Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Rocky

The world's first face transplant was compliments of a lab in England.

Labs, along with 25 other breeds, are on the CDC's list of dogs that have killed people. Even chespeake bay retrievers, even daschunds, even saint bernards. It's very interesting that the CDC won't even publish more statistics because they themselves have found that the study was flawed from the start.

First off, the phrase "pit bull type" can be used for practically any dog that even remotely resembles a pit bull, including 13 pure bred dogs that aren't even related to them. Yet, all other breeds, including labs and retrievers, have been noted by their breed in detail. They could have lumped the spitz type dogs together and they would have had a killer on their hands, but for some reason, the only group singled out was pit bull type.

Perhaps this is because the CDC got their death statistics from the news, which has time and time again proven extremely unreliable at dog breed identification. If anyone would bother to read the entire report, they would realize that the CDC doesn't do it anymore because every decade or so, there's a breed that comes along that the media simply dominates, and regardless of whether they really are the monster of the time, the media makes it that way. If the CDC only has the media to use for their studies, it's no wonder they have stopped doing them.

I have known more people than I can count who have been seriously attacked by dogs other than pit bulls, but somehow, these stories never end up on the news. I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that the news is not a non-profit agency bent on educating and informing the public, but a for-profit, biased company with no ethics.

Years ago the same thing happened to Rottweilers, Dobies, Chows, and German Shepherds. They were the only dogs in the news, the only ones attacking people, the only ones killing. We all know that wasn't true. It's just that the media loves to find a monster and make money off it.

And as for the "Google and find thousands of pit bull attacks", I spent the good part of a day doing just that, and what did I find when I actually read the stories?

1)Many of the "pit bulls" weren't actually pit bulls

2)Many, many of the stories were of the same incident, just with different writers and slightly different details

3)Every last article had a pattern and it wasn't the breed of dog. It was a chained dog, dog running loose, intact dog or breeding pair of dogs, every single time.

Unfortunately, the people who have spent years studying the breed, working with them, and seeing their reputation decline have less clout than an agency made up of people with journalism degrees. Not veterinarians, animal behaviorists, not even animal control, but writers, are given our attention and trust. Writers whose job it is to report on tragedy. Not to report unbiased facts. That isn't interesting, and it doesn't sell.




I used to hate the breed. I had a friend with four of them, and after arguing with him over and over again about how unpredictable and dangerous they were, I decided to research the breed and prove to him that his dogs were not fit for being pets. Four years later, after researching the breed, working in animal shelters and vet clinics, and being around countless pit bulls, I must say I am glad that I decided to try and stop my friend from getting killed by his dogs.

In doing so, I have learned the facts about the breed. They are not unpredictable or aggressive. They are not vicious killers. There are so many facts against these statements that I could post twenty pages and not get through it all. The main idea is, if you really aren't sure about pit bulls, or even if you are, why not do some actual research? Not the msm, not google, but research. Read some books, some studies, go and see some of these dogs, talk to animal behaviorists, read study after study that disproves the media's allegations. The worst thing that will happen is that you still don't like these dogs. But at least you will be educated about them. I did, and now I must say my opinion on these animals has taken a turn.

I have two right now, one of which has her Canine Good Citizen, the other will as soon as she is old enough. They are inside with me, all day, never chained, never in the yard, up to date on shots, friendly, active, caring, outgoing, and playful. They are such good representatives of the breed that they have already changed several people's minds about it and even got me a job training dogs.

I'm not saying you or anyone else will end up wanting to go out and get a dog, but the least you could do is know the facts. There's a lot of misinformation out there courtesy of the media and idiots who make claims and exaggerations. You don't have to believe it.

Was it the ferret, or was it the six week old puppy? Does it matter? Who do you blame? The teething animal, or the idiot parents who should have known better, drugs or not?
How many times do you read a story about a kid getting hurt by a dog and actually think about the parents? Where are they? What the hell were they thinking? Should they have been interviewed a little more?

This story reeks. Something isn't right, and it isn't the dog or the mustelid.


299 posted on 12/23/2006 12:53:56 PM PST by solosmoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies ]


To: solosmoke
Thanks for all the good information. Personally I don't believe the parents were even home. Or were so out of it they couldn't wake up. I can't imagine sleeping through screams like that poor baby had to be making. If the parents were able to sleep through that then something is wrong. Hopefully the baby will recover and the parents will go off to jail or get help and the animals will be adopted out. I still blame the ferret though. I hate them. Merry Christmas ~~Pandora~~
300 posted on 12/23/2006 1:06:49 PM PST by pandoraou812 ( zero tolerance and dilligaf?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies ]

To: solosmoke

You're right about misidentification. It's obvious from reading stories on the internet that there is a difference of opinion about what constitutes a "pit bull". There are different varieties. And do we include dogs which are mixed breeds? Also, there is certainly a tendency in the media to "pile on" whenever the journalists detect a vulnerable whipping boy, whether a dog breed or an unpopular president.

Anyone who owns an agressive dog is responsible to protect innocent citizens from it. A neighbor of ours had two dogs which were ifentified to me as pit bulls. I'm no expert. They escaped from their yard a couple of times and terrorized some of the neighbors. Most dogs when they get loose around our neighborhood just go exploring, but these dogs wanted to pick a fight.

I don't know what the answer is, that is, where to draw the line between a dogowner's rights and the rights of other citizens, but I do think that people who own large, powerful dogs often forget the potential danger.


324 posted on 12/24/2006 3:49:53 AM PST by Rocky (Air America: Robbing the poor, and still unable to stay in business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson