2 pit bulls dragged by car, 1 injured

St. Petersburg Times ^ | 4-23-2003 | Megan Scott

[keri]

Yep. When he's finished trying we could haul him back to his garage and throw him in a metal cage. But first, we'd have to duct tape what's left of his bloody feet and hands that are worn down to the bone. Gotta be humane, you know...

[thoughtomator]

Yes the ones I have seen are bad owners and bad breeders. The problem is that for bad owners, a pit bull puts many times more destructive power in their hands than any other breed can do. This is why there is such a striking correlation between bad owners and vicious pit bulls.

The guy in the article is just another one of those pricks for whom these dogs are not living beings but merely tools to make him feel important at the expense of the safety of his neighbors.

The core point I am trying to make here is that the danger to others, when this breed is not properly trained, is unreasonable and extreme, and dwarfs the risks inherent in poor training for other types of dogs. It's like the difference between drunk driving on a bicycle and drunk piloting a 747. Both can hurt people, but the difference in potential damage is enormous and can't be responsibly ignored. I am a staunch supporter of freedom, but I do not believe that freedom extends to being able to recklessly put your fellow man in mortal danger.

Here's some research that supports my assertion:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dogbreeds.pdf

I'll quote a relevant part:
"...the data indicate that Rottweilers and pit-bull type dogs account for 67% of human DBRF in the United States... It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States in the same period, and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

DBRF means Dog-Bite Related Fatalities.

Here's another item of research:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dog50.pdf

"Alarmingly, the proportion of deaths attributable to pit bulls had increased from 20% during 1979-1980 to 67% by 1987-1988."

I'm pretty sure this isn't a figment of my fevered imagination.

[FITZ]

I see these dogs ALL the time, and they are inevitably accompanied by a person with a foul attitude. I constantly see them bullying other dogs in common areas, and more often than not the owners let them go at it.

That might be why there are so many news articles about them turning on their masters ----they're just getting back because of the abuse they were given. I think some dogs can be genetically mentally ill and low-class breeders breed mental illness into their strains ---but it's like German Shepherds which were once so intelligent they were the main dog used as guides for the blind but sloppy breeders began breeding the idiot dogs that they've lost their reputation for being smart dogs and now you see other breeds more often doing that work.

[Cool_V]

There was 1 cocker spaniel bite related death in that first PDF list. How did that happen?

[thoughtomator]

An infant victim, probably.

[mel]

You are absolutely correct

[mel]

You are absolutely correct about dachshunds, they have a higher bite rate than pit bulls, the difference of course is in the damage that they can cause. But I love my rescued dacshund, he has one mark on his belt though.

[Bella_Bru]

Pfffft....a jerk like this does not deserve anything close to humane treatment.

[Bella_Bru]

Sloppy breeding in German Shepards has also led to ridiculously high rates of hip dysplasia too.

[gcruse]

I agree. What a horrible thing to do to a dog. That said, there should be jail time for owning pit bulls in the first place (just kidding, sorta).

[MightyMouseToSaveThe Day]

"One would have to be in serious denial to say that the vast majority of these dogs are used for any other purpose than violence..."

You've just proved my point by what you said. Don't you see that? You just wrote that the majority of these dogs are used for violence. Just WHO do you think is using them??? PEOPLE. The dogs don't get together and decide to demonstrate violence. They're not naturally that way. Humans use them in violent ways for their own evil purposes. Re-read what you wrote, and I think you'll see that it's the humans' fault, not the dogs. I think you need to take your "omater" off your "thoughts" and start exercising your brain in some critical thinking.

[Clintons Are White Trash]

Just last week I happened to look out my kitchen window in time to see a "sweet and loving" Pit Bull kill my 13 year old cat who was sitting and minding his own business.

I hate Pit Bulls and after this incident, I am getting a gun. If I ever see another one on my property, it's dead.

[keri]

You've taken things out of context to support your conclusion. I don't know if you have a fevered imagination, but the stats actually support the opposite of what you think.

