4-year-old boy dies after being mauled by pit bulls in Detroit
193 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49281630]I don't know, 50.9% of all the torn up faces thanks to dog attacks isn't exactly a fraction of a percent.
oh, and that "violence and bloodlust" comes from aggressiveness. A breed can absolutely have aggressive behaviors bred into it, you know, critical fucking features for a type of dog bred specifically for dog fighting.
[editline]9th December 2015[/editline]
...
HOW does that make it any better? That actually is a case for destroying pitbulls.[/QUOTE]
By fraction of a percent I and the others mean that there are nearly 10 million pits in the US and dog related deaths having a 70-something% being because of pit bulls is still disproportionate statistics to use as any form of detraction towards the breed when that group of dogs are less than a 10,000th of a percent of the total population.
[editline]9th December 2015[/editline]
And I think I'm misunderstanding part of your post above but are you saying if a pit bull wanders onto your property you're just gonna gun it down assuming it's dangerous?
[QUOTE=ghghop;49281956]By fraction of a percent I and the others mean that there are nearly 10 million pits in the US and dog related deaths having a 70-something% being because of pit bulls is still disproportionate statistics to use as any form of detraction towards the breed when that group of dogs are less than a 10,000th of a percent of the total population.[/QUOTE]Okay and an even less of a fraction of a percent of labradors are responsible for dog related deaths.
You can't use that argument when every other breed has their own smaller fractions, the point of the matter is when serious dog attacks [I]do[/I] happen it's more often than not the result of a pitbull.
[editline]9th December 2015[/editline]
And literally nothing you said disproves my point: these attacks happen because people are negligent and do not have the competency to own a pitbull.
[editline]9th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=ghghop;49281956]And I think I'm misunderstanding part of your post above but are you saying if a pit bull wanders onto your property you're just gonna gun it down assuming it's dangerous?[/QUOTE]If it's in the animal enclosures, yes, that means it's bypassed a fence and is directly threatening my livestock. The one time I tried to shoo away a dog it snatched up a lamb and bolted, so now I just shoot on sight if they're able to access the animals.
If they're in the yard I'll try to put them in the garage and call the sheriff.
[editline]9th December 2015[/editline]
Actually to add to that: If they clearly have no owner and are some mangy feral mutt I'll try to clean them up and feed them. If they behave around the chickens (the best test) they can stay for an extended period, if not I'll reluctantly take them to the shelter. I hate to do that because I know deep down they're likely not going to go to a home. I've had a lot of dogs that I just found wandering around, a few had missing eyes, ears, half their tail gone, just in awful fucking shape... How could I turn that away?
People come out to the countryside and dump their dogs all the time, it pisses me off because the first thing they do when they're starving is get into trouble that often gets them killed.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49281986]Okay and an even less of a fraction of a percent of labradors are responsible for dog related deaths.
You can't use that argument when every other breed has their own smaller fractions, the point of the matter is when serious dog attacks [I]do[/I] happen it's more often than not the result of a pitbull.
[editline]9th December 2015[/editline]
And literally nothing you said disproves my point: these attacks happen because people are negligent and do not have the competency to own a pitbull.
[editline]9th December 2015[/editline]
If it's in the animal enclosures, yes, that means it's bypassed a fence and is directly threatening my livestock. The one time I tried to shoo away a dog it snatched up a lamb and bolted, so now I just shoot on sight if they're able to access the animals.
If they're in the yard I'll try to put them in the garage and call the sheriff.[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree that negligence should have consequences, but at the same time the dogs shouldn't be treated with toxicity like they are now. Arguing that they're dangerous isn't really valid unless you hold the same idea for any other pet or animal in general thiugh because it's been shown time and time again thay they aren't naturally brutish and mean, or at the very least not even close to prone to violence as other breeds.
As far as them getting onot your property that makes total sense, if they're there trying to take your livestock then I have no qualms with that. I'm also super happy thay if you can you try to settle it without harming them by calling the sheriff. I had misunderstood and assumed you lived in a suburban environment
[editline]9th December 2015[/editline]
They account for more attacks because there are simply WAY more of them compared to other breeds and that alone would account for the 70-something% of dog attacks being reported as pit bull related
[QUOTE=Pascall;49281654]Aggressiveness isn't the same as "having bloodlust". Bloodlust is a humanized terminology that shouldn't be given to an animal that has been bred for certain reactions to certain aggressors. It might seem like a small detail, but it's things like this that encourage people to continue to purchase and breed dangerous animals for nefarious purposes; the very thing you are trying to prevent.
Dogs are not capable of having bloodlust, regardless of what fucked up shit they do. [B]They do not have the mental development to kill for fun.[/B] It's either for food, dominance, territory, fear, or any number of other things. But dogs are not humans. Dogs do not kill for pleasure.[/QUOTE]
Cats large and small demonstrably kill for fun, hunting when not hungry and playing with their prey, and you just rule out the idea that dogs might do the same?
