BustedPinion
-=BANNED=-
yes just that animal in question.. i would never banish a breed. remember i own a "bully breed" myself.. i went to a dozen home owners co's before i found one that would allow me to have her..:cool:2pwrlftrs4u said:
another "pit bull" attack...
- Thread starter 2pwrlftrs4u
- Start date
Help Support Hardline Crawlers:
Boomer
Well-Known Member
skrause said:
Dog attack deaths and maimings
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
My eyes are open.
Are yours?
Mrs. Crash
Administrator
skrause said:
Are you kidding me?? Michaels comment had nothing to do with the owner. He was stating that BECAUSE HE KNEW THEM. He knew that they were not lying about prior dogs attitude. This family and this dog had been at other 4x4 get togethers. What they did AFTER he attacked my son has and had nothing to do with how he acted towards my son. They had him as thier baby prior to this. He was treated as a baby prior to this.
There is nothing to defend. Michael was stating the dogs situation prior to attack and the fact that he knew them so he knew of the dog.
crash2
-Oh no I picked a side-
BustedPinion said:
It was a bad day and it still affects him today.
But on a brighter note--the next morning I asked kyle if he wanted to go home or go wheel---we spent the day on the trail wheelin--he was a trooper...
2pwrlftrs4u
NWW Meanie
Boomer said:
i can
2pwrlftrs4u
NWW Meanie
Boomer said:Dog attack deaths and maimings
Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998
My eyes are open.
Are yours?
here we go again :rolleyes:
that chart has grouped several breeds into "pit bull" type
BustedPinion
-=BANNED=-
have fun boys, im off to an interview :D
2pwrlftrs4u
NWW Meanie
Boomer said:
2pwrlftrs4u said:
:rolleyes:
2pwrlftrs4u
NWW Meanie
BustedPinion said:
Good luck
2pwrlftrs4u
NWW Meanie
Boomer said:
again, that'd be any dog over... lets say 30lbs :rolleyes:
AnnaBanana
The Ditch Witch
Borderline offensive... I thought it was funny (the sarcasm in the original post), but then everyone got pretty uptight really quickly. I could empathize with 2pwrlfts4u's position. Just didn't want him to feel like everyone was against him there wasn't much in the way of positive acknowledgment, but more along the lines of heated one-sided positions.BustedPinion said:
Help me understand your statement above: If a child that has not been educated properly to not approach a dog on someone's property, and say the child wants to pet it, that the child who is now 'trespassing' on the unfamiliar animals’ chunk of land, and an animal that is tied up or trained to stay on the property (via invisible fence) or just plain training, this animal attacks a child, it’s the OWNERS problem. I call BS to a certain degree. Parents need to educate children on the basics of boundaries, similar to what parents did when raising us. I am quite sure that most parents taught us not to approach a dog or cross onto someone’s property if the owners were not present to ask permission. – It was part of basic manners where I grew up. NOW if the dog is unleashed, roaming free, and and can attack from anywhere that IS the owner’s responsibility. But your comment left out the consideration for proper education on the Human’s part. When I say education needs to be full circle – it is to compliment the balance of rearing child behavior which carries over into adult life (hopefully), and the full circle ends with the dog owner having education on proper ways to handle, socialize or restrain or train their animal – it helps to protect themselves as an owner, helps to protect the dog, and helps to protect the general public Education CANNOT help a situation where an animal comes unglued and attacks while not in check by leash, fence etc. Education is merely one of many tools but can be considered as a basic foundation. <o:p></o:p>BustedPinion said:
example. Child, hot stove burner. The two are meeting for the first time. A parent is nearby, a parent chooses to educate the child to not touch burning stove… that is a foundation for education. Now the child may test it anyway, and suffer some discomfort. However the foundation for education has been laid. That behavior will be modeled throughout the child’s life in various scenarios, and should include lessons as the child grows older and turns into an adult. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I do say that it is the general public’s responsibility to be educated at a basic level. Those are and should be part of the foundation of education reference above. That is NOT ignorance. Are you saying that parents need not educate children to grow up and learn that there are rules of engagement when approaching animals, other humans, private property, hot stoves etc…? Its like any ANIMAL. There are certain things we have been taught and have learned NOT TO DO. <o:p></o:p>BustedPinion said:
<o:p></o:p>
BustedPinion said:
BustedPinion said:
Busted, (or anyone) if someone trespasses into your yard and your animal is under control of boundaries and signage, leash - tie out - run etc, and the trespasser is attacked, it is that persons’ responsibility that trespassed - it should not be the owner of the animal, if an animal is under control of boundary, fencing, or some type of reliable restraint devices.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I am not speaking to those folks who choose to do little in the way of controlling their animals. No boundary, not muzzled, no leash, etc. golden, <?xml:namespace prefix = u1 /><u1:place u2:st="on"><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Labrador</u1:place></st1:place>, Doberman, Golden Retriever, Pomeranian, Toy Poodle etc (you get the idea – essentially any dog) - an uncontrolled dog is the owner’s responsibility - for if they (animal) causes harm to someone or something that is the owner’s problem.
