Pitbulls: These Dogs Present a Special Risk to Non-Owners and Owners Alike:
pitbulls, Laws/Legality/Legislation
They were primarily used in the rural south for this purpose. Later, however, with the advent of herding machines that were used to control the herds, the bull-dog ultimately disappeared from the scene. The terrier, on the other hand, was primarily bred and designed to kill rats that ended up on board ships with immigrants who crossed over from the old world to the United States. Hence, the terrier provides the pitbull with the aggressive and combative temperament. Later, however, British bulldogs, which were much tougher and had a much more powerful jaw also came into existence. Hence, the pitbull that's known here in the United States today developed what's known as the "steel-trap" or locking jaw.
All of this is not to say that OTHER dogs don't have a ferocious temperament, or can't inflict serious damage when they bite, because they can. However, (some of you may well disagree with me here, which is OK), the pitbull poses a special risk to non-owners AND owners alike. Here's why: First of all, pitbulls, unlike most dogs, have been bred primarily for fighting, and as attack dogs. Their genetic breeding (a combo of bulldog & terrier) gives it the kind of temperament that makes many owners and other people select such dogs to train as fighters. Drug dealers often use them to protect their stash of drugs and territory, and other people who train them for dog fights train them to fight to the death, which pitbulls often will do.
This is not to say that ANY dog, under certain circumstances, can't snap and become aggressive and combative. However, unlike most dogs, including dobermans, rottweilers, and some other species, pitbulls have what is called a "steel-trap", or locking jaw, which is actually constructed differently than the jaws of most other dogs. Unlike most dogs, who will bite and immediately release their hold and back off, and then bite again if they want, and also immediately release their grip, pitbulls tend to not only bite, but to clamp down and hold on to their prey, and have even been known to shake their prey around like a toy, unlike most dogs.
More to the point, unlike other dogs, the bite of a pitbull actually penetrates into the musculature of their prey, therefore inflicting even more horrific damage. Babies and small children have been attacked without provocation and even killed by pitbulls. There was a horrific story last fall of a 12-year-old boy in San Francisco who was killed when two pitbulls that were not muzzled by the owners, attacked, mauled and killed the boy in a San Francisco park. A few years before, a woman was attacked and killed by two pit-bulls in her San Francisco apartment building, also without provocation, when the owners did not keep them under control and muzzled.
Earlier this year, (I saw this on the 11 o'clock news), a 16-year-old girl in suburban Belmont, MA., was walking her dog one evening when they were attacked by an unmuzzled pitbull. The pitbull bit, clamped down and started to shake the girl's dog around like a toy. The 16-year-old girl bravely went and pried the pitbull's jaws off of her dog. Both she and her dog sustained some rather nasty-looking injuries, which left some deep scars; they were treated, and were OK.
Another horrific case occurred in Boston, where a woman's dog was severely mauled and seriously injured when an unmuzzled pitbull attacked them. A neighbor who was walking by came to the woman and dog's aid and rescued the woman and her pet dog by clubbing the pitbull to death with a baseball bat. The dog who was attacked barely survived. Back earlier this year, also, in downtown Boston, an out-of-controll pitbull attacked a police officer, who ended up having to shoot the pitbull in order to get the pitbull off of him. This occurred in broad daylight, and there were many people around. There was a potential danger here too--the unmuzzled pitbull could've also resulted in an innocent bystander getting hurt or killed.
Contrary to what many people believe, it's not just "the owner". Pitbulls are not like any other dog. Not only are their bites more dangerous and inflict much deeper, more serious injury than the bites of most other dogs, but pitbulls are even more likely than other dogs to attack just out of the blue, without any provocation whatsoever, which in all the above-mentioned cases, the pitbull did.
Furthermore, even a pitbull who has supposedly been "bred to be gentle" can and will snap, and attack out of the blue, with horrific results. I know a woman whose family had a dog who was a pitbull mix when she was growing up. When she was quite small, the dog turned and attacked her out of the blue, biting her in the face, clamping down on her nose and holding on, until the father finally got the dog off, and, ultimately got rid of it. The woman has a deep scar on her nose because of that incident. Not surprisingly, pitbulls have also been known to turn on their owners in a number of cases.
Here's what the pitbull restrictions law entails (or would entail):
All pitbull owners are required to have their pitbulls on a leash AND to have them muzzled when taking them out in public. Owners are also required to put warning signs outside their property to warn guests, clients, meter readers, etc., of the presence of pitbulls on the property. I believe that, since pitbulls DO present a special danger, not so much because of their temperaments, but because of their bites, that this is not so much to ask of the pitbull's owner. The owner is NOT being asked to get rid of his/her pet, but to take the responsibility that goes along with owning a pitbull.
Having said all of the above, I believe that if and when the owner of a pitbull refuses to complly with this law s/he should be prepared to take the responsibility for the consequences. If, for example, the owner of a pitbull refuses to muzzle his/her pitbull when s/he takes their dog out in public and the dog seriously injures or kills a person, or another person's pet, the pitbull's owner should be prepared to pay the doctor's and/or veterinary bills that the injured person or the owner of the injured or dead pet would ordinarily end up paying, OR, be faced with a stiff fine, and/or short imprisonment by the city if the pitbull owner doesn't complay, AND, be prepared to pay the cost of the funeral/burial/crematorial processes that would ordinarily be paid for by the injured or dead pet's owner.
All of the above having been said, I believe that the pitbull restriction is perfectly moderate and reasonable, and a way to address what is a real public safety issue without putting undue hardship on pet owners. To reiterate my position on this subject, while it's important to keep dogs on a leash when taking them out in public, and to train and control them, it's especially important that pitbulls be kept under forceful control, due to the special risks that these particular dogs present.
- independentminded's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Dogs
I think pit bull dogs should be outlawed in urban and suburban areas of the country. They are dangerous and I am not interested in having local gov't spend time and money regulating this type of dog breed. There are lots of other dog breeds people can have.
name the enemy, win the war
You've made a very good point, sandbox.
Pitbulls are really not meant to have as pets, and, in fact, they have been outlawed in some cities here in the United States, including Chicago. Why anybody would want a dog that presents the kind of risk(s) that pitbulls present is beyond belief.
Torn
I guess this is where I break from some of my liberal counterparts and say that, while I do think they pose a dangerous risk, the owners are often more culpable for their behavior than the dog itself. Personal responsibility. It is a sad fact that those with some macho agenda will often choose this type of dog to show 'masculinity' and toughness, and that is where I think the problem lies.
As you stated, almost any dog can snap, and for this reason I think it is both poor parenting and poor dog ownership to allow a child, especially those under 14 of age to be around a dog either unsupervised or near the vicinity of a dog's face. I have a husky and a one and a half year old, and I watch my dog like a hawk when my child is around. I know that this is not possible for every parent (and I'm sure my dog and child might interact at times unknowingly to me), but it seems people have a general misunderstanding of dog behavior (wolf-pack ideology if you will including hierarchies, feeding priority, pack acceptance, the dangers of making eye contact and being in the area of a dog's face, the purpose of walks, and patterns of habit--walk, eat, walk, poop, rest). Knowing these aspects of dog's instincts can make life easier for the pet owner and for the dog. Instead, most people treat dogs as ornaments instead of purposely choosing a dog for their lifestyle.
I agree with your regulations as far as protecting the public, but I am not in favor of outright bans. People can pay a higher licensing fee, take classes, and follow most of your reasonable points if they wish to own a pitbull, but I think 'bans' are not a solution as it will cause a lot of needless suffering from abandonment of pets.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
Specter--
When they tried to implement the pitbull restriction in Boston, they were
not asking people who already own pitbulls to get rid of their pets. It's agreed that this would be absolutely and totallly unrealistic. However, the reason the restriction(s) came about is because pitbulls do present a special public safety risk. I heard of something on 60 Minutes, where a family who owned a pitbull was always very comfortable about having the pitbull around their 2-year-old daughter, because it was always (supposedly) quite gentle. Unfortunately, 2 weeks after the filming and interviews, the pitbull attacked and killed the 2-year-old.
wow
that is a pretty bad incident... I think knowing what we know about pitbulls the penalties should be a lot harsher for careless handling of such dangerous dogs.
More education and more stringent laws in punishing people whose pitbulls are left to do horrible things might be a good idea. I am also not sure about bans.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The restrictions on pitbulls that they tried to implement here
were not for the purpose of making pitbull owners get rid of their pets, but to take the responsibilities that go along with owning a dog that does present such a perilous risk: Muzzliing the dog when taking it out in public, and if there are guests, small children, clients, and meter-readers, etc. around. Putting warning signs about the presence of a pitbull(s) in or around the premises, is also a sensible way to do it, also. Keeping the dog tethered and muzzled, especially when guests and small children and infants are around, and when out in public with the pitbull(s) is of utmost importance, imo.
When I think of an all-out banning of pitbulls,
I think that, rather than making it so that people who already own pitbulls are forced to get rid of their pets, efforts should be made at the state, local, and national levels to absolutely and totally halt the breeding, importing and selling of pitbulls..at the source. Law enforcement people should also be involved in this effort as well.
However, forcing pitbull owners to take the necessary responsibility for owning their pets is necessary and should occur.
I can't disagree with that
Actually with your entire comment... There is no reason to continue breeding such unstable and dangerous dogs.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Very good point, Ender. Thanks.
It 's agreed--the breeding of pitbulls should be discontinued, and the breeders of these dangerous dogs be put out of business altogether.
We have known for many years
that pit bulls are dangerous. I would outlaw them on a date certain, say one or two years hence, then no more pit bulls in the jurisidtion. This is a public safety issue and a good example of how public safety has to overrule personal taste in dogs. Some of the above suggestions keep requiring the local gov't to police and keep track of pit bulls, fine people, register, etc. IMO Why bother?
name the enemy, win the war
Point well-taken, sandbox.
Precisely because pitbulls are so dangerous, it's a good idea to outlaw anymore pitbulls or pitbull mixes, for that matter, to be bred, imported, and/or sold. There are several reasons, I think, that people buy pitbulls:
A): To exude a sort of macho toughness and pride from owning such a "tough"dog, and the status.
B) Pitbulls are often sold for a considerably cheaper price than other dogs, and, therefore, many people who can't afford other types of dogs or other pets, can and will obtain pitbulls for pets. What's unfortunate in this respect is the fact that some people are that desperate for a pet that they're willing to put themselves at risk like that.
Outlawing Pitbulls doesn't look into the WHY
It's the WHY, people... not the breed. Pitbulls may be close to the top of the staggering percentage of dog related deaths. Because of that, it's easy to make the underinformed argument that Pitbulls are the problem, and that they should simply be removed from society. It takes much more effort to have a research-based opinion than it does to see the surface information, and base an opinion on that. Point being: it's easier to have independentminded's opinion because it involves less work. It doesn't look into the deeper and truer CAUSE of the problem.
When you start looking a little deeper into the dog death statistics, the numbers tell a different tale. According to "Fatal Dog Attacks, the Stories Behind the Statistics," by Karen Delise there were 431 deaths because of dog attacks in the years from 1965 to 2001. Children 12 younger were the victims in 79 percent of the fatal attacks.
In 37 years, 342 children were killed by dogs, an average of about nine children a year. Shockingly, approximately three children are killed each day, or 1,100 per year, by their parents. Delise notes that "A child in the United States is over 100 times more likely to be killed by his or her parent or caretaker than by a dog."
Even more surprising is that approximately 50 infants die each year from broken baby cribs, and 250 newborns die at the hands of their parents or guardians. In comparison, two infants, on average, die a year from dog attacks.
Pit bull and pit mixes account for 21 percent of those human fatalities, while mixed breed dogs account for 16 percent and other nonspecified breeds, 15 percent. Delise's study demonstrates that the breed of dog should not be the sole factor by which an attack is judged. Other factors include inherited and learned behaviors, genetics, breeding, temperament, surgical sterilization, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim behavior, size and age, timing, and the physical condition and the size of dog.
Of the 28 dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000 and 2001, 26 were males and two were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were sexually intact; the reproductive status of the remaining five male dogs could not be determined. The male dog that killed the 12-year-old boy in San Francisco was protecting his female dog in heat.
An owner's understanding of dogs, supervision of dogs and children, sterilization and chaining as a primary means of confinement all can play roles in attacks. Whether dogs were obtained for protection, guarding, fighting, are newly acquired or not properly introduced to newborns are among other issues.
