Posted: 4/1/2009 5:06:31 AM EDT
|
Who would have have thought?
Texas_Baby_Killed_by_Pit_Bulls Texas Baby Killed by Pit Bulls Created On: Tuesday, 31 Mar 2009, 12:34 PM CDT SAN ANTONIO - A 7-month-old boy is dead and his grandmother is hospitalized after the woman's two dogs attacked the child Tuesday at her home just west of downtown San Antonio. Police Chief Bill McManus says the woman was about to feed her grandson about 7 a.m. and went to her kitchen for his bottle. She returned to find the two pit bulls attacking the baby. The woman got a knife and stabbed one of the dogs, got the child away from them and back into his crib. Then, the dogs attacked her. McManus says she got the dogs into her backyard, where police shot both death when they arrived. The child died at University Hospital, where police say the woman also was admitted and is expected to recover. No identities nor charges have been revealed. |
It is a proven fact the "bull" breed are unpredictable and vicious. It is not a lack of training or love that causes these attacks it is just their nature. as you can clearly see in the below photo.
bottom line is a dog is just like a firearm. If you don't take care of it properly it WILL blow up in your face. |
|
Quoted:
bottom line is a dog is just like a firearm. If you don't take care of it properly it WILL blow up in your face. I disagree. a dog has a mind of its own, like it or not. it can and will do whatever it wants at the drop of a hat. a firearm will not. you can take the BEST care of a dog and it could still turn on you if it feels like it. a firearm will not. there are a lot more "freak accidents" of pit bulls attacking people (by percentage) than firearms randomly hurting people. ETA: pitbull killed a 2 year old last week in lockhart (southeast of austin) for the record, I'm NOT a fan of pitbulls. you never hear of labradors going off on someone and killing them (for example), but in raw numbers, I'm sure there's many more of those as pets.... |
|
Once a pitbull gets the taste for a human infant in its mouth it is hard to break them of the want to snatch a baby habit.
Kind of like cocaine and meth. My blue heeler/mutt has no such "Infant Addiction." But if the child was shaped like a ball...... the story may be different. 
|
|
Quoted:
Once a pitbull gets the taste for a human infant in its mouth it is hard to break them of the want to snatch a baby habit. Kind of like cocaine and meth. My blue heeler/mutt has no such "Infant Addiction." But if the child was shaped like a ball...... the story may be different. 
|
|
My Boston Terrier's attack my toddler all the time: They lick him and make him fall over laughing, then while distracted they steal his finger foods meat sticks.
Vicious damn animals. I don't care what all the owners of nice pits say, I'm not going to have one around my kid and you won't have one around him either. Not worth the isolated incident chance, IMHO. |
|
Quoted: My Boston Terrier's attack my toddler all the time: They lick him and make him fall over laughing, then while distracted they steal his finger foods meat sticks. Vicious damn animals. I don't care what all the owners of nice pits say, I'm not going to have one around my kid and you won't have one around him either. Not worth the isolated incident chance, IMHO. My German Shepherd does the same... He will be down in the floor and she will get over him and lick all over face/head/stomach. |
|
You can make any dog into a killer, even a freakin' chihuahua. Pit bulls, or AmStaffs, or whatever we're calling them this week, are no better or worse than any other breed. News flash: dogs are 99.9% identical on a genetic level. Before pit bulls it was Rottweilers, before them Dobermans, before them German Shepards. There's always some breed that's dangerous, and because dogs are 99.9% identical, you can't write a law to deal with just the ones you don't like. It just doesn't work, unless you're willing to let animal control decide whether or not your dog is legal based on what it looks like.
There are no bad dogs, only bad dog owners. Most people that own pit bulls are not prepared to deal with them and got them because they're "tough". Most people choose dogs for stupid reasons, and don't really understand what they're getting into. But what the hell, we won't blame people for being dumbasses so let's blame the dog. We've only been working on dogs for 50,000 years. They are what we've made them. If you have a problem with the results, look around at the critters on two legs for somebody to blame. |
| Yes, any dog can be bad and most times behind a bad dog we have a bad owner. But we don't hear about frenzied poodles ripping faces off babies. The fiercest chihuahua just is not capable of inflicting grievous injury or death. Dogs are not 99.9% the same however, they have different purposes and uses. Just because a dog is big and capable does not make it a menace. I cannot remember ever hearing of a Great Dane tearing kids apart for sport. You want a dog that is amongst the more aggressive breeds, that's fine it is your choice and should not be illegal. Just don't be that dog owner who makes headlines. |
|
According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Lets not let statistics get in the way of personal feelings and denial. |
|
you cannot beat the statistics.
