Neighbor's Pit Bull: Resolution

[AsburySkinsFan]

how many people in the LDS church are lumped in with the loons that get caught like this latest dude?

how many people in Jonestown died because of following Jim Jones?

David Koresh...same thing.

How many people think that Christians in general are looney because of people like Fallwell and Bakker?

First of all you misunderstand the statistic, it doesn't say that 3% of pitbulls are responsible for 50% of the attacks it says that Pitbulls make up 1-3% of all dogs in the US and they collectively are responsible for 50% of the attacks. That I'm sorry is an alarming statistic.

By your twisting of the statistic, in order to be apples to apples then Christians would have to make up only 3% of the population and be responsible for 50% of the nation's crime, and if that were the case then my guess is that the Feds would be stepping in and rightly so.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So along your line of thinking their are no other contributing factors to the statistics.

So since the majority of our jails are full of people that are a minority then they are all dangerous. So our new president should not be allowed to be president because he is a law breaker by nature?:doh:

Find me a statistic that shows that a minority population of people that comprises 3% of the overall population of the United States is responsible for 50% of all violent crime in this country for the past 20 years and we'll start deportations tomorrow.

[TheGoodBits]

Find me a statistic that shows that a minority population of people that comprises 3% of the overall population of the United States is responsible for 50% of all violent crime in this country for the past 20 years and we'll start deportations tomorrow.

Actually he made a pretty good point. African Americans make up like 15% of the US population but around 50% of the US Jail population

[AsburySkinsFan]

Actually he made a pretty good point. African Americans make up like 15% of the US population but around 50% of the US Jail population

That's not the same thing as African Americans committing 50% of the violent crime, in all actuallity the only thing that speaks to is that African Americans tend on average to get harsher sentences.

[Sticksboi05]

Good move. You just wanted a fence made and that is very justifiable.

The only thing to remember is it's never the dogs fault but the owner's.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The only thing to remember is it's never the dogs fault but the owner's.

That's an awfully hard absolute statement to justify, I'm sure that there are dogs that simply have bad temperments. We might be better off saying that in most cases it is the fault of the owner, but saying its never the dog's fault seems to be a statement that we can't back up.

[TheGoodBits]

That's not the same thing as African Americans committing 50% of the violent crime, in all actuallity the only thing that speaks to is that African Americans tend on average to get harsher sentences.

Alright, I'm not trying to turn the thread into a comparisan between pit bulls and African Americans, but seriously, the 15% to 50% disparity cannot simply be explained by saying they get harsher sentences.

[Sticksboi05]

That's an awfully hard absolute statement to justify, I'm sure that there are dogs that simply have bad temperments. We might be better off saying that in most cases it is the fault of the owner, but saying its never the dog's fault seems to be a statement that we can't back up.

I guess it was poorly worded. I mean to say, a dog is a dog, it doesn't have the same mental capacity as a human so as its owner it is your responsibility to put it in a position where it can be most socially friendly and least harmful to others. My dog used to bark up a storm but she'd never physically attack anyone, just wanted attention so we knew it was fine to have her around other people.

[TheGoodBits]

That's an awfully hard absolute statement to justify, I'm sure that there are dogs that simply have bad temperments. We might be better off saying that in most cases it is the fault of the owner, but saying its never the dog's fault seems to be a statement that we can't back up.

I included a link in the first thread with temperment statistics for different breeds. Pit bulls got an 80-% passing rate, on par with Golden Retrievers and other popular breeds that don't have a bad reputation for violent attacks. In this case I think you really have to look closely at what a lot of people are using pit bulls for now, and I think that would explain a lot of the 3% to 50% thing.

Also, because of their reputation, I think people are much more prone to reporting a pit bull attack than other breeds. Even just a little nip. Honestly, how many people are going to call the cops if a Chihuahua bites their ankle? Or if a Golden bites someone, the owner could say "Oh my it's never done that before!" And the person who got bit may or may not accept that explanation. But if that dog was a pit bull, the cops would be on the phone in minutes, and they would be demanding they come kill that bloodthirsty creature.

[Winning Season Please!]

Find me a statistic that shows that a minority population of people that comprises 3% of the overall population of the United States is responsible for 50% of all violent crime in this country for the past 20 years and we'll start deportations tomorrow.

OK...Look at next quote.

Actually he made a pretty good point. African Americans make up like 15% of the US population but around 50% of the US Jail population

Then you have your excuses...

That's not the same thing as African Americans committing 50% of the violent crime, in all actuallity the only thing that speaks to is that African Americans tend on average to get harsher sentences.

Kinda like what twa said here...