Now a trusted animal that turns unexpectedly becomes a sticky situation, in the examples you provided earlier in this thread, about the friends Pit Bulls that came unglued and attacked at two separate times to the children. This situation is tragic and difficult to ever predict, and there is little that can be done to explain these types of occurrences – except knowing that an animal is an animal at the end of the day. Humans and Animals have done their best to co-exist in this world; however there is the ever present food chain – which will never go away. So unpredictability would be true for ANY type of dog, not just bully breeds like you make reference to, and I agree. Additionally, animals, like humans can age, and be the subjects to injury, trauma etc, that can change the demeanor or personality of the animal from gentle to vicious. I had a dog that suffered head trauma and neurological disorder; he had to be put down once he started changing his behavior. That was sad and difficult, but I knew him to be a threat to his environment and to keep an unfortunate situation from occurring, I made the responsible decision to put him down. (that would be attributed to education, in my opinion)
There are folks that put a great deal of emotional investment into the four legged fur ball that gives them a sense of joy/happiness. In lots of cases these animals are regarded as children to some degree. Therefore a significant amount of love it invested into man's best friend. But mans best friend can turn, and this is a fact of life. It’s no different than how some humans behave.
(i had more to put here but got this - so had to cut it back):
- The text that you have entered is too long (11731 characters). Please shorten it to 10000 characters long.<o:p></o:p>
2pwrlftrs4u
NWW Meanie
Boomer said:
Boomer said:
put down the pipe :rolleyes:
skrause
Well-Known Member
It is also fatalities, not just bites.2pwrlftrs4u said:
Crash and Mrs., I'm truely sorry for what happened and you are right, I was not there. I didn't even know anything like this had happened to Kyle until this thread.
Boomer
Well-Known Member
2pwrlftrs4u said:
Pull you head out of your azz and try reading things in their proper context instead of being willfully ignorant.
I referred to the entire breed as being subject to the restrictions on their ownership as I had previously mentioned, not being banned or exterminated. I know it, you know, everyone else knows it. You are truly desperately lacking for an argument if you have to deliberately take things so far out of context and twist words around like that. :looser:
Boomer
Well-Known Member
skrause said:
Yes, there is obviously no difference between being nipped or maybe a puncture wound than being killed or even just viciously mauled. :rolleyes:
Crash's son would not be in those statistics, either. I guess all those maulings where the person lived just don't count. :rolleyes:
It's all lies and a conspiracy against those poor innocent bully dogs. :rolleyes:
2pwrlftrs4u
NWW Meanie
From the SPCA:
Pit bull attack stats may surprise you
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Last week, I received a phone call from someone wanting to know the truth behind pit bull statistics. And, on June 12, in a letter to the editor, a reader wrote about his fear of pit bulls. He said, "These dogs have killed more than 100 individuals in the past five years. If an automobile had a defect that killed 100 people, there would be a public outcry."
After you start looking a little deeper, the numbers tell a different tale. According to "Fatal Dog Attacks, the Stories Behind the Statistics," by Karen Delise there were 431 deaths because of dog attacks in the years from 1965 to 2001. Children 12 younger were the victims in 79 percent of the fatal attacks.
In 37 years, 342 children were killed by dogs, an average of about nine children a year. Shockingly, approximately three children are killed each day, or 1,100 per year, by their parents. Delise notes that "A child in the United States is over 100 times more likely to be killed by his or her parent or caretaker than by a dog."
Even more surprising is that approximately 50 infants die each year from broken baby cribs, and 250 newborns die at the hands of their parents or guardians. In comparison, two infants, on average, die a year from dog attacks.
Pit bull and pit mixes account for 21 percent of all human fatalities, while mixed breed dogs account for 16 percent and other nonspecified breeds, 15 percent. Delise's study demonstrates that the breed of dog should not be the sole factor by which an attack is judged. Other factors include inherited and learned behaviors, genetics, breeding, temperament, surgical sterilization, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim behavior, size and age, timing, and the physical condition and the size of dog.
Of the 28 dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000 and 2001, 26 were males and two were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were sexually intact; the reproductive status of the remaining five male dogs could not be determined. The male dog that killed the 12-year-old boy in San Francisco on June 3 was protecting his female dog in heat.
An owner's understanding of dogs, supervision of dogs and children, sterilization and chaining as a primary means of confinement all can play roles in attacks. Whether dogs were obtained for protection, guarding, fighting, are newly acquired or not properly introduced to newborns are among other issues.
In the end, many factors contribute to dog attacks. A popular slogan seems to capture the sentiment perfectly, "Judge the Deed Not the Breed."
Pit bull attack stats may surprise you
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Last week, I received a phone call from someone wanting to know the truth behind pit bull statistics. And, on June 12, in a letter to the editor, a reader wrote about his fear of pit bulls. He said, "These dogs have killed more than 100 individuals in the past five years. If an automobile had a defect that killed 100 people, there would be a public outcry."
After you start looking a little deeper, the numbers tell a different tale. According to "Fatal Dog Attacks, the Stories Behind the Statistics," by Karen Delise there were 431 deaths because of dog attacks in the years from 1965 to 2001. Children 12 younger were the victims in 79 percent of the fatal attacks.