And I just thought I'd point out that the dogs that killed the woman in her apartment building were Presa Canarios, not Pitbulls. That sort of misunderstanding happens all the time, and illustrates another problem with BSL. "Misidentification". But I won't get into that, nor will I go into any of the other NUMEROUS reasons why BSL against Pitbulls isn't a viable solution.
My only request, and the only request of all dog lovers out there is that you don't judge without knowing all the facts. Do your research, put the effort into having a well-rounded opinion, and don't be what amounts to a dog racist. Choose education and not defamation. Our society, and the world in general would be a better place if everybody did.
Food for thought
particularly the point about neutered dogs being less aggressive.
Still, what's the harm in attempting to phase out pitbulls by regulating breeding? Most dog fights involve pitbulls, so you'd also be preventing animal cruelty.
As you say there are many things that an owner can do to minimize the risk of attacks, but sadly we know that some owners won't go to the effort to properly care for their pet, perhaps allowing it to present a danger to others.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Phasing out Pitbulls
The problem with phasing out Pitbulls, as pointed out early by the statistics, is that it's not Pitbulls that are the problem. I'm not opposed to registration for all large breed dogs. Make it something like getting a driver's or gun license. Make sure that the person attempting to purchase and own a large breed dog can handle the dog both physically and mentally. But to point out Pitbulls for extermination is the height of stupidity because it doesn't really address the problem.
Now people can point to the statements of the owners of the Pitbulls that attack if they want. But you show me a person who says "my dog has all it's life been gentle and never shown a warning sign, but he just all of the sudden snapped", and I'll show you a person who's either lying to cover his/her own neglectful/irresponsible ownership of the dog, or simply doesn't know how to read a dog.
Again, it's the WHY these dogs do what they do that needs to be looked into, and that WHY isn't "because it's a Pitbull." That's like saying this guy robbed a little old lady "because he's black". Again, it's dog racism, and should be tolerated as much as human racism.
I have to disagree with you here, hepeedonmyrug.
"The male dog that killed the 12-year-old boy in San Francisco was protecting his female dog in heat."
And this is an excuse for a dog's owner allowing their dog to kill the 12-year-old boy??!!? Oh, no--I don't think so. There was no justification in the dog's owner allowing that to happen. Imho, the fact that the dog's owner allowed the dog to kill the young boy just because he was protecting his female partner in heat is totally beyond comprehension!
This cry of "dog racists" and "dog racism" is pure poppycock, imo. I've done my research and I stand by my positions. Also, even a number of pitbull advocates acknowledge the fact that owning a pitbull(s) carries a much higher risk than owning other types of dogs, therefore requiring more vigilance and more work.
Frankly, owning a dog like that without taking the necessary responsibilities is the height of folly---and stupidity.
You're not exactly disagreeing with me, independentminded.
"And this is an excuse for a dog's owner allowing their dog to kill the 12-year-old boy??!!?"
I have never, nor WILL ever excuse a dog for harming(much less killing) a human being without adequate provocation. The point I was making is that it's more likely the dog attacked the 12-year-old because he was intact in combination with having an in-heat female to protect, being recently moved, and more than likely not getting proper excercise and discipline. The reason is not "because it was a Pitbull", like you're suggesting.
So I guess you could say that I'm one of those Pitbull advocates who acknowledges that the breed is a very powerful one that requires a certain type of owner. All large breed dogs do whether it be Rottweilers, any variation of Mastiff, Wolf Hounds, Labradors, American Bulldogs, and on and on. If not given the proper exercise and discipline , any dog can and will become unbalanced. And that imbalance can cause any number of problems like chewing up couches, being a fearful dog, mounting, playing too roughly, running away, and AGGRESSION. If the human exercises and disciplines their dog properly, these problems don't exist. I know from experience.
So if you're advocating requiring that people learn how to properly exercise and discipline their animals before they're able to purchase them, make them carry around dog licenses like driver's licenses, and enacting laws that make owners more responsible for the actions of their pets, I'm all for that. But outlawing a specific breed is absolute stupidity. Address the problem, and the solution will make more sense for everybody. Outlawing Pitbulls isn't addressing the problem, and creating BSL will only create a monster of an ADDITIONAL problem that local police officers will have to clean up without even really addressing the original problem. Now THAT is the height of folly.
Gotta say, I've enjoyed this whole discussion
I realize you two don't quite see eye to eye but it seems the gap is not that wide. I've certainly learned a lot about pitbulls!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Good to hear, Brendan.
It's the headlines that people remember if they don't look into any given story further, and those headlines have done a lot of damage to the name "Pitbull" over the last 20 years or so. So, I hope it's positive Pitbull info you've learned here, and not negative.
hepeedonmyrug, I still stand by my position(s)
that pitbulls really do pose considerably more risk than many, if not most other dogs because of the reasons that I pointed out originally, and that even a number of pitbulls advocates acknowledge the fact that pitbulls not only require even more vigilance, but are much tougher to breed and take care of than other dogs, because of their temperament.
Let's take a look at those positions, Indie... in order.
1. Regarding the origins of the pitbull: I won't combat too much about your explanation of how the pitbull came into being, other than the "locking jaw" part. FALSE. Absolute fallacy based on nothing but rumor. Total BUNK. There have been studies on this, and the rumor of the "steel trap" is an urban myth. You say your positions are based in FACT? You position on "locking jaws" is proof against that statement. Again, BUNK!
2. Regarding dogs shaking their toys/prey: all dogs shake they're toys/prey. I've seen Labradors, Shi Tzu's, and Shiba Inu's shake a toy they're playing with. Some toys have squeakers in them for a reason. They sound like rodents. So when the dog bites, the squeak sounds making most dog's prey instinct kick in. In turn, the dog continues to chew, shake, and play with the toy because their prey drive tells them to go until the squeaking stops. But that's a different subject. Shaking is a DOG thing, not a pitbull thing. Appropriating a tribute, that ALL dogs share, to one specific breed for the purposes of making an argument is one of those things where it's not a lie to say, but it's certainly not a whole truth when not including the rest of the dog species in making your statement. This is a partial truth with which you're basing your position making your position on this BUNK.
3. Regarding pitbulls penetrating musculature: dude, they're dogs! All dogs can do this, with the possible exception of toy breeds and dogs of similar size (and even then, they probably can if the musculature can fit in they mouths). Dogs, in nature, are carnivores. Eating the musculature of another animal is not only common place, but a necessity. But this is another instance where the pitbull is appropriated a trait that just about any other dog has. Most all can penetrate musculature. Again, a half truth. Again a BUNK position.
4. Regarding the lack of provocation: there are ALWAYS warning signs, and I'll get to this point shortly.
5. Regarding the 12-year-old boy: this is obviously very tragic, but the part of the tragedy that nobody pays attention to is the boys mother's (or was it grandmother's?) story regarding her pitbulls. She admitted that the female was in heat, and that the intact male had previously growled and shown teeth to visitors. Add to that she admits to leaving the dogs in her basement where they got little exercise and human contact. That sounds like a more comprehensive reason for the dog to have attacked, doesn't it? An intact male who's previously shown signs of dominance and aggression is left unsupervised with a 12-year-old boy and a bitch in heat. That takes a little more brain power to come up with than the "because it's a pitbull" excuse, doesn't it? But so few are willing to exercise their brains to come up with that conclusion. The bottom line is that in the dog's eyes, there was provocation. I'm not saying it's right at all, and I really felt terribly for the family when I heard the story. But this notion that the dog attacked without any warning is BUNK! She had plenty of warning. She just preferred to ignore it.
6. Regarding the woman in her apartment building: those dogs were Presa Canario's, not pitbulls, and they didn't attack without provocation. The owners of the dogs pushed them to aggression towards the woman because she was a lesbian, which is why the owners are serving jail time right now. They were held responsible for the death of the woman. The judgment that placed the owners in jail should be applauded. All other dog owners should be given a similar when their dog takes the life of a human being. But this position your holding is also BUNK because it's not based in truth. It's based in incorrectly identifying the dogs as pitbulls when, in truth, they were not, and also that you say there was not provocation, because of the dog owners involvement in the crime. 2 BUNKS there.
7. Regarding the 16-year-old girl fighting off the pitbull and the other stories about pitbulls running off leash: aren't you contradicting your own statement that these dogs have "locking jaws" here? Surely if the jaw was able to lock down on a beloved pet, a 16-year-old girl wouldn't not be able to "pry the pitbull's jaws off her dog", right? And dogs that are allowed to run off leash unsupervised will do that. They will attack. I was attacked by a stray Labrador-mix a couple of years ago a couple of blocks from my house. Earlier in life, I saw my own dog attacked by an unrestrained Chow Chow. When I was 10 or so, my sister was bitten by an unrestrained Rottweiler. All of these stories required some sort of emergency medical attention. But somehow none of these cases made news, but then again, neither case was a pitbull either. So BUNK again on this "locking jaw" nonsense, and as evidenced by my own personal testimony, unrestrained dogs can be hazardous, no matter the breed.
8. Regarding the statement "pitbulls are even more likely than other dogs to attack just out of the blue, without any provocation whatsoever, which in all the above-mentioned cases, the pitbull did," and the subsequent line about the lady with the scar on her nose and pitbulls turning on their owners: no dog, whether it be pitbull, Rottweiler, Doberman, Chihuahua, or Pomeranian attacks without showing some sort of warning sign, as I've said on more than one occasion in this thread. I'll repeat my earlier statement. Show me a dog in which the owner says it "snapped", and I'll show you a dog owner who's either lying to cover up his/her own irresponsible ownership of the dog, or an owner who doesn't know how to read his/her dog. Dogs, if given proper exercise and discipline, are all well-behaved, stand-out pets who offer nothing but loving and unconditional companionship. On the other hand, any dog of any breed that's tied to a tree in a back yard, and left alone can do serious damage to strangers and family members alike. Think of it this way. I tie you to a tree for the first 15 or 20 years of your existence. How balanced/sane are you in year 19 and 20? Same thing with leaving a dog in a house all the time. YOU have to stay in a house for your entire life, only able to go outside occasionally to go to the bathroom, or possibly a 1/2 mile stroll through the neighborhood. How is your state-of-mind in your 40's and 50's? Pretty solid? Do you have a healthy outlook on life and the world in general? No you don't. Dogs are not different in this respect. The "out of the blue" argument is BUNK because it's a ABSOLUTE, UNADULTERATED, AND UNFOUNDED LIE with no scientific backing. It's rumor-mongering in one of it's most effective forms... fear-driven gossip. Dogs can't speak for themselves, Indie, which is why this fear-gossip does so much damage.
If you're trying to stand on your positions as FACT, you're doing a pretty poor job of it here, Indie. In fact, I believe, when breaking it down, you saying your positions are based on fact-based research is an outright false statement. I do admit, I get really frustrated with the BSL fans out there who don't bother looking deeper into the stories they take so deeply to heart. The headlines for those stories are what these people base their opinions on, and I'm not sure you're not one of them, Indie. Actually, I have little doubt that you are one. I do have hope that you will do the right thing though, and look deeper into this "problem", and find some the real truth beneath it all. Find the stats out there like the ones I mentioned regarding dog attacks in the last half century. When you do, you can come to no other conclusion than that the problem is not pitbulls. It's 99.99 percent of the time the owner who is responsible for the actions of his/her dog, whether he/she knows it or not. I'm not against stiffer dog ownership laws(as previously stated, I'm actually in favor of stricter dog ownership laws), but I am against BSL. Again, it's dog racism, Indie, and you're perpetuating it with your positions on it, positions that are, again, based in rumor and fear-mongering, not fact.
I have to disagree with you, hepeedonmyrug.
Most dogs do not shake their prey around in their mouths like a toy. Most dogs, when they bite, just immediately release their jaws, back off and then bite again, if they desire. Pitbulls, unlike most dogs, just hold on and don't let go.
Contrary to your belief that the aggression and tendency to fight can be bred out of the pitbull by an owner is just pure bunk, imo. Pitbulls were bred to fight, and fight is what they'll do. Also, there's a reason why pitbulls
are chosen for breeding for dogfights: Their genetic breeding (i. e. a cross between the bulldog and terrier) makes them prime dogs for use in dogfights.
I don't really care what you think of my opinions/positions, hepeedonmyrug. I stand by them, expecially because I've talked to people who either own or who've owned pitbulls, and they, too acknowledge the fact that pitbulls require much more vigilance and work for breeding, and that they can do more damage than other dogs when they bite, and because they do pose a bigger risk overall, than most dogs.
Again, I stand by my positions on this issue. Moreover, hepeedonmyrug, you
had no right whatsoever to hijack my thread on bicycling, which is a totally different subject to suggest that I look at your comment on this one.
