Pit bull jumps 6-foot fence, attacks 9-year-old Birmingham boy - Polidicks

I have never in my life met anybody who works with dogs professionally who truly believes that Pits are, by nature, violent or agrressive animals, and I have had a lot of exposure to professional trainers, shelter workers, groomers, vets, and other animal experts thanks to familial, personal, and professional exposure. Pits are simply a high energy dog that need to be properly engaged by an owner who is capable of giving them the time and attention they need to thrive. Like any other high energy dog, Pits that aren't properly engaged can turn mean, destructive, or territorial. Unlike other dogs, pits are incredibly atrong, making them potentially more dangerous when this happens. Aggressive pits are those who are intellectually, socially, emotionally, and physically neglected. Aggressive pits happex because of irresponsible owners, and because of the issues we face with high populations of stray dogs.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48778809]I have a beef with allowing anyone to own dangerous breeds like pit bulls, German shepherds and Rottweilers without restriction.[/QUOTE] So because of sporadic press featuring certain animals that are basically in a feedback loop of public opinion causing people to abandon more dogs that then end up worse and end up in the media again, you think you know best for all fucking people? I've known 7 German shepards, 4 pit bulls, and a bunch of Rottis and they are all sweet as can be.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48780218]Some breeds are just more inclined to violence by default.[/QUOTE] They are animals, violence happens to be a natural thing even humans do it. I'm not excusing violence but cmon, no shit it's a default it's how animals survive. That's why, as it's been said numerous times in the thread, proper care, socialization and environment can solve that issue.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;48779951]Even if there was some sort of societal conspiracy to report Pit Bull attacks more often than other breeds, they're still going to constitute the majority of dog attacks.[/QUOTE] Because their image is constantly perpetuated as a "Junk yard scrap dog". So who fucking buys those dogs? Dick bags who want them to be violent animals. If they weren't seen as such villainous creatures and were taken care of properly, that wouldn't be the case.

You don't damn the whole for the actions of a few

[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;48780342]It doesn't matter what dog it is, if you don't raise it properly it's gonna attack people and then they get put down because [I]the owner[/I] fucked up. A lot of people shouldn't be allowed to have pets, because they don't know anything about giving them a healthy environment for their pets and themselves to enjoy[/QUOTE] Like, holy shit we get it. Any dog can be aggressive if you raise it wrong. The problem is pit bulls are made of muscle, bone and teeth and they will fuck you up if they get aggressive, as will many other large dog breeds. A chihuahua or toy poodle, on the other hand, is easily dealt with if it attacks.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48780733]Like, holy shit we get it. Any dog can be aggressive if you raise it wrong. The problem is pit bulls are made of muscle, bone and teeth and they will fuck you up if they get aggressive, as will many other large dog breeds. A chihuahua or toy poodle, on the other hand, is easily dealt with if it attacks.[/QUOTE] Okay so basically what I get from you is that any dog bigger than a chihuahua should be illegal to own because they're big dogs that can cause damage. I mean shit, do you know how sharp the teeth are on a Husky? Do you know how fast they could hurt you? But no, it's ONLY pitbulls, rottis, and shepards that are dangerous. Fucking christ.

[QUOTE=ghghop;48780213]And with the stats concerning dog attacks, actual account of what happened play into the why the dog did it, the dogs lifestyle and environment also play a role too. You can't judge them all as harshly as you all are purely on numbers.[/QUOTE] But even so you wouldn't end up with the numbers that we do actually see. Like I said, even if you ignore 75% of all pitbull attacks, they would still be overrepresented in dog bite statistics.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;48780785]But even so you wouldn't end up with the numbers that we do actually see. Like I said, even if you ignore 75% of all pitbull attacks, they would still be overrepresented in dog bite statistics.[/QUOTE] Maybe 30 years of society being told "Those are junk yard dogs for dangerous people" finally turned around into dangerous people owning the dogs so they could be dangerous.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48780669]I have never in my life met anybody who works with dogs professionally who truly believes that Pits are, by nature, violent or agrressive animals, and I have had a lot of exposure to professional trainers, shelter workers, groomers, vets, and other animal experts thanks to familial, personal, and professional exposure. Pits are simply a high energy dog that need to be properly engaged by an owner who is capable of giving them the time and attention they need to thrive. Like any other high energy dog, Pits that aren't properly engaged can turn mean, destructive, or territorial. Unlike other dogs, pits are incredibly atrong, making them potentially more dangerous when this happens. Aggressive pits are those who are intellectually, socially, emotionally, and physically neglected. Aggressive pits happex because of irresponsible owners, and because of the issues we face with high populations of stray dogs.[/QUOTE] And if anecdotes, even from trainers, mattered, then everyone would agree with you. heck, I want to agree with you. But the numbers show that they're just wrong.