It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OP/ED: Toronto to Ban Pits... Could the ban be Spreading?!

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Since you seem to think you know what you are talking about why don't you humor us and find the data for the last 20ish years on fatalities due to dog bites. Why don't you also do a Google search for serious dog bite news stories. You probably won't because we already know the answer to the fatal attack stats and when you do a search on Google you find Pit Bull attack stories all over the place.[end quote]

I don't "think" that I know what I'm talking about,,,, I POSITIVELY AM CERTAIN of what I'm talking about. I've raised American Pitbull Terriers for 40 years. I'm a member of the UKC, AKC and ADBA. I've seen a lot good pits and I've seen a few bad ones. That will be true for all breeds.
The reason you see so many media stories about pits is because they make better stories than other breeds. Media hype! Stories about smaller breeds attacking people are not as "news-worthy".
Give it up,,, you, of all people are not going to change my mind about pits. I know my dogs. You obviously don't.
This statement just proves that:"There have been far too many reports of Pits mauling family members. Mainly little kids and infants. And the genetic makeup of the dog is a problem. They are muscular and have a bite habit that most dogs dont and thats a powerful bite without a release. Once you get attacked it is difficult to break free. That problem as far as I know doesn't exist with any other dog. Just the Pit."

Of all the pits that I've been around in the past four decades I've never had any of them attack a family member or a family friend. They all have been good natured and loving. My Dad was the one who taught me to be careful about who I let have one of my pups. If I did not believe they would treat the dog right and/or raise it right they would never get one of my pups. I raise my pits to be a part of my family. My 5 yo son has an older sister but also 2 younger "sisters". I have a 4 yo and a 2 yo female pits. I have no fear at all of leaving them to play together unattended. Neither one would hurt him, I'm positive of that. Now, if a stranger came into the backyard or my house and tried to hurt my son, daughter or wife, that would be a completely different story.




[edit on 1-9-2004 by gordo]




posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   
A 1997 study of dog bite fatalities in the years 1979 through 1996 revealed that the following breeds had killed one or more persons: pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas. ("Dog Bite Related Fatalities," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 30, 1997, Vol. 46, No. 21, pp. 463 et. seq.) The experience of the author of Dog Bite Law confirms that the dogs on the CDC list are the most frequent attackers of human beings.

Why don't we hear about those highlighted breeds??

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictibility is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000, Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)

A 4 pound killing machine.

In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:
Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner most often is responsible -- not the breed, and not the dog.
An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous, as in the case of the Pomeranian that killed the infant (see above).
Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be likely to bite. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack

How 'bout these:

April 24, 2004, Sifton (Clark County), Washington (State). After playing with a neighbor's children inside their home, 8-year-old Johnnie Streeter was killed by their two dogs. The boy was found in their backyard. The dogs were half bull mastiff, half German shepherd. The owners stated that the dogs had never bitten anyone before killing the child.

April 16, 2004, Charlotte, NC. Third-grader Roddie Philip Dumas was in the fenced-in backyard of his father's home when the latter's four pit bulls mauled the child to death. The father and his girlfriend were inside and did not respond to the boy's screams. A neighbor and a mailman did, but could not save the youngster. When police searched the house, they found an AK-47 assault rifle, two shotguns and ammunition -- along with crack coc aine and marijuana. The father was arrested on drug charges.
Using Pits for illegal activities


Another case of a lowlife drug dealer using a pit as a guard dog, which they have not been bred for.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Interesting quote from dogexpert.com

link: www.dogexpert.com...

"In the last 18 months, 12 of the 18 confirmed dog-related fatalities in the U.S. -- or 67% -- have been caused by the pit bull terrier, a breed that accounts for only 1% of the U.S. dog population. And the maimings are far more numerous. Often it is small children who are the victims of unprovoked attacks."

I could find bite stats for Texas....

1998 www.dogexpert.com...

Pits accounted for 7.2% of severe attacks. Again this is a dog that makes up 1% of the population. And of coures of the pure breeds the big 3 that I mentioned earlier are 1, 2 and 3 in the rankings. Rott, Chow and Pit. Attacks resulting in hospitalization Pits were #1. Of course the Rott and Chow were 2 and 3.