All I'm saying is that your opinions aren't based on fact.
And you've done nothing to prove me right with this post. It's all based on word-of-mouth and fear, and not on fact and seriously thought through ideas. It's all reaction based on the headlines you see without reading the whole story, and then asking questions about the condition of the dog's ownership. If that's your prerogative, fine. You've your right to think that way, but it's under informed rumor-mongering as opposed to passing factual data on to people. That much, you should at least admit.
And HIJACKING would be me going to your thread and forcing the conversation to change with multiple posts regarding any certain topic that isn't on subject with the original intent of the post. I didn't do that. Plus, if I didn't have the write to post just about whatever I wanted to, I wouldn't have been able to post what I did. So get over it.
21 percent of attacks, but what is the population?
Example:
If 21% of the deaths were pit bulls, but pit bulls and mixes only make up 2% of the dog population that would show a MUCH higher level of danger than mixed and nonspecificed breeds making up 31% of attacks if they were, say 30% of the dog population.
Do you the population side of the statistics?
That's a GREAT question.
Unfortunately, nobody keeps accurate records of dog population. The AKC keeps a tally of dogs registered every year, but they don't recognize the pitbull as a breed. The best statistics I've found have come from animal shelters. Many say that one in every 5 dogs that come into the shelter are pitbulls or pitbull types. Obviously that number varies with each shelter you talk to, but in my personal expercience, that number sounds about right, if not a little low.
But I can assure you that it's a MUCH higher number than 2% of the dog population, and my personal opinion is that pitbulls are right up there with Labrador Retrievers in terms of popularity, possibily higher. In my neck of the woods, they're everywhere.
Shelters are a bad data point
There is too high a chance of correlation. People worry about Pit Bulls more than other dogs, get worried, and take it to the shelter.
Several pro-pit bull sites even refer to them as over-represented at shelters.
Yeah... I can see that, I suppose.
There's not really any data points out there though, knocienz. Nobody keeps accurate enough records. That's one of the real problems with this whole thing. While I believe that pitbulls are probably the most popular dog breed out there, there's really no way to prove it.
Also, hepeedonmyrug,
It's not every kind of dog that had to be clubbed to death with a baseball bat because the pitbull clamped down on a woman's dog and didn't let go until one of her neighbors who happened to be walking by clubbed the pitbull to death with a baseball bat. No, hepeedonmyrug, most types of dogs do not need to be clubbed or shot to death in order to force them to let go of their prey.
So I guess...
... all African-Americans fight dogs since Mike Vick does, right? What can be applied to one can be applied to all? You're wrong about the shaking thing. You're wrong about the breeding(if you can breed a temperament into a dog, how does it make ANY sense that you CAN'T breed that temperament out?). But you maybe right about the more vigilance thing. As I've stated earlier, all large breed dogs should be required a licensing and registration process, and as part of that process, the person applying should be guaged on whether they can handle a large(and pontentially dangerous) dog both physically and mentally. I'm down for that. All dog breeds if given proper ownership are calm, beautiful creatures. On the other hand, a dog that's left alone in a back yard or home without exercise and proper human direction can turn into a monster.
Again, you're entitled to your opinion, Indie, and you have the right to discuss the topic without facts if that's what you so choose. But passing your opinions off as fact is morally wrong because of the damage it can do to entire groups of people and animals.
Again, I disagree with you, since I've never seen ordiinary dogs
shake their prey around in their mouths like toys the way pitbulls do. Fighting is in these dogs' DNA, and to say that what I'm saying amounts to "dog racism" is a bunch of baloney, imo. Also, temperament in dogs, as in people and other animals, is determined by a number of things, both internal and external. Therefore, temperament cannot be totally bred out of a person or animal. Pitbulls aren't meant to have as pets, and, since they're bred to fight, they'll end up fighting no matter what. What Mike Vick, and other rogues do, by engaging these dogs to fight, torturte them, etc., is undoubtedly criminal. I myself refuse to give anybody, regardless of ethnicity, race, color or religion or socioeconomic background who gets off on torturing animals or humans a pass, because it's disgusting. Quite frankly, these pitbulls were bred specifically for fighting, which is why they're chosen for that kind of unethical and illegal sport. Therefore, the best way to deal with this awful situation is to make the breeding, sales and imports of pitbulls illegal and ban the breeding of them altogether. Many places have banned pitbulls entirely, or put restrictions on them because they can be extremely dangerous. DNA and breeding have made these dogs dangerous, that's true, but again, they're bred like that for a reason--because of their toughness and DNA. Genetics has been found to play a substantial role in various behaviour patterns in animals as well as humans. To compare my opinions on pitbulls to the position that the KKK takes on African Americans and other nonwhites, is pure poppycock, imo. Pitbulls aren't meant to have as pets, but, if people are going to own a dog like that, they should be prepared to take the responsibility.
Again, let's talk facts and sense, Indie, not opinion.
You've never seen ordinary dogs shake their toys? Click the links to these videos it took me less than 20 seconds to find, and you'll see all sorts of breeds shaking their toys.
1. Here's a Blue Healer-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19fpTy2gDyI
2. Here's what looks to be a Lab/Akita mix-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zvNlo3j8Vw&mode=related&search
=
3. Here's what I think is a Bichon Frise-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5551037706273725613&q=dog+shake+toy&total=293&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
4. I'm not sure what this is, but I'm positive it's not a pitbull. Maybe a Maltese?-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8831449577917417082&q=dog+shake+toy&total=293&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
5. And this is the last one I feel like posting, but I can find many more if I felt the need to go with more examples. Here's a German Shorthaired Pointer-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9094148109701756576&q=dog+shake+toy&total=293&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7
If none of these work, simply go to youtube.com, and type in the search bar "dog shakes toy", and see what you find.
Regarding genes, you're talking about your gossip-based opinion when it comes to genetics. Not facts. I challenge you, and I do mean CHALLENGE, to find me(and everybody else who's read or will read this thread) the scientific proof that a pitbull's genetic make-up predestines it to dangerous temperament. Your stance is that you can breed "gameness" into a dog, but can't breed it out of a dog. That makes ZERO sense. Who's talking poppycock now?
And who are you to say that pitbulls aren't meant as pets? If you're basing your opinions on FACT, how can you make this statement? You admit that many criteria go into the making of a dog's temperament, yet you harp on only one portion, and it's not even the biggest determining factor in whether a dog has a good temperament or a bad. You breeze right over the owner's involvement, which is a MUCH bigger determining factor than a dog's DNA.
But you know what? All this is coming from me, a guy who you don't know. Take a look at the following link. It's a story filled with quotes from probably the most recognizable name in dog psychology, the Dog Whisperer, Cesar Millan. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060527/dog_whisperer_060527?s_name=&no_ads
=
Man, you're just dead wrong. If you read that article, and say to yourself, "that guy(Millan or myself) is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about," then the only poppycock being spouted off around her is by you when discussing your postions non-factually backed, fear-gossip driven OPINIONS on pitbulls.
Poppycock is defined as "senseless talk". A quote from your previous post:
"Also, temperament in dogs, as in people and other animals, is determined by a number of things, both internal and external. Therefore, temperament cannot be totally bred out of a person or animal."
When first read, this statement almost makes no sense, but upon further review, it goes to support my position. Tempermant is determined by this more than any other criteria that can be mentioned combined. The ownership of the dog. The ownership of the dog determines it's temperamental fate, not it's breed.
I really don't care about your position, hepeedonmyrug,
since I stand by mine!!
And so proud you must be
to be standing on such a position... very proud, indeed!
What a stupid analogy, hepeedonmyrug! Really!!
Comparing my opinion on pitbulls with racist positions on African-Americans or other non-white groups is a bunch of B. S., imo.
The analogy makes perfect sense, Indie.
And if it doesn't make sense to you, maybe it's not the analogy that's stupid. Maybe it's your stubborn, thick-headed, and gossip-driven positions on pitbulls. Maybe those are what is a bunch of BS here.
Indie, my goal is not to flame you here, man. It's just to get you to see the truth, and stop believing in this fantasy that pibulls are these horrific monsters that serve no purpose but to destroy. They are WONDERFUL family pets when given exactly what they need by their owners, and their needs align with the needs of all domestic dogs. They need exercise and a firm, fair hand. THAT's the truth of all this.
"You can lead a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink. You can put a man through school, but you cannot make him think." -Ben Harper
Hey!! Listen, hepeedonmyrug, I hate to break this to you but,
first of all, you've become extremely insulting and abusive, which I won't accept from you or anybody here, for that matter. Secondly, the analogy isn't logical. As with people and other animals, the temperament of dogs is determined by both internal and external factors. While environmental factors and experience determine the outcome of temperament, so, too, do biological and genetic factors. More and more, it's been proven that a genetic basis for behaviour also exists. Instincts cannot be completely and totally bred out of humans, dogs, or other animals.
For example: although Beagles make wonderful pets (my sister has had two of them, and has one for a pet still), they were originally bred as hunting dogs. One of the things that I've noticed about Beagles is their tendency to walk with their noses to the ground. That is a hunting dog's instinct, and not every dog does that. So, this is an example that I'm giving you about how instincts/temperament cannot be completely and totally bred out of
dogs, humans, or other animals.
Hepeedonmyrug, I'm not interested in your so-called truths, or altering my arguments to satisfy you or anybody else. Period !
Quite frankly, hepeedonmyrug, since you've begun insulting me, I'll do likewise to you: You are one of the nastiest people I've ever met online.
My honest and sincere apologies, Indie.
There are a few subjects in which I can get pretty hot under the collar about, and this is one of them. The semi-insults were wrong of me, and I'd like to say that I'm sorry for heaving them at you. I really mean that. Regarding the "you're one of the nastiest people" comment, I say you've probably not dealt with a lot of people online, imo. There are far nastier people out there than me. But again, for the nastiness I did project on you, I am sorry for that.
You do make a valid point regarding instinct. I would say this about about the instinct/Beagle thing though: I would say that it's hard to argue against your point other than to say that those characteristics were bred into the dog, and I reassert the common sense stand that if something can be bred into a dog, it can also be bred out, temperament especially. I will also add that if you're of able mind and body and are able to read your dog's body language, you will be able to condition your dog's state-of-mind away from any aggressive tendancies. You'll be able to stop your dog's aggression before it really take hold of your dog. It's a process called redirecting, and by redirecting your dog's attention, at just the right moment, from what it's focusing it's negative attention on with firm and fair discipline, aggression is not a problem that any dog owner will have to deal with for very long. The dog will get the message after being redirected a few times(maybe more), and it will be conditioned to know what that state-of-mind means a correction.
Again, if you exercise and discipline your dog properly, and treat it like it's a dog as opposed to a four-legged person, you're dog WILL be the most loyal companion you could ever hope to have. I do still challenge you to find scientific proof that pitbulls have aggression in their genes. I hope you will take me up on that challenge, and do whatever research you deem necessary. Then I hope you'll bring your findings back here.
I do have one other question for you, Indie. Did you look at the comments made by Cesar Millan? And do you have anything to say about the statistics that I've mentioned, or the MYTH about "locking jaws", or the video links I posted of dogs shaking their toys, or the musculature point that I rebuked, or the misidentification of other breeds as pitbulls, or any of ther other things I've mentioned countering your positions on pitbulls that causes them to be such a dangerous animal in your view? I really would like to hear you address all of my counter-points that I've made, one by one.
I don't want to sound insulting again, but I do have to say this. If a person has a stance on any given situation, but then is shown the actual truth behind their stances that debunks them entirely, what does that say about the person who still stands behind them even though their positions have been shown to be shaky at best? An ignorant, bull-headed individual is the only answer I can come up with. I mention this not to call you that, Indie, but to say that I really hope you're open-minded as much as you are independent-minded. I hope that you are open to seeing the other side of the argument with all of the facts behind it. When you do, I can't help but to think that the only reason you'd keep your opinions on pitbulls is because of stubborness, because the FACTS speak for themselves. So... please just take a look at the other side with your eyes open, and be willing to change your view if the facts sway you to do so. I really don't mean this to be offensive to you. I'm really just trying to get you to open yourself to the possibilities that I mention.
Sorry again for any insulting language I threw at you previously. I hope not to do it again. My temper gets the better of me at times though, as it does all of us.
