Woman mauled to death by her two, you guessed it.. Poodles

[fatdaddycool]

No they will be afraid of them because of the "coincidence" that 77% of mauling deaths happen by Pit Bulls.

77%, and we are supposed to think it isn't the breed? That's just being in denial.

Dude, I'm saying it isn't in their DNA to be aggressive. That's just untrue.

As far as the 77% thing, look man, as I've said before that number is not a good number. There is no data base or central reporting agent that goes out to every attack, verifies the breed to be an American Staffordshire terrier or a dachshund or anything of the sort. A boxer mix =pit bull, bulldog or mix=pit bull, catahoula=pit bull, cane corso=pit bull, and so on. Pit Bull isn't a breed but it's used too identify any dog that even remotely looks like one. I have a catahoula husky mix that people cross the street when they see her and call her a pit all the time and she looks nothing like one. Not even close.

Also, not all dog attacks and bites are recorded. Keep in mind the only way to track dog attacks is to tally what's been reported in the news. Police don't have to file anything unless they shoot the dog.

I could explain it to you all day but the fact is you're going to maintain a prejudice against dogs that look like they might be a pit bull but when a dog that's half bulldog and half Labrador bites someone it will be reported as a pit bull and sensationalized by the media. A Maltese chewed off his owners infected toes while he was passed out, it was reported as being a heroic act by the dog, if that was a boxer mix it would have been reported as a mauling. It's sad but that's how it is bro. It just is and ultimately it's the dogs that pay the price.

I recall a story where it was reported that a pitt mauled a mentally and physically handicapped kid to death in a family friends backyard while with the grandmother, everyone was horrified. Except gibber, he was still just a racist, anyway the dog was scheduled to be put down until finally someone came forward to admit that grandma and family friend were busy shooting up and not watching the kid who wandered into the backyard and began hitting the dog with sticks and rocks while chained up. Now If someone did that to you while you were chained up, maybe you'd defend yourself too.

Hope this helps,
FDC



Good to hear from you by the way Pengy hope everything is kick ass for you

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[Penguinfan]

As far as the 77% thing, look man, as I've said before that number is not a good number. There is no data base or central reporting agent that goes out to every attack,

I didn't say attack, I said death. I would at least like to believe deaths are reported and investigated at a fairly high rate. Even if that number is off by 50% it still outweighs deaths by any other breed.

It is also good to hear from you and I hope you are well. You are, however, in denial over this one.

 

[saint]

Well it's just not a genetic thing. There isn't an allele floating around in dogs that a scientist can point to and say that's the aggressive gene.

Just because the gene has not been located does not mean it's present. I know you know everything, of course, so I was surprised you would be so wrong about something so known.


It's well known that certain dogs are better with kids. The tolerate being tugged on, etc. Just because "the allele" hasn't been found yet doesn't mean some dogs have better temperament for kids.

Other dogs are more protective in nature. German shephards, etc. They are more loyal to their owner, slower to warm to new people.

Other dogs are bred to be good hunting dogs. Pointing, predatory instinct, great in the field.

Other dogs are more aggressive, by nature.

What do you think causes these differences in temperament other than genetically bred disposition? Surely, even you can't disagree with everything that I just wrote, and you also in the same breath cannot tell me those differences are due to different owner/pet relationships.

Of course, that has an impact on bringing out (or suppressing) those behaviors, but OF COURSE there is genetic predisposition towards all of those things.

 

[arrow]

really

really

i had owned red cocker spaniels for 30 years without no incidents reported of anyone getting mauled or killed. BUT i almost killed a rottweiler who had my oldest red cocker in his mouth one day! Just thought i would share that with you all today!

ARROW

 

[yyz]

No they will be afraid of them because of the "coincidence" that 77% of mauling deaths happen by Pit Bulls.

77%, and we are supposed to think it isn't the breed? That's just being in denial.

I have no love for these animals, but I wonder. Police dogs are trained to attack people, but German Shepherds, in general, don't.

I would guess there are far more "pits" that don't harm people, than do. I don't think they are all ticking bombs.

 

[Penguinfan]

I don't think they are all ticking bombs.

Of course they aren't, and I didn't mean to imply that they are. You do have a couple things in play here that fuel the debate.

1. Supporters of the breed refuse to allow statistics/facts/conversation sway their opinion on the breed despite their being facts that it is the most dangerous breed to own. They choose that breed despite having so many other options which leads to point 2.

2. People who don't like the breed can't understand why someone, with nearly unlimited other options, would choose that breed other than the fact they want to say "fuck everyone, I'll own a pitbull if I want to".


If a Car A was 6X more likely to explode and kill the occupants than Car B wouldn't you choose Car B? Sure you would, but there would still be that group of "bad asses" that would drive Car A and you know it.

 

[fatdaddycool]

Just because the gene has not been located does not mean it's present. I know you know everything, of course, so I was surprised you would be so wrong about something so known.