The data for human DBRF from 1979 through 1996 was combined with the data from 1997 and 1998. Human DBRF were identified by searching news accounts and by use of the HSUS..

Twenty-five different breeds of dogs have been involved in more than half of the 238 human DBRF deaths the last twenty years.

Alarmingly, the proportion of deaths attributable to pit bulls had increased from 20% during 1979-1980 to 67% by 1987-1998.

Here you fail to follow up... how many deaths were they responsible for in 1979-1980? TWO, as in 2, deaths. In 1987-1988, it was 11, and then it STARTS DROPPING. You need to look at the chart to understand the percentages you have given. Remember, please, that you must also take this into account: the difficulties inherent in determining a dog's breed with certainty, and that the studies are grouping all pitbull type dogs under pitbulls...

Dog bite related deaths have held pretty steady since 1981, except for Rotties.

From the first article at the CDC: As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pitbull-type dogs.

Did you even bother to look at the charts breaking down deaths/years from the articles you posted?

You can believe what you want, of course, but the facts do not support your belief.

[Teacher317]

Loving people don't choose the most dangerous breed of dog in existence as their pets. Only people who want to use the dog to intimidate or harm others do.

So let me get this straight... you're summarily declaring which people are "loving" and not... which breeds are dangerous or not... and what people's intentions are by the things they own.

Tell me, do you do the same thing with people? Which races are good or bad? Which things they might own to make them evil or not, like guns perhaps?

Pray tell, what study did you do or read to discover that pits are worse than fila brasilarios, dobies, dogs cross-bred with wolves, etc? Or are you just spouting off your own personal hatreds, prejudices, and baseless accusations?

(Just in case you're missing my point, you're a knee-jerk bigot, an offensive and stereotyping fool, and exactly the kind of easily-led sheep that tyrants love to have around... they call them "useful idiots".)

[thoughtomator]

Let me know when you learn how to scroll down, Einstein.

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

nobody better laugh at my shiba inu or he will throw his nylabone or squeaky cheeseburger at ya

[thoughtomator]

My firsthand experience supports my beliefs. I have known more than one person who has chosen a pit bull for the explicit purpose of using it as a weapon. I'm rather astonished to meet such disagreement here, it seems to me to be obvious that is the only reason for a person to want that kind of dog rather than a different breed.

To me, this is the kind of flat-out obvious thing in the category of (to make a current-events analogy) saying that anti-Western terrorists are pretty much all radicalized Muslims. Yeah you'll find a well-behaved and loving pit bull on occasion, just as you'll find a non-Muslim terrorist every so often. But it's rare, and an exception that emphasizes the rule.

The question that I can't find a satisfactory answer to is this:

If the dog is not intended for use as a weapon, why would any person ever choose a pit bull over another breed?

[keri]

I will give you an honest answer, although you assume far too much to deserve one.

It's a look, something in the behavior or particular personality of the pup or dog. What is that makes a person click with a certain dog whatever the breed?

Some people don't have to pick a breed. They pick a dog to love and care for and are loved in return.

I would think other people would choose a pitbull simply because they love the breed's qualities, as I do. And you are wrong. Good dogs are not rare within the breed. Just the opposite.

[Free Vulcan]

Hmmm, someone needs to get together with this guy in a small room and bust both his legs, then order him to stand up and walk around, beating him with a nightstick repeatedly when he doesn't. Then ask him how he liked his training session.

[Teacher317]

Well, Nostradamus, your "study" lumps Rottweilers and "pit-bull type dogs"... not very breed specific for pit bulls, and aggregates figures for several different breeds. How does that definitively place one specific breed from the non-specific list (other than Rotties) so far above and beyond the others? If anything, it seems to indicate that Rotties are a bigger part of the picture than the pit bulls you are trying to demonize.

Also, your (again unsupported) contention that pit bulls present much more "potential damage" than other breeds of dogs is just plain silly. I watched a great dane tear the wheel well off of a Fiero to get to an escaping cat. Pit bulls don't tear and remove, they latch on and hold. Would you rather have your muscle tissue perforated... or removed? Which represents more "potential damage"?