Sorry, hepeedonmyrug, but I did look at Cesar Milan's link and
I also looked into other info on pitbulls. I stand by my position that pitbulls do present considerably more risk than many, if not most other dogs, because of the primitive instinct that pitbulls have. They are also more dangerous because they're much more tenacious, and have a higher pain threshold, and are tougher than most dogs. I still say that a dog such as a pitbull which has clearly been bred as a fighting dog is a poor risk for a pet, because one never knows what they may or may not do in a given situation. They may appear to be calm, but they do often strike just out of the blue, without warning. Furthurmore, there are certain things that I'm really not willing to alter my viewpoints on, and this is one of them. A dog that's been originally bred for fighting, imo, is not meant as a pet.
While guys like Mike Vick and others who torture animals and dogs like that shouldn't be given a pass, and dogfighting should be made illegal and outlawed, I also think that pitbulls' DNA and temperament are what makes these dogs a prime choice for dogfighting. Therefore, the sport of dogfighting is also a just reason for making the breeding, import and sales of these dogs illegal. Then, there won't be dogfights, because rogues like Mike Vick and his ilk won't get access to them, and the public won't be put at risk.
Btw--there was another pitbull attack in the Bay State the other day--somebody's dogs was attacked--out of the blue, with no provocation whatsoever--by two pitbulls, who mauled and killed the dog. The owner of the pitbulls refused to take any responsibility for it, either, which is just plain disgusting. Unfortunately, here's yet another part of the sad saga:
Pitbull ownership, unfortunately and all too often appeals to precisely the kind of irresponsible, tough, macho, nasty people that you've been talking about. Very few responsible people, if any, have the slightest interest in owning a pitbull, because they mostly recognize the fact that pitbulls are much more risky and dangerous, and do more serious damage than most dogs.
Agree to disagree, I suppose.
I agree that pitbulls pose a higher risk of doing serious damage than a chihuahua. I disagree that they pose a higher risk than an Afghan Hound or a Mastiff. There's no scientific data to support that claim. You say they've been bred to fight. Ok... maybe, but not lately, unless your discussing the dog fighters of the world. And they represent a very small portion of pitbull owners in this society. There are many thousands of responsible dog owners out there who don't breed these dogs to be aggressive. They breed aggression out of them, as the breeder of any other dog breed would. Pitbulls are bred to match their respective breed standards, and to have a good temperament BECAUSE they're meant to be pets. You hold the position that you do about pitbulls being of higher risk than other dogs, fine, but to imply that the VAST majority of pitbull owners are irresponsible to own a dog that YOU feel is dangerous based on nothing but headlines and rumor is a poor implication to make. Again, you're perpetuation of these myths about pitbulls do nothing but damage the responsible people out there (like myself) who own dogs that can be classified as "pitbulls types". That's irresponsible on your part, and immoral. You spread this message as if it's gospel, when in all reality, it's based on nothing but overhyped stories that don't dig deeply enough to realize the true reason dogs attack.
Also, your assertion that "very few responsible people have the slightest interest in owning a pitbull" is another statement based on your personal feeling, not any research. Another statement that these dogs: "but they do often strike just out of the blue," along with the statement about the two pitbulls that attacked the dog "without provocation." I've addressed this before, and I'll do it again here. Tell me the living conditions of these dogs. Tell me if they were walked regularly and properly. Tell me if these dogs saw anything, but the back of this owner's house for the last 2 years(or however old the dogs were). Tell me if the dogs were fixed, or if they were in heat. Tell me the honest testimony of it's owners about these dogs never showing any dominant tendencies. Tell me how frequent their interactions with other dogs were. THESE are the questions that need answering before you can make a judgement about WHY the dogs did what they did. Again, it's not BECAUSE IT'S A PITBULL. That's an oversimplification that excuses the person who's making the statement from having to do any real work to form his/her opinion.
I've said this more than once. You show me an owner who says his dog "snapped without provocation", and I'll show you an owner who's lying to cover his own butt, or an owner who doesn't know how to read the warning signs put out by his dog. There are ALWAYS warning signs. You just have to do your homework on what those are, and be vigilant in looking for them.
And the position that ridding the world of pitbulls will rid the world of dog fighting is absolutely idiotic. The fighters of these dogs will just move on to some other breed of dog.
I have to admit that I'm disappointed in the fact that when faced with counterpoints, statements made by the biggest name in dog PSYCHOLOGY(not training), and cold hard facts that render the majority of your positions to utter nonsense, you still hold onto those positions as if there's anything but myth to hold onto. Every point you made was counterpointed with fact, common sense, or statements made be a man known as THE DOG WHISPERER because of his knowledge of dog psychology. Again, it's myth you're holding on to. You might as well be holding onto the opinion that big foot or the chupacabras exist.
Agree to disagree, I guess, but I'm very disappointed in your narrow-mindedness, Indie. Very disappointed.
Well.......
So sorry that I'm not perfect like you, hepeedonmyrug. (lol)
Giggles.
It's not about perfect. I just see this as a black and white issue, and I think there are far too many people who don't have enough information to form opinions on the subject.... yet they do anyway.
And my wife just told me that I wasn't being fair to you on this forum. I've insulted you with the Hitler thing, along with some indirect and direct language. While I haven't necessarily changed my mind about your positions on this subject, I do have to sorta sag my shoulders, put my hands in my pockets, look at the ground shamefully, and say that I agree with her. Your opinions are yours. However frustrating they may be to me, your opinions aren't mine to change. Sorry again. Like I've said before, this topic gets my blood goin'.
And another point, Indie.
I was just reading some of the indictment against Mike Vick, and in one section it talks about Vick and his accomplices killing 8 dogs for not fighting. Some of them by hanging, others by gunshot, and one by slamming him repeatedly to the ground.
It's your contention that viciousness is genetically embedded in all pitbulls, isn't it Indie? My point is this, if all pitbulls are inherently vicious, why would Vick and company have to kill 8 of them for not being willing to fight?
Just wanted to bring that up for discussion. I still look forward to your response to all my counter points, Indie.
In the first place,
although I've admittedly haven't been following the news about Mike Vick, he sounds like a totally disgusting person who really shouldn't be given a pass under any circumstances for this. However, as I said before, pitbulls have the psychology and instincts for fighting, as well as the DNA bred right into them from the beginning, which is why guys like Mike Vick exploit, abuse, and kill them. This, I believe, is a legitimate reason for halting the breeding, import and sales of pitbulls. Lawmakers and animal-control advocates should work at the national and local levels throughout the United States in order to do that.
Lawmakers in this country should...
...make laws based on facts, and not on fear-based rumors perpetuated by narrow-minded, stubborn individuals who refuse to budge on their positions even when presented with facts and common sense that clearly annihilate the reasoning behind their held opinions. If lawmakers do what you're suggesting, we should just lower the minimum age a person has to reach before holding office from whatever it is now(18, I think?) to 10. Then at least it would make sense for our ruling class to make laws based on idiotic, mythical phoebia, and not cold, hard truths that aren't found by simply reading the headlines of news stories. The truth often requires serious, comprehensive inquiry, the likes of which you don't seem to be interested in taking. I guess ignorance is bliss, though.
I'm happy that, for the most part, laws in our country stem from facts. Otherwise, the insecurity of dog racists and the like would reign supreme. God bless America!
To put it another way, hepeedonmyrug:
It's highly doubtful that they'd use other kinds of dogs for dog-fighting. Here's why: Pitbulls are genetically and psychologically bred for fighting, no doubt. Mike Vick sounds disgusting, dangerous, and totally off of his rocker, imo.
Back to what I'm saying, however: The genetic breeding, the super-combative and super-tenacious psychology and temperament of (most all) pitbulls, not to mention their super-muscular build and jaw all combine together to make pitbulls vulnerable to this kind of exploitation by guys such as Mike Vick.
Again, there's a reason that pitbulls get used in dogfighting and other dogs, such as rottweilers, German Shepherds, etc., do not. I do not buy into the idea that "if it wasn't the pitbull that was bred for dogfighting, it would be some other dog."
Indie, you're just lost.
And hopeless.
They'll move on to Akita's, Mastiffs, Bulldogs, Shar Pei's, or any other breed of dog that has a history of fighting. To think they won't shows a lack of cognitive capacity to see things for what they are and what they will be should your advocation come to fruition. It's deplorable that even when your positions on pitbulls have been shot full of holes, you would still back a law destroying a breed that offers so much to it's owners when it's owners offer to them the few things they need... a breed that's been tarnished by underinvestigative reporting.
In my opinion, your advocation of the destruction of the entire breed based on the crap you've thrown out on this thread makes you worse than Mike Vick. You're wanting to do more damage than a 1,000 Mike Vick's ever will. If it was left in your hands, you would be the dog world's equivalent of Hitler. And don't tell me my analogy isn't valid. Your positions are based on urban myth and stereotype. Hitler based his "Final Solution" on very similar principles. Also like Hitler, you seem to lack compassion for the plight of the victims of these fallacies and stereotypes. Oh, my analogy isn't only valid, it's spot on.
LMAO, hepeedonmyrug!!
hepeedonmyrug, I've dealt with more people online than you care to realize, and I've come across some real jerks, but so far you take the cake. You're entitled to your opinions and I'm entitled to mine. I refused to change my mind to please you, so you've resorted to calling me a
"dog" Hitler. Well, hepeedonmyrug--that finishes any discussions that I have with you from now on!! Goodnight. I think I'll hit the sack before I tell you what
I really think!! I'm done!!
I'd probably be able to...
...shoot holes full of what you really think. So for your sake, keep your small-minded sentiments to yourself.
And in all fairness, I don't want you to change your position FOR ME. I was hoping you might not want to sound like a guy who likes to discuss topics as though he's coming from a place of knowledge, but when looked at under a microscope, you're positions are shown to be nothing but idiotic rumor. In a way, I was hoping you'd change your position because you might not want to sound like a glib. Guess I was wrong.
First of all, just for the record, hepeedonmyrug,
I happen to be a woman!! Secondly, I could tell you what I really think of you as a person, hepeedonmyrug, but maybe I'd better not go that far lest I get into trouble myself on this board.
Wow,
another gender surprise!
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
Wow...
... is right.
The problem with Stupid Hitler analogies
Is that the same level of abuse is available to the readers.
For example: Are you calling the Jews and the other victims of the 'final solution' dogs?
Another study
btw.
Thank you for coming to my defense, knocienz,
and for the information on the Clifton Study.
No problem, Independentminded
Didn't think you needed a defense as much as the Hitler comparison needed a bit of a group smack down.
The Hitler analogy...
...., while VASTLY overused, fits in this case almost to the T. Obviously, I'm not saying that the Jew were dogs. In making that point, you are simply making an argument for argument's sake, and doesn't really serve much purpose in this debate. Not that I need to point this out, but the reasoning behind the analogy is this: Hitler saw Jews as less than nothing simply because they were Jews. He bought into all of the anti-semetic hype, and indeed engineered some of it. His "Final Solution" for the "Jewish Problem" was simply to annihilate them all based soley only the fact that they were Jews and other such undesirables. Similarly here, Indie, seeing pitbulls as nothing but a menace, is advocating the total destruction of an entire breed of dog based solely on the hype of under-reporting papers and news organizations across the country. He wants to wipe out pitbulls only because they're pitbulls. He's not interested in taking it on a case by case basis, or really looking deeper into each individual story. For Hitler, kill all the Jews. For Indie, kill all the pitbulls. I agree that there are situations where Hitler's name is brought up without merit in heated discussions, but this is not one of those cases.
And I've read the study that you're quoting those stats from. There are inherent problems with this study. I'm a bit preoccupied, but I'll spell those problems out sometime this evening.
In the meantime, take a look at the findings of this study, and specifically the "Conclusions".
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf
"Coclusions- Although fatal attacks on humans appear to be a breed-specific problem (pit bull-type dogs and Rottweilers), other breeds may bite and cause fatalities at higher rates. Because of the difficulties inherent in determining a dog's breed with certainty, enforcement of breed-specific ordinances raises constitutional and practical issues. Fatal attacks represent a small proportion of dog bite injuries to humans and, therefor, should not be the primary factor driving public policy concerning dangerous dogs. Many practical alternatives to breed-specific ordinances exist and hold promis for prevention of dog bites. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2000;217:836-840)
The Hitler analogy is ridiculous
First, if you are unwilling to associate the victims in the analogy as well as the villain, then don't use it. Second, I have not seen Independendminded say ANYWHERE that all pit bulls should be destroyed, just that we should stop breeding them.
And that is where your analogy just falls apart. Taking dogs, imprisoning them, if you will with one another so as to create and maintain genetic purity and to create a 'super race' of servants who will serve their masters is how Pit Bulls and most other dog breeds came into existence in the first place. Personally, if anybody tried doing that with humans, I'd consider them monstrous; but that's what we do with dogs. To cease such activity is not on par with Nazi Germany.