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48780748]Okay so basically what I get from you is that any dog bigger than a chihuahua should be illegal to own because they're big dogs that can cause damage. I mean shit, do you know how sharp the teeth are on a Husky? Do you know how fast they could hurt you? But no, it's ONLY pitbulls, rottis, and shepards that are dangerous. Fucking christ.[/QUOTE] Did I say illegal? No. I said that they should be restricted: prospective owners need to be able to show that they can raise and train the dog properly. Also, way to misread my post. I said dangerous breeds [i]like[/i] pit bulls, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds. That list is neither exclusive nor exhaustive.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;48780799]And if anecdotes, even from trainers, mattered, then everyone would agree with you. heck, I want to agree with you. But the numbers show that they're just wrong.[/QUOTE] No. They show that you interpret the evidence a certain way. Yes. They are over represented. Now, start asking why. If you're only question as to "Why are they the most prolific biters amongst dogs" and your only answer is "Breed" then you're being short sighted.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48780798]Maybe 30 years of society being told "Those are junk yard dogs for dangerous people" finally turned around into dangerous people owning the dogs so they could be dangerous.[/QUOTE] Pit bull bites have been associated with a [url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475022"]higher mortality[/url] than any other breed, even before they were popular.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48780733]Like, holy shit we get it. Any dog can be aggressive if you raise it wrong. The problem is pit bulls are made of muscle, bone and teeth and they will fuck you up if they get aggressive, as will many other large dog breeds. A chihuahua or toy poodle, on the other hand, is easily dealt with if it attacks.[/QUOTE] So why Shepherds, Rotties, and Pits specifically? Shepards reputation as being aggressive comes from being the dog of choice for police and the military (note: this is due to them being incredibly Intelligent and having great physical stamina, not being aggressive). Rotties and pits are simply extremely numerous and cheap, making them popular with low income families who may not have the time, experience, or money to properly raise them. However, all of these are great pets, no more dangerous than any other large breed dogs, so long as they are responsibly raised (again, like any other dog). So unless your argument is that families should not be allowed to have ANY large breed (which is absurd), why are you targeting these three breeds specifically?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48780798]Maybe 30 years of society being told "Those are junk yard dogs for dangerous people" finally turned around into dangerous people owning the dogs so they could be dangerous.[/QUOTE] And yes it's definitely true that [URL="http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/2009-vicious-dogs-antisocial-behaviors-owners.pdf"]vicious dog owners tend to have [/URL] [URL="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01961.x/abstract"]a criminal background[/URL] However the question is if this is prevalent enough to make pitbulls the causes of 70% of dog attacks in 32 years even though their own population is so small, and while I don't know of any data to say so, that seems far fetched to me.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48780802]Did I say illegal? No. I said that they should be restricted: prospective owners need to be able to show that they can raise and train the dog properly. Also, way to misread my post. I said dangerous breeds [i]like[/i] pit bulls, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds. That list is neither exclusive nor exhaustive.[/QUOTE] Why isn't it exclusive or exhaustive? Why do you think JUST those 3 breeds are specially dangerous where as, say, a Malimute, or a Chowchow is fine? Like how little do you actually know about dogs...? [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48780813]Pit bull bites have been associated with a [url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475022"]higher mortality[/url] than any other breed, even before they were popular.[/QUOTE] NONE of that study debates or rebukes what I've said about their reputation that has lasted for at least 30 years.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48780815]So why Shepherds, Rotties, and Pits specifically? Shepards reputation as being aggressive comes from being the dog of choice for police and the military (note: this is due to them being incredibly Intelligent and having great physical stamina, not being aggressive). Rotties and pits are simply extremely numerous and cheap, making them popular with low income families who may not have the time, experience, or money to properly raise them. However, all of these are great pets, no more dangerous than any other large breed dogs, so long as they are responsibly raised (again, like any other dog). So unless your argument is that families should not be allowed to have ANY large breed (which is absurd), why are you targeting these three breeds specifically?[/QUOTE] Seems like even moderators aren't immune to reading miscomprehension. Refer to this post for clarification: [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48780802]Did I say illegal? No. I said that they should be restricted: prospective owners need to be able to show that they can raise and train the dog properly. Also, way to misread my post. I said dangerous breeds [I]like[/I] pit bulls, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds. That list is neither exclusive nor exhaustive.[/QUOTE] [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48780822]Why isn't it exclusive or exhaustive? Why do you think JUST those 3 breeds are specially dangerous where as, say, a Malimute, or a Chowchow is fine? Like how little do you actually know about dogs...?