I can't understand it--he's never eaten anyone before
I am not a “dog person.” I recognize, though, that there are plenty of people who are and I don’t begrudge them their affection. In fact, I’m willing to admit that I’m probably missing out on something by not being able to bond better with my canine buddies. What I don’t understand, though, is why someone would deliberately buy a breed of dog that seems genetically disposed to kill people. I have heard the arguments -- it’s the owner’s fault; it’s mostly mixed breed pit bulls that attack; any dog can be made vicious, etc. etc. But why is it that stories about dogs attacking and seriously injuring and even killing people nearly always involve some kind of Pit Bull Terrier or Rottweiler? Even if “all of the evidence is not yet in,” why would someone take a chance on these breeds? Aren’t there enough peaceful doggy varieties out there that are just as faithful, watchful, cuddly, loyal and fun? Can these beasts do something special (other than fight to the death) that makes them somehow attractive? What goes through the mind of the buyer? Here’s one answer: “I may be a real loser in your eyes. I’ve really screwed up my life, and I don’t have much control over what happens to me but I do have control over this dog--this great big, tough, mean looking dog who’s very gentle but who, at my command, could tear your throat out and then eat you for lunch.” Beyond that obvious folly, what’s the bloody point?
posted by unca | 5:57 PM
9 Comments:
The city of Denver has once again banned the owning of pit bulls.
(http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4467849/detail.html). Good for them.
Why people want to perpetuate the breed is beyond me. Why don't we all breed and raise bengal tigers?
I guess I would consider myself a dog person. Having a child in the house my wife and I read up on different breeds of dogs before we decided on a Dachshund (wiener dog) They did mention the dogs that were good with kids but most of the material we read said stuff like no breed of dog is naturally vicious and any dog, regardless of breed, is only as dangerous as the owner allows it to be. I think most of these dog books have an agenda not to trash any breed of dog even if was responsible for killing everyone in a small country.
It is obvious that some breeds of dogs are prone to be more vicious than others. I recently read a statistic recently that Pit Bulls and Rottweiler are responsible for 60% of dog attacks that have resulted in death. That is an alarming statistic when you think about how many breeds of dogs there are. To make it worse most of these victims are children.
Unca, I think you’re on to something with your psychological explanation on why anyone would want these types of dogs. “Yea see me I’m bad and see my dogs he’s bad too oh yea we’re bad” Plus I think it’s kind of a fad right now to own one these things. As far as breeding these dogs I’m sure there would be too much of a pit bull outcry to make it a law not to breed these dogs. Maybe they could pass a law that the owners of these breeds would have to carry a special license to show they have gone through a special training seminar or something.
Just a thought.
Or how about a law that would outlaw the owners of these dogs from breeding people like themselves.
Mamacita- Now that you mention it, I guess I did hear that the dog on the "Little Rascals" was a pit bull. Now it makes sense -- how do you suppose they got those kids to behave on the set?!
i think maybe the deaths thing is at least partly due to the fact that pits and rotties (see how conversant i am with dog lingo) have a style or method of fighting that is more dangerous (something about biting and not letting go).
i understand some dogs (eg, huskies) jump in and slash/bite, then disengage, whereas other breeds (pit bulls, terriers?) have been bred for their tenaciousness.
i think the argument goes that those breeds aren't genetically more prone to bite/attack (it seems like the ones that BITE the most are german shepherds, chows, akitas -- the pointy-nosed ones) but when pits and rottweilers DO attack it's extra bad news.
plus those breeds are more likely to be trained as attack dogs.
or something.
not that i'm advocating a pit bull in every house, or whatever -- i'm just saying that even if the stats are all true (ie, it's not just anecdotal), there still could be a lot more to it than breed. maybe those breeds ARE more likely to attack, but maybe not -- it could be entirely an issue of external factors and what the media chooses to cover, etc.
Bryan-
Yes, you're probably right. I'm sure the nature of the fighting has much to do with it. Hey, you get bit by a German Shepherd, you and the doggy move on. You get bit by a PBT, you have a fight on your hand with a beast that's all muscle and fight. Even if that is the case, it does place these breeds in different categories than the other dogs. Kind of like the difference between keeping a bb gun and a 12 gauge shotgun on your porch. You can have an accident with either, however.....
OK I was curious so I looked it up some stats
I guess I was a little off on the 60% thing. It looks like It’s more like 34% between the two breeds
The figures below are fatal attacks in the US
Breeds Involved
Pit Bull and Pit-bull-type dogs (21%), Mixed breed dogs (16%),
Rottweilers (13%), German Shepherd Dogs (9%), Wolf Dogs (5%),
Siberian Huskies (5%), Malamutes (4%), Great Danes (3%),
St. Bernards (3%), Chow Chows (3%), Doberman Pinschers (3%),
other breeds & non-specified breeds (15%).
Reproductive Status of Dogs
Overwhelmingly, the dogs involved in fatal dog attacks were unaltered males.
From 2000-2001 there were 41 fatal dog attacks. Of these, 28 were attacks by a single dog and 13 fatalities were caused by multiple dogs.
Of the 28 single dogs responsible for a fatal attack between 2000-2001;26 were males and 2 were females. Of the 26 males, 21 were found to be intact (the reproductive status of the remaining 5 males dogs could not be determined)
Just a side note: Don’t’ you feel a little sorry for the 5 male dogs that could not be determined?
Here's another site with some interesting and alarming statistics (some at odds with other statements). http://www.dogexpert.com/HomePage/DogBiteStatistics.html
Among them:
There are approximately 4.5 million reported dog bites annually in the United States (nearly 2% of the American population). The majority of dog bites are never reported to local authorities.
According to the American Medical Association, dog bites are the second leading cause of childhood injury, surpassing playground accidents.
Of the estimated 4.7 million people who were bitten by dogs in 1994, 800,000 sought medical care. Of these, 332,000 needed treatment in emergency rooms, and 6,000 were hospitalized. The average hospital stay for a dog-bite injury was 3.6 days.
In the United States, pit bulls make up one to three per cent of the overall dog population and cause more than 50 per cent of serious attacks.
In a study reported by a retired professor from California State University at Chino, Robert Plum, it was found that one dog in 55 will bite someone seriously during the course of a year. With respect to breed differences in the tendency to inflict serious injury, Plumb estimates that when a pit bull bites a human, one in 16 (e.g. 1/16) will inflict serious injury; this contrasts with a ratio of 1/296 Dobermans, and 1/156 German shepherds.
One more thing: The story one hears repeatedly is that the problem is with the owners who need to be more responsible and who haven't trained their dogs properly, blah, blah, blah. Do we actually have any statistics to show that dogs owned by "irresponsible owners" are the ones most responsible for the attacks? The anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that many of the attacks seems to come from dogs who's owners shake their heads in bewilderment. "He's always so gentle -- our children play with him all the time, etc. etc."
Well that is quite a story. Assuming it's not an urban legend, the only way this could have happend was the dog was 3/4 Chihuahua and 1/4 Manchester (a kind of terrior). Only then could the belly of the mutt (I mean dog) be the correct length for lofting. Besides, I understand that in some cultures, this kind of harmless and well-supervised dog lofting has been raised to an art form. By the way, no animal were hurt during the writing of this post.
Post a Comment
<< Home