Now, if you want to stand up and talk about how it is a horrible wrong to sterilize all Pit Bulls, then fine. But then one has to wonder why it is OK for the owner to decide to perform this outrageous act to the poor animal (or are you against all neutering of animals?) or are you just upset when the state does it? If so, then you are arguing about the crime done to the owner (the slave master if you will in your dog-human analogy) and not the dog at all.
Is it just the scale? Neutering one pitbull is fine, neutering them all is a horrible crime on scale with the holocaust? But mass crimes are made up of little crimes. It wasn't as if murdering one Jew was a-ok and it only got bad when the number got above X.
So unless you are going to start marching for the emancipation of canines and equal rights for dogs, drop the Nazi comparisons.
The definition of ANALOGY
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/analogy.html
a·nal·o·gy-
1. comparison: a comparison between two things that are similar in SOME way, often used to help explain something or make it easier to
understand
2. similarity: a similarity in SOME respects
I don't see anywhere in that definition where it says all aspects have to align. I do see SOME in the definition, and you'll notice that nowhere did I say Indie and Hitler were indentical in their idealogy towards pitbulls and Jews, respectively. I compared the two is SOME ways.
I do have to take back the "to the T" comment though. That much I can't say after you so poignantly highlighted the differences in the two. But the analogy that Indie is advocated the annihilation of pitbulls is similar to Hitler's quest to exterminate European Jews in that both ideas are based solely on the race/breed of the victims. I won't say that their methods are the same, though I get the feeling that if the choice was put in the hands of people who share Indie's opinions on this subject, there would be a legalized mass murder of the breed. That, obvioiusly, is not a fact, but it is the feeling I get when hearing people like Indie describe how dangerous pitbulls are based solely on these urban myths, rumors, and shallow statistics.
To revert back to your claim about my Hilter comment. It is, in fact, an analogy though, and a valid one in a few specfic areas. You may not appreciate it, and that's fine. But Hitler's position on Jews is similar to BSL fans position on pitbulls.
And about the neutering, it IS relatively on par with the Holocaust if you force all pitbull owners to neuter/spay their dogs in the regard that the final outcome is the same... the extinction of an entire breed/race because of hype. Now stop hijacking Indie's thread! :-P
"But then one has to wonder why it is OK for the owner to decide to perform this outrageous act to the poor animal (or are you against all neutering of animals?)"
This isn't a real question is it? I'll answer it if it is, but it may just be a part of your couter-argument that my Nazi analogy is "ridiculous". If that is the case, I've already addressed this as a whole.
An analogy that doesn't give perspective isn't an analogy
They don't need to align in all ways, but they need to align in a fashion relevent to the discussion.
First, in a discussion with someone else on the board, you probably shouldn't bring your intuition about anonymous third parties. While some people might be willing to euthanize all pit bulls anywhere, that increasingly hypothetical person is not the person you compared to Hitler.
As for my question about neutering, it was a real inexact question. Personally, I believe that large crimes are made up of small crimes. What is the small crime that is magnified 100,000x by neutering all pit bulls? Or do you disagree that for a mass action to be a mass crime, the individual action needs to be at least a little crime (at least in the moral sense)?
I.e. If neutering 100,000 dogs is a massive crime, than neutering 1 must be at least a lesser crime regardless of who does it, no? Now if you want to say that forcing 100,000 owners to neuter their dogs is the mass crime and that forcing a single owner to do the same is the lesser, de-aggregated crime, I'll give you that. But in that case, isn't it the owner the victim (and the owner community in the mass case) and not the dog (breed)?
Still somewhat baffled.
The analogy gives perspective perfectly. And the hypothetical third party isn't all that hypothetical or anonymous. Scroll up, and you'll see a number of posters agreeing with the opinion that pitbulls should be outlawed altogether, effectively exterminating the breed. I'm just miffed by you're not seeing the similarity. Maybe I should quote Ben Harper again.
And regarding the neutering question: It would essentially be a crime against both man and animal should a law be passed that required by law the sterilization of a man's animal(unless of course that individual animal is shown to be a menace). The dog is the man's property. You brought up the master/slave point earlier. In nature, that's how it works with wild dog packs. The alpha makes the rules, and the pack follows, or suffers some sort of consequence. Owning a dog is no different. Now my point on neutering is this. It should be the owners say on whether the dog gets neutered. If the responsible owner feels like breeding his dog, he/she should be able to do that without problem. If the responsible owner isn't going to breed his dog, he/she has the obligation both to his dog's balanced state of well-being and to the people around him to get his dog fixed. That's my view anyway. I know it's not law, but I wouldn't mind legislation being passed that if you aren't going to breed your animals, sterilization should be a requirement. That sounds like a fair compromise, no? But I disagree that you getting your dog sterilized is a small crime. Forced sterilization would be the injustice there, both to animal and to human, not the voluntary. This is a free country, after all.
In response the the Clifton study
The problems with this study are numerous.
First, it only takes into account dog attacks that result in major injury or death. It doesn't account for dog BITES, which number in the thousands every day. The reason that this is a problem is because BSL advocates out there like to mention as a matter of fact (even though there's no proof to back the claim) that pitbulls are far more likely to attack than any other breed. The study you mentioned only takes into account a miniscual percentage of total dog attacks, therefore doing nothing to show, statistically, which dogs are more likely to attack. It doesn't take a look at temperament, and purposefully so, according to Dr. Clifton. That alone makes me lean towards dismissing this altogether, because it's not a comprehensive look at WHY dogs attack, and which dog is most likely to attack. It just asks which dogs are most likely to do the most damage, and of course it's the large, muscular breeds with relatively sizable heads. You don't see Dachsunds at the top of the list because they're not big enough to cause any life-threatening damage.
Second, it takes no look into the condition of the dog's themselves. Were these dogs fixed? Where did they live? Inside of the house or out? What level of care did the owners give to these dogs? Questions that almost no BSL fan out there are willing to ask. They simply read the papers, read the statistics, and assume that there's something genetically wrong with a pitbull's psychology. It does NOTHING to address the WHY in each individual case. "What caused the dog to do what it did?" BSL backers are all too quick to say that it's "because it's a pitbull," and are not keen on looking in on the rest of the details needed to make an accurate, comprehensive judgement on what really went on with each attack.
Third, it lists pitbulls as "pitbull types", which gets into wrongly identifying these dogs. Stafforshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, American Bulldogs, and any number of other purebreed dogs along with the THOUSANDS of mixed breed dogs that can be said to look like "pitbull types" are all lumped into the same category. You add that many number of dogs together, and of course you're going to have the highest number of fatal dog attack offenders. The more dogs you lump into one category, the more likely you're going to have a dog attack out of that category. It's all a numbers game.
It's just a waste of time, this study is, when mentioning it in these types of discussions, because the people with opinions similar to Indie's cling to them as evidence that pitbulls are more likely to attack. And Clifton's study doesn't prove any such thing.
Below is an article issued by the San Francisco Gate shortly after the death of Nicholas Faibish. It does look more into the cause listing quotes numerous legitimate sources. An expert on dog aggression, the founder of the National Canine Research Foundation, an attorney who devotes his practice to dog attacks, a member of the US Humane Society, and more all are quoted here voicing their opinions on the dog attack issue. It's worth a read if you're really interested in having a well rounded opinion based on both sides of the argument.
http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/pitbullsdataskewed.pdf
Really, hepeedonmyrug...how many times must you be told
that, first, I happen to be a woman??!? Stop referring to me as "he'...please! Thanks!!
Secondly, hepeedonmyrug, the Hitler/Holocaust analysis you're presenting
does not even begin to hold water, plus it's offensive.
Thirdly, although dog bites are a serious problem, unlike the bites of pitbulls, the vast majority of dog bites do not result in permanent maiming or killing of their victims.
Fourth, I stand by my position on this issue.
I stopped calling you "he" when I found out you were a she...
... or at least I thought I did. I may have inadvertantly said he, but certainly didn't mean to. I'll try to keep a better eye on that.
Regarding the second part of your post: It absolutely holds water, and I'm sorry you're unable to see why. How this analogy doesn't make sense somewhat baffles me. You want the the pitbull to cease existing simply because it's a pitbull(it certainly isn't on any in-depth data). Hitler wanted to annihilate all Jews simply be they were Jews. It's not difficult to understand. Then again, maybe it's offensive to you because it makes does make sense, I don't know.
Your third part: You're right. The VAST MAJORITY of dog bites DO NOT cause serious damage, but they do start at the same place. That place is the CAUSE of the dog to go into it's state of imbalance. That cause isn't an interesting enough point for BSL backers out there for whatever reason. The real answer to the WHY question takes too much work for them to get to. So they take the easy rout, and pick on the dog that's most provocative at the time to blame for the problem. That at least is my opinion on why you guys chose the way you do. I don't know of anything else that makes sense.
Your fourth: Congratulations?
Arguments that hold water only to oneself don't hold water
You might as well argue that people trying to stop malaria by eliminating mosquitos are "Just Like Hitler!" too.
Stick with the "let's deal with the root cause" and "let's get better data on dog related maulings and deaths by breed before jumping to conclusions' arguments. They can be discussed. You can raise alternative studies to be performed. But "How 'bout you stop being like HITLER and just do things my way" really isn't an argument as much as a provocation.
Talk about an analogy that doesn't hold water.
Malaria kills something like a million people every year, whereas pitbulls kill, what, 8? Killing 6 million pitbulls strictly because they're pitbulls is the dog equivalent of killing 6 million Jews just because they're Jews.
Again, somewhat baffled.
And the only thing I'm trying to provoke you to do is to not only acknowledge the questions brought up in the second part of your last post, but to actually seek the answers for yourself. And again, I see this as a black and white issue. I see things MY WAY, and you see things YOUR WAY. If you say you're going to be looking into those questions, I don't care who's way you do it, as long as you do it with an open mind. If you want to call that "just do things my way," fine.
hepeedonmyrug--you seem VERY obsessed with the Hitler anology.
Pray tell me--is there a reason for that?!?
Hepeedonmyrug--you don't get it, do you?? I don't want to alter my position.
There's a reason
It's called debate. It's point, counter-point, counter-counter-point and so on. You insist the analogy doesn't makes sense. I say that it doesn't make sense because you DON'T WANT it do.
And you're right. I don't get it. I don't understand why somebody wouldn't want to listen to logic instead of shallow statistics and catchy headlines to base their opinions. I just don't get that.
Let's get something straight, hepeedonmyrug!!
Anybody who makes an anology such as the Hitler analogy that you just made is
not being logical, or even the next thing to it, imo. It's rather shallow of you to make that sort of an anology on a subject such as this.
And...
...why is that? And how is it not a logical analogy?
THINK long and hard about it for a minute, hepeedonmyrug!!
Unlike pitbulls, the groups that Hitler exterminated were innocent human beings.
THINK long and hard about it for a minute, independentminded!!
100% of the people Hitler put to death were not innocent human beings. There were criminals in the population of the more than 6 million killed during the holocaust. It would not make much sense to believe otherwise. In the same way, neither are 100% of pitbulls in this country guilty of anything other than being a pitbull.
Let's put this into a little perspective. There are upwards of 55m dogs in this country, and 20-30 people are killed yearly in dog attacks. Let's say that half of those are done by pitbulls "types", a conservative number. And let's say that just 1m of the dog population in this country are pitbulls "types", which isn't out of the realm of possibility. You're talking about something like 10-15 dogs in comparison with the 1m in population. You're talking about .001% to .0015% of the pitbull population in this country, and because of that population, the entire breed deserves extinction?
Think about that.
"100% of the people Hitler
"100% of the people Hitler put to death were not innocent human beings"
hepeedonmyrug--Listen!!
First of all, the above-mentioned breeds are pitbull types.
Secondly, it's gotten to the stage where trying to deal with you is an utter waste of time, especially because your manner is so utterly insulting and meanspirited, not to mention abrasive.
Thirdly, your persistance in calling me a "he", when I'm a "She"
Fourth, I'm not interested in seeing people who already own pitbull get rid of their pets, since that's unrealistic. I stand by my position, however, that, people who do own pitbulls must take responsibility and comply with the restrictions laws in their city, such as muzzling them in public, inserting warning signs in their places of residences/businesses of their presence, and
hopefully, be prepared to pay a penalty if their unmuzzled pet attacks, seriously injures or kills another person's pet.
Next, the Clifton Study says that it's correct and necessary to single out certain breeds sometimes for laws, which I a gree with.
