Posted on 06/06/2018 10:13:01 PM PDT by Norski
Newfs can be huge. AKC says, "These noble giants are among the world's biggest dogs..."
Butt hurt much Felicia? Keep your pit bulls, I hope you or your family don’t wind up a statistic. But otoh, a small wager in favor of it is a 1000x better bet than the lottery.
The most dangerous breeds being larger dogs who are accordingly more capable of causing serious injury, as opposed to chihuahuas, dachshunds, and the like.
In any event, as the HP article mentioned, State Farm gathers more data than the U.S. government, and while subsidies might occur based on the criteria I cited above, there certainly doesn't appear to be any evidence that State Farm—who one would presume has some of the best data—is convinced that Pit Bulls specifically represent a greater threat (as individual dogs) than any of the other "most dangerous" (largest/muscular) breeds.
Again, the fact that State Farm Insurance doesn't single out the dreaded Pit Bull breed for any "special handling" speaks volumes, and the reason is very likely based of the fact that other large and/or muscular dog breeds attack at comparatively similar rates—doubtless supported by the industry-leader's own extensive and impeccable data...
Dogsbite does not investigate and confirm breed or types of dogs.
When given evidence that a particular dog they have labelled as a ‘pitbull’, is in fact not one
and they are given the contact info to confirm that information, they ignored it.
They are unethical, untrustworthy, agenda driven, and have no regard for truth.
Perhaps that’s why you use them as a source?
I was about to post the same thing...no one jumped in to even try and stop it. He mite bite me, but I guarantee you I’d be putting a beating on that dog. as well as the owner.
In the UK, she may very well have to worry about being “put down”.
Wow I thought Great Danes were gentle dogs. It’s all I’ve ever heard and you never hear of them attacking.
” . . .and while subsidies might occur based on the criteria I cited . . .”
“. . . .doubtless supported by the industry-leader’s own extensive and impeccable data... “
+++++++++++++++
Yes. These subsidies are being made, at the expense of non-dangerous-dog owning customers.
” . . extensive and impeccable data . . “
And you approve of the practice.
Hopefully, the truth is a ‘scary minority’,
but the truth might be a function of the locale, area or region in which you dwell.
Yes. It’s known as the “Liverpool Pathway” or “Liverpool Protocol.”
Thank you for a fascinating and thought-provoking solution to a wide-ranging problem. You must be a direct descendant of the man who cut the Gordian Knot.
Thank you all for a vigorous discussion. I must go now. Norski.
I've been a "dog" man—in many cases simultaneously a cat owner—for all of my life. I've never owned a Pit Bull, because (for whatever reason) I'm not a big fan of any of the heavy, muscular breeds.
Having said that, I've known numerous family members, friends, and acquaintances who have owned Pit Bulls, and my experience with the breed has been uniformly positive. Pit Bulls are one of the most popular breeds in America, and the fact that State Farm insurance pays out higher amounts for Pit Bull attacks could easily be related to the hysteria prevalent in the public (in addition to documented errors in breed identification) rather than any likelihood that Pit Bulls attack at higher rates than other large dogs such as Dobermans.
Conversely, my uniform experience with Chow Chows is that they are just weird and creepy (no offense to Chow Chow owners). I've also personally had several encounters with unpredictable Dobermans. Not so for Pits, at least in my own case.
For those who are interested in breed attack rates, a peer-reviewed study conducted by ostensibly objective organizations such as the AVMA (organization linked to above) suggests that there are several dog breeds who make fatal attacks at higher rates than Pit Bulls.
Since people tend to rely on their own experience even more than what the Fake News Media sensationalizes, my own recollections have convinced me that Pits aren't any more dangerous than the other large, aggressive breeds most frequently used as watchdogs, guard dogs, family pets, etc.—perhaps even less, based on what I have seen personally.
German Shepherds, for instance, kill and injure many people as well, and, while they are a much less common breed than Pits, they do seem to attack at somewhat comparative rates. I specifically recall several local news reports over the years that involved German Shepherd attacks which caused serious injury or fatalities.
So that's my take on the dreaded Pit Bull—their bad reputation is based as much (or more) on hysteria and the breeds high popularity than in objective evidence—at least as far as rates of attack are concerned.
False. I neither endorsed nor repudiated the practice. Apparently what State Farm is implying is that insurance rates for small dog breeds (meaning generally not dangerous) are used to subsidize larger (more dangerous) breeds—without any singling out of Pit Bulls as excessively dangerous with respect to rates of attack.
If the Pit Bull breed belonged in a class by itself in comparison to all the other "dangerous breeds", State Farm would doubtless and appropriately put the breed in a class by itself—and reduce the rates for all other breeds. But apparently State Farm is so dominated by Pit Bull lovers that they act against their own best business interests—not. Again, their policy of lumping Pit Bulls with the other large breeds speaks volumes as far as the lack of compelling evidence that Pits are significantly more likely to attack someone than any of the other "dangerous breeds".
Why would State Farm ignore the profoundly elevated risk that Pit Bulls supposedly represent—according to the breed's predominantly hysterical detractors—if that were indeed supported by their own comprehensive data? It would make no sense. And State Farm's data is minimally comparable—and most likely superior—to that of any other company in the industry...
NEVER leave an infant unattended with ANY DOG.
Good Lord, you’re giving terrible advice.
Caught my attention as well.
There are NO non-dangerous dogs. ALL dogs are potentially dangerous.
I just don’t understand how people can take the risks. The ole “it’s the owners not the breed” is simply not true. Too much data proves that wrong.
It’s bad here. I’m in rural TN and a lot of local meth cookers keep Pits around. There is also a lot of illegal dog fighting going on. Pets disappear all the time because they steal them to use as bait. We don’t have gangs in my rural area but they seem to be a favorite dog for young black gang wannabee’s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.