It's well known that certain dogs are better with kids. The tolerate being tugged on, etc. Just because "the allele" hasn't been found yet doesn't mean some dogs have better temperament for kids.

Other dogs are more protective in nature. German shephards, etc. They are more loyal to their owner, slower to warm to new people.

Other dogs are bred to be good hunting dogs. Pointing, predatory instinct, great in the field.

Other dogs are more aggressive, by nature.

What do you think causes these differences in temperament other than genetically bred disposition? Surely, even you can't disagree with everything that I just wrote, and you also in the same breath cannot tell me those differences are due to different owner/pet relationships.

Of course, that has an impact on bringing out (or suppressing) those behaviors, but OF COURSE there is genetic predisposition towards all of those things.

Saint,
Do you ever proofread anything?

So here's what is so weird. DNA research and the science of mitochondrial DNA pretty much centers around identifying the alleles. It's like, that's the whole point of the science. Behaviour is not genetically identifiable. It's as simple as that.


Now there are class animals so to speak, working dogs, herding dogs, hounds, terriers, sheep dogs etc... Even if you want to think of them ass instinctual those behaviors or tendencies can be easily refocused to do different tasks that have nothing to do with their genetics.


Pengy,
I acknowledge that there is a cultural stereotype surrounding the dogs and I'm aware of the fatality rates. While they certainly seem alarming I do not take them at face value due the exasperating level of erroneous factors that come into play with it.
If there were a truly variable controlled scientific study done on genetic disposition of American Staffordshire terriers versus Malinois', Rotts, Boxer or bulldog mixes, mastiffs and their mixes, etc... than I am certain you'd be very surprised by the results.

I'm not saying you have to like them but I also don't believe it's fair to persecute them or their responsible owners. Restriction and Regulation is persecution.

I also don't agree with the way they are reported and adjudicated. There is no requirement of proper breed identification or what human borne mitigating circumstances, past or present, may have contributed to the state of the dog.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[REFLOG]

I have been thinking about adopting a new dog. It is amazing the large number of pitbulls at the rescue centers and Humane Society locations. At some locations 75% or more of adoptable dogs are pitt or pitt mix.

 

[Terryray]

Well, there is an unusual allelic variant of aldehyde dehydrogenase gene, called ALDH2*2, which causes folks who possess this (especially homozygotes to the normal gene, such folks are more commonly found in South East Asia populations) to slow-metabolize the toxic acetaldehyde oxidative by-product of alcohol ingestion, triggering rather rapid allergic reaction-like symptoms which necessitates the early-onset closure of said alcohol imbibing - all this thereby producing an inherited single-gene protection against alcoholism in ALDH2*2 individuals.

Still, because you cannot ID the gene or genes does not mean a behavior cannot be "genetically identifiable".

I read here "The heritability of human behavioral traits is now well established, due in large measure to classical twin studies."....and here "basic political attitudes like liberalism and conservatism are likely to be heritable"...and here "We know from twin studies that about half the variance in [human aggressive] behavior may be explained by genetic risk factors"....or the estimated "heritability of spirituality to be around 40 to 50 percent"

But yes, there still is a wide variance in inherited outcomes, even simple near-determinate 90% inherited traits like height can be find quite disparate expression in the real world (such as avg height of a N.Korean vs a S.Korean)

Thus many veterinarians will tell you they see just as many aggressive individuals of a docile dog breed as docile indivduals of an aggressive dog breed....this caused Duffy, Hsu, and Serpell - warning PDF) to conclude:

The substantial within-breed variation in C-BARQ scores observed in this study suggests that it is inappropriate to make predictions about a given dog's propensity for aggressive behavior based solely on its breed....Differences between lines of distinct breeding stock indicate that the propensity toward
aggressive behavior is at least partially rooted in genetics, although substantial within-breed variation suggests that other factors (developmental, environmental) play a major part in determining whether aggressive behavior is expressed

and good sized dogs of any breed being raised by gap-toothed yahoos in neighborhoods with lots of kids (kids usually the ones seriously mauled), who prefer male dogs and who don't wanna neuter said male dog ("I ain't definitly ownin' no girlie dog" - over 90% of these mauling done by unneutered male dogs), who's dog is only part family dog but also part or whole yard guard dog (it's very difficult to find a neuteured male pitbull family dog, kept inside with family nearly all of the time, who mauled someone), and said owners also sport a much higher-than-average past containing incidents of criminal activity -- well, I'm not surprised reading about all these maulings by "pitbulls".

In my youth such yahoos loved Rotweillers, which was the breed back then at the top of bite and mauling incidences, causing many newspaper headlines and scare stories....and "Pitbulls" are a popular breed to own, which breeds statistical anomalies....In many places in Northern Canada there is a huge disproportionate ownership of Siberian Huskies and such assorted sled dogs vs other breeds, and holy crap look at the super high prevalence of that breed up there for bites and maulings!