Also, I stand by my position that the breeding, imports and sales of pitbulls should definitely be halted--and discontinued. period!!
Indie, LISTEN!
Those are pitbull types, I know. My point is that the study lumps them all into one category, while other dogs are not. You have singular breeds, such as Rottweilers, Chow Chow's, and others. The only point for this, I can assume, would be to skew the statistics, or cover for a misunderstanding in what the breed actually is, thus making it a study that's impossible to really take it seriously. Add in Clifton's personal opinion's at the end, and that makes it doubly impossible.
Third, I've said this before. I haven't called you a HE since you mentioned you were a she.
Fourth, this partly a relief, that you insist that you're not wanting the current owners of pitbulls to be forced to get rid of their dogs. This part of your post I'm not totally against as long as you make it's all large breed dogs you applie these restrictions to.
And there are other studies to base an opinion. Clifton's study is quite obviously slanted, and even if it isn't, it's one man's opinion. There are other studies out there that come up with a different opinion on the exact same data. I've posted it previsously. Scroll up.
And your last pisition is OFFENSIVE to all of us that know better.
No......
I think you're being slanted, hepeedonmyrug. I go by Clifton's opinion, and many more people would agree with his study than you'd care to realize. Also, hepeedonmyrug, most dogs don't absolutely fight to the death the way pitbulls do.
As I pointed out earlier, hepeedonmyrug, dogs, like people and other animals, also have (primitive) instincts. Beagles tend to walk with their noses to the ground because they were originally bred as hunting dogs, and hunting dogs always walk with their noses to the ground to trail down the scent of their prey. Don't get me wrong--Beagles are generally wonderful pets.
Now...pitbulls were originally bred to fight--and that primitive fighting instinct is still there--one never knows when a pitbull will feel provoked and fight just out of the blue.
That particular instinct, along with its particularly damaging bite, ultra-muscular build, and tenacious, super-combative temperament, plus their
DNA (cross between bulldog and terrier) are exactly why they're too risky to have as pets, and why pitbulls have a special appeal to tough, machismo, and irresponsibly crazy people such as Mike Vick, etc , and why
drug dealers use them to protect their stash.
Pitbulls are often sold much cheaper than other dogs, which is why a lot of people who can't afford other pets buy them. The fact that people who can't afford other, safer dogs and buy pitbulls, thereby taking their limb/life in their hands, and thus putting not only themselves, but their families, friends, clients, etc. at risk is absolutely pathetic.
You say....
...."That particular instinct, along with its particularly damaging bite, ultra-muscular build, and tenacious, super-combative temperament, plus their
DNA (cross between bulldog and terrier) are exactly why they're too risky to have as pets," right?
Prove it. Show me scientific proof they have a super-combative temperament. That would mean you'd have to look at the temperament tests done on this breed along with almost all others. So prove it. Also show me the scientific proof that their DNA makes them more prone to attack than other breeds. And finally, prove to me, scientifically, that a willingness to fight can be bred into a dog, but can not be bred out of it.
These are your stands. Now prove them scientifically to everybody who may be reading this thread. Prove that these are facts and not opinions.
I challenge you. As childish as that sounds, I mean it.
She already HAS met your criteria
She (and I) have cited scientific studies that came to the conclusion that pit bull and related breeds were more dangerous and more violent. Even the study you pointed out only said that breed specific laws would be a bad idea because they would be very hard to enforce.
These studies aren't good enough for you. Fine. Nor would any other study I suspect. But stop trying to hang your hat on the science. Just admit you like your pit bulls and don't want anyone to tell you that you can't breed more.
No she HASN'T!
She simply quotes a single study looking only at serious maimings and death... a study based on news reports, by the way. Many want to say that pitbulls do more damage when they attack (you may find some that will disagree with that), but that's not the point. Indie pronounces that pitbulls are more likely to attack than other dogs. To that, I say prove it. The temperament is what causes the dogs to attack in the first place. Show me temperament tests that prove her right. So far, all you (and she) have proven is that pitbulls are atop the list of breeds attributed with serious injury and death, and not that they are more apt to attack in the first place. There's not a shred of evidence on which anybody can base that claim.
And Karen Delise's statistics are FAR more detailed. According to her research, 3 our of every 4 dogs involved in the killing of a human being were unfixed males. 75% is a MUCH higher number than the 21% that pitbull and pitbull mixes account for. Yet somehow, those numbers don't mean as much.
http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2007/06/lies_damn_lies_.html
The above link is a solid, well thought out blog expalining the holes in Clifton's study. Some of the comments left ask pointed questions about this study too. They're worth a look on their own.
Indepth numbers
You'll find them here.
http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/
This is meaningless--sorry.
This is completely meaningless, as far as I'm concerned. It means nothing.
Probably because...
... you're less interested in serious data than you are myth-based opinion.
Look, I don't have a dog in this fight
Haha.
I think there is some evidence worthy of further study. Specifically that the correlation of the way society views pit bulls (tough guys who want to buy tough dogs and the resulting way that the treat tme) is of note and should be dealt with. I'd argue for laws regarding anyone trying to breed, advertise or buy ANY large dog for 'guard' purposes. A breeding license required to keep any such dog without neutering them etc. I also think the argument that Rottweillers have the same temperment as Golder Retrievers is pretty hard to defend.
I'm mostly here because of the stupid Hitler analogy, which, yes, remains ridiculous and counterproductive and gets me to argue against you and discard any and all of your following points entirely on principle.
Thank you again, knocienz.
This above-mentioned quote from your post is spot-on, knocienz. Thanks very much again for this.
It takes all kinds of people to make a world, and some people seem to base their very existence on being nasty, insulting and inflammatory. The Hitler Anology really disgusts me too, and I feel even less willing to discuss anything with a person who takes on such an attitude.
We bicyclists need to stick together ;-)
You know who is like Hitler? Automobile drivers! They honor the share-the-road 'agreement' with bikers just like Hitler 'honored' the Munich agreement! The analogy is clear!
;-)
Who else is like Hitler?
Good point, knocienz!!
;=)
Final word...
You know me only in the context of this discussion. I can and do get VERY heated regarding this topic. I could have been MUCH nastier, seriously more insulting, and absolutely more inflamatory. So to imply that my very existence is based on these things is not exactly based on a mound of evidence. While I still am not backing off the analogy, I can see why you'd be offended by it. Honestly, I'm not sure that wasn't one of my intents when making the comparison.
So.... unless there are other posts I feel the need to respond to, I won't be posting to you regarding this topic.
hehehehehe
Well, hepeedonmyrug, yes, I do know you only in the context of this discussion, and I see that you are rather heated up over this topic, and I don't know why. This is the reason that you refuse to back off of your stupid, disgusting Hitler anology, and, yes, you did offend when you made that anology.
So....hepeedonmyrug, on that note, I'd really prefer it if you didn't hassle me anymore, since your motivations are quite obvious. Thanks.
Again, it's called debate, not hassle.
Again, my Hitler analogy maybe disgusting, but it's not stupid.
And offending you with that analogy was only one of the intents, and wasn't even the more prominent of the two. It's to get you to think, but since we can't get passed the word Hitler in that analogy before calling it a stupid one, it's not going to achieve it's main goal.
Now my motivations are quite obvious, if they weren't before. ;-)
I KNOW your motivations are clear, hepeedonmyrug....
and I refuse to be lured into that trap. The fact that you intended to be offensive with the "hitler" analogy is all too apparent, which is why I'd just as soon not have this discussion with you anymore. If you think being offensive in that way is cute......you just might want to think again, buster.
You're presumptiousness offends me.
Read whatever you want to read(rumor and hype), and ignore whatever you want to ignore(truth and common sense). Call cute what I never intended to be cute. I MIGHT just want to think again, sweetheart, but I doubt it.
So...
...it doesn't look like we're too far apart on this issue, knocienz, other than you're disagreeing that this situation and Hitler's are similar at all. I can accept that, while I disagree.
The Rottweiler/Golden Retriever comment requires study before anybody can say for sure that Retriever's aren't more apt to attack based on their temperament. You can say that it's pretty hard to defend. I can say that I don't have any data to seriously argue against that position.
I'll see if I can find some.
Yes, I HAVE met your criterion, hepeedonmyrug.
Here's a suggestion: Since neither of us is about to back off on our positions on this subject, I suggest that we both just simply agree to disagree on this subject and leave it at that. If you're unable to do that, then it's pathetic.
Don't you realize that in a democracy people can still agree to disagree with each other, and accept that?
These dogs present a special danger due to the reasons that I've stated above--let's just leave it at that. Thanks!!
Fine... agree to disagree.
Your reasons are based on myth, hype, and faulty statistics. I can leave it at that.
fine....
Fine!!! That's your opinion.
fine...
"These dogs present a special danger due to the reasons that I've stated above."
And that is YOUR opinion.
hepeedonmyrug, the fact that pitbulls do cause much more serious
injury and/or death with their bites is, in itself, an ample reason to single them out as a breed of dog that's necessary to regulate, because that makes them especially risky to own as pets. Pitbulls have been known to turn on their owners out of the blue, even though they were supposedly "bred to be gentle". Also, pitbulls have a much higher threshold of pain.
Agree to disagree... continued.
1. The damage that they can potentially cause isn't as important(nor should it be) as a the likelihood in which the dog is to attack.
2. Again, show me a dog owner who says their dog attacked "out of the blue," and I'll show you an owner who's lying to cover up his/her irresponsible ownership of the dog, OR doesn't have any clue on how to read a dog. Warning signs are ALWAYS there. It's just knowing how to look for them.
3. They do have a higher threshold of pain. Not much to say about that, other than that's not really a reason to regulate a dog.
Ok... back to agreeing to disagree.
Sorry to say this, hepeedonmyrug, but
Yes, the damage that pitbulls can and do cause is equally important, and it's as good a reason as regulating them as any.
Now....I know you're still trying to get me to alter my position....and it ain't going to work!!
I know it's hopeless...
But if only .0015% of a breed is responsible for all of the strories that you're positions are based on(.005 conservatively when you include all of the dogs attacked and other stories), how is it that the damage that they CAN cause is equally as important as the damage that they DO cause(based on that conservative .005%)? That much I just don't get.
Back off, hepeedonmyrug!!
Yes, hepeedonmyrug.......you really are being rather childish!!
Grow up!! Thanks.
Now who's being insulting?
I don't need to grow up. You say those things as if they were fact. I just want to see you find the proof to back your statements. I'll narrow it down for you to one inparticular.
Prove that pitbulls have a more volitile temperament than other dogs, and are more likely to attack. Let me see the studies behind that opinion.
And another thing, since I mentioned numbers in another post... something else I've thought on over the last couple of hours. There are two other things that are really wrong with Clifton's study.
First, most of these studies only aquired stats based on DBRF's. Clifton did take it one step further and included serious injury, which, on the surface, sounds like he's really trying to get a thorough picture of dog attacks in this country. But when you consider that he got his information solely on news reports that are notorious for wrongly identifying breeds, there's a problem.
Second, the total number of incidences listed as of the last updating of the report was 2,209, of which about half involve pitbulls. Remember, that's 24 years worth of data he's gathered. Sounds very much like the guy did his homework. The only problem is, the CDC estimates that dog bites that result in hospital visits number about 1,000 per day in this country. If going by those numbers, the number of dog bites that required medical care is something like 8.75 MILLION in that 24 year timespan. Yet somehow, the only the dog attacks that are ever inquired on are the ones in which serious damage and possibly death have been inflicted.
Example- Maybe a Dachsund took just about took an ear off. Maybe a Chihuahua bite requires stitches. Maybe a Labrador causes a concunsion because he's a little too rambuctious. And maybe all of these happen at a frequency much higher than the frequency that pitbull attacks land people in the hospital. The problem is that that frequency is neither looked into, nor is the cause of the attack research. It simply doesn't matter to anybody unless serious damage has been done. These example breeds are all considered model citizens, in general, even though their temperament is such that they may actually be MORE likely than a pitbull to actually attack somebody(and possibly by a significant margin) in that hypothetical. This, of course, is never researched.
So, Clifton has narrowed his research to something like .025% of the total number of dog attacks in that time. That's one quarter of one percent, unless of course my math is wrong. Also, his main tool for gathering his data is the media. (The problem with this is two-fold. First, usually, the only attacks that ever make news are ones that deal with serious injury, and have pitbulls or Rotweilers involved. Second, they don't exactly do precise research on breed prior to them running a story). So the bottom line is the guy has gathered his information from the most minicule percentage of total dog attacks, and his source of information is the ever unrealiable media(when it comes to breed identification, amogst other things). This does not even bring to attention that his data is skewed BECAUSE he's only looking at serious injury and death. Obviously Miniature Poodles and Pomeranians aren't included in this study. They don't have the physical tools needed to cause such serious damage and death, but they still may be more likely to attack. Again, those attacks aren't tracked.