30 seconds on google and you dont see anything about killer chihuahuas or a jack russell terrier on the loose Through January 20, 2002, the log of life-threatening and fatal attacks showed that pit bulls had committed 592 (45%) of the 1,301 total attacks qualifying for inclusion, including 280 (21%) of the attacks on children, 222 (60%) of the attacks on adults, 51 (34%) of the fatal attacks, and 321 (45%) of the maimings and disfigurements.
Rottweilers had committed 291 (22%) of the attacks, including 24% of the attacks on children, 63 (17%) of the attacks on adults, 36 (24%) of the fatalities, and 159 (22%) of the maimings and disfigurements. Combined, pit bulls and Rottweilers had committed 72% of all the attacks, 45% of the attacks on children, 77% of the attacks on adults, 58% of the fatalities, and 67% of the maimings and disfigurements. link so either the dogs are idiots, or the owners are. possibly a combination. but the simple truth is that the largest percentage of dog attacks are by pit bulls. you cannot escape that fact. here's a chart: Purebred Pit bull-type 66 Purebred Rottweiler 39 Purebred German Shepard 17 Purebred Husky-type 15 Purebred Malamute 12 Purebred Doberman Pinscher 9 Purebred Chow Chow 8 Purebred Great Dane 7 Purebred Saint Bernard 7 Crossbred Wolf-dog hybrid 14 Mixed-breed 12 Crossbred German Shepard 10 Crossbred Pit bull-type 10 Crossbred Husky-type 6 Rottweiler 5 Crossbred Alaskan Malamute 3 Crossbred Chow Chow 3 Crossbred Doberman Pinscher 0 Crossbred Saint Bernard 1 Crossbred Great Dane 0 link finally, from the american humane society: Every 40 seconds someone in the United States seeks medical attention for a dog bite-related injury.
Dog attacks cause 4.5 million injuries annually, 800,000 of which require medical attention. At least 25 different breeds of dogs have been involved in the 238 dog bite-related fatalities in the United States. Pit bulls and rottweilers account for over half of these deaths. 24% of human deaths involve unrestrained dogs off of their owners' property. 58% of human deaths involved unrestrained dogs on their owners' property. link so if someone wants to make a blanket statement that "pit bulls are dangerous animals", then the numbers are on their side personally, I dont trust many dogs with my girls. period. but a pit bull isnt coming anywhere near my kids. |
|
The simple fact is no one is taking their lab and beating him, forcing him to fear and obey all humans and to fight other dogs. This is the reason the statistics are lower. Like the guy posted a few up, it used to be german sheps, because people loved them for home security and wanted them violent. As far as dobbies, if I am not mistaken they tend to have a small bone in the top of their skull that grows down into their brain after 7-10 years that will cause them to some times just lose it. Then rotties, people started getting into the dog fighting thing and breeding them like crazy, which is one of the reasons why it is SO hard to find a rot with a decent blood line any more. And for the past few years people have gotten on a kick of using the pits to fight and in turn have bred their blood lines into shit. You should know the blood line of any dog before taking it into your home period. Pits are not inherently evil or vicious, but it is getting harder and harder to find one that has not been inbred all to shit and therefore not have a stable mind.
