4-year-old boy dies after being mauled by pit bulls in Detroit
193 replies, posted
Tbh small dogs are a lot more prone to aggression than large dogs. Only reason you don't hear about it is because it's not fatal when they attack. Still doesn't mean that it's okay for them to be aggressive either, but then you have people who are perfectly fine with small dogs being territorial and mean.
That being said, I'm of the mind that a lot of responsibility for a dog's behavior lies on the owner. Remember that bad treatment or training can be the equivalent of NO treatment or training. Of course their are breeds more prone to aggression but with the right education and training, said breeds can be great companions. Small and large dogs alike.
Also I'm always skeptical when the media says that a Pitbull attacked someone, as news outlets are absolutely great at mistaking the identity of dog breeds. Especially when there are so many that look like Pitbulls but may not share the same breeding history at all.
[t]http://www.ccrcdogs.com/uploads/1/7/9/8/1798443/6813911_orig.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Glitchman;49271920]"In the 10-year period from 2005 to 2014, two dog breeds accounted for 74% of the attacks that resulted in death: pit bulls and rottweilers.
2014 Dog Bite Fatalities by DogsBite.org, 2015"[/QUOTE]
Assuming this statistic is largely intended attacks and not accidents. If you bannish Pit Bulls and Rottweilers two other dog breeds will just take their place anyway, because morons will always find another aggressive dog breed for attacks.
"But this can be applied to anything!!"
Yes, it can. Which is why when it comes to something so variable as dog breeds, it doesn't matter in the slightest.
The problem with judging a dogs temperament at a breed basis (eg pit bulls are aggressive killing machines) is the human factor. Because of the reputation dogs like pitt bulls and rottweilers have, they tend to have owners who don't exactly have the time or energy to invest in training a dog and making it familiar with it's environment. The breed already requires some of the earliest and most intense familiarization training possible but when you combine that with someone who not only isn't experienced in raising dogs but has absolutely no interest in the dog other than it's appeal as a vicious guard animal then this leads to it's reputation, which further stigmatizes it, leading into a vicious cycle where these types of dogs are never given the chance to be raised in the proper environment.
Ultimately I see legislating dog breeds like legislating super cars and speed boats. You can come up with all sorts of statistics that make things look bad and press for regulations (pitt bulls are responsible for 64% of dog bite fatalities in 2014...all 42 of them.) but this prevents individuals and families from owning a dog that in the vast majority of cases ends up being completely fine. I think a much more viable tactic would be to fund education for prospective dog owners and require pounds and animal shelters to vet the people they adopt dogs to.
[editline]8th December 2015[/editline]
The problem isn't even "bad owners" (though statistically owners of "high risk" dogs like rottweilers and pit bulls tend to be more anti-social) so much as it is lazy owners. Every dog breed has it's own level of attention it requires to make it familiar with its environment and it just so happens that the dogs with a bad reputation have some of the most stringent training requirements to make sure they don't react adversely to unexpected stimuli.
[QUOTE=ghghop;49271714]Fuck off, there are millions of pit bulls and you're condemning the whole breed because you read about one mauling every 3 months or so. If the trainer isn't a dipshit then they're more friendly than a lot of common breeds, even for children.
Being an edge master because you're igor ant doesn't excuse the retarded stuff like this people spout.
[editline]8th December 2015[/editline]
They aren't ferocious by default, that's something they're taught. You choose a pitbull because they are deathly loyal, friendly beyond compare and compassionate more so than a lot of other dog breeds.[/QUOTE]
It's not "ignorant" when Pit Bulls constitute the vast majority of dog attacks, dude.
You're intentionally ignoring a correlation between pit bulls and violence, which is what's let this problem fester for so long.
If you want to be a pit bull advocate, you need to be accepting of the fact that they are capable of being very dangerous. It's literally what they were bred to be. Accepting that and then using that information to advocate for better dog owner education, training, and techniques as well a sharing success stories is the proper way to go about providing support for the breed and future owners of the breed.
Just saying that there is nothing biologically unsafe about the dog doesn't do anything but ignore the issue.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;49272356]It's not "ignorant" when Pit Bulls constitute the vast majority of dog attacks, dude.