So for all of those reason listed, plus the others mentioned in my previous post, this study isn't exactly something to hang your hat on. Until every attack is researched and logged, every bit of information should be gathered about the attacks that are looked into, and not just the breed of the guilty parties.
Sorry, hepeedonmyrug, but
Clifton correctly points out that at least 68% of dogbites that result in fatalities involve pitbulls. Pitbulls may give the appearance of being calmer dogs than most dogs, but, in reality, unlike most dogs, pitbulls will attack out of the blue, without warning. Most dogs, when they feel provoked, will issue a bark or a growl as a warning. Pitbulls, on the other hand, have been known to appear quite calm, and then all of a sudden attack.
All of this...
"Clifton correctly points out that at least 68% of dogbites that result in fatalities involve pitbulls. Pitbulls may give the appearance of being calmer dogs than most dogs, but, in reality, unlike most dogs, pitbulls will attack out of the blue, without warning. Most dogs, when they feel provoked, will issue a bark or a growl as a warning. Pitbulls, on the other hand, have been known to appear quite calm, and then all of a sudden attack."
...is either opinion based on unfounded-rumor, or just plain BS. I just don't feel much like pointing out which is which. It's all the same to me.
Well, no it isn't B. S.
Frankly, I think that Clifton's study makes great, good sense. It's not rumour, either.
One also has to ask why many homeowners are loathe to give homeowners' insurance to those with pitbulls. There's a reason for that. It's not just urban legend--it's correct, imo.
hepeedonmyrug, if you choose to own a pitbull, that's your prerogative. However, be prepared to take the responsibility for it and comply with the pitbull law in your state, town or city, if there is one. I think that requiring pitbulls to be muzzled when they're out in public, for owners to insert warning signs of their presence at their place of business/residence in order to alert cllients, guests, meter readers, etc., is a good one, imo. Nobody's asking pitbull owners to get rid of their pets. I think it would be perfectly legitimate, sensible and just to halt and discontinue the breeding, imports and sales of new pitbulls, because nobody would be tempted to purchase them for dogfighting, drug dealing, or whatever. Owners of pitbulls have to be made to realize that with these dogs comes a really serious public safety risk, and therefore, to take responsibility.
Admittedly, halting the breeding, imports and sales of new pitbulls wouldn't put an end to the number of dog bites, which, btw, are a problem, but it would undoubtedly cut down considerably on the number of dog bites that permanently maim and/or kill other pets and people, because most of the latter type of dog bites have involved pitbulls.
Again, it's all your opinion.
While Clifton's study gathers information for only a miniscule portion of the overall problem, thus skewing the data, it's your opinion that it's a terrific study, and is indicitive of pitbulls as a whole. I disagree with that opinion.
While Clifton's data for his study was gathered from unreliable news organizations throughout North America, your opinion is that he's gathered his data in a perfectly sound manner. I, again, disagree with that opinion.
While some homeowner's insurance companies base also base their opinions on the same type of skewed data that Clifton bases his, you're opinion is that "it's correct." I , yet again, have to disagree with that opinion as many of the points you list are nothing but urban legend.
While destroying the future of this breed does not address the real problem of WHY these attacks happen, nor will it stop irresponsible pet owners from picking other strong breeds to be pets or to be used in illegal activities, your opinion is that to "halt and discontinue" the breeding is a sound one that will solve the dog attack problem. I, for a fourth time, strong disagree with that opinion.
And in my opinion, the dog world would be a better place as a whole if evey owner took the amount of care that I do with my Staffordshire Bull Terrier. I've owned these dogs for years, and my children have never once been in any danger, because I am the one in control of the situation. How? The exercise and discipline mentioned in earlier posts. I also know how to read my dogs' body language. I will never have a problem with a dog of any breed, much less the dogs of this "dangerous" one that I already own, because of the way with which my dogs are shown their place in my household.
Again, it is my opinion that your positions are BS, because of my years of experience dealing with this breed, and because of my looking into all of the rumors perpetuated by the fearful population of this country
So yes, in my opinion, all of your positions in this previous post are bogus.
So are we agreeing to disagree yet?
Um...ahem!!
Oh yes you do need to grow up!!
Let's stick
to substance rather than resorting to personal attacks. That goes for both of you. Thanks.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
Specter:
hepeedonmyrug's the one who's becoming much more childish and personal. I've already told him at least twice that I agree to disagree with him on this subject, and he refuses to leave it at that. My ignoring him won't work, because hepeedonmyrug will just take the opportunity to steamroller me, which I won't let him do!!
Get well soon!
Maybe a nice relaxing bikeride will help?
I'm all growns up.
I like how you're quick to point out my being insulting, and then you....
That's not hypocritical or anything.
:=)
Why......thank you, hepeedonmyrug!! :=) lol
As I pointed out before, hepeedonmyrug,
The fact that pitbulls' bites do and have caused much more serious injuries and/or deaths than most other dogs, and even landed people in the hospital is precisely why these dogs pose much more of a risk than other dogs and therefore have to be dealt with differently. Nobody's saying that dog bites by other dogs don't cause injury, because they can and they do. However, most dog bites, even those requiring stitches, don't generally result in the permanent maiming or death of the victim(s).
And again...
...you're ignoring the frequency of those other attacks. Somehow, that doesn't quite mean as much.
And somehow neither does the cause, which is the temperament of the dogs involved. If you can prove to me that the pitbull is more like to ATTACK, I'll listen. Otherwise, the punishing of an entire entire breed for the actions of a few imbalanced dogs doesn't make much sense.
I could bring up the African-American analogy here, if I so chose, but I'm under the impression that we're agreeing to disagree.
And in addressing the cause, wouldn't we really be addressing the problem before the problem occurs? Sounds pretty smart to me.
Again, instinct also has everything to do with it.
Since pitbulls were originally bred specifically as attack dogs, and for fighting,
the old, primative instinct to fight is still there. Pitbulls are not only bred to fight, but, unlike other dogs, they will and do fight to the death. That's how pitbulls are. The fact is that a pitbull is much more likely to be provoked by things that're relatively minor and/or unnoticed or unseen by other dogs, and have much more unstable temperaments.
Secondly, it's not unheard of for pitbulls to jump over average-sized fences or even to leap out of passing cars, or to even break away from the leash or chain, because those things are super-muscular, are much tougher and have a much higher threshold of pain than most other dogs. Pitbulls have been known to attack just out of the blue without warning, and to even turn on their owners, with horrific rresults.
I already have expressed my opinion of how this problems should be addressed, and I stand by it.
That whole post was...
...full of rumor. I'm waiting to hear facts that support you opinions, but I have yet to see any that have any concrete foundation. And again, why is it that instinct can be bred into a dog, but not bred out of it? Waitin' for a little common sense too.
And I too have already expressed my opinion that your opinion just don't, how did you put it, hold water.
Agree to disagree?
As I already told you earlier, hepeedonmyrug:
we agree to disagree on this whole post.
Yes--I'll agree to disagree with you on this entire thread. I've already agreed to disagree with you on this subject, hepeedonmyrug, and I'd prefer that you'd just leave it at that. You're such a baby that you've insisted on pursuing it, when I really don't want to pursue it anymore, but I don't want to be f**king steamrollered by you either, so I feel the need to defend myself. Do me a favor, do yourself a favor, and do everybody else here on swordscrossed.org a favor, hepeedonmy rug: Move the f**k on already!! Thanks.
Double Wow
It sure does look like somebody's a little upset. I guess I'm not the only one who gets a little heated. Are you ok? Personal problems maybe? Feel the need to take it out on pitbulls? That makes more sense now that your personal problems(my guess would be that you have anger issues or possibily some illness only you are aware of) make you more suceptible to the fear-mongering rumors of pitbull haters out there. Maybe once the anger issues subside you'll see things a little clearer. If I had your email address, I'd send you a Get-Better-Soon e-card. Maybe that would help cheer you up.
I feel bad for you, I really do. Get better for us all real soon, ok? God bless you.
Hey listen, hepeedonmyrug!!
It's quite clear that you're the one with the problem(s), since you refuse to accept the fact that I disagree with you on this subject, the way most people would. The fact that you've been so obnoxiously persistent even though I told you that we should just simply agree to disagree on this subject says a great deal more about you than it does about me!!!
No....I'm not going to send you my email address or anything. Forget it!!
That's too bad.
You'd have really enjoyed your e-card. I think you probably need it due to your anger issue. My guess is that your sudden problem is a combination of that, and your childish insistance to have the last word.
And I thought we'd already established that agreeing to disagree was the way to go.
Anyway, maybe a bowl of soup and a little rest will do the trick for you.
Maybe it is a sign of the times....
Since many pitbull owners are responsible, loving and caring pet owners, and many aren't. Those that aren't represent a violent undercurrent in our society.
I frankly would rather see the men that own these dogs duke it out in a boxing ring or a wrestling match.
The humane society promotes animal rights because in the larger picture it ties into how civil a society is.
We have seen violence in adults tied to children treating animals cruelly.
What is tragic is that humans would encourage animals to be viscious merely for the sake of blood sport.
There are many happy pit bull owners
that have to suffer for those who mistreat these animals.
The key is to crack down on dog fighting with harsh laws and a negative stigma. Any animal can be mistreated so that it becomes viscious, including humans.
I'm only half stupid
Missliberties...
... I would agree with that being a big part of the problem regarding the stigma attached to the dogs, a stigma that so many really like tying their opinions to.
Solid points, missliberties.
Stigma or no
A few weeks back, I went out in the backyard of a friend, to help him out, and a dog started barking at me. He was cute. Being familiar with dogs, I approached and the dog became agressive, snarling and barking. I realized that it was part pit bull. I wasn't stupid enough to stay outside and try and pet the dog, or to let it outside the fence where children were walking past. So I called Animal control.
They were kind to the animal, tried to feed it, but the dog had not been socialized and remianed agressive, snarling and barking. It was frightening. Sadly, I think the owners were encouraging this kind of behavior on purpose. Ironically it was the same day the story about Vick broke in the news. I would never allow a dog like that around small children, ever.
I'm only half stupid
My absolute final post about this issue...
I've decided this'll be my last post on this. Indie has a temper, and can't help but spout out the same opinions and urban legends over and over with little fact backing them. In her view, all pitbull owners(that aren't fighters)are absolute perfect dog owners, because it CAN'T POSSIBLY be their fault their dogs get as imbalanced as they do. It's also absolute LUNACY to suggest that these perfect, Dog Whisperer caliber owners would miss warning signs that their dogs have been puting out. And somehow, science only goes one way, as temperament and instinct can be bred into a dog, and not bred out. It's 100%, undoubtedly the pitbull's fault that it's turned out the way it has. There's no chance on the planet their perfect owners had ANY chance of controlling such wild, unpredictable beasts. Let's cut out the entire population's reproductive organs, and doom them to extinction because of what .0015% of the breed has done. G*D D*AMN that makes ALL KINDS of sense, doesn't it? In all truth, this is my last post on this subject because Indie doesn't like to counter points where she knows she's wrong. She just continues to spout off the same fear-mongering fallacy.
That being said, here's my last post on the issue.
Missliberties,
You made a valid point in your previous post that these dogs can be treated very badly by owners who want to instill some sort of viciousness in them, but there are some points that need to be adequately pointed out. Yes, there are portions of the pitbull population that are owned by humans who like to view these dogs as possessions who, without feelings, are there to do their bidding. They are mistreated by these people, and shown nothing but how to become weapons. Yet, I believe these people represent the vast minority of owners of pitbulls, and the dog-owning population as a whole.
I believe the problem lies with people who simply don't know any better. Their belief is that all you need to do with a dog is love it, and there will never be any behavioral problems aside from the "quirks" in the dog's personality. The truth is that these "quirks" are actually neuroses unknowingly caused and exacerbated by the owners.
The truth is that these dogs are almost always stuck in a house or in a back yard 24/7. They rarely get out of what can comparably be called a prison for these dogs. There's 4 walls, and no significant allowable roaming(which is THE MOST basic of all dog instincts outside of breathing, eating, sleeping, eliminating, and reproducing). Combine being stuck in a prison called a home with the little exercise, and how can you not expect to get a dog with psychological problems? They bounce off the walls in this energetic state that is what amounts to dog ADD. Because of this ADD, it's next to impossible to gain control, much less train the dog. Picture a kid with extreme ADD in a classroom without being allowed out for energy-burning recess. How good can you expect to teach that student? And when you allow this state of mind without displaying the proper sort of exercise and control, then you have an energetic, neurotic dog.