[/quote] I said that the list was neither exclusive nor exhaustive; in other words, there are many other dangerous dog breeds that were not included in that list, mostly because I'm not about to type up a list of dozens of dog breeds just because you're incapable of understanding plain English. [quote]NONE of that study debates or rebukes what I've said about their reputation that has lasted for at least 30 years.[/QUOTE] Okay? It wasn't supposed to? I was pointing out that pit bull bites are more deadly than bites from other breeds, so regardless of what caused them to bite, they are still more dangerous than other breeds.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48780830]Seems like even moderators aren't immune to reading miscomprehension. Refer to this post for clarification:[/QUOTE] For someone throwing quips about "reading comprehension" out, you sure are shit at it yourself Seeing as he asked you for explanation as to why those three dog breeds? [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48780830] I said that the list was neither exclusive nor exhaustive; in other words, there are many other dangerous dog breeds that were not included in that list, mostly because I'm not about to type up a list of dozens of dog breeds just because you're incapable of understanding plain English.[/QUOTE] Oh really now? So those three dogs aren't the only dogs? What other dogs? I mean, I feel that if you're going to argue for a system of invasive control of my life, then you should probably explain how that system works and why those 3 dog breeds are infitely worse than most other breeds? I guess wanting to understanding your lilting logic about this makes me a moron, but honestly, I can't understand your viewpoint at all and you're horrible at explaining it

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48780830]Seems like even moderators aren't immune to reading miscomprehension. Refer to this post for clarification:[/QUOTE] So then your argument is essentially that prospective owners of large breed dogs should be given some kind of test to determine their level of kindheartedness and commitment to responsible and attentive ownership? I'd love to agree but I just don't see any way this could be enforced. Shelters already do very thing they can to put dogs in good homes, and responsible breeders are even more thorough, vetting out applicants for weeks. Beyond that, what else can we do? The real problem here is the population of dogs. Puppy mills churn out desirable breeds with no regard to health, safety, or socialization. Families don't spay and neuter, resulting in unwanted litters that get abandoned. Strays are overflowing shelters. What we need are less dogs, not less dog owners. Catch and release programs that xapture, spay or neuter, and re-release stray dogs and cats are a good example of the kind of thing we ought to supporting.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48780851] Oh really now? So those three dogs aren't the only dogs? What other dogs? [/QUOTE] Wolf hybrids, boxers, mastiffs. Not nearly as represented as pit bulls, but still many pretty awful cases involving them. I believe the quip about reading comprehension was because he said: "dangerous breeds LIKE pit bulls, Rottweilers, and German Shepherds" And you replied "Why do you think JUST those 3 breeds are specially dangerous"

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48780851]For someone throwing quips about "reading comprehension" out, you sure are shit at it yourself Seeing as he asked you for explanation as to why those three dog breeds?[/QUOTE] I pointed out those three breeds in particular because they are well-known by the public for being large dogs. There are plenty of other large dogs that I think not everyone should be allowed to own, such as the Malamute, Great Dane, Tosa Inu, Dogo Argentino, and the Fila Brasiliero. Should they be banned outright? Probably not; although it would completely eliminate any potential for them to cause harm, it's not necessary when restricting ownership is sufficient. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48780851]Oh really now? So those three dogs aren't the only dogs? What other dogs? I mean, I feel that if you're going to argue for a system of invasive control of my life, then you should probably explain how that system works and why those 3 dog breeds are infitely worse than most other breeds? I guess wanting to understanding your lilting logic about this makes me a moron, but honestly, I can't understand your viewpoint at all and you're horrible at explaining it[/QUOTE] A good guideline will be something like "if the average weight of the dog breed, fully grown, weighs more than the average 3-year-old, please get a license for it" or "if the average bite strength of the dog breed, fully grown, exceeds 100 pounds, please get a license for it". It's not "invasive control", it's just simple regulation. You live in a society, and all societies have certain rules that benefit society as a whole. If regulating dog ownership results in less dog attacks, then I don't see how that's a problem. Also, you're responding in a really emotional manner and it's really annoying. I'm not going to reply to your posts until you start responding in a mature manner.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48780907]So then your argument is essentially that prospective owners of large breed dogs should be given some kind of test to determine their level of kindheartedness and commitment to responsible and attentive ownership? I'd love to agree but I just don't see any way this could be enforced. Shelters already do very thing they can to put dogs in good homes, and responsible breeders are even more thorough, vetting out applicants for weeks. Beyond that, what else can we do? The real problem here is the population of dogs. Puppy mills churn out desirable breeds with no regard to health, safety, or socialization. Families don't spay and neuter, resulting in unwanted litters that get abandoned. Strays are overflowing shelters. What we need are less dogs, not less dog owners. Catch and release programs that xapture, spay or neuter, and re-release stray dogs and cats are a good example of the kind of thing we ought to supporting.