In 37 years, 342 children were killed by dogs, an average of about nine children a year. Shockingly, approximately three children are killed each day, or 1,100 per year, by their parents. Delise notes that "A child in the United States is over 100 times more likely to be killed by his or her parent or caretaker than by a dog."
Even more surprising is that approximately 50 infants die each year from broken baby cribs, and 250 newborns die at the hands of their parents or guardians. In comparison, two infants, on average, die a year from dog attacks.
Pit bull and pit mixes account for 21 percent of all human fatalities, while mixed breed dogs account for 16 percent and other nonspecified breeds, 15 percent. Delise's study demonstrates that the breed of dog should not be the sole factor by which an attack is judged. Other factors include inherited and learned behaviors, genetics, breeding, temperament, surgical sterilization, environmental stresses, owner responsibility, victim behavior, size and age, timing, and the physical condition and the size of dog.
Of the 28 dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000 and 2001, 26 were males and two were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were sexually intact; the reproductive status of the remaining five male dogs could not be determined. The male dog that killed the 12-year-old boy in San Francisco on June 3 was protecting his female dog in heat.
An owner's understanding of dogs, supervision of dogs and children, sterilization and chaining as a primary means of confinement all can play roles in attacks. Whether dogs were obtained for protection, guarding, fighting, are newly acquired or not properly introduced to newborns are among other issues.
In the end, many factors contribute to dog attacks. A popular slogan seems to capture the sentiment perfectly, "Judge the Deed Not the Breed."
skrause
Well-Known Member
Why? How is it the breed's fault? Regulate the owners, not the breed. You're practically condemning the innocent.Boomer said:
I'm all for restricting the owners of problem dogs from ever owning dogs again.
2pwrlftrs4u
NWW Meanie
skrause said:
read above... though he said entire breed more than once, thats not what he said.
Boomer
Well-Known Member
skrause said:
Jesus H Christ. Regulate the owners of the dangerous breeds. I think I said something about that back on like page 2. Do some of you even read or comprehend before replying? :mad:
2pwrlftrs4u
NWW Meanie
Boomer said:
the chart you posted had pit bull type dogs @ 66... there are 20 different dogs that get labled "pit bull"
look here
http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html
Mrs. Crash
Administrator
skrause said:
We try very hard to put it behind us and for the most part we have done that. It is different when topics like this come up.
Kyle still has some fears of dogs. Not just the breed that bit him but all large dogs. If a dog comes to him, he's still catious. It is only him approaching a dog that makes him comfortable. This is partly why we own two. So he isn't always afraid.
We don't feel all pits are bad, we don't feel they should all be killed but we do feel that ANY dog has the potential to snap and or hurt someone when not provoked and when not always shown prior aggressions.
This discussion is outta hand. I LOVE IT.
If you have a agressive breed dog and it has not bit anyone then kudos for you. but if you think it won't bite evtually or COULD not bite eventually thats were you make your mistake. You the owner do not know what happens inside these dogs heads. Something gets fowled up and thats when it happens. I have seen it twice and both times it happend to people just like the people here now arguing on these dogs behalf.
Personaly my life and life style are more important to me than taking a chance with a dog that may never hurt anyone but then again could attack out of the blue and ruin everything I worked so hard to get.
If you have a agressive breed dog and it has not bit anyone then kudos for you. but if you think it won't bite evtually or COULD not bite eventually thats were you make your mistake. You the owner do not know what happens inside these dogs heads. Something gets fowled up and thats when it happens. I have seen it twice and both times it happend to people just like the people here now arguing on these dogs behalf.
Personaly my life and life style are more important to me than taking a chance with a dog that may never hurt anyone but then again could attack out of the blue and ruin everything I worked so hard to get.
BustedPinion
-=BANNED=-
Boomer Im on your side but you said that this morning on page 13, i think you were saying one thing meaning another:DBoomer said:
Ok people enough pissing..
So since were all here experts on this subject (:haha: :haha: ) whats the solution? what does everyone think the solution is? personally my thoughts are:
Dangerous INDIVIDUAL animals (not breeds): that have agressed or bitten should be required to be tested like the SPCA, they will try to provoke the animal, if it attacks, its destryed immedialty, i think the general public should do the same and it should be required.
Breeds deemed a deadly threat (defined as an animal that CAN lethally kill a human as easy as a firearm, without taking breeds history into consideration as to avoid discrimination, yes i mean a 1 size fits all law):
to make them a liscensable ownership requiring a liscense to own, breed, etc.. so that every retard cannot own a certain breed. gee, just think what a law like this could do for the APBT breed name if they were only owned by responsible owners!!
:cool:
Well to answer the question simply I think all breeding of them should stop immediatly. With that they existing ones should be fixed. End the breeding of these highly inbread trigger happy dogs now. Thats my solution.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
For Sale First Generation 4Runner Rock Crawler for sale or trade
- Latest: FirstGenFunRunner
-
-
-
Withdrawn First Generation 4Runner Rock Crawler for sale or trade
- Latest: FirstGenFunRunner
-