Think that will work??

I wonder how strict they are on definitions and if many are similar breeds?

There is also the fact the stereotype feeds into higher reporting.

For example ASF would likely report a pitt bull attack(or a similar breed) yet I doubt he reported his lab mix biting....not inferring anything ASF,just a example.

My point is not that African Americans are more violent or more likely to commit a crime...just that statistics don't always tell the true story. Their is so much data left out that has a huge contribution to the statistics.

Tell me, who do you think makes up the demographic for pit bull owners versus say german sheppards? I bet you will find a key difference there.

[robotfire]

I included a link in the first thread with temperment statistics for different breeds. Pit bulls got an 80-% passing rate, on par with Golden Retrievers and other popular breeds that don't have a bad reputation for violent attacks. In this case I think you really have to look closely at what a lot of people are using pit bulls for now, and I think that would explain a lot of the 3% to 50% thing.

I'll quote Clifton again: "Temperament is not the issue, nor is it even relevant. What is relevant is actuarial risk. If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed--and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price."

Temperament is irrelevant. The problem with these dogs is that they are very powerful. Again, as long as the owner is responsible, feel free to have one. Keep it fenced, keep it out of my yard.

Also, because of their reputation, I think people are much more prone to reporting a pit bull attack than other breeds. Even just a little nip. Honestly, how many people are going to call the cops if a Chihuahua bites their ankle? Or if a Golden bites someone, the owner could say "Oh my it's never done that before!" And the person who got bit may or may not accept that explanation. But if that dog was a pit bull, the cops would be on the phone in minutes, and they would be demanding they come kill that bloodthirsty creature.

Well what percentage of deaths do you think are reported regardless of breed? My bet is 100%. Even still, pit bulls account for 39% of dog bite related fatalities. What percentage of maimings do you think are reported? Again, my bet would be that a maiming is reported nearly 100% of the time. Pit bulls account for 46% of dog bite related maimings.

[TheGoodBits]

^^^^^ So it is fair to say that regardless of actual statistics on how aggressive pit bulls are compared to other breeds, you fear them simply because they are powerful animals? At least that was what I was getting from your reply. I don't think that it is a bad thing to want to protect your kids, but I would think that any big dog could kill a young child if it attacked it.

[grhqofb5]

I heard you can train bears pretty easily if you have them from the time they are cubs. Like any animal, its solely your responsibility to train and your right to have it in your neighborhood.

Off to Africa to see what I can catch!!!

[AsburySkinsFan]

I heard you can train bears pretty easily if you have them from the time they are cubs. Like any animal, its solely your responsibility to train and your right to have it in your neighborhood.

Off to Africa to see what I can catch!!!

Let me know how that works out for ya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtmmefcJbMc

As for the rest of this debate, please go back to my original post in this thread where I said I'm not anti-pit but pro-responsibility. That being said, when there are statistics like the 3%-50% out there that should cause us to take a careful look to see what is really going on with that breed of dog. I know there are a lot of pit defenders out there but all I'm saying is that with any other statistic that came close to that one we would be casting a very critical eye on the situation to see what was going on. That in my estimation is simple common sense.

[grhqofb5]

Let me know how that works out for ya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtmmefcJbMc

Damn bear owner.... I'll have to be sure to teach the kids in my neighborhood not to provoke mine, or stand within 50 feet of it, or anything foolish like that.

[AdamB]

To the OP - ya did the right thing. From what you have said about your neighbor, any dog he owns is a potential time bomb.

***

As far as athe 3% of population but 50% of attacks information:

The agency in charge of tracking animal attack statistics is the CDC. In 2001, the CDC quit tracking the breed of dog involved in attacks since they found breed identification is questionable at best. That is also the reason why the CDC researchers who created the 2000 CDC fatal dog attack report have since stated that the breed statistics they included were questionable (their own research) and should not be used to draw any conclusion about pit bulls or any other breed. So, any report that lists a statistic on nationwide dog attacks should be questioned unless it is for a specific area (such as a city report prepared by the local AC).

Second, any report that states "pitbulls" account for any specific number needs to be taken with a grain of salt. There is a minimum of three breeds which fall under the heading of "pitbull", and breeds, such as American Bulldogs, often times are mis-identified as pitbulls. There are more than a few pit bull attack stories that later turned out to be labs, AmBulls, bullmastiffs (see the Ving Rhymes story)...even saw one where a newpaper called a german shepard a "pitbull".