[/QUOTE] Criminal background could be a red flag, for one, especially involvement in violent crime. If that's not feasible then I really don't see anything wrong with outright banning a breed that is known to cause problems, whether its due to poor treatment by humans or any other reason. Owning a dog is not a right, it's a privilege that can be taken away if necessary. As to your other points, I agree that they are essential to reducing the number of problem dogs, but it's slightly tangential to the issue at hand here, which is dog attacks from dogs that are owned by people.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48780985]I pointed out those three breeds in particular because they are well-known by the public for being large dogs. There are plenty of other large dogs that I think not everyone should be allowed to own, such as the Malamute, Great Dane, Tosa Inu, Dogo Argentino, and the Fila Brasiliero. Should they be banned outright? Probably not; although it would completely eliminate any potential for them to cause harm, it's not necessary when restricting ownership is sufficient. A good guideline will be something like "if the average weight of the dog breed, fully grown, weighs more than the average 3-year-old, please get a license for it" or "if the average bite strength of the dog breed, fully grown, exceeds 100 pounds, please get a license for it". It's not "invasive control", it's just simple regulation. You live in a society, and all societies have certain rules that benefit society as a whole. If regulating dog ownership results in less dog attacks, then I don't see how that's a problem. Also, you're responding in a really emotional manner and it's really annoying. I'm not going to reply to your posts until you start responding in a mature manner.[/QUOTE] You're advocating for a system that will never work, will not protect anyone, and will not actually save lives. You're advocating for a system that will cost a lot of money, a LOT of money, and be easily circumvented, ignored, passed over, and overall, just ineffective and wasteful. I don't really care if you think my replies are "Mature" enough for you. You haven't exactly been a paragon of maturity either what with your quips in this discussion If every dog breed bigger than a 3 year old needed a license, I can't even imagine how much tax money that would cost for a very small problem. [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48781016]Criminal background could be a red flag, for one, especially involvement in violent crime. If that's not feasible then I really don't see anything wrong with outright banning a breed that is known to cause problems, whether its due to poor treatment by humans or any other reason. Owning a dog is not a right, it's a privilege that can be taken away if necessary. As to your other points, I agree that they are essential to reducing the number of problem dogs, but it's slightly tangential to the issue at hand here, which is dog attacks from dogs that are owned by people.[/QUOTE] And how is this handled? Like actually? Think about the logistics of now all private sellers and dog breeders need government licenses to sell them. Now, I know in ANY other situation, throwing the government into the mix to get licences and registration for that kind of thing overall creates a much more ineffecient system that costs a lot of money and almost always removes a lot of people from the sellers pool Not to mention, how do you actually force this upon private sellers in a way that does ANYTHING at all? Private gun sales in the US are almost impossible to regulate but you think a dogs life would be easier?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48780985] Also, you're responding in a really emotional manner and it's really annoying. I'm not going to reply to your posts until you start responding in a mature manner.[/QUOTE] You act like it's uncommon for people to defend something they are emotionally attached to with emotional response [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] You expect a robotic response, saying stats warrant heavy handed regulation over a living group of animals that are very tightly woven into the lives of thousands if not millions. Stats only get you so far in the world and in this case it'll only lead to either elimination of the problem completely, numbers wise it'd make the attacks go down to 0, but it would violate so many moral codes, and a plethora of other consequences that I couldn't even begin to fathom. Or it would lead to a carbon copy of the private gun sales system as it is now and then we have unregistered dogs and the whole slew of issues that those things have because of the regulations [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] You create endless room for more pressing problems by trying to solve one issue that is negligible statistically compared to the actual amount of dogs in the US