ETA: I will put money on it that almost everyone in here has or knows someone who has a dachshund (wiener dog), chihuahua or jack russell that is FAR more aggressive and more likely to bite than the larger pits or rotties. I am not saying they are more DANGEROUS. Just that the odds of being bit are much higher with them. You can read all you want on the internet but the best thing you can do is go ask your local vet what top 3 breeds they have the most trouble out of. |
|
Quoted:
The simple fact is no one is taking their lab and beating him, forcing him to fear and obey all humans and to fight other dogs. This is the reason the statistics are lower. Like the guy posted a few up, it used to be german sheps, because people loved them for home security and wanted them violent. As far as dobbies, if I am not mistaken they tend to have a small bone in the top of their skull that grows down into their brain after 7-10 years that will cause them to some times just lose it. Then rotties, people started getting into the dog fighting thing and breeding them like crazy, which is one of the reasons why it is SO hard to find a rot with a decent blood line any more. And for the past few years people have gotten on a kick of using the pits to fight and in turn have bred their blood lines into shit. You should know the blood line of any dog before taking it into your home period. Pits are not inherently evil or vicious, but it is getting harder and harder to find one that has not been inbred all to shit and therefore not have a stable mind. agreed, to an extent. however one of the tables I showed above had pit bulls at 45% of attacks, and that was prior to 2002, so takes out the surge of pit bull related issues "in the past few years" |
| Look whats the big debate over. Its not the dogs personality or breed personality. Its all about the tools of the trade. My wife's chiwawa will bite anybody it darn well wants to. But you don't hear about wild bands of chiwawa's roaming the streets. They don't have the bite force to crush your skull of they wanted to, unlike a pit. Thats the problem, not if they are good or bad but what happens when they are bad. Or think of those two gay lion tamers in las vegas. They have the best big cats in the world. The problem was that cats ability. No person can fully control any other creater god created all the time. The law of probability says that, "If the probability of something happening is greater than zero its not a question of if it will happen but a question of when." |
The gun analogy was a bad one.  Guns are inanimate objects. Pit Bulls are living animals that do things on their own free will based on their training, treatment, and natural inborn instincts that come from decades of breeding. No one "pulled the trigger" to make these dogs attack and kill.
How many people have to be killed by an animal for it to finally be deemed a dangerous animal? Pit owners are biased by their love for their dogs, that's understandable. BUT I think the evidence speaks clearly that these animals can't be trusted, no matter how well they are treated. I've lost count of how many news stories I've heard where a pit bull attacked someone and the owner swears it is a sweet, loving dog that has never bit anyone in the past. All it takes is 1 time to be too many. With these deaths, you can't give the dog a second chance and you can't bring the dead babies back to life. Yes, some of it has to do with how the owners treat the dogs, but a big part has to do with the dogs history of breeding, some behaviors are just naturally instinctive to certain breeds. In the end, dogs are animals that have natural behaviors that no matter how well we treat them or tame them are always there waiting to be triggered. And as it has been documented, certain breeds are more apt to attack people like these pit bulls. If no one is going to ban pit bulls, they need to at least hold the owners accountable for murder when they attack or kill someone. |
|
Quoted:
ETA: I will put money on it that almost everyone in here has or knows someone who has a dachshund (wiener dog), chihuahua or jack russell that is FAR more aggressive and more likely to bite than the larger pits or rotties. I am not saying they are more DANGEROUS. Just that the odds of being bit are much higher with them. You can read all you want on the internet but the best thing you can do is go ask your local vet what top 3 breeds they have the most trouble out of. so you're saying the main page of the american humane society's website quoting the center for disease control and prevention as well as the american veterinary medical association is interweb bullshit and that I should ask my local vet to dispute that information? that's kinda like telling the american kennel club that they dont know what they're talking about and asking the pound what the top dog is in wire haired pointers....
the statistics provided by field experts dont agree with your dachshund/chihuahua/jack russel theory at all. but let's say you're right (which regretfully you arent). fine. but the problem is this. but an out of control weiner dog is substantially less likely to inflict any real harm on anyone, even if they do have a little breakdown and go insane. its like saying my 6 year old got road rage on her tricycle and rammed my leg. sure....it might hurt. it might actually cause a sprained ankle. but a loose screwed pit bull is wreaking havoc like a methfueled 18 wheeler driver running thru a stop n go. and that's the (secondary) problem. power/strength/etc of the animal itself. but again....the statistical data says pit bulls are far and away the top breed to be "concerned about". say what you want about al gore's interweb thingy, but it often times does throw accurate information out into the world.... |
|
I don't know the circumstances of this child's death....but, I'm going to reiterate what I know.
I have had dogs all my life, and I can tell you one thing for certain: NEVER EVER LEAVE ANY DOG ALONE WITH A CHILD. I have a dog that is the twin of the one in the picture with the kid in this thread. AND she would probably let a kid draw on her also. BUT, kids are on the same physical level as a dog and dogs believe instinctively that things their size are contemporaries/other dogs/animals. So, kids don't know what an aggresive stance/posture is to a dog, and do it and get bit. If it's a Pit or a Rott or Bull Terrier, it may indeed kill the child out of instinct thinking this thing it's size is a threat to it or it's alpha status. I don't care if your dog grew up with this child and the dog licks it's balls for it every day or has killed thirty other dogs and people defending the child, DON'T LEAVE A CHILD ALONE WITH A DOG. Pit Bulls can be the biggest babies in the world and often are... |
|
BREEDING and the specific blood lines.
