It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Netchicken
Excellent move Toronto!
Nice to see some people with common sence for once.
OK people say its the owner who is the fault, not the dog. In that case just ban pitbull owners (they can take their dogs with them when they leave)
Not only should they be banned because of their aggression, but becuase they are PLUG UGLY as well. So there are asthetic and safety reasons as well ....
Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
Why pick a fight with a mod who insults his own members....?
Did you U2U LadyV with your comments about her ideology, as I suggested earlier netturkey...I mean...chicken?
Originally posted by LadyV
When I saw this thread growing I popped in here, so you may now stop worrying EnronOutrunHomerun, that I may not see Netchicken's opinion of me, it seems rather important to you that I see it. I don't know why....do you really think his/her opinion of me will hurt or upset me!?
you calm down now as I have seen it...very strange for you to care so much...
THE BREED FACTOR
Many communities and cities believe that the solution to prevent severe and fatal dog attacks is to label, restrict or ban certain breeds of dogs as potentially dangerous. If the breed of dog was the primary or sole determining factor in a fatal dog attack, it would necessarily stand to reason that since there are literally millions of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and German Shepherd Dogs in the United States, there would have to be countless more than an approximate 20 human fatalities per year.
Since only an infinitesimal number of any breed is implicated in a human fatality, it is not only unreasonable to characterize this as a specific breed behavior by which judge an entire population of dogs, it also does little to prevent fatal or severe dog attacks as the real causes and events that contribute to a fatal attack are masked by the issue of breed and not seriously addressed.
Pit Bulls in particular have been in a firestorm of bad publicity, and throughout the country Pit Bulls often bear the brunt of breed specific legislation. One severe or fatal attack can result in either restrictions or outright banning of this breed (and other breeds) in a community. While any severe or fatal attack on a person is tragic, there is often a tragic loss of perspective as to degree of dangerousness associated with this breed in reaction to a fatality. Virtually any breed of dog can be implicated in a human fatality.
From 1965 - 2001, there have been at least 36 different breeds/types of dog that have been involved in a fatal attack in the United States. (This number rises to at least 52 breeds/types when surveying fatal attacks worldwide). We are increasingly becoming a society that has less and less tolerance and understanding of natural canine behaviors. Breed specific behaviors that have been respected and selected for over the centuries are now often viewed as unnatural or dangerous. Dogs have throughout the centuries served as protectors and guardians of our property, possessions and families. Dogs have also been used for thousands of years to track, chase and hunt both large and small animals. These natural and selected-for canine behaviors seem to now eliciting fear, shock and a sense of distrust among many people.
There seems to be an ever growing expectation of a "behaviorally homogenized" dog - "Benji" in the shape of a Rottweiler. Breeds of dogs with greater protection instincts or an elevated prey-drive are often unfairly viewed as "aggressive or dangerous". No breed of dog is inherently vicious, as all breeds of dogs were created and are maintained exclusively to serve and co-exist with humans. The problem exists not within the breed of dog, but rather within the owners that fail to control, supervise, maintain and properly train the breed of dog they choose to keep.
The number of dogs. Approximately 35 percent of American households owned a dog in 1994, and the US dog population exceeded 52 million. (Wise JK, Yang JJ. Dog and cat ownership, 1991-1998. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994;204:1166-7.)
The number of victims. A survey by the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta ("CDC") concludes that dogs bite nearly 2% of the U.S. population -- more than 4.7 million people annually. (Sacks JJ, Kresnow M, Houston B. Dog bites: how big a problem? Injury Prev 1996;2:52-4.) Almost 800,000 bites per year -- one out of every 6 -- are serious enough to require medical attention. Dog bites send nearly 334,000 victims to hospital emergency departments per year (914 per day). (National Center for Health Statistics National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey for 1992-1994.) Bites to children represent more than 50 percent of the total number cases. 26% of child-victims -- compared with 12% of the adults -- require medical care. (Ibid.) Getting bitten by a dog is the second most frequent cause of injury to children. (Weiss HB, Friedman DI, Coben JH. "Incidence of dog bite injuries treated in emegency departments," JAMA 1998;279:53.) Every year 2,851 letter carriers are bitten. (US Postal Service.) I'm feeling ya here Intrepid An American has a one in 50 chance of being bitten by a dog each year. (CDC.)