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48781016]I really don't see anything wrong with outright banning a breed that is known to cause problems, whether its due to poor treatment by humans or any other reason. Owning a dog is not a right, it's a privilege that can be taken away if necessary. .[/QUOTE] Then you and I are never going to see eye to eye on this. Your bias is based on ignorance-- you're scapegoating an intelligent, sensitive, and beautiful creature based on factors that are one hundred percent human and entirely unrelated to its "nature." Pit bulls earned their reputation because of social irresponsibility and misrepresentation, nothing more. Hundreds of thousands of people have pit bulls, rottweilers, German shepherds, bulldogs, boxers, dobermans, and other villified breeds in their home. I have had four German Shepards, personally. Each of them has been hugely important to my life, and I loved them like I love any other member of my family. Each has been intelligent, alert, gentle, and well cared for. For you to suggest that neither I nor anybody else should be allowed to have any so-called "dangerous" breed based on your ignorant perspective about the nature of dogs is, frankly, disgusting and shortsighted. I'd have some very choice words for you were you to be the one to knock on my door and try to enforce that policy.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48781022]You're advocating for a system that will never work, will not protect anyone, and will not actually save lives. You're advocating for a system that will cost a lot of money, a LOT of money, and be easily circumvented, ignored, passed over, and overall, just ineffective and wasteful. I don't really care if you think my replies are "Mature" enough for you. You haven't exactly been a paragon of maturity either what with your quips in this discussion If every dog breed bigger than a 3 year old needed a license, I can't even imagine how much tax money that would cost for a very small problem. [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] And how is this handled? Like actually? Think about the logistics of now all private sellers and dog breeders need government licenses to sell them. Now, I know in ANY other situation, throwing the government into the mix to get licences and registration for that kind of thing overall creates a much more ineffecient system that costs a lot of money and almost always removes a lot of people from the sellers pool Not to mention, how do you actually force this upon private sellers in a way that does ANYTHING at all? Private gun sales in the US are almost impossible to regulate but you think a dogs life would be easier?[/QUOTE] 4.7 million dog bites a year, of which 850,000 require medical attention, is not a small problem. All these visits to the doctor cost money, so there is a real impact on society. Maybe my solution doesn't work, but pretending like dog bites are a small problem is disingenuous.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48781016]Criminal background could be a red flag, for one, especially involvement in violent crime. If that's not feasible then I really don't see anything wrong with outright banning a breed that is known to cause problems, whether its due to poor treatment by humans or any other reason. Owning a dog is not a right, it's a privilege that can be taken away if necessary..[/QUOTE] You do realize a [I]lot[/I] of shelters do shitloads of homework on the adopting families? My girlfriend and have been looking at all sorts of shelters and you need to provide lots of information on your character, the environment your pet will be brought into, some even require the new animal to meet other animals in the house, et cetera. It's probably the most humane way to figure out a good home for a pet. Now I am not a fan of pit bulls. But banning them is just outright stupid when there are already a lot of facilities in place that prevent pit bulls from going to bad homes that will likely cause the dog to become violent.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48781277]Then you and I are never going to see eye to eye on this. Your bias is based on ignorance-- you're scapegoating an intelligent, sensitive, and beautiful creature based on factors that are one hundred percent human and entirely unrelated to its "nature." Pit bulls earned their reputation because of social irresponsibility and misrepresentation, nothing more. Hundreds of thousands of people have pit bulls, rottweilers, German shepherds, bulldogs, boxers, dobermans, and other villified breeds in their home. I have had four German Shepards, personally. Each of them has been hugely important to my life, and I loved them like I love any other member of my family. Each has been intelligent, alert, gentle, and well cared for. For you to suggest that neither I nor anybody else should be allowed to have any so-called "dangerous" breed based on your ignorant perspective about the nature of dogs is, frankly, disgusting and shortsighted. I'd have some very choice words for you were you to be the one to knock on my door and try to enforce that policy.[/QUOTE] Okay, you're probably right. Banning dogs is silly and unnecessary. How do we keep dangerous people from owning and misusing dogs then?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48781300]4.7 million dog bites a year, of which 850,000 require medical attention, is not a small problem. All these visits to the doctor cost money, so there is a real impact on society. Maybe my solution doesn't work, but pretending like dog bites are a small problem is disingenuous.[/QUOTE] Dog bites are preventable when both parties involved - i.e. the owner and the person bit - actually know what the fuck to do. First and foremost the owner should always be in control of the dog. Secondly, there are a lot of triggers that will make a dog bite. Think for example of the children that get bit by dogs, then imagine how kids interact with dogs. A 6 year old will just freak out and go "DOGGY!!!" and start basically overwhelming the dog. That is a situation that could make a dog bite the kid.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48781300]4.7 million dog bites a year, of which 850,000 require medical attention, is not a small problem. All these visits to the doctor cost money, so there is a real impact on society. Maybe my solution doesn't work, but pretending like dog bites are a small problem is disingenuous.[/QUOTE] if it is such a huge problem, why arent there more people calling for a system like the one you proposed?