If you are just breeding generation after generation of Mike Tysons... you wont end up with much other than dumb muscle, teeth and legal trouble. For other dog breeds a lot of the breeding is for a purpose and that keeps the standards higher. Working dog lines and Schutzhund both demand a pretty high standard, so your herding, hunting, sniffing, guiding, police etc.. dogs breeds will have more positive traits reinforced in the breeding over longer periods of time. Pitbulls have no purpose, unless ghetto dog fighting is a purpose. If some pitbull lovers would ban together and create a distinct separate line of the breed, like a working line or a well tempered line, they could save the breed. Too many thugs and thug wannabes have taken to the breed and they will continue to ruin it for the rest of you PB lovers with their bad breeding selections and irresponsible ownership, behavior and image promotion. A good portion of PB owners are promoting the bad dog, dangerous, fear evoking image while the rest of them are trying to promote the good family pet image after every attack. |
|
Quoted:
ETA: I will put money on it that almost everyone in here has or knows someone who has a dachshund (wiener dog), chihuahua or jack russell that is FAR more aggressive and more likely to bite than the larger pits or rotties. I am not saying they are more DANGEROUS. Just that the odds of being bit are much higher with them. You can read all you want on the internet but the best thing you can do is go ask your local vet what top 3 breeds they have the most trouble out of. The difference is that a pitbull has the capability of easily killing a full grown adult. We aren't talking about mere painful bites, we are talking about life and death. There is no denying that Pitbulls are inherently dangerous compared to other dogs, based on their strength, size and unpredictability. All dogs are unpredictable, but coupled with the size and tendancy for violent nature, there are some serious issues to be considered. Believe it or not, one of the biggest reasons I carry a gun with me is the recent rise within the last few years of pitbull attacks and deaths in Texas. |
|
I see those statistics above and wonder if they aren't manipulated the same way as firearm injury/death statistics. I wonder how many of those attacks were "good" attacks vs. not. Kinda like they lump suicides or a homeowner shooting the neighborhood crackhead during a break in as the infamous "its XX times more likely to be used against someone you know than a stranger".
That said, I've seen too many examples of good and bad dogs of all sizes to ever leave a kid alone with one. |
|
Quoted:
I see those statistics above and wonder if they aren't manipulated the same way as firearm injury/death statistics. I wonder how many of those attacks were "good" attacks vs. not. Kinda like they lump suicides or a homeowner shooting the neighborhood crackhead during a break in as the infamous "its XX times more likely to be used against someone you know than a stranger". a good question. but I'd find it unlikely the humane society would want skewed facts on any dog. even still, take 25% off the pit bull/rottweiler figure for "good attacks" aka "defensive/protection" and you're still at half of all attacks. there was a figure in one of those articles about 'secondary bites' or whatever. that if the dog wasnt put down after the first, did it bite someone again. apparently the pit bull (specifically) failed this test horribly, meaning it was very likely to bite/attack again. the thug life explanation is pretty good too. I cant wear a gigantic gold rope necklace anymore without someone thinking I'm a rapper. unfair! |
|
This thread is full of attempts to boil a relatively complex issue down to one or two simple factors. Like most such attempts, they fail. While it's true that pits are not irrevocably "born killers", and that some are successfully raised to be just as loving and gentle as any other dog...the fact is that they are not inherently "just like any other breed". The very concept suggests that there are not significant difference between dog breeds in terms of temperment, abilities, etc...and is obviously false. Dogs have been bred for centuries into dramatically different forms and behavioral tendencies for various purposes. Pit bulls were specifically bred to maximize the qualities of physical strength and aggressive tendencies. Note the word "tendencies" there. Genetic variance means that not every pit is born with the same behavioral qualities. But they are, by virtue of their selective breeding background, generally predisposed to be naturally much more aggressive than most other breeds. To attempt to deny this fact is ridiculous. But that doesn't tell the whole story either. We need to consider the environmental factors as well. If they're neglected, mistreated, etc. these aggressive tendencies are more likely to manifest, or even be enhanced. On the other hand, if they're treated well and given the affection most people give their pets, these tendencies can be offset to some degree (though not always enough to prevent attacks.) Now...add to all of this the fact that, although there are plenty of pits who have good, responsible owners who love them as pets, the majority of them are owned by irresponsible morons and hyper-macho idiots who think having a pit bull makes them some sort of bad-ass. *And*, the current population of pits is highly represented by animals that have been bred - and sometimes used - by dog fighters, and then dumped on the streets. All of this (and more) adds up to produce the statistics that have been cited so far. |
|
We have too many people who can't control their instincts. Why in the world would you expect more than that from an animal.