The number of fatalities. In the U.S. from 1979 to 1996, 304 people in the U.S died from dog attacks, including 30 in California.The average number of deaths per year was 17. Most of the deceased were children. ("Dog-Bite-Related Fatalities -- United States, 1995-1996," MMWR 46(21):463-467, 1997.) The chances that the victim of a fatal dog attack will be a burgler are one in 177; the odds that it will be a child are 7 out of 10. However, fatalities are highly unusual. For every fatal dog bite in the United States, there are 230,000 bites that are not treated by a physician.
The financial impact of dog bites. Dog attack victims in the U.S. suffer over $1 billion in monetary losses every year. ("Take the bite out of man's best friend." State Farm Times, 1998;3(5):2.) That $1 billion estimate might be low -- an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that, in 1995, State Farm paid $70 million on 11,000 claims and estimated that the total annual insurance cost for dog bites was about $2 billion. (Voelker R. "Dog bites recognized as public health problem." JAMA 1997;277:278,280.) One in three homeowner insurance claims pertains to a dog bite. ("Take the bite out of man's best friend." State Farm Times, 1998;3(5):2.) The average insurance payout is $12,000. (Ibid.)
Dog bites are on the rise: Although the number of dogs in the United States increased by only 2% between 1986 and 1996, the number of dog bite injuries requiring medical treatment rose by 37%. (Weiss HB, Friedman DI, Coben JH. "Incidence of dog bite injuries treated in emegency departments." JAMA 1998;279:51-53.)
The scene of attack is home or a familiar place. The majority of dog attacks (61%) happen at home or in a familiar place.
Dogs bite family and friends. The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim's family or a friend.
Dog breeds the CDC considers the highest risk? Pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, Huskies, Alaskan Malamutes, Doberman pinschers, Chow Chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. But are these the breeds that actually are the highest risk? And "Huskies" is a class of dogs, not a breed. What kind of "Huskies" are they even talking about? The generic term of Husky refers to Siberian Huskies, Alaskan Malamutes, Samoyeds, and other Northern type breeds which may or may not even be purebred. Are they talking about Siberian Huskies? If so, then why don't they specify that?
Many homeowners insurance companies and local law enforcement jurisdictions use these statistics to decide what dog breeds they will discriminate against or out right ban. While statistics on dog bites are nice, they actually tell us almost nothing about the issue, and are the basis of many pieces of flawed dog ownership restrictions or outright banning legislation.
In the first place, the dog breed identifications in the reports are dubious at best. Entire categories of bites are frequently not included in the statistics, such as the so-called provoked bites, which may or may not be such. In addition many dog bites are never reported, especially if they do not require medical treatment.
To use statistics alone in determining who an insurance company will sell to and who they won’t ignores the basic issues of personal responsibility and just how many of those so-called statistical bites were caused by the human involved and not the dog, besides being downright racist. If insurance companies refused to provide homeowners insurance to all black people there would be a national outcry. Yet many companies today refuse to sell insurance to someone who owns a dog, regardless of the dog’s history and temperament.
Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun
I just thought it was inappropriate behavior for a mod...and considering he said it after you said you would not return to the thread I figured it was worth bringing attention to....What can I say, I'd expect the same if someone trashed me after I left a thread....
Originally posted by mad scientist
Lady V can't take the heat throws a tantrum and leaves. Netchicken points it out and now you'e trying to villify him
LadyV's response is an attempt to reduce the stature of the individuals and minimise the validity of their comments when they disagree with her stance on the topic. It helps to protect the ego from ideas that conflict with her own beliefs, so that she does not have to face the evidence of others, and instead stay comfortable in her own views..
Originally posted by LadyV
I had 12 stitches in my face from a miniature schnauzer! ANY dog has the potential to bite. I have been grooming for 18 years, Vet Teched for 5 years prior to that, I have never been bitten by a large breed dog, but I have had tons of them from smaller breeds and cats! I am so sorry this happened to you, but it doesn't prove Pits are mean.