As far as Merritt Clifton - there is a reason why his "reports" are considered a joke by many in the dog world, and generally only used by lawyers, politicans, and those who want to get rid of pit bulls/dobermans/etc. He never lists his sources, and includes information on attacks that were gathered from newspapers and other media sources. And his conclusions on the number of attacks do not match official statistics kept by agencies such as the CDC for the annual number of people hospitalized (actually admitted, not treated and released)for dog attacks.

Additionally, his report contains errors involving dog breeds, such as having seperate listings under different names for the same breed (Blue Heeler), and I still have never found out what a "Buff Mastiff" is...maybe that is a Bullmastiff that works out alot? Or Bull mastiff with (Presa Canario) next to it...um...they are different breeds.

You will also notice that, like the newspapers, he lumps all pitbulls under one heading "Pit bull terrier," with no seperate headings for APBT, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, etc. which combined with the other breed errors, lack of citation, and questionable sources when his research methodology is known make his entire report dubious.

edit: Hit reply before I was finished. Doh

Yes, there is a problem right now with pitbulls, same as in the past with other breeds going back to at least the 1880's when bloodhounds were the ones causing problems. And something has to be done, not because the breeds are fundamentally dangerous, but because there are too many irresponsible breeders and owners, and the problem is getting worse. Right now it is pitbulls, but the same issues are now appearing with Bullmastiffs, the more exotic mastiff breeds, Boxers, and even GSDs are starting to have issues again in some parts of the country. Even lab attacks seem to be on the rise. The solution to this needs to be non-breed specific - not just because I do nto want to see pits banned, but also to head off future problems with other breeds.

I wish I could find the video of the official in charge of Minn. AC agencies at a hearing last year when he basically said that, knowing Clifton personally, he would not view the report as being worth the paper it was written on.

[TheGoodBits]

To the OP - ya did the right thing. From what you have said about your neighbor, any dog he owns is a potential time bomb.

***

As far as athe 3% of population but 50% of attacks information:

The agency in charge of tracking animal attack statistics is the CDC. In 2001, the CDC quit tracking the breed of dog involved in attacks since they found breed identification is questionable at best. That is also the reason why the CDC researchers who created the 2000 CDC fatal dog attack report have since stated that the breed statistics they included were questionable (their own research) and should not be used to draw any conclusion about pit bulls or any other breed. So, any report that lists a statistic on nationwide dog attacks should be questioned unless it is for a specific area (such as a city report prepared by the local AC).

Second, any report that states "pitbulls" account for any specific number needs to be taken with a grain of salt. There is a minimum of three breeds which fall under the heading of "pitbull", and breeds, such as American Bulldogs, often times are mis-identified as pitbulls. There are more than a few pit bull attack stories that later turned out to be labs, AmBulls, bullmastiffs (see the Ving Rhymes story)...even saw one where a newpaper called a german shepard a "pitbull".

As far as Merritt Clifton - there is a reason why his "reports" are considered a joke by many in the dog world, and generally only used by lawyers, politicans, and those who want to get rid of pit bulls/dobermans/etc. He never lists his sources, and includes information on attacks that were gathered from newspapers and other media sources. And his conclusions on the number of attacks do not match official statistics kept by agencies such as the CDC for the annual number of people hospitalized (actually admitted, not treated and released)for dog attacks.

Additionally, his report contains errors involving dog breeds, such as having seperate listings under different names for the same breed (Blue Heeler), and I still have never found out what a "Buff Mastiff" is...maybe that is a Bullmastiff that works out alot? Or Bull mastiff with (Presa Canario) next to it...um...they are different breeds.

You will also notice that, like the newspapers, he lumps all pitbulls under one heading "Pit bull terrier," with no seperate headings for APBT, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, etc. which combined with the other breed errors, lack of citation, and questionable sources when his research methodology is known make his entire report dubious.

^^^^^^^^^^Post of the thread.

[robotfire]

^^^^^^^^^^Post of the thread.

I have to agree that this was an educating post. I'm a man interested in the facts, not heresy. What one person feels about a breed is meaningless. Numbers tell the story better. If these numbers are faulty, then that changes things. This report was the most extensive research I could find, and I took it at face value.

That being said, his numbers weren't very different from what the CDC came up with as far as I could tell. The CDC claims that pit bulls account for a third of dog bite related fatalities. This guy claims that they account for 39%. It's fairly close.

At any rate, you make several good points in your post. I still believe they can be dangerous dogs if they are not owned by a responsible owner, and I still believe I acted correctly in the way I handled it.

[TheGoodBits]

I have to agree that this was an educating post. I'm a man interested in the facts, not heresy. What one person feels about a breed is meaningless. Numbers tell the story better. If these numbers are faulty, then that changes things. This report was the most extensive research I could find, and I took it at face value.