You're intentionally ignoring a correlation between pit bulls and violence, which is what's let this problem fester for so long.[/QUOTE]
On paper the statistics are startling. Take into account how many attacks there are per year (very, very few) and subtract the amount of breeds that aren't even capable of genuinely attacking humans (much less mauling them to death) and the stats start reaching parity. Still, certain dog breeds are responsible for disproportionately more attacks, but most experts today realize that it's not a breed problem so much as a societal problem. Simply put, your average family of four living in a nice neighborhood with plenty of time and room to train and familiarize a dog will typically get something like a Labrador or toy dog while the ex-con living in a bad neighborhood who has a dog explicitly for it's anti-social behavior will likely get a pit bull or rottweiler because they have that reputation.
Theres also the problem that calling it a breed problem is instantly discounted as soon as an example of one dog living out it's life without a violent attack can be cited, and obviously the vast majority of pit bulls follow this standard.
I wish people did this for small breeds but nobody really gives a shit about an aggressive chihuahua because it's not likely to cause someone enough damage.
Fuck pitbulls
Anybody supporting their existence after countless incidents like these needs to seriously re-evaluate their psyche
and if you legitimately choose the safety and well-being of an animal over another human being, you don't belong in society
[QUOTE=Pascall;49272384]If you want to be a pit bull advocate, you need to be accepting of the fact that they are capable of being very dangerous. It's literally what they were bred to be. Accepting that and then using that information to advocate for better dog owner education, training, and techniques as well a sharing success stories is the proper way to go about providing support for the breed and future owners of the breed.
Just saying that there is nothing biologically unsafe about the dog doesn't do anything but ignore the issue.[/QUOTE]
For the record I definitely agree with all this. Pit bulls aren't bad dogs, they are just extremely loyal and temperamental and very sensitive to stimuli they haven't been consistently exposed to since a very young age. The margin of error for raising dogs like these is orders of magnitudes less than most breeds and it's important that prospective owners know this. I'm just against regulating against a specific breed, especially when the vast majority of dogs live their entire lives without attacking someone.
I'm not really for breed regulation either so much as I'm for breeders and shelters doing more background checks on potential owners to make sure that the home the animal is going to will be a suitable one.
[QUOTE=Pascall;49272389]I wish people did this for small breeds but nobody really gives a shit about an aggressive chihuahua because it's not likely to cause someone enough damage.[/QUOTE]
Checking the DogBites source linked earlier, it's very hard to find exact statistics for none-"fighting" dog attacks. Methinks someone has an agenda. In any case as far as I can tell no one in 2014 died to a small breed.
[QUOTE=NotMeh;49272393]Fuck pitbulls
Anybody supporting their existence after countless incidents like these needs to seriously re-evaluate their psyche
and if you legitimately choose the safety and well-being of an animal over another human being, you don't belong in society[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about.
I don't think anyone here is implying that the dogs in this story are worth more concern than the child who was mauled.
[QUOTE=Pascall;49272408]I'm not really for breed regulation either so much as I'm for breeders and shelters doing more background checks on potential owners to make sure that the home the animal is going to will be a suitable one.[/QUOTE]
Totally agree, I guess I should be more specific and say government regulation. Private shelters and breeders absolutely can take whatever measures they deem necessary to make sure high risk breeds go to good homes.
[QUOTE=Pascall;49272419]What are you talking about.
I don't think anyone here is implying that the dogs in this story are worth more concern than the child who was mauled.[/QUOTE]
oh, that's just me being generally displeased with people who consider themselves diehard animal lovers to the point where they value them more than fellow humans
I just took an opportunity to vent that, I guess
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49272413]Checking the DogBites source linked earlier, it's very hard to find exact statistics for none-"fighting" dog attacks. Methinks someone has an agenda. In any case as far as I can tell no one in 2014 died to a small breed.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, there's a huge neglect for statistics of attacks when it comes from smaller breeds. Like I said, because no one has really died. But I've seen some pretty deep bites from small breeds, as well as receiving quite a few on my own, but it's not deemed important enough to the public, generally. Which is unfortunate because training and responsibility should be universal for all breeds.
But no one wants to come out and say they were attacked by a Jack Russel or Pomeranian.
[QUOTE=Pascall;49272283]Tbh small dogs are a lot more prone to aggression than large dogs. Only reason you don't hear about it is because it's not fatal when they attack. Still doesn't mean that it's okay for them to be aggressive either, but then you have people who are perfectly fine with small dogs being territorial and mean.
That being said, I'm of the mind that a lot of responsibility for a dog's behavior lies on the owner. Remember that bad treatment or training can be the equivalent of NO treatment or training. Of course their are breeds more prone to aggression but with the right education and training, said breeds can be great companions. Small and large dogs alike.
