Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaneman
Because my sources are respected professionals from the canine community and yours were not anywhere close to it. Given the population of PB's, the power they wield, the type of owner they attract etc I believe 15-20% is a much closer number than your 50%+. There are also numerous links backing up the extensive research of the sources I quoted.
I never said there wasn't a Pit Bull problem, there is indeed a very large Pit Bull problem...I just don't believe it lies in the dog's genetic makeup. I never said Pit Bulls weren't capable of killing humans. I said the numbers have been greatly exaggerated and the whole story isn't being told.
Yes, I have seen many episodes of the Dog Whisperer where Cesar "goes up against an aggressive Pit Bull" Milan also owns numerous Pit Bulls including the old one "Daddy" that used to be Redman's dog. Daddy is personal protection trained BTW.
Consider:
My study of fatal attacks occurring over the past five decades has identified the poor ownership/management practices involved in the overwhelming majority of these incidents: owners obtaining dogs, and maintaining them as resident dogs outside of the household for purposes other than as family pets (i.e. guarding/ protection, fighting, intimidation/status); owners failing to humanely contain, control and maintain their dogs (chained dogs, loose roaming dogs, cases of abuse/neglect); owners failing to knowledgably supervise interaction between children and dogs; and owners failing to spay or neuter resident dogs not used for competition, show, or in a responsible breeding program.
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/ncrc-research/
And from the CDC:
Dr. Randall Lockwood, one of the authors of the CDC’s “Breeds of Dogs,” as well as a member of the AVMA Task Force, submitted an affidavit in 2007 in opposition to the breed ban currently in effect in Denver, Colorado. He stated, in part: “Focusing on a single breed as the ‘source’ of the dog bite problem reflects a 19th century epidemiological mindset that attempts to identify the vector of a public health problem and eliminate that vector. . . The dog bite problem is not a disease problem with a single vector, it is a complex societal issue that must address a wide range of human behaviors in ways that deal with irresponsible behavior that puts people and animals at risk.” |
You're going to totally ignore my point about there being few Pits from 1965-1985+ which makes her numbers stoopid!
I don't disagree that it's not all the dog's fault but if the same crappy owner gets a Golden Retriever instead of a Pit Bull... I've said repeatedly that we people are terrible pet owners and "pack leaders", I totally agree! I still believe that if the crappy owner gets a GR vs a PB, the PB is far more likely to attack someone and if it does attack, it is far more likely to do serious damage and possibly kill someone. Go back to your stats and find out that there are or at least were far more GRs in the US than any other dog and see how many fatal attacks were carried out by GRs. Are there any?
Back when I was a kid, Dobermans and German Shepherds were the mean dogs. In fact if you check the numbers from 1965-1985 for which dogs were the dog bite kings, I bet it's one of these two! Then Rots got popular and finally Pits.
Facts are going to be facts, no matter if you like it or not. Shit, if you really want to prove that Pits aren't biters, why not go back to the 1800s? Why not post the dog bite numbers from Alaska to prove that Huskies are more dangerous? Colorado? Iowa? Could you have found smaller towns? What would the dog bite number reduction be in LA if all of the Pits/ Rots were eliminated?