That being said, his numbers weren't very different from what the CDC came up with as far as I could tell. The CDC claims that pit bulls account for a third of dog bite related fatalities. This guy claims that they account for 39%. It's fairly close.

At any rate, you make several good points in your post. I still believe they can be dangerous dogs if they are not owned by a responsible owner, and I still believe I acted correctly in the way I handled it.

Despite the fact that I feel differently about pit bulls, I agree that you did what was right in order to protect your family. I just wish that your neighbor's landlord would have accepted the fence idea instead. Hopefully the puppy does not meet his end as a result.

[AdamB]

I have to agree that this was an educating post. I'm a man interested in the facts, not heresy. What one person feels about a breed is meaningless. Numbers tell the story better. If these numbers are faulty, then that changes things. This report was the most extensive research I could find, and I took it at face value.

That being said, his numbers weren't very different from what the CDC came up with as far as I could tell. The CDC claims that pit bulls account for a third of dog bite related fatalities. This guy claims that they account for 39%. It's fairly close.

That is a good attitude to have, and I wish more people exhibited it whether it is this issue or politics or whatever.

The CDC report is actually pretty good other than the numbers themselves, just most only look at the statistics and skip the rest of the report where the researches talk about the owners being the important factor, with breed being well below it. The problem with the numbers stem from the breed identification issue, which any report, pro or against pitbulls/dobbies/etc., suffers from when they start listing statistics by breed. It's easy to point at a dog and say "that's a doberman" since they have a fairly consistant appearance, though there is variation that can cause issues. With pits, there are 20+ breeds in the US that have been mis-id'd as being pitbulls, combined with the fact that the pit breeds themselves can have a wide variance in appearance. For example, I personally have seen APBTs that could pass as Labs at any sort of distance and vice-versa.

The thing about the Merrit report is not just the errors (another good one is that he lists a Miniture Pincher attack as a Doberman attack), lack of source citations, etc. but also that he shows his well known and admitted bias throughout the report, such as his hsi explanation as to why GSD's attack (poor socialization, mistreatment, allowed to form packs, etc) but seems to fail to realize that those same conditions exist in most serious pitbull attacks. He also appears to be sadly misinformed about the breeds ("They are also notorious for attacking seemingly without warning, a tendency exacerbated by the custom of docking pit bulls' tails so that warning signals are not easily recognized." - pits tend to have their ears cropped, not tails docked.)

Sorry, I loath Clifton Merrit, so tend to rant some

There is some good research out there on serious and fatal dog attacks tho. For example, Karen Delise did a great book about the factors, mechanisms, triggers, etc. involved in attacks that she researched after seeing the pit bulls that came into her vet practice compared to what she saw reported in the press. She has become a big pit bull advocate since then though, so her later work is influenced by that.

At any rate, you make several good points in your post. I still believe they can be dangerous dogs if they are not owned by a responsible owner, and I still believe I acted correctly in the way I handled it.

No disagreement there. I think you did the right thing - your neighbor sounds like a twit who should not be allowed to own any dog, let along a pit bull. Any dog can be very dangerous depending on the circumstances, but some like Pit Bulls, Mastiffs, Rotties, Huskies, etc. really do need an owner who is committed to take that step beyond what passes as dog ownership now and days.

[robotfire]

No disagreement there. I think you did the right thing - your neighbor sounds like a twit who should not be allowed to own any dog, let along a pit bull. Any dog can be very dangerous depending on the circumstances, but some like Pit Bulls, Mastiffs, Rotties, Huskies, etc. really do need an owner who is committed to take that step beyond what passes as dog ownership now and days.

I'll tell you something. If he had a fence, prevented that dog from coming into my yard, and seemed to have any control over the animal, I would have never made a peep.

As far as I can tell, there is more to being a good pit bull owner than a good dog owner. I made a list of requirements, and certainly some of these requirements should be applied to all dogs. Here are the common themes I found from pro and con sites, friends who own the breed, etc:

• Spay or neuter your pit bull.
  
• A fence is a must with this breed - NO EXCEPTIONS. A privacy fence buried six inches into the ground is recommended.
  
• Chaining the dog is a bad idea. The CDC estimates that a regularly chained dog is three times more likely to bite.
  
• Never take the dog to a dog park - if another dog starts a fight, your dog will finish it.
  
• Socialize the dog as much as possible, from a very early age.
  
• Make sure the dog knows who is the boss. If you let the dog do whatever it wants, it will become an alpha. Keep it off the furniture, etc.
  
• Make sure the animal gets plenty of exercise. A well exercised pit bull is far less likely to have agression.