Its not a coincidence. Pits are dangerous dogs. And if you want to blame the owners for the attacks then you should have no problem with making the owners criminally responsible for attacks. Such responsibility would include murder charges for attacks resulting in fatalities and assault with a deadly weapon charge for attacks. None of this $500 fine nonsense. Your Pit attacks and seriously hurts someone then you pay a massive fine and do some years behind bars. If you are so certain that its the owner and not the dog then you should have no problem with this.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Why you don't hear about them is because they aren't #1. Because when you make up such a large number of fatalities you are going to be in the news all the time. I'm not just dogging Pits (no pun intended). Rotts and Chows should be banned as well. Or perhaps making the owners get trained and making them sign a statement understanding that they are criminally responsible for the dogs actions.

Gordo: you are losing touch. The dog accounts for 67% of fatalities but its only 1% of the population. This is a case you cannot win. Its like the parent of a child saying "my kid would never do that". Numbers don't lie. And the Pits make the news because of the seriousness of the attacks. You never hear of someone having to kill the dog because they couldn't get it off the child. Its the Pit and sometimes the Rott and Chow. Almost exclusively.

[edit on 9/1/2004 by Indy]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Why you don't hear about them is because they aren't #1. Because when you make up such a large number of fatalities you are going to be in the news all the time. I'm not just dogging Pits (no pun intended). Rotts and Chows should be banned as well. Or perhaps making the owners get trained and making them sign a statement understanding that they are criminally responsible for the dogs actions.

Gordo: you are losing touch. The dog accounts for 67% of fatalities but its only 1% of the population. This is a case you cannot win. Its like the parent of a child saying "my kid would never do that". Numbers don't lie. And the Pits make the news because of the seriousness of the attacks. You never hear of someone having to kill the dog because they couldn't get it off the child. Its the Pit and sometimes the Rott and Chow. Almost exclusively.

[edit on 9/1/2004 by Indy]



Why don't you read all of the stats instead of just the ones that suit your beliefs?

"''The pit bull does seem to respond more than other dogs to people trying to bring out aggressiveness. But everything I know professionally tells me that this is not a dog problem, but a problem of dog ownership. "

"other breeds of dog bite more frequently -- German shepherds lead the list "

"DOG BITES MAN isn't news, they say, but PIT BULL BITES MAN is."

"Sadly it is the responsible owners and breeders who are suffering the most from the recent wave of pit bull hysteria."

"I'm disgusted with the American people who believe the problem's with the dog and not with the people raising the dog."

''But the hysteria, or concern, is understandable. To the untrained eye -- or even to the trained one, in many instances -- it is virtually impossible to tell a docile pit bull from a mean one. None of them looks like a wimp, and a friendly pit bull jumping up to lick you to death has an eerie resemblance to a pit bull jumping up to rip out your throat. Your best bet is to pass a fast judgment on its owner. Pit bulls do not usually growl before attacking; they seldom bark. The hair on their backs does not stand on end when they are enraged. These are not dogs given to threatening displays. The pit bull, when so trained, is all business, which has made it the dog of choice for drug dealers and street punks around the country. ''People whose insecurities are such that they need macho reinforcement feel a need for this type of animal,'' says Loew of Tufts, ''and they are available because of the overflow from illegal dogfights.''

"''You've got a bunch of kooks out there who are getting these dogs and making them mean and registering them,'' says Andy Johnson of the UKC. ''Every time somebody writes how mean these dogs are, the demand for them jumps up. You can make any dog mean if you work at it.''

"There is also the nettlesome question of punishing innocent, responsible breeders of American Staffordshire terriers and American pit bull terriers for the abuses of irresponsible, often criminal, owners."

I like this idea tho,,,,
"The new Rhode Island law provides a workable definition of a ''vicious dog'': One that has either committed an unprovoked attack on a person or animal, or that approaches a person in an apparent attitude of attack when unprovoked. That is the key word: unprovoked. Any dog that is unlicensed falls into the ''vicious'' category until it is licensed. Rhode Island's procedure for having a dog declared ''vicious'' is as follows: 1) the complainant calls the local animal control officer; 2) the officer investigates the complaint and holds a hearing to examine the circumstances; 3) he then declares whether the animal in question is ''vicious'' or not; 4) if the owner of the dog disagrees with his verdict, he may appeal to District Court. Should his appeal fail, the owner of the ''vicious'' dog must keep it in a secure enclosure, at least six feet in height, that is both childproof from the outside and dogproof from the inside. The dog is tattooed for identification. Furthermore, the dog owner must show that he has a $100,000 insurance policy for liability, and he is required to display a sign that can be read from the road: VICIOUS DOG ON PREMISES. The dog officer has the right to inspect the enclosure at any subsequent time and without need of a warrant, and has the right to seize and impound the dog if any of the specifications are not met to his satisfaction. If the dog bites again, the owner is fully liable, much as if he had been keeping a wild tiger in a cage. ''Most owners would rather turn in their dog than comply,'' says Sholes. So the net effect was to keep these vicious dogs off the street. "

And I agree with this!
"Of course the vast majority of problem pit bulls are unregistered and unlicensed. These are the animals that law enforcement officials must focus on, and quickly. Unlicensed dogs should be impounded. And anyone who knows of individuals who are keeping unlicensed dogs, or whose dogs are allowed to run loose, should be encouraged to report them to the proper authorities"

But again I have to say, you do not know my dogs. And I'm not losing it,,, try not to make this personal.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Sorry. Didn't mean to make it sound personal. Will you agree that the build of the dog makes it more dangerous when it attacks? Talking brute strength, bite type, etc? If so would you agree that if its not the fault of the dog(s) then it must be the fault of the owner and that if it is the fault of the owner they should face serious criminal charges? If you leave a gun laying out and a kid shoots himself with it do you walk away with a $500 fine? Of coures not.


XL5

posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   
LOL I am Canadian but I don't follow on political crap, taxes don't cure social issues, they make them worse for the people that have to pay that tax.

We should tax all smokes, beer/booze, suv's and mini vans OR fast food items under $5, or is it not a problem untill it effects you Intrepid?



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   
The average dog's mouth exerts 150 to 180 pounds of pressure per square inch. Some dogs can apply up to 450 pounds

Since large dogs are capable of bone-snapping jaw pressures of 200 to 450 pounds (91 to 204 kilograms) per square inch, it is critical that they be properly socialized and trained.

Some of the bigger dogs with square faces, like the mastiff or the Rottweiler, have measured bite strengths in the range of 2000 pounds per square inch." (Coren, Stanley. 2000. How to Speak Dog. Free Press. New York.)

How strong are wolves' jaws? The wolf's jaw can exert 1500 pounds of pressure per square inch, twice the jaw pressure of a German Shepherd. Wolves can crush large bones in just a few bites.

MYTH: American Pit Bull Terriers have 1600 P.S.I. in jaw pressure.
However
FACT: Dr. 1. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia states, "To the best of our knowledge, there are no published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparison to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs. There are, moreover, compelling technical reasons why such data describing biting power in terms of "pounds per square inch" can never be collected in a meaningful way. All figures describing biting power in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or, in some cases, to newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data." Need more be said?


[edit on 9/1/2004 by LadyV]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   
LadyV you said the 1600psi was a myth yet you offer no evidence of what it really is. And since it does similar damage to that of a wolf I must assume (and most likely rightfully so) that the biting force is about the same. Unless of course you can offer proof of what the biting force of a Pit is.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Interesting...

"A Rottweiler will exert 800 pounds-per-square-inch jaw pressure and a Bull Terrier will exert 1200psi. A Pit Bull will exert more than 2000 psi. "

Source: www.edba.org.au... (Endangered Dog Breeds Association)

A bit more reliable source than a site about loving Pit Bulls. Also isn't it a bit odd to post a link that says how there is no way to measure biting force but then at the same time post a link about the biting force of a wolf?



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   
No matter what the exact PSI is, when they bite, they give one heck of a bite.

Those are the ones who should be thrown in the pit (no pun intended).



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   
There's a six-year-old kid right on my street here in Wilkes-Barre who had the bad luck to be walking home from her friend's house when she ran into two rotweilers who guard the local scrapyard but got out through a hole in the fence. This six-year-old girl doesn't even look human, her face is hamburger and she uses a walker. It's one of the most tragic things I've ever seen. Maybe we should keep these dogs legal and instill the death penalty for owners of fighting dog breeds who harm people not on the owner's property.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Maybe we should keep these dogs legal and instill the death penalty for owners of fighting dog breeds who harm people not on the owner's property.


Even if they do harm people on the owner's property, the owner should still be held acountable for it.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Sorry. Didn't mean to make it sound personal. Will you agree that the build of the dog makes it more dangerous when it attacks? Talking brute strength, bite type, etc? If so would you agree that if its not the fault of the dog(s) then it must be the fault of the owner and that if it is the fault of the owner they should face serious criminal charges? If you leave a gun laying out and a kid shoots himself with it do you walk away with a $500 fine? Of coures not.