Dogs operate on instinct, pure and simple. You can get them to operate somewhat on their training, but there will always be an inclination to return to instinctive behavior and you have no way to control or predict that to a 100% certainty. I have a pretty extensive experience with dog psychology and it really boils down to this. A dog is either a protector of an infant (has essentially adopted the child) or a potential danger to that infant. You can test this by having visitors appear to be aggressive to the infant in front of the dog. If the dog is in a position where it doesn't feel threatened but does indeed react in a protective manner for the child, then it is a minimal calculated risk to keep the two together. Otherwise, all bets are off. A dog's mental processing is greatly influenced by instinct and there is just no way to adequately predict what will trigger it. Statistics can help with determining which breeds are safer, statistically speaking, but there are exceptions to all breeds. All breeds are capable of regressing into an unnecessary violent mode. |
| I heard part of another pitbull attack story on the radio this afternoon (Chris Baker show 950am); looks like another sweet pitbull attacked a 10 year old kid and put him in the hospital. Not the first attack for this dog it seems. The owner won't produce the dog for rabies testing so the kid has to go through treatment for possible rabies; owner is on the lam? Sounds like another fine example of loving dogs and their responsible owners. |
|
Quoted:
According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Lets not let statistics get in the way of personal feelings and denial. 5 out of 4 people have trouble with statistics. |
|
Most points covered ably, so I'll just throw this one out there. HB 1982, currently in committee up in Austin, makes the determination of whether or not your dog is vicious entirely subjective. Go read the law, it's fun. Basically, somebody complains because your dog barks when people come to the fence and you've got a vicious dog. Good stuff, huh? I hope everybody enjoys having $100K worth of insurance for dog bites because your neighbors complained. Plus the registration and enclosure requirements are nice, too. Oh, and do you like having your dog off leash? Not happening in Houston if he weighs over 40 pounds.
This is what comes of the attempts to demonize certain dog breeds. You end up screwing over all dog owners. So, keep yelling about pit bulls being dangerous and then when they come for your lab or golden that's never done anything to anybody but fart near them you don't have a leg to stand on anymore. You're exactly like the kind of gun owners that think guns they don't own or need should be subject to restriction. Nobody needs an assault rifle just like nobody needs a pit bull. Right? |
|
Quoted:
This is what comes of the attempts to demonize certain dog breeds. You end up screwing over all dog owners. So, keep yelling about pit bulls being dangerous and then when they come for your lab or golden that's never done anything to anybody but fart near them you don't have a leg to stand on anymore. You're exactly like the kind of gun owners that think guns they don't own or need should be subject to restriction. Nobody needs an assault rifle just like nobody needs a pit bull. Right? I see the point you're trying to make, but that's a bit of a stretch, isnt it? no kind of pistol/rifle/shotgun (assault or otherwise) has ever picked themselves up and started shooting people. (unless you're in maximum overdrive) pit bulls do wander over and attack people with no provocation. as a gun owner I take offense to that analogy. personally, I'm not saying pit bulls should be removed as a breed or anything similar. what I am saying, is that statistically (far and away) they are a dangerous breed and should be addressed accordingly. such as consequences and liability for attack. for all dogs, far as that goes. but if you choose to have a dog that fits a certain profile (such as falls into a statistical group), it should be treated differently. as gunowners, we are held liable for our guns, are we not? safetey and control of the weapon? if a child comes in to my home, finds one of my guns and shoots another child, am I not liable? whats the difference between having a dog (pit or other) that attacks someone and maims them? let me tell you, that if someone walked by my house and I had a pitbull that attacked them, they'd come after me for liability for sure. that I can promise you. further, if that accidental shooting involves a NFA item, you're in a world of shit as you are (knowinly) held to higher standards due to the nature of the item involved. to use your gun reference, let's say pitbulls and rottweiles are the NFA of the dog world. they're a class III dog. perhaps they should have special registration. special background checks for owners, clearance for even purchasing the dog, and etc etc. so using your analogy, the evil dogs are treated the same as evil machineguns. now you'll have to excuse me. headed down to the sheriff's office to pick up a signed form 1. while I'm there, I'll inquire about signoff for a fully automatic pitbull. 
(about half of the above is somewhat said in jest, but the analogy is simply off base) |