[QUOTE=AlexConnor;49282175]Cats large and small demonstrably kill for fun, hunting when not hungry and playing with their prey, and you just rule out the idea that dogs might do the same?[/QUOTE]
[quote]
Why do cats often appear to torture or play with their catch before killing it? There are several theories. One theory is that these cats lack confidence. They may still be wary of their prey which if not killed quickly can fight and bite back. Another theory is that domestic cats who live in a relatively rodent-free environment lack the opportunity to catch real live prey. When they finally do catch a mouse, they want to prolong the "great" event as much as possible.[/quote]
[[URL="http://www.perfectpaws.com/help3.html"]x[/URL]]
There's no finite conclusion, but the popular theory is that animals that seem to "play" with their prey are typically practicing and developing hunting skills which is crucial for learning how to feed themselves.
Surplus killing is also a thing, in which a predator will kill or wound prey when they are not even hungry in hopes to "store" the catch for later.
[editline]9th December 2015[/editline]
If we're being perfectly technical, then no, there is no way of knowing whether or not an animal kills for "fun", but in most cases, if you are aware of the situational context, there is a reason for what they are doing. Particularly in predators who cannot only rely on instinct alone to become good hunters, but also require practice to do so.
This "practice" is less present in domesticated dogs than it is in domesticated cats as pet cats are still very frequently kept as mousers.
[QUOTE=ghghop;49282095]I don't disagree that negligence should have consequences, but at the same time the dogs shouldn't be treated with toxicity like they are now. Arguing that they're dangerous isn't really valid unless you hold the same idea for any other pet or animal in general thiugh because it's been shown time and time again thay they aren't naturally brutish and mean, or at the very least not even close to prone to violence as other breeds.[/QUOTE]It takes a special kind of circumstance to make a dog legitimately mean; and yeah I can partially agree that being terrified of certain dog breeds doesn't help things. I really don't think dismissing a natural aggression is a good idea though, it's just enabling the "aww but he's so sweet!!!" shit that turns into a grieving family wondering why oh why their kid's dead.
[QUOTE=ghghop;49282095]As far as them getting onot your property that makes total sense, if they're there trying to take your livestock then I have no qualms with that. I'm also super happy thay if you can you try to settle it without harming them by calling the sheriff. I had misunderstood and assumed you lived in a suburban environment[/QUOTE]Oh no, very rural. Actually I'm so rural that the sheriff won't actually come out here to deal with it, he'll call "animal control" which is actually [I]some guy.[/I]
[QUOTE=ghghop;49282095]They account for more attacks because there are simply WAY more of them compared to other breeds and that alone would account for the 70-something% of dog attacks being reported as pit bull related[/QUOTE]I have a hard time believing that pitbulls are a more popular breed of dog than labs or golden retrievers, and then there's always German shepherds.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49282228]It takes a special kind of circumstance to make a dog legitimately mean; and yeah I can partially agree that being terrified of certain dog breeds doesn't help things. I really don't think dismissing a natural aggression is a good idea though, it's just enabling the "aww but he's so sweet!!!" shit that turns into a grieving family wondering why oh why their kid's dead.[/quote]
I totally agree people shouldn't assume something is nice, that's the opposite side of the same coin that I've talked about.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49282228]Oh no, very rural. Actually I'm so rural that the sheriff won't actually come out here to deal with it, he'll call "animal control" which is actually [I]some guy.[/I][/quote]
That fucking sucks.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49282228]I have a hard time believing that pitbulls are a more popular breed of dog than labs or golden retrievers, and then there's always German shepherds.[/QUOTE]
There are some 500,000 golden retrievers in the US
And about 3.5 million German Shepherds.
Pit Bulls that are registered alone is almost more than double those combined.
[QUOTE=ghghop;49282409]That fucking sucks.[/QUOTE]Why? He just has a truck that can transport the dogs to the local animal shelter, he's the designated go-to guy for that sort of stuff. I think he's paid for the time but not much.
[QUOTE=ghghop;49282409]There are some 500,000 golden retrievers in the US
And about 3.5 million German Shepherds.
Pit Bulls that are registered alone is almost more than double those combined.[/QUOTE]I don't know anyone who actually has registered dogs though, which is what I'm getting at. I sure as hell don't.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49282505]Why? He just has a truck that can transport the dogs to the local animal shelter, he's the designated go-to guy for that sort of stuff. I think he's paid for the time but not much.
I don't know anyone who actually has registered dogs though, which is what I'm getting at. I sure as hell don't.[/QUOTE]
It's a point of reference popularity-wise. And as far as the guy sucking I meant it stinks to have a single resource for a problem but I'm sure it isn't as big of an issue as I'd expect
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.