerous dogs such as Pit bulls and led to the legislative response through passage of the Act banning them.

Several breeds in particular were identified by the Act including those dogs identified as Pit Bull Terriers.

It is illegal to own any of these dogs in England and the UK including Pit Bulls without specific exemption from a court of law. The dogs that are privately held are required to be muzzled and kept on a leash in public, they must be registered and insured, neutered and receive microchip implants. The Act also bans the breeding and exchange of pit bulls. The numbers of dog attacks and serious incidents has dropped dramatically all across the UK.

Read more:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ ... qid=20090807164643AASQpbi

As someone who was attacked by a pitbull, I am of the opinion that mandatory muzzling in public for these and similar breeds is the way to go. It won't stop domestic attacks, that's down to individual responsibility, but it will stop innocent bystanders getting attacked by potentially dangerous animals.

Wow, let's take a closer look at one of these "facts".

Quote:

"In the U.S., between 9 and 10% of those struck die,[3] for an average of 40 to 50 deaths per year (28 in 2008)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike

"News organizations reported 23 fatal dog attacks in the United States in 2008. The dog breed most commonly reportedly involved in these attacks were pit bull-type dogs (11 attacks), followed by Huskies (3 attacks)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... talities_reported_in_2010

So that's 23 vs 28 for the year 2008 a ratio of 1:1.2.
Furthermore, lightning is for the most part an unavoidable aspect of our existence, dangerous dogs and their selfish, blinkered, irresponsible owners are not.

More perspective on dog bites:

http://www.amazon.com/Dogs-Bite-Ballo ... s-Dangerous/dp/1888047186

"Dogs are dangerous. And they are more dangerous to children than to adults. Not as dangerous of course, as kitchen utensils, drapery cords, five-gallon water buckets, horses, or cows. Not nearly as dangerous as playground equipment, swimming pools, skateboards, or bikes. And not remotely as dangerous as family, friends, guns, or cars.

Here?s the reality. Dogs almost never kill people. A child is more likely to die choking on a marble or a balloon, and an adult is more likely to die in a bedroom slipper related accident. Your chances of being killed by a dog are roughly one in 18 million. You are twice as likely to win a super lotto jackpot on a single ticket than be killed by a dog. You are five times as likely to be killed by a bolt of lightning than be killed by a dog. Because it is so extraordinary, lightning is often regarded as a universal clich? for an Act of God. Dog-attack deaths are even more extraordinary?five times more extraordinary.

The supposed epidemic numbers of dog bites splashed across the media are absurdly inflated by dubious research and by counting bites that don?t actually hurt anyone. Even when dogs do injure people, the vast majority of injuries are at the Band-Aid level.

Dogs enhance the lives of millions more people than even the most inflated estimates of dog-bite victims. Search-and-rescue and cancer-detecting dogs save significant numbers of human lives, and assistance dogs enormously improve the quality of many more. Infants who live with dogs have fewer allergies. People with dogs have less cardiovascular disease, better heart attack survival, and fewer backaches, headaches, and flu symptoms. Petting your dog lowers stress and people who live with dogs just plain feel better than people who don?t.

Yet lawmakers, litigators, and insurers press for less dog ownership. This must stop. We must maintain perspective. Yes, dogs bite. But even party balloons and bedroom slippers are more dangerous.

?A tour-de-force examination of dog bites. Among other persuasive appeals for sanity, Janis Bradley has outed ?lumping?: the erroneous connection between kitchen-injury level bites and maiming or fatal dog attacks. She dares to be rational. Her rationality will?hopefully?raise the level of discussion in a topic mired in hysteria. Why do we get so excited about this particular class of injury?

Enter the irrational. Human brains are organs that evolved for a single over-arching purpose: to maximize the representation of genes possessed by an individual brain?s owner in subsequent generations. We evolved in a different environment than the one we currently inhabit, however. Because of this, we are genetically predisposed to learn to fear animals with pointy teeth much more than to fear, say, hurtling along in hunks of metal at sixty-five miles per hour. Our brains are also not reliable truth detection devices. Any instances of truth detection are lucky by-products of selection for reproductive success. Scientific method was developed because of the chronic, abysmal failure of our brains to dope out reality, coupled with a fascination to know truth. Our intuitions are flat-footed much of the time. Stephen Jay Gould once mused, ?the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause is probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning." If one searches the backgrounds of that small minority of dogs that kill people, lo and behold, many of them will have previously engaged in species-normal ritualized aggression: growls, snarls and kitchen-injury or less level bites in predictable contexts. This then becomes the foundation for the faulty causal leap, a slippery slope argument that says: if a dog is growly around his food dish, he will someday seriously hurt or kill someone. What is omitted is that a significant percentage of all dogs engage in species-normal ritualized aggression and the overwhelming majority will never hurt, much less kill, anyone. A sign

Quote: Yes, I understand the meaning of the word. My issue was with the way it is used in headlines to create more of a dramatic effect. The layperson reading the headlines is going to react stronger to the term MAULING than they would if it said BITTEN.

I don't believe in BSL banning pit bulls, or other breeds, but I think legislation mandating muzzles in public is a good compromise. But, to the person complaining about the use of the word mauling, or the verb itself, there is nothing wrong with that. Mauling is, by definition, what happens when a person is attacked and injured by a dog. Don't take my word for it. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition: Definition of MAUL transitive verb 1: beat, bruise 2: mangle (see below) 3: to handle roughly Definition of MANGLE transitive verb 1: to injure with deep disfiguring wounds by cutting, tearing, or crushing 2: to spoil, injure, or make incoherent especially through ineptitude

Don't ban pitbulls, just mandate obligatory muzzles while out of doors.

That way the general public will be protected, while the families of pitbull owners, well, you know...

The National Canine Research Council publishes, underwrites, and reprints accurate, documented, reliable research to promote a better understanding of our relationship with dogs.

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/

On breed specific legislation:

"For example, in order to prevent a single hospitalization resulting from a dog bite, the authors calculate that a city or town would have to ban more than 100,000 dogs of a targeted breed. To prevent a second hospitalization, double that number."

See link below:

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil. ... ilable%20in%20JAVMA-2.pdf


"[in Miami Dade County FL] Two decades of breed specific legislation has produced no positive results."

See link below:

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil. ... d_files/tinymce/miami_fnl[1].pdf

Lastly, the "Pitbull Placebo: the Media, Myths and Politics of Cannine Aggression" is very informative and can be downloaded free at

http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil. ... Bull_Placebo_download.pdf

Quote:

German Shepherds are more dangerous? Thank you for posting that. Now I know you are out of your mind and I can take what you post with a grain of salt.

People who own and love Pitbulls understandably think 'this could never be 'my dog' and they are very likely correct. However, like any animal or person, you never really know. Things go wrong in brains in people and animals, temperaments change they get sick or injured etc.

I can't see banning any dog breed, but when you have a big, strong animal as a pet you should also be required to take some extra precautions, higher fences, bigger fines for not having a leash etc.

Most responsible owners already take those precautions.

Quote:
And you never will only the city council and the mayor will vote on such an issue.

i'd never expect my pit bulls or 99.9% of other pit bulls to reliably defend me. they are not guard dogs.

in response to the banning of pit bulls, why do you believe that there are no vets or people who have devoted thier academic, professional or personal lives to the study of dogs that have come out in agreement with a breed ban?

i am yet to see anyone who supports a breed ban with a formal education or professional involvement with animals.