Yes, of course,,, that's common logic. If they attack they will have the capacity to inflict severe damage based upon the size and strength of the dog no matter what breed it is. I have a problem with "bite type" tho. A large dog bite is, well, a large dog bite. And I NEVER disagreed that the responsibility lies with the owner. The environment that the dog is raised in contributes to the over all demeanor of the animal,,, but this is true for all domesticated pets. Anyone who intentionally raises a dog of any breed to be mean and vicious should be dealt with severely.
As I said before, I raise my pits as part of the family. They actually believe that they are my kids and sisters to my two "human" kids. I have no misgivings at all with leaving my children alone with Sugar & Spice. They are actually better behaved than my human kids,,,, and mind better. I've made it a point to introduce my neighbors to my pits as well as any and all friends that visit.
Only a couple of things to be aware of,,,, 1. They like to lick your hands. 2. They love to have their belly scratched. (They actually spend a great deal of time laying on their backs just hoping someone will come along and rub their belly) and 3. Be wary of their tail. A happy pitbull can leave a bruise or two on your leg from the wagging tail.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   


A happy pitbull can leave a bruise or two on your leg from the wagging tail.


That they do indeed.

*Rubs leg*



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacKiller

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Maybe we should keep these dogs legal and instill the death penalty for owners of fighting dog breeds who harm people not on the owner's property.


Even if they do harm people on the owner's property, the owner should still be held acountable for it.


If the animal is doing it's job,,,, protecting the home or family that it belongs to, your statement is erroneous. Would be the same if my family was the target of a home invasion robbery and I shot the actors in defense of my life and my family's lives. So I should be prosecuted for that? And if my pits took them down as they barged in the front door I should be prosecuted for that?
My pits are house dogs. They have access to a locked and fenced in back yard thru a doggy-door. If Mr. local peeping tom happens to slip into my backyard in the middle of the night and Sugar chews his butt off, would she be a vicious animal? I think not!



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Now I'm not to sure but I think these dogs are banned in the uk or that you have to get them licenced and have a muzzel on them when walking them out in the public. but if it means makeing the streets safer place I agree with it but i'd rather have the muzzel law come into effect first.

Remember these dogs can be vicious there Originally used as fighting dogs if one of these got hold of you youre going to need a crow bar to prize its jaws of.


[edit on 1/9/2004 by SE7EN]



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SE7EN
Now I'm not to sure but I think these dogs are banned in the uk or that you have to get them licenced and have a muzzel on them when walking them out in the public. but if it means makeing the streets safer place I agree with it but i'd rather have the muzzel law come into effect first.


Of course! The muzzel law would be so much effective. I rather have a piece of plastic / metal placed around my dogs mouth then seeing a mass Pit-bull genocide happen.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by gordo
If the animal is doing it's job,,,, protecting the home or family that it belongs to, your statement is erroneous. Would be the same if my family was the target of a home invasion robbery and I shot the actors in defense of my life and my family's lives. So I should be prosecuted for that? And if my pits took them down as they barged in the front door I should be prosecuted for that?
My pits are house dogs. They have access to a locked and fenced in back yard thru a doggy-door. If Mr. local peeping tom happens to slip into my backyard in the middle of the night and Sugar chews his butt off, would she be a vicious animal? I think not!


You seem to mis-understood what I ment, or maybe I typed it wrong.

If little 6 year old Suzie is playing in my backyard with my son, and Spud attacks Suzie, I should still be held accountable.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacKiller

Originally posted by gordo
If the animal is doing it's job,,,, protecting the home or family that it belongs to, your statement is erroneous. Would be the same if my family was the target of a home invasion robbery and I shot the actors in defense of my life and my family's lives. So I should be prosecuted for that? And if my pits took them down as they barged in the front door I should be prosecuted for that?
My pits are house dogs. They have access to a locked and fenced in back yard thru a doggy-door. If Mr. local peeping tom happens to slip into my backyard in the middle of the night and Sugar chews his butt off, would she be a vicious animal? I think not!


You seem to mis-understood what I ment, or maybe I typed it wrong.

If little 6 year old Suzie is playing in my backyard with my son, and Spud attacks Suzie, I should still be held accountable.


That I can agree with,,, I apparently did misunderstand. Circumstances prevail,,, the owner is the ultimate responsibility. I've always believed that. It's when people make broad sweeping statements about pits I get defensive. Seriously, I've been around pits my whole life and have never had a "vicious" animal. I know that any animal can be made vicious by the way it's raised. I've known several vicious chi,,, chiua,,, oh, you know, those little Mexican snappy dogs. Just slightly larger than a rat but most that I've ever ran into had severe personality disorders and bad attitudes.




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join