That neurotic dog then shows subtle signs of dominance that are actually encouraged by the owner unknowingly. Ever pet a dog who jumps on you when you walk in the door? Petted a dog who crawls in your lap? Let a dog walk in front of you while on leash, no slack in the leash at all? Petted a dog who barked at a person or other animal to try to calm it down? Thrown a ball for a dog when it barked at you to do so? All of these are examples of dogs who displayed dominant behavior, but the owner reenforced this negative behavior with affection without realizing it. Affection affirms whatever state the dog is in. If you praise a dog who's in dominate state, the dogs associates dominance with positive reinforcement. Same thing with fear, and excitement. This is where imbalance starts and builds. So, unknowingly, this dog that's already in this excited state-of-mind, that can be compared to child ADD, has been encouraged to be dominate as well. This dog now owns the family and the house, in his mind, because it wasn't ever treated or disciplined as if it was a dog. It's been a four-legged human.
The owner's interaction with the dog has now created an imbalanced alpha rules the roost. Balanced dogs correct their pack with body language and touch. Imbalanced alpha dogs are much more dangerous. This dog doesn't correct the members of his pack with balanced, fair-handed discipline. Instead, it's the alpha's imbalance that rules the day, and the dog doesn't just correct it's pack members(in the previously stated balanced manor), it can(of sometimes will) aggressively attack and injure it's pack-members. Often times, these attacks results in serious injury, and when a pitbull or Rottweiler, or Tosa gets in this dangerous state, the results can be catastrophic. This imbalanced state is where you'll find a lot of the pitbulls(and other breeds) of the world that attack, and seriously injure others. Neurotic and dominate dogs who are members of powerful breeds can and will create serious damage.
Now any number of other problems can result from this lack of leadership shown and exercise given. Of them include fear, obsession, and destructive behavior are the most likely. Every time(with the exception of dogs with actual neurological deformities), the dog can be brought out of this state with extensive exercise and balanced discipline. Shedding all of that energy that has been built up by not being allowed exercise, and correcting the dog properly whenever it shows any sign of neurotic behavior. Now this isn't a example story that happens to 100% of the dogs on the planet, but it is VERY common, and it is responsible for a HUGE number of behavioral problems for dogs of every breed. Excluding dogs with neurological damage, 100% of dog behavior is decided by the owner, whether they realize it or not.
Now here's one thing that I have to say, Indie. While there are no statistics to indicate that pitbulls are more likely to attack than any other breed, if there is one thing that you CAN take away from these studies, it's that these dogs are powerful, and can cause more damage if they so feel inclined. Again, they not more likely to attack, but when they do, there can be some severe consequences. Because of this, if you want to say that these dogs need owners to be licensed, I'm not opposed to that. Having a person required to be tested mentally and physically if they want to own what can be perceived as powerful breed(pitbull TYPES(even though I hate the term), Rottweilers, Akitas, Bull Terriers, etc.) makes perfect sense to me. If you want to say that the owners of these powerful breeds need to register before they're allowed to breed, fine. I've said this before, but make all of this similar to the driver's licensing process. Require that the participant have to prove in a written exam that he/she knows the laws regarding dogs in his/her area, and also have them go through a physical exam to determine if the person does indeed know how to read and does indeed have the physicality to handle a powerful dog. These sort of concessions seem to make good sense based on the data that has been gathered.
What doesn't make sense is to require that all pitbulls be sterilized because of the action of something like 2.5% of 1% of the population(yes, that's .0025%). The GREAT majority of these dogs never do attack, nor do they ever show signs of aggression. And don't tell me the "out of the blue" bullsh*t again, because that's exactly what it is.... bullsh*t, unfounded rumor based on statements of irresponsible or unknowledgeable owners. Again, the stats indicate that possible registration and licensing be enforced, rather than exterminating the breed from existence. The only things pointing to that are fallacy and hype.
Hope this helps everybody. My guess would be that independentminded is going to require that she has the last word on all this. Nothing about the previous posts in this thread will have me believe any less. Since she will NEED the final word, fine. It's all probably going to be about standing by positions that are mostly supported by negative, sensationalized hype. Again, fine.
Let's see how grown-up Indie's decides to be. I'm looking forward to her final statement about this, which is what this post is for me.
hepeedonmyrug--this should be the absolute last post to you, too
First of all, hepeedonmyrug, you've also got a rather nasty temper that you don't always keep under wraps, either. That being said, I'm not the one who resorted to the Hitler Anology, or started calling you lost and hopeless, or whatever, or stating anything about your having an illness because you disagreed with me on this. It's clear that we're never, ever going to agree on this subject, and we'd best just leave it at that. I've talked to a number of people whose pets have suffered horrible, horrible damage at the hands of unmuzzled pitbulls. I stand by my position that the fact that pitbulls do much more serious damage than other dogs with their bites makes them an even more risky dog to have around.
It's clear, hepeedonmyrug, that you're requesting that you have the last word on this subject. I'm not going to let you steamroller me the way you've been attempting to do. If you wish to own a pitbull, that's you're prerogative, but in the event that you ever end up residing in a city where there are pitbull restriction laws of any kind in place, you'd better be prepared to comply with them or face some sort of penalty for not doing so.
There's ample reason not to trust these dogs, imo. All too often,
pitbulls are bought by irresponsible people, and the fact that they're bred as they are make them more vulnerable to exploitation by irresponsible people.
Pitbulls have a primitive attack/fight instinct in them, and there's really no telling when it could break out. If you want to walk around with your pitbull, fine--that's your prerogative. Keep the thing muzzled so that it doesn't present a real public safety risk to other people and pets, and to clientele, meter readers, mail carriers, etc., who may show up at your house from time to time.
I'll keep my peaceful dog muzzled...
...as long as you keep your peaceful dog muzzled.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=158...
Peace!
The root of the problem:
The real problem lies with the people who insist & persist on breeding, importing and selling these dogs in the first place! Regardless of who they may be, and/or their walk(s) of life, the breeders/importers/sellers of pitbulls and/or pitbull-mixes should be put right the hell out of business! Then guys such as Michael Vick and other like him will never, ever have an opportunity to get involved in this kind of disgusting business whatsoever, in the first place!
Moreover, imho, the pop-psychology of "dog racism", and/or the idea that if it weren't pitbulls, then it would be some other dog doesn't even begin to hold water, because pitbulls are vulnerable to this kind of disgusting breeding/actions/behaviour precisely because of their crossbreeding.
I thought we agreed to disagree on this topic?
So, using your logic, the real problem behind all of the fatalities involving vehicles should be attributed to Ford, or Chrysler, or any of the number of other car manufacturers? Or it's the fault of the gun manufacturers that total numbskulls decide to use firearms against unarmed people in absolutely unwarranted situations? Or it's the fault of the companies that manufacture our eating utensils when somebody accidentally gashes their hand with a knife when preparing dinner? Or maybe it's the fault of companies like Thermadyne when machinists don't operate their machinery properly, and lose a hand in the process? In all of those scenarios, it's not the responsibility of the people who wield these products, right? And because it's the responsibility of these entities, we should cease their very existence, right? Ridiculous thinking on your part, Indie. Absolutely ridiculous!
And there's something wrong with your processor if you don't think that there will be some sort of other bloodsport to step up and take the place of dog-fighting should you remove pitbulls from the equation. I'm sure you've heard of bull fighting? Cock fighting? Boxing and Mixed-Martial Arts? People, as a whole, are attracted to violence... not violence involving pitbulls. Removing pitbulls from the equation simply creates a void that will be filled with some other violent and gorey spectator sport, and that void will most likely be filled with Rottweilers, or Mastiffs, or Bull Terriers, or Bulldogs, or any number of other athletic and muscular breed.
Your "The root of the problem" post doesn't begin to hold water. The common sense notion that some other breed will take the place of pitbulls should we as humans choose to eradicate the breed holds more water than any statement you've made on this thread.
Sorry, hepeedonmyrug--I'm not buying it.
I just looked at the video and all the comments following it, and I'm not buying into the notion that pitbulls are the most wonderful breed in the world. These people really don't seem to have a clue about the kind of risk to limb and life that they're putting themselves and/or their friends/loved ones at.
While it's clearly true that other dogs can and do produce horrible damage when they attack, unlike pitbulls, most breeds of dog do not have the capacity to crunch bones.
I don't care if you buy it.
I don't care if you buy it, Indie, because you buy gossip and fear, not fact. Pitbull types ARE the most wonderful breeds if put in the hands of the right people, just like almost all other breeds are.
And I'm going to ask you to back up that statement. Show me some sort of study that proves pitbulls are the only breed of dog that has kept it's natural ability to break flesh and bone through all the generations of domesticated breeding. Until you do, you're again perpetuating fear and rumor, and you should feel ashamed of yourself for peddling such fabricated garbage.
missliberties....
What you say about adults treating animals cruelly as children and end up being violent adults often does ring true, as does your point about people and other animals becoming vicious and nasty as a result of ill-treatment and/or abuse.
Nonetheless, I stand by my position that (A) That, no matter how gentle a pitbull supposedly is, or how responsible the owner(s) may be, there is always the chance that a pitbull will snap just out of the blue, and just attack.
I have known people who've been responsible owners who've had their pitbulls or pitbull mixes just turn on them out of the blue sky and cause damage. (B). It's also true that pitbulls do require much more vigilance and are even more work to take care of than other dogs. (C) The fact that pitbulls can and will infllict much more serious damage by their bites than most other dogs does ring true, and that alone poses much more of a risk than other dogs. Unlike the bite of a pitbull, most dog bites do not result in the permanent maiming or killing of their victims.
When they went to implement a pitbull restriction law in our area a couple of years ago, it was not aimed at making people who already own pitbull get rid of their pets, for would be unrealistic. What the law did set out to do, however, was to make owners of such dogs take the necessary responsibility of seeing that their dog(s) are kept under control through muzzling them when they're out in public, and inserting warning signs in their places of business/residence to warn clients, guests, meter readers, mail-carriers, etc., of pitbulls' presence. Imo, if the owner doesn't comply with the law and their dog attacks and seriously injures or kills another person's pet, then s/he should be made to pay a stiff penalty.
There've been some really horrific incidents in our area involving pitbulls, which is why people have pushed for these restrictions, which aren't much to ask, imo.
Hey indie... STOP IT
Whatever you're doing... stop it!
You've posted the same message a ton of times.
I survived the Bush Administration
Prime Mover--
Sorry--I don't think that I've done anything wrong, really. First of all, I'm having trouble with my computer a little bit.
Secondly, hepeedonmyrug should be told to stop it, since he won't leave me alone. Thanks.
You misunderstand me, Indie
I am on your side in the Pit Bull discussion...
... I just meant that you appeared to be posting the same exact message dozens of times... like you were stuck in a loop or something.
I survived the Bush Administration
Hi, Prime Mover.
Sorry about what's been going on. Thanks for your encouragement and support. The reason that my message came up so many times is because there was a really, really nasty glitch in my computer, and, yes, I really was stuck in kind of a loop because of it.
I know you're on my side in the Pit Bull discussion, Prime Mover. Again, sorry about what happened with the multiple postings, which caused so much aggravation for you all, and that resulted because of the now-resolved glitch in my computer.
Specter, if you're listening, thanks for erasing the multiples.
I've been erasing
multiples when I see them, but I've only stopped in briefly a few times today.
Indie, please be patient when you hit post so as to prevent multiple posts. Try not to hit it multiple times even if it doesn't work right away. It could be something else, but I suspect that it is it.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
Okay, Specter. Thanks.
I'll try to do that. I keep getting the message "safari can't open t he page": for some strange reason. Something must be wrong with this site.
That happens to me on occasion
after I hit post, it will say that the page can't open, but even so, the post still goes through. You can open a new window and check to see if you post posted.
It you hit the back button (resend) and the hit post again, it will post twice.
I'm only half stupid
Ah--okay. Thanks, missliberties.
I'll give that a try. My apologies to you and everybody else here for messing up the page. Didn't know what was happening. Thanks again. I'll know not to hit the "back" button from now on.
Sorry about the double posting, everybody.
Another glitch on my computer--happens on occasion. Again, my apologies.
no problem, I deleted the extra post (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Thanks, Brendan.
n/m