Also I'm always skeptical when the media says that a Pitbull attacked someone, as news outlets are absolutely great at mistaking the identity of dog breeds. Especially when there are so many that look like Pitbulls but may not share the same breeding history at all.
[t]http://www.ccrcdogs.com/uploads/1/7/9/8/1798443/6813911_orig.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Kinda true, pitbulls are the "AK-47" of dog breeds. Either way I feel like if anything needs to change, it's severe penalties for any dangerous dog not being on a leash. I mean if your dog kills someone, you are guilty of murder. The fact that this guys dogs dragged a kid onto their property and tore the kid apart and the police aren't even sure they're going to charge him is so far beyond broken
[QUOTE=Pascall;49272434]Yeah, there's a huge neglect for statistics of attacks when it comes from smaller breeds. Like I said, because no one has really died. But I've seen some pretty deep bites from small breeds, as well as receiving quite a few on my own, but it's not deemed important enough to the public, generally. Which is unfortunate because training and responsibility should be universal for all breeds.
But no one wants to come out and say they were attacked by a Jack Russel or Pomeranian.[/QUOTE]
Funny you mention the Jack Russel. Girl across the street from my childhood home was pretty badly mauled on the arm from a neighbors Jack Russel. We had absolutely no idea what triggered it because up until then she had been such a good dog. Ended up having to be put down.
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;49271494]what does that solve? it's not like a car license where you're trained to use a car and cars aren't living beings that can act on their own
do you mean for breeding them?[/QUOTE]
You need a license to use a car because when used they're dangerous. Pitbulls aren't something "used" but owning them is dangerous.
Makes sense to require licenses for such a bloodthirsty breed. Perhaps we should consider a ban over spending so much time to regulate just a few breeds.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49272413]Checking the DogBites source linked earlier, it's very hard to find exact statistics for none-"fighting" dog attacks. Methinks someone has an agenda. In any case as far as I can tell no one in 2014 died to a small breed.[/QUOTE]
lmao I wound up on that site for general statistics and literally everything I'm reading is about pit bulls with a massive "pit bulls are bad" banner at the top
I can't tell if I can take the site seriously or not
[QUOTE=Elspin;49272438]Kinda true, pitbulls are the "AK-47" of dog breeds. Either way I feel like if anything needs to change, it's severe penalties for any dangerous dog not being on a leash. I mean if your dog kills someone, you are guilty of murder. The fact that this guys dogs dragged a kid onto their property and tore the kid apart and the police aren't even sure they're going to charge him is so far beyond broken[/QUOTE]
I'm all for leash laws being imposed. My old neighborhood (see above) was full of large breed dogs allowed to roam. Genuinely surprised more attacks didn't happen.
Pits are sweet dogs in my experience, but it hasn't kept away that niggling fear in the back of my head that they'll snap. They have been bred with a strong prey drive and will often chase to the end if something sets them off.
I think all animals should be kept and treated more responsibly, not just pits. They're not inherently dangerous dogs, just harder to control if they're raised to be rowdy and violent.
Dude is totally responsible. Part of owning a dog is making sure they're contained. A fence should be stable and actually functioning and if a dog is out, it should be on a leash.
That's the consequences of not having appropriate housing for your animal. Idk why that's even up for debate with the police.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49272460]Pits are sweet dogs in my experience[/QUOTE]
But statistically they're the most violent and most deadly breed.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49272468]But statistically they're the most violent and most deadly breed.[/QUOTE]
Did you read the rest of his post?
He only begins that he himself has had good experience with them.
And which site are we using for stats
Calling them "bloodthirsty monsters" is excessive.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49272468]But statistically they're the most violent and most deadly breed.[/QUOTE]
But the statistics are easily skewed by dog demographics and human influence, as I posted earlier. Of course even with these deviances they are still the most violent breed (in terms of rates of attack) but the numbers are still a drop in the bucket compared to the overall population of pit bulls.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49272468]But statistically they're the most violent and most deadly[/QUOTE]
How could you generalize black people this way?
Don't chop up my posts and take part of it out of context to argue with something I'm not saying. SH really needs some rules of engagement so people like you will quit shitting up discussions.
Honestly with the way that these statistics are measured I can't make a claim one way or the other about this breed.
personally i think pit bulls are fine, its just that we really need an owner quality check
lets be real, this guy was living in detroit, he was probably pretty shitty to his dogs. [I]any[/I] owner that treats their dog like trash raises it with a ton of behavioral problems and instinct issues, but its also prevalent in hood culture to own a "hood" dog, which tends to be pit bulls
Imo Pitbulls should be banned.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.